Re: [microsound] audio software environments

[Anthony Saunders <anthony@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

and to answer the rest of your poll:
On Oct 11, 2004, at 10:20 PM, Michael Wright wrote:
> Does audio software that requires high levels of user input produce 
> musically more valuable results than those that require little?

Generally, yes. Isn't this the case with all instruments, however? Are 
you sure you are asking the right question here?

> Do you favour speed of result over being closer to the machines 
> language?

Definitely. I love Reason and Live and use them when appropriate. I can 
write Squarepusher-y amen mash ups in Reason faster than I can believe. 
It's also good for sketching out melodies and song structures. 
Appropriate tools for appropriate jobs.

Understand however that the more time one spends with a piece of 
software the faster their are at using it. I know people who are 
lightning fast at writing complex beats with trackers like octamed and 
fasttracker. And with programs like Max/MSP, Supercollider, and 
Reaktor, one accumulates a large array of re-usable piece of code, 
macros and patches that are utilized where appropriate over and over 
again.

I suspect however that you are too freely intermingling the ideas of 
composition and tool/instrument/fx creation.

> At what point does ownership stop and become more of a collaboration 
> between the user and the software programmer?  Would you ever release 
> a record that was created using e-jay, playstation music 2000 or 
> garageband?

What does Garage Band have to do with those other products? It's a 
multitrack recorder, a dumbed down version of Logic Audio. It's 
extremely useful when one doesn't have access to protools or logic. The 
loops etc are just window dressing. I use Garage Band as a four-track 
regularly, although nowadays I use Live 4 for this. I also used to make 
hardcore gabber by hacking audio files into Rebirth's resource fork. 
Does that answer your question?

> At the other end of the scale, when does it start to become something 
> that's more to with computers than music?

CSound? I kid, I kid.

I do suspect that there is a tool-creation vs composition/performance 
split that you are really interested in, rather than necessarily music 
vs computer.

> In my opinion many computer musicians that program their own software 
> environments seem to produce music that doesn't justify the time and 
> effort it takes to create such programs (i.e. why create a granular 
> tool in msp when run of the mill audio software or freeware can do 
> much the same only better sounding and in far less time?).

I'd disagree, but then again I'm a fan of autechre, hrvatski, tetsu 
inoue, etc. I'd recommend reading the more historical chapters in 
Curtis Roads' book Microsound. The easy availability of granular tools 
is, historically speaking, very recent. Remember that 10 years ago 
there was no Reaktor or AudioMulch. And the only reason that some of 
these sounds are available in popular audio software is because they 
were popularized by Aphex Twin, Oval, Autechre, all of whom have either 
made their own software or had others make stuff for them.


> Do you think computer musicians are trying to widen the gap between 
> the tools they use and that of the mainstream media?

There is a certain aura to the use of Max/MSP etc that makes it hip or 
attractive, but I think that "computer musicians" are mostly just 
trying to do new and personal things with computers. Also, the way 
popular electronic music (dance, techno, jungle, what-have-you), any 
new sound or fx gets it's obvious uses beaten into the ground within a 
couple years at best.

I've ended up diving into Max/MSP out of sheer necessity; it is a much 
more intimate creation environment than anything else I've previously 
used, and the kinds of sounds I want to make are a very hard sell 
commercially and thus are not catered to by the mainstream software 
companies. So I'm making my own tools and instruments, to use along 
side those that I've bought that I like, and to manipulate audio I 
create.


> In general i'd like to find out how much of peoples music is a 
> consequence of the software they use?  Are any of you proud to have a 
> certain softwares sound in the same way people are proud to use a 909, 
> 303 etc?

The music you make is almost always some kind of collaboration with the 
tools you use to make it or the instruments it will be played on. 
"There's nothing you can sing that can't be sung." It's just that with 
computer music and techno, it's a bit more obvious. There is also a 
definite stigma attached to certain products. Buzz, Reason, Live, 
Fruity Loops seem to be really disrespected in some circles, but are in 
fact in use by some really talented, experimental musicians.

On the other hand, there's a fair number of folks who lust for a kyma 
even if they've never seen one in person.

it's late and my brain is melting, hopefully some of this was of some 
use.

Anthony


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: microsound-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
For additional commands, e-mail: microsound-help@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
website: http://www.microsound.org