Re: [microsound] software usability

[derek <derek@xxxxxxx>]

hi jonathan,

valid points all, ones which i am not inclined to disagree with [save 
the last]. i reply in-line...

Jonathan Hughes wrote:

>Not all painters need to make their own paints, and I don't know of any photographers who make their own cameras (aside from simple pinhole cameras). Some people just want to create art and don't want or need to be involved in the creation of the tools that are needed to create that art.
>
i acknowledge both sides in this discussion, no problem. i just find 
that in a genre that is supposed to be pushing the envelopes of audio 
expression, i find so many artists using default solutions. sort of like 
when every graphic designer you see is using the same photoshop plugins, 
you quickly get tired of it. honestly, how many of you can pick out an 
"After Effects" plugin in a video you see?  likewise when i hear or see 
artists using ready-mades like Reason or the demo patches from Reaktor, 
Max, or  PD. the argument has been best articulated in software by 
Adrian Ward, whose Auto-Illustrator gives proof-of-concept that the 
software is, at least, an equal partner in the creative process, and at 
most the highest determining factor of possibilities.

>This argument is similar to when people who write html without the use of a WYSIWYG program like Dreamweaver or GoLive (does anybody do that anymore?) think that their methods are superior to people who do use easy-to-use software. Yet, these people would never think of writing the raw postscript code that is contained in a document that Quark Xpress or Adobe Illustrator creates.
>
some do.... [see Auto-Illustrator, mentioned above...] others write 
their own scripts on their servers to remove the excess code garbage 
that Deamweaver or GoLive put into HTML documents written by their 
clients, making for leaner, faster webpages. and yes, Virginia, HTML 
hand-coders do exist... :-)

>If you're going to say that it's better to use PD than Max/MSP, then isn't it better to write your _own_ PD, and then isn't it even better for you to write your own operating system to run your own version of PD? 
>
i am not arguing the inherent superiority of PD over Max. that is just 
another platform war, and trolling flame-bait to boot. the drive for 
more control over one's creative expression beyond the limitations of 
ready-made solutions that causes people to throw away their ReBirth and 
Reason discs and patch in Max/MSP is admirable enough. i don't think 
anyone of the PD list would argue one software over the other in such a 
black/white manner. in fact, much of the conversation revolved around 
how PD could be improved [along its own lines, not necessarily to make 
it more MSP-like.]

>And if that's still not good enough, will you have to start designing your own ICs? At what point does it become "acceptable" to use pre-existing tools?
>
if one requires a 'patent answer' to the question, i would say it is a 
personal decision that the time invested in customizing your working 
environment becomes counter productive to your actually working in it. 
[personally, i am pushing that point myself trying to get my f*kin HDSP 
soundcard running under Linux/ALSA!] some days i feel like trying 
something really new, and i reach for the PD. some days i feel lazy 
enough just to want to make sounds, and i reach for the AudioMulch. 
nothing wrong with that!

>It seems like there should be (and is) room for both types in the world: those who prefer to create their own tools, and those who prefer to use pre-existing tools which are probably a bit easier to use.
>
of course there is! to reiterate, my concern is that pre-existing tools create, largely, pre-existing expression. IMHO, the more flexibility the tools have, and the more effort you spend learning how to utilize or subvert that flexibility, the further from 'default.microsound' [to use one example] you can move in your own work.

>Also, the idea of quitting's one job because the people you work with don't share the same concept of how one should interact with one's tools seems condescending, short-sighted, and just plain childish.
>
in this particular case, i think it was less ideological/childish than a 
matter of budget. an MSP/Jitter license [correct me if I am wrong] costs 
almost USD 1000 per workstation. money otherwise spent in hardware and 
the human-hours of instructors. or at least that is how he put it. i 
cite the example, of course, in the converse sense--an example of how 
institutions and computer users both remain inflexible to solutions that 
cost less but require a bit more effort. i guess it boils down to how 
much your time is worth in relation to your discovery of new forms of 
expression.

best wishes,
derek

------------------------------