The first thing that came to mind...

Nate · Post by **Nate** » Wed Jun 11, 2008 12:47 pm

was Robert Fripp. Has Moog mailed him one yet?

prizmatic · Post by **prizmatic** » Thu Jul 31, 2008 9:37 am

The first thing that came to my mind and Im sure its already been said is why the hell are Moog busy diluting their brand name with guitars and wasting time not building a poly. This is classic mis-use of a brand and just leads to confusion, stick to doing what you do best make synthesizers. This is just what the world doesn't need a guitar that goes on and on and on forever!

goldphinga · Post by **goldphinga** » Tue Aug 05, 2008 5:21 am

How is this diluting the brand? Thats a ridiculous and unfounded accusation. Why not make a guitar? This doesnt mean a poly wont happen! People are too quick to judge sometimes...i dunno.....

narrowcaster · Post by **narrowcaster** » Tue Aug 05, 2008 1:07 pm

And the guitar makes sense when you consider that for several years now Moog has been finding some success marketing Moogerfoogers to guitarists. Historically the Moog brand has been about making electronic instruments in the broadest sense. And of course guitars are polyphonic (sort of)

Voltor07 · Post by **Voltor07** » Sun Oct 05, 2008 8:08 pm

I still don't understand why they made the thing so fugly. Couldn't they have gone to BC Rich and made it look killer instead of lame?

MarkM · Post by **MarkM** » Sun Oct 05, 2008 9:41 pm

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. I find many BC Rich guitars to be a bit garish and homely, but looks are not why one should or shouldn't by a guitar.

Voltor07 · Post by **Voltor07** » Sun Oct 05, 2008 10:30 pm

I suppose...to each his own, right? Still, it would have been nice to see the Moog guitar look like something other than a Stratocaster. Everyone and their mothers have a Strat look-alike. I guess I was a bit surprised that Moog didn't make a guitar that was NOT the industry standard.

T7 · Post by T7 » Tue Oct 07, 2008 7:48 pm

prizmatic wrote:The first thing that came to my mind and Im sure its already been said is why the hell are Moog busy diluting their brand name with guitars and wasting time not building a poly. This is classic mis-use of a brand and just leads to confusion, stick to doing what you do best make synthesizers. This is just what the world doesn't need a guitar that goes on and on and on forever!

I'm with you on this one.

ColorForm2113 · Post by **ColorForm2113** » Wed Oct 08, 2008 3:08 am

Voltor07 wrote:I still don't understand why they made the thing so fugly. Couldn't they have gone to BC Rich and made it look killer instead of lame?

i get what your saying but geez... moog and bc rich are in completely different leagues

Voltor07 · Post by **Voltor07** » Wed Oct 08, 2008 4:11 am

ColorForm2113 wrote:
Voltor07 wrote:I still don't understand why they made the thing so fugly. Couldn't they have gone to BC Rich and made it look killer instead of lame?
i get what your saying but geez... moog and bc rich are in completely different leagues

Yes, of course I won't argue that, but COME ON! EVERYBODY seems to use the same friggin' body for their guitars, and Moog has always been doing things that no one else is doing. Like the LP, for example. It's a love it or hate it design...which most of us love, right? Anybody ELSE have a synth that rips out the design stops? Everything else is based on the same box as the MicroKorg or Nord [insert whatever model here, as they all look the same. Some are just red].

The Strat body style is like those Rolands(which all look like everything else...except for a Moog). The only reason that I used BC Rich as an example is because they have the most extreme designs out there. Yes, their build quality is not the best. Yes, most people who play them are sub-par players. But their designs are in-your-face. The Gibson RD was in-your-face. IMHO they had to plaster the Moog logo all over the MG because otherwise no one would recognize it as a Moog Guitar. Anyway, I'm done. Help me off of this soapbox, please.

Amos · Post by **Amos** » Tue Oct 14, 2008 1:32 pm

(here's a step down.

)

As I understand it, the thinking was that the technology of the guitar was such a stretch away from the norm to begin with, that giving it an extreme/unusual body style would be too much on top of the guitar's essential weirdness and even fewer people would buy it. I don't know if this is true or not, but it's a safe enough guess.

Cheers,

Amos

Voltor07 · Post by **Voltor07** » Tue Oct 14, 2008 5:40 pm

Hmm...interesting thought, Amos...thanks for the step down, BTW. That seems like a valid point, though.