[PD] elitism, software and academia (was GEM FTGL Sadness)

[Jamie Bullock]

Hi Jared,

On Thu, 2007-06-07 at 07:16 +0100, jared wrote:

> While I'm ranting :-)....In my academic experience, it's often frowned
> upon to use other's patches in your own compositions because it seems
> that the patches themselves are the work of art; and it's almost as if
> this is considered plagiarism. 

I don't know what your academic experience is, but there is a lot of
evidence to suggest the opposite of what you are saying. The sharing of
PD patches and abstractions is commonplace in the PD community.
Currently in the CVS there are:

pd/ 424 pd patches
externals/ 3464 pd patches
abstractions/ 953 pd patches

That doesn't include ad-hoc patches people have shared via the mailing
list, of which I have 847 on my computer grabbed from the list archive.

All of these are publically available, and free for use in your own
work. They range from simple help files to complex abstractions and
patches.

> I think academia needs to recognize that there are many composers who
> use computers as a means to an end; 

I find this patronising, almost offensive. Do you have any examples of
academics who don't recognise this? Even if you do, you shouldn't make
generalisations about an entire community based on a few personal
examples.

> who make music with the AID of
> computers; not to make music WITH computers. 

Could you explain the difference? 

>  There is still a rigid
> line that separates the composer and the programmer.  

Where is this rigid line? Do you have any evidence for it? As far as I
can tell there exists a continuum like this:

composer <-> composer/programmer <-> programmer

I know many people who are in the middle of this - straddling the 'line'
between composer and programmer.

> Most Music
> curriculums are still classically based.  Most Music Technology
> curriculums are programming based. 

I'm not sure if this is true or not, but if it were, it might be because
there is 'most' demand for classically-based music courses and
'programming-based' music technology courses...

However, in the UK, there are many jazz-based and other non-classical
graduate music courses, as well as music technology courses that contain
no programming elements at all. There are also hybrid 'Sonic Art'
courses that bring in elements from the visual arts, music and
information technology. I suspect this the case in other countries also.

>  What about today's composers who are
> interested in classical compositional techniques and forms, but who are,
> at heart, electronic music composers and want to apply these classical
> techniques and forms to their electronic compositions with the AID of
> technology, yet have no interest in programming? 

They should use software that doesn't require any programming. I would
suggest something like Beast (http://beast.gtk.org) if they are Linux,
Bidule (http://www.plogue.com/) if they are on Mac OS, Audiomulch
(http://www.audiomulch.com/) if they are on Windows.

Any of these would provide a good entry point for beginners who could
later move on to something with a  dataflow programming element like PD.

Jamie