5U vs. 3U and musical style

[BKN7000]

I was wondering if anyone has noticed any stylistic differences between musicians who are biased towards 5U systems vs. the ones who are more into 3U? Musically, compositionally, that kind of thing. And does choosing the right system matter when it comes to musical style?

I kind of really like oldschool, classic, and Berlin School stuff, but very naive and still learning about modular. Somewhere in my head I have the idea that 5U is more appropriate for me. Is this totally irrational or are there others out there who feel the same way? Of course there are very advanced 5U modules that are not really traditional, but still I wonder if other people gravitate towards 5U for the same reasons as I.

[decaying.sine]

It's my impression that it's very diverse. I don't think you are being irrational just thinking out loud. It's so easy to support multiple formats with a little effort. Choosing the right system definitely matters but I would say it's more on function rather than form factor.

Even if you wanted that "classic" sound you can get that in both euro and larger formats (i.e., MacBeth).

Just thinking about musical style of various large format wigglers, parasitk's style (I, parasite) is very different than say JLR's style. They both use large format modules, modcan A and MOTM/DotCom respectively. Basically go for function and form factor.

Say fuck it and go for two formats off the bat. You'll probably end up there anyways!

[Christopher W.]

Speaking only for myself

I like some Berlin school stuff.
I love late '70s and early '80s new wave.
I like some prog.
I adore cheezy pop songs.

I don't think that (form factor and heritage aside) 5U necessarily offered me anything that I couldn't have gotten from 3U in terms of playing to those very loose genres. If I was someone who gigged a lot, or wanted maximum variety I'd probably have gone 3U. But I'm willing to sacrifice having "only" 20 rather than 50 different filter types for bigger and (to me) more use-friendly panels and controls. If I feel like putting together a generic Minimoog-style VCO->VCF->VCA patch there isn't a great deal of difference between selecting 5U, 3U, Frac, or Modcan A.

Some of the bands I love the most - like early period Human League - did a lot of their early output on gear like Roland modulars, which to me are closer in spirit to 3U than 5U. There's just no hard and fast rule to me, especially since so many manufacturers like STG put out what are essentially the same module in several formats.

[Orbless]

When I started out, a very large factor that made my decision for me was the affordability and quality of build offered from synthesizers.com.
The payment plan is what really sold it for me since I was working with an extremely tight budget.
I also love the size and the look of the 5U design, but that isn't as important.
There was also the fact that using 1/4" cables was familiar and easily interacted with other gear.
I have filled a 22 space cabinet and another 8 space rack with mainly dot com modules, except for a Mega Ohm LFOtwo and an Encore UEG.
I want to expand further, but am leaning towards MOTM, STG, SSL, Modcan would be great if I could afford it, and other manufacturers, and also thinking about a small rack of Euro things as well since there are some interesting modules that I can not get otherwise.

[sduck]

I think as soon as you try to make sweeping generalizations about stuff like this the facts are going to make the idea look trivial. All generalizations are false, and all that...

[kindredlost]

My reason for going the MU large format route was due to my lust for a Moog - style modular with a step sequencer. Irrational as hell. The -24dB filter was another reason but that is easily covered with non-5U modules.

Tangerine Dream, Walter Carlos, Popol Vue, Michael Hoenig, Klaus Schulze, Michael Stearns and Isao Tomita were my early influences and had a magical allure that made me gravitate towards large format modulars. Jean Michael Jarre also gave me GAS so bad that a desire for predominately analog-sounding synthesizers were a preference.

To me the direction away from Berlin School and classic electronic rock is more prevalent with euro rack, frac and 3U. More of the sound sculpting and controlled noise as well as beat - centric dance can be seen with the compact format modulars. Why? Who the hell knows. There is an obvious difference in portability and setup between the formats.

There are notable exceptions everywhere and this is completely unimportant in reality as far as what genre of music you decide to apply the gear to. Break some balls! I would love to hear/see another exception to the rule.

[Seaweed Sound]

All generalizations are false, and all that...

Stop generalizing generalizations

[Luka]

3U has lots of composition distracting modules imo. Seems like 5U was until recently majorly vco-vca-filter & 16 step sequencer sorta territory. 3U has taken a lot of the compex ideas from 4U setups.

[BKN7000]

Very interesting. I almost thought that the large vs medium(?) format of modulars was almost similar let's say to photography in that the large format photographers tended to be more classical in style and the medium and smaller format photographers were more radical or contemporary.

The note about Roland modulars being closer in spirit to 3U than 5U is pretty interesting (I dig Human League too).

Maybe I'll end up with a hybrid setup anyway like most of you, mainly since so much of large format is so expensive. But who knows. I guess in the end if there's a module in 3U I end up feeling I *have to* get, I probably won't be able to resist. There may be some euro/frac modules that have a very classic feel (functionally and sonically) that's worth getting.

[7thDanSound]

The truth is, of course, that modulars are just that -modular. And that the compositions and outcome of them are very much up to the composer. I've heard stuff on 5U being very west coast and also very much the other way around. And now that there are many vendors in all formats things get even more complicated.

All that being said, the question is very interesting and always had the same feeling you have. I guess it may have very much to do with the aesthetics.

When choosing a modular for yourself however, first and foremost you should look at what feels inspiring to work with for you. What format seems to fit your way of working or what modules may inspire a new twist in your style. All within your price range of course.

[Christopher W.]

The note about Roland modulars being closer in spirit to 3U than 5U is pretty interesting (I dig Human League too).

Just to clarify my point: that's more a gut reaction on my part than anything grounded in solid empirical evidence.

I can rationalize it by saying that The Human League were coming at synthesis from the direction of having both no particular link to the big guns of early synthesis (Keith Emerson, Walter Carlos, Tomita, Tangerine Dream, et al.) and instead relying on the second wave of cheaper (in both senses of the word) Japanese synthesizers and having assimilated bits of the punk aesthetic. In other words they made instrument selections probably for reasons more financial than aural.

Which actually brings me to something else: I think that 5U has a vibe of being more expensive without actually being so, because it evokes those vintage Moog systems, which could easily cost what a luxury car retailed for 40 years ago. Of course this is not supported by the facts, since one can put together a fairly large and comprehensive system for a fraction of that in real dollar terms today. Doepfer, by contrast, has always had the image of being fairly high volume and low cost, so that gives the 3U format the appearance of frugality, even though there are individual modules like some from Macbeth that easily crest into the four-figure zone.

[Ranxerox]

Format doesn't place any real restrictions on the sort of music you make - you can 'do' East-coast on a West-coast system and vice versa. Whether you are likely to or not has more to do with your aesthetic preferences.

MU as an example started out as an homage to the Moog modular, but the number and variety of esoteric MU modules now far outstrips the original Moog line-up. Likewise, there are plenty of Euro users getting their kicks from 70s Berlin-school and searching for a better ladder-filter sound.

People will say, "yeah, but such-and-such format tends to be slightly more suited to blah-blah-blah", but whatever - Serge oscillators will track 1v/octave while MU LPGs will give you 'that' Buchla bongo sound,
so it's not a practical constraint as much as an adherence to the style of music most closely associated with the format. It's all in the mind.

[Ranxerox]

But in answer to your question, there isn't always a lot of visibility into the sorts of modulars that get used on recordings these days. It's probably safe to assume that Euro appears more widely on modern recordings simply owing to the much larger number of users, but I wouldn't want to generalise about what sort of music that typically is - could be anything.

Certain MU/5U users are very actively releasing TD-influenced music through New Age or vanity labels, and have been doing probably since before MOTM and dotcom even started. However, I suspect this musical tendency is becoming less typical of 5U/MU users overall as more people are attracted to the format for diverse reasons - citing myself as an example here!

It appears that the fetishistic appeal of Serge and Buchla tends to be due to their origins in the 'West coast' avant garde dynasty of the 60s and 70s. Look at Keith Fullerton Whitman's use of Serge on 'Multiples' as a IMHO typical example of the influence of these pioneers on modern practitioners.

However, I see evidence in the Serge/Wiard/Buchla forum that the more people are attracted to those formats, the more 'conventional' applications seem to be being sought by the newer users, e.g. 'How do I get my Buchla to play melodies?'

So as more people are attracted to modulars, the more each format is influenced to cater to a broader range of musical interests. Euro is perhaps better placed than any other format to cater to that currently, but you can see it happening in other formats as well.

[BKN7000]

The big question is that if someone like myself were to use euro format for instance, would that detract in any way from my attempt to remain classic in sound and style? As a whole, isn't there a bigger risk of straying from a classic style the more I use fancier modules (of which there are more of in 3U)?

[parasitk]

Just thinking about musical style of various large format wigglers, parasitk's style (I, parasite) is very different than say JLR's style.

I basically started I, Parasite as a JLR cover band.

[sandyb]

The big question is that if someone like myself were to use euro format for instance, would that detract in any way from my attempt to remain classic in sound and style? As a whole, isn't there a bigger risk of straying from a classic style the more I use fancier modules (of which there are more of in 3U)?

totally depends on which modules you purchase and how you choose to use them. that's the great thing about modular synths - the same things can be used in so many different ways.

[rezzn8r]

Just thinking about musical style of various large format wigglers, parasitk's style (I, parasite) is very different than say JLR's style.

I basically started I, Parasite as a JLR cover band.

[VortexRanger]

Like plenty of others, I started with Dotcom because of the payment plan, and later added another format (Euro in my case). I also hadn't discovered Muff's and was sort of out in the breeze somewhere, not even realizing Euro was an option (this was a few years back). Also, I came directly out of the mindframe of "I love Moog sounds, so why not expand them with modular stuff?" Believe it or not I was kind of expecting to just end up with a much-expanded Minimoog. But getting those modules one at a time really helped to open my eyes to how each piece worked, and how they could work together, to where each time a new module came in, it exponentially increased my system's functionality, and I started realizing that the difference between modular and hardwired was about much more than just size and number of functions. I'm very glad I did not buy an entire system right off the bat.

I will say this, since being bitten by the Euro bug I have found myself doing time-synced patches (where every aspect fits in somehow with the master clock) much more often than I used to, and also using the keyboard much less often. But like others have said, my musical style is inspired by the modules I'm getting and the musical state-of-mind I'm in (and vice versa).

[VortexRanger]

Oh yeah, also, the idea of "the risk of straying from a classic style" doesn't make sense. I don't see the point of basing your whole system around "an attempt to remain classic." It sounds like you are afraid of, and desperate to reign in, your own creativity.

If you want to remain "classic" you will, and that's fine. But don't be afraid to change your mind.

[Orbless]

Like plenty of others, I started with Dotcom because of the payment plan, and later added another format (Euro in my case). I also hadn't discovered Muff's and was sort of out in the breeze somewhere, not even realizing Euro was an option (this was a few years back). Also, I came directly out of the mindframe of "I love Moog sounds, so why not expand them with modular stuff?" Believe it or not I was kind of expecting to just end up with a much-expanded Minimoog. But getting those modules one at a time really helped to open my eyes to how each piece worked, and how they could work together, to where each time a new module came in, it exponentially increased my system's functionality, and I started realizing that the difference between modular and hardwired was about much more than just size and number of functions. I'm very glad I did not buy an entire system right off the bat.

I will say this, since being bitten by the Euro bug I have found myself doing time-synced patches (where every aspect fits in somehow with the master clock) much more often than I used to, and also using the keyboard much less often. But like others have said, my musical style is inspired by the modules I'm getting and the musical state-of-mind I'm in (and vice versa).

Very similar experience for me
But for me, with my background, I never intended to use a keyboard, think I have only once.

[BKN7000]

Oh yeah, also, the idea of "the risk of straying from a classic style" doesn't make sense. I don't see the point of basing your whole system around "an attempt to remain classic." It sounds like you are afraid of, and desperate to reign in, your own creativity.

If you want to remain "classic" you will, and that's fine. But don't be afraid to change your mind.

It's not fear. It's experience and conviction that drive me.

See, in my experience, I've noticed that your tools can strongly dictate your creative process. And sometimes it's quite arbitrary and only results in your music being all over the place and not having a distinct voice. Your body of work can quickly become a mess if you allow instrument manufacturers to arbitrarily dictate your creativity.

This inevitably resulted in me being more conscious of the sounds that I was making. This in turn made me much more discriminating in my selection of sound style and selection of tools.

In short, I have decided to really focus my musical identity along the lines of very specific sound characteristics in order to have the clearest most identifiable style. And it just happens to be a "classical" sound.

It may very well have been the opposite, but as fate would have it, I am a classicist. I hope that explains it.

[VortexRanger]

See, in my experience, I've noticed that your tools can strongly dictate your creative process. And sometimes it's quite arbitrary and only results in your music being all over the place and not having a distinct voice. Your body of work can quickly become a mess if you allow instrument manufacturers to arbitrarily dictate your creativity.

That is a definite danger. And one of the reasons I go with physical modular way more than software these days. In Reaktor or Max I can patch up as many instances as I want of anything, but in the physical realm I am limited to those pieces I actually have, and it makes me more creative and less sloppy. You must just be even more streamlined than me.

Also, sorry if my previous post sounded condescending, it was not intentional. Damn text!

[BKN7000]

Not a problem. This is great discussion.

And software is a great example of how easy it is to go down a certain path you may not want. The more powerful the tools, the more options you have, and the more challenging it becomes to maintain a distinct personal style.

[drewtoothpaste]

If you write the music, your synthesizer is just a tool.

If your synthesizer writes the music...

[VortexRanger]

If you write the music, your synthesizer is just a tool.

If your synthesizer writes the music...