Yahoo Tuning Groups Ultimate Backup tuning re: A broad question

[Arthur Green]
> the TX802 is probably your best bet as Mr. Lumma suggests since
> sluggish processing isn't really known to be a problem on the TX802.

I suggested the Proteus 2000, Kurzweil K2000VP, and Korg Triton/MOSS.
I did not suggest any of the FM boxes.

[Rick McGowan]
>The Yamaha TX81Z, a similar but much less expensive box, is *very*
>easy to find used, and is a good way to get started with tuning.

The Yamaha boxes are cool, but they don't provide an easy way to do
realtime key-changes (except perhaps the 802 and FB01?), do they?

[Arthur Green]
> Fatar makes some so-so controller keyboards, but if you have some
> money to spend, I would eye a used 76 or 88 controller keyboard
> (Yamaha, Peavey, Oberheim, and Kurzweil all made one).

May I ask why you prefer these to the Fatars? Fatar actually makes
the actions for Peavey and Kurzweil keyboards. I don't know about
Oberheim. Yamaha does their own, last I heard...

While Fatar's MIDI controllers impress me as being rather poor musical
instruments, they are some of the best on the market, IMO.

Speculating: it strikes me as odd that while the musicality of most
instruments, guitar, flute, violin, etc., is sought after almost to
the point of absurdity, it seems nearly absent in the pursuit of
electronic keyboards. Synthesis is getting better, but surely it
_must_ due to the ever-increasing power of the digital computer. Be
synthesis as it may, the keyboard action itself usually seems like an
afterthought. And why is keyboard usually stuck in the backround
comping, or worse, used only as a sound effect or for a cheap hook
lead? Is it because keyboards aren't musical? Or are both conditions
caused by the way a person playing keyboard doesn't look cool on stage?
Consider what Keith Emerson had to do to gain notoriety...

-Carl

🔗Arthur W. Green <goshawk@crosswinds.net>

Mr. Carl Lumma wrote:
> [Arthur Green]
>> the TX802 is probably your best bet as Mr. Lumma suggests since
>> sluggish processing isn't really known to be a problem on the TX802.
>
> I suggested the Proteus 2000, Kurzweil K2000VP, and Korg Triton/MOSS.
> I did not suggest any of the FM boxes.
>
My apologies for confusing you with someone else.

From what I have heard, the Kurzweil K2000/K2500/K2600 synthesizers are
apparently some of the stronger machines in the areas of microtonality. But
unfortunately, they aren't particularly cheap even if you use the retailers
in Europe. It kind of surprises me how the price of the K2000 holds very
steadfast, despite being in production for how long (the original non-VP
K2000's differ only by the presets)? Oh well...

> [Rick McGowan]
>> The Yamaha TX81Z, a similar but much less expensive box, is *very*
>> easy to find used, and is a good way to get started with tuning.
>
> The Yamaha boxes are cool, but they don't provide an easy way to do
> realtime key-changes (except perhaps the 802 and FB01?), do they?
>
I don't believe they provide this straight-forwardly, as I know my TX81Z
does not do this without some manner of trickery involved.

One example of a synthesizer that allows real-time key changes is the
Kurzweil K150. It basically utilizes the lowest most MIDI notes (0-11) for
the purpose of changing the "reference key" in a given scale without
altering the transposition (jeez, I would hope so). While, this is all very
convenient and cool, the K150 is limited to octave scaling (fixated at
twelve note scales, but 650 +/- cents for each note in that scale) and also
somewhat of a hassle to create voices for using the Apple II for what most
people care. I do not know if the K1000/1000 or any of the other Kurzweil
synthesizers have implemented this since, maybe worth checking into. The DKI
Synergy to my knowledge may also provide this facility.

Microtuning is often an afterthought as you know, and I am not sure
manufacturers really grasp the detail of alternative scales to begin with
(nor do most people I think). So, it doesn't surprise me that X or Y synth
is advertised on some level as "microtonal capable" when really it doesn't
provide much more than rudimentary modification of preset octave-based
scales and so forth.
> [Arthur Green]
>> Fatar makes some so-so controller keyboards, but if you have some
>> money to spend, I would eye a used 76 or 88 controller keyboard
>> (Yamaha, Peavey, Oberheim, and Kurzweil all made one).
>
> May I ask why you prefer these to the Fatars? Fatar actually makes
> the actions for Peavey and Kurzweil keyboards. I don't know about
> Oberheim. Yamaha does their own, last I heard...
>
My preference for the other brands listed is primarily the degree of control
they provide the user, as opposed to anything to do with the action or
"feel". Kurzweil used to do business with Pratt-Reed and Hammond-Suzuki for
their older keyboards (especially the latter when PR was having some
"difficulties").

Oberheim produced the MC2000 and the MC3000, which all in all, seem to be
rather decent controllers (especially the latter). But, I doubt that
Oberheim produced their own action as well, so it may very well be Fatar or
some Japanese brand.

Now that I think of it, Doepfer seems to produce some half-decent
controllers, too. Ditto on the action, though.

> While Fatar's MIDI controllers impress me as being rather poor musical
> instruments, they are some of the best on the market, IMO.
>
> Speculating: it strikes me as odd that while the musicality of most
> instruments, guitar, flute, violin, etc., is sought after almost to
> the point of absurdity, it seems nearly absent in the pursuit of
> electronic keyboards. Synthesis is getting better, but surely it
> _must_ be due to the ever-increasing power of the digital computer. Be
> synthesis as it may, the keyboard action itself usually seems like an
> afterthought. And why is keyboard usually stuck in the backround
> comping, or worse, used only as a sound effect or for a cheap hook
> lead? Is it because keyboards aren't musical? Or are both conditions
> caused by the way a person playing keyboard doesn't look cool on stage?
> Consider what Keith Emerson had to do to gain notoriety...
While, the Silicon-Valley "guys" and the netheads would like to say
otherwise, I think we are dealing with a very conservative and
backward-looking society (since the 90's especially). Not merely with
musical instruments either, as even pop music, which I think often
represents the focus of the general public, has looked to swing among other
things.

But consider the electronic instrument, since the days it left the
avant-garde "so to speak", it has led a very problematic life against a very
conservative public. Wendy Carlos had mentioned regarding her first
"Switched-On Bach" recording that at first, the album's title credits were
given to the "Moog Synthesizer". Even since then, the public's image of the
synthesizer hasn't really changed all that much from the days of the "album
that was played by the machine". It seems clear to me that the public AND
the record industry still really have no idea what a synthesizer really is
beyond what has been persued to the "point of absurdity".

Even regarding synthesis, this too seems like an afterthought sometimes. I
can sort of understand why the retro analogue crowds would throw sticks at
the digital world, when the primary use of digital technology is to roughly
obtain or surpass the "apparent" performance of the equivalent analogue
technology for a fraction of the cost. So in their defense, if the only
example they saw of digitals were corner cut "budget" machines, I can see
why they might be a little leary of digital machines to say the least .
Although, I still can't rationalize this since there have been a very
adequate quantity of good examples as well, in my opinion.

Of course, the real reason for "corner-cutting" I think is cost. In my
opinion, it is not really possible to make an instrument with the necessary
power and produce an instrument of good to high quality, and hope to confine
to some limit of affordability. On top of that, most keyboards that provided
that power and precision that many us need or would enjoy immensely have
proven quite literally to be market bombs, as the
understanding/comprehension and required time to "master" such instruments
far exceeds the general public's limits of tolerance (which generally seems
to be too small for comfort at times for us who want to see more of what
electronic instruments have to offer).

As far as the electronic instrument in live performance, it's the effect of
the keyboard on a very conservative public. Most people's comprehension of
the synthesizer is that it somehow makes the player's life easier, and that
it does not require the same kind of level of musicianship to play good
music on a synthesizer as it does on a conventional instrument. The public's
comprehension is that the keyboard cannot produce musically interesting
results that cannot be obtained by the "real thing", and that electronics
merely produce funny noises and mock imitations of "real instruments".

If you consider "sought after almost to the point of absurdity", if may be
also something to consider that maybe even most MUSICIANS don't really know
what a synthesizer is.

[speaking of electronic instruments in live performance, take a look at
'http://www.electronic-mall.com/heavenbound' when you have the chance. It is
not my instrument or webpage of course, but I would be very interested in
what you think of it.]

>
> -Carl

Take care. =)

-- Art

🔗Rick McGowan <rmcgowan@apple.com>

🔗Arthur W. Green <goshawk@crosswinds.net>

🔗Carl Lumma <CLUMMA@NNI.COM>

🔗Arthur W. Green <goshawk@crosswinds.net>

>>> The Yamaha boxes are cool, but they don't provide an easy way to do
>>> realtime key-changes (except perhaps the 802 and FB01?), do they?
>>
>> I don't believe they provide this straight-forwardly, as I know my TX81Z
>> does not do this without some manner of trickery involved.
>
> The FB01 has unmatched flexibility of tuning, but no native control for
> it. You'd have to write your own software, as Jules Siegel did. The 802
> has a chance, but how long does a sysex tuning change take? What happens
> to sounding notes during a retune, etc.?
>
I am not totally sure about the TX802, but I am willing to bet the TX81Z
doesn't stand a chance in comparison. I have tried.

>
>> Of course, the real reason for "corner-cutting" I think is cost. In my
>> opinion, it is not really possible to make an instrument with the
>> necessary power and produce an instrument of good to high quality, and
>> hope to confine to some limit of affordability.
>
> I will beg to differ with this opinion. Electronic keyboards that give
> musical response should not be any more costly than what we have now.
> No special materials should be necessary, or workings too intricate for
> consistent mass production. As far as I can see, it's simply a matter of
> thoughtful design.
>
Well, I tend to call anything with substandard quality control or stuff
ridden with cheaper quality plastic lining pretty much the entire
instrument, and displays that begin to show deterioration over the course of
about six months of regular use something subject to "corner-cutting".

While, I will agree with you that thoughtful design goes a long way, I don't
it can entirely break the wall of quality materials. In fact, I think a lot
of what thoughtful design is about consists of choosing materials that can
take the "use" and "abuse" over the life of the instrument. Especially in
the area of moving parts and displays, I think choosing cheaper materials
can rarely be compensated for by thoughtful design, as these parts do tend
to break or malfunction under normal operating conditions.

>
> -Carl
>
Thanks Carl! =)

-- Art

🔗Darren Burgess <DBURGESS@ACCELERATION.NET>

🔗Patrick Grant <pg@strangemusic.com>

Hi everybody,

Wow, my first post to the list!

Personally, I've found that the Kurzweils have been excellent
instruments for their microtunability. In response to someone's query as
to why the K2000 has pretty much kept its market price the answer is
simple: they're the only mass producer of electronic instruments that I
know of that have truly kept the promise of future software updates not
rendering a particular model obsolete. They're really good at this.

The other half of my gear is Korg. David Beardsley is correct in
recommending the X5. I picked up 2 of these rack mounts for a song at
Sam Ash last year. They're probably cheaper now if they're still around.
The only drawback is that they have only one user definable tuning.
Still, its how I got my start and highly recommend it. A great module
for scales of twelve or less pitches.

I've had my Trinity for 3 years now and it has held up excellently,
especially when one considers it gets moved around a lot. I also have
the Triton which is my favorite to use, even over the Kurzweils, because
of its ease of use.

I especially like the Triton because of its multitimbrality and the fact
that each of the 16 programs can have its own tuning. So, even though
each key only goes up or down 100 cents, programs, when use in
combination and each in their own tuning and MIDI channel, can pretty
much produce whatever scale one wants. This can also be aided octave
shifting where, even though each hand is playing in different physical
octaves, the sound produced would be within the same. Also great for
quasi-bariolage FX.

When working with a computer, I've had success in working more visually
in that I like to assign different pitches to different MIDI channels
(which read as staves in my programs) in order to better sort out what
is going on sonically.