uh I missed roman inputs, fortunately there are the archives
" Are you implying there was no dance music since the 80's? How bad will actual 'best technologies' will be in a few years? Is that a discussion about certain aesthethics you're looking for or about technical possibilities? "
I took dance as an example of musics that needs to answer a number of sound characteristics where technical possibilities are seriously implied in aestethics. Not to say that an instrument would sound better if there is a background image or such, but the way we are accessing data and modulate them has a severe influence on inspiration.
At the end the best compromise I've found is like obiwannabe's work, where the patch is the piece.
----- Mail Original ----- De: "Mathieu Bouchard" matju@artengine.ca À: "Roman Haefeli" reduzierer@yahoo.de Cc: "colet patrice" colet.patrice@free.fr, "pd-list" pd-list@iem.at Envoyé: Vendredi 16 Avril 2010 18h53:40 GMT +01:00 Amsterdam / Berlin / Berne / Rome / Stockholm / Vienne Objet: Re: [PD] nusmuk_audio WAS: Max Smoother Audio than Pd?
On Fri, 16 Apr 2010, Roman Haefeli wrote:
On Fri, 2010-04-16 at 14:04 +0200, colet.patrice@free.fr wrote:
show me a patch that correctly mix soundfiles.
That interests me. Can you elaborate a bit more what you mean by "mixing"?
Interesting, I was more concerned by the use of the word « correctly ».
For a even a simple cross-fade, any way of smoothing the output of a slider is a potential matter of personal preference, and whichever way you pick has eventual slightly different consequences on the result.
_ _ __ ___ _____ ________ _____________ _____________________ ... | Mathieu Bouchard, Montréal, Québec. téléphone: +1.514.383.3801
On Fri, 2010-04-16 at 19:24 +0200, colet.patrice@free.fr wrote:
uh I missed roman inputs, fortunately there are the archives
" Are you implying there was no dance music since the 80's? How bad will actual 'best technologies' will be in a few years? Is that a discussion about certain aesthetics you're looking for or about technical possibilities? "
I took dance as an example of musics that needs to answer a number of sound characteristics where technical possibilities are seriously implied in aesthetics.
This is certainly not untrue, but also very general. I'm not seeing where you're heading for regarding the discussion about Pd. From the discussions we had so far, it seems to me (probably I'm completely off, sorry if so) that you have a particular kind of electronic club music in mind and you find Pd an inappropriate tool for making this kind of "highly produced" music (sorry for not having a better term here). And probably you're right: Pd isn't the best-suited tool for generating exactly "this" kind of music. But this is not so much a technical issue, but I'd say more a cultural. By having the many possibilities Pd offers, it might be not so interesting for someone to do all the hard work of creating a Pd based environment that very closely resembles the more traditional tools for producing "this" kind of music. If the initial interest is to create "this" kind of music with the structure of "this" kind of music, Pd might not be the tool of choice in the first place. I'm not saying, that using a tool like Pd could not be interesting anyway to resemble an existing culture/style of music. But then the reason to do so might not be to just copying it, but rather to play with it, trying to extend it, to transform it etc. A djembé drummer says: "You cannot make dance music alone, you need other drummers as well". Patko says: "Making dance music requires advanced technologies". Roman says: "Where is the sine? I cannot dance without an [osc~ =<20]".
Not to say that an instrument would sound better if there is a background image or such, but the way we are accessing data and modulate them has a severe influence on inspiration.
At the end the best compromise I've found is like obiwannabe's work, where the patch is the piece.
I guess I'm missing your point here. How does that relate to what you said above?
Roman
----- Mail Original ----- De: "Mathieu Bouchard" matju@artengine.ca À: "Roman Haefeli" reduzierer@yahoo.de Cc: "colet patrice" colet.patrice@free.fr, "pd-list" pd-list@iem.at Envoyé: Vendredi 16 Avril 2010 18h53:40 GMT +01:00 Amsterdam / Berlin / Berne / Rome / Stockholm / Vienne Objet: Re: [PD] nusmuk_audio WAS: Max Smoother Audio than Pd?
On Fri, 16 Apr 2010, Roman Haefeli wrote:
On Fri, 2010-04-16 at 14:04 +0200, colet.patrice@free.fr wrote:
show me a patch that correctly mix soundfiles.
That interests me. Can you elaborate a bit more what you mean by "mixing"?
Interesting, I was more concerned by the use of the word « correctly ».
For a even a simple cross-fade, any way of smoothing the output of a slider is a potential matter of personal preference, and whichever way you pick has eventual slightly different consequences on the result.
_ _ __ ___ _____ ________ _____________ _____________________ ... | Mathieu Bouchard, Montréal, Québec. téléphone: +1.514.383.3801
In every field of art and also in apllied arts, the aesthetics is always related to the means of production available. This is true for music, for achitecture and even for industrial design.
Let's take the concrete, for example. Some of the early architecture produced with concrete, was attempts to reproduce the old aesthetics of building with bricks and stone (and there are people doing this untill now). It took some time untill the emergence of modern architecture, whose aesthetics is much more related to the phisical characteristics of the new material.
It seems that here we have the same issue, people trying to use a new medium to reproduce aesthetics related to another one. When we try to build a plastic chair that looks like a wooden one, this is called "kitch", and I think its the same if we simply try to reproduce certain kinds of music with this new medium.
I do like music for dance, and I've seen pretty nice things for dancing made with pd, but not really "dance music". And I dont really see any advantage in try to build a patch who could produce dance music as we were used to produce (Im satisfied with my old buzz tracker for that). What I had done untill now (I'm a relly new user) are things that I couldn't had done with nothing else (unless Max, maybe, but pd is free software)
What gives me will to learn and use pd, is the possibility to join the development of a NEW aesthetics; by the confluence with image and sound, by the possibility of create new instruments, new forms of interaction with the audience and to treat the sound as pure data.
From this, I think pd has a potencial similar to the advent of the electric
guitar, it has potential to not just change the "dance music", but the whole dancefloor concept maybe; but this is just an argument from personal conviction, as Matt pointed..
go ahead a
2010/4/16 colet.patrice@free.fr
uh I missed roman inputs, fortunately there are the archives
" Are you implying there was no dance music since the 80's? How bad will actual 'best technologies' will be in a few years? Is that a discussion about certain aesthethics you're looking for or about technical possibilities? "
I took dance as an example of musics that needs to answer a number of sound characteristics where technical possibilities are seriously implied in aestethics. Not to say that an instrument would sound better if there is a background image or such, but the way we are accessing data and modulate them has a severe influence on inspiration.
At the end the best compromise I've found is like obiwannabe's work, where the patch is the piece.
----- Mail Original ----- De: "Mathieu Bouchard" matju@artengine.ca À: "Roman Haefeli" reduzierer@yahoo.de Cc: "colet patrice" colet.patrice@free.fr, "pd-list" pd-list@iem.at Envoyé: Vendredi 16 Avril 2010 18h53:40 GMT +01:00 Amsterdam / Berlin / Berne / Rome / Stockholm / Vienne Objet: Re: [PD] nusmuk_audio WAS: Max Smoother Audio than Pd?
On Fri, 16 Apr 2010, Roman Haefeli wrote:
On Fri, 2010-04-16 at 14:04 +0200, colet.patrice@free.fr wrote:
show me a patch that correctly mix soundfiles.
That interests me. Can you elaborate a bit more what you mean by "mixing"?
Interesting, I was more concerned by the use of the word « correctly ».
For a even a simple cross-fade, any way of smoothing the output of a slider is a potential matter of personal preference, and whichever way you pick has eventual slightly different consequences on the result.
_ _ __ ___ _____ ________ _____________ _____________________ ... | Mathieu Bouchard, Montréal, Québec. téléphone: +1.514.383.3801
Pd-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
--- On Sat, 4/17/10, Ariane stolfi arianestolfi@gmail.com wrote:
From: Ariane stolfi arianestolfi@gmail.com Subject: Re: [PD] nusmuk_audio WAS: Max Smoother Audio than Pd? To: colet.patrice@free.fr Cc: "pd-list" pd-list@iem.at, reduzierer@yahoo.de Date: Saturday, April 17, 2010, 1:49 AM
In every field of art and also in apllied arts, the aesthetics is always related to the means of production available. This is true for music, for achitecture and even for industrial design.
Let's take the concrete, for example. Some of the early architecture produced with concrete, was attempts to reproduce the old aesthetics of building with bricks and stone (and there are people doing this untill now). It took some time untill the emergence of modern architecture, whose aesthetics is much more related to the phisical characteristics of the new material.
It seems that here we have the same issue, people trying to use a new medium to reproduce aesthetics related to another one. When we try to build a plastic chair that looks like a wooden one, this is called "kitch", and I think its the same if we simply try to reproduce certain kinds of music with this new medium.
Kitsch is not the only possible result of imposing an "old" aesthetics on a new medium-- think of early African pottery that has woven lines painted on it that refer to earlier, less sturdy woven containers (or woven branches of baskets). Also, think of mashups, where the artists aren't even reproducing old sounds-- they're just taking them wholesale, but clearly creating new sounds (and forms!) in the process.
If you don't pay attention to the way seemingly simplistic processes , your new sounds will end up sounding a lot like other people's new sounds which make the same broad generalizations about what is old vs. what is new.
-Jonathan
--- On Sat, 4/17/10, Jonathan Wilkes jancsika@yahoo.com wrote:
From: Jonathan Wilkes jancsika@yahoo.com Subject: Re: [PD] nusmuk_audio WAS: Max Smoother Audio than Pd? To: colet.patrice@free.fr, "Ariane stolfi" arianestolfi@gmail.com Cc: "pd-list" pd-list@iem.at, reduzierer@yahoo.de Date: Saturday, April 17, 2010, 4:30 AM
--- On Sat, 4/17/10, Ariane stolfi arianestolfi@gmail.com wrote:
From: Ariane stolfi arianestolfi@gmail.com Subject: Re: [PD] nusmuk_audio WAS: Max Smoother Audio than Pd? To: colet.patrice@free.fr Cc: "pd-list" pd-list@iem.at, reduzierer@yahoo.de Date: Saturday, April 17, 2010, 1:49 AM
In every field of art and also in apllied arts, the aesthetics is always related to the means of production available. This is true for music, for achitecture and even for industrial design.
Let's take the concrete, for example. Some of the early architecture produced with concrete, was attempts to reproduce the old aesthetics of building with bricks and stone (and there are people doing this untill now). It took some time untill the emergence of modern architecture, whose aesthetics is much more related to the phisical characteristics of the new material.
It seems that here we have the same issue, people trying to use a new medium to reproduce aesthetics related to another one. When we try to build a plastic chair that looks like a wooden one, this is called "kitch", and I think its the same if we simply try to reproduce certain kinds of music with this new medium.
Kitsch is not the only possible result of imposing an "old" aesthetics on a new medium-- think of early African pottery that has woven lines painted on it that refer to earlier, less sturdy woven containers (or woven branches of baskets). Also, think of mashups, where the artists aren't even reproducing old sounds-- they're just taking them wholesale, but clearly creating new sounds (and forms!) in the process.
If you don't pay attention to the way seemingly simplistic processes , your new sounds will end up sounding a lot like other people's new sounds which make the same broad generalizations about what is old vs. what is new.
Oops. I erased a word: "... seemingly simplistic processes _create_ _meaning_"
-Jonathan
-----Inline Attachment Follows-----
Pd-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
-
Ariane stolfi -
colet.patrice＠free.fr -
Jonathan Wilkes -
Roman Haefeli