Wiardgroup

> these instruments - the patch potential of the factory designed
> system. The genius was the systems, not the modules.
> >>
> 

Not ot blow my own horn but, the original six Wiard mdoules 
were configured as a system. The Woggle Bug and Borg Filters 
expanded that system. But it is also true that I assumed you 
already had an Arp 2600 or equivalent for "utility" functions like 
pre-amps.

John Welsted of UWM pointed out that the most efficient 
composing methodology of 1996 was to have an analog 
modular feeding a digital compositing system like Pro-Tools (to 
take the place of traditional tape). This offered the rapid access 
of the analog interface coupled with the polyphony of the digital 
multi-track.

A modular designed for this purpose would need the widest 
range of timbral resources, rather than redundant resources for 
making multiple patches at once. So the Wiard was envisioned 
as providing the widest range of monophonic patches which 
were then multi-tracked to form polyphonic structures. That is 
why virtually every timbral "trick" is included in the system design.

> In terms of  business, MOTM, Wiard, Blacet, AS, Doepfer, .com, 
Modcan, STS,=
>  Technosaurus et al, are all trying something NEW as opposed 
to sustaining  =

Boy, you can say that again.

> 
>  The moral of this tale for us consumers is: get `em while you 
can. 
> This recent wave of analog modular is a rare flowering that is 
already over=
>  the hill. 

I would agree that "large format" modules that use a lot of metal 
in construction are now too expensive to sustain. However, the 
"small format" modulars which use very little metal in 
construction seem to be doing all right. Every time I order a 
Blacet module, it shows up in three days.

That is because John Blacet is a manufacturing genius in 
addition to being a thoughful and subtle designer.

> On another subject
> >>East Coast, West Coast, Middle Coast....
> Can you make West Coast Music on an East Coast synth? 
Who came up
> with these terms? 

OK, I used the terms based on the addresses of the original 
manufacturers. Arp, Moog, Aries were all in New England 
whereas Buchla and Serge were in California.

The real difference, which has not been mentioned, is how much 
visual feedback does the instrument offer? That is, how many 
lights has it got?

If you intend to control the unit with a keyboard, you don't need 
visual feedback from the modules (but it is still helpful). You 
pressa da key, you heara de sound, simple. The "East Coast" 
manufacturers only used lights on sequencers (OK, they also 
had a power light).

But in systems built for aleatoric composition, specially 
multi-timbral composition, without visual feedback it is REALLY 
hard to tell what is going on because there is no physical motion 
to tie into the sound production.

On systems designed to be self generating "Music Boxes" there 
are lights on envelope generators, LFOs, sequencers and even 
VU meters on modules to show the sound level at the module.

Personally, I refer to the lack of lights as the "dark ages" for 
obvious reasons.

<humor>

Now someone jump in and complain about how distracting and 
undignified visual process indicators are. Then I will find a link to 
a picture of the control rooom of any nuclear power plant, which 
is a cacaphony of visual process indicators that they feel are 
absolutely essential for safety.

As I like to say "If it's good enough for Nuclear Power, it's good 
enough for me!".

</humor>