Members suitandtieguy Posted September 20, 2005 Members Share Posted September 20, 2005 Originally posted by Fear My Potato It's an issue of the processing power of synthesizers getting more powerful and economical to handle more little tiny things. yeah but what about the whole, you know, being able to move the clavinet to change the feedback, the impact of room humidity on feedback, position, etc tonewheels are child's play, DSPally speaking. it's an oscillator bank and some matrixed gating. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members analogbasss Posted September 20, 2005 Members Share Posted September 20, 2005 It will take time and processing power to get the design right, but will eventually get close to the original. Right now, the imperfections that contribute to the sound aren't even part of the design. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members The Real MC Posted September 20, 2005 Members Share Posted September 20, 2005 Originally posted by ChipCurtis Of all the sounds that synthesizers try/tried to emulate, the clav seemed the easiest to do. You gotta be kidding. I don't think you ever PLAYED a REAL clavinet. I used to own one until recently. It is one of the most elusive sounds to emulate, very few boards nail it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members analogbasss Posted September 20, 2005 Members Share Posted September 20, 2005 E-Z to make the half-assed ones heard everywhere. Anything of an electro-acoustic nature is hard to re-create convincingly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members ChipCurtis Posted September 20, 2005 Members Share Posted September 20, 2005 Originally posted by The Real MC You gotta be kidding. I don't think you ever PLAYED a REAL clavinet. I used to own one until recently. It is one of the most elusive sounds to emulate, very few boards nail it. [RANT] With regard to waveform/harmonics complexity, it's a HELL of a lot easier to emulate a Clav convincingly than an acoustic piano ever will be. Hey, if you want the 'real feel, air pushing thru the mechanisms, etc.' then just buy a real one and be done with it. People will forever be complaining about digital keyboards' inability to do just about anything, yet they are being sold in the hundreds of thousands every year. Why the constant whining and complaining? Just buy the vintage gear. I'm not pointing the finger at anyone in particular, but I think some of the opinions on this board with regard to vintage gear/sounds are just getting more and more silly. People who own tons of keyboard gear, always lusting after that 'holy grail' that will never exist. Those imperfections of the old electromechanical keyboards were roundly cursed in their day -- if they had the technology to eliminate 'slop' factors, they would have certainly done so, and we would have no imperfections to emulate because nobody would have ever heard them in the first place. Hey, maybe the original Clavinet really DID NOT have enough slop factor, it COULD have been better (more unreliable, more sloppy, more prone to humid conditions!!!). Why not? You all seem to want that stuff, so pile on the imperfections! Hey, how about a new workstation that doesn't even work, because under certain humid conditions, all the circuitry stops functioning! Hey, it's vintage baby! Vintage stuff is supposed to be prone to failure! Long hail imperfections! QUOTE: "yeah but what about the whole, you know, being able to move the clavinet to change the feedback, the impact of room humidity on feedback, position, etc" ....... GIVE ME A FRIGGIN BREAK!!!!! [/RANT] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members ChipCurtis Posted September 20, 2005 Members Share Posted September 20, 2005 http://paul-lehrman.com/insider/1997/07insider.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members tucktronix Posted September 20, 2005 Members Share Posted September 20, 2005 Originally posted by ChipCurtis [RANT] With regard to waveform/harmonics complexity, it's a HELL of a lot easier to emulate a Clav convincingly than an acoustic piano ever will be. Hey, if you want the 'real feel, air pushing thru the mechanisms, etc.' then just buy a real one and be done with it. People will forever be complaining about digital keyboards' inability to do just about anything, yet they are being sold in the hundreds of thousands every year. Why the constant whining and complaining? Just buy the vintage gear. I'm not pointing the finger at anyone in particular, but I think some of the opinions on this board with regard to vintage gear/sounds are just getting more and more silly. People who own tons of keyboard gear, always lusting after that 'holy grail' that will never exist. Those imperfections of the old electromechanical keyboards were roundly cursed in their day -- if they had the technology to eliminate 'slop' factors, they would have certainly done so, and we would have no imperfections to emulate because nobody would have ever heard them in the first place. Hey, maybe the original Clavinet really DID NOT have enough slop factor, it COULD have been better (more unreliable, more sloppy, more prone to humid conditions!!!). Why not? You all seem to want that stuff, so pile on the imperfections! Hey, how about a new workstation that doesn't even work, because under certain humid conditions, all the circuitry stops functioning! Hey, it's vintage baby! Vintage stuff is supposed to be prone to failure! Long hail imperfections! QUOTE: "yeah but what about the whole, you know, being able to move the clavinet to change the feedback, the impact of room humidity on feedback, position, etc" ....... GIVE ME A FRIGGIN BREAK!!!!! [/RANT] ROFLMAO!!! :D Killer post! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members TDman Posted September 20, 2005 Members Share Posted September 20, 2005 True, dat. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members analogbasss Posted September 20, 2005 Members Share Posted September 20, 2005 Quite a silly rant that's rife with really weak logic. Suggesting that the imperfections weren't desirable or intended back in the day and thus aren't good is really missing the point-the vintage sounds were great in part BECAUSE of the imperfections, and it matters not in the least whether these were intentional. All that matters is that the sounds were great, and quite a bit better than the lame emulations foisted on the masses. To suggest an extreme, of creating more imperfections as you're saying-what the hell has that to do with it. The sounds were superb as they were. To suggest that today's ok emulations are good enough is ridiculous-speak only for yourself, or for those who agree with you, but don't go off on silly tangents in speaking for everyone, including the many who have heard the real deal, and can tell the difference, which often translates into different ways of playing, BTW. Maybe we just have better hearing, or care more about nuance. I don't give a sh-- how many thousands are sold, any more than i care how many have eaten at Mcdonald's-some of us are more discriminating than you. The piano and clav comparison's also ludicrous-no one compared the two, until you, and that comparison has nothing to do with creation of the complexity of a real clav in comparison to the so-so, fairly simplistic emulations. Duh. That's the reality, rather than your own interpretation of it. And i'm not interested in always going back to old equipment, as you suggest. That is YOUR dumb suggestion. What is needed is midi-ready, reliable, and much smaller/lighter current versions. That's what those of us who want something better want, not your simplistic black or white solutions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members ChipCurtis Posted September 20, 2005 Members Share Posted September 20, 2005 Originally posted by analogbasss Quite a silly rant that includes really poor logic. Basically suggesting that the imperfections weren't desirable back in the day and thus aren't desirable. Not. Fact is, the vintage sounds were great in part BECAUSE of the imperfections, and it matters not even a bit whether they were intentional. The end result, that included imperfections, just sounded great, period. To suggest an extreme, to go to more imperfections as you're saying, really, who suggests this other than you? Really beside the point.To suggest that today's ok emulations are good enough is ridiculous-speak for yourself, or for those who agree with you, but don't go off on silly tangents in speaking for everyone, including the many who have heard the real deal, and can tell the difference, which often translates into different ways of playing, BTW.Oh, and the piano analogy's also silly-no one compared the two, until you. One being more complex than the other doesn't mean that either is easy to emulate. Duh.That's the reality, rather than your own interpretation of it.. I am not speaking for everybody, where did I say that? It's my opinion. But you do have a lot of revisionist history in your post. The music back then was great because the music ITSELF was great, and the tools were just the only things around to create them with. Our reverence and romanticism for those sounds is just hindsight, after the fact. Focusing on the sounds themselves is just an excuse to create bad or forgettable music. Having the vintage sound, in and of itself, won't save your music. Hypothetical quote from 1968: "I'd take a real Harpsichord over this Clavinet imitation any day". Now, in that sentence, just replace Harpsichord with 'Clavinet' and Clavinet with 'Digital Workstation' and you have a modern interpretation of the same sentence. History repeats itself, but we are often oblivious to history as we revel in current fashions. I have a Rhodes 73 - I know the real deal - and wouldn't suggest that even an Oasys could touch its exact sound - nothing ever will - so then let the Rhodes be the Rhodes and let the synth/workstation be what it is too, they are all valid musical instruments in their own right. Maybe I like the Rhodes emulation from a digital synth better than the actual Rhodes, for certain tracks. It has a different character, and has a right to be seen as its own distinct sound, even if it's an attempted emulation. After alll, the Rhodes was an attempted emulation of a piano itself. And please stop re-editing your post. It seems to be getting more vitriolic with each edit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members analogbasss Posted September 20, 2005 Members Share Posted September 20, 2005 Wrong again. The music was great because of a confluence of events-the music, the instruments, the politics, the musicians and their musical roots, etc. It wasn't ONE thing, but rather a melange of factors, as is often the case with greatness. As far as it being your opinion, you're stating this now, after the fact. You just learned something. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members ChipCurtis Posted September 20, 2005 Members Share Posted September 20, 2005 Perhaps I touched a nerve in you, after all my post and/or that Lehrman article prolly describes you to a tee and you didn't like that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members analogbasss Posted September 20, 2005 Members Share Posted September 20, 2005 Rather than further finger-pointing on your part, which you're fond of, wrap your mind around concepts that you don't agree with that may actually enlighten you. The sound of the instruments was DEFINITELY part of the magic, intentionally or not. Many of the great 60s rock songs used an organ because there wasn't much else to use as an alternative, but the end result just sounded right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members ChipCurtis Posted September 20, 2005 Members Share Posted September 20, 2005 Originally posted by analogbasss Rather than further finger-pointing on your part, which you're fond of, wrap your mind around concepts that you don't agree with that may actually enlighten you.The sound of the instruments was DEFINITELY part of the magic, intentionally or not. Many of the great 60s rock songs used an organ because there wasn't much else to use as an alternative, but the end result just sounded right. Oh, okay, great sage, as I see there are no more concepts for you to learn since you seem to know everything there is to know. Whether it was organ or toy piano, it would have still sounded great for the music piece it was. You are only left to deal with the scraps of history, and agree that they were great. But the organ wasn't the reason. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members suitandtieguy Posted September 20, 2005 Members Share Posted September 20, 2005 not to pick nits, but the Clavinet is an electric clavichord, not an electric harpsichord. Baldwin _did_ make an electric harpsichord. i want one very much. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members analogbasss Posted September 20, 2005 Members Share Posted September 20, 2005 Your weak logic is frightening. You make these grandiose blanket statements as if you're the last word. You have absolutely NO way of knowing whether a facsimilie of a real instrument would have worked as well in a song. There is NO way to separate those variables, genius. You are speculating, making assumptions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members ChipCurtis Posted September 20, 2005 Members Share Posted September 20, 2005 "Confluence of events" ... this puts everything in perspective. Perhaps if modern synthesists/keyboardists/musicians actually relied on EFFORT rather than hoping the Zeitgeist falls into their lap, we'd get better music. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members analogbasss Posted September 20, 2005 Members Share Posted September 20, 2005 Keeping going, making no sense..blah, blah, blah.. Effort's only part of it genius. All variables matter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members ChipCurtis Posted September 20, 2005 Members Share Posted September 20, 2005 No, I'll let you have the final word since you're prolly dying to. Speak loudly for us oh magnificent Dali Lama. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members suitandtieguy Posted September 20, 2005 Members Share Posted September 20, 2005 hey look it's choo choo time: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members tucktronix Posted September 20, 2005 Members Share Posted September 20, 2005 I've always liked trains;) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members elcastigo Posted September 20, 2005 Members Share Posted September 20, 2005 Analogbass makes a good point, though. The way music is made is a complex interaction between player and instrument, so someone playing a clavinet emulation is going to play differently than someone playing the real thing. I think this is an inescapable fact. And it's even that way with digital instruments. And it's actually a very cool thing. Must go... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Alex D Posted September 21, 2005 Author Members Share Posted September 21, 2005 Originally posted by Fear My Potato Fender should buy the rights and reproduce clavinets...they can pull off reissuing anything. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Fear My Potato Posted September 21, 2005 Members Share Posted September 21, 2005 Originally posted by elcastigo Analogbass makes a good point, though. The way music is made is a complex interaction between player and instrument, so someone playing a clavinet emulation is going to play differently than someone playing the real thing. I think this is an inescapable fact. And it's even that way with digital instruments. And it's actually a very cool thing.Must go... EXACTLY That right there is the inherent difference between an instrument and a keyboard. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members ChipCurtis Posted September 22, 2005 Members Share Posted September 22, 2005 Originally posted by Fear My Potato EXACTLY That right there is the inherent difference between an instrument and a keyboard. So this is not an instrument? :confused: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.