B4 and B4D stage configuration
beeboons
I'm looking for people who are using Native Instrument B4/B4d on stage
without any trouble or latency...
Would you tell me what computer configuration you use and all the
things that make it work fine ?
Thanks for your answer,
Jason L
UC-33 as the drawbar/leslie controller/MIDI interface, I would not have used
the B4 live without this! My PC is mounted in a rackmount case (aluminum so
it is not too heavy - I was actually considering getting a shuttle case
before I bought the 4-space rackmount one - the single PCI slot is really
the only reason i didn't!) - I used my M-audio omni studio soundcard (around
1 or 2ms latency, but not as cheap as the audiophile 2496 i'm sure. :( )
. I had the hard drive partitioned into two separate windows partitions (so
I could still use the computer at home!), the default partition loaded
straight into the B4 so I could boot the computer without a
monitor/keyboard/mouse... Note - ! If you use a USB midi adapter like this
as I was with the UC-33 controller, you absolutely must plug it in before
booting the computer or the B4 will drop the midi input and you have to
manually re-configure it. Occasionally if you didn't plug it into the same
USB port as it was in before this caused problems too...Eventually I copied
the B4's registry entries into a separate .reg file and made the computer
boot a batch file that appended these entries with the USB midi already
configured so I wouldn't have to worry about this.
It sounded great on stage, I used a Carvin 50 watt tube amp into an old
ampeg portaflex 15" cab. But, the computer was 'more gear' to bring to a
show and set up (computer, cable to soundcard omni i/o box, power supply for
omni). The last time i used it however someone packed the computer next to
the guitar player's 4x12... and the bass player's 2x10...and my 15.........
Needless to say the harddrive didn't like this very much and the thing died
on me, about 450 km from home!!!. Luckily I brought my XB-2 as a backup for
that gig, and now, I just play with the XB-2, which I have recently got a
leslie for - I will have to see how this works on a gig compared to the
B4.....
Hope this helps!
"Organfreak" <plon...@plunk.plink> wrote in message
news:o637q0takjqnj06u4...@4ax.com...
> On or about23 Nov 2004 02:10:35 -0800, someone purporting to be
> beeb...@aol.com (beeboons) felt it necessary to say:
> I don't use it onstage, but I would if I really had to, with this
> setup:
> -XP Pro, no service packs needed
> -Shuttle AN35N-400 mainboard (cheap)
> -7,200 RPM hard drives with 8 MB cache
> -1 GB dual-channel RAM (2 sticks of 512)
> -M-Audio Audiphile 2496 (cheap!)
> I can get 2.9 ms latency with this, though even at 5.9 ms, you won't
> hear the latency.
> -ASIO sound drivers
>
> -Turn off unneeded services in Windows, use DMA mode on your hard
> drives. If you are going to run sequences, use a second hard drive for
> audio files, if any.
>
> -OF
>
>
Tony
I am doing something a bit different with software organs now. I am building
a microPC tiny case, computer. Almost done. Not high enough for a soundcard,
though it has ASIO out it's onboard sound that is not bad, as it looks more
like a little fatter sound module than a PC case. (size and shape of a
briefcase) The soundcard is non-destructively, pop riveted in place, where
the ports go through the left back side of the case (full size jacks) using
an Echo Mia card with 8 virtual outs, (physical ports are 2 in, 2 out, 2
digital) it is drilled and looks actually stock using a PCI ribbon cable to
hook to the board - <ribbon cable PCI extender along cost 40 bucks custom
made) 5 inches long that effects NO latency. . This is an organ software
module BUT will run V-Stack, The Grand, Lounge Lizard etc simultaneously
with it's XP3200. In the front lower left (the case is only 11.5 inches wide
around 3 inches high) I am deciding will way to put drawbars on the left
lower front and have a couple ways to do it. The top will have midi preset
buttons and fadars.
My other setup is a board built and hidden into a rack case I posted about
before that has worked out perfect. I use (as I have said numerously) the
EVB3 but own the B4. This is small and is totally self contained.
Tony
Tony
> I don't use it onstage, but I would if I really had to, with this
> setup: <snip>
> -M-Audio Audiphile 2496 (cheap!)
> I can get 2.9 ms latency with this, though even at 5.9 ms, you won't
> hear the latency.
> -ASIO sound drivers
There are many opinions on systems boards and PC components.
I have found the Abit NF7 Ver 2 (mine is the NF7S) *needs NO soundcard* to
run the B4 or other software organ. The onboard Nvidia sound is not
distinguishable from my MIA (same chip as the Audiphile except balanced
outs) for softHammond sound quality.
The Abit NF7 has *2ms latency* with it's onboard chip and stock WDM driver
with ASIO API. *Other* Nvidia boards, I have I tested *do not* have this
kind of latency as the Abit board. No sound card is needed. Not an extreme
CPU is also necessary for this latency as I ran an old T-Bird with this. The
latest driver has to be downloaded or upped from Windows update, though, to
get this kind of latency. This offers a very *thin* solution.
Tony
td
"Jason L" <hammo...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:Nrmdnf62Dbn...@rogers.com...
Jason L
digital piano as a midi keyboard ..!.. Really, I like this thing, because
it's super lightweight, cheap, and has a very very light action on the keys
(similar to a VK-8, somewhat..). I didn't use my XB as a midi controller as
it tends to dig into your hands if you slide on it (it may need new rubber
bits under some of the keys as they tend to 'stick' if you don't play them
directly 'downwards') , and it has those preset buttons on the front just
under the keys - it is not impossible to hit these while playing, dumping
your current sound for another preset one in the middle of a solo...
Ultimately, would love to get a roland VR-760 "v-combo" to replace
everything, if they weren't so damned expensive.....
"td" <yasp...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:t96pd.49171$QJ3....@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com...
Brynjulf Blix
"beeboons" <beeb...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:76878016.04112...@posting.google.com...
Dell Inspiron 8600
ASIO4ALL drivers for the internal sound
M-Audio Midisport 2x2 MIDI i/f
Roland A-33
Evolution U33c
Set Processor scheduling to Background services
That's all.
Never had a glitch.
Best,
Blix
Tony
<snip>
> Roland A-33
> Evolution U33c
Blix . . if you are still reading this thread . . those
Rolands synth weight controllers are pretty good . . but how come your
are using the U33 <that came out eariliar> instead of the B4D . . in
Euro . . it is like 215, here? <unless there is something I don't
know about it.) Isn't it a lot better to use real drawbars instead of
slider-potentiometers (though can be organ-like reversed)?
Too cheap . . I just bought one (B4D) for 285 dollars, free shipping,
have not got it yet. (minus shipping value, like 275)
Another question: are you still splitting into your Leslie with B4? You are
not using your EVB3 at all anymore <I guess since you don't have the
upgrades>? (Blix was the first one I recall to post a couple years ago about
the EVB3 and, I think, a beta tester)
Tony
kacey
I'm pleased to hear other people are interested in getting the B4 on-stage
with a reliable keyboard, drawbar controller and a Windows based PC. It took
a lot of effort to get there but I'm still happy with the result. My
configuration involves a DIY keyboard with original Hammond keys and
drawbars that are readout by a microcontroller that is developped by Jordan
Petkov from Hungaria. It is specifically designed for the B4 before the B4D
was released. The PC I'm using is built into a 1HU 19 inch case. It consists
of:
- an EPIA V50000, a 500MHz motherboard measuring only 17 x 17 cm,
- 128Mbyte of RAM
- a soundblaster Live soundcard
- a 128Mbit Flash prom with a converter board to connect it to the IDE port
- a compact power supply, currently 150Watts (this is overkill)
It does not need a mouse, keyboard and monitor and has only one button: the
on/off switch.
From a mechanical point of view you can't have a more robust system for it
has no moving parts anymore.
The operating system is a modified Win98SE. It has no reputation as the most
robust operating system. To solve this I stripped down Win98 to the bare
minimum with a nice program called "98Lite". This program essentially can
leave out all unnecessary things that can go wrong, like network support, IE
explorer and so on. The final footprint including B4 is now 90Mbyte. Thanks
to the Flashprom the system boots in under 20 seconds, much faster than my
Yamaha S80 synthesizer.
A further improvement is to make the entire system read-only. This means
that windows is no longer allowed to write to the harddisk, or, in my case,
the Flashprom. To do so I managed to move the entire registry to a Ramdisk
in memory. The registry is copied to that location everytime the system
boots. The technique employed is similar in making a Win98 boot CD and
running Windows from it (systems without disk). There are numerous projects
on this topic that can be found on the internet. The benefit of having the
registry on a Ramdisk is that Windows can do what it wants but after a power
up the system is always in the same virgin state, especially when you also
set date and time in a batch file at booting. (you don't want windows to
remind you of daylight saving time when you don't have a monitor, mouse and
keyboard connected, do you?).
The minimum latency I get is 2.6msec. This is realised by the ASIO driver
from the KXproject (it's free software and works great). This figure equals
the average latency from the microcontroller that scans the keyboard 200
times per second. Mind that this figure is quite normal for most
synthesizers/keyboards/controllers, although they never tell you.
The entire system works very well for over a half year now (sorry, no better
statistics). I never needed to make changes to the (SW) configuration. It
has been mechanically abused many times from and to gigs and never failed on
me. It keeps me focused on what I like to do most: making music.
Kees Kooijman
c...@wanadoo.nl
"beeboons" <beeb...@aol.com> schreef in bericht
news:76878016.04112...@posting.google.com...
Ray
"kacey" <c...@wanadoo.nl> wrote in message
news:41a7b197$0$69638$1b2c...@news.wanadoo.nl...
> Hi
> I'm pleased to hear other people are interested in getting the B4 on-stage
> with a reliable keyboard, drawbar controller and a Windows based PC. It
took
> a lot of effort to get there but I'm still happy with the result. My
> configuration involves a DIY keyboard with original Hammond keys and
> drawbars that are readout by a microcontroller that is developped by
Jordan
> Petkov from Hungaria.
Yep, I also use Jordans board
http://www.cutlerr.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/b4/b4.htm
Ray.
Tony
> configuration involves a DIY keyboard with original Hammond keys and
> drawbars that are readout by a microcontroller that is developped by
Jordan
> Petkov from Hungaria. It is specifically designed for the B4 before the
B4D
> was released.
I think a lot of people used 8 drawbars instead of 9 with those. Those that
don't know: you don't have to use sliders now (not meaning the prementioned
was sliders) there is an Italian company that make drawbar potentiometers
that Petkov mentioned to me in a private email exchange. They are a Euro or
two apiece. The drawbar potentiometers are also marked with numbers like a
Hammond drawbar and, I think, in 3 sizes.
Petkov has some great stuff for the do-it-yourselfer but you have to be
careful. It may not be cost effective in money and *time*. For example just
the PCB for a drawbar module is 90 Euros about 119 dollars. Add shipping to
US to that, add other components, drawbars, midi control presets, and are
you are starting to get close to a B4D at 285 dollars on parts alone and
something NOT as neatly engineered, commercially-acceptable.. Also, some
have started these projects and actually have taken a couple years of spare
time to finish them, like the B4Ace projects. Great idea to use Petkov's,
but other alternatives should be looked at not to receive a Rube Goldberg
award winner trophy on how to add gear.
Tony
Brynjulf Blix
"Tony" <hammo...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:10qeeoj...@news.supernews.com...
> "Brynjulf Blix" <bb...@sindide.no> wrote
>
> <snip>
> > Roland A-33
> > Evolution U33c
>
> Blix . . if you are still reading this thread . .
those
> Rolands synth weight controllers are pretty good . . but how come your
> are using the U33 <that came out eariliar> instead of the B4D . .
in
> Euro . . it is like 215, here? <unless there is something I don't
> know about it.) Isn't it a lot better to use real drawbars instead of
> slider-potentiometers (though can be organ-like reversed)?
I've used the U33 since it came out, that's why. It is not great, but does
the job until I'm done with my own drawbar controller:
http://www.blixmusic.com/projects.htm
It takes time, though. Lot's of other stuff to do. I hope it's finished
before Christmas...
I'm not considering the B4D.
[snip]
> Another question: are you still splitting into your Leslie with B4?
When I use the Leslie, yes. This season most gigs has been without the
Leslie due to transportation issues.
>You are not using your EVB3 at all anymore <I guess since you don't have
the
> upgrades>? (Blix was the first one I recall to post a couple years ago
about
> the EVB3 and, I think, a beta tester)
I don't use Logic any more. I've even misplaced my dongle, and has switched
to Cubase SX3.
The only Emagic app I still use is the EVP73.
Best,
Blix
Tony
> http://www.blixmusic.com/projects.htm
I love the case for the drawbar controller. It is hilarious and a great
idea!!!!!! . . cool .
Now everyone would do something different so this is not criticism BUT:
You have the room to put *two* racks of drawbars but choose a more
sentimental approach of putting a vintage Hammond component that takes a lot
of space where you could have put another rack. I am sure you like it this
way but you may have been better off doing up two racks, duplicating any
boards needed - and using small control switches/faders instead of putting
in that legacy vintage component. The original hammond drawbars work well,
though.
Like I said, this is not to criticse it as everyone would do it different -
just my take.
Tony
Brynjulf Blix
Thank you for your comments!
I have 2 complete sets of M3 drawbars, so I could definitely do a 2-rack
version.
But: I never use 2 Hammond sounds at once, apart from a few cases where I
might do LH bass. But I need no drawbars for that, it's simply called up
with a preset on my A-33.
So I don't need a second rack of drawbars in the current musical context
that I play in, that's why.
BTW, there is some available space above the drawbars, where I am going to
put another module, controlling the EVP73 virtual Rhodes. Pics will be
posted soon.
Best,
Blix
Tony
> But: I never use 2 Hammond sounds at once, apart from a few cases where I
> might do LH bass. But I need no drawbars for that, it's simply called up
> with a preset on my A-33.
Yeah. I hear ya. You are 100 per cent correct.
I hardly use my lower manual drawbars even when playing lower manual bass
as it is usually on 838000000 , I am not a 'push and pull the drawbers in an
out all the time' type. Lower drawbars would help 'smear happy' players
<with bass player>.
But having said that, it would make it more versatile if you played other
types of sounds some time, example, with pedals. If you had *2* sets of
drawbars and wanted to do a thing with a midi pedal set *in the future* -
the drawbar rack with 2 racks would be useful for a bit more theater type of
playing (I use to do this for local fashion shows, affiliated with an organ
store - switch from a mode of playing to another mode). In other words: the
dual drawbars would be a more *comprehensive* and versatile solution to
clone the Hammond itself with various configurations possible, in my
opinion.
> So I don't need a second rack of drawbars in the current musical context
> that I play in, that's why.
"Current", yes. Why not make it possible to cover ALL the genres of Hammond
playing that *2* racks would help now or in the future?
> BTW, there is some available space above the drawbars, where I am going to
> put another module, controlling the EVP73 virtual Rhodes. Pics will be
> posted soon.
I own the EVP73 also as a VST. Some like the Lounge Lizard better that
sounds great: but the EVP73 IS a Rhodes (or 99 per cent one, in my opinion).
I compared to my Rhodes I sold last year. It is uncanny. In my opinion, the
EVP73 sounds less processed than the Lizard. (a soft instrument can sound
perceived *better* but NOT be as acurrate - with processing - ie: the EVB3
scanner sounds just about better than most scanners on a Hammond (or sounds
like a perfect, new Hammond scanner), also. Yet, I was surprised how I got
the B4 scanner sound very good with board tweeks.
It is a *damn shame* Native Instruments <ahhhhhhhh! sigh! . . here I go
again. .>does not put more resources in improving the B4. Just an
upgrade to V2 would probably 'nail-it' all the way. (and maybe some reverb
for the standalone and more attenuation, better bass with early Hammond
console options, and spinning from dry, imo, for the jazz player).
Frustrating, because the B4 is almost totally there, in my opinion. People
who own it should harrang NI for an new version and be a nuisance - probably
the only way it is going to happen. There is a lot more happenin' with
2004/05 DSP developing than when the B4 was coded. (1997-98). 'The squeaking
door gets the oil'. B4 owners should start complaining on a regular basis,
infinitum, in my opinion.
Michael Kurz the developer should be emailed at
michaelno...@native-instruments.de <remove "nospamplease" and
harranged regularly by owners, infinitum.
Tony
Brynjulf Blix
> > So I don't need a second rack of drawbars in the current musical context
> > that I play in, that's why.
>
> "Current", yes. Why not make it possible to cover ALL the genres of
Hammond
> playing that *2* racks would help now or in the future?
If I should play Hammond in a jazz context with 2 manuals + pedals - I would
play the real thing.
Like, if I should be playing piano trio, I would insist on a grand.
In such contexts I would not accept any substitutes.
> > BTW, there is some available space above the drawbars, where I am going
to
> > put another module, controlling the EVP73 virtual Rhodes. Pics will be
> > posted soon.
>
> I own the EVP73 also as a VST. Some like the Lounge Lizard better that
> sounds great: but the EVP73 IS a Rhodes (or 99 per cent one, in my
opinion).
> I compared to my Rhodes I sold last year. It is uncanny. In my opinion,
the
> EVP73 sounds less processed than the Lizard. (a soft instrument can sound
> perceived *better* but NOT be as acurrate - with processing - ie: the EVB3
> scanner sounds just about better than most scanners on a Hammond (or
sounds
> like a perfect, new Hammond scanner), also. Yet, I was surprised how I got
> the B4 scanner sound very good with board tweeks.
I also consider the Scarbee Rhodes samples:
http://www.scarbee.com/products/rsp73/index.php
That sample set actually sound closer to my late (it "drowned" and warped in
the late 80's) 1970 Suitcase than the EVP73.
> It is a *damn shame* Native Instruments <ahhhhhhhh! sigh! . . here I
go
> again. .>does not put more resources in improving the B4. Just an
> upgrade to V2 would probably 'nail-it' all the way. (and maybe some reverb
> for the standalone and more attenuation, better bass with early Hammond
> console options, and spinning from dry, imo, for the jazz player).
> Frustrating, because the B4 is almost totally there, in my opinion. People
> who own it should harrang NI for an new version and be a nuisance -
probably
> the only way it is going to happen. There is a lot more happenin' with
> 2004/05 DSP developing than when the B4 was coded. (1997-98). 'The
squeaking
> door gets the oil'. B4 owners should start complaining on a regular basis,
> infinitum, in my opinion.
I'm planning to visit the Frankfurt Messe in 2005, and talk to him there...
Best,
Blix
Tony
> If I should play Hammond in a jazz context with 2 manuals + pedals - I
would
> play the real thing.
Using a tube preamp there is no significant or material difference other to
a devout audiophile (the player only, most of the time), in my view with a
premium software organ, Voce or XK3. As Charle Earland said. "the Hammond is
a piece of furniture." I agree with that but will always be the benchmark,
obviously.
I think the people who say. "the clone sounds great but still doesn't sound
like a real B3" are way out (popular conception). I have also played many
BAD B3s. Add to that most people do not even know what a B3 is anyway
(except jazz fans and musicians, church folk, rock afficiados).
I respect that view but do not buy it. A couple years ago I wrote that the B
was worth moving with ROKs and not that hard a task. I do not subcribe to
that now with recent clones, preamps, etc.
> Like, if I should be playing piano trio, I would insist on a grand.
Not in my neck of the woods.unless you tune it yourself first. ALL grands I
have played are OUT of tune. The reason Jimmy Smith pulled a B3 around in
the first place(originally a piano player) was badly tuned pianos. Rather
play a Yamaha digital with a graded action unless the piano is in perfect
tune. Maybe they tune them in your place - so I understand. Not here. Just
my opinion. They are so bad you can't even hear the color in the chords many
times.
> I'm planning to visit the Frankfurt Messe in 2005, and talk to him
there...
PLEASE! and about 100 or 200 more might help do the trick.
If you look back on this: when the EVB3 was announced, about a month or two
later Native Instruments was posting in Clone groups and privately emailing
people asking for suggestiions for their 'B5'. Seems to me, when the
competitive organ was found to be embedded in a sequencer only, then later
removed from licensing options - the word was "hey, we are still the only
kid on the block so, why bother?" I said before when they were doing the B5
a guy from Italy emailed me and said "can I get NI in touch with you."
Shortly later a got an email from them that turned out to be a private email
thread of disagreement on the issues of the instrument in the end that they
feel "is a B3" period. One thing I will say is: Doepfer listens. Emagic
listens for suggestions - considers some and rejects others - NI 'knows it
all' and "it is perfect"., type of attitude, in my opinion.
What apparrently they did was: take the resources that they were going to
invest to bring the organ forward to Version 2, to their announced,
forthcoming, (then changed their mind) B5 and instead invested in a *costly*
DSP programming effort of a MAC OSX B4 with the *same* organ. (back to MAC
again)
Now with the new upgrades to the EVB3 (I can't post about due to private
info or I got to Stalag Bakelite 've' have our way to shut you up!') it
throws the B4 even, *way*, further back with some stunning upgrades - here
nor there - as it is not cost effective to invest in a MAC PLUS 1000 dollars
of software by most organists that will never use the features of Logic
Pro - BUT - the EVB3 moves along and not stuck in 1997.
Tony
Tony
great idea of a drawbar controller case.
I think you would have to lengthen it an inch or two.
The yellow dots on the top are for fader dials or sliders on the top left
cheekblock.
http://hammondeer.tripod.com/Download/Rough.jpg
Tony
Brynjulf Blix
ROFL!
Would be great for an UPS advertisement, for their excellent and careful
handling og goods..!
***
Seriously, the layout is ok. But - I'm not going to make one.
Blix
Brynjulf Blix
> "Brynjulf Blix" <bb...@sindide.no> wrote
>
> > If I should play Hammond in a jazz context with 2 manuals + pedals - I
> would
> > play the real thing.
>
> Using a tube preamp there is no significant or material difference other
to
> a devout audiophile (the player only, most of the time), in my view with a
> premium software organ, Voce or XK3. As Charle Earland said. "the Hammond
is
> a piece of furniture." I agree with that but will always be the benchmark,
> obviously.
>
> I think the people who say. "the clone sounds great but still doesn't
sound
> like a real B3" are way out (popular conception). I have also played many
> BAD B3s. Add to that most people do not even know what a B3 is anyway
> (except jazz fans and musicians, church folk, rock afficiados).
>
> I respect that view but do not buy it. A couple years ago I wrote that the
B
> was worth moving with ROKs and not that hard a task. I do not subcribe to
> that now with recent clones, preamps, etc.
I know, and I agree. But it still does not *feel* the same.
And the stage appearance is another issue.
The only 2 keyboard instruments that look great on stage IMO, are a Hammond
console - preferably a B3 - and a Grand Piano.
> > Like, if I should be playing piano trio, I would insist on a grand.
>
> Not in my neck of the woods.unless you tune it yourself first. ALL grands
I
> have played are OUT of tune. The reason Jimmy Smith pulled a B3 around in
> the first place(originally a piano player) was badly tuned pianos. Rather
> play a Yamaha digital with a graded action unless the piano is in perfect
> tune. Maybe they tune them in your place - so I understand. Not here. Just
> my opinion. They are so bad you can't even hear the color in the chords
many
> times.
I know. But my "if" includes all these considerations. Else there would be
no gig.
My income is not depending on my gig revenues any more, hasn't been since
early 80's. So I don't have to make compromises.
You have made your choices, that's great, I won't try to influence those. I
just try to explain mine.
Best,
Blix
Tony
> I know, and I agree. But it still does not *feel* the same.
Oh, I agree. In a piano bar the grand piano creates half the atmosphere and
many/most will tell the hired player that it is requirement to play it
nomatter how out of tune.
(this is a time when a player who can tune can arrange a tuning and charge
for it)
< they also have a new product called 'piano bar' that slips over the out of
tune piano's keyboard, damp the strings with felt, and it is like 1/4 inch
wide with optical pickups to run a piano sample, unbeknownst to the
listeners where it sounds like the piano is miked - expensive product right
now - but goes on in a couple of minutes to any piano>
As a side note: there is a person who has invented a self tuning accoustic
piano. I believe it will first appear on Story & Clark grand pianos.
It works <if you have not heard of it> (said in a nutshell) by a board and
insulted strings.
The strings are heated up to 95 degrees F. At that temperature a fine piano
tuner tunes itor yourself if you can tune. It has pickups that scan the
string frequencies of the perfectly tuned piano and records them. It takes
20 seconds to retune the whole piano by pressing a button THAT *lowers*
(since pianos go out of tune by going flat) the temperature in an out of
tune string and minutely adusts the 'close' strings. When it lowers the
temperature, the metal contracts and goes back on tune.
> And the stage appearance is another issue.
>
> The only 2 keyboard instruments that look great on stage IMO, are a
Hammond
> console - preferably a B3 - and a Grand Piano.
I agree. Especially in rock, the B3 makes the band look better more than the
B3 player, in my opinion.
In the era of 'lip syncing', there is an issue today that was not around
when most went around playing full B3s: fake midi-sequence players that are
all over the place.
Some of these are T & A acts and 'who cares' but today, in my opinion, a
person has to 'think visual'. Just like a group of people likes to watch
good dancers, they like to watch the musicians fingers or hands (if he is
good) play.
The bad thing about this with full size Hammond organs (unless arranged
difficultly at the right angle) is with players, the playing is hidden
behind a wooden box,
There was a guy who addressed this that played in the Philly area 'down the
shore' some years ago called Leroy Lewis (I heard the place he played was
wild and crazy) who packed a room for years playing an X66. He actually
used a mirror (not suggesting anyone do this) at a 45 degree angle about his
X66. (and this was before fake acts)
Despite the majestic appearance of the B3 in bands (at least to the
baby-boomer generation with fond band memories) it does not provide, or can
be difficult to provide, a *visual* of the player, . . well . .
playing.
The Clone does a much better job at this unless it is buried in a rack of
keyboards.
The fact that a listening group can *see* the player playing adds greatly to
the entertainment value. Musicians tend to think more 'audio' and some do
not consider this.
Speaking 'visual' - bring out a player/vocalist . playing piano only out
front and he is perceived an 'artist' - in the back with 3 rows of
keyboards he appears as a 'soundman' like the mixer guy with keyboards. It
is all visual. In a rock band, the B3 in the back many times is perceived as
'the guy to mellow out the guitars.' as a add on BUT makes the band look
really 'hip'.There are exceptions.
The Hammond actually reigns more supreme in jazz <speaking secular music>,
(jazz trios - where STILL it can be 'sherman tanked' with players like
legendary guitarest Pat Martino, no matter who plays it) in my view <guitar,
sorry to say, IS more popular>, with some prog rock exceptions, imo.
Also, the Hammond has to be played with some restraint to avoid 'wearing
down the ear' - staying on mellower comp mode. Why just about all/many the
jazz Hammond players have a lot of the tune played by other instruments and
then enters with a grandiose, wildly entertaining, solo. . . .
timing . . . drama . .THOUGH a very careful
player/artist CAN play consistantly say with only a drummer. Don Patterson
used to do duos all the time.
Piano, dos not have that problem. A jazz piano trio can play all night with
the piano wailing all night AND the only melodic instrument besides the
bass.
Tony