>
>> Just wondering if anyone has any comments on the Nyquist blitz in the
>> current issue of Computer Music Journal. Dannenberg makes many explicit
>> comparisons between Nyquist and the Music N languages. I downloaded the
>> Nyquist manual and run-time--as a non-programmer, I wonder whether the
>> gains from Nyquist (integrated score, "intelligent environment," table-less
>> sound creation, etc.) compensate for the need to learn Lisp as well as
>> Nyquist.
>>
>> Joel Stern
>> 103675.1167@compuserve.com
>>
>>
>
>I have not yet had a chance to try Nyquist, though I am very interested
>in it. The question seems to me to come down to the 'tool v task' issue.
>If the task is primarily to construct sounds, then Csound/MusicN will
>do the job very nicely. If the goal is algorithmic composition, (including
>sound manipulation, presumably), for which Csound offers no direct support
>(hence the development of score-generation tools), then Nyquist would seem
>to be the more natural choice.
>
>Richard Dobson

i've been using james mccartney's SuperCollider program for a few weeks
now.  it is a Csound/MusicN indebted program, but, like Nyquist, it tackles
the 'tool v task' issue.  there is no clear distinction between
notes/controls/events/sounds/etc.  i find this especially useful in
performance situations, where i want timbre to be directly related to
history (i.e. feedback) or to be algorithmically controlled.  SC is
designed as a realtime environment, and seems to be quite optimised - it
can do a lot of processing in realtime on my powermac 8500/120.  it can
also "perform" pre-constructed score files. its language is more C-ish than
MusicN-ish, although it retains the unitgenerator flavor of MusicN.  SC is
currently only available for powermacs, although i hear there are ports in
the works to irix and the BeOS.

i think it's worth checking out if you're looking for a less orch/score
tied environment.  there's an ftp site with a demo and sample code at:

ftp://ftp.create.ucsb.edu/pub/SuperCollider/

take care,
douglas