What's the point of a polysynth?

[Subtronik]

People who want moog to make a polysynth are most likely gear junkies who just want another piece of Moog gear.

I'll never buy a Fooger, a Taurus or a Moog guitar, I'm not interested in them.

The only other piece of gear I want for my setup is an analog polysynth, and I'll buy the best one on the market when I'm ready. If that's a DSI, then that's what I'll buy. But if Moog makes one I know I'll buy it because they do analog so well.

[EricK]

AH,
Were also living in a day and age where theres a lot of stuff going on. First, Music Education in the schools is going down the tubes. 2, this is an era where young children are coming up in the computer dominated society downloading music at rates of such high frequency they don't realize that musicians actually get paid to make those songs. 3. We also are in a particular time period where sound recording software is as common as zippers and buttons on your pants and as a result, hundreds of thousands of people can sit at home and with a relatively minute investment can get the tools needed to make cd quality audio.

For a lot of those people, a software synth is all they need and Moog is ridiculous to think that anyone would spend 3000 on a Voyager, or 6000 for a guitar much less [whats likely to be way more than] 8000 for a wonderfully crafted polysynth.

When has Moog ever really dissapointed people? as a community we asked for a more affordable mono, and they delivered with the Phatty. A lot of demand was around for a new minimoog and tey delivered with the Voyager. They had the demand for the Taurus and they delivered (well my delivery is still pending). Moog won't engage in the launch of a project thats going to be moot.

[EricK]

I'll never buy a Fooger

I used to think that same thing. I originally thought that Foogers were just marketed strictly to guitar players and I had no interest in them. Then, the first ever sonic infinity DVD was sent out to people who requested one and I saw each one of them demonstrated. The Ringmod was the first to catch my eye because of the tremelo. The tremelo lights in my Rhodes are burned out so I saw that the 102 did great tremelo, then I got on the website and heard the ringmod demo with an electric piano and I was sold. I also saw how the interconnectivity of the foogers was and thats what peaked my interest. I also loved the percussiveness of the Murf and Im going to get that soon.

At that point I thought, I don't even care about the control voltage processor (cp251) until i figured out what IT would do, and I can totally see the need for at leat 2 of them (in my system).

My only interest in Moog before that was to get a Voyager to replace my Micro because there wasn't a Phatty at that point. This was.....2004.

[Subtronik]

The main reason I don't want Foogers is because it would inevitably turn into a semi modular system, then a full modular system, then my wife will leave me.

Seriously though, I have no desire to connect other devices to my synths.

[EricK]

I can see that.

Eric

[panamabirthcanal]

A very good analogy to me is a painter. Does a painter use one color on his brush or many colors? It depends, obviously, but to use one rich beautiful color is much easier to paint with than several colors on the same brush. The one color, with all of its dense mixture of colors can move in any direction. If you have more than one color on the brush, the colors can only move linearly, or the colors will cross each other, which can be interesting, but you have to make sure that each color can mix with the other, or muddiness will ensue. This is what i hear in polysynths. You have extremely rich colors in single notes, with all of the resonance sounds so good at times when the harmony is perfect, but is so limiting because the colors cross over each other in bad ways most of the time. This is also my musical philosophy, while I do use harmonies with clavinet, hammond, and wurlitzer, which are my backgrounds on the canvas, my Moogs are my paintbrushes.

[EricK]

You need to watch bob ross, he routinely put more than 1 color on a brush to make happy little trees and rocks. Very nice stuff.

[panamabirthcanal]

I been watching his afro since I was a kid. A tree is easy, because it is a harmony. What about a melodic animal or a person, try that with more than one color.

[Subtronik]

You need to watch bob ross, he routinely put more than 1 color on a brush to make happy little trees and rocks. Very nice stuff.

[Just Me]

Seriously though, I have no desire to connect other devices to my synths.

I have the desire to connect my synths to other devices.

(I never did want to end up with all the stuff I've got, but I find uses for it all!)

[Subtronik]

I never did want to end up with all the stuff I've got, but I find uses for it all!

And that's exactly why I never took up heroin

[anoteoftruth]

A very good analogy to me is a painter. Does a painter use one color on his brush or many colors? It depends, obviously, but to use one rich beautiful color is much easier to paint with than several colors on the same brush. The one color, with all of its dense mixture of colors can move in any direction. If you have more than one color on the brush, the colors can only move linearly, or the colors will cross each other, which can be interesting, but you have to make sure that each color can mix with the other, or muddiness will ensue. This is what i hear in polysynths. You have extremely rich colors in single notes, with all of the resonance sounds so good at times when the harmony is perfect, but is so limiting because the colors cross over each other in bad ways most of the time. This is also my musical philosophy, while I do use harmonies with clavinet, hammond, and wurlitzer, which are my backgrounds on the canvas, my Moogs are my paintbrushes.

Maybe for you all of this makes sense. To me this whole thing sounds rediculous haha. Even if you wanted to explain it this way, polyphony would be more like using the same color but adding different shades to make it a whole fuller image. Having different colors on the same paintbrush would be more like multitimbral polyphony, which can be used wisely to get some really interesting sounds.

To insist that you can be more creative with a monopohonic sound than a polyphonic sound, without layering (which just makes it polyphonic or multimbral in the mix anyway) is just kind of stupid. It's like saying that you can do more with 1 Little Phatty than 6 people playing 6 Little Phatty's at the same time. Sure, what is labelled as being "creative" or not is all relative to the creator and listener.. its subjective. But it's just a fact that when it comes down to technical capability, a polyphonic analog synth if it comes with the same modulation capabilities and features we expect from a monophonic... will have the ability to create more and different kind of soundscapes,... wether or not thats something your interested in is a different matter. But I'd bet my money on a lot of people being interested.

[panamabirthcanal]

The analogy works with multitimbral polyphony even more. If you have different colors on the same brush you can only move the brush in a line like a continuous function, or else the colors will overlap. Sure you can just keep it static, and the colors will just sit there next to each other, which is kind of cool. But if you try to move it around all over the place then the colors will become muddy with no clear path. The same thing with a poly synth. Each voice sounds good alone, and you can go anywhere with it, but if you try to play more notes, the sonic capability diminishes. And we are talking 2 kinds of creativity, sound design and musical. Polys diminish the former because 1. a fat monophonic sound will sound too fat doubled up, and 2. you cannot change the pitch of the oscillators on each voice without compromising the harmonic structure of the song. With musical capability, yes the poly has the ability to play chords and double stops, which adds to the Western idea of harmony, but in the case of Indian Classical music, which around the world at least as many people are exposed to as Western, defined sonorities and harmony are nothing more than a restriction of what can be done melodically. So yes in the context of Western harmony the poly is more capable, but analog synthesizers were not created for explicitly for harmony. There are many many instruments out there that are made to handle harmony, but Dr. Moog realized that analog synthesis had a different goal than catering to just harmony.

[Jrayk Roze]

Hey guys, why not just buy polymoogs?

[analoghaze]

a polyphonic analog synth if it comes with the same modulation capabilities and features we expect from a monophonic... will have the ability to create more and different kind of soundscapes,... wether or not thats something your interested in is a different matter. But I'd bet my money on a lot of people being interested.

Sure.

It is quite apparent that alot of people are quite intrested.

It is also totally possible to do exactly that with modern Moog.
Buy a Voyager keyboard and 3 Voyager racks and you are good to go.

You have a Moog poly!!!!

I am trying my hardest to avoid these threads about the Moog poly, but they are everywhere lately. (and to be honest.... I liked the forum better without it popping up everywhere)


Why don't more people just get a Voyager and 5 RMEs?

There is your six voice Moog!!!



Done.
It can exist.
It does exist.
There are people who do it.
Now.... I ask you... the people who are screaming and asking for the poly....... what is holding you back?

It is possible!


Are all you all waiting and holding out for Moog to make a synth with the specs of the P08 in the same price range????
It is not going to happen!!!

Just make a Moog poly arleady.

Moog Music has already given us the ability.
It is up to you.


If you cannot stand the heat get the hell out of the kitchen.

these new threads about a Moog poly are really getting silly and a bit stupid.


Go and buy your Moog poly already.
MIDI or CV.