Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 67

Thread: Tony Banks and Drawbars

  1. #1
    Member Burble's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Portland, OR
    Posts
    8

    Tony Banks and Drawbars

    Warning - unabashed Hammond geek speak to follow.

    As a Hammond enthusiast, I just thought I'd share a bit of discovery, for those into drawbar settings and the like.

    I was watching an old Youtube vid of Fountain of Salamacis, and noted on a particularly clear view of the keyboard on the intro lick that Banks' setting is (something like) 084000000. No fundamental, and way more fifth than octave! One can suspect particular Hammond/Leslie combinations as particularly "bright" or "woody", and I'd always thought his setup sounded particularly "woody" (or maybe "reedy"), but when I dialed up the setting, there it was - the exact sound.

    So then, going back and playing around with his usual second harmonic percussion setting, it seems like a big part of his "woody" (or "reedy") sound is to use less than normal amounts of fundamental. For the typical Tony percussion sound, I find that 48633000 with the second harmonic on is about right. Playing around with settings of less (to no) fundamental seems to produce a lot of Banksy sounds.

    Does anyone else play around with this stuff? Any observations??

    BTW, if it makes any difference, I'm dealing with an L-100 with a Leslie 21H (with two-speed mod).
    Last edited by Burble; 01-28-2013 at 01:46 AM.

  2. #2
    Interesting, I should try this on my Nord Electro.

  3. #3
    Quote Originally Posted by Burble View Post
    Banks' setting is (something like) 084000000. No fundamental, and way more fifth than octave!
    Not exactly.

    The third drawbar (the first white one) is the fundamental (8').
    The first drawbar is a sub-fundamental (16') and is an octave below the fundamental.
    The second drawbar is the other sub-fundamental (5-1/3') and is a fifth above the fundamental.

    So, 88 8000 000 is the same as 00 8880 000, but sounds an octave lower.

  4. #4
    Highly Evolved Orangutan JKL2000's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Westchester, NY
    Posts
    13,743
    Quote Originally Posted by A. Scherze View Post
    Not exactly.

    The third drawbar (the first white one) is the fundamental (8').
    The first drawbar is a sub-fundamental (16') and is an octave below the fundamental.
    The second drawbar is the other sub-fundamental (5-1/3') and is a fifth above the fundamental.

    So, 88 8000 000 is the same as 00 8880 000, but sounds an octave lower.
    pwnd!

  5. #5
    Quote Originally Posted by JKL2000 View Post
    pwnd!
    Not my intent; just wanted to clarify.

  6. #6
    Quote Originally Posted by A. Scherze View Post
    Not exactly.

    The third drawbar (the first white one) is the fundamental (8').
    The first drawbar is a sub-fundamental (16') and is an octave below the fundamental.
    The second drawbar is the other sub-fundamental (5-1/3') and is a fifth above the fundamental.

    So, 88 8000 000 is the same as 00 8880 000, but sounds an octave lower.
    Is that splitting hairs though... the basic point, that the harmonic is louder than the fundamental (or one of its octaves) is valid. Even though I can probably be proven very wrong from a technical standpoint I tend to look at whether you want to consider 8' or 16' the fundamental as "but this goes to eleven" relativistic posturing I mean, doesn't a fundamental have to be the lowest tone by definition?

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamental_frequency

  7. #7
    Quote Originally Posted by trurl View Post
    Is that splitting hairs though... the basic point, that the harmonic is louder than the fundamental (or one of its octaves) is valid. Even though I can probably be proven very wrong from a technical standpoint I tend to look at whether you want to consider 8' or 16' the fundamental as "but this goes to eleven" relativistic posturing I mean, doesn't a fundamental have to be the lowest tone by definition?

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamental_frequency
    Well, when you are talking about only two hairs, it becomes more important.

    Anyhoo, look at it this way: you're saying that it's G1 C2, when it's really C1 G1. That may seem like a quibble, but there is a discernible difference.
    Do you hear C1 Db1 (min 2nd) the same as Db1 C2 (maj 7th)? No, even though they are related.

    Also: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subharmonic


  8. #8
    OK, that makes sense... certainly in organ stop terms. Maybe not for the rest of the world *lol*

  9. #9
    Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Simi Valley
    Posts
    0
    I love Tony Banks playing and hammond sounds and I love Progressive Ears for the geeks that analyze drawbar settings!

    Just recently learned about "888" in a previous thread, and programmed it into my Electro 3. Jammed with it at band rehearsal yesterday and it sounds awesome!!

  10. #10
    Quote Originally Posted by progsynth View Post
    I love Tony Banks playing and hammond sounds and I love Progressive Ears for the geeks that analyze drawbar settings!

    Just recently learned about "888" in a previous thread, and programmed it into my Electro 3. Jammed with it at band rehearsal yesterday and it sounds awesome!!
    Isn't that a standard setting, you get as soon as you switch on the organ? It is on my Electro 2.

  11. #11
    Yeah, almost any organ emulation will have it under some derivation of a "Jimmy Smith" sound To get the standard Kieth Emerson sound just make sure you have the C3 tremolo on and loud 3rd harmonic percussion! Oh, and jack the high end waaaaaay up.

  12. #12
    Member Burble's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Portland, OR
    Posts
    8
    Quote Originally Posted by A. Scherze View Post
    Not exactly. Etc.
    Wull - okay. It's interesting to me that they used that terminology because it seems like an organist would miss having a partial a fifth above the fundamental more than two sub-fundamentals.

    But in this instance I meant to point out that Banks used a heavy use of the - er - fifth below the fundamental (where fifth is the partial, not the interval) as the loudest element in the drawbar setting (or shall I say registration?), and that it makes for a peculiarly Banksian sort of sound.

    Are you an organist? Is it common to refer to anything below 8' as "sub-fundamental?". In my limited experience with pipe organs, the lowest - well - fundamental was always just referred to as the fundamental, irrespective of where you were setting the registration.

  13. #13
    Member Burble's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Portland, OR
    Posts
    8
    (Although, to be accurate, and with regard to A.'s original post, that's how the partial is being used in this instance, is as a sub-fundamental. So there, Burble.)

  14. #14
    Quote Originally Posted by Burble View Post
    Wull - okay. It's interesting to me that they used that terminology because it seems like an organist would miss having a partial a fifth above the fundamental more than two sub-fundamentals.

    But in this instance I meant to point out that Banks used a heavy use of the - er - fifth below the fundamental (where fifth is the partial, not the interval) as the loudest element in the drawbar setting (or shall I say registration?), and that it makes for a peculiarly Banksian sort of sound.

    Are you an organist? Is it common to refer to anything below 8' as "sub-fundamental?". In my limited experience with pipe organs, the lowest - well - fundamental was always just referred to as the fundamental, irrespective of where you were setting the registration.
    So I guess you're saying he used his Fifth of First

  15. #15
    Quote Originally Posted by Burble View Post
    Well - okay. It's interesting to me that they used that terminology because it seems like an organist would miss having a partial a fifth above the fundamental more than two sub-fundamentals.

    But in this instance I meant to point out that Banks used a heavy use of the - er - fifth below the fundamental (where fifth is the partial, not the interval) as the loudest element in the drawbar setting (or shall I say registration?), and that it makes for a peculiarly Banksian sort of sound.

    Are you an organist? Is it common to refer to anything below 8' as "sub-fundamental?". In my limited experience with pipe organs, the lowest - well - fundamental was always just referred to as the fundamental, irrespective of where you were setting the registration.

    Attachment 1039

    This image should clarify things. Only the first drawbar (16') is actually below the fundamental (8'). The second brown bar is 5-1/3' and so is a fifth above the fundamental. If you used the 4' (the second white/fifth drawbar) and the 2-2/3' (first black/sixth drawbar) or 00 0480 000 it would be the same as your 08 4000 000, but an octave higher. In either case, you are correct in that there is much more fifth than root.

    --

    I consider myself a Hammond player. I consider it a proto-additive synth, rather than an organ. My only experience with pipe organs is reading about them. However, I would think that since a pipe generates a complex waveform on its own, pipe organ registration is more akin to orchestral arrangement. For example, having a clarinet and oboe play the same line to create a certain color.

  16. #16
    Member Burble's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Portland, OR
    Posts
    8
    Ha! Cognitive dissonance!!!! Y'know, I could have told you that the second drawbar was an octave+5 above the first, and that the third drawbar was only an octave above the first, and yet, in my meager little mind, I always imagine the pitch of the second as below the third. I mean, when I was a kid and pulled the drawbars out one by one to see what was going on, I know the second was higher than the third, and yet when I move them around by handfulls now, I always imagine that the second drawbar represents a lower pitch. What a bonehead! (A fundamental error! )

    I'm so glad we had this little chat. Looks like the Scherze is on me.

    Well, let's just say that it was a great discovery for me that Banks' settings tend to be based on the second drawbar being the strongest, and it has been interesting and edifying (especially after this thread) to play around with.

    Quote Originally Posted by Prog Lives View Post
    So I guess you're saying he used his Fifth of First
    Either that or First of Fifth.
    Last edited by Burble; 01-29-2013 at 12:17 AM.

  17. #17
    Quote Originally Posted by Burble View Post
    Well, let's just say that it was a great discovery for me that Banks' settings tend to be based on the second drawbar being the strongest, and it has been interesting and edifying (especially after this thread) to play around with.

    Yes, that is interesting. And, a good question for him. Was it that he just liked that sound? Did his equipment emphasize the fundamental? Did it have to do with the tone of the other instruments (for example, Rutherford's bass pedals)?

  18. #18
    Quote Originally Posted by Burble View Post
    Ha! Cognitive dissonance!!!! Y'know, I could have told you that the second drawbar was an octave+5 above the first, and that the third drawbar was only an octave above the first, and yet, in my meager little mind, I always imagine the pitch of the second as below the third. I mean, when I was a kid and pulled the drawbars out one by one to see what was going on, I know the second was higher than the third, and yet when I move them around by handfulls now, I always imagine that the second drawbar represents a lower pitch. What a bonehead! (A fundamental error! )
    I guess that’s why they generally colour the second drawbar differently than the first and third?

    I was going to say, “maybe this would get more responses in the artist’s forum.” That was before people started responding.

    -------------
    MIKE (a.k.a. "Progbear")

    ‘“What blow, Goblin?” said Corinius.’ --E. R. Eddison

    N.P.:“Le soleil des plants d’huile”-Le Match/Légendes

  19. #19
    Quote Originally Posted by Burble View Post
    I was watching an old Youtube vid of Fountain of Salamacis, and noted on a particularly clear view of the keyboard on the intro lick that Banks' setting is (something like) 084000000.

    Which video was this?

    Most versions cut off the 1st two drawbars and one that shows them all is very blurry.

    It looks to me more like 60 2622 222.

  20. #20
    Interesting... whenever I make my own registration that sounds to my ear like Tony Banks it's always basically all white drawbars and 2nd percussion... all octave based. The 2nd drawbar is usually the only strong odd harmonic.

  21. #21

    Well, like I said, it's blurry and hard to make out. Those 2s could easily be 0s, in which case it's just the 16' and the 4'.


  22. #22
    Here are two from the Interweb. First is from the HammondWiki. (I just cut and pasted them - no edit.)

    Tony Banks (Genesis)
    33 6866 330, 2nd Percussion (approximation)

    Tony Banks (Genesis)
    66 8844 220, 2nd Percussion (approximation)

  23. #23
    Well, lo and behold, Burble is right! I had access to a Nord Stage tonight and I tried the 2nd drawbar dominant thing. I ended up with something like-

    08 6404 004 and percussion and there it was. I usually would have had the first drawbar out but this really had a TB feel.

  24. #24
    BTW didn't Tony use preset tabs on the L100? Does anyone know what they are? I guess I can google it...

  25. #25
    OK. In this video, at 24:00 ("Return of the Geant [sic] Hogweed"), there is a very clear shot of the drawbars.

    88 8886 400





Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •