When Joe Meek recorded the 1962 hit, “Telstar” with his band The Tornados, he used the distorted tape recording of a toilet flushing in his house to recreate what he believed to be the sound of outer space, which was then used in the intro of the song. The rest of the song was played on a Clavioline, the electronic cousin of the piano. Who knows what a paranoid genius like Joe Meek would have done had he lived just a few more years to experience the instrument that would basically change the world of sound as we know it.
Helping iCrates tell the story of the synthesizer is none other than Roger O’Donnell of The Cure, who not only used, but had a hand in designing one of the most iconic synthesizers around.
The historic arc of the piano is a little more linear than the synthesizer. In the past, a microphone would have been duct-taped into a piano and plugged into a guitar amp producing the sound that eventually led to the Wurlitzer (Belle and Sebastian: “Boy With the Arab Strap”), Clavioline (Tornados: “Telstar”), or the more experimental Mellotron (Beatles: “Strawberry Fields Forever”) which stored eight second loops of tape of varying sounds and saved bands from packing a string or wind section on to a tour bus.
However, these instruments owe their origin to the piano, which in turn traces its own origins back to pipe organs and harpsichords. Although in pop music they were forerunners to later synthesizers, the synthesizer owes its origin to something else: the desire to create sounds that had never before been possible with a musical instrument. It is the wolf in sheep’s clothing, a science experiment dressed as an instrument, and music has never been the same since.
There are a many different incarnations of the modern synthesizer. Avant-garde American composers experimented with the early Moog synthesizer in the late 1960′s, as did Wendy Carlos in “Switched on Bach” in ‘68. Later, Giorgio Moroder produced a game changing duo synth track with Donna Summer’s 1977 disco anthem, “I Feel Love” which critics say influenced Daft Punk’s 90’s repetitive-synth house classic “Da Funk” (although Daft Punk maintain the song’s origins are more Warren G-era hip hop).
Donna Summer – “I Feel Love”
But, remember, synthesizers are more scientific than musical. The earliest synths required radiophonic experts in white coats pulling wires out of oversized switchboards, and toying with multiple oscillators, filters, amplifiers and voltage controls. It wasn’t until a man named Robert Moog came along that the world saw its first commercially viable compact synthesizer that was small enough to be taken home or on the road. That was 1964. The instrument wouldn’t change again until the late seventies when polyphonic synthesizers became more widely available. Before that, synthesizers were still mostly monophonic, which meant they were incapable of chords, a drawback which created all kinds of complications in recording studios since it took three passes to make a simple chord. While this transformation was happening, a man named Dave Smith was pioneering a technology of his own that would transcend the instrument itself, replacing those radiophonic experts in the white coats and patchcords with a language, or “musical instrument digital interface”, otherwise known as MIDI. What MIDI essentially did was enable instruments to talk to not only other instruments but to computers too. That this would then lead to a digital synthesizer was inevitable. What Smith probably did not foresee was the impact this tiny processor would have on the entire recording industry.
Now it’s one thing to stand on the sidelines and witness all of this happening as a fan, historian, or disgruntled radiophonic engineer. It’s an entirely different thing to be making music in one of the most influential groups in modern music during the glory days of the instrument while simultaneously contributing to the evolution of the instrument itself. But that’s exactly what The Cure’s Roger O’Donnell did, and continues to do today.
It seems like MIDI changed the world. Was this technology inevitable? Or is its value and contribution still understated?
Roger O’Donnell: MIDI did change the world of keyboards; I actually owned the first keyboard sold with MIDI, a Prophet 600. We had no idea at the time what an impact it would have but as you say it was inevitable that somebody would come up with a way for one synth to talk to another. What is surprising is that it’s never been updated to a faster protocol.
How would a faster protocol change things?
There are situations when you get MIDI log jam, when too much information is trying to be squeezed down the quite narrow pipe. There are also very obvious problems with MIDI lag that for the most part seem to have been cured lately with better hardware. If you were to talk to Dave Smith he could tell you a bunch of things he would have done differently and would like to change now. He’s the guy who owned Sequential Circuits and basically invented MIDI… When you think that MIDI was implemented in the early eighties and hasn’t fundamentally changed since there have been huge advances in those kind of areas.
So what was the real difference between The Prophet 5 and the Prophet 600?
The Prophet 5 was around a few years before MIDI as were a few other poly synths. Dave developed MIDI with a few other guys in the industry at Roland and Korg I think. The first Prophet with MIDI was the 600 which was in fact the first synth made with MIDI. The Prophet 5 did have a micro processor in it which allowed it to store “patches” which at the time was quite revolutionary. It also cost the same as an apartment in London! The Prophet 5 was ground breaking because although it wasn’t the first poly it was the first poly you could really programme yourself and that had a user memory where you could store your own patches. The other polys at the time were more like organs with presets.
Moog believed analog is the domain of the spiritual world which is why he preferred the analog synthesizer to the digital. What do you think?
It is an interesting debate about analog versus digital and my answer is probably going to be a bit long winded. I’m trying to think of a good analogy but it’s a little difficult. The sound of any synth is obviously heard through a speaker which involves moving air, with an analog synth the chain from source to speaker is pure and actual. There are no approximations and it is a very pure sound. A digital synth could just as easily be a word processor, it just processes information that’s programmed into it. An analog synth has a personality, each one different. I feel a very distinct and unique connection to my synthesizers.
Are there sounds that can’t be achieved with synthesizer, or has it got them all covered?
Fundamentally yes any sound can be synthesised, it’s the complexity and movement within a sound that makes it difficult. I’m pretty confident I could get close to any sound you were looking for.
What’s the best synth that’s easiest on the pocketbook and what’s the best synth hands down?
I’m a huge fan of Moog and for an entry level synth you can’t beat the LP which I even had a hand in the development of. I love my Voyagers but if money were no object I would suggest a Buchla 200e modular. Best synth? I would have to stick with the Voyager; a truly beautiful and ultimately musical electronic instrument.
Wait, can you go back to the part about having a hand in the development of the Moog LP (Little Phatty).
They asked me about some very basic design ideas they had and a direction they wanted to go with it initially. I had very strong opinions, I tend to… They listened which I think was the right decision. It was originally visioned by Bob as a very stripped down entry level instrument but still maintaining the pure analog sound source. However without MIDI and presets I thought it would lose a whole area of the market of people who aren’t necessarily players or programmers. I was very flattered to be asked my opinion and I continue to work with them on future projects which I am super excited about.
Does that mean that they were going to do the instrument without the interface?
Bob’s vision for the LP (I refuse to call it by its stupid name – they didn’t listen to me about that haha) was a simple synth with no MIDI and no on board processor so no way to store memories or anything. I pointed out that a lot of “musicians” these days making synth-based music don’t actually play as such and it would severely limit the market. Also without memories it becomes very difficult to use on stage. Luckily they listened!
It must be great to have a fingerprint in such an influential instrument like that.
It is hugely rewarding to have an ear at a company that I can’t tell you how much I respect. That they come to me and listen to me is, well, overwhelming really.
And what do you see for the future of synths?
The future of synths… You know all I do is play them and talk to people about what I would like and they go away and come back with insane possibilities! Whenever I have conversations with my friend Cyril Lance at Moog he blows me away and we have this great dialogue about what he can do and what I want. He always expands my horizons and imagination. I have been quite interested in different playing interfaces, going away from keyboards but in the end it always comes back. The Mini Moog really just set the standard and layout back in 1970. I’m not sure how it could be bettered.
Roger O’Donnell lives in London where he continues to compose music.
Illustration by Jacopo Severitano.
Photographs provided by Roger O’Donnell.
