#73

Are you talking about musicians or listeners ?

For musicians, it depends, Many will prefer one to another. That’s related to process at least as much as result, I think.

For listeners ? I’d be surprised if even other guitarists really hear the differences in finished tracks (beyond maybe “big” differences like two humbuckers vs one single coil, and even that is not always obvious).

1 Like
#74

I strenuously disagree with both the theory and the sentiment behind it. I once had the vice president of a jukebox company (Rowe International) make this argument to me when I was director of R&D for an internet startup that was building the first network-connected jukebox. He thought my approach to the design of the audio system was too hi-fi and that no one would care about the difference. My opinion then was that it was contemptuous of one’s audience to say something like that, and secondly that my long experience in consumer audio told me otherwise. My opinion today is even stronger: people are more discerning than the “experts” give them credit for.

People do hear the differences whether they can identify it or not. I once had a total stranger tell me that he heard a sound coming out of a club half a block away that totally arrested him–he had to come find out what it was because it sounded totally different … and what he heard was me, playing live on a modular synth. There is a difference, and people can tell.

I’m not making a value judgement: there are many, many ways to make great music. But the audience is listening and responding to the same subtle things we musicians, producers, and DJs are–and they can hear the difference.

3 Likes
#75

I think there are two different arguments here. The average audience anywhere most likely couldn’t identify one instrument over another and I agree with the previous statement that many guitarists would be lucky to pick out individual equipment on a rock recording without prior knowledge of the artist. That being said, an audience knows when something sounds “good” and “bad”. I heard Alessandro Cortini perform last year with an iPad and a pedalboard - no proper synths in sight. It sounded very good. The fidelity of the performance is one thing and the fluency of the artist with the instrument is another. Both are important but maybe not equally. Both of these components are relevant to the discussion, IMO.

5 Likes
#76

This isn’t really the spirit of what I was saying… I mean that the instrument is more than the sound it makes. If you’re just after a sound then there might be many ways of achieving it, but playing something is more than that.

#77

In context I understood you to be saying that the sound of, say, a modular synth could be achieved with software. It is my experience that this remains theoretical: the actual source of the sound matters. A sawtooth is not a sawtooth, and a resonant filter is not a resonant filter (or mathematical model) like any other.

I recall the days (1980s) when the electric guitar was said to be fading away in popular music because synthesizers were going to be able to sound just like them but with better control, wider range, etc.–that was the promise of sampling and advanced computer modeling. Now, 30 years later … unless “fake guitar” is the sound you’re after, the only practical (and easiest) way of achieving a “real guitar” sound remains a real guitar.

It’s true that talent plus a kazoo can make art, but the discussion at hand is about why we pay so much for obsolete hardware when a $20 app can do so much more. I don’t think it’s all fetishism. In my own case, I tried and tried for years to make music I liked with all manner of electronic and software instruments but got nowhere until I built a modular. I would love to rock an iPad, but I simply can’t get sounds or an interface that inspires me. I probably lack talent.

1 Like
#78

I’m not trying to imply that they will sound the same, only that you can make music with anything… and ultimately if you have a vision for a sound you can probably realize that vision with a variety of tools in different ways. But it won’t be exactly the same, and the process of creating it and playing it will be drastically different. IMO, the difference in interface and ergonomics has a large impact on my ability to realize the music I want to make, sometimes more than the exact sound/tone of the instrument.

They work in tandem though… I get sounds from my modular that I would never get from PD if only because I do things I would never think to do in PD (or can’t, like analog distortion). And vice versa.

3 Likes
#79

I can’t, or rather–I wouldn’t want to.

This all depends on where you’re approaching music-making from. Composers & producers come at it from one direction and can be less concerned with the exact instrumentation behind the music than, say, a jazz musician who makes up the music on the spot. I, for instance, don’t have a “vision”: I react to the sounds I’m making in the moment and I don’t have more than a very vague plan behind what I want to do. I can’t repeat a performance, either. This means that the sound itself takes on a crucial importance: I make decisions based on the exact sounds I’m getting, never to be repeated. Piano is the same way for me: I respond differently to various instruments and probably could not make the same music on different pianos because sound and musical judgement are so intertwined for me. I don’t think I’m alone in this.

PD is utterly useless to me–actually, it’s worse than useless because I find myself uninspired after trying to use it for a musical purpose. YMMV :slight_smile:

It’s good we aren’t forced to choose.

#80

“Modular synths are for old rich white guys.”

-Sorry for my harsh sarcasm-

Generally speaking I love the complexity and the quality of sound you could achieve with those instruments, but at the same time I dislike how they’re sort of wasted and the consumerist attitude in the modular crew.

I honestly think that the “quality/price ratio” of great part of the music made from $$$$$ walls of modules it’s not that great
(generally speaking ‘bout what’s floating in the internet)

I also think that if you manage to properly learn to play let’s say a piano or a guitar you don’t need a $$$$$ instrument in order to achieve great results.

In facts a great player it’s great too on a few bucks instrument.

Can we make that same statement on modular synths?

#81

I guess it sounded like that, but that wasn’t really my intent. What I wanted to say is that any instrument takes up a part of our life and it’s a good and important thing that it does so. Playing an instrument is a matter of commitment and passion. It can become an obsession, but that is another topic I guess.
So I guess if there’s no commitment and passion, you’re just spending money and indeed any instrument is very expensive then.

1 Like
#82

I think we can and @disquiet already offered a great example with the “three-module challenges”.

1 Like
#83

Would be interesting to hear 3 module tracks from lines :innocent:

Maybe after :santa::christmas_tree::gift:

4 Likes
#84

Your points about the disposable income crew are true, but the old rich white guy market has long been there; all those Les Paul Customs and PRSs aren’t just going to gigging musicians, they’re going to middle aged dudes to stumble through Cream covers on…

And you know, in some ways, there’s nothing wrong with that. They’re making music on nice instruments. Perhaps the more salient point is that the “cheap” ways in are limited - a 6U doepfer system is 1300, for instance. But again, go to synth land: a poly analog starts at 500 and mainly sits around 1500 for interesting new ones; the 0-coast (still my favourite gateway synth by miles) is at that point. It’s not Squier cheap, but it’s not bad.

I’m on a phone so coherent typing is hard, but I think the most frustrating point is the way certain kinds of modular conversation have been overwhelmed by the “rich dudes making ropey techno” scenario; and, in particular, the way newcomers are beginning to learn behaviours from that environment; the idea that they need to keep purchasing, or that they need a plan, or that the collection game is more interesting than the music game. Sometimes I worry I’m guilty of that, but I do my best. (My best music, after all, is still not made on my modular)

9 Likes
#85

I think you can get into very contentious, and overly subjective, territory when you start down the road of whether the quality of the music made is worthy of the price of the instrument(s) it was made on.

Plenty of people make music I like on instruments worth a lot of money, plenty make it on ones that are cheap.

5 Likes
#86

Obligatory reference to Leica cameras etc, although I think modular goes nowhere near that kind of price/performance ratio. But diminishing returns are worth mentioning too, curiously it took me playing Eve Online for a while to get a good feel for how that works.

3 Likes
#87

Is it worth it to have certain gear? Yes. If it matters to you in a way that changes musical expression then regardless of it mattering in a physical sense it matters in the moment.

Are old white guys with $$ a problem? I’m a mediocre guitarist, an older guy, white, and I can afford more than I need. I went to get a semi-hollow guitar a couple of years ago. The sales guy abandoned some kid who was clearly better than me. I asked him why. ‘Guys like you buy, keep the store profitable, and I’m on commission.’

Are old white guys with $$ a problem 2? I strongly suspect that if Eurorack modules could only be sold to people for whom music is a profession (even in part) most of the market would evaporate and many of our favorite vendors would be toast.

Do old white guys buy up the vintage gear and lock it up in their dens? Yes. No defense here.

I’m sure Arturus Povertus writing on the Roman wall-forum LLLLLLoL complained bitterly about Horditus Maximus and his friends Vintigus Collectus and Neverus Playsus.

Do I feel guilty that I have a Tetrapad waiting for me at the post office today? Not at all. Come over and I’ll serve you scotch while you try it out! Old white guys hoard scotch too :smile:

11 Likes
#88

hilarious but very true

#89

pointing at old white men is outdated. modular is millennial tech bro fashion.

and neither are a problem. as a few of you said, any purchase keeps this niche market alive. most modular makers are barely alive at all times (sometimes us included).

but i get it. the problem (and the facilitator) is capitalism. people are people.

21 Likes
#90

12 Likes
#91

Rambly perhaps incoherent response:

I think a lot about the inherently discriminatory nature of modular due to pricing a lot. I also think about how some of my favorite electronic music is generally not being made in Eurorack (e.g. my friend Robert Beatty/Three Legged Race is a damn inspiration and his setup is so kooky and comparatively lo-fi that it’s absurd) and I feel even more conflicted as to why I got into it in the first place ha.

I think that’s why I’ve always felt yucky/guilty about having too much. I don’t need a giant studio with every possible tool, I want a relatively cohesive and small arsenal of tools that I can explore as if it were an instrument. Someone above pointed out the concept of modularity is not restricted to Eurorack or even synthesizers. That very much resonates with me, but I also really value limitations on some level (which is admittedly super subjective).

With Eurorack/synthesizers, it definitely starts to feel like rich people spending inordinate amounts of money on their old expensive baseball cards. I contrast that with a group of little kids excitedly opening one pack to see what’s inside. How could I ever have thought as an 8 year old in the 80s I could compete with old people buying their Mickey Mantle cards? Anyway, are most of these generally wealthy Eurorack users making anything with their toys? How much of it is compelling to me (subjective)? How much is it about the end product? How much of it is about the process? Does any of this matter? To Random’s point, they’re probably an important part of ‘the market’ that allows this stuff to be even remotely sustainable. Let them keep it afloat while the artists do their thing. Meanwhile, others are primarily in it for the image, or for something to post daily on their Instagram page, and hey, if that’s what they get out of it, fair enough. It takes all kinds…

Personally, given the challenge of finding my voice on the modular, I wonder what the heck I’m doing, but then ‘the journey’ has been fun and rewarding despite the periodic artistic frustration. I think back to being 18 working with an MC505/guitar/voice in the late 90s and opening for Isotope217, the Shipping News, Smog, or whatever act where I had realized a dream and I was producing more with less. Should I go back to ‘just’ an Octatrack+OP1 and really dig in? But then, as others have pointed out, very little of this ends up being about the tools, it’s about the artist. I ultimately try to go back to the basics:

Use what you want and can afford and squeeze everything out of the tools that you need to to be the artist that you want to be.

It isn’t just about the end result though. The exploration and journey is something I really value more and more, as the ‘product’ in the end becomes increasingly meaningless in our reality where people are pumping out ‘product’ endlessly on Youtube, Instagram, Bandcamp, tapes, CDs, records…me me me, consume consume consume…I’ve been at the point now where I’ve decided, ‘if everyone is an artist, then is anyone an artist?’ Knowing how to manage the endlessness of the art in the world is getting insane. Democratization of art is good, but I’m drowning!!!

Anyway, I really appreciate this discussion and figured I’d chime in on a sleepy Christmas Eve. Thank you for being such a thoughtful and open community.

3 Likes
#92

Couple of thoughts that occurred to me as I am reading this thread.

  1. Money spend on anything used to make art (in any form, so sound included) is always money well spent. I don’t care who is spending it, and how much of it they spend. Ultimately I see it as investment in the better side of our humanity.

  2. The concept of “wealth” or “being rich” has evolved in recent decades, and for it to retain any meaning, it needs to be framed in context. Mainly, I just want to say, that in the context of the “first world” (I shudder) none of us are rich. My suspicion is, that none of the modular manufacturers, nor buyers/users are rich.

20 Likes