Re: [microsound] Ecce Coder - ne, max/msp

[Ian andrews <i.andrews@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Some very good points made in this post. While I agree with most of this,
I'd like to take the argument a bit further regarding originality and
expression (of the "creative consiousness of the musician").
By using presets (for the sake the argument I'll define presets here very
broadly, as blocks of code, preset rhythm patterns, patches, commercial
sample libraries, etc.) one takes the risk that someone else may have used
the same preset in the same way. So the artist risks loosing originality.
In order to use presets and still be original the artist must do something
with the presets (tweek, combine with other material, cut-up, process,
etc.) that ensures that their production is unique. This is pretty obvious.
 But the question I'd like to raise here is:  is the work made by someone
who does not use presets always neccessarily more original that the work of
someone who works with presets in a creative way?  I'd like to argue that
it isn't.
If I sit down with a synth and try to create some original music I'd say
that 9 times out of 10 I would be merely rehashing something I had heard
before, even if I could not remember hearing it, and could not pin point
the source. Even if my intention was to not imitate a particular artist or
musical style but to produce something totally original, I believe that
subconsiously I would find myself doing just that. I'd even suggest that
the so-called creative consiousness of the artist is something that is
learned (like a language), not something that purely comes from within.  I
do not believe in the romantic Western notion of the artistic genius with a
magical soul. But that's not to say that I don't believe in expression.
However, the type of expression I DO believe in is more like a compulsion.
A burning desire to play with things, to rearrange, recombine, decompose,
to explore and experiment... to fuck with things. I believe in this kind of
expression much more than in the traditional concept of expression in which
the individual strives to give birth to something which they already
possess within themselves.
So I find that I need something to work with (not just inspiration). And I
find that my most productive methods and most original work involves the
use of two methodologies: first the use of some pre-existing material, in
the form of samples, use of vinyl, tapeloops, something, or some
combination of elements, out of which I can make something new. and second,
some kind of aleatory procedure, some kind of randomness which helps break
the subconscious, learned and ingrained patterns and cultural cliches, and
reveals, to me, something new and original. You could call this "machine
music" or "process music" where a set method induces randomness, mistakes,
chance happenings, and the job of the artist is to select the best outcome
from a series of experiments.
I think that in the last decade, or two, DJ culture has reinforced this way
of working for many artists.
So I suppose my point is that the best method of working lies somewhere in
between the "use of presets" and the "build it from scratch" arguments and
that there are perhaps much more important things to consider when looking
for innovation and originality.

>But more seriously - and not with reference to the post above - I find we
>are trudging into some murky territory here with the implied dyad
>[coder = true innovator / coder = tweaker]
>of recent discussion.  Music is the result of the creative use of tools -
>whether acoustic instruments, found objects, hardware electronic devices,
>or software applications - and should be judged as such.  Whether the
>origin of the tools lies with the musician or with a factory (or coding
>shop) seems irrelevant to the question of whether the use of the tools is
>successful in expressing the creative consciousness of the musician.  Yet
>it seems that the anthem of building it oneself pops up in all areas of
>music.  In the early 1990s retro-analog synthetic movement it was a badge
>of honor for some that their synthesizers were homemade or hand rewired (I
>remember one famous person who claimed to use homemade boxes and then was
>found to be using standard commercially available instruments), yet upon a
>listen to the music itself the birth of the equipment seemed often to make
>little difference.  In the same period, one of the most fascinating - and
>enduring - records to be released was Anthony Manning's "Islets in Pink
>Polypropylene," which used only a Roland R-8 drum machine and yet managed
>to come across as if it were an album of academic electronics.  As a
>guitarist I recall in childhood the hushed tones of reverence with which
>Allan Holdsworth's custom-made guitars were discussed, yet I found myself
>moved more by the playing done on off-the-shelf instruments by Robert Fripp
>in the same period.  And what of the older innovators of composition?  Was
>Harry Partch superior to Charles Ives because the former built his own
>instruments whereas the latter wrote insurance manuals and composed for
>existing devices?  And how far back does the autheticity of one's tools
>go?  Wrote the code but not the compiler?  The compiler but not the
>chip?  What about the soundcard drivers or the OS?  Likewise, one might ask
>with synthesizers:  did you build the synth from existing or invented
>schematics?  Did you make your own circuit board or use a kit?  Or in
>acoustic instruments:  did you grow the trees for the wood?  Did you make
>your own strings or drum heads from animal guts and skins?  Did you hunt
>the animals yourself?  I have been playing the electric guitar for many
>years, and I still have not come close to exhausting its possibilities, so
>in my case the need to reinvent the tool itself in order to express my
>ideas has simply not been experienced.  Similarly, as a relatively new user
>of Reaktor building instruments there from scratch, I have yet to come up
>against the wall at which I wail:  I must code something in order to get
>around this impossibility.  A focus on code also ignores the other work
>musicians undertake in their creations; Kim mentions mathematical research,
>and others are researching history or biochemistry in pursuit of conceptual
>structure or algorhythmic genesis.  Rather than alternating between a
>geek-macho of self-coding-worship and a left/right brain stereotyping of
>what artists should and should not be doing with their creative energies -
>so it seems the divide has been shaping up today - we might look instead at
>the direction of musical consciousness and the needs of the creative
>work.  Does one's creative process work in code (or for that matter in
>circuit boards, in luthiership, in carpentry) or does it seek out the tools
>at hand in order to bring its fruit into the world as quickly as it
>can?  Does a piece require a new instrument in order to come to its fullest
>flower, or can the same result come from an instrument ready to
>hand?  These, finally, are questions of aesthetics rather than - I want to
>say - artistic ethics:  being a coder as part of one's musical activities
>does not make the music Better (approaching some asymtote of binary
>authenticity) or Worse (earlessly process-obsessed); it simply alters the
>path by which the musical result is reached, a path taken by musician
>rather than by listener.  To lift again from the humorous Lifestyle post of
>this morning, the fact of Glenn Gould's vocalisations during his playing
>does not make his performance Better; rather, the vocalisations are another
>product of the unique process by which Gould's creative expression came to
>such great fruition.  If someone can take a preprogrammed instrument from
>the Reaktor library and make an original and interesting piece with it,
>congratulations should be in order, just as they should be if someone can
>make an original and interesting piece after hammering out some assembly
>language for a newly invented computer.  Kit Clayton and Monolake are
>developing software; Sun Electric and Vladislav Delay are using existing
>software; all are making great records.  My own feeling is that music - or
>any other creative extruding - will express itself by whatever means it
>can, with one's self and one's consciousness as Its instruments; if one is
>a coder, it will get to the speakers through code, whereas if one is a
>carpenter, it will be born with the aid of drills and saws.  But after this
>birth, by what ever means, what does this child do, what does it
>sing?  That is the question.
>
>Respect to all.
>
>np - "Clicks & Cuts 2" CD 3 (nice work by listmembers!)
>
>Joshua Maremont / Thermal - mailto:thermal@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>Boxman Studies Label - http://www.boxmanstudies.com/
>
>
>---------------------------------------------------------------------
>To unsubscribe, e-mail: microsound-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>For additional commands, e-mail: microsound-help@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>website: http://www.microsound.org


Ian Andrews
Metro Screen
Sydney


Email: i.andrews@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://www.metroscreen.com.au
1981 - 2001 Metro Screen is a celebrating 20 years of access and
innovation in independent screen production.

Metro Screen
Sydney Film Centre
Paddington Town Hall
P.O. Box 299
Paddington NSW 2021
Ph : 612 9361 5318
Fax: 612 9361 5320