Resurgence: Experiences and Impacts of the Contemporary Modular Synthesiser (PhD complete!)

I completed my PhD in mid 2023 and it has now been marked etc and I’m officially a Doctor! Abstract is below and you can download the full text here.

Abstract

The contemporary re-emergence of the modular synthesiser as a popular tool for music making sits in contrast to much of the development and design of other electronic music-making equipment over the past forty years. The modular synthesiser user eschews, the convenience and recallability enabled by digital and computer-based instruments and tools, thus challenging understandings of the relationship between electronic music composers and technology.

This research project explores how modular synthesisers are used, what is valued by musicians and composers in their experiences of working with modular synthesisers, and how modular synthesisers enable these experiences. Driven by an interpretive, phenomenological perspective, I interviewed musicians who use modular synthesisers to capture their interpretations, experiences, values, and drivers behind the use of these instruments in music composition. With creative practice as a research tool, I adopted a reflective process to generate and test concepts, build understanding and empathy with other practitioners, and describe their first-hand experiences of using modular synthesisers.

Four themes emerged from the research:

Instrumentalising the studio refers to the use of a modular synthesiser to incorporate any components or processes of a contemporary electronic music studio into the form of an instrument, that exhibits a level of permanence and physicality enabling it to be learnt, performed, and improvised upon.

Modular synthesisers as compositional tools acknowledges the possibilities for modular synthesisers to generate, organise, and structure musical events at a range of time scales, contrasting this in relation to fixed architecture synthesisers. Modular synthesisers exhibit a range of attributes when used to create musical structure, including real-time manipulation and improvisation of musical structure, and systematisation leading to the potential for chaos and complexity to emerge.

Discovery and co-creation refers to the use of a modular synthesiser as a deliberate strategy to experience a sense of discovery, as sounds and structures emerge that are desired but not planned or preconceived. To achieve this the musician gives over a level of agency to the instrument so that they and the machine are in a process of co-creation.

A range of legacies and diversions from the historic origins of modular synthesisers are identified under the theme of the contemporary modular synthesiser. The original intention to enable the possibilities of the tape music studio to be performed and improvised remains, but the inclusion of digital modules and the plethora of manufacturers producing modules for the Eurorack format significantly impacts experiences of contemporary modular synthesisers.

Practice led methodology

I put the following material together for UTS as a Canvas LMS module available to other researchers at UTS, but I’ve published it here also in case anyone outside of UTS is interested. The module is a description of my research methodology, in particular the role that my own creative practice contributes to the research instrument.

Overview

Introduction

This module describes a particular approach to research that incorporates creative practice as a component of the research instrument, rather than being considered a form of research in and of itself. The module introduces a range of theories and methods that have fed into my Ph.D. research design. I hope these may also be of use to you in your own use of creative practice in a research context, and perhaps the logic and structure I have used to approach my research design may also be of interest. 

My creative practice is experimental electronic music, in both a compositional (recorded) and improvised live setting. For the past 10 years I have mostly used an instrument called a modular synthesiser and it is through this experience that the inquiry for my research was formed. I experienced a shift in my thinking and intentions that I attribute to my experiences with the modular synthesiser. Over the same timeframe that I have used the instrument, there has been a significant resurgence in the use of modular synthesisers worldwide. The instruments were generally considered to be obsolete from the mid to late 1970s but now more than 500 companies manufacture modules for the 'Eurorack' format of modular synthesiser. I have set out to understand if my experiences and interpretations of using the instrument correlate with the experiences of other modular synthesiser based musicians in a n effort to build a deeper understanding of why an interface design and music-making process from the 1960s is now so popular. 

Below is an image of my instrument (top left, lots of cables):

The following video demonstrates an approach I have used where the modular synthesiser is used to control external instruments, in this case a MIDI controllable acoustic piano. The Australian label Room40 released an album of this material in 2020 titled Transductions.

Research Question

The process of settling upon a research question that effectively represents the nature and intention of the inquiry was a long process. I went through multiple stages of refining the question to ensure it is both answerable and also aligned with the central concern of my practice-generated inquiry. In my own experiences of using this instrument I found that my interests shifted more and more to how the instrument can be used as a way to generate musical events (notes, changes in timbre etc) as opposed to what the instrument sounds like. The research question is posed in a way that I hope will enable a focus upon other musicians experiences of creating musical events and structure without presupposing an alignment in their experiences or directing their responses towards my own interpretations. 

The following is borrowed from my Stage 2 confirmation of progress report:

The contemporary re-emergence of modular synthesisers as a popular tool for music making (Roads, 2015, p. 88) 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 compositional processes, with the intention of contributing to the understanding of the recent re-emergence of modular synthesisers, and more broadly the relationship of humans to technology as a creative tool.

The research intention is to build an in-depth understanding of how modular synthesisers are being used as compositional devices to generate musical events and develop musical structure, and what attracts people to use them in this way. Specifically, the research seeks to understand how modular synthesisers operate in compositional processes?

Research Design

Overview 

The research design brings together a range of methods to form a tailored approach that seeks to answer the question; how do modular synthesisers operate in compositional processes?

The following is a simplified and (relatively) brief overview of the methodology and research design. If you are interested in seeing the research design in more detail you can refer to the most recent (stage 2) version of my research plan: Alexander White Research Plan V2 (2020).pdf

Scope

The research question is a qualitative one, in that it seeks to describe an experience or phenomena rather than determine to what extent a given experience (or other phenomena) is experienced with a given population (which would be a quantitative inquiry). the following taken from my research plan seeks to make this clear and delineate the scope of my inquiry:

The reemergence of an obsolete instrument as popular tool for music-making raises a range of potential questions. This project is not intended to comprehensively determine the extent that compositional aspects of modular synthesis are driving the current trend in modular synthesiser use, or where hierarchically this should be positioned in a list of drivers. It is also beyond the scope of this project to comparatively analyse the shift in user interface from computer to hardware based modular synthesiser, nor does it seek to answer why the resurgence of interest in modular synthesisers is occurring now. 

The research intention is to build a deeper understanding of how modular synthesisers are being used as compositional devices to generate musical events and structures, and what attracts people to use them in this way. 

Positionality

In order to plan, conduct and present my research I also need to make clear my own views on what I consider reality to be (ontology) and how I think we can know things (epistemology). The following borrowed from my research plan describes out my understanding of reality drawing upon a phenomenological perspective:

Heidegger in Being and Time (Heidegger & Schmidt, 2010) brings attention to the interpreted nature of reality (ontology) and the reliance of the sciences upon shared, foundational understandings. Similarly, my own understanding of the world is that we each have our own experience of the world through our senses and our own interpretations of its objects and experiences.

Given this understanding of reality, I would need to somehow capture other people's interpretations and descriptions of their experiences with modular synthesisers in order to address the research question. However this perspective raises an issue; through the process of seeking out and capturing other's interpretations, I am also interpreting the information I encounter through my own subjective experience. The following drawn from my research plan situates my research design in a sociological phenomenology framework that recognises the above dilemma and seeks to circumvent it.

I feel compelled to attempt to understand the subjective experience of compositional processes and so I am working from a sociological phenomenology perspective. This perspective, proposed by Schutz builds upon Weber’s and Husserl’s efforts to build a consistent and convincing methodology for the social sciences (Schutz, 1967) by unpacking and defining to a granular level the subjective processes of experiencing, reflection, meaning making, interpretation, motivation and actions. Schutz acknowledges that these same processes are undertaken by the researcher who is seeking to understand the subject, and so any interpretation is also subjective (Schutz, 1967). Schutz emphasises Weber’s concept of the establishment of ‘ideal types’ as the goal of sociological research where interpretations of multiple subjective experiences build patterns and establish commonalities. The ideal-type is not universally descriptive of all subjective experiences and it is not an objective truth, the researcher's own interests and theory framework will influence these interpretations. However despite these limitations, the ideal-type does enable generalisations to be developed, that usefully enable analysis and discourse beyond individual subjective experiences (Johnson, 2008).

Role of Practice

Practice-led not practice-based

Creative practice in a research setting is usually situated as either practice led, where the impetus and inquiry has developed through the person's creative practice, or practice-based, where the creative practice is situated as a form of research in and of itself. This is expanded upon in my research plan:

This line of enquiry has arisen through my creative practice, which has focussed on the use of modular synthesisers for composition and improvisation since 2011. The focus of the research is to understand the roles and impacts of modular synthesisers on compositional processes in the fields of electronic and experimental music. As such the research is best described as practice-led as the inquiry has come about through practice (Gray, 1998). The production of artefacts through creative practice will form key components of the research methodology, but my own creative practice is not the subject of the research. This approach eludes the definition proposed by Candy (Candy & Edmonds, 2012, p. 37) where “Practitioner research is primarily directed towards understanding and improving an individual’s practice and its outcomes.”, while I hope that the research process will lead to improvements in my practice this is not the primary intention of the research. Instead, the primary intention is to explore and discuss phenomena that are significant and relevant to a broader community of practitioners (McNamara, 2012, p. 6).

If you'd like to look into these ideas a little more you may want to look at Linda Candy's writing about practice-based research, although I wouldn't situate my creative practice as research in itself. I highly recommend Andrew McNamara's article Six rules for practice-led research to explore practice-led research in more detail.

Reflective Practice

My research methodology draws upon both Dewey and Schön's concept of the reflective practitioner. The below diagram describes the key points of interaction between reflective practice and other components of my research methodology.

The following borrowed from my research plan describes how my creative practice contributes to the research:

Concept Generation

This line of inquiry has arisen through my creative sound practice where I have performed and recorded music using modular synthesiser patches. The processes of creation and reflection in action (Schön, 1983) surfaced concepts and possibilities that I found to be surprising and compelling. As posited by Smith and Dean (Smith & Dean, 2009, p. 21) I view the relationship between my creative process and the traditional empirical research activities of theorisation, articulation, data gathering, research methodology planning and data interpretation to be cyclic and bidirectional. Over the course of this research project, through a process of action and reflection, the development of new performances and recordings will continue to generate ideas and concepts in concert with the other research processes.

Empathy, Understanding and Interpretation

As the project engages with other practitioners, creative practice offers the opportunity to try key aspects of other artists’ approaches, with the intention of building empathetic understandings of their intentions and motivations. Modular synthesisers can be complex, each artist's instrument is a unique configuration of modules that offers a seemingly endless range of possibilities. Even as an insider researcher this will be a challenging subject to find and confirm common understandings and descriptions. The process of analysis and interpretation of compositional processes will be greatly aided by a hands on, reflective and contextual analysis through my creative practice.

Communicating and Community Engagement

Modular synthesisers are typically sound making machines, compositional processes typically generate sound. A series of recorded works will form a key component of the final dissertation, the text components of the dissertation will make reference to specific recordings. These works will assist in communicating key concepts and approaches uncovered by the research process, through the lens of my own creative practice. These works will be developed throughout the project, some will be published via a blog and the Soundcloud platform, I will engage with various experimental music labels with the intention of publishing some of these works to a broader audience. The musicians associated with modular synthesisers are primarily concerned with creating sounds and music, these recorded works will provide a key point of engagement with this community. Taking onboard Scrivener's point that framing artwork as a form of knowledge is problematic and reductive of the implicit value of an artwork (Scrivener, 2002), these works will be presented as a component of the dissertation. The artefacts will be a product of my creative practice and above all else indicative of those processes, however, working in concert with the rest of the dissertation these works will provide an illustrative mechanism.

Outcome example

In 2019 I presented a paper at the Australian Computer Music Association Conference titled Analog Algorithms: Generative Composition in Modular Synthesis. The paper argues that unique generative approaches to music composition are embedded in the design of the very first modular synthesisers and that these ideas have resurfaced through the contemporary resurgence of modular synthesisers. The paper relies upon a review of historic documents and literature describing electronic music histories to make its case, but finishes with a section derived purely from reflective practice. This section describes aspects of music composition with a modular synthesiser based on my experiences. Although this component is based upon my own subjective experiences its inclusion in the paper enables a rich and in-depth description of some attributes of composition with a modular synthesiser. These descriptions enable the paper to shift from abstract ideas into concrete experiences.

The following is drawn from this section of the paper, the full paper can be accessed here.

Qualities of Modular Synthesiser Composition

The specific possibilities for composition using a modular synthesiser are endless, the expandable and completely customisable nature of the instrument itself compounds this. However it is still possible to identify some overarching factors that can be generalised to impact upon generative compositional processes in modular synthesis. The following attributes have been subjectively developed through a process of reflection upon my own compositional experiences with modular synthesisers (Schön 1983).

Creative Constraints

Any modular synthesiser has a limited range and number of modules, this is in contrast to working in software, where aside from any CPU overhead, there is an unlimited number of devices and range of devices. This limitation forces the modular synthesiser composer to problem solve, working with and around limits, compromising and innovating with what is available, and using these constraints to drive ceativity (Stokes 2005).

Limited Iterations and Modules

The limit of available modules to a given synthesiser instrument also has a practical implication for the generative systems that are devised; complex interconnection and greater reliance between devices is encouraged. For example, a low frequency oscillator may have multiple waveform outputs, each affecting a different aspect of the composition, in this case any change to the oscillator frequency will impact the structure in a range of ways.

Functionality Across Broad Timescales

The continuous scale from audible frequency to compositional structure which the modular synthesiser operates in, foregrounds the underlying function of the module devices as they must be considered in the two contexts of sound and event generation simultaneously. This encourages the composer to think laterally about the possibilities inherent in a device or a configuration of multiple devices. For example, a consideration of the impact that modulating a variable pulse width waveform oscillating at low frequency requires an understanding of the underlying function beyond the audible phenomena of an oscillating pulse waveform.

Overlapping Embedded Design Philosophies

Modular synthesiser modules function at a higher level than the individual object devices made available in a software context such as MAX or Pure Data, necessarily carrying a greater level of design intention, philosophy and aesthetic preferences. Functioning on a scale somewhere in between a self contained instrument and its separated constituent components, the modular synthesiser musician is operating in a field of overlapping, interconnected (semi) instrument designs. In response to the surge in modular synthesis popularity both Cycling 74 and Native Instruments have developed standardised systems for MAX and Reaktor respectively that enable the design and use of higher level devices that emulate the modular synthesiser paradigm.

Continuous Signal

In learning to use a modular synthesiser after working in a computer based compositional environment, the first conceptual hurdle is often in relation to Voltage Controlled Amplifiers (VCA) and the nature of electrical signals in the modular environment. Modular synthesisers invert the digital and keyboard centred paradigm of the note on, but also broader acoustic instrument paradigms; the plucking or bowing of a string, the striking of a drum and the blowing of a reed or brass instrument, because the electrical signal is always present while the instrument is switched on. A VCA is employed in a modular system not to produce sound, but to prevent it and attenuate it, the modulation of the VCA with an envelope or other control voltage source, allows for a signal to pass through (H. S. Howe 1975). A module must still be patched up in order for its signal to be audible or to have an effect upon other modules, but once a connection is made the signal is continuous. The break in the cause and effect relationship of the musician to the instrument may in turn impact upon the process of composition with a modular synthesiser, where signal flows are connected, attenuated and muted in order to create musical form and structure.

Composer and sound designer Suzanne Chiani’s description of her experience of the Buchla instruments resonates; “It's a living thing - you feel like it's alive when you're interacting with it” (Friedlander 2017).

Conclusion

I hope this description of my methodology and research is helpful as an example of creative practice employed as a component of a research instrument. All the best in designing and developing your own research projects.

References

Candy, L., & Edmonds, E. (Eds.). (2012). Interacting: Art, Research and the Creative Practitioner. Libri Publishing.

Friedlander, E. (2017, June 29). Don Buchla’s Modular Revolution, Remembered by Suzanne Ciani. Thump. https://thump.vice.com/en_us/article/59pm45/don-buchlas-modular-revolution-remembered-by-suzanne-ciani

Gray, C. (1998). Inquiry through Practice: Developing appropriate research strategies. In No Guru, No Method? Discussions on Art and Design Research. University of Art & Design, UIAH.

Heidegger, M., & Schmidt, D. J. (2010). Being and Time: A Revised Edition of the Stambaugh Translation (J. Stambaugh, Trans.; Revised edition). SUNY Press.

Howe, H. S. (1975). Electronic Music Synthesis: Concepts, Facilities, Techniques. W. W. Norton & Company.

Johnson, D. P. (2008). Contemporary Sociological Theory: An Integrated Multi-Level Approach (Softcover reprint of hardcover 1st ed. 2008 edition). Springer.

McNamara, A. E. (2012). Six rules for practice-led research. Text :  Journal of  Writing and Writing Courses, 1–15.

Roads, C. (2015). Composing Electronic Music: A New Aesthetic. OUP USA.

Schön, D. (1983). The Reflective Practitioner: How Professionals Think in Action. Basic Books.

Schutz, A. (1967). The Phenomoenology of the Social World. Heinemann Educational Books Ltd.

Scrivener, S. (2002). The art object does not embody a form of knowledge [Report]. Working Papers in Art & Design - Volume 2. http://www.herts.ac.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0008/12311/WPIAAD_vol2_scrivener.pdf

Smith, H., & Dean, R. T. (2009). Practice-led Research, Research-led Practice in the Creative Arts. Edinburgh University Press; JSTOR. https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.3366/j.ctt1g0b594

Stokes, P. D. (2005). Creativity from Constraints: The Psychology of Breakthrough. Springer Publishing Company. http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/uts/detail.action?docID=423619

Interview: Warren Burt

Photo: Roberto Laneri.

In late 2019 I was lucky to have the opportunity to sit down and chat with Warren Burt at Brunetti’s in Carlton (Melbourne). Warren has made incredible contributions to electronic music, in both the US and Australia for several decades now as a artist, teacher, writer, instrument designer and organiser.

Warren managed to cover a lot of territory (some of it in one breath!) including his experiences as a student and teacher at Albany, UC San Diego, Latrobe Uni, Clifton Hill Music Center and now Box Hill Institute, some of his ideas around electronic music composition, analog systems, improvisation, and instrument design, and association and encounters with a range of other well known electronic music pioneers including Serge Tcherepnin, Pauline Oliveros, Rich Gold, and Randy Cohen as well as some of Warren’s projects like Plastic Platypus and the Aardvarks IV instrument.

You can find out more about Warren at his website.

If you are interested in knowing more about Australian electronic music history Warren wrote an excellent paper on live electronics in Australia back in 1991.

Warren has also kindly allowed me to share one of his early pieces created with his Aardvarks IV instrument.

All Hell Broke Loose One Sunday Afternoon when the Checker Demon and His Buddies Hung Out At Dinty Moore’s Saloon. Warren Burt 1972

Analog Algorithms: Generative Composition in Modular Synthesis

I did my first paper presentation at an academic conference last year - Australian Computer Music Conference - full proceedings here, my contribution titled Analog Algorithms: Generative Composition in Modular Synthesis is here.

Abstract:

The contemporary re-emergence of modular synthesisers as a popular tool for music making rejects much of the conveniences afforded by advancements in music technology in the past 40 years, an idea that challenges our understanding of the relationship of electronic music composers to technology. Given the dominance of the computer in music making since the early 1990s there is a temptation to situate the modular synthesiser in opposition, focusing upon the modular instrument's tangible interface and a general shift away from the ubiquitous computer as primary drivers for the return to modular synthesis (Paradiso 2017). I argue that generative compositional approaches, specific to modular synthesisers, are another factor that should be considered in relation to this re-emergence. The modular synthesis paradigm foregrounds generative compositional processes designed not only to create sound, but to generate musical events and control signals. Many module designs carry a legacy of generative processes that can be traced back to the earliest commercial synthesisers. These generative approaches exhibit attributes that are intrinsically distinguishable from those developed in the field of computer music.

Modular nerding upgrade in progress ||||| ||||| |||||

Face to Serge Paperface at MESS

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).