Fender Rhodes Mark I vs. Mark II

Jon

unread,

Jun 9, 2004, 1:52:56 AM6/9/04

to

Hi

How significant is the difference in tone quality between Mark I and
Mark II Fender Rhodes pianos, about which I have read? Can anyone
point me to some examples of the difference between the two anywhere
on the internet? Do you think that the lack of the "sticky key"
problem I have heard about in earlier Mark Is makes up for this loss
of tone quality? In other words, should I buy a mint condition Mark
II, or try to find a Mark I?

thanks

DaveDrummer

unread,

Jun 9, 2004, 6:45:04 AM6/9/04

to

The main difference was that the new top was flat, so you could add another
keyboard onto of it. A simple, but great upgrade. It also had a new black
design and a music rack..other than that I think they're identical.

Dave

"Jon" <h...@nettaxi.com> wrote in message
news:614cf68b.04060...@posting.google.com...

Bob Chandler

unread,

Jun 9, 2004, 9:00:32 AM6/9/04

to

h...@nettaxi.com (Jon) wrote in message news:<614cf68b.04060...@posting.google.com>...

The Mk II is superior in every way. The tine material is improved
(breaks less frequently) as well as the action is more responsive. The
preamp is quieter In the suitcase version . Any difference in tone
(and there is a wide range of variation) is due to voicing.

bob

Murks

unread,

Jun 9, 2004, 9:12:24 AM6/9/04

to

Hi,

> How significant is the difference in tone quality between Mark I and
> Mark II Fender Rhodes pianos, about which I have read?

The MarkI has a softer tone and the keyboard is kind of mashy. But I
prefered it over the MarkII
You should try both because the keyboard on both is quite "unique".

> Can anyone
> point me to some examples of the difference between the two anywhere
> on the internet?

I find the examples of NI's Electic-Piano quite fitting.

<http://www.nativeinstruments.de/index.php?elektrikpiano_us>

Maybe the software itself could solve your requests.

Hearp

georgeh

unread,

Jun 9, 2004, 10:02:04 AM6/9/04

to

bass...@pacbell.net (Bob Chandler) writes:
>The Mk II is superior in every way. The tine material is improved
>(breaks less frequently) as well as the action is more responsive. The
>preamp is quieter In the suitcase version . Any difference in tone
>(and there is a wide range of variation) is due to voicing.

IIRC, the old Contemporary Keyboard mag ran an interview with Harold
Rhodes back in the mid-70s. One of the topics he discussed was how to
adjust the action on the older, stiffer Rhodes pianos.

ostaz

unread,

Jun 9, 2004, 4:54:52 PM6/9/04

to

I have a MKII. Although I never owned a MKI, I've heard plenty of
recordings. My observation is that they are VERY similar in tone. The MKII
might be a little bit brighter but that can be EQed out. All in all, I love
the MKII, with its very functional flat black top and nice clean sound. It
is very heavy though, so therefore, it mostly hangs out in its case in the
garage!
Pete

"Jon" <h...@nettaxi.com> wrote in message
news:614cf68b.04060...@posting.google.com...

chetatkinsdiet

unread,

Jun 9, 2004, 5:05:29 PM6/9/04

to

Funny this topic just popped up....I just picked up a little MK II at
a local salvation army. Missing the harp cover and legs, but in nice
shape otherwise....
I'd been looking around for a deal on one and was hoping to find a MK
II. I'd have taken either if the price was right, but really scored
on this one.
From my readings, the MK I's might be good or crap. The consistency
on the II's are probably better. One's more bell-like than the other,
but either can be set up to sound similar to the other...i think....
later,
m

Paul Ward

unread,

Jun 11, 2004, 11:24:00 AM6/11/04

to

I just received a copy of NI's Elektrik Piano. Look for a review in Sound on
Sound real soon...

P.

"Murks" <mu...@yahoo.de> wrote in message
news:ca72bo$ser$1...@news.mch.sbs.de...

Laurence Payne

unread,

Jun 13, 2004, 8:03:29 PM6/13/04

to

In the days when they were all you could get, I owned both (Stage
models). MK II had a useful flat top and was, I think, a little more
mechanically robust. The tone varied much more due to voicing that
to any difference between the models.

Quite honestly, unless you're running a vanity studio, I suggest you
synthesise the Rhodes sound when required. Excellent emulations are
available, and no-one's going to put the sound under a microscope :-)

The Rhodes had a distinctive keyboard action, but it wasn't a
particularly nice one.

ostaz

unread,

Jun 22, 2004, 5:05:11 PM6/22/04

to

Agreed! But they are fun to play...if you have a roadie to haul it around
for you.
Pete
"Laurence Payne" <l...@laurenceDELETEpayne.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
news:fdqpc0p8muu9c8gbi...@4ax.com...

Analogeezer

unread,

Jun 23, 2004, 10:07:05 AM6/23/04

to

Laurence Payne <l...@laurenceDELETEpayne.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message news:<fdqpc0p8muu9c8gbi...@4ax.com>...

I saw Chick Corea about six months ago, and he only had three
keyboards on stage (well not counting his little yamaha keyboard
controller thing he wore around his neck for some solos).

He had a grand piano in the back, and then a Yamaha Motif 8 sitting on
top of an 88 key Mk II Rhodes.

He played the Rhodes about 80% of the time, the grand piano about 10%
and the Motif about 10%.

What kind of sounds did he use on the Motif? Rhodes piano...

Analogeezer

georgeh

unread,

Jun 23, 2004, 10:24:23 AM6/23/04

to

"ostaz" <ost...@nospam.com> writes:
>Agreed! But they are fun to play...if you have a roadie to haul it around
>for you.
>Pete

Piece of cake ... after you've helped haul the keyboardist's B-3.

ostaz

unread,

Jun 24, 2004, 1:23:15 AM6/24/04

to

wow...not surprising though. He's the reason I bought my Rhodes and
Minimoog in the first place. Hmmm...maybe I ought to start hauling my
Rhodes around and do some jazz gigs on it, it's a real blast to play.
Pete
"Analogeezer" <analo...@aerosolkings.com> wrote in message
news:bfb37ea9.04062...@posting.google.com...