But like the TR808, it was discovered again by the impoverished pioneers of the emerging 'dance' music market. Like the TR808, the 909 was relegated to the classifieds and second-hand shops across the world. Once again, although brimming with innovation, the 909 lost out to another American manufacturer and the 909 did not become the success Roland presumably anticipated. And whilst the 909 was less expensive than the LinnDrum, the Emu Drumulator had also just hit the streets for about the same price as the 909. The method was loved by many but compared with the new 'real-time' input method used on the LinnDrum where you just hit the pads and actually 'played' the sounds, it seemed a bit awkward and old fashioned. The TR909 also retained the TR808's programming method which involved first selecting a sound and then placing the beats where you want them using the 16 buttons across the bottom of the unit. Unfortunately as well, the 909's sampled drum sounds weren't actually that good, especially compared with the LinnDrum which, at the time, was as near to perfection as I could expect. It is said that Roland stuck with this because they felt that samples were too 'static' and that users needed control over the sound's component parameters to tailor the sound to their requirements, especially a sound as important as the snare drum. it had sampled sounds but its snare drum was still generated using analogue circuitry. Roland retaliated in 1983 with their TR909. Then, of course, came the LinnDrum with its sampled sounds that completely knocked the innovative TR808 off the map. Roland's TR808 set a new standard when it came to programmable drum machines but was let down (in its time) by its analogue generated sounds. i did a bit of research, and found other people backing it up too. recently i was talking about gear with a group of people, and i think it was actually dan lui who said that the kick and toms were sampled. Until recently, i was under that impression as well.
0 kommentar(er)
