| But then there's the age old question: "But how does it sound?"
Grant Covell
gcovell@c-bridge.com
-----Original Message-----
From: Michael Gogins [mailto:gogins@nyc.pipeline.com]
Sent: Tuesday, April 28, 1998 7:25 PM
To: Drew Skyfyre; Csound mailing list
Subject: Re: Composing with detailed parameters
>Michael Gogins wrote :
>
>>MY music is DEFINITELY represented in physical values such as Hz,
location
>>in space by angle, phase, and loudness in dB.
> Hello Michael (& All the rest of you!),
>
>I'm interested in your approach to specifying these details while
>composing.Do you use any particular interface to write Csound scores
and
>do you use any other software/device to help
>visualize and cope with the composition process ? Do you use standard
>notation and do you hack it
>to represent various parameters ?
>
I write my own software that generates Csound scores. My current
software
assumes the Csound pfields are laid out:
p1 instrument number
p2 starting time of note in seconds
p3 duration of note in seconds
p4 pitch in linear octaves, where middle C = 8.0.
p5 loudness in decibels, where 0 is silence and 96 dB is the loudest
you
can get out of 16 bits.
p6 phase in units of pi
p7 x coordinate of spatial location, the origin is the listener
p8 y coordinate of spatial location
p9 z coordiante of spatial location
Additional pfields can be used to control other parameters of
instruments.
Since all my instruments have these 9 fields, I can rearrange a piece
just
by reassigning the instrument numbers to different instruments. In fact
my
software does this for me - it has a patch library with about 50
instruments
in it, and I pick the ones I want out and put them in the right order,
and
that's my arrangement.
I should add the instruments are adjusted so that if p5 = 80 decibels,
the
average maximum amplitude of the note is as close as I can get to
15848.926,
which is what ampdb(80) returns in Csound.
And I use the following code to make the x coordinate of space translate
to
a constant power pan between the stereo speakers:
; x location ranges from hard left = -1 through center = 0 to hard right
=
1.
; angle of pan ranges from hard left = - pi / 2 through center = 0 to
hard
right = pi / 2.
ix = p7
iangle = ix * 3.14159265359 / 2.0
ileftpan = sqrt(2.0) / 2.0 * (cos(iangle) + sin(iangle))
irightpan = sqrt(2.0) / 2.0 * (cos(iangle) - sin(iangle))
I sometimes do write standard music notation, which I save as MIDI and
translate to the above Csound score format, also using software I have
written.
But more often, my software uses fractals, Lindenmayer systems, chaotic
dynamical systems, and so on. These things generate sequences of notes.
Each
sequence goes into one node of a tree structure, and some of the nodes
also
apply compositional transformations to their children. The end result is
a
single Csound score with a set of instruments to realise it.
I also have written simple programs to generate Csound scores by using
fprintf(fileHandle, "i %0.9f %0.9f %0.9f %0.9f %0.9f %0.9f %0.9f %0.9f
%0.9f\n", p1, p2, p3, p4, p5, p6, p7, p8, p9) to write out the note
statements, or the equivalent in other languages.
Received: from stork.maths.bath.ac.uk by omphalos.maths.Bath.AC.UK id aa20314;
29 Apr 98 16:05 BST
Received: from pat.bath.ac.uk by stork.maths.Bath.AC.UK id aa19797;
29 Apr 98 16:05 BST
Received: (qmail 14413 invoked from network); 29 Apr 1998 15:05:15 -0000
Received: from hermes.ex.ac.uk (HELO exeter.ac.uk) (144.173.6.14)
by pat.bath.ac.uk with SMTP; 29 Apr 1998 15:05:15 -0000
Received: from noether [144.173.8.10] by hermes via SMTP (PAA25618); Wed, 29 Apr 1998 15:42:17 +0100 (BST)
Received: from hermes.ex.ac.uk by maths.ex.ac.uk; Wed, 29 Apr 98 15:41:29 +0100
Received: from dry3.jps.net [208.25.63.31] by hermes via ESMTP (PAA24608); Wed, 29 Apr 1998 15:41:02 +0100 (BST)
Received: from locarnini (istk-port2421.jps.net [209.142.54.204])
by dry3.jps.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id HAA09249;
Wed, 29 Apr 1998 07:33:58 -0700 (PDT)
Message-Id: <001001bd737b$8910e780$cc368ed1@locarnini>
Reply-To: Ken Locarnini
From: Ken Locarnini
To: Grant Covell ,
Csound mailing list
Subject: Re:Detailed parameters/ Overwhelming complexity
Date: Wed, 29 Apr 1998 07:31:40 -0700
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-Msmail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.2106.4
X-Mimeole: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4
Sender: owner-csound-outgoing@maths.ex.ac.uk
Precedence: bulk
--
>But then there's the age old question: "But how does it sound?"
>
The problem is that most on this list are hardcore programmers and math
whizs. I usually have to get out a programmers dictionary to decipher the
obscure techno-babble of most of the letters that come across. I'm not
complaining, I signed up for this. Many are lured into Csound by the claims
that you can do anything with audio, all forms of synthesis etc. What isn't
said is that you also need 4+ years of college level math, and be fluent in
several computor languages to do anything RESEMBLING music. Thats why you
don't see many musicians who think in terms of emotion, visions, fellings
etc. say they used Csound to compose their latest work. If you had a
vision that was powerfull and you wanted to capture it, it would surely be
lost by the time you wrestle with the latest trigonomic equation to pan your
sound etc. You cannot compute emotions. Emotion is a human experience, it
cannot and will not ever be engineered in software. Thus you cannot
engineer music. When you do it will sound machine-like which much of
computor music does. Noone will be
interested except hardcore computor programmer/ math whizs who appreciate
the technical details. But thats like hardcore speed metal guitar players.
To the average person it sounds loud, too fast, boring and repetitive. The
only ones who appreciate it are the other speed metal players. Thats fine
if thats your intended audience.
Michael Gogins is the only one who has assembled a system you can almost
use easily though to program sounds you again need to have the background
mentioned. I primarily use midi because if I'm working on a composition and
a sound dosen't fit, a simple click and I can find a new one. Or break out
the graphicaql editor to create another. I can actually get something done
and have a life besides staring at a computor screen for days on end. If we
don't have a life, we won't have much to say except that we're becoming our
machines which we're not! ( =cw4t7abs)
Remember we're all going to get reduced to a wave file. Noone is going
to care what you used to create it except perhaps your peers. The question
is does that wave speak or communicate something of HUMAN
value........................... end of rant
Received: from stork.maths.bath.ac.uk by omphalos.maths.Bath.AC.UK id aa20472;
29 Apr 98 16:48 BST
Received: from mercury.bath.ac.uk by stork.maths.Bath.AC.UK id aa21398;
29 Apr 98 16:48 BST
Received: (qmail 7254 invoked from network); 29 Apr 1998 15:48:45 -0000
Received: from hermes.ex.ac.uk (HELO exeter.ac.uk) (144.173.6.14)
by mercury.bath.ac.uk with SMTP; 29 Apr 1998 15:48:45 -0000
Received: from noether [144.173.8.10] by hermes via SMTP (QAA06369); Wed, 29 Apr 1998 16:30:05 +0100 (BST)
Received: from hermes.ex.ac.uk by maths.ex.ac.uk; Wed, 29 Apr 98 16:29:37 +0100
Received: from mailhub.iastate.edu [129.186.1.102] by hermes via ESMTP (QAA26138); Wed, 29 Apr 1998 16:29:25 +0100 (BST)
Received: from [129.186.54.6] (weston.music.iastate.edu [129.186.54.6])
by mailhub.iastate.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id KAA23528;
Wed, 29 Apr 1998 10:29:21 -0500 (CDT)
X-Sender: cweston@pop-3.iastate.edu
Message-Id:
In-Reply-To: <001001bd737b$8910e780$cc368ed1@locarnini>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Wed, 29 Apr 1998 09:33:49 -0600
To: Ken Locarnini , csound@maths.ex.ac.uk
From: Craig Weston
Subject: A lurker speaks (Detailed parameters/ Overwhelming complexity)
Sender: owner-csound-outgoing@maths.ex.ac.uk
Precedence: bulk
Ken Locarnini wrote:
>The problem is that most on this list are hardcore programmers and math
>whizs. I usually have to get out a programmers dictionary to decipher the
>obscure techno-babble of most of the letters that come across. I'm not
>complaining, I signed up for this. Many are lured into Csound by the claims
>that you can do anything with audio, all forms of synthesis etc. What isn't
>said is that you also need 4+ years of college level math, and be fluent in
>several computor languages to do anything RESEMBLING music. Thats why you
>don't see many musicians who think in terms of emotion, visions, fellings
>etc. say they used Csound to compose their latest work.
I think in terms of emotion, visions, feelings, etc. I used Csound to
compose my latest electro-acoustic works. I do not have 4+ years of
college math. I have, however, put many years work into learning to use
Csound in a way that it serves my aesthetic visions. Newsflash: it's hard
work to compose interesting music, whether for piano, orchestra, or a
computer.
>If you had a
>vision that was powerfull and you wanted to capture it, it would surely be
>lost by the time you wrestle with the latest trigonomic equation to pan your
>sound etc. You cannot compute emotions. Emotion is a human experience, it
>cannot and will not ever be engineered in software. Thus you cannot
>engineer music. When you do it will sound machine-like which much of
>computor music does.
If you can't engineer music with a computer, whose to say you can do it
with vibrating air columns, strings, etc? The primary difference is whether
or not there is an intelligent human attached to the instrument, adding
inumerable random and non-random inflections to each musical event. In my
experience, machin-played music needs much more and much more detailed
information from the composer, who needs to supply all that musical
intelligence that the performer of an acoustic instrument supplies. Hence
the concern with detailed paramaters and "overwhelming complexity."
> Michael Gogins is the only one who has assembled a system you can almost
>use easily though to program sounds you again need to have the background
>mentioned.
I'm sure many csound users, including myself, have "assembled systems" that
ork for them.
>I primarily use midi because (snip)
Hey, to each her/his own. In my experience, MIDI is far more likely to
produce that machine-like quality you're so concerned with--precisely
because, in it's typical applications, it takes that human performer out of
the equation without replacing it with the composer supplying much more
data than s/he would to a human performer.
> Remember we're all going to get reduced to a wave file. Noone is going
>to care what you used to create it except perhaps your peers. The question
>is does that wave speak or communicate something of HUMAN
>value........................... end of rant
True enough--so why are you apparently judging CSound-produced music and
its ilk by its means of production and not the audio results?
____________________________________________________________
|Craig Weston |
|Asst. Professor, Iowa State University |
|Composition, Music Theory, Computer Music |
| |
|e-mail: cweston@iastate.edu |
|WWW: http://www.music.iastate.edu/~weston |
|__________________________________________________________|
Received: from stork.maths.bath.ac.uk by omphalos.maths.Bath.AC.UK id aa20551;
29 Apr 98 17:08 BST
Received: from pat.bath.ac.uk by stork.maths.Bath.AC.UK id aa22346;
29 Apr 98 17:08 BST
Received: (qmail 22172 invoked from network); 29 Apr 1998 16:08:39 -0000
Received: from hermes.ex.ac.uk (HELO exeter.ac.uk) (144.173.6.14)
by pat.bath.ac.uk with SMTP; 29 Apr 1998 16:08:39 -0000
Received: from noether [144.173.8.10] by hermes via SMTP (QAA04804); Wed, 29 Apr 1998 16:41:58 +0100 (BST)
Received: from hermes.ex.ac.uk by maths.ex.ac.uk; Wed, 29 Apr 98 16:41:09 +0100
Received: from mercury.acs.unt.edu [129.120.220.1] by hermes via ESMTP (QAA12040); Wed, 29 Apr 1998 16:40:51 +0100 (BST)
Received: from jove.acs.unt.edu (3045@jove.acs.unt.edu [129.120.220.41])
by mercury.acs.unt.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id KAA18438;
Wed, 29 Apr 1998 10:39:43 -0500 (CDT)
Received: from localhost (mat0001@localhost)
by jove.acs.unt.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id KAA04369;
Wed, 29 Apr 1998 10:39:41 -0500 (CDT)
Date: Wed, 29 Apr 1998 10:39:41 -0500 (CDT)
From: Micheal Allen Thompson
To: Ken Locarnini
Cc: Grant Covell ,
Csound mailing list
Subject: Re:Detailed parameters/ Overwhelming complexity
In-Reply-To: <001001bd737b$8910e780$cc368ed1@locarnini>
Message-Id:
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: owner-csound-outgoing@maths.ex.ac.uk
Precedence: bulk
Give me a break.... geez..
On Wed, 29 Apr 1998, Ken Locarnini wrote:
>
> --
>
> >But then there's the age old question: "But how does it sound?"
> >
>
> The problem is that most on this list are hardcore programmers and math
> whizs. I usually have to get out a programmers dictionary to decipher the
> obscure techno-babble of most of the letters that come across. I'm not
> complaining, I signed up for this. Many are lured into Csound by the claims
> that you can do anything with audio, all forms of synthesis etc. What isn't
> said is that you also need 4+ years of college level math, and be fluent in
> several computor languages to do anything RESEMBLING music. Thats why you
> don't see many musicians who think in terms of emotion, visions, fellings
> etc. say they used Csound to compose their latest work. If you had a
> vision that was powerfull and you wanted to capture it, it would surely be
> lost by the time you wrestle with the latest trigonomic equation to pan your
> sound etc. You cannot compute emotions. Emotion is a human experience, it
> cannot and will not ever be engineered in software. Thus you cannot
> engineer music.
edited blah blah blah blah.....
> Michael Gogins is the only one who has assembled a system you can almost
> use easily though to program sounds you again need to have the background
> mentioned. I primarily use midi because if I'm working on a composition and
> a sound dosen't fit, a simple click and I can find a new one. Or break out
> the graphicaql editor to create another. I can actually get something done
> and have a life besides staring at a computor screen for days on end. If we
> don't have a life, we won't have much to say except that we're becoming our
> machines which we're not! ( =cw4t7abs)
> Remember we're all going to get reduced to a wave file. Noone is going
> to care what you used to create it except perhaps your peers. The question
> is does that wave speak or communicate something of HUMAN
> value........................... end of rant
Thank God!
M
Received: from stork.maths.bath.ac.uk by omphalos.maths.Bath.AC.UK id aa20652;
29 Apr 98 17:26 BST
Received: from pat.bath.ac.uk by stork.maths.Bath.AC.UK id aa23017;
29 Apr 98 17:26 BST
Received: (qmail 24270 invoked from network); 29 Apr 1998 16:26:20 -0000
Received: from hermes.ex.ac.uk (HELO exeter.ac.uk) (144.173.6.14)
by pat.bath.ac.uk with SMTP; 29 Apr 1998 16:26:20 -0000
Received: from noether [144.173.8.10] by hermes via SMTP (RAA00961); Wed, 29 Apr 1998 17:09:22 +0100 (BST)
Received: from hermes.ex.ac.uk by maths.ex.ac.uk; Wed, 29 Apr 98 17:08:46 +0100
Received: from harfang.CC.UMontreal.CA [132.204.2.102] by hermes via ESMTP (RAA24997); Wed, 29 Apr 1998 17:08:39 +0100 (BST)
Received: from eole.ERE.UMontreal.CA (eole.ERE.UMontreal.CA [132.204.2.70])
by harfang.CC.UMontreal.CA (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id MAA17991;
Wed, 29 Apr 1998 12:08:38 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from mistral.ERE.UMontreal.CA (mistral.ERE.UMontreal.CA [132.204.2.73])
by eole.ERE.UMontreal.CA (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id MAA26286;
Wed, 29 Apr 1998 12:08:36 -0400 (EDT)
Received: (from pichej@localhost)
by mistral.ERE.UMontreal.CA (8.8.7/8.8.7) id MAA10342;
Wed, 29 Apr 1998 12:08:34 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Wed, 29 Apr 1998 12:08:33 -0400 (EDT)
From: Piche Jean
Subject: Re:Detailed parameters/ Overwhelming complexity
To: Ken Locarnini
Cc: Grant Covell ,
Csound mailing list
In-Reply-To: <001001bd737b$8910e780$cc368ed1@locarnini>
Message-Id:
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: owner-csound-outgoing@maths.ex.ac.uk
Precedence: bulk
On Wed, 29 Apr 1998, Ken Locarnini wrote:
hmmm...er... I differ.... profoundly.
What are you saying: Let us wallow in ignorance and we'll have enough
"spontaniety" to create "real" music...?
I think not... Maybe you want to rephrase your "elan de coeur" !!
>
> The problem is that most on this list are hardcore programmers and math
> whizs. I usually have to get out a programmers dictionary to decipher the
> obscure techno-babble of most of the letters that come across. I'm not
> complaining, I signed up for this. Many are lured into Csound by the claims
> that you can do anything with audio, all forms of synthesis etc. What isn't
> said is that you also need 4+ years of college level math, and be fluent in
> several computor languages to do anything RESEMBLING music. Thats why you
> don't see many musicians who think in terms of emotion, visions, fellings
> etc. say they used Csound to compose their latest work. If you had a
> vision that was powerfull and you wanted to capture it, it would surely be
> lost by the time you wrestle with the latest trigonomic equation to pan your
> sound etc. You cannot compute emotions. Emotion is a human experience, it
> cannot and will not ever be engineered in software. Thus you cannot
> engineer music. When you do it will sound machine-like which much of
> computor music does. Noone will be
> interested except hardcore computor programmer/ math whizs who appreciate
> the technical details. But thats like hardcore speed metal guitar players.
> To the average person it sounds loud, too fast, boring and repetitive. The
> only ones who appreciate it are the other speed metal players. Thats fine
> if thats your intended audience.
> Michael Gogins is the only one who has assembled a system you can almost
> use easily though to program sounds you again need to have the background
> mentioned. I primarily use midi because if I'm working on a composition and
> a sound dosen't fit, a simple click and I can find a new one. Or break out
> the graphicaql editor to create another. I can actually get something done
> and have a life besides staring at a computor screen for days on end. If we
> don't have a life, we won't have much to say except that we're becoming our
> machines which we're not! ( =cw4t7abs)
> Remember we're all going to get reduced to a wave file. Noone is going
> to care what you used to create it except perhaps your peers. The question
> is does that wave speak or communicate something of HUMAN
> value........................... end of rant
>
>
_____________________________________________________________________________
Jean Piche
Musique - UdM
pichej@ERE.Umontreal.ca
Received: from stork.maths.bath.ac.uk by omphalos.maths.Bath.AC.UK id aa20800;
29 Apr 98 18:47 BST
Received: from pat.bath.ac.uk by stork.maths.Bath.AC.UK id aa25227;
29 Apr 98 18:47 BST
Received: (qmail 1192 invoked from network); 29 Apr 1998 17:46:59 -0000
Received: from hermes.ex.ac.uk (HELO exeter.ac.uk) (144.173.6.14)
by pat.bath.ac.uk with SMTP; 29 Apr 1998 17:46:59 -0000
Received: from noether [144.173.8.10] by hermes via SMTP (SAA08365); Wed, 29 Apr 1998 18:36:24 +0100 (BST)
Received: from hermes.ex.ac.uk by maths.ex.ac.uk; Wed, 29 Apr 98 18:35:57 +0100
Received: from root@proxy4.ba.best.com [206.184.139.15] by hermes via ESMTP (SAA21876); Wed, 29 Apr 1998 18:35:43 +0100 (BST)
Received: from charlieb.com (baker@baker.vip.best.com [206.86.232.121]) by proxy4.ba.best.com (8.8.8/8.8.BEST) with ESMTP id KAA11547 for ; Wed, 29 Apr 1998 10:33:14 -0700 (PDT)
Message-Id: <35470FED.A87CD894@charlieb.com>
Date: Wed, 29 Apr 1998 11:33:01 +0000
From: Charles Baker
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.04 [en] (X11; I; Linux 2.0.32 i586)
Mime-Version: 1.0
To: csound mailing list
Subject: Re: Detailed parameters/ Overwhelming complexity
References:
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: owner-csound-outgoing@maths.ex.ac.uk
Precedence: bulk
> On Wed, 29 Apr 1998, Ken Locarnini wrote:
> > The problem is that most on this list are hardcore programmers and math
> > whizs. I usually have to get out a programmers dictionary to decipher the
> > obscure techno-babble of most of the letters that come across. I'm not
> > complaining, I signed up for this. Many are lured into Csound by the claims
> > that you can do anything with audio, all forms of synthesis etc. What isn't
> > said is that you also need 4+ years of college level math, and be fluent in
> > several computor languages to do anything RESEMBLING music.
My background:
1)absolutely NO college math training (really, no college math, examed out of
basic algebra at entrance to college...completely self taught trig.):
2) Professional trumpet player. Performed all the way through grad. school.
Only in orchestra, no jazz/pop.
3) Degree(s) (BM,MM,PhD) in Music Composition. People who know my
music accuse me of overly- emotional expression in my music :
"bleeding onto music paper", my Ex called it.
(years ago cort lippe said " well, you always were a mahlerian type" to me...I
don't think he meant it in any good sense....)
> Thats why you
> > don't see many musicians who think in terms of emotion, visions, fellings
> > etc. say they used Csound to compose their latest work. If you had a
> > vision that was powerfull and you wanted to capture it, it would surely be
My most "visionary" works use software synthesis (I use CLM / CMIX / Csound and
others.) It is a matter of experience with the tools. I guess you improvise your
works? Otherwise, we *all* have a separation between the inspiration and the
composition. " Composing" , in the "classic" sense,
IS NOT A REAL TIME ACTIVITY.
> > lost by the time you wrestle with the latest trigonomic equation to pan your
> > sound etc. You cannot compute emotions. Emotion is a human experience, it
> > cannot and will not ever be engineered in software. Thus you cannot
> > engineer music. When you do it will sound machine-like which much of
> > computor music does. Noone will be
> > interested except hardcore computor programmer/ math whizs who appreciate
> > the technical details. But thats like hardcore speed metal guitar players.
> > To the average person it sounds loud, too fast, boring and repetitive. The
> > only ones who appreciate it are the other speed metal players. Thats fine
> > if thats your intended audience.
> > Michael Gogins is the only one who has assembled a system you can almost
> > use easily though to program sounds you again need to have the background
> > mentioned.
Hmmm... have you investigated Cecilia? A wonderful tool.Of course, if you're on
the great BORG of operating systems,ween-doze
you'll have to wait. It'll be worth the wait. No math required! ;-)
> I primarily use midi because if I'm working on a composition and
> > a sound dosen't fit, a simple click and I can find a new one. Or break out
> > the graphicaql editor to create another. I can actually get something done
> > and have a life besides staring at a computor screen for days on end. If we
> > don't have a life, we won't have much to say except that we're becoming our
> > machines which we're not! ( =cw4t7abs)
> > Remember we're all going to get reduced to a wave file. Noone is going
> > to care what you used to create it except perhaps your peers. The question
> > is does that wave speak or communicate something of HUMAN
> > value........................... end of rant
ooooohhhh.. I feel so chastised....
My guess: for our friend, human value has something to do with
tonality, a clear beat and well known chord structures.
--
*********************************************
Charlie Baker baker@charlieb.com
*********************************************
Received: from stork.maths.bath.ac.uk by omphalos.maths.Bath.AC.UK id aa21298;
29 Apr 98 21:40 BST
Received: from pat.bath.ac.uk by stork.maths.Bath.AC.UK id aa29282;
29 Apr 98 21:40 BST
Received: (qmail 11737 invoked from network); 29 Apr 1998 20:40:38 -0000
Received: from hermes.ex.ac.uk (HELO exeter.ac.uk) (144.173.6.14)
by pat.bath.ac.uk with SMTP; 29 Apr 1998 20:40:38 -0000
Received: from noether [144.173.8.10] by hermes via SMTP (VAA00200); Wed, 29 Apr 1998 21:32:34 +0100 (BST)
Received: from hermes.ex.ac.uk by maths.ex.ac.uk; Wed, 29 Apr 98 21:32:12 +0100
Received: from hub.mdx.ac.uk [158.94.2.5] by hermes via ESMTP (VAA24617); Wed, 29 Apr 1998 21:32:06 +0100 (BST)
Received: from CONVERSION-DAEMON by mdx.ac.uk (PMDF V5.1-10 #18911)
id <01IWGFQ867V400GXPT@mdx.ac.uk> for Csound@maths.ex.ac.uk; Wed,
29 Apr 1998 21:34:13 BST
Received: from default (stu-dialup10.mdx.ac.uk)
by mdx.ac.uk (PMDF V5.1-10 #18911) with SMTP id <01IWGFPXEVNU00FZK9@mdx.ac.uk>
for Csound@maths.ex.ac.uk; Wed, 29 Apr 1998 21:34:07 +0100 (BST)
Date: Wed, 29 Apr 1998 21:22:55 +0100
From: Jamie Bullock
Subject: Re: Re:Detailed parameters/ Overwhelming complexity
To: Csound List
Message-Id: <000001bd73ad$76465860$34015e9e@default>
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.2106.4
Content-Type: text/plain
X-Msmail-Priority: Normal
X-Mimeole: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4
X-Priority: 3
Sender: owner-csound-outgoing@maths.ex.ac.uk
Precedence: bulk
-----Original Message-----
From: Ken Locarnini
To: Grant Covell ; Csound mailing list
Date: 29 April 1998 17:06
Subject: Re:Detailed parameters/ Overwhelming complexity
>
>--
>
>>But then there's the age old question: "But how does it sound?"
>>
>
>The problem is that most on this list are hardcore programmers and math
>whizs. I usually have to get out a programmers dictionary to decipher the
>obscure techno-babble of most of the letters that come across. I'm not
>complaining, I signed up for this. Many are lured into Csound by the
claims
>that you can do anything with audio, all forms of synthesis etc. What
isn't
>said is that you also need 4+ years of college level math, and be fluent in
>several computor languages to do anything RESEMBLING music.
No! You just need to work at it!
Personally I find the programing community overtly helpful to
non-programmers like myself, it's that sense of team spirit which I like
about the electro-acoustic music community.
>Thats why you
>don't see many musicians who think in terms of emotion, visions, fellings
>etc. say they used Csound to compose their latest work. If you had a
>vision that was powerfull and you wanted to capture it, it would surely be
>lost by the time you wrestle with the latest trigonomic equation to pan
your
>sound etc.
Writing serious music is usually 5% inspiration 95% perspiration - do you
suppose Beethoven just 'felt' his music, and as if by magic it appeared on
the manuscript paper!?
Have you ever tried writing orchestral music? For me it takes much longer to
get from idea to realisation with instrumental music than when using Csound
(when I don't have to copy out 200 pages of parts!) (...Sorry people, I
haven't bought Finale/laser printer yet - I'm still in the dark ages, I
know!)
>You cannot compute emotions. Emotion is a human experience, it
>cannot and will not ever be engineered in software. Thus you cannot
>engineer music. When you do it will sound machine-like which much of
>computor music does.
for example .... which pieces are you talking about...?
Have you ever heard Xenakis' La Legende d'Eer in which he uses maths to
directly address the physicality of the ear quote: "I have used probability
functions to generate the pressure-time curves: that is, I worked directly
with the 1/40,000 of a second"? It's brutal, visceral, and overpoweringly
expressive of human emotion!
>end of rant
>
end of response ..
JamieB
Received: from stork.maths.bath.ac.uk by omphalos.maths.Bath.AC.UK id aa21401;
29 Apr 98 22:40 BST
Received: from pat.bath.ac.uk by stork.maths.Bath.AC.UK id aa00549;
29 Apr 98 22:40 BST
Received: (qmail 15016 invoked from network); 29 Apr 1998 21:40:27 -0000
Received: from hermes.ex.ac.uk (HELO exeter.ac.uk) (144.173.6.14)
by pat.bath.ac.uk with SMTP; 29 Apr 1998 21:40:27 -0000
Received: from noether [144.173.8.10] by hermes via SMTP (WAA22911); Wed, 29 Apr 1998 22:36:12 +0100 (BST)
Received: from hermes.ex.ac.uk by maths.ex.ac.uk; Wed, 29 Apr 98 22:35:48 +0100
Received: from root@xochi.tezcat.com [204.128.247.12] by hermes via ESMTP (WAA22306); Wed, 29 Apr 1998 22:35:41 +0100 (BST)
Received: from [204.248.80.120] (antiorp.tezcat.com [204.248.80.120])
by xochi.tezcat.com (8.8.5/8.8.5/tezcat-96091001) with SMTP id QAA12340
for ; Wed, 29 Apr 1998 16:35:37 -0500 (CDT)
Message-Id: <199804292135.QAA12340@xochi.tezcat.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Wed, 29 Apr 1998 16:43:17 -0600
To: Csound mailing list
From: =cw4t7abs
Subject: skulpturvzpa!ntur
Sender: owner-csound-outgoing@maths.ex.ac.uk
Precedence: bulk
>... question: "But how does it sound?"
akadem!a doeznt konsern !tzccc11 w!th such maTTerz
>we won't have much to say except that we're becoming our
>machines which we're not! ( =cw4t7abs)
az ment!ond prev!ousl+e
1 maschine = an+e kauzaL phizikL zystem
1 maschine = an+e phyzikL zystem wh!ch oprtz ackording 2dz!e ckauzaL lawz
ov phyzicx.
tzo. ever+e.th!nG dzere !z _\- !z 1- maschine.
=cw4t7abs = anti.akadem!k zku!sch zku!sch by both ecztremz = play+z!r
>You cannot compute emotions.
Emotion is a human experience,
nature kannot kompute emot!onz
!f nature kan do !t 1 komputer kan.
>Emotion is a human experience, it
>cannot and will not ever be engineered in software.
= often dze ultra v!le postz tranzlate 2 mozt beaut!ful no!sz
>" Composing" , in the "classic" sense,
>IS NOT A REAL TIME ACTIVITY.
t!me = !lx2nesz
>Remember we're all going to get reduced to a wave file.
not 4 v.much longr.
why muzt muz!k v!olent aga!nzt atmosphere b.
why muz!k muzt v!olent aga!nzt atmosphere b.
why muz!k v!olent muzt aga!nzt atmosphere b.
why muz!k v!olent aga!nzt muzt atmosphere b.
why muz!k v!olent aga!nzt atmosphere muzt b.
why muz!k v!olent aga!nzt atmosphere b muzt.
muzt why muz!k v!olent aga!nzt atmosphere b.
b muzt why muz!k v!olent aga!nzt atmosphere.
atmosphere b muzt why muz!k v!olent aga!nzt.
aga!nzt atmosphere b muzt why muz!k v!olent.
v!olent aga!nzt atmosphere b muzt why muz!k.
muz!k v!olent aga!nzt atmosphere b muzt why.
why muz!k v!olent aga!nzt atmosphere b muzt.
muzt.
muzt.muzt.
muss.
+muss jetzt gehen.
s!lensz = besser
als [eff!c!ent++]
>Hmmm... have you investigated Cecilia? A wonderful tool.
unabl 2lokate matter wh!ch !nnovat!v = !n cecilia.
[pardon mons!eur] muss jetzt gehen.
pzb.-\matter wh!ch !nnovat!v !n cecilia
= onl+e zomwhat pleazant akadem!k gfx des!gn
odr dzen thonk 0+2\ aber !t = zekz!St
reflekt!ng dze !nfer!or
-[kak!sto.!d!ot!zt.pto.karch+e]-
hT Tp://127.0.0.1 !zt null
Received: from stork.maths.bath.ac.uk by omphalos.maths.Bath.AC.UK id aa21558;
30 Apr 98 0:23 BST
Received: from mercury.bath.ac.uk by stork.maths.Bath.AC.UK id aa02631;
30 Apr 98 0:23 BST
Received: (qmail 10655 invoked from network); 29 Apr 1998 23:23:18 -0000
Received: from hermes.ex.ac.uk (HELO exeter.ac.uk) (144.173.6.14)
by mercury.bath.ac.uk with SMTP; 29 Apr 1998 23:23:18 -0000
Received: from noether [144.173.8.10] by hermes via SMTP (AAA00941); Thu, 30 Apr 1998 00:17:05 +0100 (BST)
Received: from hermes.ex.ac.uk by maths.ex.ac.uk; Thu, 30 Apr 98 00:16:39 +0100
Received: from howl.werewolf.net [206.103.224.20] by hermes via SMTP (AAA14697); Thu, 30 Apr 1998 00:16:33 +0100 (BST)
Received: from hljmm by howl.werewolf.net via SMTP (950413.SGI.8.6.12/940406.SGI)
for id SAB06158; Wed, 29 Apr 1998 18:16:32 -0500
From: Hans Mikelson
To: Csound mailing list
Subject: Re: Re:Detailed parameters/ Overwhelming complexity
Date: Wed, 29 Apr 1998 18:17:16 -0500
Message-Id: <01bd73c4$f341c540$59e167ce@hljmm>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-Msmail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.71.1712.3
X-Mimeole: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.71.1712.3
Sender: owner-csound-outgoing@maths.ex.ac.uk
Precedence: bulk
Hi,
>The problem is that most on this list are hardcore programmers and math
>whizs.
I'm not sure most of the people on the list are, but I would say that's what
I like about it not what the problem is.
>I usually have to get out a programmers dictionary to decipher the
>obscure techno-babble
I'm currently working on a Csound piece called TeknoBubble.
> Many are lured into Csound by the claims
>that you can do anything with audio, all forms of synthesis etc. What
isn't
>said is that you also need 4+ years of college level math, and be fluent in
>several computor languages to do anything RESEMBLING music.
I've often heard people say that Csound is hard to learn.
I like to explore new types of synthesis, I'm hoping those who are more
talented composers will be able to use my ideas will help others to create
good compositions.
I do have a degree in math but I am self taught in the areas of synthesis
and audio processing. The great thing about the internet is the ability to
learn all of this stuff on line. I have often tried to explain things to
others as simply as I can.
Hope you stick with us.
Bye,
Hans Mikelson
Received: from stork.maths.bath.ac.uk by omphalos.maths.Bath.AC.UK id aa21612;
30 Apr 98 0:39 BST
Received: from mercury.bath.ac.uk by stork.maths.Bath.AC.UK id aa03106;
30 Apr 98 0:39 BST
Received: (qmail 10733 invoked from network); 29 Apr 1998 23:39:45 -0000
Received: from hermes.ex.ac.uk (HELO exeter.ac.uk) (144.173.6.14)
by mercury.bath.ac.uk with SMTP; 29 Apr 1998 23:39:45 -0000
Received: from noether [144.173.8.10] by hermes via SMTP (AAA07139); Thu, 30 Apr 1998 00:36:13 +0100 (BST)
Received: from hermes.ex.ac.uk by maths.ex.ac.uk; Thu, 30 Apr 98 00:35:49 +0100
Received: from wfreno@opus.vcn.bc.ca [207.102.64.2] by hermes via ESMTP (AAA12623); Thu, 30 Apr 1998 00:35:42 +0100 (BST)
Received: from localhost (wfreno@localhost)
by vcn.bc.ca (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id QAA05549;
Wed, 29 Apr 1998 16:35:34 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Wed, 29 Apr 1998 16:35:33 -0700 (PDT)
From: Wayne Freno
To: Charles Baker
Cc: csound mailing list
Subject: Re: Detailed parameters/ Overwhelming complexity
In-Reply-To: <35470FED.A87CD894@charlieb.com>
Message-Id:
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: owner-csound-outgoing@maths.ex.ac.uk
Precedence: bulk
On Wed, 29 Apr 1998, Charles Baker wrote:
> Hmmm... have you investigated Cecilia? A wonderful tool.Of course, if you're on
> the great BORG of operating systems,ween-doze
> you'll have to wait. It'll be worth the wait. No math required! ;-)
Sounds intriguing. (I am a BORG user). Can you say more about when
and where Cecilia for BORG (Ween-doze) will be available?
--
end soundbite
|