MOTM

Several people have expressed the idea that there are factors beyond just a
parameter list that makes certain instruments, such as the Buchla, unique. I
couldn't agree more. There's a holistic quality to the entire package that
makes classic instruments have that special aura about them. Some of
Buchla's creative (if unrevealing) names for electronic music functions were
interesting experiments in slapping the hand away from the easy, known path.

When Mr. Haible clones classic synthesizer designs, he seems to not only
re-engineer the circuitry of the originals but even echoes their packaging.
This is very cool! Not only a machine that functions like a Korg PS, but it
even looks like one too! The entire experience is recreated, not just the
sound.

And if Paul were designing a stand-alone synthesizer, then I would say,
"sure, why not! Let's see what other things can be done!"

But the MOTM modular is a "going concern." The design has been established,
and now we're adding features. How would my car look if it were 3/4
assembled and then someone on the assembly line said, "Hey, why are we
making this thing blue? There are plenty of other colors! Let's make these
last two fenders different colors, or just leave one off! And put a
different radius tire on this wheel over here!"

Back... oh... what? Four years ago or so, I was on this list fervently
making the case for less rigidity with the grid. I also wished there were
colors, module edge graphics, and so on. Using the Moog modular as an
example, since the MOTM is visually more from that 'bloodline' than, say,
ARP, Roland, Buchla, Emu, &c., I was pleading that the unique layouts of the
Moog modules were more than just "Oh, I'll stick a knob over here," but
layouts which created a visual hierarchy of function that gave the modules
personality, and were a good human factors solution. You can call off the
names/numbers of Moog modules by looking at a tiny blurry picture on the
back of an album cover, because even though there is a uniform design
concept, there is also a distinction between modules. I once even remarked
that the eye can be lost in the "sea of knobs" on an MOTM. And I was a big
advocate of two knob sizes, so that the eye would be drawn to the larger
knobs, the "primary and most sensitive parameter," while the subordinate
knobs were smaller. Not just to save space, but as an Industrial Design
concept. (See the Moog LPF and Bode Freq. Shifter as examples.)

At the time, the responses were both "I *like* the sea of knobs," and also,
"it's an economic issue--uniformity is less expensive."

I finally shrugged and conceded the issue. It's true! The uniformity allows
a standardized manufacturing process. And no one seemed to mind.

Since then, many new modules have come out, and at least as many more in the
form of DIY projects and conversions using Stooge Panels(r). The MOTM has
evolved its own "aura." 

Since the subject of breaking up the uniformity 4~5 years ago was a
resounding "no," I just can't understand why now, when we are so far along,
it's up for discussion. Years ago, I would have been all over this thing;
but at this point in time, my opinion is a resounding "no way! Don't change!
Stay the course <snicker/>!"

If the new modules were going to have touch-sensitive plates, joysticks,
electric eyes, or some other bizarre controller embedded into them, then of
course the grid will be altered to accommodate them. But if we're still
talking jacks/knobs/switches/LEDs, then what's the point?

>
> Since then, many new modules have come out, and at least as many more in the
> form of DIY projects and conversions using Stooge Panels(r). The MOTM has
> evolved its own "aura."
>

A good point. I've always been curious as to why do people consider motm
panels to be a "Moog look"?  Yes, they are more similar to Moog than, say
E-mu or Buchla or EMS, but when I look at a motm panel I don't "see" Moog,
I just see MOTM.  Actually, if one is into look-a-likes, to me the motm
panel design looks closer to a Steiner-Parker Syntha-system.


> Since the subject of breaking up the uniformity 4~5 years ago was a
> resounding "no," I just can't understand why now, when we are so far along,
> it's up for discussion.
> ... then what's the point?
Possibly since it is always good (IMO) for an organization to periodically
evaluate if their ideas are still worthwhile, whether the conclusion is to
reconstruct or not.  Also, it give us customers a chance to voice an
opinion, whether they are implemented or not.

Jeff