Sequential Circuits Inc. family of products, Keyboard 1982

Sequential Circuits Inc. family of products advertisement, including (clockwise) Prophet-10 synthesizer, Remote Prophet keyboard, Prophet-5 synthesizer, Poly-Sequencer, and Pro-One synthesizer, from page 50 of Keyboard Magazine February 1982.

This advertisement ran sporadically throughout 1982 starting in February. You've probably seen this ad numerous times on the Web, but I just had to post and blog about it because the ad has some absolutely great historical significance.

Not only was it one of the first ad campaigns to replace the famous Ear-Force campaign (along with the plexiglass Pro-One ad), but it was also one of the first SCI advertisement to use the new Sequential Circuits Inc logo.

Ever since I can remember coming across this logo, I had always thought the little swervy design element beside the logotype was supposed to represent recording tape. But, of course, I was wrong (again)...

The new logo was actually introduced and explained on page one of the February 1982 issue of 'The Patch' (Volume 2, Number 1) - SCI's customer magazine that included information about new products, hints and how-to's, patches, etc.

"SCI has introduced a new corporate logo designed by Greg Armbruster, Advertising Coordinator. Greg took the simple, reverse 'S' shape from the evolution of the treble clef and combined it with the existing Sequential Circuits typeface. John Mattos air brushed the design, creating a three-dimensional symbol and 'ruby' letters. Look for this new logo, which will be extensively used in all future ads and promotional campaigns!"

A treble clef! (*smacks forehead with hand*) How did I not see that? Geeez.

And even better, overly-blogged-about beloved Ear-Force ad designer John Mattos also had a hand in the design. Awesome.

If you've read past blog posts, you will know that I like researching the evolution of logos. I've blogged about SCI's early logo evolution before, and here we see more. The new logo started to appear on gear shortly after the launch - but there seemed to be a problem. Even as far as into late 1984 when SCI was about to change their logo yet again, you would see gear both in the wild and in ads that had both the new logo ('S' logo) and a version of the old logo (although, maybe technically it never was the logo without the 'inc' - but I'm going to keep calling it that). And we are talking both logos on the same piece of gear.

So, for example, all the Six-Traks I've come across have a non-treble-logo (sans inc.) on the front and a treble-logo on the back. Even when looking at Six-Traks in ads running as late as 1984.

(Photos shamefully taken from
MATRIXSYNTH's Flickr stream)

Drumtraks vary - I've seen ads from as late as 1984 with the old-style logo on the front, but my Drumtraks, and most of the ones I come across in the wild, have the new treble-logo on them. Prophet-T8's - old logo on the front, even in later ads.

I'm a big fan of consistency in branding - if you have a new logo, it should always be used. But I think I can see SCI's reasoning for continuing to use the older logo style in most cases. Aesthetics and/or real estate.

In gear that had already been designed like the Prophet-10, the front panels were really thin - so keeping the older logo makes sense. Otherwise the logotype would just appear too small. But, again, then why not include the 'inc.' as well? Consistency!

In gear designed after the new logo launched, such as the T8, the long thin wooden front panel screams for the old logo as well. In something like the Drumtraks, the front panel is a bit taller, so the treble-logo snuggles in nicely and is balanced.

So far, so good. Looks like SCI is making some good calls on when to use the old or new-style logo.

But then you look at the Prophet-600. All Prophet-600's seem to have the new logo on the front as well as the back. Finally! Consistency!

But when I look at it, that front logo just looks too small. Gah!

Maybe I'm just being nit-picky.

Probably.

Linn Electronics, Inc. LM-1 drum machine ad #3, Keyboard 1981

Linn Electronics, Inc. LM-1 drum machine advertisement #3 from page 52 of Keyboard Magazine July 1981.

Well - I think I'm finished with my Pro-One kick for a while. *Phew*. That last post involved a lot of typing. So, I'm going to keep this one short - hopefully.

This was the last of the three versions of the LM-1 'Real Drum' ads to run in CK. This blue version of the ad followed the gold version, consistently running in CK from June '81 all the way to the March '82 issue.

Besides the color of the ad, there are a few other subtle differences between the gold and blue versions - both dealing with the Linn logo.

First, the early version of the Linn logo that sat in the bottom right of the ad and that I loved so much has changed. I really liked that older version of the logo with the whole note/transistor image next to the Linn name. Someone should ask him to bring that old logo back. Maybe a limited addition retro-version of his AdrenaLinn III. Hey, did that say free shipping to Canada. Whoo whoo!

The second difference between the gold and blue ad (and more importantly) - the photo of the LM-1 is slightly different. A number of buttons seem to have been added or moved, and what I believe to be the volume knob that was originally located on the far left of the front panel of the LM-1 has move to a central location. In its space appears the OLD VERSION OF THE LINN LOGO! Excellent.

Hmmm... two different models, eh? I decided to do a quick Google image search to see exactly what was out there in the wild, and all the photos of peoples' LM-1's that came up in the results featured the newer model with the volume knob in the middle of the machine, but with the NEW logo in the far left corner. Plus, none of the photos in the image search featured the red button either - all were black.

I did manage to find one photo on flickr that featured the older model with the red button. But it featured not two, but three knobs across the top left side. These have to be very early versions of the LM-1. Maybe even prototypes that made it into the wild? I thought I read somewhere that Roger Linn was constantly making small changes to the design - so maybe this is proof of that evolution.

One other thing I noticed while researching - for a while, these LM-1 ads were often sitting opposite Sequential Circuits ads (or on either side of the same page) in Keyboard. In fact, this ad was featured directly opposite the second-last Pro-One advertisement I blogged about (which is what jogged my memory that I needed to finish with the LM-1 ads in the first place).

Could it be that Roger Linn and Dave Smith were like two peas in a pod back then? Kinda like today? Check out Steven Balsamo's photostream on Flickr for some other great photos of SF MusicTech Summit 2010.

I'm a little jelis!

Sequential Circuits Inc. Pro-One ad #3, Keyboard 1982

Sequential Circuits Pro-One synthesizer advertisement from page 79 of Keyboard magazine October 1982.

I actually posted this advertisement back in early 2009 when I was a shy young lad and didn't really blog too much. But, since I'm on a roll with Pro-One blogging lately, I thought I would resurrect this ad since I still have some Pro-One history I'd like to get down in writing before the excitement wears out (could it?).

Hopefully you have already come across this clear plexiglass Pro-One advertisement. It's been seen in the wild, among other places, in CK magazine as well as SCI's customer magazine 'The Patch'.

Was it real? According to a comment on a synthtopia.com post that featured the ad back in September 2009 - No.

"Sadly, the clear plexi Pro-One was only a marketing gimmick. Dave Smith has confirmed to me that it was a non-working one off that was only for display at the NAMM show back in 81 or 82. I asked him if there would be clear mophos or tetras, and he confirmed in the negative. Which is sad, cause this one would drive trainspotters crazy on stage."

Too bad. Woulda looked real pretty.

I never really got around to talking about the specs of the Pro-One, and though there is quite a lot of technical information out there today on the InterWebz, there really was quite a bit of information bubbling to the surface back in the early 80s - some great references and historical commentary.

Around the time the Pro-One was launched in early 1981, and the first 'why another monosyth' advertisement started to appear in magazines, the Pro-One also made it into the Spec Sheet section of the March '81 issue of Contemporary Keyboard. It was pretty much your standard tech-sheet announcement:

"The Pro-One is a monophonic synthesizer featuring two VCOs that produce sawtooth and pulse waveshapes (the second oscillator also produces triangle waves), a 24dB/octave lowpass filter, two ADSRs, a C-to-C 3-octave keyboard, an arpeggiator, pitch and modulation wheels, single and multiple triggering modes, repeat and drone switches, 1-volt-per-octave control voltage in/out jacks and gate in/out jacks, and an internal interface for hooking the instrument up to most home computers. Also included with the unit are a built-in 40-note two-channel digital sequencer and extensive modulation facilities. Price is $645.00. Sequential Circuits, 3051 N. First St., San Jose, CA 95134."

Poor analogue thing was surrounded by announcements for sparkly new 'digital' devices - the Con Brio digital synthesizer, the Multivox digital sequencer and the Sony digital editor.

It wasn't until almost a year later, after the second Ear-Force ad ran in the second half of '81, and this third ad started its long, sporadic appearance throughout '82 that Keyboard magazine finally came out with an extensive report on the beast in the January '82 issue. A fantastically written piece by Dominic Milano - a well-known writer and editor for Keyboard.

In the report, Dominic does a great comparison between the Pro-One and another mono-synth of the time, the Moog Rogue.

You just have to read the first paragraph of the report to really get an idea of what the monophonic landscape was like at that time in history. And, interestingly, I think there is a parallel to be drawn in today's market for mono-synths.

"THE INFAMOUS MONO synth. It's not a disease. It's a tool for playing music, and in the last five years there have been a number of them brought out by various manufacturers, designed for the neophyte synthesist who perhaps doesn't want to spend a fortune on an instrument that they know little or nothing about."

So, back then, it looks like mono-synths were marketed towards new users that didn't know much about synthesis. Fast-forward almost 30 years, and what I see is mono-synths being marketing largely to software-based users that know little or nothing about hardware.

I realize I'm over-simplifying it a bit... but there is a comparison to be made... yes? no?

Keep reading that first paragraph of the report and historically significant references will just keep on smacking us in the face. It really gives us an idea of just how dominant the Pro-One became in the marketplace.

"A number of companies came out with low-cost monophonics in the mid- and late '70s, including Korg, Yamaha, and Roland. Moog's Prodigy did surprisingly well in the field of low-cost monophonics. In fact, it more or less dominated the field until the Sequential Pro-One became available in March of last year. Yet Moog dropped production of the Prodigy recently, replacing it with the Rogue, a synthesizer that was designed to fill an uninhabited spot in the market - that of the inexpensive inexpensive synth.

So, around 1982, we can begin to see the mono-synth market starting to segment. And Keyboard magazine recognizes this fully in the report. Dominic first comments on the Rogue:

"The Rogue would seem to be a bare-bones instrument, one that's designed to be as inexpensive as Moog could make it, with all the limitations that the words "low-cost" connote. It appears to be an instrument for the person looking for a simple and inexpensive synthesizer. Maybe it's just the right instrument for the player who's put off by electronics and lots of knobs and switches, but who wants to buy an instrument just to see if a synth is a useful addition to their setup."

And then the Pro-One:

"The Pro-One, on the other hand, packs a lot of function into a low-cost package. Corners are cut in places where ideally they wouldn't be, but the trade-off is that you get a lot of function in an inexpensive package. ... The Pro-One would seem to be an ideal instrument for someone who is into high-tech but doesn't have the pocketbook to support the habit."

The report then goes through the basic features of each - first the Rogue, and then the Pro-One. A great technical read. And at the end of each mini-report, is a conclusion. Dominic's conclusion about the Rogue is simple - it's cheap, and "it's pretty good at lead lines". He gets a little more in-depth with the Pro-One conclusion - and provides us with a little bit more technical history about the Pro-One in the process.

"The Pro-One does a more than reasonable job at being a low-budget monophonic synthesizer. Its sound strikes some people as being a bit thin, while other seem to like it."

"The most negative thing about the Pro-One are all the stories of the infamous transformer death that seems to be plaguing the instrument in its early days. What reportedly happened was that in shipment (especially when handled roughly), the transformers came off of the circuit board mountings and did a wonderful job of trashing the guts of the instrument... This problem was fixed by SCI after they started hearing about the complaints. They started bolting the transformer to the circuit board. This change was made beginning with serial number 1811. In any case, this instrument does a lot of things that monophonics costing twice as much don't. It's definitely worth checking out if you're in the market for a first synthesizer. Price is $745.00."

Remember the original spec sheet description nine months previous. The cost of the Pro-One was listed at $645. Less than a year later the price was bumped up a hundred bucks.

In the final, final comparison, Dominic reiterates earlier comments about cost vs functionality, but then writes something rather interesting.

"Actually, we're a little bored by the industry's insistence on the now-'standard' two oscillators, one filter, two envelope generator approach to monophonic synthesizers... It's a fair guess that there will be other low-cost monophonics coming out in the future. The question is, will they offer any new design features, or will they be just new versions of the Minimoog? We'll have to wait and see."

Wow. New version of the Minimoog, eh? I can't say I'm bored yet. :o)

Sequential Circuits Inc. Pro-One ad #2, Keyboard 1981

Sequential Circuits Inc. Pro-One synthesizer advertisement #2 from page 53 of Keyboard Magazine July 1981.

When I first came across this Pro-One ad, I mentally filed it right up there with that sparse Moog advertisement I blogged about last September. In that post, I asked the question:

"Could you imagine any company BESIDES Moog trying to pull this off today?"

Well, Moog could today :o)

Back then, I guess SCI came close. And although they didn't go so far as Moog did in their ad - no logo, contact info, famous people or free stuff - they definitely knew they could create a minimalist ad that wouldn't confuse the audience.

This was the second Pro-One advertisement to be featured in the magazine, after the first 'Why would anyone build another monosynth' ad appeared during the first half of 1981. It ran sporadically until the end of 1981, when SCI replaced their beloved Ear-Force campaign with ads that featured artwork of a more realistic, but still comic-like Tolkien wizard-dude.

But even though the Ear-Force ads stopped running at the end of 1981, SCI recognized the popularity of the artwork and together with the Prophet-5 and Prophet-10 ad-art, created a set of posters that were still available for quite a while afterwards - and featured in SCI's 'accessories' ad that ran in the December 1982 issue. (Side note: One of my favorite pieces of synth merchandise history is my SCI belt buckle, also featured in that advertisement. )

The artwork of John Mattos is so distinctive and the wizard-dude became such a symbol for the company that you can still recognize the guy in this advertisement even though you only see part of his face, along with his boney hand and sleeve cuff.

Two questions quickly came to mind when viewing this ad - and I quickly came to the logical conclusions to both pretty quickly.

1. Why would SCI even have bothered with that first Pro-One ad when this one is obviously superior. That initial Pro-One ad had the logo and sky/cloud imagery typical of the Ear-Force look-and-feel, but it definitely wasn't a full-on 'Ear-Force' ad with the wizard-dude and cockpit/airplane imagery found in the Prophet-5 and -10 ads.

2. Why is that writing at the top of the ad so small?

But I quickly realized that unlike the Prophet-5 and Prophet 10, the Pro-One was still unknown to the public. A transitional text-heavy ad was required so that the audience could first learn a bit about the instrument - a monophonic version of it's big brothers. The Prophet-5 and -10 were probably instantly recognizable because they had been around for a while, but the Pro-One wouldn't be.

And maybe this is just a coincidence, but I think artist John Mattos and/or SCI must have realized this fact and you will notice that the image of the Pro-One in this advertisement has much less detail than you will find in the images of the Prophet-5 and -10 in their ads. The ad just doesn't need it. As far as the small print at the top of the ad is concerned, this was a necessary evil to make sure readers unfamiliar with the initial Pro-One ads would know exactly what the Pro-One is - 'a new standard in monophonic synthesizers!'.

On the other hand, one might argue that the audience's unfamiliarity with this new instrument would be precisely the reason why there should have been more detail in the artwork of the Pro-One - so that it could continue to become more recognizable. And maybe that ad-copy should have been larger for the very same reason.

But I'm such a fan of John Mattos that I'm tempted to say *%$# it - keep the print small and let that Wizard-dude speak for the company. He became the Jolly Green Giant of the synthesizer world, as was recently pointed out to me by my food-obsessed girl-friend.

Sequential Circuits Inc. Pro-One, Contemporary Keyboard 1981

Sequential Circuits Inc. Pro-One synthesizer advertisement from page 27 of Contemporary Keyboard March 1981.

I've been experiencing a lot of déjà vu lately. First it was that keytar blog post that knocked me square back into the 80s, and now this. Although this most excellent 'Ear-Force' advertisement from Sequential Circuits Inc. came out in 1981, the same question featured in this ad could just as easily have been inserted into an advertisement for one of the many recently released monophonics.

"Why would anyone build another mono-synth?"

It may have been a valid question in 1981. Maybe. But, really, I don't think you need to ask that question today. We've all finally learned why. It's because of how great that first round of mono-synths were. Maybe it just took a while for some of us (including the manufacturers) to catch on to that fact.

I bought my first analog mono-synth - a used Pro-One - in a mall music store way back when. I didn't know much about analogs back then, but just one look at all those knobs and I knew I wanted it. Since then I've been lucky to play with quite a few of the first-rounders.

And my first experience with the reintroduction of monophonic synths was propbably in the mid-90s with the release of the Korg Prophecy - an early virtual analog synthesizer that came out of nowhere to deliver some juicy digital monophonic goodness. And ever since, I've noticed that the new round of mono-synths coming out have gone back to their 1970's/80's analog first-rounder roots. Gear like Tom Oberheim's recent re-release of the SEM or Moog's Voyager.

Dave Smith, founder of SCI and creator of the Pro-One, also went this route, releasing a whole new batch of mono-synths - directly comparable to his originals.

I'll admit, his first mono-synth under the DSI name, The Evolver, doesn't really compare with his older products (although I believe they do have curtis filter chips :o). I picked up one of the early Evolvers right off his original Web site because my local music store wouldn't bring them in - I just couldn't convince them to bring it in even though it is one serious synthesizer.

But his later products - the Prophet '08, and then the Mopho and Mopho Keyboard, didn't have a problem making it into my local music store. Probably because they did follow a very similar evolutionary tech- and time-line to his originals - the Prophet-5/10 and then the Pro-One.

The "Prophet '08" name isn't the only clue that sticks out like a sore thumb. A quick comparison of the descriptive wording in this advertisement to the Mopho Web pages make the big brother/little brother connection clear (like you didn't already know...):

Pro-One ad: "... the Pro-One has the same electronics as its big brothers, the infamous Prophet-5 and the Prophet-10"
Mopho Keyboard Web page: "The voice architecture is similar to a single voice of the Prophet '08..."

The modulation capabilities is one of my favourite features of the Pro-One, and luckilyDave Smith decided to carry the extensive modulation traditions to the Mopho too.

Of course, with the Mopho you also get more of everything else. LFOs, envelopes, etc... and all the benefits of current technology - three banks of 128 programs (384 total), software editor, USB, and midi.

So, does it replace the Pro-One? Well, I demo'd the Mopho Keyboard down at my local shop and, as expected, it does sound great. Technically it might replace the Pro-One, but not in my heart. I won't be selling the Pro-One anytime soon.

But I will be buying a Mopho.

And probably the desktop unit if I can locate one locally. I fell in love with desktop modules when I first came across the Kawai K1m. I loved that vector joystick and I can still hear that choir/string patch... Aaaaaaaaahhhhh.

End note: Just to be clear - I didn't receive any money, gear, smooches or hugz for writing this blog post. Not from Dave Smith, his close work associates ... or from Kawai for that matter. I just dig my Pro-One, Evolver (and K1m)... I'm about to dig a new Mopho too. :o)