Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

(Music Production) Plug-In Capitalism

bellonamag.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 30 posts

Re: (Music Production) Plug-In Capitalism

#21

Post by GhettoComputers »

guerrilla wrote: post #19
GhettoComputers wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

It seems like you've already made up your mind. There's no problem and anyone bringing up a problem doesn't make sense and is making frivolous arguments and you're just going to call them names instead of look into any of it. I can't say I think that's the best way to approach it.

Why do you expect me to read long poorly written propaganda? In imitation of my reading of Das Kapital (a few book 1's chapters), none of it makes sense and it bores me to tears. The length and the low density of information isn't convincing, succient, and its meandering. All these long winded boring passages aren't making any good points, they could all benefits from learning to write instead of dredging up problems looking for anything to blame on racism. Naomi Klein I may disagree with but she is a pleasure to read, while I don't see any reason for me to suffer through writing worst than a 12 year old in public school with no good points, what a waste it would be to suffer through walls of boring prose of race huslers with no benefits. Why should anyone be expected to sort this garbage for the creators looking for good ideas where there obviously is none when the writers don't find the time to write and edit better so their ideas are spread? The best way to approach it would have been to block the URL forever but I made the mistake of reading even a bit of it.

The writer didn’t post the music they made, I’m sure it’s even worst crap then the low quality article.

Re: (Music Production) Plug-In Capitalism

#22

Post by Slow_Hand »

klodolph wrote: post #20
Slow_Hand wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree with you, but Behringer are not limited to recreating only vintage gear. This week they unveiled a cheap clone of Moog's DFAM drum synthesizer. A model that's roughly 4 years old. Behringer are particularly shameless about copying the work of others in this space. It's not illegal, but it's widely considered to be a shameful practice among those in the industry.

The DFAM is a boring, conservative design to begin with. Not like synths need to be interesting anyway. Eurorack and semi-modular stuff is getting more and more popular these days. If you design another semi-modular sound module out of a slightly different combination of the same underlying modules we’ve had since the the 1960s, you’re not innovating. DFAM is kinda cool in that, if you like that sound, you can get it…

Yeah. I don't care for DFAM either, but the content of DFAM isn't really the point. My point is that Behringer are letting other companies do all of the hard work of designing and branding their products, and once they're proven to be successful Behringer churn out a cheap copy and piggyback off of their hard work. Nowadays it feels like that is all that Behringer do.

We don't have recourse to stop them from doing so, but it feel fundamentally dishonorable and pathetic and it is a type of behavior that should not be rewarded.

Re: (Music Production) Plug-In Capitalism

#23

Post by piva00 »

klodolph wrote: post #20
Slow_Hand wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree with you, but Behringer are not limited to recreating only vintage gear. This week they unveiled a cheap clone of Moog's DFAM drum synthesizer. A model that's roughly 4 years old. Behringer are particularly shameless about copying the work of others in this space. It's not illegal, but it's widely considered to be a shameful practice among those in the industry.

The DFAM is a boring, conservative design to begin with. Not like synths need to be interesting anyway. Eurorack and semi-modular stuff is getting more and more popular these days. If you design another semi-modular sound module out of a slightly different combination of the same underlying modules we’ve had since the the 1960s, you’re not innovating. DFAM is kinda cool in that, if you like that sound, you can get it…

The DFAM is a unique design, that's it. The interplay of the components is its innovation (how the envelopes are normalised to the sequencer, etc.) Behringer copied it, while it's in production by Moog, it's an asshole move.

Just like it's an asshole move to clone the Arturia Keystep, a pretty simple and accessible MIDI controller costing around US$ 100. Why would Behringer clone it except for being an immoral company?

Cloning designs on synth world is a big no-no if the original is still in production.

I really don't get how you can defend Uli Behringer's schenanigans, he has had a lot of them.

This hand waving of a practice that is extremely frowned upon in the synth subculture is very off putting. Even more when I read with this techy-talk about "innovation", give me a break... Uli Behringer is an asshole, a narcissistic one.

Re: (Music Production) Plug-In Capitalism

#24

Post by klodolph »

Slow_Hand wrote: post #22
klodolph wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The DFAM is a boring, conservative design to begin with. Not like synths need to be interesting anyway. Eurorack and semi-modular stuff is getting more and more popular these days. If you design another semi-modular sound module out of a slightly different combination of the same underlying modules we’ve had since the the 1960s, you’re not innovating. DFAM is kinda cool in that, if you like that sound, you can get it…

Yeah. I don't care for DFAM either, but the content of DFAM isn't really the point. My point is that Behringer are letting other companies do all of the hard work of designing and branding their products, and once they're proven to be successful Behringer churn out a cheap copy and piggyback off of their hard work. Nowadays it feels like that is all that Behringer do. We don't have recourse to stop them from doing so…

Designing and branding is not all the hard work. It is just the sexy, cool work. It is the work of engineers and creatives, which is valued because it is associated with cultural capital here.

Meanwhile, Behringer is good at supply chain management and vertical integration, and that is uncool, unsexy work. It is not valued because it is the domain of MBAs, and MBAs are not cool.

This kind of judgment about what is cool and not cool is not my scene. These analog modules are so damn cookie-cutter to begin with. I don’t care if you invented them, or if you got them out of a cookbook, or if you just bought an IC. (You might have bought that IC from Behringer, though! Who else makes BBDs?) I mostly care about making music, and the idea that people should spend $700 on a DFAM instead of, like, $220 for a Behringer Edge just seems cartoonish at face value.

Incidentally, the $480 price difference between the Behringer Edge and the Moog DFAM is exactly the price I paid for a block of one-on-one voice lessons. I feel way better about spending the money that way.

Re: (Music Production) Plug-In Capitalism

#25

Post by klodolph »

piva00 wrote: post #23
klodolph wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The DFAM is a boring, conservative design to begin with. Not like synths need to be interesting anyway. Eurorack and semi-modular stuff is getting more and more popular these days. If you design another semi-modular sound module out of a slightly different combination of the same underlying modules we’ve had since the the 1960s, you’re not innovating. DFAM is kinda cool in that, if you like that sound, you can get it…

The DFAM is a unique design, that's it. The interplay of the components is its innovation (how the envelopes are normalised to the sequencer, etc.) Behringer copied it, while it's in production by Moog, it's an asshole move. Just like it's an asshole move to clone the Arturia Keystep, a pretty simple and accessible MIDI controller costing around US$ 100. Why would Behringer clone it except for being an immoral compan…

> Why would Behringer clone it except for being an immoral company?

Could you rephrase that? I’m not sure I can dig out what you’re trying to say.

> Cloning designs on synth world is a big no-no if the original is still in production.

Why is it a no-no?

> I really don't get how you can defend Uli Behringer's schenanigans, he has had a lot of them.

Oh, he’s done plenty of shitty things. I don’t think that cloning hardware is shitty. How do you feel about Malt-O-Meal cereals?

> This hand waving of a practice that is extremely frowned upon in the synth subculture is very off putting.

I don’t frown upon it. I don’t think it’s wrong. My behavior of buying a Behringer synthesizer, one of the most popular brand of synthesizers, is not off-putting to most people.

> Uli Behringer is an asshole, a narcissistic one.

I don’t care. I’m not going to, like, sit in my basement running Temple OS just so I can avoid using products made by assholes. People should face consequences for their actions, but I don’t buy products as some deranged way of voting on which CEO I like the best.

Re: (Music Production) Plug-In Capitalism

#26

Post by piva00 »

klodolph wrote: post #25
piva00 wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The DFAM is a unique design, that's it. The interplay of the components is its innovation (how the envelopes are normalised to the sequencer, etc.) Behringer copied it, while it's in production by Moog, it's an asshole move. Just like it's an asshole move to clone the Arturia Keystep, a pretty simple and accessible MIDI controller costing around US$ 100. Why would Behringer clone it except for being an immoral compan…

> Why would Behringer clone it except for being an immoral company? Could you rephrase that? I’m not sure I can dig out what you’re trying to say. > Cloning designs on synth world is a big no-no if the original is still in production. Why is it a no-no? > I really don't get how you can defend Uli Behringer's schenanigans, he has had a lot of them. Oh, he’s done plenty of shitty things. I don’t think that cloning hard…

To be honest, I don't think we are coming into this from the same moral view so it's a bit pointless trying to expand on it.

Copying a currently in production design that some other company devoted resources to come up with is immoral in my worldview even if it's not illegal, it's a shit move and I don't condone it by not buying their products. The CEO basically being the company is why I throw Uli's name around.

I don't really get how you can defend them copying the Arturia Keystep, it's close to the pinnacle of a shit company to clone something that was already inexpensive (as far as music gear goes), it's a cash-grab in everything they do.

You do you, of course.

Re: (Music Production) Plug-In Capitalism

#27

Post by klodolph »

piva00 wrote: post #26
klodolph wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Why would Behringer clone it except for being an immoral company? Could you rephrase that? I’m not sure I can dig out what you’re trying to say. > Cloning designs on synth world is a big no-no if the original is still in production. Why is it a no-no? > I really don't get how you can defend Uli Behringer's schenanigans, he has had a lot of them. Oh, he’s done plenty of shitty things. I don’t think that cloning hard…

To be honest, I don't think we are coming into this from the same moral view so it's a bit pointless trying to expand on it. Copying a currently in production design that some other company devoted resources to come up with is immoral in my worldview even if it's not illegal, it's a shit move and I don't condone it by not buying their products. The CEO basically being the company is why I throw Uli's name around. I d…

> Copying a currently in production design that some other company devoted resources to come up with is immoral in my worldview even if it's not illegal, it's a shit move and I don't condone it by not buying their products.

I already think patent protections are a bit too strong, and this kind of stuff is not even up to the level where it would get patent protections in the first place. Let me ask… is it an asshole move to make a Photoshop clone? Or is that fair game? Is it okay to buy a strat-style guitar from Kramer, or should I stick with Fender? Is G&L a gray area?

Re: (Music Production) Plug-In Capitalism

#29

Post by ageitgey »

nitrogen wrote: post #2

> The Switzerland-based Behringer’s business model involves cloning famous pieces of music gear, with precisely enough design changes to evade trademark disputes, at a fraction of the original price. It is arguably a form of cultural and intellectual appropriation that parallels colonialism’s appropriation of Indigenous technologies and instruments, and forcing them out of the market with cheap, Fordist modes of prod…

> I'm overall sympathetic with the concerns from the article about risks of monopolization of the audio production space, but Behringer and others making cheap gear is not that.

I agree, and it actually goes further than that in our complex global economy which there's no such thing as simple "good guys" and "bad guys".

Love them or hate them, Behringer is the only one producing the replica chips used in all sorts of guitar pedals, synths, etc. Tons of boutique guitar pedal/synth/effects shops only can exist because they can source the core chips they need from Behringer to base their custom designs around. Behringer may have started as a leech on the industry, but they are now enabling large parts of the industry.

Re: (Music Production) Plug-In Capitalism

#30

Post by fxj »

I was ditching NI, ableton, logic and cubase when I discovered reaper and the free plugins from KVR. There is a vivid community about the DAW and many plugin designers of free and open source plugins use it for development. KVR does a developer contest every other year and many brilliant plugins came out of that.

If you even want to get rid of MS windows or MacOS, then reaper is the right tool for the job. Together with the zynthian synths you have a (semi) open source production environment.

I think the problem is that many electronic musicians these days do not have the knowledge how to program a synth. They just use the pre-canned sounds that come with NI.

Post reply on HN