Funny, I had similar responses (use Live, don't reinvent the wheel etc) about my "Zyklus Improvisor" patch (nb: an 8-track midi looper, but that's just the basics, tracks influencing each other and other goodies are in the pipeline). I demoed Live for a couple of days, only focusing on the midi part, and was really disappointed. Too much of a hassle to do things the way I wanted and sometimes just not possible, as I found out on their forums. Surely, Live isn't the answer to everything when it comes to looping.
Nope, it isn't. I never said that either when I responded. I said that the things you listed can be done in Live and then I said if you want to make something that caters to your way of working and learn something in the process then you should make your own patch.
Just making sure I'm not getting lumped in with the guy from this thread, who seems to have a shitty attitude, just because I posted something remotely similar in that other thread.
The way I'm working is totally not important, but simply what I want can't be done in Live. If Live had all (or most) of the answers I wouldn't go into the trouble of making a fairly complex thing in Max. I would be crazy if that was the case, but I don't think so ;)
wow, i love this community. there i was feeling bad for schmonsky after godfrey's post but now... i kinda feel bad for godfrey. well, not really.
hey, schmonsky, instead of a walkthrough or even on top of it, you could also put comments in your patch when you post it here. it might help people to go through it easier. but you were saying it's not finished yet, so it's all good either way. again, great work.
i' m a bit surprised that simply posting a patch creates such a discussion.i thought that this forum is about sharing knowledge and asking things about programming Max/Msp.i owe a version of ableton live myself but i want to get into programming max/msp.
(can be fun!!!)shure a looper is not quiet an advanced task, but i thought i'll better start with something simple than the other way round.still i find it curious that people waste their time insulting other people.why don't they make their own discussion and don't care about 'stupid' beginners.
...anyway there were also positive responses for which i'd like to thank so for.
ya, Simon, you're right, it's strange that some people bother to post negativity. makes you wonder why they don't have more of a life. but just wanted to point out, not only were there also some positive posts but if you take a second look, you'll see that a majority of the posts were positive and encouraging. so please take that as being more representative of this community. don't mind the negativity: shit happens. you're very much welcome here. and i'm willing to bet that if not a majority, then at least half of the user-base here would be interested in seeing different ways of achieving live-looping. Best of luck to you.
> i' m a bit surprised that simply posting a patch creates such a discussion.i thought that this forum is about sharing knowledge and asking things about programming Max/Msp.i owe a version of ableton live myself but i want to get into programming max/msp.
> (can be fun!!!)shure a looper is not quiet an advanced task, but i thought i'll better start with something simple than the other way round.still i find it curious that people waste their time insulting other people.why don't they make their own discussion and don't care about 'stupid' beginners.
> ...anyway there were also positive responses for which i'd like to thank so for.
Interesting. So it seems my red rag has attracted quite a few bulls.
Two general comments, and then some contextualisation. Firstly, my apologies that my exasperation expressed itself as an outburst directed against 'Schmonsky'. Keep up your work - my comments are really derived from a wider perspective and should have been expressed that way. Secondly, it is to be noted that derisive criticism of simplistic programming problems on this forum is ubiquitous, without comeback, while criticism of musical outlook is apparently the result of a 'bad attitude'.
Now the context. I have taught creative work at third level for many many years, and am actively engaged as a professional composer and specialist performer of new music. Stefan suggests I should share my work if I think it's better: actually, I share it on an international stage already, and 'better' in this context is an opinion so subjective and style-dependent it's not worth pursuing. My point is that I do not proceed from prejudice derived from an uninformed viewpoint.
We live in a culture of easy fixes. Microwave dinners mean you don't have to learn to cook, GarageBand gives everyone a way to make music-by-numbers. Reason, Ableton and all the others of that ilk make it practical to make music by offering easy routes to the things that conventionally are done. The reason for this as a premise is obvious: people normally think in terms of convention. Ask a class of undergraduates to write a 2-minute piece in 2 minutes, and most will automatically begin by drawing a 5-line staff and a treble clef, despite the total impracticality of successfully completing the task with this starting point. Ask anyone in Western culture to improvise a rhythm, and it will almost always be in 4/4.
Here's a specific, professional-level example: I attended the International Computer Music Conference in Belfast this year, and heard hundreds of computer-generated pieces. The vast majority were colourless montages of the same sounds and gestures. Mark Applebaum, who curated one of the concerts, wrote in his note for the programme that he'd had a serious problem choosing enough works because: "I found myself yearning for music... which is not bland, tedious, lethargic, conventional, or cynical...suggesting the most alarming and depressing consequence of a seemingly consolidated current common practice' ". It was also notable that the tone of the conference was very much directed toward "how I did this/how we can do this", rather than the musical value of what was being done. Technology can - and does - mislead those who want to make music. (Some seemed surprised that posting on this forum received a comment about musical values: perhaps that says a lot.)
The advantages of much commercial software are easy to see - it can be extremely straightforward to create a track in the minimum time, because the software is optimised to do exactly this. This is extremely seductive: the lure of Reason means we live in an age of Reason (excuse terrible pun). There is a price to pay, of course, because the software is designed to do a narrow band of things (thus achieving its ease of use and high end-product quality), and this very restriction means a limit on one's creativity, a limit that a user may not even be aware of.
Creativity is what this argument is all about. The software is just a tool. Thus what needs to be questioned is the *why* of doing what one is doing. Joshua asked whether I'd stop students doing something that I'd seen "sixteen million" times before: the answer is yes, of course I would. And I would spend as long as I could explaining why and offering ways to develop alternatives. Whenever we accept the conventional, whenever we fail to question our own creative outlook, we abrogate our rights as creative individuals.
And this is the root of what appears to be a prejudice against 'looping'. Actually, it's a rationally-derived decision to be suspicious of labels, wherever it's possible, because the very label itself already entraps one's thinking. This forum is packed with people asking how to make synths, samplers, drum machines, loop players et al. My problem here is not the technical issue of how to do these things - everyone needs to practice programming and they could function as the basis for further development - but the creativity of the very idea of doing it in the first place (note that I'm not directing my criticism at any one, specific, example). Of course, the old adage that there's nothing new under the sun is mostly true: it is rare that one of us can escape our cultural heritage sufficiently to invent something never seen or heard before, but *you can try*. It should be clear now why I said Max 'is to do stuff no-one does yet': as software, like CSound, SuperCollider et al, it has fewer restrictions than most and thus fewer initial assumptions that shape thinking.
Gregory took what I said as an indication that I believed "there's only one way to do something and that some piece of software does that already". Of course I don't. There's always room for development of a concept, and I'm delighted that my provocation produced responses concerning the original elements in the patch under discussion. I suspect no-one would've mentioned them if I hadn't posted... How about greater discussion of those elements and a discourse on further possibilities?
I expect there'll be lots of posts along the lines of "why can't I do what I want?" now, perhaps along the lines of DF's most literate response. If you want to ask that question, you can answer it for yourselves after consideration of this post, or you can come study with me and we'll spend several years exploring it.
My premise is that i mainly use Max to do music, I cannot even dare to think myself as a Max "programmer" ad hoc, i wish i could!, but i cannot.
So my learning is mainly based on trial and error.
I confess! The new transport system is well, at best addictive.
I find it a great thing.
Plus you can still use all the old syncing tricks which many max users will know better than me (i still remember the pre sync~ MIDI sync "era").
I runned a naive test the other day, 32 metros running at different quant speeds synced to a tranposrt + a phasor which synced sync~ , plus Live in slave. Yes once in a while I had to fiddle with the midioffset of sync~, but to tell you the truth, I couldn