|vanDongen-Gilcher||Apr 10, 2003 4:42 am|
|Marc Lavallée||Apr 10, 2003 5:02 am|
|Maurizio Umberto Puxeddu||Apr 10, 2003 12:00 pm|
|Jordan J||Apr 10, 2003 1:13 pm|
|vanDongen-Gilcher||Apr 10, 2003 1:37 pm|
|vanDongen-Gilcher||Apr 10, 2003 2:24 pm|
|Hans-Christoph Steiner||Apr 10, 2003 4:24 pm|
|e skogen||Apr 10, 2003 4:40 pm|
|Marc Lavallée||Apr 10, 2003 7:05 pm|
|Patrick Pagano||Apr 10, 2003 7:49 pm|
|devnull||Apr 10, 2003 8:20 pm|
|Pall Thayer||Apr 11, 2003 12:58 am|
|Patrick Pagano||Apr 11, 2003 3:37 pm|
|Maurizio Umberto Puxeddu||Apr 16, 2003 11:08 am|
|Maurizio Umberto Puxeddu||Apr 17, 2003 4:01 am|
|vanDongen-Gilcher||Apr 17, 2003 4:11 am|
|kiilo||Apr 17, 2003 7:01 am|
|Hans-Christoph Steiner||Apr 17, 2003 7:06 pm|
|vanDongen-Gilcher||Apr 18, 2003 3:12 am|
|Mathieu Bouchard||Apr 18, 2003 4:02 pm|
|Yves Degoyon||Apr 18, 2003 4:05 pm|
|Maurizio Umberto Puxeddu||Apr 18, 2003 4:43 pm|
|Maurizio Umberto Puxeddu||Apr 18, 2003 4:52 pm|
|J. Scott Hildebrand||Apr 18, 2003 5:40 pm|
|jose manuel berenguer||Apr 18, 2003 5:48 pm|
|Maurizio Umberto Puxeddu||Apr 18, 2003 6:06 pm|
|jose manuel berenguer||Apr 18, 2003 7:11 pm|
|Chris McCormick||Apr 18, 2003 8:53 pm|
|Michal Seta||Apr 18, 2003 9:58 pm|
|Michal Seta||Apr 18, 2003 10:00 pm|
|Marc Lavallée||Apr 18, 2003 10:28 pm|
|Bryan Jurish||Apr 19, 2003 12:52 am|
|kiilo||Apr 19, 2003 3:06 am|
|vanDongen-Gilcher||Apr 19, 2003 6:00 am|
|Maurizio Umberto Puxeddu||Apr 19, 2003 6:08 am|
|Chris McCormick||Apr 19, 2003 1:16 pm|
|alex cook||Apr 21, 2003 12:37 pm|
|Subject:||Re: [PD] Re:[OT] How do your performance environments looks like?|
|From:||Maurizio Umberto Puxeddu (maur...@yahoo.it)|
|Date:||Apr 19, 2003 6:08:46 am|
On Sat, 2003-04-19 at 15:01, vanDongen-Gilcher wrote:
Why should a computer take less time, especially considering that your designing the instrument and developing the methodology as well.
I'm aware of that. I sometimes just need to compare with other people, not to decide who is better (which is often not a parameter in art) but just to be sure I'm not following some false ideal instead of keeping my head on the real issue. I think it's easy in this field.
I'm working on my MetaControl.
What are the concepts behind this?
I don't think there is anything exceptionally new in fact.
Primarily I needed to
1) have a user interface not depending on any specific synth (even if I'm currently using it with PD) 2) have something stable. PD is great but the UI is not stable, often crashes (0.36 more than ever) and has unpredictable behaviours.
3) controls and the whole application are (being) developed specifically to work with a graphic tablet
4) a key point is having visual controls more elaborated than the standard GUI widgets. I have a reduced set of controls
-a 2d+n surface (similar to [grid] but with pressure, since my graphire has no tilt), This surface is zoomable, but zoom doesn't work good right now. -a hypervectorial surface. Here I want to develop hypervectorial control technique more in depth. For example I can use layers of hyper-spots and activate/deactivate them at will but there are a number of other improvements than can make hvc much more expressive and usable. -I'm adding a strumming surface ("harp") like cnmat's one should allow me to play and control groups of events. -frames with auto-built sliders
I also have a containter which can hold 4 of those controls at once. But I'm no pushing more in that direction. I prefer to have one of them on the screen and switch between them with key bindings. Something that it's hard to do with PD but also very important.
5) I'm using Scheme interpreter and I can bind scripts to key bindings.
6) even if "how it sound" is what matters and I partially play things like "black boxes", I often like to read the values of the parameters. So most of the time they are displayed on the screen.
I'm using regex in several places to control things in group and not have to code lots of UI.
So there are two kind of reasons for developing MetaControl, musical and technological, and they are often linked together. Part of the thing are there because I used it while playing in past (for example in PD), another part because I think they will allow me do play certain things in a certain way in future.
I attempted to do or did most of these things or things working *almost* like that in PD before. The problem that almost makes often the different between usable and unusable.
Here are some snapshots:
also look at
Screenshot-Metacontrol-dataset-config.png Screenshot-Metacontrol-receiver-config.png Screenshot-Metacontrol-grid-config.png Screenshot-Metacontrol-scheme-console.png Screenshot-Metacontrol-script-config.png Screenshot-Metacontrol-hv-layer-config.png Screenshot-Metacontrol-sliders.png Screenshot-Metacontrol-hv.png Screenshot-Metacontrol-snapshots-config.png Screenshot-Metacontrol-hv-spot-config.png Screenshot-Metacontrol-target-config.png Screenshot-Metacontrol-keybinding-config.png
I don't know if it's a good thing or a complete waste of time that I should spend in front of CoolEdit composition a piece. There are a number of arguments pro and against each aspect of this thing and the choices I made. I guess that if I manage to make good music with it soon it's ok, if not it's a waste of time.
Maurizio Umberto Puxeddu.