in the mid 80's

Remember Tomita seems to be using the mellotron as an osc source for=20
his
Moog and runs it through plenty of effects, so he is unquestionably
working it in a unique manner, really the only thing you can fault is
purely from the viewpoint of it not being fair at all to call it
entirely synthesized.

Yeah, I agree!

Though "Storm From the East" from his digital synthesis era makes up a
lot of the deficits his early 80s albums have.

I find the Grand Canyon not so good not because of the digital sounds,=20
but because of Groff=E9's childish music. Dawn Chorus was absoulutely=20
great and the digital feeling isn't so annoying. It makes me feel like a=20
winter mood while listening. That's why I listen it only in wintertime.=20
The Mind of the universe and the Back to the Earth still has some nice=20
old-style arrangement but the half of the records are in his new style.=20
Top shit if you listen to the Beethoven's track and the "Coming home".=20
Absolutely disappointing music for the masses. That's the same to (I=20
think) all of his later works. I'd happily receive a copy of his Bach=20
Fantasy album, even if I hate the Toccata in D-minor. Maybe there's=20
something interresting on it. I can answer you with other CDs. Thank=20
you:

A Tonal Diktatur =3D Mosolyg=F3 Tibor

 

In a message dated 8/7/2003 9:59:55 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
supersurrexit at freemail.hu writes:

> I find the Grand Canyon not so good not because of the digital sounds,
> but because of Groffé's childish music.

I find the sound of Tomita's recording generally thin and flat, although I
like the opening of the second movement (Painted Desert) because it evokes
memories of his Jungle Emperor score.

As for the Synclavier, I would be happy to be referred to a Synclavier
recording that doesn't sound thin, flat, and boring.

And for Grofé's music itself, there's nothing childish about it. You should
hear Paul Whiteman's 1932 recording of it: in On The Trail, the band members
use a "vocal trumpet" technique--they imitate the sound of trumpets with their
voices--that produces goosebumps. I wish Tomita had emulated that in his
recording.

Hmmm... I think I'll go listen to the Whiteman recording now.

 

As for the Synclavier, I would be happy to be referred to a Synclavier=20
recording that doesn't sound thin, flat, and boring.

Are you right! But the Synclav records are like described is because the=20
behinding engineer and the personnel are flat and boring and they=20
were seduced by those days adverts on the Synclav. ..." No other=20
synthesizers will you ever need.." So they sat back after having spent=20
houndred thousands of $ US and let the money speak not their=20
creativity. They wanted to replace the creativity with high-end=20
techniques and this is their fault. Nearly all the Synclavier users were=20
satisfied with using the prefab preset sounds.... The Synclav as a=20
synthesizer, and NOT as a sampler can sound very well!!!!
Anyway I will keep you posted the required titles, because I don't know=20
it by heart.

And for Grof=E9's music itself, there's nothing childish about it.=20=20
Hmmm... I think I'll go listen to the Whiteman recording now.

I know the original Grand Canyon, but I don't know the performer. I=20
find the original score childish. The man who wrote it has no big ideas,=20
and has a lack of transcendent-sensitivity. He often just repeats the=20
themes which is weak to be heard so many times. This effect is the=20
typical piont of the composers without musical sense. Any kind of=20
instrument-usage won't help, while the music is mostly based on the=20
melodies. This has to be written well and it can be played back on any=20
instrument. If the melodies and the chords are nice, the music is good=20
enough to enjoy in all variations. Not like Groff=E9s Grand Canyon, which I=
=20
like from the performance of Tomita, but I don't find it even half as deep=
=20
and methaphisics as say his previous album from Ravel (Daphnis et=20
Chl=E9). Ravel was one of the very few geniouses, Groff=E9 wasnt...

 

> And for Grofé's music itself, there's nothing childish about it.
> Hmmm... I think I'll go listen to the Whiteman recording now.
>
> I know the original Grand Canyon, but I don't know the performer. I
> find the original score childish. The man who wrote it has no big ideas,
> and has a lack of transcendent-sensitivity. He often just repeats the
> themes which is weak to be heard so many times. This effect is the
> typical piont of the composers without musical sense. Any kind of
> instrument-usage won't help, while the music is mostly based on the
> melodies. This has to be written well and it can be played back on any
> instrument. If the melodies and the chords are nice, the music is good
> enough to enjoy in all variations. Not like Groffés Grand Canyon, which I
> like from the performance of Tomita, but I don't find it even half as deep
> and methaphisics as say his previous album from Ravel (Daphnis et
> Chlé). Ravel was one of the very few geniouses, Groffé wasnt...

Actually they all kind of connect. This is off memory--

Composer George Gershwin ('Rhapsody on Blue' from 'Back to the Earth')
came from 1920s pop music via Broadway. "Rhapsody in Blue" was
commissioned by bandleader Paul Whiteman. He had probably the the most
technically skilled big band and ideas to blend/transcend the genres of
Jazz and Classical music. So what made Whiteman special was his
orchestra was in top form and was not a classical orchestra. Gershwin
was recognized for having advanced melodic skills and pushing beyond the
standards of the day's theatrical music. He initially knew he lacked
serious orchestrating skills and as I understand wanted more than
anything to study with Ravel, though Ravel didn't consider himself to be
a teacher. Gershwin settled for studying Ravels scores and some tutoring
from Ralph Vaughn Williams ('A Lark Ascending' on 'Mind of the
Universe'). In the case of 'Rhapsody on Blue', Whiteman orchestrator
Ferde Groffé did a great deal to realize 'Rhapsody on Blue' as the
achievement it was. Later one can hear some pieces Ravel that are
influenced by Gershwin, but of course Gershwin on his own as he learned
how to orchestrate primarily had a Ravel influence built on Groffé
paving the way to enable the Jazz's intergration into a classical
format.


listen to what nick is up to
http://www.artskool.biz/jem/ndkent/

 

> As for the Synclavier, I would be happy to be referred to a Synclavier
> recording that doesn't sound thin, flat, and boring.

Well, Depeche Mode, Yahoo, Eraser (etc) all used the Synclavier as
a sampler/sound processing system, and I don't believe that any of that
sounded flat.

I also know that many bands effectively used the Fairlight synth, and
that didn't sound flat either, when used properly.

They were both awesome samplers for the time, and it really depended
on what those people did with them.

Kevin

 

--- In isaotomita at yahoogroups.com, zen77 at l... wrote:
> > As for the Synclavier, I would be happy to be referred to a
Synclavier
> > recording that doesn't sound thin, flat, and boring.
>
> Well, Depeche Mode, Yahoo, Eraser (etc) all used the Synclavier as
> a sampler/sound processing system, and I don't believe that any of
that
> sounded flat.
>
> I also know that many bands effectively used the Fairlight synth,
and
> that didn't sound flat either, when used properly.
>
> They were both awesome samplers for the time, and it really depended
> on what those people did with them.
>
> Kevin

I'm in agreement Kevin. Listen to Grace Jones' 'Slave To The Rhythm'
or Depeche Mode's 'Never Let Me Down Again' or 'Master & Servant' or
Frankie Goes To Hollywood's 'Two Tribes' and 'Welcome To The
Pleasuredome' (there are dozens more all- or mostly-Synclavier
records like those) and you will find that they are enormously
sonically rich. The Synclavier and Fairlight CMI systems were very
complex, and entire careers were made at the time out of programming
them!)

However, I am generally more a fan of the sound of analogue synths
myself, as much in awe of the full-on digital sound as I am. Early
demo tours (1983 onwards, and especially when the Synclavier II and
9600 models came out from 1986 onwards) by the Synclavier guys really
blew people away.

Ben

 

> I also know that many bands effectively used the Fairlight synth, and
> that didn't sound flat either, when used properly.
>
> They were both awesome samplers for the time, and it really depended
> on what those people did with them.
>
> Kevin

Well, I'd say that both the Synclavier and the Fairlight are still very
interesting instruments, which can sound good if they are used the right
way. You know, in most cases it's about how they're used. And the Fairlight
is one of very few 16 bit samplers which has/had analog filters. And it
transposed its samples by adjusting the replay speed of the processor
rather than interpolating the samples. And the Synclavier sounds quite
nice as an FM and additive synthesizer. And it has some interesting
options, such as resynthesis.

Personally I think Tomita is not only a genius when it comes to using
the Moog Modular. In addition he uses his digital machines with great
success, not the least on Dawn Chorus, which has a beatiful sound,
although it contains many digital sounds. But I guess it's a matter of
taste.

Mikael Hillborg
MHC Synthesizers and Effects
http://www.mhc.se/software/plugins/

 

Personally I think Tomita is not only a genius when it comes to using
the Moog Modular. In addition he uses his digital machines with great
success, not the least on Dawn Chorus, which has a beatiful sound,
although it contains many digital sounds. But I guess it's a matter of
taste.

Yes, it's a wonderful stuff. (You can hear the Sarrah.VC Fairlight sample
on the first track very hidden)