I'm pretty sure that I never suggested the DX was a bad instrument. I only
said that it was fated to be overcome by gear that was more accessible.
There's no reason that a programming interface should be in Sanskrit, and
that was the choice that Yamaha made, quite possibly in part to try to lock
up their market share. The learning curve is a good thing, but if it is so
steep that it interferes with creating music, it doesn't get climbed by
many. FM is a powerful synthesis method indeed and I look forward to new
implementations and instruments using it. I am fortunate enough to be a
skilled subtractive programmer, I got pretty handy with the Kawai K-5 method
of additive synthesis, and I can make my Korgs sit up and do tricks, but my
DX-11 and DX-100 were so frustrating to even play around with that I decided
that I was better off staying with stuff in which I already had developed
some expertise. As far as musicians these days, I know ONE local keyboard
player who programs, or at least tweaks his own sounds, the rest are just
factory-program Johnnies, and their playing is as pathetic as their sounds.
The modern keyboard player locally stands at his keyboards between songs
toggling through sounds one at a time to find the "right" sound for each
tune. It's fucking embarrassing to watch.
said that it was fated to be overcome by gear that was more accessible.
There's no reason that a programming interface should be in Sanskrit, and
that was the choice that Yamaha made, quite possibly in part to try to lock
up their market share. The learning curve is a good thing, but if it is so
steep that it interferes with creating music, it doesn't get climbed by
many. FM is a powerful synthesis method indeed and I look forward to new
implementations and instruments using it. I am fortunate enough to be a
skilled subtractive programmer, I got pretty handy with the Kawai K-5 method
of additive synthesis, and I can make my Korgs sit up and do tricks, but my
DX-11 and DX-100 were so frustrating to even play around with that I decided
that I was better off staying with stuff in which I already had developed
some expertise. As far as musicians these days, I know ONE local keyboard
player who programs, or at least tweaks his own sounds, the rest are just
factory-program Johnnies, and their playing is as pathetic as their sounds.
The modern keyboard player locally stands at his keyboards between songs
toggling through sounds one at a time to find the "right" sound for each
tune. It's fucking embarrassing to watch.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Donald Tillman" <don@...>
To: "jonesalley" <jonesalley@...>
Cc: <Mellotronists@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Wednesday, June 06, 2007 12:12 AM
Subject: Re: [Mellotronists] return of the clones
> > From: "jonesalley" <jonesalley@...>
> > Sender: Mellotronists@yahoogroups.com
> >
> > After reading with interest the points behind the clone debates
> > over the last couple of days, what really strikes me is the
> > comments about Memotrons and Mellotrons and DX-7's share a lot of
> > ground. The problem with the DX-7 is the cryptic nature of the
> > programming.
>
> Well, the DX-7 is a very special case. Here we have a breakthrough
> design that solves a whole bunch of problems in a creative way and the
> result is a whole new canvas of voices.
>
> Yamaha wanted to make a digital polyphonic synth, but given 1982
> technology they couldn't implement digital filters because real-time
> digital multiply operations were just too expensive, and they couldn't
> do sampling because memory was too expensive. So they put together a
> very clever implementation of Stanford CCRMA's FM synthesis that only
> uses real-time adds and table lookups. This was brilliant, it broke
> all preconceptions and provided whole new ways to think about
> electronic music.
>
> On the negative side, yeah, programming FM is unbelievably arcane.
> It's like solving a Rubic's cube; really, you can be a move or two
> from your goal and you wouldn't know it. And the primitive UI on the
> DX-7 makes it like solving the Rubic's Cube through a letterbox.
> Blindfolded.
>
> And yeah, it lacks warmth. And that clangy electric piano sound was
> getting annoying after appearing on way too many really bad songs.
>
> But the thing about the DX-7 is that it wasn't trying to be something
> it wasn't. FM synthesis does some things well, and there are many
> things it can't do at all, and that's okay, and there are some other
> things it does that nobody else can do, and that's great. The DX-7
> didn't pretend to be another instrument, although FM synthesis could
> mimic some standard instruments (pianos, organs, flutes, etc.) better
> in some ways than most samplers.
>
> > If an instrument requires that amount of effort to learn how to
> > use and is actually counterintuitive to the already-established
> > lexicon of sound generation, it eventually drives away users who
> > will be attracted to something that provides similar sonic power
> > with more ease of use.
>
> Certainly. But every musical instrument has a learning curve. Some
> learning curves are longer and more difficult than others, some have a
> steep beginning, some have a bigger payoff than others, some might
> give the player some encouraging sense of accomplishment along the
> way.
>
> Hey, at least with the DX-7 your fingers aren't left bleeding like
> with the learning curve on a string bass, eh? Or your neighbors don't
> burn your house down like with the learning curve on bagpipes.
>
> Are you suggesting that modern keyboard players demand instant
> gratification and are not accepting of any learning curve? That may
> be so.
>
> > A lot of the qualities of the Mellotron that make it such a
> > powerful instrument could also as easily be described as
> > liabilities by people who didn't find that it satisfied their
> > quest for the right vibration.
>
> Sure, but that's true of just about any musical instrument. The road
> of pleasing everybody leads to mediocrity, eh?
>
> -- Don
>
> --
> Don Tillman
> Palo Alto, California
> don@...
> http://www.till.com