MOTM

As of this very moment:

83 assembled modules, *not counting* subscription ones coming up
399 (!) kits, which *does* include all ordered + subscription modules of all announced products

Now, about 150 of these kits will do out in the next 10 days or so. Looking at the current kit
inventory (not the "new stuff"), there needs to be an additional 150 or so kits made up to fill
demand + have some extra.

Yep, hopefully you can see why:

a) your order hasn't shipped yet
b) I'm scatter-brained
c) why I write emails at 1AM on a weekend when everyone else is whooping it up

One bright thing is that these + already shipped modules is *very close* to the mythical 4000th
MOTM module. That's pretty cool! I'm hoping I can last to module #5000, the goal I dreamed of
when I started. After that, what's left is to ship module #6683, if you can guess what that
signifies :)

Paul S.

Your age when you started and your age when you die building boatloads of
modules?? Just teasing ya Paul.

> when I started. After that, what's left is to ship module #6683,
> if you can guess what that
> signifies :)
>
> Paul S.
>
>

One more than Mr. Moog shipped?

--- In motm@y..., "Paul Schreiber" <synth1@a...> wrote:
> As of this very moment:
> 
> 83 assembled modules, *not counting* subscription ones coming up
> 399 (!) kits, which *does* include all ordered + subscription 
modules of all announced products
> 
> Now, about 150 of these kits will do out in the next 10 days or 
so. Looking at the current kit
> inventory (not the "new stuff"), there needs to be an additional 
150 or so kits made up to fill
> demand + have some extra.
> 
> Yep, hopefully you can see why:
> 
> a) your order hasn't shipped yet
> b) I'm scatter-brained
> c) why I write emails at 1AM on a weekend when everyone else is 
whooping it up
> 
> One bright thing is that these + already shipped modules is *very 
close* to the mythical 4000th
> MOTM module. That's pretty cool! I'm hoping I can last to module 
#5000, the goal I dreamed of
> when I started. After that, what's left is to ship module #6683, 
if you can guess what that

> signifies :)
> 
> Paul S.

synth1@... writes:

>>After that, what's left is to ship module #6683, if you can guess what that 
signifies :)<<

Perhaps it's the number of Moog modules shipped.  Although the number always 
seems different depending on who you talk to.

-Elhardt
"If at first you don't succeed, kill yourself."

I meant, of course, Dr. Moog.  No disrespect intended, just my lousy 
typing...

--- In motm@y..., "mmarsh100" <mmarsh@s...> wrote:

> One more than Mr. Moog shipped?
> 
> --- In motm@y..., "Paul Schreiber" <synth1@a...> wrote:
> > As of this very moment:
> > 
> > 83 assembled modules, *not counting* subscription ones coming up
> > 399 (!) kits, which *does* include all ordered + subscription 
> modules of all announced products
> > 
> > Now, about 150 of these kits will do out in the next 10 days or 
> so. Looking at the current kit
> > inventory (not the "new stuff"), there needs to be an additional 
> 150 or so kits made up to fill
> > demand + have some extra.
> > 
> > Yep, hopefully you can see why:
> > 
> > a) your order hasn't shipped yet
> > b) I'm scatter-brained
> > c) why I write emails at 1AM on a weekend when everyone else is 
> whooping it up
> > 
> > One bright thing is that these + already shipped modules is *very 
> close* to the mythical 4000th
> > MOTM module. That's pretty cool! I'm hoping I can last to module 
> #5000, the goal I dreamed of
> > when I started. After that, what's left is to ship module #6683, 
> if you can guess what that
> > signifies :)
> > 
> > Paul S.

6683

my guess is that it is Paul's wedding aniversery or a birthdate of one of his children. But Paul strikes me as the "more than one" type, so I doubt its the birthday thing. (You'ld be playing favorites by saying only one date)

The projected half life of an MOTM module ?

But,if you hold it up to a mirror upsidedown it'd be 3899

If I remember correctly, a long while back Paul mentioned that Moog shipped
about 6700 modules over a 9 year period, and that by the end of 2002
SynthTech will have shipped close to 4000 modules (and 10s of thousands of
plastic bags, I think).

Not bad in only four years! :)

George

----- Original Message -----
From: Paul Schreiber <synth1@...>
To: MOTM listserv <motm@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Sunday, August 04, 2002 1:58 AM
Subject: [motm] Backlog status


> <snip>
> One bright thing is that these + already shipped modules is *very close*
to the mythical 4000th
> MOTM module. That's pretty cool! I'm hoping I can last to module #5000,
the goal I dreamed of
> when I started. After that, what's left is to ship module #6683, if you
can guess what that

> signifies :)
>
> Paul S.

> After that, what's left is to ship module #6683, if you can guess 
what that signifies :)

To MOTM, 6683 is....

3. The price of the upcoming MOTM sequencer kit.

2. The number of resistors found in one bag for the 500 series 
modules.

1. The year MOTM will be caught up on backorders.

HA!

As most guessed, it's the number of modules Moog shipped, + 1.

BTW: just finished typing up the MOTM-490 manual, with a HUGE discussion of analog filters and
the Moog ladder topology. At least GLANCE at it, it took me 10 hours to write it (9 of which was
cursing Micro$oft Equation Mangler).

Paul S.

----- Original Message -----

From: "elle_webb" <elle_webb@...>
To: <motm@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Monday, August 05, 2002 11:42 PM
Subject: [motm] Re: 6683 - three more guesses


> > After that, what's left is to ship module #6683, if you can guess
> what that signifies :)
>
> To MOTM, 6683 is....
>
> 3. The price of the upcoming MOTM sequencer kit.
>
> 2. The number of resistors found in one bag for the 500 series
> modules.
>
> 1. The year MOTM will be caught up on backorders.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>

The last paragraph in the User's section *specifically* states, the MOTM-490 is NOT a Minimoog
filter, and DOES NOT sound like a Minimoog.

It *does* sound like a Moog 904A lowpass.

So, no Rick Wakeman, but you goy Wendy Carlos :)

To ward off the NEXT question: in order to *sound* like a Mini, you have to integrate BOTH VCF
and VCA, as the two interact.

Paul S.

---- Original Message -----

From: <media.nai@...>
Anyway, we are getting to the point where a Mini-Moog might be replaced by
a group of MOTM modules.  Like most people who use sequencers, I only use
the Moog keyboard when programming patches.  For someone like me, who lives
where a two-bedroom apartment can ask $2000/month, space is a huge issue.
For people who are thinking of converting a barn into a cabinet for their
modules, space isn't an issue -- otoh, the price of a Mini-Moog can buy an
acre of land, or maybe a couple of cows :)

--LH--
I don't own a Mini, but I do own a Micro.  And, I can say without
reservation it is my favorite non-modular mono-synth of those I have owned.
Unlike modular, which I am still struggling with, the Micro provides me with
instant gratification and a uniquie sound I have been unable to duplicate on
other synths.  I have not yet tried to dial in the MOTM system to do so.  It
is on my to-do list.  However, I can say that even if I was able to
accomplish that task, it would not lessen my love of the Micro, nor my
desire to continue to own it.  While MOTM will do so much more, I like the
speed with which I can get that particular sound I love on the Micro.  I
have never understood the love on the Mini only becuase I have never owned
one.  But, I can onderstand why others love it assuming they find similar
parallels to reasons I will never part with my Micro.

Funny enough, I have never come to feel that way about my MS-20.  In fact,
it sits idle so much, I have considered selling it.  Maybe I just don't get
it, when it comes to "that" sound of the MS-20. Maybe that is why I prefer
the 440 filter to the LP of the 420. I am so much looking forward to the
490.

So, is a MiniMoog worth the inflated prices they bring today?  Apparently,
as they continue to trade regularily.  My guess is you have to own or have
owned one to really appreciate why.  Personally, I have yet to be able to
turn loose of that kind of cash for something that old (I bought my Micro
for $100 before analog was back in style).

I think it would be great to hear from MOTMers who own both to tell us why
thay "must keep" the Mini or why they are considering selling it at today's
inflated prices to finance more modular.  Sometimes I don't know what is
right.  I know for me, I have come to a point that I know my modular habit
will have to change somewhat before the end of the year.  Most of the time I
used to spend using my synths has been replaced by building and wiring
cabinets, doing metal design work, converting Blacet modules, running a web
site, and the list goes on.  I hope as I finish my cabinet this fall that my
modular construction time will fall back to building that ocassional new
MOTM module that shows up ready for a no hassel assembly job.

This comes from the perspective of a guy who lives where $2000 a month will
buy you a 5 bedroom 3 1/2 bath home of your own, and cows are plentiful (in
and out of the freezer). And, space is not an issue.
Larry Hendry

My interpretation of this thread is that some people really love 
synths with well-designed and intuitive user interfaces, like many 
vintage monosynths.  

Perhaps I am not alone in feeling more could be done to make MOTM 
modulars respond to the musician the way a Micro or Minimoog does.  
It's the logical layout, with varied knob sizes and clear markings.  
Any one of us could walk up to a Micro and program a basic patch in 
less than 60 seconds.  

I really feel like I'm whistling in the dark here when I see the 
latest modules with switches that allow the choice between "V" 
and "R" or "L" and "E".  

In the end, I guess it's a struggle between an instrument designed 
for performance and one designed for the laboratory.

As always, apologies if I've offended anyone,
Roger

>BTW: just finished typing up the MOTM-490 manual, with a HUGE
>discussion of analog filters and the Moog ladder topology. At least GLANCE
>>at it, it took me 10 hours to write it (9 of which was
>cursing Micro$oft Equation Mangler).

Is it up on the web, or part of the 490's educational value?? :)

Anyway, we are getting to the point where a Mini-Moog might be replaced by
a group of MOTM modules.  Like most people who use sequencers, I only use
the Moog keyboard when programming patches.  For someone like me, who lives
where a two-bedroom apartment can ask $2000/month, space is a huge issue.
For people who are thinking of converting a barn into a cabinet for their
modules, space isn't an issue -- otoh, the price of a Mini-Moog can buy an
acre of land, or maybe a couple of cows :)

Regardless, half the people on this list could own Mini-Moogs.  For all I
know, Paul S. and JH might own Mini-Moogs.  So it might be a subject worth
discussing.

Let's see:

1 820
-- can do the same glide (at least to my ears)

3 300, or 2 300 and 1 320
-- obviously don't have the drift
-- don't know if a 300 can make the waveform between the triangle and saw.

1 101
-- can do noise

1 830
-- can be used as a 5*1 mixer
-- no pre-amp gain
-- no distortion
-- no light show :)

2 800
-- obviously better than the Moog EG's (imho, of course)
-- don't know if the "rising filter" trick is due to the
   EG or the filter

1 490
-- has both "envelope" and "keyboard" inputs
-- don't know if it can do the "fractional" keyboard tracking


So this brings us to the VCA.  The only MOTM VCA I have is the 110, and it
doesn't sound like a Moog.  I don't know about the 190, but if you already
have a 110, you might not want a 190.  Then there is the proposed 2U
"premium" VCA with the pan/fade features (130??) that seems to be stuck in
some sort of PCB purgatory.  Last I heard, it was FET design that had
"tubelike" overdrive characteristics.  However, I do not know if it can
imitate the distortion of a Mini-Moog.

Yes, a group of MOTM modules that covered all of the Mini-Moog's features
would have many more features and much more flexibility than a Mini-Moog.
It will also produce much less noise and line hum, taking advantage of
technological improvements over the last 30 years.

Of course, if you weren't satisfied you could just buy another Moog.  It's
not that Mini-Moog's are rare, but if you have one you like in excellent
condition, it's still hard to replace.  So it is a collector's item.
Another issue is that each Moog sounds different.  Also, you cannot put a
price on sentimental value.

Please notice I did not post this to AH.  I posted it here in an attempt to
generate intelligent and informed discussion, not a ridiculous flame war.

>I really feel like I'm whistling in the dark here when I see the latest
modules with switches that allow the choice between "V" and "R" or "L"
and "E".

While this may be true for many people, it must have also been true when
musicians first saw a module labelled A, D, S, R. Like any musical
instrument, there must be things to learn. And there is a school of
thought that says the harder it is to learn the more creative you >will<
become.

Tony

> ... Like any musical
> instrument, there must be things to learn. And there is a school of
> thought that says the harder it is to learn the more creative you 
>will<
> become.
> 
> Tony
=============================
Faint praise, indeed!

-Roger

I managed to aquire a mini cheaply back in the early 80's from someone'gettin out of the business'. I must be a lucky one,mine sounds fine..at least to my ear. Plan on holding on it..why..well,I dont want to spend $2000 to replace it,and its an original Moog. Ok,it drifts some,needs calibrating again,etc.,I've become accustomed to the layout and can whip up a patch quickly.
Besides,I'm pack rat and have a tendency to hold on to things. Who knows,it could become part of my retirement funding later.
Would you get rid of a 65 Mustang convertible,or 57 T-Bird after 'wanting' one ?
I like the barn idea too. And cow's are for tipping aren't they ?

Gary

At 09:44 AM 8/6/02 -0500, J. Larry Hendry wrote:
>I think it would be great to hear from MOTMers who own both to tell us why
>thay "must keep" the Mini or why they are considering selling it at today's
>inflated prices to finance more modular.  Sometimes I don't know what is
>right.  I know for me, I have come to a point that I know my modular habit
>will have to change somewhat before the end of the year.  Most of the time I
>used to spend using my synths has been replaced by building and wiring
>cabinets, doing metal design work, converting Blacet modules, running a web
>site, and the list goes on.  I hope as I finish my cabinet this fall that my
>modular construction time will fall back to building that ocassional new
>MOTM module that shows up ready for a no hassel assembly job.

OK, I'll bite on this one too.  I will admit to a certain problem with too 
many synths... Paul remarked to me that "I can't make up my mind" when it 
comes to preferring one synth over another, particularly when it comes to 
modulars.  That said, I really enjoy the "quirks" of different 
synths.  They tend to force me to think differently when interacting with 
them and I like that.  Some synths respond well to specific direction while 
others can take you on a journey to someplace you didn't expect, it all 
depends on where you want to go at the time.  I find that the MOTM falls 
somewhere in between.  You can get a specific sound in most cases but it 
will often show you some interesting tangents that can be interesting to 
explore on the way.  To me the Serge/Buchla/Wiard school of synths are the 
ones to take you on the strange trips.  So, when I interact with them, I 
usually am in an exploratory frame of mind.  I certainly don't go after 
them for "a quick sound" when approaching them.  Most pre-wired synths and 
the Moog/Arp/MOTM/synth.com school are more deterministic and can go where 
you want them but modulars in general allow for much more exploration.

When it comes to the Minimoog, it is just plain fun to play because of the 
user interface, response, and *that sound*.  That said, my Mini is in 
storage waiting to move into a new house while my MOTM is still set up.

I agree with Elhardt that folks shouldn't approach the MOTM with the intent 
of "imitating" a specific synth.  There are certainly the flavors of other 
famous synths in the MOTM but not exact replicas.  I'm still formulating my 
opinions on the MOTM 490.  It is certainly *like* a Moog 904A but it isn't 
exact.  I haven't figured out exactly what it is but there are certainly 
some differences in just the "knob feel" that may be affecting me right 
now.  More on this as I work with it.

         Eric

The discussion has diverted into 2 different ones:

a) can I get MOTM to sound like a Mini?
b) can I patch a "Mini-like" sound that I like even better than the Mini?

I will address (a), as (b) is arguing over the taste of beer.

In a nutshell: no. (OK, if you can prove me wrong with a demo, you get a free hat or shirt).

There are several reasons why (JH would step in here as well, but he's on vacation until the
18th).

As Mini owners will testify, it's next to impossible to get 2 of them to sound alike. I recall
about 2yrs ago, someone on the AH list got 7 Minis over the lifetime (including the next-to-last
one made) of production, and compared. The only conclusion was 2 were close, but the other 5 each
had a different tone.

The reasons are:

a) older VCO boards tend to be preferred, but they drift like a mother. Listen to the King
Biscuit live CD of Rick Wakeman. About 40min into the concert, the Mini spazzes out completely,
he is desperately retuning on the fly.

b) Moog was the King of Buying Surplus. He used whatever transistor was cheap that month. The
Minis with TIS97 transistors seem to be preferred. It also depends on how close the bottom pair
are matched to get differential currents (see the MOTM-490 Theory of Operation). These were
matched by hand.

c) The Mini VCA is a part of the "sound" as well. The loading of the differential-to-single-ended
converter has a large bearing on the sound.

d) Some Minis will "soft sync" the VCOs if the power supply caps are drying out, or the voltage
is not very close to -10V. This is loss of "phatttt"

e) The AC feedback in the resonance circuit has a lot to do with the tone as well.

This is the #1 reason I have been *very reluctant* to offer a Moog filter, because they ALL sound
different, but everyone knows that Mini *sound*, and that's the 1 sound I can't offer :(

Well, if JH and I decide to market the JH-5 MonoSynth, THEN you can get that Mini sound......

Paul S.

> 
> You mean in the MOTM-490 manual you hadn't put up yet?? :)
Errr...it's been up there 2 days.

www.synthtech.com/misc

Paul S.

At 9:29 AM -0500 08/06/02, Paul Schreiber wrote:
>
>The last paragraph in the User's section *specifically* states, the
>>MOTM-490 is NOT a Minimoog filter, and DOES NOT sound like a Minimoog.

You mean in the MOTM-490 manual you hadn't put up yet?? :)

>So, no Rick Wakeman, but you goy Wendy Carlos :)

Wendy Carlos is the last person I'd ask about "replacing equipment"!!

As far as Wakeman is concerned, he had Squire to do the job my Mini-Moog
most often does (no, I never listened to his solo stuff).  Imho, its pitch
is too unstable for leads.  I also use it for "FM" patches which are
inherently dissonant.

>To ward off the NEXT question: in order to *sound* like a Mini, you have
>to >integrate BOTH VCF and VCA, as the two interact.

That's what I've heard, but I don't know how subtle or complex that
interaction is, or whether or not the difference is worth the real estate.

Otoh, the "rising filter" effect is noticeable, but I don't know if its the
EG or the filter itself.  Anyone have an answer??

At 6:59 PM +0000 08/06/02, elhardt@... wrote:
>
>You just need to patch up a
>sound to the point where it sounds great. Whether a Mini
>can or can't duplicate it is a non-issue.

It's not if you are already using a Mini to make certain sounds.  If you
don't care about being able to reproduce those sounds, only then, does it
become a non-issue.

At 9:44 AM -0500 08/06/02, J. Larry Hendry wrote:
>
>I don't own a Mini, but I do own a Micro.  And, I can say without
>reservation it is my favorite non-modular mono-synth of those I have owned.
>Unlike modular, which I am still struggling with, the Micro provides me
>>with instant gratification and a uniquie sound I have been unable to
>>duplicate on other synths.

I often feel that way about my SH-101 which is inarguably a piece of crap
-- too crappy to be ever be replaced by MOTM.  While I never found modular
programming to be a struggle, I can't play notes on a keyboard using both
hands.  We all have our strengths and weaknesses.

>So, is a MiniMoog worth the inflated prices they bring today?  Apparently,
>as they continue to trade regularily.  My guess is you have to own or have
>owned one to really appreciate why.  Personally, I have yet to be able to
>turn loose of that kind of cash for something that old (I bought my Micro
>for $100 before analog was back in style).

I think I paid $300 for my Mini, but old is a definite factor.  When it
breaks (not if it breaks), I might not be able to fix it.  You can't buy
op-amps in cans.  One of the reasons I chose MOTM was its build quality.
If I didn't care about reliability, I could buy a hundred Doepfer modules ;)

The same goes for my Garfield Dr. Click.  It's about 20 years old, and it
works fine now.  The problem is that it contains a couple hundred logic
chips -- in a couple hundred sockets.  That, and with a length of chain, it
could keep a boat nicely in place.  As soon as ST releases their pulse
divider module, I'm buying at least one of them, and the Dr. Click is out
of here!

I'm one of those annoying people who sticks to his word like velcro, and
even though I said I was going to wait until I can finish everything before
placing another motm order, the way things are going now, I'll probably
have to settle on more "meat and potatoes" before the year is out.
Although right now, I shouldn't even be taking the time to write this
email!!

>I think it would be great to hear from MOTMers who own both to tell us why
>thay "must keep" the Mini or why they are considering selling it at today's
>inflated prices to finance more modular.

What I have to decide for myself is keeping the Mini a practical decision,
or am I in love with a wooden keyboard that says "Moog" on it.  Chances are
I will probably keep it.  Since it has a Calzone case, I could just put it
in storage.

>Most of the time I used to spend using my synths has been replaced by
>>building and wiring cabinets, doing metal design work, converting Blacet
>>modules, running a web site, and the list goes on.

Well, it's certainly appreciated!!   Still, I completely understand your
point, and it goes back to the reliability issue.  I would rather spend
more time producing and less time on future repairs.

I'm also thinking of moving to the city, so I'm also big on downsizing --
replacing the tower Mac and Digidesign with a TiG4 and Metric Halo, keeping
fewer than four mixers, selling off some vintage tube gear, perhaps even
replacing hardware with software, etc.

In comparison to a pile of different keyboards, MOTM is actually space
efficient!!!  That's right, I just used "MOTM" and "space efficient" in the
same sentence without using drugs.  How is this possible??  First off, MOTM
modules can be mounted vertically and they are only about 4" deep.
Secondly, using a flexible set of modules with a multitrack eliminates a
certain redundancy.  With a 440, 420, and 490, you could "replace" a Pro
One, MS-20, and a mono Moog, with only two 300's as opposed to six.  Keep
in mind that at this point I don't own a single analogue polysynth.

One thing that does take up a great deal of horizontal space is my
collection of stomp boxes and non-rack effects, but I don't think there is
anyway around that -- you can't integrate software plug-ins with a hardware
modular.  I think an anti-gravity interface should be added to the 500
series -- that way I can leave my Biphase and Space Echo floating around in
mid-air tethered only by patch cords :)

--- In motm@y..., "Tony Allgood" <oakley@t...> wrote:
> >I really feel like I'm whistling in the dark here when I see the 
latest
> modules with switches that allow the choice between "V" and "R" 
or "L"
> and "E".
> 
> While this may be true for many people, it must have also been true 
when
> musicians first saw a module labelled A, D, S, R. Like any musical
> instrument, there must be things to learn. And there is a school of
> thought that says the harder it is to learn the more creative you 
>will<
> become.
> 
> Tony

This has nothing to do with the Minimoog vs. MOTM topic BTW.
I don't know the expression "whistling in the dark", I just want to 
comment on the aspect of creativity mentioned above. I definitely 
have to disagree on that one, Tony. It might be that you mean 
that "difficult" things will tempt a user to be more resourceful but 
that is not the same as being creative. Ofcourse it is true that 
there must be things to be learned. And ofcourse can new things make 
ones creativity richer. Making things (e.g. interfaces) hard to 
understand or to learn however will stand in the way of the creative 
proces. In stead of having your creativity do the work, one will be 
too busy figuring out how the damn thing works. Creative people will 
therefore often walk away from hard to use interfaces. 

No offence Tony, I just had to answer.

Michel Havenith

I don't get this thread.  What's hard about the MOTM interface?

I can see where folks may have trouble with synthesis in general, 
but no modular interface is going to help with that.  I know Stooge 
Larry, for example, sometimes voices confusion about programming a 
modular, but I don't think that's because the MOTM user interface is 
difficult.

BTW, for those of us continually learning about programming these 
beasts, I would recommend talking Scott Juskiw into selling a copy 
of his CD with liner notes.  There are so many ripping timbres and 
sounds on the CD and each of them are well explained in his 
excellent liner notes. Think of it as "modular analog synth 
programming 102".

Maybe some disagreement arises because of the modular's intended 
use: this is a studio instrument (in my opinion).  It takes 
exceptional talent and forethought to take one of these beasts 
live.  I really admire Robert Rich for his masterful live modular 
use!

Mike

--- In motm@y..., "michelhav" <anymail@x> wrote:
> --- In motm@y..., "Tony Allgood" <oakley@t...> wrote:
> > >I really feel like I'm whistling in the dark here when I see 
the 
> latest
> > modules with switches that allow the choice between "V" and "R" 
> or "L"
> > and "E".
> > 
> > While this may be true for many people, it must have also been 
true 
> when
> > musicians first saw a module labelled A, D, S, R. Like any 
musical
> > instrument, there must be things to learn. And there is a school 
of
> > thought that says the harder it is to learn the more creative 
you 
> >will<
> > become.
> > 
> > Tony
> 
> This has nothing to do with the Minimoog vs. MOTM topic BTW.
> I don't know the expression "whistling in the dark", I just want 
to 
> comment on the aspect of creativity mentioned above. I definitely 
> have to disagree on that one, Tony. It might be that you mean 
> that "difficult" things will tempt a user to be more resourceful 
but 
> that is not the same as being creative. Ofcourse it is true that 
> there must be things to be learned. And ofcourse can new things 
make 
> ones creativity richer. Making things (e.g. interfaces) hard to 
> understand or to learn however will stand in the way of the 
creative 
> proces. In stead of having your creativity do the work, one will 
be 
> too busy figuring out how the damn thing works. Creative people 
will 

> therefore often walk away from hard to use interfaces. 
> 
> No offence Tony, I just had to answer.
> 
> Michel Havenith

Not difficult... just frustrating at times.

My pet peave is the 'Lettering Above the Jack' or
'Lettering Below the Jack'. The 310, 390, 490 have it
below. The new 190 has it above (like all other MOTM
modules). This is an inconsistency - that drives me
crazy... mainly because when a jack is inserted, the
lettering is blocked by the jack when it is 'Below the
Jack'. 

--- mmarsh100 <mmarsh@...> wrote:
> I don't get this thread.  What's hard about the MOTM
> interface?

> but I don't think that's because the MOTM
> user interface is 
> difficult.
> 


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
HotJobs - Search Thousands of New Jobs
http://www.hotjobs.com

OK, that makes sense...

--- In motm@y..., "Black_Man_Music@y..." <black_man_music@y...> wrote:

> Not difficult... just frustrating at times.
> 
> My pet peave is the 'Lettering Above the Jack' or
> 'Lettering Below the Jack'. The 310, 390, 490 have it
> below. The new 190 has it above (like all other MOTM
> modules). This is an inconsistency - that drives me
> crazy... mainly because when a jack is inserted, the
> lettering is blocked by the jack when it is 'Below the
> Jack'. 
> 
> --- mmarsh100 <mmarsh@s...> wrote:
> > I don't get this thread.  What's hard about the MOTM
> > interface?
> 
> > but I don't think that's because the MOTM
> > user interface is 
> > difficult.
> > 
> 
> 
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> HotJobs - Search Thousands of New Jobs
> http://www.hotjobs.com

TA> And there is a school of thought that says the harder it is to learn
the more creative you will become.

Actually, I didn't say that I agree with this school of thought. And I
don't, not without more quantification. I was just trying to make a
point that if you have more tools, it will allow you to create more. But
more tools mean a longer or steeper learning curve.

A simple machine such as the minimoog may not allow textures to be
created that the composer may want. Its still a great instrument though
[but I wish they had added a few extras like sync, sync sweep, an LFO,
aftertouch... :-) ]

Of course, making a unit with a badly designed user interface will
stiffle creativity. That is not without question, and that wasn't my
point. I merely was trying to say that new esoteric modules that do
clever things are just another thing to learn not some impenetrable wall
acting against creativity. But make that esoteric module difficult to
use by a poorly designed UI, and that's another story.

BTW, that particular 'school of thought' I heard used when a music
teacher was comparing violin playing to recorder playing. The violin is
a complete bugger to master, while the recorder is comparatively easy.
But a well played violin allows more expression and more soul than any
recorder. Actually, I have heard some storming picolo playing, so that
probably puts paid to that idea anyway... :-)

Tony <- who doesn't make anything terribly esoteric at all

>
> BTW, for those of us continually learning about programming these
> beasts, I would recommend talking Scott Juskiw into selling a copy
> of his CD with liner notes.  There are so many ripping timbres and
> sounds on the CD and each of them are well explained in his
> excellent liner notes.

This is a very good suggestion, Mike.  Scott's cd has a wealth of ideas,
and his detailed notes enable one to come very close to his neat
creations (assuming, of course, that one has a similar module complement).
I've learned quite a bit just from listening and trying similar ideas.

[Shouldn't Scott's cd be listed
at Stooge Larry's page http://www.wiseguysynth.com/larry/music.htm
or have I missed something?]

[Thanks again for the page, Larry]

Jeff

Yes, I think Scott should be on that page.  In fact, I would 
encourage anyone on the list that has a cd (or two) available to ask 
Stooge Larry to add him (or her)...

--- In motm@y..., Jeffrey Pontius <jpont@k...> wrote:
> >
> > BTW, for those of us continually learning about programming these
> > beasts, I would recommend talking Scott Juskiw into selling a 
copy
> > of his CD with liner notes.  There are so many ripping timbres 
and
> > sounds on the CD and each of them are well explained in his
> > excellent liner notes.
> 
> This is a very good suggestion, Mike.  Scott's cd has a wealth of 
ideas,
> and his detailed notes enable one to come very close to his neat
> creations (assuming, of course, that one has a similar module 
complement).
> I've learned quite a bit just from listening and trying similar 
ideas.

> 
> [Shouldn't Scott's cd be listed
> at Stooge Larry's page http://www.wiseguysynth.com/larry/music.htm
> or have I missed something?]
> 
> [Thanks again for the page, Larry]
> 
> Jeff

I have Scott's CD but have not had a chance to go through it.  It looks like
a good tool for me.  I asked Scott about putting it up at my page but didn't
get a response yet.
Larry

----- Original Message -----
From: Jeffrey Pontius <jpont@...>
To: mmarsh100 <mmarsh@...>
Cc: <motm@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Saturday, August 10, 2002 11:09 AM
Subject: Re: [motm] Re: worth replacing a Mini-Moog??, Creativity


>
> BTW, for those of us continually learning about programming these
> beasts, I would recommend talking Scott Juskiw into selling a copy
> of his CD with liner notes.  There are so many ripping timbres and
> sounds on the CD and each of them are well explained in his
> excellent liner notes.

This is a very good suggestion, Mike.  Scott's cd has a wealth of ideas,
and his detailed notes enable one to come very close to his neat
creations (assuming, of course, that one has a similar module complement).
I've learned quite a bit just from listening and trying similar ideas.

[Shouldn't Scott's cd be listed
at Stooge Larry's page http://www.wiseguysynth.com/larry/music.htm
or have I missed something?]

[Thanks again for the page, Larry]

Jeff






Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

The price is right :)
LH

----- Original Message ----- 
From: mmarsh100 <mmarsh@...>
To: <motm@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Saturday, August 10, 2002 11:41 AM
Subject: [motm] Re: worth replacing a Mini-Moog??, Creativity


Yes, I think Scott should be on that page.  In fact, I would 
encourage anyone on the list that has a cd (or two) available to ask 
Stooge Larry to add him (or her)...

--- In motm@y..., Jeffrey Pontius <jpont@k...> wrote:
> >
> > BTW, for those of us continually learning about programming these
> > beasts, I would recommend talking Scott Juskiw into selling a 
copy
> > of his CD with liner notes.  There are so many ripping timbres 
and
> > sounds on the CD and each of them are well explained in his
> > excellent liner notes.
> 
> This is a very good suggestion, Mike.  Scott's cd has a wealth of 
ideas,
> and his detailed notes enable one to come very close to his neat
> creations (assuming, of course, that one has a similar module 
complement).
> I've learned quite a bit just from listening and trying similar 
ideas.
> 
> [Shouldn't Scott's cd be listed
> at Stooge Larry's page http://www.wiseguysynth.com/larry/music.htm
> or have I missed something?]
> 
> [Thanks again for the page, Larry]
> 
> Jeff



 

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

heh heh heh

Serioulsy, Larry does us all a good service, so a big thanks is in 
order!

Mike

--- In motm@y..., "J. Larry Hendry" <jlarryh@i...> wrote:
> The price is right :)
> LH
> 
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: mmarsh100 <mmarsh@s...>
> To: <motm@y...>
> Sent: Saturday, August 10, 2002 11:41 AM
> Subject: [motm] Re: worth replacing a Mini-Moog??, Creativity
> 
> 
> Yes, I think Scott should be on that page.  In fact, I would 
> encourage anyone on the list that has a cd (or two) available to 
ask 
> Stooge Larry to add him (or her)...
> 
> --- In motm@y..., Jeffrey Pontius <jpont@k...> wrote:
> > >
> > > BTW, for those of us continually learning about programming 
these
> > > beasts, I would recommend talking Scott Juskiw into selling a 
> copy
> > > of his CD with liner notes.  There are so many ripping timbres 
> and
> > > sounds on the CD and each of them are well explained in his
> > > excellent liner notes.
> > 
> > This is a very good suggestion, Mike.  Scott's cd has a wealth 
of 
> ideas,
> > and his detailed notes enable one to come very close to his neat
> > creations (assuming, of course, that one has a similar module 
> complement).
> > I've learned quite a bit just from listening and trying similar 
> ideas.
> > 
> > [Shouldn't Scott's cd be listed
> > at Stooge Larry's page 
http://www.wiseguysynth.com/larry/music.htm
> > or have I missed something?]
> > 
> > [Thanks again for the page, Larry]
> > 
> > Jeff
> 
> 
> 
>  
> 
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to 
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

--- In motm@y..., "mmarsh100" <mmarsh@s...> wrote:
> <I don't get this thread.  What's hard about the MOTM interface?
> 
> I can see where folks may have trouble with synthesis in general, 
> but no modular interface is going to help with that.  I know Stooge 
> Larry, for example, sometimes voices confusion about programming a 
> modular, but I don't think that's because the MOTM user interface 
is 
> difficult.>
>  
> Mike
> 
> > --- In motm@y..., "Tony Allgood" <oakley@t...> wrote:
> >I really feel like I'm whistling in the dark here when I see 
> the 
> > latest
> > modules with switches that allow the choice between "V" and "R" 
> > or "L"
> > and "E".
> > 
> > While this may be true for many people, it must have also been 
> true 
> > when
> > musicians first saw a module labelled A, D, S, R. Like any 
> musical
> > instrument, there must be things to learn. And there is a 
school 
> of
> > thought that says the harder it is to learn the more creative 
> you 
> will<
> become.
>  
> Tony
>  
> This has nothing to do with the Minimoog vs. MOTM topic BTW.
> I don't know the expression "whistling in the dark", I just want 
> to 
> comment on the aspect of creativity mentioned above. I definitely 
> have to disagree on that one, Tony. It might be that you mean 
> that "difficult" things will tempt a user to be more resourceful 
> but 
> that is not the same as being creative. Ofcourse it is true that 
> there must be things to be learned. And ofcourse can new things 
> make 
> ones creativity richer. Making things (e.g. interfaces) hard to 
> understand or to learn however will stand in the way of the 
> creative 
> proces. In stead of having your creativity do the work, one will 
> be 
> too busy figuring out how the damn thing works. Creative people 
> will 
> therefore often walk away from hard to use interfaces. 
> 
> No offence Tony, I just had to answer.
>  
> Michel Havenith


Before this thread goes somewhere I didn't intend it to go: It wasn't 
my intention to comment on the MOTM interface and there's nothing 
wrong with it (on the contrary :) ).

Michel Havenith

--- In motm@y..., "Tony Allgood" <oakley@t...> wrote:
> TA> And there is a school of thought that says the harder it is to 
learn
> the more creative you will become.
> 
> Actually, I didn't say that I agree with this school of thought. 
And I
> don't, not without more quantification. I was just trying to make a
> point that if you have more tools, it will allow you to create 
more. But
> more tools mean a longer or steeper learning curve.
> 
> A simple machine such as the minimoog may not allow textures to be
> created that the composer may want. Its still a great instrument 
though
> [but I wish they had added a few extras like sync, sync sweep, an 
LFO,
> aftertouch... :-) ]
> 
> Of course, making a unit with a badly designed user interface will
> stiffle creativity. That is not without question, and that wasn't my
> point. I merely was trying to say that new esoteric modules that do
> clever things are just another thing to learn not some impenetrable 
wall
> acting against creativity. But make that esoteric module difficult 
to
> use by a poorly designed UI, and that's another story.
> 
> BTW, that particular 'school of thought' I heard used when a music
> teacher was comparing violin playing to recorder playing. The 
violin is
> a complete bugger to master, while the recorder is comparatively 
easy.
> But a well played violin allows more expression and more soul than 
any
> recorder. Actually, I have heard some storming picolo playing, so 
that
> probably puts paid to that idea anyway... :-)
> 
> Tony <- who doesn't make anything terribly esoteric at all


I wasn't shure if you agreed with this "school of thought" but it is 
a relief to know you don't! Your further explanation makes sense. 
And as I tried to explane to Mike Marsh earlier: My reply wasn't 
about Minimoog or MOTM, but about creativity. 

Michel Havenith

Right, that's cool, and my comments were also prompted by the user 
interface criticisms that have periodically been posted here...

Mike

> 
> I wasn't shure if you agreed with this "school of thought" but it 
is 

> a relief to know you don't! Your further explanation makes sense. 
> And as I tried to explane to Mike Marsh earlier: My reply wasn't 
> about Minimoog or MOTM, but about creativity. 
> 
> Michel Havenith