Korg ARP Reissues

[Sacred Synthesis]

Edads - "I gone?"  I meant to type "I've gone."

[Paul Dither]

This is very interesting.  Banks has been one of the most sublime players of ARP synthesizers.

I was just about to share this one with you. 

[Sacred Synthesis]

For once I beat you, Paul!

[Sacred Synthesis]

Banks didn't like the Yamaha DX7 or CS-80, liked but struggled with the ARP 2600, and loved the Pro Soloist, Quadra, Polymoog, and especially the Prophet 5 and 10.  But he doesn't care for the modern analog revival and obviously isn't a purist.

[LoboLives]

Banks didn't like the Yamaha DX7 or CS-80, liked but struggled with the ARP 2600, and loved the Pro Soloist, Quadra, Polymoog, and especially the Prophet 5 and 10.  But he doesn't care for the modern analog revival and obviously isn't a purist.

Makes perfect sense given his quitting piano lessons because his teacher kept telling him "You aren't playing correctly" to which he responded "But it sounds good."

[Sacred Synthesis]

Banks didn't like the Yamaha DX7 or CS-80, liked but struggled with the ARP 2600, and loved the Pro Soloist, Quadra, Polymoog, and especially the Prophet 5 and 10.  But he doesn't care for the modern analog revival and obviously isn't a purist.

Makes perfect sense given his quitting piano lessons because his teacher kept telling him "You aren't playing correctly" to which he responded "But it sounds good."

It doesn't have to be an either-or situation, though.  There is no conflict between having good theory and technique and making excellent music.  The ideal is to have all three at the same time.  As Banks himself admitted, he was happy to have learned the rudiments of music theory and to have practiced his scales and arpeggios, which then helped him in composing and performing.  This is especially true with improvising, which makes all sorts of spontaneous theoretical and technical demands on the improviser.  Why not go into an improvisation as proficient and prepared as possible?  After all, if you feel inspired to play a scale or arpeggio - but can't, due to poor ability - then it is the music that is the ultimate victim.

One point in the interview that I found interesting was his assertion that the SCI Prophet (5/10) was a game-changer for him, that he liked it so much for its quality of sound and ease of programming.  If one of our own had been leading the interview - such as Paul - I'm sure there would have been much more time spent on the subject.

[Paul Dither]

Banks didn't like the Yamaha DX7 or CS-80, liked but struggled with the ARP 2600, and loved the Pro Soloist, Quadra, Polymoog, and especially the Prophet 5 and 10.  But he doesn't care for the modern analog revival and obviously isn't a purist.

"I'm just perhaps too old to go back and start fiddling with knobs again." - So obviously no ARP or Sequential instruments for Mr. Banks again, although he can understand the tactile appeal.

I wasn't too surprised about him being rather pragmatic about his instruments.  One might regard his choice of sounds for particularly older songs as an outcome of his mostly utilitarian approach - one for which he was largely criticized when it came to later tours.

At times I felt sorry for Dina Pearlman because he didn't really have that much to say about ARP, except for the Pro Soloist for the most part.  He obviously liked the sound and look of the 2600 but didn't find it suitable for the stage.  And as soon as the Quadra was mentioned, he also pointed out its negative sides, such as it being a too late attempt at trying to achive what MIDI was designed for (he may have confused events in the timeline here, as the Quadra was produced from 1978-81 and MIDI didn't arrive before 1983).  And then he quickly continued talking about his Prophets instead.  The latter was no surprise either, as he already pointed out in an SOS interview from the 1990s that he regards the Prophet-10 to be the pinnacle of analog synths.  From then on, it was primarily about sampling and recycling presets for him.  He already anticipated the workstation with the Synclavier, but was then disappointed as an early adopter because sampling wasn't implemented in a timely manner, which eventually turned him into a strong EMU user.

It was interesting, though, to hear that he created very convincing tubular bells with the ring modulator of the 2600.  I also didn't know that he owned serial number 1 of the Polymoog as well as the Quadra (if he remembered correctly that is).

Given his bank account it's also funny that he will go on tour with 16 and 22 years old workstations (Korg OASYS and Triton) that will serve him as MIDI keyboards for the most part.  It's what you would rather expect from a hobby musician playing in a cover band, but I guess that's also the proper description for where he's at these days.

[Paul Dither]

One point in the interview that I found interesting was his assertion that the SCI Prophet (5/10) was a game-changer for him, that he liked it so much for its quality of sound and ease of programming.  If one of our own had been leading the interview - such as Paul - I'm sure there would have been much more time spent on the subject.

I think he wouldn't have had that much more to say about the topic of Prophets, particularly his beloved Prophet-10.  He may have used this instrument most for sound design (if you don't count processing techniques).  Nevertheless, he still used many of the factory presets, particularly in the beginning, so his statement about having programmed only custom sounds on the Prophet is not entirely true.  His most creative use of the Prophet-5 is probably documented in the rather controversial Genesis track "Who Dunnit?", for which he utilized the artifacts that would occur in between switching presets, essentially making him play the patch select buttons - something Dave falsely attributed to Brian Eno (who actually hated the Prophet-5 as opposed to the Pro-One) in the DSI documentation from 2007.

It's funny, though, that Banks always mentioned MIDI as soon as he was talking about the Prophets, just as if those had been the first MIDIfied instruments.

[Sacred Synthesis]

I felt sorry for Dina Pearlman, too.  Banks was sometimes rather critical of ARP instruments, and towards the 2/3 point, he started to trail off into soft rambling that offered very little information.  I would have liked so much more.

As much as I love a fine sawtooth solo patch, Banks tended to use such a sound live to replace all his Pro-Soloist sounds, which - like them or not - were so distinctive.  You used the words "pragmatic" and "utilitarian," Paul, and that's what the constant use of this sound was - as well as redundant.

I've always thought that after Banks abandoned his Hammond organ and ARP synthesizers, he lost his distinctive sound.  The Hammond processed through the MXR chorus and phase shifter and the Pro-Soloist, and too a lesser degree the 2600, Quadra, Polymoog, and Yamaha CP-70, all gave him an immediately recognizable instrumental voice.  When he got the Synclavier and the other digital and sampling instruments, he sounded to me like any other musician.  Great composing, but without a distinctive sound.

[Paul Dither]

I felt sorry for Dina Pearlman, too.  Banks was sometimes rather critical of ARP instruments, and towards the 2/3 point, I thought he started to trail off into soft rambling.  It was generally disappointing.  I've heard a number of interviews with him before, and he's never sounded like the musical genius I would expect.  He even sounds rather simple in his descriptions of both music and equipment.  And as much as I love a fine sawtooth solo patch, Banks tended to use such a sound live to replace all his Pro-Soloist sounds, which - like them or not - were so distinctive.  You used the words "pragmatic" and "utilitarian," Paul, and that's what the constant use of this sound was - as well as redundant.

Maybe his utilitarian approach is also related to the fact that he - like all the early members of Genesis - originally wanted to be a songwriter only, not a performing or even recording musician.  In that scenario, every instrument is certainly just a means to an end, nothing more.  In some other interview he once said that a sawtooth was just a sawtooth and that this would be all he needs to replicate his solo sounds.  And yes, that was also the approach to the Pro Soloist and 2600 sounds when he started using the Quadra.  It still sounded unique because it was the Quadra, but the nuances were gone.

I'd say he was probably more experimental when it came to processing, like putting his Clavinet through a fuzz box or modifying his RMI electric piano with a Fender Blender circuit, just like he would later play around with samples.  In terms of pure synthesis he was less exploratory.  His early signature sound on the Pro Soloist was basically pre-programmed.  The exceptions are mostly the things he did with the 2600, the Quadra, especially the Prophet and to some extend the DX7.  Even with the Synclavier he mostly used presets, which you can immediately find out if you download the app that features the original factory presets.  In later years it was just presets only.  If you buy a Wavestation or a JD-800, you basically get the Tony Banks from that time in a box.  The only tweak he applied to the infamous Mini Lead preset of the Wavestation was to use it polyphonically instead of monophonically.

And finally, many of his statements do also vary over time.  I was actually surprised that he was rather positive about the Mellotron's sound.  In older interviews he made clear that he particularly disliked the choir and much preferred the Roland VP-330 or the samplers that followed with those ubiquitous 1980s choir sounds.  What suprised me the most, though, was that he actually prefers his piano sample library over his actual grand pianos.

Anyhow, I also learned that Banks gave away his 1970s and 1980s synth collection and effect pedals to Sonic Reality's Dave Kerzner who's going to sample the instruments and then just going to use them for his own productions.  He did the programming for the upcoming tour and the one before.  So at least someone will have fun with these instruments.  Kerzner also shared a pic of Banks' 2600 which indicates that it was modded (see below).

[CPN37]

Banks didn't like the Yamaha DX7 or CS-80, liked but struggled with the ARP 2600, and loved the Pro Soloist, Quadra, Polymoog, and especially the Prophet 5 and 10.  But he doesn't care for the modern analog revival and obviously isn't a purist.

Makes perfect sense given his quitting piano lessons because his teacher kept telling him "You aren't playing correctly" to which he responded "But it sounds good."

It doesn't have to be an either-or situation, though.  There is no conflict between having good theory and technique and making excellent music.  The ideal is to have all three at the same time.  As Banks himself admitted, he was happy to have learned the rudiments of music theory and to have practiced his scales and arpeggios, which then helped him in composing and performing.  This is especially true with improvising, which makes all sorts of spontaneous theoretical and technical demands on the improviser.  Why not go into an improvisation as proficient and prepared as possible?  After all, if you feel inspired to play a scale or arpeggio - but can't, due to poor ability - then it is the music that is the ultimate victim.

One point in the interview that I found interesting was his assertion that the SCI Prophet (5/10) was a game-changer for him, that he liked it so much for its quality of sound and ease of programming.  If one of our own had been leading the interview - such as Paul - I'm sure there would have been much more time spent on the subject.

Bizarrely it was one of us, well in that I am a member here - I wrote the questions which Dina then paraphrased for this interview! Obviously she did a far better interview than I would've done but yes, my original questions were loaded with even more nerdy detail (both about ARP/Sequential & individual Genesis tracks etc.) and I'm sure if I had done the interview I would have spent a bit more time as you say, but yeah it would not have been as good an interview 

[CPN37]

One point in the interview that I found interesting was his assertion that the SCI Prophet (5/10) was a game-changer for him, that he liked it so much for its quality of sound and ease of programming.  If one of our own had been leading the interview - such as Paul - I'm sure there would have been much more time spent on the subject.

I think he wouldn't have had that much more to say about the topic of Prophets, particularly his beloved Prophet-10.  He may have used this instrument most for sound design (if you don't count processing techniques).  Nevertheless, he still used many of the factory presets, particularly in the beginning, so his statement about having programmed only custom sounds on the Prophet is not entirely true.  His most creative use of the Prophet-5 is probably documented in the rather controversial Genesis track "Who Dunnit?", for which he utilized the artifacts that would occur in between switching presets, essentially making him play the patch select buttons - something Dave falsely attributed to Brian Eno (who actually hated the Prophet-5 as opposed to the Pro-One) in the DSI documentation from 2007.

It's funny, though, that Banks always mentioned MIDI as soon as he was talking about the Prophets, just as if those had been the first MIDIfied instruments.

I thought that Eno had coincidentally used the same technique on the "My Life In The Bush Of Ghosts" album

[Sacred Synthesis]

I was especially disappointed by Banks' indifference towards the ARP 2600.  I understand the instrument's awkwardness in the live setting - having neither presets nor programs - but still, Banks had very little to say in favor of it even in the studio.  It's hard to imagine such indifference towards such a magnificent synthesizer. 

I've always loved Banks' music, and he's had a tremendous influence on me, but I've never liked his views on instruments or even on music in general.  Weird. 

[LoboLives]

I was especially disappointed by Banks' indifference towards the ARP 2600.  I understand the instrument's awkwardness in the live setting - having neither presets nor programs - but still, Banks had very little to say in favor of it even in the studio.  It's hard to imagine such indifference towards such a magnificent synthesizer. 

I've always loved Banks' music, and he's had a tremendous influence on me, but I've never liked his views on instruments or even on music in general.  Weird.

I feel the same way about John Carpenter and Claudio Simonetti.

[CPN37]

I was especially disappointed by Banks' indifference towards the ARP 2600.  I understand the instrument's awkwardness in the live setting - having neither presets nor programs - but still, Banks had very little to say in favor of it even in the studio.  It's hard to imagine such indifference towards such a magnificent synthesizer. 

I've always loved Banks' music, and he's had a tremendous influence on me, but I've never liked his views on instruments or even on music in general.  Weird.

Yeah I understand that. I think it's all to do with perspective to a degree, I guess Banks was coming up through that whole 60's-70's-80's era where all that gear was new, plus post modernism hadn't happened and there was no internet, so people weren't looking back as much and comparing different eras etc. And I think Paul Dither is right when he says Tony was first and foremost a songwriter - it's the melody and even moreso the chords that he had an obsession for, more than the finer intricacies of the sound. It's weird - in my opinion Tony had a lot of taste when it came to sound up until the late 80's digital stuff and then it all goes a bit pear shaped for me - but that's just my taste I guess!

But yeah - I think he really was using these instruments as tools of the trade, to add colour to the chords and melodies which took prominence, and also for playing live in the easiest way possible! my question about the 2600 live was originally a little more specific than it turned out, it was about how in 1978 he brought that on tour and did the Cinema Show using it, which he'd of course previously done on the Pro Soloist and flicked through a selection of presets on the fly which was difficult enough - but then having to change sounds that quick on a 2600!? Turns out he'd forgotten he even brought it on tour so maybe his brain blanked it out😄

[Sacred Synthesis]

I have some familiarity with using non-programmable synthesizers in a live setting, as well as with once-off studio performances.  There are a number of changes that you can easily make without too much time or difficulty.  The most obvious would be changing the waveforms.  But if you really know a particular synthesizer, you can also make filter and envelope changes with relative ease.  You just have to know the positions of the sliders or knobs very well.  It's possible, though.  Of course, this reverts to the issue of using instruments for many years, rather than constantly exchanging old ones for new ones.

Having listened to a fair number of Banks' interviews, I've long known he clearly didn't like the programming aspect of synthesizers.  Now he's happier just punching a computer keyboard and getting the desired sound.  Eh, it's too bad.  I understand his love of composing, and I share it.  But painstakingly crafting a synthesizer patch to suit a piece of music is also an art, and one that greatly contributes to the finished work.  This, as opposed to using electronic keyboards to imitate acoustic instruments, and obtaining those sounds from what is basically an office device.  It's just very disappointing.

I far prefer the romantic image and reality of a composer bent over his instrument late at night under the glare of a reading lamp, crafting a piece of musical beauty.  And I have no problem inserting the synthesizer into this image. 

By the way, CPN37, you did a fine job of providing questions.  It sounds as if Dina altered them a bit, but they still did cover a decent range of interesting topics. 

[Paul Dither]

Attached you'll find an interview from 1978.  That might shed a bit more light on Banks' use of the ARP 2600.  Interesting side fact:  The guy who modified his 2600 was Dave Simmons, who went on to become the founder of Simmons drums.

[Paul Dither]

I thought that Eno had coincidentally used the same technique on the "My Life In The Bush Of Ghosts" album

Interesting.  Do you know what song he used that technique on?

[Sacred Synthesis]

Attached you'll find an interview from 1978.  That might shed a bit more light on Banks' use of the ARP 2600.

Hah!  I reads that interview when the magazine was actually published.  I've been at this for a while.

[Paul Dither]

Attached you'll find an interview from 1978.  That might shed a bit more light on Banks' use of the ARP 2600.

Hah!  I reads that interview when the magazine was actually published.  I've been at this for a while.

   And just by coincidence it also features the very first Prophet-5 ad ever printed.