If you think about it, everything is objective, the world "out there" is only known by your thoughts, it can't be known objectively. Having said that the discussions and arguments can still be fun but they are really more like word games.
--- In newmellotrongroup@yahoogroups.com, Gary Brumm <gabru@...> wrote:
>
> There is often a grey area between the subjective vs the objective view of things (and people) especially if there is a passion involved.
> Subjectively it can be difficult to define the right, wrong, good, bad, etc. in a way universally agreed upon. This is not usually so with an
> objective view.....but it generates discussion and this is a discussion group so it's all good.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Gary
>
> From: newmellotrongroup@yahoogroups.com [mailto:newmellotrongroup@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Mike Dickson
> Sent: Friday, December 03, 2010 11:59 AM
> To: newmellotrongroup@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: [newmellotrongroup] Re: Speaking of the M4000, what's with this?
>
>
>
> Bernie -
>
> You seem to be totally misunderstanding what I am trying to say. Maybe I am not expressing it properly.
>
> It is a limitation of Bruckner's Ninth Symphony, Mahler's Tenth Symphony and Schubert's Seventh Symphony that they were all unfinished and had to be completed by lesser talents. Do I still like them? Yes, all of them and very much. Are they what I expect of those composers? No, not at all.
>
> You're right that Banks et al didn't use the Mellotron as a 'substitute for orchestral instruments' because - to name one of the limitations I described - the recordings themselves were not worth a damn and don't sound like what they were supposed to represent. They sound like a Mellotron. So if one choses to use them as such a replacement for them (as was the original intention, more or less) then it fails pretty miserably. That it still sounds great is really neither here nor there. I am describing what limits the instrument as someone may wish it be used.
>
> Yes, I know an accordion is limited if I chose to use it as a cheeseboard, but I am talking about using it within the context that it was designed to be uitilised.
>
> You're confusing your subjective personal taste for the more objective matter of what the instrument can and cannot 'do'. That I think the former is the more important criterion is not really important to the discussion.
>
> Mike
>
>
>
> On 03/12/2010 15:59, tron400 wrote:
>
>
>
> Mike, it's not a matter of liking or disliking Mellotrons. I know that they were originally designed to imitate other instruments, but they don't seem to have been very successful there (except maybe in the hands of one member of this group :-). When I hear a TV commercial with Mellotron flute, I don't hear flutes, I hear a Mellotron. Same with the 3 violins. I don't hear violins, I hear another instrument altogether. The way Mellotrons have been used by prog rockers seems to have placed a stamp on Mellotrons as to how they are played by most people, making them unique instruments that don't sound like any other instrument. I don't think Tony Banks, Rick Wakeman or Fritz Doddy used Trons to substitute for orchestral instruments. I think they used them for the uniqueness of their sound and I think that uniqueness is what attracts people to Trons. So to me, because of the uniqueness of this instrument that does exactly what I want it to do and sounds exactly the way I want it to sound, it has no limitations for me.
>
> Frank, sometimes they taste like wood, sometimes they taste like metal, sometimes they taste like iron oxide and on extremely rare occasions, they taste like plexiglass.
>
> Bernie
>
> --- In newmellotrongroup@yahoogroups.com<mailto:newmellotrongroup%40yahoogroups.com>, Mike Dickson <mike.dickson@><mailto:mike.dickson@> wrote:
> >
> > What I listed are /ipso facto /the limitations of the Mellotron as an
> > instrument. I don't think anyone here will disagree with any of them.
> >
> > You liking them or not is a matter of taste.
> >
> > Mike
> >
> >
> > On 02/12/2010 12:04, tron400 wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Mike, I think you and a few others misunderstand me. Frank Stickle's
> > > comment about not being able to drive them is closest to it if only
> > > for the absurdity. Pianos have limited range and only one voice.
> > > That's the way they're designed. I don't see that as a limitation. It
> > > is what it is.
> > >
> > > Bernie
> > >
> > > --- In newmellotrongroup@yahoogroups.com<mailto:newmellotrongroup%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > <mailto:newmellotrongroup%40yahoogroups.com><mailto:newmellotrongroup%40yahoogroups.com>, Mike Dickson
> > > <mike.dickson@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On 01/12/2010 13:20, tron400 wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > If Mellotrons have limitations, everything has limitations. No one
> > > > > ever mentions the limitations of a guitar or a piano, yet the article
> > > > > mentions Mellotron limitations without saying what they are. What are
> > > > > they?
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > 1. Tuning
> > > > 2. Range
> > > > 3. Voices
> > > > 4. Recording quality
> > > > 5. Timbre
> > > > 6. White noise
> > > > 7. Tape audio artefacts
> > > > 8. Tape transport
> > > > 9. Playing position
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Give me a shout if you want more.
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> > --
> > Mike Dickson, Edinburgh
> >
> > Free Music Project: http://www.mikedickson.org.uk/
> > Or http://www.last.fm/music/Mike+Dickson
> > Or http://soundcloud.com/mikedickson
> > Or http://www.planetmellotron.com/revd4.htm#mikedickson
> > Or http://www.myspace.com/mellotronworks
> >
>
>
>
> --
>
> Mike Dickson, Edinburgh
>
>
>
> Free Music Project: http://www.mikedickson.org.uk/
>
> Or http://www.last.fm/music/Mike+Dickson
>
> Or http://soundcloud.com/mikedickson
>
> Or http://www.planetmellotron.com/revd4.htm#mikedickson
>
> Or http://www.myspace.com/mellotronworks
>