In my experience this technique has been used for a long time. <div>Composing an audiovisual concert usually already includes the development of a protocol to exchange this kind of information between audio and video processing. Some use MIDI, others use OSC; even though I prefer the latter.</div>
<div><br></div><div>Honestly I find hard to see anything new in this article. Besides, I seem to understand that's the main point of the author is to establish a "Protocol", which, as it is described in the article, looks very poor. I agree with Jeffrey when he refers to this protocol as a semantic layer. It sounds much more appropriate.</div>
<div>OSC is already a protocol itself. An overlaying structure would perhaps be a vocabulary to be applied.</div><div>It's surely interesting the idea of introducing an editor (external app) which could automatically add certain metadata to sound pieces, but once we have to deal with more complex textures, sonorities, and slight, detailed sound manipulations such protocol wouldn't, in my opinion, be usable.</div>
<div>It could, but only if we carefully compose it. Therefore, a communication protocol for a complex performance would need in any case more efforts than a "standard", at least as it is described on CDM. </div>
<div><br></div><div>The appeal of such "protocol" could probably be targeted more to user-friendly/commercial software users/customers, and a limited musical field.</div><div>Moreover, it's already very easy to setup OSC communication among several applications, please correct me if someone thinks otherwise.</div>
<div><br></div><div>and, by the way, do we really need a standard for everything we create?</div><div><br></div><div>Best,</div><div>Marco</div><div><br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Sat, Feb 12, 2011 at 2:57 PM, Jeffrey Melton <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:jeffreymelton@gmail.com">jeffreymelton@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;">Another thought: apps like Density GS, Pulsaret (and others built with Max) and Ableton could be modded to output an OSC stream of this semantic layer in addition to the sound streams. Perhaps people are already doing this, but it's new to me.<br>
<br>
Sent from my iPhone<br>
<div><div></div><div class="h5"><br>
On Feb 12, 2011, at 9:36 AM, Jeffrey Melton <<a href="mailto:jeffreymelton@gmail.com">jeffreymelton@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br>
<br>
> My initial thought is to replace "standard" with "semantic", as this level is describing the discreet sound events based on their content (albeit with a narrow, subjective lexicon).<br>
> Subjective is a key word, as this level is relative not only to the tone colors/timbres but also the person doing the describing—hence the difficulty with "standard". AND the protocol level is dependent on these terms as is.<br>
> I can see how this would be applicable to microsound, as a dialect to describe sound events and particles (of which I have a lot to learn) for visualizations, but perhaps by frequency range, durations, accepted particle definitions and such. I'm assuming unknown terms would be ignored, but then music not described in these terms wouldn't be rendered (like HTML).<br>
> Still, this has potential and makes me want to learn about OSC. Cheers,<br>
><br>
> Sent from my iPhone<br>
><br>
> On Feb 12, 2011, at 7:52 AM, Al Matthews <<a href="mailto:prolepsis@gmail.com">prolepsis@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br>
><br>
>> You may have noticed this already. I thought I'd ask for comment however:<br>
>><br>
>> <a href="http://createdigitalmotion.com/2011/02/op-ed-music-abstraction-for-av-collaboration-a-proposal/" target="_blank">http://createdigitalmotion.com/2011/02/op-ed-music-abstraction-for-av-collaboration-a-proposal/</a><br>
>><br>
>> I think my reflexive objections are in terms of what Surya Buchwald is<br>
>> calling "Standard," since "Protocol" floats or fails based on that.<br>
>><br>
>> Wondering if you see this framework as applicable to what you do, or<br>
>> if your own work in OSC e.g. bubbles up here to suggest improvements.<br>
>><br>
>> Supposing you were working directly in microsound or concrete, on what<br>
>> bases would the "Standard" or "Protocol" here need be adapted?<br>
>><br>
>> Thanks in advance,<br>
>><br>
>> --<br>
>> Al Matthews<br>
>> _______________________________________________<br>
>> microsound mailing list<br>
>> <a href="mailto:microsound@microsound.org">microsound@microsound.org</a><br>
>> <a href="http://or8.net/mailman/listinfo/microsound" target="_blank">http://or8.net/mailman/listinfo/microsound</a><br>
_______________________________________________<br>
microsound mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:microsound@microsound.org">microsound@microsound.org</a><br>
<a href="http://or8.net/mailman/listinfo/microsound" target="_blank">http://or8.net/mailman/listinfo/microsound</a><br>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br><br clear="all"><br>-- <br>Marco Donnarumma aka TheSAD<br>Independent New Media Arts Professional, Performer, Teacher<br>Ongoing MSc by Research, University of Edinburgh, UK<br><br><br>
PORTFOLIO: <a href="http://marcodonnarumma.com" target="_blank">http://marcodonnarumma.com</a><br>LAB: <a href="http://www.thesaddj.com" target="_blank">http://www.thesaddj.com</a> | <a href="http://cntrl.sourceforge.net" target="_blank">http://cntrl.sourceforge.net</a> | <a href="http://www.flxer.net" target="_blank">http://www.flxer.net</a><br>
EVENT: <a href="http://www.liveperformersmeeting.net" target="_blank">http://www.liveperformersmeeting.net</a><br>
</div>