Not wanting to ignite some sort of war a la Mac vs. PC,
I'm interested in a lucid, impartial comparison of the
two, with regard to work flow, methodology, strengths,
weaknesses, etc.

I was thinking of spending some time with SuperCollider
and as a long time csounder, and I'm wondering whether I
could save some time by finding out whether SuperCollider
has anything extra for me.  I'm normally more interested in
algorithmic composition, and the sounds I create often
stray far from that of mimicking real instruments, although
I sometimes want to do that as well.

I can't afford to fiddle with GUI's.  I normally use Make
with Bash, and all of the command line tools that that world
has to offer.  I have a strict policy that no musical decision
is set in stone.  At the end I can delete all .wav files
(well except for any recorded source material) and with one
command build the entire piece again, allowing me to change
any parameter in the piece from the very beginning of its creation.

Thanks,

Tobiah

SC3 is good for algorithmic composition. You should try it. The language is yucky, but it does have good facilities for AC. If you are into designing synthesis or processing instruments, I would say you are better off with Csound, though. 

It depends also if you are a multi-language person or not.  If you are, then maybe something like Grace with Csound might appeal to you.

Victor

On 3 Sep 2012, at 20:29, Tobiah  wrote:

> Not wanting to ignite some sort of war a la Mac vs. PC,
> I'm interested in a lucid, impartial comparison of the
> two, with regard to work flow, methodology, strengths,
> weaknesses, etc.
> 
> I was thinking of spending some time with SuperCollider
> and as a long time csounder, and I'm wondering whether I
> could save some time by finding out whether SuperCollider
> has anything extra for me.  I'm normally more interested in
> algorithmic composition, and the sounds I create often
> stray far from that of mimicking real instruments, although
> I sometimes want to do that as well.
> 
> I can't afford to fiddle with GUI's.  I normally use Make
> with Bash, and all of the command line tools that that world
> has to offer.  I have a strict policy that no musical decision
> is set in stone.  At the end I can delete all .wav files
> (well except for any recorded source material) and with one
> command build the entire piece again, allowing me to change
> any parameter in the piece from the very beginning of its creation.
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Tobiah
> 
> 
> Send bugs reports to the Sourceforge bug tracker
>           https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?group_id=81968&atid=564599
> Discussions of bugs and features can be posted here
> To unsubscribe, send email sympa@lists.bath.ac.uk with body "unsubscribe csound"
> 

Victor Lazzarini wrote
> 
> SC3 is good for algorithmic composition. You should try it. The language
> is yucky, but it does have good facilities for AC. If you are into
> designing synthesis or processing instruments, I would say you are better
> off with Csound, though. 
> 
> It depends also if you are a multi-language person or not.  If you are,
> then maybe something like Grace with Csound might appeal to you.
> 
> Victor

How does Csound and SC3's algorithmic composition differ? That's something I
eventually want to go into. As far as the language in SC3 being yucky, the
only thing I would have to say as I look through the Supercollider book is
that I personally find it rather yucky to write one long line of code in one
of the first examples in that book. That could be just personal preference
though. I prefer to break things up a bit.

One bad thing I will say about Supercollider 3 is the lack of a proper
editor. I really detest having to select the lines of code I want to
evaluate. I prefer the use of a more traditional IDE over the revamped text
editor SC3 offers. I've never worked with the command line tools so I
wouldn't know what that's like.

One thing I love about SC3 are the local host and internal servers. Although
I don't know much about either I will say that I believe that to be a step
in the right direction.

As I typed this I looked at an example outside of the supercollider book and
I can see where you are coming from Victor. One thing I will say about the
language being yucky is that the Supercollider community has said relatively
the same thing about Csound's language (although I cannot remember what it
was specifically) so I think the whole yucky language thing is rather
subjected to the person evaluating it and their experience with other
languages.



--
View this message in context: http://csound.1045644.n5.nabble.com/SuperCollider-and-Csound-tp5715393p5715396.html
Sent from the Csound - General mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

Most definitely a personal opinion, regarding the language. That is why I am here and not there. But it is a fine system anyway. People should try it, if they are curious.

I am not sure Csound on its own offers much for AC, but it is very open and can be integrated or combined with other systems and languages that do.

Victor
On 3 Sep 2012, at 21:t 06, John Colgrove  wrote:
> 
> Victor Lazzarini wrote
>> 
>> SC3 is good for algorithmic composition. You should try it. The language
>> is yucky, but it does have good facilities for AC. If you are into
>> designing synthesis or processing instruments, I would say you are better
>> off with Csound, though. 
>> 
>> It depends also if you are a multi-language person or not.  If you are,
>> then maybe something like Grace with Csound might appeal to you.
>> 
>> Victor
> 
> How does Csound and SC3's algorithmic composition differ? That's something I
> eventually want to go into. As far as the language in SC3 being yucky, the
> only thing I would have to say as I look through the Supercollider book is
> that I personally find it rather yucky to write one long line of code in one
> of the first examples in that book. That could be just personal preference
> though. I prefer to break things up a bit.
> 
> One bad thing I will say about Supercollider 3 is the lack of a proper
> editor. I really detest having to select the lines of code I want to
> evaluate. I prefer the use of a more traditional IDE over the revamped text
> editor SC3 offers. I've never worked with the command line tools so I
> wouldn't know what that's like.
> 
> One thing I love about SC3 are the local host and internal servers. Although
> I don't know much about either I will say that I believe that to be a step
> in the right direction.
> 
> As I typed this I looked at an example outside of the supercollider book and
> I can see where you are coming from Victor. One thing I will say about the
> language being yucky is that the Supercollider community has said relatively
> the same thing about Csound's language (although I cannot remember what it
> was specifically) so I think the whole yucky language thing is rather
> subjected to the person evaluating it and their experience with other
> languages.
> 
> 
> 
> --
> View this message in context: http://csound.1045644.n5.nabble.com/SuperCollider-and-Csound-tp5715393p5715396.html
> Sent from the Csound - General mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
> 
> 
> Send bugs reports to the Sourceforge bug tracker
>            https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?group_id=81968&atid=564599
> Discussions of bugs and features can be posted here
> To unsubscribe, send email sympa@lists.bath.ac.uk with body "unsubscribe csound"
> 

Much of my work is algorithmic composition, and I use C programs to
generate csound scores, driven by makefiles.  But I am a programmer, and I
use C as there is not a LISP to my taste.

I did try SC but could not wiek out how to get anything out of it --
silence only.  But it was on an OS with which I was not familiar either
==John ff


> Most definitely a personal opinion, regarding the language. That is why I
> am here and not there. But it is a fine system anyway. People should try
> it, if they are curious.
>
> I am not sure Csound on its own offers much for AC, but it is very open
> and can be integrated or combined with other systems and languages that
> do.
>
> Victor
> On 3 Sep 2012, at 21:t 06, John Colgrove  wrote:
>>
>> Victor Lazzarini wrote
>>>
>>> SC3 is good for algorithmic composition. You should try it. The
>>> language
>>> is yucky, but it does have good facilities for AC. If you are into
>>> designing synthesis or processing instruments, I would say you are
>>> better
>>> off with Csound, though.
>>>
>>> It depends also if you are a multi-language person or not.  If you are,
>>> then maybe something like Grace with Csound might appeal to you.
>>>
>>> Victor
>>
>> How does Csound and SC3's algorithmic composition differ? That's
>> something I
>> eventually want to go into. As far as the language in SC3 being yucky,
>> the
>> only thing I would have to say as I look through the Supercollider book
>> is
>> that I personally find it rather yucky to write one long line of code in
>> one
>> of the first examples in that book. That could be just personal
>> preference
>> though. I prefer to break things up a bit.
>>
>> One bad thing I will say about Supercollider 3 is the lack of a proper
>> editor. I really detest having to select the lines of code I want to
>> evaluate. I prefer the use of a more traditional IDE over the revamped
>> text
>> editor SC3 offers. I've never worked with the command line tools so I
>> wouldn't know what that's like.
>>
>> One thing I love about SC3 are the local host and internal servers.
>> Although
>> I don't know much about either I will say that I believe that to be a
>> step
>> in the right direction.
>>
>> As I typed this I looked at an example outside of the supercollider book
>> and
>> I can see where you are coming from Victor. One thing I will say about
>> the
>> language being yucky is that the Supercollider community has said
>> relatively
>> the same thing about Csound's language (although I cannot remember what
>> it
>> was specifically) so I think the whole yucky language thing is rather
>> subjected to the person evaluating it and their experience with other
>> languages.
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> View this message in context:
>> http://csound.1045644.n5.nabble.com/SuperCollider-and-Csound-tp5715393p5715396.html
>> Sent from the Csound - General mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>>
>>
>> Send bugs reports to the Sourceforge bug tracker
>>            https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?group_id=81968&atid=564599
>> Discussions of bugs and features can be posted here
>> To unsubscribe, send email sympa@lists.bath.ac.uk with body "unsubscribe
>> csound"
>>
>
>
> Send bugs reports to the Sourceforge bug tracker
>             https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?group_id=81968&atid=564599
> Discussions of bugs and features can be posted here
> To unsubscribe, send email sympa@lists.bath.ac.uk with body "unsubscribe
> csound"
>
>
>
>

If you are comfortable with programming languages, I suggest that you
pick the most powerful, fastest running, best supported programming
language and compose in that language, using Csound as a synthesis
library. Personally, I compose in C++, others as jpff does use C, some
use Lisp or Java.

As for Csound it has the largest and best maintained library of unit
generators, archive of freely available instruments, and supporting
documentation. I don't see anything counting against that unless you
need something like Max/MSP's superior support for graphical,
interactive patch design.

I truly fail to see how a programming language supposedly specialized
for music can really beat the combination of a general-purpose
programming language and Csound. In my view computer music people have
devoted a lot of time to developing new software tools when they could
have been composing or designing instruments or sounds.

That said, if you try SuperCollider I'd be very interested to hear
what worked for you and what did not.

Regards,
Mike


On Mon, Sep 3, 2012 at 4:22 PM,   wrote:
> Much of my work is algorithmic composition, and I use C programs to
> generate csound scores, driven by makefiles.  But I am a programmer, and I
> use C as there is not a LISP to my taste.
>
> I did try SC but could not wiek out how to get anything out of it --
> silence only.  But it was on an OS with which I was not familiar either
> ==John ff
>
>
>> Most definitely a personal opinion, regarding the language. That is why I
>> am here and not there. But it is a fine system anyway. People should try
>> it, if they are curious.
>>
>> I am not sure Csound on its own offers much for AC, but it is very open
>> and can be integrated or combined with other systems and languages that
>> do.
>>
>> Victor
>> On 3 Sep 2012, at 21:t 06, John Colgrove  wrote:
>>>
>>> Victor Lazzarini wrote
>>>>
>>>> SC3 is good for algorithmic composition. You should try it. The
>>>> language
>>>> is yucky, but it does have good facilities for AC. If you are into
>>>> designing synthesis or processing instruments, I would say you are
>>>> better
>>>> off with Csound, though.
>>>>
>>>> It depends also if you are a multi-language person or not.  If you are,
>>>> then maybe something like Grace with Csound might appeal to you.
>>>>
>>>> Victor
>>>
>>> How does Csound and SC3's algorithmic composition differ? That's
>>> something I
>>> eventually want to go into. As far as the language in SC3 being yucky,
>>> the
>>> only thing I would have to say as I look through the Supercollider book
>>> is
>>> that I personally find it rather yucky to write one long line of code in
>>> one
>>> of the first examples in that book. That could be just personal
>>> preference
>>> though. I prefer to break things up a bit.
>>>
>>> One bad thing I will say about Supercollider 3 is the lack of a proper
>>> editor. I really detest having to select the lines of code I want to
>>> evaluate. I prefer the use of a more traditional IDE over the revamped
>>> text
>>> editor SC3 offers. I've never worked with the command line tools so I
>>> wouldn't know what that's like.
>>>
>>> One thing I love about SC3 are the local host and internal servers.
>>> Although
>>> I don't know much about either I will say that I believe that to be a
>>> step
>>> in the right direction.
>>>
>>> As I typed this I looked at an example outside of the supercollider book
>>> and
>>> I can see where you are coming from Victor. One thing I will say about
>>> the
>>> language being yucky is that the Supercollider community has said
>>> relatively
>>> the same thing about Csound's language (although I cannot remember what
>>> it
>>> was specifically) so I think the whole yucky language thing is rather
>>> subjected to the person evaluating it and their experience with other
>>> languages.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> View this message in context:
>>> http://csound.1045644.n5.nabble.com/SuperCollider-and-Csound-tp5715393p5715396.html
>>> Sent from the Csound - General mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>>>
>>>
>>> Send bugs reports to the Sourceforge bug tracker
>>>            https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?group_id=81968&atid=564599
>>> Discussions of bugs and features can be posted here
>>> To unsubscribe, send email sympa@lists.bath.ac.uk with body "unsubscribe
>>> csound"
>>>
>>
>>
>> Send bugs reports to the Sourceforge bug tracker
>>             https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?group_id=81968&atid=564599
>> Discussions of bugs and features can be posted here
>> To unsubscribe, send email sympa@lists.bath.ac.uk with body "unsubscribe
>> csound"
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
> Send bugs reports to the Sourceforge bug tracker
>             https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?group_id=81968&atid=564599
> Discussions of bugs and features can be posted here
> 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

plus for SC:

It is very fast to go from looking at an example to hearing it
tweaking it etc. (since the default mechanism is to simply select text
and send it, you can do that from the docs, then edit the code and try
again etc. without even having to create a file)

The higher level patterns (things like l-systems, mathematical
generators, streams, markov systems).

There are fewer ways to do things on the audio generation side of
things, so it is quicker to pick out which thing you want.

minus for SC:

they expect you to use an "IDE" type interface, there is little
documentation or support for doing things from the command line or
running a file as a program

concurrancy: managing state between the language process, the editor
process, the synth process, the GUI process (yes if you use Mac the
editor and GUI are the same process, but last I used it with Linux the
editor was implemented on top of emacs, with the option of using gedit
instead). Things get weird, you expect a piece of code to execute in
one process / time of evaluation when really it ends up in another
altogether. Add this to a "DWIM" type language with extensive
overloading and syntax sugar, and you often have no idea when your
code is really evaluating or what it really expands to.

dynamic language, but: classes are only definable at the start of the
language process. People work around this by using hashtables as if
they were namespaces or objects (~var). So now you learn two subtly
different object systems, both capable of most of the same
functionality (one can do real inheritance, method dispatch, the other
is definable at runtime).

order of operations: order of operations is strict left to right, so:
1 + 2 * 3 evaluates to 6. Needless to say this causes subtle bugs when
you are used to a language that uses normal mathematical precedence.

quality and flexibility of Ugens: I wasted many hours trying to figure
out demand rate Ugens, only to find out months later that they had
been broken for a significant period of time. The selection of filters
is small, and many of them are prone to blow up with certain inputs
(with csound we have some that blow up, and others that are limited in
other ways but are less prone to bad internal state problems).

flexibility of the language: there are quite a few computationally
identical but syntactically diverse ways to undertake any task. In a
language designed for an audience largely composed of novices
(musicians foremost, secondarily programmers) this leads to people
using code they don't really understand, or code that works for the
wrong reason (leading to bugs down the road).

CPU inefficiency: given all those gripes, I only switched back to
csound because I wanted to do synthesis on my mobile device, and
supercollider was totally incapable of doing anything in real time
because its synthesis engine is too slow.

csound plus: diversity of opcodes, simple language, easy to hook in
another more powerful language

csound minus: instruments only definable at the beginning of running
the program, since you need another language to do more complex
operations but none are made canonical, there is duplicated effort in
Java, various lisps, smalltalk, C/C++, lua, etc.

On Mon, Sep 3, 2012 at 1:16 PM, Victor  wrote:
> Most definitely a personal opinion, regarding the language. That is why I am here and not there. But it is a fine system anyway. People should try it, if they are curious.
>
> I am not sure Csound on its own offers much for AC, but it is very open and can be integrated or combined with other systems and languages that do.
>
> Victor
> On 3 Sep 2012, at 21:t 06, John Colgrove  wrote:
>>
>> Victor Lazzarini wrote
>>>
>>> SC3 is good for algorithmic composition. You should try it. The language
>>> is yucky, but it does have good facilities for AC. If you are into
>>> designing synthesis or processing instruments, I would say you are better
>>> off with Csound, though.
>>>
>>> It depends also if you are a multi-language person or not.  If you are,
>>> then maybe something like Grace with Csound might appeal to you.
>>>
>>> Victor
>>
>> How does Csound and SC3's algorithmic composition differ? That's something I
>> eventually want to go into. As far as the language in SC3 being yucky, the
>> only thing I would have to say as I look through the Supercollider book is
>> that I personally find it rather yucky to write one long line of code in one
>> of the first examples in that book. That could be just personal preference
>> though. I prefer to break things up a bit.
>>
>> One bad thing I will say about Supercollider 3 is the lack of a proper
>> editor. I really detest having to select the lines of code I want to
>> evaluate. I prefer the use of a more traditional IDE over the revamped text
>> editor SC3 offers. I've never worked with the command line tools so I
>> wouldn't know what that's like.
>>
>> One thing I love about SC3 are the local host and internal servers. Although
>> I don't know much about either I will say that I believe that to be a step
>> in the right direction.
>>
>> As I typed this I looked at an example outside of the supercollider book and
>> I can see where you are coming from Victor. One thing I will say about the
>> language being yucky is that the Supercollider community has said relatively
>> the same thing about Csound's language (although I cannot remember what it
>> was specifically) so I think the whole yucky language thing is rather
>> subjected to the person evaluating it and their experience with other
>> languages.
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> View this message in context: http://csound.1045644.n5.nabble.com/SuperCollider-and-Csound-tp5715393p5715396.html
>> Sent from the Csound - General mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>>
>>
>> Send bugs reports to the Sourceforge bug tracker
>>            https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?group_id=81968&atid=564599
>> Discussions of bugs and features can be posted here
>> To unsubscribe, send email sympa@lists.bath.ac.uk with body "unsubscribe csound"
>>
>
>
> Send bugs reports to the Sourceforge bug tracker
>             https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?group_id=81968&atid=564599
> Discussions of bugs and features can be posted here
> To unsubscribe, send email sympa@lists.bath.ac.uk with body "unsubscribe csound"
>

Oops, make that "1+2*3 evaluates to 9" in my messed up order of
evaluations example above (strict left to right)

On Mon, Sep 3, 2012 at 1:44 PM, Justin Smith  wrote:
> plus for SC:
>
> It is very fast to go from looking at an example to hearing it
> tweaking it etc. (since the default mechanism is to simply select text
> and send it, you can do that from the docs, then edit the code and try
> again etc. without even having to create a file)
>
> The higher level patterns (things like l-systems, mathematical
> generators, streams, markov systems).
>
> There are fewer ways to do things on the audio generation side of
> things, so it is quicker to pick out which thing you want.
>
> minus for SC:
>
> they expect you to use an "IDE" type interface, there is little
> documentation or support for doing things from the command line or
> running a file as a program
>
> concurrancy: managing state between the language process, the editor
> process, the synth process, the GUI process (yes if you use Mac the
> editor and GUI are the same process, but last I used it with Linux the
> editor was implemented on top of emacs, with the option of using gedit
> instead). Things get weird, you expect a piece of code to execute in
> one process / time of evaluation when really it ends up in another
> altogether. Add this to a "DWIM" type language with extensive
> overloading and syntax sugar, and you often have no idea when your
> code is really evaluating or what it really expands to.
>
> dynamic language, but: classes are only definable at the start of the
> language process. People work around this by using hashtables as if
> they were namespaces or objects (~var). So now you learn two subtly
> different object systems, both capable of most of the same
> functionality (one can do real inheritance, method dispatch, the other
> is definable at runtime).
>
> order of operations: order of operations is strict left to right, so:
> 1 + 2 * 3 evaluates to 6. Needless to say this causes subtle bugs when
> you are used to a language that uses normal mathematical precedence.
>
> quality and flexibility of Ugens: I wasted many hours trying to figure
> out demand rate Ugens, only to find out months later that they had
> been broken for a significant period of time. The selection of filters
> is small, and many of them are prone to blow up with certain inputs
> (with csound we have some that blow up, and others that are limited in
> other ways but are less prone to bad internal state problems).
>
> flexibility of the language: there are quite a few computationally
> identical but syntactically diverse ways to undertake any task. In a
> language designed for an audience largely composed of novices
> (musicians foremost, secondarily programmers) this leads to people
> using code they don't really understand, or code that works for the
> wrong reason (leading to bugs down the road).
>
> CPU inefficiency: given all those gripes, I only switched back to
> csound because I wanted to do synthesis on my mobile device, and
> supercollider was totally incapable of doing anything in real time
> because its synthesis engine is too slow.
>
> csound plus: diversity of opcodes, simple language, easy to hook in
> another more powerful language
>
> csound minus: instruments only definable at the beginning of running
> the program, since you need another language to do more complex
> operations but none are made canonical, there is duplicated effort in
> Java, various lisps, smalltalk, C/C++, lua, etc.
>
> On Mon, Sep 3, 2012 at 1:16 PM, Victor  wrote:
>> Most definitely a personal opinion, regarding the language. That is why I am here and not there. But it is a fine system anyway. People should try it, if they are curious.
>>
>> I am not sure Csound on its own offers much for AC, but it is very open and can be integrated or combined with other systems and languages that do.
>>
>> Victor
>> On 3 Sep 2012, at 21:t 06, John Colgrove  wrote:
>>>
>>> Victor Lazzarini wrote
>>>>
>>>> SC3 is good for algorithmic composition. You should try it. The language
>>>> is yucky, but it does have good facilities for AC. If you are into
>>>> designing synthesis or processing instruments, I would say you are better
>>>> off with Csound, though.
>>>>
>>>> It depends also if you are a multi-language person or not.  If you are,
>>>> then maybe something like Grace with Csound might appeal to you.
>>>>
>>>> Victor
>>>
>>> How does Csound and SC3's algorithmic composition differ? That's something I
>>> eventually want to go into. As far as the language in SC3 being yucky, the
>>> only thing I would have to say as I look through the Supercollider book is
>>> that I personally find it rather yucky to write one long line of code in one
>>> of the first examples in that book. That could be just personal preference
>>> though. I prefer to break things up a bit.
>>>
>>> One bad thing I will say about Supercollider 3 is the lack of a proper
>>> editor. I really detest having to select the lines of code I want to
>>> evaluate. I prefer the use of a more traditional IDE over the revamped text
>>> editor SC3 offers. I've never worked with the command line tools so I
>>> wouldn't know what that's like.
>>>
>>> One thing I love about SC3 are the local host and internal servers. Although
>>> I don't know much about either I will say that I believe that to be a step
>>> in the right direction.
>>>
>>> As I typed this I looked at an example outside of the supercollider book and
>>> I can see where you are coming from Victor. One thing I will say about the
>>> language being yucky is that the Supercollider community has said relatively
>>> the same thing about Csound's language (although I cannot remember what it
>>> was specifically) so I think the whole yucky language thing is rather
>>> subjected to the person evaluating it and their experience with other
>>> languages.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> View this message in context: http://csound.1045644.n5.nabble.com/SuperCollider-and-Csound-tp5715393p5715396.html
>>> Sent from the Csound - General mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>>>
>>>
>>> Send bugs reports to the Sourceforge bug tracker
>>>            https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?group_id=81968&atid=564599
>>> Discussions of bugs and features can be posted here
>>> To unsubscribe, send email sympa@lists.bath.ac.uk with body "unsubscribe csound"
>>>
>>
>>
>> Send bugs reports to the Sourceforge bug tracker
>>             https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?group_id=81968&atid=564599
>> Discussions of bugs and features can be posted here
>> To unsubscribe, send email sympa@lists.bath.ac.uk with body "unsubscribe csound"
>>

On 09/03/12 15:29, Tobiah wrote:
> ...
>
> I was thinking of spending some time with SuperCollider
> and as a long time csounder, and I'm wondering whether I
> could save some time by finding out whether SuperCollider
> has anything extra for me.  I'm normally more interested in
> algorithmic composition, and the sounds I create often
> stray far from that of mimicking real instruments, although
> I sometimes want to do that as well.
>

Some superficial comments:

I drift in & out of using SC. I like many of its features, and it has 
some support applications - MEAPsoft and FScape, for example - that are 
very cool extensions. The Quarks system is a neat way of packaging 
projects, and the plugins provide some nice extensions to the system's 
audio capabilities.

I'm impressed with its language basis - I like the Smalltalk derivation 
- and it does have some great features for algorithmic composition and 
live coding.


> I can't afford to fiddle with GUI's.  I normally use Make
> with Bash, and all of the command line tools that that world
> has to offer.  I have a strict policy that no musical decision
> is set in stone.  At the end I can delete all .wav files
> (well except for any recorded source material) and with one
> command build the entire piece again, allowing me to change
> any parameter in the piece from the very beginning of its creation.
>

The new Scide editor is helpful, as is/was the gedit plugin.

Btw, in my opinion GUI features are better integrated into SC than 
Csound, though I think Andres' work with CsoundQT balances things out.

At the end of the day though I agree with Michael G. It's hard to beat 
the use of Csound in combination with a modern programming language such 
as C/C++ or Python, at least for event composition. Or use something 
like AthenaCL, GRACE/Common Music, or Csound AC.

Instrument design is a different story. I find it much easier to create 
interesting instruments in Csound, though I'm sure that's just 
experience. There are a lot more ready-made instruments available to 
Csounders.

Best,

dp


> Thanks,
>
> Tobiah
>
>
> Send bugs reports to the Sourceforge bug tracker
> https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?group_id=81968&atid=564599
> Discussions of bugs and features can be posted here
> To unsubscribe, send email sympa@lists.bath.ac.uk with body 
> "unsubscribe csound"
>
>

> csound minus: instruments only definable at the beginning of running
> the program, since you need another language to do more complex
> operations but none are made canonical, there is duplicated effort in
> Java, various lisps, smalltalk, C/C++, lua, etc.

As the author of one of these (muO, in Smalltak) I do not consider this 
a duplicate effort. Software for musical composition reflects the way 
the programmer(s) see composition, and as such it can be wildly diverse: 
see Blue, Strasheela, AthenaCL, muO, Grace/CM. They have not much in 
common. So to me this is a plus, not a minus.

Stef

Stéphane Rollandin wrote
> 
> As the author of one of these (muO, in Smalltak) I do not consider this 
> a duplicate effort. Software for musical composition reflects the way 
> the programmer(s) see composition, and as such it can be wildly diverse: 
> see Blue, Strasheela, AthenaCL, muO, Grace/CM. They have not much in 
> common. So to me this is a plus, not a minus.
> 
> Stef

I don't know about anyone else, but I never thought of it that way. I
completely agree.



--
View this message in context: http://csound.1045644.n5.nabble.com/SuperCollider-and-Csound-tp5715393p5715423.html
Sent from the Csound - General mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

On Tue, Sep 4, 2012 at 9:10 AM, Stéphane Rollandin
 wrote:
>> csound minus: instruments only definable at the beginning of running
>> the program, since you need another language to do more complex
>> operations but none are made canonical, there is duplicated effort in
>> Java, various lisps, smalltalk, C/C++, lua, etc.
>
>
> As the author of one of these (muO, in Smalltak) I do not consider this a
> duplicate effort. Software for musical composition reflects the way the
> programmer(s) see composition, and as such it can be wildly diverse: see
> Blue, Strasheela, AthenaCL, muO, Grace/CM. They have not much in common. So
> to me this is a plus, not a minus.
>
> Stef
>

What I miss from SuperCollider is that there are a similar diversity
of implicit compositional approaches, but since they are all
implemented in one language, it is easier to use parts of a variety of
them in one composition. How many times do you think parameter mapping
(eg. map([0, 1], [0, 100])(0.5) = 50) has been reimplemented for on
trivial example out of many?

I enjoy being a polyglot programming wise, don't get me wrong, but
there is a basic level of functionality that really does get
implemented over and over.

I do think that using a variety of real languages, and therefore
having a number of sometimes subtly incompatible and slightly
duplicate approaches is the best way to deal with the problem of
algorithmic composition - but I still need to acknowledge that
tower-of-babel drawback.

> What I miss from SuperCollider is that there are a similar diversity
> of implicit compositional approaches, but since they are all
> implemented in one language, it is easier to use parts of a variety of
> them in one composition.

I don't think there is something even remotely close to muO in 
supercollider or anywhere else for that matter... otherwise I would have 
used it instead of spending ten years developing my own software.

Stef

> I do think that using a variety of real languages, and therefore
> having a number of sometimes subtly incompatible and slightly
> duplicate approaches is the best way to deal with the problem of
> algorithmic composition

To me it's not so much a problem than an art form. The important word in 
"algorithmic composition" is "composition", one of the more abstract 
form of artistic expression; "algorithmic" means we tackle this by the 
mean of computers. How we do so is highly personnal.

The example of code you gave (map([0, 1], [0, 100])(0.5)) is a very 
basic piece of infrastructure; it is implemented differently in 
different languages in the same way than control loops are implemented 
differently.

When I'm saying different systems for music composition have different 
viewpoints I'm talking about higher-level structures: how do such 
systems see rhythm, harmony, scales, melodic contours and other musical 
metrics; what kind of means of musical expression they give to a 
composer; what metaphors they play with; etc.

Stef

Peiman, it sounds like you wish to destroy the ugen. ;)

On 9/4/12, peiman khosravi  wrote:
> 1- Although there are certainly those of us that are interested in more
> conventional musical dimensions I think we can all agree that the full
> power of AC becomes apparent when we start tackling lower-level
> (micro-time) structures.
> 2- From this perspective I'm interested in an 'integrated' system which
> does not place any theoretical and practical divides between the
> composition of different time-scales. This means that, for example, I
> should be able to create a grain (and define all its attributes) as well as
> how the grains are organised in time (in the higher structural level) all
> the way up to the phrase level in the same code-block. This is currently
> not possible with csound/python interaction. So the ability to dynamically
> create signal flow is I think essential. This is very much the opposite of
> creating an instrument that is then triggered by an algorithm.
>
> P
>
>
> On 5 September 2012 00:57, Charles Groves  wrote:
>
>> I've been playing with SC prior to jumping in to Csound for the :( third
>> time. SC is fun, and since my programming career was mostly prior to oop,
>> it's a nice introduction to that.
>>
>> I'd love to find tutorials for python/csound and grace/csound. I
>> currently
>> have Blue. Any suggestions?
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Sep 3, 2012 at 3:40 PM, Victor  wrote:
>>
>>> SC3 is good for algorithmic composition. You should try it. The language
>>> is yucky, but it does have good facilities for AC. If you are into
>>> designing synthesis or processing instruments, I would say you are
>>> better
>>> off with Csound, though.
>>>
>>> It depends also if you are a multi-language person or not.  If you are,
>>> then maybe something like Grace with Csound might appeal to you.
>>>
>>>
>
> Send bugs reports to the Sourceforge bug tracker
>             https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?group_id=81968&atid=564599
> Discussions of bugs and features can be posted here
> To unsubscribe, send email sympa@lists.bath.ac.uk with body "unsubscribe
> csound"
>
>

> 1- Although there are certainly those of us that are interested in more
> conventional musical dimensions I think we can all agree that the full
> power of AC becomes apparent when we start tackling lower-level
> (micro-time) structures.

I think that power is also apparent in many other dimensions of music, 
like non-12ET scales, spectral evolution (at any time scale), motives 
variation, non-regular rhythms, dynamics control, to name a few.

The emphasis on micro-time structures is yours, and as such is an 
example of the fact that algorithmic composition is a very personal 
matter, more an art than a science.

By the way, whatever control we can have on micro structures will never 
give us the quality of expression of a good violonist. So computer music 
can be seen as very limited, also; in my view it is not a particularly 
powerful way of doing music, just another way.


Stef

> 2- From this perspective I'm interested in an 'integrated' system which
> does not place any theoretical and practical divides between the
> composition of different time-scales. This means that, for example, I
> should be able to create a grain (and define all its attributes) as well
> as how the grains are organised in time (in the higher structural level)
> all the way up to the phrase level in the same code-block. This is
> currently not possible with csound/python interaction. So the ability to
> dynamically create signal flow is I think essential. This is very much
> the opposite of creating an instrument that is then triggered by an
> algorithm.

I'm a bit confused by what you mean here. When you say 'same code-block' 
and 'csound/python interaction' I believe you talk about Csound 
orchestra code, right ? So the integrated system you would like would be 
Csound, improved ?

Otherwise, defining a grain and the organisation of grains can be done 
via several of the AC systems we talked about (muO included), and there 
I don't see what you mean by 'integrated system'.

Stef

To clarify my position here with regard to AC. Below is a short
excerpt from an interview with Vaggione.

"Budon:How do musical structure and sound materials interact duringthe
composition of a piece?

Vaggione:I consider sound itself not as something already given, but
as something to be composed. So the tiniest sound already has a
structure on which we can operate, that is, articulate, projecting
onto it our own musical desires. Consequently, I assume that there is
no difference of nature between structure and sound materials; we are
just confronting different operating levels, corresponding to
different time scales to compose."

Composing with Objects, Networks, and Time Scales: An Interview with
Horacio Vaggione Author(s): Osvaldo Budon and Horacio Vaggione
Source: Computer Music Journal, Vol. 24, No. 3 (Autumn, 2000), pp. 9-22
Published by: The MIT Press




On 5 September 2012 09:58, peiman khosravi  wrote:
>
> I suppose yes :-) No let's keep the ugen! Instead let's have the power to dynamically define a ugen. Then an AC environment can take care of the ugen for the user.
>
> P
>
>
> On 5 September 2012 03:24, Adam Puckett  wrote:
>>
>> Peiman, it sounds like you wish to destroy the ugen. ;)
>>
>> On 9/4/12, peiman khosravi  wrote:
>> > 1- Although there are certainly those of us that are interested in more
>> > conventional musical dimensions I think we can all agree that the full
>> > power of AC becomes apparent when we start tackling lower-level
>> > (micro-time) structures.
>> > 2- From this perspective I'm interested in an 'integrated' system which
>> > does not place any theoretical and practical divides between the
>> > composition of different time-scales. This means that, for example, I
>> > should be able to create a grain (and define all its attributes) as well as
>> > how the grains are organised in time (in the higher structural level) all
>> > the way up to the phrase level in the same code-block. This is currently
>> > not possible with csound/python interaction. So the ability to dynamically
>> > create signal flow is I think essential. This is very much the opposite of
>> > creating an instrument that is then triggered by an algorithm.
>> >
>> > P
>> >
>> >
>> > On 5 September 2012 00:57, Charles Groves  wrote:
>> >
>> >> I've been playing with SC prior to jumping in to Csound for the :( third
>> >> time. SC is fun, and since my programming career was mostly prior to oop,
>> >> it's a nice introduction to that.
>> >>
>> >> I'd love to find tutorials for python/csound and grace/csound. I
>> >> currently
>> >> have Blue. Any suggestions?
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> On Mon, Sep 3, 2012 at 3:40 PM, Victor  wrote:
>> >>
>> >>> SC3 is good for algorithmic composition. You should try it. The language
>> >>> is yucky, but it does have good facilities for AC. If you are into
>> >>> designing synthesis or processing instruments, I would say you are
>> >>> better
>> >>> off with Csound, though.
>> >>>
>> >>> It depends also if you are a multi-language person or not.  If you are,
>> >>> then maybe something like Grace with Csound might appeal to you.
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >
>> > Send bugs reports to the Sourceforge bug tracker
>> >             https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?group_id=81968&atid=564599
>> > Discussions of bugs and features can be posted here
>> > To unsubscribe, send email sympa@lists.bath.ac.uk with body "unsubscribe
>> > csound"
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>> Send bugs reports to the Sourceforge bug tracker
>>             https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?group_id=81968&atid=564599
>> Discussions of bugs and features can be posted here
>> To unsubscribe, send email sympa@lists.bath.ac.uk with body "unsubscribe csound"
>>
>

> I disagree.

Could you point me to a piece of computer music exhibiting beautiful, 
moving expression of a melodic contour similar in mastery and warmth to 
the work of a good violonist ?

There's no catch in this question; I would really love to hear such a piece.

Stef

> No I don't mean the orchestra code. I mean an AC language that allows
> one to work with all time-scales rather than just on the note-level.

That's what I don't get (I may be dense, sorry about that). There is no 
enforced time-scale in the score format, so you can use the AC language 
of your choice to built a score where all time scales merge. I don't see 
the problem, so I must be missing something.

Stef

Stria? Phoneé? Just to cite two obvious ones.
On 5 Sep 2012, at 11:55, Stéphane Rollandin wrote:

>> I disagree.
> 
> Could you point me to a piece of computer music exhibiting beautiful, moving expression of a melodic contour similar in mastery and warmth to the work of a good violonist ?
> 
> There's no catch in this question; I would really love to hear such a piece.
> 
> Stef
> 
> 
> 
> Send bugs reports to the Sourceforge bug tracker
>           https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?group_id=81968&atid=564599
> Discussions of bugs and features can be posted here
> To unsubscribe, send email sympa@lists.bath.ac.uk with body "unsubscribe csound"
> 

Dr Victor Lazzarini
Senior Lecturer
Dept. of Music
NUI Maynooth Ireland
tel.: +353 1 708 3545
Victor dot Lazzarini AT nuim dot ie

I don't see any philosophical justification for imitating what can be
done with conventional acoustic instruments. Why not just write for an
instrument? But there are many other possibilities that are not
offered by instruments alone.

I certainly point you to the work of many composers that work with all
time-scales (micro-macro and everything in between the extremes) in a
musically meaningful manner. Risset being a good case in point (he
deals beautifully with composing micro-fluctuations and internal
spectral detail of sound). And Vaggione (e.g.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F20kvxuXuE0).

P

On 5 September 2012 11:55, Stéphane Rollandin  wrote:
>> I disagree.
>
>
> Could you point me to a piece of computer music exhibiting beautiful, moving
> expression of a melodic contour similar in mastery and warmth to the work of
> a good violonist ?
>
> There's no catch in this question; I would really love to hear such a piece.
>
>
> Stef
>
>
>
> Send bugs reports to the Sourceforge bug tracker
>            https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?group_id=81968&atid=564599
> Discussions of bugs and features can be posted here
> To unsubscribe, send email sympa@lists.bath.ac.uk with body "unsubscribe
> csound"
>

yes, great examples.

On 5 September 2012 12:05, Victor Lazzarini  wrote:
> Stria? Phoneé? Just to cite two obvious ones.
> On 5 Sep 2012, at 11:55, Stéphane Rollandin wrote:
>
>>> I disagree.
>>
>> Could you point me to a piece of computer music exhibiting beautiful, moving expression of a melodic contour similar in mastery and warmth to the work of a good violonist ?
>>
>> There's no catch in this question; I would really love to hear such a piece.
>>
>> Stef
>>
>>
>>
>> Send bugs reports to the Sourceforge bug tracker
>>           https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?group_id=81968&atid=564599
>> Discussions of bugs and features can be posted here
>> To unsubscribe, send email sympa@lists.bath.ac.uk with body "unsubscribe csound"
>>
>
> Dr Victor Lazzarini
> Senior Lecturer
> Dept. of Music
> NUI Maynooth Ireland
> tel.: +353 1 708 3545
> Victor dot Lazzarini AT nuim dot ie
>
>
>
>
>
> Send bugs reports to the Sourceforge bug tracker
>             https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?group_id=81968&atid=564599
> Discussions of bugs and features can be posted here
> To unsubscribe, send email sympa@lists.bath.ac.uk with body "unsubscribe csound"
>

I have to agree with that. I suppose the mistake Max Mathews made back in the day was to invent the 'note card' term (even though he commented that it was not to mean anything in particular).
On 5 Sep 2012, at 11:58, Stéphane Rollandin wrote:

>> No I don't mean the orchestra code. I mean an AC language that allows
>> one to work with all time-scales rather than just on the note-level.
> 
> That's what I don't get (I may be dense, sorry about that). There is no enforced time-scale in the score format, so you can use the AC language of your choice to built a score where all time scales merge. I don't see the problem, so I must be missing something.
> 
> Stef
> 
> 
> 
> Send bugs reports to the Sourceforge bug tracker
>           https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?group_id=81968&atid=564599
> Discussions of bugs and features can be posted here
> To unsubscribe, send email sympa@lists.bath.ac.uk with body "unsubscribe csound"
> 

Dr Victor Lazzarini
Senior Lecturer
Dept. of Music
NUI Maynooth Ireland
tel.: +353 1 708 3545
Victor dot Lazzarini AT nuim dot ie

> I don't see any philosophical justification for imitating what can be
> done with conventional acoustic instruments.

I am not interesting in philosophy, only in music. I have listened to a 
lot of music and I still have to hear computer music that have a soul, 
it's as simple as that. That's just my experience, I'm not implying 
anything about "conventions" in music.

I known the work of Chowning and Risset, it's great, but it does not 
compare to a good violonist. IMO obviously.

Now there is no need to tell me that you can do things with computers 
that you can't otherwise. I know that but it is not what I'm talking 
about. I'm talking about the control of fine expression in the context 
of a AC system; that's actually what I work on in my own system, and 
it's hard.


Stef

>  And Vaggione (e.g.
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F20kvxuXuE0).

You must be kidding, the source sound is produced by three actual 
violonists here :)

Another example, no cheating please ?

Cheers,

Stef

Well that depends on what you're listening for in music. I propose
that it's not a question of 'soul'; or rather, what you refer to as
'soul' is 'meaning': I don't mean 'meaning' (pun intended) in a
semantic sense but the process of meaning-making as an embodied aspect
of felt experience which of course has to do with feeling and qualia.
This very much depends on listening focus an habits. One needs to
learn how to listen to a piece of music and that goes for all music. I
remember the first time I heard telemusik (OK not a 'computer piece'),
I can only describe it as a 'spritual' experience (and I say this with
the full conviction of an atheist!). I go one step further to say that
musiking or any creative activity is itself about making sense of the
world so it is an inherent aspect of meaning-making. That is, life
would be meaningless without art - don't forget that in the evolution
of the human animal it all started  with those individuals that had
the intuition to paint the animals that they relied on for survival on
cave walls.

You cannot say you're not interested in philosophy when you're having
a philosophical discussion! :p I'm not interested in philosophy when
I'm listening to music but I am interested in knowing what it is about
the experience of music that I find meaningful (then you're in the
realm of philosophy as well as science). And I think that's a valid
question for a composer to ask.

P

On 5 September 2012 12:27, Stéphane Rollandin  wrote:
>> I don't see any philosophical justification for imitating what can be
>> done with conventional acoustic instruments.
>
>
> I am not interesting in philosophy, only in music. I have listened to a lot
> of music and I still have to hear computer music that have a soul, it's as
> simple as that. That's just my experience, I'm not implying anything about
> "conventions" in music.
>
> I known the work of Chowning and Risset, it's great, but it does not compare
> to a good violonist. IMO obviously.
>
> Now there is no need to tell me that you can do things with computers that
> you can't otherwise. I know that but it is not what I'm talking about. I'm
> talking about the control of fine expression in the context of a AC system;
> that's actually what I work on in my own system, and it's hard.
>
>
>
> Stef
>
>
>
> Send bugs reports to the Sourceforge bug tracker
>            https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?group_id=81968&atid=564599
> Discussions of bugs and features can be posted here
> To unsubscribe, send email sympa@lists.bath.ac.uk with body "unsubscribe
> csound"
>

> Well that depends on what you're listening for in music.

Here's an example, violin:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iF-LMJqgGLw&feature=relmfu

hold on. What is wrong about sampling an instrument? The point is that
you have 'access' to all the micro-level structures and can manipulate
them in a musically meaningful (whatever that is) way. You sound like
a purist who IS interested in philosophy, but possibly for the wrong
reasons ;-)

p

On 5 September 2012 12:38, Stéphane Rollandin  wrote:
>>  And Vaggione (e.g.
>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F20kvxuXuE0).
>
>
> You must be kidding, the source sound is produced by three actual violonists
> here :)
>
> Another example, no cheating please ?
>
> Cheers,
>
>
> Stef
>
>
>
> Send bugs reports to the Sourceforge bug tracker
>            https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?group_id=81968&atid=564599
> Discussions of bugs and features can be posted here
> To unsubscribe, send email sympa@lists.bath.ac.uk with body "unsubscribe
> csound"
>

> You cannot say you're not interested in philosophy when you're having
> a philosophical discussion!

It was a technical one at the beginning; I am not too pleased by the way 
it drifts actually.

> I'm not interested in philosophy when
> I'm listening to music but I am interested in knowing what it is about
> the experience of music that I find meaningful (then you're in the
> realm of philosophy as well as science). And I think that's a valid
> question for a composer to ask.

It is, but not my cup of tea. I'm not looking for a meaning in music 
outside the experience of listening, feeling and possibly 
playing/composing. In my software design activity, I'm interested in 
modelling musical structures, but I keep in mind that this modelling 
itself is arbitrary and has no specific meaning. It's only a mean.

Stef

> hold on. What is wrong about sampling an instrument?

Nothing is wrong. But I have been asking for an exemple of beatiful 
control of expression via AC techniques. In the music you sent, I can 
not differentiate between the player and the computer, so that's not a 
valid example IMO.

Stef

> You sound like
> a purist who IS interested in philosophy, but possibly for the wrong
> reasons ;-)

We can disagree and still avoid personal attacks, can we ?

Stef

>
> It is, but not my cup of tea. I'm not looking for a meaning in music outside
> the experience of listening, feeling and possibly playing/composing. In my

Nor am I. It's not about looking for meaning outside of music but look
for why music is intrinsically meaningful. Using one software rather
than another is not arbitrary, if it was you wouldn't be writing your
own software. As you say it is a means of achieving something and that
something is what I'm talking about. Musical structure for one person
is not the same as it is for another. I'm not saying your taste and
approach is not valid, and that wasn't my initial argument. And I
wasn't making a philosophical statement. I am, however, saying that
the full power of computers becomes apparent when it comes with the
composition of micro-level strcuture. That is not to say that other
structural levels are not relevant. In other words, controlling
micro-time is something that cannot be done in such detail with any
other tools, hence why the full power of the computer becomes apparent
in this domain. And I would like to take advantage of this. I am not
saying everyone should!

Also I am not talking about performance interpretation of a violin
piece, which I have no interest to imitate (being an ex-violinist
myself, or rather a failed one!). Moreover, if Bach's music has soul,
this soul is not merely due to the performer;s expression but also
depends on many other aspects of the music.

P

> software design activity, I'm interested in modelling musical structures,
> but I keep in mind that this modelling itself is arbitrary and has no
> specific meaning. It's only a mean.
>
>
> Stef
>
>
>
> Send bugs reports to the Sourceforge bug tracker
>            https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?group_id=81968&atid=564599
> Discussions of bugs and features can be posted here
> To unsubscribe, send email sympa@lists.bath.ac.uk with body "unsubscribe
> csound"
>

I didn't mean that as a personal attack. I apology if that's how it
came across.

On 5 September 2012 13:23, Stéphane Rollandin  wrote:
>> You sound like
>> a purist who IS interested in philosophy, but possibly for the wrong
>> reasons ;-)
>
>
> We can disagree and still avoid personal attacks, can we ?
>
>
> Stef
>
>
>
> Send bugs reports to the Sourceforge bug tracker
>            https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?group_id=81968&atid=564599
> Discussions of bugs and features can be posted here
> To unsubscribe, send email sympa@lists.bath.ac.uk with body "unsubscribe
> csound"
>

> Also I am not talking about performance interpretation of a violin
> piece, which I have no interest to imitate

Ok there has been a misunderstanding here. I have been raising this 
violonist point not for saying we should be able to imitate it, but to 
illustrate that a musical performer has via his playing skills some kind 
of control over the micro-structures of the sound he makes. The way he 
uses this control over the relatively long run of a note, making it 
beautiful and expressive, is what is difficult to model in an AC 
language. In that respect, saying that a computer is able to access 
micro-structures, while true, does not garantee that a composer will be 
able to use that access. That's the work of the AC software designer to 
provide the tools making this possible; and this is where different 
systems vary wildly.

Stef

Yes of course. Agreed. The composer's skill comes first. But there is
no guarantee that a bad performer will not ruin an instrumental piece
either with inappropriate expressions. But my point was that the
computer offers the possibility, how one takes advantage of it is
another thing altogether. I was simply saying that the ability to
create signal flow dynamically in Csound would greatly benefit the
creation of higher-level AC environments in such a way that takes full
advantage of the computer's ability to provided access to the
micro-level structures.

Best,
P

On 5 September 2012 13:35, Stéphane Rollandin  wrote:
>> Also I am not talking about performance interpretation of a violin
>> piece, which I have no interest to imitate
>
>
> Ok there has been a misunderstanding here. I have been raising this
> violonist point not for saying we should be able to imitate it, but to
> illustrate that a musical performer has via his playing skills some kind of
> control over the micro-structures of the sound he makes. The way he uses
> this control over the relatively long run of a note, making it beautiful and
> expressive, is what is difficult to model in an AC language. In that
> respect, saying that a computer is able to access micro-structures, while
> true, does not garantee that a composer will be able to use that access.
> That's the work of the AC software designer to provide the tools making this
> possible; and this is where different systems vary wildly.
>
>
> Stef
>
>
>
> Send bugs reports to the Sourceforge bug tracker
>            https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?group_id=81968&atid=564599
> Discussions of bugs and features can be posted here
> To unsubscribe, send email sympa@lists.bath.ac.uk with body "unsubscribe
> csound"
>

This is a fascinating discussion, and of course you're both right. However...

> hold on. What is wrong about sampling an instrument? The point is that
> you have 'access' to all the micro-level structures and can manipulate
> them in a musically meaningful (whatever that is) way.

As a string player, I can tell you that a sampled violin (or in my case,
cello) note is a pathetic, dead thing. The point of comparison is not the
existence of micro-level structures in the sound. The point of playing a
violin or cello is that a skillful performer can execute, instantly and
intuitively, micro-control gestures that have intuitive musical meaning --
at least to a knowledgeable listener, and quite possibly to a less
knowledgeable listener as well.

There really is no equivalent in computer music to this direct connection
between the performer's unconscious, moment-to-moment desires and the
audible result. This is not to say that either method of making music is
superior to the other! I'm just observing that computer-based music-making
of the sort that is practiced in the Csound community is, at almost every
point after the initial idea, a conscious, intellectual activity. When I sit
down and improvise on the cello, it is _not_ a conscious, intellectual
activity.



--
View this message in context: http://csound.1045644.n5.nabble.com/SuperCollider-and-Csound-tp5715393p5715489.html
Sent from the Csound - General mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

Two points...

First, Csound does in various ways allow working on all scales with
the same forms or processes, especially using grains to build up
larger structures, but also by modulating oscillators or other sound
generators on the micro scale.  Something like Xenakis' Gendyn...

Second, the distinction between "notes" and "music" is based on
something real, namely that most sounds in most music are created
either by sending an impulse into a resonator ("percussion") or
sending a stream of impulses or some other much longer-lasting stream
of energy into a resonator. So, the impulse responses of the
resonators have a huge hand in being "things" on the micro scale that
fit together on the macro scale. We are very much adapted to hear this
way, physically and neurally.

This is not say that this is any sort of warrant for making music one
way rather than another way...

Regards,
Mike

On Tue, Sep 4, 2012 at 10:24 PM, Adam Puckett  wrote:
> Peiman, it sounds like you wish to destroy the ugen. ;)
>
> On 9/4/12, peiman khosravi  wrote:
>> 1- Although there are certainly those of us that are interested in more
>> conventional musical dimensions I think we can all agree that the full
>> power of AC becomes apparent when we start tackling lower-level
>> (micro-time) structures.
>> 2- From this perspective I'm interested in an 'integrated' system which
>> does not place any theoretical and practical divides between the
>> composition of different time-scales. This means that, for example, I
>> should be able to create a grain (and define all its attributes) as well as
>> how the grains are organised in time (in the higher structural level) all
>> the way up to the phrase level in the same code-block. This is currently
>> not possible with csound/python interaction. So the ability to dynamically
>> create signal flow is I think essential. This is very much the opposite of
>> creating an instrument that is then triggered by an algorithm.
>>
>> P
>>
>>
>> On 5 September 2012 00:57, Charles Groves  wrote:
>>
>>> I've been playing with SC prior to jumping in to Csound for the :( third
>>> time. SC is fun, and since my programming career was mostly prior to oop,
>>> it's a nice introduction to that.
>>>
>>> I'd love to find tutorials for python/csound and grace/csound. I
>>> currently
>>> have Blue. Any suggestions?
>>>
>>>
>>> On Mon, Sep 3, 2012 at 3:40 PM, Victor  wrote:
>>>
>>>> SC3 is good for algorithmic composition. You should try it. The language
>>>> is yucky, but it does have good facilities for AC. If you are into
>>>> designing synthesis or processing instruments, I would say you are
>>>> better
>>>> off with Csound, though.
>>>>
>>>> It depends also if you are a multi-language person or not.  If you are,
>>>> then maybe something like Grace with Csound might appeal to you.
>>>>
>>>>
>>
>> Send bugs reports to the Sourceforge bug tracker
>>             https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?group_id=81968&atid=564599
>> Discussions of bugs and features can be posted here
>> To unsubscribe, send email sympa@lists.bath.ac.uk with body "unsubscribe
>> csound"
>>
>>
>
>
> Send bugs reports to the Sourceforge bug tracker
>             https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?group_id=81968&atid=564599
> Discussions of bugs and features can be posted here
> 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

On 05/09/2012 13:24, peiman khosravi wrote:
>>
>> It is, but not my cup of tea. I'm not looking for a meaning in music outside
>> the experience of listening, feeling and possibly playing/composing. In my
>
> Nor am I. It's not about looking for meaning outside of music but look
> for why music is intrinsically meaningful.

It isn't. It is however so deeply embedded in a given culture that it 
seems to be. All musics are one way or another learned art forms; 
Western Art Music being one of the  most extreme examples. The most one 
might be able to say is that the ~need~ for music  seems to be intrinsic 
to (at least) homo sapiens (excluding statistical outliers such as the 
small minority of people with amusia).

Western  Art Music of the kind that leads us to talk about "beautiful 
expression" is ~very~ learned, and is almost certainly, if not 
necessarily provably, non-algorithmic. The gestures of WAM can be traced 
back to Classical Rhetoric (which later became "poetics") - the 
foundations of which are Ethos, Pathos and Logos (EPL).

To address just one of these, briefly  - Ethos signifies such things as 
"playing with conviction", and also artistic risk-taking - this very 
high note, played/sung that quietly, for that long, sounding effortless. 
In other words, the known limitations of both the instrument and the 
player are primary factors in defining and recognising  Ethos in 
performance. The fact that, so we are told, the computer can do anything 
equally easily, removes that whole dimension from e/a music, such that 
the only option the composer has to suggest it are either to produce 
inaudible sounds, or dangerously deafening sounds, with (I find) a 
marked preference for the latter. we might recognise boldness in the 
conception and technical execution of the programming (daring 
juxtaposition and use of materials, etc; really part of Logos - skill of 
the executant), but there will be (can be) no sense of a performer 
taking a risk or playing "with conviction".

It can be argued that the ultimate expression in such an art form (as in 
spoken rhetoric itself) is when all three elements are so fused that 
they cannot readily be separated. A sharp intake of breath moment. On 
that basis, e/a music cannot ever reach that level, as it misses out on 
Ethos. The only solution, indeed, is to discard those ostensibly 
old-fashioned principles and invent new, um, rhetorical devices. But 
until the listener has absorbed all these new devices such that they can 
respond almost unconsciously (intrinsically) to the sound, there is 
every chance that most if not all of those new devices will pass 
completely unnoticed. They may even be confused, as, needless to say, we 
have not as a culture actually forgotten EPL, and will respond 
accordingly whenever a fitting stimulus is detected, regardless of 
whether or not it was intended by the composer.

YMMV etc!

Richard Dobson

On 5 September 2012 19:09, Jim Aikin  wrote:
> This is a fascinating discussion, and of course you're both right. However...
>
>> hold on. What is wrong about sampling an instrument? The point is that
>> you have 'access' to all the micro-level structures and can manipulate
>> them in a musically meaningful (whatever that is) way.
>
> As a string player, I can tell you that a sampled violin (or in my case,
> cello) note is a pathetic, dead thing. The point of comparison is not the
> existence of micro-level structures in the sound. The point of playing a
> violin or cello is that a skillful performer can execute, instantly and
> intuitively, micro-control gestures that have intuitive musical meaning --
> at least to a knowledgeable listener, and quite possibly to a less
> knowledgeable listener as well.
>

yes I completely agree. However, the point of my original comparison
was about the level of control of the composer on the micro-structural
activity. Conventionally composers deal with the note as the lowest
time structure. The computer has changed this. As essential and
expressive as instrumental articulation is, it is not normally a
domain that the composer directly works with and controls.

Computer music can have the same level of expression in the sound's
articulation (not I'm only talking about the sound here)  and more,
because we can record an instrumental sound and the transform it! In
fact we can close-mike a piano string and record the smallest detail
that is not normally audible.

> There really is no equivalent in computer music to this direct connection
> between the performer's unconscious, moment-to-moment desires and the
> audible result. This is not to say that either method of making music is
> superior to the other! I'm just observing that computer-based music-making
> of the sort that is practiced in the Csound community is, at almost every
> point after the initial idea, a conscious, intellectual activity. When I sit
> down and improvise on the cello, it is _not_ a conscious, intellectual
> activity.
>

Firstly I don't think we can generalise all the music composed by
Csounders under the same umbrella because of the enormous variety.
Secondly, for me personally there is nothing more boring than
'intellectual' music. I don't think anyone could claim that Risset's
or Chowning's music is not extremely expressive and poetic. Moreover,
I don't think it is correct from a scientific or philosophical
perspective to have a dualistic view of intellect vs. feeling. There
is plenty of evidence to support that our most 'intellectual' and
abstract thoughts are deeply rooted in our more concrete experiences
(I mean sensorymotor body-skills). I say this with conviction as it's
a subject that I've been researching. If in doubt get hold of "The
Meaning of The Body" by Mark Johnson.

Best,
P

>
>
> --
> View this message in context: http://csound.1045644.n5.nabble.com/SuperCollider-and-Csound-tp5715393p5715489.html
> Sent from the Csound - General mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>
>
> Send bugs reports to the Sourceforge bug tracker
>             https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?group_id=81968&atid=564599
> Discussions of bugs and features can be posted here
> To unsubscribe, send email sympa@lists.bath.ac.uk with body "unsubscribe csound"
>

On 09/05/2012 05:23 AM, Stéphane Rollandin wrote:
>> You sound like
>> a purist who IS interested in philosophy, but possibly for the wrong
>> reasons ;-)
>
> We can disagree and still avoid personal attacks, can we ?

The smiley face cancels out the personal insult. :)

>
> Second, the distinction between "notes" and "music" is based on
> something real, namely that most sounds in most music are created
> either by sending an impulse into a resonator ("percussion") or
> sending a stream of impulses or some other much longer-lasting stream
> of energy into a resonator. So, the impulse responses of the
> resonators have a huge hand in being "things" on the micro scale that
> fit together on the macro scale. We are very much adapted to hear this
> way, physically and neurally.
>
I don't understand. Do you mean that we are not adapted to hear
micro-fluctuations such as vibrato in a sound?


> This is not say that this is any sort of warrant for making music one
> way rather than another way...
>
> Regards,
> Mike
>
> On Tue, Sep 4, 2012 at 10:24 PM, Adam Puckett  wrote:
>> Peiman, it sounds like you wish to destroy the ugen. ;)
>>
>> On 9/4/12, peiman khosravi  wrote:
>>> 1- Although there are certainly those of us that are interested in more
>>> conventional musical dimensions I think we can all agree that the full
>>> power of AC becomes apparent when we start tackling lower-level
>>> (micro-time) structures.
>>> 2- From this perspective I'm interested in an 'integrated' system which
>>> does not place any theoretical and practical divides between the
>>> composition of different time-scales. This means that, for example, I
>>> should be able to create a grain (and define all its attributes) as well as
>>> how the grains are organised in time (in the higher structural level) all
>>> the way up to the phrase level in the same code-block. This is currently
>>> not possible with csound/python interaction. So the ability to dynamically
>>> create signal flow is I think essential. This is very much the opposite of
>>> creating an instrument that is then triggered by an algorithm.
>>>
>>> P
>>>
>>>
>>> On 5 September 2012 00:57, Charles Groves  wrote:
>>>
>>>> I've been playing with SC prior to jumping in to Csound for the :( third
>>>> time. SC is fun, and since my programming career was mostly prior to oop,
>>>> it's a nice introduction to that.
>>>>
>>>> I'd love to find tutorials for python/csound and grace/csound. I
>>>> currently
>>>> have Blue. Any suggestions?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Mon, Sep 3, 2012 at 3:40 PM, Victor  wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> SC3 is good for algorithmic composition. You should try it. The language
>>>>> is yucky, but it does have good facilities for AC. If you are into
>>>>> designing synthesis or processing instruments, I would say you are
>>>>> better
>>>>> off with Csound, though.
>>>>>
>>>>> It depends also if you are a multi-language person or not.  If you are,
>>>>> then maybe something like Grace with Csound might appeal to you.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>
>>> Send bugs reports to the Sourceforge bug tracker
>>>             https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?group_id=81968&atid=564599
>>> Discussions of bugs and features can be posted here
>>> To unsubscribe, send email sympa@lists.bath.ac.uk with body "unsubscribe
>>> csound"
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> Send bugs reports to the Sourceforge bug tracker
>>             https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?group_id=81968&atid=564599
>> Discussions of bugs and features can be posted here
>> 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 the Sourceforge bug tracker
>             https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?group_id=81968&atid=564599
> Discussions of bugs and features can be posted here
> To unsubscribe, send email sympa@lists.bath.ac.uk with body "unsubscribe csound"
>

yeah that was my logic but one sometimes forgets how impersonal an email is.

P

On 5 September 2012 20:05, Toby  wrote:
> On 09/05/2012 05:23 AM, Stéphane Rollandin wrote:
>>>
>>> You sound like
>>> a purist who IS interested in philosophy, but possibly for the wrong
>>> reasons ;-)
>>
>>
>> We can disagree and still avoid personal attacks, can we ?
>
>
> The smiley face cancels out the personal insult. :)
>
>
>
> Send bugs reports to the Sourceforge bug tracker
>            https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?group_id=81968&atid=564599
> Discussions of bugs and features can be posted here
> To unsubscribe, send email sympa@lists.bath.ac.uk with body "unsubscribe
> csound"
>

Thanks Richard, very interesting. However, I have one issue with your remarks.

>
> primary factors in defining and recognising  Ethos in performance. The fact
> that, so we are told, the computer can do anything equally easily, removes
> that whole dimension from e/a music, such that the only option the composer
> has to suggest it are either to produce inaudible sounds, or dangerously
>
>

We may know that a computer can play everything equally easily but our
brain is hardwired to feel otherwise. A classic example is how the
same moment in a Beethoven symphony can surprise you even if you're
heard it a thousand times. Even if you're following the score. So I
think we can heard the sense of effort in more abstract sounds too, of
course it's up to the composer's skill to create the illusion. How
about Wishart's Red bird? It's enough to give some a panic attack!

P

>
>
>
>
> Send bugs reports to the Sourceforge bug tracker
>            https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?group_id=81968&atid=564599
> Discussions of bugs and features can be posted here
> To unsubscribe, send email sympa@lists.bath.ac.uk with body "unsubscribe
> csound"
>

On 05/09/2012 20:07, peiman khosravi wrote:

..
> I don't understand. Do you mean that we are not adapted to hear
> micro-fluctuations such as vibrato in a sound?
>
>

A propos vibrato and "intrinsic" - I find it most interesting that the 
'acceptable" range for sustained vibrato is approx between 4 and 8 Hz 
(the upper limit I suppose is the archetypal Edith Piaf vocalisation). 
This corresponds very closely to the range of Theta waves in the brain; 
variously associated with adult meditative states and learning:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theta_wave


Of course we notice vibrato rather easily (tremors of the human voice 
usually signifying some significant internal state), but it perhaps took 
the work of Sundberg and others to reveal all the other 
micro-fluctuations of the typical singing voice that somehow we had not 
noticed before, and which were largely beyond the intention, awareness 
and control of the singer.


Richard Dobson

While reading this discussion, Tao has come to mind. Has anyone played
with this?

http://taopm.sf.net

On 9/5/12, peiman khosravi  wrote:
> Thanks Richard, very interesting. However, I have one issue with your
> remarks.
>
>>
>> primary factors in defining and recognising  Ethos in performance. The
>> fact
>> that, so we are told, the computer can do anything equally easily,
>> removes
>> that whole dimension from e/a music, such that the only option the
>> composer
>> has to suggest it are either to produce inaudible sounds, or dangerously
>>
>>
>
> We may know that a computer can play everything equally easily but our
> brain is hardwired to feel otherwise. A classic example is how the
> same moment in a Beethoven symphony can surprise you even if you're
> heard it a thousand times. Even if you're following the score. So I
> think we can heard the sense of effort in more abstract sounds too, of
> course it's up to the composer's skill to create the illusion. How
> about Wishart's Red bird? It's enough to give some a panic attack!
>
> P
>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Send bugs reports to the Sourceforge bug tracker
>>            https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?group_id=81968&atid=564599
>> Discussions of bugs and features can be posted here
>> To unsubscribe, send email sympa@lists.bath.ac.uk with body "unsubscribe
>> csound"
>>
>
>
> Send bugs reports to the Sourceforge bug tracker
>             https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?group_id=81968&atid=564599
> Discussions of bugs and features can be posted here
> To unsubscribe, send email sympa@lists.bath.ac.uk with body "unsubscribe
> csound"
>
>

>
> Western  Art Music of the kind that leads us to talk about "beautiful
> expression" is ~very~ learned, and is almost certainly, if not necessarily
> provably, non-algorithmic. The gestures of WAM can be traced back to
> Classical Rhetoric (which later became "poetics") - the foundations of which
> are Ethos, Pathos and Logos (EPL).
>
> To address just one of these, briefly  - Ethos signifies such things as
> "playing with conviction", and also artistic risk-taking - this very high
> note, played/sung that quietly, for that long, sounding effortless. In other
> words, the known limitations of both the instrument and the player are
> primary factors in defining and recognising  Ethos in performance. The fact
> that, so we are told, the computer can do anything equally easily, removes
> that whole dimension from e/a music, such that the only option the composer
> has to suggest it are either to produce inaudible sounds, or dangerously
> deafening sounds, with (I find) a marked preference for the latter. we might
> recognise boldness in the conception and technical execution of the
> programming (daring juxtaposition and use of materials, etc; really part of
> Logos - skill of the executant), but there will be (can be) no sense of a
> performer taking a risk or playing "with conviction".
>
> It can be argued that the ultimate expression in such an art form (as in
> spoken rhetoric itself) is when all three elements are so fused that they
> cannot readily be separated. A sharp intake of breath moment. On that basis,
> e/a music cannot ever reach that level, as it misses out on Ethos. The only
> solution, indeed, is to discard those ostensibly old-fashioned principles
> and invent new, um, rhetorical devices. But until the listener has absorbed
> all these new devices such that they can respond almost unconsciously
> (intrinsically) to the sound, there is every chance that most if not all of
> those new devices will pass completely unnoticed. They may even be confused,
> as, needless to say, we have not as a culture actually forgotten EPL, and
> will respond accordingly whenever a fitting stimulus is detected, regardless
> of whether or not it was intended by the composer.
>

Thank you Richard for this formulation, definitely a useful way to
think about these things.

In some ways, the recreation or capture and reproduction of a familiar
sound or performance technique can take on that power that a long high
soft note once did. A good quality capture, not to mention tabula rasa
recreation of a natural sound or performer's technique is an extreme
challenge in digital music, and I think anyone that has listened to a
synthesizer picks this up pretty quickly.

On 5 September 2012 19:50, Michael Gogins  wrote:
> Two points...
>
> First, Csound does in various ways allow working on all scales with
> the same forms or processes, especially using grains to build up
> larger structures, but also by modulating oscillators or other sound
> generators on the micro scale.  Something like Xenakis' Gendyn...


Yes it does and that's how I currently use it. But a comprehensive AC
language that allows one to deal with all time structures is another
thing. The way I see it there is a lot of potential using the
combination of Csound, python and blue. But ideally I would like to be
able to define envelopes and modulators from within a python script.
Think a pattern environment that can operate across all time-levels.
Anyway I think Csound 6 will make these things easier. Soon I'll start
working on a python class library as a proof of concept. It is
currently possible but it's far from convenient and involves too many
hacks.

Best,
P

> The gestures of WAM can be traced
> back to Classical Rhetoric (which later became "poetics") - the
> foundations of which are Ethos, Pathos and Logos (EPL).

I had never run into this line of thought before. I'd like to learn more
about it. Can you suggest a book in which this lineage is discussed?

Somewhere in the past year or two (and it may have been in Christopher
Small's book Musicking) I read a suggestion that seemed to me cogent, to the
effect that Western Art Music descends from the art of opera as it developed
in the Renaissance. The emotions being portrayed in the on-stage action
needed to be under-scored by the music, and gradually a style of music
developed that conveyed these dramatic emotions even when no actual stage
drama was involved. By the time of Beethoven I think the emotional content
is quite clear, but you can see it developing even in Bach.



--
View this message in context: http://csound.1045644.n5.nabble.com/SuperCollider-and-Csound-tp5715393p5715505.html
Sent from the Csound - General mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

The starting point has to be Aristotle's "Rhetoric". You may as well 
start with the Wikipedia page and explore from there:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modes_of_persuasion

Of course this is all oriented towards spoken argument: to invade Sparta 
or not to invade Sparta. Once one knows the rudiments of Rhetoric it is 
very easy to see them being employed successfully or otherwise by 
politicians - e.g. most clumsily, Gordon Brown PM: "I am a conviction 
politician".

The idea of rehetorical devices (of which "climax" is one) very easily 
entered into literature, and thence into Western Art Music, especially 
as a secular music tradition (such as opera) took root. Needless to say 
any educated person (including a composer) from the Middle ages onwards 
will have been thoroughly steeped in what is now called Classics (Latin 
+ Greek), with Plato and Aristotle right at the top.

I have necessarily adapted the definitions of EPL to fit the processes 
of WAM performance, and use this approach from time to time with my 
flute students. I am not aware of EPL being discussed in this way for 
music anywhere else. I suppose I will to have to write the book some day.

Logos for example clearly relates to technical skill and mastery of the 
instrument, but for WAM especially also knowledge and understanding of 
the text (Webern famously pointed out that Logos not only means "law" it 
also means "melody"); but Logos also includes such things as musical 
humour and "wordplay", just as telling a good joke can be a powerful 
weapon in the politician's arsenal; and he may need a dose of Ethos to 
have the nerve to use it. Winston Churchill was famous for his use of 
classical rhetoric, and many texts quote him for various examples.

Even a simple symmetrical ABBA musical structure reflects a rhetorical 
device which has a name I forget offhand. So in music rhetoric appears 
as a sort of fractal - with the large-scale "argument" being found in 
similar form in the micro-level gestures. The mordent (ABA) is a simple 
rhetorical device in microcosm - the principle of "departure and 
return". The appoggiatura and "subito piano" gestures can be seen as 
micro-instances of Ethos - demonstrating the capacity to express great 
intensity (dissonance, loud), followed by a demonstration of restraint 
(resolution, soft) - the "gentle giant" principle. A sort of musical 
martial-art discipline; or as I call it, "T'ai Chi for flute players".

It is relatively rare that any facet of performance will exist solely in 
one rhetorical mode (though Logos relates easily enough to raw technical 
display) - most of the time we get two out of the three; thus the 
appoggiatura naturally combines Ethos and Pathos (when as is usual it is 
intended to be "expressive"), and if also particularly well executed (or 
placed well by the musician in extempore embellishment - what in the 
Baroque period was called "good taste") brings in Logos as well for the 
ultimate perfect synthesis of expression. We could say that typically 
two will be explicit, and the third implicit (perhaps only the 
cognoscenti will appreciate it). Music is especially well suited to this 
as modes of expression really can operate in parallel (simultaneously); 
whereas the hard-pressed and insufficiently practised politician has to 
run one into another word by word, build a case; or just take a 
short-cut Brown-style.

I see Ravel's Bolero as a peak example of Ethos plus Logos in a 
composition - boldness to dare to write such a thing, and rampant 
showing off!

Richard Dobson


On 06/09/2012 06:30, Jim Aikin wrote:
>> The gestures of WAM can be traced
>> back to Classical Rhetoric (which later became "poetics") - the
>> foundations of which are Ethos, Pathos and Logos (EPL).
>
> I had never run into this line of thought before. I'd like to learn more
> about it. Can you suggest a book in which this lineage is discussed?
>
> Somewhere in the past year or two (and it may have been in Christopher
> Small's book Musicking) I read a suggestion that seemed to me cogent, to the
> effect that Western Art Music descends from the art of opera as it developed
> in the Renaissance. The emotions being portrayed in the on-stage action
> needed to be under-scored by the music, and gradually a style of music
> developed that conveyed these dramatic emotions even when no actual stage
> drama was involved. By the time of Beethoven I think the emotional content
> is quite clear, but you can see it developing even in Bach.
>

Talking of Ravel. La Valse is a prime example of a composer taking a
musical genre (almost as a 'sample') and putting it under the
magnifying glass (in fact stretching and compressing the sound
material in both time and space), much in the same way that a natural
scientist studies a species' characteristic morphology. It's this
investigative 'eye' that also characterises much of
electroacoustic/computer music.  This is not only present as a poietic
aspect, it also invites the listener to look deep inside the sound's
morphology and so directly influences the aesthetic experience and
defines musical form. In the context of a piece you will never hear a
vocal sound in the same way once it's internal grain structure has
been explicitly revealed (or a piano sound once it's spectral
structure has been taken apart and put back together again). I see the
application of digital technology as opening the way for composers to
take this approach to extremes.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NRmavWyVLWw

very interesting ! this is why I love this list. that is a whole question, why acousmatic music have an infinite potential but interest not many people ? is it because of the people who make it, because of it relativly new age (50 years is few in comparaison of counterpoint and writting). I just did the experiment to play acousmatic music in the amazonian jungle. here is the video.
english is above the french in the description.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6H6CBquqHeY&feature=youtube_gdata_player

nicolas


Le 6 sept. 2012 à 18:37, Anthony Palomba  a écrit :

> Hey guys, 
> 
> This is a fascinating discussion, one I think a lot about as well. 
> I think what all this discussion is dancing around is the question 
> of what is musical language and how do we perceive it. 
> 
> Western tonal music, and its counter parts on the east, have evolved 
> through our experiences in how musical language makes us feel.
> Much of this process is completely unconscious. I whole hardheartedly
> agree with Jim Aikin on this. 
> 
> Yet the process of composition is very much concerned with narrative
> of form. So it will definitely be an exercise in intellectual decisions. 
> Prior to the 1940's this relationship was very manageable.
> But the advent of the computer makes this infinitely more complex. 
> 
> Computer music enables us to create incredible new complexity.
> Unfortunately, the relationship between creating the language and
> experiencing it has become abstracted, even divorced.
> 
> I think the challenge for electroacoustic composers is to explore
> new languages like spectromorphology, but also develop an awareness
> of whether or not that expression of language is actually communicating 
> in an effective way. I can't tell you how acousmatic pieces I have heard 
> that are very interesting, but really do nothing for me. Why is this?
> 
> Richard's post really resonates with me because it is dealing with 
> the concept of how we cognitively process language and how effective 
> language works. I feel in order to have our understanding of musical 
> language continue to evolve, we need to focus more on the cognitive 
> process of linguistics. 
> 
> An interesting thought might be...
> Can human awareness of language be enhanced by algorithmic 
> coordination of musical parameters? Can this new cognitive language 
> pattern be based on an existing patterns like geometric form? 
> 
> 
> 
> Anthony
> 
> 
> 

Very interesting project Nicolas. Did the listeners get to create
their own sonic soundscapes?

On 6 September 2012 19:34, Nicolas Drweski  wrote:
> very interesting ! this is why I love this list. that is a whole question, why acousmatic music have an infinite potential but interest not many people ? is it because of the people who make it, because of it relativly new age (50 years is few in comparaison of counterpoint and writting). I just did the experiment to play acousmatic music in the amazonian jungle. here is the video.
> english is above the french in the description.
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6H6CBquqHeY&feature=youtube_gdata_player
>
> nicolas
>
>
> Le 6 sept. 2012 à 18:37, Anthony Palomba  a écrit :
>
>> Hey guys,
>>
>> This is a fascinating discussion, one I think a lot about as well.
>> I think what all this discussion is dancing around is the question
>> of what is musical language and how do we perceive it.
>>
>> Western tonal music, and its counter parts on the east, have evolved
>> through our experiences in how musical language makes us feel.
>> Much of this process is completely unconscious. I whole hardheartedly
>> agree with Jim Aikin on this.
>>
>> Yet the process of composition is very much concerned with narrative
>> of form. So it will definitely be an exercise in intellectual decisions.
>> Prior to the 1940's this relationship was very manageable.
>> But the advent of the computer makes this infinitely more complex.
>>
>> Computer music enables us to create incredible new complexity.
>> Unfortunately, the relationship between creating the language and
>> experiencing it has become abstracted, even divorced.
>>
>> I think the challenge for electroacoustic composers is to explore
>> new languages like spectromorphology, but also develop an awareness
>> of whether or not that expression of language is actually communicating
>> in an effective way. I can't tell you how acousmatic pieces I have heard
>> that are very interesting, but really do nothing for me. Why is this?
>>
>> Richard's post really resonates with me because it is dealing with
>> the concept of how we cognitively process language and how effective
>> language works. I feel in order to have our understanding of musical
>> language continue to evolve, we need to focus more on the cognitive
>> process of linguistics.
>>
>> An interesting thought might be...
>> Can human awareness of language be enhanced by algorithmic
>> coordination of musical parameters? Can this new cognitive language
>> pattern be based on an existing patterns like geometric form?
>>
>>
>>
>> Anthony
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> Send bugs reports to the Sourceforge bug tracker
>             https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?group_id=81968&atid=564599
> Discussions of bugs and features can be posted here
> To unsubscribe, send email sympa@lists.bath.ac.uk with body "unsubscribe csound"
>

thanks Rory !

no, didn't have time. but i got in contact with a tribe in the deeper jungle. i am planing to come back soon and to stay some days living with the tribe and make a complete an elaborate documental about their perception of sounds. this was, let's say a try !
nico

Le 6 sept. 2012 à 20:42, Rory Walsh  a écrit :

> Very interesting project Nicolas. Did the listeners get to create
> their own sonic soundscapes?
> 
> On 6 September 2012 19:34, Nicolas Drweski  wrote:
>> very interesting ! this is why I love this list. that is a whole question, why acousmatic music have an infinite potential but interest not many people ? is it because of the people who make it, because of it relativly new age (50 years is few in comparaison of counterpoint and writting). I just did the experiment to play acousmatic music in the amazonian jungle. here is the video.
>> english is above the french in the description.
>> 
>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6H6CBquqHeY&feature=youtube_gdata_player
>> 
>> nicolas
>> 
>> 
>> Le 6 sept. 2012 à 18:37, Anthony Palomba  a écrit :
>> 
>>> Hey guys,
>>> 
>>> This is a fascinating discussion, one I think a lot about as well.
>>> I think what all this discussion is dancing around is the question
>>> of what is musical language and how do we perceive it.
>>> 
>>> Western tonal music, and its counter parts on the east, have evolved
>>> through our experiences in how musical language makes us feel.
>>> Much of this process is completely unconscious. I whole hardheartedly
>>> agree with Jim Aikin on this.
>>> 
>>> Yet the process of composition is very much concerned with narrative
>>> of form. So it will definitely be an exercise in intellectual decisions.
>>> Prior to the 1940's this relationship was very manageable.
>>> But the advent of the computer makes this infinitely more complex.
>>> 
>>> Computer music enables us to create incredible new complexity.
>>> Unfortunately, the relationship between creating the language and
>>> experiencing it has become abstracted, even divorced.
>>> 
>>> I think the challenge for electroacoustic composers is to explore
>>> new languages like spectromorphology, but also develop an awareness
>>> of whether or not that expression of language is actually communicating
>>> in an effective way. I can't tell you how acousmatic pieces I have heard
>>> that are very interesting, but really do nothing for me. Why is this?
>>> 
>>> Richard's post really resonates with me because it is dealing with
>>> the concept of how we cognitively process language and how effective
>>> language works. I feel in order to have our understanding of musical
>>> language continue to evolve, we need to focus more on the cognitive
>>> process of linguistics.
>>> 
>>> An interesting thought might be...
>>> Can human awareness of language be enhanced by algorithmic
>>> coordination of musical parameters? Can this new cognitive language
>>> pattern be based on an existing patterns like geometric form?
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Anthony
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Send bugs reports to the Sourceforge bug tracker
>>            https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?group_id=81968&atid=564599
>> Discussions of bugs and features can be posted here
>> To unsubscribe, send email sympa@lists.bath.ac.uk with body "unsubscribe csound"
>> 
> 
> 
> Send bugs reports to the Sourceforge bug tracker
>            https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?group_id=81968&atid=564599
> Discussions of bugs and features can be posted here
> To unsubscribe, send email sympa@lists.bath.ac.uk with body "unsubscribe csound"
> 

ah nice! thanks for the translation Anthony. Glad you've now included
in the interview Nicolas!

All this talk about the problems of electroacoustic music, but the
same can be said about contemporary instrumental music. There is a lot
of bad music around and that's that! (And there are a lot of very bad
instrumental works too that I'd rather not listen to.)

I do have one issue with a lot of electroacoustic music though.
Despite the potential, spatiality is often missing in electroacoustic
music. It therefore can sound technological or 'artificial' to the
listener, particularly to less experienced listeners. People feel like
there is something lacking and put it down to the lack of visual cues
but that's not it (they're happy enough listening to Gould on CD).
[Instrumental] music is inherently spatial, I'm thinking largely of
the gestural aspect of instrumental performance, which is deeply
embodied and is carried in the sound itself. This was implied I think
by what Richard was saying. Since more abstract electroacoustic sounds
lack this felt gestural/spatial dimension, one (as a composer) needs
to be very conscious of how space is evoked and dealt with in a
meaningful and musical way. There is nothing less interesting for me
than hearing sounds that have no space (I'm not talking about adding
reverb but about sounds being inherently spatial: e.g. a pure
sine-tone without any micro-variation is not experienced as a spatial
entity, or rather, it is spatially uninteresting and flat).

For me even interactive works often incorporate spatiality in a
superficial way that doesn't go anywhere near acoustic instrumental
performance because it is not carried in the sounds (I have seen some
good examples though). And finally, doing a load of panning
automations and moving joysticks around doesn't create space by
itself, which is alarming since much of our technology encourages a
kind of parametric attitude towards spatial composition. So my motto
is: put space back into music.

P




On 6 September 2012 20:30, Anthony Palomba  wrote:
> This is a fantastic experiment Nicolas!
>
> For those of you who do not speak Spanish, many of the listeners
> liked it, and commented that they liked the sound of the birds in the
> piece.
>
> Although, one of the listeners was far more harsh...
>
> "It is only rhythmic, there is no message, there is nothing there
> to make you feel anything. I don't really understand it."
>
> Alas, there is a critic every where.
>
>
>
> -ap
>
>
>
>
> On Thu, Sep 6, 2012 at 2:05 PM, Nicolas Drweski  wrote:
>>
>> thanks Rory !
>>
>> no, didn't have time. but i got in contact with a tribe in the deeper
>> jungle. i am planing to come back soon and to stay some days living with the
>> tribe and make a complete an elaborate documental about their perception of
>> sounds. this was, let's say a try !
>> nico
>>
>> Le 6 sept. 2012 à 20:42, Rory Walsh  a écrit :
>>
>> > Very interesting project Nicolas. Did the listeners get to create
>> > their own sonic soundscapes?
>> >
>> > On 6 September 2012 19:34, Nicolas Drweski  wrote:
>> >> very interesting ! this is why I love this list. that is a whole
>> >> question, why acousmatic music have an infinite potential but interest not
>> >> many people ? is it because of the people who make it, because of it
>> >> relativly new age (50 years is few in comparaison of counterpoint and
>> >> writting). I just did the experiment to play acousmatic music in the
>> >> amazonian jungle. here is the video.
>> >> english is above the french in the description.
>> >>
>> >> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6H6CBquqHeY&feature=youtube_gdata_player
>> >>
>> >> nicolas
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Le 6 sept. 2012 à 18:37, Anthony Palomba  a
>> >> écrit :
>> >>
>> >>> Hey guys,
>> >>>
>> >>> This is a fascinating discussion, one I think a lot about as well.
>> >>> I think what all this discussion is dancing around is the question
>> >>> of what is musical language and how do we perceive it.
>> >>>
>> >>> Western tonal music, and its counter parts on the east, have evolved
>> >>> through our experiences in how musical language makes us feel.
>> >>> Much of this process is completely unconscious. I whole hardheartedly
>> >>> agree with Jim Aikin on this.
>> >>>
>> >>> Yet the process of composition is very much concerned with narrative
>> >>> of form. So it will definitely be an exercise in intellectual
>> >>> decisions.
>> >>> Prior to the 1940's this relationship was very manageable.
>> >>> But the advent of the computer makes this infinitely more complex.
>> >>>
>> >>> Computer music enables us to create incredible new complexity.
>> >>> Unfortunately, the relationship between creating the language and
>> >>> experiencing it has become abstracted, even divorced.
>> >>>
>> >>> I think the challenge for electroacoustic composers is to explore
>> >>> new languages like spectromorphology, but also develop an awareness
>> >>> of whether or not that expression of language is actually
>> >>> communicating
>> >>> in an effective way. I can't tell you how acousmatic pieces I have
>> >>> heard
>> >>> that are very interesting, but really do nothing for me. Why is this?
>> >>>
>> >>> Richard's post really resonates with me because it is dealing with
>> >>> the concept of how we cognitively process language and how effective
>> >>> language works. I feel in order to have our understanding of musical
>> >>> language continue to evolve, we need to focus more on the cognitive
>> >>> process of linguistics.
>> >>>
>> >>> An interesting thought might be...
>> >>> Can human awareness of language be enhanced by algorithmic
>> >>> coordination of musical parameters? Can this new cognitive language
>> >>> pattern be based on an existing patterns like geometric form?
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> Anthony
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Send bugs reports to the Sourceforge bug tracker
>> >>            https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?group_id=81968&atid=564599
>> >> Discussions of bugs and features can be posted here
>> >> To unsubscribe, send email sympa@lists.bath.ac.uk with body
>> >> "unsubscribe csound"
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>> > Send bugs reports to the Sourceforge bug tracker
>> >            https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?group_id=81968&atid=564599
>> > Discussions of bugs and features can be posted here
>> > To unsubscribe, send email sympa@lists.bath.ac.uk with body "unsubscribe
>> > csound"
>> >
>>
>>
>> Send bugs reports to the Sourceforge bug tracker
>>             https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?group_id=81968&atid=564599
>> Discussions of bugs and features can be posted here
>> To unsubscribe, send email sympa@lists.bath.ac.uk with body "unsubscribe
>> csound"
>>
>

yes because we can have good impression of spatiality and beeing in mono. panoramic allmost have no consequence on what you hear and how you hear it, all is about filtering.
the potential of electroacoustic music is  the garanty that in the future we will understand or feel how to structurate sounds in time and space. like harmony that took centuries to draw a singular path in western countries, the world of sounds will take us long time to capture it.
if i can understand perfectly that one can be touch by an instrument and not beeing touch by the sound out of a computer, i cannot think that the magic that one find in the studio while manipulating sound is a mistake.

we still have lot work...

thanks for the feedback Anthony !


Le 6 sept. 2012 à 22:41, peiman khosravi  a écrit :

> ah nice! thanks for the translation Anthony. Glad you've now included
> in the interview Nicolas!
> 
> All this talk about the problems of electroacoustic music, but the
> same can be said about contemporary instrumental music. There is a lot
> of bad music around and that's that! (And there are a lot of very bad
> instrumental works too that I'd rather not listen to.)
> 
> I do have one issue with a lot of electroacoustic music though.
> Despite the potential, spatiality is often missing in electroacoustic
> music. It therefore can sound technological or 'artificial' to the
> listener, particularly to less experienced listeners. People feel like
> there is something lacking and put it down to the lack of visual cues
> but that's not it (they're happy enough listening to Gould on CD).
> [Instrumental] music is inherently spatial, I'm thinking largely of
> the gestural aspect of instrumental performance, which is deeply
> embodied and is carried in the sound itself. This was implied I think
> by what Richard was saying. Since more abstract electroacoustic sounds
> lack this felt gestural/spatial dimension, one (as a composer) needs
> to be very conscious of how space is evoked and dealt with in a
> meaningful and musical way. There is nothing less interesting for me
> than hearing sounds that have no space (I'm not talking about adding
> reverb but about sounds being inherently spatial: e.g. a pure
> sine-tone without any micro-variation is not experienced as a spatial
> entity, or rather, it is spatially uninteresting and flat).
> 
> For me even interactive works often incorporate spatiality in a
> superficial way that doesn't go anywhere near acoustic instrumental
> performance because it is not carried in the sounds (I have seen some
> good examples though). And finally, doing a load of panning
> automations and moving joysticks around doesn't create space by
> itself, which is alarming since much of our technology encourages a
> kind of parametric attitude towards spatial composition. So my motto
> is: put space back into music.
> 
> P
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On 6 September 2012 20:30, Anthony Palomba  wrote:
>> This is a fantastic experiment Nicolas!
>> 
>> For those of you who do not speak Spanish, many of the listeners
>> liked it, and commented that they liked the sound of the birds in the
>> piece.
>> 
>> Although, one of the listeners was far more harsh...
>> 
>> "It is only rhythmic, there is no message, there is nothing there
>> to make you feel anything. I don't really understand it."
>> 
>> Alas, there is a critic every where.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> -ap
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On Thu, Sep 6, 2012 at 2:05 PM, Nicolas Drweski  wrote:
>>> 
>>> thanks Rory !
>>> 
>>> no, didn't have time. but i got in contact with a tribe in the deeper
>>> jungle. i am planing to come back soon and to stay some days living with the
>>> tribe and make a complete an elaborate documental about their perception of
>>> sounds. this was, let's say a try !
>>> nico
>>> 
>>> Le 6 sept. 2012 à 20:42, Rory Walsh  a écrit :
>>> 
>>>> Very interesting project Nicolas. Did the listeners get to create
>>>> their own sonic soundscapes?
>>>> 
>>>> On 6 September 2012 19:34, Nicolas Drweski  wrote:
>>>>> very interesting ! this is why I love this list. that is a whole
>>>>> question, why acousmatic music have an infinite potential but interest not
>>>>> many people ? is it because of the people who make it, because of it
>>>>> relativly new age (50 years is few in comparaison of counterpoint and
>>>>> writting). I just did the experiment to play acousmatic music in the
>>>>> amazonian jungle. here is the video.
>>>>> english is above the french in the description.
>>>>> 
>>>>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6H6CBquqHeY&feature=youtube_gdata_player
>>>>> 
>>>>> nicolas
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> Le 6 sept. 2012 à 18:37, Anthony Palomba  a
>>>>> écrit :
>>>>> 
>>>>>> Hey guys,
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> This is a fascinating discussion, one I think a lot about as well.
>>>>>> I think what all this discussion is dancing around is the question
>>>>>> of what is musical language and how do we perceive it.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Western tonal music, and its counter parts on the east, have evolved
>>>>>> through our experiences in how musical language makes us feel.
>>>>>> Much of this process is completely unconscious. I whole hardheartedly
>>>>>> agree with Jim Aikin on this.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Yet the process of composition is very much concerned with narrative
>>>>>> of form. So it will definitely be an exercise in intellectual
>>>>>> decisions.
>>>>>> Prior to the 1940's this relationship was very manageable.
>>>>>> But the advent of the computer makes this infinitely more complex.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Computer music enables us to create incredible new complexity.
>>>>>> Unfortunately, the relationship between creating the language and
>>>>>> experiencing it has become abstracted, even divorced.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> I think the challenge for electroacoustic composers is to explore
>>>>>> new languages like spectromorphology, but also develop an awareness
>>>>>> of whether or not that expression of language is actually
>>>>>> communicating
>>>>>> in an effective way. I can't tell you how acousmatic pieces I have
>>>>>> heard
>>>>>> that are very interesting, but really do nothing for me. Why is this?
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Richard's post really resonates with me because it is dealing with
>>>>>> the concept of how we cognitively process language and how effective
>>>>>> language works. I feel in order to have our understanding of musical
>>>>>> language continue to evolve, we need to focus more on the cognitive
>>>>>> process of linguistics.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> An interesting thought might be...
>>>>>> Can human awareness of language be enhanced by algorithmic
>>>>>> coordination of musical parameters? Can this new cognitive language
>>>>>> pattern be based on an existing patterns like geometric form?
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Anthony
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> Send bugs reports to the Sourceforge bug tracker
>>>>>           https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?group_id=81968&atid=564599
>>>>> Discussions of bugs and features can be posted here
>>>>> To unsubscribe, send email sympa@lists.bath.ac.uk with body
>>>>> "unsubscribe csound"
>>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> Send bugs reports to the Sourceforge bug tracker
>>>>           https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?group_id=81968&atid=564599
>>>> Discussions of bugs and features can be posted here
>>>> To unsubscribe, send email sympa@lists.bath.ac.uk with body "unsubscribe
>>>> csound"
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Send bugs reports to the Sourceforge bug tracker
>>>            https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?group_id=81968&atid=564599
>>> Discussions of bugs and features can be posted here
>>> To unsubscribe, send email sympa@lists.bath.ac.uk with body "unsubscribe
>>> csound"
>>> 
>> 
> 
> 
> Send bugs reports to the Sourceforge bug tracker
>            https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?group_id=81968&atid=564599
> Discussions of bugs and features can be posted here
> To unsubscribe, send email sympa@lists.bath.ac.uk with body "unsubscribe csound"
> 

On 6 September 2012 22:59, Nicolas Drweski  wrote:
> yes because we can have good impression of spatiality and beeing in mono. panoramic allmost have no consequence on what you hear and how you hear it, all is about filtering.

I wouldn't say it doesn't have a consequence. It matters but it's not
the only thing that matter, as you say space can exist even in mono.

> the potential of electroacoustic music is  the garanty that in the future we will understand or feel how to structurate sounds in time and space. like harmony that took centuries to draw a singular path in western countries, the world of sounds will take us long time to capture it.
> if i can understand perfectly that one can be touch by an instrument and not beeing touch by the sound out of a computer, i cannot think that the magic that one find in the studio while manipulating sound is a mistake.
>

Yes!!! You've said it Nicolas. Exactly how I feel too.

P

> we still have lot work...
>
> thanks for the feedback Anthony !
>
>
> Le 6 sept. 2012 à 22:41, peiman khosravi  a écrit :
>
>> ah nice! thanks for the translation Anthony. Glad you've now included
>> in the interview Nicolas!
>>
>> All this talk about the problems of electroacoustic music, but the
>> same can be said about contemporary instrumental music. There is a lot
>> of bad music around and that's that! (And there are a lot of very bad
>> instrumental works too that I'd rather not listen to.)
>>
>> I do have one issue with a lot of electroacoustic music though.
>> Despite the potential, spatiality is often missing in electroacoustic
>> music. It therefore can sound technological or 'artificial' to the
>> listener, particularly to less experienced listeners. People feel like
>> there is something lacking and put it down to the lack of visual cues
>> but that's not it (they're happy enough listening to Gould on CD).
>> [Instrumental] music is inherently spatial, I'm thinking largely of
>> the gestural aspect of instrumental performance, which is deeply
>> embodied and is carried in the sound itself. This was implied I think
>> by what Richard was saying. Since more abstract electroacoustic sounds
>> lack this felt gestural/spatial dimension, one (as a composer) needs
>> to be very conscious of how space is evoked and dealt with in a
>> meaningful and musical way. There is nothing less interesting for me
>> than hearing sounds that have no space (I'm not talking about adding
>> reverb but about sounds being inherently spatial: e.g. a pure
>> sine-tone without any micro-variation is not experienced as a spatial
>> entity, or rather, it is spatially uninteresting and flat).
>>
>> For me even interactive works often incorporate spatiality in a
>> superficial way that doesn't go anywhere near acoustic instrumental
>> performance because it is not carried in the sounds (I have seen some
>> good examples though). And finally, doing a load of panning
>> automations and moving joysticks around doesn't create space by
>> itself, which is alarming since much of our technology encourages a
>> kind of parametric attitude towards spatial composition. So my motto
>> is: put space back into music.
>>
>> P
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On 6 September 2012 20:30, Anthony Palomba  wrote:
>>> This is a fantastic experiment Nicolas!
>>>
>>> For those of you who do not speak Spanish, many of the listeners
>>> liked it, and commented that they liked the sound of the birds in the
>>> piece.
>>>
>>> Although, one of the listeners was far more harsh...
>>>
>>> "It is only rhythmic, there is no message, there is nothing there
>>> to make you feel anything. I don't really understand it."
>>>
>>> Alas, there is a critic every where.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> -ap
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Thu, Sep 6, 2012 at 2:05 PM, Nicolas Drweski  wrote:
>>>>
>>>> thanks Rory !
>>>>
>>>> no, didn't have time. but i got in contact with a tribe in the deeper
>>>> jungle. i am planing to come back soon and to stay some days living with the
>>>> tribe and make a complete an elaborate documental about their perception of
>>>> sounds. this was, let's say a try !
>>>> nico
>>>>
>>>> Le 6 sept. 2012 à 20:42, Rory Walsh  a écrit :
>>>>
>>>>> Very interesting project Nicolas. Did the listeners get to create
>>>>> their own sonic soundscapes?
>>>>>
>>>>> On 6 September 2012 19:34, Nicolas Drweski  wrote:
>>>>>> very interesting ! this is why I love this list. that is a whole
>>>>>> question, why acousmatic music have an infinite potential but interest not
>>>>>> many people ? is it because of the people who make it, because of it
>>>>>> relativly new age (50 years is few in comparaison of counterpoint and
>>>>>> writting). I just did the experiment to play acousmatic music in the
>>>>>> amazonian jungle. here is the video.
>>>>>> english is above the french in the description.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6H6CBquqHeY&feature=youtube_gdata_player
>>>>>>
>>>>>> nicolas
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Le 6 sept. 2012 à 18:37, Anthony Palomba  a
>>>>>> écrit :
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Hey guys,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> This is a fascinating discussion, one I think a lot about as well.
>>>>>>> I think what all this discussion is dancing around is the question
>>>>>>> of what is musical language and how do we perceive it.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Western tonal music, and its counter parts on the east, have evolved
>>>>>>> through our experiences in how musical language makes us feel.
>>>>>>> Much of this process is completely unconscious. I whole hardheartedly
>>>>>>> agree with Jim Aikin on this.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Yet the process of composition is very much concerned with narrative
>>>>>>> of form. So it will definitely be an exercise in intellectual
>>>>>>> decisions.
>>>>>>> Prior to the 1940's this relationship was very manageable.
>>>>>>> But the advent of the computer makes this infinitely more complex.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Computer music enables us to create incredible new complexity.
>>>>>>> Unfortunately, the relationship between creating the language and
>>>>>>> experiencing it has become abstracted, even divorced.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I think the challenge for electroacoustic composers is to explore
>>>>>>> new languages like spectromorphology, but also develop an awareness
>>>>>>> of whether or not that expression of language is actually
>>>>>>> communicating
>>>>>>> in an effective way. I can't tell you how acousmatic pieces I have
>>>>>>> heard
>>>>>>> that are very interesting, but really do nothing for me. Why is this?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Richard's post really resonates with me because it is dealing with
>>>>>>> the concept of how we cognitively process language and how effective
>>>>>>> language works. I feel in order to have our understanding of musical
>>>>>>> language continue to evolve, we need to focus more on the cognitive
>>>>>>> process of linguistics.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> An interesting thought might be...
>>>>>>> Can human awareness of language be enhanced by algorithmic
>>>>>>> coordination of musical parameters? Can this new cognitive language
>>>>>>> pattern be based on an existing patterns like geometric form?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Anthony
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Send bugs reports to the Sourceforge bug tracker
>>>>>>           https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?group_id=81968&atid=564599
>>>>>> Discussions of bugs and features can be posted here
>>>>>> To unsubscribe, send email sympa@lists.bath.ac.uk with body
>>>>>> "unsubscribe csound"
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Send bugs reports to the Sourceforge bug tracker
>>>>>           https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?group_id=81968&atid=564599
>>>>> Discussions of bugs and features can be posted here
>>>>> To unsubscribe, send email sympa@lists.bath.ac.uk with body "unsubscribe
>>>>> csound"
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Send bugs reports to the Sourceforge bug tracker
>>>>            https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?group_id=81968&atid=564599
>>>> Discussions of bugs and features can be posted here
>>>> To unsubscribe, send email sympa@lists.bath.ac.uk with body "unsubscribe
>>>> csound"
>>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> Send bugs reports to the Sourceforge bug tracker
>>            https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?group_id=81968&atid=564599
>> Discussions of bugs and features can be posted here
>> To unsubscribe, send email sympa@lists.bath.ac.uk with body "unsubscribe csound"
>>
>
>
> Send bugs reports to the Sourceforge bug tracker
>             https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?group_id=81968&atid=564599
> Discussions of bugs and features can be posted here
> To unsubscribe, send email sympa@lists.bath.ac.uk with body "unsubscribe csound"
>

Incidentally, I said I've seen some good examples of interactive
works. An very impressive work I saw was at LAC two years ago by Marco
Donnarumma. Just saw this interview with him.

http://www.percussa.com/2012/09/06/marco-donnarumma-inventor-of-xth-sense-interview/

P



On 7 September 2012 08:21, peiman khosravi  wrote:
> On 6 September 2012 22:59, Nicolas Drweski  wrote:
>> yes because we can have good impression of spatiality and beeing in mono. panoramic allmost have no consequence on what you hear and how you hear it, all is about filtering.
>
> I wouldn't say it doesn't have a consequence. It matters but it's not
> the only thing that matter, as you say space can exist even in mono.
>
>> the potential of electroacoustic music is  the garanty that in the future we will understand or feel how to structurate sounds in time and space. like harmony that took centuries to draw a singular path in western countries, the world of sounds will take us long time to capture it.
>> if i can understand perfectly that one can be touch by an instrument and not beeing touch by the sound out of a computer, i cannot think that the magic that one find in the studio while manipulating sound is a mistake.
>>
>
> Yes!!! You've said it Nicolas. Exactly how I feel too.
>
> P
>
>> we still have lot work...
>>
>> thanks for the feedback Anthony !
>>
>>
>> Le 6 sept. 2012 à 22:41, peiman khosravi  a écrit :
>>
>>> ah nice! thanks for the translation Anthony. Glad you've now included
>>> in the interview Nicolas!
>>>
>>> All this talk about the problems of electroacoustic music, but the
>>> same can be said about contemporary instrumental music. There is a lot
>>> of bad music around and that's that! (And there are a lot of very bad
>>> instrumental works too that I'd rather not listen to.)
>>>
>>> I do have one issue with a lot of electroacoustic music though.
>>> Despite the potential, spatiality is often missing in electroacoustic
>>> music. It therefore can sound technological or 'artificial' to the
>>> listener, particularly to less experienced listeners. People feel like
>>> there is something lacking and put it down to the lack of visual cues
>>> but that's not it (they're happy enough listening to Gould on CD).
>>> [Instrumental] music is inherently spatial, I'm thinking largely of
>>> the gestural aspect of instrumental performance, which is deeply
>>> embodied and is carried in the sound itself. This was implied I think
>>> by what Richard was saying. Since more abstract electroacoustic sounds
>>> lack this felt gestural/spatial dimension, one (as a composer) needs
>>> to be very conscious of how space is evoked and dealt with in a
>>> meaningful and musical way. There is nothing less interesting for me
>>> than hearing sounds that have no space (I'm not talking about adding
>>> reverb but about sounds being inherently spatial: e.g. a pure
>>> sine-tone without any micro-variation is not experienced as a spatial
>>> entity, or rather, it is spatially uninteresting and flat).
>>>
>>> For me even interactive works often incorporate spatiality in a
>>> superficial way that doesn't go anywhere near acoustic instrumental
>>> performance because it is not carried in the sounds (I have seen some
>>> good examples though). And finally, doing a load of panning
>>> automations and moving joysticks around doesn't create space by
>>> itself, which is alarming since much of our technology encourages a
>>> kind of parametric attitude towards spatial composition. So my motto
>>> is: put space back into music.
>>>
>>> P
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 6 September 2012 20:30, Anthony Palomba  wrote:
>>>> This is a fantastic experiment Nicolas!
>>>>
>>>> For those of you who do not speak Spanish, many of the listeners
>>>> liked it, and commented that they liked the sound of the birds in the
>>>> piece.
>>>>
>>>> Although, one of the listeners was far more harsh...
>>>>
>>>> "It is only rhythmic, there is no message, there is nothing there
>>>> to make you feel anything. I don't really understand it."
>>>>
>>>> Alas, there is a critic every where.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> -ap
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Thu, Sep 6, 2012 at 2:05 PM, Nicolas Drweski  wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> thanks Rory !
>>>>>
>>>>> no, didn't have time. but i got in contact with a tribe in the deeper
>>>>> jungle. i am planing to come back soon and to stay some days living with the
>>>>> tribe and make a complete an elaborate documental about their perception of
>>>>> sounds. this was, let's say a try !
>>>>> nico
>>>>>
>>>>> Le 6 sept. 2012 à 20:42, Rory Walsh  a écrit :
>>>>>
>>>>>> Very interesting project Nicolas. Did the listeners get to create
>>>>>> their own sonic soundscapes?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 6 September 2012 19:34, Nicolas Drweski  wrote:
>>>>>>> very interesting ! this is why I love this list. that is a whole
>>>>>>> question, why acousmatic music have an infinite potential but interest not
>>>>>>> many people ? is it because of the people who make it, because of it
>>>>>>> relativly new age (50 years is few in comparaison of counterpoint and
>>>>>>> writting). I just did the experiment to play acousmatic music in the
>>>>>>> amazonian jungle. here is the video.
>>>>>>> english is above the french in the description.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6H6CBquqHeY&feature=youtube_gdata_player
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> nicolas
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Le 6 sept. 2012 à 18:37, Anthony Palomba  a
>>>>>>> écrit :
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Hey guys,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> This is a fascinating discussion, one I think a lot about as well.
>>>>>>>> I think what all this discussion is dancing around is the question
>>>>>>>> of what is musical language and how do we perceive it.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Western tonal music, and its counter parts on the east, have evolved
>>>>>>>> through our experiences in how musical language makes us feel.
>>>>>>>> Much of this process is completely unconscious. I whole hardheartedly
>>>>>>>> agree with Jim Aikin on this.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Yet the process of composition is very much concerned with narrative
>>>>>>>> of form. So it will definitely be an exercise in intellectual
>>>>>>>> decisions.
>>>>>>>> Prior to the 1940's this relationship was very manageable.
>>>>>>>> But the advent of the computer makes this infinitely more complex.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Computer music enables us to create incredible new complexity.
>>>>>>>> Unfortunately, the relationship between creating the language and
>>>>>>>> experiencing it has become abstracted, even divorced.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I think the challenge for electroacoustic composers is to explore
>>>>>>>> new languages like spectromorphology, but also develop an awareness
>>>>>>>> of whether or not that expression of language is actually
>>>>>>>> communicating
>>>>>>>> in an effective way. I can't tell you how acousmatic pieces I have
>>>>>>>> heard
>>>>>>>> that are very interesting, but really do nothing for me. Why is this?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Richard's post really resonates with me because it is dealing with
>>>>>>>> the concept of how we cognitively process language and how effective
>>>>>>>> language works. I feel in order to have our understanding of musical
>>>>>>>> language continue to evolve, we need to focus more on the cognitive
>>>>>>>> process of linguistics.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> An interesting thought might be...
>>>>>>>> Can human awareness of language be enhanced by algorithmic
>>>>>>>> coordination of musical parameters? Can this new cognitive language
>>>>>>>> pattern be based on an existing patterns like geometric form?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Anthony
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Send bugs reports to the Sourceforge bug tracker
>>>>>>>           https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?group_id=81968&atid=564599
>>>>>>> Discussions of bugs and features can be posted here
>>>>>>> To unsubscribe, send email sympa@lists.bath.ac.uk with body
>>>>>>> "unsubscribe csound"
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Send bugs reports to the Sourceforge bug tracker
>>>>>>           https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?group_id=81968&atid=564599
>>>>>> Discussions of bugs and features can be posted here
>>>>>> To unsubscribe, send email sympa@lists.bath.ac.uk with body "unsubscribe
>>>>>> csound"
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Send bugs reports to the Sourceforge bug tracker
>>>>>            https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?group_id=81968&atid=564599
>>>>> Discussions of bugs and features can be posted here
>>>>> To unsubscribe, send email sympa@lists.bath.ac.uk with body "unsubscribe
>>>>> csound"
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Send bugs reports to the Sourceforge bug tracker
>>>            https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?group_id=81968&atid=564599
>>> Discussions of bugs and features can be posted here
>>> To unsubscribe, send email sympa@lists.bath.ac.uk with body "unsubscribe csound"
>>>
>>
>>
>> Send bugs reports to the Sourceforge bug tracker
>>             https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?group_id=81968&atid=564599
>> Discussions of bugs and features can be posted here
>> To unsubscribe, send email sympa@lists.bath.ac.uk with body "unsubscribe csound"
>>

I think I might have seen Jacques perform some of his work at a NIME
conference at some stage? Marco's approach is really nice. That
reminds me, I should get on to my department head about getting him
over to give a workshop some time soon!

On 7 September 2012 09:16, cameron bobro  wrote:
>
>

Thanks for the link cameron. I will check it out later today.

I'm very happy that Marco is now in London so we can have him over for
workshops. In fact I've spoken to him about purchasing a couple of Xth
Sense devices for our department.

Best,
Peiman

On 7 September 2012 10:04, Rory Walsh  wrote:
> I think I might have seen Jacques perform some of his work at a NIME
> conference at some stage? Marco's approach is really nice. That
> reminds me, I should get on to my department head about getting him
> over to give a workshop some time soon!
>
> On 7 September 2012 09:16, cameron bobro  wrote:
>>
>>
>
>
> Send bugs reports to the Sourceforge bug tracker
>             https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?group_id=81968&atid=564599
> Discussions of bugs and features can be posted here
> To unsubscribe, send email sympa@lists.bath.ac.uk with body "unsubscribe csound"
>