jerrythek

I would think it would have been a little later, as he didn’t start using guitars until around Man Child.

I agree!

I find the opening 1, 2, 3 too far of a stretch for my hand size. YMMV. And having to jump the 5th finger for the two top notes is gonna produce an accent, and/or be hard to play quickly.

Another alternate, if your 4th and 5th fingers are strong enough would be 2, 1, 2 3, 4, 5, 3, 4, 3, 2, 1. After the first "shift" your hand stays in the same position/location.

Ben is one of the people behind the amazing “Down The Rhodes” book/documentary: https://www.jwpepper.com/Down-the-Rhodes/10428790.item I think you can still find plenty of interview clips from it on YouTube… it has nearly every major player you would associate with the keyboard featured. A wonderful piece of history. I never knew he had that “showroom” - very cool.

That's a bit of an abbreviation. He was teaching at the U of M (I was there) and then got a call from Gary Burton, and he moved up to Boston and taught there, starting playing with Gary for a few years. This all before he and Lyle got together. Enjoyed your post!

Whoops, you’re right… I crossed the two, because we discussed “Going On” earlier. My bad.

But HITTGV track was the Donny Hathaway version, not Marvin.

Hi Dave: interesting, but can you find your source of that info. I couldn’t find any reference. On that track there’s a nice “bloom” to the sustained/repeated LH notes that speaks more Wurlie than Pianet to me, but I respect your expertise. Color me curious.

I missed only 1, the Childish Gambino track.

Yeah, Donny Hathaway is one of the best motivators to get a Wurlie, for sure.

Nope. In the light of a new day, I realized that your comment could be interpreted another way... and I agree. The organs in Module might well should be modeled.

Nope.

Yes, the organ in the Oasys/Kronos/Nautilus/Vox Continental/Grandstage are modeled.

GarageBand uses the same instruments as Logic, and that organ is modeled, so it’s easy to provide drawbar control. Sample-based instruments don’t tend to offer it because it’s very difficult to combine multiple samples of drawbars without phase issues and other difficulties. I recall only Emu being able to develop a sample-based organ (module) that did it successfully. Yes, KORG would do well to move their CX-3 engine into their software offerings. It may not be “king of the hill” but it’s “in the game”.

I wasn't knocking or attacking the OP, but when I read the above quote, my first thought was "have you even looked yet?" If they had said, "I've been searching the web and found a lot of sites, but I'd love to know if the experts here can say which are better, or more likely correct" I would have responded differently. And now, to the OP I say - enjoy the info you've gotten and enjoy the journey you're on!

Have you even tried to search the web? There’s so much out there, just look.

The issue could likely be that they don't want to tip their hand this early, as it could give a lot of people an excuse to not buy the hardware.

There was a post in another forum this past Monday morning (i.e. shortly before any announcement from Yamaha), which said: He at least got the first part right. We'll see about the rest. I can't find anything in writing that currently says what Yamaha's plans are for the plug-in version beyond free to Montage owners. Time will tell.

Exactly! Thank you for this.

Wow, the gaslighting and arrogance of that statement. It's not about the success of a product (DX7), which was a wholly new invention. It's the cloning/ripping off of exact product designs from other companies and selling them for much less. I know you were saying this, but not as directly.

Even better would be listening to modern music and playing with the *right* musicians.😉😎 +1 For modern music I would be listening and learning from modern musicians. I don't hear a lot of Coltrane and Hooker in the playing/writing of Snarky Puppy, Jesus Molina, or Hiromi, to pick just three examples. But I do think any player SHOULD check out and learn from Coltrane, Hooker and others. It just won't get you to sound modern...

I am a college-graduated musician, with a BA in Jazz Studies. But back when I went to school (1973-1977) so many of these terms for analysis weren't codified yet. So I (like Reeze and Al) know a lot of these things from sound, and exploration, but not these IMHO overly-technical and theoretical presentations. I generally hate "rules"... practices, or approaches are OK, but I don't like to use formulas to come up with ideas. Not to change the topic (too much), but for example, often when I watch Barry Harris teaching videos I am bothered by how rigid the concepts are... teaching lines to play over chord changes, and watching him call out numbered examples to use grates on my psyche... I get that you want to start somewhere, but any method that gets too rigid just bugs me. Back on topic: So these analysis lessons are OK to try to "justify" why a choice was made, but I don't think the original artist approached it by a rule. I think they tried ideas and colors and chose something they liked.

I’ll add my voice to those who saw Peter Gabriel. Magnificent. Sublime. Artistic. I could go on and on. PG was in fine voice, the sets/lights/projection were just beautiful. Of course the band was great, with special recognition to the woman who played cello and was Peter’s vocal “foil”. Saw brother Jim Alfredson last Tuesday at the same theatre Al saw AWB. Jim was his usual tasty self, and the band is good, if a little guitar-loud (to be expected?). Second time I’ve seen him with Larry McCray and thoroughly enjoyed it.

Mine is the all-too-common musician nightmare of being late to a gig, unloading and finding all my gear is strange stuff that I don’t know how to set up or operate, and everyone is looking at me to get ready fast!