Nord User Forum

daniel70 wrote:

Gambold wrote:
Their Wurlitzer continues to be awful but then so is the Wurli on the Korg SV-2, which has awesome Rhodes sounds. I'm not sure anyone has a good Wurli.

That‘s interesting - i myself find the Wurly 2 sample from Nord absolutely stellar. I used it very often on stage and it was always a great experience. But for me, every single Rhodes sample from Nord is lacking in a certain way.

That's also interesting. I love some of the Nord Rhodes (MkV is the one I always come back to), can't stand the Nord Wurli, but really like the Wurli in my Korg SV1. I guess it's always subjective (but I'm right )

Gambold wrote:As for samples - whatever. If you are the fun machine in your band, then I guess you need zithers and female choruses and what-not, but as a serious keyboardist you should insist on playing only the big three - acoustic, Rhodes, and Hammond.

Not even clavinet is a serious instrument for this guy I guess... lol
I think a lot of serious keyboard players would disagree with you.

Perhaps Gambold is right. This can't can't be considered a serious musician, or even a good keyboard player, frankly

.

ugh...Stevie. what a hack. Needed two different clav tracks on the studio version of Superstition. If he was Really that good, he could've played them both at the same time.

seriously tho... I for one Love the more recent Nord Wurly, whichever one it is (amped maybe?) Use the small amp sim.. eq it to your liking (a bit of mids really shine with this sample), add a tad of tremolo and Viola! It can get a tad too bright if you hit hard so I keep it at the lowest velocity setting. I keep two programs of wurly side by side.. one like I described and one with a lot of grit and wah, which may be my favorite program on my entire Nord.

afroskully wrote:add a tad of tremolo and Viola!

You add a string sample? You sure you're a serious keyboardist? (just messin). I'm also gonna be messin with those settings you suggested, cheers.

Wow. You really had something to say about this.

Gambold wrote:but as a serious keyboardist you should insist on playing only the big three - acoustic, Rhodes, and Hammond.

Although this is a very ballzy and quite pointless statement I can sort of understand:
If you added at least Wurly and Clavinet * to this, there would definitely be a point. I can certainly respect keyboard wizards who make the most they can with only these classic electro mechanical and acoustic instruments. Sort of like composing for a strings ensemble instead of turning on a synthesizer/computer.

*there might be some others

Elias wrote:Sort of like composing for a strings ensemble instead of turning on a synthesizer/computer.

Well, if you're going to be a serious composer, you should insist.

JayDee wrote:Perhaps Gambold is right. This can't can't be considered a serious musician, or even a good keyboard player, frankly

So lame.

On "Songs in the Key of Life", he's so desperately incapable that he has to resort to playing synthesizers — multiple tracks even! — on many of the songs.

No wonder the album flopped and is generally regarded as the low point of his career as a serious musician.

analogika wrote: On "Songs in the Key of Life", he's so desperately incapable that he has to resort to playing synthesizers — multiple tracks even! — on many of the songs.

No wonder the album flopped and is generally regarded as the low point of his career as a serious musician.

No, Wonder