WHY? (was Re: [sdiy] ... Simulating a Moog)

[Peachey, Dave]

Paul,

Taking some to pontificate further (this time directly to the list ;-) )

	>>  - it's somewhere to start - somewhere that people are
comfortable through
	>> familiarity of usage and about which they can converse (with
their peers)
	>> and on which they can (more easily) educate the people new to
this arena
	>
	> True, but then everyone begins to think and sound the same, a good
thing?

Many do sound the same, certainly, and many do it through choice either
because it's fashionable (how the TB303 ever got to be a benchmark
instrument I'll never know!) or because the consumers are comfortable with
it (we're back with the ongoing obsession with 70s Berlin-school electronica
- and I will admit to enjoying that myself).

There _are_ people around who can and do innovative or, at least, they do
different things with the same/similar equipment (be it hardware or
software) - how different, for example, are the outputs of Smoo and Robert
Rich and they both use products created by list members - but whether they
really sell enough product to be economically self-sustaining is another
matter.  The truly creative/innovative people (whether it be in the physical
or the sonic sense) often go unappreciated by the masses during their own
lifetimes - yes, there are exceptions (Moog again), but witness the recent
resurgent interest in the workings of Raymond Scott and Delia Derbyshire.

	>>  - there's a (dubious) "sense of history" in the hardware which
elements of
	>> the industry (both the developers and the musicians) seem to feel
compelled
	>> to recycle for the (also dubious) "benefit" of those who come
after them -
	>> as in "It worked for me when I was using it, now I can sell it to
someone
	>> else for more."
	>
	> Yep, its pandering to the market, it's not innovation. The problem
is, do
	> this for too long, and it backfires and you kill the market.

Not disagreeing with you but there do seem to be some areas where this works
- albeit, perhaps, on a relatively small scale.  For example, Dr Bob has
been able to produce a new and updated version of the Minimoog and sell it
(probably) far more easily than he had ever expected to sell the original
back in the late 60s/early 70s.

On the other hand, perhaps the (relatively) large numbers of analogue
modular synthesizer producers around during the 70s (Moog, ARP, PPG, others
jumping on a bandwagon) actually _did_ contribute to the death of all/most
of these companies - perhaps if there had been but one producer, they may
have survived for longer.  So perhaps there's hope that Hartmann and their
Neuron will survive to be commercially viable at albeit at a economically
more appealing price?

Having said all of the above, the plethora of VST plugins doing (seemingly)
an almost identical job means that, short of genuine innovation (eg: some of
NI's produkts!) or a _very_ user-friendly price (eg: the free ones like
Greenoak's Crystal semi-modular synth), the market will rapidly lose its
impetus and companies will fold (witness Creamware's recent near-death
experience).

	>>  - unless one is prepared to throw money into promoting it or
gambling
	>> heavily (and what company's finance dept is prepared to give the
marketing
	>> dept an unlimited budget!), it costs a lot to innovate
successfully on a
	>> large scale (I'm not counting the innovators who post on SDIY
because many
	>> of them are "kitchen table" operations - and I'm not being
disrespectful,
	>> just stating a fact)
	>
	> Agreed, but then many people will put down the new technology as
costing too
	> much, when the people who invested heavily in this new 'concept'
are trying
	> to get back what they have put in.

And eventually it becomes "a classic" with people spending vast amounts of
money on second-hand units and renovating them for continued use (or, dare I
suggest it on this list, as "investments" which act merely as status symbols
and which are never again used for their original purpose!)  :-)  Granted,
the originators/innovators rarely see the financial returns for themselves.
And this is something you'll never see with software synths!

	>>  - it's easier (and cheaper - in the long run) to stagnate rather
than innovate
	>
	> But it's not beneficial for long term prospects of small companies
for things
	> to stagnate.

Very true.  Everyone starts somewhere and, for those who survive through
innovation (eg: Yamaha) and others who resurface due to popular support for
variations on their company's original product (eg: Moog) or because others
produce analogues of their original products, there are others who fade away
despite being innovative (eg: Kinetic Sound) and are only remembered because
of the near-mythic status of their products (the Prism) even if - perhaps
especially because - that product never sold in any quantities (if, indeed,
it ever sees the light of day!).

I think it comes back to my earlier comment (and, as Rude also noted, music
isn't the only area in which this is prevalent), it all depends on what the
consumers are comfortable with.  If you can popularise something then the
means of producing it will be in demand - Tangerine Dream had a promoter in
John Peel back in the 70s and they, in turn, were (unwitting?) promoters for
analogue modular synthesizers so Moog, PPG and other modulars were in demand
(albeit for a relatively short time until something else came along).

The easier it is to provide what the consumer wants, the more product will
be sold - and if that's music produced using the "traditional" VCO --> VCF
--> VCA signal chain then that's economics in action.  In that light, the
move from hardware to the software equivalents becomes a matter of
practicalities (as Richard Wenkt commented in this thread yesterday "who
wants to lug a modular synth from the UK to the USA?").

If I were looking for someone to "blame" (and I'm not, despite the apparent
tenor of this response), it's the consumer for wanting the familiar and the
larger companies for providing the musicians the means to generate it.  If
you want to change the world, you've got to persuade people that they want
their world to be changed.

Having gone some way off the original topic, I'll finish by opining that
innovation is (as it often has been) an uphill struggle.

Cheers
Dave



The Royal Bank of Scotland plc, Registered in Scotland No. 90312. Registered Office: 36 St Andrew Square, Edinburgh EH2 2YB

The Royal Bank of Scotland plc is authorised and regulated by the Financial Services Authority and represents The Royal Bank of Scotland Marketing Group. The Bank sells life policies, collective investment schemes and pension products and advises only on the Marketing Group's range of these products and on a With-Profit Bond produced by Norwich Union Life (RBS) Limited.

This e-mail message is confidential and for use by the addressee only. If the message is received by anyone other than the addressee, please return the message to the sender by replying to it and then delete the message from your computer. Internet e-mails are not necessarily secure. The Royal Bank of Scotland plc does not accept responsibility for changes made to this message after it was sent.

Whilst all reasonable care has been taken to avoid the transmission of viruses, it is the responsibility of the recipient to ensure that the onward transmission, opening or use of this message and any attachments will not adversely affect its systems or data. No responsibility is accepted by The Royal Bank of Scotland plc in this regard and the recipient should carry out such virus and other checks as it considers appropriate.