tenembre wrote: ↑
Sat Feb 08, 2020 8:13 pm
I think we're talking about two different things.
Fair enough. I wondered if that might be the case.
Also you could stand to be less arrogant in your wording.
Nothing arrogant in stating a financial reality. were you offended it was highlighted? Historically synths are a *very* poor investment. Whether you -or I!-think so or not. It's not dependent upon what we want to believe; the numbers don't lie. And synths suck as investements compared to many other *far* beter investment options. It's not arrangant to state and amplify this fact. Especially since it appears not too well known or understood. Based on what I've seen people write online.
And the originals aren't commodities? Hello?
Both the originals AND the clones are commodities. That doesn't change the point.
The point is that the prices will be somewhere at the level where students, urban youth etc can pick them up- not where they are limited to collectors. Like in the late 80s when 303s and 101s could be purchased quite cheaply.
We see this argument all the time on synth forums. Having lived through the first golden age of synths and all ages since, I don't buy it. In the 70s these now classic synths were the price of a new car. In the early 80s they were the price of a new luxury car. Yet somehow, musicians icluding the young and disadvantaged -who were just as poor then as now- made sometimes very hard life choices to enable and purchase them. Hence the joke about musicians needing a mate with car for their transport needs. Good musical instruments have always been expensive.
And synths have mostly cost *far* less than other musical instruments. This has remained true for at least the last 50 years. And I expect it will continue and remain true another fifty.
As an example, compare the price of an organ, piano, bassoon, sax, flute, violin, cello, -the list goes on and on- with synths at any time. Back when synths cost as much as a car, these other instruments might easily cost as much as a small house. This is speaking about professional grade instruments; both synth and otherwise. If we want to talk instead abot the cheap beat boxes and their impact, we should look at thngs like cigar box guitars and other at the time and in their environment 'cheap' solutions pressed into use by those who truly could not afford 'better'. jug bands, washboards, saws, even scat singing.
People find ways to pursue and attain according to their values. If synths -or any other instrument- are considered essential, one does what it takes to get it. We've all made the false claim that something we "want" cant be obtained, when the truth is we're not enough committed to make it happen. I include myself in this.
We can accept the edge case that out-of-favor instruments can for a time cost less and skew the results temporarily. But that is not -has not- been a long term reality. Analog synths in the peak of digital being the prime example.
You're not the only person who can "acknowledge the truth" and again you could stand to shed some of your arrogance.
Agreed, everyone and anyone can discern and "acknowledge the truth" that a smaller synth has features closer together. Where is the arrogance in saying physical size is a truth which matters?
I am not saying anything about "correct" affordability. Why put that in bold? Again, it is not responsive to my point.
This is a public conversation among more than you and me. We may have the current focus, but it's not as if we're having a private conversation. It's more that we've been handed the mike, and will say our part and move the mike to the next speaker-responder. Therefore a point was bolded that I'd like to stand out for everybody watching or participating.