CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY, NORIHRIT.GE

SYNI'HESIZER USE IN 1?0RJIAR MUSIC

A PR01?0SED VIDEO PRODUCI'ION A thesis submitted in partial satisfaction of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts in Mass Conununication

by

Sharon Lynn Stallings

August 1986 @ .

The Thesis of Sharon Stallings is approved:

Dr. ]))nald Wood

Robert Delwarte

Mr. Tan BurreMs, Chair

cal. ifornia State University, Northridge

ii '!he ccmnittee for this thesis and Dr. Leps are gratefully acknowledged. '!he california Chaml::er Sym!;hony Society, Inc. is appreciated for allowing the use of its computer for this project.

This project could not have been completed without the effort and consideration of the busy J;e<>ple who took the time to particip:tte in the thesis questionnaire.

Many thanks are given to family and friends for their understanding and support, especially to Drs. John and Dina

Stallings, who had valuable suggestions, and to Anthony Marinelli, who proJ;X>sed the original idea and provided constant help in seeing the thesis oompieted.

iii TABLE OF CONTEm'S

iii v

CHAPl'ER

I. '!HE 'IHESIS

Background of the Subject 1 Statement of the Subject 6 Purpose of the Thesis 7 Significance of the Subject 7 Assumptions 10 Delimitations 10 Limitations 11 Definition of Tenns 11 Organizations of the Thesis 14

II. REVIEW OF 'IHE LITERA'IURE Introduction 15 Early synthesizer Developments 16 Voltage COntrolled Analog Synthesizers 20 Analog-Digital HYbrid synthesizers 26 Completely Digital Synthesizers 33 COnclusion for synthesizers 42 Documentaries 44 III. PROCEDURES

Identification of the Subject Area 55 Research ~thods 56 Development and Implementation of the Questionnaire 56 Selection of the Interviewees 57 Data Analysis 61

IV. IXXlJMENI'ARY SCRIP!' 62

V. IMPLEMENl'ATION OF THE PROrosAL Budget Requirements 93 Marketing Plan 97 BIBLimRAmY 103

APPENDIXES Appendix A--Questionnaire 105 Appendix B--Interview Data 106

iv ABSTRACr

SYN!'BESIZER USE IN IDFULAR MUSIC

A PROIDSED VIDEO PRCDUCI'ION

by

Sharon Lynn Stallings Master of Arts in Mass Communication

This thesis contains a proposal for a video production on the use of synthesizers in popular music. The production is designed as a infomational 'IV documentary. The subject matter includes the stages of synthesizer developnent and how the synthesizers were used and are being used in pop.Uar music. The proposal includes a chapter on the scope of the topic and on the proposed doctnrentary production, a review of the literature on synthesizers and documentaries, a section on procedures for the original research on synthesizers done for this project, a documentary script, a chapter implementing the proposal which includes budgetary requirements and a marketing plan. Appendixes include the questionnaire for the original research and the responses of the interviewees.

v OIAPl'ER I

THE 'IHESIS

Background of the Subject

S¥nthesizers create and change sounds electronically. This allows :people who use synthesizers (called synthesists) to control the basic. properties of sound, and hence create almost any sound they can imagine or create an imitation of well know sounds. With these capabilities, synthesizers have arisen to great importance in the world of music. Not only are they featured in concerts, but few popular records are produced without same use of synthesizers. synthesizers have became as necessa~ to popular music performers and canposers as drums; in fact, often they are used in place of drums. They may also be used to simulate violins, brass instruments, and perhaps even singers. In many cases, listeners cannot tell the difference between an instrument and a synthesizer's producing the sound of that instrument. Synthesizers are able to imitate sounds because of a };art of sound called overtones, or hannonics. For eve~ note (pitch) played on an instrument, for example middle C on the piano, there are actually other pitches higher than the C which are also being heard at less volume. These are called overtones or haiinonics. It is basically the difference between the overtones produced by the piano versus those produced by a guitar, for instance, that makes

1 2

the sound of the piano different fran that of the guitar. '!his is true of all instruments. '!heir basic sound is determined by their overtones. The synthesist learns the overtone structure, as it is called, of an instrument and sets his or her synthesizer to produce the same structure-hence imitation of the sound of the instrument.

In addition to this capacity for imitation, synthesizers can be used to create whatever sounds the synthesists desire. The unique sounds and capabilities of synthesizers bring new dimensions to music, such as sounds and effects unlike what any acoustic instruments can produce. Still, the general public knows relatively little about music synthesis and its place in the music world. S¥nthesizers began at the turn of the 20th Century. The first with any success was the Telhanoonium, a huge $200,000 keyboard instrument. It could produce :man;y -sounds, but was made archaic by electronic developnents, especially the vacuum tube. Of the synthesizers produced after this and before World War II, the Theremin and Ondes

Martenot, developed in the 1920s, are the only two synthesizers still in use today, and that use is extremely limited. These two allowed the synthesist to change the sounds, as did the Telharmonium, but were much more portable. (Manning, 1985, pp.

1-3)

The biggest developnent in the acceptance of new sounds by the public was not the result of a synthesizer at all. S¥nthesizers were used mainly in avant-garde classical pieces. It was the Hammond Organ that really brought electronic keyboards into the 3

popular music world. The Harrmond Organ was developed in 1930, and marketed in the United States in 1935. It was not a synthesizer because the factory determined the sounds and gave the user no ability to change them. This electronic organ substituted for the piano in popl].ar music quite frequently. Its distinctive sounds became a standard in the music industry. The Hammond Organ exists today in essentially the same version as the original and is still used occasionally. It is, however, very camoon for a producer to request Hammond Organ sounds have than imitated on today's synthesizers. (Mackay, 1981, pp. 20-21) During the 1940s, the world at war had no time to work on developing synthesizers. '!he next major advancement was the prototype RCA synthesizer_ developed in the 1950s, which used a player-piano-type punch-sheet to prOduce sounds. It was a very complicated computer controlled instrument. Because of its gigantic size, it was a pennanent installation. Due to this, and the fact that there was only one, it was extremely difficult to obtain access to and was never used in popular music. Although these early synthesizers can be traced back into the first half of the 20th century, the beginnings of major synthesizer use in popular music were in the late 1960s. Until this time, mst synthesizers had no control systems to allow change of pitch while staying tuned. In most cases, synthesized notes were recorded one note at a time on tape and then spliced together, a long process. (Salzman, 197 4, p. 141) 4

The process of tape splicing was obviously not very practical for use in popular music. 'Ihe subsequent invention of a method for using voltage variations to control synthesizer sound meant that synthesizers could be used to produce a series of notes for recording. These were called voltage-controlled analog synthesizers. '!hey worked by having an electronic device

(oscillator) produce an electronic wavefonn and voltage changes m:>dify the wavefonn. 'Ihe process was that the synthesist turned knobs (like rheostats for light fixtures) controlling the amount of voltage going to the mechanisms in the synthesizer which controlled

the pitch, volume, duration and tone quality of the sound. The knobs did not connect to anything else which would cane between this direct connection. Voltage control, especially in the Moog and Buchla synthesizers, was the developrent that actually began

the widespread use of synthesizers in popular music. The Moog synthesizer was the best known synthesizer which worked this way. The previously heralded electronic organs, including the Hammond Organ, soon seemed limited compared to the sounds these synthesizers could produce. (Rhea, 1977, p. 49) 'Ihe Moog and other synthesizers of this period, however, could only produce one note at a time (rono!ilonic), as is still true of many synthesizers. Either only one melody line would be played on the synthesizer (as in a Keith Emerson solo) or each melody line had to be recorded separately in a studio. In the latter case, the recordings were mixed together to make what the listener would hear on a record, such as in Tangerine Dream albmns. The next major 5

developnent in synthesizers came in 1975. It was :polyt:hony, or the ability to produce more than one note simultaneously, allowing the synthesist to play different melodic lines at once. This was very valuable to those using synthesizers in live performances. It gave them the ability to produce a similar kind of result on stage that

had previously taken many recording in the studio. {Horn, 1982, p. 241) Though most of the 1970s, commercially available synthesizers were all voltage-controlled analog synthesizers, similar in basic concept to Moog's first synthesizer. With the advent of computers, digital can:ponents were inserted into the analog process. First available in 1978, the resulting digital-analog hybrids contained digital and analog canponents in one synthesizer. The early synthesizer of this type had a mechanism which would measure the instrument settings (the anount of voltage being allowed to go to the mechanisms) used by the synthesist to create a sound. A limited number of the "presets," as they were called, could be

stored in a memory bank am later brought back to control the synthesizer and produce the sound originally measured. The synthesists no longer had to recreate a sound every time it was to be played. {Aikin, 1984, p. 30)

In the 1980s, further developnents in hybrid synthesizers supplied the creative synthesist with even more :possibilities. For example, numerous sounds could be remembered by the instruments and many came with good sounds already in the instrument {preset sounds) so no original sound creation was required. But hybrids 6

were only the start of digital applications in synthesizers. There are completely digital synthesizers, same of which have computer components with capabilities unheard of before the computer agee For example, complete compositions can be stored in the memory of

the computer, played at any speed and transposed instantly.

Digitally produced sounds do not drift off pitch slightly as analog produced sounds do. These computer synthesizers can produce much

more than one note and sound at a time. Sounds fran other sources can be sampled digitally (neaning the sound is translated into a series of on/off switches called binary encoding that the computer

stores and can convert back from mnnbers to sound) and reproduced

at ariy pitch. 'Ibis is called sampling. 'Ihese are only a few of the major benefits of completely digital computerized synthesizers.

(The 1984 Professional Keyboard Products Show, September, 1984) In summary, the history of synthesizers is a short-one, extending less than a century, but the developments during that time have been dramatic. '!be first synthesizer was the beginning

of a whole new era in music. The present synthesizers are having such an impact on music that they may actually dominate this new era.

Statanent of the Subject

There have been numerous types of synthesizers and more are being develoJ;ed every day. '!be uses for these synthesizers in music are even more numerous. A complete history of the use of 7

synthesizers would be far too large a subject for a single video production. 'Iherefore, for the purpose of this historical survey oriented production, the subject is delimited to the use of synthesizers in popular music.

Pop.Ilar music is used to show the developnent of synthesizers for two main reasons. '!he production is being written for a mass audience which would probably be more familiar with and interested in popular music. Also, synthesizer developnents have been visually documented in popular music. An historical survey of

1 synthesizer use in popular music--from "SWitched on Bach ' to "Beat It "-is a fascinating study of the inventiveness of human beings and their desire to make different kinds of music.

PUrpose of the Thesis

'!he purpose of this thesis is to present a proposal for a documentary video production about synthesizers, specifically an historical survey of the development of synthesizer use in popular music. The thesis includes a review of the literature, a procedures section, a script, a statement requirements for a production budget, and a plan for implementing the proposal.

Significance of the Subject

"I think we're on the threshold of seeing computer-based hane music systems replacing the piano as something that young children 8

learn music on," says Rd:>ert Moog, father of the analog keyboard synthesizer. (Tucker, 1984, p. 53) Though statistics are hard to find, many people in the industry felt this has already come to pass. This is a very impressive claim for a form of synthesizer so recently developed and still limited in distribution. Though only about a dozen companies are producing music-related software at this time, the Executive Vice-President of Empire Sales and Marketing in Boston, Larry Green, expects the field to double in size over the next year. He says, "The music store of the near future will have c~ters, camputer-interfaceable k~boards, digital recording equipnent, and programmable drum machines." (Tucker, p. 54) Computer synthesizers can be wonderful instruments for a new generation of musicians, or be a second chance for those who abandoned or never took music lessons and now regret it. It no longer takes long hours of practice to be able to create or perfoon a piece of music. One can slowly program in the notes to be played and have them played back at any speed. '!be pleasure of making music can belong to those who lack the performing skills previously required. "'!be computer allows you to use your intellect as your talent," says Chris NQ¥es of the Berklee College of Music •. "If you hear something that you like and can play it slowly, one note at a time, you can create a very complex composition. And because the computer serves as a score pad, you don't have to spend two years learning notation." Even professional musicians and composers appreciate these capabilities. (Tucker, p. 63) 9

Since synthesizers are so prevalent and have so much potential they deserve media presentation. Still, the mass media (except for specialty plblications) have done very little to doctm~.ent the development of synthesizers and their effects on music and musicians. synthesizers have changed the music we hear and how it is perfonned. Sanetimes work that might have required many musicians can now be done by one synthesist. Because of this some musicians feel that in music, too, machines are displacing humans fran previously well-_taying jobs. As described by Arthur B.

Rubinstein, the composer of Blue Thunder, war Games, and Scarecrow and MrS. King (for which he is currently naninated for an Ernnw) , in the Musician's Union Local 47 newS,taper, Overture, "Player of acoustical instruments are indeed losing employment because of the unrestrained, indiscriminate use of sampling. This deplorable activity must be controlled." (Rubenstein, 1985, p. 4) This accurately represents the Union position on synthesizers. There were a few Los Angeles Times articles last year on this issue, but the visual media for general public consumption have produced a dearth of coverage regarding these issues. This historical survey can present sane of the important steps of synthesizer developnent and the consequences of this developnent. This information, one hopes, will eX,tand the public's appreciation of synthesizers and their place in music and the world. (Apel, 1973, p. 190) 10 (l •

Assumptions

Several conditions are uncontrollable at the time of the research. Therefore, it is assumed that:

1. '!he complement of prop>sed interviewees will be honest

and forthright in their answers to the questions. 2. No catastrophic event or series of occurrences will distort the stated perceptions of the interviewees.

3. No technical advances will make the subject matter of this study obsolete.

Delimitations

'!he thesis is delimited in several ways: 1. The classical or other music uses of synthesizers are

examined only if indivisibly linked with Occidental (Western society) popular music uses of synthesizers.

2. '!he documentary is not intended to be a comprehensive history, but a highlight of major progressions, results and controversies in the field. 3. Only synthesizers from 1950 to the present are examined. 4. Technical functions of the synthesizers are explained only in their simplier application when necessary to show the developnent in the uses of synthesizers. 11

5. Music Concrete (the editing of audio tape to produce music) is not defined as a process of synthesizer use and is therefore excluded fran this survey except as it applies to synthesizer development.

6. '!he documentary production will be designed for the general public television audience and limited to a one-half hour single production.

Limitations

'!he thesis is limited by the following conditions: 1. '!he availability of certain persons for interviewing,

audio tape and visual footage will be a factor in determining the documentary script. 2. Since no comprehensive survey of important people in the field was attempted to ascertain the infonnation which

should be ·included in the production, the researcher is solely responsible for the content.

Definition of Terms

To facilitate understanding, the following definitions of terms as they apply to the thesis are presented: Ana1og Si.Qnal. Electronic representation of an actual sound, with the frequency (representing pitch) and the characteristics hannonics being displayed in the canplexity of the waveform. 12

Analog-Digit.al Hybrid. Making use of both analog and digital components in one synthesizer.

Digital Signal. Encoding of an analog signal into binary language (computer-like on/off bits of numerical data).

Digital-Analog ijybrid. See Analog-Digital HYbrid Synthesis. Electronic Music. Music made by electronically producing or

recording and modifying sound, which can then be heard through a speaker. · Hannonics. Frequencies created by an instrument prcrlucing a note which are higher in pitch and at a lower volume than the fundamental pitch of the note, these frequencies are what makes the difference between the sound of the same pitch on different instruments.

K~board. Designed like a piano keyboard but with differing numbers of keys, keyboards are the most oammon means of controlling the sounds that came out of synthesizer. Memory. Storing infonnation electronically (usually sounds and sequences of notes) in a memory bank or computer disk, for example, where the information can be retrieved at a later time. Musical Instrument pigital Interface (MIDI). A message system which sends digital infonnation from one synthesizer to another or to other digital mechanisms, it allows all the instruments to play simultaneously, for exampie. Mc>noJ;:tlonic. Capable of producing only one pitch (for example, one melody) at a time. 13

Oscillator. A device for creating an electronic waveform which is used by a s~aker to make sotmd1 contained in analog and hybrid synthesizerse Olertones. See Harmonics. Fpp.llar Music. Music listened played on popllar radio stations which are defined as Middle of the Road, Rock and Roll, or

Rhyt:tm and Blues by the media, or music on the media top selling or most played charts. Pol;:rohonic. Capable of producing more than one pitch (for example the four melodic lines in a Barber Shop Quartet) at a time.

SaJnpling. Where the electronic waveform of a sound is measured into digital units, which can be played back in a reproduction of the original sound (sometimes indistinguishably from the original).

Sequencer. An electronic device that remembers a p:ittern of notes and can play them back1 contained in most synthesizers.

~thesis. Using a synthesizer to assemble a sotmd out of its oomponent parts.

Syntbesist. The user of and/or ~rformer on a synthesizer.

~thesizer. An electronic instrument capable of creating a wide range of musical range of musical sounds, it provides direct control over the basic pro~rties of sound-timbre (tone quality), pitch (tuning), duration (length), and amplitude (loudness). Timbre. The sound (tone quality) of an instrument based on its overtones. 14

TOuch-Sensitive. A keyboard that responds to changes in speed or pressure, it provides independent finger control over any facet of the sound being produced e Voltage-Control. A means of control for synthesizers that changes the pitch, volume, duration and tone of a sound by changing the electrical voltage going to the waveform.

Organization of the Thesis

The first chapter presents the subject of the thesis. The background of the subject and significance of the proFOsed production is examined. The purpose of the thesis is explained.

The scope of the research and proFOsed production is given in the assmnptions, delimitations, limitations, and definition of terms. Finally, the organization of the thesis is outlined. Chapter Two contains a revie.w of the synthesizer and documenta~ literature.

Chapter Three is a summa~ of the procedures followed in researching and writing the thesis.

Chapter Four consists of the documenta~ script. Chapter Five is the Implementation of the ProFOsal, which includes the requirements for developing a production budget and, a plan for marketing the proFOsal. CHAP.rER II

RE.VIE.W OF THE LITERA'IURE

Introduction

Information gathered from the literature review and the interviews provide the basic substance from which the Documentary Script and Implementation of the Proposal chapters are written. This review is not a complete history; it is a survey of some of the major developnents in synthesizer use in popular music and of the development of documentaries. The review of the literature is divided into two I;Brts. The first part includes the four developnent stages of synthesizers and a conclusion. Same important people and works of each period will be discussed. The first stage is the early developnent of synthesizers, before 1966. Second, the era of voltage-controlled analog synthesizers will be examined. '!he next stage of development is analog-digital ~brid synthesizers, which combine digital and analog components in one synthesizer. 'nle final stage discussed in this chapter is that of the completely digital synthesizers. '!he second part of this review presents the development of documentaries, including TV infomational documentaries and music documentaries.

15 16

Early ~thesizer Developments

Synthesizers actually began in 1899 with the invention by Duddell of the Singing Arc. The sotmd it produced was the result of the electronic hum produced by electricity traveling in the air between two electranagnic forces. It could be used to play a simple tune on the keyboard, but the sound could not be varied very much and was actually not all that pleasant to listen to. No Singing Arcs have survived until today. {Mackay, p. 11) The next synthesizer was presented to the pililic in 1906. This was Thaddeus cahill's Telhanoonium. It cost $200 ,000 and weighed tons, but could produce many different sotmds. It was more successful than the Singing Arc, but electronic advances, especially the vacuum tube, made the huge bulk of the Telharmonium unnecessary. Electronic instruments, including synthesizers, flourished after this. Among the synthesizers were the Theremin and Ondes Martenot, developed in the 1920s. 'llie 'llieremin was controlled b¥ the synthesist passing his hands through the electrical signal to change the sound. The Ondes Martenot was played with a keyboard, as was the case for most of the synthesizers of this period. Although there were other synthesizers, it was the Ondes Ma.rtenot and Theremin that were the most popular during the 1920s and 1930s, and the only ones fran this period in current use, though that use is rare. The Theremin was used in movie scores and because of this was the first synthesizer heard by many people. Other than this, these 17 ~ .

instruments were not then, nor are they now, used in J;X>pular music. (Manning, pp. 1-3)

Electronic keyboards became important in the 1930s. They were

not synthesizers because the sounds were determined by the factory and the user could not change then. The Givelet was the first in 1929, and was a player-piano-type electronic organ. 'Ihe major electronic instrument of the time, though, was the Hammond Organ, demonstrated in 1930, but only made available in the United States in 1935. The Harrmond Organ was similar to a regular organ, but with electronic sounds instead or acoustic ones. Its sounds were

distinctive and soon became a standard in J;X>pular music in place of piano. (Manning, p. 3)

Through the 1940s, the war and its aftermath, synthesizers did

not develop much past the ones built in the 1920s. In spite of these early synthesizers with varying degrees of success, most agree that the first one of major significance was the RCA Mark I.

It was develop:d by Harry Olsen and Herbert Belar in the early 1950s and demonstrated in 1955 at Columbia University. 'Ihe Mark I was defined as a synthesizer because it contained in one tmit (or series of units) all the resources necessary to create, modify and produce a series of sounds electronically. Its oscillators created the sound and carptters operated by punch rolls controlled them in a manner similar to a player-piano, letting notes sotmd or not dep;mding u};X>n which holes are punched. (Salzman, p. 141) The successor to the Mark I, the Mark II was installed in the Columbia-Princeton studio in 1959. A binary number system on 18

punched cards was used to control it, which was a much more

sophisticated programming system than the Mark I. 'lbe c~uter

could read the binary system and then process the notes to be played and hOW' to play them (such as loud or soft) • '!he Mark II

had another major advantage. As well as producing its own sounds (with oscillators, such as the Mark I) it could process outside

sounds inputed through a rnicro!ilone, IlYJdifying than if instructed

to do so. '!he major disadvantage of both of these synthesizers,

.though, was that they could not be played live, as one would a

piano or electronic organ. '!he sound production had to be totally

pre-programned on punch cards or rolls and redone for any changes. (Mackay, p. 43) The other area of synthesizer experimentation occurring during this time period was the use of · canputers, not oscillators, to

produce sound. In this method, the computer sends an electrical signal (such as an oscillator sends) directly to the audio speaker.

The analog oscillator is an electranagnetic mechanism, meaning it is a controlled electrical power source. It creates an electrical

signal and sends it out in the shape of a waveform. In computer sound production, a canputer creates the shape of the waveform and sends that inforrnation to an electrical power source. Music

canputers can be programned to create any waveforrn, whereas oscillators are limited to just a few.

In 1957, the first c~uter-generated sounds were produced at the Bell Telephone Laboratories in Murray Hill, New Jersey. Max Mathews, the main engineer at Bell Labs (as they were called), is 19

recognized as the pioneering father of computer-generated sounds. He is also considered the pioneer of efforts to imitate the voice with synthesis. {Schrader, 1982, p. 152) '!he Bell labs were used allrost totally for classical canpositions and experimentation. There was only one po:pular song recorded there and, though released in a record of Bell Labs works, the majority of the public did not hear this recording at that time. It was not until 2.0.0.L that the primitive voice synthesis in

"A Bicycle Built for Two" was heard by millions as HAL is being reduced to his origins. It is clear from the early experiments that improvements were necessary in the computers and the programs for running them. {Schrader, p. 153) Aside from the need for better programs, the main disadvantage of the Bell labs • system was the same as that of the RCA synthesizers; one could not play it live. All pieces had to be pre-progranuned on punch cards. Research continued at Bell labs to overcome this. Eventually in 1968, a light pencil could be used to draw the controls on the screen, which eliminated the need for punch cards. Adaptations were made from this and other synthesizer research at Bell Labs from its earliest days to many systems across the country, especially at universities. This was true of the

University of illinois, where, it might be remembered, HAL was "born. " {Schwartz, 1973, p. 91) The popular music during this time period did not use the RCA or Bell Labs synthesizers, nor in fact, any synthesizers. '!hey were not available to them. Electronic instruments were introduced 20

and the use of than expanded exponentially. This p:tved the way for the eventual acceptance of synthesizers. However, through the

1950s and most of the 1960s, any sounds that later might have been

produced by synthesizers had to be achieved by using audio ta:J;:e manipllation. This meant that tape of an already recorded sound or

sounds (often produced by an oscillator) was changed by manual, not electrical means, in a style known as Music Concrete. For example, tape manipulation includes cutting the tape and putting. it together different ways, playing it backwards, rolling it back and forth across the tape heads, making a loop so the original recording plays over and over, slowing or speeding it up (such as the Chipnunks), or in other weys changing the original recording. There were popllar musicians using these processes on their recordings. Tape manipulation was used in "GOOd Vibrations" (1966) by the Beach Boys. Tape loops and recordings played backwards were used in the Beatles' "Revolver" (1966) and nsgt. Pepper's Lonely

Hearts Club Band" (1967) albums. Other popllar musicians used some of these techniques, but it was not camnon, as they were laborious. Tape manipulations required long hours in the studio, often working by trial and error, with uncertain results. (Griffiths, 1979, p. 61)

Voltage-Controlled Analog Synthesizers

The creation of a method for using voltage variations to control the functions of analog synthesizers introduced another way 21

to achieve unique sounds other than the tedious tape manipulations

or pre-prograrmning one of the few large synthesiz~rs. In 1964, at the request for electrical equipnent fran Herbert Deutsch, a young

canposer, Robert M:>og made the first sound devices (an oscillator and amplifier) responsive to control voltages (as described in Chapter I). A year later he had produced a voltage-controlled filter (a device that eliminates portions of the sound caning fran the oscillator). Following these discoveries, these modules

(oscillator, filters, amplifier) had to be linked together. Then a change in the electronic signal would produce a change in the outp.It of the oscillator, amplifier, and/or filter as the

progranmer chose. Previously, these changes had to be done by hand. This method was too slow and inexact to allow the

synthesizers to play a series of notes. Moog 1 s inventions were the beginnings of the voltage-controlled analog synthesizer, which would change all this. (Ernst, 1977, p. 56) It was only a few years after the origirial concept of voltage control, in 1967, when two types of voltage-controlled analog

synthesizers became commercially available, one designed b¥ Robert M::>og and the other b¥ Donald Buchla. Both were named after their inventors. 'Ihese synthesizers lacked the precision of the RCA system (without canputer control), but had many advantages over it.

The new synthesizers were much less expensive. They were small and portable (in fact, they had little resemblance to the giant RCA machine) • They were also easy to operate and, once in production,

readily ~ailable to a multitude of synthesists. Most of all, 22

voltage control enabled the ~thesist to play a series of notes, a melody. With these qualities, it is understandable why the introduction of voltage control is noted as the major developnent in o~ning up the possibilities of analog ~thesizer ~rformance and compositional capabilities to the world. (Schwartz, p. 68)

'!he r-t>og ~thesizer had a keyboard to signal the change in voltage which would be sent to the oscillator to change the pitch.

Buchla opted for a series of pads to handle this function. His was a system for studio composition, not designed to be "played" in the traditional sense.· Moog • s concept was more accessible to musicians who were familiar with the keyboard and many of whan had been playing electronic organs. '!he .r.tJog was applicable to studio composition and ~rfocnance possibilities. The original Moog was used mostly in the studio, but later Moog synthesizers were used frequently in live ~rfocnances of popular music. Fo.r example, Keith Emerson •s amazing solos on the Moog made it famous to a generation of rock fans. (Schrader, pp. 130-136)

Moog and Buchla ~thesizers daninated electronic music in the late 1960's. The Moog was eventually more successful than the

Buchla, though it is probably better remembered by the public not for this reason, but because it burst into national consciousness with Walter carlos• "Switched on Bach" in 1968. carlos

"orchestrated" the Bach pieces on the Moog and ~rformed them in a recording studio one voice (melody) at a time. The lines were joined in studio mixing, sounding as if they were all played at once. '!he resulting product could only be heard through speakers, 23

never played live. 'lbe album was a great hit and the :plblic became aware of synthesized music. (Scl'Martz, p. 81) "The Well-Tenpered Synthesizer" was Carlos• second record which contained Baroque compositions transcribed for perfor.mance on

the Moog. 'Ihe lines were distinguished from each other by

contrasting sounds, just as in his first record.· This showed off the linear distinctions in Baroque music and made the music more accessible to more people. Carlos changed old classics into popular music through his imaginative use of timbres and textures made possible by the ltk>og and his creativity. {Schwartz, p. 82)

Moog synthesizers sold extremely well, and other manufacturers entered the market. By the early 1970s a wide range of "performance" synthesizers were commercially available. The Roland, ARP and Mini-Moog were among the most widely used. 'Ihese performance synthesizers were basically simple versions of large studio machines. The synthesizers usually had same preset sounds (sounds made at the factory which only need some buttons pushed to play) and the capabilities for synthesists to make (program) their

own sounds. Even the progranmable sounds (those that could be made) were within a generally narrow range due to the limitations

of control, still not perfect, and the kinds of filters used, etc. One extreme limitation was that the keyboards' control was not touch sensitive, such as a piano keyboard is. The harder you play on a piano, the louder the sound, for example. 'lbere are also many ways to play that create different sounds on a piano. The keys on synthesizers at this time were on/off switches. They turned the 24

sound on or off by being pressed or released, respectively, nothing more. All dynamics (changes in playing the sound) had to come fran other changes on the synthesizer, such as turning the volume knob or using a pitch wheel that would alter the pitch a little.

However, this was awkward to play and limited dynamics because it

was difficult to vary every note, the way a pianist might. (Mackay, p. 47) Up until the early 1970s, the synthesizers were monophonic, meaning they played one note at a time. One of the first camnercially available polyphonic (multi-note playing) synthesizer was the Polymoog fran r-t:>og Music. It had eight voices, meaning eight notes could be played at once. It came with eight preset

sounds and one programnable one. It's keyboard was also touch

sensitive, meaning that the dynamics were controlled by how hard one struck the keys. r-t:>st synthesizers after this had touch sensitive keyboards, as it was an important selling point to synthesists.· (Horn, p. 241) Musicians quickly took to using synthesizers. Stevie Wonder was an early user of the r-t:>og. In his song, "Living for the City," the synthesizer is used for melodic interludes and background accompaniment. George Duke, of the "Mothers of Invention" (Frank Zappa's band),· used synthesizers to create full textures and contribute to a well-balanced ensemble sound. '!he "Tubes" used synthesizers as part of their elaborate set of equipnent, to canplanent (by creating unique background ambiance) and sanetimes double (play the same note) their other instruments. Todd Rundgren 25

actually wrote a song called "Born to Synthesize." These are only sane of the musicians who were using the newly developed synthesizers. (Ernst, pp. 192-194)

Some important contributions to synthesizer use in popular music came fran the group Tangerine Dream. In addition to the British and American groups, "Tangerine Dream" (a Gennan group) was part of the spread of innovation in synthesizer use to other cultures. '!heir sounds, al.Ioost canpletely electronic and unlike regular instruments, and their composition, never a hummable melody, were unusual for popular tunes. Yet, they were P?pular. '!he group consists of an ensemble of keyboard players using synthesizers and other· electronic instruments. Percussion instrtmlents (nostly untuned rhythm instrtmlents) and guitars have a relatively limited use, at nost, in the group•s music. Their creative use of synthesizers was a break from conventional rock. '!he group is long-lived and still working today. One of its recent jobs was the composition and perfonnance of the original score for the movie Risky Business. (Griffiths, p. 64)

In general, voltage control was the developnent that brought analog synthesizers into popular music. It is still one of the main forms of control for modem synthesizers. The next major developnent added even more to the impact of the synthesizer upon mcx:1em music. This was the addition of digital components to analog synthesizers to create digital-analog h¥brid synthesizers. 26

Analog-Digital HYbrid Synthesizers

Peter Zinovieff, working in England as early as 1968, was a

pioneer in digital-analog hybrid research. Only a year later, Max

Mathews and Frederick Moore at the Bell Labs finished their

nGRCXJ\7En COIIlplter program which enabled a computer to control an otherwise analog synthesizer. Instead of voltage control, the computer would control pitch, etc. At that time, the analog-digital hybrid synthesizer was still in the experimental stage. Very few people had access to these computer hybrids until the 1980s. (Ernst, p. 60) While the kind of hybrid developed at Bell Labs is a digital-analog hybrid, it is not usually referred to as such. It is currently called a computer-synthesizer hybrid, and has only becane available in the last five years. 'Ibis type of synthesizer is usually a computer attached to analog oscillators, filters and amplifiers which produce the sound. 'lhese systans have the capabilities that will be discussed under completely digital computerized music systems. These systems are produced so that those who prefer analog tone creation and modification to that of digital can have the capabilities of computer music systems, with the analog tones instead of digital. (Powell, 1979, p. 60) The term analog-digital hybrid synthesizers (or digital-analog, since the terms are interchangeable) does not include computer-synthesizer hybrids when in general usage. 27

Although analog-digital hybrids have digital components, they do not have full computer capabilities (such as large memories, ve~ fast computing, etc.) The definition of an analog-digital hybrid is simply a synthesizer containing a combination of digital and analog components (such as oscillator, filter, amplifiers, control or other mechanisms). Hybrids became available at the end of the 1970s, and currently there is a hybrid synthesizer for almost all the possible combinations of canponents. Only the mre camnon hybrids in general use are discussed in this section. '!he first hybrids available were similar to the voltage-controlled analog synthesizers, except that digital measurement of the voltage had been added. The major benefit of this hybrid systan was that the control settings could be measured and translated into binary code by the digital mechanism and stored for later use. This meant that the digital memo~ could store the sounds created by the synthesis. '!he developnent of this memo~ was one of the major breakthroughs in synthesizer history. Without this facility, synthesists had to reprogram the sounds eve~ time they wanted to play than. This was inconvenient at best. During a studio session it was slow but usually possible, if the synthesist could ranember how he created the sound. During a live perfonnance, even if there were time (which there usually was not), the process could be terrifying. It follows that the addition of digital memory was one of the mst valuable and practical developnents in synthesizers. With memory, synthesizers became much mre popular for use by all kinds of musicians, not just those 28

already familiar with synthesized music. With a larger market, it was profitable to make more synthesizers. (Aikin, p. 30) 'Ihe early hybrids of this type have limited memory capabilities. In the later hybrids, there are cartridges, cassettes or mini-floppy disks which are used to store the information and provide almost unlimited memory. Both early and later hybrids are in common use today. There are no common-use synthesizers currently being produced that are canpletely analog.

Most are digital-analog hybrids, and same are entirely digital.

All synthesizers that have any digital components have digital memories. (Aikin, p. 30) Another ccmnon digital component provides sequencing capabilities. It was p::>ssible to sequence (have the synthesizer play a series of notes) a few notes in old analog synthesizers, but the use of digital components added significantly to this ability. Almost every sequencer component produced today is digital. It is much more simple to sequence with digital functions and the sequence can usually be longer because of digital technology. Sane instruments have digital sequencers that allow the user to build a canplex piece line by line. The working memory can be large enough to store an entire piece. 'Ihe ability to edit (change) the stored line is available in sane hybrids. Most hybrids are equipped to connect with an external digital sequencer if a sequencer does not cane built in. (Aikin, p. 32)

Korg, Roland, Moog, Oberhiem and many other manufacturers make hybrids with digital memory and sequencing capabilities and analog 29

tone generation (neaning oscillators and filters). This is the xoost canmon type of hybrid being produced today. The first commercially available ~brid synthesizer of this type which had a great impact in the world of synthesizers is the Proibet 5, developed b¥ Sequential Circuits. It has fine preset sounds and can be pre-progranmed with a wide range of sounds, which the digital meiOOry stores. The Prophet sold very well and was used a great deal when it was first introduced. It became the familiar "string" sound on many pop.Uar recordings of the 1970s. '!he Pro};ilet is still. one of the 100st popular synthesizers for studio and live t:erformance use. (Mackay, p. 49)

In the late 1970s, digital technology made it possible for some polyphonic instruments with "split" keyboards to become ccmnercially available. This meant that different sounds could be played on different sections of the keyboard at the same time. '!his wasn't important in the studio, with tape recording techniques, but in live performance this meant that more sounds could be played at once-one sound for the bass, for instance, and another for the melody. Sane other instruments with the same multi-voice capability to play 100re than one sound at a time use different keyboards all plugged into the same synthesizer instead of splitting one keyboard. With these instruments, in certain instances, one synthesizer with four voices could play all the parts of a string quartet, for example. In 1975, a prototYJ;:e of a multi-voice Yamaha was demonstrated. As Bob Moog described it: 30

The demonstrator, a hip West Coast organist, addressed the audience. His words were something like this: "When Carlos made the synthesizer record Switcbed=On Bach, it took two years to complete. I will now do the same thing in ten minutes. n While those may not have been his exact words, the idea was ve~ definitely that, with this Yamaha polyphonic synthesizer, one could duplicate a multi-tract-realized piece of synthesizer music in real time. He then set the controls and played the Bach Toccata and Fugue in D Minor. Except for the introduction of same novel tone colors, the perfor.mance sounded organlike, with virtually none of the complex dynamics, tinbral terracing, or spatial manipulation of a skilled multitrack realization. It was not "the same thing" as Switcbed-On Bach. (Moog, 1980, p. 77)

.AlnDst all musicians agree with this analysis. Ve~ few synthesizers are multi-voice because studio recording makes the capability less of a priority. However, multi-voice synthesizers can be important for live performance uses. Roland makes one of the most popll.ar multi-voice polyphonic hybrid synthesizers, the Jupiter 8. It provides eight voices, preset and programnable sounds, and has memo~. (Marinelli, 1984) A recent h¥brid design uses digital oscillators and analog filters to modify the sound. This is well liked by many because the tone of a digital oscillator does not drift off pitch as an analog oscillator will at times. In addition, current analog filters are ve~ versatile sound-modifying tools. The digital oscillator and analog filters combine to produce sounds that can be different than the ones produced by sane h¥brids. The Germany based PPG company makes a hybrid of this design, the PPG Wave 2.2. Thanas Dolby (the English New Wave musician) uses the PPG Wave 2.2 31

in aliOOst all of his songs. (Michael Davis and Daninic Milano, 1983, p. 42) Most hybrid or completely digital synthesizers being produced currently are equipped with Musical Instrument Digital Interface (MIDI) components. This is used to make a number of digital or analog-digital instruments able to play simultaneously with each other. It also allows the sound of one instrument to be played on another, providing a unique canbination for the production of.

sounds and sequences. There are great plans for what MIDI can do in the future. '!here is, unfortunately, a time delay in the system, but a great amount of effort is being expended to correct the problem. In any case, the intra-instrument connection is another benefit of digital components in the analog-digital J;wbrid systems • (Milano, 1984, · p. 42) sane synthesists believe that the digital-analog hybrid is the most important development in synthesizer histo~ because it provided memory to synthesizers. Without the ability to save sounds, they think, the place of synthesizers in music would always have been limited. Without doubt, the quick storing, editing and retrieving gave synthesizers an entrance into live performance that would probably never have been possible· and significantly improved the abilities of synthesizers in any situation. In addition, the different mdxes and matches of analog and digital components added tremendously to the kinds of synthesizer sounds that could be produced. Finally, digital sequencing freed the synthesist from the necessity of always being able to pJ;wsically play that which he 32

wanted to have played-he could slowly program it in and the synthesizer could play it. This in especially important as keyboards are the most oammon controller for synthesizers and many using synthesizers are not keyboardists. In general, for these and other reasons, the analog-digital hybrid synthesizer is the major synthesizer of today.

Alnl>st all synthesists use analog-digital hybrids. Many talented rock musicians have made a reputation playing hybrids.

Keith Emerson (of "Emerson, Lake and Palmer"} , Rick Wakeman (of

"Yes"} and Brian Eno (of "Roxy Music 11 and other groups, such as

David Bowie 1 s band} are among some of the better known performers and composers for synthesizers. Frank Zappa writes ve~ interesting parts for synthesizers in his music, which are programmed and performed by studio musicians since he disbanded the

"Mothers of Invention." Mike Boddicker and Ian Underwood are two of the many studio musicians who add synthesizers to groups' recordings. (Griffiths, p. 63) Not only rock musicians use synthesizers in pop1lar music. The successful jazz and now popular star, Herbie Hancock started his synthesizer use with hybrid synthesizers ten years ago. He extended the boundaries of jazz toward what would be called jazz fusion (part jazz, part rock} with his unique ideas and use of synthesizers. He has composed film scores (such as Death Wish

Blowup, and A Soldier 1 s Stor:y> which use synthesizers. Today he is one of the most successful and inventive in his use of synthesizers. His record "Future Shock" has been on the charts for 33

over a year. Synthesizers are used in almost every song on the album. Hancock is going on tour to pranote his new record, nsound-system.n Aside from two digital computer synthesizers (Fairlight CMis, which will. be discussed in the next section),

Hancock and the band are taking three Rhodes Chranas, an OBX, and

OB8, a Mini-ltk>og and a ltk>og Source on tour-all digital-analog hybrid synthesizers. (Fonnan, 1984, pp. 9-10) The synthesist Herbie Hancock hired for his band ten years ago was Patrick Gleeson. Gleeson is recognized as a leading synthesist and composer. He has recorded his own albums as well as played as a studio musician for many others. He has his own studio with many qybrid synthesizers, but is ve~ interested these days in using his .completely digital computer system. These systems are the latest and ve~ exciting developnent in synthesizers. (Gleeson, 1979, p.

61)

Completely Digital Synthesizers

There are two different types of synthesizers under the general area of digital synthesizers. They are digital synthesizers· and digital computer music systems. Digital synthesizers are similar to analog-digital ~brids in their capabilities. The only difference is that all of the components

(such as the oscillator, filters, and amplifier) are digital in a digital synthesizer. This does not mean digital components are better than the analog components, just different in how they work 34

and usually how they sound. (There are avid supporters of both digital and analog canponents.) '!he things that can be done with hybrids and digital synthesizers are the same. Digital synthesizers became available at the end of the 1970s.

One of the most prevalent of these synthesizers available today is the D"A/. It is representative of the digital category. '!he instrument is reliable and, being digital, the tone of the oscillator does not drift. '!he preset sounds are mostly programmed by Clark Spiangler, a teacher and studio synthesist (the synthesist for Star Trek, Night Gallety and many films) • Sane ~ople are haP};¥ with the preset sounds and have the synthesizer a long time before beginning to program their own sounds. '!he programmed sounds can be stored on cassettes when the working menory becomes full. '!he user can play in any key and the instrument trans:t:eses it to any other key. Its sequencing abilities also make the D"A/ desirable to nonkeyboardists. Selling at around $2,000, the D"A/ is inexpensive comy;ared to some other synthesizers. With this quality and its other. cay;abilities, the D"A/ is seen in almost every synthesist's studio and the studio's of many home musicians. (Marinelli) The second group of digital synthesizers is what are called computer music systems. '!hese systems provide many more possibilities than the simple digital or analog-digital b¥brid synthesizers. '!hey have a full functioning c~uter to control the process of sound production and modification. The computer music systems cay;abilities are well beyond the realm of the synthesizers 35

discussed so far. These are presented in the ranainder of this section. (Schrader, p. 142)

As mentioned in the Early Developnents Section, computer synthesis began at the Bell Labs. Their c~uter synthesis required a very different way of prcx:Jucing sounds fran the synthesist. On an analog synthesizer, the synthesist can experiment to discover new sounds by, in general, plugging things in, turning knobs, and moving levers. This would alter filters, the dynamics of the sound, etc. In.the old computer music systems (such as RCA and Bell Labs synthesizers) synthesists had to understand a desired sound in tenns of sound theory before they could produce it. This meant that all the parts of the sound (the wavefonn shape, the 6vertones, etc.) had to be understood by the synthesist so he could specifically ccmnand the canputer to create · those tarts which will result in the sound desired. The synthesist could not hear the sound until all the ccmnands were entered by running the pmch cards through the machine. Then a new punch card would be made if the synthesist wanted to change the sound. This was obviously a long process and more difficult than turning a knob. (Schrader, p. 152) This is not true of digital computer systems today. They are no more difficult to use for programming sounds than are other synthesizers. S¥nthesists usually push the same kinds of levers and turn the same kinds of knobs as they would on other synthesizers. However, these computers also have the ability to take infoonation fran a typewriter keyboard. In fact, synthesists 36

do not even have to play the notes at all, just type in the pitch and time values they wish the systems to play. Music computers translate typed-in information for sequencers, which play the notes. This is only one of the advantages of the computer music systems. (Marinelli) The first commercially distributed computer music system was the Synclavier. It was developed in 1972 when canposer Jon Appleton began working with engineers Sydney Alonso and cameron Jones. Appleton wanted a music system to have certain capabilities. Alonso and Jones responded to this request with the Dartsmouth Digital Synthesizer. Although this system broke new ground, it was not practical in the areas of :r;x>rtability and performer orientation. In 1976, Alonso and Jones designed the Synclavier. (Schrader, pp. 142-144) 'lhe Synclavier had similar hardware and software to the Dartsmouth Digital Synthesizer, but with a new convenient control program. '!he system consisted of a keyboard and control );anel attached to a computer with hard and floppy disk drives for storage. 'lhe two parts easily disconnected and connected. 'lhey were relatively small and :r;x>rtable. The Synclavier could be used in studios and live. performances with success. About 50

Synclaviers were built in the late 1970s. Alonso and Jones were not satisfied with the system, however. So in 1980 they introduced the Synclavier Digital Music System II. This current system is designed as the original Synclavier, but faster and easier to work with due to better software programs and a more instrumental 37

looking package. In 1984, the name was reduced back to Synclavier and the company insists it will stay with that name. (Schrader, p. 143) The Synclavier has many capabilities in addition to those of the digital-analog hybrids. It has a six and one third-octave touch-sensitive keyboard. A large capacity hard disk, as well as

floP};¥ disks and a 3/4 inch tape drive, can be used for infoonation storage. Many special timbral modification effects are possible because of the software prograrrming. Instant transposition and the ability to change the tuning of the notes on the keyboard are among

its many capabilities. Systems cane with up to 128 programnable voices which can play similtaneously. (Whereas multi-voice hybrids can sanetimes play a string quartet, the Synclavier can play an orchestral piece.) A sixteen-track digital recorder allows 16

voices of these voices to be reco~ded separately in the computer and played back simultaneously. The Synclavier's voices are very versatile. Fach voice can be built with 24 independently adjustable harmonics (overtones). Its complex voices would require dozens of modules in ordinary synthesis. In addition, four voices can be programmed to play at once, making one sound. These sounds

and pieces can also be created, stored, and played in stereo. Pieces stored in the system can be printed out in standard music

printing style. ('lhe carputer can also be used as a word and data processor.) (Horn, p. 251) The Synclavier not only has the ability to digitally create and modify sounds. It also digitally records sounds (called 38

sampling) and plays than back. For example, a flute can be sampled and then that note played by the Synclavier. This is not unique to the Synclavier, but it has the most accurate reproduction of the sound because its rate of sampling is the highest. This means that it takes more samples of the sound per second than aD:Y other system. The Synclavier goes further by providing resynthesis. In this case, the sampled sound is analyzed by the canputer and then the c~ter can generate the sound, just as it generates any other. This means that the sound can be modified and played anywh~re on the keyboard. To continue the flute example, the

Synclavier can be used to modify the sound by correcting the pitch if it were a little out of tune. The sound could be played higher or l<:Mer than aD:Y flute player would be able to play. The sound could be made a little different, or just used as a beginning sound for aD:Y other sound which might be totally different. The possibilities are ranarkable. (Marinelli) Facilities such as these frightEm other musicians, who feel that the digital sampiing and resynthesis of their instruments are being used instead of the original instruments. Early synthesizers could imitate instruments, but the Synclavier and sane other canputer systems can actually play the sounds of those instruments. However, just because a synthesizer has a great cello sound, for example, it does not mean that the synthesist can be a great cellist. There is much more to an instrument than the sound. Synthesists believe that people who want the sound of musicians playing specific instruments will hire than and those that want 39

synthesizer sounds will hire a synthesist. Regardless, this continues to be an issue of concern azrong musicians. (Marinelli) A complete Synclavier system now costs over $200,000 (with beginning systems selling for less than $20,000), but is very powerful. A less :powerful computer music system for less money (about $20,000) is the Fairlight CMI (Computer Musical Instrument). It does not have the facility for as complex sounds as the Synclavier•s, but it is very p>pular for the facilities it does

I have. Produced in Sydney, Australia, the Fairlight CMI is the product of five years of research by Kim Pyrie, Peter Vogel and

Tony Furse. Introduced in 1980, the CMI combines all the functions of the canputer in one system. A light :r;en for modifying information which ap:r;ears on the monitor is available with the CMI. Regular canputer typewriter keyboard input can also be used. '!he au has sampling similar to the Synclavier •s, but only very basic internal sound creation and modification. r-t>st synthesists buy the CMI for its sampling, which reproduces sounds that were originally fran outside the synthesizer. In this way, the designers feel, no characteristic "Fairlight" sound will develop (as it did for the

ProP'let or r-t>og for example). '!he instrument will be unique to the :r;erson who uses it with this method. There are, though, sounds supplied by Fairlight that new users of the system find very helpful at first. (Halmnond, 1983, p. 129)

As is true of the Synclavier producers, the Fairlight CMI producers claim that their clients will never have to purchase another system because their instrument is software driven. The 40

hardware remains the same while new software is continually eX};allding what the system can do. Kim Kyrie, the Managing Director of Fairlight, estimates that the user's cost per year of keeping up to date with the new software and canputer cards is one thousand dollars. As of now, the comp:my pranises never to come out with a new hardware package which would make the old one obsolete. (Hanunond, pp. 130-131) Live performance is a specialty of the 011. It has eight-voice polyphony: Sounds can be stored and loaded fran the disk drives for performance. An entire piece of up to sixteen parts can be played simultaneously for up to 30 minutes to an hour depending upon the piece. This is helpful to artists who like to pre-program a piece so they can concentrate on the show part of their acts, ·knowing the music will come out well. (Hammond, pp. 131-140) A significantly less expensive canputer music system than the two already mentioned is the ·alJ;ilaSyntauri Studio Pro system (usually called the alP'la5yntauri) • It runs off the Apple II micro-computer (the Fairlight and Synclavier run off larger mini-computers). '!he total system, ihcluding com:r;:uter, sells for less than $10,000, (and of course the computer can be used for many other :r;:urposes, such as video games, word and data processing, etc.) • '!he music generating system has hardware to connect it with the ~e, digital oscillators and filters. It has a five-octave velocity-sensing keyboard, meaning it changes the sound.according to how fast the user strikes the key. It has sixteen-track 41

recording and eight voices. The al{ilaSyntauri 's reliance on software also allows for updating its capabilities without discarding the hardware. The usual computer music system facilities are offered, such as storing a piece {up to 2,000 notes), editing {by typing in or playing changes) of the stored music, tempo and key controls, music printing and live performance capabilities. {Hamnond, pp. 35-37)

'lbe al{ilaSyntauri canes with many preset and simulated instruments sounds on floPJ!.i disks. The user programmed sounds are also stored on disks. Most professional musicians make their own sounds. Herbie Hancock used the al{ilaSyntauri for some of the melodies and counter-melodies on his album 11 Future Shock... He says that, 11 I think that micrcrcomp.1ter instruments like the al{ilaSyntauri have an incredible amount of flexibility." (Tucker, p. 58) He adds that, to be completely satisfied, he would like a longer keyboard, better volume control and sound generating systems that offer a wider range of frequencies (limited currently by inexpensive oscillators and the relative slowness of the Apple's micrcrprocessor). Hancock believes that the micrcrbased (home-type canputer) synthesizer will improve, with quality approaching that of digital recording. 11 It's a digital instrument, .. he says, 11 SO w~ not? 11 (Tucker, p. 58) Herbie Hancock is definitely not the only musician to use canputer music systems. Wendy carlos (previously Walter) owns a Synclavier, as do Oscar Peterson, Pat Gleeson, Laurie Anderson, Pat

Matheny (it has a guitar adaptor) and many others. Synclavier was 42

on most of the songs of the 0 Thriller0 album by Michael Jackson and

Liniel Richie's ncan•t Slow Down° album to name a few. 'I.Wo of

1985's biggest Christmas movie releases, 2.QJJl and Star Man, have the Synclavier doing most and all of the music, respectively. ~e Fairlight O.U is one of Keith Emerson's major keyboards. Tony

Raye, of 0 Yes," uses the Fairlight OU:, as does Peter Gabriel.

Stevie Wonder o.ms an allilaSyntauri. The musicians are buying these and other computer music systems at an increasing rate. ~e unique sounds and ranarkable musical cap:lbilities are appealing to all kinds of musicians, especially composers, whc;> can hear their music realized as it is being written. (Marinelli)

~ere are other computer music systems with the same basic cap:lbilities as those discussed here and more are being developed.

As Craig Anderton describes it: The best is yet to came: In the near future, more powerful canputer, less exp:msive components, and a more complete understanding of the human machine interface will give us instruments whose flexibility of operation and cost-effectiveness surpass anything available today. (Anderton, 1983, p. 48)

Conclusion

'!he im:pact of synthesizers in music has been unprecedented. Andy Mackay put it in perspective: '!he violin, which appeared in the sixteenth century, did not make its full impact on composition until a century later. In half that 43

time electronics has completely changed the way we hear music. • • • '!he technology is with us tQ stay." (Mackay, p. 61)

Synthesizers have also changed the people making music. As Peter Gabriel explained it: There is another shift in emphasis the music canputer is causing. It •s removing the exclusivity, control and realization of ideas fran the musician and passing it to the layman. I •m basically unqualified as a musician. I read single lines of music, but not well. I have no technique really, no training, no formal understanding whatever--as is true of a lot of rock people." (Hamnond, p. 167)

Many successful people in the music world say the scime as Peter

Gabriel. NcM the public can appreciate their music, which might not have been possible without synthesizers.

In the short histo~ of synthesizer use in popular music, synthesizers have moved fran being unused 20 years ago to being on allrost eve~ record produced today. They have changed from voltage-controlled analog synthesizers, to digital-analog hybrid synthesizers and finally completely digital synthesizers (including canputer music systems). Synthesizers have changed the music we hear, the way we hear it and often who writes and performs it. The developnent of synthesizers has been exponential. Whatever the future developments of synthesizers may be, it is clear that for the time being their usage in popular music will continue to expand. 44 il '

Documentaries

Doct.mentary films were a p:trt of the beginning of film making. Before the start of the 20th Century, Louis Lumiere and his camera operators had already made quite a few doct.mentaries. (Barnouw,

1983, p. 29) In 1922, Robert Flaherty made the classic, Nanook of the North, and the fonnal documentary film IOOVement began. (Bluem, 1971, p. 42)

Fran this time on, many different types of documentary fonnats developed, all with different histories and markets. Since the proposed project is for television, this brief literature review will present an historical background for the television documentary, examine the TV informational documentary oore closely

(since that is the type of doct.mentary being proposed) ; and survey the documentaries that have been made in. the topic area of the proposed project-4music.

TV documentaries began under the jurisdiction of news departments. '!he news doct.mentary style, as developed in the radio and film version of Marcb of Time, was the basis for early TV news documentaries. In 1951, NBC did a weekly series of 12 half hour special reports of the United Nations. At the same time, Edward R.

Murrow and Fred Friendly started See It Now. These programs initiated the tradition of major, nationally distributed documentary series dealing with current issues and contemporary crises of national and international importance. CBS Reports, 45 0 .

NBC White Paper and ABC Close-Up were all continuations of this tradition. (Bluem, pp. 91-93)

These early Til documentaries were all done in a style that is often tenned the "report." Traditionally, this style was supervised by the network news deputment and a network correspondent was used. The current report documentaries, though, are not always produced by a news department and use various journalists. In either case, the style is typified by a straightforward journalistic statement; intervia-Ts with experts; recitation of facts and figures; a sumnary and the presentation of pros and cons with J?erhaps some answers when appropriate. The prevalence of report style documentaries is immediately noticeable to any via-Ter of Til documentaries. This style remains one of the most used in presenting an issue-oriented subject in docurnenta~ for.m. (Jacobs, 1971, p. 451) However, there are three other basic styles of presentation that have develo]?ed over the years--canpilation, biographical and dramatic styles. Compilation involves creative application of visual. techniques, organization and editing, spoken narration, and a powerful musical score to enhance the visuals. The biographic documentary uses the same elements, with the addition of dramatic structure within the broader narrative structure. In the dramatic style documentary, the dramatic function canes first and the use of actual historical material is minimized. (Bluern, p. 144)

Of the three styles, the compilation documentary had the largest i.nq?act upon the growth of documentaries on American TV. 46

Henry (Pete) Solanon, often called the Robert Flaherty of TV,

conceived of the first compilation documentary series to go on TV at the time it had achieved a national audience. The series was Victocy at Sea, aired in 1952-53 • The series was an enonnous success. This project brought together a team that, with the support of NBC, continued to produce programs in the same style as

Victocy at Sea even after Solanon •s death in 1957. (Bluem, pp. 144-149)

Not only NBC, but the other networks and independent producers

learned. fran the success of Victocy at Sea and there followed an

outpouring of compilation documentaries throughout the 1950s and

1960s, such as Air lbwer, '!he Twentieth Century and The Va1iant. Years. The documentaries of this period were on historical or news and public-affairs topics. Although there were sane independent

productions, most documentaries in the 1950s were produced by network news departments. (Bluem, pp. 165-166)

In the early 1960s, one man changed the situation of documentary production that had lasted throughout the 1950s. David _ Lloyd Wolper •s first documentary, '!be Race fox: Space, achieved a near-national audience. Although not aired on a network, it was aired by numerous local stations across the nation. Wolper then found that networks would carry independently produced documentaries which were classified as "entertainment," and therefore would not conflict with the network's public-affairs programning. Within three years fran his first program, Wolper 47

became the third largest producer of documentaries for 'N in America. The bulk of Wol:per' s documentaries were in the canpilation style, although he produced an entire series of 65 biographies of major 20th Century figures, as well. Among his 400 documentaries, Wol:per was the first to produce the National Geographic SOciety and

Jacques Cousteau specials. One of Wol:per • s best known programs was

The Making of a President {1964) , which won him an ~. It is considered one of his best and most poignant productions. Wol:per 's documentaries, though not all as critically acclaimed as The Making of a President, were a large influence on the developnent of documentaries and the beginning of strong indepement documentary producers. (Steigerwald, 1985, p. 21) The report, compilation, biogra];ilic and dramatic documentary styles expanded during the 1960s and through to the 1980s into all areas of documentary uses. Aside fran entertainment and news and public-affairs, the prop:tganda and educational implications of 'N documentaries became more important parts of the documentary world.

The propaganda uses of doctmentaries have kept the documentarist under fire fran the beginning. war documentary films had explored this potential during the actual war and cold war conflicts. As more inde:pendent producers with divergent opinions begin producing documentaries, the concern over bias in documentaries grew. However, as most documentaries confront the subject matter o:penly, doctmentarists have proposed that this should alert the viewer's critical facilities and his ability to 48

analyze the program, including whatever bias might be included intentionally or unintentionally in the production. The documentary is being used legitimately, it is then claimed, to

~rsuade and inform. Regardless, fran WhY We Fight (1940s) to El, salvador: Another Vietnam (1981), prop:tgarXIa uses have always had a place in documentary history and this will undoubtedly continue to true in the future. (Barnouw, pp. 298-299)

The place of the dramatic documentary is a little more confusing. Instead of actual reenactments of history, the more usual style in use today is the docu-drama. This title allows the program to be structured along what the producers consider more dramatic lines, whether actually :p;1rt of the section of history being shown or not. There are many pros and cons to the docu-drama. Prop:>nents claim that it interests viewers in history, who can then look up and learn more al:x>ut the actual situation. Opfonents claim that very few look for more information, and therefore those watching think that the docu-drama is what actually happened. The networks have responded that docu-dramas are to entertain, and will be presented for that purpose, not to teach history. The point is that docu-dramas have done very well in the ratings and therefore, will continue to be produced. Although common on TV, the docu-drama is not considered very valuable as an infonnational documentary. (Steigerwald, p. 24)

The TiJ informational documentary, with emphasis on the educational implications noted previously, is the second area of consideration in this review. Most of the compilation 49

documentaries already listed could be considered informational, as were sane of the report series. (However, many reports were more

persuasive in nature.) During this period of the 1950s and 1960s, the specifically educational/cultural uses of documentaries also

came to be noted. Documentaries that were more than just

informational, but tried to teach satethings and widen the viewers 1 perception of the world, were developed. Qnnibus (1952) was the first informational/educational series on commercial TV. lhe Search (1954) and Wide Wide Wor1d (1956)

followed a few years later. The Search examined developnents in

research and scholarship at American Universities. The other two were general cultural and infoonational programs designed to bring an awareness of the world to the viewers through their TV sets. (Bluem, pp. 208-209) Documentaries with an infoDnational/educational prrpose are the 100st camoon documentary on TV. lbis includes all the wildlife programs and the quality .Ns&a. series (used for general

informational education) to the spectacular Life on Earth and ambitious Cosmos (which were both used in college classes).

(Bamouw, pp. 297 & 308) Also, alnDst every major motion picture has a behind-the-scenes documentary done to show the making of the movie. E.Ven Michael Jackson 1 s video Thriller has a The Making of Xbriller video. Although these documentaries are usually fifteen minutes or less, they are prevalent in the industry. It is in the tradition of this well accepted history of infoonational 50

documentaries on TV that the video project of this thesis is prop>sed. The subject of the prop>sed video production is a Fart of musical history and the music world today. 'nle history of music documentaries is, therefore, the third area of this review. It

must be noted that there were very fe.w documentaries related to

music produced specifically for 'IV. Given this, film documentaries, of which oost were eventually shown on TV, were surveyed. Music documentaries were alm:>st lmheard of in the 1950s, but surged in the 1960s, partially due, it is believed, to the

imp>rtance of music to the generation of the 1960s. 1950s music

documentaries included Jazz Dance (1954) and Jazz bn a Surraner Is ray

(1959). They dramatized the abnos:tnere and personalities found in the jazz world. (Jacobs, p. 277) While these dealt with professional musicians, another very interesting documentary, which included music as a significant

p>rtion of the subject, was Tbe Musicians (1960) • It showed industrial workers in the factory, then later as they met in the same factory for a amateur orchestra rehearsal. This was the only major documentary to show the value of music at an amateur level. (Barnouw, p. 194)

Aside fran these programs, nusic documentaries began to be

produced in two main for.ms--a portrait of a performer/group or a concert perfonnance. The p>rtraits started in 1960 with Lonely Boy and Mingus. Lonely Boy showed the 1 ife of teen-age singing idol 51 ~1 •

Paul Anka. Jazz great Charles Mingus was the subject of a verity study in MiDQUS. Johrley Cash was the docmnentary };X>rtrait of cash and his wife on tour and with family. (Jacobs, pp. 474 & 489) The entrance of '!he Beatles into the American rock concert world was shown in 1964 with What's ~ning! The Beatles in the U.S.A. (Bamouw, p. 240) These are only a few samples of nusic documentary portraits.

Sane of the most memorable music documentaries, portraits and concert performances, were made by two men, Donn A. Pennebaker and

Richard Leacock. Together and separately, Pennebaker and Leacock have made the :roost noted films about musicians. Subjects for their documentaries have included Geza Anda, Van Cliburn, Susan Starr, Dave Lambert, Igor Stravinsky and Bob Dylan_! The documentaries on Stravinsky and Dylan were especially acclaimed. A Stravinsky Portrait, a Leacock-Rolf Lieberman production, shows Stravinsky in intimate manents and musical discussions; it shows him as humorous and great. '!he film remains a wonderful example of the ability of a documentary to illlmlinate a man and his work. {Barsam, 1973, pp. 255-256) Another such example is Pennebaker's Don't Look Back (1966), a portrait of Bob Dylan on his 1965 tour of England. It pictured Dylan in concert, arguing with hotel managers and in interviews. '!here was disagreenent on whether or not Dylan put on an act for the film.

If he did, the viewers saw what Dylan wanted to portray. If he did not, the film is a candid look at a brilliant performer and poet. Either way remains an interesting };X>rtrait. (Barsam, p. 264) 52

Portraits of musicians obviously did not stop in the 196 Os. Pau1 Robeson: Tribute to an Artist (1980) was a late recognition of

Robeson • s life and work. '!he career of the singing group The Weavers was celebrated in Wasn't That a Time (1982), which ended in excerpts from their joyous reunion in a sold out carnegie Hall concert. (Barnouw, p. 309) One of the latest portraits was of Sting in Bring on the Night, currently in theaters. These are only a few of mre recent portraits, as they continue to be a very popular type of music docmnentary. The other major area of music documentaries was the recording of concert performances. Pennebaker was the producer of the documentary which was the first of the big rock festival films, Monterey Pop (1968). In recording the ftk>nterey Rock Festival, with many of the biggest names in rock music at the time, it captured both the dynamic performances and the exuberant crowd. This documentary was a critical and commercial success. (Jacobs, p. 373)

Pennebaker was also the first (in 1971) to film the recording session of a broadway hit, and titled the documentary Original east

Album: Compaey. (Barsam, p. 267) The latest example of this idea was Bernstein Conducts West Side. Sto:r::y (1985), a documentary shown on ms of the new recording of Bernstein •s 20 year old Broadway hit. However, based upon the success of Monterey Pop, mst of the performance documentaries were of rock groups. The next documentary, though, was as controversial as M<>nterey Pop was 53

innocuous. Ginme Shelter (1970) was the Rolling Stones california concert (and other concert footage) made into a documentary by

Albert and David Maysles. With crowd control by the Hells Angels, there were injuries in the crowd and one murder. Critics claimed the performance insighted the crowd to riot, causing the violence.

'!be intensity of Jager and the rest of the band can be seen in the documentary, as can Jager 1 s requests for the crowd to be calm, but the footage does not in any way solve the controversy. The documentary takes no sides on the issue and simply ranains a part ·of the controversy. (Barsam, pp. 288-290) Also in 1970, but completely opposite fran Gimne Shelter in character, was Woodstock. 'Ibis documentary, produced by Michael Wadliegh, was said to show the heart of a generation. ·It was full of hope, love and fine performances from numerous artists. Sane believe that rock music has never been Iitotografhed so well, and that the vignettes provided a happy atm:>sfhere, regardless of the rain and traffic. The difficulties in filming were many, with the weather, crowds and primitive conditions, but it was well worth the effort. Woodstock was a record of the era-not to be missed. It was also more financially successful than the event itself, with a national and international theater run. (Jacobs, pp. 492-493) Since 197 0 there have been numerous concert performance documentaries. One of the outstanding ones in the late 1970s was

Martin Scorcese 1 s The Last Waltz. This documentary of '!he Band 1 s last concert, with some interview and other footage, was a stylistic view of The Band at the end of its sixteen years on the 54

road. Shown at the Cinerama Dane in Los Angeles, this was one of

the last concert perfor.mance documentaries released in theaters.

After '!be I.ast Wa1tz, especially beginning in the 1980s, JOOst concert perfonnance documentaries were released in video. They were not produced for theater release at all, but for the bane

video market. Cable T'l also contracted for concert ~rfoonances of

all kinds of music. In these two fonnats, perfonnance documentaries are very popllar today.

In surrinary, perfor.mances and portraits continue to be the main types of music documentaries. A specific portion of music as the subject for an infonnational documentary has not been the usual

pattern. Music has, however, proved to be more and more a part of oodern life. Also, beginning in the 1980s, a few T'l infonnation documentaries on technology have had music as part of the subject,

such as The Future is Now on .ABC, Fast Forward on TVOntario, and Nova: Artists in the Lab on PBS. It is hoped that the interest

sha.m by these programs and the history of music documentaries will support an infonnational documentary on synthesizer developnent in popllar music. OIAPrER III

PROCEOORES

Identification of the Subject Area

&ynthesizers are awe-inspiring for the ranarkable music-making caJ;:abilities they have develoi=ed. However, any discussion of the use of synthesizers must include a side effect many view as negative. The use of synthesizers to do the work of many musicians is quite a controversy. in the world of musicians. Sane see this as progress and change--others call it regression and believe that synthesizers are being misused. 'lherefore, as a subject for a documenta.ry, aside fran the inherent music-making interest, synthesizers have the quality of a cutting edge of concern in the music indust.ry, since they are viewed as putting musicians out of work. Synthesizers are not limited to the professional music indust.ry, however. '!hey are also becaning a part of the lives of many amateur musicians as they comiX>se and/or play music at bane and of normusicians who now hear a synthesizer in church instead of an organ. Synthesizer sounds are ve.ry familiar to the general public, but synthesizers, thanselves, are not. Because of this, the idea for a documenta.ry on synthesizer use in IX>pular music was conceived. '!he writers, musicians, professors and ~ple fran many walks of life who were survied for this project, believed

55 56

synthesizers were an appro~iate and possibly marketable subject for an infoonational documentary.

Research Methods

With the subject chosen, libraries in the Los Angeles area

were searched for material about synthesizers. Research also included related infoonation fran private collections. Books, magazines, records, films, video and audio tapes dealing with the

subject were studied. Also, intervi&~s .were held with praninent people who puticipated in the developnent of synthesizers and/or synthesized music.

Developnent and Implementation of the Questionnaire

A basic questionnaire was developed from the research for intervie.wing the people identified as important in the field of synthesizers. '!he survey- was tested on musicians, audio engineers, synthesists, and others associated with the subject. People unrelated to music but interested in it and/or in synthesizers were asked if the questionnaire covered information which they- would be interested in learning about. Fifteen people were consulted

regarding the questionnaire. As a result of the testing and due to the limited time of many perfonners and com};X>sers, the number of questions for these resJ;X>ndent groups was reduced to 10. The completed cow of the questionnair~ is included in Appendix A. 57

Not all questions were designed to be asked of all interviewees. '!he questions are coded according to four groups of respondents. These groups are perfor.mers/programmers, camposers, can!BllY representatives (producers of synthesizers), and irwentors of synthesizers. Sane questions were developed to be asked of all respondents and sane to be asked of a specific group of respondents.

The questionnaire was implanented by means of telef.'hone and in-person interviews, which usually lasted approximately 15 to 30 minutes. A description of the purpose of the study was given by the interviewer before beginning on the questionnaire. The interviews were recorded if possible, and if not, the interviewer made notations of the responses. Certain questions were deleted and sane questions were added, when appropriate, at the time of the interviews. Interviews were held fran Novanber 1985 through April 1986. No possible interviewee refused to be interviewed, but a few, after repeated efforts to contact than, were unavailable. It was decided to continue the project with the research and interviews which had been completed.

Selection of the Interviewees

Prominent people and canpmies in the field of synthesizer use in popular music were identified fran the research. '!he people or canp:mies were chosen for inclusion on this list or a variety of 58 Q •

reasons. The frequency of mention of a person or comp:my 1:¥ different authors was a consideration. This frequency could have been the result of a );erson • s music or work (such as the inventors of synthesizers) • IJhe importance attached to a person • s work or music was also considered. For example, the person may not have

been mentioned as many times, but the :part .played by this person in

the developnent of synthesizers was considered to be very important. Finally, even relatively unknown people who, according to the research, are trying to stretch the developnent of synthesizers at the present time were also included on the list when appropriate. Discussions with the people who tested the questionnaire added

to the list of interviewees within the same quidelines for inclusion as in the library research. IJhe following is the interview list developed fran this process with the interviewee's group designation as an inventor, perfonner, can:r;:any representative and/or canp:>ser. All the inventors are also com:r;:any representatives. When the name of a person follCMs the can:r;:any or music group, this was the person to whan the researcher was directed by the com:r;:any or group. When the can:r;:any follCMs the name, the research process suggested that this person be interviewed as representative of the comp:tny. '!he interview list included: Will Alexandre (Fairlight) - com:r;:any representative Sidney Alonzo (New England Digital) - inventor Laurie Anderson - performer/programmer and comp:>ser 59

Brian Banks - performer/programmer and composer Mike Boddicker - perfonner/progranuner Wendy Carlos - perfonner/programmer and composer Keith Emerson - perfonner/programmer and composer Patrick Gleeson - performer/programmer and composer Herbie Hancock - performer/programmer and composer

Antho~ Marinelli - perfonner/programmer and composer

Robert f.t>og (Kurzweil) - inventor Georgio Moroder - programmer and composer Tom Oberheim (OberheinrOCC) - inventor Jeff Rona (Roland) - comp:my representative David Smith (Sequential Circuits) - inventor

Clark S~angler - perfonner/programmer Tangerine Dream (Michael Hoenig) - perf ./prog. and composer Ian Underwood - performer/programmer Frank Zappa - performer and composer Yamaha (Mark Koenig) - comp:my representative

Each interviewee was asked for suggestions of other possible interviewees that fit the guidelines of the research for this thesis. If a person, group of people or canfanY was mentioned by at least three people, that addition was made to the list of interviewees. These additions were: Don Buchla (Buchla) - inventor Jan Hanmer - performer/programmer and composer

Pat Mathe~ - perfonner/programmer and composer

Alan Pearlman (Arp) - inventor 60

Due to availability of the possible interviewees, 20 out of the 24 people targeted for interviews were interviewed. Laurie Anderson and Ian Underwood were on tour; Mike Boddicker and Georgie

Moroder were unable to find the time. '!he following list of people were interviewed:

Will Alexandre (Fairlight)

Sidney Alonzo (New England Digital)

Brian Banks

Don Buchla (Buchla)

Wendy Carlos

Keith Emerson

Patrick Gleeson

Jan Hammer

Herbie Hancock

Michael Hoenig (Tangerine Dream)

Mark Koenig (Yamaha)

Pat Matheny

Anthony Marinelli

Robert Moog (Kurzweil)

Tom Oberheim (OberheinrOCC) .

Alan Pearlman (Arp)

Jeff Rona (Roland)

David Smith (Sequential Circuits)

Clark Splangler

Frank Zap:r;a 61

Data Analysis

Ap];endix B contains a brief stmnary of each the interviewee's resp:mses to the questionnaire. 'lhe res};X>nses to the questions are listed after the numbers of the questions. No attempt was made to analyze statistically the reS};X>nses. Interesting information fran the interviews which was unrelated to the questionnaire was noted

at the end of the summary of each interview. No attempt was made to treat statistically these data. The reS};X>nses to the questionnaire and other research provided the basis for the infonnation included in the script. Portions of the interview data unrelated to the questionnaire were included in the script at the discretion of the writer. J:XXlJMENJ.'ARY SCRIP!'

SYN'JliFSIZEBS: THE JNVISffiLE lNSTRIJMEW'S

FADE IN CN 'IWO TEEN-AGE BOYS IN A CDNVERTmLE PARKED IN 'lHE SANTA MONICA BEACH PARKIN; LOT. 'IBE CNE ON 'IBE DRIVER Is SIDE IS SITI'IOO ON '!HE 1XlOR. '!HE ONE ON '!HE PASSEN:;ER SIDE IS SI'l'Tnt; m 'IBE SEAT AND 'IURNIN; CN THE RADIO.

GENER&, BACKGRCUND NOISES OF PEOPI.,E AND WAVES. '!HE RAOIO STARTS~ WE HEAR 'IHOMAS OOLBY 1 S "BIG SCIENCE." PASSEWER: Listen to the way he uses that synthesizer! DRIVER: That • s the last time I want to hear that word today. PASSENGER; Synthesizer? Why?

DRIVER: Ever since you got yours you 1 ve been a drag. You point it out on every song.

PASSEWER: It is on every song.

DRIVER: Right.

PASSEN;ER: It is, really. Here, I 111 show youe

DRIVER: No way.

'IHE PASSEN;ER '!URNS '!HE Sl'ATION CN '!HE RADIO. srp.TIC AS HE '!URNS '!HE KN(B. "KISS" BY PRINCE IS HEARD· PASSEWER: Here the bass is a synthesizer.

HE '!URNS '!HE STATICN AGAIN.

STATIC AS BE '!URNS '!HE KNCB. F&,m 1 s "R

PASSOOER: Drum Machine.

HE '!URNS '!HE STATION liGAIN.

62 63

mMIC AS HE rums 'mE KNCE. WE HEAR SToo • s "FORI'RESS ARaJND YOUR HEART· II

PASSOOEB: Well, I don't know where, but you can bet at least one· synthesizer sotmd is in the mix somewhere.

DRIVER SITS I:XliN IN THE DRIVER 1 S SEAT AND STARI'S THE CAR. DRIVER.: Too late. You blew it. Let's go see a movie. PASSOOER: Great. I've been wanting to see one where the sotmd track is all • • • DRIVER (breaks inl : Don't· say it.

FADE OOT AND FADE IN CN HOST IS ABSTRA.Cl' SE.".l"l'lro SIMILAR IN TCNE '10 '!HE OMNIBUS SET. HC\ST IS STANDIK; SURiaJNDED BY SYN.IBF.SIZERS AND OTHER INSTRUMENTS, INCllJDII

~: Actually, there was synthesizer in the last song. · It simply played the keyboard part. Could you pick it out? Do you believe it's on every song? Well, it isn't on every one, but it is on most of them. We hear synthesizers all the t.ime, not just in songs, but in films and television. HCM' many of us realize this?

HCST WALKS OlER '10 DRJM SET. PAN WI'IH HOST AND ZOOM IN 00 HIM AND DRUM SET.

~: We learned a little about music in school, enough to have an idea of what instrmnents sotmd like.

HITS DRUM. SOOND OF THE DROM.

~: That's the sotmd we expect to hear.

WALKS 'IOYARD SYNI'HESIZER. 64

,HWl: But synthesizers sound like anything.

PUSHES Gm KEY.

UNIQUE SPACE-LIKE SCXJNI).

~= Even other instruments.

PUSHES ANOIHER KEY. saJN[) LIKE WE DRUM JUSI' a.AYED.

~: can we listeners really tell the difference? That's why this program is called •••

CUT ID TITLE C'ARD WHIOI REAllS "SYmHESIZERS: '11IE INVISmLE INSTRUMENI'S" (ON BIACK). VIDEO SURVEY OF DIFFERENT SYNTHESIZER S'IUDIOS SHO\IN WHILE TI'ILES ROLL.

ORIGINAL SYN'lHESIZER. MAIN TITLE.

MED SHO!' HOST ON SEl' WITH ABSTRACI' BACKGROOND.

~: As you can see fran the many synthesizers you've just seen, they are far fran invisible I:ilysically. It is only in the public's perception that the question arises. Listen to these clips. See what you think is

~thesizer and what isn't.

ROLL 2 MINUTE

MUSIC FOR WF.SE FILMS AND VIDEOS

CLOSE UP HOST IN SAME BACKGRCUND.

~= Well? Actually, all the music was perfonned on

~thesizers. Are you wondering when all this happened? How did these capabilities develop? There 65

were many early instruments that made sounds electronically, but the modern age of synthesizers began in America in the 1950s. A synthesizer is a machine that allCMs the player to create and modify sound. It gives the user (called synthesist) control over the basic pro:perties of sound. Today that control is so precise in some synthesizers that almst any sound can be created by a synthesist. But sound creation and control was not so precise at first. Let •s go back to see heM the synthesizer as it exists today was developed. The first synthesizer of major significance was the RCA Mark I. Work began on this synthesizer at RCA in 1950, but it wasn't demonstrated until 1956. In 1961 it was moved to Columbia

Universi~. Here is a portion of "Composition for

~thesizer," written py Milton Babbitt for the Mark I to play at the Universi~ inaugural concerts. Pictures from the Electronic Music Center at Columbia which housed the Mark I and. its successor the Mark II will be sham as it plays.

1 MINUTE OF SLIDES OF COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY ELEC.I'RONIC KJSIC CEN.l'ER

1 MINUTE OF "COMIQSITION FOR SYNTHESIZER"

FULL SHar HOOT IN Sm:' WITH BiaV UP ON MARK I SLIDE AND PAPER ROLL USED BY 'lHE · MARK I 00 A TABLE. 66

llW!: D:i,fferent than what we normally hear today, isn • t it? It worked differently, too. The composers used a paper roll such as this to write their music for the Mark I. Mark II used punch cards, but the

principle was the same. '!hey had to painstakingly pt.mch out holes that would enable the computer to play the note desired. This was similar to the punch cards that were used for canputers in those days. You can

equat~ the process to a very canplicated piano roll. There was no live sound control, just pre-programmed on the roll or cards. They couldn't sit down and play, like you would a piano. The process was laborious at best and very few had access to this huge and e:x};ensive machine. It was another area of research altogether that made synthesizers available to the mass of musicians. The man who is the designer of the instrument that popularized synthesizers can explain it best, Mr. Bob Moog. aJT '10 BCB MXG. HE IS SITr!OO IN HIS OFFICE IN FRCNI' OF A· miroTER TERMINAL.

~: Before you can understand what I did in developing the Moog synthesizer, you have to understand sanething about heM sound works. It's drawn for you here on the computer.

ZCX!4 IN CN

WAVE

MCXx; (V.O,): we hear because of the movement of air which create vibrations that we ferceive as sound. In the case of a synthesizer, a mechanism produces an electrical waveform and sends it to a Sfeaker, which moves the air. We call this mechanisn an oscillator, because it oscillates back and forth to create the waveform. 'Ihe wavefonn that results fran the oscillator defends upon how much voltage is put into the oscillator fran the pcMer source (usually an electrical outlet). '!he more voltage, the faster and shorter horizontally the sound wave becomes. 'Ibis raises the pitch of the resulting sound. 'Ibis is what it looks and sounds like when the voltage going to the oscillator increases.

AN INOU'ASII\G NUMBER SHOVS 'IHAT '!HE IQolER SaJia IS RJ'rl'n:G K>RE. ENEIUY IN'ID 'lHE OSClLLATOR AND '!HE WAVE, WHI

'!HE SOONP OF A SINE WAVE, IT GE.$ HIGHER IN PITOI AS '!HE WAVE c::HlWES. aJT 'ID MED saar MX.X;. MXXa.: It occurred to me, and to Don Buehl a (both of us working separately at around the same time in 1965), that if we could control the electrical voltage going into the oscillator, we could control the pitch of the sound being produced. And that is what we did. What I 68

did was connect the oscillator to a keyboard, as the controller of how much power came fran the source to

the oscillator. I engineered eve~ note of the keyboard so it would send a certain voltage to the oscillator. Each key had different size electronic resisters that would let a certain amount of voltage through. For each key, this voltage would make the oscillator produce sounds at the pitch we are used to

on our piano keyboards. But, unlike the piano, the synthesizer could only sound one note at a time. So, for example, only one melody could be played at a time.

Here 1 s what it looks and sounds like.

aJT 'ID OOMRJTER IMAGE.

CRFATE VOLTAGE CDN'mOL KEYBOARD AND PLACE ON WIRE BE'lWEEN mE PCWER SaJRCE AND '!HE OSCn.LA'IDR. HAVE ONE KEY GO OOVN, CERl'AIN WAVE OOMES FRG1 OSCILLAIDR. HAVE HIGHER KEY GO :DCliN, FASTER AND SHORTER WAVE CDMES FROM QSCILLAIDR. ·

'IHE OOUIVAI,Em' 'ID 'IHE PlANO PIT(li OF THE KEYS SOONJ) WHEN 'IHE I

aJT BACK TO Hx:G AT HIS DESK. !all: This is voltage-controlled analog synthesis because of the continuous electrical wavefonn produced

by the oscillator is called analog and it is changed by voltage, called voltage control. It really is as simple as that. Here is Don Buchla to 69

tell you how he used the same concept of voltage control his analog synthesizer.

FULL SHO!' BUOD:.A lN HIS S'IUDIO WI'lH '!HE BUCE:.A INSTRUMENT. BU

ClJT ID SAME ANIMATION AS BEFORE. '!HE KEYBOARD INSTAN'ILY DISAPPEARS~ IN ITS PlACE A RHEOSTAT APPEARS. THE RHEOSTAT IS 'IURNED TO '!HE LEFT AND THE WAVE SLaYS AND GETS LON:;ER. · IT '!URNS ID '!HE RIGHT AND· '!HE WAVE GEl'S ·FASTER AND SHORTER. · RE'IURN ID Buarr.A lN SIUDIO.

HEAR SOONP PITCH GO WiER WHEN '!HE RHIDSTAT IS 'lURNED LEF1' AND. HIGHER. WHEN rr IS· 'IURNEI) RIGHT. ·

ClJT ID MED SHO!' BUCE:.A. BUOILA: Bob and I used this same concept of voltage variation to control the three other aspects of sound, as well as pitch. These aspects are the volume, duration (length) , and tone quality of the sound. With 70

these control capabilities, the possibilites seemed endless.

ClJT ID HOST IN SEI'. HE IS STANDnt; BY A CliART ILLUS'IRATION OF '!HE WAVEFORM SEEN IN 'IHE OJMroTER IMAGE. 'IBIS MAIN WAVEFORM IS INTERMINGLED WITH WAVEFORM3 'lBAT ARE SMALLER, SHORTER AND IN LIGHTER INK •

.l~EI: Thank you gentlemen. So that explains very simply how voltage-controlled analog synthesizers work, But how do the synthesists make all those different sounds? And especially how is is possible to imitate other sounds, especially other instruments? Well, there are different ways to start and end a sound, depending upon whether it's plucked, like a guitar, struck like a drum, etc. But the main reason synthesizers can be used to imitate other instruments is a p;trt of .sotmd called overtones, or harmonics. Look at this illustration. 'nle main wavefonn of the sotmd is the dark done here. (POINTS ro IT) This is what we heard in the earlier demonstration. For every waveform like this that a musical instrument produces, other waveforms higher in pitch which are heard at less volume are also produced. These smaller waveforms you see here (POINTS ro '!HEM) are overtones. This main waveform is the pitch we know as middle Con the piano. Every instrument playing middle C produces this same waveform, but they produce different overtone waveforms. It is the difference between the overtones 71 ' .

produced by the piano versus those produced by the guitar, for example, that make the sound of the piano different fran that of the guitar. '!his is true of all instrunents. 'lheir basic sound is determined by their overtones. To imitate an instrument, then, the synthesist must know just what overtones that instrument produces and produce the same ones on his or her synthesizer.

HOST WALKS 0\lER W STAND NEXT W EARLY KX:X; SYN!HESIZER. l!Wr: It may sound simple, but it's not. It takes a lqt of work on today's synthesizers to make a good imitation. It was even harder with the basic synthesizers such as this early Moog synthesizer.· However, most early synthesists were not interested in imitation. They used the same concept of overtones, but they wanted to create new sounds with them .. Voltage control opened this world of new sounds to musicians. In the late 1960s, synthesizers became commercially available. Moog had used the keyboard to control the pitch, and musicians adapted much more easily to this than they did to Buchla's instrument. 'lhe keyboard continues today as the primary means of controlling synthesizer sotmds. Now that you've seen how synthesizers work, let's look into what musician's did with them. I would like to introduce you to the 72 ~ .

person who startled the world with the first synthesizer album. She had studied on the RCA Mark II while at Columbia, but had been a year and a half

without a synthesizer, when, in 1967, she was the

thrilled owner of the first Moog. Although she didn't

know it, she was about to make the name ~og synoiWJI!Ous with synthesizer to the world. I asked Wendy carlos if

she had any knowledge of the impact "So/itched on Bach" would have.

· '1WO SHOI' HOST AND WENDY CARLOS IN HER S'IUDIO IN NEW YORK. CABLOS: I had no idea of the. impact. It was a fluke.

No one could have predicted it. It was almst frightening how enthusiastic sane people were. About

half the people were over-enthusiastic, and the other half hated it. Very few had no opinion on it.

1IQ.S'J!: How was it making the album? CARLOS: Although I enjoyed doing the album, it was

tedious, since the Moog only played one note at a time. Unlike when you play a piece on the piano, synthesizers could not be used to play the Bach pieces in real time. You couldn't play all the parts at once. Instead, each

melody of a piece had to be played and recorded separately in the studio. Then the separate recordings were mixed together to make the complete piece. This had to be done for every piece on the album. Also, the 73

synthesizer did not ranember sounds. I had to reprogram each sound every time I wanted to play it•.

It was a long and difficult process. I never could have done a live perfoonance playing the pieces I had on the record.

CLOSE SHDr HDSr BACK IN SIUDIO

~: Yes, that was a problem with the first Moog.

But Moog made sane adjustments and Keith Emerson was the first to get the new model. It still only played one note at a ti.roe, but now it had a preset box-an

electronic bank that could remember a certain number of voltages. This could be used to store the voltages

used to get 8 to 12 sounds. It was not exact, and certainly limited, but it was a little help, especially for live perfoonance. Emerson became a virtuoso on this and later Moogs, as well as other synthesiz_ers. Here is sane concert footage of Emerson, Lake, and. -

Palmer, with Emerson playing a later Moog for one of

his ranarkable synthesizer solos in the song Lucky Man.

1 1/2 MINt1rE

HOST

UNLESS INDICATED ALL THESE AND OTHER QUia< ANSVER SHOI'S 'IHR(){X;HaJT mE SCRIP!' WilL VARY FROO CLOSE UPS '10 MED SHO!'S CNLY OF THE PERSON ANsmRING 'mE QUESTION. '!HE FIRST TIME A PERSCN APPEARS, HIS HAME WILL BE SUPERED IN AT '!HE Bar.roM OF THE samEN ..

Gleeson and let him do whatever introduction he wanted to this one song. I loved itl It was incredible! So

I asked Pat to go on tour with us. Eventually I started playing the synthesizers nwself. aJT 'ID PATRICK GLEFSCN

GI.EffiON: Hearing Wendy Carlos • album. I knew I was going in the wrong direction and I wanted to work with the Moog. aJT '10 JAN HAMMER

HAMMER: You hear a sound and you get amazed by it and you realize that you must have control over it. You must have it at your disposal. aJT '10 ANmCNY MARINELLI (SUPER 0 S'!UDIO MUSICIAN" UNDER NAME)

MARJNE[J.I: When I heard "SWitched on Bach" I knew synthesizers were it for me.

ClJT 'ID PAT MA'IHENY 75

MATHENY: When synthesizers first emerged, I was skeptical. Not anti-, but they didn't sound that good. Still, when they first got adapted to guitar I tried a prototype at the factory. Well, even though it didn't work that well, I played with it all day and they had to drag me out at 9 p.m. I was hooked.

HOST AND FRANK ZAPPA IN ZAPPA 1 S HOME.

~: We're here with Frank Zappa to ask the same question. We've heard from some other musicians why they started using synthesizers. You were one of the first to include synthesizers in your band, Why? ZAPPA: It was originally the different sounds that intrigued me. I used to try to get those sounds without synthesizers before I could afford them. '!hen I bought an Arp 2600 in the mid 1970s. I didn't even . have a manual to go with it. I started messing around

with it. I was interested in sounds and it was just ·another sound source.

~= Is the reason different now? ZAPPA: Well, I'm still interested in sounds. But now I especially like synthesizers because they can play the music I write when live musicians can't •. I mean, I tend to write pieces nobody can play because of the timings. It's really frustrating when I know how it

should sound, and it doesn't sound that way. But I can 76

program these difficult timings into the canputer. I use a Synclavier, and it plays then :perfectly. It can sound like any instrument, too, so I'm not limited to what sounds I can use. roLL SBOI' HOST IN SIUDIO NEn' '10 OBERHEIM FOLYPHOOIC FCXJR VOICE SYN.IHESIZER.

~= The current so};bisticated synthesizers Mr. Zapp:~. was talking about are quite different from the two we have seen so far. Let's go back to see heM these new synthesizers came to be develo:ped. After the Moog and Buchla there were many other synthesizers that played only one note at a time. Then in the early 1970s, these instruments began to have touch sensitive keyboards, meaning the way you hit the key made a difference in the sound.

CLOSE UP KEYBOARD.

HOOl' HITS KEY 'IWO PIFFEREm' WAXS AND WE liUaR DIFFERENCE.

~= This was a great help in allowing the synthesist (as synthesizer players are called) add more feeling to his :perfonnance. HCMever, the touch sensitivity was far from :perfect. Even today, one of the main desires of synthesists is for even more sensitivity in the keyboards. The next major developnent in synthesizers 77

was in 1975. It was the ability of synthesizers to

sound more than one note, called polyphony. 'nle first instruments could have four notes playing simultaneously. Today most synthesizers have a limit of eight notes that can be played at once. 'nlis was the first instrlliient to offer four-note polyphony, the Oberheim Modular Four Voice.

HQST PLAYS A MAJOR SEVEN!'H.

·~= Imagine how much the ability to do this· added to

the live I;erformance value of synthesizers. NCM the synthesists could play a canplete harmonic pattern all

at once. As you can imagine, the Oberheim Modular Four Voice was very popular. Here is the designer of the

instrument, Mr.· Tan Oberheim.

TOM CBERHEIM WALKS ON mE SET AND STANDS NIDcr' TO THE HOST.

~= What led you to develop this instrument?

Z()(]Jl m CN CBERHEIM AS HE TALKS.

OOEBHEIM: I played a gig one night with two Arp synthesizers wired together. It was alroost like having polyphony. It was so exciting, and the audience was so excited, that I thought, "Well, I bet there's a market for this." So I worked on making the different

sound-making modules link up and finally ended up with the design for the Modular Four Voice. I didn't really 78

think up a name, it just started being called that, so we marketed it by that name eventually.

~= Was there a market for it after all? OBERHEIM: Yes, very definitely. We had a hard time keeping up with orders for a while. I kept as much flexibility as possible in making sounds, too, and that was very popllar. aJT '10 FULL ~0 SHOT •

.BQSl: Thank you, Tan.

'!OM OBERHEIM LEAVES. PAN WI'IH HOST ~ HE WALKS FOJMARD AND STANDS BY ABSrRAcr MEIDRY WALL SET. IT HAS SOME OF mE FORMS SYNTHESISTS· USID TO TRY TO REMEMBER HOV THEY MADE SCXJNnS AND O'lHER IMPGES '!HAT

~= Polyphony answered one of the major needs of the

~thesist, but the biggest need was answered a couple years later. All of the instruments to this point were voltage-controlled analog synthesizers, basically the same as described earlier. '!here was no reliable mechanism in the instruments to remanber the sounds a

~thesist had produced. As soon as the synthesist changed the instrument settings, the old sound was gone. This meant that the synthesist had to try to remember how to ranake all the many sounds he made. On this wall are sane of the many forms for this purpose, drawings, number settings, etc. While there was time in the studio to remake sounds (if the synthesist could remember them), there was rarely time on stage. Even 79 ~ .

if there were, the process could be terrifying. While a few machines tried to remember sounds through the use of cassette tape, the real breakthrough was the use of digital technology for memory in otheiWise analog synthesizers. David Smith, of Sequential Circuits, developed the synthesizer with digital memory which took the music world by storm in 197 8. arrl is still used frequently today.

DAVID SMITH IN 'mE PRODUCI'ION ARFA OF HIS PLANT IN SAN JOSE VALLEY, STANDIN; BY PROHIE:l' 5 ON WORK BENCH. SMlTH: This is the PrOJ;het 5. It has preset sounds, meaning they are made by the factory and come with the synthesizer, and digital memory. '!he preset sounds always stay in the memory of the instrument, which also has roan for many sounds made by the synthesist. Because the memory is digital, it is more accurate and larger than the almost useless voltage banks on a few earlier synthesizers. The digital memory measures the settings used to make the sounds. It stores these settings in the foiin of numbers in a process called binary encoding. These numbers can be called up later and used to control the synthesizer into producing the same sound it originally measured. Only the memory is digital, though, the rest of the synthesizer is similar in process to the earlier canpletely analog synthesizers. The Pro};ilet 5 is what we call today an 80

analog-digital eybrid, with digital and analog canponents in one synthesizer. Almost every synthesizer has digital memory now, so it's hard to imagine how great the relief of synthesists when the Proptet 5 was introduced. It meant they didn't have to remake a sound every time they wanted to play it with this instrument. The ProJ:bet 5 was so };X>:pular that it took us years to catch up with the demand for it. We just couldn't make than fast enough. The Proptet 5 is still is constant use. '!bat's very unusual in this industry of technological change. To hear what the instrument sounds like, I'd like to show you a clip of one of It¥ favorite artists playing the Pro};ilet 5, Herbie Hancock.

2 MINtJl'E

MED SHOT HOST ON srllGE srANDIN; NEXT '10 KEYOOARD SE'IUP wrm YAMAHA Drl IN smuP.

~: Quite sanething, the instrument, and the performer. The ProJ;het 5 was not the only analog-digital eybrid synthesizer. '!hey are currently the largest part of the synthesizer market. However, today a lot of synthesists are using completely digital equipnent. '!he most :I;X>pli.ar instrument of the last few years is this one, the completely digital Yamaha DX7.

The Product Manager of Yamaha in Los Angeles, Mar~ 81

Koenig, will be playing here with his band this evening. I'll let him tell you about this instrument.

PAN ID WHERE KOENIG STANDS 00 amER SIDE OF SYN'!HESIZERS. KOENIG: The DX7 is very similar in capabilities to the hybrid instruments, but it has all digital components, including sound generation. This means that the computer, not an oscillator, makes the original sound.

'!he canputer data is p:1ssed through a digital to analog converter (a mechanism that changes digital data to electrical waveforms). '!hen the waveforms are put through speakers so we can hear the sounds. '!his technology is relatively cheap and very reliable. '!he DX7, which sells for arotmd $2,000, is in alnnst every musician's studio. Aside fran synthesists, who use it to make their own sounds, the DX7 is being used by people who do not really consider themselves synthesists, since it has numerous preset sounds, and many other sounds can be bought on the market. aJT ID HOST STn.L CN OIHER SIDE OF SYN'mESIZERS.

~: Does it concern you, though, that people who really have little or no musical background can attach a sequencer to the DX7 to actually play the notes and then perform with an instrument on which they didn't make the sounds and aren't even playing? Nonmusicians 82

can actually become stars without the ability to play or make the sounds that are being played.

KOENIG: Well, not making the sounds is that same as playing a piano. About the instrument doing the playing, though, nw view is that maybe some synthesizer musicians do not need the technical abilities musicians used to need. However, they still have to think up the notes and put than into the instrument. 'lheir music-making abilities must be good enough for people to want to hear what they program the synthesizers to play•

.l~Q.S%: That •s one view, let • s hear what other • s had to say about this?

CUT W WILL ALEXANDRE, SUPER °FAIRLIGHr CMI REPRESENI'ATIVE 0 UNDER NAME.

N,EXANpRE: OUr instrument, and many synthesizers, are not good for the average musician, much less nonmusicians. If the synthesist doesn't work on it, it sounds like a machine. Everything . sounds too mechanical. Sanetimes technological advances are running away with the players' capability to use than. This is actually happening a lot in popular music.

It • s very sad. aJT '10 PAT MATHENY.

MATH:ENY: Sane musicians who use synthesizers may not have technique, but the have a lot of conceptual ideas. 83

'!hey now have a way of expressing those ideas without having to learn other things, like how to play a scale quickly. Besides, sanetimes training can stifle creativity. With training, you might do it the way everyone does, without training, you might come up with whole new ideas. aJT 'lO WENDY CARLOS. Cl\RLOS: I don't like what I hear being played. Synthesizers in p:>p,Ilar music are being used in a

regressive and simpl~minded manner. I was bored with what they are doing and the sot.mds they use in 1970. aJT 'lO FRANK ZAPPA.

ZAPPA: As a comp:>ser, it allows me to perfonn things the way I want them done.

aJT TO HOST IN SET SORROONDED BY

~= As you can see, there are very opp:>sing ideas on this issue. Whatever your opinion, it is clear that_ digital technology has changed ~thesis and music. This is especially true of the last major developnent in synthesizers, canputer music systems.

MED ~0 SHor HOST WITH JAN HAMMER AND FAIRLIGHI' 01I IN HIS HOME S'IUDIO. · .mEr: I •m here with Jan Hammer, a wonderful synthsizer player and comp:>ser. Mr. Hammer has been nominated for 84

an Eln'ey for his composing of the hit show, "Miami

Vice," a s~e of which you heard at the beginning of

the show. Mr. Hammer, what is the canputer music system you have here? HAMMER: This is the Fairlight Computer Music Instrument (CMI). 'Ibis synthesizer does not have a very advanced mechanism for creating and modifying its own sounds. It does sanething different. It samples sounds, any sound that you can catch with a micro:phone. Sampling means that it takes a digital "picture" of the

wavefonns produced by whatever it is you are sampling,

a trum~t, for example. The sound wavefom is digitally encoded into binary (computer-like on/off

bits of numerical information) language, and can later

be corwerted back into analog sound. Here is Illf sample

of a trum~t.

HAMMER PLAYS KEY.

SAMPLE OF A TRIJMmT IS HEARD·

HAMMER: Can you tell it•s a ~thesizer?

~: No.

HAMMER: Let me show you how it•s done. I 1 11 sample

your voice. Say sanething.

~: Sample, sample.

HAMMER P.LAYS KEY.

HOSTS VOICE SAYS "SAMJ?LE, SAMPI.,E. II

~= That•s amazing! 85 {\ .

W\MMER: And wonderful, too. Once the sample is taken

I can play it at any pitch. Listen.

HAMMER PLAYS DIFFERENI' ~

"SAMPLE" IS HEARD AT DIFFERENT PITQIES.

CLOSE UP HAMMER.

Hl\MMER: As with your voice, many samples only sound

good at certain pitches. Samples of acoustic

instrunents, like the trum:r;:et I have, must be taken at rnarw different pitches to sound good played in different areas of the keyboard. But sample of other sounds, glass breaking, for instance, are interesting at any pitch and give me ideas for canposing music. I can sample over two minutes continuously. '!ben I can store that (there are ·disks for storing all your

samples) and sample another sound for over two minutes. I also have a 16 voice recorder, so I can play 16 lines of IlllSic (all with different sounds) into the recorder and have them play back simultaneously. This instrument is great for composer-kind of an orchestra in a box, and more.

'IWO saar HAMMER AND HOST •

.llQST.: we appreciate you 1 re taking the time to shCM us all this.

Hl\MMER: You 1 re welcome. I enjoyed it.

CLOSEUPHOST 86 ,, .

~: .With his composing and :perfonning, Jan Hamner has provided a new concept in television music which has impressed the world. '!he concept is catching on everywhere.

MED THREE SHOl' IN SCl\lAR S'IUDIOS IN HCLLYWCXD WITH HOST, AN'lHONY MARINELLI,. BRIAN BANKS IN FRCNr OF SYNCLAVIER.

~= Anthony Marinelli and Brian Banks have :perfonned on synthesizer in the scores for movies such as nstar

Man,• "Blue 'Ihunder," and •'!he Color Purplen as well as played on records such as "Thriller" and "can't Slow Down." All of these were done on what is considered the most "high-endn synthesizer develo~d, the Synclavier. Could you describe what it does?

ZCXM IN CN MARINELLI AND BANKS.

BANKS & MARJNE[J.I: In this impranptu five minute segment they describe the capabilities of the Synclavier, hew it samples, edits, prints music, corrects tunings, resynthsizes (makes samples into sounds that can be altered like any other synthesizer sol.D'ld, instead of just plays back), and is in stereo. '!hey s:pecifically point out the ability to program

SMPrE (the standard time coding mechanism for joining picture with audio for a film or video) into the Synclavier, so syncing with video and film is easy. It is also just as easy to sync with other synthesizers and studio gear using MIDI. 87

aJT '10 CLOSE UP HOST.

~: HeM ruch has all this cost you?

CUT '10 MED SHOI' MARINELLI AND BANKS. BANKS: A quarter of a million dollars and we expect to s:I;end more. But that isn1t unusual, ask other J;eOple.

CL03E UP HOST. IIW:: we did and here is what they said. aJT '10 WENDY CARLOS.

CARLQS: There is a price tag and piece of flesh for keeping up with synthesizers. I don 1 t SI;end as much as sane because I barter and do testing of new instruments. HOr J;eople here. aJT TO JAN HAMMER.

HAMMER: I have spent too much. In the future I don't expect to be SJ;ending that much money, though. I firmly refuse. It 1 s just totally out to lunch.

MATHENY: I have s:I;ent virtually eventhing I 1 ve made.

It1 s sanething like being a junkie. 88

MED 'IWO saar HOST AND BERNIE FLEISOIER CN SEI' AMID ALL 'lHE SYN'IHESIZERS.

~= The capmilities of the computer music systems have created controversy. We have invited the

President of the Musicians Union Local 47, Bernie Fleischer, to present the concern of the Union. FLE!SCliER: We at the Union are very concerned that the

imitation of other instruments ~ ~thesizers is putting musicians out of work. We are not

anti-~thesizer. We only ask that ~thesizers not be used to undercut Union scales. When producers can hire synthesists to _imitate say, 12, acoustic instruments at much less cost than hiring the 12 musicians at Union rates, then they often opt for the cheaper method. Even though the sound is not exactly the same, it is close enough. '!hey figure it isn't worth the money to get the real thing. What we want is that for every synthesizer sound put on a separate track of recording tape (meaning the tracks will be mixed together to play at the same time) the producer should be charged as if another musician were playing that sound. 'Iberefore,

the cost of 12 nusicians would be comparable to the

cost of a ~thesizer making the sound of 12 musicians. Then a producer will hire the sound he wants,

~thesizers or other instruments, or maybe both, but without price considerations making the choice. 89

~= We asked various synthesists and representatives of companies what their res~nse to this concern was.

0JT TO BCB f.DOO. liX:lG: It puts musicians out of business, but it puts other musicians who use synthesizers in business, too. It •s part of things always changing.

QJT ID PAT GLEESCN. m.moN: Sane players are legitimately concerned. '!hey will have to learn certain techniques that make them valuable in the current market. My wife •s group

(Kronos), for example, does things that would be very hard to emulate on synthesizers. aJT ID BRIAN BANKS. :BANKS: Unfortunately it • s just };art of the way rusic is changing. It •s };art of the process of life. There aren't many lute players around today, either, because the piano replaced them.

RmURN '10 MED 'IWO SHOI' HOST AND BERNIE FLEISOIER.

~: What is your re~nse to this, Mr. Fleischer.

FLEISCHER: 30 second res~nse.

~: No one knows where this controversy will lead. '!he Union and synthesists are working toward a canpranise they can both live, and work, with. Regardless of the controversy, synthesizers are expected to continue to be a large };art of ~pular 90

music production. Here is what those involved with synthesizers feel is the place of synthesizers in

p>pular music today and in the future.

aJT 'ID AN'lBCNY MARmELLI.

MARJNE[.I.I: As they get better, synthesizers will be even more dominate than they are today.

aJT TO :KEI'IH EMERSON. EMERSON: They enable the true musician to realize his composition. I don't think it will overtake orchestra.

Synthesizers will have their pl~ce, and orchestra its place.

aJT 'ID JAN HAMMER.

HAMMER.: I think synthesizers will be a put of all music, not just popular music.

'IWO saar HOST AND PAT MATHENY WITH GUITAR AND SYN'mESIZER. ·

~: I'm here with Pat Matheny. He is one of the best know guitarists that has also started playing a

guitar synthsizer. What do you think about synthesizrs putting musicians out of work? MaTHENY: It's regretable, but synthsizers are here to stay. I think there will be less resistance to them when other controllers are available to musicians that don't play keyboards. There will be less controversy

because more people would be able to play them. 91

~: You own a Synclavier. We've had its capabilities explained to us, but we don't know how your guitar adapts to the synclavier and what you can do through the guitar controller.

MMBENY: My Synclavier can do all that you have seen

Anthony's and Brian's can do. It is also a 16 track recorder, which is like a portable recording studio as well as a synthesizer. I originally bought the Synclavier for canp:>sing. Later I began using it as a recording studio. But a usable guitar adapter for the Synclavier became available in 1983 and of course, I had to have it. I use it in live performance and recording constantly. Let me daronstrate ha-~ it sounds.

ZCXl4 IN CN MATHENY AS HE DEMJNSTRATES FOR 1 1/2 MINOTES.

WE HEAR HIS DOO~S'rnATION, VERBAL AND GUITAR SOONI)S.

FULL saar HOST IN SET WITH ALL 'lHE SYNmESIZERS .AND O'IHER INSTRDMENTS •.

~: Perhaps synthesizers can be adapted to all the instrmnents. Is this what is ahead in music?· can synthesizers really do all that we have shQoln today and will be able to do the things just mentioned in the future? Yes, they can, and will. Synthesizers such as you see here may never be as easily definable or recognizable by sound as these other instruments, but they can not, any rore, ranain invisible to the ~lie. 92

FADE OOT '10 BIA

ORIGINAL Em TITLE f.USIC. 0 •

IMPLEMENI'ATION OF THE !RO!OSAL

Implenentation of the proposal requires that a budget be

developed and that plans be made to market the proposed video production. '!he budget requirements and marketing plans are presented in this chapter.

Budget Requirements

This section presents the requirements for developing a production budget for the prop>sed documentary. The requirements divide into three categories, pre-production, production and post-production.

In pre-production, the first cost is for the research and

developnent of the topic. '!hen the writer must be paid for the

script and re:.writes, if necessary. (Often the researcher and writer are the same person.} The producer are production managers are also costs fran the beginning of pre-production. The producer hires the production manager to do a preliminary budget. '!he production manager divides the script into shooting days and

detennines all the other requirements of the project. Considering

the pre-production, production and post-production items and how much each would cost, the production manager delivers the first budget. Once the producer has determined to go ahead with the

93 94

project based on this budget, he hires a director. The director reworks the script according to his shooting needs. The production manager then reworks the budget according to this new shooting schedule and requirenents. The producer eventually approves the final working budget.

To prep:tre for production, :r;x:>st-production and airing the program, insurance must be obtained. Below is a list of the major t~s of insurance for media production. A decision is made by the producer during pre-production as to what coverage is needed for the production. Insurance cast Negative Videotape Faulty stock, camera and Processing Props;, Sets, and Wardrobe · Miscellaneous Fquipnent COmprehensive Liability Property Damage Liability Worker's COmpensation Errors and. Omissions Including the pre-production costs already nentioned, production has two levels of cost. The producer, writer, director, cast (in this case, only the host) and their travel expenses are above the line costs. For this documentary, the above-the-line costs will be relatively small, as is often true in low budget productions. Below-the-line costs are all the direct costs of making the video, including insurance. Below is a list of all the below the line items by category that must be budgeted for the actual production of the documentary. 95

Production Personnel Production Manager Production Assistant Assistant Director cameramen Video Engineers other Production Staff Travel and Location Expenses Air Fare Hotel Crew Meals Location Fees Fetty cash Gratuities Fquipnent cartage Ground Transporation Wardrobe and Makeup Misc. Expenses Video and Field Equipnent Camera and Recorder Audio cassette Recorder Walkie Talkies Lighting Grip Fquipnent Generator Tape Stock 1" Videotape Audiotape Studio Costs Sets (design, construction, dressing and striking) Sets (operation) Property Studio and Equipnent Rental Lighting Wardrobe and Makeup Office Office Rent Transcriptions Telephone Freight and Shipping xerox Postage Office Supplies Office Fquipnent Legal Fees Accounting Fees Storage Fees 96

For this p1rticular video, two camera teams are planned, one on the West and one on the East coast. This is because it is less expensive than flying the West team to the East for interviews that must take place there (though, of course, the director, host/interviewer and possibility producer must make the trip). The

West team will be non-union, in an effort to save IOOney, effort and time. It is more difficult to tape a non-union shoot in the East, and a union shoot will be budgeted in case it is. necessary. This requires that the Production Manager be conversant with the New York union rules, not just wages, but breaks, personnel, meals, overtime, etc. Also, the crew must be flown to Boston for inte:r:vie.ws, and that would have to be arranged according to regulations. All other shooting, on location, the set and opening and closing· sequences, will be done in the West. All of these conditions affect the cost of the line items above. Post-production costs are usually below the line costs, too. Major post-production costs for this documentary include video editing, sound production, credits generation, animation, and music. The video editing should be somewhat costly because of the collage scenes and the volume of inte:r:view footage that must be shifted through to determine what will appear in the production.

'!he costs of the final dub, more videotape stock and cassette transfers are p1rt of the editing category. Sound production includes sound effects, the voice-over recording and sound mixing.

Simple credits can hopeft.Uly be designed and provided by the company that does the animation for a reasonable charge. There is 97

only one com~er animation sequence of approximately two minutes, but cOfit)uter animation is costly. Given the nature of the program, it is clear that music will be a big expense. The source music will have to be laid in very carefully during mixing. A search fee and music rights will have to be p:tid for the nonoriginal music. Original score will also be camni.ssioned. After canpletion of the finished product, distribution and pranotion costs will also be · incurred and are budgeting as p:>st-production expenses. These are the basic pre-production, production and lX)st-production expenses, above-and below-the-line, that would need to be considered for the prolX)sed documentary. Once a total has been reached fran determining these line items, a contingency fee shoUld be added at the rate of 20 percent of the total. This is twice the contingency fee of a big budget production because any change is prolX)rtionally larger in a small budget. The line items total plus the contingency fee would be the final budget.

In surmnary, this section has shown the basic process of determining a production budget and the items that would be considered in doing this process for the prolX)sed video documentary.

Marketing Plans

Before beginning marketing plans, a rough budget following the preceeding requirements would be obtained fran a production accountant who is interested in the project. Included in the 98

budget will be a promotion budget and distribution funds. However, the budget will be kept as low as possible, as this is a big selling point when looking for support. This budget and the script will constitute the written proposal to be presented to possible supporters. The marketing plans for the proposed video are based u:pon the realization that funding for documentaries is hard to find. This chapter will examine methods to get the pro:posed documentary produced and aired. There are two major plans in marketing the video pro:posal. The first entails presenting the proposal to profit-making comp:mies, and the second, requires working for nonprofit support (meaning financing by an organization that does not expect to make a profit on the venture) •

The first plan for marketing is by far the easiest .. Appointments are being set up now for the early sumner with two different production companies, Bob Guennette Productions and Moody

Productions. Bob Guennette Productions has produced several documentaries for HBO as well other other shows for syndication.

Moody Productions was responsible until recently for all of the NBC promotion and now has done several films. A meeting is also planned with Pamela Hughes and Sherry Weinnan. They are just beginning as indep:mdent producers, but are the producers of

Ho113wood Closeup and have many contacts. If none of these . app:>intments result in a contract, suggestions for referrals will be requested. 99 @ •

The main disadvantage of this plan is that the distribution of

the documentary would probably be less than it would be if funding were obtained from nonprofit sources. The profit-making concerns would probably plan on cable distribution for the program. 'lhe

audience reached by a documentary on cable is usually not as large

as that reached by a documentary on a ms station. Regardless of the distribution, this is the first plan for two reasons. One, this is the simpliest and quickest way to look for

funding. Two, the chances of achieving support for the project are much greater from the profi t-ma.king com:tanies listed than fran nonprofit sources.

'Ihe second plan is much more canplicated and would be

considered if the first plan fails. 'Ihe first option in this plan is for the author to approach nonprofit stations and regional networks separately to present the pro:r;x>sal to them. If one is interested, it can present the proposal to the IBS Stations Program Cooperative (SPC), or search for funding from local sources. The

SPC application would have to be filed for the State Program

Cooperative by the fall 1986 deadline.. If the proposal survives the many stages of the ms system, it would get into the program auction in early 1987. If it is supported in the bidding, 70% of

the programs• costs will be covered. With this base, support fran cor:r;x>rations or foundations and other local support would be need to make up for the difference. The COo~rati ve would schedule the program for airing on ms stations the follC7tling year. Unfortunately, very few programs make it though this procedure. 100

'!he big nonprofit stations. dominate the proceedings. Also, as most nonprofit stations and regional networks are short on local sources and have more than enough of their own program prop:>sals without

funding, this option has a small chance of success. The other option in trying for nonprofit support is to seek an underwriter. '!he author has worked in the world of philanthropy for five years. She has sane contacts with corp:>rations and

foundations that support the arts. This would be more encouraging

if it were not for the .reliance on public philanthrow by the current administration. Those organizations that support the arts are inundated with requests for funding. Under these conditions,

the support would be difficult to obtain unless the organization had a special interest in the project. '!he organizations which would have a special interest in the proposed video documentary are the Musician's Union and synthesizer companies. 'Ihe Musician's Union is not in anY p:>sition financially to sponsor a video program, but the author is planning a dinner with the President of the Musician's Union Local 47 (Los Angeles'

chapter), Bernie Fleisher, to see if he has ~ ideas on p:>ssible underwriters for the project. Support fran one or another of the synthesizer com{Bnies could seriously bias the content of the production and would certainly hann the credibility of the program. Therefore it is not an option.

There is one foundation that might possibly be interested in

the project, and a grant request could be subnitted to them for their 1987 grant calendar. '!he E. Nakamichi Foundation is alrost 101

exclusively interested in supporting music. (Nakamichi is a brand of stereo equipment.) It has given to nonprofit music organizations in Southern california. The Foundation has also given hundreds of thousands to UCLA to produce an entire Baroque festival and to KCET to produce and air a program on this sunnner's

Tchaikowsky canpetition in f\t)scow. '!he E. Nakamichi Foundation is also very interested in publicity for its gifts. It is possible that supporting a music program that would be shown on public television would appeal to both its interests.

'!he grant request would have to be made under the umbrella of one of the nonprofit stations or a university, so the Foundation would be giving the money to a nonprofit organization. If the author were to present the possibility of producing the program at a station, such as KCET or RLCS, she feels that the management might consider it, since their facilities are rented out for income and they would be receiving production money if the project were done there. Once produced the program would air on the local station and possibly others. According to Tan Mossman, Station Manager of RLCS (Channel 58 in Los Angeles) , a program produced at a certain level of quality has a good chance to get on a ms static:>n. It requires a lot of effort and pa:per-work, but it is a possibility. Also, the Inter-Regional program Service (IPS), which buys for four regional nonprofit networks, will take programs that are already produced, he says. (Mossman, 1984) It follows that significant television exposure could be claimed even if the production were done under the umbrella of a university (Orange 102

Coast and Long Beach have fine facilities). Support from the E.

Nakamichi Foundation would not be easily obtainable, but it is a possibility.

In summary, there are two main marketing plans, one through profit-making companies and one through nonprofit channels. The author plans to try the profit-making plan first, then decide which nonprofit channels (public television or private foundations and corporations) seem worthwhile to pursue. Tb conclude, implementation of the proposal consists of the two main sections presented in this chapter. T.hey are budget requirements and marketing plans. T.he budget can be obtained, but the marketing plan is, by necessity, difficult and time consuming.

It will, however, be pursued. BIDLIOORAPHY

Aikin, Jim. "HCM to Buy a Synthesizer. n Keyboard, August 1984, pp. 30-33.

Anderson, Craig. "How to Deal With Microprocessor-Based Keyboards." K~rd, June 1983, pp. 48-54.

A{:el, Willi. Harvard Dictiona.r:y of Music (2nd ed.). Cambridge, MA: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 1973. Bamouw, Erik. Documenta.r:y: A Histo.r:y of the Non-Fiction Film. New York: Oxford University Press, 1983.

Barsam, Richard Meran. Nonfiction Film: A Cretical Histocy. New York: E. P. Dutton & Co., Inc., 1973. Bleum, William. Doctumenta.r:y in American Television. New York: Hastings House, Publishers, 1971.

David, Michael, & Milano, Daninic. "Thanas Dolby." Keyboard, August 1983, pp. 40-48.

Ernst, David. The Eyolution of Electronic Music. New York: Maanillan Publishing Co., Inc., 1977. Forman, Bill. "The Herbie Hancock Interview." .BAM, October 5, 1984, pp. 8-10. Gleeson, Pat. "Synthesizer Technique: Thinking About Synthesis." Contemporary Keyboard, August 1979, p. 61.

Goodell, Gregory. Independent Feature Film Production. New York: St. Martin•s Press, 1982. Griffiths, Paul. A Guide to E}ectronic Music. Great Britain: Pitman Press, 1979.

Hanmond, Ray. The Musician and the Micro. United Kingdom: Blandford Press, 1983 •.

Horn, Delton. lbe Beginoer•s Book of Electronic Music. Blue Ridge Surmdt, PA: Tab Books Inc. , 1982.

Jacobs, Lewis. The Doct.nnentacy Trad,ition. New York: w.w. Norton & Canp:iny, 1971.

Mackay, Andy. Electronic Music. Minneap:>lis, MN: Control Data Publishing, 1981.

103 104

Manning, Peter. Electronic and Cgnputer Music. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1985.

Marinelli, Anthony. Interview. October ,30, 1984, North Hollywood, CA. Milano, Ibninic. "Turmoil in MIDI-Land." Keyboa.rd, June 1984, pp. 42-106.

Moog, Bob. "On Synthesizers: Sane 'Ihoughts on PolYibonic Synthesizers." Contempoty Keyl:x>ard, February 1980, p. 77.

Mossman, 'Ian. Interview. October 29, 1984, Northridge, CA.

Qnnibus I, #1. Museum of Broadcasting, New York, 1956.

Powell, Roger. "Synthesizer Technique: Cootputer-Synthesizer Hybrids." Contempocy Keyb;)ard, November 1979, p. 60.

Rhea, Thanas L. "Electronic Prespectives: An OVerview." Qmt.E!ffiWtY Keyboard, June, 1977, p. 49. Rubinstein, Arthur B. ''Sample '!his!" Overture, September, 1985, pp. 1-4.

Salzman, Eric. Twentitb=Centucy Music: An Introduction (2nd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1974. Schrader, Barry. Introduction to Electro-Ac;oustic Music. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1982.

Schwartz, Elliot. Electronic Music: A Listener's Guide. New York: Praeger Publishers, Inc., 1973.

Steigerwald, Bill. "David Wolper." AirCa.l, October 1985, pp. 21-27. Strange, Allen. Electronic Music: Systems, Technigpes, and Controls. United States: William c. Bram Comp:iny PUblishers, 1972. "Synthesizer Glossary. " Keyboard, July, 1984, pp. 3 o-36. The 1984 Professional Keyboard Products Show. September 23, 1984, Howard Johnson's Resort Lodge, North Hollywood, CA.

Tucker, Jonathan B. "Making Music with Micros." .High Technology, July, 1984, pp. 53-63.

Wiese, Michael. Film & Video Budgets. Westport, cr: Michael Wiese Film Productions, 1984. APIENDIX A OUF.STIONNAIRE A= All, C = CQn};X>sers, I = Inventors, P = Performers/Programmers, R = canpa.ny Representatives A 1. HCM did you begin working with synthesizers?

R 2. What is your best selling synthesizer?

A 3. What do you see as the place of synthesizers in p>pular music today and in the future?

PC 4. HCM did you learn to use synthesizers? A 5. Did you experience any resistance to synthesizer music/products? Do you still? Fran whan and why?

A 6. Do you feel there was a most important developnent in synthesizers?

RI 7. 'lb what degree is the synthesizer market for the professional musician expmding? In which areas?

RI 8. What qualities in a synthesizer are in demand today?

PC 9. Was there any pa.rticular music, synthesizer or synthesist which inspired you or effected your developnent? RI 10. What is the y;.hiloso}:ily or attitude toward synthesizer users behind the developnent of your product? I 11. What led you to invent the Synclavier/Moog/Buchla/Modular Four Voice/Arp 2500/Prot=bet 5?

A 12. Do you think synthesizers will go completely digital?

PC 13. What more do you want synthesizers to be able to do?

PC 14. HCM do you keep up with technology?

PC 15. HCM much money have you spent on synthesizers? Do you expect to. spmd much more?

A 16. Are there any negative implications of synthesizers? (Do you feel synthesizers are putting sane musicians out of work and how do you feel about this?)

lOS APPENDIX B

106 107

WILL ALEXANDRE (FAIRLIGRI')

1. I heard nswitched on Bachn and said, I want to do that! 2. Only one model, what we call the Computer Music Instrument (CMI). It is a general purpose canputer that has hardware and software added to produce music. Fairlight invented the concept of sound sampling at a reasonable price for the consumer. It was available before only on main frames, which cost hundreds of thousands of dollars. 3. An extranely valuable contribution tool. We have developed a vecy easy to use, understandable, user interface. It •s highly helpful to the developnent of canpositions, film sotmdtracks, :Et>p music. It is a 16 bit machine, so it has the fidelity of the most modern digital tape recorders. 'lhe ability to sample sounds and reproduce than through the instrument, literally makes it kind of an orchestra in a box. 5. Everybody has opinions about whether this is a good thing or a bad thing. It • s a ner musical instrument and it • s a new concept in making music. '!he J:Urpose of the instrument is not to put anybody out of work, or anything. In fact, I feel that it's created a new type of musician/canposer, where a canposer can actually sit dC1NI1 and in his own music laboratory and realize his canpositions. It's to his am taste and couldn't afford to hire an orchestra. It 1 s completely out of most canposer' s financial reach. This instrument makes that typ: of sound available to a much wider spectrum of canJ;X>sers. 7. Yes. Tranendously in the film and sound effects market. Because all the sounds are autanated to :te placed in very specifically at cue points. You don't have to record until you have the entire sot.md effect built, also. 8. Everything. When you're dealing with this type of instrument, it's supp:>sed to do everything. Now, there are limitations to any technology and it always breeds its Otm obsolesence. Already we have a machine that does tmbelievable things, and we're already thinking of new things that it can't do right nav that we want it to do. ~ed and fidelity were increased to 16 bit capabilities and 16 channels in the O'II. '!he manory of our Series 3 is far in advance of the other Fairlight systems to date. It has the caJ_:abili ty of having 14 megabi tes of wavefonn manory for the 16 channels. 'Ibis is a 50 kilohertz sampling rate, that gives 140 seconds of continuous sampling. You can load in quite an effective· array of sounds in 140 seconds. 10. Basically the person we are selling to is the self-contained music canposer. A person, not the average musician, not to :telittle anybody. Quincy Jones once 108

said, nTrying to make music with synthesizers is like trying to },Allnt a bus with a toothbrush. n So you have to be a meticulous ~rson, and have the ability to write, score, arrange, orchestrate and do sound effects. '!he kind of ~rson who crosses over various media in the music industr.y is best for the instrument. Sanebody who only plays instruments might just be frustrated with the instrument. You have to know these techniques to get what you want out of the instrument. For example, if an organ player were at the CMI playing a great string sound with organ chords, it wouldn't sot.md like great strings. '!hat •s because he wouldn • t be playing what a string section would play. 12. Analog has its place. Qualities about analog are hard to achieve with digital instruments. I think in future, hybrids will have digital sound generation with analog signal processing. 16. The instrument is not for the average musician. If the synthesist doesn't work on it, it sounds like a machine. Everything sot.mds all the same and too mechanical. Sane times the technical advances are running away with nrusician's cap:tbility to use than effectively. Comment · Fairlight has gotten into the video market. It • s uses are really expanding. other Interviewees Jan Hanmer 109

SID ALCNSO (NEW EmLAND DIGI'l'AL) 1. At Dartmouth College in the very early '70s, John Appleton had a large r.t>og, one of the early ones. '!hey also had a large canputer there. People were beginning to get the idea that computers were pretty hanqy things. John asked the question, quite naturally, whether the computer could be of any aid to him in essentially storing the settings on the analog synthesizer. So the computer could be in control of reestablishing the settings. We thought it was pretty unlikely that we could do anything very good to accanplish this, but we could imagine that by replacing the analog synthesizer with a digital synthesizer it would be real easy to control with the canputer. But in order to do that, we had to come up with how to make a digital synthesizer. · 2. (NED only sells the Synclavier Digital Music System.) 3. '!here's a couple of weys to look at it. One is that, synthesis is getting good enough that it can be used to fulfill the same musical usage as regular, real world instrumental sounds. In another sense, synthesizers can make sounds that don't exist and these have a certain value in that they are catchy, they attract attention to a record or a commercial or whatever, because of their unusual nature. Many of these sounds have not been very long-lived because their primary interest was that they were different. After you heard than a while you tended to get bored with than. The real pranise of synthesis is to make sounds that are equally beautiful and satisfying as the sounds that come fran instruments that have taken hundreds and hundreds of years to evolve. Iim confident that they exist and we can find lots of sounds with that kind of stature and that kind of interest. 5. Sure. I guess in the beginning the sounds weren't really very good. People reactions to sounds are very objective. It • s a very high level ceribral kind of perception; it • s not a simple perception at all. It's very canplex and rich. So, if someboqy is looking for the same characteristics that exist in nonnal instruments which have evolved over a long period of time to please us, then they• re not going to be very haPP.{ with very simple sounds, which was all the early synthesizers could do. In order to be interested in what we used to have, you had to be into the superior ease of manipulation of it, or the shear novelty or it, or sanething, rather than the shear sonic pleasure syndrane. We're getting a lot closer today. It's a very difficult problem to say what it is about sounds that we love and really turn us on. But we're getting closer to doing that. 110

6. My am ~;ersonal bent is in the the area of exploration of timbre. I can't sey for others, but II¥ am selfish point of view is that it's important to learn what it is that we like to hear and what gives us pleasure. 7.. I believe so. 8. They want high fidelity, easy o~;eration, fast o~;erations, and they want it not to break and to be musical. 10. We try to make our machine able to do anything that the pers6n using it wants it to do. We have to understand how people express thenselves musically and what actually is the case, and then meybe you can make sane progress in expanding that expressibility. 11. I was interested in computers and interested in sound. I started thinking of the possibilities in the early '70s of making of digital synthesizer. One thing led to another. I worked on same of the problems a long time and finally got sane answers. 12. I have no question that they will, because of the control ability. 16. I guess that you could say that in the production line circumstances of music that sane musicians are put out of work. But in other ways it kind of creates, I wouldn't · say jobs, but opportunity to pley with music. I'm not a person involved with how many jobs we ought to have. I think saneday we all won't have jobs because of carputers. Assuming that we're eating, then what else do we do with our lives. One of the things we might want to do is play with music and have fun with music. I think that the machine offers a super talented individual ways of expressing himself musically that are ~etty far out, pretty rich set of opportunities. 'lhe person that may not have a lot of talent, may still find it gratifying to work with a machine that may multiple his musical abilities. For instance I've seen ~;eople working the the Synclavier with good canpositional ideas, but not very good keyboard chops, but they could trick the instrument into helping then over this hurdle and actually realize sane interesting musical compositions. other Interviewees Pat Matheny 111

BRIAN BANKS AND AN'IHCNY MNUNFI.I.I

1. Banks - I began playing piano, then took Clark Splangler's extension class on ~thsizers at UCLA. I started working at David Abell's and studied on the Arp 2600 there, then finally bought it. Marinelli - I began playing piano, then became interested in organ. I wanted to make new sounds on the organ, but couldn't. When I heard SWitched on Bach I knew ~thesizers were it. 3. Banks - Increasingly imJ;X>rtant and increasing by geanetric bounds. 'As they ·get better, synthesizers will be even more daninant. Marinelli - '!hey are there to be used. 4. We both took lessons fran Clark Splangler on analog equipnent. · Digital equipnent had to be learned fran manuals and practice. We are second generation analog and first generation digital synthesists. 5. Banks - Yes, fran 11¥' family, i.e., "Don't you play the piano any more?• and fran 11¥'Self, wondering if synthesizer is a real instrument at first. Listeners thought it was great. Marinelli - Only fran the synthesizer, because it couldn't save sounds. · 6. Voltage control. OUr second choice is memory (digital wavefocn storage). 9. Banks - Emerson Lake and Palmer, Luclcy' Man es:t:ecially. Marinelli - Switched on Bach. 12. Yes, because it will be more accurate, faster, and chea:t:er in the future. It will be with great accurate analog conversion because our ears are staying analog. 13. Banks - Better controllers for sounds and real time effects. Marinelli - ot[iteration of the difference between ta:t:e recording, sampling and synthesizer sounds. Both - More bits, better digital to analog converters, more RAM, more flexibility in what you can control. 14. we split up the responsibility between the two of us and t:cy to stay close to current. If we fall back too far we stay late. 15. For the two of us, on just synthesizers, we have s:t:ent one quarter of a million, and expect to s:t:end lllYcll more. We s:t:end money all year (using the equipnent as man:r;:uwer). 16 • Music for the masses is recorded now, instead of music for the few, as it was in previous centuries. Synthesizers are better adapted to meet this need than other instrtments, which were live perfonnance instruments fran the beginning. So :t:eople now write for synthesizers, which results in their sucking up a lot of music. 112

Comment In next 10 years, one should be able to program the ~ of expression one wants inside the waveform by using the artificial intelligence of the ~thesizer. For example, it could be prograrmned to change or "convolve" a sound while playing it. Other intetvi~ees Isao Tanita Rick Wakeman Pat Matheny Alan Pearlman Jan Hammer 113

OON BU(BLA

1. I am a builder of instruments. What was arotmd at that t.llne didn't fulfill II¥ musical needs. 3. 'lhey have an im{X>rtant role now. I can't say for the future. 5. Of course ~ople didn't like it. Historically, all new instruments are not accepted at first. 8. 'lhere are just too many things to an&Wer that question. 10. My instrument is more apt:ealing to ~ople involved in experimental music, those not involved in the status quo. 'lhe instrument is so};ilisticated musically, not sophisticated technically. It doesn't require a great knowledge of how sotmds works. 11. I wanted to do things that couldn't be done on the available instruments. 12. 'lhey already have gone digital. 16. 'lhere are no bad things about synthesizers. 114

WENDY CARLOS

1. My first exposure was in 1954 by listening to the RCA Mark I in the record, '!be Sounds of the RCA Music Synthesizer. In 1962, I came to Columbia University to have access to synthesizer, since it was the only one in the country;_ I met Bob Moog in 1965 (at which time I was a recording · engineer to make rooney), and ordered the first modular synthesizer. For one and a half years, I didn't have a synthesizer, but s~nt the time learning ta~ editing. In 1966, the Moog synthesizer arrived. In 1967, I completed the first campiete piece, "Invention in F." 3. Synthesizers have been adopted by the Rock generation. It has a regressive and simple minded use in Rock at this time. I was bored with the sotmds they are using in 1970. Sampiing is also big today and is also boring. In the future, I am not expecting arw big breakthrough in technology. 4. 'lbere were no teachers; I just worked on synthesizers. 5. One half hated and one half loved it. '!be half that loved it were actually overly enthusiastic. Uptight, defensive ~opie hated it. Sane hated it because sane synthesists made sounds they thought were bad. Others were not really against synthesizers, just again all new things. 6. No single one. 9. Pierre Schaffer (Music Concrete) and Pierre Henri in Paris. I listened to a piece called "Viel of Orr;:heus" es~cially. I also to Hal Alis' work at the Bell Labs. It o~ned the machine to alroost any possible sound. 12. The advantage of digital is precision. Analog is more like ~ple, which is also very nice. Digital will be the future, though, for the fine tuning, accuracy and precision necessary to make any sound. 13. 'lb make any sound possible. Hardware and software can't do it now. I want more ~ple in the field striving for art, roore demand for synthesizer capabilities, shop talk, sharing secrets. I'm sad about this not being the case currently. 14. Journals and peopie come to me. If a shOW' is taking place, it's only a f~ weeks until I hear about it. Synergy and Bell Labs contact me. Important technology moves slowly, so it's not that hard to keep up. 15. There is a price tag and piece of flesh for upkeep of synthesizers. One is luckiest if not looking for the art, and hapP.f with success on a p:>IXJ].ar level. I Cbn't s~nd as much rooney as same because I barter and do Beta testing. This is necessary for me because I'm not pursuing a financially successful line of art, which makes for not a soft life or one full of rooney. 115

16. Negative in that we lose some of the art of live concerts. We can replace 100 musicians with 12 and then one can't see it as one did previously, can't visualize it. Orchestra is archaic, quaint-synthesizers, the way of progress. Comment . Sampling is resilient to being used creatively because the sotmds are rigid. You can't do anything with the sound once it is sampled. It's like a TV dinner, it's all in one lump and you take it or leave it. It is exactly as resilient to creative use as the TV dinner. One has to record almost every other note, to sample, but rost instruments cbn't, so when they change pitch, it sotmds very bad, like a recorder being slowed dCMn or sped up. It's a closed cul de sac of sotmd. As a musical tool its a paltry substitute for the real thing. Unfortunately, it seems to have solved a need and hasn't really. However, the sampling function is powerful for storage, retrieval and editing. I would like to imitate acoustic instruments in an orchestral piece in concert as a good stunt, to prove I can do it. Also, :imitating acoustic instruments was like primary school, learning what we hmans like in sound by imitating instruments that we like and have develo~d by trial and error over manY years. Now I create other sotmds with those qualities and whatever quality I like, because of the base of knowledge gained. It took a couple years and I now have 300 sotmds that duplicate the orchestra. What I learned enables me to do what I do now. Other Interviewees Tom Rhea Hal Al.is Stoney Stockel! Kevin Doren 116

KEI'IH EMERSON

1. I was introduced when Mike Vickers fran Manford Man had a studio modular system from Bob ftt>og in 1966. I encouraged him to loan it to me for a live concert. I then asked lot>og to redesign the system to use in live perfonnance. Moog sent a redesigned system in 1969, which was the first modular system canplete with a preset box. I used it with Van and The Nice and then with ELP. 3. It enables the true musician to realize his composition. I don't think it will overtake orchestra. synthesizers will have their place and orchestra its place. It's very encouraging for a canposer to have to full orchestra capabilities there so he can hear the results instantly. It's a very good way of realizing canposition instantly, b.lt I don't think it will OOininate live performance. 'lhat's another aspect altogether. 5. Tuning problems, temperature problems. 'Ihe reaction of people was very positive, though. Actually, I don't think they believed that the noise that was coming out of it actually came fran that machine. 'Ihere were a few skeptical criticisms fran people who were concerned that this instrument could take over and daninate hunan performance. It could become abused, and in fact it has. Music has became computerized. 9. Walter Carlos inspired me, but I knew that was a studio synthesizer which wouldn • t hold up on the road. 12. ·No. I really feel that analog is a more ·direct and J:X>Sitive sound when you record. It has a lot more body to it, a lot more substance. It •s a lot fuller. Anytime I'll choose analog against digital. 13. Yea, they could pour out a cup of coffee. 14. Yes. In fact, I have a road manager that does it now. I don't have time to keep in touch, as soon as I learn about one thing, sanething else comes out. I find ley' time is better employed to write, arrange and practice. 15. Yes, I am concerned about the money they cost. I am lucky enough to have a few big canJ:anies behind me that supply me with instruments. If it weren • t for them I couldn • t afford to invest in the amount of equipnent I've got at the manent. 16. No. 117

PAT GLE$0N

1. Hearing Wendy carlos• album. I was working with Music Concrete already and had already started using the Buchl.a, but realized that was wrong direction for me and Moog was where I wanted to work. 3. Dominant and will continue to be in the future. Synthesizers will change, so they may not be these particular synthesizers, but there will be synthesizers daninating the market. How much & when will it daninate classical is t~e question. 4. Had a class. 'lhen I donated $1,000 on the condition that they let me use the college synthesizer one night a week. 5. Used to experience resistance, but very little any oore. When I played with Herbie Hancock on tour in 1971-73 there was mor~ reaction to my being white than to what I was playing. 6. Voltage control. '!hose who say other than this usually weren't trying to use synthesizers before voltage control. 9. Wendy carlos. 12. Yes, we need more instrument for less money. 13. Smaller increments and quicker action in digital control so one has the analog sweep capabilities. Synthesizers will have to be 32 bit to do this. Better software is also needed. 14. Meet with young people, who maybe learned fran me in the first place, but who are on the cutting edge now. I listen to records and read a lot. However, I'm falling behind by concentrating on CCJlliX>Sing. I '11 sacrifice anything but my marriage for composing. 15. My analog system, sold in 1978, cost 125,000. NCM I have $65,000 in a Synclavier. 16. Session players are legitimately concerned. They will have to learn certain techniques that make them valuable. Attacks, for example. My wife's group (Kronos) does things that would be very hard to emulate on synthesizers. There are no negative implications, just wonderful things for everyone. Other Interviewees: Klaus Schultze - Kraftwork Jean Michel Jorre Joseph Zawinal - Weather Report Emu Systems (David Rossen) Don Buchla Mort Sabotnick Jan Hanmer Pat Matheny 118

JAN HAMMER

1. You hear a sotmd and you get amazed by it and you realize that you must have control over it. You must have it at your disJ;X>sal. I heard early things like "Switched on Bach" and the use of synthesizers on the "Abby Road" album, things like that. And you just figured it out. It was not until 1971 when the L.iroo came around when it became manageable for a musician to take an instrument and work out p:ttching and all that stuff. 3. Pretty cbninant. There is no way it will not be included in the future. I think it will be a p:trt of all music in the future, not just J;X>pular. 4. '!here were manuals, which like the instruments, were fairly crude themselves. But on the other hand, it's sort of like the Mini-Moog, in ley case (which was ley first hands-on experience) , was laid out in such a logical fashion that I was able to pretty much follow IIW instinct and learn the basic flow of the instrument instantly. Fran then on it's all experimenting, being able to hear sanething and move a few perimeters and remember the steps you take so you can retrace then. It's not as complicated as I have made it sound. 5. Oh, it's not just synthesizer muaic, it's any use of technology. I had problems when I made an album that I played all the instruments almost 12 years ago. People knew that it was all me playing by overdubs. 'Ihey had to inmediately- look for a certain coldness. But that album has survived and ~ple are buying it today and no one is talking about coldness any more. But it was the initial reaction of these :r;eople who had nothing else to say had to dig out. Then it goes on to this day. When I was p:tssed over for the F.miey award, the can};X)ser who won, had to make a snide remark that he was hapP.{ to have won the award working with live, breathing musicians. 'Ihat' s really distasteful. 6. The Mimi-Moog was a milestone; it brought synthesis out of the laboratory, really. It was a hard-wired working unit, as opp:>sed to a modular system which pretty much had to stay in the studio or laboratory. 'Ihe Mimi-Moog wasn't the first one, but it was the most successful one. I think that was a major breakthrough. After that, when memory was included that was fantastic. The next one would probably be the introduction of the Fairlight EMI for its sampling facility. Also FM synthesis, which started hapt:ening a long t.ime ago, but no one believed in it. Yamaha bought it after every major manufacturer had looked at it and said it would never go; its too complicated, no one would know what to do with it. Yamaha introduced the DX1 about 10 years later and blew everyone 119

away. Everybody had a chance at it and they all f8Ssed it up. (NED was using FM in it's Synclav.ier, however.) 9. The "SWitched on Bach" album, because that was the first time I heard the instrument used in such a purely musical way. Prior to that it was all experimental and laboratory and boring. Also 'lhe Beatles. I would say those two. 12. I think there's a need for all three. I think there is a need for analog, the t:erfect example being the Oberheim Xpander, which is the ultimate modular synthesizer where aeything can go anywhere. 'lhen digital machines, like the ma, Fairlight or Synclavier, are vital. Finally, instrunents that do just sampling are needed. 13. The only lack I feel is that the human engineering factor of controlling is very amateurish. Everybody, all the major manufacturers, haven't realized how to build a good keyboard controller, est:ecially a portable keyboard controller. They are totally missing the mark, over and over. I have to have nw keyboard instrument built custan fran scratch. I'm talking about actually having a 5t:ecial fiberglass mold made so it will be like an instrument as opp>sed to a box. They are still building boxes. They totally pass on human engineering. 14. It sort of keeps up with me. 15. sane instruments cost too much and sane cost too little. An instrtment like the DX7 should cost more and an instrument like the Synclavier should cost less. CNer the years I had save for an instrument for a long time. It wasn't until recently when I was able to get same major projects going that I was able to finance all kinds of aa:.Juisitions. But with the exception of the DX7 they are all too eJq:ensive. In the future I don't eX:t:ect to be sp;nding that much money. · I firmly refuse. It •s just totally out to lunch. 16. I don't think so. They are all in the ears of the beholder, or not even in their ears, I think it's in their brains. Because I think if they listened with their ears they couldn't cane up with the things they say about these instruments. 120 @ •

HERBIE HANCOCK

1. Before the band I had a sextet. The music was a very intuitive kind of jazz, experimental in nany ways. My record producer and manager was David Rubinson at the time (and until very recently). David was trying to do what he could to make the music as ptiatable as it could be without interfering with the music, so it could reach as wide an audience as possible. He suggested that, since synthesizer was getting to be a very popular instrument and one that was kind of related to the younger audience, it might be a good idea to put it on one of the tracks. Now I hadn't used it before at all. So, this great guy, Patrick Gleeson, was in San Francisco where we were recording. I said I didn't know what to tell him ·to do, since I didn't know anything about synthesizers. So I said I would let him make up an introduction for this one song, and if I liked it I'd use it, if I didn't, I wouldn't. So I let him have the tape, and when I got the tape back I loved it. It was incredible! So I said, nLook, :r;ut some stuff on the rest of the tracks. n He wound up being on the albun and right CMay I asked him if he'd like to go on tour with the band. So we did that. It was kind of a first, I think, far as I know, for synthesizer to be used in that type of context 1 ive with an improvising jazz group. He had to invent a lot of moves, just like a choreographer, because he only had two hands and they didn't have progranmable synthesizers. Anyway, I wolmd up asking him a lot of questions because I have always been intrigued by scientists. My first three years I was an engineering major and I've always loved mat:h -and science since I was a kid. So during the few years he was in the band I asked a lot of questions. In 1973 I broke up the band and did a record called nHead HlU'lters. n On this, it was the first time I ever played synthesizers. 3. For one thing, there's a certain position in the recent past that will continue in the future of introducing new solU'lds to music. I also think there will be a lot more dependence on synthesizers as the result of the advent of digital sequencers and the use of MIDI (or same other for.m of camnunication) • What that is going to make possible is that multi-instruments will be recorded directly fran the synthesizers onto two track-tape or direct to disk. In many video and film works they are using many synthesizers to go direct to two track. 'Ihe problem is, though, as for example in may case, I have 56 different outputs fran the instruments in may studio, but the board only takes 24 different things. Sanething will have to be developed to get more mixing modules, perhaFS digital mixing consoles 121

and computers that can control it and go directly to tape. I have one sequencer that can hold 200 tracks, too. 4. In 1979, I bought an Apple II plus and just learned it. Now I have a lot else. 5. Oh, yea, especially coming fran the jazz world.. '!be majority came fran critics and not so much fran the general public or the musicians. I still find a little resistance, but not much. One of the other problems I've run into is because I still continue to do acoustic jazz and do electric music that is more in the area of Pdp. Getting that accepted has taken a long time. 6. No. 7. I started off playing classical music. I was listening to classical and rhythm and blues. So I was familiar with the orchestra, but had a base in Rand B. In high school I got into jazz and after a while I stopped paying attention to Pop music. I got kind of tunnel visiqn. But I continued to listen to classical music and got into contan{X)rary classical. Stravinsky is still It¥ favorite can{X)ser. I listened to others, too, Varese and John cage, and then I heard Stockhausen, in p;1rticular "Song of Children" which was done with synthesizers but with electronic devices. This song is just beautiful. I got a ~ge to meet Stockhausen. He came to 'lhe Vanguard where I was playing with a trio. At the end of the night, his table was the only table still occupied. He came upstairs and saneone introduced me. I was honored and he was surprised I knew his name. He said, "Oh, your touch in magnificent." 'l;'ha.t was really a pleasure for me. It's a canbination of everything, music and nw interest in science and technology, that led me to synthesizers. For me its a perfect marriage of nw interests. 12. I oon't know, but at this {X)int it is not a good idea because there are very many attributes that analog has that are not easily replaced ~ digital. 13. Right nt:M there is a lot more use of synthesizers in film work that are using SMPI'E code. Just now they are beginning to develop devices to link SMPI'E with synthesizers and MIDI. This is whole new area. NCM many are trying to develop devices that are able to get a more human kind of sound, a kind of feel. Roger Nickels has developed a drum machine which has a more human sound. 'lhe IOOst difficult thing is that along with greater abilities, comes more complications. '!he hard part is designing software so that you can get to these things quickly so that the time spent doesn't interfere with the creative flow. It is especially difficult when perfoiming live. 14. You've got to get a lot of magazines. You've got to buy a lot of stuff. Fortunately I have p:ople to help me. My engineer is into technology. 122

16. That de~nds on the musician, the quality of the musician. A violin in Herbie Hancock • s hand might as well be a · telephone. Synthesizers are no different. It • s another SOlU'ld and how it • s to be used detennines how closely you • re going to come to music. How the music makes the listener feel is the important thing. No matter what technique you use, if it's really ooing something positive to the :person hearing it (not make him snile, I mean, but effect him, even to make him cry or be sick) , that • s the end product--the experience of hearing the music. The synthesizers, themselves, just kind of sit there. You have to plug than in, turn than on and then they still won't oo anything until you start manipulating sanething. How you use that stuff de~nds on the :person, not the instrmnent. 123

MIOIAEL HOENIG (TANGERINE DREAM)

1. I began experimenting with self-taught electronic devices. '!he first synthesizer that I actually laid nw hands on was a Putney synthesizer; EMS was the cornp:~.ny. A couple weeks later I was called on a Pink Floyd set and bought two of them. In that same year I was also working at Dartmouth, in the British Dartmouth college, on a big Arp 2500 system. 3. One of the workhorses of p:>pular music to a degree that I nC7N find annoying. '!he use of synthesizer has been narrC7Ned down to some kind of Hanunond Organ with a couple of nE!W' colors. Synthesizers are nC7N approached as keyboard instruments, whereas when I had lT!Y first synthesizer, there weren • t even any keyboards around. I find it kind of sad that the use is so narrowed down, because I feel that the synthesizer really hasn •t been approached much deeper than the piano ten years after it was invented. At that point they played transcriptions of string quartets on the piano and nC7N they are playing Hamroond Organ lines on the synthesizers. '!here is no way to knC7N what will happen in the future. Anything that is the p:>pular sense, though, will always be narrowed to the consumer. 4. It was all self-taught. '!here were no teachers at that time. 5. No, not at all. In fact, it was the op1_X)site. People were open and interested, not resistant at all. Now it depends upon who you• reworking with. The people that shC7N resistance I avoid. 6. The idea in the first place to integrate several electronic circuits and try devices that were used for completely different reasons before, and then to actually canbine them in a way that would make sense to me when I tried to use them. Aside fran' that there were no major revolutionary ideas, though the developnents are great. 9. Not really. Of course, I listened to '50s and '60s new music that was produced in Europe, you know, Stockhausen, Berio, whatever was around. But they were not even specifically with synthesizers, though. What turned me on was the ability to explore in this field and into sonic areas that you couldn • t explore before. That sense of adventure was what turned me on. 13. More integration and combination of different synthesis fonns. I could still see more canbinations of analog and different digital approaches, for example. More integration would mean that one system doesn't rely on just one of two sound creating techniques. As of nCM, most instruments have only one way of creating sound. Combining several ways, like in the most simple way, as in 124

the Emulator combining sampling with analog treatment (envelopes and filters and stuff), which is canbining two different techniques. I could see even more techniques. being canbined. More accessible compositional tools, sequencing and very comprehensive composition programs, are even more important. 14. I don't care about it very mch. I grE!VI up with it. I've been doing this stuff since 1967 and it has been always an involving thing. I never had to keep up with it; it came to me. I don't run into every music store or buy everj · magazine with the newest gadget. It seems to come to me. When I need sanething for canposi tional purposes then I look around. Otherwise I'm not spending a lot of time in looking into every gadget. 15. I spend all ~ey mney on synthesizers. Even though I'm reducing equipnent, the equipnent that I'm buying is more expensive. I don't see it ending because I hoped it would change 16 years ago and it always takes longer than you think. It will only change if I change ley' attitude and feel comfortable with what I have and don't bother updating any more. Yes, you spend too much. '!he money all gets sucked up again. 16. Every piece of technology has its bright and dark side. Still, I pretty mch ignore that which would annoy me. I don't really care about what else is being done that doesn't please me; I don't even look at it. Especially with new synthesizer toys. '!hey are so overused, very often, and that can became annoying, but I hardly hear it any mre. 125

MARK KOENIG (YAMAHA)

1. I'm a musician and I'd always liked to try new instrtm~ents. Electronic instruments began improving and ~thesizers were coming to the market as I was growing and I grew right along with them. 2. DX7, which has sold for over 4 years. That is ranarkable in this industry. 3. '!hey are used for every conceivable sound-to simulate other instruments and create totally new sounds. Because they are so inexpensive, camtared to hiring many musicians to play a piece, ~thesizers can be used to simulate an orchestra, band, etc. '!his catacity is not meant to be a replacenent of musicians. '!he expectation was that ~thesizers would be used to get musical ideas Cbwn in "sketchboard n type form, then instrumentalists will cane in to record it. 5. Yamaha • s instruments were grabbed up. There was and is no resistance. 6. It was all an evolution with no most im};X)rtant developnent. 7. It • s expanding very strongly in all areas. The DXlOO is for the young players or canputer people with no keyboard chop:;. Many other Yamaha instruments are designed for the professional market. 8. Simulated sounds of acoustic instruments, first, and the ease of operation of the synthesizer. 10. We are making instnnnents for anybody. We • re interested in people who have never touched an instrument and people who already very involved in creating sounds and/or music. 12. '!hey currently are digital. 16. For econanic reasons, sanetimes the ~thesizer simulation is used as the final track instead of hiring an orchestra or band because it is of acceptable quality. This does result in synthesizer players replacing other musicians in certain instances •

. ' 126 0 .

PAT MATHENY

1. When synthesizers first emerged, I was skeptical. Not anti-, but they didn't sound that good, like an organ. Aside fran that, they didn't take much input fran the player, exce};ll: pitch bend, which Jan Hammer had pretty much develop:d to its limit. Talk of guitar synthesizers interested me. In 1974-75, the guitar synthesizers looked like a refrigerator full of I;atch cords and all. The first Arp guitar synthesizer, the Avator, had a minor· amount of in];Xlt fran me. It didn't work that well, but when I tried it out I played with it all day and they had to drag me out at 9 p.m. The p:>ssibilities really struck me. It's just that the problem in changing the gestures guitar players make into things synthesizers understand is terrible. 'lhe pitch changes according to how the guitar is picked, etc. Regardless, I have a guitar synthesizer museum under nw bed. 'lhe Patch 2000, for example, had wired frets, but a bad time delay. The first usable guitar synthesizer was the Roland GR 300. It was p:>lytilonic and could only be used with the Roland guitar. I tried this one out and bribed them to let me take it hane for a while. There was the p:>ssibility for real emotion in this synthesizer and I still use it occasionally. H<:Mever, in synthesizer cap!bilities it was belCM prllnitive, with a gritty but usable sound and a very supp:d up fuzz tone. Then I used the Modular 4 Voice and Pro};ilet 5 in the group for performance on stage. I had only been thinking of synthesizers for p:rformance for a long time. 'lhen carne a change in how I thought of using synthesizers~ Lyle Mays and I saw the Bynclavier (built by NED) and thought of using it as a canp:>sition tool. So t sold 5 guitars and bought the Bynclavier, the 30th they had sold. NED was working on a guitar controller as well, though, and I got interested in that, of course. The first controller NED used was made by Oncor. It looked like a guitar but had no strings. When you touched where the strings should haye been it sent a digital code to the Bynclavier. (NED had designed software and built a hardware box to ada};ll: to this.) 'lhe problem was that if you sweat, it didn't work. The p:>ssibility of it not working, of course, made you sweat. What would happen when it didn't work would be that it would play a tri-tone away from what you played. In live p:rformance. this made for some very strange notes being played. Thankfully, NED changed their controller to a Roland guitar, building the software and hardware for it. The first synthesizer prototype was built in 1982 and it was produced for consum};ll:ion in 1983. This worked fran the "git-go" and is what I use most today. 127 ~ .

3. Here to stay. It is the main way we make our music. Kids learn to play on synthesizers, not on instruments in real time at all. Musicians who don't have technique, but have a lot of conceptual ideas ·now have a way for conceptualizing without learning other thingse There will still be melody, hannony and r:t:wthm, though. But pop music needs to get p:ople to dance and one can be a nstarn musician without any normal chops now. It's all fran the keyboard ~thesizer. 4. Fran the manuals. 5. The only negative is that in live p:rformance, the audience can't tell who is playing what sounds, me or L¥le. This isn't a negative to me, but it is a little frustrating to them, I guess. l?eople do like the sounds, though. 6. Velocity keyboards, touch sensitive keyboard interaction with the player. 9. Weather Report. They always have a musical concept of sounds and are the nfather" of textural use of synthesizers. 12. No. We need analog sounds for warmth and depth. 13. Synthesizers are way behind in the area of sensitivity and interaction with the players. 1here are 8 levels of dynamics for most touch sensitive controllers, but the ear can discern 30 for guitar, piano, etc. It takes so much effort to increase the dynamics that they aren • t even dealing with it yet. However, I never thought ~thesizers could get as far as they have so quickly, and synthesizer canpmi.es are still working on the future possibilities. 14. I am fasinated I:¥ it and think it has a lot to offer. It saves time fran other things and gives so much musically by freeing up creativity. Synthesized orchestra is available to me. Being able to reproduce sounds gives me a p:rsonal relationship to every sotmd I hear. Being a musician can be even more intimidating, though, because of this freedan. One needs to take responsibility for every asp:ct of what the audience hears. This creates "Option Anxiety." 15. I have sp:nt virtually everything I've made. It is sanething like being a junkie. My synclavier system cost about $200,000. But it gives me a portable state of the art digital recording studio with multi-track recording, 8 tracks for 10 minutes of continuous music. It is also a p:rfonnance synthesizer. This one thing does all kinds of things. 128

BOO MXXi CIrtant and becoming more widespread. 5. Yes, they were fairly strange things to most ~ople. Only the most experimental and innovative musicians knew what to cb with it. There's not much resistance any more. 6. No. It was an ongoing flow starting as early as 1900. 7. Yes. The number of musicians ~rforming on synthesizers is going up every year, expmding in every area, even church music. 8. Sound quality is the most important thing. Sounds should be rich, wa.cn and realistic. 'Ihey should be interesting. They ability to change those sounds is very important Jo the professional musicians, too. A good feeling keyl:ldard, sensitive to touch is important. 10. Our flagship product, Kurzweil 250, has high quality preset sounds, but they can ·be changed. This is what's in demand. 11. It just turned out to be. We didn't know what it was going to be. '!here was no requiranent that we had to meet. We were just doing things that made sense and they added up to an instrument concept. 12. Yes. 16. .It puts sane musicians out of business, but puts other musicians who use synthesizers in business too. It's part of things always changing. Since they are new :rrusical instr\.lnents, there is no standard synthesizer. 'Iherefore, musicians aren't playing an the same instrument for as long as they would the older acoustic instrmtents and don't have as long to develop their abilities. Other Interviewees Patrick Morrez (Mooqy Blues and Yes) 129

'!OM OBERHEIM (OBERHEIM=ECC) 1. I started Oberheim Electronics in 1969 with effects productse To supplement ~ incane I started selling Arp and that led me to getting involved with synthesizers. In 1973 I designed a digital sequencer to sell with the Arp and Moog. It was successful and led to my getting more involved. 2. 'lbe Matrix 6 (for the semi-professional market) sells the · most, but the Matrix 12 and X};mlder (for the professional market) are as significant in dollar amount. 3. 'lbey are a tool that pro:[:erly used add their };art to the musical world. 5. Sampling has e~cially caused resistance, but it doesn't effect Oberheim because we are not developing a sampler. 6. No. It was a continuous evolution. 7. Expanding everywhere, amateur and professional markets. 8. Pre-fab sounds, such as in the D'Y:/ are very popular, but the ability to make one • s own sounds is also in danand (which is also possible in the D'Y:/) • Samplers are probably in the biggest danand right now. 'lbe Emu used to be the only lower cost sampler, now it is being eclipsed 1::¥ other can};anies, es:[:ecially the Insonic. All other kinds of ~esizers are a minority of the market. 10. A philoso};hy develo~d over the years to do the best to make our synthesizers easy to use, but to put in the most cafability-to be state of the art, but ~rsonable. 11. It was a natural thing to do. I did an experiment with a friend, using 2 Arps to make an almost polyt:honic modular synthesizers. It impressed me with the sound possible. So in 1975 I put 4 modules with a keyboard and produced the Modular 4 Voice. 12. No. Analog synthesizers are 85% digital now, but the subtractive foiin of synthesis used mostly in analog is still important. 16. Starting in the 1970s, ~ople have been mashing their teeth about this issue, but it never became a major problan. HCMever, with sampling, it has had a much wider social effect. It is being discussed more. 'lbere was an article a few months ago entitled "Synthesizers sound sour to musicians" in the Los Angeles Times. Many musicians are buying samplers--actually screaming for samplers--so they can get gigs they couldn • t have gotten before. Samplers are the il demand in synthesizers. To some extend sampling is replacing acoustic instrtmtents. Other Interviewees IOn Buchla Alan Pearlman (Arp) Morton SUbotnick Pier Synovia (EMS) 130

ALAN PEARLMAN

1. I researched electronic music in college. Many years later I started Arp Instrument with the goal of making very good perfonnance instruments for not too much money. We concentrated on analog synthesis, which has been superseded by digital now, but for its time, analog synthesis was where it was at. 3. In sound recording there is always a place for unusual sounds with ~ple who create sound tracks for video and film. They have been using synthesizers quite a bit to get those sounds and will continue to do so. In snall groups, bands, there is usually a keyboard player who will have a synthesizer. Especially right now, synthesizers are where it is at. I don't know whether it will continue to be that way but there seans no reason for it not to. 4. Self-taught, I'm afraid. It was the only way then. 5. No resistance, just competition. A lot of producers jumped on the bandwagon and for one period there were more synthesizers produced than could be absorbed in the market. 6. No, there wasn • t any one p:>int at which I could say the roost important developnent happened. 7. There is always a market among the very creative musicians for arranging infonnation and making usual sounds. · 8. Nowadays, there seems to be a tendency for synthesizers to have a digital computer interface to have a computer control the synthesizers. That seems to be in demand among very knCMledgeable musicians. 10. We were making them for professional musicians. We were trying to make musical instruments that were incidentally synthesizers. The instruments had maximum flexibility to design your own sounds. They required a bit of education of the user, not only about heM the instrument worked but a lot about sound theory, etc. 11. Actually I think the word designing is more appropriate than inventing. An invention is sanething that is p:ttented. Designing an instrument takes a lot more than inventing sanething and you can design sanething without inventing anything. I was involved in designing the Arps and yes I do have a few :p:itents fran inventions. The first Arp was System 2500, about the size of a big desk. It cost $10,000 and we didn't sell many of them. The first big seller was the 2600. Most of the well-heeled musicians bought one. We were studying the market and saw the need for more functions for less cost. we did it on the basis of a business decision. 12. Most instruments will contain digital processes. Maybe a few will contain analog processes as well, but yes, I think digital is where it's going. 131

16. sane of the sounds synthesizers are used to create are pretty bad, but you can make bad sounds with a violin, too. other Interviewees Ray Kurzweil 132

JEFF ROO (ROLANJ)l

1. Exposed to it in college (CSU/Northridge). 2. Changes fran time to time. I think currently, JX3P is the best seller, before that, the Juno 1 or 6 was the number 1 seller in the world for a few years. 3. At one level they are almst defining it, Pop music anyway. (Synthesizers don •t have the major sway in Rock still.) Synthesizers are now almst defining to Pop 3 minute 45 second art form. This art foiin is becaning based on what it sotmds like over what is happ:!ning musically or what is being said. 5. Sure, absolutely. A lot of people thought it was noise. '!he early synthesizers were actually designed to create noise to do sotmd effects. Hcwever, synthesizers have gotten more mainstream and conservative since they were introduced, with digital, MIDI and sampling. They have gotten more instrument oriented and it gets harder to do sound effects with newer synthesizers. As synthesizers have gotten more sor:histicated, the walls have broken dCMn to the {X>int nr::NI where no one even thinks twice about it. It would be hard to imagine music without synthesizers n.ow. 6. -MIDI. No one aspect since the beginning of conunercial synthesis has had more profound imp;lct then that one five pin pluge It has made obsolesence much less a factor in the purchase of an instrument. If you have many synthesizers, each with its own strengths and weaknesses, you can link than together and in a sense, make your own synthesizer. Roland is extranely committed to MIDI. And of course, sequencers go hand in hand with this. 90% of what you hear synthesizers play is sequenced. 7. Yes, especially in the low cost end of the market. More garage bands have added an ineJq:ensive synthesizer to the normal base, guitar and drlmlS. Certainly Holiday Inns have never been the same. You go into a lounge in any hotel and the lounge act may be four keyboards, a drum machine and maybe a sequencer. I was in bar where the whole act was one guy playing a guitar synthesizer, a rack of Yamaha modules and drum machines-and he was p;lcking than in. 8. In the amateur market what. really counts is lots of preset sounds. Very few in this market actually program sounds. People are doing a lot of swaping and buying sotmds. In the professional market, really good synthesists are still programming sounds. Hcwever, pianists who are turning to synthesizers to make a living, but are not really synthesists, are relying on others (sanetimes secretly) for sounds. 133 I .

10. Yes. They are really taking the needs of synthesists into account at a very early stage of a synthesizer •s developnent. Good communication at:out what the synthesist needs makes the synthesizer into a good machine. More graphic displays will be built into Roland machines in the future so the synthesist has a much clearer picture of what he is cbing. 12. No, because sound is felt as an analog process in nature. A digital process can approximate this very well, but will always have certain attributes because it was digitally created. For the mney, for several years, it won•t be econanically feasible to create a digital synthesizer that is capilile of doing all the things an analog synthesizer can sitive. '!here is nothing intrinsically negative at:out synthesizers. Sampling has some very complicated ethical issues. Here's a technology that is inherently problem laden that can only be dealt with in a philoso!ilical way, which nobody is really willing to do right now. Synthesizers, thanselves, don't have a negativity, but a lot that is being played on synthesizers is getting very conservative. This is sanitizing a lot of what is haPFening in modem Ebp music and its almost becaning its am cliche. It • s tey impression that synthesizers were designed to do exactly the opp::>site, to move at~ay fran a cliche, not create a new one. But this is not the fault of the synthesizers, its just the attitude with which the synthesizers are approached. Another thing is the current over-reliance on one instrument to do everything. People look to synthesizers and MIDI to cb everything now. Too much is put up>n this one area. Acoustic instruments .inlfart their am quality, too. It is good to explore all the new p>ssibilities in synthesizers, but I think the cap:tbilities are slanting things a little too much. The instruments themselves, though, are incredible and the p>siti ves to then are very clear. 134

mVID SMITH ( SEPUENTIAL CIROJ!TSl

1. I started the comp:my al:out 10 years ago. I got into it because I have background both as a musician and as an engineer. My regular job was as an engineer, but I had a band and had bought a synthesizer for recording. With this background, it was an obvious area for me to go into. I'm involved with the instrument developrent side, and ·Barbara Fairhurst does the administrative work. A few years ago we made her the president of Sequential, and I am more the technical/product J:erson. 2. Right-,this second it would be the Pro};het 2000. 3. Continue like it has in the p:1st few years growing in a lot of different areas. '!he cheaper synthesizers should also get the young generation used to playing with synthesizers and they might be more interested in moving into electronic music quicker as professionals. I think synthesis is hear to stay. Synthesizers continue to do more and more for less and less, which always benefits the musician in the end. 5. No. The only problem was to fill the orders for the Pro};het 5. 6. Not really. I think you could point to digital signal processing, probably, as the next thing that's going to be hitting over the next few years. 7. In the last few years, synthesizers have gone beyond just keyboard players. 'lhese days you have quitarists, drummers, bass players, horn and violin players who have gotten into synthesizers because they can do quite a bit by thanselves as a composer, even more than as a instrumentalist, even more than they could before, regardless of whether or not they can play the keyboard with virtuosity. '!hat's probably one of the biggest markets that is expanding. 8. Usually on a basic level, J:eOple want bigger numbers1 they want more of this and more of that. Beyond that, a lot of J:eOple don't really know what they want, they just want sanething that • s new and fresh and different than what • s been available before. sanetimes they want existing instruments to be made better, for example making than better sonicly (making than cleaner), or just having more of eve:cything. Sampling is what J:eQple want, too, but better quality for less money. 10. We cater to the professional and semi-professional market. We also t:cy to consider the needs of the musician when making the instrmnent. Because of this, our engineers play synthesizer, themselves. 11. I was building accessories to Il'!Y own synthesizers and other J:eQple wanted them. So I built and sold them, then 135

came up with the idea to build my am synthesizer. I did in 1978, and that was the Pro:fh,et 5. 12. I think so, it's inevitable. 16. IJ.'here' s a big controversy about whether synthesizers are putting musicians out of work. I tend to not wor~ about that too much. It • s like, how many lute players ·are there around today, because the piano put than out of business. As technology changes, back then and now, people's taste changes. IJ.'here are people who may not work as much because of synthesizers, but there is also a group of people who work more because of synthesizers. So there is no logical right of wrong to that. 136

CLARK SP.[,l\WER 1. I basically learned of synthesizers through Paul Beaver and became very interested al:x>ut the same time he did. Paul Beaver was one of the first to buy the big Moog, figured out what it was and started teaching. I took the first class he gave with another half dozen t:eople. As he talked I thought, "Gee, I knCM that," and "Boy, this is great fun. n Instead of being told by the manufacturer what to like (as in organs), I could choose II¥ o.m sounds. '!hat appealed to me very much because I was in greater control of the instrument than aeything I •d ever done. I'd been a classical organist before. 4. The manuals were nonexistant or not worth much. It just took a long time of working on the instrument until you decided, yes, I'm capable at this instrument. You taught yourself. 5. Not when I started. There was acceptance of it being a curious thing. '!here were maey opportunities to use it on Night Gallery, Star Trek, etc. because the shCMs were different and ot:en to new sounds. '!here is no resistance to synthesizer today fran those hiring than, only fran musicians with one sound instruments. 6 • '!here isn It a1W One thing • Several things· COuld be mentioned, polY!Dony, greater musicality and the realization that synthesizers are musical instruments. 9. No p:trticular music, because at that p:>int there was very little music that could be attributed to synthesizers. They were too new and no one knew hCM to deal with than very well. 12. Undoubtedly, for the precision. 13. More control is always we want and more musicality, as with velocity and pressure sensitivity. 14. You find time-sleep less. 15. It's a massive problan. My cliche is, there's a new roodel next Tuesday, and you've got to have it. As opp:>sed to the man who buys a Stradivarius, synthesizers don't gain in value. Take a $10 ,000 synthesizer today, in 10 years you will be lucky to donate it to anybody and get 20 cents as a write-off. .'!here's a problan of ohe, the investment, and two, in p:~.ying for the instrument, and three, eventually most aren't even worth s:r;ace. It's a terribly unfortunate fact. 16. I am violently opposed to ~nthesizers imitate acoustic instrunents. I think ~nthesizers should be used to make new and creative sounds. I don't blame the ~nthesizers for this. I don't blame the ~thesizers or ~thesists for this. I want complete flexibility fran the ~nthesizer and any good ~thesist should knCM his instrument well enough to be able to produce certain 137

sounds. I blame the producers for hiring synthesists to do this. Cint, p:ople must have the integrity to say, I don't really play this synthesizer and not play jobs on it, but stick to the synthesizers one plays well. That was what originally gave synthesizers a bad name. Other Interviewees Ray Kurzweil John Channing Alan Pearlman Don Buchla 138

FRANK ZAEPA

1. Bought an Arp 2600 in the mid 1970s. I didn't even have a manual to go with it. I started farting around with it. '!hat was tey first experience with the machine. I'm a canp:>ser. I'm interested in sounds. It was just another sound source. 4. I just did it all ~ :rcrtself. 5. No. The early pieces had synthesizer like' sounds on than, but they were all produced by mnsynthesizer means, mainly because I couldn't afford one. Sane of the earlv albums had indications, like on the liner notes, saying that no synthesizer was used on here. It's not because I didn • t like them, but just because I couldn't afford to have one and I wanted to be sure that ~ople knew it was p:>ssible to make these sounds without an expensive. machine. I've always advocated that if there is a musical instrument available, that saneone ought to tty to make sane music out of it because it is there. I've been instrumental in urging other ~ple to use synthesizers, mainly George Duke, who really had a resistance to synthesizers when he first got in the band. It took a lot of persuading to get him to pick up the Arp Odessy. Once he got into it, he found that he could really be an expert perfonner on it, he adapted it to his own musical style. NcM the usual resistance to synthesizers canes fran musicians who play wind, string and brass instruments, because they feel synth~sizers threaten their livelihood. Certain keyboard players oon't like than either. For example, if they are . funky organists or ~ple who play acoustic piano and have gotten used to the feel of that kind of keyboard and are not interested aey kind of electronic sound, they tend to resist synthesizers. But that • s okay. Sane people should specialize. '!hey should never play a synthesizer and should only play acoustic piano or Hammond Organ if that's what they have in mind. I'm not saying that everybody on the face of the earth should go out and buy one. 6. PolY};ilonic sampling. 8. Sampling machines and sequencers. I think there is more of a future there, because there are limits to what you can with artificial waveforms and how attractive you can make than to the listener. Given the choice between an artificial waveform and a sampled sound, ~ople will opt for the sampled sound. 9. Before I started writing rock and roll I was interested in chamber music and orchestra music. I've always liked the early 20th Century composers. They are the ones that have been the JOOst stimulating and entertaining for me, such as Webern, Stravinsky, Varese, Bartok, all those guys. I just liked the way it sounded. Unfortunately, it seans 139 p •

like the history of contemporary music has teen OOwnhill fran there l:ecause most of it has been dictated by econanics. I have a feeling there wouldn't have been minimalist canpositions if the cost of rehearsal hadn't been so high that J;eOple had to write something that was easy to put together and did not task the musician's technical ability. 12. When we talk about synthesizers, we're talking about machines that produce wavefonns, of an artificial nature, whether they are generated by analog or digital means. I think there are certain limitations to that in tenns of the tyFe of music I like to make. ~e benefit is in having music that sot.mds like music, since I tend to like to write things that are too hard for hmnan l:eings to play, and synthesizers are real good for that. It's been a problem to get :FeOple to cot.mt the rhythms and play the stuff in tune. Its even a worse problem for me when I know what the thing is really supposed to sound like and I can't get an accurate perfonnance. It's pretty depressing. It's utterly senseless to hand a piece of paper with the kind of rlwthms I write to a musician l:ecause you know they're not going to play it. They simply won't do it. I sanetimes write rhythms you can't express in standard notation, but are a legitimate thing to want to achieve. What you can do with a synthesizer is, if you can conceive of writing rhythms in like that, you can hear what it sot.mds like, for example, when one instrmnent keeps an absolutely steady beat and another instrment in the ensanble gets father and farther behind the beat wer time and then s:r;eeds up and catches up. You can write in little accelerandos and ritardandos right inside the bar. You'll never get it like that fran a human being. 13. Do all the stuff, in terms of sampling, that they do 1lOW' faster and cheaper, because the cost of polYJ;ilonic sampling is really extreme. Because of the cost of the memory. And I see no chance that Synclavier is going to bring their prices down. There are some things, even though Fairlight does sane of the similar things to the Synclavier, it • s got a long way to go to catch up to some of the music printing options and stuff that • s in there. I'm trained to using the Synclavier system, which means I'm stuck ~ing the Synclavier prices. The Synclavier offers the most opportunities to people who write music. It • s unfortunate that it •s priced out of the range of people who do write music. 14. I have :r;eople who help me. They bring in information. I subscril:e to publications. I'm informed about ne.w products. I get demonstrations in the studio sometimes. What I like, I buy, what I don't, I don't buy. You can read a little about something new and know whether it's 140 (\ .

something you might be interested in using. I'm not interested in having every new piece of machinery that oomes Ck>wn the block. A lot of than are not apro:r;:o to the ~ of stuff I'm doing. 15. Just on Synclavier, have sp:nt CNer $200,000. I expect I'll be sp:nding more. I use the device to make records, though, so it's tuilt into the budget for making an album. If I weren't recording and had no incane that canes from using the machine, there is no way that in good conscience you could s:r;:end that kind of money for a machine like that. You know, you can get yourself a ranch for that kind of money or a hell of a big house in Nebraska. It's really a fabulous wey to work but it's ungodly expensive. 16. '!here are certain sounds that they make that I don't enjoy. IJ.be worse thing that the Synclavier does is . synthesis because they have no tracking filters. It's a digital synthesis device, and have a lot of noise, which we refer to as roll on their sounds. '!here are just other synthesizers that make cleaner, prettier timbres.