Why is that? What was it about Fairlight's compositional software that led its composers in those directions -- with the choppy rhythms, the odd panning, etc.? Was it just that it was done on a step-sequencer? If not, which programs out there do Fairlight users find lead the composer in similar kinds of directions? Reason? Digital Performer? Others? Thanks...

After using Page R on my own CMI for a while, I've come to the conclusion that a lot of what makes a CMI sequence sound different really has more to do with the limitations of the machine than anything else.

Try this - load 8 Fairlight sounds into your sampler. Now do your programming using ONLY those 8 sounds and (this is important) make sure that the parts are monophonic. Page R could only handle 8 monophonic parts so the use of chords is often a dead giveaway that it wasn't done on a Fairlight (there are ways to get around this limitation but many people didn't do it).

Another hallmark of CMI sequences came from having to compensate for the crappy sampling capability of the unit. The same sounds would be played up and down the keyboard, using the resulting pitch shifts for weird effects. This is something that we don't do much of today. For example, I read once in the liner notes for Peter Gabriel's fourth album (Security) that the CMI sound PITZWANG was used in "Rhythm of the Heat". Well, when I finally got hold of that sound, I played it and it seemed to be a rather lame sample of a piano string being plucked. "Where the hell is he using that sound in RotH?" I wondered. Then I played it way down low on the keyboard and, lo and behold, it was the huge CHONNNNG sound used in the song (you have to hear the song to know what I mean).

My point is that, nowadays, if you had a "plucked piano string" sample, it would likely be multi-sampled up and down the keyboard to avoid any nasty pitch artifacts, and filtered to avoid any aliasing, and made to sound as nice and realistic as possible. Taking a crappy sample and pitching it WAY out of it's normal range doesn't occur to us most of the time, even though it's the oldest sampler trick in the book. With the Fairlight, you always had to do things like this to get the most out of the limited technology. It required a lot of creativity.

The third tip I would suggest is, do your 8 mono lines with constant velocity values. Page R could record velocities played from the music keyboard but, when notes were entered by the light pen, they went in at a fixed velocity (old drum-machine style), and I think that many programmers just left them that way. Songs done with the MCL sequencer could have suffered a similar fate. This tip may be an eye-opener if you haven't tried it. You'll be surprised how much this changes the feel of your track. :-)

Try these tips with some Fairlight samples (or any samples, for that matter) and I think you'll go a long way toward having a authentic sounding sequence. Remember the trick here is working within VERY restrictive limitations and being creative.

Hope that helps. :-)

Laurence

PS. I was describing the process on a CMI I or II. The Series III was quite different but I think lost some of the "character" in the process.

I also decided instead of using pattern modules to start programming drum beats by step a la Page R, which def. makes the odd breaks so many Fairlight composers used more intuitive. In addition, the way most sequencers are designed today, you can draw the panning and pitch shifting right below it, which from what I've read seems at least kind of similar to what you could do on the Fairlight.

And yes, I completely agree with you about the playing a sample up and down the keyboard -- sampling nowadays is used to accurately recreate a natural sound, but on the Fairlight there were limitations there, so you're right: people were literally forced to be creative in their use of them. And frankly -- there's a pretty good argument to be made that people were more creative then!

At any rate, thanks. In my dreams, I guess I'd have a Fairlight, so, I guess I'll just have to work at this for now!

-Matt
PS You're dead on about PITZWANG -- on the Digital Domain disc it's "Pwang" and, yup, that's it alright.

: I also decided instead of using pattern modules to start programming drum beats by step a la Page R, which def. makes the odd breaks so many Fairlight composers used more intuitive. In addition, the way most sequencers are designed today, you can draw the panning and pitch shifting right below it, which from what I've read seems at least kind of similar to what you could do on the Fairlight.

: And yes, I completely agree with you about the playing a sample up and down the keyboard -- sampling nowadays is used to accurately recreate a natural sound, but on the Fairlight there were limitations there, so you're right: people were literally forced to be creative in their use of them. And frankly -- there's a pretty good argument to be made that people were more creative then!

: At any rate, thanks. In my dreams, I guess I'd have a Fairlight, so, I guess I'll just have to work at this for now!

: -Matt
: PS You're dead on about PITZWANG -- on the Digital Domain disc it's "Pwang" and, yup, that's it alright.

Just FYI, there was no panning control on the Series I and II(x). None of the sequencers (Page R, 9, or MCL) had any pan recording or playback. On the back of the CMI was a mono mix out and eight individual outs. Remember that this wasn't like the individual outs on modern synths, though. They were hardwired to a "voice" each. Any panning tricks you hear on Fairlight sequences were therefore done at the mixing stage somehow. BTW, there was no voice-output assignment either. Voice 1 went to output 1, 2 to 2, and so on. All of them appeared at the mix out, of course.

Another thing you had a hard time doing was programming a tempo change. This could only be done by recording a tone onto a tape machine and then syncing the CMI up to it. By altering the pitch of the tone, the CMI would play faster or slower. This was called a conductor track and I wouldn't want to have to depend on this for tempo changes in my music today! LOL

I think you've got the right idea about step-entering some of the parts. This closely approximates the light-pen entry method on Page R and, well, it WAS the method with MCL. :-) You can also use the score editor or a matrix/drum grid type editor to enter notes for a similar effect.

To tell you the truth, though, I waited for years to get my Fairlight. And when I got it, after dreaming about owning one for so long, I was a bit underwhelmed. There are HUGE failings with this machine that people don't often talk about. I think a lot of owners would like to keep up the "mystique" of the CMI, maybe because they paid so much for it, and it leads to some pretty crazy hype. I read somewhere about the wonderful D/A or A/D converters that make "the best sounding sampler ever made".

That's a big ol' pile of horse dumplings. As 8-bit samplers go, the Emulator II kicks the CMI's ass, sound-wise. I've found that the Ensoniq Mirage can give you the best idea of what a Fairlight REALLY sounds like. Plus, the Mirage has a much better synth section. The awesome sound of the Fairlight you've heard all these years is really the result of some top-notch talent in top-notch studios. I have a IIx, an E-II, and a Mirage and I can tell you that the Mirage and IIx are VERY similar in a lot of ways. The very best synths of all time, IMO, are the Kurzweil K2x00 series. Get one of those and you can't lose. :-)

Don't get me wrong, I love my IIx and I can't imagine getting rid of it after wanting one for so long. But I know that's just sentiment talking. The only real contribution a Fairlight can make today would be to help you to do what you're already doing...Thinking of new ways to be creative. So who needs a Fairlight?

Laurence

: Just FYI, there was no panning control on the Series I and II(x). None of the sequencers (Page R, 9, or MCL) had any pan recording or playback. On the back of the CMI was a mono mix out and eight individual outs. Remember that this wasn't like the individual outs on modern synths, though. They were hardwired to a "voice" each. Any panning tricks you hear on Fairlight sequences were therefore done at the mixing stage somehow. BTW, there was no voice-output assignment either. Voice 1 went to output 1, 2 to 2, and so on. All of them appeared at the mix out, of course.

: Another thing you had a hard time doing was programming a tempo change. This could only be done by recording a tone onto a tape machine and then syncing the CMI up to it. By altering the pitch of the tone, the CMI would play faster or slower. This was called a conductor track and I wouldn't want to have to depend on this for tempo changes in my music today! LOL

: I think you've got the right idea about step-entering some of the parts. This closely approximates the light-pen entry method on Page R and, well, it WAS the method with MCL. :-) You can also use the score editor or a matrix/drum grid type editor to enter notes for a similar effect.

: To tell you the truth, though, I waited for years to get my Fairlight. And when I got it, after dreaming about owning one for so long, I was a bit underwhelmed. There are HUGE failings with this machine that people don't often talk about. I think a lot of owners would like to keep up the "mystique" of the CMI, maybe because they paid so much for it, and it leads to some pretty crazy hype. I read somewhere about the wonderful D/A or A/D converters that make "the best sounding sampler ever made".

:

: That's a big ol' pile of horse dumplings. As 8-bit samplers go, the Emulator II kicks the CMI's ass, sound-wise. I've found that the Ensoniq Mirage can give you the best idea of what a Fairlight REALLY sounds like. Plus, the Mirage has a much better synth section. The awesome sound of the Fairlight you've heard all these years is really the result of some top-notch talent in top-notch studios. I have a IIx, an E-II, and a Mirage and I can tell you that the Mirage and IIx are VERY similar in a lot of ways. The very best synths of all time, IMO, are the Kurzweil K2x00 series. Get one of those and you can't lose. :-)

: Don't get me wrong, I love my IIx and I can't imagine getting rid of it after wanting one for so long. But I know that's just sentiment talking. The only real contribution a Fairlight can make today would be to help you to do what you're already doing...Thinking of new ways to be creative. So who needs a Fairlight?

: Laurence

CMI IIX is OK, but ditch it for, (or augment it with), a Series 3 fully upgraded running the latest software, THEN youll see why people want a Fairlight!

(Sorry about the previous reply. Hit the button by accident. D'oh!)

: Just FYI, there was no panning control on the Series I and II(x). None of the sequencers (Page R, 9, or MCL) had any pan recording or playback. On the back of the CMI was a mono mix out and eight individual outs. Remember that this wasn't like the individual outs on modern synths, though. They were hardwired to a "voice" each. Any panning tricks you hear on Fairlight sequences were therefore done at the mixing stage somehow. BTW, there was no voice-output assignment either. Voice 1 went to output 1, 2 to 2, and so on. All of them appeared at the mix out, of course.

: Another thing you had a hard time doing was programming a tempo change. This could only be done by recording a tone onto a tape machine and then syncing the CMI up to it. By altering the pitch of the tone, the CMI would play faster or slower. This was called a conductor track and I wouldn't want to have to depend on this for tempo changes in my music today! LOL

: I think you've got the right idea about step-entering some of the parts. This closely approximates the light-pen entry method on Page R and, well, it WAS the method with MCL. :-) You can also use the score editor or a matrix/drum grid type editor to enter notes for a similar effect.

: To tell you the truth, though, I waited for years to get my Fairlight. And when I got it, after dreaming about owning one for so long, I was a bit underwhelmed. There are HUGE failings with this machine that people don't often talk about. I think a lot of owners would like to keep up the "mystique" of the CMI, maybe because they paid so much for it, and it leads to some pretty crazy hype. I read somewhere about the wonderful D/A or A/D converters that make "the best sounding sampler ever made".

:

: That's a big ol' pile of horse dumplings. As 8-bit samplers go, the Emulator II kicks the CMI's ass, sound-wise. I've found that the Ensoniq Mirage can give you the best idea of what a Fairlight REALLY sounds like. Plus, the Mirage has a much better synth section. The awesome sound of the Fairlight you've heard all these years is really the result of some top-notch talent in top-notch studios. I have a IIx, an E-II, and a Mirage and I can tell you that the Mirage and IIx are VERY similar in a lot of ways. The very best synths of all time, IMO, are the Kurzweil K2x00 series. Get one of those and you can't lose. :-)

: Don't get me wrong, I love my IIx and I can't imagine getting rid of it after wanting one for so long. But I know that's just sentiment talking. The only real contribution a Fairlight can make today would be to help you to do what you're already doing...Thinking of new ways to be creative. So who needs a Fairlight?

: Laurence