clone bashing

[Dglavko]

Yes it does "Start and End" with Hammond. We invented it.

 

Does Yamaha still support the 70's CS line?

 

Does Baldwin still support pianos they made in the 1920s under the Howard name or even their own name?

 

No, you have to rely on techs for that. I don't see how that is somehow indicative of Hammond-Suzuki being some sort of un-real incarnation of Hammond. Time moves on.

 

That is a good point - although I suppose the difference might be that Yamaha has not changed ownership hands and continents quite so fundamentally as Hammond and is not now seeking to ride on the reputation of a product in their distant past in selling the newest Motif...

 

I suppose I'd feel the same way about a new Rhodes were the company bought out and resurrected by a car/other manufacturer ("XYZ Inc."), manufactured the EP's elsewhere, but cut all other ties to servicing or even supplying parts to old products, yet went so far as to proclaim:

 

-> All EP's "start and end with Rhodes-XYZ Inc. We invented it."

 

One call to my local Steinway dealer, on the other hand, and I have access to a whole army of Steinway trained and parts connected technicians to service Steinway products of any era. Such continuity in service from one generation to the next gives one the impression that it is the same company whereas, rightly or wrongly, I don't find the same comfort in Hammond-Suzuki.

 

Semantics perhaps, and perhaps an SK2 in my hands would change my views, but H-S's claim that "We invented it" just doesn't quite sit right with me...

[kanker.]

I doubt that there is any support from Hammond/Suzuki for classic Hammond organs. I am fortunate to live in the LA area and Bill Axman is my tech for my organs. This is what he does full time. There are only a relatively few Hammond techs left.

 

Hammond was purchased by Suzuki to make money. Period. I am sure that some in the company (like Scott) take a great deal of pride in the Hammond name. But I certainly don't expect a company like this to honor its past by committing to service the thousands of classic Hammond tonewheel organs still out there.

 

They are interested in new organs and synths... and how much money they can make on them.

 

Does Yamaha still support the 70's CS line?

 

Does Baldwin still support pianos they made in the 1920s under the Howard name or even their own name?

 

No, you have to rely on techs for that. I don't see how that is somehow indicative of Hammond-Suzuki being some sort of un-real incarnation of Hammond. Time moves on.

Cars, appliances, roofing, heating and air conditioning units, the list goes on. It isn't like a Hammond's something simple and unchanged like a Zippo......

[richwhite9]

Amen to that. I don't play organ sounds at all in my current endeavors, but I feel the very same way about digital pianos. To me, the sound of pianos out there these days are all decent, but not the same as a real piano ... so then it comes down to personal preference in terms of how the sound connects to the keys and the action. To a degree I imagine it's the same with organ clones?

 

I's the ergonomics thing. Watching a Hammond player reach for drawbars that aren't there or the cursory check in mid song that many develop (it's not like drawbars walk away or anything) It's a habit that can be broken, the mental anguish suppressed when missing drawbars, but then again why should it be?

 

[HammondDave]

Yes it does "Start and End" with Hammond. We invented it.

 

Does Yamaha still support the 70's CS line?

 

Does Baldwin still support pianos they made in the 1920s under the Howard name or even their own name?

 

No, you have to rely on techs for that. I don't see how that is somehow indicative of Hammond-Suzuki being some sort of un-real incarnation of Hammond. Time moves on.

 

That is a good point - although I suppose the difference might be that Yamaha has not changed ownership hands and continents quite so fundamentally as Hammond and is not now seeking to ride on the reputation of a product in their distant past in selling the newest Motif...

 

I suppose I'd feel the same way about a new Rhodes were the company bought out and resurrected by a car/other manufacturer ("XYZ Inc."), manufactured the EP's elsewhere, but cut all other ties to servicing or even supplying parts to old products, yet went so far as to proclaim:

 

-> All EP's "start and end with Rhodes-XYZ Inc. We invented it."

 

One call to my local Steinway dealer, on the other hand, and I have access to a whole army of Steinway trained and parts connected technicians to service Steinway products of any era. Such continuity in service from one generation to the next gives one the impression that it is the same company whereas, rightly or wrongly, I don't find the same comfort in Hammond-Suzuki.

 

Semantics perhaps, and perhaps an SK2 in my hands would change my views, but H-S's claim that "We invented it" just doesn't quite sit right with me...

 

 

Exactly... Hammond/Suzuki is using the Hammond name for its own capitalistic purposes. And more power to them! Look at Harley Davidson... and all the other companies bought by foreign mega-corporations. Its all in the name and the branding.

 

That being said, it does not necessarily mean that there are nefarious motives among the new owners of a famous name. I still believe that the Xk3c Pro System is one of the best portable recreations of a console B3. I would not have performed with one for years if I did not.

 

 

 

 

[keyClicker]

They are interested in new organs and synths... and how much money they can make on them

Mr.Suzuki?

 

http://bastardpiecetheater.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/09/monopolyman.jpg

[JMcS]

They are interested in new organs and synths... and how much money they can make on them

Mr.Suzuki?

 

http://bastardpiecetheater.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/09/monopolyman.jpg

 

You say this like its a bad thing.

 

I don't happen to believe Mr. Suzuki bought Hammond to solely maximize profits. The Hammond products have to carry their own weight in the scheme of things and as better products generate better sales and profits those profits can fund efforts to improve and create new products. The New B3 and the XK-3 did well and led to the XK-3c and New B3 MkII. The success of those products led to the SK-1 and 2 which will further expand Hammonds reach into the organ and "stage" keyboard markets. This will fund the next generation of XK-3* and so on. I hope Hammond is very profitable. The more profitable they are the better the next product I buy from them will be.

[Jim Alfredson]

So I supposed a PolyMoog or MemoryMoog isn't really a Moog because Bob was no longer involved in the company at all at the time of their development and release?

[Steve Force]

Yes it does "Start and End" with Hammond. We invented it.

 

Does Yamaha still support the 70's CS line?

 

Does Baldwin still support pianos they made in the 1920s under the Howard name or even their own name?

 

No, you have to rely on techs for that. I don't see how that is somehow indicative of Hammond-Suzuki being some sort of un-real incarnation of Hammond. Time moves on.

 

That is a good point - although I suppose the difference might be that Yamaha has not changed ownership hands and continents quite so fundamentally as Hammond and is not now seeking to ride on the reputation of a product in their distant past in selling the newest Motif...

 

I suppose I'd feel the same way about a new Rhodes were the company bought out and resurrected by a car/other manufacturer ("XYZ Inc."), manufactured the EP's elsewhere, but cut all other ties to servicing or even supplying parts to old products, yet went so far as to proclaim:

 

-> All EP's "start and end with Rhodes-XYZ Inc. We invented it."

 

One call to my local Steinway dealer, on the other hand, and I have access to a whole army of Steinway trained and parts connected technicians to service Steinway products of any era. Such continuity in service from one generation to the next gives one the impression that it is the same company whereas, rightly or wrongly, I don't find the same comfort in Hammond-Suzuki.

 

Semantics perhaps, and perhaps an SK2 in my hands would change my views, but H-S's claim that "We invented it" just doesn't quite sit right with me...

 

 

Exactly... Hammond/Suzuki is using the Hammond name for its own capitalistic purposes. And more power to them! Look at Harley Davidson... and all the other companies bought by foreign mega-corporations. Its all in the name and the branding.

 

That being said, it does not necessarily mean that there are nefarious motives among the new owners of a famous name. I still believe that the Xk3c Pro System is one of the best portable recreations of a console B3. I would not have performed with one for years if I did not.

 

 

One minor correction: Harley-Davidson is a US Corporation still based in Milwaukee. Here is last year's annual report.

 

 

[keyClicker]

I don't happen to believe Mr. Suzuki bought Hammond to solely maximize profits.

 

Same here. I was just joking around with the 'monopoly guy' and all... I do believe this whole suzuki-hammond purchase history listed above is not just PR.

 

Help me here but... I don't see how this 'hammond is still hammond' affects the new hammond clonewheels quality (that was the original topic issue).

 

I know there is this romantic thing behind the greasy wheels and the old circuit boards. But they are clones!

They provide crazy ass tweakability that was not even thought before. And the hardware is incredibly light.

 

I agree... if we think about it, I'm kind of greatful for this money race we live in.

[Tonysounds]

I suppose I'd feel the same way about a new Rhodes were the company bought out and resurrected by a car/other manufacturer ("XYZ Inc."), manufactured the EP's elsewhere..

Apparently you have been out of the loop.

RHODES

 

One minor correction: Harley-Davidson is a US Corporation still based in Milwaukee.

 

As you probably know, Harley hasnt always been American; after its initial glory days, it was Japanese owned for a while, and then was purchased by Outboard Marine before its current (and well-resuscitated) incarnation.

[CEB]

Those AMF Harley Davidisons sucked.

[Tonysounds]

Those AMF Harley Davidisons sucked.

[keyClicker]

Corley Motors...

[BlackandWhite]

Help me here but... I don't see how this 'hammond is still hammond' affects the new hammond clonewheels quality (that was the original topic issue).

 

I think the question can be reduced to "What value does the 'Hammond' name add to a product that is made to substitute for the classic Hammond organs?"

 

Here, "value" can be tangible, (i.e. better quality instruments due to trade secrets), intangible ("...and it's a Hammond; Cool!"), or both. I don't know what HS bought when it purchased the Hammond company, but it certainly purchased the name, which was/is of considerable monetary value (to HS.) Whether the name is of any value to the buyer/player depends on the individual.

 

If in the purchase, HS obtained no trade secrets or other clone-specific information/products, then the tangible value to the consumer is 0.

 

[Jim Alfredson]

As I understand it, there were a handful of "old-timers" that came along with the company after it was bought and had a hand in developing the new line of organs. So I think that is a tangible value.

[Outkaster]

I know one guy bought up a shitload of parts and schematics when they shut down. I heard he is like the key to a lot of the old information from Hammond. I can't remember his name but he had a ton of stuff. All the foundries and machines were parted out or destroyed I know that much.

[Michelle ggurl]

Amen to that. I don't play organ sounds at all in my current endeavors, but I feel the very same way about digital pianos. To me, the sound of pianos out there these days are all decent, but not the same as a real piano ... so then it comes down to personal preference in terms of how the sound connects to the keys and the action. To a degree I imagine it's the same with organ clones?

 

I's the ergonomics thing. Watching a Hammond player reach for drawbars that aren't there or the cursory check in mid song that many develop (it's not like drawbars walk away or anything) It's a habit that can be broken, the mental anguish suppressed when missing drawbars, but then again why should it be?

 

Ah, I see. I imagine if I played a lot of organ, drawbars would seem really important. At the level I have, Nord's buttons sufficed, but if I was doing organ jazz, yeah, drawbars.

[richwhite9]

I know one guy bought up a shitload of parts and schematics when they shut down. I heard he is like the key to a lot of the old information from Hammond. I can't remember his name but he had a ton of stuff. All the foundries and machines were parted out or destroyed I know that much.

 

The story of the warranty fulfillment company after Hammond's 1985 bankruptcy and subsequent parts purchase and name change after the 1990 sale of the Hammond name to Suzuki is here.

 

http://organservicecompany.com/index.html

 

There's coutless tales on similar brand names. Indian Motorcycle is one. Every 5 years there's a rumor they will return to Springfield Mass which usually means a) a new owner and b) the new owner is on the 5-year countdown before the name is in bankruptcy court again. Polaris bought them this year. Start the clock.

[MoodyBluesKeys]

Mr. Welch was one of the nicest people that I ever dealt with as a service tech, Organ Service Company gave me better service than I got while Hammond was still alive.

 

The couple that bought out all the Wurlitzer parts was the same way - very nice folks to deal with.

 

 

[CEB]

The access procedure and other info regarding the EV's in the XK-3 and '3c are in the XK-3 Yahoo group's files section:

 

http://tinyurl.com/XK-3YahooGroup

 

Some of the voices sound better than others (not every one agrees on which ones and some don't think any sound good). The velocity data makes a big difference in the way they sound and the XK-3 and '3c velocity is hard to get high enough to bring out the initial attack harmonics and other sounds so they tend to sound a little dull. I run my lower manual through a computer first so I can bump the velocity data up some and that improves them (IMO). Also, it is possible to have the pedal tones sound somewhat piano-ish (Synth-2) by adjusting decay and other parameters and layer them with the EV by having the computer also send the note data on channel three.

 

As always, IMO, YMMV, Yada Yada Yada.

 

I think the best thing about the hidden sounds may be the leslie sim. Running the 60s EP through the Leslie would be useful if I didn't already have this setup on the JV-5050. It is a sound I use especially on Three Dog Night's Momma Told Me Not To Come.

[Cloner]

My take on it is that it started with the likes of the two Jimmies, Smith and McGriff, and all their contemporaries. The original Hammond product was targeted to simulate a pipe/theater organ - which it did well when challenged to do so back in the day. It was the many jazz and later, rock greats that created the "Hammond" sound (after adding on the originally hated Leslie speaker). Listen to virtually every Hammond or clone demo and you hear the "sound" that came from these organic godfathers of jazz. I've played many of the organs out there over the years; Yamaha Electone, Lowery, Conn - they all have their own quality of flute sound, but they're not totally unlike the Hammond sound. As far as respect goes, the fact that so many go to such lengths to recreate the sound of a Hammond speaks volumes about the amount of respect we all have for Hammond. As for me, I started on the old Hammond H-100 - didn't even have a Leslie and I was one hooked 12 year old. When it comes to jazz, gospel or just gluing the sound on stage together, the Hammond sound IS the king!