#42

Db8LJ62WsAIaVb-
Db8LJ62WsAIaVb-.jpg675×1200 177 KB

1 Like
#43

Yeah, I almost mentioned that. Divorcing timbre from amplitude is part of what makes synths (and recording, to some degree) a bit strange.

2 Likes
#44

The idea that the invention (and subsequent popularization) of the microphone could be said to have made possible something akin to “new music” is not so dubious to me. (Or, much later, the popularization of using only two turntables as your instrument.) I suppose it depends on what you feel can live up to the term “new music”.

I just remember so vividly a lecture many years ago by the Danish musician Peter Bastian demonstrating how Frank Sinatra was only able to sing the way he sang, on top of a full orchestra, because of the existence of the microphone. (Again, not that that nescessarily was “new music”.)

To me it feels as if, in a way, the popularization (and compared to many other things, it isn’t that popular …is it?) of the modular has resulted in a lot more “old music”. In the best of ways.

3 Likes
#45

They definitely share an aesthetic, but modular just seems like a convenience for the performer rather than something essential to the composition.

1 Like
#46

Sorry I didn’t read the whole discussion above, but i just like to add that i think too that modular has made possibly new musical landscapes. Think of work like that of Keith Fullerton Whitman. I don’t think he would’ve made the same without his modular system.

#47

Maybe not essential to the composition per se, but it is essential to their compositional process imo

#48

So many thoughts. I haven’t seen the posts on other forums, nor am I a (current) modular user, but I have lots of experience on classic systems (moog 3P, Mills College Buchla) from my collegiate experiences. Initially, these are my thoughts:

If it is a bubble, it was filled GAS. And the money/time/labor that’s gone into making these modules and the resultant music has led to some majorly inspiring art — beautiful modules, beautiful relationships, beautiful music.

The influence of digital technologies and a larger group of people putting energy and ideas into the field have led to some pretty deep explorations of what we can do in electronic music. The acknowledgement that tactility is important for many (as opposed to using a laptop) is also important.

Regardless of their reasons, the people complaining are doing just that — complaining. I’m all about pouring positive energy into how to use these instruments to make deep, challenging, emotionally compelling music that opens me and my community.

Thank you for mentioning Caterina Barbieri; I hadn’t heard her music before! She’s incredible!

8 Likes
#49

Yeah, I can definitely appreciate that. If I compare my all-modular music to my non-modular music, the construction of the music was very much influenced by the process of working at the modular, especially lots of live tracking and limits on voice counts, but that in hindsight there wasn’t much that stood out to me as things I could only have achieved with the modular. I like working with it a lot, but haven’t come away with any “must turn that on to get that sound” mental notes.

1 Like
#50

i would certainly like to hear more opinions (and examples) of recent music technology actually facilitating new musical expression. it’s undeniable that recent technology has made music more accessible and more ergonomic… but have we seen anything in the last decade that really sparked a new direction or aesthetic? in the way that mark fisher talks the wah pedal and sampler… https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aCgkLICTskQ (highly recommend this talk).

while listening to this last week (while building norns (minor comedy in this, yes)), all i could think about was the rush of major corps to reissue all of the things they made in the 70’s/80’s… a sort of direct analog to part of our weird moment in cultural production during capitalist realism, blah blah blah

the fact that the tools have become so interchangeable (modular/vst/max/etc) i actually find liberating and a point of optimism, so music can be about ideas and expression. but it was exciting to hear metalheadz back in the 90’s. i have a hard time imagining being so perplexed/intrigued as i was by some of those early sounds… and this isn’t nostalgia (fisher detangles nostalgia in ghosts of my life pretty convincingly)

17 Likes
#51

Yeah +1
Listening to patterns of consciousness right now, really good!

#52

That’s the value in the technology to me–the creative community behind it that you can be a part of. That isn’t specific to modular synthesis, or the eurorack format, though I do think it is facilitated through the standard/interoperability/resellability

I sold a module to a pretty famous EDM artist, and asked what they were planning on using it for–they mentioned sound design

2 Likes
#54

I can think of things in the past 20 years (autotune, novelty sounds like delay lama/brother gregory or paulstretch, fennesz’s lloopp patch) that achieved sounds hard to come by otherwise at the time and resulted in a distinct aesthetic. But nothing in the past ten. Which is maybe a good thing. A lot of tech-specific aesthetics are really just the sound of turning the thing on (think acid and rave filter sweeps).

1 Like
#55

Yeah, I definitely think a lot of the broken electronics of the early Mego scene culminating with maybe “Endless Summer” were an important moment in the history of weirdo music. It was truly revelatory. I generally agree though that there haven’t been a lot of major steps forward more recently, but as someone else mentioned, it isn’t usually until later, with a wider and more distant perspective, that you can parse out the more lasting developments perhaps.

2 Likes
#56

Everything is “a convenience for the performer.” I mean, in theory we could all work with nothing but a hex editor and create WAV files by hand, or etch phonograph grooves similarly.

#57

Yes I agree, but analogous to jazz, or other type of impro musicians, it’s a completely different experience than composing using a laptop (and especially for an audience). I think one should not underestimate what practise can do with regards to “unconscious” composition and also the ability to artistically train the ear.

3 Likes
#58

but it doesn’t have to be modular, maybe it’s worth exploring more abstract interfaces

1 Like
#59

I suppose, but some things transcend being just a format. I don’t think modular does. Synthesizer versus modular synthesizer isn’t really a stretch.

#60

aha. i have definitely enjoyed some paulstretch.

and this is to say, i don’t feel technological innovation is prerequisite for imagining the future. it’s just that those genres/artists that are on the forefront of these aesthetics tend to claim/frame a technique for a period of time before it becomes pervasive/banal.

8 Likes
#61

I think the Fast Fourier Transform had a small moment among computer musicians around a decade or so ago, and I think “machine learning” techniques are trying to have that same moment now.

I think both kind of … well, kind of suck as far as art creation goes, but that’s not really here nor there, and I will caveat that to say that it really is that I think that too many users of these techniques are blindly optimistic or at least uncaring about the broader context they’re engaging in by using them. (actually my ire is heavier for machine learning, probably, although again, totally irrelevant opinion to the thread)

6 Likes
#62

I am starting to think that the social contexts in which music is made and shared are as important and transformative as the sounds or the methods used to conjure them…

I’m finding the quality of relationships is at least as interesting and sustaining as the audio specifications…

That’s a large part of what keeps me coming back to this community and causes so much psychic dissonance when I go back to MW or FB, which is happening less and less these days…

6 Likes