4 ms·

The word has been historically used to represent a new group of people being empowered. And Behringer has empowered poor and hobbyst musicians like no one else

The word has been historically used to represent a new group of people being empowered. And Behringer has empowered poor and hobbyst musicians like no one else in recent memory. That's a revolution in my book.

CaptainOfCoit 1y ago
Huh, I guess my history been different, I always understood "innovative" as something like "new and different". Making something cheaper can be innovative, depending on how you achieved that. But if you launched a product that is the same as a competitor only because it's cheaper, because your company is funded by VCs who can continuously inject cash to bleed your competitor, I wouldn't call that "innovative" at all. But if you instead had figured out a way to actually create the same hardware but in a cheaper way, so that's why the price is cheaper, then you did innovative in the creation process, but I still wouldn't call the finished product innovative, I'd be more focused on the process itself.
- benediktwerner 1y ago
  The word used in the original comment was "revolutionized" and in reference to "the market", not "innovative" and not in reference to product functionality.
- friendzis 1y ago
  One of you is talking about a technical revolution, that changes what things are or how things are made. The other is talking about market revolution, where market dynamics change, typically by lowering the price.
  - CaptainOfCoit 1y ago
    Yeah, I think that's a fair characterization.
steve1977 1y ago
One could make an argument that companies like Behringer, by „selling the dream“ - even if they sell it cheaper than others - are part of what makes musicians poor ;) Cannot afford a real Jupiter-8? Now you can! And finally you will have success! (Narrator: They did not succeed)
- abuani 1y ago
  ... That makes no sense. The value of an instrument isn't what makes a successful musician successful. The best musicians can make the cheapest sounding instrument sound amazing. What cheaper instruments offers is the opportunity for someone to even have a chance.
  - steve1977 1y ago
    But Behringer is mostly selling clones of famous (and expensive) synths. You don’t need these expensive synths. But md point is that you wouldn’t even need the clones of Behringer.
    - mrob 1y ago
      Those synths are famous and expensive because they're an important part of musical culture. E.g. if you want to make dance music it's likely you want 808- or 909-style drums. You could use samples or software simulations, but I think the hardware UI makes a difference. It's easier to follow the idioms of a genre when you're working in a similar way to the originators of the genre.
      - CaptainOfCoit 1y ago
        > Those synths are famous and expensive because they're an important part of musical culture Not only that, many synths are expensive at launch because of R&D and production costs (considering the small amount they produce), and impossible they're already part of "musical culture" as they just launched. TE and Elektron stuff is expensive at launch as just one counter-example.

CaptainOfCoit 1y ago

Huh, I guess my history been different, I always understood "innovative" as something like "new and different". Making something cheaper can be innovative, depending on how you achieved that. But if you launched a product that is the same as a competitor only because it's cheaper, because your company is funded by VCs who can continuously inject cash to bleed your competitor, I wouldn't call that "innovative" at all. But if you instead had figured out a way to actually create the same hardware but in a cheaper way, so that's why the price is cheaper, then you did innovative in the creation process, but I still wouldn't call the finished product innovative, I'd be more focused on the process itself.

benediktwerner 1y ago
The word used in the original comment was "revolutionized" and in reference to "the market", not "innovative" and not in reference to product functionality.
friendzis 1y ago
One of you is talking about a technical revolution, that changes what things are or how things are made. The other is talking about market revolution, where market dynamics change, typically by lowering the price.
- CaptainOfCoit 1y ago
  Yeah, I think that's a fair characterization.

steve1977 1y ago

One could make an argument that companies like Behringer, by „selling the dream“ - even if they sell it cheaper than others - are part of what makes musicians poor ;) Cannot afford a real Jupiter-8? Now you can! And finally you will have success! (Narrator: They did not succeed)

abuani 1y ago
... That makes no sense. The value of an instrument isn't what makes a successful musician successful. The best musicians can make the cheapest sounding instrument sound amazing. What cheaper instruments offers is the opportunity for someone to even have a chance.
- steve1977 1y ago
  But Behringer is mostly selling clones of famous (and expensive) synths. You don’t need these expensive synths. But md point is that you wouldn’t even need the clones of Behringer.
  - mrob 1y ago
    Those synths are famous and expensive because they're an important part of musical culture. E.g. if you want to make dance music it's likely you want 808- or 909-style drums. You could use samples or software simulations, but I think the hardware UI makes a difference. It's easier to follow the idioms of a genre when you're working in a similar way to the originators of the genre.
    - CaptainOfCoit 1y ago
      > Those synths are famous and expensive because they're an important part of musical culture Not only that, many synths are expensive at launch because of R&D and production costs (considering the small amount they produce), and impossible they're already part of "musical culture" as they just launched. TE and Elektron stuff is expensive at launch as just one counter-example.