> >I listened to it over and over again and slowly became discouraged : I
> >couldn't figure out
> >HOW the hell the contributors build those **magnificent** sounds
> 
> I have not heard the sounds so I cannot really comment on them although I
> did listen to some of the real audio examples from other CD's on the same
> label on a web site.  Anyway they seem to use samples with a lot of
> processing.  The following is an idea from a Keyboard magazine article
> which might give you something like what you are after or at least
> something unusual.
> 
> It requires a fairly good sound editor (I use Cool Edit but Csound could
be
> used as well) and a fair amount of hard disk space (~100-200 MB should be
> good)
> 
> 1. Start with a sample of a complex sound.  The original author
recommended
> using rude noises created with your hand against your mouth.  Any complex
> sound will do, like spoken phrases, animal noises etc.  It's OK to use a
> cheap microphone too.
> 
> 2. Start processing the sound.  Try pitch shifting.  The first time
perhaps
> it won't sound too great.  That's OK, pitch shift it again.  Do it ten
> times...twenty.  Don't be shy.  Try going back and forth between a
variety
> of effects.  Reverb, delay, pitch-shift, flange, wave shaping etc.  Chop
up
> the sample.  Rearrange it.  Apply effects to only parts of the sample. 
If
> it doesn't sound good don't worry just keep processing it.
> 
> 3. Listen to the sample after each process.  90% of it will sound like
> crap...but 10% will sound OK.  When you get something that sounds OK save
> it.  Then keep processing.
> 
> 4. When you get 10-20 of these OK sounds select the best 1-2 and save
them.
>  Then start over.  You can generate a large library of complex ambient
> sounds this way.  Perhaps only 1 in 100 sound good and only 1 in 1000
will
> be real gems.  The more you work at it the better you will get.
> 
> 5. Finally you can apply some amplitude or filter envelopes to fade them
in
> and out and string them into longer pieces.


Thanks, but these what you describe above is not really my problem..I don't
suffer from being
uncertain that my sounds will be too shy or whatever, what I'm a bit
frustrated about is that
those professional academic composers of electroacoustics seem to have
found a way
of mysterious control over their sounds. It is as if they construct their
compositions in such a
way that one soundevent triggers another, wich acts as a cause to yet
another piece of sound..etc...
Because I'm a totally "volunteer" in Csound and non-attached to an
institute I cannot estimate
how much of the officially released works are " simply-done-by-experiment "
and how much of it
is really composed with great care and musical knowledge and all that...you
see ? 
What keeps me being interested in experimental electroacoustics is the
emotional and intellectual content AND the structures of it : interaction
of soundevents....As a visual artist (mainly oil painting)
I can ASSURE you that electroacoustic music is the ultimate sonic
counterpart of visual arts.
I wish I could build a sonic canvas like those composer do.



Let's do a Csound composition contest :

A (funny?) of to all Csound composers in this list :   How would you
personally compose
a sonic equivalent of this picture :  an white plane stretching in
infinitly in all directions. One person
walks there and seems to look for something. Note that the environment is
surreal : imagine
that the ground where the person walks on was a generated by math function,
only to indicate how infinite and flat it is.


David.