Conference napalm::commusic_v1

  You know I've been wondering that same damn thing for quite some time now!
  If memory serves, during the Who's last tour they didn't play that part
  live, they played a pre-recorded version off tape!  Even though they had
  a multitude of keyboard/keyboard players doing keys for all their other
  songs.  Is there something about that sound that is so tricky they could 
  only duplicate it in the studio??

-Tom_who_is_also_dying_to_know!

  

    Yeah, I taped the "Tommy" broadcast in the hopes that maybe I'd get
    a peak at what the keyboard players were doing during WGFA.
    
    The square wave LFO seems to be at least one component. If nothing
    else it makes the part easier to play!
    
    BTW- What album is it on? I don't seem to have it!
    
    Edd

    As far as I remember, It's on "Who's Next?"...
    
    I can play it perfectly...  I simply pop the album on my turntable,
    and...
    
    :-)
    
    _John_

    Could ya teach me?
    
    ;^)
    
    Edd

    
    Wow. Amazing. Technology passe!
    
    Thats a simple effect with an ARP 2500, or 2600...(or...analog
    whatever synth).....
    
    Its strange that it was like 'no big deal' when it came out...
    and now nnn years later, it's stumping the stars.....
    
    Edd, call me, I *must* be thinking about the 'wrong' song....
    
    ron
    

    
    Ah, Edd, welcome to the analog world.
    
    The original track was done on an old ARP, probably a 2600.  I think
    it's a S/H trick, as I can get a similar thing happening on my Odyssey.
    Here's how:
    
    1. I use noise as the sample and hold source
    
    2. I modulate the filter with the S/H, thus getting random sweeps.
    
    3. I set the amplitude envelope generator for "repeat" mode, where it
    gets triggered by the LFO.
    
    4. I set the LFO frequency to get the notes "pulsing" at the right
    tempo.
    
    Unfortunately, digital synths don't have S/H.  Dave Blickstein gave me
    an ESQ-1 patch that is a decent imitation of this sound, it takes
    advantage of an ESQ mode where the LFOs run freely instead of
    restarting with every note on.  Then, using the LFO to mod the filter,
    you get "random" filter sweeping if the LFO frequency is low enough.  I
    don;t know if other synths allow you to do this type of thing, though.
    
    
    							Brian
    

    It's only stumping the stars because the stars are used to thinking in
    terms of 16-bit multilooping samplers that don't "do routing".
    
    It's an easy sound to program up on any matrix-mod synth; for that
    matter, it should be easy on any ESQ as well.
    
    Can the VFX do that sound?
    
    	-Bill

I believe they fed a Hammond organ through an ARP 2600, using the 2600's 
filters (modulated by a sawtooth wave?) to process it.

I played that tune in a band about 10 years ago. I picked the whole thing 
off the record and wrote it down. I think I still have it somewhere. I'll 
see if I can dig it out for you if you want. In a club situation, that break 
in the middle (over 1 minute I think) of just the keyboard part was just on 
the verge of being too long for the audience. Or maybe that was just my 
perception of it while I was playing it. Dunno. But it worked, even though 
I was never satisfied with my simulation of the sound using an organ fed 
through an Electro Harmonix Small Stone phase shifter (remember those ?).

Mike D

    It seems that I invariably run across this effect every time I sit down
    for an extended period of time to program from scratch.  Kinda like
    sitting down with a piece of clay to turn out a marvelous work of art
    and ending up with another ashtray ... (sigh)
    
    I think the patch can be duplicated using a single LFO to *sawtooth*
    modulate the amplitude envelope, and either:
    
    	o  use a 2nd LFO to s/h modulate the filter, or
    	o  use a 2nd envelope to modulate the filter
    
    It's a very easy patch to write on an OB-Xa.  It's also *very* hard to
    use live, since the LFO speed and the tempo are tightly coupled (which
    is probably why it wasn't done live).
    
    If the original was done using a 2500/2600/Odyssey, I'd like to know
    how (chords on single/dual oscillator machines?!).  I can't believe
    they used overdubs.
    
+b

    Re: .9
    
    "Who's Next" came out in 70 or 71, about five years before the
    Polymoog....
    
    Uh-oh, rathole ahead...
    
    							Brian

    But it's such a *nice* rathole!
    
    	Eirikur
    

    > very hard to use live...
    
    T'was quite the bitch to even sync the HR-16 up! I imagine it would be
    easier to hit the tempo with a brained drummer (oxymoron?), but more
    likely to drift during the tune....
    
    > I wrote it down...
    
    Oh, yes please! I made great progress last night trying to pick it off
    the cassette copy of the audio from the video, but an x-script would
    save me mondo time...
    
    > Edd, call me...
    
    Hello, is Ron home? Can his 2600 come out to play?
    
    > sawtooth modulate the amplitude...
    
    I tried that, but the LFO envelope wasn't right then. If I could tweak
    the LFO 'shape' I think it would be better, but alas...
    
    All this madness is a direct result of Karl's digital delay note.
    
    Edd

    The Kawai K3 had a NICE sample-and-hold patch.
    
    karl

When I saw the Who in '76 Pete reached behind his stack to some keys and 
suddenly there  was the synth intro...

dbii

    Why do I get the impression that the intro was performed only once,
    and we've been hearing *that* take ever since?
    
    Edd

>    Why do I get the impression that the intro was performed only once,
>    and we've been hearing *that* take ever since?

Because they've been using tapes of the original studio take in all their 
live shows since it first came out. 

Mike D.

  Hmmm, so I was right about the tapes.  Makes sense why it was so hard to
  do live too.  Sounds like an interesting challenge.  Speaking of which,
  Mike, if you find your transcription for Edd, I'd mucho appreciate a copy
  as well if you don't mind.  Please drop it off to Tom Robert LJO2/D10.

  Thanks!

-Tom

RE: .8-.10 (Mike, Brian, etc)
    
    Hmm - Mike wrote .8 while I was writing .9, and I missed it.
    
    Not knowing much about that generation of Who music (I was only in 7th
    grade if the album really was released in '71), I was only speculating
    about the polymoog/etc.  The Hammond thru an Arp (as Mike wrote) is
    likely the way they did it.  No way to achieve that polyphony
    otherwise.
    
    To wax Janzenian, I used to do this with my ARP Odyssey and Axxe (when
    I was 7, no less),  in that I used to feed an audio out into their
    audio ins and twiddle with the filter.  It was always so grungy,
    though, that I never considered using it to record.
    
+b (who sometimes regrets selling his ARPs)

    
    You guys are close.
    
    The LFO is just a slow oscillator that creates the 'beat'.
    It triggers the Env. Gen. that gates the VCA.
    The filter is swept separately...heck, he might even have
    done it with his left hand, while playing the 'chords' 
    with his right....or he used heavily filtered Sample and hold
    random output (creates slowly changing changes).
    
    As for polyphony. Sorry, no hammond necessary. The 2600
    has 3 oscillators. The keyboard played 2 notes. As I recall,
    the 'tune' has only 2 changing notes...ANYWAY.
    
    So it COULD be played live with a 2600....or a 2500.
    
    I'd like to hear the tune again. Edd, bring to bim?
    
    ron
    

I once saw the band "4 in legion" do an excellent cover of that tune.

Funny thing was, they had *no* keyboards whatsoever.  The (rather amazing)
guitarist produced the sound by turning his guitar *way* up until it was feeding
back through the monitor, and then played the chords and "chopped" them up by
pushing down on the pickup selector switch, which apparently had it's detents
removed.  You had to hear it to believe it...

    
    ....analog implimentation #2, eh?
    
    nice. Yeah, I can imagine it.
    
    rr
    

    
    
    
    
        A few years back, I saw a tape of the band playing the song.  
    
        And they had a real live keyboard player playing the part!!!
    
    
        It sounded great and almost identical to the recording.
    
    
        Don't make it more complicated than it is.

>          <<< Note 2466.19 by LEDDEV::ROSS "shiver me timbres...." >>>
>                                -< THE answer. >-
        
>    As for polyphony. Sorry, no hammond necessary. The 2600
>    has 3 oscillators. 

Yes, the 2600 has 3 oscillators, but you can't use them to produce 
polyphony in the traditional sense. As with many other analog beasts of the 
time, you could tune them all together to get a FAT sound, tune them to a 
triad and play "one note chords", etc. But as far as true 3 note polyphony,
sorry, no can do on a 2600.

>The keyboard played 2 notes. As I recall,
>    the 'tune' has only 2 changing notes...ANYWAY.

I feel qualified to rebut this because I transcribed it. There is 
4 note polyphony through most of it, and 5 in some places.
    
>    So it COULD be played live with a 2600....or a 2500.

Yes, if you fed a Hammond organ through it.

Mike D

    I've no idea how close I may be to getting the notes right (my taped
    copy psuques audio-wise), but A (spelled A-C#-E)over E bass sound 
    good to start it off...
    
    Edd

Edd, I found one page of my transcription of it. It's the long keyboard
break in the middle of the tune. I'll send it to you, and to Tom Robert too 
(you there Tom?). I don't have the intro part, probably because I memorized 
that part and didn't use the music for it (never memorized the other 
part--just read it onstage), but I can throw that together for you, and 
send that as well. One thing I can tell you off the top of my head is that it 
starts with open fifths (A and E only), no third (C#).

Mike D

	I used to have an old ARP 2500 manual - on the back were testimonials
	from notables of the day. Roger Powell and Pete Townsend were among
	the testimonials. 

	Pete Townsend's 2500 was able to play six notes simultaneously. It
	had two keyboard manuals, each able to output three control voltages.
	Among other things it could do. He was into sequencing a lot as well,
	and had the ARP 10x3 analog sequencer in his 2500 setup.

	/pjh

    
    ARP's concept of "polyphony" was kind of weird.  On the Odyssey, you get
    two oscillators which may be detuned and mixed in the usual sense for
    mono playing.  However, if you hold two notes down, one gets just
    oscillator #1 and the other just #2.  So if #2 is detuned more than a 
    few cents, and has a different waveform or is being modulated
    differently than #1, it sounds extremely weird.  On the other hand, if
    you set up the two oscillators exactly the same, you can play two notes
    at once, albeit with single-oscillator sound.  This is something you
    couldn't do on a MiniMoog.
    
    I imagine machines like the 2600 and 2500, since they could be patched,
    would allow somewhat more flexible polyphonic operation if you could
    generate the control voltages.
    
    							Brian

    
    Getting tired of this like me?
    
    I worked at ARP. I have a 2600. Mike, please, no tutorials on 
    polyphony and how it can or cant be generated.
    
    If you say 4 parts...ie 4 NOTES are actually changing. No drones...
    then I bow to your transcription virtuosity. 
    
    At least until I hear it again.
    
    Gee, it MUST be a hammond. Couldnt have been a Lowrey.
    
    You win. 
    
    So Edd, ya get a hammond and ya bring it over, and....
    
    ;}
    
    rr
    

        
Ron,

     I certainly didn't get the impression that this was a contest of some 
sort to be won or lost. I'm sorry if my comments came across as adversarial
in nature. They were never intended that way. Should have used my smileys I 
guess. Nor was I trying to give a tutorial on polyphony (ARP's or anyone 
else's). God knows how many ratholes there are on that subject already in this 
conference :-). I was just offering an opinion based on my own experience 
with the 2600 (I bow to your superior knowledge). It just sounds like a 
Hammond organ going through a 2600 *to me*, however I certainly wouldn't say 
that is THE answer.

I'm really sick of this too.

Mike D.

    Could someone please explain to me what is meant by "running a Hammond
    through a 2600"?
    
    	db

    Nothing too dramatic is meant by that.  Just running the audio signal
    through the filter (and maybe the VCA) and using some modulation
    sources to sweep the filter cutoff.  Any modular system is by nature
    open to this sort of thing.  You can use anything you happen to have on
    hand as a module.
    
    	Eirikur

  Yes Mike, I'm still here.  Would still appreciate any part that you have.
  Thanks.

-TR

    There was a lot of fancy external signal processing available
    on the 2600 (I sold mine for a song when everybody wanted to
    play more than two notes at a time, and I was using it in a
    recording studio).
    
    One patch that was actually in the book that came with the
    synth. involved putting a clavinet through an envelope
    follower and also using its audio output through the VCA, and
    controlling the VCA with the envelope follower output. Kind
    of like the old Mutron envelope follower effects. Using an
    LFO to control the VCF with some resonance made for a cheap
    phase shifter.
    
    I did get tired of people telling me that the 2600 looked
    like a telephone switchboard...

    
    I used mine with a guitar input for a long time, even had the input
    jacks upgraded to 1/4" and some hard-wire routing switches installed.
    The envelope follower was great for backwards guitar effects, and
    controlling the VCA with an LFO gave you tremolo. And, best of all ...
    ring modulating the guitar with an oscillator. Unfortunately the audio
    quality wasn't exactly hi-fi, and you lost a lot of high end on the
    guitar. Eventually stopped using it for that reason.
    
    Rob

    Thanks, Mike!
    
    ...interesting to see how adled I've become due to MIDI. *I* would have
    notated the low E as whole notes ('cuz that's what I really play) and
    left the 8th notes up to the LFO.
    
    Edd
    

    According to the latest "Keyboard", the sound was generated by running
    an organ thru an EMS VCS-3.
    
    Edd

    >      <<< Note 2466.36 by DCSVAX::COTE "Light, sweet, crude..." >>>
    >                           -< How timely of them... >-
    >According to the latest "Keyboard", the sound was generated
    
    that's amazing - How Do You Do It, Edd ?
    
    karl

    I just call Uncle Dominic and ask...
    
    Edd

    re: 36,37,38
    
    You probably do the same stuff on the VCS-3 that you were suggesting be
    done on the ARP. Like most analog synths of the time, they had the
    usual VCO, VCA, LFO etc. controls. However, the most endearing feature
    of the VCS-3 (our high school got one in the late 70's) was how you
    made connections between the modules. Patch cords? (no). Switches?
    (no). Jumpers? (sort of). It had this neat little grid that looked like
    the board for the game 'Battleship' (I'm really dating myself now), and
    you had little metal contact 'pins' that you put in the grid to connect
    modules between each other. What a concept, eh?
    
    	Also of note (maybe pun intended) is the fact that VCS-3 synths
    also figured prominently in the recording of a certain classic album
    release by Pink Floyd (hint: a selection called 'On The Run', which has
    some effects that have a passing resemblance to those in our favourite
    tune by the WHO).
    
    Just adding my $.02 ($.01 US).
    
    Cal Connolly (good day, eh?)