Hi All,
It seems subjects like this bring out an utter lack of humility and
orginality (and no lack of drama and judgment) from everyone involved.
Do we really need to waste more time on this, and divide our already
small community into the talented geniuses and the mouth-talking
idiots? It's inane, banal, insipid and repetitive!
Scott Deyo
The Bridechamber
contact@...http://www.bridechamber.comJealous Edison Record Kompany
http://www.jealousedison.com On Sep 3, 2008, at 4:47 PM, Kenneth Elhardt wrote:
> Ivan writes:
> >>That was some funny reading. To some of those people can I just say
> "GET
> A LIFE!".<<
>
> My thoughts exactly. I had to drop in a post to point out that so
> much of
> the B.S. they're spouting has already to shown false by me in past
> ridiculous threads like that. The problem is some people's brains
> don't
> have the ability to aquire information and modify their thinking.
> Posting
> on these forums is like talking to people with Alzheimer's disease.
> Since
> the magical 901 oscillator was brought up in that thread, I of course
> had to
> point out all the falsehoods that people keep bringing up. Facts: the
> moog
> waveforms aren't different than everybody elses, the 901 doesn't sound
> different than others, there is not more jitter in it, and drift can
> easily
> be programmed in. They just can't seem to learn simple child-like
> concepts.
>
> And then there is the big picture of too many people obscessing over
> such
> details and yet they have nothing to show for it. A lot of it comes
> from
> trying to compensate for lack of talent in the synthesis and music
> side. I
> have to point out again that nobody has put out any quality synth
> album, and
> maybe no synth album at all based on a Moog modular in close to 3
> decades
> now. So all that inane talk about how great their Moogs sound, when
> all
> they're being used for is wall decorations collecting dust, is just a
> waste
> of time. I've gotten by without owning a 901 oscillator, or authentic
> Minimoog filter, and it hasn't hindered me.
>
> John Mahoney writes:
> >>What you say is true, but sometimes the old stuff has something
> magical
> about it. An example that I like to mention is Tom Oberheim's comment
> on the
> evolution from OB-X to OB-Xa to OB-8; each synth was cleaner and
> theoretically "better" than the previous model, but in retrospect he
> decided
> that the earlier ones have more character. (I think this story comes
> from
> Mark Vail's book.) I suppose the 2/4/8-voice has the most character of
> all.<<
>
> Yes, that's from Mark Vail's book. But the problem is some people keep
> making up baseless fantasies about individual components in the
> synth. The
> Moog may sound different because a number of things ranging from it's
> filter, exponential VCA, low voltage levels with slewing and
> distortion.
> But saying things like the Moog has magical waveforms has already
> been shown
> false. And of course there are years of history on these forums of
> people
> failing blind listening tests, something else they can't seem to
> learn from.
> So in the end it comes back to "get a life".
>
> -Elhardt
> "The current revival in analog synthesizers has spawned a lamentable
> abundance of mechanically repetitive, amelodic, soulless, robo-porn
> tracks
> that are banal at best and enervating at worst." - record reviewer
>
>
>