Archive of the former Yahoo!Groups mailing list: MOTM

previous by date index next by date
previous in topic topic list  

Subject: RE: [motm] static feedback

From: "thomas white" <djthomaswhite@...>
Date: 2000-08-23

Good counter points Paul! I will buy one either way it comes out. The added
siwtch is a big bonus for me, Thanks Tony

Thomas White

>From: "Brousseau, Paul E (Paul)" <noise@...>
>To: "''" <>
>Subject: RE: [motm] static feedback
>Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2000 10:17:27 -0700
>I totally appreciate this point of view, you make wonderful points--
>My main thought is that Tony's come up with a ∗fantastic∗ module, and I'd
>hate to see it less usable due to cramped conditions. Keep in mind that
>Blacet's modules use (typically?) 1 row of knobs. Tony's has two rows,
>another row of switches-- that's a lot of pieces for a relatively small
>amount of space.
>Making the panel twice as wide, I'd wager, doesn't add much to the price--
>you still have the same number of holes for jacks and knobs. Using larger
>pots will raise the price, indeed-- but I wouldn't want to purchase a
>product with cheap feeling knobs (I don't want to have to deal with
>scratchiness or repairs). I'm not aware of anything else that would
>price-wise... am I wrong here?
>I agree that restraint is called for at the right time. However, don't
>prevent me from mad-twiddling when I want to. (Incidently, I've never
>written a lick of music, so "my music" is neither restrained nor out of
>control... :) My bottom line is that a module with this much potential and
>power ∗deserves∗ a large space, so that when I'm fumbling around and
>searching for that perfect preset slope and curve (or just plane playing
>with the sound), I'm not knocking everything else out of whack.
>--PBr :)
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From:thomas white [SMTP:djthomaswhite@...]
> > Sent:Wednesday, August 23, 2000 9:15 AM
> >
> > Subject:[motm] static feedback
> >
> > Just a thought,
> >
> > Not every song or composition is best presented by madly twidling all
> > possible knobs on your modular. Some songs require restraint and preset
> > slopes and curves to have the right impact. I think it is a very limited
> > view to state...
> >
> > Or your music is a little more static that it should be?
> >
> > Sometimes music is "too" static because all you are doing is twisting
> > knobs all the time. Things can get out of hand fast with all of the
> > options
> > we have on our MOTM's, especially for those of us who own two or more
> > modulars. Knob twiddling on a classic LFO is only one knob that
> >
> > the whole frequency while this modules is multiple stages (15 knobs for
> > ∗∗∗∗
> > sake) with room for delicate transitions if you program the thing right.
> >
> > am willing to hider the real time tweakability with the smaller knobs to
> > save cost since my modular money is running low :~( It will in no way be
> > impossible to tweak on this proposed module and I am hyped about the
> > sequencer type functions.
> >
> > I am very excited to look at this possible new module for the positive
> > things that it might bring to the MOTM system. I have no other module
> >
> > this and I would for sure like to add one of these to my modular. I
> > commend
> > Tony for trying to keep it in a 2-space panel.
> >
> > Some of the people on this list complaining right now about the 2-space
> > panel will most assuredly be the ones complaining about the price of a 4
> > space module with the fatty alco knobs and classic spacing. And maybe
> > even buy one in the end because it will cost as much or more than a MOTM
> > VCO. Although at times my Blacet and Doepfer stuff does seem cramped in
> > comparison to my MOTM, it always gets the job done even with the cheap
> > pots
> > and thimble sized knobs. How long it will continue to get the job done
> > another question (Doe∗∗∗∗)
> >
> > Bottom line is I will deviate from the classic MOTM format even though
> > MOTM is the most carefully laid out and planned (Sound and Visual) synth
> >
> > have. Of course it might make the rack look spaced oddly, but I want to
> > get
> > the function of this module to add to my sound creating power and for
> > I
> > am willing to trade off the classic spacing and fat knobs. Yes, I do
> > smaller fingers but my band members are much bigger (MBI, try and figure
> > this abrev out) than me and have never complained.
> >
> > Rant, rant, rant I know, but this module can and will be a very valuable
> > addition to my MOTM system. I think it will compliment the modules Paul
> > has
> > available and I hope that it will mean Tony will be making more MOTM
> > format
> > modules. Now we can try to get John Blacet involved! Thanks for
> > and getting this far into this mini novella
> >
> > Thomas White
> >
> > PS. MBI= More Beer Intake
> >

Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at