Wiardgroup

konkuro <konkuro@aol.com> wrote:
>New instruments that are truly new are rare as hen's teeth. How many 
>new instruments have popped up in the symphony orchestra?

Restricting the question of new instruments to symphony orchestras is both unfairly-limiting (since most musicians do not play in symphony orchestras these days), and oxymoronic (since 99% of the repertoire of symphony orchestras was written 150+ years ago - so why would it require new instruments?).

>New instruments also tend to be novelties with limited musical 
>usefulness. 

What about the banjo, saxophone, vibraphone, and pedal steel guitar?  [Although sometimes I get the impression that John would never willingly listen to a piece of music employing any of those instruments ;^) ... or at least does so as infrequently as I listen to symphony orchestras.]  All are relatively recent (much moreso than the typical symphony orchestra repertoire), none can be considered "novelty" instruments (certainly they've been used for novelty songs, but so have grand pianos), and all have been extensively used (much more so than any symphonic instrument unless you count piano/organ) in 20th century American Music.  All are capable of creating incredibly expressive, emotive, artistic (well, ok, maybe not so much the banjo) music - just as a Theremin can in the hands of a skilled performer (an oboe is difficult to play, too, but that doesn't limit its usefulness *per se*, although that would explain why talented oboe-ists and thereminists are far more uncommon than skillfull pianists or guitarists), and all three have certainly given rise to great musicians considered to be masters of those instruments.

>If Buchlas were as common as Moogs, they would fetch far 
>lower prices today. 

A meaningless statement; if Moogs were as common as the Wurlitzer & Lowrey living room organs that people can't give away these days, they would fetch far lower prices, too.  But they aren't.

>But they weren't as common 
>as Moogs because they were limited to one kind of music and simply 
>would never sell like a Moog. 

That's pure supposition.  One could just as (or more) easily argue that Moogs are more common because Bob had the foresight to make a compact, portable & integrated version of his synthesizer that was useful to a far larger segment of the musician population (like, especially, the kinds of musicians who don't play in symphony orchestras) than the large & cumbersome modular versions.  Or that Bob, unlike Don, had an interest in actually *marketing* and promoting his instruments (hmmmm .... ).  In other words, reasons having nothing to do with the *kinds* of music one can use the instrument for.  (The claim that a Buchla, or any other modular synthesizer, is limited to making "one kind of music" is too ridiculous an argument to address; Chris said it better than I could, anyway.)

As for the question of "original designs" versus "golden oldies", some guitarists want a guitar that's an exact replica of a 1961 Stratocaster, some guitarists want a guitar with 7-strings, active humbuckers, MIDI output, shaped like an H.R. Giger drawing; both preferences are valid, and it's good that there's a market for both (and yes, in the hands of a skilled musician, the former can play Metallica just as well as the latter can play Chicago Blues).

    -Doug
     jasret@mindspring.com

I wrote:

>>New instruments also tend to be novelties with limited musical
usefulness.<<

Doug P.(Hi Doug!) wrote:

>What about the banjo, saxophone, vibraphone, and pedal steel guitar?<

The banjo sounds like a guitar with a sinus condition.

The saxophone sounds like a clarinet with a sinus condition.

The vibraphone sounds like a xylophone crossed with The Cowardly Lion.

The pedal steel guitar put the "Ho" in "Don Ho."

>[Although sometimes I get the impression that John would never 
willingly listen to a piece of music employing any of those 
instruments ;^)<

Live long enough and you will not be able to help it.

>All are capable of creating incredibly expressive, emotive, artistic 
(well, ok, maybe not so much the banjo) music - just as a Theremin 
can in the hands of a skilled performer<

This will get me in trouble, but the theremin has had only ONE truly 
skilled performer--Clara Rockmore. But even she couldn't wring much 
beauty from the instrument without the visual theatrics. If you 
*watch* her it is amazing.  If you just *listen* to her, it sounds 
like a bagpipe in menses.


>>If Buchlas were as common as Moogs, they would fetch far
lower prices today.<<

>A meaningless statement; if Moogs were as common as the Wurlitzer & 
Lowrey living room organs that people can't give away these days, 
they would fetch far lower prices, too. But they aren't.<

Please do not forget that Moogs were integrated into such organs, if 
memory serves me (and it so seldome does).  

Moogs could NEVER have been more popular because they were so 
impractical.

Hmmmmm... Am I getting off track?  This environment sends me into 
musing...

Now, insofar as the Wiard is concerned, I would like to officially 
challenge a Wiard owner to do a piece of classical music.  What, has 
Wiard no Elhardt?  If the oscillators are as stable as claimed and 
the instrument is as broad ranging as claimed, let's hear it, gents!

Gino?

And Doug, what is this about no orchestral music being written within 
the last 150 years?  Don't MAKE me list the composers!

johnm

East Coast, West Coast, Middle Coast....

As far as I can see, the caveat about the current state of the art of
offering eleventy million modules and having each customer choose is
there is no pedigological developement because everyone's instrument
is different.  

Discussions about patches are more like Bob Villas' home improvement
show - which is really designed to sell tools.  Why develop skill when
you simply add a few more modules?

I think that this utopian philosophy of providing choices for a
customer minus the bias of a system design is like offering people
parts to a guitar, expecting the average person or new comer to know
what to buy and how to put it together.  

What made a Buchla, a Moog, a Wavemaker, Electrocomp 100, Korg MS20,
or a 2600 isn't what biases the designer pandered to in module design
- it was that they were created by people who were trying to design a
complete music system - not simply providing a comprehensive catalog
of modules.

What makes a 2600 or a Music Easel great is not the module-for-module
comparisons with other synths - it is the subsystems that exist in
these instruments - the patch potential of the factory designed
system.  The genius was the systems, not the modules.

Minimoogs are not just a ladder filter - they are also the choices Bob
made on the patch and keyboard retriggering of the filter, and the
choices of keyboard tracking, the cv response of the vca...

The same idiosyncratic design elements are found all of the classic
systems.  Modular systems reflected similar biases - Buchlas had quad
VCA and Envelope modules, insuring that most Buchla systems had many
more of these than found on Moogs and Arps.  Why?  Because there
aren't any LFOs on a Buchla.   This doesn't mean that you can't make
normal sounds - it means that you have to think differently. (Imagine
that). 

Additional modules were offered as additional complement, but, by and
large, many of us spent our first experiences in front of a factory
designed system.

Can you make West Coast Music on an East Coast synth?  Who came up
with these terms?  Is the music of Columbia Princeton in the 60s any
less far out than that of "West Coast?"  Many "bug music" pieces have
been made on Moog and Arp systems.  

You might say that Buchlas and Wiards are the Macs in a world
dominated by Windows.  Most pros have both kinds - discussing which is
better is a moot point. 

How dare any of us to presume the potential of any of these
instruments?  As if the human playing these devices have no bearing on
 what we hear - it is predetermined by the circuit design - bullshit!


Are they over valued?  They are what they are. 

7 years ago, I bought a Buchla Music Easel for $8,000.  5 years later,
I sold it for $8,000.  You might say that I borrowed it for five
years, leaving an $8k security deposit, which was returned to me when
I passed it on.  


Gary


P.S. 

The Wiard systems doesn't need more midcoast modules.  That is easily
provided by a little bit of Midcoast thinking from the one standing
before it with the patchcords.

While the calibre of posts on this forum is generally quite high (the 
Grant/Paul posts have been particularly insightful) Gary gets 
my "Post of the Month" award.  It's a bit frustrating, though-- 
there's nothing to argue with!  :-)

johnm


--- In wiardgroup@yahoogroups.com, "Gary Chang" <gchang@c...> wrote:
> East Coast, West Coast, Middle Coast....
> 
> As far as I can see, the caveat about the current state of the art 
of
> offering eleventy million modules and having each customer choose is
> there is no pedigological developement because everyone's instrument
> is different.  
> 
> Discussions about patches are more like Bob Villas' home improvement
> show - which is really designed to sell tools.  Why develop skill 
when
> you simply add a few more modules?
> 
> I think that this utopian philosophy of providing choices for a
> customer minus the bias of a system design is like offering people
> parts to a guitar, expecting the average person or new comer to know
> what to buy and how to put it together.  
> 
> What made a Buchla, a Moog, a Wavemaker, Electrocomp 100, Korg MS20,
> or a 2600 isn't what biases the designer pandered to in module 
design
> - it was that they were created by people who were trying to design 
a
> complete music system - not simply providing a comprehensive catalog
> of modules.
> 
> What makes a 2600 or a Music Easel great is not the module-for-
module
> comparisons with other synths - it is the subsystems that exist in
> these instruments - the patch potential of the factory designed
> system.  The genius was the systems, not the modules.
> 
> Minimoogs are not just a ladder filter - they are also the choices 
Bob
> made on the patch and keyboard retriggering of the filter, and the
> choices of keyboard tracking, the cv response of the vca...
> 
> The same idiosyncratic design elements are found all of the classic
> systems.  Modular systems reflected similar biases - Buchlas had 
quad
> VCA and Envelope modules, insuring that most Buchla systems had many
> more of these than found on Moogs and Arps.  Why?  Because there
> aren't any LFOs on a Buchla.   This doesn't mean that you can't make
> normal sounds - it means that you have to think differently. 
(Imagine
> that). 
> 
> Additional modules were offered as additional complement, but, by 
and
> large, many of us spent our first experiences in front of a factory
> designed system.
> 
> Can you make West Coast Music on an East Coast synth?  Who came up
> with these terms?  Is the music of Columbia Princeton in the 60s any
> less far out than that of "West Coast?"  Many "bug music" pieces 
have
> been made on Moog and Arp systems.  
> 
> You might say that Buchlas and Wiards are the Macs in a world
> dominated by Windows.  Most pros have both kinds - discussing which 
is
> better is a moot point. 
> 
> How dare any of us to presume the potential of any of these
> instruments?  As if the human playing these devices have no bearing 
on
>  what we hear - it is predetermined by the circuit design - 
bullshit!
> 
> 
> Are they over valued?  They are what they are. 
> 
> 7 years ago, I bought a Buchla Music Easel for $8,000.  5 years 
later,
> I sold it for $8,000.  You might say that I borrowed it for five
> years, leaving an $8k security deposit, which was returned to me 
when
> I passed it on.  
> 
> 
> Gary
> 
> 
> P.S. 
> 
> The Wiard systems doesn't need more midcoast modules.  That is 
easily
> provided by a little bit of Midcoast thinking from the one standing
> before it with the patchcords.

Hi Gary
     First off,  The June posts on this group contain such a terrific `sign=
al-to-noise' ratio that I have to double-check to make sure this is REALLY t=
he internet on my screen! Many thanks to ALL of you for providing hard evide=
nce that refutes my theory that the web (led by AOL & MSN most likely)  has =
installed filter software that turns  erudition into spam. I teach some elec=
tronic music classes and much of the June traffic on this group would work r=
ight into the course material  verbatim. But  Gary, your comments resonated =
most with me so I'm tacking this reply to your post.

>> What made a Buchla, a Moog, a Wavemaker, Electrocomp 100, Korg MS20,
or a 2600 isn't what biases the designer pandered to in module design
- it was that they were created by people who were trying to design a
complete music system - not simply providing a comprehensive catalog
of modules.
What makes a 2600 or a Music Easel great is not the module-for-module
comparisons with other synths - it is the subsystems that exist in
these instruments - the patch potential of the factory designed
system. The genius was the systems, not the modules.
>>

Wowee! was that ever a thought provoking observation!
I made me realize that the current practice of  offering analog synths in t=
he form of a catalog of individual modules is much more characteristic of th=
e `Second Golden Age' than the `First'. Serge straddled the periods by offer=
ing user-configured panels (after Maestro Tcherepnin absconded off to Villa =
Incognito). But the first-wave systems you cited above , especially Moog, Bu=
chla & ARP were ,  exactly as you say, trying to design a complete music sys=
tem. ----with a complete hefty price tag------ Thus, the user-support, compa=
tibility and most importantly, the customer-engineering /BUSINESS MODEL for =
 `companies' offering a catalog of individual inexpensive modules (instead o=
f large-scale integrated systems) is pretty much  a RECENT invention with ba=
rely any kind of a viable precedent on which to base success (ie solvency).
My own experience buying modules started in the late 80's when colleges wer=
e splitting up their large systems and selling off the pieces to buy MIDI ge=
ar. I was awestruck by the notion  of  affording , piece by piece,  the behe=
moths on which I could only `rent' time in college. Before that, it never re=
ally occurred to me to even try assembling a `TONTO' incrementally over time=
 - picking and choosing among suppliers.
In terms of  business, MOTM, Wiard, Blacet, AS, Doepfer, .com, Modcan, STS,=
 Technosaurus et al, are all trying something NEW as opposed to sustaining  =
precedents established by Moog, Buchla & ARP. The only substantial exception=
 I can think of is PaiA.  I have to surmise that that this novel business mo=
del is mirrored to one degree or another in novel product design concepts to=
o. All of the `2nd-wave' designers are trying their own recipes for making a=
 `modules-based' business work ,musically as well as financially, (Grant has=
 tried at least 2 such formulae under the Wiard label) and from the look of =
things , all of us parasitic consumers are reaping much more benefit in this=
 contemporary profusion of designs than the designers are in terms of  finan=
cial viability. *** Rex has taken intense heat for his early decision to enf=
orce a de-facto minimum buy with his requirement that customers order whole =
panels. For my part, I believe that the single-module sales model does not p=
ull it's weight well enough (in the current US economy anyway) to support th=
e number of suppliers in the market. After this recent glut it may be hard-p=
ressed to support ANY of them.

 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. Not only are the visionary (if fiscally foolhardy)  designer/craf=
tsmen coming to grips with sober reality, any DIYer can verify that supplier=
 stocks of analog PDIP / through-hole components are drying up FAST and `vin=
tage' pricing is encroaching on parts that used to be common and cheap as di=
rt.  If module catalogs survive they will be costing more VERY soon -- espec=
ially the handmade ones.
Get your T-rex's now folks! That looks like a pretty big-ass meteor up ther=
e!


>>Minimoogs are not just a ladder filter - they are also the choices Bob
made on the patch and keyboard retriggering of the filter, and the
choices of keyboard tracking, the cv response of the vca...
>>

to anyone who ever gigged with a minimoog and then with an assembled or mod=
eled clone…
this is a slam-dunk instance in support of your assertion about the synergy=
 of systems!
Bravo!



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? Is the music of Columbia Princeton in the 60s any
less far out than that of "West Coast?" Many "bug music" pieces have
been made on Moog and Arp systems.
How dare any of us to presume the potential of any of these
instruments? As if the human playing these devices have no bearing on
what we hear - it is predetermined by the circuit design - bullshit!
>>

Sorry to grind this axe here. I agree with your expressed sentiments comple=
tely …
but in the post in which Grant used the `coast' terms, I believe that he wa=
s referring to two schools of modular design parameters, not the music produ=
ced on said modulars. For my part I do see a clear difference in the priorit=
ies that determined  design trade-offs between (to cite the seminal  example=
) Moog & Buchla.
But as for the MUSIC I agree with you. Humans are a devilishly resourceful =
lot and make what they want with what's at hand … when the song plays the si=
nger, all notes are within reach. 
(even to banjoists)
;'>


BIG Thanx to all of you for `opening the kimono' for this discussion

-Doc

(*** did that term `parasitic' sting too much??? …. I think few of us consu=
mers realize how much cash we'd have to spend in order for the current crop =
of beleaguered designers to consider promoting us even to `symbiotic' much l=
ess beneficial!)

> 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>

Grant wrote:

>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.<

I don't think the money is in the panels.  It's the hand soldering 
that traditionally jacks prices up.  "Small format" modules such as 
Doepfer are cheap because they are outsourced and use a lot of 
machine insertion/soldering (I DROOL over the density of some 
Doepfer boards. It just amazes me).

Shun the Fracrack and shun it NOW. It is an obligation...nay, my 
SACRED DUTY to talk you out of the Fracrack format. There is much to 
admire about Blacet, but not the format, which is trancendentally 
horrid.

Visit the Wavemakers site if you have not done so already.  Now THAT 
is a lovely synth.  Azure dignity.  Or maybe the Modcan format is 
right for Wiard?  That would be nice too, and the banana jacks would 
be in keeping with the Buchloid West Coast gestalt.

johnm

--- konkuro <konkuro@aol.com> schrieb: > Grant wrote:
> 
> >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.<
> 
> I don't think the money is in the panels.  It's the hand soldering 
> that traditionally jacks prices up.  "Small format" modules such as 
> Doepfer are cheap because they are outsourced and use a lot of 
> machine insertion/soldering (I DROOL over the density of some 
> Doepfer boards. It just amazes me).
> 
> Shun the Fracrack and shun it NOW. It is an obligation...nay, my 
> SACRED DUTY to talk you out of the Fracrack format. There is much to 
> admire about Blacet, but not the format, which is trancendentally 
> horrid.
> 
> Visit the Wavemakers site if you have not done so already.  Now THAT 
> is a lovely synth.  Azure dignity.  Or maybe the Modcan format is 
> right for Wiard?  That would be nice too, and the banana jacks would 
> be in keeping with the Buchloid West Coast gestalt.
> 
> johnm


i don't agree about the panel size. fracrack is just fine.
it is not too big and saves a lot of studio space.
if your system is large, it is more economic to have the
modules nearby instead of several meters away.
it also saves a bit of money, which can be spend on
more modules instead. i don't care about a high end look,
i want high end sound, thats more important.

best wishes

ingo







=====
http://www.dron.de
http://www.selfoscillate.de


	

	
		
___________________________________________________________
Bestellen Sie Y! DSL und erhalten Sie die AVM "FritzBox SL" für 0€.
Sie sparen 119€ und bekommen 2 Monate Grundgebührbefreiung.
http://de.adsl.yahoo.com

"konkuro" <konkuro@a...> wrote:

> Shun the Fracrack and shun it NOW. It is an obligation...nay, my 
> SACRED DUTY to talk you out of the Fracrack format. There is much 
to 
> admire about Blacet, but not the format, which is trancendentally 
> horrid.

Hey chill dude, it's not THAT bad! Some of us (OK, probably not 
many!!!) live in tiny Japanese apartments, with tiny Japanese rooms, 
and a tiny American modular is JUST the ticket!

OK, I agree, the Blacet format is not the nicest looking modular out 
there (I have to say Gary's large blue Wiard system is the nicest 
thing I have ever seen), but functionally and price wise I have 
absolutely no complaints.

What have you got against the frac rack format? In my opinion it is 
certainly nicer looking than Doepfer/ASys/ASol, and with Grant now 
supporting it fully, we have a real wealth of crazy modules to play 
with! (A little bird even told me that soon the Encore Freq. Shifter 
will also be avilable in this format too).

Also, a HUGE thank you to all the people who have made this recent 
discussion what it is. It's been so good that you have even drawn me, 
(a lurker of the highest order) out into the open! Big up the 
intelligent discussion!!!

Best wishes to all (and apparently my JAG shipped today, YAY!!!),

Gregg in Japan.

> i don't agree about the panel size. fracrack is just fine.
> it is not too big and saves a lot of studio space.
> if your system is large, it is more economic to have the
> modules nearby instead of several meters away.
> it also saves a bit of money, which can be spend on
> more modules instead. i don't care about a high end look,
> i want high end sound, thats more important.
> 
> best wishes
> 
> ingo

couldn't agree with you more dude!

gregg

> >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.<
> 
> I don't think the money is in the panels.  It's the hand soldering 
> that traditionally jacks prices up.  "Small format" modules such 
as 
> Doepfer are cheap because they are outsourced and use a lot 
of 
> machine insertion/soldering (I DROOL over the density of 
some 
> Doepfer boards. It just amazes me).

Having fought this battle, I can assure you the faceplates are a 
very significant source of cost. I can get people to solder. Hand 
soldering is not THAT expensive. Based on my own, and others, 
experience it actually produce a more reliable assembly than 
wave soldering. Wave soldering introduces it's own set of 
problems.

The problem with the faceplates is that they require three 
vendors (at least in Wisconsin). One to produce the actual 
faceplate with holes, one to do the coating (either anodizng or 
painting) and one to do the silkscreening. Each vendor has a 
minimum order (lot charge), tooling and setup charges. If 
anything goes wrong, each will point fingers at the others.

Once you find a vendor that is willing to do 100-200 pieces, you 
have to train them to work to your standards. That costs time and 
money. Once you have them trained, if they can't do it well 
enough, you have to find another vendor, and bear the cost of 
setup, tooling and training all over again.

Then there is the issue of scrap, each step in the process 
produces some scrap parts. Scratched or dropped faceplates, 
smeared ink, spotty anodizing. All of those defects have to be 
scrapped and the cost absorbed by Wiard.

Printed circuit board houses routinely do precision drilling, 
plating and silkscreening from a single vendor. The least 
expensive way to make faceplates would be to make them from 
printed circuit board material (fiberglass). You could put a 
continuous ground plane on one layer for sheilding, and use 
black solder mask on the dress face with white silkscreening. 
The cost would likely be a tenth of the same metal faceplate. But 
I do not know if the market place would accept them.

> Shun the Fracrack and shun it NOW. It is an obligation...nay, 
my 
> SACRED DUTY to talk you out of the Fracrack format. There is 
much to 
> admire about Blacet, but not the format, which is 
trancendentally 
> horrid.

The Frac-Rac format is the American imperial units equivalent of 
the DIN metric format. Lots of instrumentation is produced in this 
format.

It is no longer a question of producing an ideal modular. It is a 
question of continuing to produce a usable, affordable modular 
with reasonable lead times for delivery.

The Frac-Rac format suits this purpose. There are racks and 
power supplies available off the shelf. The Blacet PS-500 
supports both 110 and 220 VAC input voltages for global use. All 
of the basic modules are available in this format. The systems 
are light in weight, portable and fit perfectly in the SKB "X" cases.

I would prefer a larger faceplate, it gives me more options as a 
designer, but the Frac-Rac format is friendlier to the customer on 
a variety of levels.

> It is no longer a question of producing an ideal modular. It is a
> question of continuing to produce a usable, affordable modular
> with reasonable lead times for delivery.
I agree.
BTW,  I don't think I'd mind fibreglass faceplates.

--- In wiardgroup@yahoogroups.com, "mrboningen"
<darkflametwentythree@h...> wrote:

> OK, I agree, the Blacet format is not the nicest looking modular out 
> there (I have to say Gary's large blue Wiard system is the nicest 
> thing I have ever seen), but functionally and price wise I have 
> absolutely no complaints.

What is incredible to note about the 300 Series is that it is, in
fact, a very compact and topically dense design.  A Waveform City
(2.75" wide) would be 10.5" of frac modules (VCO, MiniWave, Env, VCA).

My 300 system, which measures 33.1666 inches wide and 21.5 inches
high, houses 10 VCOs, 14 envelopes, 8 VCFs, 3 Sequencers, 4 SOU
modules, and 20 VCAs (counting the Borgs a second time).  It would be
a daunting task in any other format to fit this amount of stuff in
this size.

Gary

--- In wiardgroup@yahoogroups.com, "grantrichter2001" <grichter@a...>
wrote:
>
> Printed circuit board houses routinely do precision drilling, 
> plating and silkscreening from a single vendor. The least 
> expensive way to make faceplates would be to make them from 
> printed circuit board material (fiberglass). You could put a 
> continuous ground plane on one layer for sheilding, and use 
> black solder mask on the dress face with white silkscreening. 
> The cost would likely be a tenth of the same metal faceplate. But 
> I do not know if the market place would accept them.
> 

I think that would be awesome. You could actually do it in blue too,
the hallmark of the Wiard look. (of course someone will bitch about
that too!) Just make sure it's thick enough to not flex when you push
on it.

maybe that's the key to your new innovation.

Mark

Grant wrote:

>Printed circuit board houses routinely do precision drilling,
plating and silkscreening from a single vendor. The least
expensive way to make faceplates would be to make them from
printed circuit board material (fiberglass). You could put a
continuous ground plane on one layer for sheilding, and use
black solder mask on the dress face with white silkscreening.
The cost would likely be a tenth of the same metal faceplate. But
I do not know if the market place would accept them.<

I can vouch for the fact that this not only works, but looks good, 
as it is the way I used to make the panels for my "thereminettes," 
of which only a few were made.  You would need to use thick panels 
and re-inforcing eyelets for the mounting screws, though. 

Please be encouraged to look in this direction.  PCBs come in all 
kinds of colors, some of which are quite lovely, and you could take 
advantage of using the copper side for shielding and conductivity. 
Just think: fabrication, drilling and very nice screening all from a 
single source.  Go for it!


>The Frac-Rac format suits this purpose. There are racks and
power supplies available off the shelf. The Blacet PS-500
supports both 110 and 220 VAC input voltages for global use. All
of the basic modules are available in this format. The systems
are light in weight, portable and fit perfectly in the SKB "X" 
cases.<

Your reasoning is typically sound.  But the frac rac format is 
cramped, and cramped is not a good thing for a modular system. After 
all, why should a modular be portable? They are by nature studio 
instruments. A portable modular makes about as much sense as a 
portable multi-track recorder.  

I have thin fingers-- but big hands :-) --and can't get them between 
the knobs on a Blacet faceplate.  Plus, there's perception to 
consider. There is something amateurish about the frac rac format, 
which detracts from the perception of overall professionalism. Most 
Blacet owners (myself included) agree that the circuits are 
topnotch. But they just don't look professional, aside from the 
general lack of ergonomics. Can you picture Moog behind a frac rac?

Just as you don't put fine wine in a crappy bottle, you shouldn't 
sequester a fine circuit behind a PAIAish face. If you had opted for 
a frac rac format to begin with, instead of the Riverdance(TM) 
faceplates, would Wiard enjoy the same reputation it does now?

Just musing.  Hope you can read this, because I'm typing from an 
alien computer in another town and can barely see the screen!

johnm

--- In wiardgroup@yahoogroups.com, "konkuro" <konkuro@a...> wrote:
> ... why should a modular be portable? 

You're joking, right?

Some of us carry them to gigs, you know (this is nothing new, I seem 
to recall that certain of the original series of Moog modulars 
contained the designation "p" as part of the system name).  (On the 
actual subject, I'll add that Wiard 300 and MOTM -format modulars 
are no less portable than Fracrack-based ones, so I doubt that 
portability has anything to do with the choice of Frackrack versus 
other formats.  The MOTM format benefits from its shallower depth, 
so it might be considered *more* portable than Frackracks.)

(John, I find it amusing that you complain about Chris selectively 
quoting you after you turned my statement that:
"99% of the repertoire of symphony orchestras was written 150+ years 
ago" (6/24 4:58PM) [an exaggeration, I admit - I'm sure that 
Stravinsky, Bernstein, Dvorak, Ravel, maybe Saint-Sans, Bartok & a 
few others {pardon my spelling} make up to 5%-10% of that repertoire]
into:
"no orchestral music being written within the last 150 years" (6/25 
12:17AM); most of the orchestral music being written these days does 
NOT make it into the repertoire of symphony orchestras and is only 
heard by the composer's faculty advisor[s] - a distinction as 
significant as that between "all the songs played on top-40 radio 
this year" vs. "all the songs written this year".  But I was totally 
wrong about the banjo being less than 150 years old; it dates back 
to at least the early 1800s.)

    -Doug
     jasret@mindspring.com

--- In wiardgroup@yahoogroups.com, Les Mizzell <lesmizz@b...> wrote:
> My guess would be that that vast majority of orchestra music being 
> written today is for film scores.

A huge improvement (when it actually happens) over the proliferation 
of sample CD's, pop songs, and cheezy presets that other list 
members have recently described.

> The local college radio station here has a show on Sundays that's 
> nothing but film music - and it can range from pshyco death metal 
> from "The Matrix" to "Singin' in the Rain" to "Spirited Away" 
> to "The Legend of 1900". Great show....

In the Bay Area, KFJC (89.7FM) has had a soundtrack (not just films -
 tv and stage, also) show for over a decade that's always 
entertaining and informative (and probably even more diverse, since 
it covers everything from Sid&Marty Kroft tv theme songs to Rodgers 
& Hart standards along with all the film fare ... actually [if it's 
legal, I know nothing about these things] that might be an 
interesting place for the soundtrack composers on this list to send 
copies of their music to for additional exposure, since I don't 
imagine that there are soundtrack CD's for most of what they work 
on; it would be great to hear more Wiard on that station!).  KALX in 
Berkely also has a good films show, although it covers a lot 
of "general" film stuff in addition to playing soundtracks.

    -Doug
     jasret@mindspring.com

> "no orchestral music being written within the last 150 years" (6/25
> 12:17AM); most of the orchestral music being written these days does
> NOT make it into the repertoire of symphony orchestras and is only
> heard by the composer's faculty advisor[s] - 

My guess would be that that vast majority of orchestra music being 
written today is for film scores.

The local college radio station here has a show on Sundays that's 
nothing but film music - and it can range from pshyco death metal from 
"The Matrix" to "Singin' in the Rain" to "Spirited Away" to "The Legend 
of 1900". Great show....

-- 
Les Mizzell
--------------------------------------------------
Certe, toto, sentio nos in kansate non iam adesse
--------------------------------------------------

Having done .125 inch thick backplanes PC boards, I can tell you that will
be thick enough not to flex.  But then it is not so cheap anymore.

John Loffink
The Microtonal Synthesis Web Site
http://www.microtonal-synthesis.com
The Wavemakers Synthesizer Web Site
http://www.wavemakers-synth.com

> -----Original Message-----
> From: verbos2002 [mailto:verbos2002@yahoo.com]
> >
> > Printed circuit board houses routinely do precision drilling,
> > plating and silkscreening from a single vendor. The least
> > expensive way to make faceplates would be to make them from
> > printed circuit board material (fiberglass). You could put a
> > continuous ground plane on one layer for sheilding, and use
> > black solder mask on the dress face with white silkscreening.
> > The cost would likely be a tenth of the same metal faceplate. But
> > I do not know if the market place would accept them.
> >
> 
> I think that would be awesome. You could actually do it in blue too,
> the hallmark of the Wiard look. (of course someone will bitch about
> that too!) Just make sure it's thick enough to not flex when you push
> on it.
> 
> maybe that's the key to your new innovation.
>

What an awesome idea!  I'll get started on some Wavemakers format modules
right now.  We certainly can't have enough formats out there.  :-)

FWIW, there were three Wavemakers formats.  Only the first was a true
modular, 10 inch high panels and 2, 4, 6 or 8 inches wide.  These had light
gray/blue/beige panels, depending on what way the sun hits it and the blend
of paint they used that day.

The second generation Wavemaker 4 started the blue anodized look, but it was
an "integrated synthesizer."  In other words, the module selection was fixed
into one combination to make a "patch over hard wire" synth like an Arp
2600.  Bottom panels were 10 inches high and top row panels were 6 inches
high.

The third generation Wavemaker 6 was an Oberheim like SEM building block
approach but far more complex, with larger voice elements like sequencers,
control arrays and voice subsystems that provided sslected patch points.
Panels were 5 inches high by 24 inches across.

Even the knobs changed.  Early knobs were the common five vertex
communications style knob, later knobs were round knurled with silver
insets.  But I've seen the first generation modulars with the later
silver/black knobs.

Talk about format wars.  That was just one guy! :-)

But seriously, we could talk all day long about formats and not get
anywhere.  Like it not, the current formats are what we've got.  I'd love to
get all designs by Grant, Serge, Paul, Jurgen, et al in one format, but that
is not to be.

John Loffink
The Microtonal Synthesis Web Site
http://www.microtonal-synthesis.com
The Wavemakers Synthesizer Web Site
http://www.wavemakers-synth.com

> -----Original Message-----
> From: konkuro [mailto:konkuro@aol.com]
> 
> >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.<
> 
> I don't think the money is in the panels.  It's the hand soldering
> that traditionally jacks prices up.  "Small format" modules such as
> Doepfer are cheap because they are outsourced and use a lot of
> machine insertion/soldering (I DROOL over the density of some
> Doepfer boards. It just amazes me).
> 
> Shun the Fracrack and shun it NOW. It is an obligation...nay, my
> SACRED DUTY to talk you out of the Fracrack format. There is much to
> admire about Blacet, but not the format, which is trancendentally
> horrid.
> 
> Visit the Wavemakers site if you have not done so already.  Now THAT
> is a lovely synth.  Azure dignity.  Or maybe the Modcan format is
> right for Wiard?  That would be nice too, and the banana jacks would
> be in keeping with the Buchloid West Coast gestalt.
>

And if bare or populated PC boards are made available, then these can be
adapted to almost any format and everyone wins.

John Loffink
The Microtonal Synthesis Web Site
http://www.microtonal-synthesis.com
The Wavemakers Synthesizer Web Site
http://www.wavemakers-synth.com

> -----Original Message-----
> From: grantrichter2001 [mailto:grichter@asapnet.net]
> 
> I would prefer a larger faceplate, it gives me more options as a
> designer, but the Frac-Rac format is friendlier to the customer on
> a variety of levels.
> 
> 
>

>You're joking, right?<

Er.....no.

>Some of us carry them to gigs, you know (this is nothing new, I seem
to recall that certain of the original series of Moog modulars
contained the designation "p" as part of the system name).<

Only because there was no practical choice at the time.  Modulars on 
stage are essentially window dressing.  And that is NOT a troll.

>(John, I find it amusing that you complain about Chris selectively
quoting you after you turned my statement that:
"99% of the repertoire of symphony orchestras was written 150+ years
ago" (6/24 4:58PM) [an exaggeration, I admit - I'm sure that
Stravinsky, Bernstein, Dvorak, Ravel, maybe Saint-Sans, Bartok & a
few others {pardon my spelling} make up to 5%-10% of that repertoire]
into:
"no orchestral music being written within the last 150 years" (6/25
12:17AM);<

Um... do you have the number of those posts?  I honestly couldn't 
find them.

johnm

At 04:08 AM 6/29/04 +0000, "konkuro" <konkuro@aol.com> wrote:
> >Some of us carry them to gigs, you know (this is nothing new ...
> >... Moog modulars contained the designation "p" ...
>
>Only because there was no practical choice at the time.  Modulars on
>stage are essentially window dressing.  And that is NOT a troll.

Not taken as one, it's a very legitimate assertion (bands LOVE it when I 
bring the Wiard with all the flashing lights).  But it should be clear by 
now that our musical interests are very different, perhaps to the extent 
that's what is a valuable tool to me might be worthless epherma to you (and 
vice-versa).

For me, the analog modular synthesizer (especially in the Wiard format) is 
the ultimate performance tool.  Granted, I could do most of what I do with 
one with an analog monosynth or decent VA (perhaps I'm the only person who 
hears the difference, but since I am not a professional, who am I making 
music for except myself?).  But neither of those allows me the freedom to 
spontaneously create such a broad array of sonic textures (generally not 
notes - but never say never).  Like I said, you wouldn't like what I do, 
which I can best describe as being the "bug" musician in a rock (or 
"improv") band, interacting with other musicians in real time.  And yeah, 
for that purpose, I use the dual joystick controller (an integral part of 
the overall Wiard *system* - an aspect of the Wiard that several people 
have commented on that IMHO sets it above the other modulars, in my 
experience, excellent as they are), no keyboard, don't give a rat about 
tracking (but visual feedback - in the form of flashing leds - really helps 
on dark stages).  I have even also successfully used it to play melodies 
in-tune in the studio :^).  To me, for performance purposes, "modular 
synth" is as legitimate a choice as violin, "keyboard", bass, guitar, 
"electronics", monosynth, piano ... all different instruments (that I can 
more-or-less play) which have their own individual uses.

But modular synthesizers have a lot of uses, more than just what I use them 
for (and I haven't even begun to describe all the things I use them for).

> >(John, I find it amusing that you complain about Chris selectively
>quoting you after you turned my statement that:
>"99% of the repertoire of symphony orchestras was written 150+ years
>ago" (6/24 4:58PM) [snip]
>into:
>"no orchestral music being written within the last 150 years" (6/25
>12:17AM);<
>
>Um... do you have the number of those posts?  I honestly couldn't
>find them.

1231 and (oooooh, good numerology!) 1234
(I wrote something or another in response to 1234 - about my piano teacher, 
who was a contemporary of Clara Rockmore and a stunning Thereminist, and 
some other stuff, but I realized there was nothing remotely Wiard in it ...)

I hope you understand that what I meant was the "popular" (not "pops"!) 
repertoire of civic philarmonic orchestras, which is mostly painfully 
conservative - because that's what the audience wants.

         -Doug
          jasret@mindspring.com

P.S. Just because a record sells a lot doesn't mean it's not a novelty 
record.  And some serious artists' only big sellers are "novelty" records - 
which doesn't make them any less serious or artistic.

Note the word "essentially."

johnm (On yet another computer with screen 10 miles away from 
keyboard.)

--- In wiardgroup@yahoogroups.com, Chris Whitten <cw.chris@z...> 
wrote:
> > Modulars on 
> > stage are essentially window dressing.
> I think your biggest credibility problem is via your compulsion to 
sweeping
> generalisations.

> Modulars on 
> stage are essentially window dressing.
I think your biggest credibility problem is via your compulsion to sweeping
generalisations.

Doug:  Thank you for pointing me to the correct posts.  Kindly note, 
howe'er, that I did NOT edit your statement, nor did I give any 
indication that it was a quotation.  It was a paraphrase. The 
problem was that I didn't give the proper weight to the 
word "repertoire."  Now I think I understand what you were saying.

The reason people like the music you so often hear in "pops" 
concerts is that it often is good.  It's like seeing a fine painting 
by David or Ingres vs. dog crap thrown at a canvas. Progress ebbs 
and flows, and the 20th Century in many ways has been an artistic 
Dark Age as sure as the 11th Century was a scientific Dark Age. 
Audiences realize that minimalists, serialists, et. al. have only 
found new ways to be boring. Maybe when people stop trying to pass 
off novelty and vulgarity as music, people will be willing to listen.

Did I miss the point again?  I'm a tad fried...

As for your music, don't be so sure I'd dislike it (though you do 
bolster my point about Wiard being primarily intended for certain 
uses).  When's your next performance? I'm local, remember? :-)

johnm

Very well stated Doug.  Some of us use the modular synthesizer as a real
time control surface, whether performing or recording live, playing the
knobs, not the keys.  I spent three years of synth VA (Reaktor back when it
was Generator) and another 10 years before that in non-realtime software
synthesis (Synthia Pro on the Amiga).  I found the difficulty in interacting
with the VA synth in realtime to be a hindrance.  My music was lacking
spontaneity without a one to one mapping of knob, switch, LEDs and other
controls to the actual synthesizer.  I have an Encore Slidemate for the VA,
but it can't match the ergonomics of an entire analog modular system.

And from the sound of it, I would love to hear some of your music!

John Loffink
The Microtonal Synthesis Web Site
http://www.microtonal-synthesis.com
The Wavemakers Synthesizer Web Site
http://www.wavemakers-synth.com

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Doug Pearson [mailto:jasret@mindspring.com]
> >
> >Only because there was no practical choice at the time.  Modulars on
> >stage are essentially window dressing.  And that is NOT a troll.
> 
> Not taken as one, it's a very legitimate assertion (bands LOVE it when I
> bring the Wiard with all the flashing lights).  But it should be clear by
> now that our musical interests are very different, perhaps to the extent
> that's what is a valuable tool to me might be worthless epherma to you
> (and
> vice-versa).
> 
> For me, the analog modular synthesizer (especially in the Wiard format) is
> the ultimate performance tool.  Granted, I could do most of what I do with
> one with an analog monosynth or decent VA (perhaps I'm the only person who
> hears the difference, but since I am not a professional, who am I making
> music for except myself?).  But neither of those allows me the freedom to
> spontaneously create such a broad array of sonic textures (generally not
> notes - but never say never).  Like I said, you wouldn't like what I do,
> which I can best describe as being the "bug" musician in a rock (or
> "improv") band, interacting with other musicians in real time.  And yeah,
> for that purpose, I use the dual joystick controller (an integral part of
> the overall Wiard *system* - an aspect of the Wiard that several people
> have commented on that IMHO sets it above the other modulars, in my
> experience, excellent as they are), no keyboard, don't give a rat about
> tracking (but visual feedback - in the form of flashing leds - really
> helps
> on dark stages).  I have even also successfully used it to play melodies
> in-tune in the studio :^).  To me, for performance purposes, "modular
> synth" is as legitimate a choice as violin, "keyboard", bass, guitar,
> "electronics", monosynth, piano ... all different instruments (that I can
> more-or-less play) which have their own individual uses.
> 
> But modular synthesizers have a lot of uses, more than just what I use
> them
> for (and I haven't even begun to describe all the things I use them for).
>

> Did I miss the point again?
Not only that, but introduced another pile of do into the discussion.
To paraphrase your summation of post millennium music.
There is SO much great music in the classical repertoire from the last 20
years. I agree with Doug, much of it doesn't get played as often as it
should. Maybe it's because the average orchestral concert go-er is
'essentially' aged and conservative?
If you want to align yourself with the 'blue rinse set' that's fine with me.
By the way, I DID notice your use of 'essentially'. I still think it's
bolony.

(hmmm ... things seem to have calmed down here, so maybe I should keep my 
mouth shut, but, no, sorry ...)

At 09:01 AM 6/29/04 +0000, "konkuro" <konkuro@aol.com> wrote:
>Doug:  Thank you for pointing me to the correct posts.  Kindly note,
>howe'er, that I did NOT edit your statement, nor did I give any
>indication that it was a quotation.  It was a paraphrase. The
>problem was that I didn't give the proper weight to the
>word "repertoire."  Now I think I understand what you were saying.

Fair enough, John; I wasn't very clear in my original statement, so your 
misunderstanding is entirely understandable.

>The reason people like the music you so often hear in "pops"
>concerts is that it often is good.  It's like seeing a fine painting
>by David or Ingres vs. dog crap thrown at a canvas. Progress ebbs
>and flows, and the 20th Century in many ways has been an artistic
>Dark Age as sure as the 11th Century was a scientific Dark Age.
>Audiences realize that minimalists, serialists, et. al. have only
>found new ways to be boring. Maybe when people stop trying to pass
>off novelty and vulgarity as music, people will be willing to listen.
>
>Did I miss the point again?  I'm a tad fried...

I agree that the greats of the 1600s-1800s really are great (they're played 
again and again by symphonies for the same reason that Led Zeppelin and 
Motown are played again and again on the radio - they're good music), but I 
believe Chris when he says that there is great, unrecognized, recent 
classical / orchestral music out there (I wouldn't know, it's not my area 
of interest/expertise).

But by "pops", I meant orchestras that played Beatles songs or Andrew Loyd 
Weber or John Williams soundtracks at the fireworks display.  Good 
songs?  Yeah, probably.  "Great classical orchestral music"?  Hell no.  But 
recent music nonetheless, so I excluded them from my "99%".

>As for your music, don't be so sure I'd dislike it (though you do
>bolster my point about Wiard being primarily intended for certain
>uses).  When's your next performance? I'm local, remember? :-)

Unfortunately, I recently quit the regularly-gigging band I played bass 
(+MOTM) in (there's a 7" the modular's on) ... the modular was entirely 
foot-controlled, for non-melodic noisemaking.  Modular made the most sense 
(besides the fact that I already had it) since a monosynth doesn't allow 
for multiple patches to be set up and easily selected via (mostly) the 
input mixer knobs that are thoughtfully-provided on the MOTM filters (and 
the MOTM pedal interface module is great), and the alternative would be, 
uh, I guess, MIDI.  Which I'd have to learn and sounds to me like a 
convoluted procedure than a modular to get the sounds I want. And as I 
said, I'm an amateur/hobbyist, not a professional - I do this for fun.  As 
John L pointed out, patching a modular is much more fun (and, in his words, 
a better "real-time control surface") than working through a 
digital/computer interface.

I haven't done a Wiard gig in a while (since december, I think, with Temple 
of Bon Matin), but I'll try to remember to post here next time I 
do.  Fortunately, it's currently getting used in the studio regularly with 
other people.  (John, seriously, given the opinions you've expressed about 
"art" and "beauty", you would probably find most of the music I've worked 
on to be offensive [some of it probably could be characterized as the aural 
equivalent of "dog crap on canvas"], and the remainder to be trite and 
dull.  But you're certainly welcome the next time I perform, and if there's 
another bay area modular get-together, feel free to try out some melodic 
patches on my Wiard [since Peake monopolized it last time, trying out 
different envelope curves] - you supply the keyboard and MIDI/CV, though.)

"Primarily Intended for certain kind(s) of music" I'll certainly grant you 
(although I wouldn't want to secondarily-guess Grant's - or Don's - 
intentions).  Just not "... they were limited to one kind of music" 
(1225).  Fair enough?

         -Doug
          jasret@mindspring.com

> (hmmm ... things seem to have calmed down here, so maybe I should keep my
> mouth shut, but, no, sorry ...)
LOL. I'd kind of given up as it seemed like I was wasting my time.
I still think I am.....but anyway..........
> but I 
> believe Chris when he says that there is great, unrecognized, recent
> classical / orchestral music out there (I wouldn't know, it's not my area
> of interest/expertise).
Well two living composers who immediately come to mind are Arvo Part and
John Tavener, both of whom are very melodic and fairly accessible IMO. John
Tavener had a piece played at Lady Diana's funeral, how mainstream do you
wanna go?!
This was Johnm's quote:
>>It's like seeing a fine painting
>> by David or Ingres vs. dog crap thrown at a canvas. Progress ebbs
>> and flows, and the 20th Century in many ways has been an artistic
>> Dark Age as sure as the 11th Century was a scientific Dark Age.
I guess you'll come back at me with 'in many ways' being your get out
clause, but taken on face value this statement demonstrates a certain
prejudice that just doesn't stand up to scrutiny.
Apart from my previous two examples, we have Steve Reich and Phillip Glass,
both of whom have achieved a certain pop star status. English contemporary
music has a strong melodic tradition, exemplified by Benjamin Britten,
William Walton and Ralph Vaughan Williams.
If you still say the 20th century was an artistic dark age, can I point you
towards the orchestral works by George Gershwin, or should I point out that
Prokofiev died in 1953 and Stravinsky in 1971.
> "Primarily Intended for certain kind(s) of music" I'll certainly grant you
> (although I wouldn't want to secondarily-guess Grant's - or Don's -
> intentions).  Just not "... they were limited to one kind of music"

It seems to me that John is arguing from a viewpoint of the 60's/70's music
scene, hence the constant reference to 'Switched on Bach'. It doesn't matter
to me what the musicians of that era used their Buchla's for. I say they are
as valid a mainstream melodic instrument as any Moog.
I'm primarily a drummer. My best sounding snare drum was built in the 1920's
by Ludwig. The guy that first bought it was probably playing ragtime or
Charleston's. I've used it on alternative rock, pop, dance music etc...
I play louder than any pre-war drummer ever would and every stroke I make is
a rimshot.  Everyone agrees it is one of the best snare drums ever made. No
one seems to worry that it isn't being played in the manner it was
'primarily intended for'.
CW

Doug wrote:

>(John, seriously, given the opinions you've expressed about
"art" and "beauty", you would probably find most of the music I've 
worked on to be offensive [some of it probably could be characterized 
as the aural equivalent of "dog crap on canvas"], and the remainder 
to be trite and dull.<

Now now! Don't be too sure of that. My record collection is chock 
full o' experimental and atonal music. In fact, I just bought yet 
another such record off of ebay. Contrary to popular belief, I'm 
quite open minded and when I listen, I *really listen.* Hence anybody 
who gives a performance or posts an MP3 can count on my full 
attention. No chatting, no reading email, etc.

>But you're certainly welcome the next time I perform, and if there's 
another bay area modular get-together, feel free to try out some 
melodic patches on my Wiard<

You would not want to hear me perform.  :-)  Now, whatsay we petition 
Gino to get the lead out and organize another gathering? The last one 
was most educational. My lord, did you hear the reverb on that VCS-
3?!  How did they do that?

>"Primarily Intended for certain kind(s) of music" I'll certainly 
grant you (although I wouldn't want to secondarily-guess Grant's - or 
Don's - intentions).<

Leave that to me.  :-)

> Just not "... they were limited to one kind of music" (1225). Fair 
enough?<

Almost. How many melodic Buchla records can you name?

johnm (now back from my peregrinations, if that's how you spell it, 
and with a whopping ear infection--to which I'm prone. What, is it 
the headphones?)

Chris wrote:

>This was Johnm's quote:

>>It's like seeing a fine painting by David or Ingres vs. dog crap 
thrown at a canvas. Progress ebbs and flows, and the 20th Century in 
many ways has been an artistic Dark Age as sure as the 11th Century 
was a scientific Dark Age.<<

>I guess you'll come back at me with 'in many ways' being your get 
out clause,<


Yes.

> but taken on face value this statement demonstrates a certain
prejudice that just doesn't stand up to scrutiny.<


No.

>Apart from my previous two examples, we have Steve Reich and Phillip 
Glass, both of whom have achieved a certain pop star status.<

Glass doesn't deserve it. "Rinse, repeat..."  Ugh!

>English contemporary music has a strong melodic tradition, 
exemplified by Benjamin Britten,<

Yes!

>William Walton<

Yes!

>and Ralph Vaughan Williams.<

YES!

>If you still say the 20th century was an artistic dark age, can I 
point you towards the orchestral works by George Gershwin,<

Yes!  (Though a tad overrated)

> or should I point out that Prokofiev died in 1953 and Stravinsky in 
1971.<

Two dates to mourn!


>It seems to me that John is arguing from a viewpoint of the 
60's/70's music scene,<

Oh, Chris--not true!

> hence the constant reference to 'Switched on Bach'.<

It is used only as a frame of reference.  The Well Tempered 
Synthesizer was even better. And there were other albums, not all by 
Carlos.

>It doesn't matter to me what the musicians of that era used their 
Buchla's for. I say they are as valid a mainstream melodic instrument 
as any Moog.<

Obviously not.  This will enrage some people, but the Buchla is just 
a musical footnote.  Outside of a very small circle, it's virtually 
unknown.

>I'm primarily a drummer.<

Well now.  THAT explains things!  :-)

johnm

> This will enrage some people, but the Buchla is just
> a musical footnote.  Outside of a very small circle, it's virtually
> unknown.
It doesn't enrage me.
Perhaps the invisibility of the Buchla is more due to lack of availability,
high price and possible failures in marketing when it was being offered
originally, rather than any weakness in the design or inability to perform
melodically.
Anyway, we're going round and round. So I guess it's time to agree to
disagree.
CW

> well now that i finally read all these posts ...
>  
> last week i actually played my wiard live 
> and with two fourtracks + a coupla effects...
> then i read this konkuro post (below) i thought that was funny
>  
> ok well its only a wiardnoise ring  and a blacetdark star 
> some joy sticks and an i/o in a case
> but it was hooked up to a old machinery safety stomp switch
> and that way every one can fight over that and not over the 
wiard
> the switch did get broke

interesting...

I'm curious, how did you use the fourtracks live?

a sesamee street tape deck with a button for each track
the other a real one, has synced drum tracks for each channel...
not much to play on that one just mixing , i guess its all mixing
but its a good way to bring lots of songsor sounds and 1/8 the gear
+i like tapes

eblake_smith <hoggfatt@hotmail.com> wrote:

> well now that i finally read all these posts ...
>  
> last week i actually played my wiard live 
> and with two fourtracks + a coupla effects...
> then i read this konkuro post (below) i thought that was funny
>  
> ok well its only a wiardnoise ring  and a blacetdark star 
> some joy sticks and an i/o in a case
> but it was hooked up to a old machinery safety stomp switch
> and that way every one can fight over that and not over the 
wiard
> the switch did get broke

interesting...

I'm curious, how did you use the fourtracks live?


Yahoo! Groups SponsorADVERTISEMENT


---------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links

   To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/wiardgroup/
  
   To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
wiardgroup-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
  
   Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service. 


		
---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Take Yahoo! Mail with you! Get it on your mobile phone.