Archives - 1972

Archives Main | 1972

 

Chicago Reader

June 30, 1972
Moog Muses: an interview with the father of synthesizer

Synthesizer devotees have alienated lots of musicians with vague claims that the synthesizer is not an instrument but rather- as it is capable of producing any tone in the musical spectrum- the musical instrument.
"Don't let them fool you," insisted my friend Herbie the jazz pianist. "They may tell you those things sound like real instruments, but they don't. They'll never get all the overtones." He chuckled confidently.
Wrong-o, Herbie. In town for a recent music convention, Dr. Robert Moog, the man who "in the right place at the right time" developed the Moog Synthesizer in 1964, explained where a lot of it was at. "I'm a half-assed pianist myself," he confessed, "and I like working with musicians. But I'm an engineer, so I built an instrument. And your friend may not like this, but our new Maxolin can and does produce the sounds of a Stradivarius. Electronically, it can be done. People can't do it... but electronics can."
Since my formal education in physics ended abruptly with Slinkies and my knowledge of music theory doesn't extend much beyond "oh, is that a seventh?" what follows is a pretty literal transcription of a talk with Dr. Moog. He's taught college and has got his explanations down- he's articulate and surprisingly sensitive to the demands of art and artists. And he's perfectly willing to make things perfectly clear to those of us who don't engineer at Wally Heider.
And, Apocalypse, Dr. Moog considers rock performers "serious" musicians-it's a serious genre if musicians take their work seriously. The synthesizer now works as well-or better-for them and their sound as for modern classical composers, limited essentially only by creativity.
As it developed. As it began: a discussion in which Pink Floyd muttered they use amp distortion for coloration, as part of their special sound, which is why they often don't use the very best equipment, so that they will get distortion...
"Actually, amps don't reproduce sound exactly anyway, they make the sound, they're part of the sound. The sound of a guitar through a pick-up is in no way related to the acoustic guitar sound-so an electric isn't a true guitar sound. When you mike a guitar, you put it through a PA amp, where there's less coloration.
"So we thought, musicians thought, if we can't reproduce the sound, let's make the sound we do make the most useful, the most pleasing. . . which is done by modifying the frequency through the amp. The amp is part of the instrument, not a reproducer of instrument sound, and musicians select their various amps for the various sound qualities. For instance, you couldn't run a radio through an amp and get true reproduction:''
I stammered that a pioneering synthesizer composer, Morton Subotnick's, liner notes confused me, as did the very technical (but very useful, insists Herbie) notes on the Nonesuch Guide to Electronic Music.
"It's useful to know the language," Dr. Moog conceded. "It suggests a way of looking at the music. But you don't have to be a scientist for this, just a
musician with an understanding of sound.

"But do you understand how Subotnick is working? For one thing, he's using a Buchla system (one which works with already-created sounds, as opposed to a voltage control model where the tones start as DC voltages converted through an oscillator into AC sound) and a process-oriented way of putting things together. Instead of controlling sound by -direct action-keys, volume dials and things-he defines all these things ahead of time and litterally pushes a button for the resultant music. The music comes from the way he organizes the process, not from direct control.
"But it's higher than mathematics.., it's like ,a graphic artist made a painting machine.. I have friend who is a process sculptor, a sculptor of motion James Seawright. He makes these boxes with vertic wires and lights on the end, and it lights up with patterns of movement. It doesn't look like much standing still, but when you turn it on, it comes to life.
"My father insisted he could do that, too, and he built a box with wires and it was just dull. Because the quality of the motion was just dull. You need the artist (who has the eye for) the quality in the way it's organized, in proportion. That's exactly the case with Subotnick: in organizing this, you don't use math - the subtlest variation in proportion can make or break the music-sculpture. It's a different artistry than a live performance, but it's a performance and art nonetheless.
"This music is superb, meticulous organization. But, no. Live work and a Moog don't exclude each other. Listen to Keith Emerson. It's up to the musician, the material's there."
But what is a synthesizer, exactly? All I knew is that it doesn't reproduce two tones simultaneously and is thus limited to melody lines or grueling multiple tracking in the studio.
Well, technically. You could say a synthesizer-don't look so worried-is a system of operational circuits {an operational circuit determines one operation, as the bow, strings, fingerboard, etc. of a violin each determines one operation). In a studio synthesizer, these operational parts can be arranged in any combination that makes musical sense. Any musical characteristic can be electrically varied through the voltage control of the circuits and get new sound qualities which are characterized by new sorts of motion-what's new is what can be done with tone color and pitch changes.
"There are certain operational circuits which are basic, practical and easy to make. So if you say a Moog has a "characteristic sound," it may be as a result of that. Say a musician buys a piano and it was just invented. He runs his hands up and down the keys. Isn't that a typical "piano sound?" Lots of musical gestures just fall out easily-to make more beautiful and more complicated sounds takes time. Sure, lots of guys just play around and duplicate old music on the synthesizer-but it's a new instrument... have you heard Walter Carlos (Sonic Seasonings)? If a musician seems to do something that makes sense, he does it, he uses it. The production of music is not a rational act; one is driven to do something."
But as for synthesizer in live performance and the nature of the artistic act...
"Live depends on the synthesizer model. We have three for live performance. The Moog keyboard is a control device, especially for the feel and rhythms of live work.., but you can set dials to get a rhythm sequence. Studio models have to be organized with patch cords, but some are pre-organized for live without the patch cords, although you lose versatility. Sure, you worry about the feel and rhythms and expression of performing with dials and buttons, but look at the organ. That's one complicated instrument.

"A synthesizer is just a way of working with sound by consciously controlling individual sound parameters, Ideally in live performance you could have computers to improve and organize synthesizer sound ... I know that sounds inhuman, computers! but someone else can do the programming and the hookup, leaving the artist free. No, you don't have to be an engineer.., just a musician."
The Moog is now used mainly for special effects in live performance, probably due to the comparative novelty of the instrument and a general unfamiliarity with its enormous potential-and complexity. And there's still this boiling fury over the innuendos that the synthesizer can render every other instrument obsolete with one outlet plugged behind its back. Take the claim of the electronic Maxolin, which will make everyone sound" as if he played a Strad."
"About the Maxolin. OK. What a great violin does can be measured electronically. But not what a musician does.
What differentiates one instrument and electrical things is the way the human issues his commands. The way he issues commands- the gestures he makes ---- charaterize the instrument. It's the way the violinist uses his hands, the way the trumpeter uses his lips as well as the shape of his horn.
"Now the Maxolin looks like a real fiddle and is played like one. But the difference between a cheap violin and a great one is the way the box is built, and no one is sure how to do that exactly. Rock violinists have been blessed with the impossible job of getting a true tone over loudspeakers-and you can't get a true tone over amps.
"So here we ("we" including a Bell Lab specialist in Psycho-Acoustics) developed a violin with the conventional fingerboard, strings, everything-but the sound energy is picked up electrically through resonators instead of going through the box-and these resonators are set to duplicate the resonances of the box of a fine violin. Hence, fine, true sound through an amp. You can't build a fine violin from scratch from wood-but you can electrically. Musicians seem to like it because it plays easier, the sound energy stays in the strings.
"But will it take the place of other instruments? Stradivarius brought violin development to a great height. Is the Maxolin a synthesizer with a violin
input or a continuation of violin-development technology?
You know what I'd say. Musical instruments are constantly being developed. If one type replaces another, it doesn't mean that it has conquered it, it means that the other doesn't fit the musical needs of the present generation. No instrument becomes out of date. Look at shawms. We call the synthesizer an instrument- just some are better for studio, some for live. The synthesizer will be developed and models will supercede this, but nothing will replace the synthesizer.
"Music now.. the synthesizer wasn't possible technically or aesthetically much earlier.. , but now-people's ears are becoming much more attuned to pitch structure and tone color. The synthesizer exists to help that (tone color). Serious twentieth century composers, starting with Debussy and moving through Bartok and Stravinsky, use texture as the major element in composition. Now rock is doing it-rock's of age. But could you imagine Goodman, say, with a fuzz box? Tone color as a serious element in pop music is here-and so is the synthesizer.
"So take time. The time scale of-traditional music corresponds to how long it takes to make the physical gesture, and so music is built of short sounds. But electrically you can take any length and any complexity of sound within that length .. so in Carlos, you find no note. In the studio, you take a sound, play it back, work on it, chisel it, like a sculpture...

 

"Notation . . . for a sculpture? Notations is for live performance. Carlos is not going to perform live. Most live people either improvise or do something ordinary. Or use a graphic notation.
"But, no. You don't have to be a scientist for synthesizer. Really. Just a musician with an understanding of sound."

BETH LESTER