Wiardgroup

Gino,

I realize that the Ferrari-Pinto analogy was a bit catty - sorry about
that.  I think that the ghost of Konkuro came by last night when I
wrote my comment!

I can't argue with your reply - you have a quality publication that
covers a much larger domain than the typical 1984 magazine covering
the same topic.  As you mentioned in your note about my article in EM,
I have personally experienced your efforts to include our miniscule
interest group's agenda in Electronic Musician's scope, which is
commendable.  

But I don't think that my comment is a critcism of the magazine
business - the magazine business reflects the change in paradigm in
business in general.  

You list plenty of good reasons why the larger manufacturers get a lot
of attention and why the boutiques get less.  You also state the fact
that we 'Analogese' comprise a relatively tiny fraction of the EM
reading audience - to which we appreciate your personal efforts in
seeing that we get a very healthy share of print dedicated to our
rather obscure interests.

Gary

--- In wiardgroup@yahoogroups.com, "Robair, Gino" <grobair@...> wrote:
>
> Hi Gary and fellow Wiardos,
> Let me put on my editor¹s hat for a moment and give you a US
magazine¹s take
> on this:
> It¹s difficult scheduling reviews of boutique items from overseas,
such as
> the Ebbe und Flut and GenoQs: they¹re  handmade (obviously) and the
> companies can barely make enough to fill their orders, let alone loan a
> handful to the various gear mags that would be appropriate (EM,
Keyboard,
> Keys, SOS, TapeOp, etc). Sending them for review takes the unit out
of the
> retail stream (unless the reviewer buys it, which I think many
manufacturers
> hope fo). Also, there are shipping costs involved, the possibility
that the
> unit will arrive damaged, etc. (BTW, this is also the case for many US
> modular makers...)
> 
> And if you want to read a ³useful² review of the product, which
tells you in
> great detail about how the unit works, that takes time. Time that
the unit
> isn¹t generating profit for the manufacturer and distributor. (Hey, the
> brave souls making this stuff have to eat....)
> 
> So, the review is partially up to the manufacturer, who must decide
if it
> makes sense to set aside a small portion of their stock. I¹ve been
told many
> a time by boutique companies (synths, mics, preamps, etc) that they fear
> getting a review and being overwhelmed with orders (when, without the
> publicity, they are already working at capacity).
> 
> Also, remember that the review may not be completely positive:
that¹s also
> been a reason why some companies don¹t send gear (again, I¹ve been
told this
> by a couple of manufacturers over the years: they don¹t want to risk bad
> publicity, especially if the reviewer ³doesn¹t get it², as they
themselves
> see it).
> 
> On the other hand, although there is an analog synth renaissance, with a
> growing number of folks cranking out interesting gear, there is an
> exponentially larger quantity of new items from larger manufacturers
‹ both
> software and hardware ‹ which are easier to grok, far less
expensive, and,
> consequently, selling like crazy (although it is stuff that people
on this
> list seem to have no use for). But that means someone is buying
them, and
> that is the audience that the magazines have to cater to in order to
> survive. Simple. 
> 
> Also, the range of topics that have to be covered by the magazines is
> enormous compared to when magazines such as Polyphony were around.
Not only
> do we have mics, preamps, compressors, and synth modules on the
market, but
> we have keyboard controllers, audio interfaces, sequencers, software
synths,
> plug-in effects, synthesizer workstations, hard-disk multitrack
recorders,
> hardware DSP accelerators.... The list is enormous. So, magazines have a
> wider range of products to talk about within a limited page count
then they
> did in, say, 1984, and they have to tell their readers about all of it,
> including stuff that is irrelevant to this list. I know the editors
at many
> of these mags think of their job as educating their readers about
what¹s on
> the market (e.g., warning them of stuff that isn¹t up to snuff, or
sharing
> their enthusiasm about gear that is exceptional). They¹re trying
their best
> to be thorough, but it takes time...
> 
> (For brevity, I¹ll leave out the fact that the magazines also include
> interviews -- such as ours with Wiard power user Gary Chang --
tutorials,
> master classes, gear roundups, etc.)
> 
> Personally, I enjoy the fact that my job allows me to get the word
about the
> kinds of products people on this list care about: great sounding analog
> audio products. And reviews of products relevant to this list are
> forthcoming (at least in EM)...but be patient.
> 
> But we also have to cover other products as well, because they share the
> musical instrument space, and more people want them than analog modular
> synths (for reasons of price, convenience, conceptual understanding,
etc).
> It¹s reflected in the music biz in general, where the simpler the
music is,
> the more popular it becomes.  (Of course, as you and I know, once a
musician
> experiences the joys of modular synthesis first hand, there¹s no going
> back...)
> 
> It would be great if there was a magazine (online or treeware) that
> specialized in modular analog synthesizers, dedicated filters, DIY mods,
> etc. But then again, we have of these nifty lists and Yahoo groups where
> people can share ideas and info for free.
> 
> Okay, /rant. Back to being a musician who enjoys his analog modules...
> ginorobair
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On 9/13/06 10:41 AM, "Gary Chang"  scribbled:
> > 
> > Interesting incites into why we are so bored with the media converage
> > of our sport....  Back in the day, it was about spotlighting all of
> > the "Unobtainium" around - reviewing the melotron, Moog 3 or other
> > expensive gems that we couldn't afford.  Kinda like looking at a car
> > mag with the latest Ferrari.  Nowadays, Keyboard Mag is featuring the
> > latest Pinto in all of its glory...  Where is the review of the Genoqs
> > Sequencer or the 'Ebbe und Flut?'
> > 
> > 
> >   
> >     
> > .
> >   
> >
>