|
> 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
*********************************************
|