Re: [microsound] process and preset [was: Re: [microsound] ovalprocess - Average laptop geek?]

[aleks vasic <bvasic@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Well there is a difference between the two.  Using a patch Autechre 
made after it find its way to the public, just to sound like them is, 
or to reap the benefits of their work(effort/thought going into said 
patch) Is almost plagaristic in nature.

Using a synth preset is a totally different matter.  To me its no 
different then playing a Les Paul then playing a Gib after wards.  
Their two instrument crafted by someone with love and passion, no 
different then the sound Engineer who works on a Nord Analogue synth or 
an software synth.  To use that Synth in a composition as an instrument 
is no different to me then playing a guitar or piano.

> One of the advantages of the computer is of course that it provides
> the "Processors" with processors, which help them to explore and
> experiment with these processes directly. This is different from just
> building a guitar, as the guitar is more or less done, once you have
> built it, you don't really create or modify a process if you built a
> guitar.

True, and i agree but that is more of an example for a software patch, 
and not a preset for a Synth.  A Synth is a finite instrument, just as 
a guitar is.  Shure you can tweak and manipulate the Synth to no end, 
as you could a guitar, or piano.  Just look at alternative tuning, 
expirmental tuning and physical manipulations, or John Cage!  But it is 
limited by a set of paramaters.  Its hardware/code predicates how it 
will sound.  Thats why there are such things as classic Synths that 
have their own distinc sound, much as any classic guitar/piano/violin 
would, instrument for that matter.

You might want to think again about the part of not creating a process 
if you build a guitar, especially an electric guitar.  The basic 
principle of tones and pitch in building a guitar, as well as the 
hardware and equipment  you use with it, is not that far off from the 
same things you have to consider when building a synth.  there are 
definite process there, that why any non cheap guitars have their own 
distinct sound.  Its moot though as it doesnt detract from your main 
point just got me think, interesting actually...


As i read your classification of 
Computer/experimental/analogue/musicians(!) it struck me that the 
artist's i seem to enjoy most are the ones who are both "preseter" and 
"Processor"  Anyone who can fuse the two together always seem to get 
high marks in my book.


And yes i think the entire world is/was created by running processes, 
fate has nothing to do with it!    I have read that mass amount of 
information(Static if you will) tend to organize themselves in the most 
efficient of manners.  One has only to look to nature to see evidence 
of this.  Or pick up some book on Chaos theory, superb stuff.


aLEKs




On May 24, 2005, at 5:24 PM, Frank Barknecht wrote:

> Hallo,
>
> aleks vasic hat gesagt: // aleks vasic wrote:
> > I just find it interesting that so many people in the Computer music
> > world, wether it be Glicth/Microunds/Idm what ever, are so nuerotic
> > about the process with wich the music was made.  This has never
> > interested me outside of experimental music/micros sound, and even
> > there its more the thought process inregards to the work that
> > interest's me, not the process itself.
>
> Good that you mention the word "process" here, as I think, that this
> is the core of all of this problem/confusion/aesthetic.
>
> Basically the difference between "preset musicians" (note: I don't
> intend to use this term derogatorily here) and "process musicians" is
> a difference of goals and interests.
>
> "Presetters" are interested in the result, they want to achieve a
> certain goal, create a certain mood or emotional reaction.
>
> "Processors" (sic!) OTOH are interested in how things work inside a
> dynamic process whose outcome is not always clear, it's not even known
> in advance. Important to them are things like interaction, movement,
> evolution etc. in their own rights.
>
> One of the advantages of the computer is of course that it provides
> the "Processors" with processors, which help them to explore and
> experiment with these processes directly. This is different from just
> building a guitar, as the guitar is more or less done, once you have
> built it, you don't really create or modify a process if you built a
> guitar.
>
> Using a computer software/language like Max, Pd or Lisp can be done
> purely to create or play presets, which is fine (most of what you hear
> on the radio is made like this, also things you'd never hear on a
> radio, like R. Stevie Moore, are made like this.) However many people
> (maybe not *that* many) think: Why bother learning a software, which
> visualizes or textualizes a process(or) if not to modify the
> process(or)?
>
> In the end this is a philosophical question: how much of the world is
> created just through running processes and how much is preset or:
> fate.
>
> Ciao
> --
>  Frank Barknecht                               _ ______footils.org__
>
>           _ __latest track: "scans" _ http://footils.org/cms/show/41
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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