Following the Gábor Lázár research, I wanted to understand how his approach relates to Mark Fell. There is a lot of overlap: Max/MSP, algorithmic systems, unusual rhythmic structures, limited toolsets, and an interest in process rather than conventional arrangement.
They also worked together on The Neurobiology of Moral Decision Making in 2015, so there is a direct connection.
Simple systems
Both Fell and Lázár often describe their systems as relatively simple.
Fell has talked about using only a few linked procedures. Lázár says something similar about his Max patches: the individual processes are simple, and the complexity comes from several of them running together.
This is useful to keep in mind. The music can sound technically dense without the underlying system being especially complicated.
The main work seems to be in choosing the relationships between processes.
Mark Fell and rhythmic structure
Fell seems especially interested in rhythm as a structure that can be manipulated independently of the sounds used.
A pattern can be changed through things like:
- density
- cycle length
- displacement
- phase
- subdivision
- repetition
- intensity
He has described systems where a few parameters alter the behaviour of a rhythm in real time.
This is close to something I have been thinking about for my own work: controlling a system through higher-level parameters rather than editing individual notes.
Beyond off-grid rhythm
“Off-grid” does not quite describe Fell’s approach.
Moving notes slightly away from a regular grid is one thing. Fell often changes the underlying temporal structure itself.
A loop might contain seven units instead of eight. Another layer might repeat after thirteen or fifteen. Several cycles can overlap without lining up in the usual way.
The result is still highly precise, but the precision belongs to a different structure.
This seems worth exploring separately from swing, groove, or timing randomization.
Lázár and the compositional interface
Lázár shares some of these rhythmic interests, but his recent work puts more emphasis on the larger environment.
His compositional interface includes sequencing, synthesis, timing, transformations, stored material, and performance controls.
The interface persists across pieces. Individual recordings come out of working with that system.
That is slightly different from focusing mainly on the behaviour of a pattern. The whole environment becomes something to compose and refine.
Constraints
Fell’s relationship with software is also interesting because he has sometimes deliberately used tools he found awkward.
For Sensate Focus, he worked manually in Digital Performer rather than relying on the kinds of Max systems he already knew well.
The constraint was part of the process.
That suggests that for Fell, the point is not necessarily to build the most natural or efficient tool. Sometimes an inconvenient process is useful because it forces different decisions.
Lázár’s recent approach seems different. He has spent years building an environment that increasingly matches the way he wants to work.
Familiar sounds, unfamiliar timing
Fell has said that he often prefers recognizable sounds used in unfamiliar rhythmic structures.
This helps explain why some of his work can still clearly refer to house or club music even when the timing feels strange.
The sounds remain recognizable; the organization changes.
Lázár’s music often feels more self-contained sonically. His earlier work in particular involved tightly constrained synthetic sound worlds alongside unusual sequencing.
The distinction is not absolute, but it is useful when listening to them side by side.
Generative systems
Neither Fell nor Lázár seems especially interested in generative music as an end in itself.
Fell has used generative systems and later moved away from them when they stopped being useful. Lázár prefers the word algorithmic and emphasizes his own input into the system.
So the interesting part is not how much music the computer can make by itself.
It is how the musician interacts with a system that has its own rules.
The Neurobiology of Moral Decision Making
Their collaboration is useful for thinking about the differences between them.
Fell has described part of the process as generating rhythms and synchronizing Lázár’s sounds to them.
That makes sense in relation to their individual practices: Fell working heavily with temporal structure, Lázár bringing a distinctive synthetic language.
I want to listen to the album again specifically with that division in mind.
What I want to look at next
The Lázár research made me interested in composing the instrument itself.
Fell adds another question: how should time be represented inside that instrument?
Things I want to investigate further:
- how Fell represents rhythmic cycles
- how much of his systems are deterministic
- which parameters he controls during performance
- whether patterns are stored as event lists, ratios, counters, or nested cycles
- how Lázár represents patterns in his current interface
- how much material is stored and how much is transformed live
- how both of them handle larger form when the small-scale rhythm is unstable
The practical question for me is simple:
What is the smallest system I could build that already has interesting temporal behaviour before I add more sounds?
Sources / starting points
- Mark Fell interviews with FACT, Red Bull Music Academy, Electronic Beats and Stray Landings
- Gábor Lázár interviews with MusicRadar and Fifteen Questions
- Mark Fell & Gábor Lázár — The Neurobiology of Moral Decision Making (2015)
- Gábor Lázár — Boundary Object
- Mark Fell — Multistability
- Sensate Focus
These are starting points for further reading rather than direct citations — the observations above are my own reading of the two practices.