It depends utterly on the style that the composer wishes to develop.

Electroacoustic music (sounds combined in novel ways, not so much 
synthesis) - study Pro Tools or some other recording/editing environment; 
plugins can be used for processing.

Computer music (synthesis, analysis/resynthesis, the whole 9 yards) - Csound 
is an excellent choice.

Synthesis (not so much sampling, analysis/resynthesis) - Csound is good, 
Reaktor or Max might be easier to get into. Lots of people I respect who 
combine instruments and synthesis use Max or Pure Data, but Csound should be 
able to do it well also.

Python, yes, is an excellent intro to programming and Csound should indeed 
be easier to learn after learning Python.

My 2 sense.

Mike


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Michael P Mossey" 
To: 
Sent: Tuesday, April 21, 2009 6:33 PM
Subject: [Csnd] how should a beginner learn csound?


>I am wondering about how best to help a non-programmer, professional 
>composer, learn and use csound, in order to compose either fully electronic 
>music or "tape pieces" that combine electronics and instruments?
>
> - are there any well-organized and comprehensive books about csound aimed 
> at beginners? I know there are tutorials on the web, but I'm not sure if 
> they are "comprehensive"
>
> - what about the idea that a non-programmer read something about a more 
> conventional programming language like Python (for which there are many 
> well-organized and comprehensive resources) as an indirect way of learning 
> to think like a programmer? Then csound may be easier to acquire.
>
> - or, perhaps it would be better to skip learning csound altogether, and 
> instead use tools like blue and AlgoScore together with pre-canned 
> instruments?
>
> thanks,
> Mike
>
>
> Send bugs reports to this list.
> To unsubscribe, send email sympa@lists.bath.ac.uk with body "unsubscribe 
> csound"
> 

Start out simple. The tutorials on csounds.com are pretty good
material. I would first try out an oscillator and then try putting on
amplitude envelope on it. Then get into putting on more filters.

That's how Tom Erbe introduced it to us back in 1998 when you didn't
have csounds.com with all of its resources. He introduced one new
element per week, covering synthesis and sampling in a one semester
class at CalArts.

On Tue, Apr 21, 2009 at 6:22 PM,   wrote:
> It depends utterly on the style that the composer wishes to develop.
>
> Electroacoustic music (sounds combined in novel ways, not so much synthesis)
> - study Pro Tools or some other recording/editing environment; plugins can
> be used for processing.
>
> Computer music (synthesis, analysis/resynthesis, the whole 9 yards) - Csound
> is an excellent choice.
>
> Synthesis (not so much sampling, analysis/resynthesis) - Csound is good,
> Reaktor or Max might be easier to get into. Lots of people I respect who
> combine instruments and synthesis use Max or Pure Data, but Csound should be
> able to do it well also.
>
> Python, yes, is an excellent intro to programming and Csound should indeed
> be easier to learn after learning Python.
>
> My 2 sense.
>
> Mike
>
>
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Michael P Mossey"
> 
> To: 
> Sent: Tuesday, April 21, 2009 6:33 PM
> Subject: [Csnd] how should a beginner learn csound?
>
>
>> I am wondering about how best to help a non-programmer, professional
>> composer, learn and use csound, in order to compose either fully electronic
>> music or "tape pieces" that combine electronics and instruments?
>>
>> - are there any well-organized and comprehensive books about csound aimed
>> at beginners? I know there are tutorials on the web, but I'm not sure if
>> they are "comprehensive"
>>
>> - what about the idea that a non-programmer read something about a more
>> conventional programming language like Python (for which there are many
>> well-organized and comprehensive resources) as an indirect way of learning
>> to think like a programmer? Then csound may be easier to acquire.
>>
>> - or, perhaps it would be better to skip learning csound altogether, and
>> instead use tools like blue and AlgoScore together with pre-canned
>> instruments?
>>
>> thanks,
>> Mike
>>
>>
>> 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'm an intermediate csound user, and i have only a musical formation and not
at all in programming.
I've just begin study python that seem "easy" to understand. I have find
many interesting resources for learning csound, but too much spread. I had
difficoult to find some more in deep tutorial (The Csound Book it's really
good but a little bit outdated, cause the many new opcode, anyway great
inspiration..).
But my really difficoult is to understand integration python csound. I don't
understand Api doc, cause i don't know programming language (and i don't
know english well). I think that, maybe, it missing some easy and
intermediate examples for csnd and CsoundAC.
Ok, i'm not Dante Alighieri but i hope you have understand my "poem".
Saluti a tutti.

fra

Michael Gogins-2 wrote:
> 
> It depends utterly on the style that the composer wishes to develop.
> 
> Electroacoustic music (sounds combined in novel ways, not so much 
> synthesis) - study Pro Tools or some other recording/editing environment; 
> plugins can be used for processing.
> 
> Computer music (synthesis, analysis/resynthesis, the whole 9 yards) -
> Csound 
> is an excellent choice.
> 
> Synthesis (not so much sampling, analysis/resynthesis) - Csound is good, 
> Reaktor or Max might be easier to get into. Lots of people I respect who 
> combine instruments and synthesis use Max or Pure Data, but Csound should
> be 
> able to do it well also.
> 
> Python, yes, is an excellent intro to programming and Csound should indeed 
> be easier to learn after learning Python.
> 
> My 2 sense.
> 
> Mike
> 
> 
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "Michael P Mossey" 
> To: 
> Sent: Tuesday, April 21, 2009 6:33 PM
> Subject: [Csnd] how should a beginner learn csound?
> 
> 
>>I am wondering about how best to help a non-programmer, professional 
>>composer, learn and use csound, in order to compose either fully
electronic 
>>music or "tape pieces" that combine electronics and instruments?
>>
>> - are there any well-organized and comprehensive books about csound aimed 
>> at beginners? I know there are tutorials on the web, but I'm not sure if 
>> they are "comprehensive"
>>
>> - what about the idea that a non-programmer read something about a more 
>> conventional programming language like Python (for which there are many 
>> well-organized and comprehensive resources) as an indirect way of
>> learning 
>> to think like a programmer? Then csound may be easier to acquire.
>>
>> - or, perhaps it would be better to skip learning csound altogether, and 
>> instead use tools like blue and AlgoScore together with pre-canned 
>> instruments?
>>
>> thanks,
>> Mike
>>
>>
>> Send bugs reports to this list.
>> To unsubscribe, send email sympa@lists.bath.ac.uk with body "unsubscribe 
>> csound"
>> 
> 
> 
> 
> Send bugs reports to this list.
> To unsubscribe, send email sympa@lists.bath.ac.uk with body "unsubscribe
> csound"
> 
> 

-- 
View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/how-should-a-beginner-learn-csound--tp23166244p23172266.html
Sent from the Csound - General mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

On 22 Apr 2009, at 02:22, michael.gogins@gmail.com wrote:

> It depends utterly on the style that the composer wishes to develop.

Absolutely!

Judging by (t'other) Mike's original post, I faced a similar  
situation a few years back.

Knowing the composer's style and tastes, I could augment the  
Boulanger toots (the natural starting point, of course!) with short  
exercises aimed at producing particular musical results, tailored to  
their particular interests (i.e. using examples from pieces they knew  
or even their own compositions). This is easy enough on a one-to-one  
basis, but naturally impossible for anyone - like Dr B - producing a  
general introduction for all comers!

An established composer (for conventional forces) will know what  
sounds they want, and will be used to describing them in certain ways  
- almost certainly not using the same terminology used by someone  
coming from a programming background! This "language barrier" can  
lead to a lot of frustration on the part of the composer, who can  
find a lot of the technical jargon forbidding (just as a programmer  
might find Schenkerian analysis equally impenetrable!). Referring (in  
the early stages) to "dynamics" instead of "amplitude levels", or  
"glissandi" instead of "pitch envelopes" can cut through a lot of the  
confusion!

Remember too that, when writing for conventional forces, a composer  
rarely has to think about each aspect of a sound as a separate entity  
in the way they must in Csound (or any other program). So finding  
some way for them to think about how a sound they can visualise  
(auralise?) develops over time is essential. For a glissando, for  
example, I suggested they draw a sketch graph of how the pitch varied  
with time. It didn't need to be to scale - just "back of an envelope"  
style! Once they could visualise the shape, it was a simple matter to  
show how a line on the graph became the "line" opcode. With more  
complex examples (using linseg) it was simply a matter of "add one p- 
field for every bend"! For amplitude envelopes, sketching "hairpins"  
is perhaps more intuitive than a graph - certainly more so than dB or  
raw amplitudes!

Similarly, introducing cpspch early can help make the transition from  
conventional ideas about pitch somewhat easier - especially if they  
see how further decimal places can produce accurate microtones. Using  
pitch classes is also useful if they want to combine the computer- 
generated sound with conventional instruments.

Just a few thoughts - it worked in this case (the composer has gone  
on to write several fairly large-scale pieces in Csound!). Think I  
still have the notes I cobbled together on a disc somewhere if anyone  
wants a look!

Cheers

Joe

i agree with most of the above; selecting the appropriate application
is all about the "style" of electronic music that one wishes to
compose.  or, to put in a more neutral way, the nature of the
flexibility and control that you desire.  but because csound is _so_
large and _so_ flexible, the way that you choose to use csound is as
significant as choosing to use csound at all.  imo, the tutorials that
you select should reflect the aspects of sound synthesis that you're
most interested in controlling.

with this in mind, i have always thought that csound would benefit
from some kind of webpage giving audio examples of electronic music
made in csound followed by links pointing to tutorials that illuminate
which aspects of csound's flexibility make each example possible.

for instance, i agree with michael that, in general, protools is ideal
for making sample-based electronic music.  unless one desires a higher
level of control that is not practical (and perhaps not possible) in a
protools-style app.  this has always been my interest and, with this
kind of flexibility in mind, i found allan schindler's csound tutorial
to be particularly useful:
http://ecmc.rochester.edu/ecmc/docs/allan.cs/

just my $0.02
—  ben



On Tue, Apr 21, 2009 at 6:53 PM, Brian Redfern  wrote:
> Start out simple. The tutorials on csounds.com are pretty good
> material. I would first try out an oscillator and then try putting on
> amplitude envelope on it. Then get into putting on more filters.
>
> That's how Tom Erbe introduced it to us back in 1998 when you didn't
> have csounds.com with all of its resources. He introduced one new
> element per week, covering synthesis and sampling in a one semester
> class at CalArts.
>
> On Tue, Apr 21, 2009 at 6:22 PM,   wrote:
>> It depends utterly on the style that the composer wishes to develop.
>>
>> Electroacoustic music (sounds combined in novel ways, not so much synthesis)
>> - study Pro Tools or some other recording/editing environment; plugins can
>> be used for processing.
>>
>> Computer music (synthesis, analysis/resynthesis, the whole 9 yards) - Csound
>> is an excellent choice.
>>
>> Synthesis (not so much sampling, analysis/resynthesis) - Csound is good,
>> Reaktor or Max might be easier to get into. Lots of people I respect who
>> combine instruments and synthesis use Max or Pure Data, but Csound should be
>> able to do it well also.
>>
>> Python, yes, is an excellent intro to programming and Csound should indeed
>> be easier to learn after learning Python.
>>
>> My 2 sense.
>>
>> Mike
>>
>>
>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Michael P Mossey"
>> 
>> To: 
>> Sent: Tuesday, April 21, 2009 6:33 PM
>> Subject: [Csnd] how should a beginner learn csound?
>>
>>
>>> I am wondering about how best to help a non-programmer, professional
>>> composer, learn and use csound, in order to compose either fully electronic
>>> music or "tape pieces" that combine electronics and instruments?
>>>
>>> - are there any well-organized and comprehensive books about csound aimed
>>> at beginners? I know there are tutorials on the web, but I'm not sure if
>>> they are "comprehensive"
>>>
>>> - what about the idea that a non-programmer read something about a more
>>> conventional programming language like Python (for which there are many
>>> well-organized and comprehensive resources) as an indirect way of learning
>>> to think like a programmer? Then csound may be easier to acquire.
>>>
>>> - or, perhaps it would be better to skip learning csound altogether, and
>>> instead use tools like blue and AlgoScore together with pre-canned
>>> instruments?
>>>
>>> thanks,
>>> Mike
>>>
>>>
>>> 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"
>