just a few comments… I’m in the process of developing (and documenting) a somewhat different set of strategies. very hard to summarize in a short post, but I can at least indicate some general ideas. The
motivation is more or less related to this:
that is, these are strategies to turn a ‘knobby’ sequencer into a deeply programmable one.
why bother? why do this at all, well there is sometimes something very magical about changing the structural elements of a sequence by turning knobs that can also be mapped to other sound parameter, good for coupling points of tension (the change in sound parameter) with release (the sudden structural change).
turning knobs turns into a form of live coding, in a way.
First though – what I consider a ‘sequencer’ to be… has scarcely ‘been’ at this point. it should have at minimum:
- clock advance
- up/down/hold
- programmable stage select
- reset (to the last programmed stage)
- stage output gate (although this is probably the most ‘optional’)
it seems only the newer Serge sequencer/programmer ticks all these boxes. other sequencers are in various stages of incompletion and and thus one has to find workarounds or just live within what it can do. nothing I have is complete, unfortunately…

Second, i’ve found it useful to set up and practice three ‘building blocks’: I always have to patch these from other modules… would be nice at some point to have a “triple sequencer interface” module which just implements them directly.
-
Clock pulse selection. when the row voltage crosses a threshold, the clock passes through; below this threshold it is suppressed. think of a comparator + AND gate combination.
-
Memory element: three regions: low-middle-high. Low sets the output to zero, high to 5V, middle retains the previous voltage. Can be patched with a comparator in positive feedback.
-
Clock division ,different row voltages select different division amounts, usually /1, /2, /3…
Some basic applications are as follows, these all use one sequencer:
-
basic ‘zones’. each time a stage is selected anywhere in these zones, the sequence will repeat within this zone. to implement this patch the ‘clock pulse selection’ to the reset.
-
up/down zones. Using the memory element to control the same sequencer’s up/down, the sequence will bounce between the nearest “low” and “high” stages. The stage select chooses the zone. Zones can open or close by changing one of the boundary knobs (this is why the ‘memory’ part is important)
-
different note lengths. Clocking the sequencer itself from the programmable clock division, one can achieve different (but rhythmically related) note lengths.
Anyway, some comments:
Both awesome suggestions… these do depend on exact linear VCO tracking if they are to be used for pitches, namely adding sequencer voltages (Subotnick), or controlling a second oscillator with a S/H version of the pitch control for the first.
Actually the second can be done by tuning two sequencer rows so that the pitches of the first and second oscillators coincide, then instead of multing. unfortunately there’s no easy solution for the first.
this indeed seems to be the big “unsaid” of (western) music theory… in other words specific ‘rules’ of harmony and counterpoint already presuppose that this is happening and merely describe one way of getting everything to cohere. which is not to say that more general concepts of harmony and counterpoint aren’t useful, in fact they’re often what come forth anew and in their own way in every specific piece.
the big delusion of theory is ‘representation’, that harmony and counterpoint correspond to what is actually ‘there’ – rather, they are a complementary schema or scaffolding which free the music for its own basic generative strategies of replication, reversal, transposition, inversion while still enabling it somehow to make sense. [one can add others which have not yet been widely considered, such as time dilation]. [Likewise, and not only by analogy, the score describes precisely what is not in the performance.]
what annoys me in terms of the Western classical tradition is not this organic unity of generative schema, harmony, and counterpoint, rather the suppression of polyrhythmicity and polytonality [which I take as strongly rooted in the generative schema themselves.]