Re: [microsound] audio software environments

[Kevin Ponto <kevin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

> Does audio software that requires high levels of user input produce 
> musically more valuable results than those that require little?

As was mentioned before, I'm not sure that this is the right 
question...or maybe it's not specific enough. I think that the results 
of an application rests more upon the user of the software than the 
software itself. The level of user input required of a given 
application will only achieve more "musically valuable" results 
(perhaps "specifically intended" results is a better term) when married 
with intimate knowledge of the control required. The actual results 
between these two programs may be no different, but the amount of skill 
needed to produce the results differ, which lends to more credibility.

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

Generally, I prefer speed to absolute control. If I can print my idea 
before it fades, it doesn't matter how it gets down, I'm happy. I much 
prefer any application that "gets the hell out of my way" and allows me 
to express musical ideas. Most programming languages, be they graphical 
or code based seem to require more attention to the program than the 
idea. This causes a dilution of the original idea as the time building 
the required tools for capture passes, at least in my experience. I 
suppose this could be due to my lack of fluency in these languages, but 
it seems to me that this level of fluency enabling quick enough capture 
of ideas is near mythical.

> At what point does ownership stop and become more of a collaboration 
> between the user and the software programmer?

I personally haven't ever noticed a composition move into the realm of 
collaboration with a programmer. I've felt that the software becomes 
somewhat of a collaboration, but not compositions.

>   Would you ever release a record that was created using e-jay, 
> playstation music 2000 or garageband?

Absolutely. I really enjoy the depth of seemingly shallow tools when 
explored and taken to new levels. <cliche>Anything can be a expressive 
instrument given enough time.</cliche> Fifty years ago you would have 
been laughed out the room had you predicted that something as simple 
and consumer oriented as a turntable could be played as an expressive 
musical instrument in the ways it is today.

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

See the next response.

> 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?).

This has been a bit of a pet peeve of mine for a while and I expect to 
get hit hard for this response. It seems that most academic music is 
really quite inaccessible and therefore by proxy, is generally thought 
of as being bad by all but the twenty or so people who can appreciate 
the process of creation. Just because someone designed and forged the 
computer from raw materials, developed their own machine language, OS 
and synthesis scripting program may speak volumes of their knowledge of 
computer science, but it doesn't, in my eyes, excuse them from a 
critique of the produced music as it stands on it's own. It is at this 
point that it seems to becomes more about computer science than 
composition. Does an extraordinary process permit a mediocre result? I 
believe that it does not. I believe that, ideally, both the process and 
the result will stand to critique, and if nothing else, that the result 
should be the paramount focus.

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

I believe so, but this is the case with a fair amount of professionals 
who use computer application in their profession. The more isolated and 
complex the tools you use to create, the fewer people there are who can 
use those tools effectively, hopefully rendering your creations more 
unique. I think it's a natural response to an often competitive market.

> 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?

I actually don't like having sounds recognizable as being produced by 
specific software. I'm not sure why, perhaps it lends an unintended 
identity to the music when someone (even myself) can immediately 
recognize the program that a sound originated from. Perhaps it plays 
into my previous response on the desire to have processes stay 
enigmatic and unattainable. Who knows.

> Your opinions are of great value to me with my research as well as my 
> personal quest to find out what the hell this whole computer music 
> thing is about,

Glad to do it. I'd be interested in reading your findings.

Cheers,

k


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