| >Richard Wentk writes:
>
>> Csound is supposed to be flexible. But consider how easy it is to use a
>> MIDI sequencer to put a score together instead of typing it in line by
line.
>>
>Of course it is easier to do certain things with a MIDI sequencer--because
that
>is a much more specialized software environment, which makes some tasks much
>easier by limiting the set of tasks that are possible.
And the Csound score system doesn't limit the tasks that are possible? It
certainly makes it *extremely* hard to compose conventional music, if
you're that way inclined, even compared to the rather tedious (but
effective) business of notating it traditionally. You can argue that that's
not what it's for - but then how general is it really?
The point is that the list of ideas that you can't realise with the current
score+orc opcodes (or can realise only with extreme and torturous
difficulty) is actually very long indeed. This is not a good definition of
either expressiveness or generality.
>With all due respect--duh! Whether you compose with major scales, minor
scales,
>whole-tone scales, twelve-tone rows, octatonic scales, power chords, or
>whatever, this does not, on the whole, seem to make for interesting
>music. (Although as an intellectual exercise, akin to solving chess
>problems, it may have its attractions.) Systems and techniques do not make
>interesting music; composers do.
My point exactly. Algorithmic composition *relies* on systems and
techniques. That's its sum total. 'Interesting' music relies on a much more
interactive and responsive process. And any music system that uses a
software metaphor is going to be procedural, and hence algorithmic, and
hence rather rigid.
Until now almost all music has been composed by a combination of ad hoc
rules and interactivity. Csound sets the rules in concrete and throws away
the interactivity almost completely. *IF* you're happy with a purely
algorthmic approach then it's fine. If you want to shape your music in a
more expressive way then it remains a blunt instrument.
The table system is a good example. There's no good reason why it shouldn't
be able to create tables on the fly. If you're interested in creating rich
sounds, this small shortcoming actually means that again there's a long
list of things you can't do.
The same is true of many of the other features. Pvoc complains if you try
to transpose it more than an octave or two. The LPC ugens have only just
been tweaked into useability. And it's only in the last couple of releases
that you can finally (hurrah!) do things like timestretch a sample and
start playback from any point - features which have been standard on MIDI
samplers for around a decade now. (And kudos to those who made this
possible in Csound - you have my eternal gratitude.)
Again, the generality turns out to be rather less than complete in practice.
>[does it?] Probably for the same reason that so much MIDI-made music
sounds so
>similar. Or be-bop. Or integral serialism. or....
Hardly. Someone with a decent MIDI studio and reasonable programming skills
can turn out reasonable sounding classical music, or jazz, or rap, or folk,
atonal or non-equal tempered music, or whatever takes your fancy. I know,
because this is one the things people pay me to do. (Sometimes I don't even
quantise, work to a fixed tempo or use repeating blocks. Novel, huh?)
Never mind something like MAX, which does all kinds of fun stuff with MIDI
music that nothing else does. And hey - some sequencers even include a
programming environment, so you can design and implement your own processes
and event creation systems.
>Everybody's for making csound as powerful and easy to use as possible. (And
>many thanks to those with more programming skill than I who are continually
>working on that.) But you seem to want to see csound move in a direction
that
>would destroy the very thing that makes it useful: it's ability to do things
>that commercial environments can't. MIDI already does MIDI resonably
well; why
>should csound try to do the same?
Where did I suggest that? What I actually suggested was that there are
certain things in Csound - specific sound generation and intelligent
control structures - which are very badly in need of updating.
I already have a MIDI system, and I don't need another one. What I *would*
like is a computer music tool that lets me realise my musical ideas without
fighting me every step of the way, saying either 'you can't do that', or
'you can only do that if you spend two days figuring out how to find a
workaround for the deficiencies, and probably with the help of a home brew
code generator to write the files you're going to need.'
Hell, I'll do the above and more if I have to, if it's the only way to get
what I want. But I'm not going to be too taken with claims about generality
if this wastes my time AND makes certain simple ideas impossible to implement.
>As far as moving from playing with sounds to making interesting music,
that's
>always been the crux of composing, in csound or any other way.
Absolutely. And the drift of all musical development has been towards
enhanced expressiveness. Which implies an honest look at the shortcomings
of any musical tool, together with an interest in improving it.
R. |