No Richard never gave written permission for this. The Chamberlin name is not in the public domain. Having bought the master tapes, they can use the Chamberlin logo to advertise them, but they cannot call anything a "Chamberlin Co product" because it isn't. Also the name "Chamberlin" is a generic last name in the USA and last names cannot be trademarks, unless used within the description of a company name.
About the tapes in different Chamberlins - the heads are not standardized in any machines before the Music Master 660 like they are in M1's so they will sound a little more lo-fi, and uneven. M1's have huge, expensive, high quality heads (the size of your thumbnail) in them which make the sound much brighter and bigger than the M400, but the trade off is - that certain "Mellotronic"sound is not quite there. This is why Chamberlins are more often mistaken for the real instrument in 1970's music.
I believe Markus must have either taken the tapes from the Chamberlin masters, with the exception of sampling whatever was in the M1 he had in for repair at the time.
About the name "Mellotron" - this is different. Firstly, it describes historically a tape playback keyboard (in the patent) which is why it legally (and ethically) cannot ever be applied to a digital device. This is why and where a number (like M4000D) is necessary when a manufacturer buys rights to the name - as new products must be differentiated.
According to patents - Streetly's M4000 and M5000 are legally Mellotrons by their physical characteristics, and operation, and Markus new digital M4000 is not and never will be, but his MK VI and MK VII certainly are.
Bottom line - (regardless of anyone's beliefs, opinions for or against this fact) - Mellotrons, Chamberlins, and Birotrons are, according to international patent standards and ethics - legally and legitimately the only "Mellotron keyboards" - period. That is the purpose of the Patent - to define what these are - and more importantly - what they are not.
It protects historical inventions against "revisionism". The Optigan and Orchestron can be referenced because Harry Chamberlin included the mechanics of those playback system in his patents for the Chamberlin Rhythmate models.
Again - this is why a car is a car and a truck is a truck. They both do the same things, but they are not the same, and a copy of the Mona Lisa is not "THE" Mona Lisa.
The 1985 'digital Mellotron' was not called a "Mellotron" but a "Studio Symphony" - a product made by the USA Mellotron company, and did not replicate the sounds of the previous tape playback keyboards. It was only promoted to interest investors.
Also - the name "Mellotron" is also a company name under the 1970's Dallas Arbiter agreement, so it describes the distribution company and a manufacturing arm for "Mellotron" products. When Dave Kean acquired the name, he acquired the agreements or permissions covered under that distribution / manufacturing agreement. He would not have the rights to the name Novatron, or T550, as those would be owned by Streetly.
There was research done by Streetly, Chamberlin Co, and Birotronics in the late 70's and early 80's - investigating the use of digital technology and bubble memory to sustain notes longer and make better instruments, but this would have included new instrument names, new sounds and not the preservation of any of the old ones.
The idea of emulating past synthesizers with digital instruments is a 90's thing.
On Sat, Jan 22, 2011 at 8:35 PM, Pomeroy RH Ranch
<punchbowl4@earthlink.net> wrote:
The Markus machine is a digital playback machine apparently called a "Resch" (look at the photos) that happens to be loaded with the Chamberlin/Bradley sounds and Markus has the right to use the Mellotron name/tm's from Dave Kean (I really don't know if Richard gave permission or if "Chamberlin" is in the public domain).
Vance
not a valid comparison...a guitar relies on the wood and strings for sound. The Mellotron doesn't rely on it's cabinet. Does the plexiglass tron sound different from the wooden ones?
The M4000D is a DIGITAL MELLOTRON....not a tape playback Mellotron...but is entitled to the name nonetheless IMO since it is an offspring of the line of instruments. As far as tuning & denoising etc. ruining or changing the sound....aren't these the very things people have bitched about for decades. Now someone fixes them and you bitch about that! (shakes head....walking away....smiling)
Markus could offer non tuned/non-denoised versions of the sounds as an option.And if you can detect the missing bits of analog tape sound in the digital version you must have super hearing.
Yeah...the Classic Keys sounds aren't good. The E4K/Pinder CD sounds as accurate as I need. I even have samples from my old 400 in it (hissy & out of tune) every note sampled full length, non looped.
--- In newmellotrongroup@yahoogroups.com, lsf5275@... wrote:
>
> Charles,
>
> Suppose you make a wooden thing with a neck and buttons on it instead of
> strings. All of the sounds are digitized and you press buttons to get the
> sounds. Is it a Guitar? It looks like a guitar, but is it a guitar? No. A
> Mellotron or Chamberlin were TAPE playback machines. Just because you make
> something that kinda looks like one and plays digital representations of the
> original tape samples doesn't make them one.
>
>
>
>
> In a message dated 1/22/2011 8:48:18 A.M. Eastern Standard Time,
> charel196@... writes:
>
>
>
>
> I just don't get all this "it's not a Mellotron" talk....the digital unit
> is a logical progression from tape replay and Ill bet Harry Chamberlin would
> have moved into this area if he were alive now. The whole point was
> playing instrument sounds on a keyboard, not the tape technology (which was the
> only method available)
> If all sounds are from original tapes and only last 8 seconds and are the
> best digital representations that can be done, personally to me it's a new
> Mellotron.It's the offspring of the tape machine. So what that it doesn't
> use Chamberlin heads etc. With EQ'ing and processing I imagine you can get
> near 1000% close.
> Heck I have used samples on my albums (from my EMU E4K, EMAX 1, and
> CLASSIC KEYS) sometimes on the same songs I used my real M400 (when I had it) and
> I defy anyone to tell me which is which. And the E4K was using the Pinder
> CD. The M4000D samples are said to be way beyond the Pinder CD in quality.
> I think it's totally anal to hang on to tape playback technology as the
> only thing that can be called "Mellotron" or "Chamberlin". The 4000D is just a
> new and different model in the family tree....made by the people who own
> the name and masters.
>