Equipment limitations and how we deal with them

[DonutDude]

Lately when I log on to the Moog Forum all I seem to be reading about is "when will there be a software update for this synth?", and "this is my wish list for future updates". I've really gotten tired of hearing all of these complaints about a particular instrument. I understand that there are musicians and composers out there that become frustrated when they can't record what they hear in their heads due to the limitations of the equipment they are using. But then, maybe they are using the wrong tools?

I've always enjoyed discovering what an instrument CAN do, and then working with it's strengths, not concentrating on it's weaknesses. I choose my equipment very carefully, as do all of you, and we all know there are going to be limitations in the instruments we buy. My Voyager is not polyphonic. It would be nice if it were at times, but it isn't. I have another tool I use when I want to play more than one note at a time. My Nord Electro 3 doesn't have a mod wheel or pitch bend wheel. I use a different instrument when I want to modify the sound in those ways.

I understand the desire to help Moog Music develop the best instruments they can. I also wonder if Moog gets tired of spending months/years developing an instrument and being proud and happy when they can finally release it to the public, only to hear complaints/suggestions on how to make it better. I don't know, maybe Moog enjoys the feedback. We are a community of Moog users here. Do our suggestions/complaints about Moog products imply how much we love their instruments and how much we want them to continue to improve as a company, or are we spoiled kids wanting more and more?

What are your thoughts on this?

[Bald Eagle]

Moog seems to be one of the few companies that truly likes getting feedback and suggestions. They actually use some of them. There are other times when a feature is requested and another forum member provides an alternate solution that satisfies the requirement. Nothing wrong with these types of discussions.

I think our suggestions, as outrageous as some can be, only show how much we love playing our Moog instruments. And yes, we are all spoiled

[EricK]

There have been numerous threads started by Moog employees repeatedly asking us what features we want from a future OS. There has also been problems with bugs in the operating systems which cause the instrument to not function properly, which sometimes take awhile to properly address due to a small number of people working on the problem, new products placing demands on those few people, and older products which need attention. This isn't just an issue with Moog products, a lot of electronics companies suffer from the same setbacks from time to time.

Historically, Moog has made it a practice to actively seek out and implement customer suggestions to better serve us. This resulted in numerous products from the vintage and modern lines.

I personally think the notion that "instrument limitations force us to be more creative" is a rationale that is somewhat of a talking point In light of Moog's business model which consistently pumps out products that are both modular in nature and which tout the benefits of having controls that give you what you want in the useful range and adds the polar extremes in case people decide to dial those settings in.

[thealien666]

People who constantly complain about missing features on a particular synth should not get a Voyager, nor a Phatty, nor any other "pre-wired" analog monosynth. They should build themselves a modular system. Or, buy this instead:



But, of course, it hasn't got memories...

[Alien8]

I think that it shows how some music has evolved in the way it gets created. Computers being programmed to make music controlling outboard analog gear is currently all the rage. Support for that from a company that is willing to listen will naturally be voiced. It reflects our societal shift towards computer based living.

On the flip side - a DAW programmed to sequence sounds is quite an effective tool for those that take the time to do it. I don't want to say that those dependent on computer programs to make music are not musicians - they still are, just not in the old school practice makes perfect way one would learn a physical instrument.

The listener is also led down a path of what they should listen to, and instant gratification typically supersedes those magical syncopated evolutions that are conjured when blood sweat and tears talent is present. The talented musicians really don't care, they just play and embrace, evolve and love what comes out - regardless of the software.

That said - regardless of how you make music - hitting a bug that kills that moment sucks!!!

[stiiiiiiive]

We enterend the era of immediacy: computers do everything faster. Not always better, but certainly faster. Kids less and less understand the charm of old gear, but hey this is progress. I guess.

To react to the original post, I kind think the same. Well, I think feedback is a great way to enhance products. What bores me is not people suggesting. What bores me is people complaining.

I like to exploit the constraints of an instrument. What it can do is indeed is far more important than what it cannot do. And what it can do just before reaching its limitations is often interesting.


Or maybe I'm old.

[thealien666]

You're not old, you're using common sense. But that seems to be a vanishing thing these days... Or maybe I'm old, too ?

[DonutDude]

I'm definitely one of the old school, old farts here. I don't have to rely on my synths communicating with a computer software program in order to record my music. Because of that, I know I'm bypassing a lot of the issues others are dealing with on these forums. I understand the frustration however, and sincerely empathize with those having problems getting their synths to communicate with their computers when recording music. Hopefully my Korg D-1600 will continue to survive, and serve my needs for many years to come. Using my computer to update a synthesizer or moogerfooger OS is about all I want to deal with at this point.

[megavoice]

I'm definitely one of the old school, old farts here. I don't have to rely on my synths communicating with a computer software program in order to record my music. Because of that, I know I'm bypassing a lot of the issues others are dealing with on these forums. I understand the frustration however, and sincerely empathize with those having problems getting their synths to communicate with their computers when recording music. Hopefully my Korg D-1600 will continue to survive, and serve my needs for many years to come. Using my computer to update a synthesizer or moogerfooger OS is about all I want to deal with at this point.

In general +1.....
But not with the purpose to open up the discussion about a new Moog Poly again, I have ony to add if Moog won't release a Poly on the next NAMM I'll lose the rest of the 10% confindence that I'm still bearing, and especially with the focus on their new products. I'm the most happy man with what I have, but for live gigging too worthy.
If Moog won't raise their ass from their seat, I'm promising them solemly that competitors on the rest of the planet DON'T SLEEP...........

[HicoMe]

Hi,

People who constantly complain about missing features on a particular synth should not get a Voyager, nor a Phatty, nor any other "pre-wired" analog monosynth. They should build themselves a modular system. Or, buy this instead:



But, of course, it hasn't got memories...

sorry, but you are wrong ... Keith's Modular has memories. The lower row includes 5 memory- modules, each one with two (limited) presets. Just listen to old ELP live-recordings, where you can hear, how Keith switched between them. I love this old "preset-synth". Have heard Mr. Emerson playing the original one in 1997 in a concert in Kassel/Germany

Best regards
Heiko

[thealien666]

I stand corrected.
Feel free to buy one then... It's got everything !