Ableton Forum

no, for me that is not music, but sound. You call those max experiments and the other 0,001% "music". For me music is tonal music, not "timbre" modifications. Again, your mistake is that you believe "timbre" is a musical parameter. It isn't (infact you cannot even "think" timbre, you can only "hear" and/or remember it... such as when you feel cold and then remember that particular cold day or winter...)

By the way: if "timbre" is a musical parameters, how is that there is no symbols for it? I mean, like in notation, math, grammar etc.? How can you explain to a chinese musician "timbre"?!

stringtapper wrote:

9V wrote:regarding max i never said "it is only midi". I said OSC is like a modern, more functional kind of MIDI for automation, so modification of "audio" parameters with osc is simioar to midi "mixer" and effects automation.

That's not true. You did in fact say just that. And what trevox and I were referring to in that particular instance had nothing to do with OSC. It was about audio signals controlling other audio signals to create music without MIDI or OSC involved.

So by 9V's logic, in this MAX case audio is a modern, more functional kind of MIDI. Now audio=midi. The snake has eaten itself...

no, OSC (not "audio"). As an acronym of "open sound control" (via TCP/IP) not as "oscillator"...

9V wrote:no, OSC (not "audio"). As an acronym of "open sound control" (via TCP/IP) not as "oscillator"...

No, Max can control audio signals with other audio signals making it possible to sequence music using audio only, no MIDI and no OSC.

stringtapper wrote:

9V wrote:no, OSC (not "audio"). As an acronym of "open sound control" (via TCP/IP) not as "oscillator"...

No, Max can control audio signals with other audio signals making it possible to sequence music using audio only, no MIDI and no OSC.

as i wrote before, for me that is not music, but sound. You call those max experiments and the other 0,001% "music". For me music is tonal music, not "timbre" modifications. Again, your mistake is that you believe "timbre" is a musical parameter. It isn't (infact you cannot even "think" timbre, you can only "hear" and/or remember it... such as when you feel cold and then remember that particular cold day or winter...)

By the way: if "timbre" is a musical parameter, how is that there are no symbols for it? I mean, like in notation, math, grammar etc.? How can you explain "timbre modification" to a chinese musician, for instance? Using funny pics?...

9V wrote:no, for me that is not music, but sound. You call those max experiments and the other 0,001% "music". For me music is tonal music, not "timbre" modifications. Again, your mistake is that you believe "timbre" is a musical parameter. It isn't (infact you cannot even "think" timbre, you can only "hear" and/or remember it... such as when you feel cold and then remember that particular cold day or winter...)

This is absolutely wrong and if it weren't then the arts of orchestration and synthesis would not exist. Composers have long had the specific timbres that they wished their music to contain in mind. First they exploited it through orchestration and now they exploit it through the use of electronics.

9V wrote:By the way: if "timbre" is a musical parameters, how is that there is no symbols for it? I mean, like in notation, math, grammar etc.? How can you explain to a chinese musician "timbre"?!

You are the one insisting on the stipulation that musical parameters must have "symbols" attached to them in order to be musical parameters. One need only to look to any musical culture that transmits its music through oral tradition to see that symbols and notation are not a requirement for music to exist.

In the end I think it is clear that your problem with this issue is that others don't conform to your rigid definition of what music is in the first place. I suggested the Bruno Nettl article to you a long time ago and if you were ever to read that article you would learn that there have been many kinds of definitions and conceptions of what music is throughout time and across different cultures. Our time is no different. There are those who have conceived timbre as a musical parameter and have composed music based on such an idea, and the fact that this music exists is historical documentation that some of the most gifted musicians in history have not agreed with your definition. That's okay, as long as we are clear that it is your definition based on your opinion of what music is, and NOT some immutable law of nature as you often have implied.

stringtapper wrote:

9V wrote:no, for me that is not music, but sound. You call those max experiments and the other 0,001% "music". For me music is tonal music, not "timbre" modifications. Again, your mistake is that you believe "timbre" is a musical parameter. It isn't (infact you cannot even "think" timbre, you can only "hear" and/or remember it... such as when you feel cold and then remember that particular cold day or winter...)

This is absolutely wrong and if it weren't then the arts of orchestration and synthesis would not exist. Composers have long had the specific timbres that they wished their music to contain in mind. First they exploited it through orchestration and now they exploit it through the use of electronics.

but this is not music, it's just what we in italy call "abbellimenti", "indicazioni" and/or "arrangiamento". Following your weird logic, if i play a minuet by bach with piano and then the same minuet is played with a guitar, you have two different compositions, due to the fact that timbre changes radically! As you can see, it is a nonsense, under a musical perspective.

9V wrote: you have two different compositions

stringtapper wrote: You are the one insisting on the stipulation that musical parameters must have "symbols" attached to them in order to be musical parameters. One need only to look to any musical culture that transmits its music through oral tradition to see that symbols and notation are not a requirement for music to exist.

In the end I think it is clear that your problem with this issue is that others don't conform to your rigid definition of what music is in the first place. I suggested the Bruno Nettl article to you a long time ago and if you were ever to read that article you would learn that there have been many kinds of definitions and conceptions of what music is throughout time and across different cultures. Our time is no different. There are those who have conceived timbre as a musical parameter and have composed music based on such an idea, and the fact that this music exists is historical documentation that some of the most gifted musicians in history have not agreed with your definition. That's okay, as long as we are clear that it is your definition based on your opinion of what music is, and NOT some immutable law of nature as you often have implied.

the fact you can represent music not only with italian/western notation (MIDI is an example) does not mean music is not a language with rigid rules. If music had not rigid rules we could not listen to chopin, for instance. The "code" is the same, the way you express this code can change, but the results are the same. And "timbre" is not needed, apart as an artist's indication/wish.

LoopStationZebra wrote:

9V wrote: you have two different compositions

is it not correct in english? Is it something funny?

9V wrote:Is it something funny?

you're funny 9V. a veritable maestro of mirth.

why the guy laughed? I looked for "you have two different compositions" in the google translator, but there are no idioms etc. Why is it funny?

It might be a mistake to BELIEVE anything 100%. One should always remain open to different interpretations. Dogma = Belief System all dogma + BS


Down with all BS