RIP Dave Smith !!! The founder of Sequential and whose contributions to MIDI development were instrumental to the world of music, has died at the age of 72.
Hi RichRobinson. Check out our interview with Marcus Ryle where he discusses his history with Oberheim/Sequential: th-cam.com/video/VISAtlijuiE/w-d-xo.html -_Daniel_
This is a great time to be alive. You can't talk to Karl Benz about the origin of the automobile or the Wright Brothers about the origins of aviation but you can still see these guys talk about the origins of a huge part of modern music.
This clip is golden. It should be shown to as many people who love synths and electronic instruments,and design,as possible. All heroes here,with amazing input and stories.✨⚡️✨
Unfortunately, there were not Robert Moog (R.I.P.) and Alan Pearlman (ARP synthesizers 90 y old) there. They were first who invented comercial synthesizers. It would be nice to hear something from them today.
Agree with you there. I think all three of these guys would credit them. Would have been neat to see John Chowning (FM synthesis/DX7) and John Bowen (Prophet-VS) there too. This is still awesome to see, and props to Sweetwater for making it happen.
I could listen to them all day, they're filled with amazing stories and anecdotes. Thanks for this panel!!! I hope there are a few geeky, intelligent, sweet and passionate women/men coming our way to design the next generation of synthesizers. p.s. I just bought a Prophet 12 module and I had teary eyes when first playing it. Dave, we miss you!
In some ways it’s kind of a bummer that a video with the caliber of innovators on a panel like this has so few views, relatively speaking. Super interesting!
Such a small group of talented American engineers. Amazing how about 6 men (missing the late Bob Moog, Alan Pearlman and Don Buchla) changed the world of music. Of course one must credit the Japanese giants that came later made the instruments affordable to the masses.
15:00 - Phil Collins was one drummer who used early drum machines to great effect. Giorgio Moroder also used both drummers (mostly Keith Forsey) and drum machines quite effectively.
They may be much more renowned, but the true Hero was Peter Zinovieff! He´s unfortunately always ignored when it comes to Synth Pioneers, Not forgotten Robert Moog and Walter (Wendy) Carlos.
Why is he the “true” hero? Maybe I need to re-visit his career, but I don’t recall him being more influential than Moog and Arp? Unless, that is, he collaborated or gave some of his tech to those companies (which I don’t believe is the case). Meanwhile, those other two, along with the gentleman here, changed the face of music many times over, and are the men responsible for so much modern music. Just saying … it’s a little weird, and probably just very inaccurate, to say the “true” hero is the guy who was LESS influential and LESS present throughout modern music (That’s not a Peter Zinovieff synth all over Abbey Road, for instance; nor is it his drum machine or poly-synth all over Prince records). I think these gentleman, along with Bob Moog and Alan Robert Pearlman (ARP) are, in fact, the true hero’s of electronic music, along with Ikutara Kakehashi/Roland, the people/person behind Yamaha, etc. People like Peter Zinovieff and Don Buchla are geniuses, no doubt about it. But there is a reason that their creations didn’t become important tools for musicians around the world. That’s just my opinion, however, so take it however you want.
There is no real standard formula for subtrative synthesis. There are some building blocks that are very common, but there is also a lot of things that differs from one subtractiv synth to another. Classic instruments have a pretty fixed architecture. They may sound different depending on the maker and age. Even electric guitar, have pretty much a fixed architecture. Most of the things that one use to alter the sound more drasticaly is outboard gear, meaning you can hook that to an electric guitarr from a different make or series, even if the base sound differs. Subtractive synths differs a lot, even when we are talking analog hardware. Different osc waveforms, different filter architectures, different naming of parameters, different amount of envelopes, different amount of LFOs, LFO clock sync or not, other modulators, monophonic, paraphonic, polyphonic... I like that different Synths are different, but that makes it hard for Synths, to really be accepted as a standard instrument. Besides, often the synth-player is needed for different tasks, that often partly relies on samples (I would say that today, bass players are probably the closest to Subtractive Synth players, as a lof of them uses synths to complement, their bass guitars, and then almost always just playing base sounds of the type you would get out of a subtractive synth). But I sure wish there was a least basic courses in subtractive synth theory and playing synhts at music scools. I don't like how they dismiss software synths. And digital synths. I like analog gear myself, but not exclusively. Digital is not as bad as they say. Some sound great, some sound very analog. Many have different methods of emulating analog imperfections. Dave Smith Instruments have synths with hidden parameters. As soon as you start doing that, computer editors/synth software are pretty much always easier to use. Some of those parameters are quite easy to get to, just press a button and you will be on the right page with relevant controls. But especially on the Prophet-12 there is lot to be discovered if you dig a little bit futhrer. Prophet-6 and OB-6 have Panel mode, or what it's called on DSI instruments, so yes you can use them as a instrument where what you see is what you get. unfortunately when switching sounds, you have no way of seing how that sound is set up. A lot of software offers interfaces where you can actually tell how that new sound is set-up, learn from it or better understand how to get it to sound like you want it. Most players will probably not use the Panel mode, and therefore those synths are not as direct as Dave Smith wants you to believe. All Dave Smith Instruments synths can sound really good. And If I could afford, I would have at least one of each architecture. Also, one should not forget that some of the digital synthesis methods have been waiting for hardware to mature. So we don't know what will happen how, as processors starts getting good enough. Physical modeling hardware pianos are quite new. And if the makers starts introducing more synthis parameters we could end up with some really cool instruments that would sound like a mechanical synth, rather than an electrical. Physical modeling would also be a great method for getting the most out of the LinnStrument. FM has had a rise lately. And with computer software you can see many more parameters than you ever could on a DX-7, that helps a lot if you want to be able to understand the synthesis method. And other digital Synthesis methods has been used for some really cool sounds.
Subtractive synthesis is oscillator, filter and amplifier, period. Also known as VCO, VCF and VCA. That’s what defines subtractive synthesis. Everything you described are just variations on that very simple concept of subtractive synthesis.
@@russellszabadosaka5-pindin849 Have you even read my full comment? The issue is how to have an eductation in synthesis, and playing. There are huge variations in the sound pallette of subractive synths, due to different waveform options in the osc, due to different characters of different filters, due to the modulation of the amp, in particular, some evelopes may lack in attack speed, or introduce an audiable click. And then you have the lfos, and modulation options, and number of modulators. One subtractive synth is not the same thing as another, even if they all have some sorts of waveform generator, a filter and an amp section. Forget VCO, VCF, and VCA, that are terms only specific to a certain analog architecture of subtractive synths. The OSC can be voltage controlled, digitally controller, digital, or sample based, and they are all equal in terms of their role in a subtractive synth. The filters can be voltage controlled, digitally controlled, digital, even convolution based, and still work in a subtractive manner, thus being part of a subtractive architecture. It doesnt matter if it is a VCO, DCO, virtual analog, a virtual analog or DCO can sound more like one VCO synth, than that VCO compared to another VCO based synth. So trying to lock it down to only voltage controlled based synths, does not matter, in terms of what sounds they will offer, and how they compare to other synths. So when it comes to an education, how can you actually teach either programming or playing, when it all depends on what that specific synth can do. Both in terms of what kind of sounds it can make, and how to play it, in terms of how it acts because of the modulators. I also mention physical modelling and FM, neither is subtractive synthesis, even if their are synths of both kinds that has subtractive filters, but that is not a core part of their architecture. Wavetable synths, typically have subtractive filters, and are still described as wavetable synths, even though they are subtractive, but the added movement through waveforms, makes the waveforms more complex compared to traditional subtractive synths, thus they can do things even further from what typically subtractive synths can offer, compared to the difference between different subtractive synths. So no, there is no clear standard, comparable to how you can compare different pianos, violins, guitars, even electric guitars, subtractive synths vary in character several times that of the difference between one guitar and another. And since it affects how to play the sounds, and that type of playing you can even use on a subtractive synth, it isn't as simple to say a subtractive synth is a subtractive synth, and thus it is possible to set up a course in music school based on subtractive synth playing an programming, like a course in playing a acoustic or electro acoustic instrument.
Very high quality video. Interesting perspectives from the notable panelists. Although I would argue with Mr. Roger Linn using analog/subtractive term interchangeably. Might confuse some listeners. After all analog synths can do both additive and FM. Anyway, thank you to Sweetwater for my Mackie VLZ4 3204 Mixer, Yamaha MSP7 monitors, and Roland Integra-7 sound module, as well as numerous ART boxes to interface my racks with the mixer. Great staff in Sweetwater.
As far as I know, the only analog additive synthesis is found in classic, European church organs. Can you name one analog synth that uses additive synthesis? I’m not being a Dick, I’d really like to know.
@@russellszabadosaka5-pindin849 One of the synth museums has a giant additive synthesizer. Tons of oscillators. 50 or 100 or something? All sine waves, I think. Also the Yamaha DX FM synths had additive synthesis combined with the FM. That's kind of a bit additive but not much.
@@davebellamy4867 that’s pretty cool that someone created an analog additive synth. It sounds like a nightmare to sound design on that thing with analog oscillators going out of tune, but I guess most early tech is that way. I read somewhere that the DX series isn’t “true” FM, but rather a form of phase distortion synthesis. I wouldn’t know for sure because when the DX-7 came out, I ran the other way after watching a friend in high school attempt to design patches for his Genesis cover band.
It's great that we can put faces on the names. I subscribed to your channel because of this (coming from London UK), it inspires me to check out other interviews regarding these 'fountain of knowledge' designers as well as checking out your channel. Repsect!
1:40 - Dave Smith - DSD inc - Yamaha - The 'physical Modelling' & software synth research he did, is was went on to become the AN1x ... So you could loosely say that Yammy's AN1x is a Dave Smith Instrument ;-)
I don't think the Midi standard is complete. Midi doesn't really interact with Modular, with CV. Or offers any alternative way to CV to do patching. And with the greater possibilities of Midi via USB, you often need some kind of bridging (going through a computer, or advanced midi module), you cant just hook one device to another in a chain, or split it with basic mid hardware. A digital Modular compatible interface would be interesting, as it, like midi could allow for some parts of the data to just go through the unit, unaltered. That would make building a basic synth with modular easier, as you could just plug one module to the next, and pick what signal should be tapped, and perhaps replaced when modulated with that modular. And it would make it easier to build polyphonic/paraphonic modular systems, as such a system could send multiple key-strokes at once. I wish they at least did a Midi + CV interface and tried to make it standard. New Midi-connectors, with higher resolution + analog connectors for some CV outputs, without the need for external bridging like USB midi. (I'm thinking that the hardware could then assign different signals to the CV out, not only pitch but also stuff like LFOs and envelopes and more, some hardware synths can do such things with separate CV outputs, but it's not a standard feature). With adapters and settings there would always be a way to make such a system backwards compatible.
it's a shame that Hammond didn't continue their production of the Novachord. the evolution of that instrument would have been interesting. they were 3 decades ahead of Moog.
Uuuufff...uuuaaaauuu...muy bien very good formidables personajes de la invención de aparatos musicales..un fuerte abrazo de mi parte y buena tertulia y entrevista..bien animo con todas las cosas y vayamos todos con alegrías y felicidades...siempre a mejor..Uuuufff ... uuuaaaauuu ... very good very good formidable characters of the invention of musical devices .. a big hug from me and a good gathering and interview .. good cheer with all things and let's all go with joys and congratulations .. .always for the better
And VCS synthi ? Theremin was maybe not a synth but was invented as an electronic instrument invented more than 50 years before Prophet 5 came out. What about ANS as an electronic instrument developed at first in the 30's. Both were soviet made so I guess it's not p.c. ? Vladimir Kuzmin should be there for making Polivoks that is one of the best synths ever made with a unique filter. Well I guess that it isn't good to admit that some stuff were better behind the iron curtain?
Stevie Wonder heavily involved with synths throughout his career. Here is for a BBC interview in 1980 getting a beat going with a LinnDrum and playing a Rhodes th-cam.com/video/p0hao96yzds/w-d-xo.html
57:13 That is simply not true. If you can play a solo on a piano, you can play a solo on a synth (what Roger calls "on/off switches"). And there's 100's of examples of that (Herbie Hancock, Stevie Wonder, Toto and so on). Seems like he is trying to push his Linnstrument a little too hard here.
They argue that everyone is still essentially building a digital Korg M1, yet they are still putting out analog synths with the same old oscillator, filter, amp configuration. Not a whole lot new in their synths either.
![[TH] 2024 PMSL SEA W1D5 | Fall | เก็บแต้มของจริง คือวันนี้](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/EciIAlCXg5k/mqdefault.jpg)
RIP Dave Smith !!! The founder of Sequential and whose contributions to MIDI development were instrumental to the world of music, has died at the age of 72.
Just imagine for a second the number of hit records that these guys are involved with one way or another.
Respect to all these visionaries. They’ve brought musical tools that have and continue to shape the sound of music.
Hi RichRobinson. Check out our interview with Marcus Ryle where he discusses his history with Oberheim/Sequential:
th-cam.com/video/VISAtlijuiE/w-d-xo.html
-_Daniel_
This is a great time to be alive. You can't talk to Karl Benz about the origin of the automobile or the Wright Brothers about the origins of aviation but you can still see these guys talk about the origins of a huge part of modern music.
A friend of mine worked as Linn COO back then. Dave is such a lovely person. He will be missed . RIP
What a line up!
This clip is golden. It should be shown to as many people who love synths and electronic instruments,and design,as possible. All heroes here,with amazing input and stories.✨⚡️✨
Great Panel, Sweetwater did it... These guys did it too and still do
Dave Rossum, Bob Moog and Alan Pearlman should be part of this panel as well.
some of the coolest people ever
Unfortunately, there were not Robert Moog (R.I.P.) and Alan Pearlman (ARP synthesizers 90 y old) there. They were first who invented comercial synthesizers. It would be nice to hear something from them today.
Agree with you there. I think all three of these guys would credit them. Would have been neat to see John Chowning (FM synthesis/DX7) and John Bowen (Prophet-VS) there too. This is still awesome to see, and props to Sweetwater for making it happen.
Don Buchla too.
Why is there no representative for Roland?
Phil Anderson plus eric persing (d50) then it would have been a synth all stars talk
maybe we can synthosize them. Personally Im honored to walk the world with these men and their innovative contributions to humanity and the galaxy.
I could listen to them all day, they're filled with amazing stories and anecdotes. Thanks for this panel!!! I hope there are a few geeky, intelligent, sweet and passionate women/men coming our way to design the next generation of synthesizers.
p.s. I just bought a Prophet 12 module and I had teary eyes when first playing it. Dave, we miss you!
Regarding expression, don’t forget Nyle Steiner’s EVI/EWI and Bill Bernardi’s Lyricon which were around since the mid 1970’s.
In some ways it’s kind of a bummer that a video with the caliber of innovators on a panel like this has so few views, relatively speaking. Super interesting!
Thank you .
Tom Oberheim 29:46 : "My heart is still in polyphonic synthesizers" There's a clue towards the OB-6.
Tbese guys are geniuses. Think about how much music has been made with their creations. It's mind boggling.
This is as of now the coolest 3 people in the world.
Legends of tech
Such a small group of talented American engineers. Amazing how about 6 men (missing the late Bob Moog, Alan Pearlman and Don Buchla) changed the world of music. Of course one must credit the Japanese giants that came later made the instruments affordable to the masses.
A great loss..we will miss you sir. R.i.p. dave...you are immortal through your creations.
15:00 - Phil Collins was one drummer who used early drum machines to great effect. Giorgio Moroder also used both drummers (mostly Keith Forsey) and drum machines quite effectively.
Indeed.
LEGENDS!
Awesome! I wish I could have been there sitting next to Craig Anderton.
RIP Dave Smith💜🌹
Yeah. Totally horrible. A gut punch for sure :(
They may be much more renowned, but the true Hero was Peter Zinovieff! He´s unfortunately always ignored when it comes to Synth Pioneers, Not forgotten Robert Moog and Walter (Wendy) Carlos.
Why is he the “true” hero? Maybe I need to re-visit his career, but I don’t recall him being more influential than Moog and Arp? Unless, that is, he collaborated or gave some of his tech to those companies (which I don’t believe is the case).
Meanwhile, those other two, along with the gentleman here, changed the face of music many times over, and are the men responsible for so much modern music.
Just saying … it’s a little weird, and probably just very inaccurate, to say the “true” hero is the guy who was LESS influential and LESS present throughout modern music (That’s not a Peter Zinovieff synth all over Abbey Road, for instance; nor is it his drum machine or poly-synth all over Prince records).
I think these gentleman, along with Bob Moog and Alan Robert Pearlman (ARP) are, in fact, the true hero’s of electronic music, along with Ikutara Kakehashi/Roland, the people/person behind Yamaha, etc.
People like Peter Zinovieff and Don Buchla are geniuses, no doubt about it. But there is a reason that their creations didn’t become important tools for musicians around the world. That’s just my opinion, however, so take it however you want.
There is no real standard formula for subtrative synthesis. There are some building blocks that are very common, but there is also a lot of things that differs from one subtractiv synth to another.
Classic instruments have a pretty fixed architecture. They may sound different depending on the maker and age.
Even electric guitar, have pretty much a fixed architecture. Most of the things that one use to alter the sound more drasticaly is outboard gear, meaning you can hook that to an electric guitarr from a different make or series, even if the base sound differs.
Subtractive synths differs a lot, even when we are talking analog hardware. Different osc waveforms, different filter architectures, different naming of parameters, different amount of envelopes, different amount of LFOs, LFO clock sync or not, other modulators, monophonic, paraphonic, polyphonic...
I like that different Synths are different, but that makes it hard for Synths, to really be accepted as a standard instrument.
Besides, often the synth-player is needed for different tasks, that often partly relies on samples (I would say that today, bass players are probably the closest to Subtractive Synth players, as a lof of them uses synths to complement, their bass guitars, and then almost always just playing base sounds of the type you would get out of a subtractive synth).
But I sure wish there was a least basic courses in subtractive synth theory and playing synhts at music scools.
I don't like how they dismiss software synths. And digital synths.
I like analog gear myself, but not exclusively.
Digital is not as bad as they say.
Some sound great, some sound very analog. Many have different methods of emulating analog imperfections.
Dave Smith Instruments have synths with hidden parameters. As soon as you start doing that, computer editors/synth software are pretty much always easier to use. Some of those parameters are quite easy to get to, just press a button and you will be on the right page with relevant controls. But especially on the Prophet-12 there is lot to be discovered if you dig a little bit futhrer.
Prophet-6 and OB-6 have Panel mode, or what it's called on DSI instruments, so yes you can use them as a instrument where what you see is what you get. unfortunately when switching sounds, you have no way of seing how that sound is set up. A lot of software offers interfaces where you can actually tell how that new sound is set-up, learn from it or better understand how to get it to sound like you want it.
Most players will probably not use the Panel mode, and therefore those synths are not as direct as Dave Smith wants you to believe.
All Dave Smith Instruments synths can sound really good. And If I could afford, I would have at least one of each architecture.
Also, one should not forget that some of the digital synthesis methods have been waiting for hardware to mature. So we don't know what will happen how, as processors starts getting good enough. Physical modeling hardware pianos are quite new. And if the makers starts introducing more synthis parameters we could end up with some really cool instruments that would sound like a mechanical synth, rather than an electrical.
Physical modeling would also be a great method for getting the most out of the LinnStrument.
FM has had a rise lately. And with computer software you can see many more parameters than you ever could on a DX-7, that helps a lot if you want to be able to understand the synthesis method.
And other digital Synthesis methods has been used for some really cool sounds.
Subtractive synthesis is oscillator, filter and amplifier, period. Also known as VCO, VCF and VCA. That’s what defines subtractive synthesis. Everything you described are just variations on that very simple concept of subtractive synthesis.
@@russellszabadosaka5-pindin849 Have you even read my full comment? The issue is how to have an eductation in synthesis, and playing. There are huge variations in the sound pallette of subractive synths, due to different waveform options in the osc, due to different characters of different filters, due to the modulation of the amp, in particular, some evelopes may lack in attack speed, or introduce an audiable click. And then you have the lfos, and modulation options, and number of modulators.
One subtractive synth is not the same thing as another, even if they all have some sorts of waveform generator, a filter and an amp section. Forget VCO, VCF, and VCA, that are terms only specific to a certain analog architecture of subtractive synths. The OSC can be voltage controlled, digitally controller, digital, or sample based, and they are all equal in terms of their role in a subtractive synth. The filters can be voltage controlled, digitally controlled, digital, even convolution based, and still work in a subtractive manner, thus being part of a subtractive architecture. It doesnt matter if it is a VCO, DCO, virtual analog, a virtual analog or DCO can sound more like one VCO synth, than that VCO compared to another VCO based synth. So trying to lock it down to only voltage controlled based synths, does not matter, in terms of what sounds they will offer, and how they compare to other synths.
So when it comes to an education, how can you actually teach either programming or playing, when it all depends on what that specific synth can do. Both in terms of what kind of sounds it can make, and how to play it, in terms of how it acts because of the modulators.
I also mention physical modelling and FM, neither is subtractive synthesis, even if their are synths of both kinds that has subtractive filters, but that is not a core part of their architecture. Wavetable synths, typically have subtractive filters, and are still described as wavetable synths, even though they are subtractive, but the added movement through waveforms, makes the waveforms more complex compared to traditional subtractive synths, thus they can do things even further from what typically subtractive synths can offer, compared to the difference between different subtractive synths.
So no, there is no clear standard, comparable to how you can compare different pianos, violins, guitars, even electric guitars, subtractive synths vary in character several times that of the difference between one guitar and another. And since it affects how to play the sounds, and that type of playing you can even use on a subtractive synth, it isn't as simple to say a subtractive synth is a subtractive synth, and thus it is possible to set up a course in music school based on subtractive synth playing an programming, like a course in playing a acoustic or electro acoustic instrument.
Very high quality video. Interesting perspectives from the notable panelists. Although I would argue with Mr. Roger Linn using analog/subtractive term interchangeably. Might confuse some listeners. After all analog synths can do both additive and FM. Anyway, thank you to Sweetwater for my Mackie VLZ4 3204 Mixer, Yamaha MSP7 monitors, and Roland Integra-7 sound module, as well as numerous ART boxes to interface my racks with the mixer. Great staff in Sweetwater.
As far as I know, the only analog additive synthesis is found in classic, European church organs. Can you name one analog synth that uses additive synthesis? I’m not being a Dick, I’d really like to know.
@@russellszabadosaka5-pindin849 One of the synth museums has a giant additive synthesizer. Tons of oscillators. 50 or 100 or something? All sine waves, I think. Also the Yamaha DX FM synths had additive synthesis combined with the FM. That's kind of a bit additive but not much.
54:34 I'm just on that bit where Roger does that.
@@davebellamy4867 that’s pretty cool that someone created an analog additive synth. It sounds like a nightmare to sound design on that thing with analog oscillators going out of tune, but I guess most early tech is that way. I read somewhere that the DX series isn’t “true” FM, but rather a form of phase distortion synthesis. I wouldn’t know for sure because when the DX-7 came out, I ran the other way after watching a friend in high school attempt to design patches for his Genesis cover band.
It's great that we can put faces on the names. I subscribed to your channel because of this (coming from London UK), it inspires me to check out other interviews regarding these 'fountain of knowledge' designers as well as checking out your channel. Repsect!
Wonderful humans who made machines more human.
Regarding expressive synthesis, someone should tell Roger Linn about wind controllers which have been around since the mid 1970s.
Legends
1:40 - Dave Smith - DSD inc - Yamaha - The 'physical Modelling' & software synth research he did, is was went on to become the AN1x ... So you could loosely say that Yammy's AN1x is a Dave Smith Instrument ;-)
This is interesting to learn. :)
Geniuses !!!
So much power in one room
Rest in Peace, David Joseph Smith (1950 - May 31, 2022)
ЛЕГЕНДЫ!!
fantastic
33:04 - Dave Smith talks about the story of MIDI, why and how it happened
46:22 Dave Smith talks about software synths
R.I.P Dave Smith 🙏🏾
love it!!
Legendary
I don't think the Midi standard is complete.
Midi doesn't really interact with Modular, with CV. Or offers any alternative way to CV to do patching.
And with the greater possibilities of Midi via USB, you often need some kind of bridging (going through a computer, or advanced midi module), you cant just hook one device to another in a chain, or split it with basic mid hardware.
A digital Modular compatible interface would be interesting, as it, like midi could allow for some parts of the data to just go through the unit, unaltered.
That would make building a basic synth with modular easier, as you could just plug one module to the next, and pick what signal should be tapped, and perhaps replaced when modulated with that modular.
And it would make it easier to build polyphonic/paraphonic modular systems, as such a system could send multiple key-strokes at once.
I wish they at least did a Midi + CV interface and tried to make it standard. New Midi-connectors, with higher resolution + analog connectors for some CV outputs, without the need for external bridging like USB midi. (I'm thinking that the hardware could then assign different signals to the CV out, not only pitch but also stuff like LFOs and envelopes and more, some hardware synths can do such things with separate CV outputs, but it's not a standard feature).
With adapters and settings there would always be a way to make such a system backwards compatible.
Jon Holstein incorrect.
James Reeno Lmao get outta here you complete asshat, you didn’t even attempt address a single one of his points.
Ikutaro Kakehashi?
Good video,but having no boom mic or mic personnel on the audience for questions is very frustrating.
it's a shame that Hammond didn't continue their production of the Novachord. the evolution of that instrument would have been interesting. they were 3 decades ahead of Moog.
PLEASE Dear ROGER LINN make a NEW advanced MPC 3000 ! That would be AWESOME !!!!
It's called Linnstrument
Uuuufff...uuuaaaauuu...muy bien very good formidables personajes de la invención de aparatos musicales..un fuerte abrazo de mi parte y buena tertulia y entrevista..bien animo con todas las cosas y vayamos todos con alegrías y felicidades...siempre a mejor..Uuuufff ... uuuaaaauuu ... very good very good formidable characters of the invention of musical devices .. a big hug from me and a good gathering and interview .. good cheer with all things and let's all go with joys and congratulations .. .always for the better
54 mins in = David Im speaking to you personally. I will donate my body.
RIP Dave.
How does one of the biggest music retailers not have a wireless mic or something setup for the audience Q&A section???
Wow I never realized how much Roger Linn sounded like Neil Peart....
What's the instrument referred to at 121:38 please? ... Sounds like "ans montrono".
1:21:38 - no idea and the question at 1:18:30 and 1:20:30 are inaudible. All I heard was the word experimental.
Ondes Martenot ... www.popularmechanics.com/culture/music/g616/8-insane-musical-instruments/#:~:text=Like%20the%20futuristic%20theremin%2C%20the,front%20of%20the%20instrument's%20keyboard.
A Yamaha ANS1 that Dave Smith also worked on from what I have only recently found out about.
And VCS synthi ? Theremin was maybe not a synth but was invented as an electronic instrument invented more than 50 years before Prophet 5 came out. What about ANS as an electronic instrument developed at first in the 30's. Both were soviet made so I guess it's not p.c. ? Vladimir Kuzmin should be there for making Polivoks that is one of the best synths ever made with a unique filter. Well I guess that it isn't good to admit that some stuff were better behind the iron curtain?
Where's Allen Pearlman???
Supa Dupa Hilton dead
James Reeno Not when this video was posted...you know, three years ago...
great set of talks, i love hearing these guy's thoughts, but come on sweet water... no mic for the questioners?
for mi opinion Tom have the best timing sequencer..
Not Care
GodFathers!
Holy trimity ))
Stevie Wonder heavily involved with synths throughout his career. Here is for a BBC interview in 1980 getting a beat going with a LinnDrum and playing a Rhodes th-cam.com/video/p0hao96yzds/w-d-xo.html
Practically twins
57:13 That is simply not true. If you can play a solo on a piano, you can play a solo on a synth (what Roger calls "on/off switches"). And there's 100's of examples of that (Herbie Hancock, Stevie Wonder, Toto and so on). Seems like he is trying to push his Linnstrument a little too hard here.
They argue that everyone is still essentially building a digital Korg M1, yet they are still putting out analog synths with the same old oscillator, filter, amp configuration. Not a whole lot new in their synths either.
Honestly its because of prince that the linn drum and the oberheim became as popular as they did
Not true, rush was one of the first big name users of oberheim synths when prince was still playing with Lego
These guys aren't the inventors of synth, what about Bob Moog, and other synth pioneers who came before him?
They are buying vintage computers now to make music….in 2022!
These guys always leave out Bruce Forat
1 dislike by pioneer lool
I am sad to skip Roger's comments every times he speaks... I guess you get sick of hearing him talking about his not-so-interesting controller...
Julian Romero i only care about the LM1, Linn Drum, 9000, & MPC.
LINNSTRUMENT!!!
BUY ONE!!
NOW!!!
Thank you white people for your passion.
soroush beik ????????
100 synth guy is probably user lookmumnocompter he's got crazy things going on!
Where are the African American inventor s
+Youngfacexxx non existant