On Modular Purism and Sozialrealismus

Among practitioners of modular synthesis, there is today a widespread reverence for the pure modular, where the modular shines on its own as the single sound source, preferably recorded in one take and with minimal post-processing. In improvised music this kind of purism may make sense, but modulars are often used in other ways, e.g. driven by sequencers or set up as a self-generating system more or less nudged in the right direction by the modularist.

Playing live in a concert, overdubs or edits are obviously not a part of the game. Perhaps that spontaneous flow of live performance is taken as the ideal form that even home studio recordings should mimic.

This ideal of purity often serves as an excuse for acquiring a voluminous modular system. Even more so if one wants to achieve full polyphony. However, there is so much to gain from multi-tracking and editing that it is a wonder why anyone with a modular should refuse to deal with that part.

The pieces on the album SOZIALREALISMUS are collages and juxtapositions of a variety of sources. All pieces are centered around recordings of a eurorack modular, often accompanied by field recordings.

In some pieces the electronic sounds were played through loudspeakers placed on the resonating bodies of acoustic instruments and then recorded again. Recordings have been cut up and spliced together in new constellations.

Although the blinking lights and the mess of patch cords of a modular projects an image of complicated machinery leading its autonomous electric life, another aesthetic is possible even in the realm of modular music, an aesthetic of handicraft, allowing the imperfections of improvisation. The included drawings that come with the digital album and the linoleum print cover on the cassette hint in that direction.

Linoleum print © Holopainen. Makes for an interesting stereo image as well.

There has always been a focus on technique and gear in the electronic music community. When modulars are becoming more common, their ability to provoke curiosity may dwindle if the music made with them fails to convince the listeners.

Manifesto for self-generating patches

Ideas for the implementation of autonomous instruments in analog modular synths (v. 0.2)

The following guidelines are not meant as aesthetic value judgements or prescriptions as to what people should do with their modulars — as always, do what you want! The purpose is to propose some principles for the exploration of a limited class of patches and a particular mode of using the modular as an instrument.

Self-generating patches are those which, when left running without manual interference, produce complex and varied musical patterns. Usually, the results will be more or less unpredictable. In this class of patches, there are no limitations as to what modules to use and how to connect them, except that one should not change the patch or touch any knobs after the patch has been set up to run. An initial phase of testing and tweaking is of course allowed, but if preparing a recording as documentation of the self-generating patch, it should just run uninterrupted on its own.

A stricter version of the same concept is to try to make a deterministic autonomous system in which there is no source of modulation (such as LFOs or sequencers) that is not itself modulated by other sources. In consequence, the patch has to be a feedback system.

The patch may be regarded as a network with modules as the nodes and patch cords as the links. Specifically, it is a bidirectional graph, because modules usually have both inputs and outputs. (The requirement that there be no source of modulation which itself is not modulated by other modules implies that, e.g., noise modules or LFOs without any input are not allowed.) Thus, in the graph corresponding to the patch, each node that belongs to the graph must have at least one incomming link and at least one outgoing link. The entire patch must be interconnected in the sense that one can follow the patch cords from any module through intervening modules to any other module that belongs to the patch.


Criterion of elegance:
The smaller the number of modules and patch cords used, the more elegant the patch is. (Caveat: modules are not straightforwardly comparable. There are small and simple modules with restricted possibilities, and modules with lots of features that may correspond to using several simpler modules.)

Aesthetic judgement:
Why not organize competitions where the audience may vote for their favourite patches, or perhaps let a panel of experts decide.

Standards of documentation:
Make a high quality audio recording with no post processing other than possibly volume adjustment. Video recordings and/or photos of the patch are welcome, but a detailed diagram explaining the patch and settings of all knobs and switches involved should be submitted. The diagram should provide all the information necessary to reconstruct the patch.

Criterion of robustness:
Try to reconstruct the patch with some modules replaced by equivalent ones. Swap one oscillator for another one, use a different filter or VCA and try to get a similar sound. Also try small adjustments of knobs and see whether it affects the sound in a radical way. The more robust a patch is, the easier it should be for other modular enthusiasts to recreate a similar patch on their system.

Criteria of objective complexity:
The patch is supposed to generate complex, evolving sounds, not just a static drone or a steady noise. Define your own musical complexity signal descriptor and apply it to the signal. Or use one of the existing complexity measures.

Dissemination:
Spread your results and let us know about your amazing patch!