BbAltered

Yes, I can say my GAS has ameliorated as I have gotten older. But I do have a strong case of TAS (Talent/Technique Acquisition Syndrome); obsessively playing for hours in an effort to "get better". My running joke: whenever I go into the local music store and the sales guy comes over, I tell them I am hoping to buy a 6-pack of talent.

A microbiology professor somewhere: "Yes, you can get venereal disease from a toilet seat, but that's a heck of a place to make it with your girlfriend." An obstetrician somewhere: "Dilated to meet you, ma'am. At your cervix." Brandan Fraser: "Thank you everybody. I am overwhelmed by the huge outpouring of public support in recent weeks. I only ask you all to remember: it's Brandan with an "a"."

I'm interested in knowing what Linux-compatible audio editor you use for audio recording and editing.

Great minds thinking alike: my niece also got me a Stylophone; a regular one, not a Bowie Limited Ed. one. My niece said she wanted to get one after seeing a Youtube video of Jon Baptiste demonstrating its use.

When taking on a rock guitar song recorded without keys, I have been using a Wurlie sound with varying amounts of distortion to accompany. It seems to work out to my ear..

This conundrum is made worse by the convention of recording stereo piano samples from the players' perspective. This is sort of the universal standard for stereo piano samples in pretty much every digital piano, and puts more of the low notes in the left channel, and more of the high notes in the right channel. If you then run this stereo image thru a stereo FOH system, the audience will hear the piano low notes on the left side of the venue, and more of the high notes on the right side of the venue. This of course is very unnatural and not at all how a listener hears/perceives a naked piano in a room or hall. Some digital keyboards have an option to use samples recorded from an audience perspective. This is a more realistic piano sound when amplified thru a stereo FOH system. But this kind of sampling is available on a pretty limited number of digital keyboards. So I suggest it is important for those considering stereo amplification for their digital pianos to think about how "stereo" is done by their digital instrument, and how the audience will hear the stereo piano samples when amplified.

I'm going to suggest this attitude is what helped keyboardists take to and explore audio synthesis. This adventurous attitude appears sadly lacking in a lot of guitar players who have complained that guitar-synth interfaces could not play like their favorite Strat and could/should therefore be ignored. I am sure Wendy Carlos Williams was disappointed to find out that the keyboard-synth interface she was using in that MIT lab way back when did not play like her Steinway piano (and it needed to be re-tuned every 20 minutes or so - very un-piano-like). Yet she tried anyways and ended up making one of the most famous albums of synthesizer music ever produced. Re: why keyboard players took to synthesizers and guitarist do not: The take-home message I am getting from this thread is that oscillators, filers, envelope generators, etc. work best with repeatable and consistent input values, and that is easier to do with a keyboard than with a plucked string. And that keyboard players were/are more willing to accept problems in their keyboard controllers in order to use synthesizers, while guitarists were/are more willing to forgo using synthesizers because of their imperfect guitar controllers. There may also be a playing/technical issue involving how synthesizers respond better to playing clean notes (cleanly articulated, i.e. not smeared, not slurred) which is easier to do for keyboard players than for guitar players.

Granted, early (1970's) guitar-synth interfaces sucked. But then again, so did the early keyboard-synth interfaces (one hand, single note, no chords, no dynamics, etc.). Yet keyboard players bought what was available, and used it, and consumer interest drove new and better keyboard and synth capabilities (polyphonic play, touch sensitivity, etc.). For some reason, guitarists/consumers never drove synth or interface development to make better guitar-synth interfaces. Also interesting to me: today by a large, guitarist still lean away from using synthesizers, even tho' the guitar-synth interfaces have improved greatly since those early days. Convolution is a big seller for guitarists; synthesis much less so.

Q: do you sing "Piano Man" in your performance, or do you play it instrumental only?

For as long as I have been playing keyboards, I have lusted after synthesizer sounds: I wanted to have one and make music with it. I bought my first synthesizer in 1978-9 (an Arp Odyessy), when I was still learning I, IV, and V in all keys. I have been an avid musical synthesizer user ever since. This forum, and others like it, show me that there is a large group of other keyboard players who share my enthusiasm and lust for using synthesizers. It is curious to me that as a group, guitarist have largely ignored synthesizers as a music instrument. All of the classic synthesizers (MiniMoog, ARP2600, Roland Juno and Jupiter, the Prophet, etc.) are all keyboard instruments. I cannot think of any mass-produced synthesizer instrument with an interface made for guitar players - an interesting marketing phenomenon, given that there are a lot more guitar players than there are keyboard players. So why were/are guitar players so blase about synthesizer technology, when lots of keyboard players like myself were/are dedicated to synthesizers? One explanation I have heard is that the early guitar interfaces for synthesizers were horrible to play, and so guitarists never got excited about using synthesizers. While I cannot speak to the problems of early guitar-synth interfaces, we all know that early keyboard-synth interfaces were horrible for keyboardists - monophonic play, no dynamic touch, etc. - keyboard players literally had to learn new keyboard technique in order to use early synthesizers. And yet keyboard players took enthusiastically to the technology anyways - and in doing so in large numbers then motivated the synth manufacturers to improve the keyboards and the synthesizers. No such feedback between players and manufacturers seemed to occur for guitar players. Today, even with great improvements in guitar-synthesizer interfaces, most guitar players continue to ignore using synthesizers and synthesizer sounds. Why is that? Your thoughts here....... . (inb4 "lots of guitarists use synthesizers". They do, but the Pat Methanys and Adrian Belews are the notable exceptions among guitar players. Chick Corea, Herbie Hancock, George Duke, Jan Hammer, Keith Emerson, Rick Wakeman, Zawinal, JM Jarre.....etc., etc., etc.)

That's really cool. The synth tech deserves kudos for the idea of offering synthesizer basics/instructions. I also went to synth school. It was 1977; I was a freshman in college. The school scheduled a 30-day "January term" where students took one specialized course only. I signed up for the music studio course, which turned out to be a course in using a synthesizer. So we got detailed instructions on oscillators, and how to change the frequency of the oscillator, and how a LF oscillator can be used to automatically raise and lower the frequency of the oscillator, etc. We got an indepth tour of synthesizer function. A few years later, I bought an Arp Odyssey. Of course, in 1977, the instruction was limited to subtractive synthesis. Additive synthesis, FM synthesis, and sampling were all yet decades away. But I can tell you those early instructions gave me a real solid foundation in audio synthesis for all the changes that were to come.

I would add a Tchiakovkey joke, but it's Pathetique.

How far do you go for band rehearsal? How far is too far for you? I drive just about 60 mins. to get to band rehearsal. Usually, rehearsal lasts two hours. So that means I am driving about two hours (round trip) to attend a two hour rehearsal. Which is about my limit. I'm asking because I recently was invited to play in a interesting band, but their rehearsals are at least a 90 min drive for me, which means I would be spending 3 or so hours in my car to attend rehearsal. I'm inclined to turn it down. I don't think the band does enough hi-paying gigs to make up for me taking three hours out of my keyboard day.

Hello. This particular event was especially chaotic. There were I think six bands in all, at an outdoor venue with zero security. I ended up moving all my gear back into my car after the sound check, and then set it up again before our set (earning a good deal of much criticism from band leader about the delay in getting our set started). But when I watched the event unfold, I was glad I did. The act before our own was a group of 30 or so teens attending the local "band camp": with different performers getting on and off the stage after every song. The band tells me they want to do a lot more of these gigs, and so far have expressed no sympathy when I point out the logistical difficulties I am facing. The attitude seems to be "this is an easy gig for us, don't rock the boat". It's gotten colder, and the band is not doing any indoor shows. So the band is on hiatus: they have no further shows on the schedule. I'm thinking this would be a good time for me to find another band.

I was complaining to the dance band about a recent gig. It was a multi-band event, where we were scheduled to do a sound check around 2pm, and perform at 6pm (while other bands use the stage). I didn't want to leave my keyboard on stage for hours while others are setting up, tearing down, performing, etc. I was worried my keyboards could come to some harm in the commotion. The guitarist turns to me and says: "What's the problem if your keyboard gets damaged: you have another one." (It is true I have a couple of keyboards at home. My rig for this band is a single Nord Electro.) I didn't say anything in response. It seemed to me that such thoughtlessness did not merit a response. But I do not appreciate the attitude, and I think I have to confront it. Also: how do you look out/safeguard for your equipment during those multi-band cattle-call events?

comes with PSU @Thomann so,- what does "unpowered" mean ? A.C. I am guessing they are describing the mixer as "unpowered" to distinguish it from "powered" mixers - i.e. a mixer/power amp in one unit like the popular ones by Mackie and Yamaha, etc.

A couple of times I recorded a 7-piece band, where all 7 sang, and there were two horns to be miked, and the rhythm section. I could have used more pre-amps and more input channels to the DAW for those sessions. Most of the time, my needs are more simple.

Thx Mr. Fudd for your questions. The studio functions primarily as my practice room and my project studio. I will also host larger band rehearsals, and (less commonly) record bands. From time to time, I need all of those 16 mixer channels. Right now, I have two keyboards occupying 4 (line-level) channels of the mixer; an ART pre-amp pair occupies another two mixer channels, and a dedicated studio effects unit is patched in one of the aux send/returns.

For the past 10+ years, I have had a Mackie 1604VLZ with Firewire option as my studio mixer. This has served my studio needs perfectly: 16 great pre-amps for recording or rehearsals; the Firewire option functions as an AD/DA converter, and sends 18 audio channels simultaneously to my DAW, and sends a stereo pair from the DAW back to the mixer for monitoring. (Tho' Firewire is now ancient tech, it has function perfectly in this setting without glitches or drop-outs.) I have started on the path to building a new DAW. The new DAW will have a newer OS that may not work well with the older tech in my Mackie mixer. I will first try to get the new DAW working with the Mackie mixer, but I may need to get newer tech. So I am looking for recommendations for a mixer.. I like having 16 good pre-amps available. I like being able to send the audio from those 16 pre-amps to the DAW. There has to be a return from the DAW for monitoring. The newer Mackie Onyx mixers function as 16x16 AD/DA, but only have 12 pre-amps and come with on-board effects (which I don't need and don't want). I've had hands-on experience with the QSC TouchMix 30, which is more than capable and probably more mixer than I want. What other mixer options should I be considering? I suppose one option (in the event I can't get the new DAW to communicate with the Mackie Firewire) is to continue to use the Mackie 1604VLZ but with a newer stand-alone AD/DA interface. I want to know what mixer options are available before going down this route. Thx.

So I bought an RD-2000 last spring. The sound set includes AP tones both modern and "vintage" - including older JV/JX APs, and APs from the RD-600, as well as new APs from the RD-700SX/NX, and physically modeled APs. I am frankly overwhelmed with all the AP choices available, but I tend to favor the more modern APs because they sound less artificial than the vintage APs (to me). I am enjoying hearing the sampled and modeled APs all coming from the same sound source played on the same keyboard. Whether or not one likes or dislikes how Roland samples and models their APs, the RD-2000 gives one the opportunity to directly compare sampled and modeled APs on the same keyboard running thru the same sound system. The sampled and modeled APs definitely sound and play differently to me, but I am having a hard time deciding if one is "better" than the other.

You know, over the last 500 years or so, many different attempts have been made to communicate how notes should be played for a piece of music. The current "circles on a staff" form of music notation is the pinnacle of this long evolution. Other notation schemes have been proposed and tried and always found deficient to the circles on a staff method. So while it may seem complex or difficult to learn, it remains the best way to communicate musical ideas on paper. So I'm going to suggest you dive in and work on reading music. The dividends this work will pay you are really difficult to overstate: you knowledge of music and the playing of keyboard instruments will explode. I guarantee you: your future self will thank you. And there are lots of free resources on the web designed to get you there. I suggest this is a far better use of your practice time than looking for charts or diagrams to show you chords. Feel free to report back here. This community will celebrate your successes and commiserate with your frustrations.

Hello. All of my gigs are outdoors now, so I invested in some grocery store "Chip-Clips" to hold my sheet music to the music stand. The particular Chip-Clips I got have a small magnet glued to them (like when you need to put your opened bag of chips on your refrigerator door). This is actually useful to me because my music stand has a metal back which happily holds the Chip-Clips in place. When packing, I throw my Chip-Clips in my gear bag, along with my microphone and my DI. Now I am worrying that the magnets on the Chip-Clips will harm my microphone and DI. Is that possible or am I over-thinking?

A friend asked me to come play with his band: two guitars, playing what he calls "jam blues". So we got together and played. Pretty mundane 12-bar blues, with a pretty decent version of the Allman's E. Reed. I surprised myself by playing well all night long. Twice, the singer turned to me to tell me I had nailed "the tone" (thank you Nord Electro). And it was painfully loud. I told my friend it was too loud, and I couldn't tolerate that volume. I told him I was willing to meet again for another go, but wasn't going to commit. Now my friend is bombing my phone with texts asking me to agree to dates. They have five shows lined up already; more on the way. They are well-organized and practiced about getting gigs. I really wanted this to work out. I like the musical vibe, and I know the BL will get lots of business. And now I have to turn them down because it is too loud. I've never down this before. And given that I'm older and not getting any younger, I may never see another opportunity like this. I'm disappointed.

Thanks DJazz - I really enjoyed your playing. I appreciate the overhead view. I'd be interested to know what you do with the pedals on these tunes.

There are three pillars to my practice: technical exercises, Bach and other classical piano music, and improv exercises. I work to do some of each every day. The technical exercises are things like Hanon studies, scales and arpeggios, and those finger strengthening exercises by that Hungarian composer. I do some Bach every day and more recently I have been working on sonatinas by Clementi. Czeny's Op. 599 has become a favorite set of etudes - that book is wonderful to work on both technical and artistic playing. I do four different improv exercises: each is a song I play in all keys. The songs are blues (of course), major 2-5-1 (currently woodshedding Oleo), minor 2-5-1 (i.e. Softly As a Morning Sunrise), and rootless 2-5 vamps (currently woodshedding Cold Duck Time). The improv exercises give me an opportunity to practice things like playing a LH bass lines while playing a specific melody or scale in the RH - and then doing it in all keys. Booyakasha!!!! It is my sense that all three pillars are important, and my piano day definitely feels deficient if I don't get to work on all three. Like the OP, it is my opinion that playing the piano is a specialized athletic activity, and that regular physically training is absolutely required. At the same time, there is a mental/cognitive component that also needs exercise and training.