You also made the distinction of live performance in your previous e-mail. I think there are very different requirements when making music that is completely sequenced. I can certainly see why a live performer would find more acoustic oriented methods to be preferable. One could make an electronic instrument that allowed control of as many parameters available in, say, a violin but I am not exactly sure how you would even begin to control it without resorting to an acoustic means in the end.

I did my Die Nibelungen soundtrack (available on the csounds.com podcast) completely by sequencing, spending a great deal of time trying to get an adequate degree of nuance to the virtual performance (I don't think I was terribly successful, but that is beside the point). There is no way I would be able to perform it live. I still consider it to be a performance, however, just not in the traditional way. That may make it less emotive or interesting but, as has already been pointed out, that is up to individual interpretation anyway.

This is an interesting issue, though. I have heard a lot of discussion of what the audience thinks of "laptop performances" but less about how the performer thinks about them.

On Sun, Jul 20, 2008 at 6:07 PM, Joseph Sanger <joseph.sanger@virgin.net> wrote:

Hi there all,

I'm looking forward to checking this music out ASAP. Sorry, btw, it was a bit naughty of me to use such deliberately contentious and subjective words as "good, exciting, interesting", but it's interesting to see if people have an emotional attachment to purely synthesised music to the same extent that people have to music made in more traditional ways.

All the best,

Joe

Art Hunkins wrote:

Likewise for all my Csound works except "What's in a Name?" (which is pure and obviously sample-based).

http://www.arthunkins.com

As to "exciting"? No. (My objective is meditative anyway.)

As to "good"? Again, in the mind of the beholder.

I surely agree that it is far easier to get "interesting" (as is real-life-like) sound starting with samples. Real life sounds are so subtle and complex that it well-nigh impossible to emulate most of them with pure synthesis. (Typically, I wouldn't know where to begin, in most cases.) It would be rather like trying to emulate a violin on an organ. Just adding vibrato doesn't do it.

And of course there's always the question, "Do you *want* to emulate real life sounds?", and if so to what degree?

Art Hunkins

----- Original Message ----- From: "Dave Seidel" <dave@superluminal.com>
To: <csound@lists.bath.ac.uk>
Sent: Sunday, July 20, 2008 1:57 PM
Subject: [Csnd] Re: Re: Re: Re: RE: Re: about the synthesis on an excellent sound found in freesound.

My Csound-based music is pure synthesis as well. All of the pieces have been posted here, and can all be found at http://mysterybear.net. Following John's comments, whether it is "interesting, emotive, exciting... er... good" is up to someone other than me.

- Dave

jpff wrote:

"Joseph" == Joseph Sanger <joseph.sanger@virgin.net> writes:

Joseph> What I'd really like to know is: Are there any other "pure synthesis" Joseph> composers/designers on the list, and can people point to any examples of Joseph> interesting, emotive, exciting... er... good..., music which is entirely Joseph> synthesised, with no "real sound sampling" used in the composition Joseph> process? (Examples which are free to listen to, of course!).

Most of my music is pure synthesis; whether it is good, exciting,
interesting,... is subjective. Some of these are on the csounds.com
site.

I think Mike Gogin's stuff is pure, good, emotive and exciting. Seek
it out on ruccas or CDBaby

==John ffitch

Send bugs reports to this list.
To unsubscribe, send email sympa@lists.bath.ac.uk with body "unsubscribe csound"

Send bugs reports to this list.
To unsubscribe, send email sympa@lists.bath.ac.uk with body "unsubscribe csound"

Send bugs reports to this list.
To unsubscribe, send email sympa@lists.bath.ac.uk with body "unsubscribe csound"

--
Electronically,
Jeff Taylor