Moog Sub 37

[nathanscribe]

As long as we all agree that "paraphonic" refers to a synth that does not have fully individually articulated voices, we're good to go.

As for the Korg PS-3100, well, that and a whole bunch of other synths have filters common to the sum of voices, for example the Juno 6, where the high-pass filter comes after the VCA mix and just before the chorus. It's not paraphonic. Each voice is individually articulated, as is the Korg. "Paraphonic", as AG says, is just a term used to denote the lack of individual articulation that we refer to as a "voice".

[Automatic Gainsay]

In the 70's, "Paraphonic" was Roland's way of saying mulit-layered sound. Look it up!

That may well be, CZ... and believe me that it pains me when I say this, being a guy who spends too much time freaking out about word usage and changes in meaning: Definitions change with usage.

This is where I see the confusion. Many of those similar type stringers could be lumped into the Paraphonic definition as many of these machines could indeed play layered tones. The Moog Opus 3 has three sections, organ, strings and brass that could also be played simultaneously. And likewise the ARP Omni I/II had similar paraphonic capabilities. This all happened in those late 70's when a layered synth/organ was all the rage.

Yes... and it is a sad coincidence that so many of those same synths had a single filter/amp arrangement. It is an inaccurate conclusion based upon observed similarities. That is extremely irritating... and exactly the reason I have sought to keep this notion that "paraphonic" synths aren't "polyphonic" synths from going the same route.
What can be done, CZ? Another term has risen up in lo these many decades to describe layered tones. No other term describes the multitude of synthesizers whose oscillators are directed through a single filter/amp combination.

I'm not entirely sure why you're wasting time with what I've said when you could be directing your complaint to Moog Music, who is about to put out a synthesizer named for the definition I have described. That is what "paraphonic" means now. I'm sorry.

I don't know if you've used this thing called the internet, but a tremendous amount of it says things like "it's paraphonic, not polyphonic." Which is not true, but demonstrates that the "paraphonic" definition I describe is the one most widely held. Of course, that doesn't make it more valid... but its simply what it means these days.

[GuyaGuy]

I don't know if you've used this thing called the internet, but a tremendous amount of it says things like "it's paraphonic, not polyphonic."

It's true if we all agree and understand the difference (and Derridean differance), which I think is more or less the case. In the same way, we're not confused by the Moog Voyager, which is both monophonic (duh) AND stereophonic (holy s**t!).

[CZ Rider]

What can be done, CZ? Another term has risen up in lo these many decades to describe layered tones. No other term describes the multitude of synthesizers whose oscillators are directed through a single filter/amp combination.

Well, language meanings do change over the years. If we were in 1974 and I offered to sell you a "Minimoog" with a "Beat Box", it would mean something completly different than it does today.
I blame Gordon Reed who does the SOS articles. In a 1997 article, the guy is gushing over how great the Roland GR/GS-500 was. And goes into detail over all the individual articulation there is in that system. And if you read up on the Paraphonic GR/GS-500 it really was an amazing accomplishment for it's time. Then in a latter 2000 article in the SOS "Synth Secrets" he writes "Paraphonic " means no articulation of notes with a common filter. This is the first reference to this I can recall and he even contradicts his earlier article? I guess Gordon rewrote synth history with that one and it is now commonly accepted what "Paraphonic" means.

I did ask on the Moog forum why they would put a Roland brand name on a Moog. Why not put "Compuphonic" on the Vogayer too? You don't see Roland putting "Minimoog" on their synthesizers.
Putting "Paraphonic Analog Synthesizer" has already caused much confusion. Just look at this thread title. I suggest Moog call it a "Duophonic Analog Synthesizer" and drop the Roland reference.

And for those that missed it, the Roland Paraphonic Guitar Synthesizer did have individual articulation on each note.

[nathanscribe]

Derridean differance)

You know there's a penalty for mentioning Derrida?

[GuyaGuy]

Derridean differance)

You know there's a penalty for mentioning Derrida?

In my defense (or defanse?) I mentioned him just to get people going.

[nathanscribe]

I mentioned him just to get people going.

Uhuh. Well your punishment is to *read* Derrida.

And there's Foucalt you can say to get out of it.

[GuyaGuy]

People actually READ that s**t?!

[commodorejohn]

Until today I was blissfully ignorant of the existence of this Derrida; but since he apparently was a driving influence behind the self-indulgent, masturbatory bullshit that is deconstructivist architecture, f**k 'im.

[Automatic Gainsay]

I blame Gordon Reed who does the SOS articles. In a 1997 article, the guy is gushing over how great the Roland GR/GS-500 was. And goes into detail over all the individual articulation there is in that system. And if you read up on the Paraphonic GR/GS-500 it really was an amazing accomplishment for it's time. Then in a latter 2000 article in the SOS "Synth Secrets" he writes "Paraphonic " means no articulation of notes with a common filter. This is the first reference to this I can recall and he even contradicts his earlier article? I guess Gordon rewrote synth history with that one and it is now commonly accepted what "Paraphonic" means.

Oh, wow. That's really weird, because I blame Gordon for being responsible for the "not really polyphonic" description associated with single filter/amp polyphonic synthesizers... it was also written in an SOS article!

[Automatic Gainsay]

I suggest Moog call it a "Duophonic Analog Synthesizer" and drop the Roland reference.

I said that same thing!

[GuyaGuy]

Until today I was blissfully ignorant of the existence of this Derrida; but since he apparently was a driving influence behind the self-indulgent, masturbatory bullshit that is deconstructivist architecture, f**k 'im.

They're barely related and Derrida disowned pretty much all deconstructivist movements. His areas were language, philosophy, history and challenging authority. Blaming him for the architecture would be like blaming Bob Moog for bro step.

[nathanscribe]

There's a whole load of bad buildings I'd like to see deconstructed.

[GuyaGuy]

I think we've deconstructed this thread...

Back OT, I'm not sure why people lust after a poly/duo/para Moog. Apart from the filter one of the things that defines the Moog sound is how it handles note priority and glide. To me it's almost like lusting after an 808 that does samples too.

[Automatic Gainsay]

I'd just prefer a Moog where the knobs controlled the functions instead of the knobs controlling a digital thang that controlled the functions. But that's what all of you get when you demand TABLETOP TABLETOP TABLETOP USB USB USB