Rick Wakeman on the Minimoog, and a curious story

[Sweep]

Speaking of "Rick Wakeman on the MiniMoog," I am curious as to why he continues to use a MiniMoog as opposed to a Voyager (everyone remembers the video if him trying out a Voyager at Messe a few years ago, right?)?

He does have at least one on stage when he's with Yes - at least, I've got a DVD somewhere with some recent film showing (I think) one Voyager, two Minis, and a massive array of other stuff.

I suspect people expect to see a Mini or two when he's with Yes, and it may be a matter of visuals as much as sound. This isn't uncommon with people who've been around for a while, I think. The MiniMoog, Synthi A or whatever may be at least partly obligatory. I'm tempted to ask that question of someone I saw in concert not long ago, actually. And if anyone knows Rick it'd be interesting to hear what he says.

[museslave]

Hi Marc,

Nice chatting with you.

Hey, the same to you. : )

I'll make one more positive comment about the Moog section of the documentary which left me feeling good and that was it started with Rick saying how brilliant the Minimoog is and ended with him saying how brilliant it is. Strictly speaking The Les Rhythms Digitales guy (Jaques Le Cont) comments about the Moog can be said to be 'balanced reporting' - get some positive feedback and some negative too. Of course documentary writers like it when this happens and usually they don't give either side a chance for rubuttals (which I hate)! It appears that they got the same artists to talk in each section - DX7, TB303 too and people said different things about different synths - Le Cont waxed lyrical about DX7 and others (Nick Rhodes) slagged it. One mans delight is anothers disgust.

I should probably watch the video one more time before I comment fully on this, but:
I think my complaint about Le Cont is that his viewpoint is not a negative critique of the Minimoog as a musical instrument. First of all, the second-hand price of an instrument is not the fault of the instrument itself. The price of the Minimoog may make it less accessible, but it in no way has anything to do with the function, success, or sound of the instrument itself (except that its sound is what is generating those high prices!). So, while this may be an apt criticism of those who seek the Minimoog, it is not a critique of the device itself. Secondly, while it would be perfectly reasonable to say that the Minimoog lacks the functionality a person would seek in a synthesizer, Le Cont portrays the Minimoog as actually limited and lacking... as if it is missing something that would make it a successful or useable device. One does not purchase a Minimoog because it is brimming with functionality... to suggest so is to totally provide proof that he is ignorant as to the real reason people seek Minimoogs... it's the sound! A person seeking a Hummer is going to be quite disappointed with a 1939 Mecury... but if they're looking for a Hummer, it is silly to seek a 1939 Mercury... more silly than that is comparing the two when your criteria does not, in any way, fit the Mercury!
That being said, there are lots of valid criticisms of the Minimoog. I even have some, despite my worship of it:
1. It can easily overpower a mix. Due to its chunky sound, it often has to sit higher in the mix to be distinctive, but then tends to dominate the mix.
2. It would have benefitted from having a separate LFO to some degree... but then again, the audio frequency effects of having an audio osc for LFO leads to some pretty great and distinctive sounds
3. Why couldn't they have used ADSR envelopes? Whyyyy?
4. I think the CV jacks should have been outputs instead of inputs. I know people controlled them via modular... but didn't they think that perhaps someone would, at some point, control a modular with one?
5. The pitch wheel has far to intense a detent.
6. Preference more than complaint: Why not a resonant high pass, too?
Anyway... there are things that a person who is at least to some degree familiar with the device could complain about it. It's fully possible that someone just wouldn't like the sound of them. I've actually known people who said that... and that is perfectly reasonable!
I just think Le Cont's complaints sounded... well, ignorant.

I had to come to terms a few years ago with the fact that my favourite synth journalist of twenty years in the UK - Gordon Reid, Sound on Sound (have you read his synth secrets articles, all 30 of them? If not, check em out) thought that Moogs were overrated, preferred the Odyssey and with the influx of softsynths didn't appear to have any time for hardware anymore.

I love Gordon Reid! I have read a lot of his work. I would love to talk to him, sometime! There are a lot of things he and I agree upon, and a few things I would love to discuss with him. : )
He would have made a great person to be on the other side of the Minimoog argument, if he feels that way!
I personally find the Odyssey a valid instrument, but have always found the sound to be a little grating. : ) I had an Avatar, which I liked a lot... but man, ARP construction is crappyyyy.
Anyway... man, if Reid is favouring softsynths over the analog he reviews so well, he should be ashamed!

Yeah, can't understand that either. But then again I hear people tell me that the Violin is limited! Musicians are a funny bunch of people.

That's actually the argument/metaphor I might be inclined to use in the face of a person saying the Minimoog is limited... because like a violin, it does precisely what it was designed to do!

I'm an experimentalist (nonlinear optics and condensed matter physics) and pretty much feel that nature brings up surprises all the time that guide theory - something that a lot of Physicists have forgotten.

All the best from Tang

That sounds astoundingly interesting!

[Kevin Lightner]

My 2 cents. No slams.

1. It can easily overpower a mix. Due to its chunky sound, it often has to sit higher in the mix to be distinctive, but then tends to dominate the mix.

True, but synths in general are often like this.
The Mini wouldn't be the great bass instrument it was if it was thinner.

2. It would have benefitted from having a separate LFO to some degree... but then again, the audio frequency effects of having an audio osc for LFO leads to some pretty great and distinctive sounds

True, however using osc3 as an LFO provides more waveforms than most LFOs do.

3. Why couldn't they have used ADSR envelopes? Whyyyy?

Probably cost.

4. I think the CV jacks should have been outputs instead of inputs. I know people controlled them via modular... but didn't they think that perhaps someone would, at some point, control a modular with one?

Moog offered their accessory line which provided outputs.
This is why the Mini came with not one, but two accessory power jacks.
A bit overkill in my opinion, but obviously this is where their heads were at.

Remember, modulars were a fortune then and this synth was the answer to those that couldn't afford one.
So making it more modular compatible wasn't their concern.
Most Moog modulars came with a keyboard anyways.

5. The pitch wheel has far to intense a detent.

This is adjustable inside.
It can even be completely disabled.
Each mini feels a little different, so this cannot be used to criticize all of them.

6. Preference more than complaint: Why not a resonant high pass, too?

Cost and usage.
Even the Moog modulars only had non-resonant HP filters.


One question I have is why is F at zero volts instead of C?

[museslave]

Oh, come on, Kevin... you have to know that I totally love and worship the Minimoog... I just want to give the impression that it isn't blind love and worship. I wrack my brain trying to come up with things that might be considered negatives, even if they aren't really even bad... and mostly matters of preference with me... and you go and show that all of my detracting points are pretty lame.
Now no one will believe that I can be objective about the Minimoog. : )

The Mini wouldn't be the great bass instrument it was if it was thinner.

:::grumbles::: I knowww.

True, however using osc3 as an LFO provides more waveforms than most LFOs do.

And that coupled with the audio frequency makes it really one of the best LFOs to have on an analog synth. DANG IT!! I'm trying to make up weaknesses here!!!

3. Why couldn't they have used ADSR envelopes? Whyyyy?

Probably cost.

Okay, then we can agree that the ADS envs are not as great as they could be? Why must I be made to condemn the best synthesizer ever made? I am not a very good devil's advocate.

4. I think the CV jacks should have been outputs instead of inputs. I know people controlled them via modular... but didn't they think that perhaps someone would, at some point, control a modular with one?

Moog offered their accessory line which provided outputs.
This is why the Mini came with not one, but two accessory power jacks.
A bit overkill in my opinion, but obviously this is where their heads were at.

Remember, modulars were a fortune then and this synth was the answer to those that couldn't afford one.
So making it more modular compatible wasn't their concern.
Most Moog modulars came with a keyboard anyways.

Apart from the ribbon, what other accessories did they have available at the time of the release of the Mini? Were they projecting?
Good point... but if they weren't setting the Mini up for being controlled by a modular, what were the CV inputs for?

This is adjustable inside.
It can even be completely disabled.
Each mini feels a little different, so this cannot be used to criticize all of them.

Yeah, you WOULD know that, wouldn't you? ; )
Okay, let me rephrase my desperate attempt at a complaint:
The fact that the Minimoog was designed in such a way that the detent is adjustable gave rise to the possibility that mine would be adjusted in a way that does not please me. ; )
(the truth is, I've never been a big pitch wheel user, anyway)

Cost and usage.
Even the Moog modulars only had non-resonant HP filters.

Could you make one?

One question I have is why is F at zero volts instead of C?

Homage to the bass clef? ; )
Why should C be at zero volts?

[eric coleridge]

5. The pitch wheel has far to intense a detent.

This is adjustable inside.
It can even be completely disabled.

This has bothered me also. perhaps I should look through the schematics and see if I can find this trim pot (it's a trim pot?). Or. maybe you wouldn't mind pointing it out to me?

One question I have is why is F at zero volts instead of C?

Yep. This is a drag too. Even if it had a CV output, it wouldn't make a very good controller without some kind of external offset. I guess that's not too big a problem though...

[Kevin Lightner]

Lotsa questions...

Other accessories?
Foor pedals, Sample and hold box, ribbon controller, drum controller, joystick.
Probably others that I'm spacing on at the moment.

Make a HP filter for a Mini?
Sure, but that isn't the hard part.
Paying for it is.

Wheel detent.
This isn't a trim pot.
There's a piece of spring steel with a nylon goody that rubs against the pitch wheel.
If you take out your mod section, it should be obvious.
It's all physical.

C at zero volts is somewhat of a standard.
But then again, so are synths that start on C.
The Mini started on F, so they made that 0 volts.
Not a problem usually until interfaced with another synth on the other standard.

Hope this helps.

[Mooger5]

Wheel detent.
This isn't a trim pot.
There's a piece of spring steel with a nylon goody that rubs against the pitch wheel.
If you take out your mod section, it should be obvious.
It's all physical.

My Rogue´s detent is made of Teflon, which is the most "slippery" substance known. Still, it has annoyed me too. I tried to adjust it before but it only made the center position less defined.
I remember an article in the old Electronics & MusicMaker magazine where a comparision was made between the Mini and a Pro-one detents and they said the former´s detent tip had worn out over the years, the latter´s detent being an improved design where instead of using a nylon/teflon cone, a hook-shaped steel piece ( like a ? ) avoided the wearing out and allowed for a smoother center position.

C at zero volts is somewhat of a standard.
But then again, so are synths that start on C.
The Mini started on F, so they made that 0 volts.
Not a problem usually until interfaced with another synth on the other standard.

Hope this helps.

If I may add, this means interfacing with a synth that starts on C means that you´ll have to transpose one of them by a fourth or a fifth to play both in unison. One of the reasons I chose an MC-202 to command the Rogue.

[Mooger5]

I was thinking about filing the teflon tip just to sharpen it a bit, but there´s a better solution, I think: those pots used for balance control in stereo systems, or the mixing desks panpots. They´re invariably center detented on the inside, so all it´s needed is to remove the teflon thing and replace the pot. Some of the audio pots are chunky but since it´s for the pitch wheel (on the left), there should be plenty of room. Keywords are "rotary linear potentiometer center dentent" ...

[Kevin Lightner]

Adjusting or reshaping the tip is easier than replacing the pot.
No soldering and no recalibration needed.
I've also swapped wheels or added a detent to the opposite side of a wheel if a detent is worn down.

The pots with center detents built in may (or may not) be an answer.
Some have non-linear tapers around the detent or across the entire range.
They may not sit exactly at the desired position, which would change the pitch of the mini when at rest.
Many aren't of the same bushing diameter as the stock pots and may be more difficult to center or tighten down.

How about you try it and let us know?
I'll stick to stock myself, but always curious.

[Mooger5]

Some have non-linear tapers around the detent or across the entire range.
They may not sit exactly at the desired position, which would change the pitch of the mini when at rest.

Didn´t think about it. You may be right here. Another minus is that panpot knobs are usually so small their built-in detents must require little force for ease of operation. Since the pitch wheel is of a much bigger diameter, it could be difficult to find the center position, specially while playing.

How about you try it and let us know?

Easier said than done

[cageswood]

Speaking of "Rick Wakeman on the MiniMoog," I am curious as to why he continues to use a MiniMoog as opposed to a Voyager (everyone remembers the video if him trying out a Voyager at Messe a few years ago, right?)?

He does have at least one on stage when he's with Yes - at least, I've got a DVD somewhere with some recent film showing (I think) one Voyager, two Minis, and a massive array of other stuff.

I suspect people expect to see a Mini or two when he's with Yes, and it may be a matter of visuals as much as sound. This isn't uncommon with people who've been around for a while, I think. The MiniMoog, Synthi A or whatever may be at least partly obligatory. I'm tempted to ask that question of someone I saw in concert not long ago, actually. And if anyone knows Rick it'd be interesting to hear what he says.

When the Voyager was there,he had only one Mini,then the Voyager strangely disappeared and was replaced with another Mini,i'm curious with what happened to it as well

[mee3d]

Wakeman has used 2 model D's in his set-up for the last 10 or so years. When the Voyager came out he swapped over one of the model D's for a Voyager (signature Edition No. 05). I saw him play a few shows in the UK during 2003 - 2004 and on one show the MIDI went down on all his kit so he finished the song just playing the model D ... shortly after that the Voyager was removed from the set-up.

I got a chance to talk with Rick about this as part of a "to be released" interview and he stated that he prefered the older minimoog over the Voyager live, after 30 years of setting up the mini's between songs he prefered the hands-on simplicity and it was what he was used to.

Regarding creating analog synth content for the web ... eric, marc, just to let you know, there's little to no money in it. Having worked with Martin Newcomb on his various synth DVDs, RL Music with their web content and stuff that I have done myself you spend a lot of time creating for little remuneration ... if you love it then go for it, you never know!

Mal

[museslave]

Regarding creating analog synth content for the web ... eric, marc, just to let you know, there's little to no money in it. Having worked with Martin Newcomb on his various synth DVDs, RL Music with their web content and stuff that I have done myself you spend a lot of time creating for little remuneration ... if you love it then go for it, you never know!

Mal, you're a wet blanket!

Even if there was no money in it at all, I still feel that there needs to be some more accurate and professional analog synth content on the web!

And as for DVDs... I have some marketing/content tactics that might be able to generate at least a LITTLE dough... the question is: do I have the motivation to invest the work? : )

By the way, I visited Galway when I was 13 and absolutely loved it.

[mee3d]

OK... good luck with that.

You'll end up doing exactly what I did... what RL Music did, What Martin Newcomb did and what moog have done with moogspace... you'll spend your own money for no return.

As for me... I'm charged out at $1000 a day at my company and have been in the video content industry for 20 years so I would have thought I could make money from it ... it's like Peter Forrests A-Z books on Synths... great works but he doesn't sell enough to justify the cost of publishing them... in the end it's done for the kudos and love of synths.

As I said before.. give it a try!

[museslave]

OK... good luck with that.

You'll end up doing exactly what I did... what RL Music did, What Martin Newcomb did and what moog have done with moogspace... you'll spend your own money for no return.

As for me... I'm charged out at $1000 a day at my company and have been in the video content industry for 20 years so I would have thought I could make money from it ... it's like Peter Forrests A-Z books on Synths... great works but he doesn't sell enough to justify the cost of publishing them... in the end it's done for the kudos and love of synths.

As I said before.. give it a try!

Thus far, I have not seen a website that featured objective description and documentation of analog synthesizers. Due to that, I/we will not be doing what anyone else has done. Most every website caters too much to the modern perception of what they are and do, instead of giving an objective academic description of their history and features. In that way, they are not actually resources, but instead fan-pages.
When you look at the traffic that the so-called Vintage Synth Explorer gets, it is evident that there is, at the very least, money to be made in advertising.
The question is: would an analog synth site that gave extensive visual and aural documentation as well as history, operational tips, etc. get enough traffic to make the ad companies happy? I'm guessing it would... based upon the fact that VSE, which is absolutely EXECRABLE when it comes to almost every aspect of portraying analog synths, has a ton of traffic.
I am already spending money for webhosting... I am already a graphic designer... I already have a load of pictures and sounds from the many analog synthesizers I've owned over the years... I won't need to spend any money at all, initially.

I am sure that you are an excellent videographer, etc... but you have to realize that your stance is a bit like me saying "I've been writing music for 29 years, I've been writing pop music for 22 years, I went to a prestigious private college on scholarship for music, I've been writing music professionally for 18 years. There is no way an 18 year old kid who knows nothing about music is going to make it big in in the industry."

Again, I don't expect to make money... I simply believe the possibility is there based upon the experiences I have had recently with the popularity of my own video. Again... if I charged even a penny per video, I would have made $5000. I know this is not a guarantee that people will buy, but it's an indication SOME people would.