MOTM

> "Tkacs, Ken" wrote:
> 
> Whenever anyone describes the Buchla machines, it's always in flowery
> prose with no details. I'd like to know what that machine was like,
> but it never even had a manual, so unless someone has experience with
> one...
> 
-------------------------------------------------------------
Ken,

Although I have just a little experience on the 200, I cut my teeth on
the Buchla 100, logging many hours in the early and late 70's on both
the California State University Hayward and the Mills College
instruments. Actually, there was a manual developed for the 100. Not
aware of one for the 200 though.

Although Don offered piano style keyboards for the 200, Buchla
instruments were not really designed with the 12 tone series so much in
mind as many others and therefore they were approached with a different
idea while composing. I always found the most successful sessions were
planned beforehand.

I would diagram the ideas of the form of the composition and give
thought to the general sound painting and rhythmic structures that I
wished to evoke. With these thoughts and diagrams in hand, I would begin
patching to achieve these goals. Often, the refinements made in patching
would present results that were better than expected. Sometimes, though,
the process of patching the sounds and rhythmic goals would lead to
rethinking the details of the piece, and I would then re-evaluate to see
if the current patch would satisfy the goals of the composition, without
detriment to the overall form and statement. Perhaps this is not an
experience unique to the Buchla, but it seemed to apply more so to this
instrument.

>From a technical view, the instrument had a much softer sound than many
synths. The envelopes were not really fast, having no hard edge on and
off because of the slow slewing rate of some of the modules and the
oscillators tended to drift a bit on the 100, so pitch relationships
could be difficult to reproduce. I think the 200 is better on this
point. The functional density of many of the modules is really
remarkable. A number of the modules are similar tools to many you would
see on other synths, ring modulators and envelope generators and
sequencers, but Don always seemed to added some unique touches to many
of his offerings. Also, there were a few unique devices that one could
find only on the Buchla.

The small jacks for audio (1/8") never presented too much difficulty,
but the patch cords with these connections were really terrible years
ago. It was very frustrating to have to troubleshoot a patch because of
an intermittent connection with these patch cords. This is my only
negative recollection, which is also one reason that I have chosen MOTM.
Perhaps there are better 1/8" cables available now.

It was not an easy instrument to use from the standpoint of hearing a
sound in one's mind and achieving it in my opinion and experience. That
was more easily realized with the Moog style gear with a traditional
type of architecture. Once experienced with the Buchla, though, the
ability to paint the sound canvas is extraordinarily versatile and a
great deal of fun. Of course, this is from a 25 year memory of the way
things were, but all the memories I have of working on the machine are
quite pleasant.

I hope this was not to "flowery" of a description for you, and if you
have any specific questions that I might be able to answer for you,
please let me know.

Regards,

Scott