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

[Kerry Uchida <kerry@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

A Listener wrote:

>  . .
>
> The guitar analogy is a little week. . . We can understand the skill of a
> guitar player, because we know what a guitar sounds like. . . (I think)
> we've all even strummed its strings (at least once). We can recognize a
> guitar and know how it sounds in the hands of a bad player and a good
> player, because a guitar is universal. . .

In your new analogy your missing the point.  Your judging the player
and not the final outcome.  There are some 'bad' players who have
created wonderful pieces (Eno fully addmits he can't play).  Your
analyzing the process and judging the process.  Are you jealous
because you create your own patches but can't make computer
aided music as well as mr.Fennesz?   In classical music there
are extremely talented technical players that couldn't write to
save their lives.  In free jazz there are players that would fail
a high school band class.   In the end it's all what enter's the
listeners' ears.   Are you sitting there listening and going
"ohhhh, he's using Max patch #84, what a looser".....
"ohhhh, he's playing a technics1200 w/stanton cartridges, looser"
This is a new instrument and the sonic possibilities are endless!
To me this is exciting, because, I've heard the guitar...a thousand
times in a thousand forms.......Microsound music I have not. Plus,
we are in the early stages of this musical development.  The
technology is allowing us to go beyond what we ever conceived
we could do before.   People are conceiving these ideas and
putting them forth.  It's a wonderful time!

> 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)). ..

Heart and soul?  This comes from the playing.  The moment.  Very
little comes from the instrument.  It could be argued that Hendrix's
guitar was "possessed".  But the real magic came from the playing.
Yes.  I admit that it is very hard will the current simple computer
technologies to express your heart and soul via a trackpad and
keyboard.   But heart and soul comes from within the player, they
choose their "instruments" to translate this energy into their art.

> 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).

I believe that there is an importance in listening to what your outcome is
based on what your doing.  Sure some 'technical' background will help
you 'get there', but are all musicians/sound designers trying to get
someplace with a sound or are they creating it in the moment.  If you
don't listen to your output and adjust accordingly you'll struggle in
your development of "your sound".  Often with technology what
the technology "says" it is doing is not often what it produces. Plus,
there are a whole other set of factors that "affect" the sound beyond
once it has left the computer.   The amplifier, the speaker, the acoustic
space (surfaces, temp, etc), the listeners ears, the listeners brain.
An true performer is aware of all of these elements and how they
affect their "sound".  I think this goes WAY beyond THE PATCH.



Kerry Uchida
DJ Aural
Technomorph
http:www.technomorph.com
Vancouver, Canada