Gexe

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

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 :)

track is an example of over use ( laziness) of said pluggin i hope

     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/eightyfacethe first
track is an example of over use ( laziness) of said pluggin i hope
the rest aren't as obvious

glitch-where-now-2

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,

> synthesis/processing? what are we missing. whats next?" are we glitching too

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.

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. 

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

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. 

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.

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.


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)

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)


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.

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. 

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


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", 

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 

202 Hack / PC-1600 User / VSTi Host / OMS Convert / Jack OS X / Major 

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:

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:

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


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

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

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

http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/webhosting

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.

Building a website is a piece of cake. Yahoo! Small Business gives you all the tools to get online.
http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/webhosting


> 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

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

> 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.

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

>> Styles tend to not only separate men - because they have their own 

>> and then the doctrine became the gospel truth that you cannot 

>> you do not have a style, if you just say: Well, here I am as a 

>> how can I express myself totally and completely? Now, that way you 

>> create a style, because style is a crystallization. That way, it's 

> 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

>> 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

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 

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

>>> Styles tend to not only separate men - because they have their 

>>> and then the doctrine became the gospel truth that you cannot 

>>> you do not have a style, if you just say: Well, here I am as a 

>>> how can I express myself totally and completely? Now, that way 

>>> create a style, because style is a crystallization. That way, 

>> That's a great quote that I've often tried to get people 

>> 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 

>> we're going to be doing the same stuff over and over; it should mean

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.

> 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
>
>
>


"Video was the most shared, the most democratic art form . . . Everybody

invented feedback. Feedback was invented simultaneously not by five people,

> 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.

> Styles tend to not only separate men - because they have their own

> and then the doctrine became the gospel truth that you cannot change. But

> you do not have a style, if you just say: Well, here I am as a human

> create a style, because style is a crystallization. That way, it's a

"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*
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

> 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, 

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 

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 

> 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...

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


glitch - where now?