I was looking at the history of the Ableton Live composition software and ran into a few other items. Here’s a dump of Flock’s shelf.
Ableton Live was “originally sketched in Max/MSP“. Max was developed in the 80’s but turned into a commercial project in the 90’s. It is used by names such artists such as Autechre to build software based synths. Pictured right is a patch of theirs in Max/MSP. (Max/MSP patch db.) Abelton Live is not used for creating synths (though the Operator adds this ability). It has two basic sets of instruments: Impulse for drums or strictly rhythmed sounds and Simpler for wav based imports.
While looking at Max/MSP I learned that its author later produced a similar tool with an open source license called Pure Data. The difference between the two is that PD does not offload processing to an analog synth as Max/MSP can. Instead all sounds are generated locally (PD resources: 1.) Additionally another open source tool similar to these is jMax, pictured left. Perhaps some day in the future I will have time to evaluate them all. Doubt it.
“Dacryphilia is a fetish in which one gains sexual arousal through the tears of one’s partner.”
I’ve had reference to this word on 3 occasions today. The first was in learning the word this morning while reading Phrack 58-0x05 for my research log where the author describes a set of tools for encrypting binaries. The idea being a tool created by hackers for the sake of making it more difficult for hackers (causing tears in their eyes, or something to this affect). The second was in a meeting with a client. We had a short discussion about creating a secure system only to have it hacked, only to fix it and have it hacked again, and this endless cycle of mutual dacryphilia. The 3rd and final was while listening to a NPR interview with Dr. John Marburger (scroll down, click listen button for Marburger interview), President Bush’s Science Advisor. I’m getting the feeling that the white house has an unknown dacryphilia fetish. Forget the fact that Marburger laughed after every serious question he was asked, or the fact that he said science didn’t equal politics and yet he argued that science could deal with social issues. I agree with him that politics is not solved nor should it be an issue for scientists (professionally). However, there are cases where such rules must be dispensed, especially when the facts that science present are being ignored or watered down. Case-in-point was made when he was asked about the issue of global warming. You know… maybe it was just his freakin fake laugh to every serious question that I’m really having a problem with.