You're probably right about the Grooveboxes, but then again... I don't think vintage status is always aquired by simply being a great product. I can think of lots of items (not just synths) that are considered vintage, but to any semi trained eye they are in fact... crap. Think of MG Roadsters. Any mechanic or car enthusiast will tell you that they are the most leaky, unreliable, shody, poor performing and injury prone cars in the history of universe. When the MG Roadster first came on the scene back in the late 60s, it didn't break any new records or tear down any barriers at all. It was just a cute looking, (slightly) sporty car. But now, 30 odd years later, MG Roadsters are considered by most to be true vintage classics.

As for Kurzweils... well, I must confess to not knowing too much about them. I have read the stats and they certainly look impressive. But one thing I can say for sure is that I've seen lots of high profile acts appearing on TV using Motifs (eg, Tina Turner's band) and I've also seen a bombardment of Motif adverts appearing on the back pages some major music magazines over the past couple of years. But the only time I've ever seen Kurzweils get any hype at all has been in this forum!

The fact of the matter is that Kurzweils lack the sex appeal of other synth heavyweights like Rolands and Korgs. I'm not saying that's right or a good thing, I just think it's the way things are. As far as I can tell, the only people who seem to be into Kurzweils are synth geeks like you and I.

So, as far as the future-classics debate goes, I think that the thing(s) that make a synth a classic are not always quality or even "ground-breakingness" (i.e., did it tear down new barriers when it came out). I think other factors definately come into play.

[This message has been edited by Equalizer (edited 01-05-2004).]