Automated composing

I've been thinking about harmonizing a Poodles & Flan composition, but
I'm a little bummed. It seems to me this program doesn't have a very
good idea how to go about composing. One might go so far as to call it
mechanical.

Gene,

{you wrote...}
>I've been thinking about harmonizing a Poodles & Flan composition, but I'm a little bummed. It seems to me this program doesn't have a very good idea how to go about composing. One might go so far as to call it mechanical.

Show me a program that *isn't* that way. You know, sometimes there isn't a shortcut: if you want a particular kind of musical composition, you have to *compose* it. All this other stuff is just short-cuts and help tools. Give yourself a challenge: sit down and write it all yourself - melodies, rhythms, harmonies, orchestration.

I got a couple interesting bits out of P&F, but like all auto-generated things, they were just small snippets that made for a jumping off point for other music. That is probably all you can reasonably expect.

Cheers,
Jon

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, "Gene Ward Smith"
<genewardsmith@...> wrote:
>
> I've been thinking about harmonizing a Poodles & Flan composition,
> but I'm a little bummed. It seems to me this program doesn't have a
> very good idea how to go about composing. One might go so far as to
> call it mechanical.
>

Absolutely. I definitely think of it as a software machine to crank
out sound.

But here's an interesting test: Try creating a MIDI through P&F,
then something composed, and see if people can tell which is which.

I'm sure I could do something that would fool people, or at least
leave uncertainty. I think that in itself would prove the program's
worth.

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, "J.Smith" <jsmith9624@...> wrote:

> The problem I have with composition algorithims is the subjective
> feeling of being left out of the process. Sure, I can have a hand in
> it - technically - by editing along the way; but I always feel
> that "someone else" did the real work and that I just tidied-up
> afterwards.

My problem is that I can't seem to find one that isn't lame. David
Cope does the best I know of, but that best just produces feeble,
ersatz versions of a real composer it is trying to imitate. The
Poodles & Flan program can sound promising for a few bars, but despite
the different structure features which you can set, doesn't seem to
have a clue about structure, and not having a clue about struture
seems kind of typical for these things. You'd think a program could
have a collection of formal templates, and pull them out and use them.

Another problem is that typically, you don't seem to get enough
control over the properties of the piece. P & F will let you pick the
midi orchestra and ranges, but you can't seem to tell it what kind of
part texture to use.

> Besides - I *like* the actual process of wrestling with raw musical
> materials (thunk up from my own wetware, the brain) until they bend
> in submission to my artistic will (my inner fascist speaking here),
> and a new compositon is created. Gee, I feel god-like just thinking
> about it.

Well, I'd like to work in tandem with an algorithmic composer some
time. I'm constantly using the computer, but as a tool, not a colleague.

At 08:42 AM 4/12/2006, you wrote:
>Gene,
>
>{you wrote...}
>>I've been thinking about harmonizing a Poodles & Flan composition,
>but I'm a little bummed. It seems to me this program doesn't have a
>very good idea how to go about composing. One might go so far as to
>call it mechanical.

If Gene's interested, there is an interesting method to get
variations on a piece. Map the notes of an existing piece to
points along the orbit of an attractor, then change the
starting point and get new notes from congruent points (however
you define that) on the new orbit.

-C.

>> The problem I have with composition algorithims is the subjective
>> feeling of being left out of the process. Sure, I can have a hand in
>> it - technically - by editing along the way; but I always feel
>> that "someone else" did the real work and that I just tidied-up
>> afterwards.
>
>My problem is that I can't seem to find one that isn't lame.

Have you tried Gingerbread or Venharis?

http://www.venharis.com/

-Carl

At 12:59 PM 4/12/2006, you wrote:
>>> The problem I have with composition algorithims is the subjective
>>> feeling of being left out of the process. Sure, I can have a hand in
>>> it - technically - by editing along the way; but I always feel
>>> that "someone else" did the real work and that I just tidied-up
>>> afterwards.
>>
>>My problem is that I can't seem to find one that isn't lame.
>
>Have you tried Gingerbread or Venharis?
>
>http://www.venharis.com/

Ditto, Tonality Systems' Symbolic Composer?

-Carl

> --- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, "J.Smith" <jsmith9624@...> wrote:
> > The problem I have with composition algorithims is the subjective
> > feeling of being left out of the process. Sure, I can have a hand in
> > it - technically - by editing along the way; but I always feel
> > that "someone else" did the real work and that I just tidied-up
> > afterwards.

I feel that way when I'm writing from the ground up. Most of my
compositional process is trying to write down the themes that someone
is whispering in my ear, then elaboration on them.

> > Besides - I *like* the actual process of wrestling with raw musical
> > materials (thunk up from my own wetware, the brain) until they bend
> > in submission to my artistic will (my inner fascist speaking here),
> > and a new compositon is created. Gee, I feel god-like just thinking
> > about it.

I write a few power-trip pieces, but those are generally unsatisfying
in a different way from completely algorithmic pieces. I'm happiest
when I can use generative or aleatoric material in tandem with
"organic" or fascist material. Chris Bailey explains this better than
I can on his website.
(http://music.columbia.edu/~chris/interview.html)

(also on his site, I love the post-romantic canon generator.)

My near-obsessive fascination with canons stems from this urge, I can
start with a purely organic theme and then everything that comes
afterword is constrained (though not completely) by my choices of
vertical spacing, allowed intervals, thematic material, expositional
material, etc. Our music doesn't sound at all alike, but our
compositional aesthetics are nearly identical.

On 4/12/06, Gene Ward Smith <genewardsmith@...> wrote:
> Well, I'd like to work in tandem with an algorithmic composer some
> time. I'm constantly using the computer, but as a tool, not a colleague.

I've found that hand tailoring algorithms is a good workaround. I'm
working on a piece that uses aperiodic number cycles to pick out 4-tet
rows and rhythmic patterns, based on thematic material that I've come
up with. By designing the algorithm myself, and being present at every
step of the generative process, I can produce something aesthetically
pleasing that is still very generative.

An example: I wanted an aperiodic cycle, so I played around with
different recursively defined sets of four numbers, changing
parameters until I found one I liked. Then I assigned a different
four-note-row to each of the four numbers, and a different rhythmic
value as well, adjusting each until I once again had something I
liked. Now I'm typing it into a sequencer, and once that's done I'll
pick out timbres and add harmonies. So it's a genereative process that
pays attention to structural aesthetics and works with me instead of
against me.

--TRISTAN
(http://dreamingofeden.smackjeeves.com/)

> From: Jon Szanto <jszanto@...>

>Bill,
>
>{you wrote...}
>>But here's an interesting test: Try creating a MIDI through P&F, then
>something composed, and see if people can tell which is which.
>>
>>I'm sure I could do something that would fool people, or at least leave
>uncertainty. I think that in itself would prove the program's worth.
>
>But think about it - that doesn't really prove anything. After all, both
>efforts could sound equally lame, and then where would we be?
>
>Sometimes when topics get started like this, people get the wrong impression.

>For instance, I like to use tools like this, not for the bulk of what I do,
or
>for even a big part of it, but sometimes just for some variety. My favorite
way
>of generating some algorithmic building materials is KeyKit:
>
>http://nosuch.com/keykit/

It is a great program.

>Some of the tools are good for working up variations on single lines or
>background textures, and the nice thing is that it is a language-driven tool,
meaning
>I can write new modules to do what I want. Not to mention it is fun to play
>with. While all it does is drive midi data, with a tool like MidiOX you can
run
>the output to any of your microtonal synths to hear the stuff the way you
want
>it.
>
>Bottom line is that the composition tools available to us are just that:
tools.

I'd not use anything automated for anything finished. At least, I've not
generated anything yet that I would. Programs like fractmus and poodles and
flan are great ways to generate bits and pieces or variations on something. I
don't think it has to do with fooling anyone at all. It's just one more way to
explore an idea. Fractmus does give you enough control that it can be your
idea that you're exploring rather than something wholly random.

Bill,

{you wrote...}
>I'd not use anything automated for anything finished. At least, I've not
>generated anything yet that I would. Programs like fractmus and poodles and
>flan are great ways to generate bits and pieces or variations on something. I
>don't think it has to do with fooling anyone at all. It's just one more way to
>explore an idea.

My sentiments as well.

Cheers,
Jon

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, Carl Lumma <ekin@...> wrote:

> If Gene's interested, there is an interesting method to get
> variations on a piece. Map the notes of an existing piece to
> points along the orbit of an attractor, then change the
> starting point and get new notes from congruent points (however
> you define that) on the new orbit.

Yipe! Anyone implement that one?

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, Carl Lumma <ekin@...> wrote:

> >My problem is that I can't seem to find one that isn't lame.
>
> Have you tried Gingerbread or Venharis?
>
> http://www.venharis.com/

I might if I ever swtich to XP; I've got Y2K on now.

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, Carl Lumma <ekin@...> wrote:

> Ditto, Tonality Systems' Symbolic Composer?

I've just downloaded the demo, but the suggested retail price is $400. :(

>> If Gene's interested, there is an interesting method to get
>> variations on a piece. Map the notes of an existing piece to
>> points along the orbit of an attractor, then change the
>> starting point and get new notes from congruent points (however
>> you define that) on the new orbit.
>
>Yipe! Anyone implement that one?

A lady, at some university I think, has a webpage on it.
She did it with Bach. I posted to tuning about it several
times. I think she's used the Lorenz attractor. Maybe
there's a paper or even code on her site. A good place to
start, but if I were going to use this, I'd probably want
to implement it myself without knowing *too* much about
previous work, to give myself a chance to come up with a
new twist.

-Carl

>> >My problem is that I can't seem to find one that isn't lame.
>>
>> Have you tried Gingerbread or Venharis?
>>
>> http://www.venharis.com/
>
>I might if I ever swtich to XP; I've got Y2K on now.

This brings up another point I meant to mention in the thread
with you and Jon about you getting into modern VST and stuff:
Your hardware may not be up to the task. Jon may not know that
you prefer an older-machines kind of computer budgeting. You
have Brian McLaren to keep you company with that, at least.

-Carl

>> Ditto, Tonality Systems' Symbolic Composer?
>
>I've just downloaded the demo, but the suggested retail price is $400. :(

Yeah. If you like it, see me after class.

-Carl

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, "Rozencrantz the Sane"
<rozencrantz@...> wrote:

> My near-obsessive fascination with canons stems from this urge, I can
> start with a purely organic theme and then everything that comes
> afterword is constrained (though not completely) by my choices of
> vertical spacing, allowed intervals, thematic material, expositional
> material, etc. Our music doesn't sound at all alike, but our
> compositional aesthetics are nearly identical.

Canons are cool, and I haven't written any lately. Maybe it's time to
try again. Or I could write a canon in 4 or 5 et, and work with that.
I never did that.

> I've found that hand tailoring algorithms is a good workaround. I'm
> working on a piece that uses aperiodic number cycles to pick out 4-tet
> rows and rhythmic patterns, based on thematic material that I've come
> up with. By designing the algorithm myself, and being present at every
> step of the generative process, I can produce something aesthetically
> pleasing that is still very generative.

Sounds cool. I'm hoping one of you small et types will take my advice
and harmonize the result. 4-et is a great start for a piece in 7-limit
just intonation.

Carl,

{you wrote...}
>Your hardware may not be up to the task. Jon may not know that you prefer an older-machines kind of computer budgeting.

Yes, I believe I am a bit aware of this. At some point in the day, it boils down to the following: one can want to do this and that and the other, but one can not reasonably expect it to happen on dated equipment and software. I am *very* aware of the business of keeping up with things, but Pentiums and XP have been around for a number of years, this is not bleeding edge. I also happen to consider music computer systems *instruments*, and I invest in them in the same mindset that I invest in my actual, physical instruments. String players mortgage their lives to pay for instruments that are as good as possible; percussionist collect sounds from around the world, and large bodies of traditional instruments, to be able to facilitate their craft and art. If one remains devoutly in the realm of the computer, wants to do as much as possible, and to be as freely creative with the least amount of effort, it behooves them to invest in the best possible platform that they can manage.

What we require is far, far less than the average teenage gamer's system! Or, IOW, you get what you pay for. Every time I've upgraded something, I've kicked myself for not doing it sooner.

That said, I still have a 486 with 5.25" & 3.5" floppies and a Zip drive, running DOS and Win 3.1, for all the archival coding and music materials I have. I hope that baby doesn't poop out!

Cheers,
Jon

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, Jon Szanto <jszanto@...> wrote:

> Yes, I believe I am a bit aware of this. At some point in the day,
it boils down to the following: one can want to do this and that and
the other, but one can not reasonably expect it to happen on dated
equipment and software. I am *very* aware of the business of keeping
up with things, but Pentiums and XP have been around for a number of
years, this is not bleeding edge.

I've got an AMD Duron, which not that long ago would have been hot
stuff; my first PC was a 486 and I paid too much for it. Perhaps I've
learned a lesson. As for XP, there are a lot of complaints about it.
Why should I get sucked into the latest from Microsoft just because
I'm supposed to?

Gene,

{you wrote...}
>I've got an AMD Duron, which not that long ago would have been hot stuff

I'm not familiar enough with benchmarking AMD processors to even hazard a guess at how it would handle current musical tools. It might be, with enough RAM as well, just fine.

>As for XP, there are a lot of complaints about it. Why should I get sucked into the latest from Microsoft just because I'm supposed to?

I've installed XP systems for so many people, including elderly, and my maintenance has been minimal. I love it when a system is stable, and when I don't have to change or upgrade. I don't do it because MSoft says so, but because many of the tools I want to use are supported in a newer OS. Do what *you* want, but be sure to say, when asking for software solutions, that you are working on a now unsupported, dated platform with minimal hardware - that isn't a put-down, but critical information for anyone looking at your situation. It will make it easier for people to give appropriate solutions.

At least you aren't using a DOS box! :)

Cheers,
Jon

Hi all,

Groovy thread, mans!
(to paraphrase a late 60s clich�)

On Wed, 12 Apr 2006, Jon Szanto wrote:
>
> Gene,
>
> {you wrote...}
> >I've been thinking about harmonizing a Poodles & Flan
> composition, but I'm a little bummed. It seems to me this program
> doesn't have a very good idea how to go about composing. One
> might go so far as to call it mechanical.
>
> Show me a program that *isn't* that way. You know, sometimes
> there isn't a shortcut: if you want a particular kind of musical
> composition, you have to *compose* it. All this other stuff is
> just short-cuts and help tools. Give yourself a challenge: sit
> down and write it all yourself - melodies, rhythms, harmonies,
> orchestration.

Is there any other way? ;-) But seriously, now!

> I got a couple interesting bits out of P&F, but like all
> auto-generated things, they were just small snippets that made
> for a jumping off point for other music. That is probably all you
> can reasonably expect.

Exactly. Although I would point out that firing up
Microsoft Music Producer for a couple of minutes
and randomly choosing settings can produce something
(a starting point) you wouldn't have been thinking of.
Great way to break out of a rut ...

> _______________________________________________________________________
On Wed, 12 Apr 2006, "plopper6" <billwestfall@...> wrote:
>
> --- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, "Gene Ward Smith"
> <genewardsmith@...> wrote:
> >
> > I've been thinking about harmonizing a Poodles & Flan composition,
> > but I'm a little bummed. It seems to me this program doesn't have a
> > very good idea how to go about composing. One might go so far as to
> > call it mechanical.
> >
>
> Absolutely. I definitely think of it as a software machine to crank
> out sound.
>
> But here's an interesting test: Try creating a MIDI through P&F,
> then something composed, and see if people can tell which is which.
>
> I'm sure I could do something that would fool people, or at least
> leave uncertainty. I think that in itself would prove the program's
> worth.

Bill, what you have proposed here is a kind of
Reverse Turing Test! ;-) Perhaps you are merely
asking a composer to produce something
mechanical ....

> _______________________________________________________________________
On Wed, 12 Apr 2006, Jon Szanto replied:
>
[snip]
> Sometimes when topics get started like this, people get the wrong
> impression. For instance, I like to use tools like this, not for
> the bulk of what I do, or for even a big part of it, but
> sometimes just for some variety. My favorite way of generating
> some algorithmic building materials is KeyKit:
>
> http://nosuch.com/keykit/

Hmmm, downloaded that, but couldn't seem to
get it going. But based on your recommendation,
Jon, I'll put it back on my list of toys to play with.
Yes, as someone recently commented onlist we do
indeed have an embarrassment of riches today.

> Some of the tools are good for working up variations on single
> lines or background textures, and the nice thing is that it is a
> language-driven tool, meaning I can write new modules to do what
> I want. ...

That's what sounded so attractive about it.

> ... Not to mention it is fun to play with. While all it does
> is drive midi data, with a tool like MidiOX you can run the
> output to any of your microtonal synths to hear the stuff the way
> you want it.

MidiOX ... some kind of MIDI Yoke?

Perhaps one could use a span of MidiOXen? ;-)

But seriously - the first time I tried using Hubi's
Midi Loopback, I got terribly confused. The second
time too! :-( I uninstalled it again just to clear my
brain, so to speak. I'd appreciate pointers from
anyone on just what to expect with this kind of tool,
and how to use them - perhaps there's a tutorial
somewhere?

> Bottom line is that the composition tools available to us are
> just that: tools. And even if one of them could really poop out a
> piece that was probably going to fool some people completely (and
> P. T. Barnum made a fortune banking on this basic premise),
> where's the fun in that? Frankly, I compose because I enjoy it!

Well, natch! Though apparently some people (Shhh!)
make *money* doing it. Why does the name Marvin
Hamlisch come to mind ...?

> _______________________________________________________________________
On Wed, 12 Apr 2006, Jon L Smith wrote:
[quote snipped]
> Orion Pro has a feature called "Randomize", which throws a double
> fistfull of pitches all across the piano-roll sequencer, based on a
> major/minor scale. About the only useful thing it does is to provide
> a generic broken-chord background pattern for some of my techno-
> style pieces - and then, only after considerable editing.
>
> The problem I have with composition algorithims is the subjective
> feeling of being left out of the process. Sure, I can have a hand in
> it - technically - by editing along the way; but I always feel
> that "someone else" did the real work and that I just tidied-up
> afterwards.

Which is why I recommend, if using such a tool
- or indeed MS Music Producer - to only let it
do a little bit! If you let it generate three minutes
of stuff, there'll be nothing much left to do - and
you'll probably hate the piece anyway, even if it's
good - some of them *are*! - because you just "got
lucky".

> Besides - I *like* the actual process of wrestling with raw musical
> materials (thunk up from my own wetware, the brain) until they bend
> in submission to my artistic will (my inner fascist speaking here),
> and a new compositon is created. Gee, I feel god-like just thinking
> about it.
>
> I need a smoke now. Was it good for you, too?

Gee, Jon, you did get lucky ...

> _______________________________________________________________________On
Wed, 12 Apr 2006, Gene Ward Smith replied:
>
> --- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, "J.Smith" <jsmith9624@...> wrote:
>
> > The problem I have with composition algorithims is the subjective
> > feeling of being left out of the process. Sure, I can have a hand in
> > it - technically - by editing along the way; but I always feel
> > that "someone else" did the real work and that I just tidied-up
> > afterwards.
>
> My problem is that I can't seem to find one that isn't lame. David
> Cope does the best I know of, but that best just produces feeble,
> ersatz versions of a real composer it is trying to imitate. The
> Poodles & Flan program can sound promising for a few bars, but despite
> the different structure features which you can set, doesn't seem to
> have a clue about structure, and not having a clue about struture
> seems kind of typical for these things. You'd think a program could
> have a collection of formal templates, and pull them out and use them.

My only real problem with MS Music Producer
and Band-in-a-Box as compositional resources
is that they have almost *too much* idea of
structure, particularly BIAB.

> Another problem is that typically, you don't seem to get enough
> control over the properties of the piece. P & F will let you pick the
> midi orchestra and ranges, but you can't seem to tell it what kind of
> part texture to use.

I dig that. Usually, you have to strip back.
I import the MIDI output into NoteWorthy
Composer, and get brutal with what I see
there ... ;-)

> > Besides - I *like* the actual process of wrestling with raw musical
> > materials (thunk up from my own wetware, the brain) until they bend
> > in submission to my artistic will (my inner fascist speaking here),
> > and a new compositon is created. Gee, I feel god-like just thinking
> > about it.
>
> Well, I'd like to work in tandem with an algorithmic composer some
> time. I'm constantly using the computer, but as a tool, not a colleague.

Hey, give it ten years, and we'll all be
*begging* automatic composer programs
to let us collaborate with *them* - 'cos
they won't need us any more ...

> _______________________________________________________________________
On Wed, 12 Apr 2006, Carl Lumma replied:
>
> At 08:42 AM 4/12/2006, you wrote:
> >Gene,
> >
> >{you wrote...}
> >>I've been thinking about harmonizing a Poodles & Flan composition,
> >but I'm a little bummed. It seems to me this program doesn't have a
> >very good idea how to go about composing. One might go so far as to
> >call it mechanical.
>
> If Gene's interested, there is an interesting method to get
> variations on a piece. Map the notes of an existing piece to
> points along the orbit of an attractor, then change the
> starting point and get new notes from congruent points (however
> you define that) on the new orbit.

Aaargh!
<Mathematics alert!>
<Mathematics alert!>

Carl, could you please demonstrate how to do
this? Or at least give a few more details?

I'm mathematically-inclined and -qualified;
I love fractals and chaos theory generally;
but I don't understand the connection between
[Strange] Attractors and musical notes. What
is it?

Regards,
Yahya

--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.385 / Virus Database: 268.4.1/310 - Release Date: 12/4/06

With csoundVST things get interesting, now you can embed python code
directly into an csound source file, or you can use osc to control in
realtime, so you can use code in musically interesting ways.

I've been too busy to get a chance to play with this, but being able
to do "live coding" of csound or to generate parts of scores or orcs
with python looks really interesting.

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, Jon Szanto <jszanto@...> wrote:

> I've installed XP systems for so many people, including elderly, and
my maintenance has been minimal. I love it when a system is stable,
and when I don't have to change or upgrade. I don't do it because
MSoft says so, but because many of the tools I want to use are
supported in a newer OS.

So far I've run into very few examples which require XP. Microsoft is
coming out with a new operating system pretty soon; when things settle
down it may reach a point where I need to upgrade, as I finally did
for Win98. It's possible some of the brain-damaged features of Win2000
are corrected in XP, but I haven't heard any compelling reasons to
switch, and Microsoft's installation of anti-consumer aspects is
something I don't think needs to be supported.

Do what *you* want, but be sure to say, when asking for software
solutions, that you are working on a now unsupported, dated platform
with minimal hardware

Win2000 is still supported; I think you've mixed it up with Win98.

Gene,

{you wrote...}
>So far I've run into very few examples which require XP.

All I can say is you don't know what you are missing.

>Win2000 is still supported; I think you've mixed it up with Win98.

You aren't just wrong, you are about a year late - notice the dates:
http://www.microsoft-watch.com/article2/0,1995,1788793,00.asp

Completely moot when you don't have problems, but it also means that no one will develop or support a product for a dead OS. XP has had one of the longest runs, it enjoys a very large body of music software, has documented tweaks to enhance the use for a music platform, and I hope it stays supported long after Vista comes out.

Then we'll see. Maybe I'll switch to a Mac for fun.

Hey, this is getting pretty OT, mostly my fault. I'm out.

Cheers,
Jon

At 03:29 PM 4/12/2006, you wrote:
>Carl,
>
>{you wrote...}
>>Your hardware may not be up to the task. Jon may not know that you
>prefer an older-machines kind of computer budgeting.
>
>Yes, I believe I am a bit aware of this. At some point in the day, it
>boils down to the following: one can want to do this and that and the
>other, but one can not reasonably expect it to happen on dated
>equipment and software. I am *very* aware of the business of keeping
>up with things, but Pentiums and XP have been around for a number of
>years, this is not bleeding edge.

Yeah, but to run a VST like Cameleon or z3ta+ inside of Sonar 4,
and have it run well, you do need a computer that was cutting edge
in 2004.

>I also happen to consider music
>computer systems *instruments*, and I invest in them in the same
>mindset that I invest in my actual, physical instruments.

Totally.

>What we require is far, far less than the average teenage gamer's
>system!

That's not true. Music creation is among the most cycle-hungry work
around. That's why those neko things are dual opterons (yes, I
know they make lower-end ones now).

>Or, IOW, you get what you pay for. Every time I've upgraded
>something, I've kicked myself for not doing it sooner.

I'm completely in agreement, myself.

-Carl

At 03:54 PM 4/12/2006, you wrote:
>Gene,
>
>{you wrote...}
>>I've got an AMD Duron, which not that long ago would have been hot stuff
>
>I'm not familiar enough with benchmarking AMD processors to even
>hazard a guess at how it would handle current musical tools. It might
>be, with enough RAM as well, just fine.

Depends on which Duron.

-C.

>So far I've run into very few examples which require XP. Microsoft is
>coming out with a new operating system pretty soon; when things settle
>down it may reach a point where I need to upgrade,

Vista is really revolutionary (much more than XP, and possibly even
the great 2K) and everyone will need to upgrade. If you're going to
buy a machine, make sure to get a Core Duo laptop with top-end
nvidia or ATI graphics.

-Carl

>I've got an AMD Duron, which not that long ago would have been hot
>stuff; my first PC was a 486 and I paid too much for it. Perhaps I've
>learned a lesson. As for XP, there are a lot of complaints about it.
>Why should I get sucked into the latest from Microsoft just because
>I'm supposed to?

XP, like all versions of Windows before it, requires much more setup
than every version before it to make it not suck. But also like
every version before it, once you do the setup, you have an extremely
good OS. Anyone who tells you differently just doesn't know Windows.

Why should you move up? The answer is, the technology you're using
is still being invented. You may think you're using a static thing,
but you're in fact using a process. If you don't upgrade, your data
will one day become unreadable. Just ask NASA. Though equipment
failures will kill your data before that.

Since you have to upgrade eventually, you save the most trouble
by upgrading immediately. That's my opinion. There are others who
will tell you differently, but, well, they're just wrong.

That's why I'm so freaked out about Audio Compositor. Yeah, it
worked fine. But every time I use it I'm just pouring more work
into a dead end.

-Carl

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, Jon Szanto <jszanto@...> wrote:

>>2000 is still supported; I think you've mixed it up with Win98.
>
> You aren't just wrong, you are about a year late - notice the dates:
> http://www.microsoft-watch.com/article2/0,1995,1788793,00.asp

That doesn't say W2000 is now unsupported, just that it is now on
"extended support".

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, Carl Lumma <ekin@...> wrote:

> Vista is really revolutionary (much more than XP, and possibly even
> the great 2K) and everyone will need to upgrade. If you're going to
> buy a machine, make sure to get a Core Duo laptop with top-end
> nvidia or ATI graphics.

Why would anyone get a laptop for desktop apps?

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, Carl Lumma <ekin@...> wrote:

> XP, like all versions of Windows before it, requires much more setup
> than every version before it to make it not suck. But also like
> every version before it, once you do the setup, you have an extremely
> good OS. Anyone who tells you differently just doesn't know Windows.

Maybe I don't, but I've never been impressed with Windows. When I had
a dual boot system up with Linux, I was often struck by how much
better Linux worked. But Windows kills it in the software department.

Carl,

>>[Jon] What we require is far, far less than the average teenage gamer's
>>system!
>
>[Carl] That's not true. Music creation is among the most cycle-hungry work
>around. That's why those neko things are dual opterons (yes, I
>know they make lower-end ones now).

Yeah, I guess I overstated a bit. But what I was referring to is - maybe - the amount of extra stuff and customization on the system. Water-coolers for the overclocked CPUs, all that. What I've found with all the real-time, virtual instrument/effects is get the best CPU setup you can, and as much ram as you can for the samplers. *However*, if one wanted to hear the current track they were playing/recording but could live with freezing the others, you can get by with a LOT less hit on the CPU. Aagghh, techspeak.

It should be known, however, that my stand-alone DAW, custom-built in a Shuttle mini XPC, _does_ have 2 very cool blue neon tubes. I love the way it glows like a nuclear reactor core when I'm up late at night.

And I still ride a skateboard, too.

Cheers,
Jon

>> Vista is really revolutionary (much more than XP, and possibly even
>> the great 2K) and everyone will need to upgrade. If you're going to
>> buy a machine, make sure to get a Core Duo laptop with top-end
>> nvidia or ATI graphics.
>
>Why would anyone get a laptop for desktop apps?

Because Core Duo kicks so much ass. And you can then perform
live easily. And you can work on music when your in China.

Somebody other than Apple will probably make Core Duo desktops.
In fact I think I saw one already.

-Carl

Gene,

{you wrote...}
>That doesn't say W2000 is now unsupported, just that it is now on "extended support".

Are you a business or a developer? I didn't think so. You might want to read this:
http://support.microsoft.com/?LN=en-us&x=12&y=13&scid=fh%3Ben-us%3Blifecycle

...but the main point is that you have a shrinking application base, as new apps are written for an OS you don't use, and old apps become abandoned. If this makes you feel good, cool.

Cheers,
Jon

Gene,

{you wrote...}
>Why would anyone get a laptop for desktop apps?

I'm thinking of doing just that. Because

- I can actually take it to gigs and use it as the musical instrument that it is
- with my home wireless network I no longer have to sit _at_my_desk_ to do work
- I can take it to work to play while I'm not working :)

The question is, if one has the money (because comparable notebook horsepower costs a bit more than a similar desktop), why would anyone NOT do it?

Cheers,
Jon

>> XP, like all versions of Windows before it, requires much more setup
>> than every version before it to make it not suck. But also like
>> every version before it, once you do the setup, you have an extremely
>> good OS. Anyone who tells you differently just doesn't know Windows.
>
>Maybe I don't, but I've never been impressed with Windows. When I had
>a dual boot system up with Linux, I was often struck by how much
>better Linux worked. But Windows kills it in the software department.

I'm not a linux expert, but I was in charge of a few machines at
work, and of course I used unix in college, and while it has great
strong points, as a desktop OS it's just not there. I've never heard
of a KDE or Gnome machine as stable as my XP box (I routinely run 3-4
months without rebooting, and usually then just for the hell of it,
all while installing and removing more software than probably anyone
on this list). At least in '02, linux had to be rebooted to change
almost anything, from font rendering options on up.

-Carl

Gene Ward Smith escreveu:
> --- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, Carl Lumma <ekin@...> wrote:
> > >>XP, like all versions of Windows before it, requires much more setup
>>than every version before it to make it not suck. But also like
>>every version before it, once you do the setup, you have an extremely
>>good OS. Anyone who tells you differently just doesn't know Windows.

I remember Win95 was relativelly good, consistent with both GUI and console modes. Older users told me that 3.11 was possibly the better version of Windows' history, and that since Win98 its quality has becomed monotonically worse release to release... I don't know XP <http://www.futurepower.net/microsoft.htm> or Vista tough. Some people have said that WinXP can become very useable when CygWin is installed...
<http://webinsider.uol.com.br/vernoticia.php/id/2765>

BTW, we have some interesting and funny stuff here:
<http://lxer.com/module/newswire/view/47221/index.html>
<http://os.newsforge.com/article.pl?sid=05/05/18/2033216>
These ones are not so serious:
<http://uncyclopedia.org/wiki/Windows>
<http://uncyclopedia.org/wiki/Linux>

> Maybe I don't, but I've never been impressed with Windows. When I had
> a dual boot system up with Linux, I was often struck by how much
> better Linux worked. But Windows kills it in the software department.

Indeed, Windows can run many excellent pieces of software: emacs, octave, gcc, bash, latex, lyx, openoffice, mozilla, gimp, csound, puredata, zynaddsubfx, audacity, timidity, abcm2ps, abc2midi, tcl/tk, ghostscript... but I still think all these softwares perform better when running on GNU. ;-)

Concerning to new hardware, GNU/Linux is likely to do provide support before Windows can do it.

To go back on the thread's subject: IMO, the flexibility of free systems is far more attractive for artistic purposes. Think on the possibilities open by script languages, shell's complex commands, free compilers, good management of subproccesses and signals, can create shared objects to interact with open source programs, almost direct access and control on hardware components, streams of audio/midi signals via pipes and from/to devices /dev/audio /dev/midi00 or like...

Regards,
Hudson

--
'-------------------------------------------------------------------.
Hudson Lacerda <http://geocities.yahoo.com.br/hfmlacerda/>
*N�o deixe seu voto sumir! http://www.votoseguro.org/
*Ap�ie o Manifesto: http://www.votoseguro.com/alertaprofessores/

== THE WAR IN IRAQ COSTS ==
http://nationalpriorities.org/index.php?option=com_wrapper&Itemid=182
.-------------------------------------------------------------------'
--

_______________________________________________________ Novo Yahoo! Messenger com voz: Instale agora e fa�a liga��es de gra�a. http://br.messenger.yahoo.com/

At 07:04 PM 4/12/2006, you wrote:
>Carl,
>
>>>[Jon] What we require is far, far less than the average teenage gamer's
>>>system!
>>
>>[Carl] That's not true. Music creation is among the most cycle-hungry
>>work around. That's why those neko things are dual opterons (yes, I
>>know they make lower-end ones now).
>
>Yeah, I guess I overstated a bit. But what I was referring to is -
>maybe - the amount of extra stuff and customization on the system.
>Water-coolers for the overclocked CPUs, all that.

Oh, that's a tweaker thing. The performance gains from overclocking
are debateable, especially on netburst machines. Like putting a
loud exhaust on a honda. Much gaming performance is tied up in the
GPU, which musicians don't have use for, that's true, but CPU
demands are equal for both groups, if not greater for musicians.

>It should be known, however, that my stand-alone DAW, custom-built in
>a Shuttle mini XPC, _does_ have 2 very cool blue neon tubes. I love
>the way it glows like a nuclear reactor core when I'm up late at night.

Nice. I love Shuttle.

-Carl

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, Jon Szanto <jszanto@...> wrote:

> Are you a business or a developer? I didn't think so. You might want
to read this:
>
http://support.microsoft.com/?LN=en-us&x=12&y=13&scid=fh%3Ben-us%3Blifecycle

Which says they'll keep issuing security patches.

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, Carl Lumma <ekin@...> wrote:
I've never heard
> of a KDE or Gnome machine as stable as my XP box (I routinely run 3-4
> months without rebooting...

Linux is famed for its stability as a server, including going for
years without rebooting. With Win2000, it will get more and more flaky
until I get sick of it and reboot. I never needed to do that with Linux.

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, Hudson Lacerda <hfmlacerda@...>
wrote:
>
> I remember Win95 was relativelly good, consistent with both GUI and
> console modes.

W95 was a pain.

Older users told me that 3.11 was possibly the better
> version of Windows' history

3.11 wasn't worth it; DOS command line was better.

Jon,

> craft and art. If one remains devoutly in the realm of the computer, wants
> to do as much as possible, and to be as freely creative with the least
> amount of effort, it behooves them to invest in the best possible platform
> that they can manage.

Yeah.

XP is a much nicer system. Especially for multimedia.

> On Wed, 12 Apr 2006, Jon L Smith wrote:
> > Orion Pro has a feature called "Randomize", which throws a double
> > fistfull of pitches all across the piano-roll sequencer, based on a
> > major/minor scale. About the only useful thing it does is to provide
> > a generic broken-chord background pattern for some of my techno-
> > style pieces - and then, only after considerable editing.

http://www.mxw.com/

>>>XP, like all versions of Windows before it, requires much more setup
>>>than every version before it to make it not suck. But also like
>>>every version before it, once you do the setup, you have an extremely
>>>good OS. Anyone who tells you differently just doesn't know Windows.
>
>I remember Win95 was relativelly good, consistent with both GUI and
>console modes. Older users told me that 3.11 was possibly the better
>version of Windows' history, and that since Win98 its quality has
>becomed monotonically worse release to release...

I don't know about that. The clear loser is Millennium Edition.
Windows 95 was of course a breakthrough, as was 3.1. NT 4 was
also huge, because it was the first NT with the Chicago interface.
And it ran natively on Power and Alpha. But it still didn't have
DirectX, so most games wouldn't run. Win2K, in my mind, is the
best version relative to release ever. In fact I think it was the
greatest re-engineering feat in history. They took the biggest
legacy market ever and changed everything without breaking anything.
The only let-down was the death of the Power and Alpha versions.
But at the last minute, some marketing genius decided it wasn't
John-Q-Public-OK, so they whipped up Millenium Edition, and 2K was
not OEMed on consumer machines. ME, meanwhile, was buggy as hell.
XP was the first Windows to officially merge the branches, but it
is only an incremental improvement over 2K.

Vista will change the face of computing, that's for sure. WinFX
is 5 years ahead of everything else out there. Straight from the
lab, and the MSDN hoards have been cooking with it for almost two
years already. The typography tech alone will drop your jaw.
Combined with .Net (ironic that MS should be first to deliver a
full-power internet-transparent API), the Expression Suite, and an
eventual database layer over NTFS, Vista will really cook.

I don't know XP
><http://www.futurepower.net/microsoft.htm> or Vista tough. Some people
>have said that WinXP can become very useable when CygWin is installed...

Oh god, anything but CygWin.

If you like shells, check out Monad (part of Vista). It's like
oo bash. With full access to .Net classes.

>Indeed, Windows can run many excellent pieces of software: emacs,
>octave, gcc, bash, latex, lyx, openoffice, mozilla, gimp, csound,
>puredata, zynaddsubfx, audacity, timidity, abcm2ps, abc2midi, tcl/tk,
>ghostscript... but I still think all these softwares perform better when
>running on GNU. ;-)

GNU or sourceforge apps ought to run better on Linux, since most of
them are developed there. Just as the thousands of commercial Windows
apps run better in Windows.

>Concerning to new hardware, GNU/Linux is likely to do provide support
>before Windows can do it.

That's highly debatable.

>To go back on the thread's subject: IMO, the flexibility of free systems
>is far more attractive for artistic purposes. Think on the possibilities
>open by script languages, shell's complex commands, free compilers,
>good management of subproccesses and signals, can create shared objects
>to interact with open source programs, almost direct access and control
>on hardware components, streams of audio/midi signals via pipes and
>from/to devices /dev/audio /dev/midi00 or like...

One can write open source software on any platform. When linux people
tell me how great linux is, it usually comes back to the fact that
they love building operating systems. But I don't think operating
systems are interesting. It's what I can do when the OS is doing it's
job and staying out of my way that interests me.

-Carl

>> I've never heard
>> of a KDE or Gnome machine as stable as my XP box (I routinely run 3-4
>> months without rebooting...
>
>Linux is famed for its stability as a server, including going for
>years without rebooting.

Yeah, I prefer it for a web server, for sure. Lumma.org will always
run on linux or BSD.

>With Win2000, it will get more and more flaky
>until I get sick of it and reboot.

You've got one or more of:

. Registry corruption
. Bad 3rd-party driver
. Bad hardware (cheap PCs often have components that don't
correctly support the standards Windows relies on).
. Virus / malware.

The Windows registry is definitely a serious design flaw. But I've
run XP installations for 3-4 years without running into this problem.
Windows 9x required yearly re-installs under heavy use.

-C.

>> Older users told me that 3.11 was possibly the better
>> version of Windows' history
>
>3.11 wasn't worth it; DOS command line was better.

3.1 had TrueType, which was a big deal. I blissfully used
DOS until 1995, however. I switched to 3.11 for Pen Computing,
which was really cool actually, then to Win95 later in the
year. I was shocked to find it didn't have pen support.

-Carl

>3.11 wasn't worth it; DOS command line was better.

Incidentally, this is how I felt about KDE and Gnome in 2002.
Everything seemed easier in bash.

-Carl

Carl Lumma escreveu:
> I'm not a linux expert, but I was in charge of a few machines at
> work, and of course I used unix in college, and while it has great
> strong points, as a desktop OS it's just not there. I've never heard
> of a KDE or Gnome machine as stable as my XP box (I routinely run 3-4
> months without rebooting, and usually then just for the hell of it,
> all while installing and removing more software than probably anyone
> on this list).

I don't use currently KDE or GNOME (I find that FluxBox with keystrokes is much more user-friendly for me :-), and of course I don't know your (or any other) XP box. Anyway, I find my Debian system very stable and suitable for all my needs.

(For servers, reports on GNU/Linux I've heard are of no rebooting for years (RH). Also I've been said that some relativelly recent versions of Windows for servers are very stable too.)

> At least in '02, linux had to be rebooted to change
> almost anything, from font rendering options on up.

This sounds strange to me. Normally, one needs at most restart the X server to accomplish things like video setup. To install/remove software (very easy after Synaptic), reboot is not needed (well, for 99.9% of the packages -- kernel upgrades will request reboot to be completed though :-)

I hope interoperability between systems be increased, so that the better features of each one can be experienced on each other. Really I think Windows miss features like a good an rich command-line terminal (like bash), multiple desktops, trully and comprehensive multi-language support, a consistent and stable sub-processess management (perhaps already done in XP?), and a free license...

Then, maybe I can try it to do some automated composing... :-)

Cheers,
Hudson

_______________________________________________________ Abra sua conta no Yahoo! Mail: 1GB de espa�o, alertas de e-mail no celular e anti-spam realmente eficaz. http://br.info.mail.yahoo.com/

Carl,

{you wrote...}
>One can write open source software on any platform.

Ahem - yep!

>When linux people tell me how great linux is, it usually comes back to the fact that they love building operating systems. But I don't think operating systems are interesting. It's what I can do when the OS is doing it's job and staying out of my way that interests me.

Anyone reading this thread knows that I like flexible software, and that I find enjoyment in writing code to build tools to use. But hands-down, when it comes to getting creative, the *last* thing I want to do is constantly roll my own. Each performer/composer will have their own list of must-have tools to get the job down, but compared to the Windows and Mac OS platforms, the open source applications available for *nix systems are woefully lacking behind. And beyond that, the non-transparent nature of installation, configuration, and running these things continue to keep them - for the most part - in the realm of people who love tweaking and hacking. I'm not saying that is bad, but it isn't for everybody. In fact, it probably isn't for most people.

Cheers,
Jon

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, Carl Lumma <ekin@...> wrote:
>
> I don't know about that. The clear loser is Millennium Edition.
> Windows 95 was of course a breakthrough, as was 3.1.

The breakthrough was Mac OS.

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, Carl Lumma <ekin@...> wrote:

> >With Win2000, it will get more and more flaky
> >until I get sick of it and reboot.
>
> You've got one or more of:
>
> . Registry corruption
> . Bad 3rd-party driver
> . Bad hardware (cheap PCs often have components that don't
> correctly support the standards Windows relies on).
> . Virus / malware.

I think it's some kind of memory allocation problem; Maple seems to
confuse it.

> The Windows registry is definitely a serious design flaw. But I've
> run XP installations for 3-4 years without running into this problem.
> Windows 9x required yearly re-installs under heavy use.

This is true; and I haven't needed to do that yet.

Carl Lumma escreveu:
> If you like shells, check out Monad (part of Vista). It's like
> oo bash. With full access to .Net classes.

This can be technically interesting. Will Monad really be part of Vista? (Some time ago it would be removed because security flaws.)

Then, it seems that Windows is really approaching desktop usability rapidly... :-)

>>Indeed, Windows can run many excellent pieces of software: emacs, >>octave, gcc, bash, latex, lyx, openoffice, mozilla, gimp, csound, >>puredata, zynaddsubfx, audacity, timidity, abcm2ps, abc2midi, tcl/tk, >>ghostscript... but I still think all these softwares perform better when >>running on GNU. ;-)
> > > GNU or sourceforge apps ought to run better on Linux, since most of
> them are developed there. Just as the thousands of commercial Windows
> apps run better in Windows.

That was just a somewhat ironic response to Gene, to show that software demands are not the same for all people. My interest on GNU was highly motivated by the appealling aboundance of software I would like to use but they were not available (or fully functional) on Windows. That time, almost all software I would like to use -- all them I can use now -- were free software and had no Windows versions (or the ports were not good).

>>Concerning to new hardware, GNU/Linux is likely to do provide support >>before Windows can do it.
> > > That's highly debatable.

Yes, there are hardware factories with special interest on Linux, factories that publish technical specifications for software developpers, factories that make exclusivity contracts with OS vendors... in this latest case, of course, Windows can arrive first.

But after some (generally not long) time after hardware releasing, it is natural that free operating systems (most probably GNU/Linux, but not only) can provide support for many of the models, while proprietary OSes will stay tied to a smaller number of models.

> One can write open source software on any platform. When linux people
> tell me how great linux is, it usually comes back to the fact that
> they love building operating systems. But I don't think operating
> systems are interesting. It's what I can do when the OS is doing it's
> job and staying out of my way that interests me.

I am not interested on operative systems, and definitely I am not interested on building OSes. (This is one reason why I want do stick with Debian/DeMuDi for long years.)

But, if we are speaking on computer-aided composing, algorithmic composition, etc., one obvious premise is the ability to use a computer and can programming, assuming the environment provides some flexibility to develop and integrate music programs and the data they manipulate.

Even if the OS is not free software, many of the better and cheaper (often gratis) tools to acomplish computer music will be free software. First, we have free compilers for any imaginable programming language (compiled, interpreted, scripting, object-oriented, widgets, etc.). Second, interoperability between softwares requires openly specified data formats, some of them are not always well supported by certain proprietary softwares. Third, many free/open source software is multiplataform, making easy execute jobs on many machines (remarkable examples are csound and puredata). Then, we have community-shared codes for study or usage. Many computer musicians have a academic tradition of publishing synthesis/composition techniques, often resulting on important free/open source programs and knowledge sharing. In short, computer music and free/open source software have a long time relation, strengthened by the feasibility of complete free operating systems.

Today, there are several (GNU/Linux based) software distributions specially developped for musicians, for instance: DeMuDi, Planet CCRMA at Home and Musix. All the most representative music free software is included and integrated so that installing and configuring is not difficult (sometimes all things work even in a LiveCD session!).

I would like, finally, to recall that computer music -- in special algorithmic composition -- hardly can be made with closed software. The composer often needs to have full freedom to plan each detail of the computer program. Many comercial tools are designed for specific music genera and conceptions, thus limiting -- or driving -- the "(cre)action" of the users. Free/open source software can be far more flexible yet being easy to use.

As says a DeMuDi slogan, free art needs free tools.

Cheers,
Hudson Lacerda

_______________________________________________________ Abra sua conta no Yahoo! Mail: 1GB de espa�o, alertas de e-mail no celular e anti-spam realmente eficaz. http://br.info.mail.yahoo.com/

Gene Ward Smith escreveu:
> --- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, Carl Lumma <ekin@...> wrote:
> >>I don't know about that. The clear loser is Millennium Edition.
>>Windows 95 was of course a breakthrough, as was 3.1. > > > The breakthrough was Mac OS.
> Will be the same again (Vista vs OSX)?

_______________________________________________________ Abra sua conta no Yahoo! Mail: 1GB de espa�o, alertas de e-mail no celular e anti-spam realmente eficaz. http://br.info.mail.yahoo.com/

>The breakthrough was Mac OS.

Mac OS was a breakthrough, and Apple have done really nice work
with OS X.

-Carl

>I think it's some kind of memory allocation problem; Maple seems to
>confuse it.

Next time it happens, check the memory footprint of your
processes. You can see the culprit if this is the case.

-Carl

>(For servers, reports on GNU/Linux I've heard are of no rebooting for
>years (RH). Also I've been said that some relativelly recent versions
>of Windows for servers are very stable too.)

Apparently Windows Server 2003 is pretty good, but I don't see
the point of it. Linux is just perfect for servers.

>> At least in '02, linux had to be rebooted to change
>> almost anything, from font rendering options on up.
>
>This sounds strange to me. Normally, one needs at most restart the X
>server to accomplish things like video setup. To install/remove software
>(very easy after Synaptic), reboot is not needed (well, for 99.9% of the
>packages -- kernel upgrades will request reboot to be completed though :-)

I was testing a kernel mode driver, so I was constantly rebooting
for that. Dvorak keyboard layout required a restart of X and something
else (I forget what). (To be fair keyboard mappings are somewhat
broken in Windows. Mac OS X does a fantastic job here.) Subpixel
rendering required a restart of most of the system, and then didn't
actually work.

>Really I think Windows miss features like a good an rich
>command-line terminal (like bash),

Monad blows bash away.

>multiple desktops,

This feature is available with 3rd-party software. I don't find
it useful.

>a consistent and stable sub-processess management (perhaps
>already done in XP?),

Yep.

>and a free license...

That'd be nice.

-Carl

At 10:52 PM 4/12/2006, you wrote:
>Carl Lumma escreveu:
>> If you like shells, check out Monad (part of Vista). It's like
>> oo bash. With full access to .Net classes.
>
>This can be technically interesting. Will Monad really be part of Vista?

Yup. Like many other Vista technologies, you can actually get it
for XP I think.

>But after some (generally not long) time after hardware releasing, it is
>natural that free operating systems (most probably GNU/Linux, but not
>only) can provide support for many of the models, while proprietary OSes
>will stay tied to a smaller number of models.

Hardware? Windows supports more hardware than anything, by a couple
of orders of magnitude at least.

>Even if the OS is not free software, many of the better and cheaper
>(often gratis) tools to acomplish computer music will be free software.

Absolutely. Probably 1/3 of the software I use is free software.

-Carl

Gene,
> --- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, Hudson Lacerda <hfmlacerda@...>

> Older users told me that 3.11 was possibly the better
> > version of Windows' history
>
> 3.11 wasn't worth it; DOS command line was better.

The linux command line was better. 3.11 was terrible.

Anyone try AthenaCL?

http://www.flexatone.net/athena.html

"The athenaCL system is an open-source, object-oriented composition
tool written in Python. The system can be scripted and embedded, and
includes integrated instrument libraries, post-tonal and microtonal
pitch modeling tools, multiple-format graphical outputs, and musical
output in Csound, MIDI, audio file, XML, and text formats"

Paolo,

{you wrote...}
>Anyone try AthenaCL?
>
>http://www.flexatone.net/athena.html

I remember coming across this before. However, one look at the documentation makes it clear that this is a tool not for the faint-of-heart, and would require serious devotion and time to understand, utilize, and write code for. AthenaCL is the kind of environment - as it is certainly not just a tool or helper application - that is the perfect place for someone to give over all their time to algorithmic and process composition. Impressive, but daunting.

Another very nice situation like this is JMSL project:

http://www.algomusic.com/jmsl/

Cheers,
Jon

Jeez, has this become the OS Comparison list? I thought it was about
microtonal music... I hope we can get back to our regularly scheduled
program and take the OS discussion to metatuning or somewhere else...

Rick

>The linux command line was better. 3.11 was terrible.

Oh, come on. It had TrueType.

-Carl

> From: Carl Lumma <ekin@...>
>
> >The linux command line was better. 3.11 was terrible.
>
> Oh, come on. It had TrueType.

X had type 1.

And {to get back to the subject} snd, muse, arts, rosegarden2, SLAB, Aube,
CMIX, Ecasound, OSS drivers that worked better with my pas16 than the software
it shipped with, etc, etc, etc...

> From: Jon Szanto <jszanto@...>
>
> Carl,
>
> {you wrote...}
> >One can write open source software on any platform.
>
> Ahem - yep!
>
> >When linux people tell me how great linux is, it usually comes back to the
> fact that they love building operating systems. But I don't think operating
> systems are interesting. It's what I can do when the OS is doing it's job
> and staying out of my way that interests me.
>
> Anyone reading this thread knows that I like flexible software, and that I
> find enjoyment in writing code to build tools to use. But hands-down, when
> it comes to getting creative, the *last* thing I want to do is constantly
> roll my own. Each performer/composer will have their own list of must-have
> tools to get the job down, but compared to the Windows and Mac OS platforms,
> the open source applications available for *nix systems are woefully lacking
> behind. And beyond that, the non-transparent nature of installation,
> configuration, and running these things continue to keep them - for the most
> part - in the realm of people who love tweaking and hacking. I'm not saying
> that is bad, but it isn't for everybody. In fact, it probably isn't for most
> people.

This isn't true at all. Newer versions of linux are as easy to install as
Windows and considerably easier to maintain. They're certainly easier to
install than 3.11 was. KDE and Gnome {and several other desktops} are as good
or better than the commercial systems {KDE consistently scores at the top of
the polls as far as usability goes}. Rosegarden 4, Snd, Audacity, etc, etc are
as usable as anything on Windows, etc. If you use a pre-configured system you
can simply download and install any of the multimedia aps with apps and be
going within a few minutes. {If you're running the right hardware} There is
Windows software that requires and enables "hacking" just as much as anything
in linux.

What is a real problem is the lack of support for applications that people
have used for years {Sonar, Cubase, After Effects, Photoshop, {to say nothing
of "essential" applications like Dreamweaver. ...Bless it's little bitmapped
heart.}, etc} and don't want to switch from as well as for technologies like
VST {though that's changing}. Windows is not really about Windows. It's about
the shrinkwrapped apps that run on it that you have to know in order to get a
job or to maintain compatibility with the rest of the world.

Personally, I think Xara is one of the best vector editors going. I've never
yet seen a job listing that asked for it. No one wants to have to deal with
multiple learning curves and things like Illustrator and Photoshop and Word
have become labelled "the best" in a huge part of the public psyche. It's what
they teach in school, it's what you'll use at work and it probably has the
best third party support as far as plugins and extensions go. What would any
of the shrinkwrapped apps be without things like vst or photoshop plugins?

It doesn't help that you have the narrow minded set out there that would
rather die than use anything but a mac {With the right bitmaps you could have
something very like OSX in linux fairly easily} and that insist that anything
not done in Photoshop or Cubase {or Logic} is somehow inferior. I think the
thing really constraining the software world is the marketing that's ingrained
into society's psyche and re-inforced constantly by {less than knowledgeable}
users. How many of the Mac supremacists that you know have actually used
Windows or linux to say nothing of Oberon or UNIX or OS2, z/OS or Solaris? How
many of them do you think will be using Croquet {There's a developr's release
available for all three major platforms
http://www.opencroquet.org/Croquet_Technologies/downloads.html# }? How many of
them do you think would attempt it with an open mind and without turning up
their noses? Photoshop is Photoshop whether it's running on Windows, Macs or
in KDE under Wine.

I use Windows XP because it's an excellent system and because my considerable
investment in software requires it to run. I'd love to run linux instead but
everything I do gets done in applications that require Windows.

That said... my next upgrade to Sonar will probably be to Ableton Live. Not
because I find Sonar to be lacking in any way... because I think that Live has
a lot of features that I can use whereas Sonar has a lot of features that I
don't. {Besides that... Live's interface just plain rocks.}

> can simply download and install any of the multimedia aps with apps

"apt" ...that's "apt".

All due respect Jon, Linux has worked fine for me, I find that I get
everything I need to get done both as a serious musician and as a
computer enthusiast. Linux, especially nowadays, is easy to install
and maintain, and is *extremely* stable when running. The commercial
vs. open source arguments are dead when you consider the maturity of
projects like WINE. And, low-latency audio, something musicians should
be really concerned about, is actually better on Linux than any other
platform. Linux audio users routinely report <2ms latencies, something
Windows and Mac users can only dream of.

OTOH, Windows and Mac OS-X offer nothing but headaches with things
like viruses and security issues. Not to mention the API of both,
should one want to develop an app (we know you don't Jon, but that
doesn't mean you speak for all) is extremely ugly and
counter-intuitive. *nix's great innovation, which is woefully absent
in the others, is device files--hardware can be written to and read
just like a normal file--brilliant concept. Windows has 'COMM ports'
extremely ugly and hard to use, and from what I've seen, evil Apple
has destroyed the typical *nix file structure, and doesn't have a /dev
directory---apparantly they in their infinite wisdom have decided that
it was of no use to anyone. Apple also feels that their typical user
is a complete idiot, and doesn't want to ever write software or roll
up their sleeves. Their company image sort of icks me out.

I'd take Linux anyday over any other OS---and Carl, you are absolutely
wrong about it's stability---Linux was years ahead of windoze in this
area---my wife had to reboot her machine every day just about, after
crashing here and there, while as long ago as 1998 I was running a
Slackware box that tayed up for months. The only reason XP runs well
at all is that they lifted code from FreeBSD, esp. network code.

-Aaron.

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, Jon Szanto <jszanto@...> wrote:
>
> Carl,
>
> {you wrote...}
> >One can write open source software on any platform.
>
> Ahem - yep!
>
> >When linux people tell me how great linux is, it usually comes back
to the fact that they love building operating systems. But I don't
think operating systems are interesting. It's what I can do when the
OS is doing it's job and staying out of my way that interests me.
>
> Anyone reading this thread knows that I like flexible software, and
that I find enjoyment in writing code to build tools to use. But
hands-down, when it comes to getting creative, the *last* thing I want
to do is constantly roll my own. Each performer/composer will have
their own list of must-have tools to get the job down, but compared to
the Windows and Mac OS platforms, the open source applications
available for *nix systems are woefully lacking behind. And beyond
that, the non-transparent nature of installation, configuration, and
running these things continue to keep them - for the most part - in
the realm of people who love tweaking and hacking. I'm not saying that
is bad, but it isn't for everybody. In fact, it probably isn't for
most people.
>
> Cheers,
> Jon
>

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, Carl Lumma <ekin@...> wrote:

> You've got one or more of:
>
> . Registry corruption
> . Bad 3rd-party driver
> . Bad hardware (cheap PCs often have components that don't
> correctly support the standards Windows relies on).
> . Virus / malware.

Hmm....never have had these problems under Linux.

> The Windows registry is definitely a serious design flaw.

Ditto the rest of Windows.

>{Besides that... Live's interface just plain rocks.}

On this we agree.

-Carl

Aaron,

Dang, you were in my head the whole time I was writing this! But I figured you hadn't been around for a while - aren't you a dad now? - and didn't address the fact that you were one member around here that had felt very at home.

I won't argue again the merits of the OS themselves, and I still can't shake the impression that installing and maintaining *nix systems is more difficult for the *general public* than the commercial OS. And while it has worked for you, I also know you roll your own sometimes in Python, again not a generalist skill. Alongside this, the relatively smaller number of applications - lets just take a DAW platform, for instance - means fewer choices. I don't think Audacity is as finished an app as Sound Forge, Audition, etc.

All that aside, and in conjunction with Rick's comments, I think there has been an improvement in music/audio programs on this side (I did a lot of investigation last year for Margo). But if someone were starting out brand new, it isn't what *I* would personally suggest.

Hope things are well for you, you've been missed!

Cheers,
Jon

How can you do microtonal in Live (well except by using a synth that
supports it)?

Joe

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, Rick Taylor <rtaylor@...> wrote:
> That said... my next upgrade to Sonar will probably be to Ableton
Live. Not
> because I find Sonar to be lacking in any way... because I think that
Live has
> a lot of features that I can use whereas Sonar has a lot of features
that I
> don't. {Besides that... Live's interface just plain rocks.}

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, Jon Szanto <jszanto@...> wrote:
>
> Aaron,
>
> Dang, you were in my head the whole time I was writing this! But I
figured you hadn't been around for a while - aren't you a dad now? -

Not yet-May 6th is the due date.

> and didn't address the fact that you were one member around here
>that had felt very at home.
>
> I won't argue again the merits of the OS themselves, and I still
> can't shake the impression that installing and maintaining *nix
> systems is more difficult for the *general public* than the
> commercial OS.

Well, when have you ever tried? ;) "Can't" might mean 'don't want to'
in that case...

> And while it has worked for you, I also know you roll your own
> sometimes in Python, again not a generalist skill.

Agreed. But it's not neccessary to 'roll your own' most of the time.
That said, Python is easy to learn.

> Alongside this, the relatively smaller number of applications -
>lets just take a DAW platform, for instance - means fewer choices. I
>don't think Audacity is as finished an app as Sound Forge, Audition,
>etc.

It worked for me----I've used it twice to edit and release 2 albums.
It has a fine interface and fine plugins. What do you mean
by 'unfinished'?

Not to mention the mighty 'Ardour' which has the same functionality
as Pro-Tools, and a gorgeous interface.

And you haven't mentioned at all what I said about Linux's low-
latency capabilities!

>
> All that aside, and in conjunction with Rick's comments, I think
> there has been an improvement in music/audio programs on this side
>(I did a lot of investigation last year for Margo). But if someone
> were starting out brand new, it isn't what *I* would personally
> suggest.

It depends I suppose on what someone is looking for, and how much
cash they have, too. Linux can be a very cost-effective solution.

>
> Hope things are well for you, you've been missed!

Thanks!

-Aaron.

> Cheers,
> Jon
>

>OTOH, Windows and Mac OS-X offer nothing but headaches with things
>like viruses and security issues.

I had a virus once, which was innocuous, for about 30 minutes in
1999, in almost 20 years of wintel computing. I also have a purse
here for anyone who successfully recovers private data from my
hard drive. Meanwhile, there are linux viruses.

>Not to mention the API of both, should one want to develop an
>app (we know you don't Jon, but that doesn't mean you speak for
>all) is extremely ugly and counter-intuitive.

Mac OS X has 3 major native APIs and hundreds of cross-platform
ones that run on it. Windows is known for win32, which isn't
roses, but Aaron, you probably don't know about WinFX, which is
far superior to anything available on any other platform.

>and from what I've seen, evil Apple
>has destroyed the typical *nix file structure, and doesn't have a /dev
>directory---apparantly they in their infinite wisdom have decided that
>it was of no use to anyone

As of 10.1, this wasn't the case.

>I'd take Linux anyday over any other OS---and Carl, you are absolutely
>wrong about it's stability---Linux was years ahead of windoze in this
>area---my wife had to reboot her machine every day just about,

One has to compare apples to apples.

-Carl

Aaron,

{you wrote...}
>Not yet-May 6th is the due date.

Excellent - keeping good thoughts for you! As for all the rest, it isn't in the best interest to have a prolonged OS discussion on this list. If you are interested, I'll reply over at metatuning, but only if you want - post a note there if so.

Cheers,
Jon

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, Carl Lumma <ekin@...> wrote:
>
> >OTOH, Windows and Mac OS-X offer nothing but headaches with things
> >like viruses and security issues.
>
> I had a virus once, which was innocuous, for about 30 minutes in
> 1999, in almost 20 years of wintel computing. I also have a purse
> here for anyone who successfully recovers private data from my
> hard drive. Meanwhile, there are linux viruses.

I'll take this to metatuning....

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, "Joe" <tamahome02000@...> wrote:
>
> How can you do microtonal in Live (well except by using a synth that
> supports it)?
>
> Joe

Use a synth that supports it. Is there a sequencer out there that
explicitly offers microtuning other than Orion?

Basically, I'm just wanting something to sequence and re-sequence my
considerable library of {my own} songs, "loops", parts, bits and
pieces and so on. I want to experiment with final mixes and do it
quickly and easily.

Live seems a bit more attuned to that than Sonar. That I can use
synths in it nowadays to tie stuff together and add elements to the
mix is nice. I have no intention of getting rid of Sonar. I still need
something that will write songs and bits and pieces.

I've used older versions of Live to import 10 and 20 minute song bits,
tweak and make adjustments to them, tune them, re-combine them and so
on. Live's engine seems more {uniquely} suited to that sort of thing
than a lot of programs. I want final pieces to run an hour plus or at
least 20 or so minutes {{movements} soundtracks}. I really don't want
to have to go with pro-tools but I want a bit more creative control
than my video editor will afford.

I want a sort of break with the past as well. ...To break away from
established routines and look at things from a new perspective.

> --- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, Rick Taylor <rtaylor@> wrote:
> > That said... my next upgrade to Sonar will probably be to Ableton
> Live. Not
> > because I find Sonar to be lacking in any way... because I think that
> Live has
> > a lot of features that I can use whereas Sonar has a lot of features
> that I
> > don't. {Besides that... Live's interface just plain rocks.}
>

>Use a synth that supports it. Is there a sequencer out there that
>explicitly offers microtuning other than Orion?

Logic.

-Carl

Cubase has a microtuner midi effect, but I didn't like the sound of it.

Joe

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, Carl Lumma <ekin@...> wrote:
>
> >Use a synth that supports it. Is there a sequencer out there that
> >explicitly offers microtuning other than Orion?
>
> Logic.
>
> -Carl
>

> From: Carl Lumma <ekin@...>
>
> >Use a synth that supports it. Is there a sequencer out there that
> >explicitly offers microtuning other than Orion?
>
> Logic.

How's that? Logic has scala import or something?

http://www.harmony-central.com/ElectronicMusicianGuides/sequencers.htm

>How's that? Logic has scala import or something?

Charles Lucy is the resident expert.

-Carl

http://www.lucytune.com/midi_and_keyboard/pitch_bend.html

^ This guy?

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, Carl Lumma <ekin@...> wrote:
>
> >How's that? Logic has scala import or something?
>
> Charles Lucy is the resident expert.
>
> -Carl
>

Rick,

{you wrote...}
>http://www.lucytune.com/midi_and_keyboard/pitch_bend.html
>
>^ This guy?

Yep. Charles has been a member of this list and the main tuning list for a long time. He has reported, at various times, about Logic's tuning capabilities. We are all painfully aware of the suckiness of the search function in the Yahoo groups, but you might take a look in the archives. Charles usually checks in when he sees something of interest...

Cheers,
Jon

>>Why would anyone get a laptop for desktop apps?
>
>Because Core Duo kicks so much ass.
//
>Somebody other than Apple will probably make Core Duo desktops.
>In fact I think I saw one already.

More on that

http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20060418-6624.html

-C.