Hey Chris, I like your idea, though probably I won't have time or inspiration to participate.
However, I think a couple of things need to be clarified for it to work as expected.
- You should specify the "maximum minimum" version of pd-vanilla required
for playback, that is, the *aximum* version that any patch is allowed to require as a minimum. That is, if you say for example 0.39, any submitted patch must be guaranteed to work on version 0.39 or higher. Participants need to know if they can or cannot use features of 0.40.x that won't work on previous versions. And they need to be sure that they are listening to the previous person's work as it really sounds. Choosing the latest would ensure compatibility of all submitted patches, but will oblige all participants to download and install it on their machine. Choosing a less recent one, would imply some constraints on what people can do, but will allow more people to participate using the version they currently own. Your choice.
- Some kind of naming scheme should be specified in order to avoid
conflicts and interferences between table/send/receive/value/etc names in different patches. For example, you may assign an ID to each participant, and s/he would be obliged to use his/her ID as a prefix to every name s/he uses.
Or on the contrary, you may decide to exploit interferences between patches as an extra source of fun. Indeed that would make the whole thing more interesting and justify the concatenation of patches rather than just of wav files :) In any case, a convention for ensuring a distinction between "global" and "user-local" names would be probably good. Or even you may define some predefined channels for interchanging data with an associated semantic. Although anarchy is also an interesting territory to explore.
Just thought I would contribute a few ideas, dunnow if they are useful.
Bye M.
-- Email.it, the professional e-mail, gratis per te: http://www.email.it/f
Sponsor: La Cronaca del Carnevale di Ivrea 2007 visto su www.localport.it: per conoscere il Carnevale, per rivivere lÂ’edizione 2007. Acquistalo on line Clicca qui: http://adv.email.it/cgi-bin/foclick.cgi?mid=6431&d=20070508
Hallo, Matteo.sistisette hat gesagt: // Matteo.sistisette wrote:
- Some kind of naming scheme should be specified in order to avoid
conflicts and interferences between table/send/receive/value/etc names in different patches. For example, you may assign an ID to each participant, and s/he would be obliged to use his/her ID as a prefix to every name s/he uses.
An easier solution to that problem would be to not let participants write subpatches, but an abstraction. Then the rule would be that every possible receiver (s/r, value, table, subpatches, struct, ...) must have a $0-name.
Ciao
Frank Barknecht _ ______footils.org_ __goto10.org__
And they need to be sure that they are listening to the previous person's work as it really sounds.
But, isn't the idea of exquisite corpse, that you don't know what the stuff before is?
Or on the contrary, you may decide to exploit interferences between patches as an extra source of fun. Indeed that would make the whole thing more interesting and justify the concatenation of patches rather than just of wav files :)
That's a good point , it would be best if there were aspects making it fundamentally different from concatenating peoples sound files, hmm.
On 08/05/2007, at 17.22, Atwood, Robert C wrote:
And they need to be sure that they are listening to the previous person's work as it really sounds.
But, isn't the idea of exquisite corpse, that you don't know what the stuff before is?
But there more info then nothing about the stuff before. You'd for
example know if you are to draw/paint the legs or a head. Here you
have info about where you are in the pice of music, and you get that
information my listing to the previous 30 sec.
I'd also suggest that you are allowed to make modifications to the included patch that is previous to your own. This could be another source of fun!
Frank's abstraction idea is a good one too. We'd just have to be organized.
~Kyle
On 5/8/07, Steffen stffn@dibidut.dk wrote:
On 08/05/2007, at 17.22, Atwood, Robert C wrote:
And they need to be sure that they are listening to the previous person's work as it really sounds.
But, isn't the idea of exquisite corpse, that you don't know what the stuff before is?
But there more info then nothing about the stuff before. You'd for example know if you are to draw/paint the legs or a head. Here you have info about where you are in the pice of music, and you get that information my listing to the previous 30 sec.
PD-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
yeah...please don't use [$2$1( message boxes or anything like that which aren't in 0.39
-
Atwood, Robert C -
Frank Barknecht -
hard off -
Kyle Klipowicz -
Matteo.sistisette -
Steffen