IDM Mailing Archive

in regards to this whole kyma / max / autechre / r. devine etc etc... argument, i think it comes down to the issue of the validity or the 'quality' of the content. a good bunch of my friends are graphic designers (i, however, can't draw worth a shit...) and constantly struggle with the 'gee wow' appeal of something vs. the actual material being presented. it seems at first, when you land your graphic design job, you want to smother everything with photoshop filters, have really 'cool' fucked up fonts, and make everything look 'artsy.' (and this is AFTER they've been through four or five years of college / art school) however, what they soon realize is that it's MUCH harder to design a nice layout for a book cover, or a preface with the idea that your job is to convey information. have you noticed how many magazines have relatively decent articles, but you can't read them because the entire page has been filtered, tweaked, rotated, and smeared? i hate that! you can't read a damn thing. i used to get a kick out of that sort of stuff. my friend josh finally convinced me that 'less is more.' and for the most part, it's true. he'll spend endless hours (or days) laying out a single page (print, not web) so that the reader can 'access' whatever information is being presented, in a logical and meaningful way. no distractions. no 'noise.' that's design. all the other stuff is just piling on noise. and if that's the purpose / point of a book or a webpage, that's perfectly acceptable. if you're displaying information about a group / band, do you really need all this shit moving around on the page? does it 'enhance' your reading pleasure? do you gain more insight about the group? i don't. so what does this have to do with music? well, with electronic music in particular, one is tempted to do the exact same thing. sure, programs like kyma, max / msp, supercollider, reaktor, or whatever your favorite program is... are all programs which allow a great deal of 'freedom.' but it's very tempting to pile on filtering algorithms, time stretch (for the sake of time stretching), bit reduce, granulate, and mangle your sound to death. yeah, it's pretty neat at first. and it actually sounds pretty neat. but what are you trying to convey? and maybe this is why IDM is quite emotionless. (at least i think it is. and that's actually one of the reasons i enjoy it...) you're listening to a concept. a process. a method. a lot of time sitting in front of a computer and trying to make something sound 'musical' but not in the traditional sense. (you can interpret that however you'd like...) the end result is a 'gee wow' kinda reaction. and i buy straight into this. and i'm trying my best to kick that habit. and to not repeat the same thing myself. yes, i love the sound of digital artifacts. but at some point, i have to ask myself what i'm listening to. what is the content? what am i getting out of this 'music?' certainly not emotion. at least in my case. i suppose i like the 'logic' of the music. i like figuring things out. i like to program. i like methods. maybe that's my attraction to IDM. but it's getting old. the logic is the same. the methods are similar. there's no more 'challenge.' just layers and layers of shit on top of shit. i've programmed lots of shit. and luckily i realize that. my nifty neato autechre patch for drum machines. it's neat. it makes a 'gee wow' type of sound. you could probably make an entire album with this one patch. and that's really pathetic. (i'm NOT saying this is what autechre does. they definitely do they're on thing. good or bad, they came up with a pretty original concept... or at least found the software to do it with first outside of academics.) so i'm gonna go think about all this. i'm glad this topic came up. because this is what's been stopping me from recording and distributing anything i make. when my friends say 'hey, you should send that in. it sounds just as good as the stuff you listen to.' that needs to stop. and i need to stop paying 17 bucks for 40 minutes of skipping samples and background noise. then again, i might change my mind about all this come tomorrow. bonus stuff. the tweaky beat patch for SuperCollider. run a drum machine through your soundcard. (the pattern is irrelevant. a simple 4/4 bass snare combo will do just fine) start moving the mouse around. and if you want that 'gee wow' effect, move the mouse in the lower right hand corner of the screen and quickly move it back to the upper left hand corner. have a blast. and yeah, it's a very simple patch. (works for lame synth melodies as well...)

quoted 22 lines (

> ( > { > var input, output; > > w = GUIWindow.new("panel", Rect.newBy(7, 41, 1135, 816)) > .backColor_(rgb(129,84,209)); > StringView.new( w, Rect.newBy(433, 348, 235, 58), "M o u s e X - Y S u r f a c e"); > > input = AudioIn.ar([1,2]); > > output = CombA.ar( > in: input, > maxdelaytime: 0.05, > delaytime: MouseX.kr(0.0, 0.05, 'linear'), > decaytime: LFSaw.kr((MouseY.kr(10, 2000, 'linear')))); > > output > > }.play; > w.close; > ) >

cheers, christian

On Wed, 10 Jan 2001, christian adam hresko wrote: Very interesting message...

quoted 3 lines and maybe this is why IDM is quite emotionless. (at least i think it

> and maybe this is why IDM is quite emotionless. (at least i think it > is. and that's actually one of the reasons i enjoy it...) you're > listening to a concept. a process. a method.

This is the case with all music IMHO. It's just that some processes are more ingrained in popular technique than others. There's nothing more processed based than your average pop song... They're just all using the same process. I think the problem with process based computer music, is where musicians use other people's process and take credit. The idea that you can use Autechre's patch and then create fantastic music is false. Software that creates music is not a tool, it's a music score! So all you're doing is playing Autechre's music, or performing Autechre's music, or remixing Autechre's music. But you're starting with a score, not merely a tool. This comes down to one problem: people have trouble seeing programming computers as a creative, expressive act. A computer can do nothing without humans, and writing code is an act of human expression. And so if you're using software written by someone else, and that software is having an influence over how you are creating, then you are in grave danger of creating derivative works. Unless you use your imagination, and use the software in ways in which the original programmer didn't predict, then you are not being creative, in my opinion. Of course, this leaves a great deal of scope for creativity with good software. But too often you can hear the cubase, or the rebirth in a piece of music. I don't have any particular problem with this until I think about how little credit the original programmers are getting. But perhaps this is an opinion borne out of my heavy use of free sofwtware. When I'm writing electronic music I am very conscious about how the software is defining my creative 'search space', and highly respectful of the people who contribute towards making my individual expression possible. This includes the operating system, microcode, device driver hackers, because all these things are essential to me and are important creative acts in themselves. I feel that only programmers can create truly original pieces of electronic music. MAX is a visual programming language, but if you use it by piecing together other people's patches, then you should give those people credit. Alex --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: idm-unsubscribe@hyperreal.org For additional commands, e-mail: idm-help@hyperreal.org

this is kind of a sticky argument .. i definitely agree that if a programmer/artist creates a max patch that algorithmically creates a musical composition, then it should be considered in much the same manner as a musical score; the artist deserves credit, because the patch is serving as a proxy for the composer by carrying their concepts to fruition. but i have trouble transferring that same relationship to a piece of software like cubase or rebirth, because they are tools used to create music, not musical pieces in their own right. you can definitely hear the distinctive sounds made by rebirth or cubase, but you can also hear the distinctive sounds made by a bosendorfer piano or stradivarius violin. the difference between an art and a craft is a very fuzzy one ... you surely cannot draw a line and say "okay this is a work of art, but this is just a tool" ... sometimes a tool can be crafted so well that it becomes more than it was ever intended to be ... -- String Theory : Digital Music for Humans http://www.enteract.com/~yoshi/index.cgi On Wed, 10 Jan 2001 alex@state51.co.uk wrote:

quoted 60 lines On Wed, 10 Jan 2001, christian adam hresko wrote:

> On Wed, 10 Jan 2001, christian adam hresko wrote: > > Very interesting message... > > > and maybe this is why IDM is quite emotionless. (at least i think it > > is. and that's actually one of the reasons i enjoy it...) you're > > listening to a concept. a process. a method. > > This is the case with all music IMHO. It's just that some processes are > more ingrained in popular technique than others. There's nothing more > processed based than your average pop song... They're just all using the > same process. > > I think the problem with process based computer music, is where musicians > use other people's process and take credit. > > The idea that you can use Autechre's patch and then create fantastic music > is false. Software that creates music is not a tool, it's a music score! > So all you're doing is playing Autechre's music, or performing Autechre's > music, or remixing Autechre's music. But you're starting with a score, > not merely a tool. > > This comes down to one problem: people have trouble seeing programming > computers as a creative, expressive act. A computer can do nothing > without humans, and writing code is an act of human expression. And so if > you're using software written by someone else, and that software is having > an influence over how you are creating, then you are in grave danger of > creating derivative works. > > Unless you use your imagination, and use the software in ways in which the > original programmer didn't predict, then you are not being creative, in my > opinion. Of course, this leaves a great deal of scope for creativity with > good software. > > But too often you can hear the cubase, or the rebirth in a piece of music. > I don't have any particular problem with this until I think about how > little credit the original programmers are getting. But perhaps this is > an opinion borne out of my heavy use of free sofwtware. > > When I'm writing electronic music I am very conscious about how the > software is defining my creative 'search space', and highly respectful of > the people who contribute towards making my individual expression > possible. This includes the operating system, microcode, device driver > hackers, because all these things are essential to me and are important > creative acts in themselves. > > I feel that only programmers can create truly original pieces of > electronic music. MAX is a visual programming language, but if you use it > by piecing together other people's patches, then you should give those > people credit. > > > Alex > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: idm-unsubscribe@hyperreal.org > For additional commands, e-mail: idm-help@hyperreal.org > >

--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: idm-unsubscribe@hyperreal.org For additional commands, e-mail: idm-help@hyperreal.org