Re: [microsound] audio software environments

[mhwrpc@xxxxxxxxxxx]

You're not going to find out much by asking questions. You have to do
it to understand! Yoda this, Yoda that...

Finally someone said it....while I think asking questions can be a very positive and productive way of working through things to get to other things, many of these issues of context, listening, and working methods really exist at a purely experiential level.   As someone who has played guitars, basses, drums, keyboards and worked in various recording and performance situations for many, many years, I often find my self focussing on certain technical aspects of recordings and performances, but this is just one level of my experience and analysis of music and art, context can be a factor that informs and draws one deeper in to a piece of work or even a "scene" (so often cultivated and even manufactured by journalists and critics) but there is much more to it than that.   Culture functions much like democracy, in a very unpredictable way, where the meanings of certain gestures take on a life and autonomy of their own regardless of the intent of the producers of that gesture.   The intent
 may be to highlight or elucidate or explore a process, but the result may be a response that has more to do with the romantic notion of "the sublime"-----I use this as a for instance because it seems to happen a lot with computer music and contemporary art music.   How often does it happen that process music takes on the onus of "the beautiful" while pop music made with computers get analyzed in terms of its technical processes?  I'm not just talking about dub and hip-hop on the one hand and Autechre on the other.........the process is bigger than one piece of music, or one generation of listeners, whether we know it or not, we are working through certain human, experiential and conceptual issues......where the train goes noone really knows.....


>
> On Oct 11, 2004, at 10:20 PM, Michael Wright wrote:
>
> >  I'm making a bit of a presumption in thinking that everybody on this
> > list makes music and an even further assumption that the majority use
> > predominantly audio software.
>
> I think that's a pretty fair assumption.
>
> > Does audio software that requires high levels of user input produce
> > musically more valuable results than those that require little?
>
> It depends on what you consider input. Personally I work
> algorithmically, and I have no interaction with it while it is running.
>
> > Do you favour speed of result over being closer to the machines
> > language?
>
> I like to work at the highest level that allows me to do what I want. I
> think this would be the same for just about anyone. If I can't do
> something then I'll drop down a level or two so that I can. It's a
> decision that is usually made on a practical basis, not an emotional
> one.
>
> > 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?
>
> I believe there are possibly some ethical issues involved with using
> something like garageband (and its provided loops) to make music.
> However, the music will undoubtedly be awful anyway, so I do not
> concern myself with such issues usually. :-) As long as the people
> doing it are having fun, then I think it is a positive thing. What I
> believe is a far more interesting question is ownership in regards to
> sound produced without human interaction, controlled entirely by
> software.
>
> > At the other end of the scale, when does it start to become something
> > that's more to with computers than music?
>
> Hopefully never, unless your goal is to produce process art, in which
> case everything changes. ;-)
>
> > 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?).
>
> Sure I can use software that comes with granular modules out of the box
> (like Reaktor). However, you have far less flexibility in how you can
> take advantage of such capability when everything is prepackaged. While
> I do agree with you that it is silly to go and make a 303 emulation in
> Max or Supercollider (unless its a programming excercise), I think the
> example you gave is poor. It is true that many programmers do not
> produce music that's worth all that programming time. However, that's
> an issue that lies with their creative end of things, not the fact that
> they are making music via programming... there is also much music
> produced programatically that is simply impossible to produce
> otherwise.
>
> > Do you think computer musicians are trying to widen the gap between
> > the tools they use and that of the mainstream media?
>
> I believe this is more of an effect of the desire to experiment rather
> than a conscious decision. In fact I'd suggest many such artists
> actually wish their work had more mainstream acceptance.
>
> > 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 believe most people on the list use softwares that are highly
> programmable, and hence do not have a distinctive sound to be "proud"
> of. However, I assume many people are proud of the softwares they've
> written in such environments, as is only natural. There is less of a
> degree of idiotic techno-gear-fetishism though amongst the computer
> music community, which is undoubtedly a good thing. That statement may
> not apply to computer artists such as myself who use Macs. ;-)
>
> > 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,
>
> You're not going to find out much by asking questions. You have to do
> it to understand! Yoda this, Yoda that...
>
> - John Nowak
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: microsound-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> For additional commands, e-mail: microsound-help@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> website: http://www.microsound.org
>

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