hi<br><br><div><span class="gmail_quote">2006/10/17, Marten Rieger <<a href="mailto:kali.84@gmx.net">kali.84@gmx.net</a>>:</span><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
hi everybody,<br>i ask myself if anyone would be so kind to show me a finished composition.<br>after learning the tutorials and some published patches i'm kinda confused<br>by the many possibilities pure data offers.<br><br>
as in programming my way of learning is more like reading through a full<br>and finished work instead of learning 1 tiny bit then another tiny bit.<br><br>looking at a full environment with drumstepsequencer (or such), synthie,
<br>reverb unit and stuff would really boost my learning-curve.</blockquote><div><br>ever looked at netpd? -> <a href="http://netpd.org">netpd.org</a><br>there are some finished sequencers, synths and effects in there and you can (almost) instantly start to make music on the fly. though it's interface (or the interfaces of the patches it hosts) is not always perfect and the code (often hidden deep in the patches) is rather complex and optimized for net-use, thus not instantly reusable in other patches.
<br><br>furthermore, you could listen a bit to the pdradio, decide which songs you like and try to contact their authors asking for patches<br></div><br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
also i think that it would be a good idea to include such a 'main'-patch into<br>the pd-installation so that people new to this great program are instantly<br>ready to make music on their machine independent of midi & anything!
</blockquote><div>hm, i don't think so. pd is very vast and offers lots of possibilities. including a sequenced music patch into the main distribution might make new users concieve pd as an environment to create sequenced music. there are too many uses for pd that they cannot just be demonstrated by a simple "main" patch. also, if there was a pre-written demonstration patch, new users might orient their own patches too much along it, in a way this hinders creativity. the pd documentation gives you nice building blocks, so you can decide yourself what to make out of it, use them live, sequence them externally, try to think up your own way of sequencing, etc.
<br> </div><br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">you know, i'm sure there were many people installing pd but not eager enough<br>
to understand the whole program resulting in the deinstallation.</blockquote><div>fine, this keeps the number of annoying noobs down in the pd community ;) <br><br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
for many people it is too timeconsuming to get to a result where they can make music but i think pd should be for anyone also for people who came<br>from software like reason or fruity loops.</blockquote><div><br>true indeed. i'd opt for keeping the basic pd distro as it is, but additionally having a pd-examples package compiled, containing a number of well-documented well-sorted patches (results of a possible pd-competition?) with minimum dependencies (patch dependency hell might turn newcomers off, too) showing off different uses for pd.
<br> </div><br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">the best opensource audio/video software should be used and be usable by EVERYBODY
</blockquote><div>pd *is* usable by everybody. everybody that is willing to invest time to learn it and experiment with it. having examples to learn with is good, but one has to be careful not to fall into a copy-paste style of creativity (although, in the opensource world, there is nothing wrong with that either)
<br><br>charlie<br></div></div><br>