Was Mike Love the first pop star to play a synth on stage?

[Robbie Mac]

If he played it onstage, my guess for the first live synth player would be Max Crook, who was Del Shannon's keyboard player.

http://www.delshannon.com/maxmusitron.htm

[Jon Stebbins]

Kokomaoists are really grasping for the straws if this would be their genuine opinion!

I don't understand. Can you document a band that had someone playing synth on stage before Mike?

Sure...there are plenty. What Mike played wasn't really a synth, but we can call it a neo-synth or hybrid synth. Probably the best known case of a neo-synth in rock that pre-dates Mike by many years is Del Shannon's keyboard player  Max Crook who built a hybrid synth called a musitron and played it on a bunch of Del's tracks including the giant hit "Runaway" in 1961...and he also played it live on stage at Del's concerts starting in 1959.
http://www.delshannon.com/maxmusitron.htm

There's also the obvious synth-esque clavioline sound on the hit Telstar by the Tornados in 1962.

Andy beat me by minutes...

[guitarfool2002]

This is a tough question to answer, mostly because it gets into issues of semantics, definitions, and some ongoing debates about who claims the "first" title for using the Moog, and then it gets into what genre, what style, was it rock, was it mainstream...all that stuff.

To answer the original thread question, I would say "yes", Mike Love playing the Moog ribbon controller on stage in October 1966 in Michigan was the first "pop star" to play an instrument like that on stage.

But was it really a synthesizer? As I researched more of this, I'd prepare those who might claim this by saying there are some who claim the ribbon controller as played by Mike is *not* a full-blown synthesizer. Rather, it's basically the Moog "ribbon controller"...key word 'controller'...being used to pitch the tones being generated by a form of an oscillator, or whatever specific circuitry Moog had the controller actually controlling.

On some early Moogs and Moog designs, Bob Moog did have the ribbon controller as an option, sitting atop the keyboard itself. But to separate that one element and create a fully portable, stage-ready playable instrument out of it...I'd argue had it not been for the Beach Boys paying a visit to Walter Seer asking to buy a Theremin to play Good Vibrations, and discovering no one in the band could manage to play the damned thing, it would not have happened the way it did.

Is that "synthesis"? Or is it a version of taking what amounts to a wave and manipulating it with a slide controller? I used to mess around with radios, and I had this one older SSB (single side band) transceiver which I could turn some knobs and get a steady tone - it was a flaw but a neat one. The electronic reasons for that aren't necessary, but it could generate this tone which happened to start in the range of Mike's part on the live Good Vibrations. Then, I'd take one of the fine-tuning knobs (on this one I believe it was labeled 'clarifier' as on the older CB radios), and I'd be able to "play" Good Vibrations on the thing! I thought...wow, that's simple stuff, it's just turning the knob and the pitch of that tone that the radio was generating would be controllable.

So was my SSB radio/transceiver technically a synthesizer, or was I just controlling that tone or that wave which the radio's flaw was creating? I was playing Good Vibrations on the thing, but it wasn't a synth.

And that's just one pitfall I've come across in the research. Do *I* think Mike was playing a synth on stage in 1966? *Yes*. But others especially those with a technical bent might put a big asterisk next to it.


And an even stickier situation is trying to suss out who was the first rock/pop act to use a Moog synth in general.

Let's define strictly - electronic music prior to Moog was NOT the same thing, as Moog invented the synthesizer as we know it, and as used in music. His first commercial models were around 1964, again those models which defined the modern synthesizer. So there are recordings from the 50's of RCA and other engineers "composing" with various electronic pulses and bleeps and blips, but they are not synthesizers if we define Moog as the inventor.

Point 1...whew...

The original Moogs, well up into the early 70's, were NOT designed for live and touring use. They were to be set up and installed in studios, for recordings and sound effects. To simply set up Moog's early modular synths could take several hours just to generate specific tones, and even then they had a tendency to "drift" out of tune, which would require more manipulation and adjustments. So they were not stable, they were not consistent, and they were definitely not road-worthy. In 1968, you could not pack up the Moog and take it on a 15-city tour with this kind of inconsistency, or knowing it would go out of tune during a key moment on stage with your group. Plus, they were very expensive.

Some say one of the first rock musicians they actually saw playing a "mobile" synth was Edgar Winter, when he'd strap on his primitive version of the the key-tar to play his songs like "Frankenstein" in the early 70's. The other artists were still toting around versions of Moog's modular units, which were stationary on stage, definitely not "portable" in the operational sense.


#2 Who actually did play the first Moog on a pop record? For one, no rock-pop artists really had one until Monterey Pop (June 1967), when Paul Beaver and Bernie Krause set up their own Moog unit to demo the thing for all these rock musicians after trying and mostly failing to "sell" their services and sounds to the LA studios. This is where Micky Dolenz first saw a synthesizer, and it really caught his attention. He did, through Paul Beaver who had become the de facto Moog sales rep in Hollywood, eventually buy the third Moog modular unit ever built, while Wendy Carlos bought #1 and Buck Owens bought #2.

This Moog turned up on "Daily Nightly", by the Monkees, and that specific part was recorded sometime in August 1967. Beaver himself added his Moog to "Star Collector" sometime in October '67, on the same album.

Now the fun debates...

The Doors...Strange Days...recorded in the summer of '67 also features a Moog. It was Paul Beaver's own Moog, the one he and Krause were schlepping around Hollywood and the one they had at Monterey. They used it on Jim's voice on the title track, where they'd trigger the synth with Morrison's voice, and also Beaver played some parts on Horse Latitudes. Also, in mixing, Jim himself apparently sat at the board and "played" the sounds by manipulating the faders up and down where he saw fit.

Quincy Jones claims first Moog use on a soundtrack with his "Ironsides" theme music. But was this technically a pop record by a pop or rock act? I'd say no. But you'll find some crediting Quincy with his Ironsides soundtrack as 'first'.

How about "Reflections" by Diana Ross and the Supremes? Released summer of 1967...some claim *this* was the first Moog. Again, I don't buy this claim 100%. We know who bought the first three Moog modulars, Motown claims to have bought one of the first dozen or so...but the dates don't line up. Nor do the dates/places. And the biggest bust of this claim comes from the idea that one of the Funk Brothers had been messing around with an oscillator...keep that in mind with Mike's ribbon controller...and that's what we hear on "Reflections", not a full-blown Moog.

So who gets credit as the "first" pop act to actually play it on a rock/pop record? I have to say it's a tie between the Doors and Monkees. You could argue the Doors get the prize, but Paul Beaver played his Moog on the track, not a member of the Doors. Morrison may have jiggered with the faders as an afterthought, but Beaver played it, not a band member.

Yet in August 1967, Micky played his own Moog modular, bought through Paul Beaver, on his band's recording of Daily Nightly. So I'd give that prize again to Micky Dolenz as the first, within those parameters.

And I'd surely, hands down, without doubt give Micky the award for making possible the first time millions of kids and teenagers had ever seen anything like the Moog when he mimed to the track "Daily Nightly" on the Monkees television show. For that video, Dolenz is seated on the floor "playing" his Moog while the other band members are gathered around him. And there are great closeups of all the dials, patch cables, and knobs on what must have looked like a keyboard from NASA or something, in 1968 to all the kids watching.

Kudos to Micky, once again!

Walter/Wendy Carlos, of course, pioneered the thing, even working with Moog to make design and performance suggestions on his creation. Carlos got Moog #1 (commercially available Moog #1, that is...), but was Carlos a "pop" act? I'd say no. And neither were the legions of professors and experimental composers who would stage an event where they'd have a series of bleeps and blips orchestrated into a form of musique concrete. That falls outside the definition of popular music and what defines a pop act.

So did Mike Love play the first synth? Well, he played a controller which manipulated a sound wave into definable pitches that could be intonated into specific tuned musical notes.

If you believe Mike was playing a synth as he played Bob Moog's "ribbon controller" in October 1966, then he was the first.

If you believe he was playing a version of an oscillator and tone generator rather than a full-blown synth as we'd define those played by Beaver/Krause, Dolenz, Carlos, etc., then be prepared to add that pesky asterisk to the claim.

 

[Cam Mott]

There we go and it is a major artist to boot.

[guitarfool2002]

As brilliant and as cool as it is (one of the best keyboard sounds EVER!) Max Crook's "Musitron" wasn't technically a full-blown synthesizer, basically it was a Clavioline that Max modified and hot-rodded using various circuits and parts including TV and radio tubes. But at it's heart, it was a Clavioline chassis, and some suggest it was Joe Meek's inspiration to get a Clavioline on his production of Telstar.

Again, it gets into what defines a synthesizer. If we accept Moog was the inventor of the modern synth, all of the other pre-Moog instruments like the Clavioline, the Trautonium, the Theremin, Max Crook's Musitron, etc are not full-blown synths as Bob Moog's designs would define that term for musical instruments. The sounds are similar, but it's the way the sounds are generated, created, and manipulated which set the Moog designs apart from something like a Clavioline.

[Cam Mott]

OK, there we go now.

So was Lothar etc. touring with a synth from sometime in 1965 to October 1966? Was "Lothar" a synth?

[guitarfool2002]

After all of that... ...I want to add two quick points left off my original mega-post up there.

First, on this board we have someone who knows the Moog inside and out, and who is one of a small group who actually attended and participated in Paul Beaver's synthesis workshops in the 1960's, and that is Stephen Desper. I'm just a musician who gathers and collects random facts and information as a hobby...Stephen was actually there and knows and used this technology when it was all new and exciting, and he knows it with an engineer's perspective and experience. Plus, he had direct contact and hands-on experience with Paul Beaver himself, which looking back on LA's music scene in the 60's and synthesizer technology would be equivalent to perhaps attending a composition workshop with Bach a few hundred years ago.

If anything I've suggested or posted needs to be amended or corrected, I hope he can add to the discussion! There is no better authority on the Moog on this board.

Next, I think Moog's breakthrough and what sets him apart from something like the Clavioline or Max Crook's Musitron was his use of the transistor. Max and the Clavioline were still using vacuum tube technology, as the transistor was not as fully integrated and on the scene as it would be in a few years when Moog introduced his modulars. The transistor allowed Moog's designs to go further, and in smaller platforms and designs than would be available with tubes, as well as running without the heat generated by tube-based equipment. And with the tuning and other operational issues, remember too that transistor technology throughout the 60's was still being perfected and "fixed", which led to some designs being less than consistent or optimal...I'm thinking of that Fender/CBS line of "Solid State" amps in the later 60's which eliminated tubes and basically didn't sound that good, nor did they perform that well for musicians. Those solid state Fenders could be called the Edsel of amps...

[guitarfool2002]

OK, there we go now.

So was Lothar etc. touring with a synth from sometime in 1965 to October 1966? Was "Lothar" a synth?

The band was formed in '65 but there was no way they'd be touring with a synth - using the definition of synth as we know it - until Moog made the "Modular" synth available commercially. And as the first three were not sold until the summer of 1967, there is no way Lothar could have played or toured with one on stage, as it didn't exist. Remember, Micky Dolenz played the first synth part in the studio on a pop record in August 1967, and Paul Beaver played his own Moog modular (which was not one of the commercially available ones as Carlos-Buck Owens-Dolenz bought those first three) on the Doors record that same summer.

If Lothar played anything synth-like, it was a Theremin or an oscillator/controller like the Tannerin or similar variations. The Moog modulars even in 1967 were simply not designed for much more than controlled studio use *at that time*. And in late 1967, if you had a few thousand dollars to spend, the only available synth was the Moog modular.

Lothar's first major album didn't come out until 1968, when they formed in 65 and into 66 I have seen nothing to suggest they were more than a standard folk-rock-jangle-garage type combo. So even if they had something akin to the ribbon controller or Theremin, they were an unsigned act unknown nationally, so definitely not "pop stars" as the original question was asked.

[leggo of my ego]

A ribbon controller is little more than a theremin with a physical device to operate it (vs. aerial operation
by interrupting the proximity fields of a true theremin.

You can control TWO things on a theremin - Amplitude and Frequency so you could say that device has a VCA and VCO

The basic building "blocks" of Moog's synthesizers are VCA, VCO & VCF (voltage controlled amplifier, oscilliator & filter. But you can also add LFO and Modulation to the circuit path also, and so you have many more options for voicing, a myriad of sounds with a true synth. (almost forgot...+ Envelope Generator: Attack, Delay, Sustain Release)

These two instruments are not the same. So the question should be was Michael the first major rock personality to play a theremin live on stage. Because that is what he played, it was not a synthesizer.


BTW, Bob Moog's research into development of his instrument started with his fascination of the theremin and Moog Music still mfg. quality theremins.

[Cam Mott]

Whoops, Andrew had already explained that "Lothar" of LATHP was a Theremin.

[guitarfool2002]

A ribbon controller is little more than a theremin with a physical device to operate it (vs. aerial operation
by interrupting the proximity fields of a true theremin.

You can control TWO things on a theremin - Amplitude and Frequency so you could say that device has a VCA and VCO

The basic building "blocks" of Moog's synthesizers are VCA, VCO & VCF (voltage controlled amplifier, oscilliator & filter. But you can also add LFO and Modulation to the circuit path also, and so you have many more options for voicing, a myriad of sounds with a true synth. (almost forgot...+ Envelope Generator: Attack, Delay, Sustain Release)

These two instruments are not the same. So the question should be was Michael the first major rock personality to play a theremin live on stage. Because that is what he played, it was not a synthesizer.


BTW, Bob Moog's research into development of his instrument started with his fascination of the theremin and Moog Music still mfg. quality theremins.

And again this is exactly what I mentioned with the definitions and the aesthetics being a part of the debate. We could go several more pages trying to set the parameters and set firm definitions on terms like "synthesizer" and "controller" and the like.

It comes down to who is using a particular definition of the word "synthesizer" or music synthesis in general when making the points in the discussion.

Here's one point about Moog's creation which Mike played. The ribbon controller itself had been designed as an option, as what we'd call today in the internet world an "add-on" to control his synths. Moog, of course, got his feet wet in this field by building and selling his own Theremins, as the original RCA models were even in that era difficult to find. And then, as we know, if you did have one it was damn near impossible to play in tune unless you were Clara Rockmore or something.

Then Paul Tanner came into the fold...a trombone player by trade...keep in mind how the trombone is different from all other horns in that it slides into the pitches rather than being keyed or a valve pressed. So Tanner makes the "Tannerin" using that principle, only the Tannerin gets it's tuning and notes/pitches in order by sliding a little metal bar up and down a measured "scale", like a steel guitar. So he got all of those gigs because he could read sheet music and play Theremin-like sounds using a sliding scale with fixed positions, like a trombone slide he was familiar with, and have the part in tune with an orchestra if needed.

Moog takes that one step further: Similar to Tanner's creation, and going with the portamento and pitch bending capabilities of that and other instruments like the Clavioline, he devised the ribbon controller. Unlike Tanner's metal sliding device, you could apply a thumb or finger to a strip to affect the changes in pitch, again like a slide guitar or trombone, but also with the "touch" of a violin-viola-cello or similar non-fretted string instrument.

Whether or not he was the first to dream this up, in the mid 60's he had it as that add-on device to his developing modular synths, again even in early photos you'll see the ribbon controller perched atop the keyboard controller.

Now did he ever think of creating a standalone instrument out of that ribbon controller, one that could be packed up and set up, then played on stage as a Theremin-like instrument?

Who knows. BUT what we do know is that a request from the Beach Boys through Walter Seer led to that very thing happening. And it was debuted on stage in October 1966 and worked. The modification made was that tape strips naming the notes were added to the neck, in the way student violinists start learning with tape guides marking the first positions on the neck, enabling them to play these notes in tune until the skill develops.

So if we say the ribbon controller was an oscillator/etc. and therefore not a traditional synth, I agree as I mentioned in the earlier post. I used the same point to disagree that the Supreme's "Reflections" used a Moog synth rather than an oscillator type device.

But...if we take it in a larger context, and as an element of Moog's synthesizer design which was taken in a brand new direction and given a new application directly from a request coming from the Beach Boys, arguably Moog did not envision that controller as being used separate from his larger synthesizer design...therefore it is in effect a "new" instrument borrowed directly from a synth design Moog had built in the mid 60's.

All of it comes back to how much of a stretch someone wants to give the definition of "synthesizer", and whether anything pre-Moog like the Tannerin, Theremin, etc would fit. But in this case, had it not been for Moog's design, which led to a new application of a portion of that design to fill a request from the 'Boys, it would have remained what it was originally designed to do, which was add portamento and pitch-bend capabilities to his modular synths.

I'd argue Moog did not envision that controller as a substitute for a Theremin, as he was still actively building and selling his own Theremins for that specific purpose. He built it to enhance his synthesizers and add portamento/bending effects to his sounds. Then the Beach Boys showed up...

[donald]

Saw it a few weeks ago - fascinating indeed,  but the total absence of Walter/Wendy Carlos - they weren't so much as alluded to, much less mentioned - proved to be an almost insurmountable flaw. Carlos pretty much single-handedly brought the Moog to the attention of the general public with such albums as Switched On Bach and The Well-Tempered Synthesizer. Considering he/she collaborated with Moog on the development of his synth, that's some major omission.

Switched on Bach.........had to be my first real listening experience with synth.  I also have a George Harrison lp on zapple records called Electronic sounds.  Wasn't there an instrumental piece that made the charts by some one. Around the time of the Bach album?

[Mitchell]

Great stuff, Guitarfool. I was somewhat familiar with the Dolenz story but the new details were very welcome.

I know there are many pre-moog "synths", such as Hugh LeCaine's Electronic Sackbut... Obviously theremins existed well before the Beach Boys, which is why I used the term "synth" but the distinction between the ribbon controller and, say, an oscillator is kind of blurred compared to a full-blown synth, as you've pointed out.

Very neat subject, anyway. Advances in technology in the 60s.

The Beach Boys were also PA pioneers!

[bgas]

Great stuff, Guitarfool. I was somewhat familiar with the Dolenz story but the new details were very welcome.


The Beach Boys were also PA pioneers!

What did they do that was so momentous in Pennsylvania?

[PongHit]

Saw it a few weeks ago - fascinating indeed,  but the total absence of Walter/Wendy Carlos - they weren't so much as alluded to, much less mentioned - proved to be an almost insurmountable flaw. Carlos pretty much single-handedly brought the Moog to the attention of the general public with such albums as Switched On Bach and The Well-Tempered Synthesizer. Considering he/she collaborated with Moog on the development of his synth, that's some major omission.

     She probably declined to be involved. There were a lot of other important omissions in that film; also too much live concert footage for my tastes. And why was DJ Spooky there?? He's never played a Moog in his life.

[Mitchell]

Great stuff, Guitarfool. I was somewhat familiar with the Dolenz story but the new details were very welcome.


The Beach Boys were also PA pioneers!

What did they do that was so momentous in Pennsylvania?

I assume you're joking, but regarding Public Address, i.e., concert sound systems, I have heard that the Beach Boys were the first band to have their own rig rather than rely on that of the venue.

[Andrew G. Doe]

Saw it a few weeks ago - fascinating indeed,  but the total absence of Walter/Wendy Carlos - they weren't so much as alluded to, much less mentioned - proved to be an almost insurmountable flaw. Carlos pretty much single-handedly brought the Moog to the attention of the general public with such albums as Switched On Bach and The Well-Tempered Synthesizer. Considering he/she collaborated with Moog on the development of his synth, that's some major omission.

     She probably declined to be involved. There were a lot of other important omissions in that film; also too much live concert footage for my tastes. And why was DJ Spooky there?? He's never played a Moog in his life.

Likely she did, but even so there could have been a snippet of the music and a few mentions. I know deductions or speculations based on "absences" are of questionable integrity, but looks like Carlos not only declined to be interviewed but also brought the boom down on being mentioned at all.