Wiardgroup

konkuro <konkuro@aol.com> wrote:
>New instruments that are truly new are rare as hen's teeth. How many 
>new instruments have popped up in the symphony orchestra?

Restricting the question of new instruments to symphony orchestras is both unfairly-limiting (since most musicians do not play in symphony orchestras these days), and oxymoronic (since 99% of the repertoire of symphony orchestras was written 150+ years ago - so why would it require new instruments?).

>New instruments also tend to be novelties with limited musical 
>usefulness. 

What about the banjo, saxophone, vibraphone, and pedal steel guitar?  [Although sometimes I get the impression that John would never willingly listen to a piece of music employing any of those instruments ;^) ... or at least does so as infrequently as I listen to symphony orchestras.]  All are relatively recent (much moreso than the typical symphony orchestra repertoire), none can be considered "novelty" instruments (certainly they've been used for novelty songs, but so have grand pianos), and all have been extensively used (much more so than any symphonic instrument unless you count piano/organ) in 20th century American Music.  All are capable of creating incredibly expressive, emotive, artistic (well, ok, maybe not so much the banjo) music - just as a Theremin can in the hands of a skilled performer (an oboe is difficult to play, too, but that doesn't limit its usefulness *per se*, although that would explain why talented oboe-ists and thereminists are far more uncommon than skillfull pianists or guitarists), and all three have certainly given rise to great musicians considered to be masters of those instruments.

>If Buchlas were as common as Moogs, they would fetch far 
>lower prices today. 

A meaningless statement; if Moogs were as common as the Wurlitzer & Lowrey living room organs that people can't give away these days, they would fetch far lower prices, too.  But they aren't.

>But they weren't as common 
>as Moogs because they were limited to one kind of music and simply 
>would never sell like a Moog. 

That's pure supposition.  One could just as (or more) easily argue that Moogs are more common because Bob had the foresight to make a compact, portable & integrated version of his synthesizer that was useful to a far larger segment of the musician population (like, especially, the kinds of musicians who don't play in symphony orchestras) than the large & cumbersome modular versions.  Or that Bob, unlike Don, had an interest in actually *marketing* and promoting his instruments (hmmmm .... ).  In other words, reasons having nothing to do with the *kinds* of music one can use the instrument for.  (The claim that a Buchla, or any other modular synthesizer, is limited to making "one kind of music" is too ridiculous an argument to address; Chris said it better than I could, anyway.)

As for the question of "original designs" versus "golden oldies", some guitarists want a guitar that's an exact replica of a 1961 Stratocaster, some guitarists want a guitar with 7-strings, active humbuckers, MIDI output, shaped like an H.R. Giger drawing; both preferences are valid, and it's good that there's a market for both (and yes, in the hands of a skilled musician, the former can play Metallica just as well as the latter can play Chicago Blues).

    -Doug
     jasret@mindspring.com