From unknown freak Sent Fri, Jan 5th 2007, 21:20
From unknown freak Sent Fri, Jan 5th 2007, 21:20
Re the Doepfer plagiarism idea, the same archives document pretty well how little water that thesis holds. And let's not forget that analog modulars have been around for 40 years. Most of the designers are quite friendly and collegial with each other, and no one's made a habit of pointing fingers at each other since the 70s -- it's not as if they're operating at the cutting edge of anything or competing with Roland. If you want to get steamed at someone, get steamed at Yamaha for the risible act of patenting FM, which had been around for years before they got their rubber gloves on it. Re Stooge panels, they're nice, but you're making only a liminal difference in the module list by mentioning them. Larry Hendry (bless his soul) had, as you say, a large MOTM modular. That factoid doesn't doesn't inflate the quantity or nature of modules offered by either MOTM or.com, and its physical size, like Emerson's, belies its actual complement. Rewinding my statement, I don't see anything too controversial: "A good .com in its walnut case is a delightful thing that's going to sound great and give pleasure for years and could very well be the "end all be all" for a lot of people. But it's not going to be the furthest-out and most flexible modular at the party, and if you want that, starting out with .com isn't necessarily the most strategic choice going forward." It's a pretty fair assessment that that .com isn't the most experimental, furthest-out modular at the party. If it were trying to be, and we know that it isn't, it would look silly. If it isn't trying to be, then it's fine at being what it is. It certainly outsells Serge and Buchla, so it's no mystery which style most people prefer. Robert Rich is poster boy for MOTM, so that's a strong vote for MOTM right there. But that's MOTM. --Chuck > -----Original Message----- > From: Harry Bissell Jr [mailto:xxxxxxxxxxxx@xxxxxxx.xxx] > Sent: Friday, January 05, 2007 3:46 PM > To: xxxxxxxx@xxxxxxxxx.xxx > Subject: RE: [AH] back again. questions about Arp 2600 vs. die neue > > From: "charles graef" <xxxxxxxxxxxx@xxxxxxxxxxxx.xxx> > wrote <snip> > > I'm always amused by defenses of .com that attempt to > characterize Doepfer's offerings as "weird sound > fartboxes." <end snip> > > easy to make a million modules if you mine the > internet for other (people's) unique designs and > then clone them. Its like saying "Behringer rules" > because they cloned all the Boss effects right down > to the paint job... Better still if you do not > acknowledge any debt of gratitute to those people. > > Most of the other "boutique" manufacturers give credit > to people whose designs they have appropriated / > repackaged... and often with the blessing of those > people. I'm not alleging that Doepfer has done > anything illegal in any way... those designs were on > the web and even if the authors ~asked~ for > recognition > or ~forbade~ commercial reproduction for profit... its > not ~legally~ binding. Morally is another story. Check > the archives at AH or Synth-diy for more info. > > Doepfer does have some interesting bits... but to > dismiss .com, motm etc is a disservice. Most of them > have third-party modules made for the format... such > as the panels offered by (late) Stooge industries and > folks like CGS-Synth (Ken Stone). I'm sure you can > find a picture of Larry Hendry's MOTM system if you > think that the pond is too small :^) > > H^) harry