Confusion. A few questions concerning the Model D.

[Kenneth]

Today I learned that the Minimoog had a low note priority keyboard. I don't understand. Why was it designed this way? Doesn't it only make sense to have last note priority? Was it designed with a way to toggle between priority settings? Are all vintage Moogs designed this way? Please help me out here. I'm feeling rather troubled.

[Just Me]

Why are you troubled? That is the way they are. Isn't it playable to you? It sure has been to countless others.
It doesn't have sample/hold or ring mod, either! Oh no!

[Kenneth]

It's not that it's not playable. I guess I just feel like having last note priority would be natural. Am I really alone in thinking so?

[Kevin Lightner]

It's easier to design a low-note or high-note priority keyboard than it is to design a last-note type.
I don't think one is any better than another, but people have developed playing styles because of it.
The famous Wakeman trill, for example.

I think more people are bugged by the fact it's a single trigger instrument, however it's possible to mod one to provide multi triggering.
It's also easier to mod one this way than making one last or high note priority.

[Kenneth]

That's interesting. I'd never even stopped to think that vintage synthesizers didn't let you choose note priority. I tried switching my Little Phatty to low note priority, and found that I'm no good at all. I was stunned to think that if I were to encounter a Minimoog, I'd be awful at playing it. What do you all prefer? Am I the only one who plays last note priority?

[dr_floyd]

Just like any instrument, you learn how to play it within its limitations.
Also keep in mind that 40 years ago this was one of the first portable monophonic keyboards, so the designers probably we're considering different note priorities since they didn't have much feedback from users yet. I prefer low priority since it's the first scheme I learned.

[unfiltered37]

The model D's limitations are it's appeal. I feel like I'm using every function and have a decent grasp of the instrument's limits. If I had a modular, I would literally go mad trying to find the ultimate patch and never write any new music. That's kinda why I sold my Voyager. Plus the simplicity of the model D lends itself to external effects.

[Kenneth]

Unfiltered: I completely agree with you regarding instrument limitations. As a musician I would never want to own a modular synthesizer, as there are simply too many possibilities. On an electric guitar, there's really only so much you can do, causing people to get creative with amps and effects pedals. That's why I live my Little Phatty so much!

[varice]

I usually select last note priority when possible. But I have noticed after playing last note for some time that I tend to get a little sloppy with my monophonic playing technique. The first proper synth that I bought (MG-1 back in 1981) is a low note priority keyboard though, so that is what I learned to play first.

If I were looking to get a Model D, I wouldn’t let the low note priority be a show stopper. A bit of practice will help with that.

[narrowcaster]

FWIW, as your keyboard skills develop you will probably find that it matters less and less for general playing. Most of the time, unless I'm using a particular priority for a particular effect, I can play a long time without even noticing how its set up.

[neuromodulator]

Kenneth, I shared your confusion about why low note seemed to be preferred over last note. But I was playing a "low note" patch the other day that I was too lazy to change to "last note" and I found an interesting technique that I couldn't employ with "last note". If you play your bass part steadily with your left hand, you can play really loose with your right hand and the left hand serves as a kind of anchor. It's fun, and created a different effect than some of the "last note" stuff I like to do.

[nathanscribe]

Low or high note priority takes a minimum of circuitry - and therefore space, design time, and money. Last-note priority requires digital scanning, something that (from memory) I don't think I've seen on anything before the late 70s. Oberheim had digital keyboard scanning on some models by the late 70s, as did SCI, but most monosynths still used simple analogue circuits. Yamaha were (I think) the first to develop custom chips for scanning purposes, as in their CS series (monos as well as polys).

The processors (Z80 and similar) that were suited to things like control scanning were not around at the time of the Mini's design. Early digital scanning was done with large amounts of logic (ie. CMOS/TTL with maybe four gates on a chip) and if you've ever seen early digital circuits you'll realise why a simple analogue keyboard circuit would be preferred for a purely analogue monosynth.