"DEFENDING DIGITAL"

Dear Editors,

Your magazine is really getting slick! I thought I was getting Contempory Keyboard from the feel of the front cover. Your printing of pictures has really improved.

I'm afraid that I must take issue with the "back to music" letters in the Feb. 1978 issue. Such thoughts crop up many times in discussions I have with friends, and technology vs. music vs. musician is a hot subject.

I DO NOT feel that the magazine OR the company has left the idea. While you seem to have gone strongly digital, and the analogue seems to have slowed down, the goal is still the same — MAKE MUSIC. Whether I do it by fingers or microprocessor is irrelevant. The beauty of your system is that I can do it EITHER WAY. Or both at the same time.

Audio is strongly going digital. Who cares? Anybody who likes music should. I call your attention to the "reworked" Carruso record, which in effect amounts to a remix job without a master tape. How about the digital tape and discs showing up at the trade shows? These show promise for previously unheard of levels of distortion and noise (namely NONE) and dynamic range almost exceeding natural events. How about the 'environmental' experiments (by JVC?). With proper processing and speaker placement, et al, walls seem to 'disappear'.

The point is, that anybody involved with the technical side of music (or sound), be he (she) synthesist, recording engineer, performing musician, or composer, etc., MUST keep up with the advances in his area of interest. If they deal with your company, they must be into synthesis, and synthesis is strongly digital, by nature.

But why should we have to learn digital electronics? I just want to PLAY! To answer a question with a question (A questionable idea at best): Why should the brass player know the harmonic response of a brass tube, and the results of changing its length? Why should the string player understand the vibration pattern of a taut string or format response? Why should the percussionist understand Chaldni patterns or vibration nodes? None of these directly affect the ability to play the instrument, or we would have had to have had three years of physics BEFORE we went into the Junior High Band. However, all of these affect the way in which the instrument is played, taught, and bought. Indeed, the superstars in ANY musical field have such knowledge, if only on a gut-reacting basis. (Be forwarned — having such knowledge does not automatically make you a super-star, either)

In summary, I would like to quote — but I can't remember who said it. Chick Corea, Joe Zawinul, Ken Perrin? It doesn't matter, the idea seems to be pretty universal: "Synthesis is a funny circle. The more I play, the more I want to know. The more I know the better I play. The better I play, the more I want to know..."

Thanks,
Gary Bannister, Indianapolis

"LOOKING FOR MODIFICATIONS"

Dear Polyphony,

I've just read the February '78 issue and it's great. It's a definite 100% improvement over the Nov. '77 issue. In fact the only thing I learned from Nov. '77 was that an envelope follower could be very useful without external signals to process. But back to the present issue.

The article on the bionic trumpet interested me and usually I find such alternate controlling devices boring. (I'm a guitarist who learned KBDs to play synthesizers, so why can't horn players? Actually, from what I've seen, keyboard virtuosity is a handicap rather than a help with synthesizers, Keith Emerson excluded.)

I was really glad to see the Lab Notes article. The computer is finally going to open doors to PAIA users that are 10 times more useful than other manufacturers' equipment. I use a 5 octave KBD in a custom built case so I can't fit the 8700 in as it is designed to be. Oh well, I was thinking about getting a Commodore PET anyway. Keep up the software!

By far my favorite article was the 4720 modification layout. (I love modification articles. How about one for a 4730 24db per octave roll-off rate — a la Moog?) (Anyone else interested — Marvin) The night I received the issue, I'd made all internal modifications to one of my 4720's with good results.

The author beat me to the draw with my own 4 waveform LFO design. I was going to use an EXAR 2066 function generator clip with all waveforms built in. C'est la guerre! His idea is a lot better.

I'd like to see in Polyphony a common problems and troubleshooting guide. Perhaps two modules per issue. Surely another reader has suggested this. Keep printing Lots of modification articles. If that 4730 mod. is not possible, how about an 8730 VCF kit? I, and I'm sure others, would willingly pay 3 times the 4730 price for that kind of filter.

Til next issue,
David Mays

P.S. Are there any people interested in a user's group club deep in the heart of Texas? (If so, see Dave's address in LOCAL HAPPENINGS — Marvin)