Re: What do I need to start with synths
Posted: Fri Mar 10, 2017 8:03 pm
Counterpoint the 303 owns the 404.
None of those are classics to me. To me, a classic is something that stands the test of time, and I just don't see Roland's offerings from the 90s & 00s being preserved and passed down. I'd buy 200 pieces of gear, before I'd pick up any of those. The JP8000 came out in 1997. When someone can buy analog in the present, why reach back 20 years for virtual analog? I think all 3 of those will continue to fade deeper into obscurity, with the advancement of digital technology and the resurgence of analog.actualidiot wrote:
These might not be new-new, but they're certainly not 30 years old. They are modern classics, and they have made plenty more. I agree that their latest rehashes of their machines of yesteryear are only so-so, but saying they've only made plastic garbage for the past 30 years is just wrong. Also their dominance and reputation on the pedal market can't be disputed, whether they're cool to dudes like us on ILF or not.
That's not necessarily my definition of a classic. To me, the 'classicness' of a piece of gear can be judged just as much by factors like, whether it was a success at the time of release, what impact it had, innovation, the sound, 'being great', etc. How many people use Commodore 64's or Atari ST's today? Not nearly as many as the amount of people who used them when they were released. That doesn't make them non-classics.echorec wrote:None of those are classics to me. To me, a classic is something that stands the test of time, and I just don't see Roland's offerings from the 90s & 00s being preserved and passed down. I'd buy 200 pieces of gear, before I'd pick up any of those. The JP8000 came out in 1997. When someone can buy analog in the present, why reach back 20 years for virtual analog? I think all 3 of those will continue to fade deeper into obscurity, with the advancement of digital technology and the resurgence of analog.actualidiot wrote:
These might not be new-new, but they're certainly not 30 years old. They are modern classics, and they have made plenty more. I agree that their latest rehashes of their machines of yesteryear are only so-so, but saying they've only made plastic garbage for the past 30 years is just wrong. Also their dominance and reputation on the pedal market can't be disputed, whether they're cool to dudes like us on ILF or not.
psychic vampire. wrote:And, when you think about it, analog synths are basically one step beyond fuzz pedals, in a way. All warm sustain and square waves.
Is this in reference to OP or to start an analog vs. digital discussion?Invisible Man wrote:psychic vampire. wrote:And, when you think about it, analog synths are basically one step beyond fuzz pedals, in a way. All warm sustain and square waves.
Would you call the MicroKorg a classic?actualidiot wrote: That's not necessarily my definition of a classic. To me, the 'classicness' of a piece of gear can be judged just as much by factors like, whether it was a success at the time of release, what impact it had, innovation, the sound, 'being great', etc. How many people use Commodore 64's or Atari ST's today? Not nearly as many as the amount of people who used them when they were released. That doesn't make them non-classics.