I know, I'm an alien;)

[Guest]

Just sharing an experience I had this past weekend...

 

I went into Guitar Center here in Los Angeles with a full bank account. I spent an hour looking at and listening to all of the new synths, hammond simulators, etc. I want to repeat that I had money and went there to spend most of it http://www.musicplayer.com/ubb/wink.gif. I walked out of the keyboard area disgusted at the sounds that were coming from there and bought myself a Tube mic, some chords and a pair of headphones.

 

I think it's cool that you can write and even make cool tunes on a computer but...

Let's face it as INSTRUMENTS, synthesizers suck.

[Guest]

DISCLAIMER

 

The above post was not intended as a flame, just expressing my frustration over the lack of new Keyboards that are cool.

[coyote]

That depends....

 

If you are into Hammond, the new Korg comes damn close to what you are used to hearing. If you don't like the sound of the Korg, you probably don't like the sound of a Hammond.

 

Now let's get to the definition of instrument. In general (nonmusical) terms, an instrument is a means to an end. Nowadays if your goal is to create music, synths are a versatile tool. A great deal of commercial music (dance tracks, advertising, some rock, some of just about everything else) is created on synths. One of the great creative minds of our time, Frank Zappa, closed his career & life writing on Synclaviers & other synths.

 

So I'll assume (yeh I know LOL) you are talking about synths as live performance instruments. Many greats (known AND unknown) have done amazing things w/ them in real-time, real-life performances! The sounds are not always useful, but some of the sounds can blow you away.

 

So I guess it would be more accurate to say you don't like them. Which is OK - you're allowed to not like 'em! But your premise that they "suck as instruments" is a bit off the mark. Glad you bought stuff you're happy with! PEACE

[Guest]

The new Korg does not sound like a Hammond Organ, at least not close enough for me to play it seriously.

 

Either way, your opinions are totally valid, I'm not trying to argue one way or another really, just sharing my problem.

 

I went to see what the current manufacturers of synths had to offer, I wanted to buy a new synth, they didn't have anything that I liked...am I the only one running into this problem? Probably, maybe this thread will give us the answer to that.

 

I've used synths in live situations and have totally blown people away with them but the older stuff just sounds better to me.

 

So there, one man's opinion http://www.musicplayer.com/ubb/wink.gif

[dansouth]

The right gear for the right job. Mississippi delta blues on a synthesizer sucks as much as techno on an acoustic guitar.

 

I love my synths, but I've carefully selected the ones that work with my style(s) of music. I've owned some that did absolutely nothing for me.

 

What in particular sucks about them? Are you sure that you understand synths fully? Do you know out to program sounds, to use their effects to best advantage, to use arpeggiators and LFO to create special effects, to use control channel messages to automate parameters in real time? What are you trying to do with synths? Maybe you're applying the wrong tool to the right job, or maybe you're just not using the tool correctly. Let us know what you're trying to do, and perhaps we can make some suggestions.

[Guest]

dansouth,

 

You might want to reference the Introductions thread, I'm not a novice nor am I looking for advice.

 

I've worked with everything from Mini Moogs, Juno 106, Ensoniq EPS, Synclavier, MPC, Pro Tools, Sample Cell, etc. I enjoyed the sound of the old analog synths, these digital synths no matter how much you tweak them sound bad to me. I actually liked some of the stuff that came out in the very early 90s but I couldn't see buying anything they had in the store this last weekend.

 

Enough said I guess, move along, nothing to see here

[dansouth]

I don't dispute your experience, but I want to point out that some of us are getting good results with modern synths. If you're not, we may be able to provide some insights. It has nothing to do with experience level. It's more like sharing tips on applications. Isn't that what this board is all about, learning from each other?

[sbrock1san.rr.com]

I've been impressed with many of the recent digital pianos from Yamaha, Roland, and Kawai. I like the Korg MS2000 a lot too, but I haven't bought one.

 

I think synth developments come pretty slowly these days, but there has never been more variety of instruments to choose from. It's great to live in a time when the toughest thing to do is having to choose which synth you love more. If you factor in inflation, synths have never been more affordable.

 

I've also discovered the joys of running keyboards through a Sansamp PSA-1, Bass Pod, and a tube preamp. It adds a whole new dimension to my sounds.

[steadyb]

Originally posted by truth@jamfree.com:

The new Korg does not sound like a Hammond Organ, at least not close enough for me to play it seriously.

 

 

If you're looking for a truly authentic Hammond B3 sound, I'd have to recommend the Hammond C3.(It sounded so good, even Keith Emerson bought one)

[Gus Lozada]

Originally posted by truth@jamfree.com:

I went to see what the current manufacturers of synths had to offer, I wanted to buy a new synth, they didn't have anything that I liked...am I the only one running into this problem?

 

Oh man.. I wish I had all the money you mention you were willing to spend... A Serious music machine these days is the Kurzweil K6000... Jim Aikin was very clear when said: "If you can not make great music from this machine do not blame the instrument"... something like that...

 

Or perhaps a SUPERNOVA II for sound design... or an ANDROMEDA (ask Dave Bryce for his opinion..)

 

I guess you were not in the real mood for getting a synth, or the store did not have the newest stuff...

 

Here's another man's opinion, too... PEACE...

[Guest]

Originally posted by truth@jamfree.com:

The new Korg does not sound like a Hammond Organ, at least not close enough for me to play it seriously.

 

Either way, your opinions are totally valid, I'm not trying to argue one way or another really, just sharing my problem.

 

I went to see what the current manufacturers of synths had to offer, I wanted to buy a new synth, they didn't have anything that I liked...am I the only one running into this problem? Probably, maybe this thread will give us the answer to that.

 

I've used synths in live situations and have totally blown people away with them but the older stuff just sounds better to me.

 

So there, one man's opinion http://www.musicplayer.com/ubb/wink.gif

 

Go back and do it again. You will probably have a different outlook. Hell, nobody could love their wife anymore than I love mine and yet there are just days when we just don't click. Instruments are the same way. The first time I tried the new CX3 Korg I thought it sucked. The second time I tried it I found it to be very inspiring. Like any organ it will never satisfy without a real leslie and that includes a B3. I have several Hammonds and I tried everything under the sun to make them sound good without a leslie and they just sound like hell. Now that, thanks to Ken Soper, my Roland VK7 doesn't shut off on me anymore, I love it to death as long as I have it plugged into my 122. And I've been playing Hammonds for nearly 34 years now. Cheer up. Things may be better than you think. http://www.musicplayer.com/ubb/smile.gif

[Steve44]

Maybe it was just the fact that all the Andromedas are sold out and that Guitar Center is an icky store.. not that the Sam Ash has any better selection nowadays http://www.musicplayer.com/ubb/frown.gif Or that west l.a. is any better.. I think it's the fact that there's no real mom and pop stores in L.A. for keyboards... except maybe Kaye's.

[t.cowanusa.net]

I agree that, all by themselves, the sounds coming from synthesizers aren't very satisfying. BUT..., the electric piano sounds on my Yamaha S80 are simply awesome. I just bought it a few weeks ago. Normally I get tired and irritated by a synth after playing on it for a month. That is what happened with my Korg M1. I simply couldn't stand to hear it anymore because the sounds were so bad. ( by the way, I agree with the Korg sucks post. You should see that light weight digital piano for about $700. The keys click on the back of the case. It's really sad that people are going to buy that and then hear a click every time they press a key )

 

The s80 can sound just like Richard T. with Paul Simon, or perhaps Hancock with the headhunters.

 

Taylor

[Guest]

Here is a *radical* idea-

instead of spending more-spend less and then build from there.

 

My suggestion-

 

Casio WK-1350 or Casio MZ 2000

 

If you need *real* sounds,then spring for a high quality sampling mechanism

that you can trigger from your "really cheap" keyboard-your "diving board" as it were-

 

doesn't need to be made of 24k gold-

 

it just has to be able to propel you to your next logical step.

 

PS. Seriously check out "Sonar" from Cakewalk.You might be surprised!

 

Have fun!!!

[joegerardi]

WAIT, WAIT, WAIT!

 

Truth:

What are you trying to accomplish? I can well understand that nothing blew your skirt up, but what do you want the board to DO? What kind of music are you trying to play with it? What sounds are necessary for you?

 

With all the models of synths that have been released, there's GOT to be something out there that will float your boat. This is probably the best resource to help you, but give us a little more info on what you hope to accomplish with these things.

 

I can assume that you're looking for a B3 sound - you mentioned that specifically - but what KIND of B3 sound? There's no definitive B3 sound out there: One B will sound different from the next. Are you looking for a "rock" or a "jazz" or a "Gospel" sound? Each is a different form of B3, and perhaps one synth does it better than the other. I prefer the QSR module, because I'm an anachonistic old bugger and I love the Emerson C3 program in it. It is the defining Hammond tone to me, but you might think it dreck.

 

Give us a hand to understand, and I guarantee that we'll bombard you with suggestions.

 

This message has been edited by joegerardi on 04-25-2001 at 09:15 AM

[musicman1ovation.net]

Originally posted by truth@jamfree.com:

I think it's cool that you can write and even make cool tunes on a computer but...

 

Let's face it as INSTRUMENTS, synthesizers suck.

 

I think I have some idea of what you are saying, although I don't quite think the current new devices "suck". http://www.musicplayer.com/ubb/wink.gif But after all, yours was an impression that came from an afternoon where you would have thought something amongst those many keyboards would have felt and sounded like an "instrument".

 

I'm going to assume that when you say "instrument", you're referring to those almost living entities... musical instruments. A really great musical instrument has a certain simplicity and elegance about it, and it is drenched in natural nuance. Take, for example, a great concert grand. The wood, the workmanship, even the way it feels to your hand before you've even played a note; a great grand piano is a true partner to your every physical gesture. A merger between two entities takes place, but calling it man and machine would be too cold. No, it's musician and instrument. And art is involved in making a great musical instrument.

 

The concert grand has been around a while. It's "old country". But moving on into the modern era, a great electric guitar has those same qualities. It also responds and moans. I think of Stevie Ray Vaughan and that war torn Strat that was like an appendage to his life. A great instrument can wail in the right hands. The rock age spawned and popularized the Fender Rhodes, too. And although a Rhodes is quite different from a grand piano, it has a hand-made quality to it that accounts to why no two of them are alike either. But let love and attention meet fate, and the exhilarating Rhodes keyboard breathes music when caressed by a musician's stroke. It is alive and willing. The Rhodes may be raw, but it's real. And the same thing occurs with Wurlitzer electric pianos. Their discreet circuits deliver that milky tremolo and that sweet, delicate sound with ease. Or, they can become the rhythm dictator of rock if nasty, two-fisted 8th note chords bite into their harmonic distortion and their fuzzy vibration hits bone. Easy there, little fellow. http://www.musicplayer.com/ubb/biggrin.gif THAT is a musical instrument. And the Clavinet? Check this out... this marvel seems to have been conceived in shop class. The simplest of keyboard mechanisms turns each key into a hammer, slamming what is essentially a guitar string onto a resonant metal "anvil". The actual keyboard mechanism design is so simple, that its action could keep up with the briskest of Buddy Rich's single-stroke rolls... L, R, L, R... if Buddy could strike the note, the Clavinet could respond. And if one just plays with enough force to make the string barely sizzle, a delicate little rock age clavichord would sound without the slightest fear that its poor emulation would be rejected, because when it was funky time, the Clavinet became the mofo of musical invention. Touch it, whap it, run it through a cheap guitar effect box, but don't stop till you get enough. And the way we know the Clavinet is an instrument is because we still haven't gotten enough. It isn't just that sound... it is playing that magically cheesy slim-line bass case looking instrument that pulls no punches.

 

In all musical instruments, character is the strong point. Until digital technology came along, even electronic synthesizers had enough discreet parts, electronic and mechanical, so that their variations gave them character. A Hammond B-3's tone wheels (mechanical) and tubes (what a gas!) playing through those whirling Dervishes of sound reinforcement, Leslie speakers, was a literal churching urn of burning funk. When a key was depressed, it was like the damn broke at that pitch to release the pent up soul. Back in 1979, I borrowed a 220 pound mammoth of a synthesizer called the Yamaha CS-80 for about four months. Hot damn!! I couldn't keep my hands off it. It wasn't that I liked fiddling around with analog knob twirling (although I did that, too). It wasn't being impressed with specs (because I hardly knew what they were and didn't care). I just remember thinking at that time, and at every recollection since, that it was a musical instrument. It is truly one of the most responsive instruments ever to echo my fingers' intentions. On the inside it looked like the greater Philadelphia telephone company back in the 1940s I would imagine. Its keys were wooden. Its ribbon controller had a felt-like covering, and it was, of course, pre-MIDI. Each note responded to its own aftertouch. Instantly. The CS-80 had attitude, style, and seemed at first to me a sign of the future. But it was expensive. VERY! In today's dollars, about $40,000.00 (so I hear). When It was first released, I believe the actual dollar amount was about $6,000.00, but times and money values... they are a changin'. Very few were made and sold, and many of those that were still live with their original owners... mostly studio, famous artists, and the "well heeled". A few people have had lucky scores on the used market, but all must face inevitable maintenance, etc. It manages best when left in a cool, dry studio; admired and revered. A look at the price tag, the "greater-Philadelphia-telephone-company within", and the reason became clear as to why it wasn't a sign of the future.

 

Nevertheless, since the digital age, there have been a number of different groundbreaking synthesis techniques of interest. Synthesized sound reach new levels of complexity and realism... "realism" (acoustic instrument emulation) was one of the goals of synthesis's. Arguably, I still think the original DX7 has a very interesting and unique method of sound production, and some very musical uses. As to whether one wants to call it a tool or an instrument, I'll pass. But I will have to admit that the DX7 came near the time when keyboard instruments were starting to be called MIDI devices. And I think that is what this is all about... you were looking for an instrument, but you found devices.

 

Before everyone thinks I'm bashing all the digital synths and MIDI, etc., let me say that I've been taking delivery of these "devices" since the Prophet 600, which was the first commercially available keyboard with MIDI. I have serial number 00019 (give or take a zero! http://www.musicplayer.com/ubb/smile.gif) As to why these amazing devices often don't quite feel (and sometimes sound) like instruments, I have some theories. (1) I think MIDI is two slow. Most keyboards synths even use MIDI internally. That is, when you play a key, it is turned into a MIDI event, sent to that keyboard's internal sounds (as if the sound engine was an external MIDI module) and then plays the note. It happens might quick, but it isn't instantaneous. It's subtle, but there's something that tells you that when you hit the key, a computer is running a little program called "play that note". The fix for this problem is a faster MIDI transfer speed, which I feel certain is in the works. I won't get into that or the fact that it is serial, as opposed to perhaps a combination of parallel and serial. And, whether "it" is actually called MIDI or not doesn't matter. I certainly hope every attempt is made to make all original MIDI 1.0 devices compatible. So long as it interconnects with past MIDI, runs faster (fast enough to utterly eliminate any perceivable timing issues, even with the hyper sensitive) and eliminates any and all "MIDI train wrecks", the original MIDI dream will be realized. MIDI 1.0 has been a fantastic success I think the greatest in the technical multi-manufacturer world of standards, function and connectivity. But the next step should help make devices instruments again insofar as timing has been an issue. Another factor is the keyboard action itself. There are now a number of types of action, and I believe that IF the sound would respond instantaneously enough, anyone would be able to find an action that feels like a musical instrument. And there are more actions coming... mostly in the realm of weighted keyboards where the premise is making them feel like a piano. We do have to keep in mind that virtually no two pianos feel alike, though. However, some great actions have felt feeble simply because the sound (due to MIDI and internal electrical paths) is sluggish. A musical instrument responds to you not to a computer that is responding to you.

 

Now, aside from speeding up MIDI, and making general improvements on how the sound responds to the touch, there's the sound itself. Since you saw new keyboards, it is a given that most of what you saw and heard were ROMplers that is, the sound is made up of sampled instruments (which reside in the keyboard's ROM) to which various sound altering techniques applied. One common thing in these keyboards and MIDI modules is combining two or more sounds. The results are lush. Still... samples are snapshots of sound. And though you can apply filters that vary with time or pressure and other real-time performance nuances (pitch wheels, ribbons, breath, etc.), that subtle sense of a snapshot can say "device" to the musician.

 

All of this has happened in a very short time! Digital isn't a dead end. It is probably in its toddler phase as far as musical devices go. I think that with increasing use of physical modeling, which is already yielding some fantastic results, faster MIDI transfer and processing, and sampling (ROMpling, too) that utilizes more memory, more samples, more velocity switches, and all of that combined with added nuance derived from physical modeling.... the devices will be instruments again. And it will be natural to stroke wooden end panels and caress the wood grain.

 

As for now, does this stand in the way of music? Nope. http://www.musicplayer.com/ubb/smile.gif Let's say you have a guitar you love, but the B string always plays flat on the 14th fret. The guitar has a wonderful tone, and you are hesitant to mess with the fretboard. Also, most people don't even notice this. But you do, and you lovingly give that B string the slightest of string bends when playing the 14th fret. You've had so many good times making music on the instrument that you're almost fond of the fact that you have to make that compromise. Electronic music... synthesizers... are going through a metamorphosis. They are striving to be all they ever were and MORE. And they are going to succeed. The signs are all around. Meanwhile, this generation of devices are happy to serve, to work with the musicians who are willing to compromise with their devices for the sake of uncompromising music. And this time it will ultimately be for everyone with a song.

[coyote]

Originally posted by steadyb:

Originally posted by truth@jamfree.com:

The new Korg does not sound like a Hammond Organ, at least not close enough for me to play it seriously.

 

If you're looking for a truly authentic Hammond B3 sound, I'd have to recommend the Hammond C3.(It sounded so good, even Keith Emerson bought one)

 

The Hammond B3, C3, and A-100 are all essentially the same under the hood - only the cases are different. As for the new Korg, I own an A-100 and will probably never part with it. However, I sure would like to use my car to move my rig instead of borrowing a van and moving that 275lb monster up & down my basement stairs.... and I find the Korg sounds AND feels close enough to the real thing that I would enjoy playing it (I really hope they add a second manual to it sometime). Just one man's opinion of course.... PEACE

[Guest]

musicman1 basically explained it better than I could. I've been playing a unique sounding Fender Rhodes and a Hammond B3, I also borrow my friend's Clav from time to time. I used to play a Prophet 2000 and a Mini Moog, I guess I was hoping something new would produce sounds as cool and unique as these instruments.

 

Everything's cool though, I guess I'm just not into the new sounds and will have to continue to cart my Rhodes around, no problem.

 

Just expressing my own frustration, saying that new synths aren't instruments may have been too strong, I'm sure many of you make wonderful music with them. Actually Dave Bryce's music sounds great to me.

 

Nevermind, Move along, nothing to see here.

[Lee Flier]

Hmm, what was the first Korg unit to come out that emulated a B3 and had a Leslie simulator built in? This would've been around 1986. I distinctly remember Benmont Tench of Tom Petty and the Heartbreakers, who's about as diehard a B3 purist as you can get, calling me up and playing me one of these over the phone and being really excited about it. Korg had given him one and it sounded quite convincingly close to a B3. 'Course, the player probably has a lot to do with it too. But anyway, do the new Korgs not sound as good as those did or something?

 

Of course, Ben still uses a real B3 onstage with Petty, and on records. But he likes to sit in with local bands at clubs, or did at the time anyway, and he thought it was great that he could throw a pretty darned good keyboard in the back of his Camaro and jam with different bands without having to hire somebody to haul a B3 there in a truck. http://www.musicplayer.com/ubb/biggrin.gif That would've made it nigh impossible for him to sit in with people, although I do also remember him playing Wurlitzers and Vox Continentals in clubs sometimes too.

 

So I guess it just depends how you want to use it. Kinda like I have a POD for working up guitar arrangements, but I wouldn't use it on stage, and in fact I don't even use it on "real" recordings much, just demos. For a finished product I'll mic up an amp and there is a real difference.

 

--Lee

 

This message has been edited by Lee Flier on 04-25-2001 at 01:43 PM

[steadyb]

Originally posted by coyote:

The Hammond B3, C3, and A-100 are all essentially the same under the hood - only the cases are different. As for the new Korg, I own an A-100 and will probably never part with it. However, I sure would like to use my car to move my rig instead of borrowing a van and moving that 275lb monster up & down my basement stairs.... and I find the Korg sounds AND feels close enough to the real thing that I would enjoy playing it (I really hope they add a second manual to it sometime). Just one man's opinion of course.... PEACE

 

 

I was just kidding.

[synthetic]

If I was going for authentic Hammond sounds I would probably buy the Motion Sound rotating speaker. It's like the top quarter of a leslie. I'll bet almost any synth organ will sound a lot more authentic through that thing.

[Dave Bryce]

Originally posted by Lee Flier:

Hmm, what was the first Korg unit to come out that emulated a B3 and had a Leslie simulator built in? This would've been around 1986.

 

That would be a CX-3. Got one downstairs. Lovely toy.

 

They have a newer version of it that is also pretty great.

 

Still, right now, Native Instruments B4 is king of the hill for me. It just rules.

 

dB

[joegerardi]

Actually, I *think* the 2-manual BX-3 came out at the same time. I saw Tony Kaye use on onstage with Yes in 1984 and I thought it sounded pretty damn tits. He was wailing on it in Wurm at the end of Starship Trooper and it was great.

 

I went to a local store, and they were blowing out the BX for $695.00. I didn't get it. Another wise choice, and it shows why I'm so successful today. (Smell that? That's sarcasm...)

[Guest]

Still, right now, Native Instruments B4 is king of the hill for me. It just rules.

 

OK, I've never heard of that synth, they didn't have one of those to show me. I probably still wouldn't be happy http://www.musicplayer.com/ubb/smile.gif, I guess I just need the real thing.

[steadyb]

Originally posted by joegerardi:

Actually, I *think* the 2-manual BX-3 came out at the same time. I saw Tony Kaye use on onstage with Yes in 1984 and I thought it sounded pretty damn tits. He was wailing on it in Wurm at the end of Starship Trooper and it was great.

 

 

I went to a local store, and they were blowing out the BX for $695.00. I didn't get it. Another wise choice, and it shows why I'm so successful today. (Smell that? That's sarcasm...)

 

Yes, the BX-3 did came out at the same time (remember the ads w/Keith Emerson?), and it was killer. Dual manual, and Chorus/Vibrato, very cool. I wish I had one (unless of course I could have a real B3 & 122)

 

steadyb

[Dave Bryce]

Originally posted by truth@jamfree.com:

OK, I've never heard of that synth, they didn't have one of those to show me. I probably still wouldn't be happy http://www.musicplayer.com/ubb/smile.gif, I guess I just need the real thing.

 

It's not a synth - it's a computer program...and it is by far the most convincing Hammond emulation that I have ever heard.

 

Go to this web site . Download the demo. You'll be impressed. Almost everyone that I know who has done so buys the program. I did - I use it constantly (recorded with it today).

 

dB

[b_3guy]

A friend of mine is a retired electronics tech from the military. He saw stuff go from tube/transistor to solid state to computer chip. Because of this experience he has the ability to fix just about anything. He now has in his garage a BX-3. I never had one. I had one of the original CX-3's. He has consulted me several times in regards to the sound of the BX-3. Weak bottom end, shrill high end, mild distortion that happens when you get impliment the chorus/vibrato & the Leslie effect. These problems were leading him to believe that something was wrong with the BX-3. These were the reasons that I bought a Hammond XB-2 when it came out & then upgraded to a XK-2 when it came out. Listening to BX-3 reminded me how much better the current crop of emulators are. I still have my B-3 so I also know what the real thing sounds like.

 

I do agree with truth@jamfree.com. Synths are in a rut. We've watched some innnovative things happen in the last 60 years. We've seen the invention of the Therimen (spelling), a truly new sound & controller; the Hammond A, the original emulator of a pipe organ & the first synth; EP's which really don't sound like a piano; the Moog Modular, old sound, new keyboard controller; Mini-Moog, ARP, Prophet, more affordable synths; FM synths, new sound with the DX-7 being truly affordable at less than $2,000. Then along came digital sampling. Now we can a very good approximation of acoustic instruments. We as the masses really like this. The proof is in the buying. If we didn't like DSP the manufacturers would be on to something else. After almost 15 years it's still here. What's more interesting is that analogue synths are seeing a revival with physical modeling. So again the manufacturers are distracted & not coming up with something new & innovative.

 

I do agree that the digital synths don't sound that good. Their lows are rounded & mushy, their highs are brittle & harsh, & their mids are mud. Most of the time we need the name of the patch to suggest what really the sound is, Soft Brass, Analogue Strings. But maybe we are at fault. A B-3, a Mini-moog, a Rhodes, an ARP string ensemble would cost about $60,000 if bought new with today's dollars. We expect to have all those sounds & more for less than $2,000. Let's flash back to 2 guys building a church in the 1930's.

 

I guess we'll have to forgo getting the pipe organ, it costs $100,000. It's not in the budget. Did you hear the new thing called the Hammond organ, it sounds just like the real thing. Yeh but everytime you hit a key there's a click, there's all these harmonics happening (crosstalk), & when you turn it up loud you get distortion. And it really doesn't sound like the real thing. Yeh but it only costs $2,000. Let's get one. It's better than having no organ.

 

I'm not Benmont Tench, able to have the dream rig for the dream gig. It's not practical for me to drag my B-3, Wurlitzer, & Roland SH-3a to a gig. But I do record with them whenever I can. Their lows are thick & solid, their highs are crisp & clear without being harsh, & their mids have texture & definition.

 

But I am happy to take my Alesis QS-8 & Hammond XK-2 to gig. The sounds may not be as good as the real thing but they are practical & they make me feel like I'm playing the real thing.

[joegerardi]

But what I don't get is WHY is everyone trying to emulate real instruments?

 

Emo, Wakeman, and Banks weren't trying to get real instrument sounds with all their ground-breaking albums. They were specifically trying to create NEW sounds, go NEW places, and I think thet's the essence of a synthesist. When they required a pipe organ sound they went out and played a real pipe organ. Emo recorded his Piano Concerto No.1, and Rick recorded his Journey to the Center of the Earth with real orchestras. Emo is planning on releasing an orchestral version of Tarkus. These giants could use any synth(s) they want, and I would imagine they could get it pretty damn close to sounding like the real thing, but still they choose to play with "real" players. When they toured, they brought along real pianos, instead of using a sampled sound. Look at all the incredible stuff Tony Banks did with a CP-70, and that doesn't sound at all like a real piano.

 

Have we really become so limited in our capabilities that we can't play music unless we sound like someone else? Have we simply become the guy that does the piano part, the horn stab, the string pad, and real electronic music goes by the wayside?

 

I have long maintained that the invention of the polyphonic synth sounded the death knell for keyboard as an up-front instrument. When we could only play one note, it had to scream, and it's very nature brought it out front. Now that we can do all these rudimentary sounds, we have become little more than part of the rhythm section.

 

I mentioned Tony Kaye and the BX-3 in an earlier post. He toured in front of thousands of people, and I seriously doubt there were people in the audience talking about how poor the sounds were. Take any crappy (by today's standards) synth. Sit down, create a new sound, make it your own, and create with it.

 

An instrument isn't there to make you sound better: It's there to bring the spirit of your music to others.

 

Just play. If it's good, people will listen, be it done on a pennywhistle.

 

 

 

This message has been edited by joegerardi on 04-29-2001 at 12:54 AM

[Guest]

Originally posted by joegerardi:

But what I don't get is WHY is everyone trying to emulate real instruments?

 

 

Been thinking this one too- obviously fake "real" instruments have their own charm, but "convincing fake" doesn't turn me on. Recently I've been going for "faking" imaginary instruments- a brass-stringed ukelele with a cowbell body, a bowed sitar-tuba etc. Maybe the sounds don't evoke those images for others, but it helps in orchestration and creating new sounds.

 

- CB