Wiardgroup

RM:

Can't say I agree with most of your post, but it sure was good 
reading!

>You have to appreciate the costs 
associated with producing face plates. By having the same face plate 
throughout the system, he, thereby, eliminates the issue of having to 
design faceplates for different modules. The bonus is that he only 
has to carry one faceplate in his inventory.<

But this is like the cart driving the horse.  "Well, we have these 
uniform panels with the same number of holes in them, so we had 
better fill them with functions whether they are called for or not."  
It's kind of like designing different cars, from Volkswagens to 
Audis, and using the same body for all of them.  Form should follow 
function.

>Does this limit the look and functionality of the modules? Some 
would 
say, Yes. I believe, it actually helps the module. If you look at 
Digest #618,<

I shall have to read that.  Thank you for the pointer.

>Wiard has more functions on their modules, 
thereby, eliminating the need for long patchcords to go across the 
surface of the instrument.<

But it also locks you into the "macro-module" concept a la Serge.  
You may end up with functions you don't want or need.  To me, this is 
not the way to create an efficient system.

>About the issue of " (An aside: How come nobody with a Wiard does 
classical?)" , Classical Music is not the barometer to define whether 
or not an instrument is viable or valuable.<

Ah, but it is!  It is probably the best metric for evaluating a 
modular synthesizer.  It's like an analogy I recently used on TGS 
about painting.  Anybody--even a monkey--can create abstract art.  
There is no skill involved in throwing caviar at a canvas and calling 
it "art."  It is quite another matter, however, to paint like Tissot 
or Ingres.  It takes a great deal of talent, skill and time to create 
a painting of a person that looks like a person, and any defects in 
such a painting will be immediately apparent to all eyes, trained or 
untrained, because we all know what a person is supposed to look like.

The same is true for sound.  Any eight-year-old can get sound out of 
a synthesizer.  There is no real way to evaluate the sound of a 
blarkus or a blork, but if you set out to create French horn and it 
doesn't sound like it, then the faults will be immediately obvious.

Now, say you wanted to evaluate the sound of a new grand piano on the 
market.  From which could you discern more: sequences of random 
banging, or a Chopin etude?  The former has no frame of reference, 
the latter does.  

How well do Wiard oscillators track?  How good are the filters for 
creating formants?  These kind of criteria cannot be ascertained from 
random squawks and banal, numbingly repetitive sequencer riffs.

>Grant has built an instrument that has its own 
sound and playability. The Electronic Music Community is lucky to 
have another Designer, in its fold, creating new ideas and designs.<

True! 

>The Synthesizer and Classical music issue has been done and 
exhausted.<

Oh, not true!  My lament is that the synthesizer barely got started 
in the classical realm.  It got sidetracked by pop and rock, as an 
expedient novelty.  Today, it is used as a "band in a box"--and not a 
very good band at that.  This is true even for the music of Carlos.  
Carlos' analog works were outstanding and brought something really 
new to music.  Carlos' digital works tend toward sounding like cheesy 
imitations that could be had on a K-mart Casio (I refer you to Peter 
and the Wolf, S-0B 2000, and Tales of Heaven and Hell.)

>Like you said, " It is the *music* that matters ", appreciate the 
Wiard System for it's sonic character, control functions and it's 
music making abilities. Later, its Design esthetics might grow on 
you. :)<

Highly unlikely.  But who knows?   :-)
	
	
johnm