MOTM

> For example, if there are 5
> interesting but arcane functions that are rarely used on a module
> that crowd the one often used function, making it hard to find within
> the grid of identical knobs, the module is compromised.

But this implies that you have to get people to agree on which functions are
arcane and which aren't. It has been shown that it is difficult to form a
consensus of opinion even when all of the functions have equal importance,
e.g., the layout of the filter bank's knobs. I submit that it would be even
more difficult to get people to agree on which functions in a given module
are more important than others. If I consider my own (relatively brief) use
of my MOTM system, it is not clear to me that I would consider any of the
functions on some of the more knob-laden modules--say the 300 or the
filters--to be subordinate in importance to others. It all depends on how
I'm using the module on a given occasion. Maybe one day I'm not using the FM
inputs at all; maybe the next day the adjustment of the FM levels is
critical to the operation of the patch.

With a modular synthesizer, to make decisions about which function is more
important than another means to predetermine in the mind of the user which
functions are more important than others. It is my opinion--and yes, it's
just an opinion--that this design philosophy would be flawed. A modular
synthesizer is like a blank canvas and a set of paints. To tell the user
that one function is more important than another would be like telling the
painter that red is more important than blue.

--Adam