The Mellotron Group

Very succinct! Thanks Chris.
 
 
In a message dated 1/25/2011 7:12:06 A.M. Eastern Standard Time,  
unobtainiumkeys@gmail.com writes:

 
 
 



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_ (mailto: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_ 
(mailto: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.
>