RE: [microsound] grids and junk

[pelagius pelagius <pela_gius@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

> From: "Christopher Sorg" <csorg@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> I understood the thrust of the thread to be, Max/MSP sounds like some
> specific sound.  And I disagreed with that, as you can use it on a number 
> of
> different levels, with extremely different results.  (and I said, for
> example Oval/Elliot Sharp/some guy using it simply as a reverb unit)  So I
> dismissed that level of the argument, because it's simply not true.  I
> haven't scientifically tested the theory, but I find it unlikely that you
> can spot Max under every circumstance.

God, I hate to pound this into the ground, but you're misrepresenting what I 
was trying to say.  I never said I could spot max/msp under every 
circumstance and if I implied that it was a mistake.  And of course I'm not 
talking about max and all of the midi and data-routing aspects of the 
program.  But when it comes down to any dsp stuff that either generates or 
modifies sound, well then by definition those things have a "sound" to them! 
 Whether you code them yourself or they are 3rd-party vst plug-ins or 
whatever.  I'm not saying this is in any way artistically limiting and I 
never said that this sound was identifiable or easy to categorize.  In fact 
I'm saying it's NOT defined, it never even seems to be talked about or 
questioned.

The complexity issue is irrelevant.  You can patch together as many plugins 
as you like but each individual sound generating or modifying unit has it's 
own sound.
Wait a minute, I just realized the problem here is with my use of the word 
"sound."  You're taking me to mean a sort of genre-defining "sound" when 
really I'm only talking about individual sonic qualities of specific 
sound-modifying tools.

In other words, if I'm going to start using a program like max/msp am I 
going to blindly accept the assertion that it "has no sound of it's own" 
which implies that it can recreate any existing sounds?  Or am I going to 
ask myself whether I like the particular sonic qualities of commonly 
available tools within msp compared to their counterparts in the analog or 
hardware realm and factor in the benefits of flexibility, extensibility, 
digital control, etc?

And if I decide to buy max/msp and spend a lot of time learning to program 
because I believe it can do anything, what happens when I'm not able to make 
the sounds I want to make?  Since only an inept workman blames the tools I'd 
have to conclude that it was my programming skills at fault and I would get 
to work practicing my dsp coding rather than making music. To say that 
max/msp has no sound implies that the decision to use it is made not on the 
basis of sonic choices but as a matter of control and convenience, which is 
fine but I believe it's an important distinction to make.  I realize I'm 
being annoyingly nit-picky on an issue of semantics and veering wildly into 
an unapologetically geeky territory generally occupied by guitar-tone 
wierdos.

Apologies to the music fans who don't care about this sort of stuff.

> Really I was only trying to suggest a different, perhaps more fundamental
> question we should be asking ourselves.  How does defining the world of
> sound with a tool like the computer and Max/MSP (which I argued puts you in
> a framework of 'virtual' sound) differ from actually interacting with the
> world of objects that create sound.

I'll agree that is a more interesting question to discuss but I'm sure I've 
reached my posting limit for the year.

_________________________________________________________________
Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com