[microsound] recreating electronic music

isjtar list at isjtar.org
Mon Apr 11 15:24:14 EDT 2011 

yes i've seen that, looks pretty cool.
hmmm clicks download : )

On 11 Apr 2011, at 21:17, Al Matthews wrote:

> As re: live visuals it's perhaps worth noting here that SuperCollider
> appears to be making, and MAX already has made, inroads with the Field
> project http://openendedgroup.com/field/
> http://openendedgroup.com/field/wiki/MaxPlugin
> 
> The environment is graphics-oriented but also a useful way to create
> GUIs, http://openendedgroup.com/field/wiki/EmbeddingGui and certainly
> to create visualizations.
> 
> It does suck up some CPU. Recently ported to Ubuntu Linux after
> starting life deep in more proprietary OSX toolchains.
> http://openendedgroup.com/field/wiki/FieldNews
> 
> The SuperCollider or ScalaCollider effort could use some help and
> interest I think.
> https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/field-development/65EGxIYBmyA
> 
> Not an afternoon's undertaking but, you know, what is. -Al
> 
> 
> On Mon, Apr 11, 2011 at 1:17 PM, David Powers <cyborgk at gmail.com> wrote:
>> What you are saying makes sense... I actually used PD mostly for
>> either visuals, or to process midi received from me playing a keyboard
>> and controllers with knobs and faders, and then send MIDI or OSC
>> events into some host that contains either some modular setup or a
>> bunch of VST's and sampled instruments... It worked great for those
>> applications.
>> 
>> So I have to admit that I wasn't actually doing much in the way of
>> proper synthesis, not was the user interface much of an issue for the
>> things I was creating. But I certainly can't think of any way I could
>> have created the visuals except with Max+Jitter which is quite
>> expensive as has been pointed out. For doing straight DSP I do think
>> PD can be a bit cumbersome.
>> 
>> ~David
>> 
>> On Mon, Apr 11, 2011 at 12:00 PM, isjtar <list at isjtar.org> wrote:
>>> I used to be pretty heavily into max-msp, sorta made a living with it.
>>> I ditched it, because I found it cumbersome for some things, same as PD really and the closed nature also annoyed me.
>>> For ease of use and combining media it's really good. People make crappy patches in PD as well and you can program in good or bad ways in any environment, I don't think PD has any basic objects Max doesn't have, a couple are slightly different. What I dislike it for is the combination of a horrible interface (in a graphical environment that just doesn't make sense) the obscurity of docs (which have come a long way) and external libraries.
>>> Now I do SuperCollider and it kicks the pants off both of those for sound work, sucks for hand-built interfaces though and the learning curve is steep...
>>> 
>>> to get back on topic, I made a piece for 15 SE/30's, running Max 3.5 on system 6 or 7. Cycling only gave us 2 (!) licenses after a friend of David Z contacted them for us, they didn't want to at first.
>>> In the end we're very happy with that and with the runtime we still got up on the old machines, but clearly this sort of thing is a problem for a project of this nature.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On 11 Apr 2011, at 18:37, David Powers wrote:
>>> 
>>>> Can I inquire as to what would give you such strong feelings on PD?
>>>> 
>>>> I wouldn't suggest it for everything, but it can really do amazing
>>>> things and as a dataflow language it is far superior to Max/MSP due to
>>>> the fact that it allows for a much more logical programming style
>>>> where Max/MSP has many objects that behave in bizarre ways, leading to
>>>> people creating really messy / nonsensical patches.
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> ~David
>>>> 
>>>> On Mon, Apr 11, 2011 at 8:15 AM, isjtar <list at isjtar.org> wrote:
>>>>> i agree, I dislike pd with a passion, but such a project has all the reasons to be written in free software.
>>>>> why not do it in SuperCollider?
>>>>> 
>>>>> On 11 Apr 2011, at 03:37, Justin Glenn Smith wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>>> I think it is salient here that pd was written by the very same Miller S. Puckett that the MSP part of Max/MSP is named after. And it was made in a large part for this very reason of being able to preserve tools and techniques of creating electronic music for posterity. Implementing your work in a closed and proprietary platform is embedding a self destruct mechanism into your work. It isn't guaranteed to go off, but historically it pretty much always has.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> If you don't care about history or preservation of artistic work then why are you even trying to recreate things from the past?
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Michal Seta wrote:
>>>>>>> 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
>>>>>>> *
>>>>>>> *
>>>>>>> *
>>>>>>> *
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>> microsound mailing list
>>>>>>> microsound at microsound.org
>>>>>>> http://or8.net/mailman/listinfo/microsound
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> microsound mailing list
>>>>>> microsound at microsound.org
>>>>>> http://or8.net/mailman/listinfo/microsound
>>>>> 
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> microsound mailing list
>>>>> microsound at microsound.org
>>>>> http://or8.net/mailman/listinfo/microsound
>>>>> 
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> microsound mailing list
>>>> microsound at microsound.org
>>>> http://or8.net/mailman/listinfo/microsound
>>> 
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> microsound mailing list
>>> microsound at microsound.org
>>> http://or8.net/mailman/listinfo/microsound
>>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> microsound mailing list
>> microsound at microsound.org
>> http://or8.net/mailman/listinfo/microsound
>> 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Al Matthews
> _______________________________________________
> microsound mailing list
> microsound at microsound.org
> http://or8.net/mailman/listinfo/microsound

More information about the microsound mailing list