MOTM

There was a recent thread about analog sequencers on Analog Heaven.  I 
heard Jurgen is helping with MOTM, so maybe his "Dream" sequencer can be 
the design basis for the MOTM one.

Date: Fri, 19 Nov 1999 16:09:19 +0100
From: Haible Juergen <Juergen.Haible@...>
Subject: AW: [AH] Analogue sequencer

 >Since I`ve never tested an analogue sequencer, I`m not quite shure what it
 >can do, that a modern sequencer can`t do. Ok, someone told me that you can
 >i.e. set filter values on each step, so that you can get a very percussive
 >filter "beat" going on, like Kraftwerk did on "We are the robots".
Although,
 >you can also do this with a modern sequencer.
 >
 >I`ve always thought about getting myself an analogue sequencer, but I would
 >like to know a little more about it. Your knowledge would be appreciated.
 >
 >Cheers
 >Henrik

While there are some very special tricks you can do with analogue sequencers,
like clocking them at audio rate etc., I don't think this is the main thing 
that set
them apart from other sequencers.

IMO, it's the special way of user operation that is enforced by an Analogue 
Sequencer.
Let me explain this a little more.
Sequencing means structure, and sequencing using *patterns* means repetition.
Repetition is a most delicate thing. It can be the backbone of your music, 
and it
can also make your music boring, boring, boring. There is so much *bad* 
sequenced
music in this world, that the electronic music compartment in record shops, 
once
the promise of innovation, are now a sink of mediocrity.

There are certain things that prevent highly repetitive music from becoming 
boring.
A very complex basic pattern that is repeated on and on without change is *not*
one of them. I remember a certain record that tried to break away from the
allegedly "stupid 8ths" of Berlin School music, and introduced a (then) unheard
of complex sequencer pattern. Which sounded great for the first 4 bars, but not
after 15 minutes anymore.

One couple of things that *does* work (given that you like this kind of 
music at
all) is a perpetual slight change of the basic pattern, switching between a 
handfull of
similar patterns, and above all this microscopic stuff building up a *tension*
over a larger span of time.
The tension is the more important thing, of course. Great music is done without
pattern structures, using the classic means of chord progressions, melodies
and any composition skill you can think of. But we're talking of "sequencer 
music"
or "pattern music" here, and as a good electronic musician does not always
necessarily have the classic composition skills, getting the overall tension
from the use of the tiny patterns is normally quite some goal.

In my opinion, the user interface and the limitations (!) of an Analogue 
Sequencer
can help us to approach this goal.
When a sequencer with 8 or 12 steps is running, you can change one, or maybe
two notes on the fly while a pattern is running thru. This is (by chance ?) 
often
just the right amount of "slight change" that ensures a steady flow and giving
some variation at the same time. A technique famous for early Tangerine Dream
recordings was using two rows of a sequencer, one row playing the music and
the second row being re-programmed at the same time. Must have been a
certain surprise factor when you flick the switch that applies the things you
just programmed to the public !
You can hear this way of sequencing on Tangerine Dream's "Rubycon" album.
The individual patterns are quite simple, but the creativity involved is 
enormous !
Simple patterns force you permanently "to do something", and not to rely on
something that's just running, and when the creativity bears some fruit 
(often it does
not ...) the results are way more interesting than preprogrammed stuff.
So it can be the *limitation* that pushes you forward to create a piece of art.

Now, can't you do the same thing on a software based sequencer with pattern
structure? In theory yes, but at least for me the process is not as fruitful.
I remember programming and programming patterns on a software sequencer
to emulate the "slight changes", but then I was disconnected from the overall
"flow" of the process, i.e. it was hard to determine the required changes to
build up tension without hearing the tension happening. This is obviously
a result of a gap in my musical education, but it gives some consolation to
see a similar thing happening to one of my "heroes":
Compare Klaus Schulze's sequencing masterpiece "Crystal Lake" (from the
"Mirage" album) with his first attempt to do similar things with Midi expanders
and Midi sequencing on records like "Babel".

Sure, the difference is not just in sequencing but also in real time 
control (or lack
of real time control) of the synthesizer parameters involved; but that's a 
topic
that's quite common on AH, so I won't go into it now.

One last aspect, though: There is still quite some difference between the
sequencing of TD's Rubycon (see above) and the use of whole banks of sequencers
as on TD's "Encore" or KS's "Crystal Lake". I don't have details about all the
sequencers that were used for the latter ones (any details about these 
custom built
sequencers anywhere on the web ??), but there's some conclusion I've drawn
for myself:

As I'm normally not playing live, I don't really need the most complicated 
and flexible
Analogue Sequencer, or a multitude of Analogue Sequencers. I have in fact 
designed
a big Beast like that, with multiple rows, multiple columns, programmable 
conditions
to jump between rows in the midst of a sequence, including all the features 
I found
worth having from the study of commercial sequencers like ARP, Korg and Serge,
and no, this is not just dreamed up, I had it running on the bench in 
hardware -
only the logic fuctions, no potentiometers, switches and jacks 
connected.  And then
I decided *not* to finish it, because I didn't consider it worth the pain 
of building
it anymore. What happened ? I recorded the "Adler" track of my "Eagles And 
Prophets"
CD (http://www.synthfool.com/diy/hj_cd1.html) and I did all the sequencing 
there
with the measly 8 step / 2 rows sequencer I had built for my Modular system 
years
ago. And I got the feeling that with a multitrack tape, syncing several 
simple patterns
together, is a much more rewarding way to work for me. Your synchronizing to
a previous audio track has missed a beat ? And finally there is this 
variation in the
pattern that just fits in, and how would I have found this if I would had 
to program
it in advance ??  (80% of these "surprises" are not pleasant ones, of 
course, and
I have deleted them.)

This was a long mail. And it is nothing against other people's working 
style- - just
to answer the question and explain what I value on simple Analogue Sequencers.
I'll probably buy an ARP and SQ-10 to add to my system some time, but I 
probably
won't finish the "big one" ever.

JH.

Date: Fri, 19 Nov 1999 10:35:23 EST
From: Synthworld@...
Subject: Re: AW: [AH] Analogue sequencer

In a message dated 11/19/99 8:10:28 AM US Mountain Standard Time,
Juergen.Haible@... writes:

 > ile there are some very special tricks you can do with analogue
 >  sequencers,
 >  like clocking them at audio rate etc., I don't think this is the main thing
 >  that set
 >  them apart from other sequencers.

For me, the primary advantage of analog sequencers (and analog-type
sequencers found in the Nord Modular)...and a major difference from MIDI
sequencers is their ability to separate pitches from triggers (or in
MIDIspeak...separating Notes and Note Ons and Offs so they can be composed
independently).
For example:
I love running/cycling an 8-step sequenced row of pitches against a 7-step
sequencer row dedicated to sending triggers to the filter and amp envelopes
on some, but **not all**, of the steps (say Steps - 1, 2, 5 and 7 for example).
They are running from the same clock but they cycle against each other in
such a way where you can still use this effectively with a 4/4 rhythm but it
takes 56 bars for it to cycle around and sound the same again.
TD, among others, have used this simple type of independent control for years
- - but this is perhaps the strongest reason I still use analog-type 
sequencers
in addition to my MIDI sequencer.
I never tire of listening to layers of well-crafted analog-type sequences.

Zon (Synthworld@...)

/\/\/\/\/\"Got Moog?"/\/\/\/\/\

Date: Fri, 19 Nov 1999 10:47:49 -0500
From: "L Tremblay" <ltct@...>
Subject: Re: AW: [AH] Analogue sequencer

I also like analog sequencers because you can set-up
non-linear variable-length sequences - something
MIDI sequencers cannot do well or flexibly.

Try setting-up a 9-against-5 (one 9-step sequence,
and a 5-step sequence) on a hardware-based MIDI
sequencer...

Piece of cake with analog.

- -Larry