old thread

[Julian Knowles <j.knowles@xxxxxxxxxx>]

jon <transmit@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

>  i think this might have something to
> do with the fact that i don't use midi software, nor any of that max/msp
> shit, or something like that.


i don't know that the  brand of car you drive is _that_ important.

max, pd, jmax, supercollider, reaktor, granulab, audiomulch 
whatever... its more to do with the person at the wheel... (beyond a 
very basic level, that is)


> so, it got me thinking in a basic just-worked-another-night-shift kind of
> way.  i suppose this might be something loosely related to tech(nolog)ical
> determinism when i ask if you think new or at least more varied sounds and
> ideas result from a more unusual technical arrangement/context.  i mean,
> it's sort of true when they say everybody is now using max/msp just like
> they were using the same vst plugins a year ago,


but max/msp does not sound like anything, just as a toolkit does not 
presuppose what will be built. besides, all those vst plug-ins will 
run in the new msp... ;) so how will you tell what someone is running 
without looking at their screen? i'd venture to say that what people 
run is pretty unimportant by and large. What's more important is 
their maneovering within the environment.

I think what you mean is people using other people's _patches_ 
instead of making their own

this is something entirely different again.

people personalise patches to their musical intents and sonic preference.

that said, two people playing the same patch can still sound 
completely different, which is why computers are musical instruments. 
an artist's musical decisions are as important as anything else and 
have a profound effect on the sonic outcome, unless of course the 
patch is almost entirely algorithmic with little opportunity for 
human intervention.


> and i think it really does
> show when you listen to a lot of new electronics.  i think that within the
> microsound/abstract realm, there is still a lot of convention and to a
> degree, conformity when it comes to form and sound.


you are running a modernist argument... ie music must be original/new 
to be of any value. i don't really subscribe to this. a lot of 
excellent work pays debt to the music that precedes and surrounds it. 
music is a conversation and sometimes people agree. 'convention' or 
stylistic commonality doesn't exclude good music. that said, an 
important ingredient for good music is often a liberal dose of the 
artist's personality, or at least a foregrounding of their interests 
as part of a comversation with others that share them. i am very wary 
of the 'originality' argument, as i really can't think of any music i 
would call truly original. music doesn't seem to work like that, 
because it is a cultural product. you can't make music outside of the 
culture you inhabit, and i'm not sure it would be worth the trouble 
or make the music any better


> anyway, fire some thoughts back if you please.  i haven't slept all night,
> so if this is a totally banal post, i'm sorry to have inflicted it upon you.

not at all - its good to talk about music

regards

julian

--
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
j  u  l  i  a  n     k  n  o  w  l  e  s
senior lecturer in music technology
electronic arts co-ordinator
school of contemporary arts (music), university of western sydney
web: http://www.geocities.com/socialinterior