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

[Paul Maddox]

Dave,

> 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.

Can't resist this one..
So why is it you see more Voyagers on EBay than Minimoogs?
IMHO, the sole reason the Voyager sells, is because its a 'genuine Moog'.
Aspirational marketing, everyone WANTS a minimoog, not many want the running
costs and inconvenience (no memory/midi/etc), so up pops Bob and says here's
an updated version, superb marketing!
£2000 for a monophonic Analogue synth is a *LOT* of wonga, in ANYONEs book,
and to me, it doesn't sound that good.

> 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?

The reason, I beleive, A lot of these companies died is because their MD had
an obsession with a vision, and lacked marketing.
Palm with the realizer is a superb example, a stunning synth concept, and
years ahead of its time, (VA minmoog in 1986!) but the cost of it crippled
the company..
These days you need both innovation and a commitment to a stable, steady and
consistant product line.

> 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).

yep, agreed...
Given the plethora of VSTi's cropping up, why are there so few 'innovative'
ones?

> And eventually it becomes "a classic" with people spending vast amounts of
> money on second-hand units and renovating them for continued use

yep, things like the PPG system, the Axcel resynthesiser and so on.
The likes of which many people will never get near, which is a real shame,
because if you sit down and play with some of these great machines they seem
a lot less daunting than when you first approach them.

> 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?").

an example of this is Kraftwerk, four guys, four laptops, and how many
people enjoyed the show?
Everyone who went!

> 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.

I don't want someone to blame, I just want to know where all the imagination
has gone...

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

99% perspiration...
Always has been, but it has to be worth it.. Where would we be without
electricity?

Paul