Shrinking Keysynth Keyboards

[ronP]

.


Hi. Why, today, has the two-octave keyboard become an industry standard? I notice this has become true, not just with controllers, but with many small synths, too -- i.e. the KORG microX and NOVATION Xiosynth.

During the late 70's and early 80's, the 2 1/2 octave keyboard was the rule -- i.e. the ROLAND SH-09, SH-101; the MOOG Rogue, Prodigy.

There are 3- , 3 1/2- , and 4-octave keyboards, of course, as well as the "pro standard" 61-key keysynth. BUT, for the small devices, there has been this "lopping off" of the bottom end. For me, those extra few notes in the bottom half-octave are, pun intended, KEY -- and come in such handy for root notes, since F, F#, G and A are such go to scales.

Any theories or expert opinion on the subject of the shrinking keysynth keyboard? Curious . . .




.

[pricklyrobot]

Probably it's just another facet of the urge to miniaturize all technology, even to the point of impracticality.

'Hey I've got a new telephone so small that I had to hire a tiny Asian lady to press the buttons for me.'
----
'Have you seen how small the new iPod is? They say it's now suitable for rectal smuggling.'

'Kewl!!'

[MrFrodo]

I'm having trouble grasping that, also. I'm not remotely the greatest player, but I'm a traditionalist when it comes to keyboard playing. I have trouble relating even to a monosynth with only two octaves. (I'm most easily used to 37-note monosynths.)

I would like to witness how people manage to produce anything other than cool drum sequences with those short keyboard spans.

[WDW]

For controllers, it makes sense. Size. I used to log more than 100K miles per year on planes, and 2-octave controllers fit well in larger computer bags and were just the right size for resting on my lap on airline seats.

As for why these shorter keybeds found their way into actual synths, perhaps it is engineering-by-availability-and-price. The controller market, which was the first to use these smaller keybeds, was already tooled-up for producing large quantities. So, when the manufacturers were pricing building small synths, they may have found the established 2-octave keybed industry and saw that these small controllers were selling and that there was an economy of scale already in place.

Just a theory.

WD

[Automatic Gainsay]

I think the synthesizer industry may have spearheaded the "let's see how little they'll be satisfied with" philosophy that has become rampant in all industries these days.
I think the primary motivation for less keys was "well, you want to be able to afford our synth, don't you? You're just going to have to be satisfied with less keys. Besides, why do you need all of those keys when you have octave switching capability?" Of course whose who actually played their synths would say "because if you're doing a line that leaps octaves, you can't be switching the switch back and forth (well, you could, but it would be inconvenient)." But more people were just happy to have a smaller cheaper synth to play a line here and there for a price they could afford.
I think the entirety of synth history from 1970 on has been a process of synth manufacturers feeling out how little synth buyers would accept.

[Jack Spider]

Outside size/cost, it could be due to more and more people using shorter controller keyboards with sequencing/production software, where things can be transposed after having been played.

[killedaway]

i think WDW nailed it. today's electronic musician is likely a "bedroom producer" (*BARF*) without a lot of space for big instruments. heck, i'm always reading posts here from people looking for the "smallest and thinnest controller/synth", or pointing out that they'll have to pass on a given synth because it's too big for their living space. also, a lot of serious musicians (and many not-serious musicians) have too many keys as it is (myself included).

i'm happy with short keybeds, mini keys, or even buttons/pads: give me just enough to audition sounds and noodle out basslines and leads, and i'm happy. the last thing i need is another 49 or 61-key synth!

[cornutt]

Paul Schreiber has bemoaned the same trend among modulars. He says a lot of would-be customers are mainly interested in how small a module can be made, and that they'll pass on something just because it's a 2U or 3U module rather than 1U. I can kinda sorta understand the space concern in general, but I'm much rather have it take up more space than have all of the controls crammed together.

[steveman]

I'm with you, I keep looking at the Novation Controllers or the X-Station and wishing they had that extra 1/2 octave.

Thing is, if they moved the wheels above the keyboard they prolly could have that extra 1/2 octave with only a 1 - 1 1/2" increase in length. I could live with wheels above the keyboard for that.

Ideally of course you'd have a Kurzweil type pitch ribbon...

While thinking about this I noticed my DX7 and BassStation keys looked different widths. Just measured, the BassStation keys are in fact slightly wider, how odd.

[Z]

To me, these newer synths with smaller keyboards, are more geared towards non-traditional keyboard musicians and do not use both hands to play keys. Instead one to play keys and the other to tweak knobs.

For monosynths, I see no need for more than 3 octaves, since you're usually playing lead or bass and do not need a 5 oct. range.

I never had piano lessons, but grew up tinkering with a piano and finally getting a 61 key poly synth. I wish I had space for a 73 key controller like a Roland A-50, becase there's times I'm playing and need to go below that C. I've got a Waldorf XTk and find it difficult to play as a traditional polysynth with its 4 octave keyboard.

Z

[rockmanrock]

I splashed out on a controller recently due to space issues and went for a 3 octave Yamaha CBX-K1 (minikeys). Those 2 octave ones would drive me mad, I'm no great player but I get the impression they're aimed at people with minimal keyboard skills.

[rockmanrock]

I've got a Waldorf XTk and find it difficult to play as a traditional polysynth with its 4 octave keyboard.

That's what I thought when they released it, it's a bad compromise, too big to be easily portable yet missing the extra octave a synth that size usually has.

[ronP]

.


To wit . . . Richard Barbieri now uses his old 2 1/2 octave YAMAHA CS-01 monosynth on tour for lead lines.

That extra 1/2 octave really does make a difference when you are a keysynth player. For example, I like to play block chords -- organs or pads -- in the right hand with a 4th or 7th going on in the synth bass, which produces a rich, textured harmony. I can hold down a C major with the right hand and with the left go right to the low A or B on a 2 1/2 octave board, but not on a 2 octave. With the latter, I have to first switch an octave shift button -- not good -- when finesse and in-the-pocket timing are required during in a live jam recording or gig.

In the studio, I play the producer's microX with the right hand and use my microKorg for bass in the left, specifically to get those last few notes during a descending riff, for example. I am actually thinking of connecting the microX to a spare M-AUDIO Keystation 49e, whch is a shame, because I like the long throws of the microX -- just wish there were more of 'em!


.

[cornutt]

For monosynths, I see no need for more than 3 octaves, since you're usually playing lead or bass and do not need a 5 oct. range.

I'm not even sure about that. Consider Eddie Jobson's solo in "Rendezvous 6:02" -- it wouldn't be the same without those huge octave jumps.