Thanks for your response.

First, I have to say that the way I think Burial composes is not at all the way that I compose! 

I compose pretty much exclusively by, in fact, writing down Csound instrument code and Python score-generating code. I run it, and I listen to the beginning of the piece, or the whole piece if the beginning is any good, and if I can think of something to try to make it better I try it, and I do this again and again until I can't seem to make the piece any better any more, at which point I listen to it until I can tell whether to publish it or archive it. So I am TOTALLY text-based, if you like. For me, this is the fastest and best way to work -- and I have tried the other ways. In fact, I started out as a free improviser in the 1970s. I've tried notating music, playing it into a sequencer or recorder and overdubbing/assembling, etc. The algorithms are the way to go for me. No doubt about it.

For THIS method of composing, I find Csound hard to beat. I would prefer a language where the instrument code and the composition code were all in the same language. Nyquist is the best example of such a system, CM/CLM another (sort of). But Csound has a lot more opcodes and some of them are very good. This is especially true now with SoundFonts, the STK stuff, the PVS stuff, and much much more. And I already know Csound. So I stick with it.

Regarding the palette in SoundForge, obviously there are a lot of things you can do. I don't have SoundForge, but I do have Cool Edit Pro and Audacity and Cubase, and I have played with Acid which is the looping part of SoundForge, and Buzz and Psycle and suchlike trackers. Although I don't compose with these tools, I have familiarized myself with them to try out ideas, etc. There is a great deal you can do with just looping, delay lines, filters, pitch shifting, and the other plugins that you get. And with SynthEdit or something you can create modular patches. So the palette may be limited with respect to what Csound can do, but it is certainly still a very large palette.

Second, I know for a fact, from having talked with the composers, that a number of pieces that I have heard at ICMCs over the years, and that I really liked, and that are often mentioned among EA/computer music listeners, were composed essentially the way I have described Burial working: by assembling a collage of sound samples in an editor with some plugins. Two examples: Puzzle (and probably other pieces) by Robert Normandeau, and Ode to the South-Facing Form by Mark Wingate. In both cases, Pro Tools was the editor. 

I would guess SoundForge is actually better for this sort of thing in some ways than Pro Tools, but then of course Pro Tools is multi-channel and SoundForge is not. 

But I would also bet that the best composer's editors are Adobe Audition (used to be Cool Edit Pro) on Windows, Logic on OS X, and snd on Linux.

Regards,
Mike


-----Original Message-----
>From: Tim Mortimer 
>Sent: Jan 13, 2008 5:55 PM
>To: csound@lists.bath.ac.uk
>Subject: [Csnd] Re: Re: Re: [OT] Burial
>
>
>I would agree with pretty much all of this. When i came to csound, it was
>because i thought working with a text based score might speed the process
>from "my head" to "somebody else's ears".
>
>Pretty much everything i have done with python since has been about working
>towards the aims you are describing...
>
>So much software out there seems to be about GUI's designed simply to give
>access to a bunch of instrument parameters, & none of it (with the possible
>remote exception of Ableton live, but to a very limited degree...) is about
>creating a "composers overview" of a musical work, assisting them to
>organise "thematic" content (even if it's simply a range of 2 step beats &
>associated fills & fx, or something in the more Schoenbergian sense of the
>word - from my ad-hoc experience it doesn't really matter...) outside of the
>direct realisation of the work itself. 
>
>This is a fairly "abstract concept" granted, but i know from my own (mainly
>songwriting) experience (& my prototypical ambient / 12TET "colourfield"
>works to date) that "when it comes, it comes quick" - & the main thing
>stopping me finishing stuff is often that by the time you stop & "work out
>all the details to realise the score in computer speak" it's often 3 weeks
>later, & you are so bored with the piece you don't care anymore & just want
>to start something else.
>
>I'm a little baffled still though as to why you see Soundforge as the
>antidote to this Michael. Whatever you do it seems (& my "colourfield"
>direction is a case in point) it seems sooner or later to have to limit your
>"composition" to sounds you currently have available, & arrange them from
>there (even if a great deal of work & prior editing has gone into them, &
>you "tidy them up further" once an arrangement is in place.
>
>But this whole issue is really at the core of my computer music experience -
>particularly as i say, coming from a rather unsalubrious background of
>"indie rock" where "1,2,3,4 - bam!" is an accepted (& often remarkably
>productive & enjoyable) methodology....
>
>
>Michael Gogins wrote:
>> 
>> First, I think discussion of artistic quality is always appropriate. Just
>> because it's hard and a lot of it is down to taste doesn't mean it can't
>> be done or isn't important. Human life is constructed out of equal parts
>> family relationships, friendships, institutional memberships including
>> buying and selling, technology, science, and not least, works of art.
>> Civilizations define themselves with art. Persons create themselves with
>> art. I created myself with Robert Heinlein, Gene Wolfe (science fiction
>> writers), Bach, Beethoven, the Beatles, Stockhausen, Xenakis, and Lansky
>> (musicians), etc., you get the picture.
>> 
>> Specifically about Burial and Csound, I repeat, it would NOT have been
>> possible to make this music with Csound. Csound could certainly be used to
>> exactly re-create the piece down to the last detail. For that matter,
>> Csound could be used to re-create ANY piece of music down to the last
>> detail, including the ones made with voices, fiddles, and pianos. 
>> 
>> However, it is clear that _Untrue_ was created by intensively editing,
>> processing, and assembling samples. This involves many, many trials and
>> comparisons and fine adjustments in a very hands-on, manual, interactive
>> way of working. Csound could certainly make any of the sounds and do any
>> of the processing, and more besides, but it would take too long, and the
>> memory of one take would fade while one was working up the next take. Of
>> course you could play them back A/B, but you would be slipping into and
>> out of the emotional flow. With something like SoundForge, you never need
>> to let go of the flow. It's clear from interviews of Burial that this is
>> how he works. 
>> 
>> Of course, if you are Mozart and can hold the entire composition in your
>> head without variation and write it down, then theoretically you could do
>> any kind of music by just writing down Csound instrument and note code.
>> But although I've talked to a lot of computer-based composers, I haven't
>> talked to anyone, not one, who composes straight out of his or her head.
>> If you ask me, Mozart's head-composing was very much enabled by a
>> well-defined musical vocabulary and a fixed palette of instrumental
>> sounds. This doesn't work very well if you are composing the instruments
>> (or 'textures') along with the notes, as Burial does. You only discover
>> what your sonic palette is, in fact, through a process of trial and error.
>> Again, this goes much faster with Burial's way of composing. As noted
>> Burial does have a limited sonic palette, but with it he produces many
>> finely balanced and modulated shades of timbre.
>> 
>> There are a lot of ways of composing. Csound is unexcelled as an
>> instrument for synthesizing and processing sound, but it is not best
>> suited for ALL methods of composing.
>> 
>> Regards,
>> Mike
>> 
>> 
>> 
>
>-- 
>View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/-OT--Burial-tp14769488p14792383.html
>Sent from the Csound - General mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>
>
>
>Send bugs reports to this list.
>To unsubscribe, send email sympa@lists.bath.ac.uk with body "unsubscribe csound"

Hi Michael,

I have understood better now what you were saying. And I think you're 
totally right about the problem with working exclusively in csound for 
these kind of things. There's always the risk of disrupting the 
emotional flow etc.

Personally, I produced most of my music using Cubase (or other 
multitrack recording softwares like Tracktion) and I still find this way 
of composing more natural and productive for me. Maybe it is just 
because I'm more accustomed to it.

At the moment, I'm completely in love with csound, but this is mostly 
because I believe it is the open source software with the most high 
quality tools (as you also said). And I think of it (and use it) mostly 
as a sound server. I still haven't found a truly productive workflow in 
the open source world, but it's difficult to say for me if the problem 
is with the tools or if it is something that changed inside me (maybe a 
temporarily lack of motivation).

Anyway, I'm sure about one thing (at least for me): I shouldn't think 
too much about the tools, I should only concentrate on the results. I 
must admit that I was a bit surprised when I discovered that people in 
the csound community was sharing the .csd source of their works. I 
understand it, because I'm a lot into the aesthetics of computer music 
and programming, but I felt there was a risk: if I want to publish my 
work as a csound score, then I should limit my self to use csound 
exclusively, for the aestethics of doing such thing (as outlined in the 
article by Kim Cascone on csounds.com). I've found that I need to think 
about csound as just one of the many tools I have at my disposal.

Something similar happened when I released the result of an experiment 
I've made with Pure Data - using generative/stochastic techniques to 
produce the whole piece (you can listen to it here: 
http://www.cesaremarilungo.com/media/still-trying-to-grasp-the-zen-mind 
). At first I published it with the Pure Data patch (it made sense since 
it was a generative piece so it was also always different at each run), 
but then I felt uncomfortable with the idea that the piece would have 
been perceived in that way, instead of being concentrated on what you 
hear. I thought that I would have liked to enrich the track with other 
instruments (played live), but that would have made impossible to 
release that track as a generative work. Now I regret the decision to 
publish it as it is.

What do you think?

Best,

-c.

p.s. as always, I apologize for my poor English.


Michael Gogins wrote:
> Thanks for your response.
>
> First, I have to say that the way I think Burial composes is not at all the way that I compose! 
>
> I compose pretty much exclusively by, in fact, writing down Csound instrument code and Python score-generating code. I run it, and I listen to the beginning of the piece, or the whole piece if the beginning is any good, and if I can think of something to try to make it better I try it, and I do this again and again until I can't seem to make the piece any better any more, at which point I listen to it until I can tell whether to publish it or archive it. So I am TOTALLY text-based, if you like. For me, this is the fastest and best way to work -- and I have tried the other ways. In fact, I started out as a free improviser in the 1970s. I've tried notating music, playing it into a sequencer or recorder and overdubbing/assembling, etc. The algorithms are the way to go for me. No doubt about it.
>
> For THIS method of composing, I find Csound hard to beat. I would prefer a language where the instrument code and the composition code were all in the same language. Nyquist is the best example of such a system, CM/CLM another (sort of). But Csound has a lot more opcodes and some of them are very good. This is especially true now with SoundFonts, the STK stuff, the PVS stuff, and much much more. And I already know Csound. So I stick with it.
>
> Regarding the palette in SoundForge, obviously there are a lot of things you can do. I don't have SoundForge, but I do have Cool Edit Pro and Audacity and Cubase, and I have played with Acid which is the looping part of SoundForge, and Buzz and Psycle and suchlike trackers. Although I don't compose with these tools, I have familiarized myself with them to try out ideas, etc. There is a great deal you can do with just looping, delay lines, filters, pitch shifting, and the other plugins that you get. And with SynthEdit or something you can create modular patches. So the palette may be limited with respect to what Csound can do, but it is certainly still a very large palette.
>
> Second, I know for a fact, from having talked with the composers, that a number of pieces that I have heard at ICMCs over the years, and that I really liked, and that are often mentioned among EA/computer music listeners, were composed essentially the way I have described Burial working: by assembling a collage of sound samples in an editor with some plugins. Two examples: Puzzle (and probably other pieces) by Robert Normandeau, and Ode to the South-Facing Form by Mark Wingate. In both cases, Pro Tools was the editor. 
>
> I would guess SoundForge is actually better for this sort of thing in some ways than Pro Tools, but then of course Pro Tools is multi-channel and SoundForge is not. 
>
> But I would also bet that the best composer's editors are Adobe Audition (used to be Cool Edit Pro) on Windows, Logic on OS X, and snd on Linux.
>
> Regards,
> Mike
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
>   
>> From: Tim Mortimer 
>> Sent: Jan 13, 2008 5:55 PM
>> To: csound@lists.bath.ac.uk
>> Subject: [Csnd] Re: Re: Re: [OT] Burial
>>
>>
>> I would agree with pretty much all of this. When i came to csound, it was
>> because i thought working with a text based score might speed the process
>>     
> >from "my head" to "somebody else's ears".
>   
>> Pretty much everything i have done with python since has been about working
>> towards the aims you are describing...
>>
>> So much software out there seems to be about GUI's designed simply to give
>> access to a bunch of instrument parameters, & none of it (with the possible
>> remote exception of Ableton live, but to a very limited degree...) is about
>> creating a "composers overview" of a musical work, assisting them to
>> organise "thematic" content (even if it's simply a range of 2 step beats &
>> associated fills & fx, or something in the more Schoenbergian sense of the
>> word - from my ad-hoc experience it doesn't really matter...) outside of the
>> direct realisation of the work itself. 
>>
>> This is a fairly "abstract concept" granted, but i know from my own (mainly
>> songwriting) experience (& my prototypical ambient / 12TET "colourfield"
>> works to date) that "when it comes, it comes quick" - & the main thing
>> stopping me finishing stuff is often that by the time you stop & "work out
>> all the details to realise the score in computer speak" it's often 3 weeks
>> later, & you are so bored with the piece you don't care anymore & just want
>> to start something else.
>>
>> I'm a little baffled still though as to why you see Soundforge as the
>> antidote to this Michael. Whatever you do it seems (& my "colourfield"
>> direction is a case in point) it seems sooner or later to have to limit your
>> "composition" to sounds you currently have available, & arrange them from
>> there (even if a great deal of work & prior editing has gone into them, &
>> you "tidy them up further" once an arrangement is in place.
>>
>> But this whole issue is really at the core of my computer music experience -
>> particularly as i say, coming from a rather unsalubrious background of
>> "indie rock" where "1,2,3,4 - bam!" is an accepted (& often remarkably
>> productive & enjoyable) methodology....
>>
>>
>> Michael Gogins wrote:
>>     
>>> First, I think discussion of artistic quality is always appropriate. Just
>>> because it's hard and a lot of it is down to taste doesn't mean it can't
>>> be done or isn't important. Human life is constructed out of equal parts
>>> family relationships, friendships, institutional memberships including
>>> buying and selling, technology, science, and not least, works of art.
>>> Civilizations define themselves with art. Persons create themselves with
>>> art. I created myself with Robert Heinlein, Gene Wolfe (science fiction
>>> writers), Bach, Beethoven, the Beatles, Stockhausen, Xenakis, and Lansky
>>> (musicians), etc., you get the picture.
>>>
>>> Specifically about Burial and Csound, I repeat, it would NOT have been
>>> possible to make this music with Csound. Csound could certainly be used to
>>> exactly re-create the piece down to the last detail. For that matter,
>>> Csound could be used to re-create ANY piece of music down to the last
>>> detail, including the ones made with voices, fiddles, and pianos. 
>>>
>>> However, it is clear that _Untrue_ was created by intensively editing,
>>> processing, and assembling samples. This involves many, many trials and
>>> comparisons and fine adjustments in a very hands-on, manual, interactive
>>> way of working. Csound could certainly make any of the sounds and do any
>>> of the processing, and more besides, but it would take too long, and the
>>> memory of one take would fade while one was working up the next take. Of
>>> course you could play them back A/B, but you would be slipping into and
>>> out of the emotional flow. With something like SoundForge, you never need
>>> to let go of the flow. It's clear from interviews of Burial that this is
>>> how he works. 
>>>
>>> Of course, if you are Mozart and can hold the entire composition in your
>>> head without variation and write it down, then theoretically you could do
>>> any kind of music by just writing down Csound instrument and note code.
>>> But although I've talked to a lot of computer-based composers, I haven't
>>> talked to anyone, not one, who composes straight out of his or her head.
>>> If you ask me, Mozart's head-composing was very much enabled by a
>>> well-defined musical vocabulary and a fixed palette of instrumental
>>> sounds. This doesn't work very well if you are composing the instruments
>>> (or 'textures') along with the notes, as Burial does. You only discover
>>> what your sonic palette is, in fact, through a process of trial and error.
>>> Again, this goes much faster with Burial's way of composing. As noted
>>> Burial does have a limited sonic palette, but with it he produces many
>>> finely balanced and modulated shades of timbre.
>>>
>>> There are a lot of ways of composing. Csound is unexcelled as an
>>> instrument for synthesizing and processing sound, but it is not best
>>> suited for ALL methods of composing.
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> Mike
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>       
>> -- 
>> View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/-OT--Burial-tp14769488p14792383.html
>> Sent from the Csound - General mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>>
>>
>>
>> Send bugs reports to this list.
>> To unsubscribe, send email sympa@lists.bath.ac.uk with body "unsubscribe csound"
>>     
>
>
>
>
>
> Send bugs reports to this list.
> To unsubscribe, send email sympa@lists.bath.ac.uk with body "unsubscribe csound"
>
>
>   


-- 
www.cesaremarilungo.com 

Hi All,

>From loosely following this thread some thoughts occur and I will state them
here. I hope they seem in some way pertinent.

For me Csound is as much a musical instrument as is a violin or a guitar.
The mastering of any instrument involves a lifelong commitment to delving
ever deeper and deeper into its intricacies and into the way the mind and
body interact with them. I do not find working with Csound to be a hindrance
to emotional flow. On the contrary, it is a very direct connection to it. 

Each musician/composer seems to be "connected" to an instrument(s) that best
suits their temperament and their general approach to music. There are very
few people in this world of billions that find Csound to be conducive to
musical creativity. Indeed, the music that is enabled by the use of Csound
is, in general, little understood by the vast majority of humanity. For
those who do actually use Csound as a major aspect of their compositional
process, I would imagine it comes quite naturally... that coupled with a lot
of hard work and dedication (as well as a "letting go") may elicit beautiful
music.

I tend to have a very specific idea of what a composition will sound like
when completed, from the beginning. However, I always leave these
expectations open because the process of computer generated material is by
its very nature meant to surprise us with unexpected combinations; those
which we could not have come upon on without the aid of stochastic
processes, Csound and a computer.

I recently had a discussion about my music with a colleague who referred to
it as very technically driven music. To my surprise I found this to be
completely adverse to how I think of it. I feel that my music is very
"organic"; the tools used to create it are nearly transparent to the result.
I suppose this is because the process comes very naturally to me. From this
I surmise that every composer should work in a medium that has this same
feeling of connectedness in order to bring forth their unique voice.

I have enjoyed hearing everyone's Csound music and look forward to more in
the future as we all grow as people and therefore as composers.

Michael

(Success is 99% failure.)
www.perceptionfactory.com  




-----Original Message-----
From: Cesare Marilungo [mailto:cesare@poeticstudios.com] 
Sent: Monday, January 14, 2008 5:53 AM
To: csound@lists.bath.ac.uk
Subject: [Csnd] Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: [OT] Burial

Hi Michael,

I have understood better now what you were saying. And I think you're 
totally right about the problem with working exclusively in csound for 
these kind of things. There's always the risk of disrupting the 
emotional flow etc.

Personally, I produced most of my music using Cubase (or other 
multitrack recording softwares like Tracktion) and I still find this way 
of composing more natural and productive for me. Maybe it is just 
because I'm more accustomed to it.

At the moment, I'm completely in love with csound, but this is mostly 
because I believe it is the open source software with the most high 
quality tools (as you also said). And I think of it (and use it) mostly 
as a sound server. I still haven't found a truly productive workflow in 
the open source world, but it's difficult to say for me if the problem 
is with the tools or if it is something that changed inside me (maybe a 
temporarily lack of motivation).

Anyway, I'm sure about one thing (at least for me): I shouldn't think 
too much about the tools, I should only concentrate on the results. I 
must admit that I was a bit surprised when I discovered that people in 
the csound community was sharing the .csd source of their works. I 
understand it, because I'm a lot into the aesthetics of computer music 
and programming, but I felt there was a risk: if I want to publish my 
work as a csound score, then I should limit my self to use csound 
exclusively, for the aestethics of doing such thing (as outlined in the 
article by Kim Cascone on csounds.com). I've found that I need to think 
about csound as just one of the many tools I have at my disposal.

Something similar happened when I released the result of an experiment 
I've made with Pure Data - using generative/stochastic techniques to 
produce the whole piece (you can listen to it here: 
http://www.cesaremarilungo.com/media/still-trying-to-grasp-the-zen-mind 
). At first I published it with the Pure Data patch (it made sense since 
it was a generative piece so it was also always different at each run), 
but then I felt uncomfortable with the idea that the piece would have 
been perceived in that way, instead of being concentrated on what you 
hear. I thought that I would have liked to enrich the track with other 
instruments (played live), but that would have made impossible to 
release that track as a generative work. Now I regret the decision to 
publish it as it is.

What do you think?

Best,
 

No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition. 
Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.19.2/1223 - Release Date: 1/13/2008
8:23 PM