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

@conradmonster said:

I am currently creating text based scores and completed a presentation in the style of a rolling text presentation.
Conrado

Hi friend !
I am also working with the text based score but i have confused
about the folling text presentation . i want some to you .

have finish recently some pd/pdp patch for a non interactive video-art installation :
sur la route