Waterfall-K

Η ετησια ψηφοφορια των αναγνωστων του περιοδικου "Keyboard" αρχισε τον Οκτωβριο του 2012 και τα αποτελεσματα σε εξι κατηγοριες εναι τα εξης: Best High-End Synth Workstation: Korg Kronos Runner-Up: Yamaha Motif XF ***** Best Affordable Synth Workstation: Yamaha MOX Series Runner-Up: Korg M50 ***** Best High-End Do-It-All Stage Keyboard: Nord Stage 2 Runner-Up: Roland Jupiter-80 ***** Best Single-Manual Drawbar Organ: Hammond XK3c Runner-Up: Hammond SK1 ***** Best Virtual Analog or Performance Synth: Roland V-Synth GT Runner-Up: Nord Wave ***** Best Home Slab Piano You Can Also Take To the Gig: Yamaha P-105 Runner-Up: Casio Privia PX-330

Δεν ξερω αν σου φτασουν τα λεφτα. Ενα CS-80 παιζει να κοστιζει σημερα απο 4500 ως 17000 ευρω. Μερικες "πειραγμενες" εκδοσεις με MIDI κοστιζουν ακομα περισσοτερο. 8) Κοψε κατι λοιπον. ;D Ο Παπαθανασιου btw ειχε αγορασει οκτω CS-80... Ριξε ενα ματι στο παρακατω λινκ να διαβασεις για το Fairlight CMI-30A και να δεις μερικες φωτος, ειναι ενα ποστ στο ΝΟΙΖ που ειχα κανει πριν κατι μηνες. http://www.noiz.gr/index.php?topic=193653.msg666069#msg666069

Eλα βρε Neeq που δεν κανει για live. Ισα ισα που επειδη εχει τοσα κουμπια ειναι ιδανικo για live "πειραγμα". Το βαρος του νομιζω ειναι καπου 30 κιλα. Σιγα τωρα, εδω αλλοι κουβαλανε ακομα vintage Β3 στη σκηνη συν το Leslie(s). Μονο το Β3 ζυγιζει 190 κιλα. Στα 70s κουβαλαγαν το "κουμπι" της αρκουδας, ενα SCHMIDT δεν ειναι κατι το extreme να το κουβαλησεις στο live. Να, παρε δυο παλαβους παρακατω, ο ενας (Keith Emerson) κουβαλαει ακομα και σημερα ενα Moog modular και φυσικα ενα Hammond, ο αλλος δε (Geoff Downes) εχει μπει στο βιβλιο Guinness για τα περισσοτερα πληκτρα επι σκηνης, νομιζω 28 synths/keyboards ειχε κουβαλησει καποτε σε ενα live... ;D ;D To κουβαλημα ενος SCHMIDT δεν ειναι προβλημα, τα λεφτα για την αγορα του ειναι το προβλημα... :P Μονο?? Εδω μιλαμε για 25.000. Τα Prophet 12 και Sledge δεν κανουν μαζι παραπανω απο 3200 ευρω. Αντε βαλε και μερικα πεταλια απο Electro Harmonix, θα φτασεις τα 4000? Τα υπολοιπα 21000 τι θα τα κανς? 8) Πρωτη φορα βλεπεις ενα Fairlight ή πρωτη φορα βλεπεις το συγκεκριμενο anniversary edition?

Και μετα βριζω την Moog για τις τιμες που εχει. ::) Ο Mr Stefan Schmidt ξεπερασε ακομα και την Moog. Αν ειναι δυνατον να βγει αυτο το synth σε παραγωγη με τετοια τιμη και να το αγορασει καποιος. Καλα, το οτι θα βρεθουν 10-20 πυροβολημενοι πλουσιοι που θα το αγορασουν δεν υπαρχει αμφιβολια. :P Αλλα σκεψου ποια και ποσα synths αγοραζεις με 25.000 ευρω. Ισα με....7.5 Moog Voyager ;D ;D Edit: Η τιμη του ειναι πιο πανω ακομα κι απο το περιβοητο Fairlight CMI-30A http://alturl.com/pw28d

Ε και? Δεν εχεις 25.000 ευρω? Ελα τωρα....

If I remember correctly, in this way you have direct access to every parameter. It is also worth considering that the individual blocks are hard-wired, which contributes amongst others to the impressive number of envelopes and LFOs, etc. What else does the SCHMIDT offer that is never or seldom found in other systems? Functionally, I know of no detail that could not be realized just as well with a suitably-equipped modular system. This is because the sound generation is based on simple basic components. However: the concept of hard wiring and the “complete editability” in my opinion allows for a much faster and more intuitive approach to sound creation – which is also associated with a higher fun factor. Above all, this is thanks to the modulation concept of the SCHMIDT (many separate modulation sources), something that is rarely found in this form in other synthesizers. These are typically based on a modulation matrix, which admittedly provides added more possibilities, but is often very complex and then turns out to be quite hard work. As an example I would cite the volume control of the SCHMIDT. The filter section, which consists of four filters, is connected together in 2 groups at the output. Their volume mix can then be either manually controlled, by velocity, or by a separate crossfade function – this is easily and quickly editable. Behind the mix there is of course a master ADSR. Alternatively, I could have added an own volume ADSR to each filter or a complex scanner module instead. However, this would make a significant editing effort necessary. Having heard all this, the question arises whether there is anything that you wanted to include in the SCHMIDT, but could not implement due to technical or other reasons? Sure. If the “old reliable” or advanced synthesizer chips had been in adequate supply at a competitive price, I would have preferred them to any discrete solution – not for monophonic synthesizers necessarily but for polyphonic instruments as the key to facilitating an acceptable price. As examples I would like to mention precision-VCO CEM3340 or the CEM 3372 (multimode filter!). Even though there are plenty of very good effect instruments, I had furthermore planned a high-quality analogue effects section. A system based on a bucket-brigade delay including chorus + flanger. I could not realize this due to a lack of time, as this too, in accordance with the sound production, would have become colossal in size. In addition, there are plenty of other excellent modules, especially in the analogue field, such as waveshaper, distortion, other filter types, complex modulations, etc. If I had wanted to implement all of this, then my “battleship” would still be in the dry dock and would perhaps never be seaworthy (laughs). What synthesizers do you find interesting and why? What are your favourite instruments? During the analogue era, my favourite instruments were the Oberheim Matrix 12 and the Roland Jupiter 8 because of their sound possibilities (and the Roland Jupiter 8 was also my top favourite because of the way it looked). In general anything new has inspired me, because if it offers new sound possibilities, such as the Yamaha DX7, in particular the sampler and “rompler”. Over time, synthesizer technology has developed so rapidly that modern synthesizers all sound excellent to me personally, and above all there are top devices for the most diverse uses and music genres. Incidentally: I am not a professional musician and could definitely be wrong there. When did you actually start with the development and do you know how much time you’ve invested in this project? I started about 8 years ago. How much time I have effectively invested I can’t say, because I took a few breaks during this time and also had side jobs. That speaks for itself and I don’t think that I only speak for myself when I say we wish you every success with the SCHMIDT. To believe a project to such an extent and not to give up, that demands respect. But there must have been times that were anything but easy for you – how are you getting on with the SCHMIDT now? Thank you for wishing me success. As you correctly guessed, there were stages that were not easy and there would have been reason enough to stop the project. With this project I’ve certainly also realized a small dream, but question of how I’m supposed to my living and whether or not the synthesizer can ever contribute to that is really hanging over my head like the sword of Damocles. The question of the future of the SCHMIDT (or to be more precise, the SCHMIDTs) is still unclear. There are enough reasons to both leave it as a prototype, as well as to attempt a short production run. I think everyone can assume that this is primarily due to financial reasons. I am currently in the process of carefully considering this. As I mentioned earlier, I had vastly underestimated the time required for the development, and a short production run would add a large financial outlay to this. Apart from this, the market for such highly-priced equipment is extremely “slim”. A short production run – a very very short production run – would be great. What is the status quo? And of course the questions that will concern many people – can you say anything about the price, the number of SCHMIDTS built, when the first will be ready and how or from whom you can order the SCHMIDT – directly from you? At the fair I gave no information on the possible purchase price, so I was very surprised when I was told that this should be approximately €25,000. I am currently calculating a very short production run. But it is still too early to be able to give accurate information on price and quantity, and therefore ask for your understanding. Of course – as everyone would expect – financing will be a crucial question. At this time it is not really clarified. So forgive me if I can’t make any further answers to your questions. I don’t want to make any promises that I can’t keep in the end! But back to the status quo. I’m making a few needed changes to the casing. The unit will be thoroughly tested and the software has still to be completed. The functionality and operational concept will correspond to the prototype, nothing will be changed there! An instrument that has swallowed up so much development time and is handmade in Germany will have a certain price and will therefore probably only be accessible to a select circle of interested parties. In any case, we wish you much success and we would be happy if you kept us up to date. Many thanks for the interview. SCHMIDT Edit Section SCHMIDT Mix + VCA SCHMIDT Oscillator 1 + Oscillator 2 SCHMIDT Oscillator 3 + Oscillator 4 SCHMIDT VCF 1 + Dual Filter 1 SCHMIDT VCF 2 + Dual Filter 2 Peter M. Mahr http://greatsynthesizers.com 10/9/2012

Το SCHMIDT synth ειναι ενα project που αρχισε πριν αρκετα χρονια. Το πρωτοτυπο εκανε την εμφανιση του στην Musikmesse του 2011. Βλεποντας πριν λιγο ενα βιντεο απο την τελευταια ΝΑΜΜ ειπα να φτιαξω ενα ποστ γι αυτο το mega-synth, να ποσταρω μερικες φωτος καθως και μια συνεντευξη του δημιουργου του Stefan Schmidt στο GreatSynthesizers.com στις 10/9/2012. Υπαρχει ακομα ενα ποστ γι αυτο το synth εδω στο ΝΟΙΖ απο το 2011, για οσους θελουν να το (ξανα)διαβασουν: http://www.noiz.gr/index.php?topic=185372.0 Stefan Schmidt – Creator Of The SCHMIDT Synthesizer Sensational new releases in the segment of analogue synthesizers were for a long time very scarce. However, in recent years their number has been steadily increasing. We see this as an encouraging development. SCHMIDT must be considered one of the most remarkable developments in contemporary synthesizers. This is cause enough to begin our interview series with none other than its developer, Stefan Schmidt. You first introduced the SCHMIDT to the broader public at the Musikmesse in Frankfurt in 2011. What has been going on with you since then? The fair was definitely a great achievement for me, even just making it that far after approximately 8 long years of development. Incidentally, the unit was never planned on this scale, above all, just as little as was the very long development time. The project grew steadily and by the end I did have my doubts about ever being able to finish it. That the “SCHMIDT” was so well received at the fair, and was even spoken of here and there as a highlight, was something I never expected to this extent. A success, even if it has so far not become a financial success. How do you actually come up with the idea of building an instrument like the SCHMIDT? Well, the roots of this go back quite far. One of my last projects at MAM, approximately 9 years ago, was a replica of the Moog Taurus I. Once the prototype was aurally barely distinguishable from the original in various blindfold tests, we introduced it at the fair. It was – in order to be able to offer it at the lowest possible cost – initially a pure Expander version (so without pedals). If there had been sufficient demand, I would have followed up with the pedal version. At least, that was what was planned. From Taurus to SCHMIDT is a remarkable journey. How did these “deviations” arise from your original idea? The Taurus project was a complete flop, and believe me, nothing to smile about for us back then. The interest in our Taurus expander was so infinitesimally small that a continuation of the project could not even be thought of. Added to this was the fact that sales at MAM had gone through the floor, so only a real bestseller could have saved us. I must say that I was sick to the back teeth of the music business by then. Although it’s kind of fun, the headache of whether and how you can make money, sort of ruins the fun. Consequently, I resigned from MAM and went looking for a job. Alongside this, I continued working on the Taurus expander as a hobby (this kept it fun!) which meant adding more and more features but also removing Taurus-specific features. It had in fact come to my attention that another manufacturer with the appropriate label was also working on a Taurus – making it a topic that would be exhausted in the near future. Although the SCHMIDT developed from the Taurus, it no longer has anything in common with it. As it was only a hobby project, criteria such as usability, sound variety – as far as it was feasible with the existing analogue electronics – and sound quality were in the foreground. I had no intention of turning it into a marketable product. After about 3-4 years, the monophonic version was ready, with a provisional operating unit, but without any casing. From the beginning I conceived of the electronics on the basis of a number of stackable voice cards (maximum eight), as I already had a duophonic version planned. The technical requirements for polyphony were fulfilled in principle, and the subsequent expenditure for the operating unit, software and casing would have been disproportionately high with regard to a monophonic version. These considerations and the fact that I have always admired the old analogue “battleships” such as Jupiter 8, Matrix 12 etc., but was never able to afford them, but now had the opportunity to realise such a “battleship” myself, cast such a spell on me that I quit my job to dedicate myself exclusively to what had become a polyphonic synthesizer. I underestimated the time still required, particularly for the casing, and the planned two years turned into four. As my funds were also depleted quicker than expected, the implementation of a very cost-intensive prototype would not have been possible without the financial support of the company EMC. Equally, as a distributor of analogue devices, EMC led the creation of the design, which turned out well. Did you never intend to capitalize on it? Definitely not. I think the marketing opportunities for large analogue projects have generally become very seldom and they depend on many factors, which cannot be calculated or estimated. The option of making a business out of it always exists in principle, but to want to plan it is very difficult. What factors do you think are the most critical? The decisive factor in my opinion is the development of the components market. The rapid development in the digital sector offers plenty of potential for both innovation as well as the ability to continuously reduce the selling prices. The development of the analogue sector is rather the reverse of this. The price trend is upwards. New components that bring hope of innovation are few. And mere imitation (“cloning”) is becoming more and more difficult because parts are being discontinued. The days of analogue “synthesizer chips” – as a prerequisite for the realization of analogue polyphonic synthesizers – are a thing of the past; discrete solutions are, at least for major projects, cost-and time-intensive. Little or no innovation in the analogue field is not much of a purchase incentive. To stimulate this, manufacturers are forced to reduce prices by whatever means possible or to use other solutions to achieve a “must have” effect. Many manufacturers are very creative in this respect and also deliver good products. The intrinsic qualities of a product were originally of a musical nature, but they have become less decisive to sales success; marketing plays a much bigger part in its success or failure. No comment. All this brings a further factor with it that cannot be ignored – analogue legends are based on antiquated technology, but in terms of their sophistication, they are still the be-all and end-all. The ‘new’ analogues can’t hold a candle to them – how could they? These legends ultimately come from a time when it was still the intention of the developer to build a musical instrument and not a “cash cow”. This is also reflected in the sound, and the term “legendary sound” is by no means just a cliché! This of course complicates the marketing opportunities for the ‘new’ analogues. They not only have modern sound generators as competitors – “price” is the key word here – but also the ‘old’ analogues because of their good image. “Cloning” is nothing more than an attempt to capitalize on this image. It works all the better, the more one drives this image artificially high by means of marketing techniques. Innovation falls by the wayside and is perhaps not even desired. To take the wind out of the sails of my admittedly very critical view I would like to finally note that analogue sound generators have their place and they should also keep this place in the future. They earn the label “musical instrument” particularly so because due to their errors, tolerances, lack of precision they are distinguished by a high degree of naturalness. Digital sound generators can sound as good as they like and be as inexpensive as they like, they are and will remain mere computers. You were discussing previously the problems developers of analogue circuit design can meet. How was it for you e.g. with regard to the availability of components? In the SCHMIDT I don’t use any “old” synthesizer chips; all the circuits are realized with discrete components that are still available. Of course, envelopes and LFOs are based on a software basis. Modern controller technology or, as the case may be, converter technology has now advanced so far that these purely analogue solutions are absolutely equal. For the sake of the performance and owing to the high number of modulators several autonomous control units are in operation in the SCHMIDT. The risk of obsolete components exists of course for the SCHMIDT as well. A discontinuation does not necessarily mean that the project is over, as there are often still large stocks remaining on the components market – even several years after discontinuation. The procurement of obsolete parts can still be a problem, as the prices increase dramatically from one moment to the next. This is a risk not to be underestimated for products that are tightly calculated or for large numbers of units. In the case of the SCHMIDT, however, I don’t see this danger. Can you please give us a detailed overview of what the SCHMIDT will have on board in the final version? The fair prototype is functionally already the final version, aside from some modifications to the casing and the software, which still has to be completed. * 8 voices with multimode and single outputs * Access to all parameters of controls Per Voice: * 4 analogue oscillators * 5 analogue filters: * 2 Moog lowpass ladder filters with high pass, band-pass extension * 2 dual multimode filters, distortion * 1 12dB lowpass filter * Separate modulators (envelopes, LFOs) for filters and oscillators * Stereo panning * Separate master envelope * Filter crossfading function * Controllers: joystick, aftertouch, mod wheel, routable to all parameters Let us begin with the oscillators. As they are four in number they have quite a bit on offer. How would you characterise them? The 4 oscillators differ mainly in their waveforms. * Osc1: saw, square, pulse, noise, 4-Pulse, ring modulator * Osc2: saw, square, pulse, noise, ring modulator * Osc3: saw, square, pulse, sync + suboscillator * Osc4: multiple ring modulator, “metallic noise” Triangle or sine-like spectra can be generated with a filter (of which there are plenty). Can you please explain the “metallic noise” in more detail? It is produced by a chain of several ring modulators with differently-tuned oscillators. This produces a noise similar to random noise, but has in contrast to white noise also clearly audible harmonic components, practically a “pitch”. I called it “metallic noise” because in this way metallic percussion instruments such as cymbals, hi hats, etc. can be generated in the analogue domain. In the case of the oscillators, can you tell us what digital is about them and in which other instruments this technology was also used? That’s a very good question, which I would like to answer in more detail. It’s probably already got around that my oscillators are DCOs. That this fact would rekindle debate is, of course, what I expected. If this is to be conducted it should take place on a factual level. At the time, DCOs were developed to address a marginal weakness of classic analogue VCOs – their poor tuning stability. A variant that exists is to synchronize a VCO using a digital oscillator (which is stable as it is quartz-based). The waveform is generated by the VCO as before (i.e. purely analogue) with the difference that the frequency of the digital oscillator is “forced”. Typical “DCO’s” that work on this principle are, for example, the Juno 6/60, Matrix 1000 or the Matrix 6. To avoid misunderstandings: the technically correct term for this variant would actually be TCVCO “timer controlled VCO”. The term DCO, “Digital Controlled Oscillator” as a generic term also includes variants that are implemented pure digitally, a fact that has certainly contributed to the bad reputation of DCOs. For my oscillators I have adopted the version “TCVCO”, but further developed – especially with a very finely adjustable fine-tuning – and also given each oscillator a separate control unit. So all the oscillators run autonomously, i.e. they are not coupled. In contrast to pure VCO there is no danger of “catching”. Can you please explain that to us in a little more detail? This is what we call it when two oscillators are slightly detuned and influence one another so that they vibrate at the same frequency. The reason for this is usually bad circuit board design and is annoying, as it means that low beat frequencies are not possible. I would like to add one thing with regard to DCO vs. VCO: both have advantages as well as disadvantages. It would be unfair, in my opinion, however, to sweep the following major difference under the rug: DCOs are principally stable and reliable – virtually without restriction until the end of their lives. You can precisely program very fine detuning, and also reproduce it accurately. With a VCO that is not possible. If the tuning instability exceeds acceptable levels, the sound quality often suffers heavily. That is also a large annoyance now as in the past, of which you can read in the relevant forums over and over again. The sound quality of an analogue synthesizer depends of course also on many other factors in addition to the oscillators, such as the type and number of filters, the modulation sources, the overall concept and its complexity and numerous other factors. Ultimately, the only decisive factor is how it sounds, how this is technically feasible, be it digital, analogue or virtual analogue, I really do not care. After the oscillators we turn to the mixer, which also offers a number of features, but is displaced from the filter section. Can you tell us something about this? The filter section is undoubtedly the most powerful component, and is, so to speak, the heart of the SCHMIDT. It consists of two identical groups, with each group consisting of a Moog ladder filter and a dual multimode filter. Dual means two parallel connected single filters with different selectable filter types: lowpass, highpass and bandpass. Here I was inspired by the great sounding filter structure of the Matrix 12. The two Moog filters/dual multimoders can be optionally connected in parallel or serially. All the filters have separate modulation sources (ENVs +LFOs) and are additionally modulated by an oscillator. Another feature is the additional bandpass and highpass modes offered by the Moog filters. The two filter groups can be mixed with an additional 5th filter at the output (lowpass, without modulation). In this way, the output signal can be refreshed with powerful bass frequencies, if the group filter is being specially used for bandpass or highpass filtering. SCHMIDT - one of the early board designs

Παρακατω μια πολυ ενδιαφερουσα συνεντευξη του Ian Gillan στο site "100% ROCK MAGAZINE" στις 28 Δεκεμβριου 2012. Ian Gillan interview After being shunted back and forth by the call operator, Deep Purple legend Ian Gillan came on the line exasperated and mildly annoyed – though thankfully not at us! Throughout the interview he remains in high spirits and ready to talk about his band, Deep Purple’s tour of Australia in March of 2013, and their forthcoming new studio album, though signs of his tetchyness show through once or twice – especially when I raise the subject, unwittingly, of modern technology and pigeon-holing his band. First though, with the loss of Purple’s ex-keyboard player Jon Lord to cancer recently, I wanted to offer my condolences to Ian. Hello Ian? Yeah, hello mate. Gah, what a procedure that guy is, I’m telling you! [laughs] Yes, he pronounced your name as “Ayan” or something to me first off, so… I know, he’s been calling me Jillian all day… [laughs] Bless! Thanks very much for your time today, anyway. No worries mate. No problem. So firstly, commiserations on the passing of your friend Jon Lord earlier this year. Oh bless you, thanks. It’s a big loss, I think, to the music world. And the outpourings of grief have been nothing but loving and very positive. Is that a mark of the guy that he was? Yeah, absolutely. Jon was a great character; wonderful. I mean… you know, he’s not been in the band for nearly 10 years but we were still in very close contact. And Jon was kind of like… we all looked up to him. He was there when Roger and I joined the band ’69 and he had a lot of… he was a fun guy; very bright, great sense of humour but he had gravitas as well. When he… when we got the news, we were in Nashville in session there and we kind of expected it but it was still a terrible blow. And so it all went quiet for a while, needless to say, and then we started recalling the good times – as you do. His spirit is very much in the record; in the music. In fact I remember writing a line at the time: “Souls having touched are forever entwined.” And that got into one of the songs and so he’s there in the music. I don’t think he’ll ever be away from it really, because he created the foundation of Purple. I mean… there was so many influences coming in but his… a bit of rock and roll, soul, blues, folk music and all that sort of thing but his input of orchestral composition and jazz were profound, to say the least. And his sound… that big Hammond sound was completely unique. Yeah, absolutely. Well we still have that with Don (Airey) and so that lives on. It was unique at the time because it wasn’t just that Leslie cabinet with a Hammond, but he also combined it with a Marshall amp as well which had never been done before. And so he had the power as well as the subtlety; a wonderful, wonderful sound. Fantastic. Yeah, brilliant. So you must’ve lost count of the number of times you’ve come to Australia by now? Oh I don’t know! [laughs] Seven or eight times I think. I remember going there in the late 60s, early 70s… ’70 I think was my first time. And yeah, I enjoyed it a lot. You know, the first time you go anywhere you do a lot of sightseeing and breathe the air and see what’s what. And over the years, I’ve got so many friends there that most of the time now I’m out having a drink or a bite to eat with pals. So you’ve got "Journey" on the tour this time around. How did that double bill come together? I don’t know what the machinations are behind the scenes but I was thrilled to bits when I heard about it because that’s one of the really top class packages that we’ve been involved with. It’s great to have another great band on the bill and I’ve got a huge amount of respect for them. In fact when I heard I thought, “Well I’d buy a ticket for that for sure!”: I want to be in the crowd! Absolutely. I’m going to be on the stage but… It’s a great double bill. It’s wonderful. You know, I’m really thrilled. It’s a good balance too… the contrast in music styles is, I think, going to be really good. Excellent. You’ve gone on record in the past… I remember some years ago reading a Classic Rock Magazine interview with you and you were quite dismissive of the actual term, “classic rock”. Are you able to look on it more as a compliment now, or do you still think that it carries those negative overtones? [Emphatically] Well, no. It’s a bloody tombstone round your neck, isn’t it? [laughs] It’s as simple as that. I think from a musician’s point of view, once you’re branded with [the label] “Classic Rock” you might as well stop. And of course we didn’t because we’ve been working underground. We didn’t like any of the labels that were given to us. I mean… it started with “heavy metal”; that was nothing to do with us and it doesn’t… then you get all the insulting ones like “wrinkly rockers” and “dinosaurs” and stuff like that. And eventually they settle on “Classic Rock”. I realise now it has become a broader term but at the time it was… I didn’t like it much at all. I mean we’re all working still, you know? We’re near the end of an eight week western European leg at the moment and we’re playing here with 10,000 people every night and [the label] “Classic Rock” doesn’t mean anything to them either as far as we’re concerned. So it’s one of those things. If you’re a “Classic Rock” thing in the States for example, they’ll only play anything up to the 70s; there’s no point in making records – they won’t play them. So yeah, it did irritate me quite a bit; I’m not fond of the title, although I’ve got over it now. [laughs] [laughs] Mostly anyway. Yeah, pretty much… So you’ve recently finished work on a new studio album. What can you tell us about that? Well not a lot. It’s being mixed as we speak. We’ve finished recording. It’s a new tone, it’s a new direction, it’s fresh stuff. I think it was all written and recorded in Nashville, and the reason we went there – not to make a country record, but because Bob Ezrin, our producer, lives in Nashville and so it made a lot of sense because he had all the studio facilities and back up and everything else. So it made it really easy. It was a great environment to record in and yeah, there’s a bit of diversity on the record. There’s some sort of… defining music is just so hard; it’s just really… it’s hard to define. If you think of a solo artist, you normally know them by their name; you don’t normally describe their kind of music, you just say, “It’s so-and-so or it’s so-and-so.” But with bands everyone feels an obligation to categorise then. I think when you’ve been around the block as many years as Purple has and a lot of other bands, you just listen to see what comes out. It’s not the same at all. So it’s kind of hard for me to describe it. I can’t compare it with any other album either, as far as I know. It will obviously find a niche somewhere when it comes out in April, so I’m looking forward to hearing it. [laughs] Yes, definitely. I’ve forgotten most of the songs already. [laughs] And will you be playing some of the new stuff on the tour? No. Christ, you can’t, can you? You play one song, it’s out on YouTube in five minutes, so you can’t do it. And that’s the whole bit that spoils it for everyone. But no we won’t. Anything… the new stuff we play every night is contained in the improvisation. The band is jamming; there is still a lot of jamming going on. Cool. So members have come and gone over the years and certainly, on the face of it, Deep Purple seems a happier band to be in now than it was in the past. How’s the creative process now? Are you finding other ways to create that… to get that creative frisson going? Absolutely. Oh believe me, there’s tons of frisson without any doubt. [laughs] You’ve never seen a more disparate bunch of characters in terms of political leanings, for example, and social attitude, let alone sporting affiliations. [laughs] So it keeps things lively then? Absolutely. Yeah, there’s always something going on. So as a band, and don’t take this the wrong way, but as a band you guys have always long had a reputation for enjoying a drink or two. I think we’d be naïve to suggest there wasn’t a bit of dope and some coke floating around in the 70s and what-not… You’d be totally wrong! But ask your question and I’ll answer it… How is it that Purple, at least while you’ve been in the band, has managed to avoid that whole addiction, celebrity rehab road? Well, you know, it’s not all like that and I can tell you with a completely straight face that I smoked my first joint when I was 38 years old! [laughs] That’s a surprise! And that was with some buddies because I really was intrigued to see what the effect was, and I thought it was great, to be honest. But it’s never been my cup of tea. We grew up as a pub band so our poison was beer, basically. We used to drink beer and whiskey. That’s a good thing because you wake up with a bad head, you don’t drink for a few days and so we grew up with learning to measure that fairly well. Yeah we enjoyed a drink, for sure. We were served a few too much without any doubt but I didn’t think it was really going to hurt us too badly or put us in rehab. And we watched it happening to a lot of friends and a lot of buddies but it never crept into us. That’s good. After playing some of these classic songs of Purple’s live for more than 40 years, how do you keep it fresh for both yourselves on stage and for your audiences? It’s a fantastic question and I’m going to give you an answer that Pavarotti gave me when I sang a couple of times with him. He said to me one day, “Look, I’ve seen you sing Smoke on the Water about six times now and every time it’s different.” He said, “It makes me so jealous; you drive me crazy. If I did that with Nessun Dorma they would crucify me because they expect exactly the same technical and emotional performance every time.” Well, you know, we’re on the road, you know? A lot of the fun is in the improvisation, so the songs are there, the words are there, the tunes… the words, I change the words occasionally whenever I feel like it. You know, then the idea of the solos and the groove. I mean sometimes it’s laid back, sometimes it’s driving and… yeah, it’s fresh every night. You know, I think it’s… how can you describe it, really? The audience is so involved in all of this but you’re inspired to stretch yourself. I always think of those songs as… like if a motorbike or a horse tethered up outside and you just want to hop on it and, you know, get out of the office or get out of the home and just ride and feel the wind in your hair, and go through the forest or down the road. And it’s the same old machine, it’s the same old horse but it’s still exciting, you know? Do you think that there’s any artists out there writing songs now that are going to be held in the same reverence and esteem in 40 years’ time, as Deep Purple’s repertoire is now? It’s going to be tricky, isn’t it, because I think even from the simplest points of observation and analysis, you’ve got to say we were lucky at the time that we came out because there was so little of it going on. Plus it was really a turning point in music; so many things were happening. Musically, The Beatles had started writing their own songs; we were never allowed to write our own songs in the early days of recording. And Jim Marshall came along and, you know, it was just one of those things that… everything seemed to happen at the same time. It had never happened before and it started to go international. It was an amazing thing and now it’s a different world. There is so much music and obviously there’s just as many, probably twice as many people with the same amount of talent but it’s not just that that counts, it’s the circumstances and… the ability to make a mark on people. Things are very transitory now, almost in every aspect of life. Disposability is built in and so it’s going to be tricky for anyone, and I think it would take a remarkable… I think probably a soloist; a solo performer. It’s very difficult for a group with a band to establish a long term repertoire… a long term allegiance. I think people are much more fickle now than they used to be. They used to be… you know, fans for life, so to speak, you know? I have this theory, too, that back in the 60s most of the people, not necessarily all but certainly most of the people who formed bands and wrote songs that are defined as classic now, they went to art school, they were educated whereas nowadays it seems to be the high school dropouts that start the bands. That’s one point, too. The other point is that there’s an air of nonchalance about. There was no commercial awareness or desire or ambition. I can tell you categorically, none of the bands I knew at the time had any skills in that direction. No one was media savvy in those days and the idea of improving your band was to steal the guitar player from the band down the road because, you know, he played the blues better, or the keyboard player because he had better equipment or he had a couple of Jimmy Smith’s records. [laughs] And the idea of this… basically it’s just get as much fun out of it as you could. We still don’t have any ambition; I find that hard to express and people find it hard to believe but we never did have any ambition in that sense, we just got… we just enjoyed the music. I think probably, that’s why we weren’t touched by a lot of the phases that people went through over the years, and we’ve remained as our manager likes to say, “under the radar”. [laughs] No matter what we do, we don’t get caught up in the sense of passion because we realise that, by definition, if you’re fashionable today you’re going to be out of fashion tomorrow. So we just stick to what we do and keep it fresh from the inspiration within the band and from the audience. We’re lucky people, very lucky. And still playing to 10,000 people a night, which is fantastic. Yeah, and they’re all kids. I mean obviously there are some people as old as me and they have seats for those in the… [laughs] around the edge of the wings you’ll see the more mature audience and then all the energised kids are down the front giving it hell. And that is a wonderful atmosphere, absolutely superb. How’s your charity going? The "WhoCares" charity… I see that they’ve started building in Armenia. (Gillan and Black Sabbath guitarist Tony Iommi run the "WhoCares" charity, working towards building a music school in Armenia after devastating earthquakes there) Fantastic. Yeah, I just got the new set of pictures. Their construction is underway, they’re stopping this week, I think, because it’s going to be a bad winter; they don’t work on construction over the dark winter months but they’ll commence again in March. I think for the opening ceremony, Tony and I have been booked for some time in September so we’re very excited about that. That’s great. And how’s Tony going, his… health wise? (Iommi has been fighting lymphoma for the past year or so) Yeah, I think he’s going well – touch wood – he’s on the mend or in remission or whatever they say. I heard he’s going back to work again so that’s a wonderful… he’s been through a really rough time. You know, it’s pretty rough, the treatment for these things and so I’m glad to hear he’s on the mend. Hey that’s great. Look, Sabbath are due to play here in May so we’re hoping everything goes well according to that and he soldiers on for many years to come. Yeah, absolutely. He’s a great bloke, Tony, I love him. Awesome. And are you planning on resuming your solo career after the next Purple album comes out? Well it never really stopped, I just do that on Deep Purple holidays. It’s like my idea of having a break! [laughs] So I’ve got about 30 or 40 songs at the moment, which have not been released and which are in various shapes and forms. So yeah for sure, when I get… I’ve got to spend some time with my family and then… yeah. I haven’t really got anything planned but for sure it’s going to happen, yeah. Oh that’s good. I saw you solo when you toured here. It must’ve been the early 90s I guess? [We’re interrupted by our operator again, telling us we are running over time] No problems Ian, I guess that’s for us to wrap up. Thank you very much for your time. It’s been great talking to you, thanks very much. You too mate, and we’re looking forward to seeing you March. We’re looking forward to it. Bye bye. Shane Pinnegar http://magazine.100percentrock.com 28/12/2012

Πολυ ωραιο οντως. Τι μπαντα κι αυτη... Καθε line-up (Marks I/IIa/III/IV/IIb/V/IIc/VI/VII/VIII) ειναι και μια μεγαλη ιστορια. Απιστευτη μπαντα με απιστευτη πορεια.

Φυσικα, αφου το Miniak ειναι ενα "repackaged" Alesis Micron. 8) Ο μετασχηματιστης που βλεπεις κοστιζει γυρω στα 19€, οποτε πληρωνεις μεταφορικα. Αλλα ακομα κι αν κοστιζε πανω απο 30 ευρω, παλι θα ειχε μεταφορικα, γιατι οπως βλεπεις στην σελιδα γραφει "Dispatched from and sold by Digidave", δηλαδη πωλειται απο αλλο καταστημα μεσω Amazon UK και οχι απο το ιδιο το Amazon UK. Τα προϊοντα που πουλαει το Amazon UK γραφουν "Dispatched from and sold by Amazon.co.uk" και οσα γραφουν διπλα στην τιμη "This item Delivered FREE in the UK with Super Saver Delivery" μπορουν να αποσταλουν στην Ελλαδα χωρις μεταφορικα, αρκει η αξια τους να ειναι πανω απο 25£ (περιπου 30€).

Αν ψαξεις στο ιντερνετ θα διαβασεις στα μισα φορουμ οτι οι SSD ειναι καλυτερα να δουλευουν σε AHCI και στα αλλα μισα οτι δεν... Υποτιθεται οτι οι SSD δουλευουν πιο γρηγορα σε AHCI. Ριξε ενα ματι στο παρακατω λινκ: "Why do i need AHCI with a SSD Drive" http://alturl.com/sjsj7

Ποσο το βρηκες στο Amazon UK? Οι περισσοτερες αγορες ανω των 30 ευρω στο Amazon UK δεν εχουν μεταφορικα.

Περασανε καλα φετος εκει στη NAMM... 8)

Δηλαδη, εκτος του οτι μοιαζεις στον John Wayne, εισαι και ασπρομαυρος? :P

Λιγο ακριβουτσικο το Mini... Το KingKorg νομιζω θα μπορουσαν να το εχουν και στο χιλιαρικο. Παντως ο ηχος και το design του ειναι φανταστικος.

Ωραιο setup Neeq. Και ωραια φωτο. Αν και προσωπικα σε φανταζομουν καπως διαφορετικο...

Return To Forever - Space Circus (live 1974)

Ωραιο το πειραγμα, μαπα το αποτελεσμα... :-X

Αστους εδω, καλα ειναι... :P

Βαγγελης Παπαθανασιου στο βιμπραφωνο, και στα δυο κομματια.

Ο δασκαλος και οι μαθητες του...