] [Thread Prev
Re: Playing an instrument vs. building an instrument...
Agreed, I personally don't even necessarily completely believe in the
idea of "fixing" tools persay, so much as being clear on your aim. If you
want to make music, make music. If the music you make is close enough to
what you feel or hear in your head, then fine, you've given it voice!,
which is a wonderful thing. If it isn't close enough, and you need to
tweak a plugin or effect to give it a more accurate voice, then fine, then
go ahead and enjoy yourself, and play the music. YOu've again been able to
give it voice.
What I don't understand, is the desire for more and more and more of a
"better" something that may not even be defined yet, to create something
that one isn't even aware of, and doesn't seem to be going toward now.
Dreaming is wonderful and so very important, but this sounds like a very
aimless and nameless pseudo-need to me.
Why would I want 15000 EDP's in a box when I have absolutely no need
for it, and furthermore, haven't met anyone who has mentioned that they do
either. -or seems to be pushing the boundries of modern music and art to
such an extreme that that even appears to be a need on the horizon.
It seems that most people just have a hard time finding a setup that
lends itself nicely to the music and art they find themselves creating.
-which is fine, but why blame the technology when it's solvable with just a
little time, money, and one's own honesty with one'sself? -just my
thoughts, as usual...
At 08:24 AM 8/24/03 -0700, you wrote:
>Excerpts from Wired magazine
>Software instruments never stop changing, never stop offering up more of
>those infinite possibilities we're always hearing about. Compare the
>situation with, say, playing an acoustic guitar. Years of practice are
>necessary before you really begin to discover the hidden potential
>inside that rounded box with six metal strings and a hole. But right off
>the bat, software instruments - especially modular ones like Max/MSP and
>Reaktor - provide a dizzying number of powerful effects.
>This makes it easy to endlessly tweak your material rather than to
>accept the constraints that partly define the act of composition. And
>this is particularly true when you can tinker not only with the sound
>but with the virtual machine that makes the sound.
>"There are two approaches you can take with your music software," says
>Gerhard Behles, who quit Monolake in order to run Ableton full-time.
>"One is to consider your tools as fixed. The other is to control the
>tools themselves. That gives you a much bigger lever. But it can keep
>you from ever doing music again."
>Joshua Clayton programs for Cycling '74 and remains captivated by the
>nitty-gritty processing available in environments like Max/MSP. Clayton
>also has concerns about the aesthetic attitude that such programs can
>produce. "I find that people who use Max and similar programs often
>aspire to be the god behind the universe, to come up with a formal
>system that's completely under their control. Some people can't wait to
>get everything inside the computer so they can generate some kind of
>utopian music that's all contained within the machine."
"The only things I really think are important, are love, and eachother.
-Then, anything is possible..."
Please visit BadFiction and The Guitar Cafe.