I'm not sure that this post constitutes a "technical issue", but I'm posting it here anyway.

I took up PD sincerely this year, after over five years of flirting with it. I've loved electronic music all my life and always wanted to create it myself, but could never work with any of the existing suites (Ableton, etc). PD seemed like the right choice for me, partly because it is elemental and versatile, and partly because it is materially and ideologically free. In just a few months, I've grown comfortable and even competent at patching, and would count it amongst my greatest hobbies. I love the sense of control that PD allows, and the way in which it merges programming with design. I even sort of love some of PD's quirks, ("trigger: can only convert 's' to 'b' or 'a' " etc.). I've made several patches which I am proud of and have learned a great deal in the process. But there is one problem that keeps on nagging on my mind:

My musical output has been almost zero!

I have created all sorts of weird and wonderful contraptions for creating music, but very little actual music. The trend is pronounced enough that my wife has affectionately coined the term pre-music for my craft. But as the trend continues, I worry that all I will ever produce is more pre-music, more and more elaborate but never musical.

I see two problems with my current condition, one more technical and one more artistic. I would seek advice or reflection of any sort on both.

1. I have gotten pretty good at the dataflow and control elements of PD, but am less skilled at sound design. I know how to make basic synthesizers and samplers, but I struggle to create sound that actually sounds good. I'm sure that this is the kind of thing that comes with practice, and that I should just start constructing more advanced synthesizers, but I still often don't know where to start.
2. Even with a functioning, sonically appealing program, I still struggle to make music. It's that feeling you get when someone who plays an instrument beautifully places one in your lap, and you don't know what to do. Your creativity ceases up and you just feel clumsy. I know how to play some instruments, but I still don't know how to make music on computers. How do you access your creativity on a machine?

I am guessing that many others have faced similar challenges to some degree of other, and would value your advice or discussion.

If you'd ask me if I had a same experience as yours, I'd answer both an yes and a no. Yes because indeed my compositional output with Pd has been ridiculously small since my switch from Max, basically I have only been rewriting older compositions of mine from Max into Pd, but on the other hand I dedicated these last months to really and properly learn Pd without any worries or pressure about producing music (I feel much more confident about Pd nowadays than I've ever felt with Max in the past). So right now I am just starting to work on a major instrumental piece with live electronics and I consider that what I have been doing so far was some important research for this and all my future pieces.

As for your points, here is what I think:

1. I have always felt this difficulty in creating actual good sounds as well. Certainly this is a huge topic, but on the most basic level I see that it is simply very tough to construct sounds from scratch using simple oscillators and achieve some kind of rich or new sonority. A lot of my pure electronic pieces use simple sinusoidal oscillators (and this is not a problem if these pieces are conceptual, or if the structure is of main importance, etc.). But if this is troubling you, here is a possible solution: use Pd for composing musical structures, and use sounds from somewhere else (via other synths, such as some VST). This way you can skip (at least for now) the tough area of sound design. Or use samples: record them yourself, manipulate them in some DAW (I really recommend REAPER http://www.reaper.fm/, I am utterly in love with it right now) and then use them algorithmically in Pd. Then you can simply organize them with Pd, or also manipulate them using reverb, delays, effects in general, etc.
2. That's the tough part of being a composer in general, I'd say. I come from an academic background, which means that I am a full time student of composition and I have been dedicating almost a decade of my life exclusively to that, and this is still something that hits me from time to time (and everyone around me as well). On the bright side, the older (and hopefully wiser!) I get, the less these types of insecurities and blank periods and crisis affect me.

Take care and good luck with your music!
Gilberto

I'm not sure how a person can unlock their creativity. I think something just clicks one day, from learning the one thing that they didn't know. For me, it was really the power of arrays and the almighty $#. When it comes to composition, a lot of PD output seems to be "Click button to make music, click again to stop music." While that's definitely an option, for me it lacks movement, like verses or something. Moving the song along like a composer is what I enjoy in PD, and using the computer like an instrument as opposed to a thing that can make sounds. So, I made an abstraction that lets me trigger everything on beat, on and off, so I can keep it dynamic.

This is already very long, but I guess what I'm trying to say is, keep trying to find whatever your "Click" is, or something? I have no idea.

First I must say I'm not a very skilled PD user ; just as you, I'm ok with control elements and data flow, but I"m very bad at acoustics. But unlike you I don't consider it as an issue. I see PD not only as a tool, but also as a new way represent musical ideas. I'll give you an example.
Two of the things I'm interested in are polyrhythm and free improvised music. A few years ago I wouldn't even have thought of combining the two : I thought you couldn't possibly improvise with several people on a changing tempo, using polyrhythm. When I started to work on a sampler earlier this year, the idea came to me that it was actually possible, and that's what I'm working on right now thanks to PD.
What I'm trying to say here is that what matters is the interaction between musical ideas and musical representation. If you're trying to create purely electronic music using only PD, maybe you should spend some time thinking of the technical ways to create a form, i.e. to represent efficiently the evolution of the different parameters you're dealing with over time. The way you represent things in your patch will have a determining impact on your creativity. The simpler you represent things, the more easily you'll elaborate complex music.
Anyway, I doubt that helps...
Kind regards, and thanks for bringing this to the table.
Lucien

Try with an open approach.

For example, take a walk. Just observe your neighbourhood. Maybe a dog is barking. Maybe a woman is slamming a door. Maybe it's raining. Maybe somebody is singing, somewhere. Something inside you will tell you "Hey, that's it, I know what I have to compose now". You just need to learn how to find simple triggers that bang your creativity.

Another idea, for a day in which you don't want to take a walk, is to draw a line, on a piece of paper. Then put some weird events here and there. I mean, do some little drawing, or write some words. A sort of time line for compositional events.

As you can see, this open approach has nothing to do with Pd or any DAW. Forget about those, initially.

I'm not making this up. There's abundant literature that points in this direction. Read about Brahms...he always went for a walk.

- How do you access your creativity on a machine?
- You don't. You access your creativity on an open space.

And finally, read the following blog post, that is closely related to our thread:
http://tropicaltheartist.wordpress.com/2013/04/21/why-a-daw-might-not-be-the-best-song-writing-tool/

Have a nice day

Kind regards, and thanks for bringing this to the table.
Lucien

Same feeling here.

This discussion is getting interesting, thanks you all for posting. But please allow me to disagree with @LandonPD when he writes:

For example, take a walk. Just observe your neighbourhood. [...] You just need to learn how to find simple triggers that bang your creativity.
[...]
As you can see, this open approach has nothing to do with Pd or any DAW. Forget about those, initially.

Sure, walks are nice and you can come up with some interesting ideas on your head while you let yourself think freely, but that's quite a romantic approach to this world of music, don't you think? To illustrate what I think, let me share with you one of my favourite quotations about dealing with algorithmic music:

[...] programming concepts can suggest functions that might not occur to one outside of the context of programming. This is of signal importance in music composition, since the integration of programming concepts into the musical imagination can extend the boundaries of the imagination itself. That is, the language is not simply a tool with which some preconceived task or function can be accomplished; it is an extensive basis of structure with which the imagination can interact, as well.

John Chowning, forword to Curtis Road's The Computer Music Tutorial

That is, you use the computer as a tool, but you also change the way of structuring your musical thoughts inside your head when you start using this tool. I certainly could have composed some of my algorithmic acoustic pieces without a computer (only by hand), but I never did, simply because I didn't think algorithmically back then. Nowadays, it's just impossible, my code is way too complex and involves million of calculations (most of them using random numbers anyway) so that would take a lifetime to do by hand.

My point is: walks are nice, but working directly on your craft is even nicer and, in my view, produces better results.

Take care,
Gilberto

I have more thoughts, but will hold them back for now. Keep the words coming!

I agree with Gilberto - Reaper is great! I used to tweak patches endlessly (still do), never knowing what to do with them (still don't), but I finally accepted that I'm NOT a "computer musician." I've never yet performed live with a laptop. I am not going to think my PD patch is a piece of music. (Mine; YOURS might me, but mine's not.)

When I finally made an abstraction that includes a [writesf~] with the dac/volume, I started recording hours of my noodlings... and I've made more than one piece I've been happy with.

(... also, afterwards, I figured out how Jack works. Even better!)

I've always been nuts for the classical tape music folks, though, and I used to use 4-tracks and reel-to-reels for tape collage. Moving my "song"-bits into a DAW has really freed up the PD end of things, even if the methods are a little retro. I'm happier now to make a terrible patch that makes one good sound, record it, and move on. (in theory - in reality, I STILL micro-manage my patches, and fix them up for imaginary concerts and third parties, when really, no one will ever see them but me. Should never have learned about color changes.)

Sound-wise...

I learned a whole lot from the tutorials on Obiwannabe's site... so much so, that I shelled out the fifty-ish bucks for his "Designing Sound" book. I'm glad I did. I think he has helped some of my sounds sound better. Previously, I wouldn't have used two dozen bandpass filters, because it seemed so inelegant, like "that's not what computers are supposed to do." But damn, if he can make a convincing digital teacup, I ought to re-evaluate my judgements!

A final thought. If I WEREN'T re-re-re-wiring a PD patch right now, would I be spending that time making an album? Or would I just be watching cartoons?

Cheers,
Gilberto

My main work is actually done mostly outside Pure Data. I work mainly with algorithmic acoustic music and my main interest is to generate scores only via computer programs (that is, the scores are completely generated by algorithms without any sort of manual corrections or after touches). Also, my work has a generative nature: because my programs use random numbers, every time an user executes one of my programs he gets a slightly different score, and two scores will never be the same. So in order to compose them, I do not think of specific notes, nor melodies, nor anything like that, I simply construct them as pure musical structures. I try to organize abstract musical entities that will later be filled with random information (a simple example is to create certain manipulations of a dodecaphonic row, but not to specify which row you are dealing with). I have been very much influenced by the serial techniques, as well as the process music of Reich and other composers.

So in my own case, there is very little that listening to the nature or life around can bring. A walk in a park can be as inspiring as being locked in a traffic jam. As long as I am able to concentrate in thinking about musical structures, I can work, and information from outside tends to affect me very little (actually, it can in fact take my concentration away from these musical structures).

But certainly this is a very specific approach and I do understand that people have all sorts of different workflows. I just wanted to share how I see this.

Take care,
Gilberto

PS: thanks for the input about moving the post, I will do it straight away

Cheers,
Gilberto

Lian in you first post you said your wife used the term pre-music, which is quite interesting, it made me think of what Deleuze said of the young Cézanne : he had a "pre-colour" period, before the colour could free itself. I often have the feeling my music is in a "pre-sound" state, but I don't know if I'll be able to free the sound some day.

The best musicians don't try to sound good. In my opinion, good music is not about good sounds. Beauty is not something pleasant.

This is absolutely spot on.

If you could patch a bunch of stuff, and then press a single button to save the state of all your sliders and number boxes and whatnot, and then be able to easily manage all those things as 'patterns' or 'songs', it would be downright ecstatic.

Miller has said for years that he wants to implement this, but he never has. Ironically, he keeps spending time on stuff like the data structures, which are clearly a dead end and barely anyone uses cos they're clunky at best and ridiculous at worst.

If PD had a simple, fairly user friendly way to save and recall different settings of patches, it would suddenly open the door to far more complete and coherent productions.

meanwhile we all just hack away using stuff like SSSAD which is OK, but not ideal.

Take care,
Gilberto

@mod Maybe you should just make sure you have a simple access to every parameter. There are several ways to do so ; as for me, I use the "receive symbol" (not sure it's "receive symbol" in english) of almost all the GUI I use, so as stated by Gilberto a simple message box can set many parameters at once, and it appears visually on your patch. Maybe your problem is that you'd like to be able to store a set of values you've found playing with your patch, but it's not really a problem. You can store in real time all your values, then save any given combination (in an array or a list or a text file) so you can access it any time.

information from outside tends to affect me very little (actually, it can in fact take my concentration away from these musical structures).

Interesting glimpse. But have you ever considered building some bridges? Bring to your mind the sound of rain, for example. Isn't nature filling your mind with random sounds? Listen to yourself: "there is very little that listening to the nature or life around can bring". There is something curious here...how can a musician feel that listening can bring little? Isn't listening important?

So this is my proposal : next time it rains, you listen to the rain as aware as you can...every detail, small sounds, close sounds, far sounds, the roof, the wind maybe, somebody trying to get a taxi, thunder. Then read your own phrase: "there is very little that listening to the nature or life around can bring".

@Load074

I've always been nuts for the classical tape music folks

You mean people like Daphne Oram? I love that bitch!

Miller has said for years that he wants to implement this, but he never has.

I think that somewhere in the documentation it reads that the idea was discarded or sthg like that. Here I found sthg, although it's pre 0.35:

In Pd there's no "preset" object (I now think it's basically a bad idea) and you have to use explicit sends and receives to restore values to number boxes. Then just make a "message" box to re-send the values you want.

@mod I don't understand you, what is wrong with using a message containing several sends, such as [; myReverb 1.0; delayFeedback 0.8;, delayTime 250; structureB bang; soundPlayerA 0( which can be banged by an [loadbang]? Doesn't that initiate or change the state of almost everything in a patch?

Take care,
Gilberto

I think setting up the savestates is a bit awkward, myself. I think it was Obi or Brinkmann that made a nice one-button-save. I dunno if it's just me, but saving data in arrays (Specifically for the cool wave shaping distortion array) doesn't seem to work. It's mostly OK, because I set up [loadbang] automatically at this point, but it would be a very handy piece of functionality.

@LiamG , which standard DAW do you use? Can I suggest using the MIDI functionality with MIDIYoke to send data from PD to another DAW? I find using PD to compose while I use something else to handle the sounds to be my preferred method of computer music.

@What I agree with you that it could be easier, but I don't find the current way of dealing with it that awkward myself. But anyway, I don't know this state saving object you mentioned, do you know where I could find it?

Take care you all,
Gilberto

Let me give examples:

1. There is no way, at a given point in the program flow of a patch, to call a subpatch with certain input arguments and get the output in a certain format. Instead, copies of the subpatch must be made, increasing memory usage compared to the classical idea of a function.
2. When composing, I like to think in terms of "do this thing at this point in time". Say I have a melody and at a certain point in that melody I want to choose between 2 different notes. One way of doing this would be to have a qlist that plays the melody and have it call a receive object that takes parameters to choose between 2 notes. But what if I want to call that function to play a different instrument? all of a sudden I need an extra argument to that control structure, and need to re-program the subpatch in order to do it.
3. Say you want to quickly edit a score of midi notes or midi automation, which maybe don't control midi directly but rather control algorithmic parameters that change over time. This is very difficult to do. You could set up a DAW to send the midi to pd, but MIDI is not designed (in it's structure or in it's output format) for sending data to programming languages, but directly to instruments. There aren't many open source OSC editors either (although there are a couple of promising ones).

recently I have been exploring other programs for algorithmic composition purposes, such as Common Music, based on Scheme. What makes Scheme enticing for algorithmic composition is that it supports continuations natively. What this means is that you can control the program flow manually, and the score for an algorithmic composition could be set up to be the program itself. (Common music does not support this but it could be set up to).
So, in the example above, when composing with Scheme set up in this fashion, all that would be required to choose between 2 notes and play it would be 1 line of code, like (play myinstrument (choose 49 64 20)) and to play it on a different instrument all that needs to change is the first argument. Notice that "choose" does not need to be rewritten.

Personally, I believe what is needed for the future of algorithmic composition is a dedicated DAW-like environment, (I have been thinking of undertaking such an endeavor). It would have tracks, and each track could have several layers that could output to either OSC, MIDI, or another layer in the project. Layers could be midi note editors (that could be configured to output OSC), automation editors with configurable precision (like if they output ints or floats, and how it is scaled), pieces of code that generate notes, pieces of code that take input data and output other data, containers for more layers, etc. The programming languages used would have to bridge over a common interface somehow, and they would need to support continuations or coroutines (Lua does also). The editors could have functions to, say, bind a specific midi note to a specific function in a specific layer. This would combine the ease of using DAWs to compose temporally with algorithmic composition constructs in my view.

But all that is just based on the way I think about composition... everyone's different.

Obiwannabe's Six Simple Synths and Martin Brinkmann's fmdrone 1. Brinkmann's patches are always a huge mess to look at, though. I always wondered how he manages!