glitch – where now?

Sep 16, 2007 at 1:31am

glitch – where now?

Hello Fellows

All of us on this forum ( at least most) came to max/msp because it had
the potential to open the doors to the world of advanced sound manipulation.
i myself knew nothing knew nothing of granular or fft, nothing of how the
computer processes sound. so i started reading. I read Curtis Roads’ The
Computer Music Tutorial. YAY. good for me. ( and for all of you-read it).
and i started trying to make stuff in max :) i’m sure we’ve all had the
requisite moments of hair pulling. but you get someplace, I got someplace.
i started making little re-triggers ( nothing i’ve ever made has been that
good) i tried a few things. really what i wanted ( no use lying to save
face) was to make Aphex Twin/Squarpusher sounds. i think allot of us did.
well, at some point i ran across dblue’s Glitch. to a certain degree that
was the death of my quest for knowledge. i stopped reading the forum,
stopped making my little experiments. just started making music. and that
was good. Glitch is a good pluggin. but it turned out to be a crutch.
started being hard to “hide” the fact that i was using it. and thats
frustrating. i mean, my songs come out the way i like. but the sound itself
has become a tad stagnant. i mean, dblue is using all the basic elements in
his pluggin. and its great. but what shall we do now? i hear that pluggin
everywhere. it has a SOUND. and i guess im not quite sure about my question
either, i guess it would be ” whats next in the world of
synthesis/processing? what are we missing. whats next?” are we glitching too
much? is it reaching saturation?”

hope that is not too off topic. the way i see it you all are on the cutting
edge though. so you are the ones to ask/discuss :)

just as an example ( not self promotion)
myspace.com/eightyface< http://www.myspace.com/eightyface>the first
track is an example of over use ( laziness) of said pluggin i hope
the rest aren’t as obvious

#33693
Sep 16, 2007 at 1:33am

sorry, it’s myspace.com/eightyface

#112564
Sep 16, 2007 at 4:38am

Quote: prestonandbully@gmail wrote on Sat, 15 September 2007 18:31
—————————————————-
> well, at some point i ran across dblue’s Glitch. to a certain degree that
> was the death of my quest for knowledge. i stopped reading the forum,
> stopped making my little experiments.

[snip]

> ” whats next in the world of
> synthesis/processing? what are we missing. whats next?” are we glitching too
> much?

Sorry to state the obvious, but the next thing would be to get back to your quest for knowledge and your experiments. Either that or wait for someone else to figure out the “next thing” and then you can use that until it gets stale too.

It’s kind of funny, I actually started using Max specifically for the problem you are talking about. Every time I’ve used someone else’s audio software for a while, I’ve found I was making a particular sound that the software enabled me to make. Most of the music making revolved around exploring the limited sonic universe provided by the software. I have never felt like I can take an idea in my head and turn it into an audio file – it always gets mangled by the software in the process.

So I try to build most of my own stuff from scratch in Max and avoid other people’s patches/externals for the most part (I definitely like playing with them to get ideas though). Maybe I am following a naive ideal, but I am enjoying my experiments and I believe it will all pay off one day.

Nice song on myspace BTW

-Adam

#112565
Sep 16, 2007 at 7:15am

Where to now? Thats up to you.

I’m going to have to agree with adam on this one. You can be one of the guys that puts out music with Aphex Twin/Squarepusher sounds… or you can put out music with YOUR sounds. It really all depends on the amount of effort you want to put in.

You might have found that it was quicker/easier to make music using some pre-built plugins. But there is a reason for that- a lot of work was done for you, and you are harnessing something else’s ideas.

If you’ve read the computer music tutorial,then you know most of the fundamentals, you should really be able to explore from that.
There is plenty of territory left to explore. It takes time, trial and error, and a lot of imagination to come up with new sonic ideas.. but it can be done.

If you really need a starting point.. try to make your own version of the glitch plugin in max. I’ve never used it so i dont even know what it does, but you should be able to come up with something similar.

Once you’ve done that, you can modify and expand on that idea as much as you want. This should lead to something new and exciting for you.

#112566
Sep 16, 2007 at 8:37am

to reiterate, if your going for aphex/squarepusher sounds to begin with, then your whole concept is trying to do something thats been done. There are tons of people imitating aphex, squarepusher, and autechre in their own way. I think that happens with any genera, your going to end up with originators and followers, and the scene over time fills up with repetitive followers. None of the mentioned artists use “glitch” or any other similar plugin, they use either custom made max/reaktor/kyma patches, or work with whatever other software or synth they are using in a unique experimental way. Nobody can tell you how to be experimental, or where to start on finding your own sound.

Now this isn’t to trash talk trying to be like mentioned artists, it is part of the learning process, but the only way to move on is to start studying other people that you like and merge their styles. Squarepusher studied experimental, freejazz and fusion, and thats how he came up with his style of fusion electronic. Maybe start listening to something else and trying to incorporate that inspiration into what your doing while still keeping a hard edge experimental nature.

Im sure there are other artists of notability that started their career sounding like someone else, and gradually developed their own style.

Stop using glitch! Study some music theory (its so essential to making good music) start playing with other softwares or making your own max patches,

in the end, theres only so much originality to be had. Im not sure its even something you can be conscious about. I can recall a very specific notable experience in this realm. My good friend Jimmy Edgar, back in 2001 was making experimental electronic, and analyzing and reproducing Richard Devine, Prefuse 73 and Alva Noto style stuff. It was only when warp contacted him and expressed interest in his music that he realized he needed to do something unique to stand out. A few weeks later he wrote “I wanna be your STD” telling me something to the nature of “I wanted to create future RNB music” Its that simple, he didn’t sit there contemplating for months on end, he just did it. Theres a select few people who get so lucky. I guess just do what comes naturally and if you make it, you make it.

(if your a JE fan, his next album is coming out insanely awesome, it has so much more soul, emotion, chopped up detail, and everything else I love about music)

#112567
Sep 16, 2007 at 9:25am

i don’t like dblue’s Glitch’s interface.
it’s always knobs and faders and buttons and menus. there’s NOTHING new or advanced with this kind of “instruments”.
if I spend time and energy to study Max/msp, it’s not because i want to be a future AFX or whatever while using MS-20 or Juno and millions of its imitations.

one very important reason why i study max (as well as Java language)is that it lets me focus on “fundamentals”.

even though i can’t have immediate results, like “tweaking this konb and it sounds better!”, i think it’s worth to do very simple things on my own, to understand the “nature” of what i’m doing.

and i’m sure that it will pay off one day, maybe as “the next thing” if you want.

#112568
Sep 16, 2007 at 12:02pm

I remember being impressed when I first heard dBlue’s Glitch, and
cursing it at the same time, because I had planned on building
something like it in Max, and also because it “stole” my band’s name
(I suppose the whole Glitch genre stole my band name too!),
especially because we’ve been around since 1991:

http://www.defectiverecords.com/artists/glitch.html

Anyway, because of the lack of a Mac version of dBlue’s plug, I
continued in my plan to build some similar in Max, and lo and behold,
lots of borrowed time later, I did it, releasing “Major Malfunction”,
now at version 1.5:

http://www.defectiverecords.com/majormalfunction

Of course, now I have the advantage of having my plug built in
Max/MSP, which allows me to incorporate all kinds of new features,
effects, algorithms, etc.. over time, as I learn and discover them.
For example, the 2.0 version which should be ready soon, incorporates
the ability to launch multiple effects at any single point in time,
rather than a single one (as Dblue’s does as well).

Anyway, my point is that the presence of something on the market that
does what you want it to do, shouldn’t necessarily mean that the
pursuit of similar things in Max should be abandoned; to the
contrary, it should stimulate one to do something even better, and to
continue to learn and incorporate cool functionality, perhaps even
ones only possible in Max!

Dan

Dan Nigrin
Defective Records
202 Hack / PC-1600 User / VSTi Host / OMS Convert / Jack OS X / Major
Malfunction
http://www.defectiverecords.com

http://www.jackosx.com

#112569
Sep 16, 2007 at 5:46pm

#112570
Sep 16, 2007 at 6:35pm

Nothing is original, all have been done before. It is all
how things are put together that seem original. Digital
age has created such a fierce competition and overload of
knowledge (illuminating the fact that you are not alone on
your quest) that actual experiences are creating your
personal shaping of style. Vade made some good points…

My personal basic theory: Persestince & Passion is the
Key.

Just do your thing, don’t worry about anyone else, all
people have a period when their influences are worn on
their sleeves, but as you hone your skills more, your
references will become more esoteric.

IMPRESS YOURSELF!!!

That’s my 2cents, hope it helps.
-chuck

Building a website is a piece of cake. Yahoo! Small Business gives you all the tools to get online.

http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/webhosting

#112571
Sep 16, 2007 at 8:33pm

> Styles tend to not only separate men – because they have their own doctrines
> and then the doctrine became the gospel truth that you cannot change. But if
> you do not have a style, if you just say: Well, here I am as a human being,
> how can I express myself totally and completely? Now, that way you won’t
> create a style, because style is a crystallization. That way, it’s a process
> of continuing growth.

That’s a great quote that I’ve often tried to get people interested in
and talking about, but it rarely gets the same reaction that I had
when I first read it. Fact of the mater is, we may have not get new
‘styles’ (which is fine by me), but that by no means that the
expression of human experience has a limit. The possibile death of
style shouldn’t mean something as tragic as the end of history or that
we’re going to be doing the same stuff over and over; it should mean
that we free now.

Sorry for that rant,
Keith

#112572
Sep 16, 2007 at 8:46pm

well said :)

On Sep 16, 2007, at 4:33 PM, keith manlove wrote:

>> Styles tend to not only separate men – because they have their own
>> doctrines
>> and then the doctrine became the gospel truth that you cannot
>> change. But if
>> you do not have a style, if you just say: Well, here I am as a
>> human being,
>> how can I express myself totally and completely? Now, that way you
>> won’t
>> create a style, because style is a crystallization. That way, it’s
>> a process
>> of continuing growth.
>
> That’s a great quote that I’ve often tried to get people interested in
> and talking about, but it rarely gets the same reaction that I had
> when I first read it. Fact of the mater is, we may have not get new
> ‘styles’ (which is fine by me), but that by no means that the
> expression of human experience has a limit. The possibile death of
> style shouldn’t mean something as tragic as the end of history or that
> we’re going to be doing the same stuff over and over; it should mean
> that we free now.
>
> Sorry for that rant,
> Keith

v a d e //

http://www.vade.info
abstrakt.vade.info

#112573
Sep 16, 2007 at 11:06pm

It is not so much a matter of style as it is a question of attitude.
In general, attitude towards sound, and in particular, attitude
towards organized sound. Composers don’t really speak about style,
they talk about their philosophy and attitude towards organizing and
perceiving sonic structures. Style is something we mention when
classifying other composers’ works, such classification is often more
succesfull when referring to other periods than that of our own. It
is only a word that doesn’t really mean anything, but it is helpful
when organizing works in a museum.

P

On 16 Sep 2007, at 21:46, vade wrote:

> well said :)
>
> On Sep 16, 2007, at 4:33 PM, keith manlove wrote:
>
>>> Styles tend to not only separate men – because they have their
>>> own doctrines
>>> and then the doctrine became the gospel truth that you cannot
>>> change. But if
>>> you do not have a style, if you just say: Well, here I am as a
>>> human being,
>>> how can I express myself totally and completely? Now, that way
>>> you won’t
>>> create a style, because style is a crystallization. That way,
>>> it’s a process
>>> of continuing growth.
>>
>> That’s a great quote that I’ve often tried to get people
>> interested in
>> and talking about, but it rarely gets the same reaction that I had
>> when I first read it. Fact of the mater is, we may have not get new
>> ‘styles’ (which is fine by me), but that by no means that the
>> expression of human experience has a limit. The possibile death of
>> style shouldn’t mean something as tragic as the end of history or
>> that
>> we’re going to be doing the same stuff over and over; it should mean
>> that we free now.
>>
>> Sorry for that rant,
>> Keith
>
> v a d e //
>
> http://www.vade.info
> abstrakt.vade.info
>
>
>

#112574
Sep 17, 2007 at 12:29am

a favorite quote on the jitter list.

“Video was the most shared, the most democratic art form . . . Everybody
believed deeply that he had
invented feedback. Feedback was invented simultaneously not by five people,
like electricity, but by five thousand.”
-Woody Vasulka

On 9/16/07, peiman khosravi

wrote:
>
> It is not so much a matter of style as it is a question of attitude. In
> general, attitude towards sound, and in particular, attitude
> towards organized sound. Composers don’t really speak about style, they talk
> about their philosophy and attitude towards organizing and perceiving sonic
> structures. Style is something we mention when classifying other composers’
> works, such classification is often more succesfull when referring to other
> periods than that of our own. It is only a word that doesn’t really mean
> anything, but it is helpful when organizing works in a museum.
> P
> On 16 Sep 2007, at 21:46, vade wrote:
>
> well said :)
> On Sep 16, 2007, at 4:33 PM, keith manlove wrote:
>
> Styles tend to not only separate men – because they have their own
> doctrines
> and then the doctrine became the gospel truth that you cannot change. But
> if
> you do not have a style, if you just say: Well, here I am as a human
> being,
> how can I express myself totally and completely? Now, that way you won’t
> create a style, because style is a crystallization. That way, it’s a
> process
> of continuing growth.
>
>
> That’s a great quote that I’ve often tried to get people interested in
> and talking about, but it rarely gets the same reaction that I had
> when I first read it. Fact of the mater is, we may have not get new
> ‘styles’ (which is fine by me), but that by no means that the
> expression of human experience has a limit. The possibile death of
> style shouldn’t mean something as tragic as the end of history or that
> we’re going to be doing the same stuff over and over; it should mean
> that we free now.
>
> Sorry for that rant,
> Keith
>
>
> *v a d e //*
>
> *www.vade.info*
> *abstrakt.vade.info*
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

#112575
Sep 17, 2007 at 4:19am

Joel Swensen schrieb:
> whats next in the world of synthesis/processing? what are we missing.
> whats next?” are we glitching too much? is it reaching saturation?”

It’s not the question “what’s next” in terms of searching for an
“effect” somebody else created. And you are probably glitching too much,
(I am not glitching at all… ;-)

Listening to your music, I would recommend that you listen to completely
other music, maybe even stop the beat… Get out of your style… Play
Cello…

I liked your music by the way, but I listen rarely enough to that style
to be able to appreciate your glitching…

Next for you could be to make your own glitch in Max, because then you
can change what is annoying you.

> hope that is not too off topic. the way i see it you all are on the
> cutting edge though. so you are the ones to ask/discuss :)

This is the most on topic kind of question… Just talking about
technical problems is too much glitching for me…

Stefan


Stefan Tiedje————x——-
–_____———–|————–
–(_|_ —-|—–|—–()——-
– _|_)—-|—–()————–
———-()——–www.ccmix.com

#112576
Sep 17, 2007 at 5:13pm

Software is a tool. Chaining a bunch of plugins together to make a nice effect is no different to chaining a bunch of MSP objects together. It’s more a question of which process you want to get deeply involved with.

I think it’s interesting how people develop a popular sound everybody loves and then when the world finds out they are like damn that sound to hell. I’m thinking it appears electronic music is started to head more towards focusing on composition and the song writing process which is reassuring…. ultimately to me it is emotion within a song that makes it yummy.

#112577
Sep 17, 2007 at 5:39pm

I agree, there’s nothing wrong with using glitch, if you find the right balance e.g. not using it just because it sounds good. If you’re thinking of a certain sound that could be fairly unique to this plug-in then use it, thats what its for! As long as its done creativly then it doesn’t matter if a few ‘glitch’ users recognize the sound, if its done well enough they will enjoy the music and forget about the process involved.

I agree with the people who say there’s no point in building something thats already been done, that is if you’re in a DAW and you’re looking to use a conventional plug-in in a conventional way. Programmers get paid and their plug-ins sell because they’re really good at what they do! (most of the time :/ )

If you’re looking to do something outside the ‘normal’ sphere or have an idea thats not available to you, thats where max comes in, and that is the beauty of the software!

#112578
Sep 17, 2007 at 7:58pm

Personally, I like to think of different software and plugins as different instruments. That frees me from worrying about using the same specific tool(s) as someone else and allows me to focus on making my own music with those tools.

———- Original Message ———————————-
From: Mike S
Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2007 11:39:27 -0600

>
>I agree, there’s nothing wrong with using glitch, if you find the right balance e.g. not using it just because it sounds good. If you’re thinking of a certain sound that could be fairly unique to this plug-in then use it, thats what its for! As long as its done creativly then it doesn’t matter if a few ‘glitch’ users recognize the sound, if its done well enough they will enjoy the music and forget about the process involved.
>
>I agree with the people who say there’s no point in building something thats already been done, that is if you’re in a DAW and you’re looking to use a conventional plug-in in a conventional way. Programmers get paid and their plug-ins sell because they’re really good at what they do! (most of the time :/ )
>
>If you’re looking to do something outside the ‘normal’ sphere or have an idea thats not available to you, thats where max comes in, and that is the beauty of the software!
>

Need personalized email and website? Look no further. It’s easy
with Doteasy $0 Web Hosting! Learn more at http://www.doteasy.com

#112579

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.