IDM Mailing Archive

On Wed, 19 Mar 1997 20:38:58 -0800, faxlabel@sirius.com wrote...

quoted 2 lines I am not affiliated with the beasties , I just think this issue is a work

>I am not affiliated with the beasties , I just think this issue is a work >of genius.

While I commned any publication who tries to educate the public in the history of synthesizers and the like, I can't say I would reccomend this magazine. There are quite few glaring errors in at (inculding calling ARP nothing but a "moog ripoff" or something of the sort among other things). If you want a good history of the synthesizer industry, pick up the Vintage Synths book keyboard magazine put out. While there may be some mistakes in there as well, it gives a much more well rounded view and doesn't go out of its way to slight anything not from "the mighty moog". Alot less gen x hype )moog iron on - bah!) and alot more facts. I am in now way trying to slight moog or moog music btw, there is no denying the important role they played in the evolution of the sythesizer. But i dont see any reason to let the current hype over "everything moog" to allow us to play fast and free with the facts as much as Grand Royal did. BTW, this issue and its shortcomings and mistakes have been discussed quite a bit on Analoge Heaven, the mailing list I admin on hyperreal. the archives are available for browsing at: http://hyperreal.com:2000/1/music/machines/Analogue-Heaven/archives/ Rob Williams</>fEEd</>Tempest rw@goldengate.net</>tempest@hyperreal.com

On Thu, 20 Mar 1997 18:23:57 -0600, brittonjames@aristotle.net wrote...

quoted 3 lines If there are errors in

> If there are errors in > the synth material in the Grand Royale #3, they are errors by the > interviewees.

Well, not entirely. I would think some of the responsibilty of what apeears inside of a mag publication falls upon the heads of the publishers. This would seem to be pretty obvious to me.

quoted 3 lines As to ARPs rip-off, it's the truth. ARP had to yank Bob Moogs filters

> As to ARPs rip-off, it's the truth. ARP had to yank Bob Moogs filters > out of their machines or face a lawsuit from Bob himself. Is there any > way around that being a BOB MOOG RIP-OFF?

This is quite an overblown part of the history of the 2 companies, one which is used alot by people to show moog's "superiority". While true, it is not the whole story and is a perfect example of the twisting of the facts by GR. Moog (not Bob Moog, but the company Moog Music) were just as guilty of ripping designs off. The whole thing was dropped when this was pointed out to Moog Music. All that aside, to focus on just this one issue and to simply pass one off as a rip off of the other is to ignore a whole history of things that happened before and after that at both of the companies.

quoted 3 lines To ask more of a magazine than some eclectic good reading is absurd.

> To ask more of a magazine than some eclectic good reading is absurd. > Yeah, you can get the synth books (doubtless we all have them), but to > compare books to magazines and find magazines wanting is faulty.

I dont think it is to much to ask for ANY publication to try and report the FACTS in an ubiased manner. If you enjoy reading it more power to you - there are alot of good articles by and about people I look up to as much as anyone. Just take some of what you read with a grain of salt, that is all. BTW, i am NOT a Beastie Boys or Moog basher. Ive seen the Beasties many times and i dare say I own as much or Moog equipment as anyone on this list. ;) Rob Williams</>fEEd</>Tempest rw@goldengate.net</>tempest@hyperreal.com

quoted 1 line While I commned any publication who tries to educate the public in

> While I commned any publication who tries to educate the public in

the > history of synthesizers and the like, I can't say I would reccomend this > magazine. There are quite few glaring errors in at (inculding calling ARP > nothing but a "moog ripoff" or something of the sort among other things). You know, I've had to correct this post before. If there are errors in the synth material in the Grand Royale #3, they are errors by the interviewees. The issue is full of interview material, so if you like the idea of reading Bob Moog, Dick Hymen, Wendy Carlos, and Walter sear in conversation, get this issue. I'm not a big Beasty fan, but they've done a good job here. I'd rather read Bob Moog than somebody else talking about him. Ditto the others. As to ARPs rip-off, it's the truth. ARP had to yank Bob Moogs filters out of their machines or face a lawsuit from Bob himself. Is there any way around that being a BOB MOOG RIP-OFF? If so, I'd like to hear it. To ask more of a magazine than some eclectic good reading is absurd. Yeah, you can get the synth books (doubtless we all have them), but to compare books to magazines and find magazines wanting is faulty. They are two different animals. Need I go on? Get loose!

On 03/20/97 18:23:57 you wrote:

quoted 22 lines While I commned any publication who tries to educate the public in

> >> While I commned any publication who tries to educate the public in >the > > history of synthesizers and the like, I can't say I would reccomend >this > > magazine. There are quite few glaring errors in at (inculding >calling ARP > > nothing but a "moog ripoff" or something of the sort among other >things). > > You know, I've had to correct this post before. If there are errors in > the synth material in the Grand Royale #3, they are errors by the > interviewees. The issue is full of interview material, so if you like > the idea of reading Bob Moog, Dick Hymen, Wendy Carlos, and Walter sear > in conversation, get this issue. I'm not a big Beasty fan, but they've > done a good job here. I'd rather read Bob Moog than somebody else > talking about him. Ditto the others. > > As to ARPs rip-off, it's the truth. ARP had to yank Bob Moogs filters > out of their machines or face a lawsuit from Bob himself. Is there any > way around that being a BOB MOOG RIP-OFF? If so, I'd like to hear it. >

This is defiantley true .... ARP copied the 24db/oct filter of the Moog, after all the legal hoopla, ARP filters were changed to 12db/oct filters Even if they did copy some Moog ideas, the arp synths definately rocked. ROB (A proud owner of a Moog Filtered ARP Axxe) **********LOGIQ'S NEW CD**************** BIG ON MARS 11 Tracks of Electronic Bliss http://www.sinless.com/logiq ****************************************

On Fri, 21 Mar 1997 09:05:06 -0600, brittonjames@aristotle.net wrote...

quoted 2 lines It is not a journalists job to please readers. his or her job is to get

> It is not a journalists job to please readers. his or her job is to get > the material and let the reader decide what is what.

I would TOTALLY agree with you here. The problem seems to be that I didnt decide the same way you did. ;)

quoted 2 lines Again, any twisted facts are the interviewees, and that is more

>> Again, any twisted facts are the interviewees, and that is more >> interesting to me than any third party "facts" you can name.

So you are more interested in any lies or mistruths that appear in the Moog Issue of GR than you are any facts that appear elsewhere?

quoted 6 lines It is a

> It is a > fact that Moog forced Arp to discontinue use of their 4012 filter, >which > was present in the 2600 "blue meanie, early greyfaces, and some > Odesseys. That is what makes those early models so desirable-the Moog > chip.

I never denied this, in fact I totally agreed with it. But I went on to say that to stop at this point and brush ARP off as a "moog rip off" (with little or no explaination) is utterly wrong. ARP made quite a few stunning products before and after this that were nothing to do with any Moog designs. I also went on to say that Moog also faced similar charges for ripping off designs for ARP and other companies, but no one passes them off as a "ARP rip off". Again, I think this point is being hounded on a bit much. It was used as an example, not as the most glaring or damnable error.

quoted 2 lines I'm not knocking Arp here. They are giants of analogue history. They

> I'm not knocking Arp here. They are giants of analogue history. They > did, however, rip off Bob Moog,

ARP was accused of ripping off Moog Music. Moog Music was accused of ripping off ARP. To pass either off as a "rip off" of the other is a crass generalization.

quoted 2 lines and I can't let the chip on somebodys

>and I can't let the chip on somebodys > shoulder distort this piece of the puzzle.

heh, no chip. I love both Arp and Moog and own alot of pieces made by each (including an ARP white face odyssey w/MOOG filter). And I could care less either way about who runs, owns, or publishes GR.

quoted 3 lines We're not

> We're not >children. > We can make up our own minds after reading this stuff.

Which is exatctly what I did, and I posted here about it after someone else posted their opinion. I dont see any problem with any of that. I guess we are getting off topic enough to either take it to analogue heaven or to private email now. -- Rob Williams</>fEEd</>Tempest rw@goldengate.net</>tempest@hyperreal.com

quoted 1 line Well, not entirely. I would think some of the responsibilty of what

> Well, not entirely. I would think some of the responsibilty of what

apeears > inside of a mag publication falls upon the heads of the publishers. This > would seem to be pretty obvious to me. It's obvious to me that an interview with warts and all is better than a truncated or edited version that would seem to be more palatable to you. It is not a journalists job to please readers. his or her job is to get the material and let the reader decide what is what.

quoted 1 line As to ARPs rip-off, it's the truth. ARP had to yank Bob Moogs filters

> > As to ARPs rip-off, it's the truth. ARP had to yank Bob Moogs filters

>> out of their machines or face a lawsuit from Bob himself. Is there any

quoted 1 line way around that being a BOB MOOG RIP-OFF?

> > way around that being a BOB MOOG RIP-OFF?

> twisting of the facts by GR.

quoted 8 lines Again, any twisted facts are the interviewees, and that is more

> > Again, any twisted facts are the interviewees, and that is more > interesting to me than any third party "facts" you can name. > > > Moog (not Bob Moog, but the company Moog Music) were just as guilty of > > ripping designs off. > > The whole thing was dropped when this was pointed out > > to Moog Music.

I'm getting a little worried about this guy now. He's not being specific, but throwing out comments like this one. I feel it is my duty at this point to accuse him of distorting the facts and giving false information, the very crime he's accusing GR of perpetrating. It is a fact that Moog forced Arp to discontinue use of their 4012 filter, which was present in the 2600 "blue meanie, early greyfaces, and some Odesseys. That is what makes those early models so desirable-the Moog chip. If you call this dropping the whole thing, then I guess you are right. Those Arp machines were never the same without Moogs chip. I'm not knocking Arp here. They are giants of analogue history. They did, however, rip off Bob Moog, and I can't let the chip on somebodys shoulder distort this piece of the puzzle. > All that aside, Indeed, let's push it off a cliff, so it won't annoy you so much. > to focus on just this one issue and to simply pass one off To ignore this one is doubly false, regardless of what happened before (when there was no Arp), and after (when Arp made thinner sounding machines without the 4012 chip created by Moog). > as a rip off of the other is to ignore a whole history of things that which it was. Now that I think of it, I've ripped -off some things myself in my wayward journey, and I'm still a "good person, who does good things". So what is the sweat here? > > To ask more of a magazine than some eclectic good reading is absurd. > > Yeah, you can get the synth books (doubtless we all have them), but to > > compare books to magazines and find magazines wanting is faulty. > I dont think it is to much to ask for ANY publication to try and report the > FACTS in an ubiased manner. I totally disagree. I feel that it is exactly a magazines mission to present an opinionated and biased view of the facts. We're not children. We can make up our own minds after reading this stuff. Your own attempts to distort the filter story by saying that the whole thing was dropped puts you squarely in guilt of the same thing, and you know what, I find you more interesting for it. > If you enjoy reading it more power to you - there are alot of good articles > by and about people I look up to as much as anyone. Just take some of what > you read with a grain of salt, that is all. Where is that salt shaker, anyways.... > BTW, i am NOT a Beastie Boys or Moog basher. Ive seen the Beasties many

quoted 1 line Uh huh.

> Uh huh.

> times and i dare say I own as much or Moog equipment as anyone on this list. There's some real proof of this guys credibility. What he owns. > ;) Yeah, and he's real sly too.

On Fri, 21 Mar 1997, Britton James wrote:

quoted 8 lines Moog (not Bob Moog, but the company Moog Music) were just as guilty of

> > > Moog (not Bob Moog, but the company Moog Music) were just as guilty of > > > ripping designs off. The whole thing was dropped when this was pointed > > > out to Moog Music. > > I'm getting a little worried about this guy now. He's not being > specific, but throwing out comments like this one. I feel it is my duty > at this point to accuse him of distorting the facts and giving false > information, the very crime he's accusing GR of perpetrating.

You know what? You have no idea what you're talking about. If you want chapter and verse, get the book "Vintage Synthesizers" and read up. Everything Rob says about the Arp/Moog tussle is documented there, by all parties involved.

quoted 5 lines times and i dare say I own as much or more Moog equipment as anyone on

> > > times and i dare say I own as much or more Moog equipment as anyone on > > this list. > > There's some real proof of this guys credibility. What he owns.

You again have no fucking clue what you're talking about. Rob is a walking encyclopedia on the subject of analog synths. Ownership is not the issue, ACTUAL LONG TIME EXPERIENCE WORKING WITH ALL THE DIFFERENT SYNTHS IN QUESTION, plus having devoted the last several years to learning everything there is to know about them, that is the issue. The Grand Royale articles are stoned, myopic, and badly transcribed. The whole 'cult of Moog' they are perpetuating is misplaced. No one who knows anything about synths fails to give Bob Moog his due, but this idea of Moogs as somehow being mystically superior to all other synths is complete bullshit. And to call the Arp 2600 a 'Moog Ripoff' because the filter circuit is similar ignores the many significant differences in architecture, user interface and sound. Sheesh. --------------------------------------------------------------------- "i love the smell of new carpet. it makes me dizzy. just like when you fall in love." -- Mike Dvorkin Home Page, featuring Reagan on Black Velvet, the EMP Compilation CD, samples of my music, etc http://soli.inav.net/~kent/ Kent Williams kent@inav.net CADSI 2651 Crosspark Road Coralville IA 52241 (319) 338 6053 (home) (319) 626 6700 x 219 (work) (319) 626 3488 (fax)