Joined: May 23 2013
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Points: 2839
Posted: March 21 2016 at 10:22
Hi Son of Tiresias - if you're interested in early analogue synthesizers, have a look at my "The mighty modular synth" thread on here. I built a Eurorack format modular myself (at component level) recently and do analogue synth based music in the style of early Tangerine Dream.
Joined: May 23 2013
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Points: 2839
Posted: March 21 2016 at 10:15
Just to get the technical side of things clear.
Keith Emerson's Moog Modular was - for the time - ludicrously complicated. (Matter of fact, he had it patched up by a technician in a very simple fashion, though. Or so rumour has it.)
Kraftwerks' Minimoog D was very, very simple.
If I put anyone in front of a Minimoog and said, right, just to give you an idea..... nearly anyone could make a noise come out within a few minutes. By 1976'ish, the technology had moved on from complicated modulars to more simple "normalised" synths, such as the ARP 2600 and Minimoog. (Incidentally, an ARP Quadra counted as being "ridiculously simple to use"....... ????? )
Normalised means that the synth is internally connected in a logical manner. The oscillators connect to, say, a filter which connects to an amplifier. Connecting this up by hand is a pain but (on modulars) you can connect other modules in (ie ring modulators, Bode filters etc) to create an entirely different sound. With a normalised, "simple" synth such as a Minimoog, that's the way it works and you're stuck with it.
As time went on, *sounds* were becoming simpler and simpler to produce, but these sounds weren't really anything like the complexity which could be produced using modular systems. Modular systems are much harder to use and much more monolithic, but they offer more creative possibilities and that's the only reason why I use one. Believe you me, you wouldn't want to go through the pain of using a modular on stage if there wasn't a good reason for doing so.
Kraftwerk are *not* part of this early modular synth movement, they come in using much less complicated synths which were designed for every musician.
The early Minimoog was temperamental - the oscillators used to drift out of tune due to poor electronics and heat. (Its' Russian equivalent, the Polivoks, required a re-tune every 20 minutes of playing, and even now, whilst modern electronics are better, I still have to do regular re-tunes of all my kit.)
From a perspective of innovation, remember, this is the early / mid 1970's and for a band to even use a synth of any description was revolutionary. By about 1976-7, synths had changed, down to a basic level of complexity as can be seen in Mosh's (software) Jupiter 8. Anyone could use them. And they certainly did. Synthesizers didn't replace keyboards at all, you still saw plenty of Hammonds and Rhodeses and Elkas on stage.
What did Kraftwerk do that was innovative ? Well. It's mainly down to image - they certainly came well marketed - and sound. The "Moog with no resonance filter" sound had not really appeared much before, neither had completely pared down music. I think Autobahn is a very clever album. However, after that, like Tangerine Dream, the ideas seem to run out and commercialism takes over. I'm not criticising anyone elses' tastes, honestly, if you like it, fine.
Without Kraftwerk, a lot of later bands such as OMD and Soft Cell wouldn't have come along - no synth pop or New Wave. I grew up just before New Wave came along and remember finding it just musically worthless and awful - personal opinion.
We've mentioned Keith Emerson already - what Emerson did was fabulous, involving technical expertise, innovation and superb musicianship. Tangerine Dream were technically fabulous for the time and incredibly innovative. Kraftwerk ? Ah well. One idea. Done to death, I would argue.
I'm not trying to upset the Kraftwerk fans here. Honestly. What I'm saying is that without an actual proper understanding of the development of early synths from, say, the late 60's to the mid 70's, you can't understand whether or not Kraftwerk were technically innovative. Sonically ? Well. A new idea which caught on and influenced a lot of bands which came along. But if you say that, you can argue that disco did very much the same in the mid 70's. Or punk.
I agree fully with the comment that simplicity or complexity is nothing to do with how good a piece of music is, but that's really a throwaway, non specific comment, we're talking about an example here and not an arbitrary rule of thumb - or soundbite. They're just not for me. That's why. If you like them, good for you.
Joined: May 23 2013
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Points: 2839
Posted: March 21 2016 at 09:51
moshkito wrote:
Davesax1965 wrote:
... Mosh: you need to realise that electronic music bands - early ones - did nothing "simplistic", in that not many of them "just turned a knob with an effect on it" and that Tangerine Dream "didn't turn a knob with an effect on it for five minutes and disguise it as music more successfully." ...
You are mis-interpreting the post ... and how it came out ... it was not simplistic in that learning how to play those things and what to do was ridiculously difficult to the point that not many folks could really do it right.
By today's standards, it feels like a simple turning of the knobs on a VST ... which is what an audience today would know, and not realize the difficulty, in setting those things up and getting the right noise along, and what not.
But the idea for creating music with a "sound", was new, and the synthesizer was the perfect instrument to do it with ... there was not an "idea" or "thought" associated with that sound, and it helped create a lot of music ... it's just a shame that most of it became just another keyboard replacement, instead of an instrument in its own right.
There are many folks today, that are hoping to reclaim the synthesizer as a proper instrument, and leave the workstations to replace musicians!
As time went on, these sounds became easier to do and create and repeat ... and now are so simple, even a dummy like me can do many of these on my Arturia V8 software on my computer! But I have to tell you that my friend in 1976 bought a Quadra (ARP I think it was) and I could not get anything out of that ... and it took him over a year before he could do anything on it, other than piddle!
Mosh, you said "Tangerine Dream .... turned a knob with an effect on it" "and disguised it more musically than others", didn't you ? I don't think I misinterpreted that one. ;-)
No no no, it's not like kindergarten. The question is "why all the hate on Kraftwerk" ?
I don't like them, others do. They are indeed, influential, but my argument is that their influence has produced a great deal of appalling music. Other people will have a contrary opinion. We don't all have to agree. In fact, if we weren't arguing, it'd show we didn't care.
To be honest, I never liked them either. Because they are (among a couple of bands/artists) responsible for the decline of (electronic) Prog. They turned it into simple, even banal pop. Too simple music doesnīt reach my soul in anyway. And as I already said, I am only interested in history. They were very influential, unfortunately.
You may see a smile on Tony Banksī face but thatīs unlikely.
Joined: January 04 2007
Location: Grok City
Status: Offline
Points: 18635
Posted: March 21 2016 at 08:26
Davesax1965 wrote:
... Mosh: you need to realise that electronic music bands - early ones - did nothing "simplistic", in that not many of them "just turned a knob with an effect on it" and that Tangerine Dream "didn't turn a knob with an effect on it for five minutes and disguise it as music more successfully." ...
You are mis-interpreting the post ... and how it came out ... it was not simplistic in that learning how to play those things and what to do was ridiculously difficult to the point that not many folks could really do it right.
By today's standards, it feels like a simple turning of the knobs on a VST ... which is what an audience today would know, and not realize the difficulty, in setting those things up and getting the right noise along, and what not.
But the idea for creating music with a "sound", was new, and the synthesizer was the perfect instrument to do it with ... there was not an "idea" or "thought" associated with that sound, and it helped create a lot of music ... it's just a shame that most of it became just another keyboard replacement, instead of an instrument in its own right.
There are many folks today, that are hoping to reclaim the synthesizer as a proper instrument, and leave the workstations to replace musicians!
As time went on, these sounds became easier to do and create and repeat ... and now are so simple, even a dummy like me can do many of these on my Arturia V8 software on my computer! But I have to tell you that my friend in 1976 bought a Quadra (ARP I think it was) and I could not get anything out of that ... and it took him over a year before he could do anything on it, other than piddle!
Music is not just for listening ... it is for LIVING ... you got to feel it to know what's it about! Not being told! www.pedrosena.com
Joined: September 01 2010
Location: Sohar, Oman
Status: Offline
Points: 1399
Posted: March 21 2016 at 08:09
Indeed, my kids loved 'The Birdie Song'! (I did play Capt. Beefheart at my daughter's birthday party to 'test' the equipment - that nearly ended in divorce...)
Joined: May 23 2013
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Points: 2839
Posted: March 21 2016 at 07:11
Flight123 wrote:
There is no such thing as 'appalling music' but music we don't like! If music was that appalling, no one would listen to it! Back to Kraftwerk, I bought the 'Autobahn' single when it came out - I was 12 and it was like looking into the future. Despite their hard (but ironic) approach to the technical aspects of their music, they used to invite the audience to come on stage and mess around with their equipment. Very few prog musicians would let this happen (Zappa certainly did, as ever the laudable exception) - can you imagine Steve Howe letting a fan get on stage to have a go on his Rickenbacker? I doubt it. I don't 'like' everything they did but they were progressive in the true sense of the word!
In that case, the Birdie Song was "progressive" as well, as nothing like it had been heard before, and it started a whole new genre of music I didn't like. ;-)
Joined: September 01 2010
Location: Sohar, Oman
Status: Offline
Points: 1399
Posted: March 21 2016 at 06:23
There is no such thing as 'appalling music' but music we don't like! If music was that appalling, no one would listen to it! Back to Kraftwerk, I bought the 'Autobahn' single when it came out - I was 12 and it was like looking into the future. Despite their hard (but ironic) approach to the technical aspects of their music, they used to invite the audience to come on stage and mess around with their equipment. Very few prog musicians would let this happen (Zappa certainly did, as ever the laudable exception) - can you imagine Steve Howe letting a fan get on stage to have a go on a highly prized guitar? I doubt it. I don't 'like' everything they did but they were progressive in the true sense of the word!
Joined: May 23 2013
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Points: 2839
Posted: March 21 2016 at 05:53
No no no, it's not like kindergarten. The question is "why all the hate on Kraftwerk" ?
I don't like them, others do. They are indeed, influential, but my argument is that their influence has produced a great deal of appalling music. Other people will have a contrary opinion. We don't all have to agree. In fact, if we weren't arguing, it'd show we didn't care.
Joined: May 23 2013
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Points: 2839
Posted: March 21 2016 at 03:29
Lewian wrote:
Complexity is overrated as an indicator of quality.
Complexity is nothing to do with quality. Neither is simplicity. In fact, it's a logical error to conflate either term.
Quality is to do with good music. In fact, even "quality" is no indicator of "good", if you've read any Robert Pirsig.
By "musically simplistic" I mean "I can't hear any ideas or musicianship" so therefore I don't like Kraftwerk. Personal choice. Music is art, not science, it comes down to personal choice and taste, or lack thereof.
Joined: September 03 2005
Location: Olympus Mons
Status: Offline
Points: 15926
Posted: March 20 2016 at 04:44
For the record ( ) - I don't think there was any digital 'trickery' utilised on those Yes albums. True 'digitalia' wasn't much of a rave until around 1980. This is to my limited knowledge.
Joined: May 23 2013
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Points: 2839
Posted: March 20 2016 at 04:34
Son.of.Tiresias wrote:
Davesax1965 wrote:
Son.of.Tiresias wrote:
Davesax1965 wrote:
The best way, I think, to understand Buggles is to understand that they're rubbish, and then ignore them from there. I cannot pollute my mind with such twaddle. ;-)
There are tons of equipment lists for early Yes - basically, we know Steve Howe's main guitar was a Gibson ES 175. Chris Squier used a Rickenbacker 4001 bass (or was it a 4000 ? ) - anyway, he got the mono version, rewired it to stereo and played through two heads, I seem to recall. Rick Wakeman used a variety of keyboards and synths, but he's most famous for using a Minimoog and a Mellotron.
Not that you can ever recreate the sound, even using the same vintage equipment. You could learn "The Star Spangled Banner" backwards, tap Jimi Hendrix on the shoulder at Woodstock, take the guitar off him half way through........ and you still wouldn't sound like him. ;-)
Yes yes... I understand all this, its very difficult to get the very same sound out again. Did the Yes men use any digital equipment recording "Going for the One" and "Tormato", anywhere in the way from gear to recording desk ? This is very important as you understand as well.
I really shouldn't think so. Tormato is about 1978. Going for the one is 1977. Everything is analogue at that stage. ;-)
Are you sure ? Already in 1973 Robert Fripp uses a Frizzbox/VCS3 Synthesizer with digital Sequencer on "No Pussyfooting" with Brian Eno. Nice KC meets TD feel IMO. So nothing digital really with Yes 1976 - 78 ?
"Digital sequencer" just refers to the construction method of the sequencer. It's nothing to do with the audio. The sequencer I'm operating in the clip below has digital electronics. It outputs a variable voltage (so that part of it is analogue) which goes to a synth, in this case, a Moog Minitaur, which is analogue. The synth picks up the voltage and converts this to a note. The audio output from the synth goes to a valve preamp and then into a PC, where delay and flanging effects are added. Yes, there ARE some digital electronics in here, but the audio path is all analogue. The digital side is where an electronic output or input merely has to be ON or OFF. It would not make any sense to design what is essentially an electronic switch which could be ON OFF or INBETWEEN. ;-)
Matter of fact, even the oscilloscope in the clip is analogue. And valve based. I'm just passing the synth output through it to get an idea of what happens when you run square and sawtooth waves at once. ;-)
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot create polls in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
This page was generated in 0.246 seconds.
Donate monthly and keep PA fast-loading and ad-free forever.
/PAlogo_v2.gif "Progarchives.com Homepage")
Why the hate on Radioakitivitat(Kraftwerk)?
Topic Options
Tom Ozric wrote:
