is there anyone who actually likes the name?

hieronymous · Post by **hieronymous** » Sun Mar 26, 2006 9:16 pm

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...

Array · Post by **Array** » Sun Mar 26, 2006 9:34 pm

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.

museslave · Post by **museslave** » Sun Mar 26, 2006 11:09 pm

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. ; )

godzilla · Post by **godzilla** » Mon Mar 27, 2006 2:49 am

they should call it:

the moog doob

martin · Post by **martin** » Mon Mar 27, 2006 7:01 am

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.

Micahel Victor · Post by **Micahel Victor** » Mon Mar 27, 2006 7:49 am

I hope the back plate doesn't have the name larger than the moog logo.
eg little phatty
----------- moog
I guess I will have to fabricate a cool orbiter label to hide the hideous l p
moniker

Sweep · Post by **Sweep** » Mon Mar 27, 2006 8:03 am

Museslave, that's one of the best posts I've read in a long time. 100% agreement.

And Martin, I think you've hit the nail very squarely on the head.

I've always pictured these obsese notes waddling off into the sunset.

Of course it depends what music you play, but if synths are supposed to be opening up to whole new ranges of sound (that's `sonic infinity' after all) we sometimes need fat sounds, sometimes thin ones, sometimes thick and lumpy ones, sometimes limpid liquid ones.

Personally, I love the sound of the Moog filter. I wouldn't describe it as fat at all, but as rich. It has a tonal richness that sets it apart from lesser filters. I'm working hard on making analogue sounds that are as complex and dynamic as I want them to be, which means layering several oscillators and having a number of envelope and filter shapes happening on each note. That makes great sounds, real living sounds, but it also thickens up the sound a lot.

The thickness Wendy Carlos mentioned happens with analogue whatever filters you have. It's not so bad if you're writing your own music and you can make space for it in a piece, but there's a need for high-pass and band-pass filters to thin the sound at times. `Fat' isn't a desired charateristic all the time. Richness is more desirable, but even that needs shaping if its to take its proper place in a piece. To my mind synths are all about dynamic evolving textures, and they potentially give us the opportunity to shape sound the way no other instrument can.

But some people simply want something they can impress an audience with - or maybe just concuss an audience with. They want something big they can wave in people's faces while the psychologists make notes at the back of the venue.

`Little Fatty' (Phatty or whatever) sounds like the worst name ever for a synth, and I've been around long enough to have heard a few bad ones. Moog want to appeal to the hip-hop crowd, and if that's where a proportion of the sales are I don't blame them. But the presence of the name `Moog' is enough to do that. That's one thing the hip-hop crowd and the actual musicians are agreed on.

With a stupid name they won't get much extra from the hip-hop crowd and they risk putting other people off. The name itself won't make a massive difference on its own, but it'll make a real difference when someone's choosing between the Moog and a similarly priced keyboard and they want something people won't laugh at when they see it.

writeroxie · Post by **writeroxie** » Mon Mar 27, 2006 9:32 am

the only thing worse than little phatty is "minimoog".
uggggh, i totally spray-painted over that sh*t.

museslave · Post by **museslave** » Mon Mar 27, 2006 11:06 am

Sweep wrote:Museslave, that's one of the best posts I've read in a long time. 100% agreement.

Hey, thanks a lot, Sweep! I tend to be a little pedantic about stuff like this, but its only out of my love of the actual history of synthesizers. : )

Sweep wrote:And Martin, I think you've hit the nail very squarely on the head.

I also agree, Martin!
As Moog cornered the market on the term "fat," I often use "broad" or "rich" to describe other synthesizers with juicy analog filters.

Sweep wrote:Of course it depends what music you play, but if synths are supposed to be opening up to whole new ranges of sound (that's `sonic infinity' after all) we sometimes need fat sounds, sometimes thin ones, sometimes thick and lumpy ones, sometimes limpid liquid ones.

I couldn't agree with you more!
This is why it irks me when people compare all Moogs to the Mini. A Moog that doesn't sound like a Mini is not a BAD thing, it's a DIFFERENT thing. The Sonic Six, for example! I absolutely LOVED the buzzy discrete (in sound, anyway) sound it had, and it was very useful in many applications... the only way it wasn't useful is in mimicking a Mini.
There are times when "the Moog sound" is just too fat. There is a well respected tech with whom I have corresponded... and he and I have often argued about the value of the Korg PS-3100... he would rather have a Memorymoog. Certainly, I can understand that... but the Memorymoog is just sooo fat! That can't be the sound you're looking for ALL the time!

Incidentally... momentarily off-topic and selfserving: Shortly, I will be posting a video on YouTube about the operation of the Korg PS-3100... it's very basic, but it features sounds and operation! I'll have it up in a couple of days... you can decide whether you'd want a "thin" sound or a "fat" sound. : )
http://www.youtube.com/user/AutomaticGainsay

Sweep wrote:Personally, I love the sound of the Moog filter. I wouldn't describe it as fat at all, but as rich. It has a tonal richness that sets it apart from lesser filters. I'm working hard on making analogue sounds that are as complex and dynamic as I want them to be, which means layering several oscillators and having a number of envelope and filter shapes happening on each note. That makes great sounds, real living sounds, but it also thickens up the sound a lot.

I agree with this, as well.

Sweep wrote:To my mind synths are all about dynamic evolving textures, and they potentially give us the opportunity to shape sound the way no other instrument can.

While I can enjoy a nice single-osc triangle wave with portamento, I agree with this statement as well.

Sweep wrote:`Little Fatty' (Phatty or whatever) sounds like the worst name ever for a synth, and I've been around long enough to have heard a few bad ones.

I'm inclined to believe they won't use it... but then again, I was wrong about them using parameter knobs instead of knob-per-function!

Sweep wrote:But the presence of the name `Moog' is enough to do that. That's one thing the hip-hop crowd and the actual musicians are agreed on.

Once again, I agree!

Sweep · Post by **Sweep** » Mon Mar 27, 2006 11:41 am

(In a mischievous mood) - how about some patch names for the Little Fatty? Hope this topic doesn't get closed down.

`Humoungous dong.'

`Fat and mean - like Hermann Goering.'

Any others?

JSRockit · Post by **JSRockit** » Mon Mar 27, 2006 11:48 am

Man, I thought what mattered was what it sounds like and how easy it is to program...with a little bit of aesthetics involved... it is only a name... relax.

The Unknown · Post by **The Unknown** » Mon Mar 27, 2006 11:49 am

Flabberghastly!

misterhemi · Post by **misterhemi** » Mon Mar 27, 2006 4:29 pm

Did they say the name was actually going to be "Little Phatty"????

I think that is just a nickmane unless someone can provide something more.

I think it makes reference to the fat (phat/big) sound of the synth rather than it being the actual name.

unless there is some official statement, I wouldn't make assumptions.

(and if they're reasding this they are probably having a good laugh at all of the guesses too

)

Boeing 737-400 · Post by **Boeing 737-400** » Mon Mar 27, 2006 4:40 pm

Yeah, is that going to be the actual name? Have they confirmed it anywhere?

Ted3000 · Post by **Ted3000** » Mon Mar 27, 2006 4:59 pm

What's in a name?

Any name given to the new Moog synth (even an unool one) will BECOME cool. Previous associations will gradually fade. The new synth could be called the Farttron 123 and after 10 months, it would be desirable.

Bad Case in Point: Anyone remember when the second Star Wars prequel title was announced? There was a massive, geeky, angry, web forum-based fanboy backlash, with promises of boycots and long profanity-soaked rants. There were plenty of reasons not to see those prequels, but the name wasn't one of them.

Little Phatty? Orbiter? I just want to turn the filter res up all the way and route the cutoff to the mod wheel and shatter vases or blow a speakercone or three. Who's with me?

Moog Music Forum

is there anyone who actually likes the name?

is there anyone who actually likes the name?

Words are important. : )