I have joined the Hammond club :-)

[CEB]

But is the Realistic MG-1 a real Moog?

[JMcS]

Hammond Suzuki is not a Hammond (donning flame retardant suit).

 

Seems like Suzuki bought the company fair and square:

 

"Company Profile

In 1991, Japans Suzuki Corporation, manufacturer of a wide range of high-quality musical instruments, purchased Hammond Organ. Mr. Manji Suzuki, President and Chairman of the Board of Suzuki Corporation, always enjoyed listening to the fabulous sounds created by the Hammond organs. When Mr. Suzuki first learned that Hammond Organ was for sale, he immediately took all the necessary steps to purchase the company.

 

 

Hammond Suzuki USA, Inc. initially began operations as the distributor of Hammond organs and Leslie speakers in the U.S. From these modest beginnings, Hammond Suzuki soon diversified its operations by adding manufacturing capabilities. Located in Addison, Illinois, Hammond Suzuki USA, together with its extensive manufacturing facilities in Hamamatsu, Japan, continues to proudly build some of the finest musical instruments in the world. Hammond Suzuki USAs operations, headquartered in suburban Chicago, include manufacturing and warehousing of the world-famous Hammond organs and Leslie speakers. Its extensive facilities provide its strong, dedicated management and marketing team accommodations for distribution, technical support, and state-of-the-art product design capabilities.

 

 

It is our companys mission to produce the most innovative, best-sounding musical instruments at the lowest price possible. Today we are just as committed to building the best organ and Leslie products as we were the first day our company was founded. Even more, we are committed to preserving the sound of Hammond organs and Leslie speakers for generations to come."

 

While Hammond's ownership may have changed hands a time or two before Mr. Suzuki bought it the chain of ownership was legitimate. Had he not bought the company and tasked Suzuki Corp. with re-building the brand and its products to state of the art, the Hammond sound may have faded away. It could be argued that his efforts at rebuilding the company helped produce the resurgence in Hammond popularity in the 90's. It seems that Mr. Suzuki deserves some respect and gratitude for his efforts. While it may be fun to take cheap shots at Suzuki and Hammond to stir up some heat, they really are undeserved.

 

IMO, YMMV, Yada Yada Yada.

 

 

Also, Suzuki still provides many repair parts for products that haven't been manufactured for 30+ years. They had no legal obligation to do that.

 

 

 

[mate stubb]

Let me go even further:

 

A "Hammond" Aurora isn't a real Hammond. If it ain't got tonewheels, it's only a Hammond-like Substance.

[kanker.]

Let me go even further:

 

A "Hammond" Aurora isn't a real Hammond. If it ain't got tonewheels, it's only a Hammond-like Substance.

Kinda like Soylent Green might be made from people, but that don't make it people...

 

 

...I think.....

[Baldwin Funster]

Hammond isnt owned by Laurens, Ford isnt owned by Henry, Gibson isnt owned by Orville, Fender isnt owned by Leo. Rickenbacker, Marshall, Traynor , none are under original ownership. So your solution is to buy a NORD?

[mate stubb]

So your solution is to buy a NORD?

 

I own a Nord. But I also own 2 Hammonds.

[Baldwin Funster]

I didnt intend to put Nord down per se, I am just commenting that many people who put down Hammond Suzuki for not being the real original Hammond company then go and buy a clone that is even less original from an historic and vintage viewpoint.

[Joe Muscara]

There is no clone that is "original from an historic and vintage viewpoint."

 

Hammond Suzuki is making some great clones now, no doubt about it, but until they did, the "Hammond" in the name was essentially meaningless. I mean, what technology of the great Hammond organs of yore is in the clones they make? The only thing I can think of is the keyboard on the New B3 that has the multiple switches/triggers, and I'm not even sure that is implemented in the same way.

 

People aren't "putting down Hammond Suzuki for not being the real original Hammond company" as much as saying there's no reason to buy a *clone* from them just because of the name on the instrument. If a Tokai, Roland, Nord, or Whatever does a better job of emulating a tonewheel Hammond than HS, would you still buy the HS because of the name? I hope not.

 

and BTW,

 

[Meisenhower]

Hammond Suzuki makes the only NEW B3 available on the market. To an entire generation of players, that is as much of a Hammond as a vintage 1967 B3.

 

The point is it's a Hammond. They bought the rights to the name, have done a great job in not "tainting" the memory of the vintage boxes and try to advance the technology.

 

There isn't any other "clone" that does what the new B3 does. Not even close.

 

Now, that being said, I'll still put my '57 B3 against a brand new, factory fresh B3 and it will more than hold its own.

 

 

[mate stubb]

The point is it's a Hammond. They bought the rights to the name, have done a great job in not "tainting" the memory of the vintage boxes and try to advance the technology.

 

 

[NewImprov]

I didn't buy my XK-1 because it said Hammond on the back, I bought it because it has drawbars, waterfall keys and it actually sounds very close to a tonewheel organ. If there were another clone that filled all those blanks, I would have bought it. In fact, I had almost pulled the trigger on a newer Korg CX-3 when the XK-1 appeared on mt radar.

[Meisenhower]

Moe, you can say what you like with your "face palm", but I'll stand by my statement. The entire idea around "clinging" on to an idea that a vintage brand that has gone through ownership AND technology changes is NOT the original brand in some way is a foolish notion.

 

I can't really think of ANY products that were produced 60 years ago, that are produced in the same way, using the same parts and no advance in technology.

 

That is like saying that a new Zenith HD or 3D TV isn't a Zenith because they're not making the same TV they manufactured in 1948 and were acquired by LG in 1995. What's the matter, you don't want that big B&W console TV with the rabbit ears on top? Why not? I'm sure there are some B&W purists out there who think it looks better.

 

I'm sure if you have a Chrysler sitting in your garage, it doesn't resemble or is any less a Chrysler than what Walter Chrysler produced in 1925, nor did it make that Chrysler any more of a Mercedes Benz when they were owned by Daimler AG.

 

While any offering from HZ may not be "a Hammond" in your eyes, your Hammond "Aurora" reference simply shows bias in your argument. Of course an Aurora is a Hammond (it just doesn't meet YOUR definition of one), but I wouldn't want to play nor own one. That is just plain bias.

 

The point is, you can say whatever you want but a Hammond that is produced by Hammond-Suzuki is a legally Hammond. There isn't any other keyboard, clonewheel or organ manufacturer that can say that.

 

 

[Joe Muscara]

I'm sure if you have a Chrysler sitting in your garage, it doesn't resemble or is any less a Chrysler than what Walter Chrysler produced in 1925, nor did it make that Chrysler any more of a Mercedes Benz when they were owned by Daimler AG.

Thank you for opening this door.

 

In the automotive industry, the core technology is the same, the internal combustion engine. It has gone thru an evolution over 100+ years, but the basic principles are the same.

 

The tonewheel to clonewheel change is akin to going from gasoline engines to electric motors. The core technology is completely different, though the goals are similar or the same. Just because Ferrari makes some awesome gas-powered cars does not mean they are capable of making even very good electric-powered ones. They might, but it requires a sea change in thinking. More than likely, the guys who do all the great work on their gas-powered engines will have no clue about electric motors. They would likely have to hire all new people to work on electric product, or retrain the older ones but that new knowledge would have to start from outside.

 

The one thing I will give you here is that Ferrari would make an effort to retain the corporate culture in everything they do. That might be the one thing Hammond -> HS might have retained, but with the change in ownership and the transitions they went through, it's hard to say.

I didn't buy my XK-1 because it said Hammond on the back, I bought it because it has drawbars, waterfall keys and it actually sounds very close to a tonewheel organ. If there were another clone that filled all those blanks, I would have bought it. In fact, I had almost pulled the trigger on a newer Korg CX-3 when the XK-1 appeared on mt radar.

There you go!

 

By the way, this discussion is still

[mate stubb]

Meisenhower, we are talking at cross purposes here, so this will be my last contribution to the derailment.

 

You are talking about brand. I am not. I am speaking about people who buy a Ham-Suz for the wrong reasons, "because it's a Hammond", or because "they want that name onstage." They assume wrongly that buying the name gives you any clue whatsoever and a leg up on any body else trying to replicate the real thing.

 

I'm not bashing the XKs btw. The latest generation of Ham Suz is some of the best clone stuff out there. But it took them a looooong time to catch up - their previous several generations of instruments were horrible sounding.

 

Very few instruments have a 40+ year run with the technology VIRTUALLY UNCHANGED. Fewer still are routinely performing every night across the globe 50 or more years after they were hand built, and have an easy shot at still working when 100 years old. These organs will be running happily 30 years from now, and will still be able to be fixed when the XKs of today have long given up the ghost.

 

When people say "Hammond organ", they mean the original. It earned that distinction. Sadly that distinction is getting lost on a new generation of players who did not grow up on the real thing. It's big and heavy. It breaks your back. It smells of oil. It is the absolute boss of the stage, not because of its cabinet, but because of its soul. No clone has it.

 

Let me ask you this - what if Steinway and Sons got bought by the jerk who owns Gibson. They bring out a crap slab digital piano and slap the name on it.

 

Is that a Steinway? Not to me.

[Meisenhower]

Let me ask you this - what if Steinway and Sons got bought by the jerk who owns Gibson. They bring out a crap slab digital piano and slap the name on it.

 

Is that a Steinway? Not to me.

 

If course it would be Steinway. It would be a Steinway "Digital Piano." It would just be a different part of their product line. That would in no way diminish the stature of a Model D. By your definition, a Yamaha CP1 isn't a Yamaha because it's not a CFIIIS or a C7. Apples & oranges.

 

You're only looking at this through you're own bias. It's not a Steinway to you, it's not a Hammond to you. That's fine, however to the rest of the world, its simple evolution, product line expansion or whatever.

 

Don't get me wrong Moe, I'm in the same camp with you from a vintage vs. new console Hammond perspective, but I also have to accept that change is inevitable and just live with it. I guess I'd personally rather see continuous improvement in the clonewheel market than see that market abandoned because a "clonewheel isn't a tonewheel."

 

FWIW, I made the exact statement about vintage consoles being around 30 years from now, long after the clonewheels have died in a prior thread months ago. so we're not SO far apart in our thinking.

 

 

 

[CEB]

Has anyone actually played the new B-3. It is sort of sweet. It has multiple mechanical contacts which was a big deal to me.

 

I don't how sweet the new B-3 will be in 10-15 years when you can't get parts to repair the thing. I would not buy it personally because I don't know how long the service life will be. Though it is cheaper.

 

Plus I already have too many organs. I would have to get rid of a REAL one to make room for a new one.

[mate stubb]

so we're not SO far apart in our thinking.

 

I know. I've been sick the last couple of days and am feeling extra curmudgeonly. On this one topic I allow myself to be unreasonable, in contrast to my normal serene countenance.

[mate stubb]

Has anyone actually played the new B-3. It is sort of sweet. It has multiple mechanical contacts which was a big deal to me.

 

I think there have been a couple of iterations of the new B-3. I played one in a music store and it was kind of a yawn. Then I sat next to Joey D and was 3 feet from his 2 leslies when he played one (this was definitely the latest version).

 

It was a bit static and not alive sounding with the rotors stopped, but sounded fine otherwise. It leads me to wonder if they have failed to model the random phase variances of the wheels with each other, which occur because they are not rigidly coupled to the shaft.

[ProfD]

IMO, craftsmanship carries levels of detail no assembly line, sampling, physical modelling, etc., will be able accomplish.

 

Anything made "to order" has qualities including quirks and flaws that make it unique. The differences from one B3 to the next is indicative.

 

Clonewheels and other modern KBs are stamped out like McD's hambugers. Each and every one is made the same way. Not a knock.

 

As a result, technology will only provide reasonable facsimiles. Until it is "made by hand" i.e. levels of detail, none of it will have the "soul" of craftsmanship which is essentially what one looks for and appreciates in an instrument.

 

They don't make anything "like they used too". Planned obsolescence is here to stay. We have to make the best of these disposable, er, tools at our disposal.

[Outkaster]

I think that is why it is so hard to make a connection to an instrument because it's not like an guitar that retains it's sound and value. Like Prof said they are "stamped out" so we as keyboard players can tweak a little bit but ultimately we have to work with only a few tools sometimes.

[JMcS]

Clonewheels and other modern KBs are stamped out like McD's hambugers. Each and every one is made the same way. Not a knock.

 

As a result, technology will only provide reasonable facsimiles. Until it is "made by hand" i.e. levels of detail, none of it will have the "soul" of craftsmanship which is essentially what one looks for and appreciates in an instrument.

 

While this is basically true, each owner has the ability to provide the finishing touches to the craftsmanship of their particular instrument. The tweakability the XK series provides each owner with the ability to make theirs sound like no other one, or the one they remember or still own. Right down to the tonewheel that wasn't quite right on the one they played growing up.

 

 

They don't make anything "like they used too". Planned obsolescence is here to stay. We have to make the best of these disposable, er, tools at our disposal.

 

Isn't part of what caused the fall of Hammond the fact that no one ever had to replace one that was worn out? Eventually the market starts to fill up. Competition from cheaper brands with more bells and whistles (literally) that were far less expensive to build and therefore far more profitable to sell was also a big factor. Among others.

 

 

 

[ProfD]

Clonewheels and other modern KBs are stamped out like McD's hambugers. Each and every one is made the same way. Not a knock.

 

As a result, technology will only provide reasonable facsimiles. Until it is "made by hand" i.e. levels of detail, none of it will have the "soul" of craftsmanship which is essentially what one looks for and appreciates in an instrument.

 

While this is basically true, each owner has the ability to provide the finishing touches to the craftsmanship of their particular instrument. The tweakability the XK series provides each owner with the ability to make theirs sound like no other one, or the one they remember or still own. Right down to the tonewheel that wasn't quite right on the one they played growing up.

That is true. Therein lies the blessing and curse.

 

IMO, the real problem is, musos are using technology to recreate the past.

 

We should be putting a spin on it and moving forward in coming up with something new and/or different.

[CEB]

....

 

They don't make anything "like they used too". Planned obsolescence is here to stay. We have to make the best of these disposable, er, tools at our disposal.

 

Planned Obsolescence sucks on a $27,000 keyboard.

[ProfD]

....

 

They don't make anything "like they used too". Planned obsolescence is here to stay. We have to make the best of these disposable, er, tools at our disposal.

 

Planned Obsolescence sucks on a $27,000 keyboard.

That falls under "there is one born every minute".

[John B]

I've been a B3 jockey for 40 years. That's FOURTY years.let me tell you that the XK3c I use on stage gives me not exactly what the B3 in our reheasal space gives me....It gives me more. More control over just about every aspect of what makes the Hammond sound the Hammond sound. I don't care if the sound comes from physical wheels, or digital wheels. It is the sound that gives me the inspiration...not the physical means by which it is produced.....Also, it is the player who either is or is not the "boss" of the stage. I understand your respect for the nature of the true B3, but times change. the old B was never ment to be carried from house to car to club and back 4 or 5 times a month. The XK3 is. As Data might have said...does it matter if a life form is carbon based or silicon based?...not to me.

[Baldwin Funster]

I've been a B3 jockey for 40 years. That's FOURTY years.let me tell you that the XK3c I use on stage gives me not exactly what the B3 in our reheasal space gives me....It gives me more. More control over just about every aspect of what makes the Hammond sound the Hammond sound.

 

That makes me feel pretty good about my XK3c as i have limited experience with a real B. What leslie or sim do you use might i ask.

[CEB]

One of the best thing about the XK3c is that you do not have to blow on the thing with a hair dryer to get it to run again after it has been sitting in the trailer in the dead of winter.

[Mike Martin]

[B3_borne]

I've been a B3 jockey for 40 years. That's FOURTY years.let me tell you that the XK3c I use on stage gives me not exactly what the B3 in our reheasal space gives me....It gives me more. More control over just about every aspect of what makes the Hammond sound the Hammond sound. I don't care if the sound comes from physical wheels, or digital wheels. It is the sound that gives me the inspiration...not the physical means by which it is produced.....Also, it is the player who either is or is not the "boss" of the stage. I understand your respect for the nature of the true B3, but times change. the old B was never ment to be carried from house to car to club and back 4 or 5 times a month. The XK3 is. As Data might have said...does it matter if a life form is carbon based or silicon based?...not to me.

 

+1000000 and my back really loves it

[The Real MC]

Hey Mike:

 

Where do you buy your Anvil cases? I don't "see them around much". I see the usual suspects when shopping around for cases.

 

I just call the eastern zone Calzone Case phone number on the website (Calzone owns Anvil).

 

The only store I've ever seen carry Anvil cases is the now-defunct Dickstein Distributing Company out of Scranton. That was a great store.

 

Just a follow up.

 

I called the Calzone # on the Anvil case website and placed an order for Anvil cases.

 

What I received was Calzone cases.

 

If you want Anvil cases, DO NOT call the Calzone phone number on the website.

 

I'm quite ticked off...