is there anyone who actually likes the name?
- yes
- sorry, but no
- maybe it will grow on me
0
voters
i don’t.
Funny you should ask, because I honestly think it will have an adverse effect on sales. I certainly wouldn’t want an instrument called “Little Phatty”, no matter who it was made by.
yeah, that’s what i was thinking too. it’s like you have to decide if you hate the name more than you love moog. because it is so bad. i wonder if any of this will have any effect on the name? it hasn’t actually been officially annouced yet has it?
Come on guys.. It’s not so bad ! 
Its whats inside that counts ! And if someone can make good music with it (which I have a feeling might happen ) - then whats in a name any way ?
I can’t wait to be the owner of a Little Phatty !!!
Has the name been offically released yet ? Or are we still going off that deleted over seas forum post ?
maybe you could paint over it.
its a great name. and enables me to ask girls rude questions without actually being rude.
If that’s the name, it’s terrible. I’m usually pretty indifferent with synth names, but that stinks. It’s worse than “Fizmo” for a bad name. (Although I love the fizmo synth and will probably love the new moog synth as well)
I thinks its a stupid name, but I also think its kind of lame that it would effect wheather you’d buy one or not. I mean, does it REALLY matter? It will sound the same whatever its named!
Yeah, but then you’d see this name on the back panel for everyone in a crowd to see at a concert. Some people would get black electrical tape and slap it over the name, as someone apparently once did to the “Realistic” on the MG-1 I just got 
I like the Moog RAM name idea. Double meaning and all.
Moog RAM is inspired. Little Phatty sounds more like an insult than a name for a synth!
I think in the sea of ethereal and non-descript names (Juno, Jupiter, Ion, Andromeda, Oasys, MS2000, Radias, Source, V-Synth, etc), it is nice to see a distinct and descriptive name. It would be very easy to market with a name like Little Phatty.
I’m sure it’s a Moog in-house joke and they’ll call it something cool instead…
Yes, I wondered about that. Here’s hoping…
if the little one turns out to be a success, maybe they’ll make a big phatty after.
I think you might need a BIG phatty to fully appreciate the name…
HAR HAR HAR
I’d actually be kind of surprised if Moog used a name that has such obvious drug-culture connotations. It’s gotta be a temporary name they’re using around the factory…
I love it. It pokes fun at all of the people who buy 3 ROMpler workstations just for their crunk presets. Said people will now be saying “dog! I needz ta git da lil’phatty to jive wit muh TrinTon, Empeecee, and Montif!”. I’m not even exagerating, if you go to some other forums, this is how some people really type.
If it gets Moog more sales by catering to the bling-hop crowd, and spurs on R&D for even more interesting synths in the process, then it’s A-OK by me.
I can’t say I’m fond of it… it exacerbates an already irritating truth about the word “fat.”
I’ve written several blogs on this subject. I know some people couldn’t care any less about words, their usage, and their importance, but:
“Fat” was a term used to describe the delicious richness of the Moog synthesizer… the sound that all synthesizers after and since have sought. The reason why anyone pursuing a Moog should be pursuing a Moog!
“Phat” is a term born of hip hop culture that is a value-positive adjective. It had nothing to do with the qualitative description of analog sound.
Somewhere along the way, the two became conflated, which results in people blabbing endlessly about synths being “phat,” meaning both “good” and conversely “possessing a broad and pleasant sound akin to a Moog.” Or, one or the other… or neither. Now, every single synthesizer you read about on the internet has copious sprinklings of the word “phat,” which is totally historically inaccurate, meaningless, and corrupt. Even if it was just “fat,” (and not referring to a Moog), it would STILL be irritating as most synthesizers are not similar to Moogs in sound.
SO… the idea of Moog… the very company who invented the concept of “fat synthesizer,” embraces this horrid corruption… well, it’s very distressing for those, like me, who have issues with total misunderstanding driving word coinage. : )
As for it being a drug reference, I’m relatively ambivalent about that. ; )
they should call it:
the moog doob
if i am not mistaken, wendy carlos - on the cd “secrets od synthesis” - describes the sound of her moog modular as “thick”, a property that is not
always wanted in all pieces.
sometimes a piece sounds best when not too many oscillators are playing at once in one given sound (patch).
a little thickness is ok when it’s warranted (brass, bass, etc), but lay down 4 tracks of 3-osc bass patches and you may end up with a goo of mud.
sometimes, the moog sound is also bouncy, light, springy, joyful, bright, mellow, resonant, quirky, morbid, sweet, pingy, goofy etc.
describing the sound as merely “phat” or “fat” doesn’t do the sound possibilities justice at all, i think.