Interview with Harald Bode

by Jim Finch

This is part 1 of a two part article that will briefly span 45 years of innovations by Harald Bode, an inventor, musician, and painter responsible for many of today’s technological advances in ELECTRONIC MUSIC...

JF: When and how did you first get involved with electronic music?

HB: I got involved around 1937---well actually ‘35 I was working on an electronic sound modifier of a Grand Piano and various adapters. But 1937 was the year I created the Warbo Formant Organ In cooperation with Cristian Warnke.

JF: Could you tell us what part Christian Warnke played in the development of the Warbo Formant Organ?

HB: Christian made the contribution of a musician--that means he told me what to do as far as all the features the instrument should have. I’ll have to go into more detail--Christian Warnke was a composer and musician, a bandleader with a fine ear for music, and he was an excellent violinist. He wasn’t involved in the design per se, just the specifications of the Warbo. And he sponsored the project on a minimum budget. Mind you this was the second part of the 30’s, which had still terrible after-effects of the depression. But the Warbo was my first Major contribution in the field.

JF: Our readers can get some technical details about the Warbo in the December 1979 Issue of the CONTEMPORARY KEYBOARD magazine, but can you fill us in on the difficulties of creating it?

HB: Well, it was built with a relaxation type of oscillator--4 oscillators actually, that were selected for the 44 note keyboard. The major problem being the stability of the oscillators, which is critical when comparing one with the other, especially with 4. So 1 dropped the idea of a four note organ at that time and went to the Melodium, which was created in 1938 and used in many large performances with the Berlin Philharmonic as a solo instrument. It was also used in some significant motion pictures of that era.

JF: And after the Melodium?

HB: The War. So from 1939 to 1945 I didn’t do anything other than writing a few publications on the field of Electronic Music. In 1947 when we finally got out of the mess of the postwar period, I created the Melochord. It was originally intended as an instrument which combined melody and chord capability all in one manual, but I then decided to use two voices on this one manual and split up a five octave keyboard in such a way that the upper three octaves were assigned to one generator and the lower two octaves assigned to another generator. It was designed so that those two portions of the keyboard were independent, so they went to separate tone shaping means and to separate expression pedals, and the voices were arranged to allow for voice crossings. It was used on the German Broadcasting System, especially in Munich. It was not a production instrument (commercial product that is) it was built and used by myself and was leased out to movie companies and for use in recordings with bands. It was also featured in a band I traveled with (as well as recorded with) in Germany. A second Melochord was commissioned by the BONN University, through Meyer Eppler who initiated also the work of Dr. Enkel at the Cologne Electronic Music Studio. This is how the Melochord was commissioned by the Cologne Electronic. Music Studio. It was used by Karlheinz Stockhausen thereafter. Also, a Melochord was built for use by the NWDR in Hamburg and for a theatre in Munich, and a few others but it was not a mass production item. Incidentally, the Melochord for the Cologne Studio had a variety of extras including Attack and Decay, Traveling Formants (as with today’s voltage controlled filters), built in Ring Modulators and had access to reverb units and so forth. It resembled the potential of today’s synthesizers. This particular one was built in 1953. I then recognized that the Melochord was too special--not suited for mass production. So concurrently I went on to build a polyphonic organ type synthesizer around 1950, which was commissioned by the radio station in Munich. It again utilized the relaxation type oscillators synchronized in octave steps. This instrument had one manual and five octaves of oscillators. But from this I went all out to a really marketable Instrument creating the Bode Organ. I built it with six octaves of Sine Wave oscillators like the tone wheels of the Hammond Organ, and I could put a vibrato on the oscillators of the upper octave and the oscillators of the lower octaves were synchronized so that the whole tone system could vibrate. This organ was equipped with a switching system having the buss-bars like the Hammond Organ. Thus my instrument was similar to the Hammond, only it was completely electronic rather than tone wheels. I had some American connections, which became aware of my work. This organ was created in 1952, overlapping my work with the Melochord for Cologne. The organ was built later under license from me by the AWB company, which folded later (in the late 50’s after I left the country). Concurrently with the development of the Bode Organ, I made new developments on a mini-organ which was called the TutttiVox (a word that didn’t go over too well on the American market). It was an organ with a three octave keyboard and tone generators covering a range of five octaves using sawtooth type oscillators. It sold quite well manufactured under license in Europe, with several patents. It was similar in size to the Cavioline and the SoloVox among others which were popular in the US at that time. I got together with the people that were making the Clavioline and developed a concert version under new patents of mine. In 1954 I joined Estey Organ Co. which bad been making reed and pipe organs. So I went over to the US in May of’ 54 and in June at the NAMM show, I showed three models of the new Estey Electronic Organ which was my design. I developed a new oscillator with Estey in Torrance, CA without the iron cores. I left the company in 1959 and went to the East, developing a signal processor with filters, ring modulator, audio trigger percussion units, a pitch selector, voice dividers, and things like that. It could be used to create some interesting sound effects. I used this for composition work. I worked on this until March 1960 but the market wasn’t quite ripe for this type of signal processor yet, so I would have been too daring to go into business for myself at that time, so I joined the Wurlitzer Company in March 1960. They used an alteration of one of my patented tone generating systems on the model 4100 I believe the number was. I was put in charge of the electronic piano development for the company and proceeded to obtain about five or six new patents for Wurlitzer. The electronic piano is still in production as of last contact, and is still doing well. I left Wurlitzer in 1963 to work on patents of my own ideas. I joined a non-related (musically at least) company called Bell AeroSpace in 1964 and stayed with them through 1974.

HARALD BODE INTERVIEW PART TWO

HB: I joined a non-related (musically at least) company called Bell Aerospace in 1964 and stayed with them through 1974. During that time I developed my ring modulator, which is quite well known, and in studios everywhere (Tomita’s among others--ed.) and also my Frequency Shifters, which are keyboard compatible--the amount of shift controlled by the keyboard as is with the frequencies in a voltage controlled oscillator. After I left Bell at my retirement in 1974, I began to build up my own business. Some of my accomplishments aside from perfecting my frequency shifter included the development of my vocoder in 1977.

JF: One question about the Warbo. How would you compare, in regards to versatility and control, this instrument and the Polymoog in your studio?

HB: Well, it cannot be directly compared, since the Warbo can be better compared with today’s keyboard assignment instruments such as the Oberheim... which is more versatile because of the advanced technology. The Polymoog, since it has a polyphonic tone generating system, can be more comparable to electronic organs, though of course the Polymoog is more versatile than electronic organs. But on assignment keyboards, you can give individual performance assignments to the individual tone generator channels. This has its advantages, but also its limitations. It’ s good for a player who really knows how to handle it skillfully, but not good for, say, a regular bar piano player- -who would be better off with using a Polymoog, which would be much easier to handle. Or an electronic organ.

JF: Were the tone generators in your Warbo organ capable of more than one waveform, and if so, were they mixable?

HB: No. They had close to sawtooth oscillators and the tone shaping was done by formant filters (see Contemporary Keyboard April ‘79, for more discussion on formants. Also CK December ‘79 on the Warbo Formant organ).

JF: Using today’s technology and a memory system, do you think the Warbo could appear again? Or is it one of those innovations that led to so-called “better” things?

HB: Yes, the Warbo could return. As a matter of fact, the basic idea is much alive still. References to my publications have been used in litigations between large companies in the electronic instrument field.

JF: What do you feel many of today’s synthesizers seriously lack?

HB: It’s difficult to say...a tough question. I think it is not necessarily the synthesizer itself, since an artist who is quite imaginative can do all kinds of thing, especially with a modular synthesizer; it depends not on the instrument, but on the artist himself. A run of the mill performer will just imitate, he runs certain effects that have proven successful over and over again. He runs them into the ground. A top-notch performer, however, can use his imagination and explore the potential of the synthesizer. There are always new effects, new things, new possibilities imaginable. If you are armed with a background of engineering and technology, you can create the means to meet the demand.

JF: Which you have done indeed, if I must say so myself, It seems the old school of electronic music seems to be overshadowed somewhat by the current crop of “traditional” 12- tone harmony electronic music — -in other words, the Stockhausens and Subotnicks no longer seem to have the heyday they once had, Do you think this is good?

HB: I think the avant-garde is still alive, and should still be alive. It is up to the creative individual to make this music attractive to people. Of course, if you create something that is for gold and platinum records, you will have more money in your pocket. But if you want to have fun, there is still some room for creativity if you do a good work.

JF: Speaking of creative music, I understand you are planning to release an album of your own music. I hope this includes a selection you played for me in the studio, called “Sequence 3”.

HB: Well, I have no schedule as yet, as I am doing this music at leisure and you know it takes a long time to get something really good. But I am working on some attractive pieces, and will fill you in later.

JF: Great. It’s important you should be recognized as a musician also. About the Frequency Shifter...I understand you’re coming out or have already released a new version?

HB: The old model 73S had a certain instability in the lower frequencies. The new unit has new technological developments. I have a new patent on the development of the quadrature oscillators. This makes the new instrument ultra stable in the low frequency range. I also now include a temperature controlled exponential generator. What used to be on 4 PC boards is now on one PC board. This means I used a better design technique, not that I threw out anything. It’s more versatile and attractive now.

JF: What is the difference between your Ring Modulator and the others?

HB: Mine have a new threshold controlled squelch unit which cuts out the carrier when there is no program signal coming in, making it very quiet. The early ring modulators had still the diode switching and in contrast I used the diodes for true multiplication rather than signal switching. I discovered the square law function region of germanium diodes which is in about the first 300 millivolt range below the knee and I developed matching techniques to utilize this region, so the ring modulator sounded undistorted and very clean. This was done in the early 60’s.

JF: What is the functional difference between a frequency shifter and a ring modulator?

HB: Frequency shifters, in contrast to ring modulators, are single sideband devices. Ring modulators are dual sideband. My frequency shifters put out selectively both sidebands, one on one output and the other sideband on the other output. And they have a mixing control which can combine both sidebands. So if you want to have a ring modulator output, you can take that combined mix output or adjust in any proportion from left to right sideband.

JF: Does the frequency shifter process other than audio signals from a synthesizer/keyboard...like say, a voice or acoustic instrument?

HB: The model 735 mark II like its predecessor, the 735 has a built-in oscillator with one signal input, If you want to use a frequency shifter with both an audio program signal input and a carrier input my passive 750 frequency shifter will allow voice, tape, or anything into the carrier input, As a matter of fact Karlheinz Stockhausen has used this effect extensively.

JF: What makes your Vocoder unique among others?

HB: It has a special patented feature which is the direct feedthrough of unvoiced sounds, since they do not need encoding and since my performance vocoder is not a communications device as with Dudley’s idea. Thus, “s” and “t” and other consonants are passed through along with processed sounds. This allows for the utmost clarity and understanding of speech processed through the vocoder.

JF: Can the 16 bandpass filters in your vocoder be individually controlled or adjusted?

HB: No, but this is a good idea, perhaps for a later model.

JF: Do you plan to go back to designing any more keyboard type instruments?

HB: I do not intend to create anything of this sort in the foreseeable future, although it would be a challenge. But there are too many other things to do.

JF: I understand you have a new vocoder in the works.

HB: Yes, model 8100. It will be a professional system, but will be more for a small studio basis, ranging in price at about $1490 compared to my model 7701 or 7702 which run around $3500. 735 Mark II Frequency Shifter will be $995, the 750, $750, and also have an anti- feedback frequency shifter which retails for $650.

JF: Would you be able to market your instruments through the IEMA at a lower cost to members?

HB: Yes, I think I could do that without stepping on anyone’s toes. Perhaps a 20% discount.

JF: Were you first in THIS country to develop a vocoder for musical use?

HB: Yes.

JF: Can you relate it, comparatively, with Homer Dudley’s device?

HB: Yes, and I can say the differences between Dudley’s device and my own. Because he had to go through telephone lines, he had to encode everything--the whole range. So the channels cover not only the vowels but the “s “es as well. Since I don’t have to go through telephone lines, I don’t have to encode or decode the “s”es.

JF: You are working on some surprises for the industry I hear.

HB: Yes, but I cannot give a hint right now, since I have to evaluate various aspects, including marketability, etc. So they are still surprises!

JF: I understand you and Steven St. Croix of Marshall Time Modulator fame are perhaps working together on a project?

HB: We are good friends and are discussing several things on several products, but nothing as yet as far as concrete devices has evolved. Perhaps more on this in the future.

JF: Outside of being a creator of innovative electronic instruments you are also an accomplished musician, and from the paintings I see, also a fine artist.

HB: It seems to be a family trait! My son Peer is an accomplished video synthesist. My son Ralf is a cinematographer, his accomplishments being Saturday Night Fever, Coalminer’s Daughter, and just recently, Dressed to Kill. He was director of photography on all these films.

JF: Fantastic! When did the Bode Sound Company start?

HB: At the beginning of 1972.

JF: Are you doing any teaching or lecturing at present?

HB: I am lecturing occasionally, my last at the State University at Binghamton, NY. I also get invitations, for example I will be speaking at the Midwest Acoustical Conference in Chicago next year, but I try to limit this since it takes time away from my projects. I would like to be as productive as possible at this phase of my life.

JF: That’s good. Because you are an inventor, I’d like your opinion on something... if given a choice between digital synthesizers and technology thereof in contrast to analog, would you---like many professionals-- just stay with analog?

HB: I think both have their place. There are certain things you will want to do with both. For instance, the Marshall Time Modulator I like very much, and this is an analog device. Also, in regards to frequency shifters, I would not know of any way to do this in digital without being prohibitive in regards to expense. So you have to take the best of both worlds.

JF: That’s the best answer to that question I’ve heard. And certainly logical. It is great to know you are still active.

HB: Well, I turned 71 in October ‘80. But of course, with creative persons, age doesn’t have any meaning.

JF: Very true. Do you have any particular advice for aspiring artists and technologists?

HB: Well, I would say this... Don’t try to imitate. The bandwagon effect is something that is being done so much today. Everybody seems to always try to imitate another who is successful. Don’t do this, try to really THINK and be ORIGINAL.

JF: What about new manufacturers?

HB: Again, the same advice. But in order to be successful, a good market analysis is necessary. It has to be something in demand, or you won’t survive.

JF: What are your immediate and future plans?

HB: Believe it or not, I sit down every day and make a list of things that should be done and this list of things is always subject to change. There is always the big things and the small things. One of the big things now is the 8100 vocoder, which is to be thought out thoroughly before it can become a reality. What goes hand in band with this is the educating of the public. There are so many people who do not yet understand the real potential of a vocoder. Also, I am working on other sound effect devices which I will hopefully be able to talk more about early in 1981.

JF: Well, I thank you very much for this opportunity to learn more about you and your endeavors. We look forward to your continued participation and inspiration in our field, as well as in IEMA. There you have it, folks. If we left something out, don’t be shy, write and tell us about it. More interviews and biographies next issue--send yours in... we’ll be glad to hear from you! JIM FINCH

Published in SYNE magazine 1981.