6 ms·

Synthorama was created by Matten and Wiechers of Bonn[1] Nobody in Kraftwerk was an electrical engineer. I am not sure how you "outline" a synthesizer unless yo

Synthorama was created by Matten and Wiechers of Bonn[1] Nobody in Kraftwerk was an electrical engineer. I am not sure how you "outline" a synthesizer unless you mean writing a schematic, something nobody in the band could do. I'm not trying to detract from their genius in any way but the idea that they created their own gear is largely folklore. [1] https://sdiy.info/wiki/Synthesizerstudio_Bonn https://sdiy.info/wiki/Synthesizerstudio_Bonn

jacquesm 7y ago
You can outline a synthesizer in the same way people that couldn't program their way out of a wet paper bag outline software: by writing a specification of what it should be able to do. Implementing that specification is then the job of the electrical engineers. If we're willing to give Steve Jobs credit for the iPhone I think we should be equally willing to give Schneider & company credit for their ideas that were instrumental - (heh) - in moving the synth field forward. The fact that many of their sounds were novel when first recorded is the strongest proof of their original contributions, if it has merely been off the shelf hardware created by others then this would not have been the case, you'd have heard those sounds from other artists before then.
- bogomipz 7y ago
  Except they didn't write down a "specification." They simply asked Matten & Wiechers to come up with something that could automate their tape loops for Trans Europe Express. Dirk Matten & Hans-Joachim Wiechers both designed and created the Synthorma to handle that task. This is well-documented. So no it was not the same a writing a technical specification any more than I'm writing a "specification" when I call my local pizza place and ask for a large pepperoni.
  - TheOtherHobbes 7y ago
    KW specifically asked for (actually were persuaded to commission) two step sequencers - not "something to automate their tape loops." It was the same process Tangerine Dream went through with Projekt Elektronik, PPG, Steinberg, and other collaborators. The band had an idea or some product feedback, and the designers implemented it. KW's sequencers were unique in that they had rotary switches instead of pots for the sequence steps, which made them much easier to program.
    - bogomipz 7y ago
      >"KW specifically asked for (actually were persuaded to commission) two step sequencers - not "something to automate their tape loops."" A tape loop is nothing more than a primitive form of sequencer. By definition they loop a sequence. They do the exact same thing. So not having to physically change the tapes and speeds on a tape machine by programming it into a sequencer is most definitely "automating" that process. The issue with analog tape machines is that they were not fun to deal with on the road or work with live. And no they were not "two step" sequencers. What would be the point in that? You could do that with that a single finger - on/off. The Synthorama was a 16 step analogue sequencer and they had two of them which game them a 32 bit sequence to work with[1] [1] http://kraftwerkfaq.hu/equipment.html http://kraftwerkfaq.hu/equipment.html
      - 908087 7y ago
        Might want to step off your high horse, because the person you're responding to was pretty clearly saying two step sequencers as in a quantity of two, not number of steps. What a strange thing to get uppity about anyway.
      - ratww 7y ago
        Sorry, but this post gets a lot of things very wrong. A sequencer is definitely not used for anything similar to "automating tape loops". For Kraftwerk they were used mainly in the studio to created drum sequences and melodies that were much more precise than those played by the band. The whole point of the sequencer was to replace Karl Bartos and Wolfgang Flür, and maybe some bass lines or melodies played by Ralf with a robotic sound. Programming a sequence in an analog sequencer like a Synthanorma is way harder than changing a tape. Have you ever programmed one? Back then you didn't have presets or pitch quantization, so for melodies for example you'd have to tune each step by ear. Drum loops were easier but not as easy as changing a tape. Using them on the road was much harder than using tapes. In fact, even several years later, bands like Depeche Mode were still taking tapes to the road because sequencers were still clunky and difficult to program live. It was only after the advent of preset programming this started to change. Before Autobahn, Kraftwerk indeed experimented with tape loops, but for very different kinds of sounds, more of the Stockhausen variety. The things that led to this experiment with synthesizers and sequencers were the primitive rhythm machines of the time (they were already going in this direction with songs like Tanzmusik, but they wanted with custom drum sounds and custom drum rhythms, not the Samba and Cha-Cha-Cha of the Maestro) and their use of echo in "Ralf und Florian", where the echo was used to get a perfect repetition of something played (not a loop though, since it's not something that is "left alone" like a sequencer or a tape). And by "two step sequencers" the parent poster clearly means "two units". Also, it's called Synthanorma, not Synthorama.
  - jacquesm 7y ago
    What are the chances that Matten & Wiechers would have designed the Synthorma without Kraftwerk commissioning it? Large pepperonis can be ordered from any pizzeria, this is hardly the same kind of engagement.
    - bogomipz 7y ago
      >"What are the chances that Matten & Wiechers would have designed the Synthorma without Kraftwerk commissioning it?" Probably pretty high given that the Roland MC-8, another 16 step analog sequencer was also available in 1977 when Trans Europe Express was released. Both Yellow Magic Orchestra and Tangerine Dream used them. Both bands would have been very much on Kraftwerk's radar at that time. Tangerine Dream aside from being another influential German electronics band was also a customer of Matten & Wiecher.
- mcnamaratw 7y ago
  Kraftwerk were great. But their greatness wasn't primarily in making novel sounds. Where they really stomped on the terra was in making good music using ideas that various useless and unlistenable academic electronic music "composers" had been screwing up for at least a couple of decades. Relatively few people celebrate forerunners like Morton Subotnik, Karlheinz Stockhausen, or Iannis Xenakis as innovators, and that is because those guys sucked. Kraftwerk rocked, and we can hear the difference. IMO, IMO.
  - spacechild1 7y ago
    Those “academic“ composers had a huge influence on many musicians. They literally invented the techniques that groups like Kraftwerk could built upon. You might not like their music, but please don't underestimate their importance for music history! In fact, artists like Aphex Twin know very well how much they owe to people like Stockhausen.
    - mcnamaratw 7y ago
      Sure. I think at most we're saying the same thing. Everybody in electronic music was influenced by Stockhausen. But Stockhausen never got a whole lot of air play. If you listen to his stuff I think it's obvious why.
      - spacechild1 6y ago
        I'm not sure what you're trying to say. Yes, it's obvious why Stockhausen didn't get much “air play“ - but how is this relevant? Are you suggesting a correlation between air play and musical quality?
ratww 7y ago
Their early drum pads were created and assembled by themselves using knitting needles and circuit bending, though.
- bogomipz 7y ago
  No this is not correct. The drums were just a Maestro Rhythm King Unit[1]. The pads had no dynamics at all. The dynamics were basically a foot pedal that controlled the volume. Both the volume pedals and the guts of the Maestro Rhythm King are visible in their 1975 appearance of on the BBC's "Tomorrow's World" where they play Autobahn[2]. There was no "circuit bending" going on. [1] http://www.maindragmusic.com/ca-1970-maestro-rhythm-king-mrk-2.html http://www.maindragmusic.com/ca-1970-maestro-rhythm-king-mrk... [2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oJ2goij2J94 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oJ2goij2J94
  - ratww 7y ago
    "Circuit bending" implies they're using an existing circuit. They connected the pads directly to the innards of the drum machine. I consider this circuit bending. "The pads had no dynamics at all" doesn't mean they didn't manufacture the pads. You seem to have an axe to grind here. IMO this is not only bad form in the HN itself, but also very distasteful in a thread about someone who just passed away. I won't answer you anymore.
    - bogomipz 7y ago
      I seem to have "an axe to grind" because I'm a fan and interested in discussing facts about the group? I've shared numerous links in this post that would be of interest to any Kraftwerk fan. It should be very clear that I am quite the super fan. And this is distasteful and bad form? Wow. Kraftwerk in many ways was the ultimate nerd band. I believe that Florian Schneider would be tickled to know his fans were painfully dissecting the minutiae and lore of his equipment. I was also careful to point out in my original comment that I was "not trying to detract from their genius in any way."
      - 7y ago
bborud 7y ago
I can recommend this book to understand how you can essentially design a synthesizer without actually knowing any electronics. It shows a notation for expressing how to wire together various parts of a synthesizer. https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/1795693416/patch-and-tweak-exploring-modular-synthesis https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/1795693416/patch-and-tw... Another interesting source is the Deadmau5 masterclass. What is striking is that Joel Zimmer has neither vocabulary, nor technical understanding of how modulars actually work - yet he is eminently able to use a modular synthesizer and (kind of) explain how they work. Using a large modular synthesizer is essentially assembling a synthesizer out of parts - and this requires understanding the connection between the parts and the sonic results.
- mcnamaratw 7y ago
  Still, using a modular synth well, which seems to be an extremely demanding art in its own right, is really not the same art as designing a synthesizer.
  - bborud 7y ago
    - Understanding how to design electronic circuits is necessary but not sufficient to design synthesizers. - Understanding how to combine various elements making up a synthesizer in a musically relevant way is necessary but not sufficient to design synthesizers. I think an experienced modular synth sound designer is closer to the needed skillset than someone who is able to design circuitry. Not least because an experienced sound designer will know how the thing is used and what artists want from it. The mid to late 80s is kind of a good illustration of what happens when engineers geek out (and product managers are tempted to skimp on user interfaces) and artists are not properly part of the process. Compare the many FM synths (and synths using FM combined with various technologies) to subtractive analog synths from 5-6 years earlier. Then look at the prevalence of presets recordings (Jean Michel Jarre's "Revolutions" is essentially a parade of Roland D-50 presets). This is very telling of how the design and technology changed how artists used synthesizers. Designing a synthesizer requires a combination of the two, but to me it seems that the latter is a more rare skillset than the former. There are a lot of synthesizers on the market, but relatively few that are seen as particularly good. If you dive into the universe that is Eurorack modules you will quickly realize just how much stuff there is. And not nearly all of it is very good. (There is, of course, some fetishising over famous originals that fetch a pretty penny today. For instance a 45+ year old ARP 2600 will easily set you back $10,000 - and the re-issue costs about $4,000). A good example is the Moog ladder filter. A mistake was made in the design so the circuit didn't work as intended. However, Robert Moog decided that the mistake was really a happy accident that made the filter more musically relevant and unique. This requires understanding both the electronics and what is musically important. It is also important to remember that there was no abundance of synthesizers at the time, so there were few expectations as to how a synth should sound or how the artist would use it.
mcnamaratw 7y ago
>I am not sure how you "outline" a synthesizer unless you mean writing a schematic This feels a little extreme. Artists can obviously collaborate with engineers on musical instrument design. The contribution is real even if the artist is clueless about like how the oscillators are temperature compensated.

jacquesm 7y ago

You can outline a synthesizer in the same way people that couldn't program their way out of a wet paper bag outline software: by writing a specification of what it should be able to do. Implementing that specification is then the job of the electrical engineers. If we're willing to give Steve Jobs credit for the iPhone I think we should be equally willing to give Schneider & company credit for their ideas that were instrumental - (heh) - in moving the synth field forward. The fact that many of their sounds were novel when first recorded is the strongest proof of their original contributions, if it has merely been off the shelf hardware created by others then this would not have been the case, you'd have heard those sounds from other artists before then.

bogomipz 7y ago
Except they didn't write down a "specification." They simply asked Matten & Wiechers to come up with something that could automate their tape loops for Trans Europe Express. Dirk Matten & Hans-Joachim Wiechers both designed and created the Synthorma to handle that task. This is well-documented. So no it was not the same a writing a technical specification any more than I'm writing a "specification" when I call my local pizza place and ask for a large pepperoni.
- TheOtherHobbes 7y ago
  KW specifically asked for (actually were persuaded to commission) two step sequencers - not "something to automate their tape loops." It was the same process Tangerine Dream went through with Projekt Elektronik, PPG, Steinberg, and other collaborators. The band had an idea or some product feedback, and the designers implemented it. KW's sequencers were unique in that they had rotary switches instead of pots for the sequence steps, which made them much easier to program.
  - bogomipz 7y ago
    >"KW specifically asked for (actually were persuaded to commission) two step sequencers - not "something to automate their tape loops."" A tape loop is nothing more than a primitive form of sequencer. By definition they loop a sequence. They do the exact same thing. So not having to physically change the tapes and speeds on a tape machine by programming it into a sequencer is most definitely "automating" that process. The issue with analog tape machines is that they were not fun to deal with on the road or work with live. And no they were not "two step" sequencers. What would be the point in that? You could do that with that a single finger - on/off. The Synthorama was a 16 step analogue sequencer and they had two of them which game them a 32 bit sequence to work with[1] [1] http://kraftwerkfaq.hu/equipment.html http://kraftwerkfaq.hu/equipment.html
    - 908087 7y ago
      Might want to step off your high horse, because the person you're responding to was pretty clearly saying two step sequencers as in a quantity of two, not number of steps. What a strange thing to get uppity about anyway.
    - ratww 7y ago
      Sorry, but this post gets a lot of things very wrong. A sequencer is definitely not used for anything similar to "automating tape loops". For Kraftwerk they were used mainly in the studio to created drum sequences and melodies that were much more precise than those played by the band. The whole point of the sequencer was to replace Karl Bartos and Wolfgang Flür, and maybe some bass lines or melodies played by Ralf with a robotic sound. Programming a sequence in an analog sequencer like a Synthanorma is way harder than changing a tape. Have you ever programmed one? Back then you didn't have presets or pitch quantization, so for melodies for example you'd have to tune each step by ear. Drum loops were easier but not as easy as changing a tape. Using them on the road was much harder than using tapes. In fact, even several years later, bands like Depeche Mode were still taking tapes to the road because sequencers were still clunky and difficult to program live. It was only after the advent of preset programming this started to change. Before Autobahn, Kraftwerk indeed experimented with tape loops, but for very different kinds of sounds, more of the Stockhausen variety. The things that led to this experiment with synthesizers and sequencers were the primitive rhythm machines of the time (they were already going in this direction with songs like Tanzmusik, but they wanted with custom drum sounds and custom drum rhythms, not the Samba and Cha-Cha-Cha of the Maestro) and their use of echo in "Ralf und Florian", where the echo was used to get a perfect repetition of something played (not a loop though, since it's not something that is "left alone" like a sequencer or a tape). And by "two step sequencers" the parent poster clearly means "two units". Also, it's called Synthanorma, not Synthorama.
- jacquesm 7y ago
  What are the chances that Matten & Wiechers would have designed the Synthorma without Kraftwerk commissioning it? Large pepperonis can be ordered from any pizzeria, this is hardly the same kind of engagement.
  - bogomipz 7y ago
    >"What are the chances that Matten & Wiechers would have designed the Synthorma without Kraftwerk commissioning it?" Probably pretty high given that the Roland MC-8, another 16 step analog sequencer was also available in 1977 when Trans Europe Express was released. Both Yellow Magic Orchestra and Tangerine Dream used them. Both bands would have been very much on Kraftwerk's radar at that time. Tangerine Dream aside from being another influential German electronics band was also a customer of Matten & Wiecher.
mcnamaratw 7y ago
Kraftwerk were great. But their greatness wasn't primarily in making novel sounds. Where they really stomped on the terra was in making good music using ideas that various useless and unlistenable academic electronic music "composers" had been screwing up for at least a couple of decades. Relatively few people celebrate forerunners like Morton Subotnik, Karlheinz Stockhausen, or Iannis Xenakis as innovators, and that is because those guys sucked. Kraftwerk rocked, and we can hear the difference. IMO, IMO.
- spacechild1 7y ago
  Those “academic“ composers had a huge influence on many musicians. They literally invented the techniques that groups like Kraftwerk could built upon. You might not like their music, but please don't underestimate their importance for music history! In fact, artists like Aphex Twin know very well how much they owe to people like Stockhausen.
  - mcnamaratw 7y ago
    Sure. I think at most we're saying the same thing. Everybody in electronic music was influenced by Stockhausen. But Stockhausen never got a whole lot of air play. If you listen to his stuff I think it's obvious why.
    - spacechild1 6y ago
      I'm not sure what you're trying to say. Yes, it's obvious why Stockhausen didn't get much “air play“ - but how is this relevant? Are you suggesting a correlation between air play and musical quality?

ratww 7y ago

Their early drum pads were created and assembled by themselves using knitting needles and circuit bending, though.

bogomipz 7y ago
No this is not correct. The drums were just a Maestro Rhythm King Unit[1]. The pads had no dynamics at all. The dynamics were basically a foot pedal that controlled the volume. Both the volume pedals and the guts of the Maestro Rhythm King are visible in their 1975 appearance of on the BBC's "Tomorrow's World" where they play Autobahn[2]. There was no "circuit bending" going on. [1] http://www.maindragmusic.com/ca-1970-maestro-rhythm-king-mrk-2.html http://www.maindragmusic.com/ca-1970-maestro-rhythm-king-mrk... [2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oJ2goij2J94 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oJ2goij2J94
- ratww 7y ago
  "Circuit bending" implies they're using an existing circuit. They connected the pads directly to the innards of the drum machine. I consider this circuit bending. "The pads had no dynamics at all" doesn't mean they didn't manufacture the pads. You seem to have an axe to grind here. IMO this is not only bad form in the HN itself, but also very distasteful in a thread about someone who just passed away. I won't answer you anymore.
  - bogomipz 7y ago
    I seem to have "an axe to grind" because I'm a fan and interested in discussing facts about the group? I've shared numerous links in this post that would be of interest to any Kraftwerk fan. It should be very clear that I am quite the super fan. And this is distasteful and bad form? Wow. Kraftwerk in many ways was the ultimate nerd band. I believe that Florian Schneider would be tickled to know his fans were painfully dissecting the minutiae and lore of his equipment. I was also careful to point out in my original comment that I was "not trying to detract from their genius in any way."
    - 7y ago

bborud 7y ago

I can recommend this book to understand how you can essentially design a synthesizer without actually knowing any electronics. It shows a notation for expressing how to wire together various parts of a synthesizer. https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/1795693416/patch-and-tweak-exploring-modular-synthesis https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/1795693416/patch-and-tw... Another interesting source is the Deadmau5 masterclass. What is striking is that Joel Zimmer has neither vocabulary, nor technical understanding of how modulars actually work - yet he is eminently able to use a modular synthesizer and (kind of) explain how they work. Using a large modular synthesizer is essentially assembling a synthesizer out of parts - and this requires understanding the connection between the parts and the sonic results.

mcnamaratw 7y ago
Still, using a modular synth well, which seems to be an extremely demanding art in its own right, is really not the same art as designing a synthesizer.
- bborud 7y ago
  - Understanding how to design electronic circuits is necessary but not sufficient to design synthesizers. - Understanding how to combine various elements making up a synthesizer in a musically relevant way is necessary but not sufficient to design synthesizers. I think an experienced modular synth sound designer is closer to the needed skillset than someone who is able to design circuitry. Not least because an experienced sound designer will know how the thing is used and what artists want from it. The mid to late 80s is kind of a good illustration of what happens when engineers geek out (and product managers are tempted to skimp on user interfaces) and artists are not properly part of the process. Compare the many FM synths (and synths using FM combined with various technologies) to subtractive analog synths from 5-6 years earlier. Then look at the prevalence of presets recordings (Jean Michel Jarre's "Revolutions" is essentially a parade of Roland D-50 presets). This is very telling of how the design and technology changed how artists used synthesizers. Designing a synthesizer requires a combination of the two, but to me it seems that the latter is a more rare skillset than the former. There are a lot of synthesizers on the market, but relatively few that are seen as particularly good. If you dive into the universe that is Eurorack modules you will quickly realize just how much stuff there is. And not nearly all of it is very good. (There is, of course, some fetishising over famous originals that fetch a pretty penny today. For instance a 45+ year old ARP 2600 will easily set you back $10,000 - and the re-issue costs about $4,000). A good example is the Moog ladder filter. A mistake was made in the design so the circuit didn't work as intended. However, Robert Moog decided that the mistake was really a happy accident that made the filter more musically relevant and unique. This requires understanding both the electronics and what is musically important. It is also important to remember that there was no abundance of synthesizers at the time, so there were few expectations as to how a synth should sound or how the artist would use it.

mcnamaratw 7y ago

>I am not sure how you "outline" a synthesizer unless you mean writing a schematic This feels a little extreme. Artists can obviously collaborate with engineers on musical instrument design. The contribution is real even if the artist is clueless about like how the oscillators are temperature compensated.