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.