Not even close,......but eh....

[ManInTheBox]

Rhodes, Wurly, Clav, B3......etc......all were created to "impersonate", or fill in for something else. They don't sound like a piano, harpsichord, pipe organ or whatever, but man have they got a sound.

 

We love them, they've become their own instrument all together....

 

Can you see anything like that happening with any of the latest and greatest offerings from today's manufacturers??

[Jeebus]

Originally posted by GovernmentCheck:

We love them, they've become their own instrument all together....

 

Can you see anything like that happening with any of the latest and greatest offerings from today's manufacturers??

Nord Modular

[Bluescreen]

Originally posted by GovernmentCheck:

Can you see anything like that happening with any of the latest and greatest offerings from today's manufacturers??

Nope.

 

But if B3 or Rhodes would be developed only today, hardly anyone would care about them

 

[ManInTheBox]

blue screen, do you mind expanding on that idea?? I don't think I follow.

[JeffLearman]

I think he has a point. Imitative instruments are so close to the original now that they only get compared with the original, and folks tend not to learn to use them as whole new instruments.

 

Back in the days, folks would get a Hammond organ (in church) because they couldn't afford a pipe organ. And pretty soon, some fine Gospel music would be coming out of those babies. Next thing, blues & jazz players hear about how cool they sound and don't give a rip they don't sound like a pipe organ. So they add a Leslie to it (much to Mr. Hammond's chagrin) and make it even cooler.

 

Similar thing with Rhodes: folks got 'em because they were keyboard players who didn't want to lug a piano. But they played the instrument in hand, not the instrument it was trying to imitate.

 

How often do you hear anyone play an epiano with a realistic sound, but use an expression pedal to make it sound nothing like a piano? Or, another sound I think is very cool: layered piano and Hammond. That sound really kicks ass but I think I have yet to hear it on a commercial recording.

 

I think it's because the imitations are so close now, we're trying to play the thing being imitated, rather than actually playing the instrument at hand to its fullest.

 

That's only one factor, though. The other very important factor is that it was the hairy part that gave these instruments their lovely attributes. But digital instruments have very little hair. When they're not doing what they're designed to do, they usually sound like total crap, rather than something unexpectdly lovely.

 

Not that it can't be done or isn't being done. It's just the minority, by a long shot.

[Phred]

1

[burningbusch]

The two things that separates the electro-mechanicals from the digital are:

 

a) With the electro-mechanical, the action, sound, limitations and possibilies of the instrument directly affect how people played it. You play a Hammond differently than a Clav or Rhodes. I even approach a Whurly vs. Rhodes somewhat differently. While not an electro-mechanical, the limitations (monophonic) and possibilities of the Minimoog forced players to change their approach. The result, a whole bunch of new techniques came out for lead and bass synth playing.

 

Of the many digital synths I've owned only a very few have changed my approach to playing. First the Yamaha Vl1, largerly because it required learning how to use the breath controller. Also, the dynamic range of the VL1, if programmed properly is huge, making it an extremely expressive instrument. The V-Synth to a lesser degree. There are some patches that I used (more from the vocal side of it) that are so interesting to play in certain ways, that I change how I would normally play in order to get that out of patch.

 

b) The second thing about the electro-mechanicals is that they ARE real. There is just something organic about their sound and wonderful about how they respond to the player. I think people focus too much on sound when it comes to the digital emulations and not the playability.

 

Busch.

[RABid]

Originally posted by GovernmentCheck:

... Can you see anything like that happening with any of the latest and greatest offerings from today's manufacturers??

The biggest problem today's keyboards face is longevity. The Hammond and Rhodes had a long time to build a following and for players to develope a style. You can create a unique instrument with Tassman or Nord G2, but not many players will do that.

 

Robert

[burningbusch]

hit quote instead of edit - ignore

[dnile]

I'd have to agree. A modern sampling workstation can make just about any sound you want it to. I think that the thing which makes all vintage keyboard instruments unique - including acoustic keyboard instruments like the piano and harpsichord - is that they all have their own limitations.

 

For example, if the piano had never been invented, I doubt we'd have anything with weighted action - one would imagine that the only reason the piano had weighted action was out of necessity, rather than any preference on the part of the designer. Still, we become used to such limitations as they're what made the instrument unique in the first placec

 

Having said that, I guess I just can't see any of the new keyboard instruments becoming "classics" (of course we all have our favorite boards, but mostly it's just a few manufacturors trying to outdo each other at the same thing) because these days almost anything can be emulated - so even if a really innovative electromechanical instrument were to be invented, I doubt it'd capture anything more than a niche market. There's no real point emulating keyboard instruments produced today because on the most part they're only emulating older electromechanical instruments.

 

That's what I think anyway, it's great to hear other people's opinions on the topic.

[Dave Horne]

For example, if the piano had never been invented, I doubt we'd have anything with weighted action - one would imagine that the only reason the piano had weighted action was out of necessity, rather than any preference on the part of the designer.

I personally think the invention of the pianoforte (with its inherent weighted action) would have happened one way or another - it was a logical progression from the keyboards that did not have the ability to play in many shades of dynamics. Before the pianoforte if you wanted dynamics you added another voice to the one already being used; harpsichords did not have any dynamics, louder meant added another stop to the one already being used.

 

I'm sure harpsichordists were tickled pink to finally be able to play in many shades of dynamics once the pianoforte came into use. Their buddies who played pipe organs had volume pedals and all the other instrumentalists they worked with could all play many shades of dynamics. The harpsichord gets much less use today because it can only be played in layered dynamics (much like my old RMI electric piano).

[dnile]

Good point - the invention of the piano was an inevitability really, I was just using that as a hypothetical situation, although considering how close it's mechanism is to that of the harpsichord I suppose it was a natural progression.

 

And you're just making me jealous by talking about your real electric pianos!

[Garrafon]

Interesting points, and it does not only apply to keyed instruments. When was the last time someone invented a new instrument - not a new digitally capable computer, but a new instrument (saxaphone, clarinet, harpsichord, guitar, etc.)?

 

Then, on the point of other instruments, why is it(or how is it) that other instruments came to be? For example, what led to the inspiration and development of the saxophone? Why wasn't the flute or oboe good enough? I don't know the answer, but I'm guessing Adolphe Sax was trying to reproduce another type of horn.

 

If we accept the proposition that other instruments (woodwinds for example) were developed for uniqueness rather than their ability to mimic another already developed instrument, why is it that peopl are not creating new keyboard-related instruments for their own individual sound as opposed to merely trying to mimic pre-existing sounds?

[ITGITC]

Originally posted by garrafon:

When was the last time someone invented a new instrument?

 

Now that's a silly question.

 

Why in the world would someone want to invent a new instrument when we've got digital keyboards that can be programmed to produce most any sound we can think of?

 

Why would someone spend the time to do this when most folks don't even bother reading the user manual, let alone study up to figure out how to tweak the factory sounds on instruments they purchase?

 

We've come so far with digital instruments that it makes no sense at all to go back to using wood, horse hair, reeds, brass, etc.

 

First of all, these instruments would cost inordinate amounts of money to produce and would therefore be out of reach of much of the general public to purchase. Secondly, it's just too easy to get great sounds from electronics, so why bother?

 

A new instrument made of wood, brass, steel, etc.?

 

Not in our lifetime.

[Garrafon]

Originally posted by Is There Gas in the Car?:

Secondly, it's just too easy to get great sounds from electronics, so why bother?

 

A new instrument made of wood, brass, steel, etc.?

 

Not in our lifetime.

Now, I'm not sure if your response was somewhat tongue in cheek, but in case it was not, I will answer the question "why bother" as I'm ducking down from things being thrown at me.....because they sound BETTER and generally offer dynamic control on many different levels. Granted, there are some classic synth sounds, but name an electronically derived instrument that has become a staple instrument. I can't think of any (which doesn't mean there isn't one, just shows the limitations of my brain (or what's left of it)).

 

As we speak, I am developing the Garraphone...a new instrument made of wood, brass and steel.

[guestuserguestuser.com]

Originally posted by Is There Gas in the Car?:

Now that's a silly question.

 

Why in the world would someone want to invent a new instrument when we've got digital keyboards that can be programmed to produce most any sound we can think of?

 

Why would someone spend the time to do this when most folks don't even bother reading the user manual, let alone study up to figure out how to tweak the factory sounds on instruments they purchase?

 

We've come so far with digital instruments that it makes no sense at all to go back to using wood, horse hair, reeds, brass, etc.

 

First of all, these instruments would cost inordinate amounts of money to produce and would therefore be out of reach of much of the general public to purchase. Secondly, it's just too easy to get great sounds from electronics, so why bother?

 

A new instrument made of wood, brass, steel, etc.?

 

Not in our lifetime.

Tom, I think you're an intelligent and funny guy.

 

But what you wrote above is utter rubbish.

 

Digital instruments can be programmed to produce a variety of sounds yes, and yes, they can produce good sounds. But they cannot be programmed to produce "any sound we can think of", and are still not even remotely close in quality to real acoustic instruments, or even electro-mechanical instruments. And their user interfaces have a long, long way to go.

 

Please, spend a few hours or days re-thinking your position on this.

[Garrafon]

And clearly any new instrument would NOT use horse hair, but sheep's wool.

[ITGITC]

Originally posted by Floyd Tatum:

But what you wrote above is utter rubbish.

 

OK. No worries. I won't take this personally.

 

But I've got a question for you, Richard:

 

 

quote:

--------------------------------------------

Originally posted by garrafon:

When was the last time someone invented a new instrument?

 

--------------------------------------------

[ITGITC]

Originally posted by garrafon:

And clearly any new instrument would NOT use horse hair, but sheep's wool.

Exactly!

[iLaw]

New instruments are constantly being invented that go on to be successful performance instruments (rather than toys or curiosities). The Chapman Stick comes to mind. Sometime they stick around, sometimes they don't.

 

I don't know any current ophicleide players, but it wasn't very long ago that is was a rising star in the instrument world, bridging the gap, much like saxophones do now, between woodwinds and brass. Will the Chapman Stick go the way of the ophicleide? Only time (and an occasional virtuoso) will tell.

 

Larry.

[Garrafon]

Very interesting...I checked out the Chapman Stick...I had never heard of it. Thank for you that.

[ITGITC]

Originally posted by garrafon:

Very interesting...I checked out the Chapman Stick...I had never heard of it. Thank for you that.

You never heard of it because no one every plays it.

 

Let's rephrase the question:

 

When was the last time someone invented successful a new instrument?

[Garrafon]

I understand your point, Tom, but I shutter to think that we've seen the last of any development of any great new instruments simply because of the existence of digital technology.

 

But, to follow through on your point, why, then, would sax players continue to play the sax? Why don't they just become keyboard players playing a sax patch? I think I have to agree with Richard on this point.

[ITGITC]

Originally posted by garrafon:

I understand your point, Tom, but I shutter to think that we've seen the last of any development of any great new instruments simply because of the existence of digital technology.

 

But, to follow through on your point, why, then, would sax players continue to play the sax? Why don't they just become keyboard players playing a sax patch? I think I have to agree with Richard on this point.

Yeah. I think I frightened Richard. I was just stirring the pot... playing Devil's Advocate or something.

 

I'd love to see something new on the market. However, I still contend that the development costs plus the manufacturing costs, plus the retail margins would probably make it out of reach for the middle-American consumer.

 

Believe me, I'm not saying that a digital sax is better than a real sax. I'm saying that when it comes down to someone in need of new sounds GETTING a new sound, the straightest path is to get it from a synth or a sampler.

 

(I'm thinking of an example like a guy who writes and performs music for TV shows and movies. He needs a new sound NOW. So, he goes to his digital toys instead of plodding through the design and manufacturing of a new instrument.)

 

So, who is the guy who WILL take the time to design and manufacture a new non-digital instrument?

 

My contention is IT AIN'T GONNA HAPPEN.

 

Ummmm, no offense, Richard. It's just the way I see it. Can I get you a beer?

 

Tom

[guestuserguestuser.com]

Originally posted by Is There Gas in the Car?:

Ummmm, no offense, Richard. It's just the way I see it. Can I get you a beer?

 

Tom

Absolutely! Sorry about the "utter rubbish" remark, I read it somewhere else today on one of the Usenet groups, and it sounded so cool, I was looking for an opportunity to say it myself!

 

I think you're right on a practical level. And yes, digital technology is great (so are analog synths). The last new musical instrument? Hmmm, I dunno. As far as keyboards go, maybe the synthesizer? But of course, that covers a lot of territory, and is still going through development phase. When was the first modular synth made, anyway? Perhaps rhodes and clav and wurlitzer came after that, I'm not sure.

[ITGITC]

It's all good. No worries.

[JeffLearman]

Chapman stick kicks ass, just listen to Tony Levin. It's still a quite new instrument, barely 30 years old if I'm not mistaken. But true, it's not widely used.

 

But lots of new instruments have been invented in the last century or so, with varying degrees of popularity:

 

electronic synthesizer

pedal steel guitar

electric guitar

dobro (resonator guitar)

theramin

saxophone

 

I'm sure there are plenty more I'm neglecting.

 

Note that we see very little use of sax in classical music, because there WAS no sax until recently (what, 19th century?) That sure doesn't make it less of an instrument.

 

Also, synthesis is still evolving. We don't yet know the limits of synthesis, especially digital synthesis.

 

and are still not even remotely close in quality to real acoustic instruments

I disagree with this blithe overgeneralization. There are digital pianos that are far better than real but crappy pianos. You're comparing digital instruments with, in most cases, the best of the real acoustic instruments. And sometimes, inexpensive but excellent instruments, like a big harp upright, that are great for certain genres but horrible for others. And are thus more limited in many ways than the digital simulations you deride.

 

We've all played a lot of crappy real pianos, where we'd have been far happier to have our digital pianos -- even though they sure don't play like a nice big Steinway, Bosendorpher, or Yamaha. Or even like that good Kawai you can find on occasion.

 

How many new instruments were invented in ANY century? I think we're doing pretty well for the last 100 years. Perhaps the last 30 have been slow, but it's because we're developing new ways to produce sound (digitally) -- both old sounds and new sounds.

 

I expect to see a wave of new sounds coming from digital instruments in the next 30 years (no pun intended). Most likely, I won't care much for many of these new sounds, any more than my parents cared for distorted electric guitar.

 

Innovation isn't dead. Far from it. It is shifting into a new realm, though.

[rzzzzz]

Was the last successful new instrument the (scratch) turntable? That went hand in hand with the last major musical genre (which itself is getting a little long in the tooth). I don't know. The new electronics are wonderful, but popular music is pretty static. Some of the more interesting sounds on the fringes like Labradford, God Speed You Black Emporer, and now Sigur Ros, make use of some fairly old keys.

[Tusker]

Learjeff, I like your comments. I think the process of invention is shifting to the user. Especially with modular synthesizers, each "patch", can have extreme changes in tone, pitch, dynamics, timbre, in other words, it is an instrument, not a sound. Another sense in which a patch is becoming an instrument ... depending on how it is programmed the player often has to develop and practise a particular technique for a particular patch.

 

So synthesis is becoming a "make your own instrument" cottage craft. Many of us who would otherwise be working with wood and metal are spending our time working with DSP. The barriers to entry are lower, the results come faster, and the programming tools are often extremely powerful and imaginative.

 

Jerry

[Tusker]

I just noticed that two threads away from this one is a discussion of the Haken Audio Continuum. If you measure it's success by shipped volume it's a failure, but if you measure it by the degree and types of new expression it adds ... well than that's a successful new instrument.

 

Jerry