<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
<title></title>
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
Hi Didit,<br>
<br>
Sorry for long post.. but the topic is ever so fascinating :)<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:27d16aa71003162137g87c31efj9a434ca69ab9501b@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<meta http-equiv="Context-Type"
content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1">
Sorry for bringing this old thread up, I find Alex's opinion very
interesting. Actually I kinda feel that using Pd, I'm stuck in the
process of "making the instrument instead of the music" kinda situation.</blockquote>
I guess this comes up frequently in 'computer-based' music discussions.
I think it depends much on the type of music/artistic project/vision
you have... I find making the instrument for the music extremely
fascinating and much related with the musician's nature... I recently
found an article (unfortunately it's not publicly available online but
it's on Jstor music) of 1980 by Gareth Loy with the title 'The Composer
Seduced into Programming' which I guess is pretty explicative as a
title per se. I will only cite a small piece from the beginning of the
article where he is explaining the title which I feel pretty close to:
"It is important to note just what the seducing agent in these cases
really is. It is certainly not carpentry or programming, or we would
have ceased as artists and become tradesmen. It is really the will of
the composer, expressed through the discipline of the art form itself
which, in all cases, not just the ones under discussion here, causes
the artist to stray into these seemingly distant fields."<br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:27d16aa71003162137g87c31efj9a434ca69ab9501b@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">Even though at first, I can custom made an instrument
specific to what I want, I ended up exhausted at building the
instrument first, and find myself resting for several moments before
finally finishing a composition.<br>
</blockquote>
It can be an exhausting activity, yes.. But so is(was) preparing a
performance-ready score for 'traditional' music right?<br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:27d16aa71003162137g87c31efj9a434ca69ab9501b@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">I recently tried Reaktor, and one thing that's best is the
interface, that features definitely makes me interested in learning
deeper into this tool. I also tried Max/MSP, and yes I love the
interface, kinda more engaging to patch things. I also recently
acquired Launchpad, (with all the monome emulations build using
Max/MSP, I become slowly adapt to it). But either way, I kinda stuck
with Pd because this is the first audiovisual environment programming
that I know and dig. So, I think, probably it will all go down to which
tool we are comfort with (ugh, sounds so diplomatic, hate it).<br>
<br>
But anyway, I feel that Max/MSP produce a smoother audio than Pd, is it
me or does anyone feel this too?<br>
</blockquote>
I guess everyone should use the tools that work best.. although I'm not
sure what you mean thtat the audio in MAX is 'smoother'.<br>
My two cents: I started with Max and then switched to Pd. Eventually I
found that although initially a little 'harder' Pd, because of the much
less frills than Max, especially Max 5, and is much 'lower level',
helps you maintain focus (for example no hiding mechanism means that
when a patch is too full it's probably time to modularise.. in max you
often end up with hidden spaghetti :).. and at the same time experiment
in much more unplanned directions. But this is my very personal view.<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:27d16aa71003162137g87c31efj9a434ca69ab9501b@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite"><br>
Regards,<br>
<br>
Didit<br>
</blockquote>
All the best,<br>
Lorenzo.<br>
</body>
</html>