Josep M Comajuncosas wrote:

>>> I personally think that Xenaquis was more succesful applying stochastic
procedures to higher level composition/orchestration than to pure sound
synthesis. One cannon forget the spectra.

<<< I sometime (only) think the same thing. Although spectra cannot be
forgotten, there are lots of other representations ( view, analysis (=?)) of
the sound. Spectrum is relatively close to our way of hearing and it is now
used widely. But Fourier analysis is only the Fourier's vision of the signal
world. There can be plenty other useful representations. These analysis are
not obliged to be 100% scientific (natural?) in order to be usable by
composers (THIS IS VERY IMPORTANT). They simply need one way of analysis of
the outside world in order to use it. In the last or the previous Computer
Music Journal, there is an article about the representation of sounds that has
given me lots of ideas about "again" an other synthesis controller. Is
synthesis a controller because the sound is still power at the end? I am not
sure.
Xenakis has used the Gendy to create sounds from a relatively new view of the
sound for his time. This is why we sometime prefer sounds from Fourrier's idea
tools. That's a bit similar to the atonal and tonal music.

Sorry for the length and I give a Mac Donald's milkshake to the ones who have
understood!!!! I'm not very clear.

                                                              Olivier Pasquet.
--------------------
Olivier PASQUET -- APU -- Music Faculty
OP101@mercury.anglia.ac.uk
www.sinclair.anglia.ac.uk/~op101.student.cambridge.anglia
--------------------