#130

I see it differently. Both sides here can not escape their market logic. One side wishes to protect the small business and are relying heavily on some modern myth making - the sort that favours small capitalism for its ‘authenticity’ or ‘innovation’ or whatever magical word they want to use that masks its underlying contradictions. The other side calls for wide-open markets. The debate is not between the left and centre but the role of regulation in protecting capital accumulation.

The performative ‘icky feelings’ about big capital and the ‘pro-consumer’ approach of the big capitalists are two sides of the same coin. I hear no left voice.

3 Likes
#131

There have been a couple of cases in the guitar pedal business. One being the Vertex Effects Axis wah, which literally was a BBE Ben Wah with a different sticker on it. Another was the Freekish Blues Alpha Drive which was a Chinese JOYO pedal that was re-housed.

Both of these companies are somehow still in business.

2 Likes
#132

Well, there was no Random Source Euro format DUSG when Maths was released. The original DUSG was also a different modular format, with a different front panel layout.

1 Like
#133

I’m not sure how this makes Maths any less of a … tribute, if you will, and I definitely don’t understand how Make Noise is off the hook for not mentioning Serge. If you go look at the 2009 MW thread announcing the module you will see that others made the obvious comparisons.

By your argument, there’s no problem at all with the Behringer D since it’s a quarter the size of the original, lacks a keyboard, and has MIDI.

#135

The Shared System came years later. Maths was introduced in 2009.

#138

The Behringer Model D was stated to be a copy of the Moog Reissue Model D (which did have MIDI, the dedicated LFO, etc.) not the original Model D. Personally I don’t see the Behringer ‘issue’ as specific to any particular product anyhow, but the operations of the company as a whole.

2 Likes
#139

@bradfromraleigh and @jnoble, maybe step away for a few? I’m not going to flag your comments for moderation, but when you get into one-line retorts and general sniping, you’re heading that way, and away from the spirit of discourse here.

3 Likes
#140

I’ve removed my comments - no offense intended.

#141

No offense taken! :blush: Removal unnecessary. I’m just suggesting you slow down. Your feelings are legit; this isn’t a simple topic, as revealed by the explosion of recent responses that have more political gravity than when this thread started.

#142

From a quick look at the original Maths manual hosted on their site:

Ever since completing the QMMG design, I have felt that it needed a good buddy. A patch pal! Say hello to QMMG’s best friend, MATHS.

MATHS builds on the tradition set into motion in the 1960’s by Don Buchla when he adapted the circuits found within analog computers common to engineering labs, for musical purposes. Buchla’s “Algebraic Processor, Model 257” changed the way music synthesizers utilized control voltages.

MATHS, a mash-up of the Buchla 281, Buchla 257 & Serge DUSG, continues this great tradition of sculpting the control signals we use to sculpt our sound signals.

12 Likes
#143

Thank you, I missed it in the original Maths manual.

The point I was making is only slightly less valid, however: according to the reasoning and values advanced by some in this thread, Make Noise should come in for some heat too for failing to acknowledge Serge in their current marketing materials. I’m not making this argument, to be clear, but rather asking whether the ethics of some of the commentators is purely situational. If so, I think we have nothing in common. Either way, peace out. :slight_smile: :vulcan_salute: :v:

@bradfromraleigh, I was merely correcting the historical record for your benefit, no worries. @grey, if you could direct my attention to where I was sniping I’d gladly amend it. :slight_smile:

#144

Could we maybe have two threads: one for discussing Behringer products, and another one for discussing intellectual property norms?

4 Likes
#146

This thread can be excellent place for this kind of discussion. When we leave the ethical, legal, economical, political and ideological dimension aside (all relevant topics by their own right, as mentioned by @tehn, @zebra, @DMR, @aeoner, @grey, @mode.analogue and many others), what is left is a mirror in front of us reflecting our (perceived) desirers as a group. Spells like ‘vintage’, ‘classic’, ‘analog’ have been floating around with remarkable effect in synth community during the last decade. As well as the emphasises on (abundance of) gear and a constant need for peer acceptance in form of shared photos and videos.

7 Likes
#147

Scope that Prophet 6 module clone in the background, too.

#149

This thread is somehow actually on topic, going by the first post. Given the “clones” in the title and the feelings that are continuing to churn, I think it’s unlikely this thread will ever stick to just discussing the products. Feel free to start a new thread for that purpose, of course!

6 Likes
#151

good to know all this going on, I missed this. support originality!

#152

While economics and affordability have entered the equation in different ways as discussed here, I think its an important point that the vast majority of these instrument sales is to amateurs - if they weren’t it wouldn’t be profitable. We can make all the arguments and points about values and cottage industries and innovation as we like, but for better or worse the larger market will probably be steered by general consumers, not professionals. I had a discussion once with someone who sells synths and he made the point (that I would tend to agree with) that selling instruments is the last aspect of the music industry that is profitable, and that isn’t made profitable by selling gear, high or low end, to artists with ever decreasing budgets - it is made by volume sales.

How many kids starting out today want a guitar and a distortion pedal to play smells like teen spirit, or how many adult hobbyists want to satisfy their childhood dream of owning Jimmy Page or whoever’s guitar set up vs the number of kids who want to learn how to program that Daft Punk bassline or hobbyists want to play Depeche Mode or Guy Called Gerald covers on as close to original machines as they can get. I think Behringer is a company that sees this and are applying the same tactics they did in other markets to electronic music. I haven’t tracked the company and their product range that closely since I first started in music, but I can always remember them primarily being a company producing cheap or knock-off live PA and home studio products - mixers, power amps, rack gear, DI boxes, eventually going in to microphones… basically what you would need to make your garage band seem semi-pro without pro prices. They know which way the wind is blowing and that owning 303s, 808s, and Junos is the future market equivalent of the stereotypical lawyer dad with a den full of guitars/pedals/amps that they have collected, occasionally mess with for an hour or two on Sunday, and have never played in front of anyone else ever.

3 Likes
#153

The same idea resonated with me in your first post but now reading it again I can not find it anymore. I would like to make an argument that we should separate two issues here:

  1. making cheap synths ala Neutron
  2. making cheap clones ala Model D, MS101

Will these cheap synths have to be the clones of existing or historical instruments? No. From strictly musical point of view, there is no reason for these clones to exist, especially the historical ones ala minimoog model d or sh101. The fact that these are in fact replicas is telling us much more about the ‘average’ synth ‘consumer’ compared with ‘kids starting out today’. I would even make an argument that the clones are not the best choice for newcomers. Would you disagree when I say that most of the clones will be bought not as the FIRST synth but 10th or 20th synth for a very respectable synth collection by people who you would describe as the ‘lawyer dad’?

1 Like
#154

I suppose to be honest I really have no idea if I could make that assessment. I guess my hyper specific taste in gear/music/art places me outside the arena enough that I’m not sure I can trust myself to make a fair or accurate assessment about general tastes at this point haha. Though I suppose a kid now starting out would go for a Volca or something like that given its price point…

I think I see what you are saying though and it was one thing which I was trying to point at. The whole need to own every version of everything because we convince ourselves it is going to be inspiring or finally fill out the studio, using clones to make clone music for youtube demos for more people to buy clones to make clone music, so on…

I’m just also trying to be self reflexive in some way though too since I think I can adopt a very contrarian way of working - everyone loves Max so I’ll use shitty pedals, everyone loves pedals and guitars so I’ll use a synthesizer, everyone loves modulars so I’ll use shitty mp3 players and sit doing nothing… so on. Though this for me is more adopting similar working methods across different mediums/tools and being process oriented I’m trying to not delude myself that there isn’t some agitational element to this too (whether the world would ever know or care being another matter…).

My general take though is that I enjoy and generally think it is good for art to see diverse practices and find people who develop unique musical/artistic languages or idiosyncratic working processes the most interesting. Regardless of the tool I think it really shows if someone has a long standing dedication to engaging with said tool in a meaningful and innovative way. This could possibly mean using clone gear, or piles of junk, however I think inexpensive clone gear is generally produced to reproduce the results it is known for and feed a fetish market. As an example one of the few people who I think has taken a piece of iconic gear and reworked it in a fascinating and unique way where the result is more than just “wow you did that with that box” (this is another “genre” to me that results from cloning and gear obsession) is Jake Meginsky’s Sinewave Palindromes album. I could know nothing about how it was produced and it is fantastic, and Meginsky’s relation to the tool used is one that seems highly personal and adds a layer of fascination and demonstrates a thought out practice, but its just one layer of the work.

3 Likes
#155

I was curious to learn of other examples where large market players directly copied products of smaller producers - effectively, outsourcing their R&D for the small cost of reverse engineering. Its actually hard for me to think of examples on my own but I’m possibly just ignorant. A few google searches led me to articles outlining what is happening in the world of fast fashion and all the legal, environmental, and economic impacts it has. This is certainly not a direct corollary but there are some parallels to draw to this situation.

A point I made earlier that I since deleted is that the practice of copycatting for the purpose of selling cheaply produced and subjectively inferior products is at best a waste of resources - physical and human - to create products that will be meaningless in a few years. That’s a strong opinion, I know. And I truly don’t believe that anyone looking to spend $3k on a Moog Model D would be perfectly happy with a Behringer clone - personally, I’m closer to the lawyer-dad than the striving artist so I’m probably in their target market. Behringer is certainly capable of being innovative and has done so in the past. To echo others, cloning just seems unnecessary for them.

3 Likes