Moog Music Forum

The Analog Organist wrote:Superd2112 -

You just described a Prophet '08 synthesizer to the letter.

Yea, I guess I did, with a little Poly Evolver mixed in as well. I can't help it, I'm loving my Prophet, & each time I play it, I can't help but wonder how a Moog poly would sound with with some of the cool DSI features - features which I now take for granted & find myself looking for on other synths, and not just on Moogs, but all the synths I check out lately...

Yes, I've got a Prophet '08 too. A fabulous instrument, and it works superbly with a Voyager. But I'd still love to have an updated Polymoog.

It's funny how almost everyone salivates at the thought of a modern Moog polysynth. The multiple threads, long posts and people literally begging Moog for one is epic.

And it will only increase with the discontinuation of the Andromeda A6.

Subtronik wrote:It's funny how almost everyone salivates at the thought of a modern Moog polysynth. The multiple threads, long posts and people literally begging Moog for one is epic.

Not to mention the overflow into Little Phatty threads and ...NOT a Polysynth threads.

Not to mention the overflow into Little Phatty threads and ...NOT a Polysynth threads.

Well here's an honest, curious question:
How satisfied do you think folks would be if Moog took 6 or 8 LP synth engines and made a poly from that design?
One window and controls like the LP, but global voice control.
Maybe also a mode to make it multi-timbral with individual editing of voices.
Various stacking or dual modes perhaps.

Do you think the LP voice compliment would be enough to warrant replicating it several times for polyphonic use?

In all honesty, Kevin, the Little Phatty is sadly lacking in modulation capabilities. That said, the Little Phatty does have a sound that easily lends itself to having 6 or 8 voices without getting too muddy...on many patches. Would I want six voices of IT GOES TO 11 or 4WAKEMAN? Probably not. But patches like the PHONY HOHNER or 1975 STRINGS would be well-suited for polyphony. And, I have made a very nice organ-sounding patch that would be HUGE in six or eight voices.

Kevin Lightner wrote:How satisfied do you think folks would be if Moog took 6 or 8 LP synth engines and made a poly from that design?

I'm guessing it would still sound better than any other modern analog poly.

There's one glaring omission on this string: a comment or two from the guys at Moog Music. Come on, fellas.

What's a REAL Moog?

What's the secret of the "Moog Sound?"

And do any of your plans involve reviving a familiar old Moog instrument? How about an updated Memory Moog?

The customer line is already forming and quite long.

The Analog Organist wrote: The customer line is already forming and quite long.

*still standing in line* anyone know when this things gonna get started? I shoulda brought a tent.

How should we read their silence?

Maybe we should threaten a walk out.

Did Dr. Moog ever really design a polysynth? Maybe in the polymoog, which was more of an organ and though it was a poor design it did sound pretty good. The memorymoog was not his invention. Could he have designed a monster polysynth? Absolutely, but why didn't he? Again because he knew what was up. Listen to the genius.

from your other thread

EricK wrote:Initially, Bob and others wondered if they even wanted their Synth to have a keyboard controller attatched, because of the things that electronic musicians were doing in that time (music concrete, etc) and the Oscs weren't even really designed to produce accurate musical tones. Finally, they decided to put a keyboard controller on it and the first modular synth prototype "The Abominatron" was polyphonic.

Bob wasn't with the company when the Poly or the MemoryMoog were released. Dave Luce gets the credit for the PolyMoog.

Bob's FIRST Modular synthesizer was polyphonic. You can hear it on the Moog Movie intro sequence.

I hate to burst the bubble, but polysynths are not the future and are only a regression. If Moog spent their resources on a poly, it would be a really cool piece of gear, an extremely cool looking keyboard, but very superficial. In a way the Voyager has a superficial aspect to it. We all love that though, it feels good, as Bob said. But a poly would be that and only that. If you really look deeply past all the shiny bells and whistles, the minimoog's purpose is simplicity in design = beauty in the result. I hate to be cynical, but we are all materialists and a Moog poly would just feed our materialist indulgences and make Moog Music a more price restrictive company and the Voyager, a $3500 instrument would be just a low cost alternative. The whole "new and improved" paradigm is for companies to profit from the human condition, which always wants bigger and better. They have been exploiting this unscrupulously and will forever. Why not just make Voyagers with more and more features for less money like apple does with the ipods and iphones? Beacause an instrument like the Voyager was made to be timeless like the original D. A super expensive poly would make almost anyone with a Voyager feel like they need more, which they don't. I bet if you did a clinical study on men who want a polyphonic Moog, you would find a correlation with susceptibility to penis enlargement ads. People don't be sheep and fall in to the traps that corporate America sets for us.

Pardon me, but what on earth do materialism and corporate America have to do with beauty? Very little, indeed. Not everyone wants a musical instrument to worship, or to gawk over all night long. Music is about bringing hope and joy to others by means of a medium that - the human voice aside - requires a material object, a musical instrument. Not to mention the fact that the human being itself comprises a material component. So, who's the materialist in this case, God?

Please allow a little room here for the noble pursuit of beauty, not as a false god, but as a true good. Humans need things. Period. Try caring for your family without providing any things for them, and then let us know how it goes. Whereas, materialism is the disordered love of things for their own sake. Yes, many musicians suffer from this disorder - having mountains of equipment that they can hardly play - but music doesn't demand that this be so. One can be a serious musician and not be materialistic. And the mere desire to produce polyphonic music does not make one a materialist or a gullible patron of corporate America.

Monophonic music is fine. Above all other music, I love Gregorian Chant, which is all monophonic and unaccompanied. But polyphonic music allows for a deep and complex expression of ideas and emotions. A polyphonic synthesizer would allow for this variety and complexity. In the hands of a talented musician, it is a tool for producing beauty. Something wrong with this?