Wiardgroup

It is rather confused. People are issuing designs that they did 
not develop. So you end up with these strange hybrids.

--- In wiardgroup@yahoogroups.com, Rob <r1tual@y...> wrote:
> 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@a...> 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