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
Hello Jamie,
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.
Then I attended an institution whose policies are different than the others.
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.
Why so overly sensitive? This wasn't an attack on anyone. It is an opinion, not an accusation. Did you not see the smiley faces? Smile :-)
Do you have any examples of academics who don't recognise this?
I won't name anyone. One example: I had 'programming' classes where I had to create compositions with Max/MSP and Csound. Instead of using shared patches/orch files we had to build and use extremely basic instruments; rarely anything more than an oscillator, filter and an LFO. So, instead of being encouraged to use shared instruments which would result in having a composition with some 'character', I have a couple semesters' worth of compositions full of bloops, beeps and sirens. No offense to bloops, beeps and siren lovers :-) I just don't find it aesthetically interesting. I would have loved if we had fewer assignments so we could have the time to build our own more interesting sound generators to include in our compositions. Or, we should have been allowed to pick and choose between the plethoras of shared instruments.
Another example would be that in my 'non-programming' composition courses, we had to use Logic and its native instruments/samplers to create our pieces. Why not use Max/MSP and Csound for our composition classes? If we were allowed to use 'pre-built' instruments that come with Logic, why can't we use pre-built patches/orch files?
Even if you do, you shouldn't make generalisations about an entire community based on a few personal examples.
So if someone finds, what they believe to be, something missing from a system, they shouldn't speak about it? That's rather dangerous censorship, I believe.
who make music with the AID of computers; not to make music WITH computers.
Could you explain the difference?
I already have in previous responses to this thread. It's rather self explanatory anyway ;-)
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
Do you see that slash that you've put between composer and programmer? That's the rigid line. Do you notice how the composer and programmer on opposite sides of the spectrum? That's the rigid line. My (uneducated :-)) guess would be that %99 of the world's musicians don't need to program a single line of code to create a music composition.
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...
Therein lays the rigidity. Who forms this 'demand'? Is this the demand because these are the only two options available? I believe that today's generation of music students would be more interested in grey, not black and white.
.....as well as music technology courses that contain
no programming elements at all....>
Please let me know of such courses. I'm not being facetious...this is the type of program that I am interested in.
There are also hybrid 'Sonic Art' courses that bring in elements from the visual arts, music and information technology.
I've found that the 'Sonic Arts' courses are heavily rooted in DSP and programming.
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.
I'm glad you mentioned those programs...I wonder why aren't they more utilized throughout academia? I would have loved to be able to use Bidule and Audiomulch for my compositions.
Take care, Jamie.
On Jun 8, 2007, at 6:18 AM, Jamie Bullock wrote:
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.
From my experience with Pd in academic environments, I think they
are generally not very good an interfacing with the net communities
and other external communities. Of course, there are exceptions,
some very notable ones, but think overall the tendency is for
academic communities to be very inward looking. This is something
that I think makes things worse for all involved, but being involved
in academia, I can see why things are like that.
One key reasons is that face-to-face communications and collaboration
are much more fulfilling than doing the same via email, IRC, IM,
etc. But in the case of the academic communities in NYC, there
should be a lot more crosstalk, but some institutions really actively
avoid external interaction.
Part of this is driven by the "business model" of many universities
(yes, people who run universities think like that, tho many of the
academics are isolated from it). Most universities in the US need
students to pay tuition in order to pay the bills. If there is lots
of external collaboration, then there is perhaps less incentive to
pay the $40,000 a year to be part of that community.
One thing that inspires me is barcamps/unconferences, and I believe
this is what the role of the university should be. A university
should be an institution that supports education and research.
Access should not be arbitrarily restricted by things like money,
degrees, affiliation, etc. Anyone who wants to come should come and
participate. There will be of course trolls, spoilers, people who
talk too much, etc. Such things are a part of life everywhere.
We are human, and an essential part of our nature is communication.
Therefore, if we don't have the collective social skills to handle
this, it is time to develop them. In doing so, we will gain a vast
improvement in the exchange and development of knowledge. For
example, at the barcamps and unconfernces that I have participated
in, I have seen these collective social skills being used and
developed. And when it works, it is really an inspiring experience,
and provides an experience that is much closer to the ideal of a
conference in terms of the amount of knowledge developed and exchanged.
So now the missing link in all this is the funding. That is a big
reason why I am happy to be working at Polytechnic University. It is
an institution that has withered a lot from its glory days. In the
language of those in the university business, it's a "third tier"
university. One of the key benefits is that there is a quite a bit
of space, classrooms, exhibition space, and an 350 seat auditorium
that are very much underused. That means I can host events paying
nothing for the space. Other universities in the area charge their
own faculty and staff thousands for access to the same space.
Also, my job supports me so that I have time to help organize such
events. It's actually not very expensive for the university at all,
and we can provide something really quite unique in the NYC area, and
much closer to my ideal of an academic institution.
That's my semi-related rant of the day...
.hc
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
PD-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/ listinfo/pd-list
If you are not part of the solution, you are part of the problem.
-
Hans-Christoph Steiner -
Jamie Bullock -
jared