I was with you until 'tweak'. Do you mean that in a negative or positive sense?
But in either case, I don't mean to diminish actual criticism. I'd just prefer to
understand it without having to:
[unnecessary term(
|
[ unpack ]
| |
[ unpack ] [ unpack ]
| | | |
| | [unpack] [unpack]
[unpack] [unpack] | | |
etc.
-Jonathan
--- On Thu, 6/23/11, Pagano, Patrick <pat@digitalworlds.ufl.edu> wrote:
From: Pagano, Patrick <pat@digitalworlds.ufl.edu>
Subject: Re: [PD] Pd performance at TED
To: "Jonathan Wilkes" <jancsika@yahoo.com>
Cc: "Mathieu Bouchard" <matju@artengine.ca>, "pd-list@iem.at" <pd-list@iem.at>
Date: Thursday, June 23, 2011, 7:10 PM
I think some of the issue might be with
anything there is the notion of ownership
one feels via participation
Generated by years upon years of work
and cultivation
Should see it's debut as such
might tweak us a bit. But even if I don't dig the guys stuff,
Pd is everywhere.
Patrick Pagano B.S.,M.F.A
Digital Media Engineer
UF Digital Worlds Institute
(352)294-2020
|
The only point that's not irrelevant is that you can load up soundfiles without needing a new physical object for each one.
It's not musically interesting that it takes up less room.
That the patch can become something else is a distraction from the particularly narrow point I'm making, which is that it fits the definition of technological parody offered up on this list. (If you have to change the patch to make it do something musically
interesting, then we're no longer talking about that tutorial; we're talking about a new patch.)
But we both see the larger point of that patch as an expression of some of the strengths of Pd. And we both realize that with very few tweaks it can be made to make interesting sounds that surpass what could (easily) be done on a turntable. It's clearly a successful
tutorial patch, and in that context I see absolutely no reason to change it.
Calling the patch a technological parody doesn't mean anything good or bad-- it's simply a fact. So again, I fail to see how one can merely use that term to criticize something, or how another can read the term and understand the upshot of that criticism. I
think it's lazy and lacks substance-- especially troubling seeing how it first appeared as a response to the work of a newcomer to the list (I think).
-Jonathan
|
From: Mathieu Bouchard <matju@artengine.ca>;
To: Jonathan Wilkes <jancsika@yahoo.com>;
Cc: <pd-list@iem.at>; Cody Loyd <codyloyd@gmail.com>;
Subject: Re: [PD] Pd performance at TED
Sent: Thu, Jun 23, 2011 12:38:38 PM
On Wed, 22 Jun 2011, Jonathan Wilkes wrote:
> If you don't think so, then please tell me what you can do with that patch that's so musically interesting that it would warrant buying a modern digital computer instead of a turntable.
Because it takes a lot less room, the sound doesn't have to be recorded on vinyl or shellac or whatever, and the scratching device can be easily transformed in a multitude of closely-related devices that aren't like turntables anymore. Then you can save those
devices and share them with like-minded people on pd-list without having to pay kilodollars of shipping.
You already have a modern digital computer for other reasons, so, it's irrelevant to think of what would be the rationale for buying one.
And anyway, it's been a while that we can think of turntables as being parodies of what can be done with [tabread~] or any other kind of array subscript.
_______________________________________________________________________
| Mathieu Bouchard ---- tél: +1.514.383.3801 ---- Villeray, Montréal, QC |
|