MOTM

> While there's 
> an amazing amount of functionality in that panel, it's certainly easier
> to buy modules form someone else like Paul, one at a time, and get your
> system exactly like you want it.  With Serge, you better get your panel
> config right the first time, because it's set in stone.

That was exactly the issue that turned me off Serge as a format, despite
falling in love with a friend's large Serge system and then getting a
personal tour of the business by Rex himself. (It was kinda fun, yes.) The
increments are too big. If you want to expand your system, you're looking in
terms of multiples of $2000 (roughly), rather than multiples of $200
(roughly).
  
> Between what's already available, and some stuff that's been announced,
> I really don't see much lacking in the MOTM format myself...

I tend to agree. One of the number of reasons I went with MOTM is because it
seemed that pretty much all of the basics were covered. Yes, it's always
possible to name some module (past or present) that isn't in the MOTM line,
but that's true of any individual synthesizer vendor. Another reason that I
chose MOTM was because it was the format most frequently mentioned on other
vendors' websites (i.e., descriptions of how to interface their modules with
MOTM systems). And that's the beauty of a modular system: you can mix
modules from different vendors. Yes, it may take some work with a Stooge
panel or a Blacet adapter panel, but if you're looking for easy solutions,
why on Earth are you using a modular in the first place? :-)

IMHO Paul should keep doing what Paul likes to do, because anything else
will make him grumpy and decide to go back to having a real job. Paul's
module line is an idiosyncratic expression of what Paul thinks should be in
his line. I wouldn't have it any other way.

--Adam