In 2019 I started a PhD looking at the impacts of modular synthesisers upon composition processes / musical structures. Specifically (and this is my question, *today* at least); how do modular synthesisers impact the way we think about and approach musical event generation and composition?

The following is drawn from my stage one paper:

The contemporary re-emergence of modular synthesisers as a popular tool for music making seems to reject much of the convenience afforded by advancements in music technology in the past 40 years, challenging understandings of the relationship between electronic music composers and technology.
This research project seeks to examine the impacts of modular synthesisers upon generative composition processes, with the intention of contributing to a broader understanding of the recent re-emergence of modular synthesisers. My entry point to the research process is as a practitioner who uses a modular synthesisers, however the topic calls for broader, generalisable, understandings to be generated that extend beyond the scope of my own experience. In response the research methodology draws upon sociological research practices combined with a practice led approach.
Driven by an interpretivist, phenomenological perspective, this research project seeks to build a depth of insight into compositional experiences with modular synthesisers. Creative practice is employed as a tool of research through a reflective process to generate concepts, communicate key theories and build understanding and empathy with other practitioners.

The research inquiry is drawn from my own experience of using a modular synthesiser and the new directions that experience has pushed my interest in electronic / experimental music.

When I initially began using a modular I thought my interest was around the sounds I would make, the possibilities of analog feedback and circuitry was exciting to me and as I already used Reaktor in a reasonably sophisticated way I envisaged making hybrid instruments with digital control from Reaktor (via an expert sleepers ES3). I saw this approach as cost saving, but I also didn’t see the value in things like envelopes, LFOs and sequencers, etc being analog / real.

Of course it didn’t take long for me to be drawn into a stand alone modular synth approach with no computer needed, the drivers for this shift were more around a single interface, enjoyment of the instrument as a whole instrument and some successful grant writing ;) . Further along I found that I was fascinated by the possibilities of the modular functioning as a complex system, that played itself.

The boundaries between what are traditionally understood as sound producing modules (oscillators, filters) and ‘control’ modules like envelopes, LFOs etc began to blur for me. Modules like the Toppobrillo Sport Modulator (now discontinued WHY?!) and the ubiquitous Make Noise Maths helped drive this change in my perspective through their flexible, essentially lower level design approach. If you haven’t already, have a look at the illustrated manuals created for each of them (Sports Modulator here, Maths here) by Demonam drawing upon the collective wisdom of the Muffwiggler community. These unofficial manuals describe dozens of ways each module can be patched to perform a completely different function such as LFOs, oscillators, slope detection, noise generation, filtering etc.

Both modules draw heavily upon designs by Serge Tcherepnin created in the 1970s. Serge had spent a lot of time with an early Buchla in New York while working with Morton Subotnick and his own designs build upon and take Buchla’s ideas in new directions. Tcherepnin refers to his approach as ‘patch program-ability’, the idea that a module can perform a range of functions depending upon how it is patched. Tcherepnin wanted to make the possibilities of electrical circuits more accessible to musicians, and also make synthesisers more accessible by creating a design that was cheaper, and able to undertake a broader range of functions with a smaller, more affordable design.

….I fell in with Mort Subotnick who had a Series 100 Buchla. The Buchla's modules made me realise how much more interesting his modules would be, if he had made available to the user the "hidden" subfunctions making up a module. In a sense, dissecting a Buchla module, I could do the same stuff I did with a Japanese transistor radio.
This was the guiding principle of the early Serge: make available electronic functions that are interesting in themselves, though seemingly "un-musical". Thus modules like the positive slew, negative slew, peak and trough, comparators, processors and wave shapers, etc. came into existence.
Elby-Designs, Euro Serge Manual, Foreword by Serge Tcherepnin.

I feel like what I (and many others) have stumbled upon through using a modular synth is a completely alternative approach to electronic music, different from (but lots of intersection with) the academic field of computer music, and different from the commercial instruments with their grid sequencers and presets. These ideas have become much more accessible and exposed through the modular resurgence.

However the popular narrative in relation to the drivers of this resurgence emphasises the physicality of the instruments, the collect-ability and customisation possibilities, the fact that a modular is not a computer etc. These are all valid and certainly true in my own experience, but not what I would identify as the major impact upon my approach to music making from using a modular synth.

So through my research I hope to uncover how modular synthesisers are impacting upon how we think about and make music.

I started my PhD at the University of Technology Sydney in January 2019. I’m supported by my fantastic supervisors Dr Ian Stevenson (primary) and Dr Bert Bongers (secondary).