RIP Don Buchla

Just saw this.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/18/arts/music/don-buchla-dead.html?smprod=nytcore-iphone&smid=nytcore-iphone-share

Aww just saw the Moog or Buchla thread covered this. But had already slipped off the main page in Zing. Dammit, Don deserves his own thread!

Pasting Milton's (excellent) story here:

thread should be hopping a bit more but I guess we are on a sub board

I didn't know him too well, over the last ten years it got to the point where he'd smile and wave if he saw me at a party, we'd had enough in the way of extended conversations about software design and the deleterious influence of the corporations spearheading the work into DAW / plug-in / soft synth design -- though he wasn't ever going to pursue soft synth design himself, no way, he was at least very interested in tracking the issues involved

first time we met was at a dinner at Keith McMillen's in the late 90's, about eight people, skewing young. I was blown away he was there, but he was completely impossible to engage; listening intently, but would cold face stare down any direct address. about twice he made a completely non-sequitous Donald Duck quacking noise. he stayed to the end, on the way out Keith said 'Seeya Don!' while he was walking away and Don made the duck noise again without looking back or saying anything else

other key moment was at an AES panel at Recombinant over 10 years ago. heavy hitters, Buchla, Chowning, Linn, Mathews, Oberheim, Dave Smith. History of instrument design, adoring audience asking historical questions. Panel was trying to steer conversation back to their current work, but also touched by the degree to which the young crowd were respectful. Buchla not answering any questions whatsoever, even when directly addressed. Then, out of nowhere, in response to a question about the difference between R&D in the 60's and R&D in the 00's, Buchla suddenly speaks up and says 'The main difference between instrument design in the 60's, and instrument design today, is that in the 60's, there were people who were genuinely interested in the potential of electronic music.' Long pause. Then nothing, no followup, and I think that's the only thing he said the whole panel, the kind of bald criticism that sort of called bullshit on the entire panel & the entire convention really, but the rest of the panel was mostly smiles because it was SO DON and if you wanted to know anything else about what he really thought, well, you'd just have to talk to him

Scharpen's 'Buchla' documentary is on pause; I don't think they made their kickstarter to a degree that allows them the weeks it'll take to cut it all together. But they definitely have enough footage in the can for an amazing film so hopefully it's only a matter of time and public focus.

Will have my own thoughts in a bit once I collect them. In the meantime, I haven't made it thru the whole Red Bull Music Academy interview but I remember being surprised at how chatty he was:

http://www.redbullmusicacademy.com/lectures/don-buchla-passing-the-acid-test

http://i2.wp.com/120years.net/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/donald-buchla.jpg

I've always thought of Buchla as a kind of evil twin to Robert Moog, in the best sense of the term. At one level, it's down to the former's hipster saturninity (see above), as compared to Moog's twinkly-eyed avuncularity. Such superficialities aside, though, there's a fascinating divergence in the paths the two took following their initial, simultaneous flashes of inspiration. In 1963, each man independently conceived of a new kind of musical instrument, and began building transistor-based modules that could be interlinked to provide control over the pitch, timbre and duration of electronically-generated notes. That's pretty much where the similarities end, however. Moog, on the east coast of the USA, invented a voltage-controlled 'filter' that could shape the spectral content of his synthesiser's sounds by subtracting harmonics. Buchla, on the west coast, hit upon a diametrically opposed concept: instead of using subtractive filters, he implemented timbral control primarily by means of the 'complex oscillator', which incorporated circuitry that instead emphasised or deemphasised harmonics through the technique of waveshaping. Of course, Moog's paradigm became the accepted method of timbre control on the vast majority of subsequent synth designs and has, by extension, quite literally shaped the sound of popular music ever since. By all accounts, this was perfectly alright by Don Buchla, who disdained the notion of even connecting something as quotidian as an organ-style keyboard to his synthesisers. Hence, the dramatically different nature of the LPs that introduced the two men's creations to the world at large. Wendy Carlos' Switched-On Bach presented familiar pieces as you'd never heard them before. Morton Subotnick's Silver Apples of the Moon, on the other hand, simply sounded like nothing anybody had ever heard before. Composed and recorded during 1967 using the Buchla Series 100 system, it is a remarkably alien listening experience even today.
Thankfully, Don's genius won't die with him, any more than Bob Moog's did: his IP was bought out a few years ago and his modern designs are still available to buy. Vale Buchla!

our Geeta's obit for the Graun, now expanded with quotes from Laurie Spiegel and Suzanne Ciani:

https://www.theguardian.com/music/2016/sep/16/don-buchla-modular-synthesizer-pioneer-dies-aged-79

Great call getting Owsleys name in for the rewrite, that is a historically important connection

https://bobostertag.wordpress.com/2016/09/21/don-buchla-my-friend/