[sdiy] So just what *is* the Buchla 291?

[Colin f]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: synth-diy-bounces at dropmix.xs4all.nl 
> [mailto:synth-diy-bounces at dropmix.xs4all.nl] On Behalf Of 
> David G. Dixon
> Sent: 09 May 2010 08:44
> Subject: Re: [sdiy] So just what *is* the Buchla 291?

> Here is what "Analog Days" has to say on the subject.
> 
> "The idea of using electromechanical ways to sequence a 
> series of sounds was very much in the air.  Peter Zinovieff 
> in London was also working on rudimentary sequencing devices, 
> as was the pioneering jazz musician and inventor Raymond 
> Scott.  But there was no doubt that Buchla, with his 
> electronic way of doing it, had achieved a breakthrough.  The 
> sequencer was the one module that Moog eventually "copped" 
> from Buchla."

...hearsay.

> Hence, unless Raymond Scott had developed a strictly 
> electronic sequencer in the late 50's or early 60's, there 
> would have been no reason for Moog to avoid building such a 
> sequencer.  Based on Scott's open letter, I suppose that is 
> the conclusion one is meant to draw.  However, I still figure 
> that Moog simply hadn't worked out how to build an electronic 
> sequencer before becoming aware of Buchla's.

That seems like the conclusion you would draw if you were a Buchla fanboi,
keen to knock Moog off a perceived pedestal.
Bob Moog never really claimed to have invented anything.
To listen to him, any good idea he ever had was already floating around in
the cosmic consciousness, just waiting for someone to tune into it.
Which I found a very noble position for someone who could easily have taken
the credit for so many things.
We should be glad of both Moog and Buchla's contribution, as well as those
of whoever may have been working for them.
You can't say for sure that Buchla invented anything he did.
Maybe he took the credit for work completed by his underlings ?
Does it make any difference, if he or Bob was the driving force behind any
given discovery ?

Cheers,
Colin f