From Schematics to Patches: The Modular Synthesizer as Post-Tudorian Instrument

After centuries of relative stability in which instruments became increasingly expressive but remained essentially subordinate to composition, the composition-instrument relationship changed markedly in the mid-20th century, particularly through the destabilising influence of John Cage. With the move of David Tudor from pianist-interpreter to live electronics designer-performer, however, the established composition-instrument distinction finally collapsed.

The "instruments" Tudor developed were handmade electronic circuits in which the "composition", understood as a set of conditions for sound to occur, is not only the creation of the system but also the exploration of its behaviour over time. Each instrument is a piece, and the schematic is the score - stable enough to be shared, but sufficiently open that each build becomes in many respects distinct.

Modular synthesizers might appear to simply extend, refine, or commercialise Tudorian ideas and practices. For example, a modular patch diagram to some extent functions like a Tudor schematic, delineating connections that define signal flow and, ultimately, system behaviours. Similarly, although Tudor's systems are seen as highly singular constructions, carefully curated modular synthesizer systems are also often reported to "feel" like cohesive instruments, and in both cases the "piece" can be seen to emerge through exploration of system specificities.

However, modular synthesizers also introduce several departures. First, there is a shift from score-as-object to score-as-practice. While Tudor’s scores are (actual) schematics, and thus formal, externalised, and shareable, the "scores" used in modular synthesizer practices are often informal, tacit, ephemeral, or make use of nonstandard visual language.

Second, where Tudor’s circuits were often partially modularised, they were also typically one-offs, and sometimes difficult to analyse or recreate. By contrast, modular synthesizers are built from standardised modules designed from the outset for interoperability and reproducibility. Thus, rather than each instrument being a unique piece, modular synthesizer practices encourage exploration of (re)combination, shifting the "piece" from a fixed object to a configuration space. Moreover, modular synthesizer patches often continuously evolve, including reconfiguration mid-performance. The result is less a discrete piece than an ongoing process that may be repeatedly revised.

Third, where Tudor collapsed the roles of composer, builder, and performer into one, gaining a unique "inside" perspective, authorship in a modular synthesizer context is typically distributed across multiple layers: the module designers/makers who embed pre-composed behaviours, but also the users who (re)combine and explore them in real-time.

Lastly, Tudor’s circuits often required extended but relatively direct engagement with hidden electronic processes - in many cases there is minimal "interface". By contrast, modular synthesizers typically present their users with a highly tactile and tangible interface layer that foregrounds playable gesture and immediacy.

Overall, this paper explores how modular synthesizers transform Tudor’s system-based thought into a more open, distributed, and process-oriented paradigm. Associated shifts in authorship map closely onto various contemporary audio practices (from music production to game audio), but also help to reconsider where creative agency itself is situated.