The Impact of Minimoog in Music

Ioannis Kazlaris (W 9499741) – The Impact Of The Moog Minimoog Synthesiser
THE IMPACT OF THE MOOG MINIMOOG SYNTHESISER
A thesis submitted to
the Open University
in fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of
MASTER OF ARTS
in Music
by
Ioannis Kazlaris, BSc
(W 9499741)
September 2008
Words: 15922
1
Abstract
Robert A. Moog was one of the most inventive and ingenious makers in the history of synthesisers.
One of the most important inventions is the Minimoog synthesiser that has been used in diversified
music genres and is known for its warm analogue sound.
This study will give an overview of the features of the Minimoog and analyze how the various
electronic components, such as oscillators, the filter and envelope generators interact in order to
produce the characteristic Minimoog sound. The analysis will focus particularly on the patented Moog
filter by explaining how this filter works and why its technical “flaw” was discarded despite technical
issues. Throughout the analysis, elements of the theory of acoustic physics as well as psychoacoustics
will be used in order to support the arguments put therein and discuss sound evaluation issues
Technical issues aside, the Minimoog sound was a distinctive one given a synthesiser’s vast potential
for innovative sounds. Several issues that arise from performing with the Minimoog either live or in a
sequenced environment will be mentioned, such as pitch instability, the ergonomics of the interface
and the inclusion of the pitch and modulation wheels. The usefulness of actual recordings into
extracting performance data will be investigated as well and a brief history of how the Minimoog was
marketed will be given.
Finally, this thesis will discuss the contribution of the Minimoog towards the electronic music revival
and the increasing demand in analogue synthesisers by investigating how and why the Minimoog was
marginalized by digital synthesisers in the early 70s and discussing its reappearance in either
commercial or academic attempts that have aimed at emulating it. The role of the Internet will also be
taken into consideration as well as the psychological effect of nostalgia on musicians.
2
Acknowledgements
I would like to thank my mother for her continuous support as well my tutor Robert Davis for providing
very useful suggestions for this thesis.
3
Table of Contents
List of Figures………………………………………..……………………………………………………………………………….……………v
List of Tables………………………………………….………………………………………………………………………………..…………..v
CHAPTER 1: THE MINIMOOG SOUND…………………………………………………………………………………1
1.1. Introduction…………………………………………………………………………………………………….…………………….1
1.2. Description of the Minimoog .....................................................................................................2
1.3. Oscillators…………………………………………………………….………………………………………….…………………...4
1.3.1. Oscillator beating……………………………………………………………..……………………………….…………………..6
1.3.2. The aging effect………………………………………………………………………………………………….………………….7
1.4. Pre-Filter Mixer and the Inter-modulation phenomenon....………………………………………………..8
1.5. Filter………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….………………..10
1.6. Envelope Generators…………………………………………..………………………………………………………………18
1.7. CV/Gate……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….19
1.8. Keyboard…………………………………………………………………………………………….……………………………….20
1.9. Sound Evaluation Issues……………………………………………………………………………………….………………23
CHAPTER 2: PERFORMING WITH THE MINIMOOG………………………….……………………………….26
2.1. Additive vs. Subtractive…………………………………………………………………….…………………………………26

2.2. Performance and Composition Issues………………………………………………………………………………….28
2.3. Improvisation in Sequencing………………………………………………………………………………………………..33
2.4. Recordings……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………...37
2.5. Marketing the Minimoog…………………………………………………………………………………………………….40
2.6. Conclusions………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………42
CHAPTER 3: TOWARDS THE ELECTRONIC MUSIC REVIVAL…………………………….………………….43
3.1. Analogue versus Digital………………………………………………………………………………………………….…….44

3.2. FM Synthesis……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………....45
3.3. Sample Playback………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….46
3.4. Emulating the Moog VCF…………………………………………………………………………………………………….48
3.5. Sound Quality Evaluation…………………………………………………………………………………………………….51
3.6. The Role of the Internet……………………………………………………………………………………………………..52
3.7. The Psychological Effect Of Nostalgia……………………………………………………………………………..…..53
3.8. Conclusion…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………56
Bibliography………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….……58
Discography...................................................................................................................60
Appendix A: Glossary of technical terms……………………………………………………………………………61
4
List of Figures
1.1. FM Sidebands …………………………………………………………………………................………………......10
1.2. Chebyshev I – filter slope...………………………………………………………...………………………………..11
1.3. Various filter topologies and their frequency responses.................................................12
1.4. Signal flow in the Moog VCF........................................................................................12
1.5. Phase Shift.................................................................................................................13
1.6. Resonance.................................................................................................................14
List of Tables
1. The six versions of the Minimoog………………………………………………………………………………………3
5
CHAPTER 1:
THE MINIMOOG SOUND
1.1. Introduction
Robert A. Moog was one of the most inventive and ingenious makers in the
history of synthesisers. One of the most important inventions is clearly the Minimoog: a
monophonic, analogue synthesiser that has helped to shape the sound of many
generations and genres. This thesis will try to analyze how the various electronic
components interact in order to produce the characteristic Minimoog sound and how
this sound was established in the music proscenium. The analysis will also investigate
some of the commercial and marketing strategies that led to the success of the
Minimoog as well as its role in the electronic music revival.
My interest in analyzing the Minimoog synthesiser comes from my own
background as a computer programmer and electronic musician who also had classical
training. It is my belief that this particular subject has had little formal musicological
study, perhaps due to its inter-disciplinary nature, and this thesis hopes to contribute
to the literature by departing from the traditional perspective of organology and
drawing information from the theory of acoustic physics and psychoacoustics as well as
from the field of electronics. In order to help the reader familiarize with the
terminology that will be used throughout the analysis, a glossary of technical terms is
provided at the end of this paper.
6
1.2. Description of the Minimoog
The Minimoog is a monophonic, voltage-controlled analogue synthesiser. Its
synthesis method is subtractive analogue and its fixed signal flow architecture follows
the standard VCO – VCF – VCA configuration. The instrument comprises of:
 Three voltage controlled oscillators (VCOs) that provide a variety of waveforms
 One white / pink noise generator
 One passive mixer that is used to mix the signal sources
 One voltage controlled filter (VCF) that is used to shape the harmonic content
of the signals,
 Two envelope generators that contour the amplitude and harmonic content
 A simple modulation routing
 Three external control inputs for controlling pitch, amplitude and harmonic
content
 A monophonic, 44-key keyboard (without velocity sensitivity or after-touch)
 Pitch and modulation wheels.
The Minimoog also has an external audio input internally hardwired to the pre-
filter mixer so that the musician can route any audio signal into its filter for processing.
The incoming audio signal can be attenuated with a variable potentiometer and there is
also an overload light.
The internally hardwired electronic components which are used in the
Minimoog are a direct descendant from the early Moog modular synthesisers that
appeared during the 1960s. Prior to the release of the first production model which is
called Minimoog Model D, there existed three other models namely Model A, Model B
7
and Model C. Through the evolution of the Minimoog from the early 1970s till the early
1980s, the instrument underwent several major and minor changes in its electronic
circuits thus resulting in six versions of the Minimoog Model D:
Version Name Serial Numbers1 Brief description
1 R. A. Moog 1001 – 10xx Pre-production model with entirely discreet VCO circuits, no name
Minimoog Model D plate, switches and sliders instead of modulation wheels and metal
front panel. Very unstable tuning.
2 R. A. Moog 10xx – 11xx Production model with upgraded VCO circuits, upgraded filter circuit,
Minimoog Model D transparent modulation wheels. Unstable tuning.
3 Moog Musonics 11xx – 13xx Electronic circuits are the same as in version 2.
Minimoog Model D
4 Moog Music 13xx – 10175 The most common version of the Minimoog. The oscillator circuits are
Minimoog Model D placed on PCB board and the tuning is improved. White modulation
wheels.
5 Moog Music 10176 – 13233 Revised oscillator board with greatly improved tuning. Plastic panel
Minimoog Model D with white modulation wheels.
6 Moog Music 13234 – 13259 ‘Deluxe’ version with illuminated wheels and numbered brass plaques.
Minimoog Model D
Table 1: The six versions of the Minimoog.
The patented and much copied VCF ‘ladder’ filter, although technically flawed,
exhibits excellent characteristics that are much appreciated by the human ear, such as
equi-ripple frequency response in the pass-band, non-linear resonance and filter
portamento. Throughout the analysis, elements of the theory of acoustic physics as
well as psychoacoustics will be used in order to support the arguments put therein
since the lexicon of music is greatly expanded by what we subjectively attribute to the
quality of sound.
1
The serial numbers provide a reference point that can be used to track the Minimoog throughout its production dates
and also give a rough indication on the electronic components as well as the physical appearance of each version.
8
1. 3. Oscillators
This section will analyse several characteristics of the Minimoog oscillators such
as inter-modulation, signal leakage and oscillator beating in order to explore the
‘warm’ and unpredictable nature of the Minimoog oscillators. It will be shown that
different VCO boards exhibit different sonic behaviour, reminiscent of acoustic
instruments, which have their spectra tapered off above 2 KHz.
The Minimoog has three VCOs capable of producing the following waveforms:
1. Sawtooth waveform (all VCOs)
2. Pulse waveform (all VCOs)
3. Triangle waveform (all VCOs)
4. Hybrid Sawtooth / Triangle waveform (VCOs 1 and 2)
5. Reverse Sawtooth waveform (only VCO 3)
The classic Moog oscillators, and most likely many others to lesser or greater
extents, are flat and sharp at various points in their responses, and the voltage which
feeds them can deviate substantially from the technical specifications as well,
producing unpredictable de-tunings throughout the keyboard which are musically
interesting. The signals from the three oscillators are mixed in a passive mixer before
they are sent to a voltage controlled filter (VCF) and shaped by three-segment (ASR)
envelope generators.
Another factor which plays an important role in the instability of the oscillators
is caused by the heat that is dissipated from the power supply to the VCO circuits.
9
Versions 1, 2, 3 and 4 suffer mostly from this phenomenon. It was not until the
implementation of temperature compensated circuits in the VCO board (versions 5 and
6) that this problem has been remedied. Many earlier models have been retrofitted
with these boards although the process was problematic: The updated VCO board
comprises of three integrated circuits that consume substantially more current than
the rest of the circuits. This current causes more heat to be accumulated at the power
supply and thus more signal leakage from this current occurs, especially at low
frequencies where the VCO filter capacitors will not work as well. Additionally, the
power supply found on earlier versions of the Minimoog is not adequately filtered
compared to the later versions. Early versions of the Minimoog are usually equipped
with two 500 uf capacitors whereas later versions may have one 470 uf and two 1000
uf capacitors or even three 1000 uf caps. The normal resistance of capacitors decreases
with age and the rectifier diodes which are found in the earlier models malfunction
when current increases substantially. Under these circumstances, the tuning of the
oscillators is impractical or even impossible and replacing the capacitors that have been
damaged is recommended.
However, it should be noted that the Minimoog has many other circuits where
inter-modulation, noise and signal leakage can take place. The grounding in a
Minimoog is done with somewhat thin diameter wire and is daisy chained from the PSU
through the panels and boards. There is measurable droop on the power lines after
two feet and given the fact that wires often act as resistors, capacitors or even
inductors, there is room for much signal leakage even at the small mV level. An
oscillator therefore, can produce a certain amount of cyclic current flow on all power
supplied to it, including the ground. Several other circuits are affected and thus inter-
modulation is always present.
10
Despite the fact that the analysis, up till now, has shown that the design of the
Minimoog is very unstable and that potential buyers could discard it as impractical and
unreliable, the instrument has proven to be a great success not only for its generation
but also for the present.
1.3.1. Oscillator beating
One of the most important acoustic phenomena governing the musical
relationship of pitch is called beating. Beating occurs when two or more waveforms are
added by means of a mixer and it is extremely important to take into consideration
when designing sounds because its presence has a significant impact on the amplitude
of the mixed signals and thus in the nature of the perceived sounds. After extensive
experiments carried on the acoustic properties of this phenomenon, Arthur Benade
concludes that:
…beats have maximum prominence when the amplitude of the two
components [waveforms] are equal, which permits the loudness of the
combined sound to drop all the way to zero once during each cycle of the
beat (Benade 1990: 255).
This conclusion can also be proven scientifically if Fourier analysis is applied on
the two signals and is a direct result of their phase relationships at any given time. The
beating phenomenon manifests itself as partial or complete cancellation and is
generally described by the majority of musicians and listeners as an annoying effect
11
that fades the perceived sound in and out thus destroying the prominent fundamental
frequency of bass sounds for which the Minimoog is famous for.
In the Minimoog, however, the beating phenomenon is less apparent because
of its inherent inability to stay precisely in tune. As a direct product of the designs of
the circuits, there occurs an unpredictable detuning in the VCOs, which is especially
apparent in the upper registers. This is explained through FFT analysis which shows that
the beating phenomenon also affects frequencies that are multiples of a given
fundamental frequency f. E.g. if the two waveforms have a frequency of 400 Hz, then
beating will also occur at:
2 * 400 Hz, 3 * 400 Hz, …, n * 400 Hz
where n is the n-nth partial of the waveform with fundamental frequency f, as given by
the FFT algorithm. Therefore, on a Minimoog, frequencies in the upper registers of the
VCO range are either a little flat or a little sharp compared to the frequencies of a
precise digital synthesiser. From the above analysis it becomes evident that the beating
phenomenon cannot be completely avoided but it can be greatly reduced: a common
technique that has been employed into the design of most bass sounds, for instance, is
to tune the oscillators one octave apart and keep their levels unequal.
1.3.2. The aging effect
The aging effect can be briefly described as the set of phenomena that
gradually occur in the electronic components after prolonged periods of usage and it
12
has to be taken into consideration as well since the physical elements from which they
are constructed and especially their design differ from electronic components which
are available 35 years after the first production run of the Minimoog: The capacitors
used in the integrators of the VCOs have an increased dissipation factor as they get old
although later VCO designs used uA726 heated transistor pairs, where a trimmer
provided for high frequency compensation (Moog 1965: 3). Early versions of the
Minimoog used carbon resistors that could later lose as much as 40% off their
resistance value. Additionally, PCB boards may have several decades of exposure to
environmental deposits, corrosion, etc. All Minimoog versions were subject to the
issues listed as well as many other issues that might fall out of theoretical design. Thus,
the specifications of the circuit design and the actual performance of a 35 year old Mini
may differ substantially. Therefore, the unpredictable detuning cannot be safely
attributed neither to the absence of the beating phenomenon nor to the aging results
alone, since it cannot be measured precisely to what extent it is caused by one and/or
the other.
1.4. Pre-Filter Mixer and the Inter-modulation phenomenon
The pre-filter mixer in the Minimoog provides a means to mix the signals from
the three oscillators, the noise generator and an external audio source. For every
possible source, there is a switch and a knob on the front panel that enables the source
to be mixed and attenuates its level, respectively.
In technical terms, the pre-filter mixer in the Minimoog is a passive mixer. This
means that the mixer does not contain any active circuits such as operational amplifiers
13
but only passive elements such as resistors, capacitors or inductors. Due to the internal
wiring and the nature of passive elements, the pre-filter mixer allows for a small
percentage of signal leakage between the three VCOs, thus resulting in a phenomenon
known as inter-modulation. Whenever inter-modulation is present the following
modulation paths take place:
1. VCO1  VCO2
2. VCO1  VCO3
3. VCO2  VCO1
4. VCO2  VCO3
5. VCO3  VCO1
6. VCO3  VCO2
The music result of the above phenomenon results in frequency modulation
between the three VCOs where the frequency of each oscillator is modulated by every
other oscillator including itself. In FM synthesis, an audio wave (the modulator) is used
to continuously vary the frequency of another audio wave (the carrier) although in the
case of the Minimoog it is not clear which oscillator functions as modulator or carrier,
due to the inter-modulation phenomenon. In frequency modulation, the waveforms
which are used are almost always sinusoidal waveforms, because they have no
harmonic content thus producing more precise, predictable and harmonic results.
Waveforms which are rich in harmonic content, such as the sawtooth waveforms on
the Minimoog, are usually avoided and one would expect that the Minimoog would be
dissonant and in-harmonic. However, the frequency of the modulator plays an
extremely important role as when it is in sub-audio ranges (in other words when VCO 3
is functioning as a LFO) we can track the pitch deviation, most widely known as vibrato.
In audio ranges, tracking the pitch deviation is no longer perceivable; what is actually
14
perceivable is an alteration of timbre which is caused by the generation of side-bands,
i.e. new frequency components that appear on either side of the carrier frequency fc at
intervals of the modulating frequency (Boulanger 2001: 261).
1.1 FM Sidebands (source: http://www.indiana.edu/~emusic/fm/fm.htm)
In the Minimoog however, it is important to realise that this case of FM
enriches the harmonic content of the oscillators by introducing very small amounts
(approximately 2-3%) of FM because the richness of the spectrum (the number of
sidebands present) is proportional to the amplitude of the modulator (in this case the
term amplitude refers to the amplitude of the signal which is leaked through the
passive mixer). The audio effect of such a vibrato and inter-modulation is similar to a
very rich chorus effect where several voices are slightly detuned thus providing for a
thicker and warm sound.
1.5. Filter
The VCF used in the Minimoog synthesiser is a direct descendant of the 904A
filter-module which is found in the Moog Modular systems. Technically, it is a 4-pole
lowpass filter with a roll-off slope of 24dB/octave2 with cut-off frequency and
resonance controls. When a rich harmonic signal is present at its input the Moog VCF
2
24dB/octave means that for every octave above the cut-off frequency the amount of attenuation that is caused by the
filtering action is 24 decibels.
15
will remove these harmonics, by attenuating their amplitude starting with the highest.
The frequency above which the filtering action will occur is known as the cut-off
frequency. The Chebyshev I filter topology, which is implemented in the Moog VCF, has
the property of minimizing the error between the idealized filter characteristic and the
actual over the range of the filter, but with ripples in the pass-band. The diagram below
shows the attenuation of the amplitude of the harmonics above the cut-off frequency
(stop-band), whereas below the cut-off frequency (pass-band) the amplitude variation
also known as equi-ripple behaviour is shown:
1.2 Chebyshev I - filter slope (source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chebyshev_filter)
where:
ω is the angular frequency
ω0 is the cut-off frequency
Its particular implementation in the Moog VCF results in noticeable coloration
below the cut-off point presented in equal-spaced frequencies. Other filter topologies,
such as Butterworth, Chebyshev II or elliptic, provide for a different sound spectrum. In
the Butterworth topology, the frequency response is designed to be as flat as possible
in the pass-band. The Chebyshev II topology exhibits a similar behaviour and therefore
16
these two topologies do not provide any coloration to the input signal. This absence of
coloration make these filters sound uninteresting and sterile. In the flowing diagram we
can see the four different topologies as well as their frequency responses:
1.3 Various filter topologies and their frequency responses (source:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chebyshev_filter)
This coloration is further augmented by the technical “flaw” in the Moog VCF
and plays an extremely important role in the identity of the Moog sound. Thus, it will
be analyzed in more detail. The Moog VCF employs the filter structure shown below:
1.4. Signal flow in the Moog VCF (source: Stilson & Smith)
where:
x(t) is the input signal
G1(s) represents a mathematical 1-pole lowpass filter
Σ is used to express the summing of signals prior to entering the filter
k is the feedback control
17
y(t) is the output signal
The Moog VCF is constructed by cascading four 1-pole lowpass filters and
includes a feedback around the whole loop. The four real poles combine to provide a 4
pole lowpass filter with its cut-off frequency defined as the frequency at which the
response falls below the pass-band. Robert Moog implemented each real pole section
as a simple RC circuit, using highly innovative discreet analogue components and it is
patented (Date: 28.10.1969, patent number: US 3475623), (Moog 1965, Hutchins
1975).
Stilson and Smith have shown (Stilson & Smith 2001: 2) that each of the four 1-
pole filters imparts 45 degrees of phase shift to the incoming audio signal. Therefore,
with four such 1-pole filters connected in a row, the total amount of phase shift is -45 *
4 = -180 degrees. The resulting signal is then routed to two places:
a) Back to the input via a feedback circuit. In this case filtering action is caused by
adding the incoming signal and the phase-shifted signal. Some of the
frequencies will be in anti-phase (i.e. -180 degrees) with the incoming signal
and these will be filtered out completely, whereas others will be between 1
and 179 degrees and these will exhibit partial cancellation as shown below:
1.5 Phase shift (source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antiphase#Phase_difference)
18
b) To a differential amplifier that inverts the phase of the filtered signal. In this
case inverting an -180 degrees phase shifted signal results in the original
filtered signal. This signal is routed back to the input thus causing the
resonance effect to appear at the cut-off frequency:
1.6 Resonance (Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resonance)
From the above diagram we can easily deduce that by increasing the resonance
the filter slope also becomes increasingly steep. To better understand the musical
effect of the resonance let us give an example of an acoustic instrument. A guitar
string, for instance, will vibrate a long time if plucked. The initial pluck that sets it into
motion stores an amount of energy in the string that is saved by the interchange of
motion for string stretch on every vibration. A very small percentage of this energy is
dissipated per cycle, thus causing it to vibrate for a long time. If we put a finger on the
string, it stops ringing very quickly because the finger dampens it, thus removing a lot
of energy as the string moves. In other words the resonance has been significantly
lowered and the vibration gradually fades until it stops.
19
In synthesisers, however, the musical effect of the resonance can be best
described as whistling and it is caused by the fact that the filter actually self-oscillates,
thus providing a sinusoidal waveform at the cut-frequency. The resonance in the
Minimoog can be used to synthesise bass sounds and to give a characteristic electronic
effect to the sounds.
In the Minimoog, the energy in the feedback loop can increase dramatically
towards the headroom limit3. Such a phenomenon is called a “race state” and it is not
rare in analogue synthesisers. A feedback gain that it is marginally above unity gain
oftentimes causes several electronics to either malfunction or to explode. In the
Minimoog however, a lot of electronic circuits exhibit a saturation effect thereby
functioning as a limiter that suppresses the signal mildly with regard to its amplitude.
As a side effect these circuits generate a significant amount of harmonic distortion that
is often valued for its peculiar character. A different kind of harmonic distortion is also
generated in the envelope generators, as will be shown below.
Both the 904A filter module found in the Moog Modular and the Minimoog
VCF exhibit a sonic behaviour that separates them from the rest of the Moog products
but also from other synthesiser from that period such as the ARP 2600 or the Korg MS-
20. This behaviour, most commonly known as the ‘technical flaw’ of the Moog VCF can
be verified thus:
1. Disable all possible inputs to the filter
2. Rotate the cut-off-frequency knob fully counter clockwise
3 The headroom limit can be defined as the range between the highest peak of the signal and the maximum peak that
the medium can handle.
20
3. Rotate the resonance knob fully clockwise thus causing the filter to burst into
self-oscillation by producing a sinusoidal waveform at the cut-off frequency
4. Rotate the cut-off-frequency knob slightly clockwise. We notice that the
amplitude of the sinusoidal waveform is attenuated, until it is completely
removed.
Other synthesisers such as the Korg MS-20, the Roland Jupiter 8 or the Elka
Synthex which also have 24dB/oct filters do not exhibit this behaviour and thus the
perceived resonance is described as considerably more ‘aggressive’. If we modulate the
cut-off frequency with an inverted envelope on a Korg MS-20 we would notice that as
the envelope generator lowers the cut-off frequency, the resonance is not affected,
whereas on a Minimoog the resonance decreases at the same time. This is directly
responsible for the warm and thick sound of the Minimoog and it is exactly this
phenomenon that has eluded people for years who were trying to duplicate the
famous Minimoog bass sound.
However, it has to be noted that the above behaviour cannot be only attributed to the
particularities of the Moog VCF. Several electronic engineers, such as Kevin Lightner
and Michael Caloroso, argue that factors such as transistor saturation or current
limiting can also contribute to this phenomenon. Other designs of filters implementing
operational amplifiers will have improved specifications with regard to gain and current
at the individual filter nodes. Thus, these filters resonate at any frequency and the
amplitude of the signal will not be attenuated. Another possible reason may be that
transistors are configured as DC nodes and mirrors of them used to replicate a full AC
response. When operational amplifiers are used thus, the entire signal may be AC,
balanced on ground and bipolar. Therefore, filter resonance will be accurately
21
produced at any gain stage, while it might be skewed as presented to a dual pair
configuration. Additionally, the PCB layout itself is considered to play an important role
in the sound of the filter because of the capacitance between the PCB runs as well as
the interference which is caused by the parallel wires between the front panel and the
circuit boards. This does not necessarily mean that every Minimoog is different in
design and construction but signifies the importance of factors that are often
overlooked.
Pinch and Trocco argue that Moog engineers such as Jim Scott and Bill
Hemsath attempted to correct this "fault" while designing the Minimoog Model C from
hand-wired vector boards (Pinch & Trocco 2002: 226). Close inspection of the derived
schematics of the Model C, reveals that the filter circuit had two critical component
differences from the Model D. These modifications improved the specifications of the
Moog VCF but had a detriment on the sound: The Model C sounded considerably
different from the Moog Modular filter because of the significantly improved signal-to-
noise ratio and constant resonance although these improvements actually had a
negative effect on the sound per se, as the resulting resonance was considered as
“cold” and “uninteresting”. Moog decided that sound is more important than
specifications and thus discarded the afore-mentioned improvements. Therefore, the
Model D filter circuit more closely resembles the 904A VCF found on the Moog
Modular, although it cannot be considered as an exact duplicate.
22
1.6. Envelope Generators
Another aspect of the warm, analogue sound of Minimoog is the two envelope
generators which can be configured in two modes: ADS (Attack, Decay, and Sustain) or
ADR (Attack, Decay, and Release). The two envelopes are internally hardwired to the
VCF and the VCA, thus providing contours for the harmonic content and amplitude of
the sounds, respectively. The envelopes can be triggered by any valid gate signal such
as the keyboard or an external CV device and provide an excellent means for achieving
legato or staccato phrasing.
Several experiments have been carried out in order to measure the attack time of the
Minimoog by means of a sampler. By setting the Minimoog ADS to the lowest values (0,
0, 0) and use this envelope as the control voltage for one of the VCAs, the resulting
waveform is analyzed. Upon the reception of a signal trigger either from the keyboard
or from an external signal source, the average time from the trigger to the maximum
amplitude is approximately thirty (30) samples, thus giving an average attack time of
625 μsec measured at the sampling frequency of 48 kHz. However, on the electronic
circuits that comprise the Minimoog envelopes there exists a technical flaw where
high-level signals can easily overload the VCA during the attack portion, thus providing
for an effect similar to the effect of vacuum-tube compression. The musical effect of
vacuum-tube compression is musically interesting because even-order distortion is
generated. An additional number of harmonics are being generated thus enriching the
frequency content whereas several other harmonics above 2 KHz are suppressed. The
reduction of amplitude of the high-frequency harmonics functions as additional
filtering and thus the signal is perceived as less harsh. By comparison contemporary
synthesisers such as the Studio Electronics Omega 8 or the Alesis Andromeda A6 have a
23
cleaner signal path and a full-bandwidth frequency response whereas the Minimoog (as
well as synthesisers such as the Sequential Circuits Prophet 5 and the Oberheim OB-8)
sound particularly “warm” as a direct result of noisier signal paths and somewhat
limited bandwidths that concentrate their sounds in the low and mid frequencies.
On the Minimoog, legato phrasing is possible and appears when the envelope
generator that is assigned either to the VCA and or VCF is not retriggered after the
initial key is de-pressed, thus resulting in a slur: The second (and all subsequent notes)
which are played are contoured both in terms of loudness and timbre by whatever
value the envelopes had at the time that the VCOs were triggered. Since the VCOs are
always active from the moment the Minimoog is powered on, their respective signals
appear only when the envelope generator contours the VCA action upon the reception
of an external trigger. The envelope generators do not retrigger unless all notes are
lifted before the next note is played, an important characteristic which allows for
excellent phrasing in solo passages. If the sound is cut before it reaches the level as it is
adjusted by the Sustain level parameter, then it will omit the Sustain Level and proceed
to the Release Level, until its amplitude reaches zero. Therefore neither the amplitude
nor the filter envelope necessarily proceed through all three stages ASR (attack,
sustain, release). By taking advantage of the above behaviour both staccato and legato
techniques as well as various articulation patterns are easily obtainable.
1.7. CV/Gate
The CV/Gate manual specifications indicate that the Minimoog uses the 1.2
Volt/Oct, although a means of recalibration is provided at the back panel. With no
24
recalibration it is almost impossible to interface the Minimoog with an external
sequencer (1 Volt/Oct) since the 1.2 means that raising the voltage to pitch amount by
1 Volt means that the pitch is not raised by an octave. Therefore careful recalibration is
demanded should the Minimoog be interfaced with external equipment. It will be
shown below that, without modification the Minimoog is able to either tune to its own
keyboard or to an external (1V/Oct) device, but not at the same time. On some versions
of the Minimoog, the Sample and Hold (S+H) circuit which is found in the keyboard also
has a flaw in its design: in sustained notes there exists signal leakage from the S&H
circuit to the VCOs thereby introducing additional modulation.
1.8. Keyboard
In his 1964 AES paper, Robert Moog argues that the most successful of the
devices that have been constructed and tested for the conversion of the movements of
the musician’s hand into control voltage variations is the keyboard. The reasons for
such a claim are that most musicians are already adept in its use and that the keyboard
permits the accurate selection of a large number of discreet control voltages. The
Minimoog has a 3 and ½ octaves keyboard (ranging from F to C) with no support for
either velocity or pressure sensitivity. The keys on the Minimoog actuate two-pole gold
wire switches and can be used to control the frequency of the VCOs, the resonant
frequency of the filter as well as provide the trigger to the envelopes, which in turn
control the gain of the VCA. None of the six versions of the Minimoog supported the
MIDI protocol, since MIDI was non-existent during the production years of the
Minimoog. With the advent of MIDI in the early 1980s, certain manufacturers provided
MIDI retrofits thus enabling musicians to have a primary means of storage by saving
some of the MIDI-supported parameters to an external sequencer or disk file.
25
The Minimoog is unable to tune to its own keyboard and to an external CV
source simultaneously, without a modification to the electronic circuits. This means
that a performer cannot switch between playing the Minimoog and sequencing the
Minimoog without the afore-mentioned modification. Robert Moog designed the
keyboard of the Minimoog as a fixed voltage reference without a scaling trimmer as it
always uses a preset amount via a current source and that value is made via a 1%
resistor. The current can deviate +/- 1% from the specifications given in the manual
while many other parts as well as the afore-mentioned aging effect can significantly
affect the above value. Thus, the fixed voltage from the keyboard is matched by the
oscillator tracking which is not fixed but variable. In other words the tuning itself could
be adjusted at either the source (the keyboard) or directly at the destination (the
oscillators). Moog avoided putting any trim pots on the lower, inside boards because of
lack of access or the need to provide a card extender or special tools. Since the
keyboard current source is on one of these deeper boards, it was made to be a fixed
voltage and the more accessible oscillators provided the trims to match this. If an
external voltage is applied to such a Minimoog, it has to match the voltage of the
keyboard and may not necessarily be exactly 1v/oct. This peculiar design in the
architecture, although functional, has proven to be impractical for musicians who
wanted to use the Minimoog in a live performance. Later modifications, however,
added a small trimmer to either the keyboard itself or at the current source on the PCB
board thus providing for an exact 1v/octave tracking by adjusting the trimmer
manually.
Until the advent of the Minimoog, musicians who performed on traditional
keyboard instruments such as the piano or the harpsichord, were limited with regard to
26
real-time pitch manipulation because each key gave rise to a sound of fixed pitch that
could not be adjusted up or down according to musical needs, during a live
performance. The pitch bend and modulation wheels, positioned to the left side of the
Minimoog, were born in an attempt to extract and manipulate musically useful
information in order to achieve expressiveness from physically non-adjustable
instruments.
In the Minimoog, the pitch-bend wheel is not spring-loaded and must be
manually returned to the centre position by means of a delicate detent mechanism
that helps the player find the centre position tactually. Contrary to almost all
synthesisers that later included wheels, the pitch wheel has no dead-band near the
centre of the wheel's travel thus producing small amounts of pitch modulation even
when it is slightly moved in either direction. However, Moog later recommended
adding a detent mechanism that can be adjusted in its strength in order to modify the
behaviour of the wheel and published the schematics in the factory service notes.
The actual keyboard of the Minimoog (Model A) was hand built by Bill Hemsath
who actually repaired and reduced in length a non-functional 5-octave keyboard of a
Moog modular. This keyboard had a control panel of approximately 3 inches in length
and 4 inches in width and had a large notch which later housed the slide pot. In other
words, we can realise that the placement of the wheels to the left of the instrument
was not an intentional design; rather the physical appearance of the keyboard itself
suggested the position and it was not until version 2 of the Minimoog that the wheels
have been added. The pitch and modulation wheels pioneered a design that, unlike the
Moog VCF has not been patented. Robert Moog missed this opportunity as he could
not envisage the immense significance of the pitch and modulation wheels that have
27
become standard for almost all synthesisers that sported a keyboard and answered the
demand for expressiveness that was lacking in previous keyboard instruments.
1.9. Sound Evaluation Issues
From the above analysis, it becomes apparent that the actual sound of the
Minimoog cannot be deduced or interpreted with mathematic formulas no matter how
accurate these may be. Robert Moog was aware of these facts when he explained that:
As for what sounds can be produced, an analog synthesizer gets its sound
from the peculiar characteristics of analog devices and analog electronics
to distort waveforms in characteristics ways that are warm and pleasant.
(R. A. Moog quoted in M. Vail 2005: 102)
Sound per se is a process that is manifestation in the human awareness.
Therefore, it will be evaluated and classified with ways that are not clear or well-
defined, since our lexicon of musical adjectives is greatly enhanced and diversified by
what we subjectively attribute to various sound qualities. The human brain is not part
of the synthesis process per se and external factors to sound, such as personal taste,
social surroundings, fatigue, etc will also play an important role to sound evaluation.
Blauert and Jekosch argue that in order to assess the character of a sound, a valid
metric has to be set up by means of an analytical process that will attempt to specify a
sound property with a suitable parameter set (Blauert & Jekosch 2003: 2). However, it
can be counter-argued that a common denominator cannot really be invented in order
to create an accurate sensory profile for the sound of the Minimoog: Not taking into
28
account the peculiarities of the Minimoog as an instrument, experiments are likely to
produce substantially different results that will vary with age, hearing ability, musicians
and non-musicians as well as a great and diversified amount of various other external
and interwoven factors (Piker 2005: 47).
Sound synthesis both in electronic music and on the Minimoog in particular, is
largely based on the spontaneous modification of various aspects of sound such as
pitch, timbre, amplitude and effects. A seasoned synthesist learns how to experiment
with many layers of sound as part of a performance, although this process is
considered to be very difficult for a performer to master: the chaotic behaviour of the
inter-related parameters as well as the idiosyncrasies of the Minimoog have led to
creative ‘mistakes’ both with regard to sound design and improvisation. Paradoxically
enough, the very same idiosyncrasies that give rise to unintentional creativeness are
the ones that render their existence non-repeatable. Given the fact that this behaviour
of the Minimoog defies the presence of a memory element or a means of storage even
on MIDI-retrofitted models, Wessel and Wright argue music control intimacy and
virtuosity cannot be achieved since our perceptual sensitivity to temporal fine structure
and spectral balance is continuously challenged (Wessel & Wright 2002: 11-22).
In the light of this consideration it is not obvious whether the interest in the
Minimoog is a genuine one or merely a protracted fascination that arises from the
peculiarities of the electronic circuits of the instrument. Sound designers have always
attempted, with various degrees of success, to humanize digital synthesisers that have
plagued electronic music with adjectives such as “cold” and “sterile” since their
invention. Much like human hearing is not perfect, neither with regard to spectra nor
with regard to amplitude, and is affected by factors such as age, musical training,
29
fatigue etc, the Minimoog exhibits a similar behaviour in direct antithesis with digital
synthesisers where the sonic imperfections that are inherent to analogue had to be
painstakingly programmed. The Minimoog, with all its peculiarities and idiosyncrasies,
has overcome the logistics associated with electronic music and has always been the
living proof that analogue synthesisers can indeed be considered, alongside with their
acoustic counterparts, as humanized instruments.
30
CHAPTER 2:
PERFORMING WITH THE MINIMOOG
In the previous chapter the Minimoog has been analyzed in terms of the
physical properties of its sound and the issues that arise from the study of the relevant
electronic circuits. The production of the Moog Modular systems in the mid 60s and of
the Minimoog in the early 70s was an important part of a sonic revolution that had a
significant impact on many diversified music compositions in which synthesisers have
been used. As Robert L. Doerschuk aptly observed in his interview with Robert Moog in
the Keyboard Feb. 1995 issue, the release of the Minimoog in 1971 democratized that
revolution by being the first synthesiser that was actually sold in music stores. The
Minimoog brought the power of the synthesis out of the academic labs that existed in
several Universities (such as the Columbia University and the University of Iowa) and
high-end recording studios and put it in the hands of the musicians. In this chapter, I
will try to analyze the role of the Minimoog in this sonic revolution.
2.1. Additive vs. Subtractive
In most types of music, sound itself oftentimes becomes a theme of
composition. This is especially true in electronic music where the ability to get inside
the physics of sounds and directly manipulate their characteristics provides an entirely
new resource for composing music. According to Fourrier analysis, all sounds can be
mathematically as well as physically constructed by adding a large number of sinusoidal
waveforms of varying frequency and amplitude. This method is called additive
synthesis. In other words, the resulting waveform is comprised by very basic
components i.e. sinusoidal partials, which cannot be further analyzed. Realizing an
31
additive-synthesis model of a sound would demand an infinitely large number of
oscillators that will produce the aforementioned sinusoidal waveforms, an infinitely
large number of VCAs and envelope generators that will shape the amplitude of each
sinusoidal and a significant amount of mixers that would be used to mix all the signals.
Such an approach is prohibitive in hardware because of its outrageous cost and the
complete absence of practicality either in composition or in performance, given the
fact that none of the synthesisers that were produced up till 1977 had a means of
storage or non-volatile memory.
The synthesis method which is implemented in the Minimoog is called
subtractive synthesis. As it was shown in chapter 1, in subtractive synthesis an
oscillator is responsible for providing a rich harmonic signal thereby eliminating the
need for an infinite amount of sinusoidal VCOs. This rich harmonic signal is then filtered
by the VCF and the filtering action causes amplitude attenuation to a certain band of
frequencies, thus creating a new harmonic relationship and therefore a new sound.
Compared to the additive model, the subtractive is significantly less time-consuming,
more practical and less expensive to realize.
In both cases, when a synthesiser lacks a means of storage, such as the
Minimoog, all sounds must be constructed from scratch as opposed to an acoustic
instrument which produces its characteristic timbres without such issues. The sonic
vistas that can be realized are limitless and undefined in direct antithesis with
traditional instruments that condition our ears to accept only an infinitesimal part of
the infinite gradations of sounds in nature. It is therefore inevitable to ask: How did the
sound of the Minimoog become established given its potential for other sounds?
Obviously, performers such as Keith Emerson, Tangerine Dream and Wendy Carlos who
32
have used the Minimoog in their compositions thus manifesting that the well known
and easily identified Minimoog sound can be placed in a diversity of music
compositions ranging from the hypnotic sequencer patterns of Tangerine Dream to the
technical solos of Keith Emerson, thus giving a new context to them.
2.2. Performance and Composition Issues
In order to realize how the Minimoog sound became established we need to
take into consideration that the Minimoog was realized as a product during an era
where microtonal and experimental music was blossoming with John Cage declaring
that “[n]oises are as useful to new music as so-called musical tones, for the simple
reason that they are sounds” (Holmes 2002: 10). With the help of synthesisers the
concept of pitch can be stretched from increasingly lesser degrees of tonality and into
the realm of noise, thus questioning the traditional approach to melody and timbre.
The act of sound composition, that is the aesthetic and technological processes used by
a composer in creating a piece, becomes the most important aspect as can be seen
clearly in the work of composers from John Cage and Brian Eno through to Keith
Emerson and Tangerine Dream. It can be doubted that there are many composers of
western music for whom the practice of music consists solely, or almost entirely of
composition. Composition in the western tradition is built on an infrastructure which,
with a few exceptions, is absent in electronic music: rhythms, themes, sound textures
and time are very differently structured and thus very differently perceived. Moreover,
compositions are not confined within a strictly ordained tonal system and, therefore,
our conception of tonality is expanded with the invention of new pitch systems which
became easier with the Moog synthesisers.
33
Perhaps the most ambiguous performance with Moog synthesisers and
sequencers was, and for some people still is, the 1968 record Switched on Bach by
Wendy Carlos in which several Bach compositions were recreated with Moog
synthesisers. The record had tremendous success and Carlos recreated it 32 years later
with Switched on Bach 2000, taking advantage of significant technological
developments. The micro-tunings and non equal temperament tunings that had to be
laboriously implemented in Switched on Bach in search for a more authentic Bach
sound, were also are only implemented with digital synthesisers since these can be
sequenced with precision as is evident throughout the record. However, even for
Carlos who is a classically trained musician, the process of re-interpretation was
problematic in most aspects since Bach’s Brandenburg compositions were recorded in
step-time in the sequencing environment at a comfortable tempo with the Moog
sequential controller controlling the harmonic partials of the sounds which were used.
Carlos had to painstakingly sequence all of the music, constantly recalibrating the
synthesisers and sequencers because of pitch drift. Her performance was fine-tuned
and colorized by ‘moving notes about, adjusting the level of one which may have stuck
out as too loud in an otherwise good phrasing’ (Carlos, liner notes for Switched On Bach
2000) although the timing was not quantized because the sequencer’s resolution, a
parameter referring to the number of time slices into which a beat has been divided,
was not adequate. Obviously, more divisions result in higher resolution and therefore a
recorded performance is a better representation of the actual performance. Carlos
explains that the purity of the recording can be attributed to a large extent to the non-
equal temperament, made possible with the usage of sequencers and comments:
34
What is full of redundancy of formula is predictably boring.
What is free of all structure or discipline is randomly boring. In
between lies art. (Carlos, liner notes for Switched On Bach
2000)
Does it seems ironic that from an aesthetic point of view the Minimoog (and to
a certain extent Carlos’ Switched On Bach) misdirected the musicians’ consciousness as
to what the synthesiser is all about and thus had a detriment in constraining the
synthesiser’s evolution by limiting the potential of new and unexplored sonic vistas?
Contrary to popular belief, the Minimoog was not designed with a scientific or
theoretical concept or an arbitrary goal. Rather its evolution was dictated by the
necessity to bridge the gap between the oftentimes immense and chaotic world of
modular synthesisers and the portability of a familiar instrument that could be taken to
a live performance. Seen from a performance point of view, the Minimoog was the first
portable instrument that could be carried to a live performance and its warm and
characteristic sound was what keyboard players have been asking for, in order to
increase their importance in a rock act such as Emerson/Lake/Palmer where guitars
drums and vocals where to be expected. The Minimoog signifies a differentiation in the
sonic arsenal of a keyboard player who would often use instruments such the
Hammond B3 or a Rhodes electric piano. Contrary to these earlier instruments, which
had their own characteristic and limited set of sounds, the Minimoog gave the musician
more control in determining how the instrument would sound.
One of the unique aspects of the Minimoog synthesizer was that in addition to
its ability to emulate (with various degrees of success) some acoustic instruments such
as a flute or a brass instrument, it allowed musicians to create unique and “futuristic”
35
sounds that go far beyond the capabilities of even the most complex electronic organs.
Thus, the Minimoog (and of course the Moog Modular) provided the sounds for
soundtracks for the Space Age (during the 1960s) and were also used in several
experimental recordings such as Jean-Jacques Perrey’s Moog Expressions (1972). In
other words, it arrived precisely at a time when it was necessary to stay modern or
even avant-guard by demonstrating an alternative virtuosity but also retaining some of
the familiarities and dynamic expression that an acoustic instrument would offer.
Bill Hemsath, one of Moog’s chief engineers circa 1969, after having being
called to demonstrate the modular Moog repeatedly, found that in order to speed up
the demonstration, he would always use the same modules, patch the same cables in
the same sockets and use the same settings for the most important knobs. The focus
on sound per se aiming at what Beck terms as acoustic viability defined as “the
principle of synthetic instrument design that recognizes the importance of real
instrument acoustics and their impact on timbre and expression” (Boulanger 2001:
155), can clearly be seen not only in electronic music but in many other genres where
the Minimoog was used such as pop, rock and even jazz. Apparently, from the vast
sonic potential of the Moog modular only a small subset of the sounds are acoustically
viable and these employ the VCO-VCF-VCA structure thus eliminating the possibilities
for non-technically familiar musicians to synthesize non-acoustically viable sounds.
Paradoxically, the limitation imposed by the hardwired structure VCO-VCF-VCA and the
extremely limited modulation capabilities of the Minimoog, as opposed to the open-
ended synthesis architecture of the Moog Modular, ensured that musicians will stay
focused on sound and playing techniques instead of thinking in terms of a process
“whether that process is a hardwired patch of cables, a virtual patch inside a computer,
or the turning of dials to various increments that shape the development of a piece of
36
music” (Holmes 2002: 251). This limitation is not very different from what is expected
from acoustic instruments: Apparently the focus on a particular sound, whether it
comes from an electronic instrument or an acoustic one, allows the musician to
introduce additional level of humanization by shifting his attention from sound to
music per se, and thereby extracting nuances that would not manifest themselves
otherwise.
Historically, the unfamiliar codes used in electronic music performance have
prevented audiences from attributing “presence” and “authenticity”, in the way these
have been attributed to traditional performers. Occasionally, the sounds themselves
could reveal a recognizable source, in this case the characteristic Minimoog sound.
Experimental electronic music is only one case where the musical entity is
conceptualized as distinct from any instantiation in performance and therefore it
cannot be fully specified in notation. The musician broadcasts sounds from a virtual
non-place; the performance feigns the effect of presence and authenticity although this
kind of authenticity certainly differs from the authenticity that is usually associated
with classic music. The inherent inability to attribute authenticity to a Minimoog
performance can be partially explained by the fact that if a performer allows constant
reconfiguration of sequencers or playing techniques, either because he/she aims at an
experimental study or because the interface itself demands such an approach, there is
danger that the performer will never learn to control the Minimoog beyond a surface
level of exploration as opposed to performers of acoustic instruments who undergo a
significant reconfiguration of themselves in order to master their instrument. Andy
Hunt and Ross Kirk suggest that it would be advisable to ‘set up an instrument for a
particular situation and then always use that configuration with that particular
situation’ (Hunt & Kirk 2003: 201). This idea seems to introduce an oxymoron because
37
sound in electronic music is part of the composition itself and thus it can be considered
a completely malleable substance. Therefore, an inevitable disadvantage is that the
mapping of musical qualities to actual sound properties or high-level musical structures
is arbitrary because of the technical dexterity of the performer and dependent on the
nature of the sequencing environment. This implies that different compositions
demand different mapping techniques and different skills in order to be performed in
an aesthetically pleasing manner. Complex performances cannot be realized unless all
the original equipment is made available and all the interactions are explicitly defined
because the core of the applications and the implementation techniques may vary
significantly from one manufacturer to another.
It has to be noted however, that one aspect of a developing control intimacy
shown by a traditional instrumentalist is a decreasing reliance on visual cues. The same
holds true for performances where the Minimoog was played as a keyboard instrument
as opposed to sequencer-driven performances of it. As performers develop their
musical performance abilities, much like any acoustic instrument, they rely increasingly
on tactile, audio and kinaesthetic feedback, and less on visual/graphical information,
although it can be argued whether controllers such as the modulation and pitch wheels
are always the most natural ways to control certain aspects of sounds.
2.3. Improvisation in Sequencing
In all types of music, improvisation defies clear definition. Deleuze summarizes
that improvisation is decomposition in order to compose anew in real-time, although
that presupposes that there exists a teleological quality in music composition. Unlike
38
classical music where, in the absence of unambiguous semiotics, improvisation is
almost non-existent, in electronic music it is largely based on the spontaneous
modification of non-pitched aspects of sound such as timbre, duration, amplitude or
effects, although a number of serial-music compositions deviated substantially from
the concept of spontaneity. A seasoned improviser learns how to experiment with
many layers of sound as part of a performance. Nyman notes that the unifying aspect
of the experimental music tradition is a focus on composition as an experimental or
improvisation process stating that:
Experimental composers are by and large not concerned with
prescribing a defined time-object whose materials, structuring
and relationships are calculated and arranged in advance, but are
more excited by the prospect of outlining a situation in which
sounds may occur, a process of generating actions (sounding or
otherwise), a field delineated by certain compositional ‘rules’
(Nyman 1999: 4).
One very important observation is that electronic music is not necessarily
affected by human performance as opposed to western music where any performance
gesture will be reflected on the music itself. Due to the heterogeneity of the sounds,
electronic music is programmed: its performance is either sequenced or recorded
playback or a hybrid of performers and sequencers, thus eliminating the need for
human intervention. Sequencing is substantially differentiated from recording since the
former is regarded as an extension of an actual musician, functioning at an
intermediate level and working with abstract qualities that describe actual events.
Sequencers can play rhythms so complex and rapid for any human to execute and
39
therefore the composer is freed of the physical limitations of human performance. The
flexible nature of electronic music allows the composer to program all of the values
associated with a sounds in a form that can be shifted and re-organized in time. The arc
and structure of the music is tolerant of extremes in the duration and flow of sounds
since the ability to sustain sounds is a natural resource, unique to electronic music.
A seasoned improviser learns how to experiment with many layers of sound as
part of a performance, although in electronic music this is a very difficult process for a
performer to master: the chaotic behaviour that can be introduced while attempting to
harness multiple sequencers simultaneously and the inability to exert a significant
amount of control over inter-related parameters during a live performance has led to
improvisation ‘mistakes’ in compositions like Phaedra by Tangerine Dream.
Paradoxically enough, the ability to program a sequencer in non-real time and the fact
that time in itself is the only parameter that is entirely outside the control of the
performer, insofar as it can be reversed, poses new questions to whether or not
improvisation in sequencer-driven music is an oxymoron or what is the usefulness of
real-time sequencing. It can be argued that improvisation, or in other words real-time
composition during a performance, does not have ‘composers’ or ‘performers’: ‘it is
composed and de-composed as it is performed, even when it takes place within pre-
arranged parameters’ (Buchanan & Swiboda 2004: 121). Phaedra is only one example
of the unpredictability that is always associated with improvisation in electronic music
and accounts for the lack of a rigid coherent structure: a bass pattern was not playing
back the way it did in rehearsals because of the instability of the voltage controlled
oscillator that functions as the clock for the Moog sequential controller. Retuning the
sequencer in real-time resulted in a new cascading pattern of notes. Additionally, the
lack of a non-volatile means of storage resulted in sonic bridges that could be described
40
as abstract experimental passages with strange sounds and textures although they
served another purpose as well: to link sub-parts and especially give enough time to
reprogram the Moog sequential controller since it lacked a means of storage. Such a
phenomenon can be observed in compositions such as Tangerine Dream’s live 1975
performance of Ricochet at the Coventry Cathedral. Musicologists, who wish to study
not only electronic music recordings where the Minimoog was used but also their
actual performances, face the problem of being unable to clearly make a distinction
between what is composed and what is improvised; subsequently recordings of a live
performance can be easily abjured as an “act of falsification” (Buchanan & Swiboda
2004: 123).
Audiences experience the sequencer's use as a musical instrument as a
violation of the “traditional” codes of musical performance. This is not a new issue for
electronic music: the lack of visual stimuli while performing on technological
“instruments” such as the Minimoog has limited appeal to a live audience and has
plagued electronic music for over forty years with little progress in providing solutions.
Those who are biased towards more ‘entertaining’ modes of performance or people
who are ignorant of the difficulties in live electronic music performance, fail to bestow
musical qualities upon performers, often accusing them of enveloping their lack of
traditional techniques by the impressing sound of synthesisers. Can the non-real time
sequencing techniques be presented in real-time in a live music context and not be
considered as composition or improvisation?
Electronic music is not necessarily affected by human performance and it could
as well be devoid of all external stimuli: due to the heterogeneity of the sounds, a
significant part of synthesiser performances has to be programmed or sequenced, thus
41
questioning the need for human intervention and re-inventing the rules of performer-
instrument interaction. The Minimoog falls into that category of instruments: if every
musical quality is meticulously sequenced and there is not any necessity for live
manipulation, then the human performer concept is inevitably abandoned. It can be
argued that any live performance carries the potential to be different from any other
performance or recording of that performance, so that comparisons and studies can
produce a meaning. Evaluating electronic music performances where the Minimoog is
used, is difficult because this evaluation depends on user personal preferences.
Moreover, composers do not usually state their intentions with regard to hypothetical
performances or studies: given the same instruments, a performer may choose a
particular mapping strategy for one musical piece but a completely different mapping
strategy and an alternative sequencing environment on another.
2.4. Recordings
Recording is a real service. Without it, people would be exposed to much less
music, limited to the occasional live concert or to their own live music played once and
forever gone. With recordings, performances can be preserved for thousands of
listeners, tapes and discs can be analyzed and studied in detail, especially when scores
are non-existent or ambiguous. There are however, limitations regarding the
usefulness of recordings where the Minimoog was used: To what extent can we
attribute the sound of the Minimoog to be the sound of the recording it appears on?
Electronic music is usually realized and composed with loudspeakers in mind. Does its
study demand a different approach in its study from other kinds of music which benefit
from natural spatial acoustics?
42
In electronic music, the study of recordings is not the same thing as the study
of performance itself. Until the development of sound recording it was difficult to study
actual performances on the Minimoog either played or sequenced. With the advent of
recording it has become possible to examine a performance in detail although it has
taken many years to start treating recordings as serious documents. Where a piece is
realized through performance, the idiosyncrasies of the electronic circuits of the
Minimoog and various, often indeterminate, elements of the composition will
guarantee that no two performances will have any perceptible commonality of
content, or, in some cases, form. Recordings of such pieces cannot hope to be true
representations of the work but document, to varying degrees of success, a particular
performance on the Minimoog, under certain conditions and at a set moment in time.
Contrary to this idea, Drew Hemment argues that:
With recorded music in particular the way in which the medium,
packaging and sleeve notes enclose it – just as a painting is
contained in a frame – emphasizes a particular understanding of
music as a finished piece (Hemment quoted in Buchanan &
Swiboda 2004: 78)
This makes the analysis both of the sound and performance difficult as a
description of a particular performance or recording will necessarily have only limited
application to the piece itself and an analysis of the score, if it exists, will not in and of
itself reveal the manner in which performers may choose to interpret it. Moreover, and
in accordance with the above quotation, in most recordings the balance and
43
participation of the Minimoog in the audio field, is often attributed to post-production
techniques of the recording engineer who pursuits a pre-determined aesthetic result.
With recorded music in particular the medium per se emphasizes a particular
understanding of music as a finished piece. A tape or disc stays the same physically, but
we may hear it differently over the years once our perception changes. This elides the
way that in playback the final statement is ‘de-territorialized and set adrift in multiple
uncertain circumstances that can never be fully prescribed in advance, and also the
way that the recording presents only a snapshot of musical materials and codes
circulating in technological networks’ (Buchanan & Swiboda 2004: 78). Every
performance would be different, varying according to circumstance, musicians,
instruments and acoustics.
The desire to base interpretations of Minimoog performances directly on
original sources or recordings has had significant ramifications. For one thing, copying
and modifying a previous performance is a rather different skill from intuiting directly
after a lapse of some decades. Moreover, perhaps with a few exceptions, composers
do not state their synthesis or performance intentions with regard to future and
hypothetical analyses and very few of them are proven to have recording engineering
knowledge so as to ensure that their ideas are transferred on the recording medium
with their approval. Compositions such as Trilogy from the 1971 LP of the same name
include a prolonged and extremely technical Minimoog solo which retains a significant
level of originality just by the fact that the Minimoog sound parameters are not
documented.
44
Even in the case of composers who are not categorized as avant guard or
experimental, like Jean Michel Jarre or Klaus Schulze, what is reproducible from actual
recordings is precisely what is reducible to western notation since electronic music
lacks a standard set of semiotics. A performer might be lucky enough to have some
additional information, usually taken from CD liner notes or other non-musical sources,
as to what instruments were used (like in Schulze’s Timewind or Jarre’s Equinoxe) or
vague ideas about the actual recording process (as in Carlos’ Switched On Bach) but this
information is hardly adequate to create a faithful reproduction of the original
recordings unless a vast amount of technical information is properly documented.
Moreover, writers of CD notes are particularly inclined to emphasize the authority of
interpretations. Even more importantly, a lot of renowned artists, either composers or
recording engineers, are reluctant to share sound designing or recording secrets.
Therefore a recording is not necessarily trustworthy as a record of a performance nor it
can be used at face value to deduce the sound of the actual Minimoog.
2.5. Marketing the Minimoog
The Minimoog’s appeal to the majority of musicians came not only from its
famous sound but also from its ergonomics. Since the various modules that comprise
the Minimoog were internally hardwired it was no longer necessary to patch cables in
order to synthesize a sound. All the important parameters could be adjusted directly
from the front panel, which could be tilted for additional convenience. Additionally, the
Minimoog could be easily transferred, with clear graphics that are almost self
explanatory with regards to their function. Thus, the Minimoog was also marketed
towards educational institutes for a basic understanding of synthesis.
45
Van Der Koening was a sales person who firmly believed that the Minimoog
was a performance instrument. In fact it can be argued that Van Der Koening single-
handedly invented the market for the Minimoog by cleverly conditioning the managers
of rock groups to believe that the Minimoog was a necessary instrument, by loaning
the Minimoog to the musicians and by carrying hit records such as ELP’s Lucky Man
that showed the power and the dynamic range of the Minimoog through highly
technical solos. The endorsement of the Minimoog by such rock stars as Keith Emerson
and Rick Wakeman paved the way for keyboard players to realize that by investing on a
Minimoog, they could compete with the guitar players, thus augmenting their role in
the music performance and claiming a significant part of the rock-star fame and status
quo.
The sales of the Minimoog progressed in tandem with specific requests by
highly acclaimed keyboard players such as Rick Wakeman, Keith Emerson and Wendy
Carlos who provided valuable feedback to the further development of the instrument.
These requests were implemented in various improvements such as temperature
compensated circuits for the VCOs, which provided stabilization and accurate tuning
and later by providing MIDI kits. From a marketing point of view, there were certain
things that were novel to the Minimoog, such as the pitch and modulation wheel
controllers but after the commercial and artistic failure of the many Switched On
albums that were released by other artists who were trying to imitate Wendy Carlos,
and despite the mass production of the Minimoog, the Minimoog proved inadequate in
salvaging Moog from bankruptcy.
46
2.6. Conclusions
An attempt has been made to analyze the most important performance issues
that arise from studying the Minimoog in the usage of sequences in electronic music. It
has been shown that, despite technical problems that arise from its nature, the
Minimoog has proven to be a very useful instrument for real-time performance,
sequenced or not, and like any other musical instrument it demands practice and time.
Any performance or composition which employs the Minimoog can be realized either
through a sequencing environment or by traditional playing techniques. Either way, it
materializes by the interaction of the performer thus manifesting a non-traditional
aesthetic. Thus, both sequencing environments and various playing techniques provide
not only a means to perform electronic music but also a model of how electronic music
can be understood and appreciated. Audiences need to reprogram their cultural
apparatus for active reception in order to recuperate their ability to participate in the
production of meaning. It is in this way that audiences can better appreciate and
musicologists can better evaluate the role of the Minimoog as a performance
instrument, thus forming diachronic linkages for future musicians and audiences and
expanding our knowledge with new hermeneutics.
47
CHAPTER 3:
TOWARDS THE ELECTRONIC MUSIC REVIVAL
The synthesiser revolution in the early 1970s started with the Minimoog and it
is interesting to point out that after 30 years, the analogue revival is due to a significant
extent to the same synthesiser. Following the previous analysis, a timeline will be
provide starting with the introduction of digital synthesisers and concluding with the
role of the Internet as well as the psychological effect of nostalgia. Several issues that
have been raised and contribute towards the popularity and demand of the Minimoog
will be discussed. It will be shown that the overall sonic development of analogue
synthesisers can be attributed to a large extent to the commercial success of the
Minimoog as well as to the sustainable demand for analogue equipment. What can we
deduce from the fact that with all the technological innovations and computational
power, there are still people who desire a 30-year old monophonic instrument with
lower specifications than contemporary standards? Why do musicians imitate their
idols and why do companies direct their marketing strategies towards emulating not
only the sound but also the look of the Minimoog?
To answer these questions there are several factors that need to be considered
such as the appearance of digital synthesisers in the 1980s which severely obstructed
the interaction between musicians and instruments by hiding important parameters in
a labyrinth of menus and small LCDs. It can be argued, that despite the computational
power that is available today in order to run the highly sophisticated algorithms (VSTi)
which emulate successful synthesisers of yesteryear, the HCI interaction still remains
problematic, since neither the keyboard nor the mouse are suitable devices for music
production and synthesis.
48
3.1. Analogue versus Digital
It can hardly be argued that digital synthesisers which appeared in the early
1980s were premature to marginalize their analogue counterparts. The transition to
digital has been complex and involved the gradual establishment of the MIDI (Musical
Instrument Digital Interface) protocol as the standard protocol for communication
between all devices equipped with a MIDI retrofit. Given the fact that the
computational resources that are needed to satisfactorily realize the subtractive
synthesis model of an analogue synthesiser, are very demanding even by today’s
standards, most of the manufacturers had to direct their efforts to realizing some other
means for sound generation and manipulation. Some very well known synthesis
methods were the FM Synthesis as it appeared in the Yamaha DX series synthesisers
and sample playback. Despite the equivocal superiorities and technological advances of
digital synthesisers, such as stability, a means of storage, portability and digital being a
fashionable tendency of the early 1908s, it was soon discovered by many musicians
that none of these instruments provided the timbres or the interaction that is usually
associated with analogue synthesisers. Generally speaking, it is worth pointing out that
although the DX series and the Minimoog were both modern and perhaps futuristic at
the time they were first introduced to the musicians, they are at opposite ends not only
regarding the sound palette but also the ergonomics of the interface as well as the
stability of their designs. This phenomenon can partly be attributed to the synthesis
methods which are implemented in digital synthesisers and subsequently to the
ergonomics of the actual instruments.
49
3.2. FM Synthesis
Starting with the Fairlight CMI (which will be mentioned below) and continuing
with the Yamaha DX series, the introduction of digital synthesisers signifies a
transitional period from the old-fashioned Moog to the modern Yamaha DX series
which incorporated FM: an also modern and innovative type of synthesis. The FM
synthesis was first introduced by John Chowning in his paper "The Synthesis of Complex
Audio Spectra by Means of Frequency Modulation" presented in 1973 at the journal of
the Audio Engineering Society (AES). Yamaha Corporation provided the funds to
Stanford University in an effort to realize a viable commercial product. However, the
huge commercial success of the Yamaha DX7 cannot be attributed to FM synthesis per
se: Although the FM synthesis is capable of synthesising sounds with complex spectra
that differentiate themselves substantially from the spectra that are usually associated
with analogue synthesisers, this method still remains extremely complex to understand
for the average synthesist. The interface not only of FM-capable synthesisers but of
most digital synthesisers which comprised of little else than a few buttons, a tiny LCD
and all the necessary sound-related parameters in a labyrinth of menus, made the
process of synthesizing sounds significantly problematic and cumbersome. Additionally,
since the technology was self-contained it was extremely difficult or even impossible
for manufacturers to provide modifications or customizations. The aforementioned
difficulty in synthesizing new sounds was even acknowledged by Yamaha Corporation
after finding that the vast majority of synthesisers which were returned for repair
contained almost exclusively the initial factory sounds. Pinch & Trocco conclude that
the process was so difficult that the vast majority of musicians or synthesists either
used the included presets or relied heavily to third-party companies for providing
sounds (Pinch & Trocco: 317).
50
The Yamaha DX7 (alongside with the Roland D-50 and the Korg M1) has been
hugely successful and like the Minimoog, its sounds were heard and easily recognized
in countless records during the 1980s, not because they were identifiable due to the
particularities of the electronic circuits but because they were presets. In this case
however, the novelty of the DX7 wore off and although the once dated analogue
sounds regained their fame, the thin sounds of the DX7 never experienced the same.
3.3. Sample Playback
In sample playback synthesisers, a recording of small duration is stored in non-
volatile ROM. Because of the limits imposed by the sample memory, most of the
internal samples (except the one-shot samples such as drum hits) must be looped in
order to provide the sustain portion of the actual continuous waveform, either of an
acoustic instrument or of an electronic one. By their very nature, sample playback
synthesisers provide a very detailed snapshot of an actual sound at the expense of this
snapshot being nothing more than a static sound. As such samples do not carry the
necessary information to respond convincingly to the musicians’ playing dynamics or to
other means of external modulation. Thus, most of these instruments fail to reproduce
accurately not only the delicate qualities of acoustic instruments but also the complex
nature of inter-modulation that appears in analogue synthesisers such as the
Minimoog. Several such synthesisers included either samples of simple Minimoog
sounds but these samples revealed their true, digital character when they were either
played or modified by the digital electronics, none of which has been an accurate copy
of its analogue counterpart.
51
Some synthesists like Bernie Krause observed that one of the effects that
culture driven by record industries had on the synthesiser is that “only certain sounds
could be recognized, described and communicated and those sounds became
embedded in the technology, first with sound charts and later with presets thus
reinforcing the recognisability and reproducibility of these same sounds” (Pinch &
Trocco: 318). Therefore, we can easily deduce that a sample of the Minimoog is only a
very small subset of its sonic capabilities and little or none of the interactions appear
upon playing the sample as opposed to playing the actual instrument.
Another reason why digital synthesisers lacked ‘warmth’ or ‘presence’, which
are qualities usually attributed to analogue synthesisers, can be traced to the quality of
their digital to analogue (DA) converters. In an analogue synthesiser such a conversion
is unnecessary as opposed to a digital synthesiser where it must occur before the signal
is output. Most of the DA converters of that era had a bandwidth of 8-bit, thus
resulting in a dynamic range of 48 dB, which is rather limited when called to represent
playing dynamics that range from very loud to very quiet. Additionally, most of these
converters were prone to aliasing which refers to an effect that causes different
continuous signals to become indistinguishable (or aliases of one another) when
sampled or to the distortion that results when a signal is sampled and reconstructed as
an alias of the original signal.
In this case the sound spectrum contains digital artefacts that are reflected
back into the auditory range due to the inability of the low-pass filter to successfully
remove frequencies above the Nyquist frequency which is twice the frequency of the
upper limit of human hearing:
52
Nyquist frequency = 2 * 22.05 KHz = 44.1 KHz.
Such digital artifacts can range from mild aliasing (which is rarely pleasant) to harsh
distortion and have no harmonic relationship with the sound spectra prior to the DA
conversion or any resemblance to the saturation which appears when analog electronic
components are slightly overdriven.
3.4. Emulating the Moog VCF
Until the 1950s music and computer technology had evolved separately despite
the fact that a lot of computer engineers discovered that the sound of synthesizers
could be played by using a computer and specialized software for audio manipulation.
This technology is evident in the Mark I and Mark II synthesizers, which were able to
play songs under computer control. Few musicians realized that the computer and the
synthesizer were merging progressively over the years. This convergence has resulted
in the introduction of the Fairlight CMI (Computer Musical Instrument) which had a lot
of similarities with the Moog synthesizers, since it consisted of a keyboard and several
electronic tone generators, filters and other specialized electronic circuits in order to
shape the sound. However, the sounds were actually created on a keyboard and by
using a computer screen instead of using patch cables, potentiometers and switches.
Perhaps, even more significantly, the Fairlight CMI had a means of storing various
parameters in its internal memory.
53
Over the years the computational power that was needed to not only model an
analogue synthesiser but also make a viable commercial product out of it has increased
substantially. Software synthesisers are now ubiquitous and alongside the increase in
computational demands, there appears to be a significant improvement in the effort
for accurate or at least approvable emulation. However, the necessity to make all this
software available for mass production has resulted in poorly designed software
comprising non-optimized algorithms that fail to emulate convincingly their analog
counterparts.
History has proven that the patented Moog VCF ladder filter, although
technically flawed, it was so cleverly designed that manufacturers, such as ARP,
Crumar, Arturia, Studio Electronics and many others tried to copy it, before or after the
patent has expired, with variable degrees of success. The VCF in itself has proven to be
the focus of analysis in academia with various papers investigating the possibilities of a
successful digital implementation that takes into account most of the idiosyncrasies of
the Moog VCF. Companies such as Arturia have released commercial software
synthesisers such as the Minimoog V, Moog Modular V, ARP 2600 V as well as many
others that derive their names, and to a lesser extent their sounds and functionality
from revered synthesisers that first appeared almost 30 years ago. The company claims
that these products take advantage of a proprietary technique, known as True
Analogue Emulation (TAE). This technique hopes to emulate the idiosyncrasies of
analogue circuits by computer algorithms embedded into the architecture of their
software synthesisers. Robert Moog has been interview by Mark Vail about the
differences between analogue and digital methods and has commented:
54
What you get out of digital are steps because each very small slice of
time is defined by a number and as you go from one slice of time to
the next, the number changes and you get these steps. The steps are
smoothed out, but the effect of them is always there to one extent or
another, so you hear that difference. (Bob Moog quoted in Keyboard;
Jan 2005; 31. 1. Pg. 102. A conversation with Bob Moog – by Mark
Vail)
Although Arturia received Bob Moog’s approval (and even blessing) for
releasing their products using both the Moog and the Minimoog name, it can be argued
that none of these software synthesisers accurately emulate the analogue
counterparts, not only in sound per se but also in functionality and of course in
interaction. The reasons for such a claim have been analyzed in Chapter 1. Additionally,
it should be noted that much like two acoustic instruments cannot hope to be identical
instances of the same product, the same applies to analogue synthesisers. Especially
for the Minimoog which, as we have seen in Chapter 1, has a vast amount of inter-
modulation paths which cannot be even studied extensively, let alone be modelled
successfully and made available in a software package with significantly reduced price
compared to the price of a Minimoog in good condition and functionality.
Other companies have also attempted to model with varying degrees of
success the Minimoog oscillators and VCF. Such companies include Alesis with their
polyphonic analogue synthesiser Andromeda A6, Studio Electronics with their SE-1 and
Omega synthesisers, Synthesisers.com which offers modules similar to the ones found
in the Moog Modular, Access which includes software emulation of the Minimoog VCF
with provision for saturation and many others. Even Moog Music Inc released a
55
Minimoog for the 21st century after noticing the inflated price and the demand for
second hand Minimoog synthesisers. The Minimoog Voyager is a monophonic analogue
synthesiser with most of the features of the original Minimoog plus many others that
have either been requested by musicians or would be considered serious omissions.
These include a dedicated LFO, PWM4 capabilities, memory storage, a two-dimensional
touch-pad, two significantly improved modulation busses, MIDI implementation and
many other features. All these improvements helped the Minimoog Voyager to
integrate better in a digital environment as well as greatly increase its sonic potential.
3.5. Sound Quality Evaluation
It is necessary to note that auditory perception can vary with non-acoustic
factors. In other words, what we hear does not only depend on the sound waves which
impinge upon our ears. Obviously, sound quality does not exist per se since it is a set of
notions and ideas that we subjectively attribute on sounds. An important issue that has
been raised is that not only musicians but also sound-design experts and scientists have
been unable to communicate their ideas and musical preferences by using well-defined
terminology from a music lexicon. Jekosch and Blauert argue, among others, that
“sound quality is a mental construct which is often insufficiently defined and,
consequently, not understood properly by many” (Jekosch & Blauert: 1) and therefore
ambiguous use of terms can cause confusion.
Moderating factors such as emotion, knowledge about the situation, and action
may play a role. A complication here is that listeners tend to associate meanings with
4
PWM: abbreviation for Pulse Width Modulation
56
the sounds and to modify their responses accordingly and that musically trained people
use a more specialized lexicon by learning to discriminate these factors and to process
them selectively. Commercial companies and sound designers or musicians need clear
conceptions of the character of the references that they use when they need to refer
or rate quality - e.g. in the form of the desired features of the products. Accordingly,
research into the character of such references is a paramount concern in the context of
designing optimized and specialized hardware or software that aims to emulate the
sound properties of the Minimoog.
3.6. The Role of the Internet
The availability of knowledge and easy access to information in a very
convenient and fast way, has provided both musicians and companies with ways to
make heavy usage of the Internet in order to listen to their products, exchange
information and share ideas in various fora. However, the Internet with its
uncontrollable rate of growth and questionable information has proven to be a
minefield of knowledge. For instance, the acquisition of schematics for the Minimoog
VCF in order to use them either for scientific purposes or for servicing the Minimoog
has been very easy but problematic nevertheless: a lot of the schematics contain either
typographical errors (usually numerical values expressing capacity, resistance and other
physical measures) or have been incomplete in their drawings. These schematics have
been made available online usually by electronic engineers who either draw the
schematic directly from a Minimoog or uploaded a schematic which is either incorrect
or one that is already drawn from a modified Minimoog. In such cases it is very difficult
57
to stipulate what the origin of a schematic is and to what extent a Minimoog should be
serviced or even emulated according to this particular schematic.
3.7. The psychological effect of nostalgia
The Minimoog was used by various artists such as Keith Emerson and Klaus
Schulze, in diverse music genres ranging from rock to electronic, thus representing a
particular sound from a particular era. It can be argued that with the re-appearance of
the early synthesisers, not only the instruments but also the actual techniques have re-
appeared once more, both in hardware and software forms, thus reviving electronic
music styles of the 70s, such as the Berlin School genre. Most of the tracks that used
the Minimoog, either with playing or sequencing techniques, have become
representative of that time and it is interesting to ask whether or not contemporary
electronic music, in its various manifestations and despite its multiplicity of styles, is a
by-product of the nostalgia of the early synthesisers that encapsulate various aspects
of that time or vice versa. Jon Appleton argues that:
There is value for both composers and listeners in developing a base
of expectations so that one can relate a new work to the body of
music already known, for there are no musical experiences which do
not have ties to the past. Discovering those links is an important part
of experiencing music; without them we are left with surface
impressions (Appleton 1979: 103).
58
Another factor that should be taken into consideration is the knowingness that
haunts contemporary electronic music. Music from the 60s and 70s, for instance, has
been plundered extensively and several bands and artists will always be melancholic
about the sounds of their childhood. This phenomenon is not necessarily associated
with the mere recovery of dying sounds or techniques but also with the oxymoron that
accompanies the reproduction of the sheer novelty of sounds and experimentation
that was introduced more than thirty years ago.
It would be easy to dismiss the analogue revival as a form of nostalgia. Pinch
and Trocco argue that “nostalgia is usually taken to be a means whereby present
uncertainties and discontents are addressed by drawing on a past era or culture” (Pinch
& Trocco: 318). The analogue revival has certainly been augmented by the desire and
necessity to have a more direct approach on synthesis, something which was sorely
missed in the majority of digital instruments but the faithful reconstruction of the
particularities seem problematic because new hermeneutics would unavoidably have
to be embedded in old ideas, and placed in a substantially different cultural apparatus
that comprises a contemporary audience.
If we take into consideration that the Minimoog represented a whole musical
generation alongside with whatever values it supported, then we can examine the
effect of nostalgia from a different perspective: Nostalgia may depend precisely on the
irrecoverable nature of the past for its emotional impact and appeal. A large part of the
power of nostalgia is attributed to the inaccessibility and the irreversibility of the past.
This is rarely the past as actually experienced, of course; it is the past as imagined, as
idealized through memory and desire. In this sense, however, nostalgia is less about
the past than about the present: the ideal that is not being lived now is projected into
59
the past. It is "memorialized" as past, crystallized into precious moments selected by
memory, but also by forgetting, and by distorting and re-organizing according to desire.
There are, however, two ways to look into the past: one is to look, appreciate the past
for what it was and what it stood for and the other is to look and cling emotionally. In
the latter case, nostalgia could be explained as an attempt to defy the end, to deny a
teleological imaginary purpose either to the music itself or even to the technological
achievements.
Perhaps, even more significantly, it is difficult to analyze the reasons why even
the generation that was brought up using VST instruments and digital synthesisers, try
to recreate an imaginary past by investing on old, analogue synthesisers despite the
fact that the advantages are not obvious and that VSTs provide a wide variety of
emulations at a fraction of the cost. This can be partially explained if we consider that
although that we have been at the forefront of the digital since the early 1980s, at the
same time we lean back to the best of the past. By doing so, a surprising lack of
progress in terms of ergonomics and functionality as well as sonic excellence is
revealed. Manufacturers tend to focus on improving the specifications of their
products, without paying attention on how these improvements affect the sound itself
and without getting any feedback from customers. In the case of the Minimoog, history
has proven that its particular blend of sonic properties, its idiosyncrasies and the
excellent ergonomics are such that they render technical improvements unnecessary.
Electronic music found itself marginalized by the 80’s pop and disco sound,
which drew a key part of its sounds and inspiration from electronic music. These genres
quickly eclipsed electronic music in popularity and nearing the turn of the millennium,
statements were made to the effect that "electronic music is dead". Heralded by the
60
appearance of the first virtual analogue synthesisers in the 1990s and soon afterwards
by the increasing popularity of purely analogue synthesisers, electronic music however,
survived these events and the turn of the millennium has seen a revival in its popularity
and continuing development. Although electronic music has been with us for more
than fifty years, it can be argued that it still remains a fairly unknown musical style
although it makes frequent unrecognized appearances in the mainstream as well as
being highly influential on other musical styles and some of its artists.
To a certain extent not only the analogue revival but also the whole
phenomenon of the rebirth of electronic music can be considered as a side product of
the huge expansion of the Internet, through which anyone can join a community
culture full of inspiration. Cheap software and cut-price synthesisers are very easy to
buy and there exist thousands of websites willing to host and distribute any music.
Thus, the plain idea of democratic music has been given a new future.
3.8. Conclusion
As we look to the future, it is difficult to predict which innovations will have the
greatest impact on our lives and our work. Although we can assume that digital audio
technology will keep improving as computational resources increase and prices drop,
predicting exactly how this will impact musicians and studios is not easy. From the
idiosyncrasies of the electronic circuits of the Minimoog to the performances of Keith
Emerson and from its marginalization during the FM years to the analogue revival, it
has been shown that the history of the Moog synthesiser is full of technical, cultural,
social and economical issues as well as many other issues that, due to lack of space,
61
cannot be sufficiently addressed in this thesis. Even more importantly, the Minimoog
synthesiser has a very important and interesting technological background that gave
birth to its famous sound and it is precisely this sound that has been the trademark of
so many artists and groups. We shape and move instruments as we play but we too,
are moved by the same sounds.
In the light of these considerations, it seems that imitation and emulation is the
highest price musicians and companies can pay as a tribute to their idols and to the
Minimoog respectively. Undoubtedly the existence of the Internet has provided a
valuable means of exchanging information, finding schematics and buying electronic
parts very quickly although this procedure has not been unproblematic. Paradoxically,
an inevitable consequence is that, by raising the Minimoog to a hype status, many
musicians are oblivious to what is arguably the very essence of the existence of the
synthesiser and electronic music: the creation and exploration of new sonic vistas.
62
Bibliography
1. Appleton, J. 1979. Electronic Music: Questions of Style and Compositional

Techniques. The Music Quarterly, Vol.65, No.1, (Jan. 1979), pp. 103-110.
2. Benade, A. 1990. Fundamentals Of Musical Acoustics (Second, Revised Edition).

New York: Dover Publications, Inc.
3. Blauert, J. & U. Jekosch. 2003. Concepts Behind Sound Quality: Some Basic
Considerations. The 32nd International Congress and Exposition on Noise Control
Engineering, Seogwipo, Korea.
4. Bodden, M. 1997. Instrumentation For Sound Quality Evaluation. Acustica, Vol. 83,
pp. 775-783.
5. Bodden, M. Perceptual Sound Quality Evaluation.
6. Boulanger, R (ed). 2001. The Csound Book: Perspectives in Software Synthesis,

Sound Design, Signal Processing and Programming. MIT Press.
7. Buchanan, I. & M. Swiboda (eds.). 2004. Deleuze and Music. (Edinburgh University
Press).
8. Grund, C. Music Information Retrieval, Memory And Culture: Some Philosophical

Remarks.
9. Holmes, T. 2002. Electronic and Experimental Music: Pioneers in Technology and

Composition (2nd ed.). New York: Routledge.
10. Hordijk, R. Synthesis Workshops and Tutorials.

(http://www.xs4all.nl/~rhordijk/G2Pages/index.htm) [accessed 18/04/2008]
11. Livingston, T. Music Revivals: Towards A General Theory. Ethnomusicology, Vol. 43,
No. 1. (Winter, 1999), pp. 66-85. (http://www.jstor.org)
12. Melinger, D. 1999. Electronic Music Distribution: Players, Stakes, and the Public
Interest. Honors Thesis, University of Pennsylvania.
13. Menzies, D. 1999. New Electronic Performance Instruments For Electroacoustic

Music. PhD Thesis, York University.
14. Moog, R. 1964. Voltage-Controlled Electronic Music Modules. Journal of the Audio
Engineering Society (AES). July 1965, Vol. 13, No. 3.
15. Neill, B. Pleasure Beats: Rhythm And The Aesthetics Of Current Electronic Music.
Leonardo Music Journal, Vol. 12, Pleasure. (2002), pp. 3-6. (http://www.jstor.org)
16. Nyman, M. 1999. Experimental Music: Cage and Beyond. 2nd ed. With a foreword by
Brian Eno. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
63
17. Piker, G. 2005. Evaluation Of Product Sound Design Within The Context Of Emotion
Design and Emotional Branding. Master Thesis, Izmir Institute Of Technology.
18. Pinch, T. & F. Trocco. 2002. Analog Days: The Invention And The Impact Of The
Moog Synthesizer. Harvard University Press.
19. R. A. Moog. Moog Minimoog Service Manual.
20. Schulte-Fortkamp, B., Genuit. K, Fiebig, A. 2007. Perception Of Product Sound

Quality And Sound Quality In Soundscapes. 19th International Congress On
Acoustics, Madrid.
21. Stilson, T. & J. Smith. Alias-Free Digital Synthesis Of Classic Analog Waveforms.
(http://www-ccrma.stanford.edu/~stilti/papers)
22. Stilson, T. & J. Smith. Analyzing The Moog VCF With Considerations For Digital
Implementation. (http://www-ccrma.stanford.eduu/~stilti/papers)
23. Tillman, D. 2006. Electronic Music Articles - Moog Patents.

(http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-strict.dtd) Accessed 12.04.2008
24. Vail, M. 2005. Analog vs. Digital Sound Generation – A Conversation with Bob
Moog. Keyboard Magazine. January 2005, p. 102.
25. Valimaki, V. & A. Huovilainen. Oscillators and Filter Algorithms for Virtual Analog
Synthesis. Computer music journal [0148-9267] Valimaki yr:2006 vol:30 issue 2, pp:
19 -31
26. Wessel, D & M. Right. 2002. Problems And Prospects For Intimate Music Control Of
Computers. Computer Music Journal. 26: 3, pp. 11-22, Fall 2002.
64
Discography
1. Brian Eno. Before and After Science. Compact Disc. E. G. Records.
2. Emerson, Lake & Palmer. Trilogy. Compact Disc. Sanctuary/Rhino Records.
3. Emerson, Lake & Palmer. Emerson, Lake & Palmer. Compact Disc.
Sanctuary/Island Records.
4. Jean Michel Jarre. Equinoxe. Compact Disc. Dreyfus.
5. Klaus Schulze. Timewind. Compact Disc. Brain. 833 128-2.
6. Tangerine Dream. Phaedra. Compact Disc. Virgin. TAND 5.
7. Tangerine Dream. Ricochet. Compact Disc. Virgin. TAND 7.
8. Wendy Carlos. Switched On Bach 2000. Compact Disc. Telarc CD-80323.
65
Appendix A: Glossary of Technical Terms
 AC: abbreviation for Alternating Current – an electrical current whose direction

reverses cyclically.
 Cut-off frequency: the frequency where the harmonic content of a signal entering a
lowpass filter starts to attenuate.
 CV: Control Voltage – the protocol which is most frequently used in analogue
synthesisers and relates musical parameters to changes in voltage. In an analogue
audio system fluctuations in voltage are analogous to change in air pressure in a wind
instrument.
 DC: abbreviation for Direct Current – unidirectional flow of electric charge whose
direction remains constant.
 Envelope Generator: an electronic circuit that contours various properties of a musical

signal, such as pitch or harmonic content, with regard to time.
 LCD: Acronym for Liquid Crystal Display.
 MIDI: Acronym for Musical Instrument Digital Interface. Communication protocol

between MIDI equipped devices such as synthesisers and computers.
 Modulation: the action and/or the effect of modulating one signal with another.
 Noise Generator: an electronic circuit capable of producing various kinds of noise

signals, most commonly described as hiss.
 Resonance: the tendency of certain filter topologies to oscillate at maximum amplitude

and in specific frequencies.
 Subtractive synthesis: Method of sound synthesis in which signals, rich in harmonic

content, are filtered in order to produce new signals.
 Synthesiser: an electronic apparatus that is used to synthesise sounds signals.
 VCA: Acronym for Voltage Controlled Amplifier. An electronic amplifier that varies its
gain depending on control voltage.
 VCF: Acronym for Voltage Controlled Filter. An electronic filter whose characteristics
can be controlled by means of control voltage applied to one or more inputs.
 VCO: Acronym for Voltage Controlled Oscillator. An electronic oscillator whose

frequency can be controlled by means of control voltage.
66

The Impact of Minimoog in Music

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Impact of Minimoog in Music

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Ioannis Kazlaris (W 9499741) – The Impact Of The Moog Minimoog Synthesiser

THE IMPACT OF THE MOOG MINIMOOG SYNTHESISER

CHAPTER 1: THE MINIMOOG SOUND…………………………………………………………………………………1

CHAPTER 2: PERFORMING WITH THE MINIMOOG………………………….……………………………….26

2.1. Additive vs. Subtractive…………………………………………………………………….…………………………………26

CHAPTER 3: TOWARDS THE ELECTRONIC MUSIC REVIVAL…………………………….………………….43

3.1. Analogue versus Digital………………………………………………………………………………………………….…….44

THE MINIMOOG SOUND

Minimoog as well as its role in the electronic music revival.

My interest in analyzing the Minimoog synthesiser comes from my own

to the literature by departing from the traditional perspective of organology and

provided at the end of this paper.

1.2. Description of the Minimoog

The Minimoog is a monophonic, voltage-controlled analogue synthesiser. Its

 Three voltage controlled oscillators (VCOs) that provide a variety of waveforms

 One white / pink noise generator

 One passive mixer that is used to mix the signal sources

 A simple modulation routing

 A monophonic, 44-key keyboard (without velocity sensitivity or after-touch)

 Pitch and modulation wheels.

also an overload light.

The internally hardwired electronic components which are used in the

circuits thus resulting in six versions of the Minimoog Model D:

Version Name Serial Numbers1 Brief description

front panel. Very unstable tuning.

Minimoog Model D transparent modulation wheels. Unstable tuning.

Minimoog Model D with white modulation wheels.

Table 1: The six versions of the Minimoog.

equi-ripple frequency response in the pass-band, non-linear resonance and filter

portamento. Throughout the analysis, elements of the theory of acoustic physics as

as inter-modulation, signal leakage and oscillator beating in order to explore the

different VCO boards exhibit different sonic behaviour, reminiscent of acoustic

instruments, which have their spectra tapered off above 2 KHz.

1. Sawtooth waveform (all VCOs)

2. Pulse waveform (all VCOs)

3. Triangle waveform (all VCOs)

4. Hybrid Sawtooth / Triangle waveform (VCOs 1 and 2)

5. Reverse Sawtooth waveform (only VCO 3)

producing unpredictable de-tunings throughout the keyboard which are musically

implementation of temperature compensated circuits in the VCO board (versions 5 and

modulation is always present.

but also for the present.

1.3.1. Oscillator beating

One of the most important acoustic phenomena governing the musical

added by means of a mixer and it is extremely important to take into consideration

experiments carried on the acoustic properties of this phenomenon, Arthur Benade

…beats have maximum prominence when the amplitude of the two

components [waveforms] are equal, which permits the loudness of the

beat (Benade 1990: 255).

This conclusion can also be proven scientifically if Fourier analysis is applied on

beating phenomenon manifests itself as partial or complete cancellation and is

generally described by the majority of musicians and listeners as an annoying effect

frequency of bass sounds for which the Minimoog is famous for.

In the Minimoog, however, the beating phenomenon is less apparent because

beating will also occur at:

2 * 400 Hz, 3 * 400 Hz, …, n * 400 Hz

phenomenon cannot be completely avoided but it can be greatly reduced: a common

1.3.2. The aging effect

may differ substantially. Therefore, the unpredictable detuning cannot be safely

1.4. Pre-Filter Mixer and the Inter-modulation phenomenon

to be mixed and attenuates its level, respectively.

known as inter-modulation. Whenever inter-modulation is present the following

modulation paths take place: