[microsound] recreating electronic music

[Michal Seta]

On Sun, Apr 10, 2011 at 6:12 PM, Samuel van ransbeeck <thinksamuel at yahoo.com
> wrote:

> Hello Michal
>
> interesting point you raise there. I have thought of using PD personally
> but always I think: what about support? I know PD has a large user-base but
> still I think that Max is superior;
>
*
*
*Superior* is a very strong word...  let's see...


>  Why? 1) A large user base as well
>

Ok, so Pd is equal in superiority,


> 2) You buy a pretty expensive product, so you are entitled a good
> functioning program.
>

Have you ever read the MaxMSP license agreement?  By using the software you
agree to use it "as is".  No one can guarantee good functioning of a
software (and in my experience, MaxMSP has its flaws and bugs, enough to
look up the updates change logs).


> Cycling HAS to respond your emails, while PD has not a full time support
> staff.
>

Yes, cycling74 will respond to emails but only for a limited time and *only* if
you are a license owner (i.e. will they support me trying to get something
running with a runtime version of Max?  Will you answer my emails and help
me run your patches in runtime?).

Now, I think that is it only natural that we (artists) take other people's
(artistic) work and we get inspired, we decompose, recompose, mashup etc.  I
could, for instance, download the Pd repertory project, install Pd, look at
the patches, decompose, get inspired and come up with some composition +
patch that is somehow derived from a piece I liked.  If I wanted to that
with something that was provided as MaxMSP patches, I would also need to buy
either a new computer or a new operating system (because I run linux) and
buy MaxMSP license.  What if, later, I change my mind and do not want to be
inspired anymore...  do I get a refund?

This is all assuming (perhaps wrongly) that your intention is to "port"
electronic music *and* make it available for study,  deconstruction and the
like.  Because maybe you will simply make   runtime binaries of that stuff
and not share the patches at all, which is fine, and in that case all my
points are invalidated.


>
> If you are thinking of open-source software, I would suggest looking to
> Faust (Faustworks). You program your audio stuff in C++ and then you can
> export it as an external or VST and additionally, it makes a mathematical
> abstraction of your program.
>

Yes.  You can.  I only mentioned Pd because it is "syntactically" similar to
MaxMSP.  It could be any programming language.


>
> In general, every language becomes obsolete one time. We have to work with
> the current language and in 10, 20 years, there will be a new 'recreation'
> of the music.
>

Yes, that's my point, actually.  The music that was done with CSound 15
(maybe more?) years ago, can still be parsed and rendered today.  There are
still people today using such obsolete languages as Lisp and Forth
(sometimes even for music!).  In any case, you are free to use whatever
software you wish, I was just curious about the choice of software.  I think
that using an expensive software because the company's full-time staff is
obliged to answer support emails is a rather weak reason to choose one
software over another*.  *Perhaps there are other reasons?

Best,
./MiS
*
*
*
*
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://or8.net/pipermail/microsound/attachments/20110410/2508d9ec/attachment.html>