ECHO is an online, open access, peer-reviewed journal that exists to share creative work and understanding in the common space at the intersection of music, thought and technology.
31 comments
Doing everything in a DAW is the most practical from a "business" standpoint, but it's way less amenable to creative exploration. You really have to know what you want already.
The practical compromise that works best for me is a well-designed hardware realtime synth. You have access to a small fraction of the design space of modular, but a higher fraction of the accessible design space sounds good, and you of course have patch save/recall.
Recently what I've been doing is creating modular patches, driving them with MIDI, and recording the output into my Elektron Tonverk using their on-device multisample recording. You can record samples at a bunch of different pitch/velocity pairs and save them into a multisample file.
I use my Eurorack as an extension of the realtime synths and 19"-rack stuff I already have MIDI'ed up and so on. I do think I could put everything I need into Eurorack, eventually. It is extremely versatile.
P.S. I'll always remember first discovering Suzanne Ciani while watching 321 Contact as a child: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vJiTDhOTamo
If you are wondering what everyone is talking about in this thread, please check it out:
I do like bespoke and think its great, but it feels a bit janky to me (though it's been like a year since I tried).
It's fun to think about all the various ways people can implement such tools. I'd recommend bespoke for those who want a bit of a different modular system than just a skeuomorphic approach that copies Eurorack design.
I talked myself out investing in modulars because I know I'll never have the patience to deal with the wires when all I want is to play. Big respect for those who can do it!
> RDJ: It's because I finished making a studio in Scotland that I'd been building for about three years. It took so long. I had this engineer helping me wire all the patch bays together, and he was doing it for about three months, every day, and then he realized he was doing it all wrong and had to start again. That was pretty brutal. So it's kind of like, “OK, I've done that now, it's the end of an era.”
> But then I realized I actually like making studios more than making music, because I like the possibilities of what you can do. I make these setups that will achieve some sort of purpose, so the way I've wired it together becomes the track in itself.
https://pitchfork.com/features/cover-story/9506-strange-visi...
Some modular performers like Keith Fullerton Whitman have a very dynamic approach to patching. I've seen shows where he was aggressively re-patching throughout the performance and hot-swapping connections on the fly. I'm talking several patches in a minute. It wasn't subtle, either. It was a nice contrast to many performers who tend to design their system as a fixed structure and then play from there.
I prefer virtual modulars like Reaktor and Cherry Modular. Especially Cherry because there's a nice Java dev system which allows custom development with some ready-made UI and I/O options.
I'd usually be drawn to hoarding patches, and organizing them, and labelling and maintaining. With a modular synth, I can only produce in the moment. I find that really freeing.
I'm a hobbyist, and not a professional musician, i might think different if I did this to make money.
Read the full thread on Hacker News →
Related stories
- The Self-Supervised Learning Cookbookai.facebook.comLobsters · 6 points · over 3 years ago
- Hacker News · 1 points · 8 days ago