Music theory for sequencing

Anything modular synth related that is not format specific.

Moderators: Kent, luketeaford, Joe.

User avatar
Backroads
Wiggling with Experience
Posts: 409
Joined: Tue Nov 01, 2011 12:03 am

Music theory for sequencing

Post by Backroads » Mon May 27, 2013 12:10 pm

What bit(s) of music theory should I be familiar with to do some seriously musical, complex sequencing? I'm interested in trying my hand at traditional Berlin School like Klaus Schulze, TD, etc. I have precious little formal training, if any, but am willing to read!

I think I have a few clues: clock divisions, quantized melody/harmony/chords, sequential switching, transposing, etc.

I have a MU/5U rig: Synthesizers.com Q960 & Doepfer MAQ 16/3 sequencers, 4 quantizer channels, sequential switch, trigger bus, 4MS rotating clock divider/shuffling clock multiplier.

User avatar
dodecabilly
Wiggling with Experience
Posts: 297
Joined: Fri Feb 05, 2010 2:06 pm
Location: Berlin

Post by dodecabilly » Mon May 27, 2013 3:37 pm

First of all, theory won't mean anything if you don't have good ear, in a sense that you should double check everything with your ear, even if what you made is theoretically perfect.
That being said, general theory of music is applicable to any means of musical expression, even sequencing:) That means note duration and division, intervals, scales, time signatures, meter types, polyrhythms, tonality, circle of fifths etc.
Also, I really don't think knowing theory is that necessary in order to make good music, or to use sequencer and other tools. I do teach theory, but I know many musicians who doesn't have a clue about it, and still are in control of their musical output.

User avatar
odecahedron
Super Deluxe Wiggler
Posts: 2490
Joined: Sat Feb 04, 2012 10:32 pm
Location: Wellington NZ

Post by odecahedron » Mon May 27, 2013 5:46 pm

not only dividers and the like but... a good strong digital delay with clean repeats is varnish on any sequence. the interaction between steps and well-timed repeat divisions can be a world to explore in itself

User avatar
sduck
experimental use of gravity
Posts: 14231
Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2009 6:03 pm
Location: Vortepexaion, TN, USA

Post by sduck » Mon May 27, 2013 7:32 pm

A good ear is essential... but, also essential is a tuner. Fine tune the damn thing already! Trust me on this - something like 98% of the people who think they can tune a sequencer by ear can't. I'm classically trained as a cellist, and I don't trust my ears with the intonation. There's an old rule in the classical world regarding metronomes and tuners - the people who think they don't need them are the ones that need them the most.
flickr cloud of sound touyube NOT A MODERATOR ANYMORE

User avatar
beyourdog
Super Deluxe Wiggler
Posts: 1884
Joined: Sat Jun 12, 2010 4:00 pm
Contact:

Post by beyourdog » Mon May 27, 2013 7:41 pm

Well, sequencing is bringing a pattern to an existing sound right?

So I think knowing the basics of music theory is first mandatory...

Then for Klaus Shulze kind of sequences, I agree, a good delay / reverb is indispensable...Then, I would say a lot just lies within the envelops for the shape of your sound, so working out envelops and then Delays to get double patterns or delayed patterns is just great.
Though, if you have a bit of a musical ear, starting by programming your patterns with actual notes will help bringing something musical...

But it seems you have a good rig of modules to do great things, so just experimenting... well, that was my 2 cents :-)

User avatar
odecahedron
Super Deluxe Wiggler
Posts: 2490
Joined: Sat Feb 04, 2012 10:32 pm
Location: Wellington NZ

Post by odecahedron » Mon May 27, 2013 8:44 pm

sducks comment makes me think about quantizers with seqs.... theyre an interesting one - super useful/efficient, but also can make u lazy as writer...

so easy to jhust spin the course tunes pots to any old value and let the quantizer do its thing, but then sometime i feel like im cheating myself. the sequences ive doted over precision hand tuning with have nearly always been more useable. its a good workout for your sense of pitch with or wihtout a tuner

User avatar
Dr. Sketch-n-Etch
Super Deluxe Wiggler
Posts: 8105
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2010 1:46 pm
Location: Vancouver, BC, Canada

Post by Dr. Sketch-n-Etch » Mon May 27, 2013 8:48 pm

You don't need theory. You just need to be able to compose pleasing melodies. Whistle something nice than then reproduce those notes on your sequencer.
Power spent passion bespoils our soul receiver
Surely we know.

User avatar
jtmmorrow
Common Wiggler
Posts: 144
Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2012 7:51 pm
Location: Michigan

Post by jtmmorrow » Mon May 27, 2013 9:08 pm

Coming from the folk tradition, I just borrow a pleasing melody, and then using the tools I have -- improvise.

Klaus Shulze improvisations are amazing.
"You're just a wave/ You're not the water" Jimmie Dale Gilmore

User avatar
akrylik
Super Deluxe Wiggler
Posts: 1907
Joined: Sat Feb 18, 2012 9:13 am

Post by akrylik » Mon May 27, 2013 9:31 pm

While I agree that you don't NEED music theory, it can be really fun to use. Its a lot like when sometimes you want to draw straight lines rather then freehand drawing everything.

Here is an idea that I like to play around with sometimes. Choose a scale and a root note (like C-major) and then take a look at a chord progression map like this one:

Image

This map is from here.

Then choose a starting chord and create an argeggiation out if its notes. You can stick with the order of the notes in the chord or mix it up, play with different rhythms, etc. When changing to a different chord to create the next arpeggiation, I would at first explore the thick lines given in the map because those are the transitions that other people have found interesting and/or meaningful. Then once you understand those try going for the uncommon transitions or make up your own. Try choosing notes from two chords when creating a new arpeggiation. Try adding a drone on top using notes from chords near the current arpeggiating chord. Whatever really. All kinds of possibilities exist in this framework and we haven't even talked about using other scales yet. Abuse it!

Whatever you do just don't feel like you need to "know" music theory in order to make great music. Its just a tool.

User avatar
jtmmorrow
Common Wiggler
Posts: 144
Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2012 7:51 pm
Location: Michigan

Post by jtmmorrow » Mon May 27, 2013 10:42 pm

Thanks akrylik.

A better response to the OP and clear steps for me to try.
"You're just a wave/ You're not the water" Jimmie Dale Gilmore

nuromantix
Ultra Wiggler
Posts: 766
Joined: Sun Jul 29, 2012 7:34 am

Post by nuromantix » Tue May 28, 2013 9:10 am

I know a lot of music theory and I think if you are using a step sequencer with, say, 8 or 16 steps, you don't need any music theory at all.

You just need to have good taste, listen to what you are doing and decide if you like it.

It's going to be repetitive. There's no way you are going to get into extended jazz harmony with 2 or 3 oscillators playing 8 step sequences. Just use you inner idea of what you like hearing to judge the sounds you are making.

Whilst I understand the instruction "use a tuner" I also think there's a lot to be said for the way unquantized analogue sequencers free you from having to play "notes". Sometimes the odd note being a bit flat or sharp sounds amazing. Obvious example: Aphex Twin.... or any 80s minimal synth or EBM made using a Korg SQ10 :)

User avatar
Backroads
Wiggling with Experience
Posts: 409
Joined: Tue Nov 01, 2011 12:03 am

Post by Backroads » Tue May 28, 2013 12:25 pm

Some good advice so far, thanks guys!

I do appreciate the "you don't need theory" comments. In a way, you are right. But I'm also the sort of person that *enjoys* having some rules to go by that can serve to structure the process. Once I've internalized those rules, more things will "click" or "make sense" without having to think about what I'm doing.

Also, I really need to find a clock-divisable delay.

ChurchyLaFemme
Common Wiggler
Posts: 108
Joined: Tue May 29, 2012 6:30 pm

Post by ChurchyLaFemme » Tue May 28, 2013 4:48 pm

Might be cool to check out Bach. Many of the cool synth sequences I hear recall a more 'Baroque' idea of melody, where the melodic contour is sort of embellished with arpeggiations, countermelodies, etc.

To better get at your question: great sequences often involve a discourse between voices, whether this is a syncopation of rhythms, an interaction between a bassline and a melodic voice, etc. So counterpoint would be a great place to start.

Totally agree though that the beauty of a sequence is that you can lay it down and then tweak until it evolves into something musically satisfying.

User avatar
digital_steve
Muppet
Posts: 1692
Joined: Sat Sep 17, 2011 7:50 pm
Location: Australia

Post by digital_steve » Tue May 28, 2013 6:54 pm

akrylik
Awesome, awesome link
richard wrote:
MrBiggs wrote:serious instrument. What does that even mean?
I think it means you have to frown when you play it.
causticlogic wrote:Yeah, digital_steve spells "fun" with a capital FU...

defenestration
Veteran Wiggler
Posts: 606
Joined: Tue Dec 06, 2011 4:21 am
Location: chicago

Post by defenestration » Wed May 29, 2013 1:15 pm

sduck wrote:A good ear is essential... but, also essential is a tuner. Fine tune the damn thing already! Trust me on this - something like 98% of the people who think they can tune a sequencer by ear can't. I'm classically trained as a cellist, and I don't trust my ears with the intonation. There's an old rule in the classical world regarding metronomes and tuners - the people who think they don't need them are the ones that need them the most.
I find that this is often because equal temperament actually sounds pretty crappy. A 'perfect fifth' in equal temperament is still 2 cents off the third harmonic, and a major third is even further from its associated harmonic. 'in tune' is a slippery concept - 'perfect pitch' seems like an awfully unfortunate condition

Image
(source: Hearing and Writing Music: Professional Training for Today's Musician, by Ron Gorow)

music theory is a collection of retrospective analytical tools, at best they are merely starting points for the development of prospective processes

fwiw, during my limited outsider experience studying music composition in an academic setting, the only 'music theory' I encountered was having to study a smidge of serialism, and even that was very 'theory-lite' for obvious (?) reasons. Other than having to write our own work, the tutelage mainly consisted of listening to very challenging music while thinking extremely hard about it. Much of the rest of the time was spent learning how to 'idiomatically' write for instruments that we didn't know how to play. I had a couple of amazing teachers during that time and I learned shedloads, but probably not in the way or about the things that someone might typically expect.

Just as an example, Christian Lauba is a guy I wouldn't know about otherwise. A long time ago I got to see some of his pieces performed and he answered questions between. I had no idea who he was when I walked in there and it definitely left an impression.

[video][/video]

more to the point perhaps, I think that if you're really interested in digging into the western tonal approach you definitely need an 88key hanging around and you should frequently dink around on it - this is where a theory text can come in handy, to give you starting places for specific harmonic ideas

For a surprisingly thorough treatment of composition techniques that could be read by a (bright) kid in middle school, the book 'Composing Music' by William Russo is fantastic, containing a plethora of practical exercises that lead to detailed examinations of melody and harmony from a creative, rather than proscriptive perspective. It starts very basic but gets quite complex.

User avatar
felixer
Super Deluxe Wiggler
Posts: 4153
Joined: Thu May 13, 2010 9:27 pm
Location: germany

Post by felixer » Wed May 29, 2013 3:30 pm

Backroads wrote:But I'm also the sort of person that *enjoys* having some rules to go by that can serve to structure the process. Once I've internalized those rules, more things will "click" or "make sense" without having to think about what I'm doing.
-get a beginners/instruction book for counterpoint. once you get those simple rules down and see 'the system' you can change it in any way you like (like going into 12-tone/serial stuff).
-get a beginners/instruction book on harmony. once you etc ...
those are the two cornerstones of western/european music. rhythm is not one of it's strenght. india is the place to go for that. or africa if you must, but asian rhythm's are more varied and subtle imho. this might be a good introduction to that there's a book too ...
don't need midi, don't need keys, just want knobs and cables (all together now ;-)

User avatar
Dr. Sketch-n-Etch
Super Deluxe Wiggler
Posts: 8105
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2010 1:46 pm
Location: Vancouver, BC, Canada

Post by Dr. Sketch-n-Etch » Wed May 29, 2013 5:59 pm

I gave what I thought was some pretty good advice in this similar thread:

viewtopic.php?t=75870

I'll reiterate it here, briefly.

Learn and analyze the first prelude (in C major) from JS Bach's Wohltempierte Klavier I. It is essentially a study in efficient harmonic progression within a piece which can be played completely monophonically. Plus, it's in C, so there are very few sharps and flats. Indeed, you could take any bar of that prelude, and it would make a fairly cool 16-step sequence. You could speed it up, slow it down, move it up and down with CV, etc.

So, what do I mean by "analyze"? The big question for me is always "where is the root"? So, if you know the root of the chord, you know a lot. Then, you can identify the chord. The next two questions are "what quality of chord is this" (major or minor -- look at the third relative to the root) and "what quality is the seventh (if it exists in the chord -- i.e., if the chord is more than a triad)". Once you have identified all the chords, then try to identify the key center. For this, it is worthwhile to keep handy a chart of the seventh chord qualities on the various scale degrees of the major scale. Here is the chart, identifying the scale degree for the root (1), the quality of the diatonic (made up only of scale tones) seventh chord, and the intervals of each chord tone relative to its root, followed by the example from the key of C:

1 -- major 7th (1 3 5 7) (C E G B)
2 -- minor 7th (1 b3 5 b7) (D F A C)
3 -- minor 7th (1 b3 5 b7) (E G B D)
4 -- major 7th (1 3 5 7) (F A C E)
5 -- dominant (1 3 5 b7) (G B D F)
6 -- minor 7th (1 b3 5 b7) (A C E G)
7 -- half-dim (1 b3 b5 b7) (B D F A)

In much diatonic music, the chords progress downward along the "circle of fifths". In other words, the root motion of the chords tends to drop by 5 within the scale. Hence, common chord progressions include 2-5-1, 6-2-5-1, 3-6-2-5-1, or simply 5-1 (the "perfect cadence"). For example, 2-5-1 would have the qualities of minor - dominant - major. Hence, if you see this progression of triads or 7th chords, there is a good chance that the root of the third chord is the key center (AKA the "tonality"). Key centers change in most pieces. When this is done cleverly and smoothly, it is called "modulation". For example, one can modulate from the key of C to the key of Bb by simply dropping the third degree of a C chord from E to Eb (i.e., making the chord minor). In this way, the C "tonic" major chord (the central chord of the key of C) can become the 2 (minor) chord in the key of Bb. So, one might have a progression of

D min 7 - G7 - C maj * C min - F7 - Bb maj

This is two "2-5-1" progressions, the first in the key of C, and the second in the key of Bb, with the modulation occurring at the asterisk.

So, armed with this knowledge, one could (mostly) analyze the Bach C major prelude. This is a very instructive exercise!
Power spent passion bespoils our soul receiver
Surely we know.

User avatar
digital_steve
Muppet
Posts: 1692
Joined: Sat Sep 17, 2011 7:50 pm
Location: Australia

Post by digital_steve » Wed May 29, 2013 6:05 pm

Best thread I've seen in ages; I'll be watching and learning from this mofo!
richard wrote:
MrBiggs wrote:serious instrument. What does that even mean?
I think it means you have to frown when you play it.
causticlogic wrote:Yeah, digital_steve spells "fun" with a capital FU...

User avatar
sduck
experimental use of gravity
Posts: 14231
Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2009 6:03 pm
Location: Vortepexaion, TN, USA

Post by sduck » Wed May 29, 2013 9:26 pm

defenestration wrote: 'in tune' is a slippery concept
Brilliant post! I was hoping someone would come up with something like that.

My point was a bit more basic than that - for those that are getting started doing this, if you're going to try doing basic tonal type sequences, invest a bit of time and effort into getting things in tune. I've heard way too many electronic music performances that could have been really nice, but were marred by basic intonation problems. I won't post any examples, but they're not hard to find on youtube and elsewhere.
flickr cloud of sound touyube NOT A MODERATOR ANYMORE

User avatar
odecahedron
Super Deluxe Wiggler
Posts: 2490
Joined: Sat Feb 04, 2012 10:32 pm
Location: Wellington NZ

Post by odecahedron » Thu May 30, 2013 12:56 am

^agreed - i totally take back what i said re: "with or without tuning" - slightly diff context i think but whatevs, tuning is pretty damn base important.

that said nano-tonal mismatches (in sequences) can create pleasing pycho-acoustic effects that u dont immediately percieve as a pitch diff (especially with two or more of the "same notes" back to back ... hard to explain with words, but it almost has a eq/filt difference effect. anyway blah.

this is indeed an educational thread. :sb:

User avatar
CJ Miller
Super Deluxe Wiggler
Posts: 4256
Joined: Thu Apr 28, 2011 3:10 pm
Location: Mumfordshire

Post by CJ Miller » Thu May 30, 2013 6:38 am

defenestration wrote:fwiw, during my limited outsider experience studying music composition in an academic setting, the only 'music theory' I encountered was having to study a smidge of serialism, and even that was very 'theory-lite' for obvious (?) reasons.
Not obvious to me! Would you mind expanding upon this remark? I have come to music from outside, never having really considered myself to be a musician. I have never studied serialism in-depth, but much of my early work in computer music involved playing with Karlheinz Essl's "RTClib", which was largely based on his experiences with serialism. So, not knowing much else about early European music theory, I wonder how serialism is theory-lite.
felixer wrote:those are the two cornerstones of western/european music. rhythm is not one of it's strenght. india is the place to go for that. or africa if you must, but asian rhythm's are more varied and subtle imho.
I agree with this. Anybody who has experience with synthesizers I am going to guess quickly discovers that pulses and pitch are a continuum. So much theory seems to refute this, and so come off as counter-intuitive to me.

I'd say that if one knows a bit of maths and logic, that it is easy to organize sonic events in time. A composition can be thought of as a set of rules, or grammars, or probabilities. When one composes, or patches - one is devising a music theory, which may or may not relate to theories or musics of others.

After all of these years of mucking about, I still do not understand pitch. This has made my MIDI experiences a bit stilted, since I have needed to choose pitches anyway. To me, they have always been just arbitrary selections and divisions of frequencies. I like that with a control-voltage based system I get the whole range of possible frequencies. Any sense of pitch I have is probably relative, as I am more interested in shifting beating than anything fixed.

User avatar
Jaspo
Code Head
Posts: 838
Joined: Thu Apr 28, 2011 10:01 am
Location: North Eastern Ohio

Post by Jaspo » Thu May 30, 2013 9:11 am

To quote BoC .... Music is Math. It is really the brains ability to understand fractional relationships ... like 3/2, 2/1 or 16/9. The more complex the ratio the greater the tension and the need to resolve it to a simpler ratio.

The first column is the interval from the root. The second is the Just intonation (pure) fractional ratio. The third is a mathematical representation of the relationship.

This won't help you make better music, but it might give you insight into the math behind the voodoo.

Image

Example: A minor 3rd above A (440 hz)
440 * (6/5) = 528
400 * 2^(3/12) = 523.2511306

It's very close. Try both. With these two formulas you can calculate your own scales.
Last edited by Jaspo on Thu May 30, 2013 1:39 pm, edited 3 times in total.

voradfils
Learning to Wiggle
Posts: 35
Joined: Mon Jan 14, 2013 10:52 am

Post by voradfils » Thu May 30, 2013 9:48 am

Western concept of pitch and musical notation is rather simple but somewhat arbitrary. Our notational system is based on the circle of fifths (it's actually a spiral in just tuning), ie. stacking 3's (multiplying, a geometric series).

This way you'll get the pentatonic scale (F, C, G, D, A; 5 steps along the "circle"), and then later the diatonic (7 steps, FCGDAEB). Then all the notes are dropped down to the same octave where they appear in the order FGABCDE (the so called lydian scale). If you start from the 3rd degree of this scale you'll get ABCDEFG.

Chain a diatonic and pentatonic together and you'll have a chromatic scale (multiply by 3 twelve times), you'll get something pretty close to 1 when all the octaves are removed (the starting pitch). If you take a look at the keyboard it consist of a diatonic scale on the whites and pentatonic on the blacks. The black keys are sharp or flat depending on which side of the cycle we are, ie. clockwise or counter-clockwise from F. If the blacks are tuned in just fifths (that means exact 3's) they can only work as either but not both. If you shrink all of the 3's a little you'll get a perfectly symmetrical circle (ie. 12-tone equal temperament), where the black keys will serve either as sharps or flats.

The harmonic foundation (triads, eg. F-A-C) is naturally based ont the harmonic series (1 - root, 3 - fifth, and 5 - major third, no higher primes), but western musical notation does not distinguish between 3-limit and 5-limit intervals and treats everything as if it were just multiples of 3's (because of the cycle and the scales). There have been attempts to resolve the conflict between 3's and 5's through tempering, that is shrinking the 3's so that four of them (F to A) make something closer to 5.

In the end, all western scales and chords are side effects of the circle (or cycle) of fifths. Some degree combinations just happen to relate rather nicely to the harmonic series.

User avatar
Dr. Sketch-n-Etch
Super Deluxe Wiggler
Posts: 8105
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2010 1:46 pm
Location: Vancouver, BC, Canada

Post by Dr. Sketch-n-Etch » Thu May 30, 2013 11:38 am

All this talk of pitch and tuning and intonation bores the hell out of me. Probably it's because I used to have a harpsichord, which had about 180 strings, and it needed to be tuned every week or so, and touched up every time I sat down at it. Calibrating VCOs is 10000% easier!

Here's a simple exercise for music theory and sequencing. Have a listen to the classic Boards of Canada track "Kaini Industries" from Music Has The Right To Children. Pretend you are going to sequence it. Break it up into as many of the smallest subdivision of the beat as is required. (Hint: you'll need 64 notes.) So, set up 64 spaces on a piece of ruled paper -- I would suggest using four lines of 16 notes each. Now, taking the root as 1, fill every space with the numerical value of each note, using the major scale of 1 as 1234567.

I'll do the first two lines of 16 beats for you right here. (Bear in mind that I'm doing this from memory as I don't have access to the tune right now, so I might get it wrong.) First, let's put the rhythm down (this is actually the hardest part of the exercise to get exactly right). I will use X to represent a note, and 0 to represent a rest, and I'll separate each four beats with a slash. (Note, the fact that there are zeroes does not imply that the sound stops -- the notes tend to ring out over these spaces -- it just implies that there is no new gate pulse on that beat. I.e., X is where the gate switch is ON, and 0 is where the gate switch is OFF.) Here's the first two sets of 16:

X 0 0 X / X X X X / 0 X X 0 / 0 0 X X

X 0 0 0 / X 0 0 0 / 0 0 X 0 / 0 0 X 0

Now let's fill in the notes. The melody lies within a two octave range. I have represented notes in the upper octave in bold type:

1 0 0 5 / b3 b3 5 b3 / 0 2 b7 0 / 0 0 1 b7

4 0 0 0 / 4 0 0 0 / 0 0 b7 0 / 0 0 1 0

(Note: that second "4" is actually an octave down.) So, what can we tell about this piece from this? First, the first tonality (the 1 in the first line) is minor, and the notes make a minor seventh chord (actually a minor ninth if the upper-octave 2 is considered). Next, the piece modulates up a fourth on the second line, and then comes back down to the tonic. This 4-1 progression is called a "plagal cadence" (IIRC). Indeed, this piece is monophonic, and yet all sorts of traditional harmony is implied by the notes (just like the Bach prelude).

Hey, this is fun! Let's do another -- one of my favorites: "Chameleon" from Herbie Hancock's Head Hunters:

0 0 X 0 / X 0 X 0 / X 0 0 X / 0 0 X 0

0 0 X 0 / X 0 X 0 / X 0 0 X / 0 0 X 0

Whoa! Hold the phone! Both these lines have exactly the same rhythm! Now let's put in some notes:

0 0 6 0 / b7 0 7 0 / 1 0 0 5 / 0 0 b7 0

0 0 2 0 / b3 0 3 0 / 4 0 0 1 / 0 0 b3 0

and it just repeats like that ad infinitum. Looking at the first line, after the initial chromatic approach to the tonic "1" from below, this melody spells out the "shell" of a dominant seventh chord, but with no third, so it actually has no fixed major or minor "quality" -- it could be either. This makes it sound somewhat "bluesy". In the blues, one plays both thirds against each other.

Here's another interesting thing: both lines are essentially the same melody. The second line is just the first line transposed up a fourth. (another plagal cadence, which is the basic chord change of the blues).

So, pick a sequence you like, figure out what notes it contains relative to the key centre(s), and report back. Homework assignment: Finish off the "Kaini Industries" sequence, or try the sequence at the end of ELP's "Karn Evil 9". (That sequence is easy because it contains no chord changes.)
Power spent passion bespoils our soul receiver
Surely we know.

User avatar
Selador
Veteran Wiggler
Posts: 505
Joined: Thu May 10, 2012 4:49 pm
Location: Tallinn, Estonia

Post by Selador » Thu May 30, 2013 12:47 pm

This thread makes me smile. :guinness:

Carry on!
Born like this, into this, as chalk faces smile

keimart.in

Post Reply

Return to “Modular Synth General Discussion”