From tburns@josh.org Thu Aug 29 13:11:26 2002
Subject:Re: What Defines a Clone?

Hi all...

I don't post much, but I must say that the string of comments that
led up to this has been pretty amusing, to say the least.

I think what we're seeing from the "New B3" is something that really
defies any of the categories that we're used to working with when it
comes to our beloved Hammond.

Since the main part of the essence of the Hammond sound is truly the
tonewheels, then the New B3 is certainly a clone. (As is the B-Free,
even though it's got the tonewheels. Just the thought of calling a
virtually rackmounted version of the Hammond an original is almost
sacreligous...and don't get me started on the price!)

However, none of the clones we've (at least that I've) had the
privilege of working on has ever had anything truly mechanical on it
(i.e. not computerized), whereas the New B3 brings back the
mechancial contact system. Though this isn't the majority of the
sound, it is pretty integral to the Hammond sound. Not to mention
just having something electro-mechanical is a part of experience of a
Hammond, as opposed to a digital computer chip.

This is really the next step closer, IMO, of becoming a "true"
clone. After all, the definition of a clone is that it replicates
the original in every aspect. The current flock of XK, VK, BX, CX,
Nord, etc. doesn't even come close to this definition, though I would
argue one would be hard-pressed to tell the difference in a recording.

Anyway, sorry to wax philisophic...it's a really interesting
question, when it comes down to it.

Tim
> >
>
> The "New B3" is not a Clone?????????? How exactly do YOU define a
> clone???????
> Lets hear from the rest of you. This oughta be good. OHF Bob
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]