Re: [AH] [re: AH] Modular comment part #2

From toby boudreaux
Sent Thu, Jan 18th 1970, 01:00

well tell me this- if you buy a doepfer basic system for instance, where
they have previously chosen which modules to include (as rex does with
serge) is it a modular?

the term MODULAR is very important in my academic studies
(post-structuralism etc) and it means only that any point can freely connect
to and control (or modulate) any other point...

i know with synthesis it's a bit different but the term was first used in
both areas at roughly the same time (it's strange, the co-evolution of
synths and post-structuralist thought...) and synths are frequently used as
models for concepts in certain discourses...

-----Original Message-----
From: Tony Clark <>
To: Analog Group <>
Date: Tuesday, June 01, 1999 12:09 PM
Subject: Re: [AH] [re: AH] Modular comment part #2

>> >I almost didn't include Serge because, technically, NOT a modular (as a
>> >MS-20 or MS-50 is NOT a modular, >nor is a patched out CMS ARP).
>> >But it was just a starting point. Everyone relax.
>> Hi Paul,
>> Your definition of a modular synth is very surprising : according to your
>> strange  reasoning, a Serge or a Buchla are not real modulars
>> because  you cannot buy them  modules by modules or in Kits.!!!
>   Well he does have a point, actually.  When I think of the term
>"modular", it means the ability to customize it completely.  One of the
>things that has really kept me from buying a Serge is the problem that as
>soon as I spec out a panel and it is made, it is in no way changeable in
>any shape or form (except by maybe having a new panel punched).  That's
>why I went with Modcan, because not only can I buy by the module, but I
>can also REARRANGE them in any order I like.  Heck, as soon as I got my
>Modcan, the first thing I did was rearrange the modules.
>> Let me remind you that, in the musical world,  the term 'modular'  refers
>> to an analog synth  which is a totally open :  i.e  all individual
>>  I/O  can be patched together to create a given sound.
>   No, this is what I would call "open architecture".  :)
>   Check out any large format mixer.  If it is a "modular" console, each
>channel can be pulled out of the console either in one piece or even
>better, in sections.  It would be wrong to call a console "modular" if it
>only came with a patch bay.  Sure the inputs and outputs may be
>reconfigurable, but the rest of the system is permanently set and
>   Unfortunately the hype over anything with patch points lends instantly
>to the term "modular" because it is "reminiscent" of the true huge
>cabinet beasts.  What is rather funny is that the Nord Modular does
>really classify as a true "modular" because of its ability to add new and
>update existing modules.
>   But really, this is all just a trivial point of terminology.  It has
>absolutely no bearing on the benefits or negatives of any particular
>instrument.  If it did, no one would want a 2600 or Serge or
>MS-10/20/50.  But obviously that is not the case at all.
>   I have a Fenix, so by my own definition, it's not a modular.  :)
>   Tony
>I can't drive (my Moog) 55!         |     The E-Music DIY Archive
>Tony Clark --     |
> |     Contributions welcomed!