MOTM

Paul Schreiber wrote:

In a message dated 3/23/2000 9:30:57 PM, synth1@... writes:

<< But one point that I'd like to stress is that 99.9% of commercial synths 
eventually grow tiresome because of limited choices made in order to ship the 
product. >>

Certainly agreed.  A couple of exceptions were interesting because of their 
internal "patchability" even if it wasn't via patchcords:

Oberheim Xpander
Waldorf Wave

The idea of a hybrid, or basically a digitally-patchable modular, is very 
interesting.  A small market, but pretty interesting.  One of these days, 
probably in my retirement, I'd love to build that huge relay bank for a rack 
of MOTM patching.

Ivan

In a message dated 3/23/2000 9:39:28 PM, nate@... writes:

<< On this note i propose that if we ever do get together as a group (with
modulars in hand, or car, or moving van) we should play an orchestral
piece with each modular acting as one instrument. >>

How about a live Internet concert?  All from the comfort of our living rooms.

Ivan

>All big poly-hogs.

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. The P5 heralded the beginning and the end.

The fact that Japan started to produce cheaper keyboards which offered
more for less was the main reason for the demise of the UK and US based
keyboard industries. In the 1980s the monophonic was still around, but
we wanted chords as well. I sold my Moog to pay for my D-50!

Polyphonics are good for many reasons. If not only for there ability to
play chords, but for the fact that note decays are not truncated by the
arrival of a new note. Admittedly, monophonics will produce powerful
bass, but many leads are made more powerful when played on a fully
featured poly.

But Sequencers, midi and audio, have made our monos more useful gain. We
can be that orchestra of many monophonic lines. Digital effects can make
them sound fuller, and cover up the abrupt end to notes. We can use our
modulars because we have all the other stuff as well

But if I only could have just one keyboard, the CS-80 would be my
choice. Poly-hog it may be, but it is still a gorgeous piece of
equipment.

Regards,

Tony Allgood  Penrith, Cumbria, UK

http://www.techrepairs.freeserve.co.uk/projects.htm

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

> 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

It figures. Barlow is a stooge AND a guitar wanker <g>! Don't blame the
pitch bender. Blame the musicianship (or lack thereof) of the person
attempting to use it. Examples run from the sublime (Jeff Beck and Jan
Hammer duels) to the ridiculous (any Neil Young guitar solo, and any of a
thousand oowee oowee Minimoog solos with glide).

(All time worst synth moment on record - intro to "Ridin' the Storm Out")

IMHO what preset polys did was give the marginally competent keyboard player
a way to get in on the action without ever having to understand the
slightest thing about synthesis. Hence popular music began to abound with
cliches even more than before. Hence the tales of Prophet 5s returning to
the factory for service with nary a factory preset changed. At least earlier
synth wankers had to learn how to twist some knobs and listen to sound in
order to serve up their Minimoog cliches!

A synthesist can make good and unique music with these machines, but you get
out what you put in. Of course, some machines are way deeper than others,
and a dedicated synthesist must seek these machines out. I still love my
Chroma, which I bought brand new when they first came out. It has the
resources and almost the flexibility of a medium sized modular, but not the
UI! I spend the time to program every patch to do something interesting when
I step on any of the 4 pedals or whang the 2 paddles. Periodically I empty
the preset memory to force myself to come up with fresh sounds. It's a
totally different form of performance for me. When I play the Chroma, I play
the keyboard. When I play the MOTM, I play the knobs!

Moe(tm)

>Periodically I empty the preset memory to force myself to come up with
fresh sounds.

Bloody hell, what a great idea, I never thought of that one. No
seriously, its a good idea.

But I might back it up first

Regards,

Tony Allgood  Penrith, Cumbria, UK

My new CD...

http://www.techrepairs.freeserve.co.uk/music.htm

In a message dated 3/25/2000 1:21:57 PM, daveb@... writes:

>It figures. Barlow is a stooge AND a guitar wanker <g>! 

And not afraid to admit it either! I think there are a significant percentage 
of guitar dudes involved with modulars (and on this list as well) -- maybe 
like 25%. Hey! Let's have a census!

Don't blame the
>pitch bender. Blame the musicianship (or lack thereof) of the person
>attempting to use it. Examples run from the sublime (Jeff Beck and Jan
>Hammer duels) to the ridiculous (any Neil Young guitar solo, and any of
>a
>thousand oowee oowee Minimoog solos with glide).

Interesting choices! I saw the last tour of the first Mahavishnu Orchestra 
(May? 73 at the Roxy in LA) where Hammer was using Mini(s). I also saw 
several shows (maybe 3-5) of the Beck/Hammer tours. I have to say I actually 
preferred the Mahavishnu show to the others when thinking about Hammer's 
playing -- in fact I prefer Hammer using the electric piano (brand?) through 
a RM as heard in The Inner Mounting Flame to each of his successive outings. 
I also admit that while I used to absolutely loath Neil Young, in the past 
few years I've kind of grown to like listening to the odd solo of his (though 
I think a whole evening would be hard to take). A very well studied 
"innocence" about the instrument. I find myself thinking, "how could he have 
played guitar for this many years, and still not be very good?"

I didn't intend to single out the pitch bend wheel (a very useful controller 
indeed) as the thing that led to keyboardists jumping on the "lead" band 
wagon. Controllers are always good, it's being out of control that isn't 
good. Yeah, like the Jeff Beck wannabes (this JB for example), the Jan Hammer 
wannabes did wonders to relegate the instrument to cliche-land.

BTW, if you follow my reasoning (and several of the points touched on by 
others) you'll understand why I've not been that interested in guitar synths.

>(All time worst synth moment on record - intro to "Ridin' the Storm Out")

No idea what this is -- tell me more!

>IMHO what preset polys did was give the marginally competent keyboard player
>a way to get in on the action without ever having to understand the
>slightest thing about synthesis. Hence popular music began to abound with
>cliches even more than before. Hence the tales of Prophet 5s returning
>to
>the factory for service with nary a factory preset changed. At least earlier
>synth wankers had to learn how to twist some knobs and listen to sound
>in
>order to serve up their Minimoog cliches!


>A synthesist can make good and unique music with these machines, but you
>get
>out what you put in. 

It's a
>totally different form of performance for me. When I play the Chroma, I
>play
>the keyboard. When I play the MOTM, I play the knobs!

Great way to put it!
John (actually not a bad right hand mono keyboard player -- insert joke here 
-- due to four years of torture behind the accordion when I was a wee lad) 
Barlow