Showing posts with label Roland. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Roland. Show all posts

Thursday, July 19, 2012

Dave Smith and Roland are Geniuses



As I mentioned in a previous post, I'm going to midi convert my Korg Monotribe.  Anyone who's not a musician probably just though, "what the hell does that mean"?  The Monotribe is this really cool little analog synthesizer from Korg, whose main drawback is a tiny keyboard that is all but unplayable by adult fingers.  Fortunately, the good people at Korg put a midi interface on the circuit board of the Monotribe, which allows you to modify the unit and connect a full sized keyboard, making the whole instrument much more useful.

It still doesn't get to the question of what mid is though.  Using computer terms, midi is both hardware and software that allows musical devices to communicate with one another.  The name comes from Musical Information Digital Interface.  What makes it so useful is the amount of event based data that midi can transmit, almost instantly.  And, although it was developed for musical instruments, it can be used to control any time based equipment, even old analog devices.



For example, years ago, if you went to Notre Dame Cathedral in Paris, mid day on a Tuesday and wanted to hear the organ, they would play you a little tape of the organ being played.  It did not convey the scale of the instrument at all, only a vague approximation.  Now, however, the organ is fitted with a midi controller, so they can record not the sound, but the performance data of any one who comes in a plays the instrument, and then they can play back that performance and the actual organ creates the sounds.  With your eyes closed, you would not be able to tell if a human or the computer was playing the instrument.  That's a big improvement over a silly tape recording.



If you ever saw the original production of Les Miserables, with that giant spinning platter of a stage where the action occurred, believe it or not, midi was controlling that platter.  Midi is great for providing time based event data with extreme precision.  If you've ever been on a motion ride at an amusement park, they are also controlled by midi.  Some have speculated that one day it will be revealed that the space shuttle was midi controlled (but don't hold your breath on that one).

Of course, people who played computer games in the 90s have a very bad feeling about midi, perhaps with good reason.  A lot of bad video game sound tracks in the 90s relied on midi and the default musical instruments that shipped with the computer or sound card.  I have heard some of these and they leave a lot to be desired.  However, midi is unfairly blamed as the culprit.  I would say the fault lies more with poor orchestrations and poor instrument quality on the sound cards of the day.  The beauty of the midi interface is you can apply the performance data to any instrument, a good one or a bad one, the instrument it was intended for or a different one.



Midi was developed jointly by synthesizer engineer Dave Smith and the engineers at Roland  Musical Instrument corporation in Japan.  There had been precursors to midi, which allowed data to be transfered between musical devices, but there were different standards and the amount of data was limited.  The development of midi standardized the information so the equipment of different companies could be connected together.  It also expanded the amount of event/performance data that could be captured.  Now the system could not only request a Middle C note, but it could specify how loud that note should be, and request it to come from any number of available channels (different devices or instruments).  Almost overnight musicians gained the ability to connect a bunch of electronic instruments together for a live performance controlled by a computer, which allowed previously impossible compositions to be realized.

As I mentioned before, back in the 90s I had a robust midi setup running out of my desktop computer.  The sequencer (which typically manages and deploys midi data) controlled three different devices I had, two synthesizers and a Rompler module that played sounds sampled from real instruments with often surprising realism.  I could compose in the computer by "writing" out notes, or I could input the notes by playing them on a keyboard.  The sequencer could control all three devices simultaneously, allowing me to make rich music without playing a single note.



At the time even experts agreed it was a bad idea to run music through your computer.  The power supplies and boards inside were very "dirty" and would create a lot of audio noise.  Yet with midi, I could produce super clean sound, because the computer was only controlling the data, not the actual audio.  I  never really understood how this was possible, why the noise inside the computer didn't infect the instruments connected to it.  Until I started to learn how to modify my modify my Monotribe for midi.

One of the items you need to perform this mod correctly is an "optocoupler", which I had never heard of, but understood instantly, it uses LED light to transmit data, and it's part of the original design of midi, as I understand it.  Completely brilliant.  Using light isn't just fast, but it also isolates the devices from each other, to avoid contamination of noise, hum even dangerous spikes that can damage expensive musical gear.  This is why my post has the title it has, because the cleaver use of the optocoupler is one of the key elements that makes midi as good as it is, and less talented engineers would have skimped or skipped that crucial step.


I should tell you, I don't use wikipedia to write these things, so the facts I get wrong are facts that are wrong in my head.  If I remember where it was I picked up one of these tidbits, I'll tell you, but for goodness sakes, don't assume any "facts" in these posts are actually true.  My version of other people's lives may be wildly inaccurate, but generally, I'm here to tell a story or make an observation based on that understanding (true or not), and hopefully the veracity doesn't really alter the observation all that much.  The previous story may not be true at all, I haven't verified it, not because I'm too lazy, but mostly because I'm too busy at the moment.  Obviously, if large portions are untrue, it kind of blows the whole thing out of the water. Apologies if that is the case.







Wednesday, May 9, 2012

The Retro Project

A long time ago, between 2005 and 2007, when I was starting to make music again after a long hiatus, I thought it might be fun to do a song (or two) only using instruments I had back in the late 80s.  At the time, I actually had to re-aquire some of them, like a Synsonics drum set:


http://www.burnkit2600.com/synsonics-drums/


After a little poking around the web, I abandoned my idea.  Here's why.  What I was planning to do was to use only vintage gear to make a song using a modern DAW (digital audio workstation), but what I discovered were people going much more extreme than what I was planning, making my effort seem pale and moot.


What I did do, though, was use some of those old instruments to add flavor to my "modern" recordings.  Flash forward: last week.


Last week I was surfing around, reading tutorials about creating complex bass synthesizer sounds.  It's something I've been working on for a few weeks.  Trying to create "live" playable versions of popular contemporary bass timbres.  But I stumbled on something very interesting, to me and I wish I had a link to share (see comments when I find it), but someone had rediscovered their cassette 4-track recorder in their attic, and decided to make a recording with it, and had posted said recording on soundcloud.


I was so curious to hear this track, and I was so happy to hear a modern recording done with something so completely obsolete.  I didn't imagine I'd ever follow in that guys footsteps . . . but,




I had also recently dug out my own 4-track (see above) because someone who once performed in a video of mine asked to see the finished video.  Nothing sexual, but the video wound up being a little to personal to post on the web, so no link, but I digress.  I had long ago lost the finished edit of the video, so the only way to share it with my friend was to make a new master.  I located the edited video and then set about marrying it to the 4-track audio tape containing the music and narration.  So my 4-track has been set up in my studio for months.  But that alone didn't get me interested in actually using it to make music.  Perish the thought.  What a pain it would be, to use that old thing to record a song, to say nothing of the crappy quality of the output.  Read on,


I could not get that guy's retro track out of my head.  It was so cool to hear the sound of tape again, the kind of warm smooth sound digital can only aspire to, with its crisp precision and perfect replication.  I started to think, it might be interesting to try and record something with the 4-track, just to break the monotony of the way I normally make music now.  But then I remembered all the trouble my 4-track was having when I stopped using it.  The erase heads don't work as well as when they were new (meaning, you can't fix mistakes you might make while playing), and how the machine will not stay in record mode without some strong packing tape.


I then remembered, the last time I checked, you could buy a new cassette 4-track for about $80, so maybe I should just replace mine, if I was serious.  However, a little sleuthing clued me in to the fact that production of these machines ceased several years ago, and the price, has, of course, gone way up as a result.  The cheapest "new" one is now about $240, best I can tell.  Way out of my budget for something I may use only once or twice.


However, I became kind of obsessed with seeing if I could find one cheaper and wound up discovering a lot of people who, beyond being nostalgic for these old devices, were actually waxing about the benefits of using them, today:


http://yearoftheboy.com/2011/04/03/4-track-cassette-recording-a-few-thoughts-on-why-older-recording-techniques-are-sometimes-better/


I started reading more and more about analog 4-track recording, it's history, demise, all the while, thinking, I really want to give this a go, at some point, feeling like I was just getting the dominoes lined up for some future knock down show.  Until I found this:


I am attempting to create a compilation of like-mi...


Simon Holland (a.k.a. Carrillion) is creating a compilation audio project of music recorded on or using the techniques and instruments of old cassette tape 4-track recording, with a single rule, no guitars.  Now this is a little different than anything I'd been contemplating before, as my retro track plans always included a spot for some guitar.  But I'm totally up for this challenge and it changed my future looking into present action.


As such, last night I dug out both my old casio keyboards, a VL-1 and Casio MT-540.  I had an idea to lay down a click track using the built in rhythms of the VL-1. If you are familiar with the Trio song: Da Da Da:


Trio - Da Da Da


You already know how the drums on this little synth sound.  Here's what it looks like:



I connected the VL-1 to an old delay unit from Roland/Boss and started to created the feel I was looking for.  I ended up adding a flanger to the loop too, to give the synth sound a little more dimension.  I also had an idea for a "sequence" type melody.

Recently I've been trying to get a handle on being able to actually play all my instruments, especially the synths.  I was recently working with my Korg Kaossilator:


And noticed it was set to "Ionic" scale.  I was not familiar with "Ionic" scales, so I consulted my friend, wikipedia and wound up also looking up pentatonic scales, which I had heard of before but never bothered to learn more about.  On reading about pentatonic scales, I thought they would be very useful for a novice like myself, because it's very hard to get discordant in that mode.  

After coming up with a nice sequence melody.  I set about making a good bass timbre.  Remember, learning how to make cool bass timbres was how I wound up going on this whole retro journey in the first place.  I took the Casio MT-540:


Blended the Brass Ensemble (an old favorite) with the Funky Clav sounds but ran it through my old Roland Boss Octaver, which creates bass sounds one octave lower than what you put in, and the sound was fat and rich.  Now, I have no idea what the eventual bass line of the song will be, but that timbre is going to be great.

I have yet to decide on a voice for the main melody, but there will be additional drums provided by the Synsonics (and maybe a 'real' tambourine).  And I started to develop some lyrics, though, given the retro nature of the project, I'm tempted to grab some of my old poetry instead, and edit it to fit the song.  Time will tell.