MOTM

In a message dated 3/24/2000 9:39:29 AM, oakley@... 
writes:

>I don't think the that they were poly was the reason they failed. The
>polyphonic synthesiser was the next step in synthesisers. Musicians in
>bands wanted polyphonics. And more importantly memory patches. And this
>I think is the important point. The preset was the death knell of the
>experimentalist. 

Wow! Many different ideas on this. I'm not a keyboard player, and as such, 
was never that interested in polyphony (from a keyboard at least), or 
traditional keyboards for that matter. A few years ago I found an "almost 
working" OB-1 in a dumpster. After replacing the power transistors, it worked 
fine. I actually really like the memory function since I tend to use the OB-1 
as an "instrument (a set and forget voice)" and not as a platform for 
experimentation -- much the way I use my PAiA Fatman. I'm actually thinking 
of trying to make the OB-1 so I can send MIDI program change messages to 
change the timbre banks, or maybe just eight gate inputs to do this.

I can certainly imagine why one would think that presets would stifle 
creativity/imagination but as an electric guitar player, I often say that one 
can expect at least, "five distinctly different sounds from any good guitar, 
and sometimes more." This of course excludes picking/plucking technique 
(admittedly, very important to the articulation of a sound) and left hand 
articulation techniques. But five sounds is not that many compared to many 
synths with presets/memorys.

What do I think stifled creativity/imagination in EM, and led to rather 
mundane use of synths? The electric guitar of course! Every rock keyboard 
player trying to "imitate" lead guitar type sounds, wanking on the pitch bend 
like guitar players of the sixties and early seventies did there whammy bars 
and wa wa pedals. So now we had not only guitar players hamming it up, but 
keyboard players too!

How's that for flame bait?
John (guitar W-anker) Barlow