Modern KBs--Every Sound All at Once

[ProfD]

The KC forum and most gear-centric forums would not exist if the members didn't grumble, gripe and complain about the gear regardless of whether it is old, new or vaporware.😁

 

Most modern KBs (ROMpler, digital piano, stage piano, clonewheel, VA synth, etc.) are a box of facsimile sounds based on some type of sampling or modeling or software programming. 

 

So, regardless of whether it is a vintage electromechanical KB sound (EP, organ, clav, etc.) or a VA synth, the sound being played is really just some type of recording or recreation of the original. 

 

To that end, no modern KB will ever sound and/or play exactly like a [insert vintage gear here].   No amount of money can be spent to insure that the latest ROMpler, DP or synth will sound and play like the gear of yesteryear. 

 

The best a musician can do is approach the instrument with intent of creating and/or playing music.   Worry less about the realism of the sounds being played.  Focus on using the sounds to come with up with a signature lick or iconic sound of your own. 

 

For those musicians playing in cover bands, remember that your KB heroes have used the most modern available technology to play their signature parts too.  

 

Surely, while pro musicians may have a rider that allows them to request vintage gear, there are many dates where they may have to play whatever backline KBs (ROMpler, DP) are available to them. 

 

The latest [insert pro-level KB here] is good enough to get through any gig.  The proof in the pudding really lies in the hands of the musician playing it. Just remember that KB is a box samples.😎

[jejefunkyman]

Words of wisdom, thank you very much for that 🙏😅

[CyberGene]

While I don't disagree, music is not just about doing the job and calling it a day. For some musicians it may also be about personal satisfaction and enjoyment that you get from a realistic sounding instrument. We're all different and I wouldn't call somebody a lesser musician (not that you did it either) because he can't express himself on a, say, bad Rhodes piano emulation. I'd say let's leave it to everybody to decide for themselves whether they seek (the impossible) perfection in their tools or accept what they have. Both approaches are valid IMO. One and same preaching can be good or bad, depending on the receiver 😉 

[ProfD]

2 minutes ago, CyberGene said:

I'd say let's leave it to everybody to decide for themselves whether they seek (the impossible) perfection in their tools or accept what they have. Both approaches are valid IMO.

Absolutely.  However, musicians expecting manufacturers to get the sounds in modern KBs closer to perfection has proven to be an exercise in futility.😁😎

[timwat]

My personal journey (and maybe no one else's) I had much more interest in machines, sounds, functions, capabilities in prior decades. These days my focus (and dissatisfaction) is far more on what I play, the musical decisions I make, and getting closer to playing what I want to say in the artistic sense of self-expression.

 

Some of this is the gradual shift in interest from rock to jazz, where in some senses the emphasis on improvisation and freedom is different than other genre. Some of it is my growth in composition and writing. And some of it is just getting older, I guess.

 

I see the same journey in other long-time players (on every instrument). But not every player, for whatever set of reasons. And there is no judgment intended; music is big enough that folks play for all sorts of different reasons, motivations, and purposes. 

 

At the end of the day, while I still have some measure of residual interest in the new models and latest releases, I got more than enough keyboards. Not having a certain machine isn't the problem. Really, about the only instrument I feel I'm missing, that maybe I'll be fortunate enough to acquire before I die is a really nice grand piano.

 

Maybe someday, maybe not.

[CyberGene]

25 minutes ago, timwat said:

Some of this is the gradual shift in interest from rock to jazz

Before reaching that sentence I was already thinking it. Not specifically about you, although I have it in my head from other threads that you play jazz, but in general jazz is more about the music content rather than the sound/timbres, etc. Since I'm more a classical guy, I would compare that to Bach whose music is so "absolute", so to speak, that you can play a fugue on a harpsichord, piano, saw wave or toy piano and it would be the same masterpiece of counterpoint. And then there are more modern composers, where there's some emphasis on the sound palette more or less, being it a solo piano piece (well, Chopin might work on an accordion or Rhodes piano but well, you know, I still prefer an acoustic piano, preferably a grand piano, although we can argue a lot about how a grand piano sounded in his times and I've spent so many endless hours, days and weeks researching geeky stuff like that 🤦🏻‍♂️), or a big symphonic piece, where, again, there's one end of the spectrum with, say, Beethoven much more absolute in this actual music content, compared to a modern symphonic composer where orchestral color is of equal or even greater importance. Same with modern genres of music.

[Old No7]

47 minutes ago, ProfD said:

Absolutely.  However, musicians expecting manufacturers to get the sounds in modern KBs closer to perfection has proven to be an exercise in futility.😁😎

 

So how would one define perfection???

 

In the Crumar Mojo 61, as an example -- or on the real Hammond organ line -- you can choose year, model, age of wires, cross talk, leakage, overdrive, Leslie rotors speeds, Leslie on/off, etc.  20 Hammond players could all choose "their Hammond sound" and while all could be different -- each of them could be "right".

 

I think the clones of today, and this likely applies to e-piano sounds & samples and synths too, are all pretty darn close to "perfection" (whatever that may be).

 

For sure, it's better today than it was in the early 80s when I was gigging with 600+ pounds of keyboards and speakers.

 

Old No7

[ProfD]

40 minutes ago, Old No7 said:

I think the clones of today, and this likely applies to e-piano sounds & samples and synths too, are all pretty darn close to "perfection" (whatever that may be).

Agreed.  But, it's hard to tell when reading threads about new gear.  One person's perfection seems to be another's poop, piss or pass. 🤣😎

[Stokely]

Good post, and it sparks a few thoughts.

I've been involved in many a discussion (mostly in guitar circles) about amps vs modelers.   Basically, a modeller at its best can be equated to a mic'ed up amp, it's not the amp with the same feel and "air in the room".  So there's that part of it.  Out front of a band, a good leslie sim or good amp sim is pretty much indistinguishable from the real thing (IMO) and could actually be better if the mic job wasn't done right.

It also ties in to the idea of playing things exactly like the album.    I've found that sometimes the sounds that match a studio recording don't necessarily work as well live.  While I probably wouldn't play a recognizable piano part with a string synth or something that "out there", mostly I consider sound selection fair game on most songs.   Sometimes even the parts need to be tweaked depending on the band--a keyboard part that works with 3 layers of guitar might not work so well with only one guitarist playing with you on stage.  So if you aren't willing to run tracks (raises hand) then you work something out.  Part of the fun IMO.

I think sounds from today are more than good enough.  I thought sounds from 20 years ago were more than good enough.   Hell somewhere I've got live recordings of my old, old band playing stuff back in the 80s, even piano and organ, when my only keyboard was a Roland JX-10.   Did it sound realistic?  Perhaps not, but it sounded pretty good to my ear most of the time, playing choices aside

[ABECK]

3 hours ago, ProfD said:

The latest [insert pro-level KB here] is good enough to get through any gig.  

Agree 100%

[Baggypants]

3 hours ago, ProfD said:

the sound being played is really just some type of recording or recreation of the original. 

Can any recording be considered authentic? Does it have to be. What about written music? Are people with hearing aids never able to have a truely authentic experience really?

[Tusker]

Great posts everyone and this is just my own experience:

 

I have never felt as empowered by the new technologies as I do today. Every sound can be made velocity sensitive. Every sound can go from a whisper to a scream. But I am writing more and gigging less and that may be a different context from yours. I use 50% samples and 50% modeled dsp, that could be different too.

 

Because of the greater timbral freedoms of current instruments, I am finding that basic aesthetics of timbre are deeply connected with the musical content. The limitations are my musical skill.
 

I can’t play that #11 chord carelessly on a bright dulcimer or a clav. At least not without introducing a silliness which could break the mood. I can get away with too many thirds in an unbalanced string voicing but if I try that sloppy voicing with woodwinds it won’t blend: they will squawk. I can enjoy the more distorted b3 but then my note choices are more limited.

 

With all the new tools behind which I can hide, I feel more naked than ever.

 

Thanks for original post. It is inspiring. 💕👏

[CEB]

Gear is overrated. 

[Al Quinn]

This is an interesting topic and I certainly agree that we should be supportive of each other and our associated gear. The thing is when you get a bunch of passionate people together to talk about what is effectively their musical voice there are going to be a lot of opinions. The truth is a musician is the only one who knows what he/she prefers. It shouldn’t be surprising that someone else dislikes that same instrument; nor should it matter. 
 

I think we’re all different when it comes to the importance we place on 1) the music, 2) the sound of the keyboard, and 3) the feel of the keyboard (a.k.a. finger-to-ear connection). For me personally, the music gets almost all of the importance. I have trouble presenting my best music if the finger-to-ear connection isn’t excellent and I’m OK not having the absolute best sounding keyboard if that’s a choice I need to make to have great finger-to-ear connection.
 

So for me, in priority order, it’s the music, the finger-to-ear connection, and the sound. Although I’m only willing to compromise on the sound the good news is that nowadays I can have great finger-to-ear connection and excellent sound (even if it’s not the absolute best available). Of course, the music is up to me and that’s where I devote most of my time and energy.
 

Gear is usually an unwelcome distraction and, in the purist sense, the player is the instrument and the gear is just a tool.

[ElmerJFudd]

Does anyone actually think that instrument acquisition (acoustic, analogue or digital) is a replacement for time spent playing/practicing/performing?  I don't think anyone really believes that.  So there's nothing to worry about on that front.  idk

 

That said, digital facsimiles of "real" instruments (or controllers and software - it's all the same thing really) have come a long way in the last 30 years, no?  If it were possible, I'd drag a baby grand around, have a registered piano technician on call.    It's not, so digital it is.  Pick one that works for you, pleases you on every level - sound, expressiveness, feel, playability, etc. and get your mileage out of it. They don't last as long as "real" instruments and at some point you'll need another.  By that time, they will have made some noticeable improvements again. 
 

Side note: don’t forget to depreciate it and sell it while it still has some value to fund its replacement (if you’re not going to play it into the ground).  It’s an instrument, yes.  Which is just a musician’s tool.  

[sleepwalk]

The most important thing is that I love the sound that I'm playing. That's what makes me play. Whether it is considered the most "realistic" by me or someone else doesn't matter as much to me, as that can be subjective. I don't play in a cover band where I am trying to match the sound on the record.

 

If I love the sound, that is what makes me want to play. I admit that what I hear as "most realistic" is usually the kind of sound I prefer, but I know that every player doesn't like the same organ sounds I like, Rhodes sounds I like, piano sounds I like, etc..

[Old No7]

9 hours ago, Old No7 said:

For sure, it's better today than it was in the early 80s . . . . . .

 

And we had these same or similar discussions back then too! 😉

 

Old No7

[Tom Williams]

43 minutes ago, Old No7 said:

And we had these same or similar discussions back then too! 😉

Sure did.  I remember a 1980s review of the Ensoniq ESQ-1, 8 voice polyphonic, hybrid digital / analog, no aftertouch.  The reviewer -- possibly in KB Mag, possibly elsewhere -- mentioned that the piano patch "sounds like a Mirage DSK, if anyone wants a piano to sound like that." 

 

The interesting aspect of that remark was that I had consciously chosen the Mirage over the DX7 precisely because the Mirage's piano sounded 100 times more realistic.  The ESQ, whatever else its shortcomings, was also superior to the DX in the AP category.  It was a blast to play too!

[TommyRude]

12 hours ago, ProfD said:

Modern KBs--Every Sound All at Once

Mr ProfD, I salute you for this title, excellent weaving of topical subject matter into keyboard relevant discussion.  Bravo!

[Baldwin Funster]

Yeah but I'm not trying to play the sound of a EP or clav or B3.

I'm going after the sound of a dated ROMpler set of sounds approximating an EP, clav or B3. And frankly today modern KB just isn't dated enough. It's missing the grain of 12bit AD/DA.

So you see there is plenty to still complain about.

 

 

Ps. I'm kidding. I really don't GAF.

[Sean M. H.]

Don't really have anything useful or insightful to add to this discussion, but my general thoughts are:

 

1) I agree that one can spend so much time going down the gear rabbit-hole that musicianship and musicality become afterthoughts.

 

...but...

 

2) There's absolutely NOTHING wrong with wanting/seeking the most accurate reproductions of past instruments possible (or complaining when a given instrument doesn't deliver in that regard).

 

3) the only thing I find silly about the way we talk about modern instruments is when we actually expect things from these instruments that is beyond even what the original instrument offers!  For example, we speak about the quality or weightedness of a keyboard's action in absolute terms (keyboard X's action is lighter or heavier than an acoustic's...), as if every acoustic piano has the same action/weightedness and there is some universally ageeed upon gold standard!  Same with EPs and Organs...we act as if there isn't a HUGE variance amongst the real deal instruments in regards to sound, keybed, etc...that part of our current keyboard-forum culture is pretty asinine IMO lol

[EricBarker]

For me, at the end of the day, Nth degree of sound quality plays second fiddle of ease of use and fluidity of instrument performance. In my weird brain, every single synth is a totally different animal, with a completely different workflow.

 

I’m scared shitless if I’m faced with an unfamiliar piece of gear and expected to perform on it. Maybe I’d actually do a decent job, but I’d be sweating bullets the entire time. I mean, if I were doing a 100% Piano or Organ show, that wouldn’t be an issue. But a cover band or original show band… I need time to set up my sounds and learn the routine. Playing the music is usually the easy part, remembering the patch changes and splits is the busy work.

 

Someone here said “sometimes your faced with a random Rompler”. Not me, I’ll spend money to fly my board out, take a laptop rig, or whatever. At the very least give me a few hours in the hotel room to figure it out.

[yannis D]

Yes. You've said it all.

Just my thoughts: People tend to focus more and more in tech than music itself while tech has given us the big advantage to forget about tech itself and focus on music again. 

Some years ago Herbie Hancock said in a KM interview that his dream was to go on tour with just a MacBook and a controller gear wise. It was the time of his "Future 2 Future" project and laptops were not as powerful as today. Today we have these tools Herbie's talking about - one can have everything on MacBook (or even an iPad) and two controllers. With less than 2.000$ 

 

 

[AnotherScott]

8 hours ago, Jr. Deluxe said:

Yeah but I'm not trying to play the sound of a EP or clav or B3.

I'm going after the sound of a dated ROMpler set of sounds approximating an EP, clav or B3. And frankly today modern KB just isn't dated enough. It's missing the grain of 12bit AD/DA.

So you see there is plenty to still complain about.

 

 

Ps. I'm kidding. I really don't GAF.

 

Funny thing, I was talking to someone I knew from Korg some years back, and as you know, they have apps and/or keyboard sound engines that emulate lots of their classic gear (Polysix, M1, etc.), and I said I wished for an emulation of my old DSS-1, a 12-bit sampler. What a great sounding board. He said he didn't think that was ever going to happen. :-(

[Al Quinn]

I understand the affection people have for old synth technology -- that stuff sounds great and as the years pass it still sounds great. If the MiniMoog I bought in 1979 stayed in tune I'd probably still have it. That thing sounded awesome! 

 

But, when I see new gear that emulates old technology for acoustic pianos (e.g., I recently saw a new product that featured the MKS-20 sound) it puzzles me. I did hundreds of gigs with my MKS-20 back in the day. It was wonderfully responsive but didn't sound all that realistic. I loved it at the time but sold it when we had better choices. I don't quite get the affection people might have for that sound today.

[CEB]

Old boards, including digital had way more personal character than modern boards. My 80s and 90s even early 2000’s rigs were way more lush than what I have today.  No single piece could do what the Kronos does but the old rigs I THINK sounded better.  
 

But crap, the gear we traveled with was ridiculous. Nothing was multitimbral or just extremely basic layering or a single split.  But when you combined Roland gear with DXs or TX modules you produced great sounds then you throw in a solid analog piece and a stage piano in the mix …oh,  and an organ. It was great.  I think the real secret sauce was amplification.  We didn’t use plastic class D powered wedges.  I used Crown power amps, Rack mount mixer, effects processors, 31 band EQ, rack mount synth modules and huge 3 way passive cabs.   I never had problems hearing myself over the drums or guitar. But damn that was a lot of stuff.  We were young and had help.
 

Gear is overrated.  The old rigs felt better in many ways.  Modern work flow and loads are way better.  Today my rack is just 4 space. Power distribution, patchbay, line mixer, IEMs module, and a rack mounted Vent. That’s it. The board themselves EQ and effect process and have 16 internal zones and gads of polyphony.  We basically get to the same place but with fewer trips to the truck. 

[ProfD]

46 minutes ago, Al Quinn said:

But, when I see new gear that emulates old technology for acoustic pianos (e.g., I recently saw a new product that featured the MKS-20 sound) it puzzles me. I did hundreds of gigs with my MKS-20 back in the day. It was wonderfully responsive but didn't sound all that realistic. I loved it at the time but sold it when we had better choices. I don't quite get the affection people might have for that sound today.

It's hilarious that recordings and musicians have popularized sample-based sounds so much that they have become presets in modern KBs. 

 

The MKS-20 is a perfect example.  That Roland Rhodes wannabe sound and more like a poor man's DX7 EP; took off in the Gospel/R&B/Jazz communities.  

 

Nowadays, ROMplers and DPs have a facsimile of the most popular sample-based sounds from the big manufacturers. 

 

To name a few, the MKS-20, DX7, Kurzweil triple-strike piano, etc., are presets now.  Of course, many synth-based sounds have become presets too. 🤣

 

That's what makes the belly-aching about newer KBs funny.  Baroque piano to harpsichord to B3 to Rhodes/Wurli/clav, mellotron, M1 piano, shakahuchi, digital native dance, SuperSaw, etc.

 

With most modern KBs, a facsimile of popular sounds from the past to present is in there like Prego...every sound all at once. 😁😎

[miden]

It's what you play, not what you play it on!

[jeffincltnc]

12 minutes ago, ProfD said:

With most modern KBs, a facsimile of popular sounds from the past to present is in there like Prego...every sound all at once. 😁😎

 

And yet... only one manufacturer gives you the "Jazz Scat" patch.... 🙂

 

[jeffincltnc]

I guess it's all relative, too.  My teenage years were in the 80's and my 20's were in the 90's.  The era of owning a Rhodes, Hammond, Clav, Mellotron and MiniMoog and taking that out was before my time and I didn't really dig into mastering any of those vintage sound palettes until the 2000's started and I started to have disposable income to buy vintage instruments and amps.   By that point, I was married, in graduate school and starting a family, so went from gigging 4-5 nights a week to about 2.  Acquiring vintage instruments was a big passion for me 10-15 years and starting around 2017 I just lost the interest, sold those things off to better homes, and moved to all current generation technologies and workflows.

 

I agree with ProfD, that for the music I do, any pro level keyboard with a wide jack-of-all-trades sound palette can be functional for the sounds that I need for the music I do.  Everything else is creature comforts and player experience.   That being said, I'm still constantly buying and selling gear and haven't yet outgrown the excitement of finding a great deal or unboxing the latest and greatest.