I was with you until 'tweak'. Do you mean that in a negative or positive sense?
But in either case, I don't mean to diminish actual criticism. I'd just prefer
to
understand it without having to:
[unnecessary term(
|
[ unpack ]
| |
[ unpack ] [ unpack ]
| | | |
| | [unpack] [unpack]
[unpack] [unpack] | | |
etc.
-Jonathan
--- On Thu, 6/23/11, Pagano, Patrick <p...@digitalworlds.ufl.edu> wrote:
From: Pagano, Patrick <p...@digitalworlds.ufl.edu>
Subject: Re: [PD] Pd performance at TED
To: "Jonathan Wilkes" <jancs...@yahoo.com>
Cc: "Mathieu Bouchard" <ma...@artengine.ca>, "pd-list@iem.at" <pd-list@iem.at>
Date: Thursday, June 23, 2011, 7:10 PM
I think some of the issue might be with anything there is the notion of
ownership one feels via participation Generated by years upon years of work and
cultivation
Should see it's debut as such might tweak us a bit. But even if I don't dig the
guys stuff,Pd is everywhere.
Patrick Pagano B.S.,M.F.ADigital Media EngineerUF Digital Worlds
Institute(352)294-2020
On Jun 23, 2011, at 12:40 PM, "Jonathan Wilkes" <jancs...@yahoo.com> wrote:
The only point that's not irrelevant is that you can load up soundfiles
without needing a new physical object for each one.
It's not musically interesting that it takes up less room.
That the patch can become something else is a distraction from the particularly
narrow point I'm making, which is that it fits the definition of technological
parody offered up on this list. (If you have to change the patch to make it do
something musically interesting, then we're no longer talking about that
tutorial; we're talking about a new patch.)
But we both see the larger point of that patch as an expression of some of the
strengths of Pd. And we both realize that with very few tweaks it can be made
to make interesting sounds that surpass what could (easily) be done on a
turntable. It's clearly a successful
tutorial patch, and in that context I see absolutely no reason to change it.
Calling the patch a technological parody doesn't mean anything good or bad--
it's simply a fact. So again, I fail to see how one can merely use that term
to criticize something, or how another can read the term and understand the
upshot of that criticism. I think it's lazy and lacks substance-- especially
troubling seeing how it first appeared as a response to the work of a newcomer
to the list (I think).
-Jonathan
From:
Mathieu Bouchard <ma...@artengine.ca>;
To:
Jonathan Wilkes <jancs...@yahoo.com>;
Cc:
<pd-list@iem.at>; Cody Loyd <codyl...@gmail.com>;
Subject:
Re: [PD] Pd performance at TED
Sent:
Thu, Jun 23, 2011 12:38:38 PM
On Wed, 22 Jun 2011, Jonathan Wilkes
wrote:
> If you don't think so, then please tell me what you can do with that patch
> that's so musically interesting that it would warrant buying a modern digital
> computer instead of a turntable.
Because it takes a lot less room, the sound doesn't have to be recorded on
vinyl or shellac or whatever, and the scratching device can be easily
transformed in a multitude of closely-related devices that aren't like
turntables anymore. Then you can save those devices and share them with
like-minded people on pd-list without having to pay kilodollars of shipping.
You already have a modern digital computer for other reasons, so, it's
irrelevant to think of what would be the rationale for buying one.
And anyway, it's been a while that we can think of turntables as being parodies
of what can be done with [tabread~] or any
other kind of array subscript.
_______________________________________________________________________
| Mathieu Bouchard ---- tél: +1.514.383.3801 ---- Villeray, Montréal, QC
_______________________________________________
Pd-list@iem.at mailing list
UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management ->
http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
_______________________________________________
Pd-list@iem.at mailing list
UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management ->
http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
