--

>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

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                 |
     |__________________________________________________________|

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
 

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

>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.

This list would be remarkably boring and useless if it only contained
information that I already know.

>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.

The comment already uttered about composition not being a real-time event
is right on the mark. My musical inspirations aren't translated
instantaneously into soundfiles or completed score. In addition, writing
well for the piano, violin, guitar, etc. is remarkably difficult let alone
writing for ensembles of these instruments. The years required to learn to
write effectively for orchestra easily rival Csound's learning curve. That
said, I use Csound because I like exersizing that part of my brain in
service of _expressive_, _musical_ goals that are best achieved via
computer. I write orchestra, chamber ensemble, and solo instrument music
(with and without a computer music component) because I derive personal and
artistic satisfaction from that process as well. There's not enough money
in this business for people without musical passion to pursue it.

I also believe that it is a mistake to judge someone's music by the words
that they utter about it. Babbitt's passionate music (IMHO) is seldom in
evidence in his theoretical writings---but why would I look for _musical_
passion somewhere other than the music? Babbitt's writings have their own
integrity and value. This list is about Csound, after all. I don't pick up
theory journals for musical inspiration (although I have occassionally
found some there) and I don't pick up a software manual for a
word-processing program to understand how to write fiction. Different
information sources have different functions.

I would also suggest that it is a mistake to assume that a hardcore
programmer/techie cannot also be a hardcore composer. I have done several
years of study (a B.S.) in physics, math, signal processing, etc., but
these years are dwarfed by my years of study (an M.M. and impending D.M.A.)
in composition (but please save the empty "academic" trope for another
flamefest). The reverse assumption that one must be a programmer/DSP expert
to create quality computer music is also flawed. I've taught Csound to
composers whose math skills are wanting and they've been able to produce
decent first efforts---efforts at least a good as those of a first semester
orchestration student writing for orchestra.

Finally, I've found that there are few people who are capable of high level
work in music/computer music that have not thought about what they are
doing. I think some respect for other people's integrity is warranted even
when you disagree with their words and don't like their music. ___end of
reponse rant.

Dan Hosken

At 07:31 AM 4/29/98 -0700, Ken Locarnini wrote:
>

>>But then there's the age old question: "But how does it sound?"
>>
>.....
>sound etc.  You cannot compute emotions.  Emotion is a human experience, it
>cannot and will not ever be engineered in software.   ...


	I put forth that emotions are perhaps overrated, and at the very least
_not_ the only impetus for musical creation. The architecture of sonic
fields relates directly to the architecture of dynamic systems, energies,
and natural forces that, when studied, can help to lead one more toward a
mastery of one's soul. 
	This is what many composers, especially modern ones, would agree with as a
statement of 'motivation'. 'Science', the understanding of the workings of
the natural multidimensional world, can be far more profoundly moving than
any tortuous and chronically confusing emotions that we might be subject to.
	This is why CSound is one of mankind's greatest creations to date.
	I think I'm going to cry.
				
							DQ

	thank you for your bandwidth