Inscrutability in Musical Tools

[glia]

there is a spectrum of depth that stretches between so-called ignorance and mastery, studying theory and learning by ear or experience

a little more on this topic

i often use only part of the features of a musical instrument

• used roland sp samplers for years without reading the manual and never once accessed the midi or sequencing features because i preferred looping by hand and resampling to a bank before overdubbing new material

• used MAX version of MLR without ever exploring live sampling capabilities or fx

• conversely i only use the updated norns app for direct sampling, rarely loading precorded tape tracks

• while using teletype i primarily focus on a small handful of operators and prefer improvising by editing values in tracker mode rather than rewriting scripts

• when playing drums i hate crossing sticks to play accents on the hi-hat, also prefer muting the snare or loosening tension mid song rather than having dedicated toms around in the setup

none of these are choices of deliberate ignorance

nor are they judgemental critiques of others play…
i only have control over myself and i recognize there can be benefits to limiting yourself and concentrating on whatever corner of the instrument you choose to (even if only for a brief period of time / one performance / a specific composition)

[Starthief]

Do you have mixed feelings about harmonics? Music Theory is really just a practical application of the study of harmonics. I wish the study would embrace more than the 12 tones produced in the harmonic, but that’s for another thread perhaps.

My emotional response to different aspects of music theory varies. I like the idea of harmonics as physical and mathematical phenomena and how they work in both music and synthesis. At some point though, it seems to cross a border into being more about its own jargon and rules, in much the same way that grammar does. And it also feels like it gets more prescriptive than descriptive… “oh, you’ve played these four notes so obviously this one comes next because you have to resolve the blah blah blah…” At that point I no longer feel connected to it, or even curious enough to learn it – which is unusual because I love learning about a lot of different things.

A lot of my music doesn’t even really have chords, as such – or they emerge as a consequence of things that are happening algorithmically or improvisationally – and to me that feels freeing. Sometimes I’d argue there are no notes, either.

[glia]

i love this @Starthief

i can never properly articulate how i feel about harmony and tonal theory…this came pretty dang close

[dailybells]

none of these are choices of deliberate ignorance

nor are they judgemental critiques of others play…
i only have control over myself and i recognize there can be benefits to limiting yourself and concentrating on whatever corner of the instrument you choose to (even if only for a brief period of time / one performance / a specific composition)

Completely agree. Deciding what rabbit-hole to dive into and from what angle isn’t an all-or-nothing either-or proposition.

On the same token I do think there’s some useful distinction between learning about the world (acoustics) or about yourself (psychoacoustics) and learning about things like the features of a DAW or the esoterics of clarinet performance practice… I’d say the former rabbit-holes seem ripe to inform any practice, while the latter are more subjective matters of practicality I guess?

[dailybells]

it gets more prescriptive than descriptive

That’s exactly right. Western music theory isn’t the least bit descriptive, even despite attempts to rationalize it against the harmonic series – it’s at best a collection of common practices in some specific cultural moments but there’s no evidence to some universal truth.

I linked to a really interesting book by James Tenney above that attempts to construct something descriptive from what we have observed about the way we listen. A psychoacoustic basis that puts humans first instead of some small subset of white male composers. For some more recent research in this area, Beau Sievers is one person doing a lot of interesting work: http://beausievers.com/

[glia]

True

But take the features of a DAW…despite knowing the benefits, deep down inside i still sometimes hate forcing myself to learn stuff like that

the best solution to all these hurdles is building your own instruments (yet whether hardware, pcb, or diy code…you need to acquire knowledge/materials/skill to make it work)

[lloydcole]

it seems like the feeling of being truly under water in comprehension but forging ahead anyway can yield very interesting musical results

I did a lot of my best synth timbre work when I didn’t know entirely what I was doing, but I was interested to learn. I didn’t feel like I was completely underwater, but I knew there was stuff going on that I didn’t fully comprehend. Once I knew what I was doing it was definitely less exciting.
I’ve also made some of my better compositions when I wasn’t sitting down to compose - I was trying to learn a new technique or some deep electrical engineering thing from the Strange book.
For me, it’s definitely the journey and I need to hope I never quite get there. The few times I ever did - ‘stale’ would be about the right word.

I’ve had a discussion when working with a manufacturer (who shall remain nameless) who said he didn’t want to box his customers and have them work in a certain way with his instrument(s). But aren’t you boxing your users by not trusting them to be creative enough without some mambo jumbo or without explaining how things work?

I hate this, too. I have a black list.

Perhaps something to note, is that as far as I can tell, complex tools don’t necessarily result in superior or more popular works.

Some do seem to thrive with them, but many, me included don’t. I wouldn’t know what to do with polyphonic aftertouch.

So in a sense it can act like a conceptual quantization where you end up thinking in the manner of the system you are studying/learning.

I like this way of putting it.

The key is about learnability. If a system is to be scrutable it needs to allow for learning. IMO, inscrutable tools don’t provide feedback or opportunities to learn through use. I haven’t seen any musical instrument, even the most esoteric, that fits this description. Anything I’ve encountered can be, at least to some degree, learned through exploration until you feel like you understand how to use it — which is different than understanding what it actually does. Those don’t have to be the same thing.

IMO, if you don’t like the esoteric/poetic/obscure nature of the instruments mentioned in this thread (i.e. Ciat Lonbarde / Mannequins / Monome) then that’s ok, they don’t fit your style of play or of the music you want to make. But that doesn’t make them unlearnable.

Yes. All agreed. But I have personally suffered several times at the hands of the Elektron designers. I needed something which did what Octatrack does, for a project, about 8 years ago. I really struggled with it as I just don’t think in terms of trigs and beats at the heart of everything. Anyhow. I managed. I finished the project, and it went well. I returned to the Octatrack maybe 9 months later for another project and I had retained nothing. The instrument was that counter intuitive, to me. Not everyone, I’m sure.

shot:

Shoshin (初心) is a word from Zen Buddhism meaning beginner’s mind . It refers to having an attitude of openness, eagerness, and lack of preconceptions when studying a subject, even when studying at an advanced level, just as a beginner would.

chaser:

Inscrutability is an illusion in the mind of the observer.

Great shot and chaser, but they don’t support the conclusion. Certainly, it can be helpful, to certain personality types, to think this way. But not all of us.

Sometimes the cleverness feels like a crutch. Failing at clarity, some reach for obscurity.

An awful lot of awful music relies on this very crutch. Which isn’t to say there isn’t wonderful, deep, complex, DIFFICULT music. There is. And there is also garbage.

I don’t see these camps as being at odds with each other.

They don’t have to be.

i often use only part of the features of a musical instrument

• used roland sp samplers for years without reading the manual and never once accessed the midi or sequencing features because i preferred looping by hand and resampling to a bank before overdubbing new material
• used MAX version of MLR without ever exploring live sampling capabilities or fx
• conversely i only use the updated norns app for direct sampling, rarely loading precorded tape tracks

We are scarily alike. Sorry…

Apologies for massive post, but it’s really just a few comments to a few other comments and I’ve been reprimanded for posting individual replies per post…

[bobbcorr]

Great shot and chaser, but they don’t support the conclusion. Certainly, it can be helpful, to certain personality types, to think this way. But not all of us.

That’s just me being inscrutable, good luck with your journey.

[petesasqwax]

But take the features of a DAW…despite knowing the benefits, deep down inside i still sometimes hate forcing myself to learn stuff like that

This is perhaps the most relevant element to me, although lots of what has been discussed has resonated. After working for decades using a PC-based DAW, I felt that I had become beholden to the linear production process and my tracks had developed an “on rails” quality. For whatever it’s worth, the iOS approach to making music - using AUM as the hub like I would a physical mixing desk in a dub setup - has fostered a different approach wherein I’m no longer entirely in control of all the elements of production. In effect, making things as simple as possible has given me a sense of freedom that I had lost - partially due to “too much knowledge” - although it’s not too much knowledge of the complicated DAW features but more too much knowledge about where each and every element of the music was going (which is possibly going off on another tangent).

[Starthief]

I found my happy place by using a DAW as a mixer and as a host for effects chains. I will occasionally do MIDI sequencing in it, but not often. And I don’t multitrack; I record the full stereo mix and commit it to virtual “tape” and any further editing is done with the whole.

[janglesoul]

TIME vs GOALS
For me, it’s the relation of these two that steers my approach and attitude to instruments/equipment. The time I have left for music after work/family/house maintenance is very limited. As is my patience with not remembering how stuff works.

Although I love the concept of an open (beginner’s) mind. Truth is, I feel a lot of frustration being a beginner. And starting over from square one every other time, isn’t that appealing. Hence, my discussion of flight hours.

My goal is to finish music. So I need to set my strategy and priorities accordingly. As I’ve been taught the essence of strategy is sacrifice, what Steve Jobs once described as “saying no to all the great ideas”. Having a limited talent for disciplin and a mind easily infatuated with new (off-route) ideas, it’s quite a challenge.

So, instead of focusing on a limited palette I’m ordering a lapsteel, thinking of an Organelle, Norns, Zoia or a new synth. All while realizing that a guitar and delaypedal can be all that is needed to feel inspired.

And the time passes.

[Pineyb]

I’m not a fan of inscrutability, but I am a fan of uncertainty. I like tools that I can understand on a functional level. I like to employ a group of these tools to create an instrument that I have a reasonable idea how to play. But only a reasonable idea.
I’ve played guitar for nearly 60 years and pedal steel for nearly 50. I know what they do, and often annoy myself by playing in a well worn rut. I do play these instruments professionally and am expected, by the people who hire me, to be able to play in well worn genres.
I’ve played semi modular synths since the 70s, but have mostly treated them as keyboard instruments.
The fully modulars have always been different for me. They allow me to create an instrument that I can barely play. Then, when I figure it out, I can repatch and start over. They allow me to play in far less worn genres.
I put a midi interface in my modular and connected a keyboard… I found it intensely upsetting, so I pulled the midi module within minutes. I can’t really explain why, but forcing the modular into Western 12 tone equal temperament just seems wrong. I want the voltages to sing.

What I’m getting at here is that I want the freedom and the opportunity to explore music and sound. I don’t want to spend my time with deliberately obscure, poorly documented interfaces.

[wheelersounds]

Inscrutability is so relative. It’s all about knowledge. If I want to know something, and someone else knows, and they refuse to tell me, I might resent them and/or move on. Now, if they’ve agreed to tell me, and I pay them to tell me, and they refuse afterward — that’s a betrayal.

HOWEVER I must stress that an instrument with unclear controls is not inherently a rejection or betrayal. As has been posted before, some of these instruments are designed to be explored. Is that a rejection of ones audience? Or an invitation for exploration that merely relies on preference? Can I pay entrance to a maze? Do I even like mazes?

If I make a box with a bunch of jacks and knobs and no labels, some people will definitely be frustrated because they’ll want to know what’s going on; how to get what they want quickly and efficiently. Others will be excited by the opportunity to explore, discover, break out of a pattern, or just see what happens. There will probably be many other approaches, no? I think all of that is perfectly natural.

My one caveat is that if there is no predictability, if it’s just a big box of chaos, I need to know that. At least I need to know where the audio in/out is (do I? says David Tudor). Because if there’s too much unpredictability or if usability is “inefficient” I will avoid it when I want a fast and predictable result. Again, such a design is not a rejection of one’s audience… although for some reason the idea of building an instrument that intentionally deceives its players into a false sense of security/knowing and then changes all of its functions would make a killer piece of sound art… Hmm…

[12eightyseven]

Getting into semi-modular (spurred by a desire for less scrutability) I bought:

1. Kilpatrick Phenol - This was a beautiful looking and sounding instrument and I loved using banana plugs. Loved the complex envelope generator but the rest of the instrument felt too much like the fixed architecture synths I was trying to get away from. (The Moog Mother 32 fell into this category as well)
2. Ciat-Lonbarde Plumbutter - The only instrument I’ve been afraid of. I read through every mention on every message board I could find, followed some patch notes and got cool sounds out of it, but was never able to feel free with it. When I look at it now I can think of it in terms of “I’m not really sure where the output module was” or “I could never seem to figure out what was a potential sound source” but back then the warnings around brown jacks and grounding convinced me that if I just patched willy-nilly I would fry the instrument. In this case, the open-ness of the design lead me to a much more hesitant use. Maybe I could have been braver, been more scientific about my approach, asked more questions? I was able to sleep better after it sold.
3. Make Noise 0-Coast - Stuck with this one. The default normalizations give you a regular old subtractive voice, perfect for plunking around with out of the box. Patch a cable or two, though and you are in wacky territory. I think because of that design - that it starts normal and deteriorates from there, I felt safe and free to wander off the path. This has been a very inspirational synth for me and was the bridge to a full Make Noise system, which has been happily puzzling and teaching me for the last couple of years.

[petesasqwax]

Make Noise 0-Coast - Stuck with this one. The default normalizations give you a regular old subtractive voice, perfect for plunking around with out of the box. Patch a cable or two, though and you are in wacky territory. I think because of that design - that it starts normal and deteriorates from there, I felt safe and free to wander off the path. This has been a very inspirational synth for me and was the bridge to a full Make Noise system, which has been happily puzzling and teaching me for the last couple of years.

This is why I have a hankering for one. The idea of it being grounded in something I already understand whilst also having doorways which open up into things I’m totally not sure of is massively attractive to me. I’m also scared of leading me into wanting a Make Noise system (or just modular in general) but I’m overlooking that aspect of it

[12eightyseven]

I was able to hold off about six months before going full modular. The 0 Coast could totally be used as a standalone instrument, or in tandem with other non-modular gear (currently using it as a module with my Octatrack). One aspect of electronic music that remains inscrutable for me is the finer points of MIDI, I understand that there are ways to access clock dividers or additional LFOs within the 0 coast, but my MIDI familiarity is limited to controlling gate and pitch. Maybe that MIDI aversion is the opposite of inscrutable, maybe that’s more like ‘there’s specific knowledge to be had if you dedicate time to it’ vs ‘magic exists in these knobs’.

[petesasqwax]

But ‘magic exists in these knobs’ is surely going to triumph over any other available alternatives!

The reason I’ve managed to hold off thus far is that I have a wealth of iPad apps which I think (if I manage to tame them sufficiently) will allow me to really open up a wealth of possibilities just using my MS-20 Mini and Werkstatt. The words of Ezra Buchla re: the MS-20 Mini really resound in my head any time I’m thinking of getting a new synth:

I would be extremely sceptical of someone who claimed thay they’ve already done everything they can do with the MS-20 so now they have to get some more shit.

[12eightyseven]

The MS-20 is an amazing synth, another one that straddles the line of scrutability if only in that ‘old fashioned’ way. While I owned one (and I only sold it because of space issues) I was too afraid of the patch bay to use it! Nevertheless found it a source of endless inspiration.

[zebra]

ms-20 just an example, pick any small thing; say, at least 2 oscillators, feedback patching, ext audio path - 0-coast, grandmother

(wish i could find video of shahzad ismaily playing a Rogue. oh well)

i was more thinking about GAS and how one thing that drives acquisition is wanting to “make new sounds” which seems funny when there are already “new sounds” literally everywhere.

i did an interview for AE modular. there was a question about contributing to their, i forget what they call them, “studies” or “challenges”, which are like compositional restraints that people come up with for patches, or something. i said “discover a behavior you can’t explain.” but this can apply to any instrument, not just a [modular] synth. including your voice for example.

anyway FWIW i fundamentally disagree (politely i hope) that a cello is “scrutable” (hm, not the right dichotomy really*) and a cocoquantus “isn’t” - on both counts. both are objects that exist by necessity somewhere between careful design and, hm, “indeterminate materiality.” the former of course has a far more extensive and widely understood formal language documenting how it is “supposed” to be used - a nominally precise relationship between notation and experience, mediated by performance practice. this of course is only nominal - there is still great variance between different cellos and cello players and pieces for cello and “things that have happened to cellos or that cellos have caused to happen.”

whereas for PB instruments i think it would be hard to argue that they aren’t well documented. there are schematics! and then peter describes in, yes, evocative language what the things do. yes the language is poetic but it is also actually precise. (peter was a classics major and i think you can see the influence of both chinese and roman poetry / natural science. he was very much working in the same language when we were at school… 20 years ago?! my god)

eventually there comes to exist a body of knowledge / practice / conventional wisdom that we call “style” or “theory.” for example there is the post below this one.

---

• scrutari : ‘to search’. it’s all ‘scrutable.’

[mrsoundboyking]

Ciat-Lonbarde Plumbutter - The only instrument I’ve been afraid of. I read through every mention on every message board I could find, followed some patch notes and got cool sounds out of it, but was never able to feel free with it. When I look at it now I can think of it in terms of “I’m not really sure where the output module was” or “I could never seem to figure out what was a potential sound source” but back then the warnings around brown jacks and grounding convinced me that if I just patched willy-nilly I would fry the instrument. In this case, the open-ness of the design lead me to a much more hesitant use. Maybe I could have been braver, been more scientific about my approach, asked more questions? I was able to sleep better after it sold.

The “brown jacks” function as both mouth and ass-hole which would confuse anyone. I am confused by the brown jacks, they’re manifestly and floridly psychotic. As for “ground” (the black jack), I see it as representing the shadow of the user. Nothing is more frightening than having to confront one’s shadow-self or hidden self… the self that if it came to light could “fry” the conscious mind bringing about who-knows-what catastrophe. However, failure to confront the shadow-self, in terms of playing the Plumbutter, is a failure to properly ground the instrument which results in its death. This is why Peter Blasser calls the Plumbutter a “A DRUM AND DRAMA MACHINE.”