An amateur musician has reproduced the music and "extended" some of the classic albums of TD :

All extended albums so far:

http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLqf2srRfppHApCMzG4G7cy-JJUwOhT3gL" rel="nofollow - https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLqf2srRfppHApCMzG4G7cy-JJUwOhT3gL

I don't know if the person owns the rights to do publish such exercise but the result is interesting.

Probably about 140 too many. 

When a band reforms with none of the original members, I get the impression they should just go onstage with a bunch of cash registers and set the ching !!! noise to music. 

Davesax1965 wrote: Not two of my favourite Tangerine Dream albums. I'd actually make Hypoborea about 30 minutes shorter. ;-)

Not Stratosfear? That and Force Majeure are easily their best '70s offerings, plus Sorcerer as the obligatory soundtrack. 

The sequences, yes. The atmospheres and melodies are another matter. There have been many more hits than misses in the decades since, with one of the best latter-day efforts being Arc's Fracture, a standout against the myriad dodgy attempts from the UK, USA and other regions. Stratosfear's title track is simply a marvel. What I love about Mark Shreeve's post-Assassin records are their decidedly non-Berlin aesthetic.

philipemery wrote: They have 150+ albums... why do we need more Tangerine Dream at this point? They already have more than I am even going to attempt listening to.

Looks like they're only tackling classic era albums, i.e. mid-70s - mid-80s. That stuff's a big influence on the synthwave scene nowadays. You'll never hear an "extended" version of Mars Polaris, trust me!

I mean it is rather interesting that people are doing this... but it is Tangerine Dream... their music goes on far longer than welcome as is. Making it even more arduous. That being said, the people who did this are pretty competent at imitating Tangerine Dream. But as was said above, it isn't that technically impressive to do so.[/QUOTE] 

It's just looping. There's no playing involved. Sounds like they just connected most of the tracks end to end. I have to admit, I like the extended version of "Le Parc." Those are some of the best sequences to ever punctuate the airwaves.

I concur we certainly didn't need a longer version of "Sphinx Lightning." They don't need to mess with any of Poland's four sides, either. That thing's perfect as is.

philipemery wrote: I'd argue that no one tries to imitate their later work because it is sub-standard and not at all memorable compared to their earlier stuff.

Personally, I find that early material of 90's electronica / IDM bands - such as Aphex Twin, Autechre or Plone - share great similarities with passages from Hyperborea and Poland. So, although not as groundbreaking and mesmerizing as in the 70's, I consider TD's early 80's time period to be influential.

Yes, that's their VERY late work - ie from 1990, post Paul Haslinger. I don't think anyone finds that memorable. Their 'later than Peter Baumann' work, around 1978-86, was I would argue mainly memorable stuff. 

TD's had a few conservatory-trained keyboardists: Johannes Schmoelling (1980-86) and Paul Haslinger (1986-1990), and Thorsten Quaeschning was also born into a family of classical musicians and is a multi-instrumentalist. 

philipemery wrote: We must have very different opinions of what quantifies as memorable lol.

 

If you don't enjoy TD's output circa 1973-1987, at a minimum, meaning the albums/soundtracks/live records beginning with Phaedra and ending with Livemiles, they're not a band you'll get into. They've been Krautrock, psych, progressive electronic, prog rock, ambient...TD is a band with many hats. And yes, their discography is by no means perfect (it's too large), but it's nothing short of memorable. ;)

Up through 1986, it's absolutely genius level stuff. Nobody else sounds like that. Many have tried. TD consistently led the wave in new synth sounds up until they hit a wall in 1988. Johannes Schmoelling has exhaled melodies that other musicians would rehearse for weeks to stumble upon. Edgar's nuanced guitar stylings are pure pleasure. And it's the economy they often maximized to full effect, allowing rhythms, melodies and middle ground textures to interweave and perfect the overall sound they're known for. As TD's music became more complex in the '90s, it actually became less interesting, more homogenized. Their music suffered.

Nobody will argue Magma isn't a more "complex" band. But Pink Floyd? Nah, not really. Pink Floyd's always been about grooving. They never shot for complexity. Take Gilmour out of the mix and regard what is left over.

As for Gentle Giant, I've never been able to get into them. Something about their songs doesn't sit right. They'll have a splendid guitar solo dropped in the middle of a song I'll find less than engaging. Not a fan of the singing, either. 

Speaking of singing, that's why I don't listen to Magma, either. LOL.

philipemery wrote: I don't call preprogrammed sequencer melodies complex. Time consuming yes. Edgar's guitar style isn't actually that innovative or nuanced (as a guitar player myself I can tell you).

Sequences can e driven to enact melodies, but I was referring to those that Johannes, Edgar, Paul, Thorsten, etc., play with their right/left hands. Think "Beach Scene," "Mojave Plan," the opening of "Tangent," the great piano motif from Side A of Pergamon (aka Quichotte), the entirety of Underwater Sunlight, "Bois de Boulogne," the title suite of Force Majeure, "Hyperborea," Tiergarten," and many other pieces. Then there are the solo albums. There's a wealth of material where this band and its alumni are concerned. (:

I don't disagree. If you refer to my previous post, you'll see the titles of albums I cited as being below par for what we were used to (spoiled with) as TD fans. 

That's a given. But we're not discussing Steve Vai. 

I'm sorry, Philip, but that's not the case. It seems TD "from 1980 onwards" isn't something you're overly familiar with, particularly the following albums: Pergamon, Tangram, Exit, Thief, White Eagle, Hyperborea, Poland, Le Parc, and Underwater Sunlight (which features some of Edgar's most tasteful guitar playing ever). In fact, scattered throughout these picks are tracks that are leaner, and hence meaner, and dripping with excellent sounds (which, depending on who you talk to, can be fifty percent of the draw). 

If post-Seventies TD isn't your thing, that's perfectly okay, but the far less impressive stuff they get knocked for lands between 1990-2003.

Give Force Majeure (1979) one more whirl. Just in case. 

P.S.

philipemery wrote: Edgar's guitar style isn't actually that innovative or nuanced (as a guitar player myself I can tell you).

There are many keyboardists who won't hesitate to bash Rick Wakeman because he "can't play blues like Keith Emerson."

That said, I love Edgar's guitar playing, and the level of his proficiency (which was better than many assume) has less to do with it than the sheer beauty of his compositions.

90's Electronica / IDM bands such as Aphex Twin, Plone or Autechre are not related to synthwave very much.

Easy for you to say that when today you can do it with a button, and yesterday it was all done manually, and one step at a time.

I think, that you and Dave forget that there are 40 years in between and that the equipment changed, and improved, but saying that it was easy ... IT IS with today's equipment, but it WAS NOT yesterday, when the equipment was not as advanced and controls were not as efficient.

If you really want more of this information, you really should read Edgar Froese's Autobiography ... and it goes through this stuff really well ... and the problems inherent in playing in conditions that Dave can not even conceive and appreciate, and instead thinks that what he does is superior.

I do not doubt, or consider anyone's work, TODAY, superior to TD ... mostly because they were doing it at a time that such stuff did not exist, and no one had ever heard anything like it ... but stating today, half the stuff that is stated here ... is scary ... reminds me of FILM in 1910 (or 1920 ... no matter!), when the story goes that half the theater ran out screaming when the gun shot straight into the camera eye ... 

Let's discuss who has lost the imagination, now!

"

Mosh, I'm going to pull you up again for your misinformed posts. I use 10 sequencers. I built 8 of them. All of them use exactly the same technology as was used in 1974 and they are operated in exactly the same way. There is zero difference. 

There used to be a telly programme here in the 70's called "That's Life". One of the "humorous" spots occurred when they got a number of ten year old children and asked them to explain how the television worked. Mosh. 

Dave, it's very difficult to discuss music with you, since you know it all, and can not discern the good from the bad, and would rather spend your time defending the greatness of your work and development of sequencers and synthesizers. 

The main fact, still is, that it was done at a time when there was no such a thing, and no one had ever heard anything of the like. it might not be as "strong" or as "important" for you, since you have figured out most of it, however, I do think that if you sit with Christopher Franke, you will get your gonads blown off. It was not easy, at that time, to do what they did, and your constant self-important posts that your knowledge is more important than what happened at the time, is ridiculous and out of time and line.

I supposed that suggesting you to read EF's book, is a dead-loss ... but it goes over a lot of this.

Just so you know, music for me is not a metric exercise like it is for you. It is a visual thing, and sometimes, things happen and sometimes they don't. There isn't a single TD piece that these things do not happen for me, unlike your music, which for me (FOR ME) lacks an inch or two of something, which of course you are not open to (shouldn't be, I agree!), even though sometimes the suggestion is not out of time, place, or line. Sometimes the suggestion is just a side street to the same place, and its inclusion does not interfere with the ends, but it creates another special little moment ... example ... KS's CD with the SW interview and his discussion with an engineer about one specific little moment in a long piece ... that is not a big deal for you and I in the middle of things, as we would not normally catch it, but there it is, and when they replay that segment, it is all of a sudden including something else that makes it better. I'm a writer, and I know well enough that suggestions, for the most part are not useful, but just as you enter the shower in the morning ... booooommmm ... that one suggestion clicked ... you don't know until you try it, but you and I are so determine to "protect" what we supposedly know ... and these "secrets" do not exist!

The way we look at yesterday's music is ridiculous. We do not know how to get out of the top ten syndromme, and take a chill down the stairway to the heavens of music, other than some kind of idealistic thought given to you on a platter with lyrics, the normal of which has nothing to do with the music at all, but one person's thoughts and ideas instead.

You are criticizing a lot of music, almost the same way that folks like Stravinsky, Orff, Schoenberg and so many others were looked at in the previous century ... and I like to say ... have we learned nothing yet? 

I seriously doubt that things were "easy" in those days, as you make it out to be ... also considering that the type of work and music was something that no one else did at the time (well, some did like Beaver and Krause and a handful of others without any public attention!), and what TD was giving you was extraordinary, and a feeling and tripping experience, that most do not show ... I believe that for you it is too much mechanics, not the experience itself or its visual contents and significance to your inside listener, appreciating some novel, or work of art, as EF did so much.

For my tastes, most electronic music did not exactly start out of the gate from "music" ... most of it started out from the "sound" of it, and developed from there, and this is the part that you forgot. I'm not as much about the nuts and buts and bolts of it all, but when it comes to the tripping side and listening side, I would say that ... is what music has been about all along ... unless we get into some fans that think that Mahler and Tchaikovsky, were just adding "filler" to make their "songs" come alive!

In the interim, I'll just go back to designing a Roland System 700 style envelope generator in Eagle CAD. With technical help from three very well regarded experts in vintage synth electronics. Apparently they're not really fussy about transistors in the switching stage (I'll get away with BC547's) but I might try 1uf / 10uf tantalum caps in the timing stage rather than electrolytics, as that's what the originals used back in 1976. 

Or I could have just asked Mosh.

(Ladies and gents, please do note that I'm not saying this to appear clever or big headed - I design and build vintage synths as a hobby and will be hopefully releasing a commercial one at some point. I'm just trying to get the point across to certain people that they honestly should perhaps shut up and listen when pulled up on things they know almost nothing about. )

In the interim, could you please note that I've never said I am better than Tangerine Dream butt have only compared myself to them as I do music somewhat similar to them on similar equipment. ) 

Moving on from the little outburst above, been thinking about it and I'd certainly listen to modern extended reinterpretations of old TD stuff, especially Ricochet. I've never quite figured out how to do some elements of Part II. It's a seminal album and I'd listen to an interpretation of it with an open mind. I'm not sure the world at large needs such an interpretation, but hey ho, why not give it a listen ? 

Davesax1965 wrote: Verslibre came up with a name a page back which I missed - Mark Shreeve. I really liked his stuff in Redshift, I think a lot of their stuff was massively influenced by Phaedra.

Well, that's kind of like saying IQ's massively influenced by Trick of the Tail. It's a given. However, Redshift's got a lot more going on than that. 

I like Arc (the duo of Shreeve & Ian Boddy) more. They're doing the retro thing, too, but their superb 2007 album Fracture is the perfect sequel to Rubycon. I mean perfect. Their previous album Blaze is more stylistically varied, and they even add a live drummer on some tracks. Just great electronic music that's a cut above a lot of the cookie cutter UK stuff (sorry, I'm not trying to be provocative, there's just a lot of it, and in Europe overall).

Shreeve's mid-80s "synth rock" albums are what I like best: Legion and Crash Head. Then there's a live album, Collide, and one more outing, Nocturne, in '95. After that, he formed Redshift with his brother Julian.

Why not give Stratosfear/Force Majeure a shake? I know they're more progressive/challenging, but Phaedra/Rubycon/Ricochet have been done to death for the last four decades...

So now, I've got more equipment than TD had in 1974, but then again, most bands have more equipment than the Beatles did in 1963, doesn't make them "better than the Beatles" and I'm surprised that anyone could think I'd said "and therefore I'm better than Tangerine Dream".  Inspired by, not better than, and not a copyist. 

Having said that, would I cover Stratosfear ? Or produce an extended version ? Could do, much more difficult given the stuff I have. I'm set up, deliberately, for "early TD". That's the stuff I most enjoy. 

Having done the old fart "Ooo no, don't want to hear an extended version", I've thought about it and yep, I'd give any new music a listen. Why not, eh ? At the end of the day, the quality of the music, the quality of the playing and the quality of the interpretation are perhaps not all that matters, but if someone does a good job, I'll happily listen. 

HAHAHA! Undoubtedly!

Here's their very latest offering. It's all been said this one's really a solo Shreeve album in disguise.)

Selections from Arc's Fracture. A 5-star album!

LOL, great phrase. While I can't afford any of the good stuff, I'd still scrape together the funds for a Roland Jupiter 8 were I to find one in nice shape. I'd definitely sell off some stuff, and borrow the rest. (:

About 4 years ago, I was seriously considering tackling a life long dream and putting together a monophonic modular system.  I'd owned synths for years beginning with a Pro-One back in 1981, but had never put together a modular system of my own.  In the late 90's I did have a Nord Modular, but just couldn't get on board with virtual modules and patch cords on a PC...I want real physical hardware I can touch.  

Anyway, I setup an account on Muff Wiggler and started learning everything I could.  After about 3 months research, I pretty much decided on the minimum Eurorack modules I wanted in my system and Davesax1965 is dead on, it was absolutely "ruinously expensive"     I concluded for a fraction of the price I could buy a Prophet 12 rack, not have to do (or screw up and troubleshoot) any soldering or assembly myself, and have 12 voice polyphony...so did.  The main reason I chose the P12 is it had the most extensive modulation matrix (26 sources, 97 destinations, 16 slots) I could find in a manufactured polyphonic synth.  To me, the coolest thing about a true modular is the nearly infinite available combinations of modulation sources and destinations and the P12 was the closest option I could find in a pre-built polyphonic synth from a major and respected manufacturer.

Also, while I love the idea of moving patch cords around and tweaking knobs by hand to create each patch, in practice I'd rather give up some of that flexibility for the convenience of patch memory.  Besides, I paired up the P12 with a Behringer BCR2000 to give me a few dozen knobs and buttons for control & I have a Korg MS20 to play with patch cords when the mood hits 

>>The problem is also that what you build is not guaranteed to work. And then it becomes... interesting.

That's the main reason back in '81 I bought a Sequential Circuits Pro-One vs buying a PAIA Proteus kit.  I'd ordered the Proteus schematic and was about to take the next step when I found the Pro-One was only about $100 more with a real warranty.  I could barely scrape together the cash for a Proteus, but knowing my electronic skills were good enough to build the Proteus, but not good enough to troubleshoot if something went wrong, made it an easy choice.  Kind of ironic, as I mentioned in 2015 I was once again considering a home built Eurorack system vs a DSI Prophet 12 and went the way of the Prophet.  Looks like Dave Smith has twice snatched me away from a DIY synth to one of his creations   

Anyway, I couldn't be happier with the P12 and skipping the soldering iron.  Just for fun I created a mock-up of what the P12 front panel might look like if it was a modular synth based on it's 4 OSC, 4 ENV, 4 LFO, 4 Delay, HPF/LPF, 16x2 26-source 96-dest mod matrix architecture:

https://i.pinimg.com/originals/f9/2f/ad/f92fad558403e01ca065245597897bdd.jpg" rel="nofollow - https://i.pinimg.com/originals/f9/2f/ad/f92fad558403e01ca065245597897bdd.jpg

One thing the mock up doesn't show is a single patch is actually made up of 2 sets of these modules which are pan-able and stack-able up to a limit of 12 total polyphonic voices.

I've been following your modular synth thread and am really impressed with what you've put together (especially after what I learned from my time on MuffWiggler).  In the words of Sarah Winchester..."keep building" and if you ever do an extended remake of Phaedra, let me know 

The VST available from Arturia is, probably ... a bit easier to use and do something with ... but even for me, it is a lot already, but some serious fun playing around with it.

I do not mind the VST's as long as they are clean. According to some folks on the Arturia board, the VST is actually more flexible than the real thing, since you can do more with it a lot faster ... but getting all those buttons together through your MIDI board ... could be an issue ... not enough usable switches to play with, although I have never tried using this inside a DAW ... on my Oxygen Midi Keyboard, I have the 9 sliders and the 9 buttons setup for just about everything from left to right, and it only leaves the stuff with the resulting sounds to do manually.

It's great fun, and enjoyable, and probably a good learning tool, rather than spend on the actual unit.

I wish I could create the keyboard sounds better and have some sounds that are so smooth and sweet all around ... the samples they have are the worse ever defined!