Mellotronists

Donald Tillman wrote:
>    > From: "Mark Wallis" <markstuartwallis@...>
>    > Sender: Mellotronists@yahoogroups.com
>    >
>    > Essentially - CONCEPTUALLY-  it IS a Mellotron. 
>
> This must be a use of the word "conceptually" that I am unfamiliar
> with. 
>   

It sounds like a Mellotron and looks a bit like one too. That's fairly 
'conceptual' by most standards.

> You're abstracting out all the interesting stuff.  The feedback from
> the touch of the keyboard, the feel of the tape under the keys, the
> ability to use pressure to control the dynamics, separate pressure
> control for individual notes ("polyphonic aftertouch"), a direct
> connection to the sound-making process as opposed to going through
> that ridiculous midi protocol, the delightfully quirky behavior of the
> tape handling mechanism, the relationship the musician has with the
> instrument's intrinsic workings that inspires the music.
>   

I'm pretty sure you are speaking for yourelf here, Don. I like the sound 
of (say) a Hammond, but none of that is based on the knowledge that it's 
the output from a bunch of hugely amplified magnetic fields being 
distorted by some little toothed wheels. The feel of the instrument 
inspires almost nothing to me at all. I might *like* it, but it's not 
the inspiration; that comes from the sound and knowing where to fit it 
in, or how to phrase it. As a case in point, the Ian McDonald flute has 
an attack and a 'per-note' phrasing that makes it almost impossible to 
play anything other than some lyrical-sounding stuff. None of that comes 
from the mechanics of the machine - it comes entirely from the sound.

Anyway - I think the Memotron looks and sounds like a hoot, albeit a 
rather expensive one compared to (say) the M-Tron. I'm just glad that 
the beauty of these sounds persist.

-- 

Mike Dickson (tron@...) M400 #996
The Official Cynic of Streetly Electronics
Streetly Sample Library http://www.blackcat.demon.co.uk/tron/