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

Tue Feb 13 12:58:15 PST 2007

I've been thinking about the problem of interface design and its 
insidious qualities a lot lately, as I have been involved in making more 
generalize interfaces for composition and performance.   This is not a 
new problem, but one that is seemingly inescapable.  By necessity we 
have to abstract something to not make the sheer amount of options 
present in computer composition (or, in a possibly smaller infinity, 
traditional composition) overwhelming.

This is just as true of synthesis languages, and even more general 
purpose programming languages.  When you have been involved with a 
couple for some period of time, you inevitably run into a situation 
where you can't figure out how to solve  a problem using language X but 
could think very easily of how to solve the issue in another.  I guess a 
useful metaphor would be trying to explain colloquial expressions in 
English to someone whose native tongue was Swahili.    (side note: 
there is a section in Hofstader's Godel, Escher, Bach where he 
translates Lewis Carrol's Jabberwocky into French and German.  Consider 
that a book recommendation.)

Any time you create a framework, or an application, you do it for the 
*purpose* of hiding away less relevant information so that the choices 
presented to you are such that you can effectively complete the task at 
hand (see Travis "tools" notes.)  This problem exists equally for 
traditional instruments: The interface of the saxophone invites you to 
approach  playing it in a certain way.

The major difference with computer technology, and why it seems to be 
blamed more in this regard, is because our current stage of tools is not 
difficult in the same way traditional musical instruments are difficult. 
    It is physically challenging to play the saxophone, or piano, or 
bass, or anything.  You must play enough to make the interface between 
your body and the instrument become transparent, and this type of 
seamless interaction takes years to develop.  Now, software instruments 
take years of practice to become fluent in too, but the learning curve 
is not as readily apparent to us because it is primarily mental, not a 
physical barrier that immediately confronts us.

In the same respect I would consider it an easier task for me to learn 
spanish than to learn how to free climb mountains.  However (and I am 
purely speculating, but I think the point remains) a similar amount of 
dedicated  training in both disciplines would probably place you at 
roughly similar points in the learning curve of each.

This is both one of the greatest boons and downfalls of the 
democratization of our technological tools. It makes things seems easy, 
but in actuality there are deeper concepts to grasp that aren't apparent 
at first. The inherent ability to for distribution of digital media also 
allows a higher portion of beginner work to   reach the world.  My 
techno-vangilism aside, this is a real issue  but I think it will 
probably be eased culturally.

$0.02

b

amar at ptank.com wrote:
> 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
>>
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Bay Area New Music Discussion Group
> NewMusic at music.mills.edu
> http://music.mills.edu/mailman/listinfo/newmusic
> 

-- 
barry threw
composition : sound : programming
http://www.barrythrew.com
bthrew(at)gmail(dot)com
857-544-3967

(if you would see the stars clearly,
look hard at the surrounding darkness)
		-Ooka Makoto