[NewMusic] Slaves to off-the-shelf software?

[amar at ptank.com]

I don't really buy into a "max" sound (though there are sounds that peg
the institutions where it's popular).  But there are definitely sounds
attached to other software, particularly to synthesizers, and complete
packages like Live - but so what?  Indeed, why is that any different from
recognizing any other instrument?

  -Amar




http://www.amar-music.info
http://www.myspace.com/amarchaudhary



> I always hear comments like "this sounds like max" (very rarely -- i think
> in reference to the rhythms you can immediately generate from Max using
> metro and counter, is my theory, but i am not sure. Matt Davignon says
> this,
> but i have yet to uncover exactly which qualities of the sound he is
> referring to) or especially "this sounds like Live" in reference to
> electronic music.  The time compression in Live has a trademark sound. I
> have heard this characteristic of Live exploited extremely successfully,
> like in Bevin Kelley's work, and then i've heard your basic loop music.
> Just
> like someone being unimaginative with a guitar, you can tell when
> someone's
> being unimaginative with their software. It works the same way; there are
> so
> many levels of mastering your instrument.
>
> On 2/13/07, Travis C. Johns <tjohns at mills.edu> wrote:
>>
>> Wow, has a day ever gone by when Momus hasn't had something to rail
>> against? Then again, the article was quite elegant and sophisticated -
>> being that it came from an artist whose discography includes quite a
>> high percentage of harpsichord-addled odes to his penis...
>>
>> My opinion: Software = tool. Computer = tool. Guitar = tool. Effects box
>> = tool. Staff paper - tool. Amplified bucket of mud - tool. "Prepared"
>> parakeet... well, you see where I'm going with this. Granted, yes, the
>> over-commodification of software and plugins, etc has lead to some
>> pretty generic, homogenous-sounding, "look how tech-savvy I can be
>> without really knowing what I'm doing..." type music/video/ etcetcetc -
>> but at the same time, hasn't there always been generic,
>> homogenous-sounding commodity-music/video/etcetcetc??? Why is it
>> suddenly so vogue to blame the technology and the software for creating
>> mundane compo-slop? Let's face it - computers only do what you tell
>> them to do so the blame on this one is on the collective "us."
>>
>> And true, many, many companies offer oodles and oodles of flashy voices,
>> plug-ins and effects with even more oodles of snazzy presets for
>> out-of-the-box satisfaction, but that doesn't mean you have to use
>> them! Explore! Tweak! Make something original - I dare you! Try to do
>> something you wouldn't expect your flashy new box to do...
>>
>> Whoops, out of nickels for the soapbox machine - next contestant please!
>>
>> t.
>>
>> Quoting "Robair, Gino" <grobair at emusician.com>:
>>
>> > A topic I've been interested in since I first visited Mills, when
>> > HMSL was
>> > king....
>> > http://www.wired.com/news/columns/0,72705-0.html?tw=wn_index_5
>> >
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > Bay Area New Music Discussion Group
>> > NewMusic at music.mills.edu
>> > http://music.mills.edu/mailman/listinfo/newmusic
>> >
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Bay Area New Music Discussion Group
>> NewMusic at music.mills.edu
>> http://music.mills.edu/mailman/listinfo/newmusic
>>
> _______________________________________________
> Bay Area New Music Discussion Group
> NewMusic at music.mills.edu
> http://music.mills.edu/mailman/listinfo/newmusic
>