[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [microsound] pita, fennesz. . . Patches in general



> A Max patch however is not. . . by no means. . . You can have patches that
> borderline play themselves, or far more involved processes, but the patch is
> still much more than a simple "instrument" (or brush. . .), because of how
> much hart and soul is already in the patch (I play both sides here, I both
> play and write my own patches. . . and all though you can sound bad playing
> them if you don't know what your doing it still sounds like me (just not
> doing so well)). .. .

so is the problem credit then?  perhaps we'd like fennesz & pita to
expound a little bit more about what patches they are using?  i'm
certainly all for crediting the programmer who made some of the sounds
possible.  but the person "making the music" is ultimately the composer
& the composer alone.  even if the "music" is created by the push of a
button, the work of the composer is mostly selecting what's good for the
piece s/he has in mind & discarding what's not.


i can't speak for fennesz, but i've seen pita live & i seriously doubt
he just pushed the "creative programmer" button.  his set was
extraordinarily complex & thrilling from beginning to the end.

> I also believe that there is an importance in knowledge of what your
> actually doing that does not come from playing someone else's patches. . .
> That you may know how to get close to the sound that you want, but I think
> you need to know where that sound is coming from (how its made).

but understanding the process?  *why*?  do i need to understand granular
synthesis in order to use it?  do i need to follow a luthery class to
understand the guitar?  as a programmer myself (though not of patches) i
could "borderline" agree with your frustration of seeing most people
uncaring of the process.  but it's still just a vain feeling: there is
only so much anyone can be interested to learn about.  if the patch is
out then we can use it.

~ david