I think a significantly underreported potential reason for Moog’s troubles where the crazy costs of Asheville. Asheville has gotten so so so much more expensive in the last 5 years. Everyone working for Moog who was renting in Asheville would likely have had their rent costs doubled in the last 5 years or so, same for any property Moog is renting. All of the costs for their components have gone up dramatically, same with wood. I think there are fairly few companies who can maintain a manufacturing center in a very expensive urban setting.
For context I work in PCB assembly and quoting. We have a customer who is selling off their entire internal manufacturing division and moving to contract manufacturing because the land it sits on is worth more than their manufacturing operation, and that is outside of Boston. It wouldn’t surprise me that awfully much if Moog was in a somewhat similar position.
It’s very likely a confluence of all the factors mentioned in this thread, and also a bunch of stuff about which we simply don’t have inside info. Manufacturing costs, Behringer selling clones, high rents, a lack of true innovation, etc. seems like a perfect storm to me.
Genuinely curious since Behringer’s Model D seems to take a lot of flack, yet Roland’s product is a very similarly sized (to Model D) minimoog clone, counterfeit, ripoff, copy, interpretation, etc.
It was released a year earlier than the Model D (2017 and 2018 respectively) and yet no one seems to bring up this product in these discussions.
Not to mention the countless VST copies. How do those stack up?
Did all plug-in producers kill Moog because every single one has a $20-100 Minimoog VST?
Not trying to defend Behringer here, just trying to better understand the differences between Model D, SE-02, Studio Electronics products, Minimoog VSTs, etc.
I agree with you that all of the Behringer products aimed at Moog had an impact on Moog’s business, but also agree that there were likely other issues with Moog’s business beyond that.
That said I’m just curious what gets considered a counterfeit, and why.
and what damages a company like Moog, and why.
I think the difference is the SE-02 doesn’t attempt to replicate the ‘look’ (“trade dress”) of the Model D, and it does more than the Model D (addition of sync, full digital control with presets, digital delay).
In contrast the Behringer D was a direct take on the Model D reissue (it adds the LFO section that was on the reissue but not the original Moog Model D), and tries to replicate the ‘look’ of the original. Behringer also had the full history of ripping off other companies products, both big and small.
I do not think looks alone is enough to address everything I mentioned.
I think the layout of the SE-02 very much resembles the Moog.
Not to mention… it’s a minimoog copy architecturally, b/c that’s what people bought the moog for, not because there were colorful switches. But, Roland didn’t use colorful switches though so I’ll give you that.
What about VSTs that look exactly like the Minimoog?
How many people have purchased a VST that’s a minimoog clone instead of saving up $5k?
I can guarantee that number ^ is higher than people that bought a behringer model D.
Even Tycho, who’s a huge Minimoog fan said Monark from NI is the best Mini emulation he’s used
direct quote
“I have been using the NI Monark Mini emulation for live shows and it’s really close to the real thing. For some sounds it’s almost indiscernible from a real mini. biggest difference seems to be the envelope attack (real minis are very fast) and just the way it feels when you’re playing a real analog keyboard as opposed to midi > VSTi. Even with super low latency I feel like there’s a perceptible disconnect when I’m playing. Maybe it’s in my head though.”
how many people has Tycho inspired to go buy Monark from NI.
He calls it an emulation, not a counterfeit. This is a professional musician.
It’s an example of a product fitting a different use case than a $5k piece of hardware.
The best thing, I think, Moog did for themselves in this scenario was release their own emulation app to try to recover some money from these emerging markets.
Problem is: Moog released their own app in 2018, and it wasn’t a computer VST until last year 2022.
They were too slow to adopt a product line for this market (which they desperately tried to expand rapidly with the Moogerfooger VSTs too). My assumption is that they poured lots of money into the development of their software business all while resting on a failing hardware business. I think this accelerated their closure, not that people who were going to buy a $5k Minimoog reissue decided to buy a Behringer instead.
Behringer applied a successful product concept to a different market, like NI, Arturia, and Roland did. Again, i’m just trying to better understand why there is outcry over this, because it’s been many years in the making before behringer ever released a moog-copy product.
some Minimoog products that came before Behringer's Model D
Robertson Audio’s RA Mawg,
Minimogue,
OhmForce’s Minimonsta,
Arturia’s ‘Mini V’
NI Monark
Synapse’s The Legend
Cherry Audio’s Miniverse
GuinGuin MME (dubbed an accurate reproduction at a fraction of the cost)
Roland’s SE-02
^ all of these and more came before the Behringer Model D.
The question: Did these products (and brands) contribute to Moog’s demise as well?
Either they should be held equally accountable OR equally not held accountable.
it’s unethical in my opinion to place blame on Behringer without mention of any of these companies as well. Are we also making boycott Arturia, NI and Cherry Audio videos too?
As far as I know, Benn Jordan is a promoter of software solutions, as mentioned in the video:
Well imo Benn fuckin contributed to the end of Moog too then.
Sad they weren’t able to adapt their business fast enough to keep up with Benn Jordan’s philosophies and music-making needs Now I REALLY don’t like Benn Jordan, and I want the old Moog Back!
If anyone here is looking for a more analytical perspective (i.e not just some tiresome Behringer bashing trope) that explains the underlying forces that led to Moog selling to inMusic I strongly recommend watching this video:
You might learn something useful about capital and where we all now unfortunately stand in relation to its flows. Varoufakis has a brilliant analysis. I’ve located the clip to the precise moment where he describes the context but the rest of the interview is worth watching.
On the Roland SE-02, Roland doesn’t market it as a Minimoog derivative, and I think that most people don’t even realize that it is based on the Minimoog.
they did have a few reissues but that certainly wasn’t all they did. hell, it was five years between runs of the Model D. they did limited runs of the Taurus, vocoder, the modular was special order only, etc. very high end gear they sold limited amounts of. certainly weren’t relying on that to keep them afloat. and tons of people bought more affordable synths from them: Little Phatty, the various Subs, the Grandmother and Matriarch, the Mother32/DFAM/SubH, Minitaur, etc. and then there’s the entire Voyager line and the One it inspired (more $ though of course…). plenty of innovation and not just reissues there.
besides, there’s a lot less shame in doing what you do best than there is in copying someone else’s hard work and trying to cash in on it. even if doing the former just means you go down with your head held high.
firstly, Tycho has at least two Minimoogs in his studio and says “we use the plugin live.” cuz of course it’s cheaper, easier and less risky than carrying around a real Minimoog. the fact that he still has Minimoogs and has previously toured with them, likely still only records them, speaks to how he prefers them. which he even says in your quote. second, software version of a synthesizer is an emulation, not a counterfeit or a clone or whatever. it’s not copying the parts off a circuitboard and slapping it into a case. they have to translate an analog board and all of its components into a digital recreation.
I chose Tycho as an example for that reason, first person (and Trent Reznor) that I immediately went to as obsessive users of the original minimoog hardware.
That said, my point still stands, how many people consider the emulation to be enough?
Wouldn’t that have impacted moog’s business?
I just keep seeing fingers pointed at Behringer for Moog’s current situation and all I’m saying is it really doesn’t seem like Behringer is the cause of their problems.
You make an interesting point about the hardware, but with Arturia and others claiming “analog circuitry modeling” they’re quite literally attempting to claim that they ARE indeed ripping off their hardware.
It also doesn’t make sense in the context of Roland’s SE-02 vs the Behringer Model D
Both are hardware and are ‘copies of circuits slapped into cases’.
I appreciate your comments but I’m not sure it’s convinced me that any software or hardware that I’ve seen should be called a ‘counterfeit’
And I’m not sure I’m convinced yet that behringer should be held any more accountable for Moog’s problems than Moog itself and the laundry list of companies that have produced a Moog-derivative product
Not sure why the focus is on the model D ? That is actually one of the few where creating clones and emulations doesn’t really matter as the original is very old.
It’s about blatantly copying instruments that are currently in production.
Anyway, it might be a part of why moog got into trouble but definitely not the only reason.
This is unfair, because innovation is only a “nice to have”. Fridges aren’t innovative; cars aren’t; pens aren’t; most synths aren’t; most clothes aren’t. most drum machines aren’t; most music isn’t. Lots of people still buy all of those things all the time.
People bought Moog for “character”, “status”, “usability”, “features” and “quality”. Moog delivered on all but quality with high consistency. In fact, I’d argue most people who buy soft and hardware instruments (electronic or not) buy for features, usability, character and status ahead of “innovation”. “Innovation” demands “early adopters” and those are a very small proportion of any market.
I think perhaps you have misinterpreted my use of innovation as ‘radical changes’. Have you catched up up on the synths released over the past ten years? Innovation has been changing the game all while Moog was making variations of their legacy products.
Synths are evolving and becoming more powerful due to advances in tech and cheaper dsp and processors.
All Elektron’s
Sequential Pro 3
Novation Bass Station 2
UDO Super Six
Korg Wavestate
ASM Hydrasynth
All above synths have combined legacy tech and modern tech to give users an evolved synthesis experience. The list of products that do this is long…
I have absolutely nothing against Moog wanting to stick to their subtractive roots. I just don’t understand why they chose to have almost every product based on it. Sequential did it right by having legacy on one side(P5) and innovation on the other (P3)
Also you’re very wrong thinking that cars or fridges have not changed. Cars especially have been through a major innovation the last 10 years. Yes they still have four wheels(well most), but inside there is some of the advanced tech out there.
I believe you’re confusing innovation with features. Features are nice to have, innovation can be what you already have, but improved. Like a more stable oscillator, you already had one, but thanks to advances in tech it’s now more stable.
The market for cars, fridges, clothes or pens is insanely bigger than the synth’s one.
Moreover, try to drive a car from the 1930’s and you’ll find yourself in a difficult position to drive without all the innovation that happened since the birth of car industry. Good luck to park, drive under the rain or spend 4h to go shopping instead of 1.
Synths are part of a hobby market at first. That induces being innovative wether it’s the UI, going digital, including new sequencing, etc.
Clothes sell due to a capitalist artifice called trend. They rarely last as long as a 1980’s synth. All these items ended up being made in east Asia, synths are certainly not avoiding that rule.
On my local market, first website shows me tons of MOOG items for resale including pieces over 9K. That’s just mad and doesn’t seems to belong to the hobby market anymore. You’ll send a few pieces like that but of course not enough to maintain a company floating.
Even Elektron switched to smaller boxes and while we cry to not see the OT MK3 any day soon, people are still wondering why a company selling synths over 10K can’t make it.
EDIT: If you look at the buying power / country, USA has for example 38,5% more buying power than France. So unless MOOG was aiming at the US market only, its prices are out of reach for the majority of the global market. In today’s economy and in this sector, hard to survive with just the local market.
The world has been on the verge of recession for the last few years, Moog are mostly seen as a prestige brand, young people can’t afford higher end kit and can’t afford large houses/apartments for large setups, coupled with more bedroom producers making hits at home rather than the cycle of being signed and put in physical studios to record an album meaning fewer studios buying less hardware etc. A niche can’t support a luxury brand forever, especially in the current economic climate and music making zeitgeist.
This board is a little bit of an anachronism, a niche within a niche with its hardware first focus, perhaps leading people to think that hardware competitors are the cause of Moog’s demise when I would argue its money, space, time and software.
Interesting take, although there’s also a counter point: hardware synths have been booming more than ever before. Eurorack in particular(when I got into euro there was only Doepfer and a few others)
My personal take is that Moog overestimated its own value and consumer loyalty.
The Mavis costs almost 300 euro where I live. That’s 30 euro less than a microfreak. Now why would consumers go with a barebones 1 vco synth when they can get their hands on a device such as the Microfreak which is way more powerful and versatile.
Full transparency I own a Moog and many other synths. The Moog is a Moog. It does what a Moog does for better or worse. I find Moogs too one dimensional for my own productions.
