Nord User Forum

so here's what I gather from reading all these posts... (master of the obvious post coming here...)

some people like to play the nord for the 'gambold three'. some people like to add wurly and clav to that (the modified G3).. some people like to play everything the nord has to offer... some people say Hell No to a request to play an accordian in a song, some people are like "sure, I'll try that". I'm having a hard time why anyone would make a big deal out of any of this? I get that Gambold can sometimes touch a nerve with his approach, but sometimes I think the responses to him are a little blown out of proportion as well. I also think that Gambold making a hard stance of 'this is all I'll play' is also a bit unyielding. We're talking about music made by nerdy musicians who sometimes forget that our audience doesn't give a second thought about which Grand piano we're using, and probably wouldn't know a rhodes from a wurly if they were dropped on their heads.

I love being a Nord Nerd. I love the fact that in a one-off wedding band, the bandleader put Wouldn't It Be Nice by the beach boys on the list, and I was able to set up a program of Harp for the intro and a piano/accordian split for the meat of the song. I also love the fact that for gigs that call for the "G3", I have tons of options to sound as authentic as possible from a long red rectangle. I love that when the Marimba sample came out, I immediately downloaded it and learned how to play an old Paul Simon song (I can't run) just because I could. ....And I love this forum. It's an amazing place for inspiration and just talking nerdy nord shop.

Sorry...late to the thread.

Lot's of acoustic pianos (new & updates), new marimbas and new EPs with better EQ over the years which is all good. The Clav needs help. I think it needs more dynamic range to it and a better release sound. More Clav!!!! Stevie demands it.

Speaking of Stevie, I think hicareer would have gone further if he would have just stuck with the Harmonica.

Piano players and keybord players may be the definition ??

Dang, looking for a name and Gambold 3 taken......Howz about Count the Tossers?

>implicitely calling people playing anything else idiots <

That's very much NOT what I did. I may push some buttons here, fairly or not, but I never attack people personally, nor do I call anyone names. I would never tell someone they were an idiot for playing a sample. That's your language - it's sure not mine.

Reading all the comments above, I really didn't see an insult from Gambold. The opposite, I see a person that protects his right to decide what his role in a band is and not let the others tell him what to play and what not. And he suggests that every musician that takes seriously his job should insist on it, nothing bad with it. It just happens that pianos, EP's and organ are the instruments that HE finds more expressive for the music style HE plays. Everyone has the right to express himself as an artitst with the means of his choice, weather it is piano or synth noises or thai gong samples...everything is music after all!

alex78 wrote:Reading all the comments above, I really didn't see an insult from Gambold. The opposite, I see a person that protects his right to decide what his role in a band is and not let the others tell him what to play and what not. And he suggests that every musician that takes seriously his job should insist on it, nothing bad with it. It just happens that pianos, EP's and organ are the instruments that HE finds more expressive for the music style HE plays. Everyone has the right to express himself as an artitst with the means of his choice, weather it is piano or synth noises or thai gong samples...everything is music after all!

The backlash comes from him stating that a serious keyboardist should only insist on playing 3 sounds, as if it isn't actually the musicality of the player that matters, just the sounds they choose to express themselves with. This is just plain silly. Ultimately it's probably a question of wording more than anything else.

The backlash comes from him stating that a serious keyboardist should only insist on playing 3 sounds, as if it isn't actually the musicality of the player that matters, just the sounds they choose to express themselves with. This is just plain silly. Ultimately it's probably a question of wording more than anything else.

This was an intriguing statement indeed, maybe he should have used other words. However, I believe his intention was not to insult musicians of other styles rather than "push" them to become better players, but with his own criteria about defining a good player. From that point of view his way may be provocative but his intentions were not bad. Anyway, this place is not a court, we are not here to judge other users, so each one keeps what finds usefull from this discussion and discard the rest.

alex78 wrote:It just happens that pianos, EP's and organ are the instruments that HE finds more expressive for the music style HE plays. Everyone has the right to express himself as an artitst with the means of his choice, weather it is piano or synth noises or thai gong samples...everything is music after all!

Agree with that!

Now, compare and contrast with the actual words written:

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

Gambold wrote:>implicitely calling people playing anything else idiots <

That's very much NOT what I did. I may push some buttons here, fairly or not, but I never attack people personally, nor do I call anyone names. I would never tell someone they were an idiot for playing a sample. That's your language - it's sure not mine.

Maybe "idiot" was too strong of a word. I take that back and apologise, if that was offensive. The main point remains though. You probably pissed some people off implicitly saying they are not serious keyboardists.