From BenWaB3@aol.com Sat Aug 31 07:39:02 2002
Subject:Re: defining a clone

Somone (I think it was Bruce, but don't remember exactly) alluded to a point
in the "what is & what isn't" discussion. That is that the Hammond itself is
a clone - a clone of a pipe organ. It failed at that effort, but the
"mistakes" in that effort were taken and turned around to evolve into a whole
new set of criteria for what we want out of an organ sound. To further
elaborate, the style of playing on a Hammond evolved on a totally different
path also. This would make a pipe organ unacceptable (for the most part -
there will always be the odd exception or 2) for the style we Hammondists &
cloners play. Just the delay in getting sufficient air into the pipes to
produce a sound on the low notes, would make the walking bassline a mess.
There are other examples, but in the interests of brevity, we'll leave those
to your own devices. So in a way we are 2nd generation cloners ("Ham Trek -
The Next Generation"), playing a clone of a clone. You may take the labor day
weekend to ponder the wierd clone-of-clone sci-fi ramifications, complete
with 50's style organ movie sound effects & the occasional theramin
(definitely not a clone!!!!).

Ben Ninmann.