thanks for the link HC...
it seems quite sad to me that the first performance with pd at ted has to be this. With all the respect due to Onyx, but using control sensor to play as a dj seems a technological parody.
Besides, the whole system looks a bit clunky, doesn't it?
It surprises me how, among all the beautiful and efficient project in this field (made in Pd and not), this got to TED. Well, of course the motivation of his performance there is not "he's using Pd" :)
my 2 cents M
I just wanted this performance by Onyx Ashanti as part of the TED Talks stuff. Its quite a nice performance using live sensor control of Pd:
http://www.ted.com/talks/onyx_ashanti_this_is_beatjazz.html
It looks like you can even see Pd on the screen behind him.
.hc
--
Marco Donnarumma Independent New Media and Sonic Arts Professional, Performer, Instructor ACE, Sound Design MSc by Research (ongoing) The University of Edinburgh, UK
Portfolio: http://marcodonnarumma.com
Lab: http://www.thesaddj.com | http://cntrl.sourceforge.net |
http://www.flxer.net
Event: http://www.liveperformersmeeting.net
On Sun, 19 Jun 2011, Marco Donnarumma wrote:
it seems quite sad to me that the first performance with pd at ted has to be this. With all the respect due to Onyx, but using control sensor to play as a dj seems a technological parody. Besides, the whole system looks a bit clunky, doesn't it?
Does it ?
Do you care to explain yourself ?
What's a « technological parody » ?
And what's that thing you call a « dj » ? You use it in your own name thesaddj. What's your relationship with that word ?
| Mathieu Bouchard ---- tél: +1.514.383.3801 ---- Villeray, Montréal, QC
On Jun 19, 2011, at 9:50 AM, Mathieu Bouchard wrote:
On Sun, 19 Jun 2011, Marco Donnarumma wrote:
it seems quite sad to me that the first performance with pd at ted
has to be this. With all the respect due to Onyx, but using control
sensor to play as a dj seems a technological parody. Besides, the
whole system looks a bit clunky, doesn't it?Does it ?
Do you care to explain yourself ?
What's a « technological parody » ?
And what's that thing you call a « dj » ? You use it in your own
name thesaddj. What's your relationship with that word ?
I think the key is not what it looks like, but what he does with it.
He's making music with it (no ifs, ands, or buts), he clearly has
musical skill with his instrument, and is able to keep the musical
timing tight. These are all difficult things to do, and from what
I've seen 95% of performance with new interfaces for musical
expression does not achieve one of those goals solidly.
.hc
"Making boring techno music is really easy with modern tools, but with
live coding, boring techno is much harder." - Chris McCormick
I absolutely agree with you, Hans! Onyx is doing great live playing with traditional rhythms and phrasings using his own custom built "wind controller" and Pd. I'm not sure what would classify music with no rhythmical elements and scales and chords as being more artistic?
Ingo
-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- Von: pd-list-bounces@iem.at [mailto:pd-list-bounces@iem.at] Im Auftrag von Hans-Christoph Steiner Gesendet: Sonntag, 19. Juni 2011 17:32 An: Mathieu Bouchard Cc: pd-list@iem.at; Marco Donnarumma Betreff: Re: [PD] Pd performance at TED
On Jun 19, 2011, at 9:50 AM, Mathieu Bouchard wrote:
On Sun, 19 Jun 2011, Marco Donnarumma wrote:
it seems quite sad to me that the first performance with pd at ted
has to be this. With all the respect due to Onyx, but using control
sensor to play as a dj seems a technological parody. Besides, the
whole system looks a bit clunky, doesn't it?Does it ?
Do you care to explain yourself ?
What's a « technological parody » ?
And what's that thing you call a « dj » ? You use it in your own
name thesaddj. What's your relationship with that word ?
I think the key is not what it looks like, but what he does with it.
He's making music with it (no ifs, ands, or buts), he clearly has
musical skill with his instrument, and is able to keep the musical
timing tight. These are all difficult things to do, and from what
I've seen 95% of performance with new interfaces for musical
expression does not achieve one of those goals solidly.
.hc
"Making boring techno music is really easy with modern tools, but with
live coding, boring techno is much harder." - Chris McCormick
Pd-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
--- On Sun, 6/19/11, Mathieu Bouchard matju@artengine.ca wrote:
From: Mathieu Bouchard matju@artengine.ca Subject: Re: [PD] Pd performance at TED To: "Marco Donnarumma" devel@thesaddj.com Cc: pd-list@iem.at Date: Sunday, June 19, 2011, 3:50 PM On Sun, 19 Jun 2011, Marco Donnarumma wrote:
it seems quite sad to me that the first performance
with pd at ted has to be this. With all the respect due to Onyx, but using control sensor to play as a dj seems a technological parody. Besides, the whole system looks a bit clunky, doesn't it?
Does it ?
Do you care to explain yourself ?
What's a « technological parody » ?
It's where you take something like a modern digital computer and do DSP by using an interface modeled after 30 year-old analog audio equipment.
Merely asserting this doesn't imply a value judgment, however. I'd need to say more to do that: e.g., clear lines to show data flow = good, tangled mess of wires = bad (for both analog synths and Pd)
-Jonathan
And what's that thing you call a « dj » ? You use it in your own name thesaddj. What's your relationship with that word ?
| Mathieu Bouchard ---- tél: +1.514.383.3801 ---- Villeray, Montréal, QC
-----Inline Attachment Follows-----
Pd-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
On Sun, 19 Jun 2011, Jonathan Wilkes wrote:
--- On Sun, 6/19/11, Mathieu Bouchard matju@artengine.ca wrote:
What's a « technological parody » ?
It's where you take something like a modern digital computer and do DSP by using an interface modeled after 30 year-old analog audio equipment.
Therefore Pd is a technological parody ?
| Mathieu Bouchard ---- tél: +1.514.383.3801 ---- Villeray, Montréal, QC
I think a lot of the folks who are disappointed with this being at TED are frustrated because they are looking at it from an academic standpoint or at least looking at it as a non-performer. You have to remember that he is performing, and on top of that, probably trying to make a living as a performer. For christ's sake his name is Onyx Ashanti and he made a new name for his music, "beatjazz" =). It's a little over-the-top and mediocre if you are expecting some ground-breaking, concept piece or a technical demonstration of the capabilities of Puredata... but it's not. This guy is an entertainer who is probably combining his love of electronics with his love of music... I don't see anything wrong with that.
Plus... isn't this just an audition?
On Mon, Jun 20, 2011 at 6:39 PM, Mathieu Bouchard matju@artengine.cawrote:
On Sun, 19 Jun 2011, Jonathan Wilkes wrote:
--- On Sun, 6/19/11, Mathieu Bouchard matju@artengine.ca wrote:
What's a « technological parody » ?
It's where you take something like a modern digital computer and do DSP by using an interface modeled after 30 year-old analog audio equipment.
Therefore Pd is a technological parody ?
______________________________**______________________________** ___________ | Mathieu Bouchard ---- tél: +1.514.383.3801 ---- Villeray, Montréal, QC
Pd-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
Patrice Colet to pd-list, Pedro show details 12:07 PM (1 hour ago)
- In TED performance we see how interfaces would be used to interpret
electronic music, unfortunately the player doesn't seem to have a lot of culture in electronic music, but maybe someone else with a lot more experience and knowledge would show a performance like great improvisators we know, I'd love to see how squarepusher would play with this ^^* Very well said!
I think a lot of interesting points have been made in this discussion. It's complicated to critique creative expression/ music/ performance without seeming to be elitist and cruel, but without this discourse we would not be able to differentiate between true ingenuity and derivative mediocrity.
Mainstream platforms for "innovation" like TED invariably showcase "thinly" not "deeply" because they are all about wow-factor and soundbites, speaking to the most general of audiences. We could look at TED as a kind of media "iceberg". The ideas showcased may often be interesting but the substance of their presentation is often lacking, like the proverbial tip of the iceberg. So we should use these iceberg tips as a jumping off points to look deeper into the idea presented with our own research. Then we may (hopefully) find more interesting applications of similar ideas, for e.g. as in this case: gestural sound control.
On Tue, 21 Jun 2011 13:15:12 +1000 Richie Cyngler glitchpop@gmail.com wrote:
We could look at TED as a kind of media "iceberg". The ideas showcased may often be interesting but the substance of their presentation is often lacking,
Seems a fair and insightful point. TED is populist. The couple of people I know who've done talks had to work hard to squeeze an entire career into a few minutes of soundbites. You're bound to feel you sacrificed some depth and comodified yourself.
They have little TEDx events here AT UF in florida and they are basically digital Like button shows. People want to be wowed also want to look over your shoulder and understand what you are doing so they may immediately dismiss it.
I get the question often when some Digital "bad-ass" leans over to me or sneaks up to the booth and asks
"hey, what are you using"
I usually just say "photo-shop"
On 6/21/11 2:58 PM, "Andy Farnell" padawan12@obiwannabe.co.uk wrote:
On Tue, 21 Jun 2011 13:15:12 +1000 Richie Cyngler glitchpop@gmail.com wrote:
We could look at TED as a kind of media "iceberg". The ideas showcased may often be interesting but the substance of their presentation is often lacking,
Seems a fair and insightful point. TED is populist. The couple of people I know who've done talks had to work hard to squeeze an entire career into a few minutes of soundbites. You're bound to feel you sacrificed some depth and comodified yourself.
-- Andy Farnell padawan12@obiwannabe.co.uk
Pd-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
It's where you take something like a modern digital computer and do DSP by using an interface modeled after 30 year-old analog audio equipment.
Therefore Pd is a technological parody ?
I think a lot of the folks who are disappointed with this being at TED
I said « Therefore Pd is a technological parody ? > because it takes a modern digital computer and does DSP by using an interface modeled after 30 year-old analog audio equipment : I'm talking about a patching interface with inlets, outlets and patchcords. It has nothing to do with TED, really, just laughing about the coïncidence between the above explanation of the parody aspect and an explanation of what Pd is.
| Mathieu Bouchard ---- tél: +1.514.383.3801 ---- Villeray, Montréal, QC
--- On Tue, 6/21/11, Mathieu Bouchard matju@artengine.ca wrote:
From: Mathieu Bouchard matju@artengine.ca Subject: Re: [PD] Pd performance at TED To: "Jonathan Wilkes" jancsika@yahoo.com Cc: "Marco Donnarumma" devel@thesaddj.com, pd-list@iem.at Date: Tuesday, June 21, 2011, 3:39 AM On Sun, 19 Jun 2011, Jonathan Wilkes wrote:
--- On Sun, 6/19/11, Mathieu Bouchard matju@artengine.ca
wrote:
What's a « technological parody » ?
It's where you take something like a modern digital
computer and do DSP by using an interface modeled after 30 year-old analog audio equipment.
Therefore Pd is a technological parody ?
The interface (GUI) is. Mainly in the sense of a musical parody, as if the influence of the analog synthesizer is there mainly to amuse the user, to divert him/her from the drudgery of computer music orthodoxy.
The point is the term on it's own doesn't hold a value judgment. It'd be like judging Bach's Prelude in C from WTC, Book I by calling it a series of ascending arpeggios. Does that mean one thinks it's simplistic? Deceivingly simple? Boring? Elegant? Elegantly boring?
Hiding an implicit judgment inside a truism is lazy discourse.
-Jonathan
| Mathieu Bouchard ---- tél: +1.514.383.3801 ---- Villeray, Montréal, QC
On Mon, Jun 20, 2011 at 8:39 PM, Mathieu Bouchard matju@artengine.cawrote:
On Sun, 19 Jun 2011, Jonathan Wilkes wrote:
--- On Sun, 6/19/11, Mathieu Bouchard matju@artengine.ca wrote:
What's a « technological parody » ?
It's where you take something like a modern digital computer and do DSP by using an interface modeled after 30 year-old analog audio equipment.
Therefore Pd is a technological parody ?
Seems like this fits into the discussion of CV's in digital synthesizers, however briefly on-topic it was :)
Pd is *not* a technological parody by being able to do everything that a 30-year-old analog interface could do, because it does it better. Hardware for running Pd to accomplish the same tasks can be smaller and less specialized. There's lower noise, less distortion--things that would take a team of engineers several years to build with hardware would be programmable in Pd in less time.
A technological parody ought to be defined by:
- usage of high-tech hardware to fulfill a low-tech purpose
- an unwarranted degree of specialization or wasteful usage of hardware
size/power
e.g. a wind controller shaped exactly like a clarinet, running off a DSP board, and all it does is sound exactly like a clarinet. Why don't I just mic a clarinet? Anybody else got one?
Chuck
On Tue, 21 Jun 2011 12:08:48 -0500 Charles Henry czhenry@gmail.com wrote:
- an unwarranted degree of specialization or wasteful usage of hardware
Anybody else got one?
Chuck
Kind of. How about a computer marketed as a "intuitive people's communication tool" that took me 35 festering minutes to find the @ key so I could send an email (that terribly unusual communication mode) ? I guess not spoiling the pretty brushed aluminium minimalist keyboard concept was more important that me *intuitively* hitting Apple+CTRL+SHIFT+FCN-ESC-N or whatever the feck it was (after I had to ask a first year undergrad).
Thanks for that bit of *intuition* Jobs. You dicksplash!
On Tue, Jun 21, 2011 at 12:08 PM, Charles Henry czhenry@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Jun 20, 2011 at 8:39 PM, Mathieu Bouchard matju@artengine.cawrote:
On Sun, 19 Jun 2011, Jonathan Wilkes wrote:
--- On Sun, 6/19/11, Mathieu Bouchard matju@artengine.ca wrote:
What's a « technological parody » ?
It's where you take something like a modern digital computer and do DSP by using an interface modeled after 30 year-old analog audio equipment.
Therefore Pd is a technological parody ?
A technological parody ought to be defined by:
- usage of high-tech hardware to fulfill a low-tech purpose
- an unwarranted degree of specialization or wasteful usage of hardware
size/power
Guitar Hero. It's a mockery of music and almost certainly a technological parody.
I think it is super nice that Onyx joined the list and explained himself his device.
Still in the subject of "performance authenticity " and "validation of performance"... and also about audience/performer...
Onyx, do you think that perhaps all these questions that were raised about what exactly you were doing would encourage you to perhaps make your performative "movements" and means more evident? Or do you think this is not important for your goals?
The thing is, nobody asks a violin player what he's playing (as somebody mentioned a few messages ago, sorry for the lack of proper quoting here), I believe, because these traditional instruments are already within our culture, so one knows, roughly speaking, how a violin should be played and how it might sound like. However, with gestural controllers/instruments of course it is a different matter...
When Onyx mentions playing at audience level, inside the club, I remembered of Dan Deacon and Girl Talk's performances which also often apply this idea, and it is interesting to observe how the audience is also curious to see what they're doing, so I guess it is a common behavior...
On Wed, Jun 22, 2011 at 12:05 AM, Charles Henry czhenry@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Jun 21, 2011 at 12:08 PM, Charles Henry czhenry@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Jun 20, 2011 at 8:39 PM, Mathieu Bouchard matju@artengine.cawrote:
On Sun, 19 Jun 2011, Jonathan Wilkes wrote:
--- On Sun, 6/19/11, Mathieu Bouchard matju@artengine.ca wrote:
What's a « technological parody » ?
It's where you take something like a modern digital computer and do DSP by using an interface modeled after 30 year-old analog audio equipment.
Therefore Pd is a technological parody ?
A technological parody ought to be defined by:
- usage of high-tech hardware to fulfill a low-tech purpose
- an unwarranted degree of specialization or wasteful usage of hardware
size/power
Guitar Hero. It's a mockery of music and almost certainly a technological parody.
Pd-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
glad the provocation went through.
Does it ?
yes, in my honest and humble 2 cents. That's why I asked for opinions.
There are gestural frameworks out there which are far better implemented (talking about the look since Mathieu answered). Thus, I was just wondering that I would have appreciated TED to show some of them instead of this with cables everywhere and boxes hanging around.
Do you care to explain yourself ?
did it above.
What's a « technological parody » ?
I mean when "hi-profile" tech is used to implement an approach or a concept that doesn't really require such amount of technology.
And what's that thing you call a « dj » ? You use it in your own name thesaddj. What's your relationship with that word ?
auhauha, mathieu you're a careful observer. thesaddj is a name which i bring around since i'm a teenager... now is only the name of my blog, no excuse for that :)
A dj? there are many nuances, but I mentioned that as the text in Onyx's video read: "so that beatjazzers become as common as djs." Do you really need cables everywhere, sensors, a mouthpiece with two guitar pickups, a smartphone stick to your forearm, etc.. to achieve such goal?
Wait a moment. I'm not saying his work is bad or anything. I made safe my respect for his work at the beginning.
I'm just saying, guys it's TED and when I heard gestural and sensor control I expected another kind of work, underpinned by another kind of aesthetic, approach, and motivation. But, I probably overestimated which is the value and motivation of new technologies which need to be shown to the mainstream public.
"...he clearly has musical skill with his instrument, and is able to keep the musical timing tight. These are all difficult things to do, and from what I've seen 95% of performance with new interfaces for musical expression does not achieve one of those goals solidly."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rxnFbU6-_eU&feature=player_embedded#at=51
that was in 2008 by Eboman, using not only real time audio looping, but also video looping and processing, plus remix of a website online.
Hans, Onyx is playing mostly loops isn't he? How you know about the timing? We don't even know how much of what he's doing is really live, what is he triggering, if timing is controlled by a timeline or by his performance. Please, correct me if I'm wrong. But I saw a lot of loops playing on a timeline and some solos parts possibly produced through the mouthpiece.
I'm not talking about the quality of the performance which is obviously good, reliable and enjoyable. I'm pointing at the real value of the innovation since it's a TED episode.
M
______________________________**______________________________** ___________ | Mathieu Bouchard ---- tél: +1.514.383.3801 ---- Villeray, Montréal, QC
Von: pd-list-bounces@iem.at [mailto:pd-list-bounces@iem.at] Im Auftrag von Marco Donnarumma Gesendet: Sonntag, 19. Juni 2011 22:37 An: pd-list@iem.at Betreff: Re: [PD] Pd performance at TED
Hans, Onyx is playing mostly loops isn't he? How you know about the timing? We don't even know how much of what he's doing is really live, what is he
triggering, if timing is controlled by a timeline >or by his performance.
Please, correct me if I'm wrong.
Marco, it looks like you still didn't get what he is doing.
Onyx is playing a wind controller that requires fingerings like a saxophone (or similar). He is playing melodic lines or triggers chords / samples with woodwind fingerings while controlling dynamics and other things with the breath controller in his mouth. He can switch between the different tracks (drums, bass, chords, solo) by selecting different targets with a button. But the melodic lines are played in realtime with his custom "wind controller".
How would you play such melodic lines (like those jazz licks) - in time - simply with gestural control? How would you improvise on scales, pattern or harmonic structures? After all he's a jazz player calling his music "beat jazz".
The movement looks to me secondary - it's more like a dance movement and not too much music control.
Ingo
Ingo, thanks for your explanation, I think to understand how he's playing.
The movement looks to me secondary - it's more like a dance movement and not too much music control.
This might be a very personal take, but if movement is secondary in gestural control, why one uses gestural control at all? I believe that effective and ancillary gestures are what reinforce our perception of an instrument as a musical tool, rather than a mere "device". Imho many gestural controllers would benefit of a better focus on this aspect.
How would you play such melodic lines (like those jazz licks) - in time - simply with gestural control?
Setting an array of preset chords, triggering them with multiple switches, deploying a timeline which holds the trigger until the onset of the next beat or quarter, etc... I guess the list here could come up with many other methods. I'm not saying that's trivial, I only think that it's not the "future" as it is presented in the video.
How would you improvise on scales, pattern or harmonic structures? After all he's a jazz player calling his music "beat jazz".
What do you call improvisation in this case? How much is he improvising? I can imagine he's "improvising" with the melodic lines, but playing samples and presets chords doesn't match my own definition of improvisation.
cheers, M
Jumping on the discussion (not a frequent poster, but I do follow), I must say I agree with Marco... but one question (kinda related, but at the same time isn't): what would consist, then, "improvisation" when using Pd?
I mean, if you consider *free* improvisation the only thing I can think of, in five seconds, is "live coding". However, if you think of an instrument there are also "pre-given" structures one must follow, that is, pitch range, playability, timbre and so on. Roughly, with traditional instruments (from western tradition) you can't go that far away from the 12-tone paradigm (of course, a few exceptions here and there with guys like Otomo Yoshihide for the guitar or Coltrane/Evan Parker for Saxophone), but then, again... what is *true *improvisation in the context of Pd, Max, whatever?
I'm asking because, like I said, I do agree with Marco - recombining patterns doesn't consist of improvisation for me as well... and if improvisation in that case consists of playing notes over the riffs and patterns, why use a gestural controller? Just for the sake of technology?
Such topic interests me a lot, I'd love to hear your thoughts :)
On Mon, Jun 20, 2011 at 1:43 PM, Marco Donnarumma devel@thesaddj.comwrote:
Ingo, thanks for your explanation, I think to understand how he's playing.
The movement looks to me secondary - it's more like a dance movement and not too much music control.
This might be a very personal take, but if movement is secondary in gestural control, why one uses gestural control at all? I believe that effective and ancillary gestures are what reinforce our perception of an instrument as a musical tool, rather than a mere "device". Imho many gestural controllers would benefit of a better focus on this aspect.
How would you play such melodic lines (like those jazz licks) - in time - simply with gestural control?
Setting an array of preset chords, triggering them with multiple switches, deploying a timeline which holds the trigger until the onset of the next beat or quarter, etc... I guess the list here could come up with many other methods. I'm not saying that's trivial, I only think that it's not the "future" as it is presented in the video.
How would you improvise on scales, pattern or harmonic structures? After all he's a jazz player calling his music "beat jazz".
What do you call improvisation in this case? How much is he improvising? I can imagine he's "improvising" with the melodic lines, but playing samples and presets chords doesn't match my own definition of improvisation.
cheers, M
-- Marco Donnarumma Independent New Media and Sonic Arts Professional, Performer, Instructor ACE, Sound Design MSc by Research (ongoing) The University of Edinburgh, UK
Portfolio: http://marcodonnarumma.com Lab: http://www.thesaddj.com | http://cntrl.sourceforge.net | http://www.flxer.net Event: http://www.liveperformersmeeting.net _______________________________________________ Pd-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
If the musical structure you are playing on is opened, also when the player is free to put whatever he likes, you can call it an improvisation. You don't need to be Coltrane to improvise, what the hell is that mentality????
----- "Pedro Oliveira" hello@partidoalto.net a écrit :
Jumping on the discussion (not a frequent poster, but I do follow), I must say I agree with Marco... but one question (kinda related, but at the same time isn't): what would consist, then, "improvisation" when using Pd?
I mean, if you consider free improvisation the only thing I can think of, in five seconds, is "live coding". However, if you think of an instrument there are also "pre-given" structures one must follow, that is, pitch range, playability, timbre and so on. Roughly, with traditional instruments (from western tradition) you can't go that far away from the 12-tone paradigm (of course, a few exceptions here and there with guys like Otomo Yoshihide for the guitar or Coltrane/Evan Parker for Saxophone), but then, again... what is true improvisation in the context of Pd, Max, whatever?
I'm asking because, like I said, I do agree with Marco - recombining patterns doesn't consist of improvisation for me as well... and if improvisation in that case consists of playing notes over the riffs and patterns, why use a gestural controller? Just for the sake of technology?
Such topic interests me a lot, I'd love to hear your thoughts :)
On Mon, Jun 20, 2011 at 1:43 PM, Marco Donnarumma < devel@thesaddj.com
wrote:
Ingo, thanks for your explanation, I think to understand how he's playing.
The movement looks to me secondary - it's more like a dance movement and not too much music control.
This might be a very personal take, but if movement is secondary in gestural control, why one uses gestural control at all? I believe that effective and ancillary gestures are what reinforce our perception of an instrument as a musical tool, rather than a mere "device". Imho many gestural controllers would benefit of a better focus on this aspect.
How would you play such melodic lines (like those jazz licks) - in time - simply with gestural control?
Setting an array of preset chords, triggering them with multiple switches, deploying a timeline which holds the trigger until the onset of the next beat or quarter, etc... I guess the list here could come up with many other methods. I'm not saying that's trivial, I only think that it's not the "future" as it is presented in the video.
How would you improvise on scales, pattern or harmonic structures? After all he's a jazz player calling his music "beat jazz".
What do you call improvisation in this case? How much is he improvising? I can imagine he's "improvising" with the melodic lines, but playing samples and presets chords doesn't match my own definition of improvisation.
cheers, M
-- Marco Donnarumma Independent New Media and Sonic Arts Professional, Performer, Instructor ACE, Sound Design MSc by Research (ongoing) The University of Edinburgh, UK
Portfolio: http://marcodonnarumma.com Lab: http://www.thesaddj.com | http://cntrl.sourceforge.net | http://www.flxer.net Event: http://www.liveperformersmeeting.net _______________________________________________ Pd-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list -- Pedro Oliveira www.partidoalto.net soundcloud.com/iburiedpaul _______________________________________________ Pd-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
Hi Patrice,
I think you didn't get my point... I mentioned Coltrane as an example of a musician that extrapolated his own instrument from the 12-tone idea (particularly from *A Love Supreme* on).
However, I think that open musical structures are a more complex subject to put it into the "improvisation" badge. For instance, if you take Terry Riley's "In C", to name a well-known piece, its structure is fairly open, although no player improvises. This is also used in many musical pieces and it was discussed even by Umberto Eco as *open works*...* *and correct me if I'm wrong, but I think they differ from improvisation...
And again, what "whatever he likes" mean when you're using Pd? If you're the composer *and* the performer, you're free to put whatever pleases you aesthetically but that doesn't consist of improvisation, as I see. When you design a patch in Pd you don't have *all* possibilities in your hands at any given time, and that is why I think the idea of improvisation is, perhaps, misinterpreted.
I'm not postulating an ultimate truth or mentality whatsoever, I'm just.. speculating. :)
Cheers!
On Mon, Jun 20, 2011 at 3:27 PM, Patrice Colet colet.patrice@free.frwrote:
If the musical structure you are playing on is opened, also when the player is free to put whatever he likes, you can call it an improvisation. You don't need to be Coltrane to improvise, what the hell is that mentality????
----- "Pedro Oliveira" hello@partidoalto.net a écrit :
Jumping on the discussion (not a frequent poster, but I do follow), I must say I agree with Marco... but one question (kinda related, but at the same time isn't): what would consist, then, "improvisation" when using Pd?
I mean, if you consider free improvisation the only thing I can think of, in five seconds, is "live coding". However, if you think of an instrument there are also "pre-given" structures one must follow, that is, pitch range, playability, timbre and so on. Roughly, with traditional instruments (from western tradition) you can't go that far away from the 12-tone paradigm (of course, a few exceptions here and there with guys like Otomo Yoshihide for the guitar or Coltrane/Evan Parker for Saxophone), but then, again... what is true improvisation in the context of Pd, Max, whatever?
I'm asking because, like I said, I do agree with Marco - recombining patterns doesn't consist of improvisation for me as well... and if improvisation in that case consists of playing notes over the riffs and patterns, why use a gestural controller? Just for the sake of technology?
Such topic interests me a lot, I'd love to hear your thoughts :)
On Mon, Jun 20, 2011 at 1:43 PM, Marco Donnarumma < devel@thesaddj.com
wrote:
Ingo, thanks for your explanation, I think to understand how he's playing.
The movement looks to me secondary - it's more like a dance movement and not too much music control.
This might be a very personal take, but if movement is secondary in gestural control, why one uses gestural control at all? I believe that effective and ancillary gestures are what reinforce our perception of an instrument as a musical tool, rather than a mere "device". Imho many gestural controllers would benefit of a better focus on this aspect.
How would you play such melodic lines (like those jazz licks) - in time - simply with gestural control?
Setting an array of preset chords, triggering them with multiple switches, deploying a timeline which holds the trigger until the onset of the next beat or quarter, etc... I guess the list here could come up with many other methods. I'm not saying that's trivial, I only think that it's not the "future" as it is presented in the video.
How would you improvise on scales, pattern or harmonic structures? After all he's a jazz player calling his music "beat jazz".
What do you call improvisation in this case? How much is he improvising? I can imagine he's "improvising" with the melodic lines, but playing samples and presets chords doesn't match my own definition of improvisation.
cheers, M
-- Marco Donnarumma Independent New Media and Sonic Arts Professional, Performer, Instructor ACE, Sound Design MSc by Research (ongoing) The University of Edinburgh, UK
Portfolio: http://marcodonnarumma.com Lab: http://www.thesaddj.com | http://cntrl.sourceforge.net | http://www.flxer.net Event: http://www.liveperformersmeeting.net _______________________________________________ Pd-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list -- Pedro Oliveira www.partidoalto.net soundcloud.com/iburiedpaul _______________________________________________ Pd-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list-- Patrice Colet
On Mon, 20 Jun 2011, Pedro Oliveira wrote:
Hi Patrice, I think you didn't get my point... I mentioned Coltrane as an example of a musician that extrapolated his own instrument from the 12-tone idea (particularly from A Love Supreme on).
sticking to 12-tone or getting out of 12-tone is irrelevant to the discussion.
However, I think that open musical structures are a more complex subject to put it into the "improvisation" badge. For instance, if you take Terry Riley's "In C", to name a well-known piece, its structure is fairly open, although no player improvises.
In « In C », every player improvises the switch to each next part.
This is also used in many musical pieces and it was discussed even by Umberto Eco as open works... and correct me if I'm wrong, but I think they differ from improvisation...
What's improvisation ? (with a definition, not relying on examples)
I'm not postulating an ultimate truth or mentality whatsoever, I'm just.. speculating. :)
Oh yeah, but :
but then, again... what is true improvisation in the context of Pd, Max, whatever?
How do you separate true from false or not-so-true ?
I'm asking because, like I said, I do agree with Marco - recombining patterns doesn't consist of improvisation for me as well...
Live decisions are live decisions. Some of them are small and are called interpretation, some of them are big and are called improvisation. But how do people pick a clear way to separate the two concepts, and what cause does that serve ?
| Mathieu Bouchard ---- tél: +1.514.383.3801 ---- Villeray, Montréal, QC
I think the "problem" is really a simpler one. It applies to all kinds of technological music. It is the understanding that the audience has of the performance.
Most people have an idea how a flute or saxophone or guitar works. They have picked one up and had a go at playing. Indeed, many are are musicians. Thus it's possible to appreciate a wonderful virtuoso performance.
When you see someone adorned with lights and technology dancing around on a dark stage it's hard to see cause and effect amidst the visual spectacle. And thus hard to differentiate man and machine. That was always the thrill of confusion with techno in the 1990s, with laser beams emanating from the magical DJ with stacks of synthesisers. It allowed only a select and geeky few to ruminate on what they had seen, vis a vis performance. For the rest it was the pure novelty and energy of the sound. It's hard to know whether you see a talented master or a slave to an electronic whip. What I crave to see in gestural music is more like Tai Chi, a dancer who looks like they are at one with the wind, but what I often see is quite violent and spasmodic, maybe representing a unspoken relationship to technology.
One suspects, in the TED clip we saw, very few of the audience had any idea what was actually happening. The sound was relatively pedestrian by standards of "progressive synthesis"; acceptably funky tonalities. Like many situations in modern art, they are applauding with respect for the effort and totality of the performance, but also a little bit confused and politely clapping because they know something terribly clever is going on. Indeed I think some obfuscation rather than exposition was part of that act. The ambiguity of man and machine was the lure.
Put it this way: (and maybe this speaks for my stupidity more than anything)... I couldn't tell what was happening and it's my business to know. I design this kind of stuff and only last week was with a class of masters students of gestural musical interface design giving their final presentations. Before I could appreciate their work each needed to explain their mappings and design criteria.
It raises the questions (again I suppose); Is the challenge for these new arts, of manifold form, to "legitimise" the performer? Should they ever feel they have to? Are they seeking recognition as performer or technologist? Or is the spectacle (including sound) enough, whereas the audience enter into some kind of "artistic contract" to expect and ignore the cloak of magic ?
The MSc kids clearly had a different agenda. As masters of _science_ they are required to explicate mechanism. Although the T in TED stands for technology their agenda of cultural fusion and diversity leaves plenty of room for ambiguity, so I don't think it was supposed to be taken as a demonstration of anything conceptually fresh so much as slice of fun. Unless I missed a 20 minute prelude where Ashanti explains why the system is special.
To me the coolness was apparent in the preparation, and energy. Other than that, a fit, good looking black guy who can dance and bang out some beats has an certain je ne sais quoi absent with a spooky white guy making scary noises. :) That's nothing to do with Design, or with Technology, that's Entertainment.
a.
Bravo.
On 6/20/11 10:36 AM, "Andy Farnell" padawan12@obiwannabe.co.uk wrote:
I think the "problem" is really a simpler one. It applies to all kinds of technological music. It is the understanding that the audience has of the performance.
Most people have an idea how a flute or saxophone or guitar works. They have picked one up and had a go at playing. Indeed, many are are musicians. Thus it's possible to appreciate a wonderful virtuoso performance.
When you see someone adorned with lights and technology dancing around on a dark stage it's hard to see cause and effect amidst the visual spectacle. And thus hard to differentiate man and machine. That was always the thrill of confusion with techno in the 1990s, with laser beams emanating from the magical DJ with stacks of synthesisers. It allowed only a select and geeky few to ruminate on what they had seen, vis a vis performance. For the rest it was the pure novelty and energy of the sound. It's hard to know whether you see a talented master or a slave to an electronic whip. What I crave to see in gestural music is more like Tai Chi, a dancer who looks like they are at one with the wind, but what I often see is quite violent and spasmodic, maybe representing a unspoken relationship to technology.
One suspects, in the TED clip we saw, very few of the audience had any idea what was actually happening. The sound was relatively pedestrian by standards of "progressive synthesis"; acceptably funky tonalities. Like many situations in modern art, they are applauding with respect for the effort and totality of the performance, but also a little bit confused and politely clapping because they know something terribly clever is going on. Indeed I think some obfuscation rather than exposition was part of that act. The ambiguity of man and machine was the lure.
Put it this way: (and maybe this speaks for my stupidity more than anything)... I couldn't tell what was happening and it's my business to know. I design this kind of stuff and only last week was with a class of masters students of gestural musical interface design giving their final presentations. Before I could appreciate their work each needed to explain their mappings and design criteria.
It raises the questions (again I suppose); Is the challenge for these new arts, of manifold form, to "legitimise" the performer? Should they ever feel they have to? Are they seeking recognition as performer or technologist? Or is the spectacle (including sound) enough, whereas the audience enter into some kind of "artistic contract" to expect and ignore the cloak of magic ?
The MSc kids clearly had a different agenda. As masters of _science_ they are required to explicate mechanism. Although the T in TED stands for technology their agenda of cultural fusion and diversity leaves plenty of room for ambiguity, so I don't think it was supposed to be taken as a demonstration of anything conceptually fresh so much as slice of fun. Unless I missed a 20 minute prelude where Ashanti explains why the system is special.
To me the coolness was apparent in the preparation, and energy. Other than that, a fit, good looking black guy who can dance and bang out some beats has an certain je ne sais quoi absent with a spooky white guy making scary noises. :) That's nothing to do with Design, or with Technology, that's Entertainment.
a.
-- Andy Farnell padawan12@obiwannabe.co.uk
Pd-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
Sorry Marco,
but I can see that you have never played jazz!
Ingo
Von: Marco Donnarumma [mailto:devel@thesaddj.com] Gesendet: Montag, 20. Juni 2011 13:43 An: Ingo Cc: pd-list@iem.at Betreff: Re: [PD] Pd performance at TED
Ingo, thanks for your explanation, I think to understand how he's playing.
The movement looks to me secondary - it's more like a dance movement and not too much music control.
This might be a very personal take, but if movement is secondary in gestural control, why one uses gestural control at all? I believe that effective and ancillary gestures are what reinforce our perception of an instrument as a musical tool, rather than a mere "device". Imho many gestural controllers would benefit of a better focus on this aspect. How would you play such melodic lines (like those jazz licks) - in time - simply with gestural control?
Setting an array of preset chords, triggering them with multiple switches, deploying a timeline which holds the trigger until the onset of the next beat or quarter, etc... I guess the list here could come up with many other methods. I'm not saying that's trivial, I only think that it's not the "future" as it is presented in the video. How would you improvise on scales, pattern or harmonic structures? After all he's a jazz player calling his music "beat jazz".
What do you call improvisation in this case? How much is he improvising? I can imagine he's "improvising" with the melodic lines, but playing samples and presets chords doesn't match my own definition of improvisation.
cheers, M
Unfortunately not Ingo. Would love to. I play regularly electroacoustic free improv. So perphaps we are talking a different language?
Could you elaborate your answer?
If I'm missing something about the innovation of that work I'd be glad to learn :)
Thanks, M
On Mon, Jun 20, 2011 at 3:20 PM, Ingo ingo@miamiwave.com wrote:
Sorry Marco,
but I can see that you have never played jazz!
Ingo
Von: Marco Donnarumma [mailto:devel@thesaddj.com] Gesendet: Montag, 20. Juni 2011 13:43 An: Ingo Cc: pd-list@iem.at Betreff: Re: [PD] Pd performance at TED
Ingo, thanks for your explanation, I think to understand how he's playing.
The movement looks to me secondary - it's more like a dance movement and not too much music control.
This might be a very personal take, but if movement is secondary in gestural control, why one uses gestural control at all? I believe that effective and ancillary gestures are what reinforce our perception of an instrument as a musical tool, rather than a mere "device". Imho many gestural controllers would benefit of a better focus on this aspect.
How would you play such melodic lines (like those jazz licks) - in time - simply with gestural control?
Setting an array of preset chords, triggering them with multiple switches, deploying a timeline which holds the trigger until the onset of the next beat or quarter, etc... I guess the list here could come up with many other methods. I'm not saying that's trivial, I only think that it's not the "future" as it is presented in the video.
How would you improvise on scales, pattern or harmonic structures? After all he's a jazz player calling his music "beat jazz".
What do you call improvisation in this case? How much is he improvising? I can imagine he's "improvising" with the melodic lines, but playing samples and presets chords doesn't match my own definition of improvisation.
cheers, M
-- Marco Donnarumma Independent New Media and Sonic Arts Professional, Performer, Instructor ACE, Sound Design MSc by Research (ongoing) The University of Edinburgh, UK
Portfolio: http://marcodonnarumma.com Lab: http://www.thesaddj.com | http://cntrl.sourceforge.net | http://www.flx er.net Event: http://www.liveperformersmeeting.net
We could do it with usb sticks full of pd patches/samples
From: Patrick Pagano <pat@digitalworlds.ufl.edumailto:pat@digitalworlds.ufl.edu> Date: Mon, 20 Jun 2011 17:27:09 -0400 To: "pd-list@iem.atmailto:pd-list@iem.at" <pd-list@iem.atmailto:pd-list@iem.at> Subject: [PD] pd-geocache
Lets do it!
pp
IMHO, the TED clip was quite mediocre.
As I'm a regular performer, ranging from jazz, to rock to contemporary
computer music, I think the TED example does not in any way
demonstrate the real possibilities with for example PD and gestural
controllers.
OTH, at times I've been accused of having "a loud body language"...
FYI, if you've seen Keith Emerson doing Pics and an Exhibition (c.
1971) I can tell you that Emerson's Hammond-juggling was playback +
"gesture" :-)
/Mikael
Sorry Marco,
but I can see that you have never played jazz!
Marco,
Unfortunately not Ingo. Would love to. I play regularly electroacoustic free improv. So perphaps we are talking a different language?
Definitely!
Could you elaborate your answer? If I'm missing something about the innovation of that work I'd be glad to
learn :)
What I have seen on your videos is very good and interesting but has absolutely nothing to do with jazz - obviously!
When playing jazz you want to have control over every note that you are playing in the range of a couple milliseconds. You also want to control the timing, bending, volume, volume changes even within every note (articulation) and the sound of each individual note. In case you are playing with other people (which is not the case in this particular performance) you need to be able to react to other musicians by picking up melodic / rhythmical lines and elaborate on them in the context of the changes of the harmonic structure and build melodies on the fly that make musical, expressive and emotional sense.
This cannot be achieved by triggering patterns!
You're interface might be able to produce great soundscapes but it cannot get deep enough into the musical microcosms to shape each individual note within a melodic line where every single note may be only 100 ms long. It takes a completely different interface for that. It's much more like playing a saxophone or a violin where every attack, articulation, vibrato, etc counts. The electronic wind controller version has the advantage that you can produce other sounds like drums, synths, do looping and so on while still going for the same musical content.
BTW I don't think Pd plays any role in what Onyx Ashanti is doing. He could use Pd for it or he could use a bunch of other boxes to do what he does. However Pd has the advantage of doing everything in one box rather then five of them. In what he is doing he is definitely not showcasing Pd. Today's available wind controllers are very limited! This is why people like Onyx build alternatives. I am experimenting myself with a custom wind controller that could overcome some of the problems that I am having with them.
Ingo
On 06/20/2011 01:43 PM, Marco Donnarumma wrote:
Ingo, thanks for your explanation, I think to understand how he's playing.
i do not think i do (completely), though i have only watched it twice so far. it seems that everything is based heavily on live-looping. at first i thought he was using some kind of midi/parameter-looping, like recording the chords first, and the filter/fx/whatever parameters in a second pass, but after watching it the second time, i noticed, that the chords (including sound parameters) repeat exactly while he was doing something else, like it would be the case with audio-looping. i can not tell if the chords/melodie are presets triggered with the buttons (thats probably what i would do) or played in a completely open way, maybe using a preset scale or something similar. and i wonder how he managed to sync the drumloop (if it is one, and not something recorded using the buttons/wind controller) to the chord loops recorded earlier. (in-ear) monitor and some kind of metro/click track would of course explain this.
i think this uncertainty of what is going on 'on stage' is a general problem with electronic music, which was (obviously) not solved with this performance either, since even people who know about this stuff have only vague ideas of what is happening. for an audience with a background in electronic/computer/whatever music, a authentic and satisfying performance might be less challenging though. an obvious example is live coding, where it is totally clear to the audience what is happening. but even a 'laptop gig' becomes less boring, when you can see what is happening on the screen (of course only if there is something happening), for example in a mirror behind the performer. (works very well in very small venues as far as i have experienced)
This might be a very personal take, but if movement is secondary in
gestural
control, why one uses gestural control at all?
it is probably not secondary all the time, but only when he is doing something else (with the wind controller for example), and the previously recorded loop plays on. and even if it is only 'secondary', movement/dancing is certainly very helpful to stay in sync.
bis denn! martin
-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- Von: pd-list-bounces@iem.at [mailto:pd-list-bounces@iem.at] Im Auftrag von martin brinkmann Gesendet: Montag, 20. Juni 2011 22:12 An: pd-list@iem.at Betreff: Re: [PD] Pd performance at TED
On 06/20/2011 01:43 PM, Marco Donnarumma wrote:
Ingo, thanks for your explanation, I think to understand how he's playing.
i do not think i do (completely), though i have only watched it twice so far. it seems that everything is based heavily on live-looping. at first i thought he was using some kind of midi/parameter-looping, like recording the chords first, and the filter/fx/whatever parameters in a second pass, but after watching it the second time, i noticed, that the chords (including sound parameters) repeat exactly while he was doing something else, like it would be the case with audio-looping. i can not tell if the chords/melodie are presets triggered with the buttons (thats probably what i would do) or played in a completely open way, maybe using a preset scale or something similar. and i wonder how he managed to sync the drumloop (if it is one, and not something recorded using the buttons/wind controller) to the chord loops recorded earlier. (in-ear) monitor and some kind of metro/click track would of course explain this.
All lines are played live. There is no pre-recorded drum loop. He is using audio looping only. The drums are played note by note. He starts out with a HiHat (selected with the fingering of his windcontroller) triggered by the breath controller to play the rhythm. Then he adds the other drum sounds on top of it. Just as you would do when you program a drum pattern with a regular drum computer. He has a visible metronome on his "phone" that allows him to keep the tempo. Every instrumental line is added by playing it into the audio looper. The chords are fixed chords moving in parallel and are used like a melodic line. There is no sequencing! The looper seems to have several tracks that can be selected and turned on or off by some buttons. This is the reason for the coloured lights. To make an overdub with a specific instrument you need to know which instrument you will be playing. One of the buttons seems to merely toggle through the tracks of the looper. So a visible feedback (coloured LEDs) for the musician is inevitable.
There are accelometers fixed to his hands which he uses for filtering. So the point of this is not the gestural control but to simply add some extra controllers as a wind controller is usually limited to a small number of parameters: notes, volume (breath control), pitchbend and maybe one or two more controllers located on the mouthpiece or some special buttons, sliders or pressure sensors that could be used for other things.
Using more parts of the body than just the usual woodwind fingerings opens up the sound possibilities while still having the traditional woodwind controls. BTW these take years of practicing! So you don't want to sacrifice your skills by using the standard controls for other things than what they are meant to be in a standard way. That's the real reason for involving the whole body in his playing - to expand the number of available controllers.
i think this uncertainty of what is going on 'on stage' is a general problem with electronic music, which was (obviously) not solved with this performance either, since even people who know about this stuff have only vague ideas of what is happening. for an audience with a background in electronic/computer/whatever music, a authentic and satisfying performance might be less challenging though.an obvious example is live coding, where it is totally clear to the audience what is happening. but even a 'laptop gig' becomes less boring, when you can see what is happening on the screen (of course only if there is something happening), for example in a mirror behind the performer. (works very well in very small venues as far as i have experienced)
Well, I really don't know why there is a reason fort he audience to know what is going on. Does a violin player - when he plays a Mozart concerto - have to explain what position he is playing on the left hand and which bow stroke he uses? Does it make a difference to the audience if he is using "spiccato" or "ricochet" on this particular phrase? Does the audience have to know how a piano was built in order to appreciate and enjoy piano music?
There is way too much technical thinking going on in a lot of electronic music. Instead of using technology to make expressive musical applications in the sense of e.g. a flute that has been around for thousands of years people go away from basic, emotional traditional musical expression and put technology first. I do not think that this kind of music can ever replace the empiric musicality that has been around since there is mankind.
This might be a very personal take, but if movement is secondary in
gestural
control, why one uses gestural control at all?
I have explained above what the movement of the body does.
it is probably not secondary all the time, but only when he is doing something else (with the wind controller for example), and the previously recorded loop plays on. and even if it is only 'secondary', movement/dancing is certainly very helpful to stay in sync.
bis denn! martin
Absolutely! Movement of the body to the music - called dance - is as old as music itself. This "beat jazz" is a kind of music where you simply do it and don't question it just for the sake of putting things into drawers like art, pop, jazz, crap! There's not choreography and it's no ballet.
Ingo
On Tue, 21 Jun 2011 08:05:01 +0200 "Ingo" ingo@miamiwave.com wrote:
BTW these take years of practicing!
Its an important point IMO. One cannot invent a new instrument or style without becoming proficient. You have to stand as an example to what is possible and it takes a long time.
Many people exploring alternative controller technology make this error of thinking the controls can be novel and arbitrary, _and_ they will master it quickly.
The mismatch here between the adaptability
of human brains and machines should be grasped.
Brains may flexibly adapt to any machine configuration
given enough time, but they are terribly slow compared
to machines that can reconfigure in a moment.
Thus for humans, there is a need to fix a parametric interface
mapping early on, and stick with it. As an exercise; try beating
the hardest level of your favourite video game with the
mouse/controls inverted.
Well, I really don't know why there is a reason fort he audience to know what is going on.
They do not need to know. They want to know. The performer and audience seek an emotional relationship.
Maybe Kraftwerk have already answered this, but if at the end of the TED performance they had revealed that Ashanti was an android would the audience have been less or more impressed?
control, why one uses gestural control at all?
I have explained above what the movement of the body does.
Marco's disappointment is understandable (sorry if I misinterpret this Marco). When I watched "Top of the pops" as a teenager, like many kids of that age I was outraged that the performers mimed. Sometimes you could see their instruments were just props. It is very insulting to someone who has invested effort and emotion to an activity to see it trivialised to a banal fashion statement. Like a soldier seeing their regimental badge worn as a punk accessory.
Marco's disappointment is understandable (sorry if I misinterpret this Marco). When I watched "Top of the pops" as a teenager, like many kids of that age I was outraged that the performers mimed. Sometimes you could see their instruments were just props.
It is amazing that even most poeple in this list think that this is a playback show by simply triggering loops.
Ingo
I think it's a shame that in this day and age we are still promoting the concept of high and low culture and so protective of peoples narrow definition of what Pd is and for.
I do a fair amount of improv with Pd and it's a hell of a simpler gig playing to 18 chin-scratching middle class people aged 40+ sat on chairs (I include myself in that description) than 400 braying clubbers demanding you make them dance NOW!
During Hip Hop's more militant times people like Ice T would refuse to diss someone like MC Hammer, for example. They took the attitude that he was one of them, doing his best, and making headway in an industry that was the site of the real battleground.
Jb
On Tue, 21 Jun 2011, J bz wrote:
I think it's a shame that in this day and age we are still promoting the concept of high and low culture and so protective of peoples narrow definition of what Pd is and for.
Reminds me of the idea that a social problem can't be solved by technological means...
OTOH, Pd isn't only a computer programme, but as a community and a culture, it's far from homogenous. E.g. people don't quite agree on whether Pd ought to be portrayed as audio software or as general interactivity software, just to give one example aspect of the issue.
| Mathieu Bouchard ---- tél: +1.514.383.3801 ---- Villeray, Montréal, QC
To loosely echo my favourite cowboy philosopher Rick Roderick:
If you have an ideology the people most dangerous are those close to you with similar ideas, because they might hold you to your own values. ( it's a great gift to those in the business of divide and conquer that minor differences are easily stirred into great schisms, e.g. The Judean People's Front... splitters!). Thus, nominally democratic governments never had anything to fear from Fascism, Communism, or Radical belief systems, rather it's those who espouse freedom and democracy that need to watched, because people might begin take them seriously. That's one of the few places where the "elegant suspicion" of a post-modernist celebration of difference works. And why, before getting into a fight ones suspicions should be, not of ones potential enemy, but whose interests (outside the situation) would it suit that we are at odds? Then you often find it possible to trace inflammatory comments to that source.
a.
On Tue, 21 Jun 2011 10:40:40 +0100 J bz jbeezez@gmail.com wrote:
During Hip Hop's more militant times people like Ice T would refuse to diss someone like MC Hammer, for example. They took the attitude that he was one of them, doing his best, and making headway in an industry that was the site of the real battleground.
On Tue, 21 Jun 2011, Andy Farnell wrote:
Marco's disappointment is understandable (sorry if I misinterpret this Marco). When I watched "Top of the pops" as a teenager, like many kids of that age I was outraged that the performers mimed. Sometimes you could see their instruments were just props. It is very insulting to someone who has invested effort and emotion to an activity to see it trivialised to a banal fashion statement. Like a soldier seeing their regimental badge worn as a punk accessory.
That's why, conceptually, my favourite two performances are XTC's Making Plans for Nigel, in which they made a point of hitting a gong that doesn't sound like one, and... oh, the other one is actually from the similar show American Bandstand : Public Image Limited's Poptones, in which they get bored of miming halfway through the song, and just go dancing with the audience.
(But then, I haven't seen so many clips from TOTP and/or ABS.)
| Mathieu Bouchard ---- tél: +1.514.383.3801 ---- Villeray, Montréal, QC
Well with a danger of this going completely OT...
My TOTP moments are:
- New Order always refused to mime and when they did Blue Monday they have
the distinction of being the only group to perform on TOTP and their song going down the chart the next week, and then the week after it went back up again. 2. The Human League 'don't you want me baby' being the xmas no1 and just as Phil Oakey made a super pretentious pose into the camera a sneaky audience member hit him full in the mouth and up his nose with loads of 'silly-string'. 3. For cultural capital the dancer out of Shalimar doing the 1st examples of body-popping on British TV. Everyone was going nuts at school the next day. 4. KLF.
On 21 June 2011 14:16, Mathieu Bouchard matju@artengine.ca wrote:
On Tue, 21 Jun 2011, Andy Farnell wrote:
Marco's disappointment is understandable (sorry if I misinterpret this
Marco). When I watched "Top of the pops" as a teenager, like many kids of that age I was outraged that the performers mimed. Sometimes you could see their instruments were just props. It is very insulting to someone who has invested effort and emotion to an activity to see it trivialised to a banal fashion statement. Like a soldier seeing their regimental badge worn as a punk accessory.
That's why, conceptually, my favourite two performances are XTC's Making Plans for Nigel, in which they made a point of hitting a gong that doesn't sound like one, and... oh, the other one is actually from the similar show American Bandstand : Public Image Limited's Poptones, in which they get bored of miming halfway through the song, and just go dancing with the audience.
(But then, I haven't seen so many clips from TOTP and/or ABS.)
______________________________**______________________________** ___________ | Mathieu Bouchard ---- tél: +1.514.383.3801 ---- Villeray, Montréal, QC
Pd-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
LOL KLF. period. enuff said!.
I don't think you're in danger of going OT, the authenticity thing is right at the heart of this worm feast isn't it? If Onyx Ashanti's showed up to make a good defence of performance authenticity, there's actually a danger of constructive debate :)
We laugh at TOTP, but by the late 90's I toured with bands (definitely to remain nameless) where half the gear on stage was for show. They were paying roadies to lug five or six cases of gear around for the flashing lights and the brand logos. (To proudly display my shining hypocrisy; we used to have a cool looking twin beam oscilloscope at a studio. It hardly ever got used, except when I made sure it was switched on and in shot for photos.)
With beamer backdrops the laptop only performances and our live-coding of the last few years have created an extremely dull audience experience and I'm seeing recent gestural interfaces as something of a backlash against that.
Even in the infancy of RjDj Amaury made a pretty show that got everyone talking, the point being it could have been done with much less gesture, but look at the style and theatre he adds to firing off a few samples.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g8PiKnEioTA
What we all saw in that patch and performance (as well as the moment where they became inseperable) was the efficiency an immediacy of expression.
As Ingo said in a PM to me (sorry my bad on the cc Ingo), he doesn't see why "artists would ever _have_ to explain their technology in order to be not labelled as a 'cheater' ", in response to me saying it's mainly the other technologists who feel something fishy when they see something that's only there as a visual prop. My point would be by way of agreement, they should never _need_ to.
@Ingo, I definitely didn't want to invoke the idea of "cheating". It wouldn't make sense, as someone already said, a flute is "technology", and to take that standard of authenticity you would have to whistle. We are going to have to take showmanship for granted here. The point is one of exposition, and to some extent simplicity is suggested. What Marco is doing with the muscular acoustic signals is almost an opposite IMHO, in its simple boldness (Its still scary noise though Marco :). You guys (Onyx and Marco) should definitely get your brains together on this... theres some middle ground between the Phantom of the Opera and Locutus of Borg ;)
maybe moving the topic more towards the dance element; Remember me saying about that Nina Waisman performance I saw? To date, she is the best example of getting gestural movement and synthesis to work. But I guess she started from the POV of a dancer, not necessarily a musician (?).
a.
On Tue, 21 Jun 2011 14:40:40 +0100 J bz jbeezez@gmail.com wrote:
Well with a danger of this going completely OT...
My TOTP moments are:
- New Order always refused to mime and when they did Blue Monday they have
the distinction of being the only group to perform on TOTP and their song going down the chart the next week, and then the week after it went back up again. 2. The Human League 'don't you want me baby' being the xmas no1 and just as Phil Oakey made a super pretentious pose into the camera a sneaky audience member hit him full in the mouth and up his nose with loads of 'silly-string'. 3. For cultural capital the dancer out of Shalimar doing the 1st examples of body-popping on British TV. Everyone was going nuts at school the next day. 4. KLF.
On 21 June 2011 14:16, Mathieu Bouchard matju@artengine.ca wrote:
On Tue, 21 Jun 2011, Andy Farnell wrote:
Marco's disappointment is understandable (sorry if I misinterpret this
Marco). When I watched "Top of the pops" as a teenager, like many kids of that age I was outraged that the performers mimed. Sometimes you could see their instruments were just props. It is very insulting to someone who has invested effort and emotion to an activity to see it trivialised to a banal fashion statement. Like a soldier seeing their regimental badge worn as a punk accessory.
That's why, conceptually, my favourite two performances are XTC's Making Plans for Nigel, in which they made a point of hitting a gong that doesn't sound like one, and... oh, the other one is actually from the similar show American Bandstand : Public Image Limited's Poptones, in which they get bored of miming halfway through the song, and just go dancing with the audience.
(But then, I haven't seen so many clips from TOTP and/or ABS.)
______________________________**______________________________** ___________ | Mathieu Bouchard ---- tél: +1.514.383.3801 ---- Villeray, Montréal, QC
Pd-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
On Tue, 21 Jun 2011 09:16:22 -0400 (EDT) Mathieu Bouchard matju@artengine.ca wrote:
That's why, conceptually, my favourite two performances are XTC's Making Plans for Nigel, in which they made a point of hitting a gong that doesn't sound like one,
IIRC there was a similar thing with Vince Clarke getting the hump with a Yazoo performance and just unplugging and putting down the keyboard.
But I guess that was a more sassy protest in the face of being pressured towards inauthenticity.
Hi list A link that might contribute, somehow, to the debate http://www.jeanmarie-adrien.net/documentaire-inter.htm cheers JmA
Le 21 juin 11 à 17:33, Andy Farnell a écrit :
On Tue, 21 Jun 2011 09:16:22 -0400 (EDT) Mathieu Bouchard matju@artengine.ca wrote:
That's why, conceptually, my favourite two performances are XTC's
Making Plans for Nigel, in which they made a point of hitting a gong that
doesn't sound like one,IIRC there was a similar thing with Vince Clarke getting the hump with a Yazoo performance and just unplugging and putting down the keyboard.
But I guess that was a more sassy protest in the face of being pressured towards inauthenticity.
-- Andy Farnell padawan12@obiwannabe.co.uk
Pd-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/ listinfo/pd-list
On Tue, 21 Jun 2011 18:29:55 +0200 Jean-Marie Adrien jma@jeanmarie-adrien.net wrote:
Hi list A link that might contribute, somehow, to the debate http://www.jeanmarie-adrien.net/documentaire-inter.htm cheers
Thanks for sharing this.
I loved the starting remarks on connecting, integrating activity being a kind of truth, and removing a tension between artists when the dancers did the conducting. The whole project of "integrative" art (is that a fair term?) is exciting.
I don't know if I missed your point Jean-Marie, because my French is terrible and the conclusion was not notated, but for me, once the sensors appeared there came a cold disconnect. The discssion about the role of the orchestra was abit lost on me, was that a point of comparison? The dancers movement could not be married to the "intelligence" of the electronic orchestral notes, but they could by live performers ?
Repeating myself I know, for me there must be a kind of simplicity and directness, like a tap dancer. Marcos work has it, but with crude tonalities, Onyx performance doen't have directness for me, its a confusion, but by his account it is a very sophisticated gestural performance, and the musical result is easier to digest.
Is there something more to this than finding a balance?
Marco, I am about to check out your more recent videos. Have you found that with some practice the "musicianship" part has gotten better/easier?
(BTW Jean Marie, are you the same JMA who wrote that woderful chapter on modal synthesis in De Poli et al?)
a.
wow, there are impressive stuff in this video. thanks for sharing it. cheers Cyrille
Le 21/06/2011 18:29, Jean-Marie Adrien a écrit :
Hi list A link that might contribute, somehow, to the debate http://www.jeanmarie-adrien.net/documentaire-inter.htm cheers JmA
Le 21 juin 11 à 17:33, Andy Farnell a écrit :
On Tue, 21 Jun 2011 09:16:22 -0400 (EDT) Mathieu Bouchard <matju@artengine.ca mailto:matju@artengine.ca> wrote:
That's why, conceptually, my favourite two performances are XTC's Making Plans for Nigel, in which they made a point of hitting a gong that doesn't sound like one,
IIRC there was a similar thing with Vince Clarke getting the hump with a Yazoo performance and just unplugging and putting down the keyboard.
But I guess that was a more sassy protest in the face of being pressured towards inauthenticity.
-- Andy Farnell <padawan12@obiwannabe.co.uk mailto:padawan12@obiwannabe.co.uk>
Pd-list@iem.at mailto:Pd-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
Pd-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
How does this help? As an example of current media "new" dance? I am unsure. Please inform me before I start posting Robert Ashley clips.
On 6/22/11 4:57 PM, "cyrille henry" ch@chnry.net wrote:
wow, there are impressive stuff in this video. thanks for sharing it. cheers Cyrille
Le 21/06/2011 18:29, Jean-Marie Adrien a écrit :
Hi list A link that might contribute, somehow, to the debate http://www.jeanmarie-adrien.net/documentaire-inter.htm cheers JmA
Le 21 juin 11 à 17:33, Andy Farnell a écrit :
On Tue, 21 Jun 2011 09:16:22 -0400 (EDT) Mathieu Bouchard <matju@artengine.ca mailto:matju@artengine.ca> wrote:
That's why, conceptually, my favourite two performances are XTC's Making Plans for Nigel, in which they made a point of hitting a gong that doesn't sound like one,
IIRC there was a similar thing with Vince Clarke getting the hump with a Yazoo performance and just unplugging and putting down the keyboard.
But I guess that was a more sassy protest in the face of being pressured towards inauthenticity.
-- Andy Farnell <padawan12@obiwannabe.co.uk mailto:padawan12@obiwannabe.co.uk>
Pd-list@iem.at mailto:Pd-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
Pd-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
Pd-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
Le 22/06/2011 23:02, Pagano, Patrick a écrit :
How does this help? As an example of current media "new" dance? I am unsure. Please inform me before I start posting Robert Ashley clips.
if Robert Ashley use sensors and pd, please do. c
On 6/22/11 4:57 PM, "cyrille henry"ch@chnry.net wrote:
wow, there are impressive stuff in this video. thanks for sharing it. cheers Cyrille
Le 21/06/2011 18:29, Jean-Marie Adrien a écrit :
Hi list A link that might contribute, somehow, to the debate http://www.jeanmarie-adrien.net/documentaire-inter.htm cheers JmA
Le 21 juin 11 à 17:33, Andy Farnell a écrit :
On Tue, 21 Jun 2011 09:16:22 -0400 (EDT) Mathieu Bouchard<matju@artengine.camailto:matju@artengine.ca> wrote:
That's why, conceptually, my favourite two performances are XTC's Making Plans for Nigel, in which they made a point of hitting a gong that doesn't sound like one,
IIRC there was a similar thing with Vince Clarke getting the hump with a Yazoo performance and just unplugging and putting down the keyboard.
But I guess that was a more sassy protest in the face of being pressured towards inauthenticity.
-- Andy Farnell<padawan12@obiwannabe.co.uk mailto:padawan12@obiwannabe.co.uk>
Pd-list@iem.atmailto:Pd-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
Pd-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
Pd-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
If I was from the BIG TOWN I would be SUAVE and DEBONAIR.
On 6/22/11 5:08 PM, "cyrille henry" ch@chnry.net wrote:
Le 22/06/2011 23:02, Pagano, Patrick a écrit :
How does this help? As an example of current media "new" dance? I am unsure. Please inform me before I start posting Robert Ashley clips.
if Robert Ashley use sensors and pd, please do. c
On 6/22/11 4:57 PM, "cyrille henry"ch@chnry.net wrote:
wow, there are impressive stuff in this video. thanks for sharing it. cheers Cyrille
Le 21/06/2011 18:29, Jean-Marie Adrien a écrit :
Hi list A link that might contribute, somehow, to the debate http://www.jeanmarie-adrien.net/documentaire-inter.htm cheers JmA
Le 21 juin 11 à 17:33, Andy Farnell a écrit :
On Tue, 21 Jun 2011 09:16:22 -0400 (EDT) Mathieu Bouchard<matju@artengine.camailto:matju@artengine.ca> wrote:
That's why, conceptually, my favourite two performances are XTC's Making Plans for Nigel, in which they made a point of hitting a gong that doesn't sound like one,
IIRC there was a similar thing with Vince Clarke getting the hump with a Yazoo performance and just unplugging and putting down the keyboard.
But I guess that was a more sassy protest in the face of being pressured towards inauthenticity.
-- Andy Farnell<padawan12@obiwannabe.co.uk mailto:padawan12@obiwannabe.co.uk>
Pd-list@iem.atmailto:Pd-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
Pd-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
Pd-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
On Tue, 21 Jun 2011, Jean-Marie Adrien wrote:
Hi listA link that might contribute, somehow, to the debate http://www.jeanmarie-adrien.net/documentaire-inter.htm
Les paramètres d'encodage du vidéo sont mal choisis : on ressent une pulsation dans la pixélisation qui rend ce vidéo plutôt dur à regarder.
Je peux pas être plus précis sur ce qu'il faudrait faire, parce que ça dépend du codec, et en plus, je connais pas beaucoup de codecs à ce point-là.
| Mathieu Bouchard ---- tél: +1.514.383.3801 ---- Villeray, Montréal, QC
On 06/21/2011 08:05 AM, Ingo wrote:
All lines are played live. There is no pre-recorded drum loop. He is using audio looping only. The drums are played note by note.
...
you are right, and after having watched the video another time, i agree to your observations. (and meanwhile it has been 'officially confirmed' anyway)
Well, I really don't know why there is a reason fort he audience to know what is going on.
at least i want to know, and i think i am not alone...
Does the audience have to know how a piano was built in order to appreciate and enjoy piano music?
no, but people know what a piano or a violin is, and at least have a rough idea of how it is played, so that 'understanding what is going on' is usuallay not an issue. this is different with electronic music. i think this article by robert henke
www.monolake.de/interviews/supercomputing.html
explains the problems we have with life performance/electronic music quite well.
bis denn! martin
I don't think an audience really needs to know the intricacies of what you are doing in order to appreciate a performance like this, but they do(IMO) need to at least under stand that you ARE doing something and not just triggering loops.
That said... And this is just my opinion of course, I honestly think the music stands on it's own regardless of how it was created. In this case, the creation and performance of this stuff is incredibly important to the experience, but even without it, the SOUND is something that i'd listen to.
And one more thing... It's not too often these days that we can really talk about how awesome the Internet is, as it has all become so commonplace, but this discussion is really something amazing.. That an international group of people can see a performance, start a real discussion about it and then get input from the performer himself with no constraints of time or place.
Sent from my iPad
On Jun 22, 2011, at 9:14 AM, martin brinkmann mnb@martin-brinkmann.de wrote:
On 06/21/2011 08:05 AM, Ingo wrote:
All lines are played live. There is no pre-recorded drum loop. He is using audio looping only. The drums are played note by note.
...
you are right, and after having watched the video another time, i agree to your observations. (and meanwhile it has been 'officially confirmed' anyway)
Well, I really don't know why there is a reason fort he audience to know what is going on.
at least i want to know, and i think i am not alone...
Does the audience have to know how a piano was built in order to appreciate and enjoy piano music?
no, but people know what a piano or a violin is, and at least have a rough idea of how it is played, so that 'understanding what is going on' is usuallay not an issue. this is different with electronic music. i think this article by robert henke
www.monolake.de/interviews/supercomputing.html
explains the problems we have with life performance/electronic music quite well.
bis denn! martin
Pd-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
On Sun, 19 Jun 2011, Marco Donnarumma wrote:
glad the provocation went through.
You also used that word when posting an unrelated url on LinkedIn today. Seems to be a mood that you are in.
Thus, I was just wondering that I would have appreciated TED to show some of them instead of this with cables everywhere and boxes hanging around.
I wish people to stop portraying the use of visible cables-and-boxes as if it were some kind of unprofessionalism.
What's a « technological parody » ?I mean when "hi-profile" tech is used to implement an approach or a concept that doesn't really require such amount of technology.
Well, for producing the sound that you are producing, you don't need the equipment that you are using. For example you could pre-record it all by playing on a totally different-looking device. How many people would notice ?
there are many nuances, but I mentioned that as the text in Onyx's video read: "so that beatjazzers become as common as djs." Do you really need cables everywhere, sensors, a mouthpiece with two guitar pickups, a smartphone stick to your forearm, etc.. to achieve such goal?
Does he really need to stick to only the stated goal ? It's not an academic presentation for the sole goal of proving a point about the discourse of art.
Hans, Onyx is playing mostly loops isn't he? How you know about the timing? We don't even know how much of what he's doing is really live, what is he triggering, if timing is controlled by a timeline or by his performance.
Right. When every performance is potentially centred on a new, never-seen instrument, who in the audience is actually competent to figure out which elements are live and which ones are not ?
Please, correct me if I'm wrong. But I saw a lot of loops playing on a timeline and some solos parts possibly produced through the mouthpiece.
Aren't we so unsure ?
| Mathieu Bouchard ---- tél: +1.514.383.3801 ---- Villeray, Montréal, QC
On Sun, 19 Jun 2011 21:36 +0100, "Marco Donnarumma" devel@thesaddj.com wrote:
there are many nuances, but I mentioned that as the text in Onyx's video read: "so that beatjazzers become as common as djs." Do you really need cables everywhere, sensors, a mouthpiece with two guitar pickups, a smartphone stick to your forearm, etc.. to achieve such goal?
Wait a moment. I'm not saying his work is bad or anything. I made safe my respect for his work at the beginning.
I'm just saying, guys it's TED and when I heard gestural and sensor control I expected another kind of work, underpinned by another kind of aesthetic, approach, and motivation. But, I probably overestimated which is the value and motivation of new technologies which need to be shown to the mainstream public.
"...he clearly has musical skill with his instrument, and is able to keep the musical timing tight. These are all difficult things to do, and from what I've seen 95% of performance with new interfaces for musical expression does not achieve one of those goals solidly."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rxnFbU6-_eU&feature=player_embedded#at=51
that was in 2008 by Eboman, using not only real time audio looping, but also video looping and processing, plus remix of a website online.
Hans, Onyx is playing mostly loops isn't he? How you know about the timing? We don't even know how much of what he's doing is really live, what is he triggering, if timing is controlled by a timeline or by his performance. Please, correct me if I'm wrong. But I saw a lot of loops playing on a timeline and some solos parts possibly produced through the mouthpiece.
I'm not talking about the quality of the performance which is obviously good, reliable and enjoyable. I'm pointing at the real value of the innovation since it's a TED episode.
So that Eboman performance is a nice performance, he's doing some adept gestural control of sound, and the whole thing put together seems quite engaging. I think Eboman has a very different goal than Onyx Ashanti. Eboman is a live media performance, Onyx Ashanti is a musician. The sounds that Eboman is making would really not be very engaging without the live drummer. It would just be scratching of the video, which could be a good media performance, but doesn't seem very musical. And even with the live drummer, the music is pretty repetative. Without the novelty of the video sampling the live camera, it would not stand very well as a musical performance. I think the audience would have been bored. But Eboman is doing a media performance, so it doesn't make much sense to judge it as a musical performance.
From what I've seen, Onyx Ashanti is trying to dive deep into
musicianship, with less of a show than your average sax soloist. Whether or not you like his music is a separate question, I think its very hard to refute that he has musical skill and talent with his instrument. And that is very rare with new interfaces for musical expression.
.hc
Hi list,
Whether or not you like his music is a separate question, I think its
very hard to refute that he has musical skill and talent with his instrument. And that is very rare with new interfaces for musical expression.
.hc
I totally agree with you but only since he's explained how works his instrument... It's pity that, on the video, the performance seems to show someone who's triggering some pre-recorded patterns... In that case, I was quite agree with the "technological parody" expression... :-p
But it's not... and, clearly, Onyx has to be congratulated.
Bravo.
01ivier.
Dear Miller, B07.sampler.pd is a technological parody. Thanks, Jonathan
Please tell me whether that means that a) Miller should remove that tutorial, b) he should revise it to be better, c) it's a waste of time for Miller to read it at all, c) something else.
If you didn't choose a or b, then please explain how all of you can possibly be in agreement about any kind of judgment, aesthetic or otherwise, or even understand the relevance of each other's responses, merely by referring to the performance as a "technological parody".
-Jonathan
--- On Wed, 6/22/11, Olivier Baudu lamouraupeuple@gmail.com wrote:
From: Olivier Baudu lamouraupeuple@gmail.com Subject: Re: [PD] Pd performance at TED To: "Hans-Christoph Steiner" hans@at.or.at Cc: pd-list@iem.at, "Marco Donnarumma" devel@thesaddj.com Date: Wednesday, June 22, 2011, 6:59 PM
Hi list,
Whether or not you like his music is a separate question, I think its
very hard to refute that he has musical skill and talent with his
instrument. And that is very rare with new interfaces for musical
expression.
.hc
I totally agree with you but only since he's explained how works his instrument... It's pity that, on the video, the performance seems to show someone who's triggering some pre-recorded patterns...
In that case, I was quite agree with the "technological parody" expression... :-p
But it's not... and, clearly, Onyx has to be congratulated.
Bravo.
01ivier.
I don't think anyone actually said that sampling was a technological parody. There are lots of things you can do with samples and loops that you wouldn't be able to do with whatever was being sampled.
On Wed, Jun 22, 2011 at 1:23 PM, Jonathan Wilkes jancsika@yahoo.com wrote:
Dear Miller, B07.sampler.pd is a technological parody. Thanks, Jonathan
Please tell me whether that means that a) Miller should remove that tutorial, b) he should revise it to be better, c) it's a waste of time for Miller to read it at all, c) something else.
If you didn't choose a or b, then please explain how all of you can possibly be in agreement about any kind of judgment, aesthetic or otherwise, or even understand the relevance of each other's responses, merely by referring to the performance as a "technological parody".
-Jonathan
--- On *Wed, 6/22/11, Olivier Baudu lamouraupeuple@gmail.com* wrote:
From: Olivier Baudu lamouraupeuple@gmail.com
Subject: Re: [PD] Pd performance at TED To: "Hans-Christoph Steiner" hans@at.or.at Cc: pd-list@iem.at, "Marco Donnarumma" devel@thesaddj.com Date: Wednesday, June 22, 2011, 6:59 PM
Hi list,
Whether or not you like his music is a separate question, I think its very hard to refute that he has musical skill and talent with his instrument. And that is very rare with new interfaces for musical expression.
.hc
I totally agree with you but only since he's explained how works his instrument... It's pity that, on the video, the performance seems to show someone who's triggering some pre-recorded patterns... In that case, I was quite agree with the "technological parody" expression... :-p
But it's not... and, clearly, Onyx has to be congratulated.
Bravo.
01ivier.
-- Envie de tisser ? http://yamatierea.org/papatchs/
-----Inline Attachment Follows-----
Pd-list@iem.at http://mc/compose?to=Pd-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
Pd-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
You're right, no one ever said that. Even me.
Did you actually look at the patch? It is a technological parody of record scratching. It perfectly fits the definition given on this list. 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.
Of course the answer should be obvious: it's a technological parody which serves as a brilliantly succinct example of the expressivity of Pd, and that's exactly what it needs to be, because it's a tutorial.
And of course one criticism of the performance referred to in this thread should be obvious, too, but isn't, because people start out with, "It's a technological parody," and then stop writing. Which is what I did in my sample message to Miller, which would make it a waste of his time to read.
So the correct answer is: c.
-Jonathan
--- On Wed, 6/22/11, Cody Loyd codyloyd@gmail.com wrote:
From: Cody Loyd codyloyd@gmail.com Subject: Re: [PD] Pd performance at TED To: pd-list@iem.at Date: Wednesday, June 22, 2011, 8:32 PM
I don't think anyone actually said that sampling was a technological parody. There are lots of things you can do with samples and loops that you wouldn't be able to do with whatever was being sampled.
On Wed, Jun 22, 2011 at 1:23 PM, Jonathan Wilkes jancsika@yahoo.com wrote:
Dear Miller, B07.sampler.pd is a technological parody. Thanks, Jonathan
Please tell me whether that means that a) Miller should remove that tutorial,
b) he should revise it to be better, c) it's a waste of time for Miller to read it at all, c) something else.
If you didn't choose a or b, then please explain how all of you can possibly be in agreement about any kind of judgment, aesthetic or otherwise, or even
understand the relevance of each other's responses, merely by referring to the performance as a "technological parody".
-Jonathan
--- On Wed, 6/22/11, Olivier Baudu lamouraupeuple@gmail.com wrote:
From: Olivier Baudu lamouraupeuple@gmail.com
Subject: Re: [PD] Pd performance at TED To: "Hans-Christoph Steiner" hans@at.or.at Cc: pd-list@iem.at, "Marco Donnarumma" devel@thesaddj.com
Date: Wednesday, June 22, 2011, 6:59 PM
Hi list,
Whether or not you like his music is a separate question, I think its
very hard to refute that he has musical skill and talent with his
instrument. And that is very rare with new interfaces for musical
expression.
.hc
I totally agree with you but only since he's explained how works his instrument... It's pity that, on the video, the performance seems to show someone who's triggering some pre-recorded patterns...
In that case, I was quite agree with the "technological parody" expression... :-p
But it's not... and, clearly, Onyx has to be congratulated.
Bravo.
01ivier.
On Wed, Jun 22, 2011 at 8:15 PM, Jonathan Wilkes jancsika@yahoo.com wrote:
You're right, no one ever said that. Even me.
Did you actually look at the patch? It is a technological parody of record scratching. It perfectly fits the definition given on this list. 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.
Well, one might want to connect the sampler patch to another patch that produces a contrasting sound, they both would share the same values sent to the atom to change pitches ect.
Don't you think to say a patch that emulates scratching sounds from audio samples is a technological parody of a scratching record player, is a bit like saying a patch that emulates the sound of the piano is a technological parody of a piano (they are both instruments)?. I think one purpose of audio software to emulate instruments ? Regarding if it is musically interesting, I'm v. sure you know record scratching is(was?) used as an instrument in hip hop and such.
If a purpose of audio software is emulation of physical instruments then I don't think it should be labeled as a technological parody. Otherwise you could use the argument 'why have a computer when I can buy a physical instrument' every time?
Just sharing thoughts really, interesting topic.
Yes, it's exactly like that. But that's the way the term was defined, which-- as you point out-- covers wide array of synthesis techniques and uses of digital computers.
I would just conclude that it doesn't seem a particularly enlightening term, except for a specific subset of parodies that have to do with technology. As a term of derision I think it's confusing/confused.
-Jonathan
--- On Wed, 6/22/11, ALAN BROOKER alan.brooker2010@gmail.com wrote:
From: ALAN BROOKER alan.brooker2010@gmail.com Subject: Re: [PD] Pd performance at TED To: "Jonathan Wilkes" jancsika@yahoo.com Cc: pd-list@iem.at, "Cody Loyd" codyloyd@gmail.com Date: Wednesday, June 22, 2011, 10:44 PM
On Wed, Jun 22, 2011 at 8:15 PM, Jonathan Wilkes jancsika@yahoo.com wrote:
You're right, no one ever said that. Even me.
Did you actually look at the patch? It is a technological parody of record scratching.
It perfectly fits the definition given on this list. 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.
Well, one might want to connect the sampler patch to another patch that produces a contrasting sound, they both would share the same values sent to the atom to change pitches ect.
Don't you think to say a patch that emulates scratching sounds from audio samples is a technological parody of a scratching record player, is a bit like saying a patch that emulates the sound of the piano is a technological parody of a piano (they are both instruments)?. I think one purpose of audio software to emulate instruments ? Regarding if it is musically interesting, I'm v. sure you know record scratching is(was?) used as an instrument in hip hop and such.
If a purpose of audio software is emulation of physical instruments then I don't think it should be labeled as a technological parody. Otherwise you could use the argument 'why have a computer when I can buy a physical instrument' every time?
Just sharing thoughts really, interesting topic.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DP_w_Mvh9tU
Is this a technological parody?
On Wed, Jun 22, 2011 at 2:57 PM, Jonathan Wilkes jancsika@yahoo.com wrote:
Yes, it's exactly like that. But that's the way the term was defined, which-- as you point out-- covers wide array of synthesis techniques and uses of digital computers.
I would just conclude that it doesn't seem a particularly enlightening term, except for a specific subset of parodies that have to do with technology. As a term of derision I think it's confusing/confused.
-Jonathan
--- On *Wed, 6/22/11, ALAN BROOKER alan.brooker2010@gmail.com* wrote:
From: ALAN BROOKER alan.brooker2010@gmail.com
Subject: Re: [PD] Pd performance at TED To: "Jonathan Wilkes" jancsika@yahoo.com Cc: pd-list@iem.at, "Cody Loyd" codyloyd@gmail.com Date: Wednesday, June 22, 2011, 10:44 PM
On Wed, Jun 22, 2011 at 8:15 PM, Jonathan Wilkes <jancsika@yahoo.comhttp://mc/compose?to=jancsika@yahoo.com
wrote:
You're right, no one ever said that. Even me.
Did you actually look at the patch? It is a technological parody of record scratching. It perfectly fits the definition given on this list. 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.
Well, one might want to connect the sampler patch to another patch that produces a contrasting sound, they both would share the same values sent to the atom to change pitches ect.
Don't you think to say a patch that emulates scratching sounds from audio samples is a technological parody of a scratching record player, is a bit like saying a patch that emulates the sound of the piano is a technological parody of a piano (they are both instruments)?. I think one purpose of audio software to emulate instruments ? Regarding if it is musically interesting, I'm v. sure you know record scratching is(was?) used as an instrument in hip hop and such.
If a purpose of audio software is emulation of physical instruments then I don't think it should be labeled as a technological parody. Otherwise you could use the argument 'why have a computer when I can buy a physical instrument' every time?
Just sharing thoughts really, interesting topic.
Pd-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
Certainly could be. :)
Or on the other hand: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3cuuRG6-IT8
-Jonathan
--- On Thu, 6/23/11, Tyler Leavitt thecryoflove@gmail.com wrote:
From: Tyler Leavitt thecryoflove@gmail.com Subject: Re: [PD] Pd performance at TED To: "Jonathan Wilkes" jancsika@yahoo.com Cc: "ALAN BROOKER" alan.brooker2010@gmail.com, pd-list@iem.at Date: Thursday, June 23, 2011, 5:25 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DP_w_Mvh9tU Is this a technological parody?
On Wed, Jun 22, 2011 at 2:57 PM, Jonathan Wilkes jancsika@yahoo.com wrote:
Yes, it's exactly like that. But that's the way the term was defined, which-- as you
point out-- covers wide array of synthesis techniques and uses of digital computers.
I would just conclude that it doesn't seem a particularly enlightening term, except for a specific subset of parodies that have to do with technology. As a term of derision
I think it's confusing/confused.
-Jonathan
--- On Wed, 6/22/11, ALAN BROOKER alan.brooker2010@gmail.com wrote:
From: ALAN BROOKER alan.brooker2010@gmail.com Subject: Re: [PD] Pd performance at TED To: "Jonathan Wilkes" jancsika@yahoo.com
Cc: pd-list@iem.at, "Cody Loyd" codyloyd@gmail.com Date: Wednesday, June 22, 2011, 10:44 PM
On Wed, Jun 22, 2011 at 8:15 PM, Jonathan Wilkes jancsika@yahoo.com wrote:
You're right, no one ever said that. Even me.
Did you actually look at the patch? It is a technological parody of record scratching.
It perfectly fits the definition given on this list. 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.
Well, one might want to connect the sampler patch to another patch that produces a contrasting sound, they both would share the same values sent to the atom to change pitches ect.
Don't you think to say a patch that emulates scratching sounds from audio samples is a technological parody of a scratching record player, is a bit like saying a patch that emulates the sound of the piano is a technological parody of a piano (they are both instruments)?. I think one purpose of audio software to emulate instruments ? Regarding if it is musically interesting, I'm v. sure you know record scratching is(was?) used as an instrument in hip hop and such.
If a purpose of audio software is emulation of physical instruments then I don't think it should be labeled as a technological parody. Otherwise you could use the argument 'why have a computer when I can buy a physical instrument' every time?
Just sharing thoughts really, interesting topic.
Pd-list@iem.at mailing list
UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
Dear List,
I think this "technological parody" discussion is very funny.
As some of you may know, most (if not all) of the north indian classical instruments were designed to sound like the human voice. I'm very naive, so i 'm wondering : is a sitar a technological parody? Stupid Indians, they get blood-filled blisters on their fingers to learn how to play a technological parody!
Just kidding (though it's true about the desing of indian instruments).
I do believe that the output is the only important thing to consider. The fact that Aphex Twin used a sampler (or whatever, i don't know) to record the drum track to Flim doesn't matter at all to me. This is an amazing piece, that very few musicians (if any) on earth could have created. The fact that he created it on a sequencer in 97 and not on a drumkit in 1963 doesn't make any difference to me.
Pierre
2011/6/23 Jonathan Wilkes jancsika@yahoo.com
Certainly could be. :)
Or on the other hand: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3cuuRG6-IT8
-Jonathan
--- On *Thu, 6/23/11, Tyler Leavitt thecryoflove@gmail.com* wrote:
From: Tyler Leavitt thecryoflove@gmail.com
Subject: Re: [PD] Pd performance at TED To: "Jonathan Wilkes" jancsika@yahoo.com Cc: "ALAN BROOKER" alan.brooker2010@gmail.com, pd-list@iem.at Date: Thursday, June 23, 2011, 5:25 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DP_w_Mvh9tU
Is this a technological parody?
On Wed, Jun 22, 2011 at 2:57 PM, Jonathan Wilkes <jancsika@yahoo.comhttp://mc/compose?to=jancsika@yahoo.com
wrote:
Yes, it's exactly like that. But that's the way the term was defined, which-- as you point out-- covers wide array of synthesis techniques and uses of digital computers.
I would just conclude that it doesn't seem a particularly enlightening term, except for a specific subset of parodies that have to do with technology. As a term of derision I think it's confusing/confused.
-Jonathan
--- On *Wed, 6/22/11, ALAN BROOKER <alan.brooker2010@gmail.comhttp://mc/compose?to=alan.brooker2010@gmail.com
- wrote:
From: ALAN BROOKER <alan.brooker2010@gmail.comhttp://mc/compose?to=alan.brooker2010@gmail.com
Subject: Re: [PD] Pd performance at TED To: "Jonathan Wilkes" <jancsika@yahoo.comhttp://mc/compose?to=jancsika@yahoo.com
Cc: pd-list@iem.at http://mc/compose?to=pd-list@iem.at, "Cody Loyd" < codyloyd@gmail.com http://mc/compose?to=codyloyd@gmail.com> Date: Wednesday, June 22, 2011, 10:44 PM
On Wed, Jun 22, 2011 at 8:15 PM, Jonathan Wilkes <jancsika@yahoo.comhttp://mc/compose?to=jancsika@yahoo.com
wrote:
You're right, no one ever said that. Even me.
Did you actually look at the patch? It is a technological parody of record scratching. It perfectly fits the definition given on this list. 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.
Well, one might want to connect the sampler patch to another patch that produces a contrasting sound, they both would share the same values sent to the atom to change pitches ect.
Don't you think to say a patch that emulates scratching sounds from audio samples is a technological parody of a scratching record player, is a bit like saying a patch that emulates the sound of the piano is a technological parody of a piano (they are both instruments)?. I think one purpose of audio software to emulate instruments ? Regarding if it is musically interesting, I'm v. sure you know record scratching is(was?) used as an instrument in hip hop and such.
If a purpose of audio software is emulation of physical instruments then I don't think it should be labeled as a technological parody. Otherwise you could use the argument 'why have a computer when I can buy a physical instrument' every time?
Just sharing thoughts really, interesting topic.
Pd-list@iem.at http://mc/compose?to=Pd-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
Pd-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
The fact that he created it on a sequencer in 97 and not on a drumkit in
1963 doesn't make any difference to me.
Ok, but could "beatjazz" be played in an other way than Onyx did ? If "beatjazz" can't be triggered pre-record patterns, it's pity (for me) that the audience think it is...
By the way, if Flim had been created in 63 it would make a big difference for me... The context of a creation matters, don't you think ?
Cheers...
01ivier
Totally agree with you.
A nice illustration of the importance of the context : One of the students in my school is from Kinshasa. He was in my office one day and i asked him if he knew Konono N°1. He said yes, i know them, they play a very traditional kind of music, they are invited to play at funerals. A few weeks later i told him that Konono was playing in Paris the next week-end. He looked surprized. He said there are dozens of other bands who play this kind of music in Congo.
The context always matters. We rarely invent anything at all.
Pierre
2011/6/23 Olivier Baudu lamouraupeuple@gmail.com
The fact that he created it on a sequencer in 97 and not on a drumkit in
1963 doesn't make any difference to me.
Ok, but could "beatjazz" be played in an other way than Onyx did ? If "beatjazz" can't be triggered pre-record patterns, it's pity (for me) that the audience think it is...
By the way, if Flim had been created in 63 it would make a big difference for me... The context of a creation matters, don't you think ?
Cheers...
01ivier
-- Envie de tisser ? http://yamatierea.org/papatchs/
On Wed, 22 Jun 2011, ALAN BROOKER wrote:
If a purpose of audio software is emulation of physical instruments then I don't think it should be labeled as a technological parody. Otherwise you could use the argument 'why have a computer when I can buy a physical instrument' every time?
"A computer running a virtual instrument" is a physical instrument.
"technological parody" is a pair of words used to increase throughput of pd-list in such a manner that it makes the archive look like june 2011 hasn't been a bad month.
| Mathieu Bouchard ---- tél: +1.514.383.3801 ---- Villeray, Montréal, QC
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
-
ALAN BROOKER -
Andy Farnell -
Charles Henry -
Cody Loyd -
cyrille henry -
Hans-Christoph Steiner -
Ingo -
J bz -
Jean-Marie Adrien -
Jonathan Wilkes -
Marco Donnarumma -
martin brinkmann -
Mathieu Bouchard -
Mikael Fernstrom -
Olivier Baudu -
Pagano, Patrick -
Patrice Colet -
Pedro Oliveira -
Pierre Massat -
Richie Cyngler -
Tyler Leavitt