#33

For me the difference is just the decision to call it such. Ultimately I think a lot of making art is just making a decision. From John Cage’s 4’33", Robert Rauschenberg’s White Paintings to Mort Garson’s Plantasia… all decisions to create and finalize something based on an infinite number of factors to consider that you as the artist are swimming around in.

But to come out of the depths for a second-- I have often thought that recording modular seemed opposing to it’s impermanence that I love so much. But on the other hand --When I feel proud of what I make and would like to share it, I believe it is a good thing. Not to mention of course getting to hear the beautiful things everyone else does. I think for me as this conversation has gotten more and more in depth, I find myself returning to where I started with the philosophy of recording stereo out from the modular to preserve its ecosystem as it existed originally. The modular for me is and always will be different from all other instruments in that I don’t want to play it, I just want to vaguely tell it what to play and listen.

18 Likes
#34

Agreed. I’d love to have access to a local Modular on the Spot group. I like posting recordings on Soundcloud, would love to get a tape out this year or next, but I think I’d give that up for a performance group I could meet with on a regular basis. The disadvantage of a fringe art form when you’re not prepared to live in one of the hubs of the form.

6 Likes
#35

From the variety of replies it seems clear that the answer is “any and all ways that you like to work to make something you are happy with”… :slight_smile:

I love stereo recording and multi-tracking, but always do live performance takes. Others have said that straight to stereo is their choice… or recording patches and then using them in finished pieces…

In the end maybe the modular isn’t all that different than other instruments? Sometimes you can treat it as one instrument, sometimes as a whole ensemble-in-one. Live bands of all sorts often record straight to stereo… but others multi-track like crazy with single takes or lots of overdubs. Maybe we’re overcomplicating things? :wink:

I love that we all do different things and treat it in different ways, so much to learn from each other and our approaches.

This is something I’ve heard from many improvisors (jazz, new music, experimental, etc). A lot of this music really lives in the performance, and the players play to perform more than to record. If you don’t live in a place with a modular community, maybe there’s an experimental music community?

I’ve heard my more serious music friends refer to forms of improvisation as spontaneous composition… As you say, there’s definitely a gradient between the extremes.

This paper has some good high-level points about where the two overlap and differ - http://music.arts.uci.edu/dobrian/CD.comp.improv.htm

In my music work I’ve tended to think about a session as the real-time performance. Sometimes it’s improvised, sometimes you can perform the same piece multiple times or in different ways/interpretations. The piece is what you’re playing, or in the case of improvised music it can be the document of the output. Unless you’re doing completely free improv then there’s probably some sort of “piece” that you’re performing…

2 Likes
#36

I spent my first ~1.5 years with my modular with that kind of philosophy. It was a very meditative way to make music, but after a while I became sad that I had no documentation of any of the music I’d created over the previous year. That was when I came up with my current strategy, as a slight compromise to try and retain my enjoyment of making music, but while still having a record of what I had created so I could look back at how my sound had evolved over time. (which is an even more curious situation: many of my recordings include modules I no longer own, so I could never reproduce that music again)

2 Likes
#37

I like this approach…I might give it a go. Enjoyed the track by the way, reminded me of some conrad schnitzler stuff.

This thing about avoiding DAW editing is strange - I used to love getting lost in editing and refining a track on my laptop. I found the process quite meditative. Once started, a piece would just sort of come together without much conscious thought, like it was already there and I was just uncovering it.

1 Like
#38

This is a nice idea but probably wouldn’t really work for me. However I definitely am going to think about how to make my laptop more accessible - probably with a wireless keyboard and mouse

#39

I should clarify that – I used to make a lot of computer music, and thoroughly enjoyed the process, but that was before I became a software engineer, and spent 8 hours a day in front of a computer screen at work. The first year or so I was working as a software engineer, I found that I was no longer making music, because I was sick of looking at a screen.

I purposefully got into modular so I could make music without looking at screens, so that‘s my motivation to keep myself away from the DAW :slight_smile:

8 Likes
#40

I have tried a few different configurations re: computer placement in relation to synth, mostly all depending on the size and shape of my space. The last apartment that I lived in was a tiny one room studio with walls that slanted down as it was on the top floor of a house. I had to make my setup specifically to fit in that space and it ended up that my computer and recording rack were on the opposite side of the room as my synth. Granted the opposite side of the room was about 10ft away - this was one of the more productive music making setups that I’ve had with the modular. I would still always be recording, I just wouldn’t be recording 1 minute long snippets of everything I thought was cool and instead spending hours at the modular working out a really intentional patch which I would then just prop my iphone up and record a video of. This video and the others on my youtube with this synth position are from that time - https://youtu.be/ltBBMl6tArc

I am the type of person who needs to be away from the computer when I am making music. I don’t know why but I need hands on. I use Logic basically just to press record, do some light mastering at the end, and bounce out. If I start to get deep in computer editing I lose the spark. But that’s just me …

I feel like computer location is something I am still struggling with. It’s hard to feel like everything is within your grasp and at the same time not cluttering up a space. This is getting more into the “studio layout” discussion but I think it’s quite relevant to productivity. Writing this is making me want to go re organize my space now!

10 Likes
#41

Oh wow, I’ve been following your videos on YouTube for some time and they have been much of my inspiration for my direction towards modular synth music. I also have been working through the same question so this thread and people’s contributions have been very helpful. Thank you all.
I think most of what I had hoped to contribute has been covered in more depth above.
Love your music, I am going to go and find more.

#42

i have personally always approached the modular like a solo instrument. in that i start the patch, design the piece and record it all in one sitting. i find given the endless options with the instrument that adding more options, edit later, overdubs etc. have a seriously detrimental effect on my ability to finish anything. so yeah for me zero overdubs or edits. that said I will do many, many takes of a piece. a large part of my inspiration comes from Éliane Radigue. my understanding of how she worked on her modular pieces was that she recorded full takes of very long pieces and made layers but no edits, if there was a mistake midway she would start over and then add the final layer live to the master. this approach feels more like an instrument to me (my background).

5 Likes
#43

I found it interesting that Éliane Radigue transcribed her pieces. I assume she wrote the transcription prior to recording and followed it as she recorded. Allen Strange also spoke a lot of documentation of patches and process. Pen and paper don’t seem to be part of the modern modular experience. Perhaps it could be useful in finding a method to balance the unforeseen and the intentional.

5 Likes
#44

I think notation is a critical part of the musical process. But I find making patch notes to be a very tedious and inconsistent experience. I’d LOVE to have a more efficient and consistent modular notation shorthand.

2 Likes
#45

Mapping connections between modules is easy enough to manage (for systems that are not too big) but knobs positions are what can make a patch sound quite different and writing down a sweet spot is not an easy task. You basically need a contextual verbal description at this point most of the time.

1 Like
#46

Yeah, I dunno. In a way it all feels too literal.

Every orchestral instrument plays from the same kind of score. There’s something beautiful about such an expressive, yet simple, and abstract notation form. Multiple simultaneous voices can be quickly handwritten, so useful for capturing inspiration when it arrives.

But there are quite a few things standard notation can’t capture well or easily, and I’d love to find or invent simple abstract notation forms for these types of concepts. An incomplete list:

  • Rule based or generative sequences
  • Randomness, with constraints, and memory
  • Modulation, both synchronized, and with independent meter
  • Filtering
  • Gating
  • Limiting and compression
  • Harmonics
  • Microtones
  • Grains
  • Spatialization
  • Model parameters (as in physical models)

These things combined with standard notation, which can handle pitch, duration, rhythm, harmony, etc. should be enough to recreate a synthesized performance, without overly specific regard to particular manufacturers of particular modules with such and such a knob set to such and such a number, etc.

But heh, I just said “invent a symbolic language, it’s easier than just describing things literally and in great detail”.

It sounds a bit silly when I read it back.

4 Likes
#47

Gosh I can’t even accurately recreate patches that I had going the night before when I turn my synth back on in the morning still fully patched let alone try to play someone else’s. I do have a patch notebook that I use to write out just about everything I work on. It’s a crucial step for me in the learning process to better understand and retain the technical and scientific aspects of synthesis. I do it by voice and start with the sound source, usually ending with effects and I either make diagrams or write the “oclocks” for knob position. I have more vague and abstract notes for things like movements and vibes to reference for live performance or a starting point for a new patch. Personally though I love the fact that you can’t easily reel in a modular.

2 Likes
#48

I guess it’s the difference between a player’s notes in the margins and the composer’s intent. Overlapping but different in purpose, form, and outcome.

But I do enjoy fantasizing about composing for the modular. What might it mean to write music for other players? It couldn’t be exact, because as you say, it can be hard for the same person to recreate a past performance on the same gear, let alone a different person on different gear. So you’d have to relax your notion of what it means to communicate your intent as a composer. What’s the essential thing about your piece to communicate? What makes the song the song? Where is the “there” there? And how can you express that in writing?

Could just write code for the piece, but that’s again, a bit too literal. Takes the player’s agency away. I want the player to have latitude in interpretation of the score.

Some have suggested the use of color to augment standard notation for microtones. It’s a start.

3 Likes
#49

I love the idea of writing a core that is a set of actions and connections, without regard for specific outcomes. Maybe for music like this it is less about specifying the musical notes and timing, and more about a process.

There are some examples of this sort of composition and notation in Michael Nyman’s excellent book “Experimental Music”.

4 Likes
#50

Totally agree, Nyman’s book is really an excellent one! Read it some time ago and it was very insightful and inspiring!

#51

Years ago, The Flaming Lips did a tour where they set up an “orchestra” of 40 boom boxes and had audience members come on stage to be the “musicians.” Each player got a bag of cassette tapes to use during the performance. They conducted the orchestra with simple directions like , “Blue tape” or “This row, turn it up.” It was controlled chaos.

I was lucky enough to be one of the players when they came to Austin. After the show, they said that there was a vision for each song, but that every performance was completely different.

6 Likes
#52

Getting a bit off topic… but wow! So great that you were a part of that. I love the 4 CD Zaireka album that came out of that period of theirs. I’ve had 3 proper listening sessions where me and my friends brought 4 decent hifi sets together and each was different and amazing.