I agree with this, and I would say in addition to the “sound” itself, it is the creation/performance process as well that has helped me to better define my “sound”. Like reading posts on here, or listening to interviews (on lines, podular modcast, art + music + technology), going to workshops and q+a’s or watching them on youtube with other artists.
It is interesting to see how other people approach things, the limitations they set for themselves, the way they record and archive their work (or not), what they put out there (or don’t), how they promote it (or not), etc. I think that through the lens of understanding how someone else does it, I can think about what I’m doing that I like that are the same/different, things from their process I’d like to try. Sometimes just understanding the “head space” the person is in or trying to achieve can be useful rather than any tangible thing they do.
Specifically for me, I tried a handful of performances live on the modular from super improvised to playing a couple voices synced through midi and having most things prerecorded in ableton. They didn’t really feel right. Took a few months, put other sequencers aside besides the teletype to force myself to learn how to fit it into my workflow. Ended up deciding on selling the other sequencers once I started performing all modular sets with the teletype that felt “right”.
It’s sort of hard to articulate, but there was a perspective shift there that made me feel like the types of sounds I wanted to go for (and the way I wanted to form them) went from being “let me try and experiment with new things” to “this feels right, let me see if I can push it a little further/augment it/change this particular part”. For example, the new grid control mode has really changed the way I approach pitches as being a set thing to being a played thing.
Also I realize this thread is about the “sound”, and I’ve just spent a bunch of time talking about performance, but for me they are extremely linked.