Oh YES he did.
;)
Graham I have many thoughts to your longer reply, coming soon.
On May 14, 2007, at 5:53 PM, Xdugef wrote:
oh no you didn't!
--- Graham Miller <grahammiller@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
that's true. mostly because there are a lot of suckers out there
that
still think hardware is better than software;)
On 14-May-07, at 7:28 PM, Xdugef wrote:
Well one thing is for sure is that it's much easier to sell
standalone
gear for what you paid for or even more in some cases if it was
custom
gear etc. Good luck getting your investment back on 3-4 year old
software. ;-)
AD
in music, both academic and popular. music that uses presets is
largely deemed inauthentic and therefor has less cultural worth.
and
it is quickly exposed.
I guess what I mean to say is that to 'start' in microsound
shouldn't necessarily mean finding the right software package
first. Is this too idealistic of an approach to creating music?
you mean by making a kazoo out of wax paper instead of buying a
computer? or maybe recording the colliding beads of an abacus?
microsound is digital music. it is computer music. at the most
basic
level, you need to be able to either manipulate or generate
digital
data. for that you need a digital computer. if you are getting
into
microsound as a genre, then i might add the need to manipulate
music
at the microsound level, through some kind of granular
synthesis,
let's just say. so any software should have these elements.
Maybe this has nothing to do with the original question
(surely,
there are many more answers to be questioned when starting to
make
this kind of music than just what software is in use), but I
just
have this uneasy feeling in my gut when it comes to music
software
these days. Everything is trying to be everything to everybody,
which is probably why stuff like max, sc and pd are in such
large
use with people on this list (at least), because they are
programming languages, not software packages.
there is definitely a kind of elitism here. just because
someone
is
an expert programmer certainly doesn't make them a brilliant
musician. programming can be music. but it can also just be
programming. in this kind of community there is often a sense of
authenticity that comes from writing all the code oneself. but
what
really counts is the end result. one could spend years learning
how
to program an ableton live style program in max/MSP. or you
could
buy
the software and spend a year making music on it.
and learn how to take something designed by another and make it
your
own. just like playing the trumpet.
adolf sax and joh coltrane don't have a hell of a lot in common
other
than the saxophone. coltrane didn't have to built one from
scratch
in
order to revolutionize music, push boundaries, and express his
own
individuality and human spirit. the same goes for software.
The point was hit home with me when I was (thoroughly) enjoying
a
listen to Download's new album, "FiXeR", with a friend of mine.
In
the middle of some really cool section or break or something,
he
pipes up "HA he's using Live for that, i've used that same
exact
pattern" and it kind of ruined the listening experience for me
at
the time.
live doesn't have a sound, per se (although in the past i have
argued
heavily that software environments lead to particular musical
aesthetics, particularly in loop based music, such as techno).
maybe
he was referring to one of the effects, such as beat repeat.
My buddy isn't at fault for this, but it proves there is a
certain
approach to listening to electronic music these days that is
more
"how did he do that?" than just plain listening.
see glenn gould on this and why he stopped playing live.
My friend personally knows better, but I think there are a lot
of
people that just want to replicate what they hear instead of
being
inspired to create something new.
yes. but these are the first steps to learning a musical
language.
imitation might be the sincerest form of flattery, but it is
also
the
way language is learned, mastered, and, ultimately, evolves.
just
think how a child begins to speak a language. eventually they
may
go
on to write a great novel.
Folks too often seem to want to know why 'technically'
something
was done instead of what creative process on the back-side
inspired
that something to be done.
true. but what is more useful and interesting? the story of
newton
getting hit on the head with an apple? or the actual theory of
gravity? i'd say, both:)
graham
-m
--------------------------------------------------------------------
-
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
--------------------------------------------------------------------
-
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
--------------------------------------------------------------------
-
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