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