Nigel this is fantastic!!!!!!!!!!
I Like it very much. This is good music.
Thanks for sharing with us, and yes, your friend was an amazing player.
Theodore

Nigel,
Being a pain in the ass that I am I have to remind everyone that the D50, MT32 and Roland synths that featured L.A.S. were fully digital and featured no analog circuitry aside from the D/A converter on the main output.

It's "analog" waveforms and filters were digital. Initial confusion was generated by some of the KB articles on D50 and L.A.Synthesis were the description of D50's tone architecture was rather ambiguous (basically describing the D50 as if it was a hybrid synth when it actually was a totally digital instrument).

So I'm afraid the only thing that can explain the dark character of MT32's sound is it's low fi sound and 8-bit FX as well as 15k quality of most tape recorders. Like I said there was no true analog component to the sound of L.A.S. based synths and modules what so ever. It's just a miss-conseption that seems to live on even today.

Chris was one good guitar player though. Really dedicated and strong in his technique. That can only be admired.

-ED-



[This message has been edited by 3351 (edited 09-22-2005).]

Thanks for the correction -ED-. You are of course right about that. The L/A synthesis synths did do a good imitation of analog using digital waveforms and filters that allowed some interesting patches to be programmed. But that just reinforces my point that it is the music that matters and not the technology used.

I remember how we composed this piece. We were just jamming together using a Roland S10 sampler with the arpeggiator turned on. It created parts that I probably wouldn't have played normally. I then worked out the parts that the arpeggiator was playing and then played them by hand on the MT32. The sections where we play the C-Eb-D figure over two octaves was all due to inspiration from the arpeggiator lines.

Agreed.
It is definitely not the gear but what you do with it. Mind you for the time an MT32 was a pretty good deal. Surely it offered no editing (aside from sysex control of FX and basic patch parameters( it had some usable sounds, drum kits and most important of all it was multitimbral. Back in those days one was lucky enough to own at least a 4-track recorder. Most of us didn't even have that.
Anything that could play more than one part was an awesome deal. Especially something as easy to use and play with as an MT32!

Hey, besides "fantasia" there were some cool sounds. Remember "Echo pan"?
Or "Ice Rain" (Although I could be mixing it up with the original SC that had MT32 sounds in a hidden bank 2/bank msb 127 as I recall.) ? I mean at the time they seemed like state of the art Xpensive sounds.

Good music Nigel. I listened to it again today and it still gives me a very good feeling. The kind of feeling you get when you listen to something that you can relate to. Saying this both as a guitar and a synth guy.

-ED-

This is good, real and honest, both the music and the posts here. Thanks all for sharing. It does take me back to other days with a big smile.
Sorry to hear you lost this guy. He was good.
Bebop

Yes I do remember those patches. And you are correct they definately were on the MT32. I really liked the drum and percussion sounds on it as well. Even though the MT32 was lofi when you look back, it had a great balance and mix when used as a multitimbral sound source. All the sounds sat well together in the mix and nothing ever seemed to overpower other sounds. I remember using other multitimbral units after the MT32 that took a lot more work to get everything to coexist comfortably in the overall mix. Roland really did a great job with the MT32 and I wish I still had it actually.

Nigel, you can find them for $50..
Don't let nostalgia get in the way of clear thinking..they were cool then,,,but not up to today;s standard...Same with Yamaha FB01..

[This message has been edited by Fran Carango (edited 09-23-2005).]

No more beer for this man!!!
You've missed the point entirely. Nostalgia has little to do with what we're talking about. Although a healthy touch of nostalgia is always good if you're hanging out at the bar.

Don't you remember those times when you sit down, share a beer or ten and just talk about the good old times.

Nigel,
Yes, they were good for the time. You're bang on right about the sounds working well in the mix. Lots of old synths had that. ESQ-1 for example. But an MT32 was surely the easiest one of all. Often it was just a matter of adjusting the volume on all the channels. I don't know how ROland did it and why today's workstations kind of lack in that respect (although the sounds on my Motif ES8 work together great).

So, nostalgia or not as many will agree an MT32 was a great deal for the money. Especially for those of us who were just starting off.
Can't say if I would really enjoy working with one today but if I had one I'd probably play with it once in a while.

-ED-

[This message has been edited by 3351 (edited 09-23-2005).]

Yeah, I guess there is an element of nostalgia when I think about the MT32 and how it sounded to me then. I actually did pick up a Roland D110 module back in the mid 90s for almost nothing and was quite shocked when I tried to use it. It didn't sound at all like I remembered the L/A synths sounding to me some years previously. I only kept it for a week once I realised that I would never use it. Sometimes things are best left to be just good memories. But I guess that can apply to many things in life and not just music gear.

Neither D-10 nor D-110 were in any way similar to MT32 or SC for that matter. THey were more like stripped down but multitimbral (in the most useless way possible I might add) versions of the D50.

An MT32 was especially designed for multitimbral use. It's success lead to the development of Sound Canvas and General MIDI standard.

-ED-