Sound vs playing

[Phred]

There have always been many posts here about which piano, organ, clav sound sounds better. In a careful lab study people can tell this nuance from that one.

 

However it is my claim that the authenticity of the sound is not nearly as important as how it is played. Meaning that one doesn't need the best sound out there to sound good, as long as the sound is played well...

 

Here is some evidence that I intend to use to back this claim up:

 

http://www.musicplayer.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php?/ubb/get_topic/f/18/t/015680.html#000003 - In this thread kevank posts a clip with the old electro piano sound. The electro does not have one of the most realistic pian sounds, but this clip is evidance that it certainly is musical if you know how to play it.

 

http://www.musicplayer.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php?/ubb/get_topic/f/18/t/016900.html#000000 - This great simulation of a rhodes fooled many people on this forum into thinking it was a real rhodes. Still many people believe that Scarbee has a better rhodes sound...

 

http://www.musicplayer.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php?/ubb/get_topic/f/18/t/017579.html#000007 - pitted three piano sounds at each other. Radio Shack, new Electro piano and S90. Most people thought the radio shack sounded quite good.

 

We are constantly looking for the best sounding this and the most realistic sounding that. I believe that many times good enough is just about perfect.

[ITGITC]

Well of course that's true, Phred.

 

However, if we eliminated all the threads about which piano is best or which amplifier or what a musician carries in his overnight bag, we'd have nothing to talk about.

 

Now would we?

[Dave Horne]

I would use the Kurzweil MicroPiano for concerts and jobs many years ago and I was never 100% happy with it. On one job another pianist sat down and played my piano and the module sounded just fine. The thinness (lack of memory?) I would hear was not apparent as a listener. That was an eye opener for me.

 

There is something to say about the interaction of the player, the keyboard and the sound.

 

I have to say that today the sound of most of the keyboards (at least the ones I've played) are not tiring to listen to. If I can play a four hour job with the same piano patch and I don't get tired from it, it's more than adequate. This is a great time for keyboard players. We spend more time now arguing about splitting hairs - most of the products are at a very high level.

[Steve Nathan]

Your post made me instantly think of the highly charged debate that is raging here over what board did Winwood use on the recording of "Arc of a Diver"

 

Put the exact same instrument in the hands of most of us, and it will still never sound the same as it does when Steve plays it.

 

There is an old story about Chet Atkins. He was playing a guitar on the deck of a cruise ship when a passenger came up and remarked "what a great sounding guitar" it was. Chet handed it to him and said "How does it sound now"?

[Mr. Nightime]

I was looking for a good thread to make my 500th post, and I think this is the one.

 

I've always known that it can be difficult to find the sound you want. What you hear in your little corner of the stage can be, and often is, quite different from what is heard out in the audience.

 

2 weeks ago I played a gig where I had to set up so close to my rig that all I could hear was mud. No clarity at all. Yet, the general concensus was that my sound was right as it should be, with plenty of punch and clarity. I'm playing the same place tonight, and I'm setting my amp considerably different....I'm leaving it at home. I'll run a mix of my boards through the mains and my powered hot spot. Interesting to see how that works.

 

I've had other players play my rig before, and I've used that to tweak my normal cabinet positioning. Now what I hear on stage is very close to what is going out front, so I can play accordingly.

 

There is something to say about the interaction of the player, the keyboard and the sound.

I couldn't agree more. That's why it is actually difficult to hear what your rig sounds like out front. Sure, you can get someone else to play on your boards, but their touch and approach will be different from yours, so the sound will be different. I've known a lot of players that will get behind my kit, see the Hammond, and immediately pull out all the drawbars and kick the Leslie speed to fast, leaving it there all the time. I don't play that way, so that's a poor representation of my sound.

 

There have been many posts saying that the Korg SP200 has one of the poorest piano sounds out there. Well, in my hands, through my amp rig, it has exactly the sound I want. Kinda proves phred's point.

[TommyBoy]

There is some importance to the quality of the sound, however.

 

On my S90ES the Natural S piano is just incredible. After playing it for a minutes and switching to the Full Grand piano, the same one included in the Motif ES series, the difference is astonishing. I literally think to myself that there is no way I could be happy with that piano. When listening to headphones (90% of how I play my 90ES) I am so glad I have that piano.

 

In a smokey bar competing with four other instruments, beer-drinking, chatter, dancing and a PA system? Well hell, I guess I could use the ragtime piano setting and be happy with it.

 

By the way, I absolutely hate that setting.

 

Tommy

[Phred]

Steve,

 

Great story, and hits exactly what I was refering to. I know a lot of songs that I listen to has B3, clav, Piano, Rhodes, Synths, yadda yadda in them. I can honestly tell you that for the most part (there are always exceptions), if I like the playing, I like the sound. A decent sound can enhance, but not replace, a great player.

[JeffLearman]

Gee, I wish Chet would have handed that guitar to me!

[Phred]

Mr. Nighttime - I'll join you in here for 500th post.

 

I used to have a Trinity that had the great demos written and performed by Stephen Kay. They had what I thought of at the time as some really kick a$$ guitar sounds. The wokka wokka funk/disco sounding things. I 'stole' the sounds, effects and all and proceeded to play my newly found guitar sounds... They sounded terrible. I didn't know what I was doing.

[burningbusch]

I have a slightly different take on what you're saying. I am a big proponent of playability, i.e. does it play like the real thing. I distinquish this from authenticity which is, does it sound like the real thing. Sampling is great for authenticity but lousy for playability.

 

A physically modeled version amost always plays better than the best sampled versions.

 

Sampling a sax or flute sounds more like the real thing, but the Yamaha VL1 plays MUCH more like a instrument. It's vastly more expressive.

 

Mr Ray 73, EVP88 or Lounge Lizard 3 are for me much more interesting to play than the best sampled Rhodes because they react to my touch more like the real thing. It's not just the fact they have NO velocity switch points it's that they're programmed to react to how you play, for example repeated notes.

 

I've always preferred modeled B3s vs. sampled. EVD6 kills anything else out there for clav playing.

 

Take a cliche FM EP sound and compare the difference in playability using FM7 vs. any ROMpler version. FM7 is expressive. It's really sad that ROMplers can't come close to matching the playability of this early, primitive, digital synth. The progress made in digital synths was done largely in terms of authenticity, at the expense of playability.

 

Physical modeling trumps sampling for playing everytime.

 

Busch.

[Jazzwee]

I deal with this question daily. I try to play piano in all my free time. This includes the time I'm sitting in a car waiting for my kids to finish some lesson.

 

To accomplish this, I have my computer with my softsynths and my new EMU X-Board 49. During actual formal practice time I use the S90ES. Rarely do I use the real acoustic piano.

 

My point is that it is not the actual sound coming out of the piano that is so bad, it is the expressiveness of the instrument that affects playing directly.

 

When I'm using a softsynth with only 3 distinct velocity layers (forget the semi weighted). Or try a softsynth with just 1 velocity layer. It is difficult to feel the same sense of inspiration as the S90ES piano sound.

 

The issue here is expressiveness of dynamics. So it is not an issue that the audience is dealing with the sound. It is an issue of the player feeling some sense of control from the depth of his touch. When I start to lose control (because the velocity switching is too abrupt and the samples are too far apart in sound), it shakes me up and messes up my ear.

 

I have no experience for example with an RD700SX. It gets good reviews here. Thus, my conclusion is that the difference between an S90ES and RD700SX must by miniscule as I am sure each player here has the same desire for expressiveness. And I also know too that my "free" softsynths are not in the same ballpark.

 

And not to disagree with you Steve, but this really cannot be compared to a stringed instrument like a guitar because expressiveness on a guitar is limitless and controlled directly by ones fingers. A guitar with a bad neck affects ones playing as well (but can be compensated with strong fingers). The expressiveness of a digital is limited to how velocity switching is handled.

 

To solve this softsynth issue, when I need to feel the expression of the keys, I switch to MrRay73. As a modeled softsynth, it is able to react to my touch at all velocities. Is it a real Rhodes? Doesn't matter. Do I need Scarbee? Does not matter.

[Blue JC]

I subbed on drums last night with an older Jazz/Blues organist who gave up his Hammond and Leslies about 20 years ago in favor of two DX7s and a Rube Goldberg contraption of guitar stompboxes (phase shifters, chorus pedals, etc.)

 

When he first did this, I was skeptical that he could pull it off - but he did and it was amazing. It had everything to do with the way he played and much less to do with the organ patches on the DX7s.

 

Now, he has evolved his rig into a completely unique instrument. He has grown into his sound and made it "more than organ" (if that makes any sense) simply by the way he approaches his instrument.

[Dave Pierce]

Lot of good points here. I'll add one thing:

 

I use a Motion-Sound for my rotary, not because I think the audience can tell the difference between that and the Electro's digital sim. Once the Motion-Sound is mic'ed and run through the PA, it's quite possible that the sim would sound better through the PA.

 

But the sense of actually moving air inspires me, and makes me play better.

 

Or at least that's what I tell myself.

 

--Dave

[Phred]

Yes!!! Well worded. Good sounds, actions, Speakers, stereo speakers, etc, make ME play better. Which contributes to my overall sound.

[Mr. Nightime]

I have to agree. If the kit I'm playing on sounds like shit, there's no inspiration, so I just go through the motions. But if it sounds great, my overall expressivness and pure joy of playing comes through.

[Prague]

I'd like a keyboard player that can learn a song and show up for rehearsal.

[RABid]

Long ago I was playing guitar in a band. Even though I had a really nice curly maple top Gibson Les Paul I was never happy with the sound I was getting from my amp. Then I met a guitarist that could make the cheapest piece of crap guitar/amp combo sound great. It dawned on me that the problem was not the amp. Luckily I could make a Sears-Roebuck drum set sound good and I had sense enough to give up playing guitar in public.

 

That taught me that the player is more important than the sound than the instrument, and forged my view that the playability of a keyboard is more important than the sound. I seem to remember starting a thread a while back asking what people consider to be more important in a keyboard, sound or playability, and most people chose sound.

 

Robert

[Mr. Nightime]

Originally posted by Prague:

I'd like a keyboard player that can learn a song and show up for rehearsal.

Hey, our last rehearsal was cancelled because of our drummer.

 

When we rehearse the rest of the band can have done their homework and I haven't, but I still learn the song faster than they do. I'm the band's teacher.

[Unsound Practices]

I'll add a twist to the topic... my ability to generate good sounds and a tone that fits in the band mix at the right volume is a stronger attribute of me as a keyboard player than my playing ability. I have below-average chops and must strive to improve daily (2+ hours of practice per day), but what has been getting me work in the cover band is:

 

1. Good gear, knowing that gear, and getting the right tone.

2. Learning the music.

3. Punctual for rehearsals.

 

There are dozens of ABRSM Grade 8 folks in my town who can play circles around me, but for some reason they would never consider investing in anything other than the PSR range, and if they did, would surf presets (and usually between songs... live!)

 

So for me, it's been sound before chops... but I recognize that and am working on my chops daily!

[realtrance]

Definitely it's the player that's at the root of the sound.

 

All the rest is ultimately a question of what YOU find inspiring in your playing. That is a different answer for pretty much every person on this board.

[Michelle ggurl]

Originally posted by Phred:

However it is my claim that the authenticity of the sound is not nearly as important as how it is played. Meaning that one doesn't need the best sound out there to sound good, as long as the sound is played well...

I'd have to agree for the most part. All I can add to this from my own personal experience is, when I practice and play more, I tend to sound better, regardless of the keyboard I sit down to play. I can't say time spent talking about or shopping for new gear has the same positive effect on my playing.

 

I'm not trying to be a smart-ass, I mean that as a real observation from my personal experience. (you know, those times when you spend all your free hours in a given week trolling music stores trying out a bunch of different boards instead of actually practicing ...)

 

I like Burningbusch's comment about distinguishing between playability and accurate sound reproduction, tho. Definitely playability is important. I dig my Nord Electro and think of is as pretty "accurate," but it's probably the playability and what I've heard (and used) termed its "vibe". I never thought about samples versus modeled instruments for playability, that's interesting. Those of you who play a lot of soft synths and soft versions of EP and pianos, what do you think? Are any of those modeled, and if not, do you think playability suffers (like for example, Jazzwee recounting limited velocity information of a soft piano when compared to the S90)?

[Jazzwee]

Geekgurl,

 

When I posted my comment, apparently Busch and I did it at the same time so I did not see his post then. But definitely, the modeled synths like MrRay73 are very expressive as Busch says. I don't think there is any "free piano" that is expressive. I've seen lots of posts about Ivory being expressive so I'm looking forward to someday when my laptop can handle that softsynth.

 

But here it's interesting since Ivory is not modeled. As I've felt on my S90ES, it is possible to be expressive on a sample. The sound has to react to your fingers and pedal, which can relate to volume and resonance effects in addition to just the sample.

 

If the sample is not adjusted for each velocity in some fashion, the velocity switching becomes unrealistic and affects one's playing and feel as in my piano softsynths. But on the S90ES, it does not sound like obvious switching. So there's some method for making expressive/playable instruments even when sampled it seems (which must also be true of Ivory).

[Bobsk8]

Originally posted by Unsound Practices:

I'll add a twist to the topic... my ability to generate good sounds and a tone that fits in the band mix at the right volume is a stronger attribute of me as a keyboard player than my playing ability. I have below-average chops and must strive to improve daily (2+ hours of practice per day), but what has been getting me work in the cover band is:

 

1. Good gear, knowing that gear, and getting the right tone.

2. Learning the music.

3. Punctual for rehearsals.

 

There are dozens of ABRSM Grade 8 folks in my town who can play circles around me, but for some reason they would never consider investing in anything other than the PSR range, and if they did, would surf presets (and usually between songs... live!)

 

So for me, it's been sound before chops... but I recognize that and am working on my chops daily!

This has always been a gripe of mine, people that are really great players and the gear they bring to a gig and their knowledge of how a keyboard should sound and be played versus an acoustic piano ,never seem to go together. I know a couple of keyboard players where I live that have a rig they use live that just sounds terrible. They show up with a 61 note keyboard that went out of style years ago, a crummy mono amp, and about 3 useful sounds. Then they play chords where the notes are all played in one range on the keyboard, so all you hear is the muddy sound with no definition. They seem to have the attitude that keyboards are not worth putting any effort into and they are doing everyone in the band a favor by just showing up with one, no mater how bad it sounds.

[Michelle ggurl]

Originally posted by Jazzwee:

Geekgurl,

 

When I posted my comment, apparently Busch and I did it at the same time so I did not see his post then. But definitely, the modeled synths like MrRay73 are very expressive as Busch says. I don't think there is any "free piano" that is expressive. I've seen lots of posts about Ivory being expressive so I'm looking forward to someday when my laptop can handle that softsynth.

 

But here it's interesting since Ivory is not modeled. As I've felt on my S90ES, it is possible to be expressive on a sample. The sound has to react to your fingers and pedal, which can relate to volume and resonance effects in addition to just the sample.

 

If the sample is not adjusted for each velocity in some fashion, the velocity switching becomes unrealistic and affects one's playing and feel as in my piano softsynths. But on the S90ES, it does not sound like obvious switching. So there's some method for making expressive/playable instruments even when sampled it seems (which must also be true of Ivory).

Thanks for the insight, Jazzwee. I'm glad to hear playability is not a problem with at least the best of the soft synths ... I know what you mean about the S90 being responsive. I use a Kurzweil PC2, and while it has limitations, I've always appreciated how I can at least adapt to it to make it playable for me. I've worked with some soft synths and the Midi control/response was an issue for me, but I'm sure I didn't do all I needed to make it better.

[Bluescreen]

While the playing abilities are prior to sound for live players and band members, the vast sound possibilities of synths offer a chance for people with minor playing abilities and less talents for composition.

 

I always start with programming a bunch of synthesizer sounds. During programming the sounds often develop a life of their own and give me the inspiration for short tracks.

 

I am a little envious though on people who develop complete tracks in mind before touching the instruments.