Wiardgroup

I guess Doepfer would be considered the "east coast" school...
 
Several Doepfer systems have been up for auction on Ebay in the last few days, none reaching their rather low reserve prices...of course the fact that there are "tons" of their systems out there (in relative terms) helps to keep used prices down as well. I believe Grant wrote in a previous email that there are less than 400 Wiard 300 series modules in existence.
 
Cheers,
 
Rob  (who is a proud Wiard owner, also interested in Doepfer, especially some of the new "Buchla-esque" modules coming out)

grantrichter2001 <grichter@asapnet.net> wrote:
> johnm (who doesn't care much for Wiard systems but loves the 
"vibe" 
> of Wiard owners. :-) )

Mike Murphy and I were discussing the enormous difference in 
perspective between the so called "East Coast" and "West 
Coast" schools of design. Mike pointed out a few things I never 
even thought about.

It all boils down to the question: Is a musical instrument more 
than just a machine?

The "East Coast" school would say that all art originates from the 
performer alone. The underlying asumption is that music has 
been defined, and that specific tools designed for it's efficient 
production. Thus a musical instrument is just a tool and the 
more familiar and regular the interface, the more it will facilitate 
the artist in achieving a pre-planned goal. Innovative design (i.e. 
not ADSR envelopes) is discouraged because a new user 
interface does not aid the artist in achieving the "goal". Since it is 
a machine, it's functions can be defined and comparisons made 
to determine the "best" machine. Machinery decreases in value 
as time goes by and it is replaced with "better" machinery.

In general we could call this approach "reproductive" as it is 
most concerned with accurately reproducing the exact nuance 
the artist desires.

The "West Coast" school would say that art originates from the 
artist interacting synergistically with the enviorment. The 
underlying asumption is that music can NOT be defined, so that 
instruments need to be designed using an artistic "process" in 
addition to engineering "method". Innovative design is actually 
required as exploring the capabilites of the instrument and 
interacting with it are integral to the composing process. Since 
the instrument is not a machine, each design is unique and you 
can not compare them or determine the "best" one (unless you 
believe a trumpet is inherently superior to a trombone). Musical 
instruments increase in value as time goes by because they can 
not be replaced with anything else.

In general we could call this approach "generative" as it is most 
concerned with discovering new nuances for the artist to desire.

And it is a mixture of both approaches that I think most people 
have. Both are really required, you need to be able to accurately 
reproduce music to preserve it, and you need to generate new 
ideas so that the artform remains vital.






Yahoo! Groups Links