I have an idea for a brief informal contest.  Given a simple,
one-oscillator orchestra, provide a score which produces the
most beautiful piece.

I offer an orchestra that I crafted for the purpose
of this event.  One can make use of very limited 
envelope an pan controls.  Obviously, the craft will
be in the score generation program (although one is
welcome to hand edit her entry!).

If there is interest, I suggest a seven day window
for this challenge.  Only the scores should be 
submitted at first.  We can look at source code
later.  For large scores, a URL might be best.  I can host
scores if you send them to me in an archive format.

Thanks,

Toby


sr      =       44100
ksmps   =       1
nchnls  =       2

giSineFunc ftgen 1, 0, 65536, 10, 1

instr 1

        ;***** INIT SECTION *****
        iDur            init            p3
        iVol            init            p4
        iStartPitch     init            p5
        iEndPitch       init            p6

        iAttack         init            p7
        iDecay          init            iDur - iAttack

        iPanStart       init            p8
        iPanEnd         init            p9

        ;***** SYNTH SECTION *****
        kEnv            linseg          0, iAttack, iVol, iDecay, 0
        kPitch          expseg          iStartPitch, iDur, iEndPitch
        aSig            oscili          kEnv, kPitch, giSineFunc

        kPan            linseg          iPanStart, iDur, iPanEnd

        aLeft           =               aSig * kPan
        aRight          =               aSig * (1 - kPan)

                        outs            aLeft, aRight

endin

I like this idea. It will be fun to see what people come up with.

> If there is interest, I suggest a seven day window
> for this challenge.  Only the scores should be submitted at first.  We 
> can look at source code
> later.  For large scores, a URL might be best.  I can host
> scores if you send them to me in an archive format.

very nice idea, but please give us a month. I don't see an interest in 
having a too tight time schedule.

regards,

Stef

2009/4/14 Stéphane Rollandin :
>
>> If there is interest, I suggest a seven day window
>> for this challenge.  Only the scores should be submitted at first.  We can
>> look at source code
>> later.  For large scores, a URL might be best.  I can host
>> scores if you send them to me in an archive format.
>
> very nice idea, but please give us a month. I don't see an interest in
> having a too tight time schedule.

I agree with Stef.  Some people would come up with amazing things in 7
days, but a 7-day limit would probably amount to me spending 1 day on
it.
-Chuckk

Stéphane Rollandin wrote:
> 
>> If there is interest, I suggest a seven day window
>> for this challenge.  Only the scores should be submitted at first.  We 
>> can look at source code
>> later.  For large scores, a URL might be best.  I can host
>> scores if you send them to me in an archive format.
> 
> very nice idea, but please give us a month. I don't see an interest in 
> having a too tight time schedule.

Ok.  I guess there needn't be a time limit anyway, but
let's say a month.

Toby

I don't suppose you wish to alter the instrument slightly so that
users can choose between a exponential amplitude envelope and a linear
one? It would still make the instrument ridiculously simple yet offer
more scope for more natural sounding notes. Just a thought.

Rory.


2009/4/14 Toby :
> Stéphane Rollandin wrote:
>>
>>> If there is interest, I suggest a seven day window
>>> for this challenge.  Only the scores should be submitted at first.  We
>>> can look at source code
>>> later.  For large scores, a URL might be best.  I can host
>>> scores if you send them to me in an archive format.
>>
>> very nice idea, but please give us a month. I don't see an interest in
>> having a too tight time schedule.
>
> Ok.  I guess there needn't be a time limit anyway, but
> let's say a month.
>
> Toby
>
>
> Send bugs reports to this list.
> To unsubscribe, send email sympa@lists.bath.ac.uk with body "unsubscribe
> csound"
>

Rory Walsh wrote:
> I don't suppose you wish to alter the instrument slightly so that
> users can choose between a exponential amplitude envelope and a linear
> one? It would still make the instrument ridiculously simple yet offer
> more scope for more natural sounding notes. Just a thought.
> 
> Rory.

Sure, it's not set in stone.  I was going to use expseg,
but it always bothers me that I can't start at zero.
What do people do, just start at .0000001?  As I remember,
as that start number varies, the shape of the envelope
changes greatly.  As that number becomes very small,
it takes a while for the envelope to recover, then
you get a swell at the end.  If the start number is
too large, then you get a click and have to take measures
to fix that.  Maybe I have it wrong.  Post your modification
so that we can try it out.

The main idea of the orchestra was to put the composer in
shackles to free her.  I'd like to see any suggestions for
modifications; I only considered the orchestra for a half hour
or so.  The idea is to give a tiny aperture for the
score generation program to shine through.  I find the
restriction liberating and motivating.

Toby

Tobiah wrote:
> Rory Walsh wrote:
>> I don't suppose you wish to alter the instrument slightly so that
>> users can choose between a exponential amplitude envelope and a linear
>> one? 

Oh, and I know that the pan could be easily improved.  There
are many better formulas out there.  Suggestions?

Tobiah

They use transeg.

Regards,
Mike

On 4/14/09, Tobiah  wrote:
> Rory Walsh wrote:
>> I don't suppose you wish to alter the instrument slightly so that
>> users can choose between a exponential amplitude envelope and a linear
>> one? It would still make the instrument ridiculously simple yet offer
>> more scope for more natural sounding notes. Just a thought.
>>
>> Rory.
>
> Sure, it's not set in stone.  I was going to use expseg,
> but it always bothers me that I can't start at zero.
> What do people do, just start at .0000001?  As I remember,
> as that start number varies, the shape of the envelope
> changes greatly.  As that number becomes very small,
> it takes a while for the envelope to recover, then
> you get a swell at the end.  If the start number is
> too large, then you get a click and have to take measures
> to fix that.  Maybe I have it wrong.  Post your modification
> so that we can try it out.
>
> The main idea of the orchestra was to put the composer in
> shackles to free her.  I'd like to see any suggestions for
> modifications; I only considered the orchestra for a half hour
> or so.  The idea is to give a tiny aperture for the
> score generation program to shine through.  I find the
> restriction liberating and motivating.
>
> Toby
>
>
> Send bugs reports to this list.
> To unsubscribe, send email sympa@lists.bath.ac.uk with body "unsubscribe
> csound"
>


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

I never though of that. I think Michael's idea is simpler, just use
transeg and add an extra pfields to determine the type. I had just
finished modifying the earlier example to add an if statement to
determine the type but Mikes way is easier I think.

Rory.

Tobiah wrote on 4/14/09 11:53 AM:

> Rory Walsh wrote:
>> I don't suppose you wish to alter the instrument slightly so that
>> users can choose between a exponential amplitude envelope and a linear
>> one? It would still make the instrument ridiculously simple yet offer
>> more scope for more natural sounding notes. Just a thought.
>> 
>> Rory.
> 
> Sure, it's not set in stone.  I was going to use expseg,
> but it always bothers me that I can't start at zero.
> What do people do, just start at .0000001?  As I remember,
> as that start number varies, the shape of the envelope
> changes greatly.  As that number becomes very small,
> it takes a while for the envelope to recover, then
> you get a swell at the end.  If the start number is
> too large, then you get a click and have to take measures
> to fix that.  Maybe I have it wrong.  Post your modification
> so that we can try it out.

I think some people subtract the start value from the exponential signal.

kexp  expon .001, p3, 1.001
kres  = kexp - .001

> The main idea of the orchestra was to put the composer in
> shackles to free her.  I'd like to see any suggestions for
> modifications;

I think the simple orchestra is a good idea.  Equal-power panning would be
better than linear panning though.

Anthony Kozar
mailing-lists-1001 AT anthonykozar DOT net
http://anthonykozar.net/

One can use any number of programs to create the score, not just one or zero?

-Chuckk

On Tue, Apr 14, 2009 at 4:31 AM, Tobiah  wrote:
> I have an idea for a brief informal contest.  Given a simple,
> one-oscillator orchestra, provide a score which produces the
> most beautiful piece.
>
> I offer an orchestra that I crafted for the purpose
> of this event.  One can make use of very limited envelope an pan controls.
>  Obviously, the craft will
> be in the score generation program (although one is
> welcome to hand edit her entry!).
>
> If there is interest, I suggest a seven day window
> for this challenge.  Only the scores should be submitted at first.  We can
> look at source code
> later.  For large scores, a URL might be best.  I can host
> scores if you send them to me in an archive format.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Toby
>
>
> sr      =       44100
> ksmps   =       1
> nchnls  =       2
>
> giSineFunc ftgen 1, 0, 65536, 10, 1
>
> instr 1
>
>       ;***** INIT SECTION *****
>       iDur            init            p3
>       iVol            init            p4
>       iStartPitch     init            p5
>       iEndPitch       init            p6
>
>       iAttack         init            p7
>       iDecay          init            iDur - iAttack
>
>       iPanStart       init            p8
>       iPanEnd         init            p9
>
>       ;***** SYNTH SECTION *****
>       kEnv            linseg          0, iAttack, iVol, iDecay, 0
>       kPitch          expseg          iStartPitch, iDur, iEndPitch
>       aSig            oscili          kEnv, kPitch, giSineFunc
>
>       kPan            linseg          iPanStart, iDur, iPanEnd
>
>       aLeft           =               aSig * kPan
>       aRight          =               aSig * (1 - kPan)
>
>                       outs            aLeft, aRight
>
> endin
>
>
> Send bugs reports to this list.
> To unsubscribe, send email sympa@lists.bath.ac.uk with body "unsubscribe
> csound"
>



-- 
http://www.badmuthahubbard.com

Rory Walsh a écrit :
> I don't suppose you wish to alter the instrument slightly so that
> users can choose between a exponential amplitude envelope and a linear
> one? It would still make the instrument ridiculously simple yet offer
> more scope for more natural sounding notes. Just a thought.

I have been experimenting with the orchestra Tobiah proposed and I like 
its shortcomings: it makes us really have to tweak the score a lot. so I 
would vote for keeping this orchestra as it is.

now if you want a more expressive orchestra, I think it would be fun to 
just add it to the challenge: let's make a piece for both, and see how 
the final results compare. will the expressiveness lacking in the rough 
orchestra be a real limitation in the end ? I'm curious about the answer.

Stef

and can we use any ftables with it? Poscil instead of oscil so
we can have non-power-of-two as well?

Victor

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Anthony Kozar" 
To: "Csound mailing list address" 
Sent: Tuesday, April 14, 2009 5:17 PM
Subject: [Csnd] Re: Short Composition Challenge


> Tobiah wrote on 4/14/09 11:53 AM:
>
>> Rory Walsh wrote:
>>> I don't suppose you wish to alter the instrument slightly so that
>>> users can choose between a exponential amplitude envelope and a linear
>>> one? It would still make the instrument ridiculously simple yet offer
>>> more scope for more natural sounding notes. Just a thought.
>>>
>>> Rory.
>>
>> Sure, it's not set in stone.  I was going to use expseg,
>> but it always bothers me that I can't start at zero.
>> What do people do, just start at .0000001?  As I remember,
>> as that start number varies, the shape of the envelope
>> changes greatly.  As that number becomes very small,
>> it takes a while for the envelope to recover, then
>> you get a swell at the end.  If the start number is
>> too large, then you get a click and have to take measures
>> to fix that.  Maybe I have it wrong.  Post your modification
>> so that we can try it out.
>
> I think some people subtract the start value from the exponential signal.
>
> kexp  expon .001, p3, 1.001
> kres  = kexp - .001
>
>> The main idea of the orchestra was to put the composer in
>> shackles to free her.  I'd like to see any suggestions for
>> modifications;
>
> I think the simple orchestra is a good idea.  Equal-power panning would be
> better than linear panning though.
>
> Anthony Kozar
> mailing-lists-1001 AT anthonykozar DOT net
> http://anthonykozar.net/
>
>
>
> Send bugs reports to this list.
> To unsubscribe, send email sympa@lists.bath.ac.uk with body "unsubscribe 
> csound" 

I don't know if my english was correct in my previous post: by "let's 
make a piece for both" (orchestras), I meant: let each of us make two 
pieces, one for each orchestra.

that's clearer I guess :)

Stef

If we did that users could read in sound files which would add a whole
different aspect to the instrument, can we restrict it to any ftable
but it can only contain one cycle of a waveform?


2009/4/14 victor :
> and can we use any ftables with it? Poscil instead of oscil so
> we can have non-power-of-two as well?
>
> Victor
>
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Anthony Kozar"
> 
> To: "Csound mailing list address" 
> Sent: Tuesday, April 14, 2009 5:17 PM
> Subject: [Csnd] Re: Short Composition Challenge
>
>
>> Tobiah wrote on 4/14/09 11:53 AM:
>>
>>> Rory Walsh wrote:
>>>>
>>>> I don't suppose you wish to alter the instrument slightly so that
>>>> users can choose between a exponential amplitude envelope and a linear
>>>> one? It would still make the instrument ridiculously simple yet offer
>>>> more scope for more natural sounding notes. Just a thought.
>>>>
>>>> Rory.
>>>
>>> Sure, it's not set in stone.  I was going to use expseg,
>>> but it always bothers me that I can't start at zero.
>>> What do people do, just start at .0000001?  As I remember,
>>> as that start number varies, the shape of the envelope
>>> changes greatly.  As that number becomes very small,
>>> it takes a while for the envelope to recover, then
>>> you get a swell at the end.  If the start number is
>>> too large, then you get a click and have to take measures
>>> to fix that.  Maybe I have it wrong.  Post your modification
>>> so that we can try it out.
>>
>> I think some people subtract the start value from the exponential signal.
>>
>> kexp  expon .001, p3, 1.001
>> kres  = kexp - .001
>>
>>> The main idea of the orchestra was to put the composer in
>>> shackles to free her.  I'd like to see any suggestions for
>>> modifications;
>>
>> I think the simple orchestra is a good idea.  Equal-power panning would be
>> better than linear panning though.
>>
>> Anthony Kozar
>> mailing-lists-1001 AT anthonykozar DOT net
>> http://anthonykozar.net/
>>
>>
>>
>> Send bugs reports to this list.
>> To unsubscribe, send email sympa@lists.bath.ac.uk with body "unsubscribe
>> csound"
>
>
>
> Send bugs reports to this list.
> To unsubscribe, send email sympa@lists.bath.ac.uk with body "unsubscribe
> csound"
>

I have started a blog about this. Perhaps we can use it to
collect responses and comments?

http://csounding.blogspot.com/

victor
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Tobiah" 
To: 
Sent: Tuesday, April 14, 2009 2:31 AM
Subject: [Csnd] Short Composition Challenge


>I have an idea for a brief informal contest.  Given a simple,
> one-oscillator orchestra, provide a score which produces the
> most beautiful piece.
>
> I offer an orchestra that I crafted for the purpose
> of this event.  One can make use of very limited envelope an pan controls. 
> Obviously, the craft will
> be in the score generation program (although one is
> welcome to hand edit her entry!).
>
> If there is interest, I suggest a seven day window
> for this challenge.  Only the scores should be submitted at first.  We can 
> look at source code
> later.  For large scores, a URL might be best.  I can host
> scores if you send them to me in an archive format.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Toby
>
>
> sr      =       44100
> ksmps   =       1
> nchnls  =       2
>
> giSineFunc ftgen 1, 0, 65536, 10, 1
>
> instr 1
>
>        ;***** INIT SECTION *****
>        iDur            init            p3
>        iVol            init            p4
>        iStartPitch     init            p5
>        iEndPitch       init            p6
>
>        iAttack         init            p7
>        iDecay          init            iDur - iAttack
>
>        iPanStart       init            p8
>        iPanEnd         init            p9
>
>        ;***** SYNTH SECTION *****
>        kEnv            linseg          0, iAttack, iVol, iDecay, 0
>        kPitch          expseg          iStartPitch, iDur, iEndPitch
>        aSig            oscili          kEnv, kPitch, giSineFunc
>
>        kPan            linseg          iPanStart, iDur, iPanEnd
>
>        aLeft           =               aSig * kPan
>        aRight          =               aSig * (1 - kPan)
>
>                        outs            aLeft, aRight
>
> endin
>
>
> Send bugs reports to this list.
> To unsubscribe, send email sympa@lists.bath.ac.uk with body "unsubscribe 
> csound" 

Anthony Kozar wrote:
> I think some people subtract the start value from the exponential signal.
>
> kexp  expon .001, p3, 1.001
> kres  = kexp - .001

I've done that too. More recently I made envelopes with linseg between 0 
and 1 and applied expcurve to it. I haven't compared the two methods 
yet; I suspect it's slower with expcurve, but it may sound nicer.

-- 
  Mark
  _________________________________________
  When you get lemons, you make lemonade.
  When you get hardware, you make software.

victor wrote:
> and can we use any ftables with it? Poscil instead of oscil so
> we can have non-power-of-two as well?

One of the reasons that I put the ftable in the orchestra
was to prevent using any others.

The point is that all you get is a sinewave with simple
envelope and panning.  I really don't want to go beyond
what the orchestra already is, although I'm considering
the alterations to the envelope and pan, because they don't
lift restrictions on creativity; they only make things
sound more natural.

Toby

Rory Walsh wrote:
> If we did that users could read in sound files which would add a whole
> different aspect to the instrument, can we restrict it to any ftable
> but it can only contain one cycle of a waveform?

Central to the idea is that all you get is a sinewave. 
Hint:  You can make other waveforms by summing sines with the score.

Toby

Chuckk Hubbard wrote:
> One can use any number of programs to create the score, not just one or zero?

You can fly to the moon, and find the score etched in a rock.  There are 
absolutely no restrictions on how you come up with the score.  At first,
I'd like to see just the scores submitted with no explanation.  Later,
we can share the programs or methods used to create the scores.

Toby

I know I was the one who asked for one month... but, well... I couldn't 
resist the simplicity of your orchestra so at the end of the day I have 
something to submit. here it is, attached. hopefully I will have the 
right to make another one, will I ? :)

Stef

Stéphane Rollandin wrote:
> 
> I know I was the one who asked for one month... but, well... I couldn't 
> resist the simplicity of your orchestra so at the end of the day I have 
> something to submit. here it is, attached. hopefully I will have the 
> right to make another one, will I ? :)

Great piece for an afternoon's work!  This will be fun.  Of
course, you can make as many as you like.

Tobiah wrote:
> Stéphane Rollandin wrote:
>>
>> I know I was the one who asked for one month... but, well... I 
>> couldn't resist the simplicity of your orchestra so at the end of the 
>> day I have something to submit. here it is, attached. hopefully I will 
>> have the right to make another one, will I ? :)
> 
> Great piece for an afternoon's work!  This will be fun.  Of
> course, you can make as many as you like.
> 

We should come up with a voting scheme to determine the winner. We could list 
our top three favorites and assign points based on that. The composers of 
entries will probably give their own entry the top score, but because they are 
forced to choose two other pieces as well, I think it will distribute nicely in 
the end. Also, many who vote will not be composers of an entry.

Stéphane Rollandin wrote:
> 
> I know I was the one who asked for one month... but, well... I couldn't 
> resist the simplicity of your orchestra so at the end of the day I have 
> something to submit.

I'd like to change the notion that scores should be presented first,
and then the programs/methods.  Let's show the source code coincident
with the score so that we can share the processes as they are invented.

So, Stéphane if you are willing to share, would you discuss your
creation of this score?

Thanks,

Toby

Stephane,

Can I post your orchestra at http://csounding.blogspot.com?

Victor
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Stéphane Rollandin" 
To: 
Sent: Tuesday, April 14, 2009 10:24 PM
Subject: [Csnd] Re: Short Composition Challenge


>
> I know I was the one who asked for one month... but, well... I couldn't
> resist the simplicity of your orchestra so at the end of the day I have
> something to submit. here it is, attached. hopefully I will have the
> right to make another one, will I ? :)
>
> Stef
>
> Send bugs reports to this list.
> To unsubscribe, send email sympa@lists.bath.ac.uk with body "unsubscribe 
> csound"


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


> 
>
> 
> sr     = 44100
> kr     = 44100
> ksmps  = 1
> nchnls = 2
>
>
>
> giSineFunc ftgen 1, 0, 65536, 10, 1
>
> instr 1
>
>       ;***** INIT SECTION *****
>       iDur            init            p3
>       iVol            init            p4
>       iStartPitch     init            p5
>       iEndPitch       init            p6
>
>       iAttack         init            p7
>       iDecay          init            iDur - iAttack
>
>       iPanStart       init            p8
>       iPanEnd         init            p9
>
>       ;***** SYNTH SECTION *****
>       kEnv            linseg          0, iAttack, iVol, iDecay, 0
>       kPitch          expseg          iStartPitch, iDur, iEndPitch
>       aSig            oscili          kEnv, kPitch, giSineFunc
>
>       kPan            linseg          iPanStart, iDur, iPanEnd
>
>       aLeft           =               aSig * kPan
>       aRight          =               aSig * (1 - kPan)
>
>                       outs            aLeft, aRight
>
> endin
> 
>
> 
> i 1 0 10 8181.8182 110.0000 82.5000 4.0000 0.5000 0.0500
> i 1 0 10 8181.8182 82.5000 137.5000 4.0000 0.8000 0.3000
> i 1 0 10 8181.8182 137.5000 110.0000 4.0000 0.3000 0.8000
> i 1 0 10 8181.8182 50.0000 852.5000 4.0000 0.7000 0.5000
> i 1 0 10 8181.8182 852.5000 50.0000 4.0000 0.3000 0.5000
> i 1 0 10 8181.8182 47.1429 742.5000 4.0000 0.9000 0.2000
> i 1 0 10 8181.8182 742.5000 47.1429 4.0000 0.1000 0.8000
> i 1 10 3 8181.8182 110.0000 110.0000 0.0030 0.1000 0.8000
> i 1 10 3 8181.8182 82.5000 82.5000 0.0030 0.6000 0.4000
> i 1 10 3 8181.8182 137.5000 137.5000 0.0030 0.4000 0.6000
> i 1 10 3 8181.8182 50.0000 50.0000 0.0030 0.7000 0.4000
> i 1 10 3 8181.8182 852.5000 852.5000 0.0030 0.3000 0.6000
> i 1 10 3 8181.8182 47.1429 47.1429 0.0030 0.8000 0.5000
> i 1 10 3 8181.8182 742.5000 742.5000 0.0030 0.2000 0.5000
> i 1 13 1.2000 0 742.5000 742.5000 0.0030 0.2000 0.5000
> i 1 14.2000 4 8181.8182 220.0000 220.0000 0.1200 0.2000 0.5000
> i 1 14.2000 4 8181.8182 165.0000 165.0000 0.1200 0.6000 0.4000
> i 1 14.2000 4 8181.8182 275.0000 275.0000 0.1200 0.4000 0.6000
> i 1 14.2000 4 8181.8182 100.0000 100.0000 0.1200 0.7000 0.4000
> i 1 14.2000 4 8181.8182 385.0000 385.0000 0.1200 0.3000 0.6000
> i 1 14.2000 4 8181.8182 94.2857 94.2857 0.1200 0.8000 0.5000
> i 1 14.2000 4 8181.8182 605.0000 605.0000 0.1200 0.2000 0.5000
> i 1 18.2000 10 8181.8182 220.0000 165.0000 0.1000 0.2000 0.5000
> i 1 18.2000 10 8181.8182 165.0000 275.0000 0.1000 0.8000 0.3000
> i 1 18.2000 10 8181.8182 275.0000 220.0000 0.1000 0.3000 0.8000
> i 1 18.2000 10 8181.8182 100.0000 385.0000 0.1000 0.7000 0.5000
> i 1 18.2000 10 8181.8182 385.0000 100.0000 0.1000 0.3000 0.5000
> i 1 18.2000 10 8181.8182 94.2857 605.0000 0.1000 0.9000 0.2000
> i 1 18.2000 10 8181.8182 605.0000 94.2857 0.1000 0.1000 0.8000
> i 1 28.2000 7 8181.8182 220.0000 220.0000 0.2100 0.1000 0.8000
> i 1 28.2000 7 8181.8182 165.0000 165.0000 0.2100 0.6000 0.4000
> i 1 28.2000 7 8181.8182 275.0000 275.0000 0.2100 0.4000 0.6000
> i 1 28.2000 7 8181.8182 100.0000 100.0000 0.2100 0.7000 0.4000
> i 1 28.2000 7 8181.8182 385.0000 385.0000 0.2100 0.3000 0.6000
> i 1 28.2000 7 8181.8182 94.2857 94.2857 0.2100 0.8000 0.5000
> i 1 28.2000 7 8181.8182 605.0000 605.0000 0.2100 0.2000 0.5000
> i 1 35.2000 0.8000 0 605.0000 605.0000 0.2100 0.2000 0.5000
> i 1 36.0000 3 13500.0000 1500.0000 1500.0000 0.9000 0.7000 0.2000
> i 1 36.0000 3 9000.0000 1200 1200 0.3000 0.2000 0.8000
> i 1 39.0000 5 15000 2100.0000 2100.0000 1.5000 0.7000 0.2000
> i 1 39.0000 5 10000 1800.0000 1800.0000 0.5000 0.2000 0.8000
> i 1 44.0000 4 10500.0000 1400.0000 1400.0000 1.2000 0.7000 0.2000
> i 1 44.0000 4 7000.0000 1200.0000 1200.0000 0.4000 0.2000 0.8000
> i 1 48.0000 0.5000 0 1200.0000 1200.0000 0.4000 0.2000 0.8000
> i 1 48.5000 12 7909.0909 300.0000 225.0000 3.6000 0.2000 0.8000
> i 1 48.5000 12 7909.0909 225.0000 375.0000 3.6000 0.8000 0.3000
> i 1 48.5000 12 7909.0909 375.0000 300.0000 3.6000 0.3000 0.8000
> i 1 48.5000 12 7909.0909 81.8182 1275.0000 3.6000 0.7000 0.5000
> i 1 48.5000 12 7909.0909 1275.0000 81.8182 3.6000 0.3000 0.5000
> i 1 48.5000 12 7909.0909 128.5714 825.0000 3.6000 0.9000 0.2000
> i 1 48.5000 12 7909.0909 825.0000 128.5714 3.6000 0.1000 0.8000
> i 1 60.5000 0.2000 0 825.0000 128.5714 3.6000 0.1000 0.8000
> i 1 60.7000 4 6272.7273 300.0000 300.0000 0.0400 0.1000 0.8000
> i 1 60.7000 4 6272.7273 225.0000 225.0000 0.0400 0.6000 0.4000
> i 1 60.7000 4 6272.7273 375.0000 375.0000 0.0400 0.4000 0.6000
> i 1 60.7000 4 6272.7273 81.8182 81.8182 0.0400 0.7000 0.4000
> i 1 60.7000 4 6272.7273 1275.0000 1275.0000 0.0400 0.3000 0.6000
> i 1 60.7000 4 6272.7273 128.5714 128.5714 0.0400 0.8000 0.5000
> i 1 60.7000 4 6272.7273 825.0000 825.0000 0.0400 0.2000 0.5000
> i 1 64.7000 0.1000 0 825.0000 825.0000 0.0400 0.2000 0.5000
> i 1 64.8000 5 8454.5455 300.0000 300.0000 0.0250 0.2000 0.5000
> i 1 64.8000 5 8454.5455 225.0000 225.0000 0.0250 0.6000 0.4000
> i 1 64.8000 5 8454.5455 375.0000 375.0000 0.0250 0.4000 0.6000
> i 1 64.8000 5 8454.5455 81.8182 81.8182 0.0250 0.7000 0.4000
> i 1 64.8000 5 8454.5455 1275.0000 1275.0000 0.0250 0.3000 0.6000
> i 1 64.8000 5 8454.5455 128.5714 128.5714 0.0250 0.8000 0.5000
> i 1 64.8000 5 8454.5455 825.0000 825.0000 0.0250 0.2000 0.5000
> i 1 69.8000 0.1000 0 825.0000 825.0000 0.0250 0.2000 0.5000
> i 1 69.9000 9 7909.0909 300.0000 300.0000 0.0009 0.2000 0.5000
> i 1 69.9000 9 7909.0909 225.0000 225.0000 0.0009 0.6000 0.4000
> i 1 69.9000 9 7909.0909 375.0000 375.0000 0.0009 0.4000 0.6000
> i 1 69.9000 9 7909.0909 81.8182 81.8182 0.0009 0.7000 0.4000
> i 1 69.9000 9 7909.0909 1275.0000 1275.0000 0.0009 0.3000 0.6000
> i 1 69.9000 9 7909.0909 128.5714 128.5714 0.0009 0.8000 0.5000
> i 1 69.9000 9 7909.0909 825.0000 825.0000 0.0009 0.2000 0.5000
> i 1 78.9000 25 8181.8182 300.0000 400.0000 20.0000 0.2000 0.5000
> i 1 78.9000 25 8181.8182 400.0000 500.0000 20.0000 0.8000 0.3000
> i 1 78.9000 25 8181.8182 500.0000 300.0000 20.0000 0.3000 0.8000
> i 1 78.9000 25 8181.8182 450.0000 525.0000 20.0000 0.7000 0.5000
> i 1 78.9000 25 8181.8182 525.0000 450.0000 20.0000 0.3000 0.5000
> i 1 103.9000 5 15000 525.0000 525.0000 1.5000 0.7000 0.2000
> i 1 103.9000 5 10000 450.0000 450.0000 0.5000 0.2000 0.8000
> i 1 108.9000 7 12750.0000 400.0000 400.0000 2.1000 0.7000 0.2000
> i 1 108.9000 7 8500.0000 500.0000 500.0000 0.7000 0.2000 0.8000
> i 1 115.9000 21 9750.0000 400.0000 400.0000 6.3000 0.7000 0.2000
> i 1 115.9000 21 6500.0000 300 300 2.1000 0.2000 0.8000
>
> 
>
> 
> 

Interesting idea to blog the challenge, but why not use Csounds.com's
blogging feature?

^_^

Anthony

victor wrote on 4/15/09 2:45 AM:

> Stephane,
> 
> Can I post your orchestra at http://csounding.blogspot.com?

I actually forgot about it...
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Anthony Kozar" 
To: "Csound mailing list address" 
Sent: Wednesday, April 15, 2009 8:11 AM
Subject: [Csnd] Re: Short Composition Challenge


> Interesting idea to blog the challenge, but why not use Csounds.com's
> blogging feature?
>
> ^_^
>
> Anthony
>
> victor wrote on 4/15/09 2:45 AM:
>
>> Stephane,
>>
>> Can I post your orchestra at http://csounding.blogspot.com?
>
>
>
> Send bugs reports to this list.
> To unsubscribe, send email sympa@lists.bath.ac.uk with body "unsubscribe 
> csound" 

Michael P Mossey wrote:
> We should come up with a voting scheme to determine the winner. We 
> could list our top three favorites and assign points based on that. 
> The composers of entries will probably give their own entry the top 
> score, but because they are forced to choose two other pieces as well, 
> I think it will distribute nicely in the end.

Unless they write three pieces, which is allowed by Tobiah :-) If voting 
is not anonymous, you could require that people don't vote for their own 
songs, but then maybe the composers would refuse to vote.

Maybe we're just being too paranoid about people cheating in this 
informal contest without prizes.

> Also, many who vote will not be composers of an entry.

-- 
  Mark
  _________________________________________
  When you get lemons, you make lemonade.
  When you get hardware, you make software.

Tobiah a écrit :
 > I'd like to change the notion that scores should be presented first,
 > and then the programs/methods.  Let's show the source code coincident
 > with the score so that we can share the processes as they are invented.
 >
 > So, Stéphane if you are willing to share, would you discuss your
 > creation of this score?

sure,

the source code is attached. it is for Emacs with Csound-x.


there are three kinds of chords in the piece, and they never overlap. 
the actual score I wrote calls three corresponding functions: 
'simple-chord, 'chord, and 'slide-chord

to compose the piece, I first wrote these functions roughly, then I 
called them with some parameters, tweaked the functions code so that I 
could get nice sounds, then I stopped modifying the functions and did 
the actual composition of the piece, this time playing with the duration 
and sequence of chords, and only tweaking the parameters sent to the 
functions.

when I got the final shape of the piece, I made some last slight 
tweaking of the functions internals (mostly to the way they handle 
volume and panning) in order to dynamise the more static aspects of the 
sounds.


now for the chord functions and what they do:

function 'simple-chord just plays to instr 1 notes simultaneously. its 
parameters are the duration of the chord (d), the root frequency (which 
is not played) and two ratios. attacks and volume are different for each 
ratio.

function 'slide-chord plays a 3 to 11 notes chord, with the following 
trick: each note starts with a given frequency in the chord but ends 
with another frequency, so that although we have the same sound at the 
very beginning and very end of the chord, the middle part is composed of 
beatings and interferences from all chord notes morphing one into another.

function 'chord plays a richer chord of 3 to 11 notes. it is the 
"static" version of 'slide-chord (no sliding)

in both 'chord and 'slide-chord, a parameter controls the attack. when 
it is close to 0 we get a bell-like sound. a typical gesture in the 
piece is a slow-starting sliding-chord followed by one or more bell-like 
equivalent static chords. simple-chords are interspeded about the rich 
chords so that they ligthen and smoothen the overall piece. the last 
note is very long and very simple and I think it contrasts nicely with 
the big masses that were preceding.



about the coding process:

Csound-x is the front-end I developed for Emacs:
http://www.zogotounga.net/comp/csoundx.html

For this piece, I did everything in a plain Emacs Lisp buffer, only 
writing lisp code. I never had to actually create nor edit a CSD file; 
the macro 'csound-composition takes care of everything. I did not have 
to compile anything either; every now and then, I would evaluate 
(csl-play-composition my-composition) to hear the piece. for debugging 
purposes, in order to see how the actual score was be written, I would 
do (csl-edit-composition my-composition) so that I could see the 
generated CSD file in another Emacs buffer.

The subset of Csound-x used to compose the score is i.el, documented here:
http://www.zogotounga.net/comp/csoundx-info.html#The%20i%20library

The macro 'csound-composition is illustrated here:
http://www.zogotounga.net/comp/csoundx-info.html#Csound%20Elisp

as you can see in that last example, it can also generate the orchestra 
from lisp statements. here I just included your orchestra litteraly.


that's it, I hope this helps.

feel free to ask for more details...


regards,

Stef

sure, please add my name somewhere in a comment :)


regards,

Stef

> Maybe we're just being too paranoid about people cheating in this 
> informal contest without prizes.

WHAT ? there is no prize ?!

doh... I just lost my day...

Stef

Sorry, but i need some help.
I've tried Your orchestra but when i use attack time set to 0 there is be no
output (amplitude is 0.0). If i use any positive value (like 0.00001) it's
all ok. I can't understand why (linseg allow a 0 value, no?). If someone can
explain me why this appen, i will be more happy. Many thanks.

francibal(do)


Tobiah-3 wrote:
> 
> I have an idea for a brief informal contest.  Given a simple,
> one-oscillator orchestra, provide a score which produces the
> most beautiful piece.
> 
> I offer an orchestra that I crafted for the purpose
> of this event.  One can make use of very limited 
> envelope an pan controls.  Obviously, the craft will
> be in the score generation program (although one is
> welcome to hand edit her entry!).
> 
> If there is interest, I suggest a seven day window
> for this challenge.  Only the scores should be 
> submitted at first.  We can look at source code
> later.  For large scores, a URL might be best.  I can host
> scores if you send them to me in an archive format.
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Toby
> 
> 
> sr      =       44100
> ksmps   =       1
> nchnls  =       2
> 
> giSineFunc ftgen 1, 0, 65536, 10, 1
> 
> instr 1
> 
>         ;***** INIT SECTION *****
>         iDur            init            p3
>         iVol            init            p4
>         iStartPitch     init            p5
>         iEndPitch       init            p6
> 
>         iAttack         init            p7
>         iDecay          init            iDur - iAttack
> 
>         iPanStart       init            p8
>         iPanEnd         init            p9
> 
>         ;***** SYNTH SECTION *****
>         kEnv            linseg          0, iAttack, iVol, iDecay, 0
>         kPitch          expseg          iStartPitch, iDur, iEndPitch
>         aSig            oscili          kEnv, kPitch, giSineFunc
> 
>         kPan            linseg          iPanStart, iDur, iPanEnd
> 
>         aLeft           =               aSig * kPan
>         aRight          =               aSig * (1 - kPan)
> 
>                         outs            aLeft, aRight
> 
> endin
> 
> 
> Send bugs reports to this list.
> To unsubscribe, send email sympa@lists.bath.ac.uk with body "unsubscribe
> csound"
> 
> 

-- 
View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Short-Composition-Challenge-tp23031675p23056265.html
Sent from the Csound - General mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

Victor and all,

In addition to the csounding blog - which is cool,

Please do consider posting the .csd's  and then .mp3s at cSounds.com  
so that they can all be feed to iTunes and appear in the musical  
podcasts!

Dr. B.

================================================
   Dr. Richard Boulanger
   Professor of Electronic Production and Design
   Music Technology Division
   Berklee College of Music
   1140 Boylston Street
   Boston, MA 02135
   rboulanger@berklee.edu
   http://csounds.com/boulanger
   617-747-2485 (office)
=================================================







On Apr 15, 2009, at 3:11 AM, Anthony Kozar wrote:

> Interesting idea to blog the challenge, but why not use Csounds.com's
> blogging feature?
>
> ^_^
>
> Anthony
>
> victor wrote on 4/15/09 2:45 AM:
>
>> Stephane,
>>
>> Can I post your orchestra at http://csounding.blogspot.com?
>
>
>
> Send bugs reports to this list.
> To unsubscribe, send email sympa@lists.bath.ac.uk with body  
> "unsubscribe csound"

Again, why not use transeg?

Regards,
Mike

On 4/14/09, Mark Van Peteghem  wrote:
> Anthony Kozar wrote:
>> I think some people subtract the start value from the exponential signal.
>>
>> kexp  expon .001, p3, 1.001
>> kres  = kexp - .001
>
> I've done that too. More recently I made envelopes with linseg between 0
> and 1 and applied expcurve to it. I haven't compared the two methods
> yet; I suspect it's slower with expcurve, but it may sound nicer.
>
> --
>   Mark
>   _________________________________________
>   When you get lemons, you make lemonade.
>   When you get hardware, you make software.
>
>
>
> Send bugs reports to this list.
> To unsubscribe, send email sympa@lists.bath.ac.uk with body "unsubscribe
> csound"
>


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

Seconded (especially for the podcast), and maybe prepend the title with "Sine Comp 2009" or something so that we know.

Michael Bechard



----- Original Message ----
From: Dr. Richard Boulanger 
To: csound@lists.bath.ac.uk
Sent: Wednesday, April 15, 2009 5:49:39 AM
Subject: [Csnd] Re: Short Composition Challenge

Victor and all,

In addition to the csounding blog - which is cool,

Please do consider posting the .csd's  and then .mp3s at cSounds.com so that they can all be feed to iTunes and appear in the musical podcasts!

Dr. B.

================================================
  Dr. Richard Boulanger
  Professor of Electronic Production and Design
  Music Technology Division
  Berklee College of Music
  1140 Boylston Street
  Boston, MA 02135
  rboulanger@berklee.edu
  http://csounds.com/boulanger
  617-747-2485 (office)
=================================================







On Apr 15, 2009, at 3:11 AM, Anthony Kozar wrote:

> Interesting idea to blog the challenge, but why not use Csounds.com's
> blogging feature?
> 
> ^_^
> 
> Anthony
> 
> victor wrote on 4/15/09 2:45 AM:
> 
>> Stephane,
>> 
>> Can I post your orchestra at http://csounding.blogspot.com?
> 
> 
> 
> Send bugs reports to this list.
> To unsubscribe, send email sympa@lists.bath.ac.uk with body "unsubscribe csound"



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



      

I haven't compared expcurve with transeg, although transeg is more 
flexible. It actually gives me more than I need now.

Michael Gogins wrote:
> Again, why not use transeg?
>
> Regards,
> Mike
>
> On 4/14/09, Mark Van Peteghem  wrote:
>   
>> Anthony Kozar wrote:
>>     
>>> I think some people subtract the start value from the exponential signal.
>>>
>>> kexp  expon .001, p3, 1.001
>>> kres  = kexp - .001
>>>       
>> I've done that too. More recently I made envelopes with linseg between 0
>> and 1 and applied expcurve to it. I haven't compared the two methods
>> yet; I suspect it's slower with expcurve, but it may sound nicer.
>>
>> --
>>   Mark
>>   _________________________________________
>>   When you get lemons, you make lemonade.
>>   When you get hardware, you make software.
>>
>>
>>
>> Send bugs reports to this list.
>> To unsubscribe, send email sympa@lists.bath.ac.uk with body "unsubscribe
>> csound"
>>
>>     
>
>
>   

-- 
  Mark
  _________________________________________
  When you get lemons, you make lemonade.
  When you get hardware, you make software.

Mark Van Peteghem wrote:
> Michael P Mossey wrote:
>> We should come up with a voting scheme to determine the winner. We 
>> could list our top three favorites and assign points based on that. 
>> The composers of entries will probably give their own entry the top 
>> score, but because they are forced to choose two other pieces as well, 
>> I think it will distribute nicely in the end.
> 
> Unless they write three pieces, which is allowed by Tobiah :-) If voting 
> is not anonymous, you could require that people don't vote for their own 
> songs, but then maybe the composers would refuse to vote.
> 
> Maybe we're just being too paranoid about people cheating in this 
> informal contest without prizes.
> 

I'm not worried anyone will cheat, but it would be nice to have a system that 
makes sense... that is, whichever composition wins should really express the 
group consensus and not result from some quirk in the voting scheme.

I attend a club's "movie night" in which a small group tries to come to a 
consensus about what movie to watch that evening. There are something like ten 
movies to choose from, and ten people doing the choosing. So first we all vote 
for our favorite three movies. Then the bottom half of the movies are thrown 
out. Then we vote for our favorite two. Again the bottom half is thrown out. 
Finally we vote for one. That gives a winner.

On Thu, Apr 16, 2009 at 12:34 AM, Michael P Mossey
 wrote:
> Mark Van Peteghem wrote:
>>
>> Michael P Mossey wrote:
>>>
>>> We should come up with a voting scheme to determine the winner. We could
>>> list our top three favorites and assign points based on that. The composers
>>> of entries will probably give their own entry the top score, but because
>>> they are forced to choose two other pieces as well, I think it will
>>> distribute nicely in the end.
>>
>> Unless they write three pieces, which is allowed by Tobiah :-) If voting
>> is not anonymous, you could require that people don't vote for their own
>> songs, but then maybe the composers would refuse to vote.
>>
>> Maybe we're just being too paranoid about people cheating in this informal
>> contest without prizes.
>>
>
> I'm not worried anyone will cheat, but it would be nice to have a system
> that makes sense... that is, whichever composition wins should really
> express the group consensus and not result from some quirk in the voting
> scheme.
>
> I attend a club's "movie night" in which a small group tries to come to a
> consensus about what movie to watch that evening. There are something like
> ten movies to choose from, and ten people doing the choosing. So first we
> all vote for our favorite three movies. Then the bottom half of the movies
> are thrown out. Then we vote for our favorite two. Again the bottom half is
> thrown out. Finally we vote for one. That gives a winner.

And then you watch 1.25 movies?
;)

-Chuckk

-- 
http://www.badmuthahubbard.com

Chuckk Hubbard wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 16, 2009 at 12:34 AM, Michael P Mossey
>  wrote:
>> I attend a club's "movie night" in which a small group tries to come to a
>> consensus about what movie to watch that evening. There are something like
>> ten movies to choose from, and ten people doing the choosing. So first we
>> all vote for our favorite three movies. Then the bottom half of the movies
>> are thrown out. Then we vote for our favorite two. Again the bottom half is
>> thrown out. Finally we vote for one. That gives a winner.
> 
> And then you watch 1.25 movies?
> ;)
> 
> -Chuckk
> 

Yeah, it tends to jam the dvd player.

    Here is the link to my entry for Tobiah's Short Composition Challange, which I posted on Csounds.com as a blog.  

    http://www.csounds.com/node/373

    This was a fun challenge which gave me an opportunity to try out some new techniques, specifically score generation with Python.  Thanks for the challenge, Tobiah.  

                                    Mark Jamerson



      

Very nice Mark. It seems to me that most people stay away from editing
scores manually these day. I think all the submissions to this little
challenge have all used some type of score generation system.

Rory.




2009/4/27 mark jamerson :
>
>
>
>    Here is the link to my entry for Tobiah's Short Composition Challange, which I posted on Csounds.com as a blog.
>
>    http://www.csounds.com/node/373
>
>    This was a fun challenge which gave me an opportunity to try out some new techniques, specifically score generation with Python.  Thanks for the challenge, Tobiah.
>
>                                    Mark Jamerson
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Send bugs reports to this list.
> To unsubscribe, send email sympa@lists.bath.ac.uk with body "unsubscribe csound"
>

   
   Thanks, Rory.  I astually started the challenge by hand inputting the score, and I quickly learned why most people use a score generator.  I usually edit scores manually, but I tailor my instruments to having as few p-fields as possible, thus speeding up the process.  

                                Mark 



----- Original Message ----
From: Rory Walsh 
To: csound@lists.bath.ac.uk
Sent: Monday, April 27, 2009 2:25:37 PM
Subject: [Csnd] Re: Re: Short Composition Challenge

Very nice Mark. It seems to me that most people stay away from editing
scores manually these day. I think all the submissions to this little
challenge have all used some type of score generation system.

Rory.




2009/4/27 mark jamerson :
>
>
>
>    Here is the link to my entry for Tobiah's Short Composition Challange, which I posted on Csounds.com as a blog.
>
>    http://www.csounds.com/node/373
>
>    This was a fun challenge which gave me an opportunity to try out some new techniques, specifically score generation with Python.  Thanks for the challenge, Tobiah.
>
>                                    Mark Jamerson
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Send bugs reports to this list.
> To unsubscribe, send email sympa@lists.bath.ac.uk with body "unsubscribe csound"
>


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


      

Whatever you've done it's worked a treat. I hope I get some time to do my own!

2009/4/27 mark jamerson :
>
>
>   Thanks, Rory.  I astually started the challenge by hand inputting the score, and I quickly learned why most people use a score generator.  I usually edit scores manually, but I tailor my instruments to having as few p-fields as possible, thus speeding up the process.
>
>                                Mark
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message ----
> From: Rory Walsh 
> To: csound@lists.bath.ac.uk
> Sent: Monday, April 27, 2009 2:25:37 PM
> Subject: [Csnd] Re: Re: Short Composition Challenge
>
> Very nice Mark. It seems to me that most people stay away from editing
> scores manually these day. I think all the submissions to this little
> challenge have all used some type of score generation system.
>
> Rory.
>
>
>
>
> 2009/4/27 mark jamerson :
>>
>>
>>
>>    Here is the link to my entry for Tobiah's Short Composition Challange, which I posted on Csounds.com as a blog.
>>
>>    http://www.csounds.com/node/373
>>
>>    This was a fun challenge which gave me an opportunity to try out some new techniques, specifically score generation with Python.  Thanks for the challenge, Tobiah.
>>
>>                                    Mark Jamerson
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Send bugs reports to this list.
>> To unsubscribe, send email sympa@lists.bath.ac.uk with body "unsubscribe csound"
>>
>
>
> Send bugs reports to this list.
> To unsubscribe, send email sympa@lists.bath.ac.uk with body "unsubscribe csound"
>
>
>
>
>
> Send bugs reports to this list.
> To unsubscribe, send email sympa@lists.bath.ac.uk with body "unsubscribe csound"
>