Hey all,

There's been a discussion over on the Yahoogroups tuning list re:Csound.

The discussion brought up some valid points and criticisms of the
whole world of Csound. While no one denied Csound was powerful,
everyone agreed that it was the height of 'unfriendly'....

consider the following:

1) the installs are broken. they 'work', give a brief ok message, but
then you find out you're missing certain components (I haven't tried
the latest install, if there is one past 5.10, but that's been my
experience in the past)

1a) If you decide to compile, then you have to deal with Scons, which
I think does not live up to it's hype for being easier than configure,
make, make install. I want to like Scons, it's written in Python after
all, but let's face it, it causes more problems than it solves. Having
to edit a file, and hand search for parameters you don't even know
exist, or are relevant, is a BIG problem. I miss the old ./configure
--help, look at options, pick them, and do the actual ./configure
--with-whatever

2) you install, and then there's nothing fun to whet the appetite
after you're done. No demos packaged in, no super-cool orchestras or
sounds to say "wow---I can do THAT with Csound???". "Trapped" is
great, but I mean, how about something equivalent to a community built
GM patchset that people can just "plug 'n play"? You are basically
given a gas can with your new car, and told to walk 5 miles to the
nearest gas station....enjoy your new car, pal---wait you wanted gas,
too---no pal, this is free software! :) Basically, this translates to
using Google to do hours of research on instrument building and
finding example sco/orc or .csd files on the web from disparate
sources. We've all done it, but can't we agree that it can and should
be easier than this? Do we want Csound to grow and compete for
mindshare with Reaktor?

3) frontends like Blue intend to solve this problem to some degree,
but they have their own problems, mainly the 800-pound ugly that is
Java. Maybe this is my personal issue, but I have a rule: I will not
install an entire Java runtime environment for one piece of software.
It would be an altogether different story if it were a Python GUI.
Python is great, it's completely un-corporate and free, and everything
these days uses Python, so it's already on my system. Also, my limited
experience with Blue is that it also a bit more confusing at first
than promised; however, I have only limited experience with it, and
perhaps am biased, as I have lots of experience making my own text
orchestras. What we need is a Csound5-like front end that comes with
the package with lots of presets that people can set up to their MIDI
keyboards and play right away with, from the get-go...the Python
community calls this "batteries included"

That said, I still love Csound, but I wish my love could be more
contagious. But I think others are less forgiving of these faults,
which are basically packaging issues. In it's current state, Csound is
'packaged for the choir'---people who already love it---made by geeks,
for geeks.

Am I wrong here?

Hi,

I think these issues you mention are mostly being addressed with the
new upcoming release (it's been delayed for some time due to
scheduling conflicts between devels). Michael has worked hard to
ensure the new installers will not have the python dependency problem,
and also the new windows installers will include QuteCsound (which
IMO, but I'm biased =) ), is easy to use for newbies, and includes a
set of examples that can show a few things Csound can do. More
examples and suggestions are of course very welcome.

Cheers,
Andrés

On Sat, Sep 12, 2009 at 9:02 AM, Aaron Johnson  wrote:
> Hey all,
>
> There's been a discussion over on the Yahoogroups tuning list re:Csound.
>
> The discussion brought up some valid points and criticisms of the
> whole world of Csound. While no one denied Csound was powerful,
> everyone agreed that it was the height of 'unfriendly'....
>
> consider the following:
>
> 1) the installs are broken. they 'work', give a brief ok message, but
> then you find out you're missing certain components (I haven't tried
> the latest install, if there is one past 5.10, but that's been my
> experience in the past)
>
> 1a) If you decide to compile, then you have to deal with Scons, which
> I think does not live up to it's hype for being easier than configure,
> make, make install. I want to like Scons, it's written in Python after
> all, but let's face it, it causes more problems than it solves. Having
> to edit a file, and hand search for parameters you don't even know
> exist, or are relevant, is a BIG problem. I miss the old ./configure
> --help, look at options, pick them, and do the actual ./configure
> --with-whatever
>
> 2) you install, and then there's nothing fun to whet the appetite
> after you're done. No demos packaged in, no super-cool orchestras or
> sounds to say "wow---I can do THAT with Csound???". "Trapped" is
> great, but I mean, how about something equivalent to a community built
> GM patchset that people can just "plug 'n play"? You are basically
> given a gas can with your new car, and told to walk 5 miles to the
> nearest gas station....enjoy your new car, pal---wait you wanted gas,
> too---no pal, this is free software! :) Basically, this translates to
> using Google to do hours of research on instrument building and
> finding example sco/orc or .csd files on the web from disparate
> sources. We've all done it, but can't we agree that it can and should
> be easier than this? Do we want Csound to grow and compete for
> mindshare with Reaktor?
>
> 3) frontends like Blue intend to solve this problem to some degree,
> but they have their own problems, mainly the 800-pound ugly that is
> Java. Maybe this is my personal issue, but I have a rule: I will not
> install an entire Java runtime environment for one piece of software.
> It would be an altogether different story if it were a Python GUI.
> Python is great, it's completely un-corporate and free, and everything
> these days uses Python, so it's already on my system. Also, my limited
> experience with Blue is that it also a bit more confusing at first
> than promised; however, I have only limited experience with it, and
> perhaps am biased, as I have lots of experience making my own text
> orchestras. What we need is a Csound5-like front end that comes with
> the package with lots of presets that people can set up to their MIDI
> keyboards and play right away with, from the get-go...the Python
> community calls this "batteries included"
>
> That said, I still love Csound, but I wish my love could be more
> contagious. But I think others are less forgiving of these faults,
> which are basically packaging issues. In it's current state, Csound is
> 'packaged for the choir'---people who already love it---made by geeks,
> for geeks.
>
> Am I wrong here?
>
> --
>
> Aaron Krister Johnson
> http://www.akjmusic.com
> http://www.untwelve.org
>
>
> Send bugs reports to this list.
> To unsubscribe, send email sympa@lists.bath.ac.uk with body "unsubscribe csound"
>



-- 


Andrés


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

If the OSX 10.4 installers are broken, it's news to me. There have  
been no
reports on this list or elsewhere about them. I take the releases very
seriously and whenever problems are reported I try to to fix them as  
soon
as possible.

So if there are problems with these installers, unless they are  
reported, it
is impossible to tell.

Regards

Victor


On 12 Sep 2009, at 15:02, Aaron Johnson wrote:

> Hey all,
>
> There's been a discussion over on the Yahoogroups tuning list  
> re:Csound.
>
> The discussion brought up some valid points and criticisms of the
> whole world of Csound. While no one denied Csound was powerful,
> everyone agreed that it was the height of 'unfriendly'....
>
> consider the following:
>
> 1) the installs are broken. they 'work', give a brief ok message, but
> then you find out you're missing certain components (I haven't tried
> the latest install, if there is one past 5.10, but that's been my
> experience in the past)
>
> 1a) If you decide to compile, then you have to deal with Scons, which
> I think does not live up to it's hype for being easier than configure,
> make, make install. I want to like Scons, it's written in Python after
> all, but let's face it, it causes more problems than it solves. Having
> to edit a file, and hand search for parameters you don't even know
> exist, or are relevant, is a BIG problem. I miss the old ./configure
> --help, look at options, pick them, and do the actual ./configure
> --with-whatever
>
> 2) you install, and then there's nothing fun to whet the appetite
> after you're done. No demos packaged in, no super-cool orchestras or
> sounds to say "wow---I can do THAT with Csound???". "Trapped" is
> great, but I mean, how about something equivalent to a community built
> GM patchset that people can just "plug 'n play"? You are basically
> given a gas can with your new car, and told to walk 5 miles to the
> nearest gas station....enjoy your new car, pal---wait you wanted gas,
> too---no pal, this is free software! :) Basically, this translates to
> using Google to do hours of research on instrument building and
> finding example sco/orc or .csd files on the web from disparate
> sources. We've all done it, but can't we agree that it can and should
> be easier than this? Do we want Csound to grow and compete for
> mindshare with Reaktor?
>
> 3) frontends like Blue intend to solve this problem to some degree,
> but they have their own problems, mainly the 800-pound ugly that is
> Java. Maybe this is my personal issue, but I have a rule: I will not
> install an entire Java runtime environment for one piece of software.
> It would be an altogether different story if it were a Python GUI.
> Python is great, it's completely un-corporate and free, and everything
> these days uses Python, so it's already on my system. Also, my limited
> experience with Blue is that it also a bit more confusing at first
> than promised; however, I have only limited experience with it, and
> perhaps am biased, as I have lots of experience making my own text
> orchestras. What we need is a Csound5-like front end that comes with
> the package with lots of presets that people can set up to their MIDI
> keyboards and play right away with, from the get-go...the Python
> community calls this "batteries included"
>
> That said, I still love Csound, but I wish my love could be more
> contagious. But I think others are less forgiving of these faults,
> which are basically packaging issues. In it's current state, Csound is
> 'packaged for the choir'---people who already love it---made by geeks,
> for geeks.
>
> Am I wrong here?
>
> -- 
>
> Aaron Krister Johnson
> http://www.akjmusic.com
> http://www.untwelve.org
>
>
> 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"

I could always include the QuteCsound installer with the OSX packages  
too,
it should be no problem, just another file. Would you think this  
should help?

Regards
Victor

On 12 Sep 2009, at 15:17, Andres Cabrera wrote:

> Hi,
>
> I think these issues you mention are mostly being addressed with the
> new upcoming release (it's been delayed for some time due to
> scheduling conflicts between devels). Michael has worked hard to
> ensure the new installers will not have the python dependency problem,
> and also the new windows installers will include QuteCsound (which
> IMO, but I'm biased =) ), is easy to use for newbies, and includes a
> set of examples that can show a few things Csound can do. More
> examples and suggestions are of course very welcome.
>
> Cheers,
> Andrés
>
> On Sat, Sep 12, 2009 at 9:02 AM, Aaron Johnson   
> wrote:
>> Hey all,
>>
>> There's been a discussion over on the Yahoogroups tuning list  
>> re:Csound.
>>
>> The discussion brought up some valid points and criticisms of the
>> whole world of Csound. While no one denied Csound was powerful,
>> everyone agreed that it was the height of 'unfriendly'....
>>
>> consider the following:
>>
>> 1) the installs are broken. they 'work', give a brief ok message, but
>> then you find out you're missing certain components (I haven't tried
>> the latest install, if there is one past 5.10, but that's been my
>> experience in the past)
>>
>> 1a) If you decide to compile, then you have to deal with Scons, which
>> I think does not live up to it's hype for being easier than  
>> configure,
>> make, make install. I want to like Scons, it's written in Python  
>> after
>> all, but let's face it, it causes more problems than it solves.  
>> Having
>> to edit a file, and hand search for parameters you don't even know
>> exist, or are relevant, is a BIG problem. I miss the old ./configure
>> --help, look at options, pick them, and do the actual ./configure
>> --with-whatever
>>
>> 2) you install, and then there's nothing fun to whet the appetite
>> after you're done. No demos packaged in, no super-cool orchestras or
>> sounds to say "wow---I can do THAT with Csound???". "Trapped" is
>> great, but I mean, how about something equivalent to a community  
>> built
>> GM patchset that people can just "plug 'n play"? You are basically
>> given a gas can with your new car, and told to walk 5 miles to the
>> nearest gas station....enjoy your new car, pal---wait you wanted gas,
>> too---no pal, this is free software! :) Basically, this translates to
>> using Google to do hours of research on instrument building and
>> finding example sco/orc or .csd files on the web from disparate
>> sources. We've all done it, but can't we agree that it can and should
>> be easier than this? Do we want Csound to grow and compete for
>> mindshare with Reaktor?
>>
>> 3) frontends like Blue intend to solve this problem to some degree,
>> but they have their own problems, mainly the 800-pound ugly that is
>> Java. Maybe this is my personal issue, but I have a rule: I will not
>> install an entire Java runtime environment for one piece of software.
>> It would be an altogether different story if it were a Python GUI.
>> Python is great, it's completely un-corporate and free, and  
>> everything
>> these days uses Python, so it's already on my system. Also, my  
>> limited
>> experience with Blue is that it also a bit more confusing at first
>> than promised; however, I have only limited experience with it, and
>> perhaps am biased, as I have lots of experience making my own text
>> orchestras. What we need is a Csound5-like front end that comes with
>> the package with lots of presets that people can set up to their MIDI
>> keyboards and play right away with, from the get-go...the Python
>> community calls this "batteries included"
>>
>> That said, I still love Csound, but I wish my love could be more
>> contagious. But I think others are less forgiving of these faults,
>> which are basically packaging issues. In it's current state, Csound  
>> is
>> 'packaged for the choir'---people who already love it---made by  
>> geeks,
>> for geeks.
>>
>> Am I wrong here?
>>
>> --
>>
>> Aaron Krister Johnson
>> http://www.akjmusic.com
>> http://www.untwelve.org
>>
>>
>> Send bugs reports to this list.
>> To unsubscribe, send email sympa@lists.bath.ac.uk with body  
>> "unsubscribe csound"
>>
>
>
>
> -- 
>
>
> Andrés
>
>
> 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"

Victor,

Having a QuteCsound as a part of the Mac Packages for OS X would be a  
huge help.

The growing collection of  QuteCsound examples are fantastic!
Hopefully they will continue to grow.

(Thanks especially to Joachim and Andres for all their work on the  
program and the examples.)

-dB

Dr. Richard Boulanger  -  rboulanger@berklee.edu



On Sep 12, 2009, at 10:25 AM, Victor Lazzarini wrote:

> I could always include the QuteCsound installer with the OSX  
> packages too,
> it should be no problem, just another file. Would you think this  
> should help?
>
> Regards
> Victor
>
> On 12 Sep 2009, at 15:17, Andres Cabrera wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> I think these issues you mention are mostly being addressed with the
>> new upcoming release (it's been delayed for some time due to
>> scheduling conflicts between devels). Michael has worked hard to
>> ensure the new installers will not have the python dependency  
>> problem,
>> and also the new windows installers will include QuteCsound (which
>> IMO, but I'm biased =) ), is easy to use for newbies, and includes a
>> set of examples that can show a few things Csound can do. More
>> examples and suggestions are of course very welcome.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Andrés
>>
>> On Sat, Sep 12, 2009 at 9:02 AM, Aaron Johnson   
>> wrote:
>>> Hey all,
>>>
>>> There's been a discussion over on the Yahoogroups tuning list  
>>> re:Csound.
>>>
>>> The discussion brought up some valid points and criticisms of the
>>> whole world of Csound. While no one denied Csound was powerful,
>>> everyone agreed that it was the height of 'unfriendly'....
>>>
>>> consider the following:
>>>
>>> 1) the installs are broken. they 'work', give a brief ok message,  
>>> but
>>> then you find out you're missing certain components (I haven't tried
>>> the latest install, if there is one past 5.10, but that's been my
>>> experience in the past)
>>>
>>> 1a) If you decide to compile, then you have to deal with Scons,  
>>> which
>>> I think does not live up to it's hype for being easier than  
>>> configure,
>>> make, make install. I want to like Scons, it's written in Python  
>>> after
>>> all, but let's face it, it causes more problems than it solves.  
>>> Having
>>> to edit a file, and hand search for parameters you don't even know
>>> exist, or are relevant, is a BIG problem. I miss the old ./configure
>>> --help, look at options, pick them, and do the actual ./configure
>>> --with-whatever
>>>
>>> 2) you install, and then there's nothing fun to whet the appetite
>>> after you're done. No demos packaged in, no super-cool orchestras or
>>> sounds to say "wow---I can do THAT with Csound???". "Trapped" is
>>> great, but I mean, how about something equivalent to a community  
>>> built
>>> GM patchset that people can just "plug 'n play"? You are basically
>>> given a gas can with your new car, and told to walk 5 miles to the
>>> nearest gas station....enjoy your new car, pal---wait you wanted  
>>> gas,
>>> too---no pal, this is free software! :) Basically, this translates  
>>> to
>>> using Google to do hours of research on instrument building and
>>> finding example sco/orc or .csd files on the web from disparate
>>> sources. We've all done it, but can't we agree that it can and  
>>> should
>>> be easier than this? Do we want Csound to grow and compete for
>>> mindshare with Reaktor?
>>>
>>> 3) frontends like Blue intend to solve this problem to some degree,
>>> but they have their own problems, mainly the 800-pound ugly that is
>>> Java. Maybe this is my personal issue, but I have a rule: I will not
>>> install an entire Java runtime environment for one piece of  
>>> software.
>>> It would be an altogether different story if it were a Python GUI.
>>> Python is great, it's completely un-corporate and free, and  
>>> everything
>>> these days uses Python, so it's already on my system. Also, my  
>>> limited
>>> experience with Blue is that it also a bit more confusing at first
>>> than promised; however, I have only limited experience with it, and
>>> perhaps am biased, as I have lots of experience making my own text
>>> orchestras. What we need is a Csound5-like front end that comes with
>>> the package with lots of presets that people can set up to their  
>>> MIDI
>>> keyboards and play right away with, from the get-go...the Python
>>> community calls this "batteries included"
>>>
>>> That said, I still love Csound, but I wish my love could be more
>>> contagious. But I think others are less forgiving of these faults,
>>> which are basically packaging issues. In it's current state,  
>>> Csound is
>>> 'packaged for the choir'---people who already love it---made by  
>>> geeks,
>>> for geeks.
>>>
>>> Am I wrong here?
>>>
>>> --
>>>
>>> Aaron Krister Johnson
>>> http://www.akjmusic.com
>>> http://www.untwelve.org
>>>
>>>
>>> Send bugs reports to this list.
>>> To unsubscribe, send email sympa@lists.bath.ac.uk with body  
>>> "unsubscribe csound"
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> -- 
>>
>>
>> Andrés
>>
>>
>> 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"

Yes, one of the main stumblimg blocks for newbies is matching the
correct version of Csound to QuteCsound... But maybe the package will
get too large since most of Qt also needs to be included?


Cheers,
Andrés

On Sat, Sep 12, 2009 at 9:39 AM, Dr. Richard Boulanger
 wrote:
> Victor,
>
> Having a QuteCsound as a part of the Mac Packages for OS X would be a huge
> help.
>
> The growing collection of  QuteCsound examples are fantastic!
> Hopefully they will continue to grow.
>
> (Thanks especially to Joachim and Andres for all their work on the program
> and the examples.)
>
> -dB
>
> Dr. Richard Boulanger  -  rboulanger@berklee.edu
>
>
>
> On Sep 12, 2009, at 10:25 AM, Victor Lazzarini wrote:
>
>> I could always include the QuteCsound installer with the OSX packages too,
>> it should be no problem, just another file. Would you think this should
>> help?
>>
>> Regards
>> Victor
>>
>> On 12 Sep 2009, at 15:17, Andres Cabrera wrote:
>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> I think these issues you mention are mostly being addressed with the
>>> new upcoming release (it's been delayed for some time due to
>>> scheduling conflicts between devels). Michael has worked hard to
>>> ensure the new installers will not have the python dependency problem,
>>> and also the new windows installers will include QuteCsound (which
>>> IMO, but I'm biased =) ), is easy to use for newbies, and includes a
>>> set of examples that can show a few things Csound can do. More
>>> examples and suggestions are of course very welcome.
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>> Andrés
>>>
>>> On Sat, Sep 12, 2009 at 9:02 AM, Aaron Johnson 
>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Hey all,
>>>>
>>>> There's been a discussion over on the Yahoogroups tuning list re:Csound.
>>>>
>>>> The discussion brought up some valid points and criticisms of the
>>>> whole world of Csound. While no one denied Csound was powerful,
>>>> everyone agreed that it was the height of 'unfriendly'....
>>>>
>>>> consider the following:
>>>>
>>>> 1) the installs are broken. they 'work', give a brief ok message, but
>>>> then you find out you're missing certain components (I haven't tried
>>>> the latest install, if there is one past 5.10, but that's been my
>>>> experience in the past)
>>>>
>>>> 1a) If you decide to compile, then you have to deal with Scons, which
>>>> I think does not live up to it's hype for being easier than configure,
>>>> make, make install. I want to like Scons, it's written in Python after
>>>> all, but let's face it, it causes more problems than it solves. Having
>>>> to edit a file, and hand search for parameters you don't even know
>>>> exist, or are relevant, is a BIG problem. I miss the old ./configure
>>>> --help, look at options, pick them, and do the actual ./configure
>>>> --with-whatever
>>>>
>>>> 2) you install, and then there's nothing fun to whet the appetite
>>>> after you're done. No demos packaged in, no super-cool orchestras or
>>>> sounds to say "wow---I can do THAT with Csound???". "Trapped" is
>>>> great, but I mean, how about something equivalent to a community built
>>>> GM patchset that people can just "plug 'n play"? You are basically
>>>> given a gas can with your new car, and told to walk 5 miles to the
>>>> nearest gas station....enjoy your new car, pal---wait you wanted gas,
>>>> too---no pal, this is free software! :) Basically, this translates to
>>>> using Google to do hours of research on instrument building and
>>>> finding example sco/orc or .csd files on the web from disparate
>>>> sources. We've all done it, but can't we agree that it can and should
>>>> be easier than this? Do we want Csound to grow and compete for
>>>> mindshare with Reaktor?
>>>>
>>>> 3) frontends like Blue intend to solve this problem to some degree,
>>>> but they have their own problems, mainly the 800-pound ugly that is
>>>> Java. Maybe this is my personal issue, but I have a rule: I will not
>>>> install an entire Java runtime environment for one piece of software.
>>>> It would be an altogether different story if it were a Python GUI.
>>>> Python is great, it's completely un-corporate and free, and everything
>>>> these days uses Python, so it's already on my system. Also, my limited
>>>> experience with Blue is that it also a bit more confusing at first
>>>> than promised; however, I have only limited experience with it, and
>>>> perhaps am biased, as I have lots of experience making my own text
>>>> orchestras. What we need is a Csound5-like front end that comes with
>>>> the package with lots of presets that people can set up to their MIDI
>>>> keyboards and play right away with, from the get-go...the Python
>>>> community calls this "batteries included"
>>>>
>>>> That said, I still love Csound, but I wish my love could be more
>>>> contagious. But I think others are less forgiving of these faults,
>>>> which are basically packaging issues. In it's current state, Csound is
>>>> 'packaged for the choir'---people who already love it---made by geeks,
>>>> for geeks.
>>>>
>>>> Am I wrong here?
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>>
>>>> Aaron Krister Johnson
>>>> http://www.akjmusic.com
>>>> http://www.untwelve.org
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Send bugs reports to this list.
>>>> To unsubscribe, send email sympa@lists.bath.ac.uk with body "unsubscribe
>>>> csound"
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>>
>>>
>>> Andrés
>>>
>>>
>>> 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"



-- 


Andrés


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

Well, it's a tradeoff.

You could also incude csound with QuteCsound and then the confusion  
would
be reduced. We could just duplicate everything...

Victor
On 12 Sep 2009, at 15:43, Andres Cabrera wrote:

> Yes, one of the main stumblimg blocks for newbies is matching the
> correct version of Csound to QuteCsound... But maybe the package will
> get too large since most of Qt also needs to be included?
>
>
> Cheers,
> Andrés
>
> On Sat, Sep 12, 2009 at 9:39 AM, Dr. Richard Boulanger
>  wrote:
>> Victor,
>>
>> Having a QuteCsound as a part of the Mac Packages for OS X would be  
>> a huge
>> help.
>>
>> The growing collection of  QuteCsound examples are fantastic!
>> Hopefully they will continue to grow.
>>
>> (Thanks especially to Joachim and Andres for all their work on the  
>> program
>> and the examples.)
>>
>> -dB
>>
>> Dr. Richard Boulanger  -  rboulanger@berklee.edu
>>
>>
>>
>> On Sep 12, 2009, at 10:25 AM, Victor Lazzarini wrote:
>>
>>> I could always include the QuteCsound installer with the OSX  
>>> packages too,
>>> it should be no problem, just another file. Would you think this  
>>> should
>>> help?
>>>
>>> Regards
>>> Victor
>>>
>>> On 12 Sep 2009, at 15:17, Andres Cabrera wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> I think these issues you mention are mostly being addressed with  
>>>> the
>>>> new upcoming release (it's been delayed for some time due to
>>>> scheduling conflicts between devels). Michael has worked hard to
>>>> ensure the new installers will not have the python dependency  
>>>> problem,
>>>> and also the new windows installers will include QuteCsound (which
>>>> IMO, but I'm biased =) ), is easy to use for newbies, and  
>>>> includes a
>>>> set of examples that can show a few things Csound can do. More
>>>> examples and suggestions are of course very welcome.
>>>>
>>>> Cheers,
>>>> Andrés
>>>>
>>>> On Sat, Sep 12, 2009 at 9:02 AM, Aaron Johnson 
>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Hey all,
>>>>>
>>>>> There's been a discussion over on the Yahoogroups tuning list  
>>>>> re:Csound.
>>>>>
>>>>> The discussion brought up some valid points and criticisms of the
>>>>> whole world of Csound. While no one denied Csound was powerful,
>>>>> everyone agreed that it was the height of 'unfriendly'....
>>>>>
>>>>> consider the following:
>>>>>
>>>>> 1) the installs are broken. they 'work', give a brief ok  
>>>>> message, but
>>>>> then you find out you're missing certain components (I haven't  
>>>>> tried
>>>>> the latest install, if there is one past 5.10, but that's been my
>>>>> experience in the past)
>>>>>
>>>>> 1a) If you decide to compile, then you have to deal with Scons,  
>>>>> which
>>>>> I think does not live up to it's hype for being easier than  
>>>>> configure,
>>>>> make, make install. I want to like Scons, it's written in Python  
>>>>> after
>>>>> all, but let's face it, it causes more problems than it solves.  
>>>>> Having
>>>>> to edit a file, and hand search for parameters you don't even know
>>>>> exist, or are relevant, is a BIG problem. I miss the old ./ 
>>>>> configure
>>>>> --help, look at options, pick them, and do the actual ./configure
>>>>> --with-whatever
>>>>>
>>>>> 2) you install, and then there's nothing fun to whet the appetite
>>>>> after you're done. No demos packaged in, no super-cool  
>>>>> orchestras or
>>>>> sounds to say "wow---I can do THAT with Csound???". "Trapped" is
>>>>> great, but I mean, how about something equivalent to a community  
>>>>> built
>>>>> GM patchset that people can just "plug 'n play"? You are basically
>>>>> given a gas can with your new car, and told to walk 5 miles to the
>>>>> nearest gas station....enjoy your new car, pal---wait you wanted  
>>>>> gas,
>>>>> too---no pal, this is free software! :) Basically, this  
>>>>> translates to
>>>>> using Google to do hours of research on instrument building and
>>>>> finding example sco/orc or .csd files on the web from disparate
>>>>> sources. We've all done it, but can't we agree that it can and  
>>>>> should
>>>>> be easier than this? Do we want Csound to grow and compete for
>>>>> mindshare with Reaktor?
>>>>>
>>>>> 3) frontends like Blue intend to solve this problem to some  
>>>>> degree,
>>>>> but they have their own problems, mainly the 800-pound ugly that  
>>>>> is
>>>>> Java. Maybe this is my personal issue, but I have a rule: I will  
>>>>> not
>>>>> install an entire Java runtime environment for one piece of  
>>>>> software.
>>>>> It would be an altogether different story if it were a Python GUI.
>>>>> Python is great, it's completely un-corporate and free, and  
>>>>> everything
>>>>> these days uses Python, so it's already on my system. Also, my  
>>>>> limited
>>>>> experience with Blue is that it also a bit more confusing at first
>>>>> than promised; however, I have only limited experience with it,  
>>>>> and
>>>>> perhaps am biased, as I have lots of experience making my own text
>>>>> orchestras. What we need is a Csound5-like front end that comes  
>>>>> with
>>>>> the package with lots of presets that people can set up to their  
>>>>> MIDI
>>>>> keyboards and play right away with, from the get-go...the Python
>>>>> community calls this "batteries included"
>>>>>
>>>>> That said, I still love Csound, but I wish my love could be more
>>>>> contagious. But I think others are less forgiving of these faults,
>>>>> which are basically packaging issues. In it's current state,  
>>>>> Csound is
>>>>> 'packaged for the choir'---people who already love it---made by  
>>>>> geeks,
>>>>> for geeks.
>>>>>
>>>>> Am I wrong here?
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>>
>>>>> Aaron Krister Johnson
>>>>> http://www.akjmusic.com
>>>>> http://www.untwelve.org
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Send bugs reports to this list.
>>>>> To unsubscribe, send email sympa@lists.bath.ac.uk with body  
>>>>> "unsubscribe
>>>>> csound"
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Andrés
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> 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"
>
>
>
> -- 
>
>
> Andrés
>
>
> 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"

Well, others have spoken about the other parts of your email, but I
wanted to speak to the part about blue.  As for Java, if you have a
prejudice against it then nothing can be done.  I feel strongly that
the Java Virtual Machine has some of the most interesting developments
going on it as a platform (that I can script in Python, Ruby, Groovy,
and Clojure on top of the JVM is fantastic), and that I see more
cross-platform compatibility with Java than I do with python and other
languages. Java is also GPL and thus I feel assured that investments
of time in it are safe.

As for blue, I think it is sort of its own thing that requires a
little time to learn, same as in the first time anyone opens sequencer
or DAW and has never used one before that it takes a little time to
get used to.  Another environment like this built on top of Csound
doesn't really exist as far as I know, so there's nothing to compare
to. That said, there are certainly areas where improvements can be
made and they're certainly on my mind.  I'm currently working to
finish the first blue 2.0 that has been redeveloped on top of Netbean
RCP framework.  This should hopefully be done soon, and afterwards my
attention will be on a number of things which I think should make blue
a bit easier to use.  I'd invite you to give it another try sometime,
especially since I think things like microcsound could work within
blue(btw, I tried to check it just now and
http://www.akjmusic.com/packages.html comes up empty).

Thanks,
steven



On Sat, Sep 12, 2009 at 10:02 AM, Aaron Johnson  wrote:
> Hey all,
>
> There's been a discussion over on the Yahoogroups tuning list re:Csound.
>
> The discussion brought up some valid points and criticisms of the
> whole world of Csound. While no one denied Csound was powerful,
> everyone agreed that it was the height of 'unfriendly'....
>
> consider the following:
>
> 1) the installs are broken. they 'work', give a brief ok message, but
> then you find out you're missing certain components (I haven't tried
> the latest install, if there is one past 5.10, but that's been my
> experience in the past)
>
> 1a) If you decide to compile, then you have to deal with Scons, which
> I think does not live up to it's hype for being easier than configure,
> make, make install. I want to like Scons, it's written in Python after
> all, but let's face it, it causes more problems than it solves. Having
> to edit a file, and hand search for parameters you don't even know
> exist, or are relevant, is a BIG problem. I miss the old ./configure
> --help, look at options, pick them, and do the actual ./configure
> --with-whatever
>
> 2) you install, and then there's nothing fun to whet the appetite
> after you're done. No demos packaged in, no super-cool orchestras or
> sounds to say "wow---I can do THAT with Csound???". "Trapped" is
> great, but I mean, how about something equivalent to a community built
> GM patchset that people can just "plug 'n play"? You are basically
> given a gas can with your new car, and told to walk 5 miles to the
> nearest gas station....enjoy your new car, pal---wait you wanted gas,
> too---no pal, this is free software! :) Basically, this translates to
> using Google to do hours of research on instrument building and
> finding example sco/orc or .csd files on the web from disparate
> sources. We've all done it, but can't we agree that it can and should
> be easier than this? Do we want Csound to grow and compete for
> mindshare with Reaktor?
>
> 3) frontends like Blue intend to solve this problem to some degree,
> but they have their own problems, mainly the 800-pound ugly that is
> Java. Maybe this is my personal issue, but I have a rule: I will not
> install an entire Java runtime environment for one piece of software.
> It would be an altogether different story if it were a Python GUI.
> Python is great, it's completely un-corporate and free, and everything
> these days uses Python, so it's already on my system. Also, my limited
> experience with Blue is that it also a bit more confusing at first
> than promised; however, I have only limited experience with it, and
> perhaps am biased, as I have lots of experience making my own text
> orchestras. What we need is a Csound5-like front end that comes with
> the package with lots of presets that people can set up to their MIDI
> keyboards and play right away with, from the get-go...the Python
> community calls this "batteries included"
>
> That said, I still love Csound, but I wish my love could be more
> contagious. But I think others are less forgiving of these faults,
> which are basically packaging issues. In it's current state, Csound is
> 'packaged for the choir'---people who already love it---made by geeks,
> for geeks.
>
> Am I wrong here?
>
> --
>
> Aaron Krister Johnson
> http://www.akjmusic.com
> http://www.untwelve.org
>
>
> 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"

Dear Victor, Andres, John, Michael,

For my students and classes (and that's 50 students per year or more)

The QuteCsound frontEnd is the "way" for them to use, develop, and  
learn Csound.

The connecting piece
The missing piece

We do use the terminal some
We do use Cecilia and Blue (later in the semesters)

But...  they work "through" QuteCsound...

And so... the fact that it is not "obviously and intuitively" a part  
of Csound
or installed with Csound  has been a stumbling block.... a stopping  
point...
a source of confusion.  A loss of a week or two.  A way to fall behind.

In class 1 on Wednesday...

"OK wait... not that you've installed all four of the Csound  
packages.....
You need to look for - and find the right version of QuteCsound and
download and install that..."  Make sure you do all this correctly again
at home tonight and email me that you have succeeded."  (There
will at least be one or two who couldn't find it or combined the wrong
versions of this with that.)

For my teaching and students:

QuteCsound is a "pretty important" part of Csound (the word essential  
comes to mind)
- especially since it is so well maintained and supported
- especially since it is so full-featured
- especially since it has such wonderful examples


I hope you can come up with a way of making the association more  
obvious.

Dr. B.

PS.  We are working on creating some ABSOLUTE BEGINNER and FIRST  
TIMERS webpages and documents
at cSounds.com

Dr. Richard Boulanger  -  rboulanger@berklee.edu



On Sep 12, 2009, at 10:51 AM, Victor Lazzarini wrote:

> Well, it's a tradeoff.
>
> You could also incude csound with QuteCsound and then the confusion  
> would
> be reduced. We could just duplicate everything...
>
> Victor
> On 12 Sep 2009, at 15:43, Andres Cabrera wrote:
>
>> Yes, one of the main stumblimg blocks for newbies is matching the
>> correct version of Csound to QuteCsound... But maybe the package will
>> get too large since most of Qt also needs to be included?
>>
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Andrés
>>
>> On Sat, Sep 12, 2009 at 9:39 AM, Dr. Richard Boulanger
>>  wrote:
>>> Victor,
>>>
>>> Having a QuteCsound as a part of the Mac Packages for OS X would  
>>> be a huge
>>> help.
>>>
>>> The growing collection of  QuteCsound examples are fantastic!
>>> Hopefully they will continue to grow.
>>>
>>> (Thanks especially to Joachim and Andres for all their work on the  
>>> program
>>> and the examples.)
>>>
>>> -dB
>>>
>>> Dr. Richard Boulanger  -  rboulanger@berklee.edu
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Sep 12, 2009, at 10:25 AM, Victor Lazzarini wrote:
>>>
>>>> I could always include the QuteCsound installer with the OSX  
>>>> packages too,
>>>> it should be no problem, just another file. Would you think this  
>>>> should
>>>> help?
>>>>
>>>> Regards
>>>> Victor
>>>>
>>>> On 12 Sep 2009, at 15:17, Andres Cabrera wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>
>>>>> I think these issues you mention are mostly being addressed with  
>>>>> the
>>>>> new upcoming release (it's been delayed for some time due to
>>>>> scheduling conflicts between devels). Michael has worked hard to
>>>>> ensure the new installers will not have the python dependency  
>>>>> problem,
>>>>> and also the new windows installers will include QuteCsound (which
>>>>> IMO, but I'm biased =) ), is easy to use for newbies, and  
>>>>> includes a
>>>>> set of examples that can show a few things Csound can do. More
>>>>> examples and suggestions are of course very welcome.
>>>>>
>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>> Andrés
>>>>>
>>>>> On Sat, Sep 12, 2009 at 9:02 AM, Aaron Johnson  
>>>>> 
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Hey all,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> There's been a discussion over on the Yahoogroups tuning list  
>>>>>> re:Csound.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The discussion brought up some valid points and criticisms of the
>>>>>> whole world of Csound. While no one denied Csound was powerful,
>>>>>> everyone agreed that it was the height of 'unfriendly'....
>>>>>>
>>>>>> consider the following:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 1) the installs are broken. they 'work', give a brief ok  
>>>>>> message, but
>>>>>> then you find out you're missing certain components (I haven't  
>>>>>> tried
>>>>>> the latest install, if there is one past 5.10, but that's been my
>>>>>> experience in the past)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 1a) If you decide to compile, then you have to deal with Scons,  
>>>>>> which
>>>>>> I think does not live up to it's hype for being easier than  
>>>>>> configure,
>>>>>> make, make install. I want to like Scons, it's written in  
>>>>>> Python after
>>>>>> all, but let's face it, it causes more problems than it solves.  
>>>>>> Having
>>>>>> to edit a file, and hand search for parameters you don't even  
>>>>>> know
>>>>>> exist, or are relevant, is a BIG problem. I miss the old ./ 
>>>>>> configure
>>>>>> --help, look at options, pick them, and do the actual ./configure
>>>>>> --with-whatever
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 2) you install, and then there's nothing fun to whet the appetite
>>>>>> after you're done. No demos packaged in, no super-cool  
>>>>>> orchestras or
>>>>>> sounds to say "wow---I can do THAT with Csound???". "Trapped" is
>>>>>> great, but I mean, how about something equivalent to a  
>>>>>> community built
>>>>>> GM patchset that people can just "plug 'n play"? You are  
>>>>>> basically
>>>>>> given a gas can with your new car, and told to walk 5 miles to  
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> nearest gas station....enjoy your new car, pal---wait you  
>>>>>> wanted gas,
>>>>>> too---no pal, this is free software! :) Basically, this  
>>>>>> translates to
>>>>>> using Google to do hours of research on instrument building and
>>>>>> finding example sco/orc or .csd files on the web from disparate
>>>>>> sources. We've all done it, but can't we agree that it can and  
>>>>>> should
>>>>>> be easier than this? Do we want Csound to grow and compete for
>>>>>> mindshare with Reaktor?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 3) frontends like Blue intend to solve this problem to some  
>>>>>> degree,
>>>>>> but they have their own problems, mainly the 800-pound ugly  
>>>>>> that is
>>>>>> Java. Maybe this is my personal issue, but I have a rule: I  
>>>>>> will not
>>>>>> install an entire Java runtime environment for one piece of  
>>>>>> software.
>>>>>> It would be an altogether different story if it were a Python  
>>>>>> GUI.
>>>>>> Python is great, it's completely un-corporate and free, and  
>>>>>> everything
>>>>>> these days uses Python, so it's already on my system. Also, my  
>>>>>> limited
>>>>>> experience with Blue is that it also a bit more confusing at  
>>>>>> first
>>>>>> than promised; however, I have only limited experience with it,  
>>>>>> and
>>>>>> perhaps am biased, as I have lots of experience making my own  
>>>>>> text
>>>>>> orchestras. What we need is a Csound5-like front end that comes  
>>>>>> with
>>>>>> the package with lots of presets that people can set up to  
>>>>>> their MIDI
>>>>>> keyboards and play right away with, from the get-go...the Python
>>>>>> community calls this "batteries included"
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That said, I still love Csound, but I wish my love could be more
>>>>>> contagious. But I think others are less forgiving of these  
>>>>>> faults,
>>>>>> which are basically packaging issues. In it's current state,  
>>>>>> Csound is
>>>>>> 'packaged for the choir'---people who already love it---made by  
>>>>>> geeks,
>>>>>> for geeks.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Am I wrong here?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Aaron Krister Johnson
>>>>>> http://www.akjmusic.com
>>>>>> http://www.untwelve.org
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Send bugs reports to this list.
>>>>>> To unsubscribe, send email sympa@lists.bath.ac.uk with body  
>>>>>> "unsubscribe
>>>>>> csound"
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Andrés
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> 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"
>>
>>
>>
>> -- 
>>
>>
>> Andrés
>>
>>
>> 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"

I think this is a very good idea. As to the file size: SuperCollider  
has 10 MB for download and expands to 36, and "Supercollider-with- 
extras" has 30/100. So I think we are not too fat ...
	joachim


Am 12.09.2009 um 16:51 schrieb Victor Lazzarini:

> Well, it's a tradeoff.
>
> You could also incude csound with QuteCsound and then the confusion  
> would
> be reduced. We could just duplicate everything...
>
> Victor
> On 12 Sep 2009, at 15:43, Andres Cabrera wrote:
>
>> Yes, one of the main stumblimg blocks for newbies is matching the
>> correct version of Csound to QuteCsound... But maybe the package will
>> get too large since most of Qt also needs to be included?
>>
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Andrés
>>
>> On Sat, Sep 12, 2009 at 9:39 AM, Dr. Richard Boulanger
>>  wrote:
>>> Victor,
>>>
>>> Having a QuteCsound as a part of the Mac Packages for OS X would  
>>> be a huge
>>> help.
>>>
>>> The growing collection of  QuteCsound examples are fantastic!
>>> Hopefully they will continue to grow.
>>>
>>> (Thanks especially to Joachim and Andres for all their work on the  
>>> program
>>> and the examples.)
>>>
>>> -dB
>>>
>>> Dr. Richard Boulanger  -  rboulanger@berklee.edu
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Sep 12, 2009, at 10:25 AM, Victor Lazzarini wrote:
>>>
>>>> I could always include the QuteCsound installer with the OSX  
>>>> packages too,
>>>> it should be no problem, just another file. Would you think this  
>>>> should
>>>> help?
>>>>
>>>> Regards
>>>> Victor
>>>>
>>>> On 12 Sep 2009, at 15:17, Andres Cabrera wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>
>>>>> I think these issues you mention are mostly being addressed with  
>>>>> the
>>>>> new upcoming release (it's been delayed for some time due to
>>>>> scheduling conflicts between devels). Michael has worked hard to
>>>>> ensure the new installers will not have the python dependency  
>>>>> problem,
>>>>> and also the new windows installers will include QuteCsound (which
>>>>> IMO, but I'm biased =) ), is easy to use for newbies, and  
>>>>> includes a
>>>>> set of examples that can show a few things Csound can do. More
>>>>> examples and suggestions are of course very welcome.
>>>>>
>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>> Andrés
>>>>>
>>>>> On Sat, Sep 12, 2009 at 9:02 AM, Aaron Johnson  
>>>>> 
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Hey all,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> There's been a discussion over on the Yahoogroups tuning list  
>>>>>> re:Csound.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The discussion brought up some valid points and criticisms of the
>>>>>> whole world of Csound. While no one denied Csound was powerful,
>>>>>> everyone agreed that it was the height of 'unfriendly'....
>>>>>>
>>>>>> consider the following:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 1) the installs are broken. they 'work', give a brief ok  
>>>>>> message, but
>>>>>> then you find out you're missing certain components (I haven't  
>>>>>> tried
>>>>>> the latest install, if there is one past 5.10, but that's been my
>>>>>> experience in the past)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 1a) If you decide to compile, then you have to deal with Scons,  
>>>>>> which
>>>>>> I think does not live up to it's hype for being easier than  
>>>>>> configure,
>>>>>> make, make install. I want to like Scons, it's written in  
>>>>>> Python after
>>>>>> all, but let's face it, it causes more problems than it solves.  
>>>>>> Having
>>>>>> to edit a file, and hand search for parameters you don't even  
>>>>>> know
>>>>>> exist, or are relevant, is a BIG problem. I miss the old ./ 
>>>>>> configure
>>>>>> --help, look at options, pick them, and do the actual ./configure
>>>>>> --with-whatever
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 2) you install, and then there's nothing fun to whet the appetite
>>>>>> after you're done. No demos packaged in, no super-cool  
>>>>>> orchestras or
>>>>>> sounds to say "wow---I can do THAT with Csound???". "Trapped" is
>>>>>> great, but I mean, how about something equivalent to a  
>>>>>> community built
>>>>>> GM patchset that people can just "plug 'n play"? You are  
>>>>>> basically
>>>>>> given a gas can with your new car, and told to walk 5 miles to  
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> nearest gas station....enjoy your new car, pal---wait you  
>>>>>> wanted gas,
>>>>>> too---no pal, this is free software! :) Basically, this  
>>>>>> translates to
>>>>>> using Google to do hours of research on instrument building and
>>>>>> finding example sco/orc or .csd files on the web from disparate
>>>>>> sources. We've all done it, but can't we agree that it can and  
>>>>>> should
>>>>>> be easier than this? Do we want Csound to grow and compete for
>>>>>> mindshare with Reaktor?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 3) frontends like Blue intend to solve this problem to some  
>>>>>> degree,
>>>>>> but they have their own problems, mainly the 800-pound ugly  
>>>>>> that is
>>>>>> Java. Maybe this is my personal issue, but I have a rule: I  
>>>>>> will not
>>>>>> install an entire Java runtime environment for one piece of  
>>>>>> software.
>>>>>> It would be an altogether different story if it were a Python  
>>>>>> GUI.
>>>>>> Python is great, it's completely un-corporate and free, and  
>>>>>> everything
>>>>>> these days uses Python, so it's already on my system. Also, my  
>>>>>> limited
>>>>>> experience with Blue is that it also a bit more confusing at  
>>>>>> first
>>>>>> than promised; however, I have only limited experience with it,  
>>>>>> and
>>>>>> perhaps am biased, as I have lots of experience making my own  
>>>>>> text
>>>>>> orchestras. What we need is a Csound5-like front end that comes  
>>>>>> with
>>>>>> the package with lots of presets that people can set up to  
>>>>>> their MIDI
>>>>>> keyboards and play right away with, from the get-go...the Python
>>>>>> community calls this "batteries included"
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That said, I still love Csound, but I wish my love could be more
>>>>>> contagious. But I think others are less forgiving of these  
>>>>>> faults,
>>>>>> which are basically packaging issues. In it's current state,  
>>>>>> Csound is
>>>>>> 'packaged for the choir'---people who already love it---made by  
>>>>>> geeks,
>>>>>> for geeks.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Am I wrong here?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Aaron Krister Johnson
>>>>>> http://www.akjmusic.com
>>>>>> http://www.untwelve.org
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Send bugs reports to this list.
>>>>>> To unsubscribe, send email sympa@lists.bath.ac.uk with body  
>>>>>> "unsubscribe
>>>>>> csound"
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Andrés
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> 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"
>>
>>
>>
>> -- 
>>
>>
>> Andrés
>>
>>
>> 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"

Blue is an amazingly wonderful, powerful, and beautiful front-end/ 
production environment
for Csound!  It embodies and realizes so many unique and powerful  
algorithmic composition,
sound design, sequencing, and production concepts.  It is the whole  
package and an
incredibly rich "total environment" in which to work, compose,  
develop, learn, and teach.

Your continued support and development of it is fantastic - and each  
new version both adds more
power and yet makes is easier and more intuitive to use!

It is a huge environment - and does require some serious time to  
explore and adapt to this new way
of working with Csound, but it rewards that dedication because of all  
the NEW riches that it provides.

Blue is a composing environment for Csound - dedicated to composing  
both sounds and music
- algorithmically as well as deliberately and offers powerful high- 
level tools/operators to allow for
the exploration and development of musical motives, passages,  
sections, "objects"

I am sad at Berklee that I only have one semester to teach ALL of   
Csound and then another
semester to use it some in my DSP classes (and a pinch of it in Max  
and Circuit Bending too)
because Blue needs a semester.  Blue needs to be the sequal to my  
Csound Class.

Csound Composition and Programming in Blue (a dream of mine - but  
someday)

For now, I try to offer some seminars near the end of each semester  
and get one or two of my
advanced users into your fantastic package.

I would encourage ALL Csounders to spend a weekend with Blue....   
There are wonderful examples
and tutorials in this package as well - and some beautiful music.

Dr. B.

PS.  The bonus with Blue - is with all the algorithmic transformations  
and production tools at your disposal,
when you are done and have made a piece - you can save it as a .csd  
and share your work with non-blue
Csounders!


Dr. Richard Boulanger  -  rboulanger@berklee.edu



On Sep 12, 2009, at 10:56 AM, Steven Yi wrote:

> Well, others have spoken about the other parts of your email, but I
> wanted to speak to the part about blue.  As for Java, if you have a
> prejudice against it then nothing can be done.  I feel strongly that
> the Java Virtual Machine has some of the most interesting developments
> going on it as a platform (that I can script in Python, Ruby, Groovy,
> and Clojure on top of the JVM is fantastic), and that I see more
> cross-platform compatibility with Java than I do with python and other
> languages. Java is also GPL and thus I feel assured that investments
> of time in it are safe.
>
> As for blue, I think it is sort of its own thing that requires a
> little time to learn, same as in the first time anyone opens sequencer
> or DAW and has never used one before that it takes a little time to
> get used to.  Another environment like this built on top of Csound
> doesn't really exist as far as I know, so there's nothing to compare
> to. That said, there are certainly areas where improvements can be
> made and they're certainly on my mind.  I'm currently working to
> finish the first blue 2.0 that has been redeveloped on top of Netbean
> RCP framework.  This should hopefully be done soon, and afterwards my
> attention will be on a number of things which I think should make blue
> a bit easier to use.  I'd invite you to give it another try sometime,
> especially since I think things like microcsound could work within
> blue(btw, I tried to check it just now and
> http://www.akjmusic.com/packages.html comes up empty).
>
> Thanks,
> steven
>
>
>
> On Sat, Sep 12, 2009 at 10:02 AM, Aaron Johnson   
> wrote:
>> Hey all,
>>
>> There's been a discussion over on the Yahoogroups tuning list  
>> re:Csound.
>>
>> The discussion brought up some valid points and criticisms of the
>> whole world of Csound. While no one denied Csound was powerful,
>> everyone agreed that it was the height of 'unfriendly'....
>>
>> consider the following:
>>
>> 1) the installs are broken. they 'work', give a brief ok message, but
>> then you find out you're missing certain components (I haven't tried
>> the latest install, if there is one past 5.10, but that's been my
>> experience in the past)
>>
>> 1a) If you decide to compile, then you have to deal with Scons, which
>> I think does not live up to it's hype for being easier than  
>> configure,
>> make, make install. I want to like Scons, it's written in Python  
>> after
>> all, but let's face it, it causes more problems than it solves.  
>> Having
>> to edit a file, and hand search for parameters you don't even know
>> exist, or are relevant, is a BIG problem. I miss the old ./configure
>> --help, look at options, pick them, and do the actual ./configure
>> --with-whatever
>>
>> 2) you install, and then there's nothing fun to whet the appetite
>> after you're done. No demos packaged in, no super-cool orchestras or
>> sounds to say "wow---I can do THAT with Csound???". "Trapped" is
>> great, but I mean, how about something equivalent to a community  
>> built
>> GM patchset that people can just "plug 'n play"? You are basically
>> given a gas can with your new car, and told to walk 5 miles to the
>> nearest gas station....enjoy your new car, pal---wait you wanted gas,
>> too---no pal, this is free software! :) Basically, this translates to
>> using Google to do hours of research on instrument building and
>> finding example sco/orc or .csd files on the web from disparate
>> sources. We've all done it, but can't we agree that it can and should
>> be easier than this? Do we want Csound to grow and compete for
>> mindshare with Reaktor?
>>
>> 3) frontends like Blue intend to solve this problem to some degree,
>> but they have their own problems, mainly the 800-pound ugly that is
>> Java. Maybe this is my personal issue, but I have a rule: I will not
>> install an entire Java runtime environment for one piece of software.
>> It would be an altogether different story if it were a Python GUI.
>> Python is great, it's completely un-corporate and free, and  
>> everything
>> these days uses Python, so it's already on my system. Also, my  
>> limited
>> experience with Blue is that it also a bit more confusing at first
>> than promised; however, I have only limited experience with it, and
>> perhaps am biased, as I have lots of experience making my own text
>> orchestras. What we need is a Csound5-like front end that comes with
>> the package with lots of presets that people can set up to their MIDI
>> keyboards and play right away with, from the get-go...the Python
>> community calls this "batteries included"
>>
>> That said, I still love Csound, but I wish my love could be more
>> contagious. But I think others are less forgiving of these faults,
>> which are basically packaging issues. In it's current state, Csound  
>> is
>> 'packaged for the choir'---people who already love it---made by  
>> geeks,
>> for geeks.
>>
>> Am I wrong here?
>>
>> --
>>
>> Aaron Krister Johnson
>> http://www.akjmusic.com
>> http://www.untwelve.org
>>
>>
>> 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"

PS:

You can import your compositions into Blue and begin to rework/remix  
them there - that's a fun way to get
started with Blue too.


-dB

Dr. Richard Boulanger  -  rboulanger@berklee.edu



On Sep 12, 2009, at 11:32 AM, Dr. Richard Boulanger wrote:

> Blue is an amazingly wonderful, powerful, and beautiful front-end/ 
> production environment
> for Csound!  It embodies and realizes so many unique and powerful  
> algorithmic composition,
> sound design, sequencing, and production concepts.  It is the whole  
> package and an
> incredibly rich "total environment" in which to work, compose,  
> develop, learn, and teach.
>
> Your continued support and development of it is fantastic - and each  
> new version both adds more
> power and yet makes is easier and more intuitive to use!
>
> It is a huge environment - and does require some serious time to  
> explore and adapt to this new way
> of working with Csound, but it rewards that dedication because of  
> all the NEW riches that it provides.
>
> Blue is a composing environment for Csound - dedicated to composing  
> both sounds and music
> - algorithmically as well as deliberately and offers powerful high- 
> level tools/operators to allow for
> the exploration and development of musical motives, passages,  
> sections, "objects"
>
> I am sad at Berklee that I only have one semester to teach ALL of   
> Csound and then another
> semester to use it some in my DSP classes (and a pinch of it in Max  
> and Circuit Bending too)
> because Blue needs a semester.  Blue needs to be the sequal to my  
> Csound Class.
>
> Csound Composition and Programming in Blue (a dream of mine - but  
> someday)
>
> For now, I try to offer some seminars near the end of each semester  
> and get one or two of my
> advanced users into your fantastic package.
>
> I would encourage ALL Csounders to spend a weekend with Blue....   
> There are wonderful examples
> and tutorials in this package as well - and some beautiful music.
>
> Dr. B.
>
> PS.  The bonus with Blue - is with all the algorithmic  
> transformations and production tools at your disposal,
> when you are done and have made a piece - you can save it as a .csd  
> and share your work with non-blue
> Csounders!
>
>
> Dr. Richard Boulanger  -  rboulanger@berklee.edu
>
>
>
> On Sep 12, 2009, at 10:56 AM, Steven Yi wrote:
>
>> Well, others have spoken about the other parts of your email, but I
>> wanted to speak to the part about blue.  As for Java, if you have a
>> prejudice against it then nothing can be done.  I feel strongly that
>> the Java Virtual Machine has some of the most interesting  
>> developments
>> going on it as a platform (that I can script in Python, Ruby, Groovy,
>> and Clojure on top of the JVM is fantastic), and that I see more
>> cross-platform compatibility with Java than I do with python and  
>> other
>> languages. Java is also GPL and thus I feel assured that investments
>> of time in it are safe.
>>
>> As for blue, I think it is sort of its own thing that requires a
>> little time to learn, same as in the first time anyone opens  
>> sequencer
>> or DAW and has never used one before that it takes a little time to
>> get used to.  Another environment like this built on top of Csound
>> doesn't really exist as far as I know, so there's nothing to compare
>> to. That said, there are certainly areas where improvements can be
>> made and they're certainly on my mind.  I'm currently working to
>> finish the first blue 2.0 that has been redeveloped on top of Netbean
>> RCP framework.  This should hopefully be done soon, and afterwards my
>> attention will be on a number of things which I think should make  
>> blue
>> a bit easier to use.  I'd invite you to give it another try sometime,
>> especially since I think things like microcsound could work within
>> blue(btw, I tried to check it just now and
>> http://www.akjmusic.com/packages.html comes up empty).
>>
>> Thanks,
>> steven
>>
>>
>>
>> On Sat, Sep 12, 2009 at 10:02 AM, Aaron Johnson  
>>  wrote:
>>> Hey all,
>>>
>>> There's been a discussion over on the Yahoogroups tuning list  
>>> re:Csound.
>>>
>>> The discussion brought up some valid points and criticisms of the
>>> whole world of Csound. While no one denied Csound was powerful,
>>> everyone agreed that it was the height of 'unfriendly'....
>>>
>>> consider the following:
>>>
>>> 1) the installs are broken. they 'work', give a brief ok message,  
>>> but
>>> then you find out you're missing certain components (I haven't tried
>>> the latest install, if there is one past 5.10, but that's been my
>>> experience in the past)
>>>
>>> 1a) If you decide to compile, then you have to deal with Scons,  
>>> which
>>> I think does not live up to it's hype for being easier than  
>>> configure,
>>> make, make install. I want to like Scons, it's written in Python  
>>> after
>>> all, but let's face it, it causes more problems than it solves.  
>>> Having
>>> to edit a file, and hand search for parameters you don't even know
>>> exist, or are relevant, is a BIG problem. I miss the old ./configure
>>> --help, look at options, pick them, and do the actual ./configure
>>> --with-whatever
>>>
>>> 2) you install, and then there's nothing fun to whet the appetite
>>> after you're done. No demos packaged in, no super-cool orchestras or
>>> sounds to say "wow---I can do THAT with Csound???". "Trapped" is
>>> great, but I mean, how about something equivalent to a community  
>>> built
>>> GM patchset that people can just "plug 'n play"? You are basically
>>> given a gas can with your new car, and told to walk 5 miles to the
>>> nearest gas station....enjoy your new car, pal---wait you wanted  
>>> gas,
>>> too---no pal, this is free software! :) Basically, this translates  
>>> to
>>> using Google to do hours of research on instrument building and
>>> finding example sco/orc or .csd files on the web from disparate
>>> sources. We've all done it, but can't we agree that it can and  
>>> should
>>> be easier than this? Do we want Csound to grow and compete for
>>> mindshare with Reaktor?
>>>
>>> 3) frontends like Blue intend to solve this problem to some degree,
>>> but they have their own problems, mainly the 800-pound ugly that is
>>> Java. Maybe this is my personal issue, but I have a rule: I will not
>>> install an entire Java runtime environment for one piece of  
>>> software.
>>> It would be an altogether different story if it were a Python GUI.
>>> Python is great, it's completely un-corporate and free, and  
>>> everything
>>> these days uses Python, so it's already on my system. Also, my  
>>> limited
>>> experience with Blue is that it also a bit more confusing at first
>>> than promised; however, I have only limited experience with it, and
>>> perhaps am biased, as I have lots of experience making my own text
>>> orchestras. What we need is a Csound5-like front end that comes with
>>> the package with lots of presets that people can set up to their  
>>> MIDI
>>> keyboards and play right away with, from the get-go...the Python
>>> community calls this "batteries included"
>>>
>>> That said, I still love Csound, but I wish my love could be more
>>> contagious. But I think others are less forgiving of these faults,
>>> which are basically packaging issues. In it's current state,  
>>> Csound is
>>> 'packaged for the choir'---people who already love it---made by  
>>> geeks,
>>> for geeks.
>>>
>>> Am I wrong here?
>>>
>>> --
>>>
>>> Aaron Krister Johnson
>>> http://www.akjmusic.com
>>> http://www.untwelve.org
>>>
>>>
>>> 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"



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

Personally, I've never really viewed blue as a beginner-csound tool. It looks and feels like a DAW/sequencer, but you still have to know some basics about csound in order to do anything.

Of course, it also helps to read the documentation, etc. It's got so many capabilities, it's easy to get lost, I think. I consider blue more a composition tool for at least low/mid-level csounders, and it excels in that.

Michael Bechard



----- Original Message ----
From: Dr. Richard Boulanger 
To: csound@lists.bath.ac.uk
Sent: Saturday, September 12, 2009 10:32:20 AM
Subject: [Csnd] Re: Csound's adoption - Blue is Great TOO!

Blue is an amazingly wonderful, powerful, and beautiful front-end/production environment
for Csound!  It embodies and realizes so many unique and powerful algorithmic composition,
sound design, sequencing, and production concepts.  It is the whole package and an
incredibly rich "total environment" in which to work, compose, develop, learn, and teach.

Your continued support and development of it is fantastic - and each new version both adds more
power and yet makes is easier and more intuitive to use!

It is a huge environment - and does require some serious time to explore and adapt to this new way
of working with Csound, but it rewards that dedication because of all the NEW riches that it provides.

Blue is a composing environment for Csound - dedicated to composing both sounds and music
- algorithmically as well as deliberately and offers powerful high-level tools/operators to allow for
the exploration and development of musical motives, passages, sections, "objects"

I am sad at Berklee that I only have one semester to teach ALL of  Csound and then another
semester to use it some in my DSP classes (and a pinch of it in Max and Circuit Bending too)
because Blue needs a semester.  Blue needs to be the sequal to my Csound Class.

Csound Composition and Programming in Blue (a dream of mine - but someday)

For now, I try to offer some seminars near the end of each semester and get one or two of my
advanced users into your fantastic package.

I would encourage ALL Csounders to spend a weekend with Blue....  There are wonderful examples
and tutorials in this package as well - and some beautiful music.

Dr. B.

PS.  The bonus with Blue - is with all the algorithmic transformations and production tools at your disposal,
when you are done and have made a piece - you can save it as a .csd and share your work with non-blue
Csounders!


Dr. Richard Boulanger  -  rboulanger@berklee.edu



On Sep 12, 2009, at 10:56 AM, Steven Yi wrote:

> Well, others have spoken about the other parts of your email, but I
> wanted to speak to the part about blue.  As for Java, if you have a
> prejudice against it then nothing can be done.  I feel strongly that
> the Java Virtual Machine has some of the most interesting developments
> going on it as a platform (that I can script in Python, Ruby, Groovy,
> and Clojure on top of the JVM is fantastic), and that I see more
> cross-platform compatibility with Java than I do with python and other
> languages. Java is also GPL and thus I feel assured that investments
> of time in it are safe.
> 
> As for blue, I think it is sort of its own thing that requires a
> little time to learn, same as in the first time anyone opens sequencer
> or DAW and has never used one before that it takes a little time to
> get used to.  Another environment like this built on top of Csound
> doesn't really exist as far as I know, so there's nothing to compare
> to. That said, there are certainly areas where improvements can be
> made and they're certainly on my mind.  I'm currently working to
> finish the first blue 2.0 that has been redeveloped on top of Netbean
> RCP framework.  This should hopefully be done soon, and afterwards my
> attention will be on a number of things which I think should make blue
> a bit easier to use.  I'd invite you to give it another try sometime,
> especially since I think things like microcsound could work within
> blue(btw, I tried to check it just now and
> http://www.akjmusic.com/packages.html comes up empty).
> 
> Thanks,
> steven
> 
> 
> 
> On Sat, Sep 12, 2009 at 10:02 AM, Aaron Johnson  wrote:
>> Hey all,
>> 
>> There's been a discussion over on the Yahoogroups tuning list re:Csound.
>> 
>> The discussion brought up some valid points and criticisms of the
>> whole world of Csound. While no one denied Csound was powerful,
>> everyone agreed that it was the height of 'unfriendly'....
>> 
>> consider the following:
>> 
>> 1) the installs are broken. they 'work', give a brief ok message, but
>> then you find out you're missing certain components (I haven't tried
>> the latest install, if there is one past 5.10, but that's been my
>> experience in the past)
>> 
>> 1a) If you decide to compile, then you have to deal with Scons, which
>> I think does not live up to it's hype for being easier than configure,
>> make, make install. I want to like Scons, it's written in Python after
>> all, but let's face it, it causes more problems than it solves. Having
>> to edit a file, and hand search for parameters you don't even know
>> exist, or are relevant, is a BIG problem. I miss the old ./configure
>> --help, look at options, pick them, and do the actual ./configure
>> --with-whatever
>> 
>> 2) you install, and then there's nothing fun to whet the appetite
>> after you're done. No demos packaged in, no super-cool orchestras or
>> sounds to say "wow---I can do THAT with Csound???". "Trapped" is
>> great, but I mean, how about something equivalent to a community built
>> GM patchset that people can just "plug 'n play"? You are basically
>> given a gas can with your new car, and told to walk 5 miles to the
>> nearest gas station....enjoy your new car, pal---wait you wanted gas,
>> too---no pal, this is free software! :) Basically, this translates to
>> using Google to do hours of research on instrument building and
>> finding example sco/orc or .csd files on the web from disparate
>> sources. We've all done it, but can't we agree that it can and should
>> be easier than this? Do we want Csound to grow and compete for
>> mindshare with Reaktor?
>> 
>> 3) frontends like Blue intend to solve this problem to some degree,
>> but they have their own problems, mainly the 800-pound ugly that is
>> Java. Maybe this is my personal issue, but I have a rule: I will not
>> install an entire Java runtime environment for one piece of software.
>> It would be an altogether different story if it were a Python GUI.
>> Python is great, it's completely un-corporate and free, and everything
>> these days uses Python, so it's already on my system. Also, my limited
>> experience with Blue is that it also a bit more confusing at first
>> than promised; however, I have only limited experience with it, and
>> perhaps am biased, as I have lots of experience making my own text
>> orchestras. What we need is a Csound5-like front end that comes with
>> the package with lots of presets that people can set up to their MIDI
>> keyboards and play right away with, from the get-go...the Python
>> community calls this "batteries included"
>> 
>> That said, I still love Csound, but I wish my love could be more
>> contagious. But I think others are less forgiving of these faults,
>> which are basically packaging issues. In it's current state, Csound is
>> 'packaged for the choir'---people who already love it---made by geeks,
>> for geeks.
>> 
>> Am I wrong here?
>> 
>> --
>> 
>> Aaron Krister Johnson
>> http://www.akjmusic.com
>> http://www.untwelve.org
>> 
>> 
>> 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"



      


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

About the installers, which platform are you talking about?

About Scons, we adopted it because, try as we might and despite having
professional programmers such as myself and mathematicians and
compiler writers such as John ffitch on board, we couldn't get
autotools to work. So, obviously SCons is better for Csound, because
autotools just don't work at all.

About Java -- or Python -- or any other language or 3rd party
component -- no matter how big it is, as long as you have enough room
left on your computer after installing it to do your work, then not
installing that component will prevent you from doing some things, but
installing it will not stop you from doing anything.

Regards,
Mike

On 9/12/09, Aaron Johnson  wrote:
> Hey all,
>
> There's been a discussion over on the Yahoogroups tuning list re:Csound.
>
> The discussion brought up some valid points and criticisms of the
> whole world of Csound. While no one denied Csound was powerful,
> everyone agreed that it was the height of 'unfriendly'....
>
> consider the following:
>
> 1) the installs are broken. they 'work', give a brief ok message, but
> then you find out you're missing certain components (I haven't tried
> the latest install, if there is one past 5.10, but that's been my
> experience in the past)
>
> 1a) If you decide to compile, then you have to deal with Scons, which
> I think does not live up to it's hype for being easier than configure,
> make, make install. I want to like Scons, it's written in Python after
> all, but let's face it, it causes more problems than it solves. Having
> to edit a file, and hand search for parameters you don't even know
> exist, or are relevant, is a BIG problem. I miss the old ./configure
> --help, look at options, pick them, and do the actual ./configure
> --with-whatever
>
> 2) you install, and then there's nothing fun to whet the appetite
> after you're done. No demos packaged in, no super-cool orchestras or
> sounds to say "wow---I can do THAT with Csound???". "Trapped" is
> great, but I mean, how about something equivalent to a community built
> GM patchset that people can just "plug 'n play"? You are basically
> given a gas can with your new car, and told to walk 5 miles to the
> nearest gas station....enjoy your new car, pal---wait you wanted gas,
> too---no pal, this is free software! :) Basically, this translates to
> using Google to do hours of research on instrument building and
> finding example sco/orc or .csd files on the web from disparate
> sources. We've all done it, but can't we agree that it can and should
> be easier than this? Do we want Csound to grow and compete for
> mindshare with Reaktor?
>
> 3) frontends like Blue intend to solve this problem to some degree,
> but they have their own problems, mainly the 800-pound ugly that is
> Java. Maybe this is my personal issue, but I have a rule: I will not
> install an entire Java runtime environment for one piece of software.
> It would be an altogether different story if it were a Python GUI.
> Python is great, it's completely un-corporate and free, and everything
> these days uses Python, so it's already on my system. Also, my limited
> experience with Blue is that it also a bit more confusing at first
> than promised; however, I have only limited experience with it, and
> perhaps am biased, as I have lots of experience making my own text
> orchestras. What we need is a Csound5-like front end that comes with
> the package with lots of presets that people can set up to their MIDI
> keyboards and play right away with, from the get-go...the Python
> community calls this "batteries included"
>
> That said, I still love Csound, but I wish my love could be more
> contagious. But I think others are less forgiving of these faults,
> which are basically packaging issues. In it's current state, Csound is
> 'packaged for the choir'---people who already love it---made by geeks,
> for geeks.
>
> Am I wrong here?
>
> --
>
> Aaron Krister Johnson
> http://www.akjmusic.com
> http://www.untwelve.org
>
>
> Send bugs reports to this list.
> To unsubscribe, send email sympa@lists.bath.ac.uk with body "unsubscribe
> csound"
>

> Do we want Csound to grow and compete for
> mindshare with Reaktor?

no.





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

Thanks Dr. B for the kinds words and Michael for your thoughts! I can
concur that as it is there's some Csound knowledge required to get
into blue. I remember talking with Rory about it in Italy and I think
that some changes in blue's windowing system in blue 2 should make it
possible to use blue for entry-level csound work, and for the user to
enable parts as desired. Perhaps this with some new tutorials should
get the barrier to entry down. It will certainly be on my mind!

Steven

On 9/12/09, Michael Bechard  wrote:
> Personally, I've never really viewed blue as a beginner-csound tool. It
> looks and feels like a DAW/sequencer, but you still have to know some basics
> about csound in order to do anything.
>
> Of course, it also helps to read the documentation, etc. It's got so many
> capabilities, it's easy to get lost, I think. I consider blue more a
> composition tool for at least low/mid-level csounders, and it excels in
> that.
>
> Michael Bechard
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message ----
> From: Dr. Richard Boulanger 
> To: csound@lists.bath.ac.uk
> Sent: Saturday, September 12, 2009 10:32:20 AM
> Subject: [Csnd] Re: Csound's adoption - Blue is Great TOO!
>
> Blue is an amazingly wonderful, powerful, and beautiful front-end/production
> environment
> for Csound!  It embodies and realizes so many unique and powerful
> algorithmic composition,
> sound design, sequencing, and production concepts.  It is the whole package
> and an
> incredibly rich "total environment" in which to work, compose, develop,
> learn, and teach.
>
> Your continued support and development of it is fantastic - and each new
> version both adds more
> power and yet makes is easier and more intuitive to use!
>
> It is a huge environment - and does require some serious time to explore and
> adapt to this new way
> of working with Csound, but it rewards that dedication because of all the
> NEW riches that it provides.
>
> Blue is a composing environment for Csound - dedicated to composing both
> sounds and music
> - algorithmically as well as deliberately and offers powerful high-level
> tools/operators to allow for
> the exploration and development of musical motives, passages, sections,
> "objects"
>
> I am sad at Berklee that I only have one semester to teach ALL of  Csound
> and then another
> semester to use it some in my DSP classes (and a pinch of it in Max and
> Circuit Bending too)
> because Blue needs a semester.  Blue needs to be the sequal to my Csound
> Class.
>
> Csound Composition and Programming in Blue (a dream of mine - but someday)
>
> For now, I try to offer some seminars near the end of each semester and get
> one or two of my
> advanced users into your fantastic package.
>
> I would encourage ALL Csounders to spend a weekend with Blue....  There are
> wonderful examples
> and tutorials in this package as well - and some beautiful music.
>
> Dr. B.
>
> PS.  The bonus with Blue - is with all the algorithmic transformations and
> production tools at your disposal,
> when you are done and have made a piece - you can save it as a .csd and
> share your work with non-blue
> Csounders!
>
>
> Dr. Richard Boulanger  -  rboulanger@berklee.edu
>
>
>
> On Sep 12, 2009, at 10:56 AM, Steven Yi wrote:
>
>> Well, others have spoken about the other parts of your email, but I
>> wanted to speak to the part about blue.  As for Java, if you have a
>> prejudice against it then nothing can be done.  I feel strongly that
>> the Java Virtual Machine has some of the most interesting developments
>> going on it as a platform (that I can script in Python, Ruby, Groovy,
>> and Clojure on top of the JVM is fantastic), and that I see more
>> cross-platform compatibility with Java than I do with python and other
>> languages. Java is also GPL and thus I feel assured that investments
>> of time in it are safe.
>>
>> As for blue, I think it is sort of its own thing that requires a
>> little time to learn, same as in the first time anyone opens sequencer
>> or DAW and has never used one before that it takes a little time to
>> get used to.  Another environment like this built on top of Csound
>> doesn't really exist as far as I know, so there's nothing to compare
>> to. That said, there are certainly areas where improvements can be
>> made and they're certainly on my mind.  I'm currently working to
>> finish the first blue 2.0 that has been redeveloped on top of Netbean
>> RCP framework.  This should hopefully be done soon, and afterwards my
>> attention will be on a number of things which I think should make blue
>> a bit easier to use.  I'd invite you to give it another try sometime,
>> especially since I think things like microcsound could work within
>> blue(btw, I tried to check it just now and
>> http://www.akjmusic.com/packages.html comes up empty).
>>
>> Thanks,
>> steven
>>
>>
>>
>> On Sat, Sep 12, 2009 at 10:02 AM, Aaron Johnson 
>> wrote:
>>> Hey all,
>>>
>>> There's been a discussion over on the Yahoogroups tuning list re:Csound.
>>>
>>> The discussion brought up some valid points and criticisms of the
>>> whole world of Csound. While no one denied Csound was powerful,
>>> everyone agreed that it was the height of 'unfriendly'....
>>>
>>> consider the following:
>>>
>>> 1) the installs are broken. they 'work', give a brief ok message, but
>>> then you find out you're missing certain components (I haven't tried
>>> the latest install, if there is one past 5.10, but that's been my
>>> experience in the past)
>>>
>>> 1a) If you decide to compile, then you have to deal with Scons, which
>>> I think does not live up to it's hype for being easier than configure,
>>> make, make install. I want to like Scons, it's written in Python after
>>> all, but let's face it, it causes more problems than it solves. Having
>>> to edit a file, and hand search for parameters you don't even know
>>> exist, or are relevant, is a BIG problem. I miss the old ./configure
>>> --help, look at options, pick them, and do the actual ./configure
>>> --with-whatever
>>>
>>> 2) you install, and then there's nothing fun to whet the appetite
>>> after you're done. No demos packaged in, no super-cool orchestras or
>>> sounds to say "wow---I can do THAT with Csound???". "Trapped" is
>>> great, but I mean, how about something equivalent to a community built
>>> GM patchset that people can just "plug 'n play"? You are basically
>>> given a gas can with your new car, and told to walk 5 miles to the
>>> nearest gas station....enjoy your new car, pal---wait you wanted gas,
>>> too---no pal, this is free software! :) Basically, this translates to
>>> using Google to do hours of research on instrument building and
>>> finding example sco/orc or .csd files on the web from disparate
>>> sources. We've all done it, but can't we agree that it can and should
>>> be easier than this? Do we want Csound to grow and compete for
>>> mindshare with Reaktor?
>>>
>>> 3) frontends like Blue intend to solve this problem to some degree,
>>> but they have their own problems, mainly the 800-pound ugly that is
>>> Java. Maybe this is my personal issue, but I have a rule: I will not
>>> install an entire Java runtime environment for one piece of software.
>>> It would be an altogether different story if it were a Python GUI.
>>> Python is great, it's completely un-corporate and free, and everything
>>> these days uses Python, so it's already on my system. Also, my limited
>>> experience with Blue is that it also a bit more confusing at first
>>> than promised; however, I have only limited experience with it, and
>>> perhaps am biased, as I have lots of experience making my own text
>>> orchestras. What we need is a Csound5-like front end that comes with
>>> the package with lots of presets that people can set up to their MIDI
>>> keyboards and play right away with, from the get-go...the Python
>>> community calls this "batteries included"
>>>
>>> That said, I still love Csound, but I wish my love could be more
>>> contagious. But I think others are less forgiving of these faults,
>>> which are basically packaging issues. In it's current state, Csound is
>>> 'packaged for the choir'---people who already love it---made by geeks,
>>> for geeks.
>>>
>>> Am I wrong here?
>>>
>>> --
>>>
>>> Aaron Krister Johnson
>>> http://www.akjmusic.com
>>> http://www.untwelve.org
>>>
>>>
>>> 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"
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Send bugs reports to this list.
> To unsubscribe, send email sympa@lists.bath.ac.uk with body "unsubscribe
> csound"
>

What I want is a world in which serious musicians share a common body
of knowledge, just as they already share Western tonality, the piano
keyboard, and a suite of orchestral instruments.

In computer music, Csound is a good example of a program that has a
"tradition" because it is old, still in use, and has maintained
backwards compatibility. If it can be extended and made easier to use
without breaking backwards compatibility, everybody gains and nobody
loses. If that means competing with Reaktor, fine. If not, fine.

Regards,
Mike

On 9/12/09, Stéphane Rollandin  wrote:
>> Do we want Csound to grow and compete for
>> mindshare with Reaktor?
>
> no.
>
>
>
>
>
> Send bugs reports to this list.
> To unsubscribe, send email sympa@lists.bath.ac.uk with body "unsubscribe
> csound"
>


-- 
Michael Gogins
Irreducible Productions
http://www.michael-gogins.com
Michael dot Gogins at gmail dot com


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

Steven Yi wrote:
> 
>  I'd invite you to give it another try sometime,
> especially since I think things like microcsound could work within
> blue(btw, I tried to check it just now and
> http://www.akjmusic.com/packages.html comes up empty).
> 
> Steven,
> 
> Thanks for looking into this and exposing my error: the correct address to
> download microcsound is:
> http://www.akjmusic.com/packages
> 
> the latest version is microcsound20090813.tgz (from august)
> 
> let me know how it works......I'm curious how it would integrate into
> blue....
> 
> BTW, does blue have markov chain algorithms?
> 
> Best,
> Aaron.
> 
> 
> On Sat, Sep 12, 2009 at 10:02 AM, Aaron Johnson 
> wrote:
>> Hey all,
>>
>> There's been a discussion over on the Yahoogroups tuning list re:Csound.
>>
>> The discussion brought up some valid points and criticisms of the
>> whole world of Csound. While no one denied Csound was powerful,
>> everyone agreed that it was the height of 'unfriendly'....
>>
>> consider the following:
>>
>> 1) the installs are broken. they 'work', give a brief ok message, but
>> then you find out you're missing certain components (I haven't tried
>> the latest install, if there is one past 5.10, but that's been my
>> experience in the past)
>>
>> 1a) If you decide to compile, then you have to deal with Scons, which
>> I think does not live up to it's hype for being easier than configure,
>> make, make install. I want to like Scons, it's written in Python after
>> all, but let's face it, it causes more problems than it solves. Having
>> to edit a file, and hand search for parameters you don't even know
>> exist, or are relevant, is a BIG problem. I miss the old ./configure
>> --help, look at options, pick them, and do the actual ./configure
>> --with-whatever
>>
>> 2) you install, and then there's nothing fun to whet the appetite
>> after you're done. No demos packaged in, no super-cool orchestras or
>> sounds to say "wow---I can do THAT with Csound???". "Trapped" is
>> great, but I mean, how about something equivalent to a community built
>> GM patchset that people can just "plug 'n play"? You are basically
>> given a gas can with your new car, and told to walk 5 miles to the
>> nearest gas station....enjoy your new car, pal---wait you wanted gas,
>> too---no pal, this is free software! :) Basically, this translates to
>> using Google to do hours of research on instrument building and
>> finding example sco/orc or .csd files on the web from disparate
>> sources. We've all done it, but can't we agree that it can and should
>> be easier than this? Do we want Csound to grow and compete for
>> mindshare with Reaktor?
>>
>> 3) frontends like Blue intend to solve this problem to some degree,
>> but they have their own problems, mainly the 800-pound ugly that is
>> Java. Maybe this is my personal issue, but I have a rule: I will not
>> install an entire Java runtime environment for one piece of software.
>> It would be an altogether different story if it were a Python GUI.
>> Python is great, it's completely un-corporate and free, and everything
>> these days uses Python, so it's already on my system. Also, my limited
>> experience with Blue is that it also a bit more confusing at first
>> than promised; however, I have only limited experience with it, and
>> perhaps am biased, as I have lots of experience making my own text
>> orchestras. What we need is a Csound5-like front end that comes with
>> the package with lots of presets that people can set up to their MIDI
>> keyboards and play right away with, from the get-go...the Python
>> community calls this "batteries included"
>>
>> That said, I still love Csound, but I wish my love could be more
>> contagious. But I think others are less forgiving of these faults,
>> which are basically packaging issues. In it's current state, Csound is
>> 'packaged for the choir'---people who already love it---made by geeks,
>> for geeks.
>>
>> Am I wrong here?
>>
>> --
>>
>> Aaron Krister Johnson
>> http://www.akjmusic.com
>> http://www.untwelve.org
>>
>>
>> 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"
> 
> 

Yes...well said.

--David Mooney

> What I want is a world in which serious musicians share a common body
> of knowledge, just as they already share Western tonality, the piano
> keyboard, and a suite of orchestral instruments.
>
> In computer music, Csound is a good example of a program that has a
> "tradition" because it is old, still in use, and has maintained
> backwards compatibility. If it can be extended and made easier to use
> without breaking backwards compatibility, everybody gains and nobody
> loses. If that means competing with Reaktor, fine. If not, fine.
>
> Regards,
> Mike
>
> On 9/12/09, Stéphane Rollandin  wrote:
>>> Do we want Csound to grow and compete for
>>> mindshare with Reaktor?
>>
>> no.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Send bugs reports to this list.
>> To unsubscribe, send email sympa@lists.bath.ac.uk with body "unsubscribe
>> csound"
>>
>
>
> --
> Michael Gogins
> Irreducible Productions
> http://www.michael-gogins.com
> Michael dot Gogins at gmail dot com
>
>
> Send bugs reports to this list.
> To unsubscribe, send email sympa@lists.bath.ac.uk with body "unsubscribe
> csound"

Hi Aaron,

blue itself does not include a Markov chain module, but it should be
fairly straightforward to write a markov chain function in python and
use that within blue.  blue allows scripting in python in two ways,
the first is using the included java python interpreter jython, the
other is using the External object and calling a locally installed
python.  Either way, the script for the object is executed and
generated score events are parsed by blue. In this way, an object on
the timeline can hold the contents of a script of yours, perhaps one
generated line from microcsound.  You could then organize the
different musical lines in time by just moving the bars on the
timeline.

For microcsound, I would recommend adding the microcsound code as one
soundObject in the project. In other soundObjects, I would write
microcsound score within python multline-strings and then call the
microcsound processor to read the contents from that string, so your
objects contents would look like:

microScore = """
[my microcsound score]
"""

score = processMicroCsound(microScore)

and that would get it to be included into blue.  The advantage of
using blue to host microcsound would be:

1. You can take advantage of blue's instrument and mixer system
2. Your code for microcsound would be included with the project.  If
using blue's python object, you would not have to worry about anyone
having python installed for them to open it regardless of platform as
long as they have blue.
3. You could continue to have all of your score in a single score text
if you like by using a single python object to process your project.
The object could have its time properties set to none in blue which
means everything generated from that object will get passed through
as-is by blue with no further time processing.
4. You gain the option to use multiple score objects and organize in
time on the timeline.
5. You gain the option to apply note processors to your score.

Even if you want to continue with the same general workflow of
microcsound as it is today, by hosting within a blue project, using
the single python object and working with global orchestera you'd at
least gain the ability to run your project with a single keystroke
(F9). This is assuming you haven't setup a macro of some sort in
whatever editor you are using to run microcsound with the code you
have and then run csound.

If you would like to see how this could all work, we can work together
off list to try to get a sample microcsound-with-blue project going.

Thanks!
steven


On Sun, Sep 13, 2009 at 3:56 PM, Aaron Krister Johnson
 wrote:
>
>
>
> Steven Yi wrote:
>>
>>  I'd invite you to give it another try sometime,
>> especially since I think things like microcsound could work within
>> blue(btw, I tried to check it just now and
>> http://www.akjmusic.com/packages.html comes up empty).
>>
>> Steven,
>>
>> Thanks for looking into this and exposing my error: the correct address to
>> download microcsound is:
>> http://www.akjmusic.com/packages
>>
>> the latest version is microcsound20090813.tgz (from august)
>>
>> let me know how it works......I'm curious how it would integrate into
>> blue....
>>
>> BTW, does blue have markov chain algorithms?
>>
>> Best,
>> Aaron.
>>
>>
>> On Sat, Sep 12, 2009 at 10:02 AM, Aaron Johnson 
>> wrote:
>>> Hey all,
>>>
>>> There's been a discussion over on the Yahoogroups tuning list re:Csound.
>>>
>>> The discussion brought up some valid points and criticisms of the
>>> whole world of Csound. While no one denied Csound was powerful,
>>> everyone agreed that it was the height of 'unfriendly'....
>>>
>>> consider the following:
>>>
>>> 1) the installs are broken. they 'work', give a brief ok message, but
>>> then you find out you're missing certain components (I haven't tried
>>> the latest install, if there is one past 5.10, but that's been my
>>> experience in the past)
>>>
>>> 1a) If you decide to compile, then you have to deal with Scons, which
>>> I think does not live up to it's hype for being easier than configure,
>>> make, make install. I want to like Scons, it's written in Python after
>>> all, but let's face it, it causes more problems than it solves. Having
>>> to edit a file, and hand search for parameters you don't even know
>>> exist, or are relevant, is a BIG problem. I miss the old ./configure
>>> --help, look at options, pick them, and do the actual ./configure
>>> --with-whatever
>>>
>>> 2) you install, and then there's nothing fun to whet the appetite
>>> after you're done. No demos packaged in, no super-cool orchestras or
>>> sounds to say "wow---I can do THAT with Csound???". "Trapped" is
>>> great, but I mean, how about something equivalent to a community built
>>> GM patchset that people can just "plug 'n play"? You are basically
>>> given a gas can with your new car, and told to walk 5 miles to the
>>> nearest gas station....enjoy your new car, pal---wait you wanted gas,
>>> too---no pal, this is free software! :) Basically, this translates to
>>> using Google to do hours of research on instrument building and
>>> finding example sco/orc or .csd files on the web from disparate
>>> sources. We've all done it, but can't we agree that it can and should
>>> be easier than this? Do we want Csound to grow and compete for
>>> mindshare with Reaktor?
>>>
>>> 3) frontends like Blue intend to solve this problem to some degree,
>>> but they have their own problems, mainly the 800-pound ugly that is
>>> Java. Maybe this is my personal issue, but I have a rule: I will not
>>> install an entire Java runtime environment for one piece of software.
>>> It would be an altogether different story if it were a Python GUI.
>>> Python is great, it's completely un-corporate and free, and everything
>>> these days uses Python, so it's already on my system. Also, my limited
>>> experience with Blue is that it also a bit more confusing at first
>>> than promised; however, I have only limited experience with it, and
>>> perhaps am biased, as I have lots of experience making my own text
>>> orchestras. What we need is a Csound5-like front end that comes with
>>> the package with lots of presets that people can set up to their MIDI
>>> keyboards and play right away with, from the get-go...the Python
>>> community calls this "batteries included"
>>>
>>> That said, I still love Csound, but I wish my love could be more
>>> contagious. But I think others are less forgiving of these faults,
>>> which are basically packaging issues. In it's current state, Csound is
>>> 'packaged for the choir'---people who already love it---made by geeks,
>>> for geeks.
>>>
>>> Am I wrong here?
>>>
>>> --
>>>
>>> Aaron Krister Johnson
>>> http://www.akjmusic.com
>>> http://www.untwelve.org
>>>
>>>
>>> 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"
>>
>>
>
> --
> View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Csound%27s-adoption-tp25414758p25426566.html
> Sent from the Csound - General mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>
>
>
> 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"

This is certainly intriguing, Steven. Maybe I will in the upcoming weeks try
to install blue and see how it will all work.

I do have some simple Python (library) code for Markov chains....I'd love to
(co)develop something that might become a standard feature for blue perhaps.
I was thinking also along the lines of having some kind of online database
of statistics for various historical styles that would be stored as Python
dictionaries. Composers within Csound/microcsound/blue could then download
such data and create instant stylistically accurate textures which could
then be processed further as they wish.

I don't know how one would get the dictionaries of such stats entered
without doing them by hand with printed scores. Or one could leverage MIDI
to do such analysis. The advantage here is up front challenge of writing
code, but then it gets reused with ease on whatever music in
question....anyway, I'm a believer in the power of Markov chains after
hearing the work of David Cope. Not just for imitative work, either....it
seems to me that in this age where we have ironically less and less time to
compose (I'll speak for myself) the idea of being more productive through
technology without sacrificing quality is a very attractive one! Who knows,
maybe it's a mirage.

Best,
Aaron.



Steven Yi wrote:
> 
> Hi Aaron,
> 
> blue itself does not include a Markov chain module, but it should be
> fairly straightforward to write a markov chain function in python and
> use that within blue.  blue allows scripting in python in two ways,
> the first is using the included java python interpreter jython, the
> other is using the External object and calling a locally installed
> python.  Either way, the script for the object is executed and
> generated score events are parsed by blue. In this way, an object on
> the timeline can hold the contents of a script of yours, perhaps one
> generated line from microcsound.  You could then organize the
> different musical lines in time by just moving the bars on the
> timeline.
> 
> For microcsound, I would recommend adding the microcsound code as one
> soundObject in the project. In other soundObjects, I would write
> microcsound score within python multline-strings and then call the
> microcsound processor to read the contents from that string, so your
> objects contents would look like:
> 
> microScore = """
> [my microcsound score]
> """
> 
> score = processMicroCsound(microScore)
> 
> and that would get it to be included into blue.  The advantage of
> using blue to host microcsound would be:
> 
> 1. You can take advantage of blue's instrument and mixer system
> 2. Your code for microcsound would be included with the project.  If
> using blue's python object, you would not have to worry about anyone
> having python installed for them to open it regardless of platform as
> long as they have blue.
> 3. You could continue to have all of your score in a single score text
> if you like by using a single python object to process your project.
> The object could have its time properties set to none in blue which
> means everything generated from that object will get passed through
> as-is by blue with no further time processing.
> 4. You gain the option to use multiple score objects and organize in
> time on the timeline.
> 5. You gain the option to apply note processors to your score.
> 
> Even if you want to continue with the same general workflow of
> microcsound as it is today, by hosting within a blue project, using
> the single python object and working with global orchestera you'd at
> least gain the ability to run your project with a single keystroke
> (F9). This is assuming you haven't setup a macro of some sort in
> whatever editor you are using to run microcsound with the code you
> have and then run csound.
> 
> If you would like to see how this could all work, we can work together
> off list to try to get a sample microcsound-with-blue project going.
> 
> Thanks!
> steven
> 
> 
> On Sun, Sep 13, 2009 at 3:56 PM, Aaron Krister Johnson
>  wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> Steven Yi wrote:
>>>
>>>  I'd invite you to give it another try sometime,
>>> especially since I think things like microcsound could work within
>>> blue(btw, I tried to check it just now and
>>> http://www.akjmusic.com/packages.html comes up empty).
>>>
>>> Steven,
>>>
>>> Thanks for looking into this and exposing my error: the correct address
>>> to
>>> download microcsound is:
>>> http://www.akjmusic.com/packages
>>>
>>> the latest version is microcsound20090813.tgz (from august)
>>>
>>> let me know how it works......I'm curious how it would integrate into
>>> blue....
>>>
>>> BTW, does blue have markov chain algorithms?
>>>
>>> Best,
>>> Aaron.
>>>
>>>
>>> On Sat, Sep 12, 2009 at 10:02 AM, Aaron Johnson 
>>> wrote:
>>>> Hey all,
>>>>
>>>> There's been a discussion over on the Yahoogroups tuning list
>>>> re:Csound.
>>>>
>>>> The discussion brought up some valid points and criticisms of the
>>>> whole world of Csound. While no one denied Csound was powerful,
>>>> everyone agreed that it was the height of 'unfriendly'....
>>>>
>>>> consider the following:
>>>>
>>>> 1) the installs are broken. they 'work', give a brief ok message, but
>>>> then you find out you're missing certain components (I haven't tried
>>>> the latest install, if there is one past 5.10, but that's been my
>>>> experience in the past)
>>>>
>>>> 1a) If you decide to compile, then you have to deal with Scons, which
>>>> I think does not live up to it's hype for being easier than configure,
>>>> make, make install. I want to like Scons, it's written in Python after
>>>> all, but let's face it, it causes more problems than it solves. Having
>>>> to edit a file, and hand search for parameters you don't even know
>>>> exist, or are relevant, is a BIG problem. I miss the old ./configure
>>>> --help, look at options, pick them, and do the actual ./configure
>>>> --with-whatever
>>>>
>>>> 2) you install, and then there's nothing fun to whet the appetite
>>>> after you're done. No demos packaged in, no super-cool orchestras or
>>>> sounds to say "wow---I can do THAT with Csound???". "Trapped" is
>>>> great, but I mean, how about something equivalent to a community built
>>>> GM patchset that people can just "plug 'n play"? You are basically
>>>> given a gas can with your new car, and told to walk 5 miles to the
>>>> nearest gas station....enjoy your new car, pal---wait you wanted gas,
>>>> too---no pal, this is free software! :) Basically, this translates to
>>>> using Google to do hours of research on instrument building and
>>>> finding example sco/orc or .csd files on the web from disparate
>>>> sources. We've all done it, but can't we agree that it can and should
>>>> be easier than this? Do we want Csound to grow and compete for
>>>> mindshare with Reaktor?
>>>>
>>>> 3) frontends like Blue intend to solve this problem to some degree,
>>>> but they have their own problems, mainly the 800-pound ugly that is
>>>> Java. Maybe this is my personal issue, but I have a rule: I will not
>>>> install an entire Java runtime environment for one piece of software.
>>>> It would be an altogether different story if it were a Python GUI.
>>>> Python is great, it's completely un-corporate and free, and everything
>>>> these days uses Python, so it's already on my system. Also, my limited
>>>> experience with Blue is that it also a bit more confusing at first
>>>> than promised; however, I have only limited experience with it, and
>>>> perhaps am biased, as I have lots of experience making my own text
>>>> orchestras. What we need is a Csound5-like front end that comes with
>>>> the package with lots of presets that people can set up to their MIDI
>>>> keyboards and play right away with, from the get-go...the Python
>>>> community calls this "batteries included"
>>>>
>>>> That said, I still love Csound, but I wish my love could be more
>>>> contagious. But I think others are less forgiving of these faults,
>>>> which are basically packaging issues. In it's current state, Csound is
>>>> 'packaged for the choir'---people who already love it---made by geeks,
>>>> for geeks.
>>>>
>>>> Am I wrong here?
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>>
>>>> Aaron Krister Johnson
>>>> http://www.akjmusic.com
>>>> http://www.untwelve.org
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> 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"
>>>
>>>
>>
>> --
>> View this message in context:
>> http://www.nabble.com/Csound%27s-adoption-tp25414758p25426566.html
>> Sent from the Csound - General mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>>
>>
>>
>> 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"
> 

-- 
View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Csound%27s-adoption-tp25414758p25429303.html
Sent from the Csound - General mailing list archive at Nabble.com.



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

Hi,


Is Cope's work Markov chain based? From what I've read it does more of
a structural, harmonical and motivical analysis, and from that builds
a set of random possibilities.

Cheers,
Andrés

On Sun, Sep 13, 2009 at 9:04 PM, Aaron Krister Johnson
 wrote:
> I don't know how one would get the dictionaries of such stats entered
> without doing them by hand with printed scores. Or one could leverage MIDI
> to do such analysis. The advantage here is up front challenge of writing
> code, but then it gets reused with ease on whatever music in
> question....anyway, I'm a believer in the power of Markov chains after
> hearing the work of David Cope. Not just for imitative work, either....it
> seems to me that in this age where we have ironically less and less time to
> compose (I'll speak for myself) the idea of being more productive through
> technology without sacrificing quality is a very attractive one! Who knows,
> maybe it's a mirage.


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

I was at WACM with Cope in 2005, and he showed some of his code and
outlined the general concepts. It seems it is not strictly markov
based, but very much related. He talked about an "associasion network"
(if I remember the term correctly), which in practice could be very
close to a transition matrix. I think the trick is that he has done
(markov) analysis on a number of different levels (like note level,
motif level, phrase level, section level etc).

best
Oeyvind

2009/9/14 Andres Cabrera :
> Hi,
>
>
> Is Cope's work Markov chain based? From what I've read it does more of
> a structural, harmonical and motivical analysis, and from that builds
> a set of random possibilities.
>
> Cheers,
> Andrés
>
> On Sun, Sep 13, 2009 at 9:04 PM, Aaron Krister Johnson
>  wrote:
>> I don't know how one would get the dictionaries of such stats entered
>> without doing them by hand with printed scores. Or one could leverage MIDI
>> to do such analysis. The advantage here is up front challenge of writing
>> code, but then it gets reused with ease on whatever music in
>> question....anyway, I'm a believer in the power of Markov chains after
>> hearing the work of David Cope. Not just for imitative work, either....it
>> seems to me that in this age where we have ironically less and less time to
>> compose (I'll speak for myself) the idea of being more productive through
>> technology without sacrificing quality is a very attractive one! Who knows,
>> maybe it's a mirage.
>
>
> 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"

Andres Cabrera wrote:
> 
> Hi,
> 
> 
> Is Cope's work Markov chain based? From what I've read it does more of
> a structural, harmonical and motivical analysis, and from that builds
> a set of random possibilities.
> 
> 
> Andres-
> according to Cope, EMI and many other of his programs are based on Markov
> chains. I'm sure they are not the sole mechanism, but they are key, it
> seems.
> 
> read the Markov chain passage from Cope's book here:
> http://tinyurl.com/lhjloh
> 
> Best,
> Aaron.
> 
> On Sun, Sep 13, 2009 at 9:04 PM, Aaron Krister Johnson
>  wrote:
> ....anyway, I'm a believer in the power of Markov chains after
>> hearing the work of David Cope. Not just for imitative work, either....it
>> seems to me that in this age where we have ironically less and less time
>> to
>> compose (I'll speak for myself) the idea of being more productive through
>> technology without sacrificing quality is a very attractive one! Who
>> knows,
>> maybe it's a mirage.
> 
> 
> Send bugs reports to this list.
> To unsubscribe, send email sympa@lists.bath.ac.uk with body "unsubscribe
> csound"
> 

I'm very glad Aaron started off this discussion. But reading down the
threads, it looks like the main thrust of his message sort of fizzled out as
the threads wandered into other issues (like Scons, etc.)

I learned Csound on my own (i.e., not in an academic setting) with no one to
talk to. I gripe and whine on a blog I have about the hoops I had to jump
through to figure out what was going on. I can only imagine the difficulty
the developers have wrestling this huge and inchoate mass of code.

Before I continue, please know that if I make any criticisms, it's only
after respectfully saluting all the musicians/engineers/volunteers who've
kept the Csound locomotive steaming down the tracks for all these years. 

I agree with most of Aaron's points. There are a lot of basic tutorials and
good information on Csound programming; the problem I had was with the
initial installation and configuration. Already we run into an issue as to
whether this is for Mac, Windows, or Unix. The tutorials and readmes are
scattered all over the place, and it's like chasing a rabbit over a field to
finally figure out what's going on. There are also giant chunks of old GUIs,
projects, and systems that frankly I don't think anyone is using anymore but
still comes along with Csound for backwards compatibility. There is so much
in the Csound world, in so many places (csounds, nabble, sourceforge) that
it's difficult to get a handle on.

On top of that the Csound Book, while essential to have, was more confusing
than helpful to me until I got over the beginner phase.

Then there are the myriad current and legacy GUIs and frontends; how is the
new user to figure out what the pros and cons are of all these and how to
implement them? A knowledge of python, Qt, Tcl/Tk, and Java is now needed to
get a grasp on a lot of these technologies.

In a perfect world, the best solution would be for a new user to be able to
email a someone and explain
- what their platform is
- what their programming background is
- what their goal with csound is (at least at first

Then the guru could explain what they need to download, how to install it,
how to set it up, how to get started with a simple project, and then the
person could be turned loose.

When I retire, I'll volunteer to do that. But that may be a few years off.

Cheers, 
Tim S