From Lorne Hammond Sent Sun, Oct 28th 2018, 00:21
From Lorne Hammond Sent Sun, Oct 28th 2018, 00:21
just back from work. Good point Brian. I'm thinking they had the clock = issues resolved but changing keys meant doing that smoothly for 3 Moog = systems, 4 or more vcs3s (good luck there) and what ever tuning they = were doing on the electronic percussion modules. More like three people = going into 3 studios to tune 3 setups with a common clock, rather than = transposing one unit. They probably spent a lot of time just tuning and = cabling up. But the idea of multiple systems transposing on the beat... = Its an overwhelming bunch of gear and I think that scale had never been = done before? so the old keep it simple stupid rule was a safety? Lorne -----Original Message----- From: Brian Willoughby <xxxxxx@xxxxxxxxxxxx.xxx>=20 Sent: October-27-18 4:28 PM To: alt-mode <xxx@xxx-xxxx.xxx> Cc: Analog Heaven <xxxxxxxx@xxxxxxxxx.xxx> Subject: Re: [AH] nice article on Ricochet Hmm, I suppose that they might have considered it too limited to change = the base voltage, because that would have kept the intervals set. In = other words, what variation was available might be too limiting? My experience is with sequencers like the Pro-One, where the keyboard = can be used to shift the 40-note sequence during playback. Yes, = it=E2=80=99s not any more complex than simple key modulation, but = it=E2=80=99s way better than being stuck with the same key through an = entire piece. The Pro-One also does not allow easy editing of the = sequence itself, so the step voltages are fixed during a live = performance (unless you used DJ cue headphones and had other synths in = the foreground while working on the next sequence). I=E2=80=99m still wondering why TD didn=E2=80=99t take advantage of = changing the base voltage. =E2=80=A6 or are there songs from that era = where they did employ simple key modulation? The interview would seem to = indicate that they didn=E2=80=99t. Brian On Oct 27, 2018, at 3:06 PM, alt-mode <xxx@xxx-xxxx.xxx> wrote: > I think it was more of a situation that you couldn=E2=80=99t retune = the sequencers during a performance. You really needed them set up and = tuned in advance and, while you could change the base voltage, you = couldn=E2=80=99t really change the step voltage live. However, the 960 = sequencer has some great features for skipping steps and resetting on a = particular step that can make them a creative performance tool with some = practice. >=20 > Moog has always been 1V/oct. >=20 > I=E2=80=99m amused with the inspiration for the album name. That was = the first video game we had at home! >=20 > Eric >=20 > On Oct 27, 2018, at 5:51 PM, Brian Willoughby = <xxxxxx@xxxxxxxxxxxx.xxx> wrote: >> Enjoyed the article. Thanks Lorne and Jason. >>=20 >> I=E2=80=99m curious about the statement from Tangerine Dream that the = sequences could not be transposed. Were the Moog oscillators of the = mid-seventies not based on 1 V/octave? If they were 1 V/octave (or = Buchla 1.2 V/octave), then all it would take is a CV mixer to add (or = subtract) a constant voltage before feeding the oscillator(s) input. >>=20 >> What am I missing here? (clearly, I have no experience with = mid-seventies synth modules) >>=20 >> Brian >>=20 >>=20 >> On Oct 27, 2018, at 1:31 PM, Jason Proctor <xxxxx@xxxxxxx.xxx> wrote: >>>=20 >>> posted to Bacefook by Lorne Hammond -- >>>=20 >>> https://musicaficionado.blog/2017/09/05/ricochet-by-tangerine-dream/ >>>=20 >>> (i love the inspiration for the album name! nothing like what i = would have expected) >>=20 >=20