disturb

I'm just starting out with MAX, and I need a few pointers regarding "consistency".

I want to build a modular midi performance setup, that will be based on a bunch of different modules like arpeggiators, chord generators etc and modulators for some of their parameters.

Eventhough i feel totally overwhelmed by 'the 'big picture', i can start by patching some small building blocks, so i'm confident i'll manage to get there somehow.

The thing is, i'm worried that when it's time to make all these modules work together, i might run into some inconsistencies or incompatibilities between my building blocks, or just a lack of flexibility.

I've read about frameworks like Jomona and v001, and to be honest i'm not sure i grasp all of their potential, but i'm wondering if i should be looking into this now ?

If i'll need one of those to make my setup really functionnal,I might aswell get started right away...

If anyone would like to know more about the idea of this setup (and has some time to kill...), there is a thread about it here : 

http://electro-music.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=17232

Hi folks,
I'm just starting out with MAX, and I need a few pointers regarding "consistency".

I've read about frameworks like Jomona and v001, and to be honest i'm not sure i grasp all of their potential, but i'm wondering if i should be looking into this now ?
If i'll need one of those to make my setup really functionnal,I might aswell get started right away...

If anyone would like to know more about the idea of this setup (and has some time to kill...), there is a thread about it here : http://electro-music.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=17232

looking-for-consistency-are-frameworks-a-solution

I am afraid that this is a touchy issue. Many maxers get stuck when their patches get bigger and when they have to make different modules work together without interfering. Many maxers start out with an idea such as yours and give up after a while.

Why? I could elaborate about my ideas for a long time. But in the end, when you want to make your own program, which is where you're heading, you'll have to become a programmer. In max you can delay the confrontation for a while, or if you are persistent, learn while you move along. But in the end, to make something really work.. I'm afraid you're not going to avoid some programming experience.

I believe many maxers are tricked into the idea that max is the tool that allows to create programs without programming. Unfortunately, the more complex your program gets, the less this is true.

Nonetheless I can only warmly encourage you to start using max. Try to find your own consistent conventions (other maxers have tried this, as you already mentioned) and (much) later, if you feel up to it, apply existing programming conventions to max. And end up as an artist-programmer. There aren't much of these people around, although the world desperately needs them.

Don't forget I'm only one max user, my opinion is not equal to truth ;)

Quote: disturb wrote on Mon, 09 April 2007 23:38

----------------------------------------------------

> I'm just starting out with MAX, and I need a few pointers regarding "consistency".

> I want to build a modular midi performance setup, that will be based on a bunch of different modules like arpeggiators, chord generators etc and modulators for some of their parameters.

> Eventhough i feel totally overwhelmed by 'the 'big picture', i can start by patching some small building blocks, so i'm confident i'll manage to get there somehow.

> The thing is, i'm worried that when it's time to make all these modules work together, i might run into some inconsistencies or incompatibilities between my building blocks, or just a lack of flexibility.

> I've read about frameworks like Jomona and v001, and to be honest i'm not sure i grasp all of their potential, but i'm wondering if i should be looking into this now ?

> If i'll need one of those to make my setup really functionnal,I might aswell get started right away...

> If anyone would like to know more about the idea of this setup (and has some time to kill...), there is a thread about it here : 

Quote: disturb wrote on Mon, 09 April 2007 23:38
----------------------------------------------------
> Hi folks,
> I'm just starting out with MAX, and I need a few pointers regarding "consistency".
>
> I want to build a modular midi performance setup, that will be based on a bunch of different modules like arpeggiators, chord generators etc and modulators for some of their parameters.
>
> Eventhough i feel totally overwhelmed by 'the 'big picture', i can start by patching some small building blocks, so i'm confident i'll manage to get there somehow.
>
> The thing is, i'm worried that when it's time to make all these modules work together, i might run into some inconsistencies or incompatibilities between my building blocks, or just a lack of flexibility.
>
> I've read about frameworks like Jomona and v001, and to be honest i'm not sure i grasp all of their potential, but i'm wondering if i should be looking into this now ?
> If i'll need one of those to make my setup really functionnal,I might aswell get started right away...
>
> If anyone would like to know more about the idea of this setup (and has some time to kill...), there is a thread about it here : http://electro-music.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=17232
>
> cheers
----------------------------------------------------


When you mention the "programing experience", do you imply thinking as a regular developper would, i.e. OO implementation and such, or actual coding of externals ? Either way, would you care to comment on that ?

Also, I'm quite aware that no external or lib is gonna do all the work and save me from having to be rigorous in my work, but i'm interested in reading what experienced MAX users think of jamoma or v001 etc, do you guys think those are a valuable addition to an OO setup, that is meant to be flexible/modular/real time ?

Not quite encouraging...
When you mention the "programing experience", do you imply thinking as a regular developper would, i.e. OO implementation and such, or actual coding of externals ? Either way, would you care to comment on that ?

Also, I'm quite aware that no external or lib is gonna do all the work and save me from having to be rigorous in my work, but i'm interested in reading what experienced MAX users think of jamoma or v001 etc, do you guys think those are a valuable addition to an OO setup, that is meant to be flexible/modular/real time ?


I am not experienced with either of these frameworks, and have only 

worked with them briefly, thus, my comments should be taken with a grain 

I guess the real question is the same when you are using any 

framework...you sacrifice a certain amount of specific functionality for 

the generality of being able to build many things with the same framework...

You also possibly get a lot of functionality that you don't need, giving 

your software more overhead than required.

What you gain is not having to build a lot of underlying foundational 

As I programmer, I usually find that the benefits of me developing my 

own underlying system, when possible, and not overly complex, outweigh 

the advantages of a framework, just due to the fact that I have to learn 

the thinking involved with any framework and how it differs from my own. 

This is a gray area that depends on the project. For example, I would 

happily use ASP.net libraries when developing microsoft apps, or 

frameworks in mac os, i also wouldn't develop my own cms unless that was 

However, with something like Max, once you have experience, it is easy 

to forsee what functionality you will need, and build accordingly.

As a beginner though, my advice is that you take a good look at building 

simple things with these systems and see if they have all the pieces you 

require. I've been wanting to take a much closer look myself, but just 

Just by looking at the people involved with them, they should be very 

Today, Noise is triumphant and reigns sovereign over the sensibility of men.

I am not experienced with either of these frameworks, and have only 
worked with them briefly, thus, my comments should be taken with a grain 
of salt I suppose.

I guess the real question is the same when you are using any 
framework...you sacrifice a certain amount of specific functionality for 
the generality of being able to build many things with the same framework...

You also possibly get a lot of functionality that you don't need, giving 
your software more overhead than required.

What you gain is not having to build a lot of underlying foundational 
communication yourself..

As I programmer, I usually find that the benefits of me developing my 
own underlying system, when possible, and not overly complex, outweigh 
the advantages of a framework, just due to the fact that I have to learn 
the thinking involved with any framework and how it differs from my own. 
  This is a gray area that depends on the project.  For example, I would 
happily use ASP.net libraries when developing microsoft apps, or 
frameworks in mac os, i also wouldn't develop my own cms unless that was 
what i was being paid to do.

However, with something like Max, once you have experience, it is easy 
to forsee what functionality you will need, and build accordingly.

As a beginner though, my advice is that you take a good look at building 
simple things with these systems and see if they have all the pieces you 
require.  I've been wanting to take a much closer look myself, but just 
haven't had the time yet.

Just by looking at the people involved with them, they should be very 
well done and thought out systems.

disturb wrote:
> Hi folks,
> I'm just starting out with MAX, and I need a few pointers regarding "consistency".
>
> I want to build a modular midi performance setup, that will be based on a bunch of different modules like arpeggiators, chord generators etc and modulators for some of their parameters.
>
> Eventhough i feel totally overwhelmed by 'the 'big picture', i can start by patching some small building blocks, so i'm confident i'll manage to get there somehow.
>
> The thing is, i'm worried that when it's time to make all these modules work together, i might run into some inconsistencies or incompatibilities between my building blocks, or just a lack of flexibility.
>
> I've read about frameworks like Jomona and v001, and to be honest i'm not sure i grasp all of their potential, but i'm wondering if i should be looking into this now ?
> If i'll need one of those to make my setup really functionnal,I might aswell get started right away...
>
> If anyone would like to know more about the idea of this setup (and has some time to kill...), there is a thread about it here : http://electro-music.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=17232
>
> cheers
>

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

Today, Noise is triumphant and reigns sovereign over the sensibility of men.
- Luigi Russolo, The Art of Noises


I definitely feel that not only are the things you talk about possible 

in Max, it's more or less built for this type of behaviour. As you go 

through the tutorials I certainly quickly felt myself getting 

tractor-beamed into arps, generative and parametric musicianship. And 

unlike Mattijs I feel that you do not need to do a lot of programming 

(unless I misunderstand his notion of "programming" - I mean, that's 

What I think you DO need, however, is a lot of specification before you 

continue to make modules. Perhaps even write out as much as you can in 

pseudo-code to see which parameters each module would need, based on the 

specs of the others - otherwise you probably would need to rebuild 

modules at a later point. Also note that building modules, that you 

don't use in your current project isn't at all the same as "wasted 

time", since the knowledge usually sticks better with building practice.

I'd say specification, specification, specification to make your work as 

PS: Don't feel bad about the apparent lack of response with your first 

post. Lately the max-list has been very very busy. I was at musikmesse 

and got home to like 700 max-list emails ;-)

I definitely feel that not only are the things you talk about possible 
in Max, it's more or less built for this type of behaviour. As you go 
through the tutorials I certainly quickly felt myself getting 
tractor-beamed into arps, generative and parametric musicianship. And 
unlike Mattijs I feel that you do not need to do a lot of  programming 
(unless I misunderstand his notion of "programming" - I mean, that's 
what we do, right?)

What I think you DO need, however, is a lot of specification before you 
continue to make modules. Perhaps even write out as much as you can in 
pseudo-code to see which parameters each module would need, based on the 
specs of the others - otherwise you probably would need to rebuild 
modules at a later point. Also note that building modules, that you 
don't use in your current project isn't at all the same as "wasted 
time", since the knowledge usually sticks better with building practice.

I'd say specification, specification, specification to make your work as 
efficient as possible.

PS: Don't feel bad about the apparent lack of response with your first 
post. Lately the max-list has been very very busy. I was at musikmesse 
and got home to like 700 max-list emails ;-)
A.


I wasn't meaning to be a discouraging as I might have sounded.

Like I said, I haven't spent a lot of time with these particular

frameworks. I cannot comment on their usefulness in that way. They

could be the greatest thing on the face of the earth, and I wouldn't

My short answer is that, yes, these type of frameworks are important,

well done based on the people invovled, and you should give them at

least a cursory look to see if you might want to delve further. They

implement a lot of foundation blocks that could be a timesaver for

What I was saying, was that after programing Max for a good while, it

is quite possible that it would be more advantageous to me to build my

own system...had I a well defined goal...than to learn the system that

someone else has built. But honestly this was just me musing. My

only point was that _maybe_ you don't need all of the functionality

that they provide, and could get by with only building the subset that

you do require for this project. Its hard for me to say...I was just

kind of thinking out loud. It is the same kind of thought process

that occurs whenever you decide if you want to utilize a third party

Hope that clairifies a bit...I don't feel like it does really though...

> When you mention the "programing experience", do you imply thinking as a regular developper would, i.e. OO implementation and such, or actual coding of externals ? Either way, would you care to comment on that ?

> Also, I'm quite aware that no external or lib is gonna do all the work and save me from having to be rigorous in my work, but i'm interested in reading what experienced MAX users think of jamoma or v001 etc, do you guys think those are a valuable addition to an OO setup, that is meant to be flexible/modular/real time ?

Like I said, I haven't spent a lot of time with these particular
frameworks.  I cannot comment on their usefulness in that way.  They
could be the greatest thing on the face of the earth, and I wouldn't
be able to tell you.

My short answer is that, yes, these type of frameworks are important,
well done based on the people invovled, and you should give them at
least a cursory look to see if you might want to delve further.  They
implement a lot of foundation blocks that could be a timesaver for
you.

What I was saying, was that after programing Max for a good while, it
is quite possible that it would be more advantageous to me to build my
own system...had I a well defined goal...than to learn the system that
someone else has built.  But honestly this was just me musing.  My
only point was that _maybe_ you don't need all of the functionality
that they provide, and could get by with only building the subset that
you do require for this project.  Its hard for me to say...I was just
kind of thinking out loud.  It is the same kind of thought process
that occurs whenever you decide if you want to utilize a third party
framework.

On 4/12/07, disturb  wrote:
>
> Not quite encouraging...
> When you mention the "programing experience", do you imply thinking as a regular developper would, i.e. OO implementation and such, or actual coding of externals ? Either way, would you care to comment on that ?
>
> Also, I'm quite aware that no external or lib is gonna do all the work and save me from having to be rigorous in my work, but i'm interested in reading what experienced MAX users think of jamoma or v001 etc, do you guys think those are a valuable addition to an OO setup, that is meant to be flexible/modular/real time ?
>
>
>


Well, as v.001s author, I can say the system is really not meant to 

be a general purpose oo framework, bu tmeant to solve some specific 

hurdles for developing jitter patches for performance (and I should 

qualify that as a very particular brand of performance) , and with 

that goal in mind, some specific design decisions were made, 

concerning re-usability, consistency etc..

Ive been following the OO thread, and, frankly, im uncertain there is 

a clean way to approach OO in general on max. Each problem presents 

its own unique issues, and is solved best by, well, good programming. 

The standard guidelines apply, abstract as best you can, comment and 

keep things clean, but in the end, I dunno, better to get some things 

done than worry too much about the elegance of your framework.

I went down that path for a long time, and got little done except for 

rebuibing basically the same patch over and over, until I said fuck 

it, lets get some real work done and make some pretty things, and 

worry about bad design decisions when they really bite me in the ass.

v.001 is a bit pragmatic in that sense, perhaps a little weird even, 

but it certainly works if your needs fall within its narrow range of 

That said, id love, really love, to see a workable, usable OO 

solution/guideline that isnt too much of a strain on developers.

Jammoma seems much more open, and I am not qualified to speak much 

On Apr 12, 2007, at 5:45 PM, barry threw wrote:

> I wasn't meaning to be a discouraging as I might have sounded.

> Like I said, I haven't spent a lot of time with these particular

> frameworks. I cannot comment on their usefulness in that way. They

> could be the greatest thing on the face of the earth, and I wouldn't

> My short answer is that, yes, these type of frameworks are important,

> well done based on the people invovled, and you should give them at

> least a cursory look to see if you might want to delve further. They

> implement a lot of foundation blocks that could be a timesaver for

> What I was saying, was that after programing Max for a good while, it

> is quite possible that it would be more advantageous to me to build my

> own system...had I a well defined goal...than to learn the system that

> someone else has built. But honestly this was just me musing. My

> only point was that _maybe_ you don't need all of the functionality

> that they provide, and could get by with only building the subset that

> you do require for this project. Its hard for me to say...I was just

> kind of thinking out loud. It is the same kind of thought process

> that occurs whenever you decide if you want to utilize a third party

> Hope that clairifies a bit...I don't feel like it does really 

>> When you mention the "programing experience", do you imply 

>> thinking as a regular developper would, i.e. OO implementation and 

>> such, or actual coding of externals ? Either way, would you care 

>> Also, I'm quite aware that no external or lib is gonna do all the 

>> work and save me from having to be rigorous in my work, but i'm 

>> interested in reading what experienced MAX users think of jamoma 

>> or v001 etc, do you guys think those are a valuable addition to an 

>> OO setup, that is meant to be flexible/modular/real time ?

Well, as v.001s author, I can say the system is really not meant to  
be a general purpose oo framework, bu tmeant to solve some specific  
hurdles for developing jitter patches for performance (and I should  
qualify that as a very particular brand of performance) , and with  
that goal in mind, some specific design decisions were made,  
concerning re-usability, consistency etc..

Ive been following the OO thread, and, frankly, im uncertain there is  
a clean way to approach OO in general on max. Each problem presents  
its own unique issues, and is solved best by, well, good programming.  
The standard guidelines apply, abstract as best you can, comment and  
keep things clean, but in the end, I dunno, better to get some things  
done than worry too much about the elegance of your framework.

I went down that path for a long time, and got little done except for  
rebuibing basically the same patch over and over, until I said fuck  
it, lets get some real work done and make some pretty things, and  
worry about bad design decisions when they really bite me in the ass.

v.001 is a bit pragmatic in that sense, perhaps a little weird even,  
but it certainly works if your needs fall within its narrow range of  
solutions.

That said, id love, really love, to see a workable, usable OO  
solution/guideline that isnt too much of a strain on developers.

Jammoma seems much more open, and I am not qualified to speak much  
about it...

> I wasn't meaning to be a discouraging as I might have sounded.
>
> Like I said, I haven't spent a lot of time with these particular
> frameworks.  I cannot comment on their usefulness in that way.  They
> could be the greatest thing on the face of the earth, and I wouldn't
> be able to tell you.
>
> My short answer is that, yes, these type of frameworks are important,
> well done based on the people invovled, and you should give them at
> least a cursory look to see if you might want to delve further.  They
> implement a lot of foundation blocks that could be a timesaver for
> you.
>
> What I was saying, was that after programing Max for a good while, it
> is quite possible that it would be more advantageous to me to build my
> own system...had I a well defined goal...than to learn the system that
> someone else has built.  But honestly this was just me musing.  My
> only point was that _maybe_ you don't need all of the functionality
> that they provide, and could get by with only building the subset that
> you do require for this project.  Its hard for me to say...I was just
> kind of thinking out loud.  It is the same kind of thought process
> that occurs whenever you decide if you want to utilize a third party
> framework.
>
> Hope that clairifies a bit...I don't feel like it does really  
> though...
>
> b
>
> On 4/12/07, disturb  wrote:
>>
>> Not quite encouraging...
>> When you mention the "programing experience", do you imply  
>> thinking as a regular developper would, i.e. OO implementation and  
>> such, or actual coding of externals ? Either way, would you care  
>> to comment on that ?
>>
>> Also, I'm quite aware that no external or lib is gonna do all the  
>> work and save me from having to be rigorous in my work, but i'm  
>> interested in reading what experienced MAX users think of jamoma  
>> or v001 etc, do you guys think those are a valuable addition to an  
>> OO setup, that is meant to be flexible/modular/real time ?
>>
>>
>>

> I've read about frameworks like Jomona and v001, and to be honest i'm

> not sure i grasp all of their potential, but i'm wondering if i

> should be looking into this now ? If i'll need one of those to make

> my setup really functionnal,I might aswell get started right away...

To look into Jamoma can't hurt, but if you have the slight feeling you 

don't understand what its about, you better just start off without it. I 

think you need to run against some brickwalls to be able to understand 

those frameworks. If you just started with Max, it might be a bit tough. 

Developing your own library is never waisted. Its the core of all the 

experience you will need to gain for the bigger projects...

Nobody can learn walking without falling, its THE crucial part of it...

disturb schrieb:
> I've read about frameworks like Jomona and v001, and to be honest i'm
> not sure i grasp all of their potential, but i'm wondering if i
> should be looking into this now ? If i'll need one of those to make
> my setup really functionnal,I might aswell get started right away...

To look into Jamoma can't hurt, but if you have the slight feeling you 
don't understand what its about, you better just start off without it. I 
think you need to run against some brickwalls  to be able to understand 
those frameworks. If you just started with Max, it might be a bit tough. 
Developing your own library is never waisted. Its the core of all the 
experience you will need to gain for the bigger projects...
Nobody can learn walking without falling, its THE crucial part of it...

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


Looking for consistency, are frameworks a solution ?