I'm studying for a masters degree @ the Royal Welsh College of Music and Drama, and have recently become a convert to pd.

I am curently getting material together for a presentaton and I just wanted to know what other people are using it to create. I'm writing an electro acoustic piece with audio and video at the mo.

Ceri

HI CERI,
I've been working in netpd almost exclusively since Christams.
I find it has become the main tool for how I compose, think about music, interact, teach, perform.etc...........
Am I performing, or patching, or composing or are all three one and the same thing? These are the very issues that I have begun to ask myself as a computer musician.
Practically speaking, I am working on many things in pd from a qwerty theremin, to a self diffusing surround sound patch. I am currently designing a system of tilt sensors to allow for the performance of a tilt orchestra, where the bow of a cello or the baton of a conductor, the expressive appoggiaturae of flautists, or the stick of a percussionist can control synthesis parameters of the sound of the original acoustic instruments.
I have spent some time porting realtime composition library patches for live interactive use in netpd.
As part of my research I am composing and publishing a collection of patches to allow for live electroacoustic interaction anywhere in the world.
Hope you are well
kilshaw~

thanks everyone, I was just wondering how important the community around pd was to all of you as users, and why you like using something that is an open source piece of software - what benefits does it gve you as a composer. I know this is a bit rambly but Im really tired!! Thanks your all helping loads

Hi Ceri,

frankly the open source nature of pd really hasn't been the persuading factor for me to start
using it. For 7 years now, i've been making music with the computer, using FLStudio as my main
application (it's cheap, convenient and a Belgian product). Being a software developer professionally, i've always been looking at other environments (eg. Reaktor) to create my own instruments, generative beat machines, harmony creators,... But somehow Reaktor never did it for me, mainly because of the way control structures can be created. Last year i read a brief article on pd in sound on sound. That's when i realized i should try it out. Programming immediately felt
comfortable and i decided to give it a deeper go. So for the last 6 months it's been mainly pd for me (and hardly any fl anymore).

However, lately i've been giving it some serious thought to make the switch to max/msp, because
i've been suffering with latency issues. And because of the open source nature of pd, and apparently the way most patchers use pd, this doesn't seem to be an issue, and therefore not something that seems to be fixed in the nearby future.

One last thing, and i don't know if the open source nature of pd has to do with it, but the community surrounding pd seems a very nice one. Everyone how comes here is friendly and really helpful.

So cheers to you all guys and have fun,

Domien

Hey Ceri! Tristan here.

I created a work for solo piano and live tape part generated by PD. It's called takeover and can be found on my site www.tjevs.com. It uses an interactive cue system, and it's kind of human against machine, and about working together. The full scores on my site too, as well as a live recording. I'll upload it into the PD community very soon, but currently I am exploring the use of midi and live audio alongside live instruments, as well as creating full works within PD.

I'd only been using PD for 2 months when I wrote my takeover patch, and now im getting into more and more intense patches, for example developing my own quad speaker setup for future live performances, which can be controlled by just hitting switches.

Keep PD'in you guys!

Tris.

@domien said:

Cool hardoff ! ! !

I've created a number of patches to improvise with. Music ranging from soundscape to more beat-oriented (think autechre, boards of canada, apparat, flanger...) stuff.

Domien

Hi Domien,

I really like the kind of music you are mentioning! please share it (at least the audio!

BTW, this thread is interesting since it gives evidence of the number of
different approaches to PD... This is mine:

For me pd is, first of all, a learning tool of things I found interesting like digital synthesis,
composition methods and so on.. Its main strength is the *TOTAL* flexibility.
I found it after long time blind wandering in the desert lands of windoze sequencing and
VSTi approach to composing, which is, by its nature, limited...

regards,

Alberto

Hi Alberto,

Sorry I haven't relied to your post, Ive been eally busy with my degree work. Im inpressed to by pd's flexiblility, to begin with I found it very confussing though.

What kind of music are you writing with pd at the moment? And do you just use it for music or have you explored its other possiblities

thanks Ceri

I was also wondering how using PD had changed your compositional process. I has forced me to look at mine. Well Pd and my lecture as I was a bit stuck in my way. As I create electoacoustic music therewas a definate process of collecting sound then manipulating them and then creating a piece of music. Now I am composing in rea time and just having to make on the spot decisions. The patches that I use are like instruments really and I have to play them in an interesting fashion to produce music

I was wondering if using this kind of software had challenged anyone to change their working methods.

have any of you ever used net pd - sorry for all the questions just interested

Ceri

hey.ceri
This is a brilliant question. Pd has definitely changed my appreciation and engagement with the whole compositional process. If I'm honest, from someone who has been prolific in musical output in the way you describe for 15 years, I've almost stopped writing music since picking up pd. Its not even that I appreciate a new working method, but rather that is what excited me at the moment- more than musical output. That's kind of weird for me, but I don't resent it. I'm happy to be patching. That is composing for me. Ultra Modern new Music is about invention and new creations both in output and more importantly in technological advancements. New tools. New sounds. New unprescribed working methods. Always a challenge in the search to satiate the astonished ear.
kilshaw~

Oh and yes, netpd is definitely where the money is. Almost as addicted as Tristan?!!
kilshaw~

@Ceri said:

I was also wondering how using PD had changed your compositional process. ... The patches that I use are like instruments really and I have to play them in an interesting fashion to produce music. I was wondering if using this kind of software had challenged anyone to change their working methods.

Definitely. Nothing has changed my view of electronic music more than using Pd. Throwing out that whole false dichotomy of "sequencer and instruments" and working on sound producing objects with unlimited scope and subtlety of control is very liberating for a composer I guess.

Andy

obiwannabe, thanks for being so epful with all your postings you've been really helpful. and her coma few more Im really sorry I just trying to get a picture of how the program is developing and how its allowing the users to develope.

as well as you computer sound design do you write music, and what kind of music did you write before pd and is it different to what you write now.

I also have ben thinking about developers asnd users and what the differnece is between the two. Do you consider patching part of the compositional process or do you see it as an instrument to aid you creating the out come.

Thanks for all this you reallf have bee amaxzing

Definitely, if you are used to sequencers like Cubase, Sonar or Logic
you need to change the point of view. Someone was talking about
this as "horizontal composing". PD is *not* horizontal (nor vertical, like a "tracker", it's just a flow . Therefore if you are used to think about music in that way it will be a bit difficult at the beginning,
but then you'll have a vey useful swiff-knife in your audio arsenal. And yes, I also noticed
that some time ago I was writing more "songs", now I'm playing a lot with generative
processes and less "songs".. that's PD way I think!

cheers,

Alberto

For 6 years I've been using mainly flstudio to express myself musically. This usually
led to songs in different forms:

• a complete score : pattern based/sequenced. This approach was nice but once i
  ellaborated an idea it was hard to go back an do something completely new with it.
• 4/8/16... bar loops with a midi controller attached to all generators/parameters. This
  allowed for a much greater form of improvisation around a given song.
• just a file with many fx tracks and controller links to distribute incomming audio to
  the different fx tracks and other routings as well. This was (and still is) a good
  approach for when improvising, especially with other musician generating sound and me
  manipulating it.

Then came pd and like Alberto said, suddenly horizontal (structure related) or vertical (in my case
sound source related) thinking stops and i started also thinking more in terms of flow. However,
now after half a year of doing pd, i notice i'm again looking to implement some of that horizontal
approach again in pd. E.g. currently i'm looking at solutions to schedule chord progressions. For
sonic experiment i guess the "flow"-like nature of pd is perfect, but when using it to create
a form of (replicatable) song it isn't always instantly obvious.

@AlbertoZ said:

I really like the kind of music you are mentioning! please share it (at least the audio!

Alberto, i guess it wasn't very smart for me to mention my influences, since this might raise
some expectations. Like you might have noticed, i'm currently still in the process of developing
a reasonable mix of pd patches to create my music. The next two months i'm going to record a
(demo) record together with my (Reaktor based) friend for our Ziggy Electric project
(in the hope to gets us gigs during the summer). As soon as we're done, i'll send you a copy.

Domien

@Ceri said:

I just trying to get a picture of how the program is developing and how its allowing the users to develope.

You kicked off a great thread Ceri, I guess you can see the Pd community
is pretty diverse.

@Ceri said:

as well as you computer sound design do you write music, and what kind of music did you write before pd and is it different to what you write now.

I wrote commercial music for radio and television. Now I write music where I sit down and think about things I want to do, why, how I'm going to plan it out and execute it. It's a blank sheet at the start. All the white space is so perfect, just inviting you to fill it up with ideas I don't get that feeling with Protools, I see bars telling me where I can put approved things.

@Ceri said:

I also have ben thinking about developers asnd users and what the differnece is between the two. Do you consider patching part of the compositional process or do you see it as an instrument to aid you creating the out come
Thanks for all this you reallf have bee amaxzing.

Sometimes they're the same people, that's how it works. In music making patching is very much part of the compositional process. Of course you build and share reusable elements, and life gets easier as you patch and build more stuff and share it.

@domien said:

... However,
now after half a year of doing pd, i notice i'm again looking to implement some of that horizontal
approach again in pd. E.g. currently i'm looking at solutions to schedule chord progressions. For
sonic experiment i guess the "flow"-like nature of pd is perfect, but when using it to create
a form of (replicatable) song it isn't always instantly obvious.
Domien

Yes this also is the feeling I got. But look, for example, at what Andy is doing in his songs: the use of
a master timer that on a pre-scheduled basis outputs a set of notes in a chord, then you
do whatever you want with these: feed an instrument with the chord, play a sequenced melody etc..
The freedom you have with this approach (which to me is not yet natural) is big..

@domien said:

The next two months i'm going to record a
(demo) record together with my (Reaktor based) friend for our Ziggy Electric project
(in the hope to gets us gigs during the summer). As soon as we're done, i'll send you a copy.
Domien

This would be very nice! Thanks!

Alberto

I made a game that you have to pick up 1 or 2 or 3 stones and the computer opponent can do the same things, and then it is finished when no more stones left.

hi

Sorry I haven't written for a while, actually been having a holiday which has been nice.

I'd just like to say thanks for your help so far with everything, I gave my presentation a few weeks ago and it seemed to go well. I am now completing my module with an essay, and was going to focus on the community surrounding pd so that means you guys.

I'm new to the idea of open source software, and the free sharing of information that goes on in these communities. I was wondering why it was that you think Pd has been kept as a free piece of software and not been bought and developed in the way MAX has been.

To me it seems to allow greater development, as more people can have a go at providing useful tools. Rather than just a selected few who develope the program their way and to their specification.

How important as a user do you feel your contributions are to the future developement of the programme. And what does the PD community mean to you.

I have found you all really helpful and just want to say thanks again as I have asked you loads of questions in the past month or so.

Hope you all well have fun

Ceri

@Ceri said:

hi I was wondering why it was that you think Pd has been kept as a free piece of software and not been bought and developed in the way MAX has been.

Free software isn't for sale like that. Anyone can take it and develop commercial software from Pd if they like, and the source will stay free, to continue, to fork or whatever (or I think you can even close your source so it's pretty liberal) . Puredata seems different from Max, which is a program/application to me, while Pd retains the essence of a language, both a tool and the means of producing tools. It doesn't quite have the boundaries of presumed workflow put there, for better or worse, by mainstream applications. The separation of engine and interface is really nice too, as desiredata is showing, and you can embed small Pds like fixed point Pda with potential for mobile games and apps. There's some things missing from Pd to make it perfect, but because it's very active maybe those things will happen one day.

@Ceri said:

To me it seems to allow greater development, as more people can have a go at providing useful tools.

Shoulders of giants.

@Ceri said:

How important as a user do you feel your contributions are to the future developement of the programme. And what does the PD community mean to you.

It's a growing community, that's a good sign, with a wide range of skills and interests, which makes it strong. And there's an increasing sum thing so everyone gets back what they put in squared (or something And it has wide scope so it keeps me interested in things that I might not otherwise have time for like messing with physical electronics and sensors. Most of all, practically, it's a vehicle and platform doing good experimental research. To have a community with lots of expertise and a wealth of open code and documentation I feel pretty confident to tackle things I wouldn't dare try before, because someone can normally help me out if I need.

There you go , I speeked my branze and that's my last 2p on the subject
Hope your Pd study/report turns out good,

Andy

Andy

Thank you so much, as usual you have given loads to think about.

I am extreamily grateful

Ceri