Max really opened up a world of plasticity and capability in the rigid world of patchbays, reel-to-reel tape, 32-character displays, and keyboards. It stripped away the formalities of physical practice and sheet music and opened them up to organized imagination.

I certainly did have a frustration with the hardware programming of 90’s synths, and eventually tooled up some macros in Max to control a Roland JD880 (or something like that) synth with lots of sysex. I never made any music with it, but it was so satisfying to push a few sliders around on a screen and have the Roland spit out unimaginable and impossible sounds. Having those early experiences right at the bleeding edge of the transition from a tape-based studio to a digital one was eye-opening for sure. Digitization flattened all the media into the same pipeline, and was very exciting.

Funnily enough, the timeline was the most successful outcome of that experiment, since the most reliable way to present work on it was fixed media: two Tascam DA-88 players gave us 16 channels of audio, and four G3 macs could read in the timecode and sync up video playback on four screens. The experiments in real-time sampling across four screens were great for creating parts of fixed media pieces, and we did do some real-time jamming with them.

For the most part, I can’t separate live performance from a design, which is valuable at a place like Buchla. Joel Davel, the lead designer at Buchla, absolutely shares this ethic. So I guess, in the hierarchy of things, I’d consider the ability to make something happen at whim a high priority. The multi-dimensional aspect is the continuous modification of that whim - the ability to make something expressive over time. For me, this comes from jazz and acoustics more than anything technical. When you have that immediacy, you get closer to the sensual act of tickling ears.

As you rightly point out, there’s a lot that is blurred... In the end, if the presentation of work requires the operator’s constant attention, then you are on the path to expressive performance and getting inside the viscera!

For example, my current musical output has been very influenced by dance music, particularly techno. Techno shows are extremely physical experiences, but dominated by CDJS, which are pretty standard hardware that is optimized for organizing and playing back music files at a consistent tempo. As such, the visceral connection between the performer and machine is pretty insubstantial to the end result. What gets the audience moving, communing, and staying, is the DJ’s ability to organize energy and the sound system’s ability to push your cells around.

I think there has to be a commitment to a primary task or scenario. At Livid, we always had this open-ended capability pushing at what we designed. This was an interesting product proposition: it wasn’t so much that a product did something, it could do it. I have less patience for this type of design now, since there are so many choices and technologies out there, there’s plenty to satisfy “possible.”

Perhaps more than ever, we need to enable “intention,” which I think, requires a clear idea of how something is going to be used. The classic example of this is the Roland 303, which was supposed to be a simple accompaniment machine for guitarists, but found its success as a new voice in a new music for new musicians! But the fact that it had all the intention designed in, I think made this transition possible.

I’m R&D’ing some synthesis engines, and having this capability changes how I think of the potential interactions of various components. But, for the most part, it’s making sure each voice can be controlled by MIDI. So, in short, the best ability is availability.

For hardware, you have more control over this, because you can dictate the required gesture to some degree by the choice of affordance - slider, dial, touch pad, button. Those choices are made with the type of sounds you want. Things get more interesting when they are slightly out of tune, so a long-throw fader, or a tune/fine-tune pair is often preferable.

With regards to “integrity of an original creative vision”, it’s not something I personally hold dear. I’d rather iterate and discover than come up with a master plan. I have been R&D’ing some digital synth engines for hardware, and, in that case, I do have to constantly think about the computational efficiency of a process. Every little sample treatment counts when you move your code from a laptop to an embedded chip!

There’s no shortage of ‘knob-per-function’ designs out there, but those knobs and functions are usually designed for making “a sound.” The Easel, in turn, has its sliders and knobs designed for making “music.” It has all the stuff of music - time, rhythm, harmony, timbre, expression, fixed repertoire (presets) and playable interface.

The analog limitations enforce a scarcity, which puts the performer into a state of acceptance with results. The complex oscillator gives a variety of amazing results to accept. I don’t think the digital workstations have failed in this respect, it has just left more work to the performer, and sacrificed immediacy for possibility.

That it’s super fucking complicated. I worked with a really good programmer, James Westfall, who was able to keep me from making it even more complicated. There’s just a lot of constantly changing documentation or even minimal documentation. There’s a lack of “LEGO” pieces that help you build something quickly.

It’s definitely not nostalgia. The touchscreen is designed to solve many problems that are completely unrelated to music, sound, or, more generally, pleasure. A lot of synthesizers that are bought are not used for making music for the public, but a way to dive deep into sensual and intellectual fascinations.

I’m sure you have experienced the joy of getting a loop or patch going and just fucking with it for a half hour. That half hour would be unlistenable for anyone else, but because YOU are poking at it, controlling it, or maybe just observing it, it will probably be the best half hour of your day. It is purpose-built technology, built for the stuff of dreams and imagination. It is an opportunity to experience complexity as beauty.

What I would strip away is not cost and manufacturing limitations, but the systems that prevent people from being creative and engaged. I don’t think that access to creativity is limited by available interfaces, I think it’s limited by wider exposure to culture and the time and permission to try challenging new things. Right now, I want to push, pull, poke and strum things to make music. As I get older, those gestures may not be available to me. The interface for my immediate future prioritizes physicality, but the interface for my further future will need to prioritize accessibility.

I’m no physiologist, but it doesn’t seem like a stretch to consider hearing a specialized form of touch, so using your fingers on a surface of some sort just seems like the best way to excite ears.