| Info |  |
LINUX OPEN SOURCE SOUND [l.o.s.s.] | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |
 LINUX OPEN SOURCE SOUND [l.o.s.s.] is a great idea: compile a bunch of music made with and promoting free, open source sound-battering software such as Pure Data, Supercollider and audacity. The finished tracks are available for free as ogg vorbis files [think vegan mp3 files]. All so far so good, promoting open systems and free software has got to be a good thing - not just in a vaguely socialist way, but musically as well. If musicians are able to alter, re-programme and generally pick apart the software that they are using, then hopefully they can return to the blank page, rather than using the commercial grid systems that seem to just spit out readymade musical cliches. NULL POINTER's piece is a melodic opener gently scrubbing and scattering beats over melancholic minor chords. Likewise AVA bleeps along dreamily, leading us to EDGES glossy drone. JAKE HARRIS' 'eh?' kind of breaks the mellowness with a advert for 'lenoox'. This is either a clever parody of the open source aesthetic, or a lame filler. Not sure which, still at under 1 minute no one's going to get hurt. COLLECTIVE MOTION's 'hubris' is a little too chance based for me. It's also got very preset sounding techno sounds, and floats along like a boring disco waiting room. Now we're talking, PANAYIOTIS' track focuses on the 'chronotopological'. This is surely the language of postgraduates, who like nothing better than to fire adjectives at nouns. It's a study of processed acoustic guitar and the last minute is a pretty wonderful firestorm of electroacoustics. DJ AUTO's 'jazzy' chords, grave robbing Ron Carter midi bassline and awful drum programming are best passed over quickly. The CHAOS BUTTERFLY present a sort of loose sequenced improvisation - flecked with female voice. Suddenly I remember that, yes, women can be involved in electronic music too, it's just a shame that they are so under-represented here. SLUB have the true honour of being the only band I've ever seen be pelted with fresh fruit by the cognescenti of the ICA bar. I knew then they were doing something right. This is more sedate than their usual military snare bump and grind, but fits in with the rest of the album. The MINIMAL TURNTABLISM track seems half finished. A precious gamelan type sound has a regular clicking sound layered over it. Why it's 3 minutes long is beyond me. ELEKTRONENGEHIRN end the album in a creepy swirl of time-stretched beating tones. L.O.S.S is a very relaxed demonstration of the world of open source software. Does it sound open source? I don't think so, for some reason much of the music is of the same pace, contemplative and slow. It is a great taster for those interested in what great possibilities there are for people who don't want to pay lots of money for music software. We decided to find out a bit more about the people and ideas behind the L.O.S.S. cd. We spoke to Ed Carter from Access Space where the project originated. I emailed Ed and asked him where the idea for this open source compilation came from. ED: The project is part of the ongoing programme by Access Space in Sheffield, an arts organisation which only uses open source software (alongside recycled hardware). It wasn't a question of whether we used open source software, but a question of how best to do it. Access Space describe themselves as a 'trash tech lab' which began in 2000. Built on 'obselete' hardware and open source software, Access Space became the UK's media lab to provides free access to research and development projects using trash computers for artistic and social purposes. Anyone is allowed to join, to learn and to contribute, there are no membership or hour rate fees. Their projects, publications and manifestos continually push the fact that so much is possible these days without having to upgrade every few years. When you walk into Dixons, Pc world or your local Apple store it's amazing to hear that a certain computer will only be good for surfing the web and looking at documents. Sales talk is pressuring us to buy the lastest stuff, and by default trash the old stuff. Access Space are smart enough to root around in these dustbins of technology, realising that the American landed on the moon with probably a lot less technology than is in the average mp3 player. I wanted to know if using open source software like Supercollider and PD actually had any effect on the music. ED: There are so many answers to this, it's difficult to know where to start. Creatively, the opportunities offered by PD and Supercollider are very different to more traditional recordings software (Cubase, or the open source Ardour) - they're designed with different intentions. At present, perhaps one of the more interesting observations relates to the actual people using open source music software. They are generally looking for something different and new, but this may still be apparent in their work if they sat behind a piano or guitar. Software is the tool, and certainly has the potential to shape the music is creates - and open source software is undeniably more malleable. However, perhaps attention should be paid to the person using the software, and why they are using it. The intention of the L.o.s.s project was never to try to define an 'open source sound', but to simply advocate, and promote music made with open source software. So maybe I'm wrong in looking for an open-source sound. And on reflection it a bit like trying to look at the difference between painters that use animal hair brushes and those that use synthetic. Ed seems to be saying that by using open-source software other questions arise, like for example how to distribute music. If open source can shape the way the music is made, what about the actual finished products, how are they affected? If the philosophy behind open source is that is that things are given away for free, I wondered how the artists involved should be compensated for their work? ED: It's a very interesting time for music distribution. A number of major companies have disappeared recently, at the same time as the Arctic Monkeys made their name by giving away their songs through Myspace. As a musician/producer myself, I think artists should be compensated handsomely for their work! Essentially though, in a time when music sales are plummeting, artists may have to decide in the short-term whether they want their music heard, or want it sold. It's a really difficult topic, which is more concerned with the freedoms of the internet than licensing issues. It may be a while before it becomes clear how artists will gain most benefit from web distribution and the licensing options available; home-taping never killed music, and I doubt the internet will either! In previous issues of Furthernoise we've discussed music that is distributed for free using the creative commons license. I asked Ed how these licenses were linked to this project? ED: All the tracks involved are released under a Creative Commons license (Sampling +). We did this to ensure the artists retain full rights to their work, but to remain within the ethos of the project. While they have their critics, CC licenses offer a really broad range of 'off-the-shelf' licenses, which are well designed and simple to understand. We could have spent time trying to create a specific license for the project, but why reinvent the wheel? Often projects using open source techniques get stalled by arguments about the politics of the software and licensing, creating its own self-defeating red tape. One notable open source advocate chose not to be included on the L.o.s.s CD because of the use of the word 'Linux' as opposed to 'GNU'... but G.o.s.s just doesn't sound appealing! the L.O.S.S. cd project is in a unique position. It's not finished, the project is online, and can be added to. And this is the interesting part, as more people get to hear the music - they can start making tracks themselves, even re-work the finished tracks using the creative commons license. L.O.S.S. is right to try to represent as the many different ways you can use open source. But not over emphasising one genre over another, has produced a compilation that lacks real direction. Nothing here is really amazing and while this sort of hamstrings the CD, the project would not have been as rich or engaging if the music was of a high quality but limited genre all the way through. Let's hope the duff tracks fire people to up to make more. I know I'm tempted. |||notes||| access space>> http://access.lowtech.org/ Pure data>> http://puredata.info/ Supercollider>> http://supercollider.sourceforge.net/ Creative Commons>> http://creativecommons.org ogg vorbis>> http://vorbis.com/ Review by Mark McLaren
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
