MOTM

Hi All -

The patch book idea is terrific - I would gladly contribute.  In fact,
this weekend I will cook up a couple of (what I think are) cool things
and put them into PDF format.  I'll send them to Paul H; if the book
idea or the patch-of-the-week idea matures then beauty.  

I wanted to clarify a little about my general approach to synthesis,
because it is maybe a little different from what I've heard described.
It's an approach that is time-consuming and expeimental, and sometimes
just plain random.  I certainly am not terribly interested in
synthesizing known timbres, though I do understand why some folks are
keenly interested in this aspect of it.  My goal is to hear something
that I've never heard before.  NOTE that that doesn't mean that the
timbre hasn't been done before, it's just that I haven't heard it.

Sometimes I hear that sound in my head and attempt to analyze how I
would create it, then go plug some cables and tweezle some knobs. 
Sometimes, I rip out all of the cables and start from scratch without
any notion of what I'm after.  Sometimes I'm doing a demo and need to
show off the module's capabilities.  For me, it all takes time.  Often
I'll have a patch 'cooking' for days and I will come in and alter it
with fresh ears.  I *always* record the results so I have a running
record - it's surprising how different an 'end' result is from where I
started.  I say 'end' in quotes because this process could go on
pretty much indefinitely.  It only ends when I move on to something else.

As often as not the main timbre results from a pretty simple patch. 
That gets embellished with filigree from stuff like the 410 or the FS.
  Usually, I'll have several 'simple' timbres going at once (helps to
have a medium-big system) and a 'peice' emerges.  Sometimes, it's just
a phrase that may get used later in a larger, unrelated peice.  It's
all good!

Anyway, that's a glimpse of how I approach the monster on the far wall
in the studio.  Maybe it's not that much different from other folks,
after all.

Mike