Yahoo Tuning Groups Ultimate Backup makemicromusic Strasheela

> --- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, c.m.bryan <chrismbryan@...>
> wrote:
> >
> > Hey everyone,
> >
> > I just found an interesting musical tool:
> >
> > http://strasheela.sourceforge.net/
> >
> > It's for algorithmic composition, and one of the examples is
> microtonal.
> >
> > This looks really cool, but I don't have time to delve in just now.
> > If anyone else does, report back!
>
> Chris

Hi, Chris, and thank you for calling attention to a tool which
evidently I can run on a text-based Linux system! Algorithmic
composition is something which I've heard about but haven't
looked into -- until now. I suspect that it may widen my
musical perspective.

This thread may also show how individual approaches to computing
can vary: a text interface may be more difficult than GUI for one,
more user-friendly for another, and for a third less "user-friendly"
at the beginning of the learning process for an application but more
"expert-friendly" later on.

An odd question: could there be any positive correlation between an
inclination to text-based interfaces and a taste for major thirds
between 81:64 and 9:7 or thereabouts (about 408-435 cents)?

Peace and love,

Margo

🔗c.m.bryan <chrismbryan@...>

🔗Hudson Lacerda <hfmlacerda@...>

yahya_melb escreveu:
> --- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, c.m.bryan <chrismbryan@...>
> wrote:
> >> Hey everyone,
>> >> I just found an interesting musical tool:
>> >> http://strasheela.sourceforge.net/
>> >> It's for algorithmic composition, and one of the examples is >> microtonal.
> >> This looks really cool, but I don't have time to delve in just now.
>> If anyone else does, report back!

Strasheela can output MIDI, LilyPond and Csound!

> > > Chris,
> > This looks like it might be fun, but if it ain't got a GUI, I don't > have time to play with it. It even mandates downloading and > installing Emacs, fer cryin' out loud!
> > Regards, Yahya

ahahah :-D

I don't like too much of GUIs (or large major thirds), but I think this criticism is not suitable for such kind of tool.

As far as I could understand, Strasheela is a *programming* tool for algorithmic composition, using the programming language "Oz". There is no a natural way to implement a flexible programming language as a GUI program. However, it is feasible to write a IDE with a graphical interface, but this is not the more important thing. (By the way, emacs is a pretty good IDE for several purposes and languages.)

The main drawback of Strasheela, for both GUI- or text-oriented users, is to learn its programming language; the real user interface is the programming language itself, not as much the tool to process the code.

For algorithmic composition, some people will prefer implement it in a general purpose language like C, or use a traditional AI language like LISP or prolog, or math tools like GNU Octave, or try script languages beside synthesis tools: python or tcl plus csound, pd, CLM... And there are other people willing to learn one programming language and software tool more. Other people simply are not (enough) interested in algorithmic composition.

Cheers,
Hudson Lacerda

_______________________________________________________ Novidade no Yahoo! Mail: receba alertas de novas mensagens no seu celular. Registre seu aparelho agora! http://br.mobile.yahoo.com/mailalertas/

🔗Jon Szanto <jszanto@...>

Hudson,

{you wrote...}
>Strasheela can output MIDI, LilyPond and Csound!

Well, it certainly would have been great to have even one example of that output to see how well the algorithms are implemented. It always baffles me when a musical tool is presented, and the one thing they leave out of the presentation is the music that it can create.

>As far as I could understand, Strasheela is a *programming* tool for algorithmic composition, using the programming language "Oz". There is no a natural way to implement a flexible programming language as a GUI program.

I don't know how strictly to take that statement, but all one need to do is look at a tool/program like KeyKit. KeyKit is a language that has wrapped itself in it's own GUI environment (whether one likes that GUI is, naturally, a personal choice). All of the programming is done behind the scenes, and you are free to use the tools already in place or take advantage of a full-featured language and develop your own routines. The MAIN point is that you can then do a lot of musical experimenting and generating in a much more intuitive interface, and not go through that dead old paradigm of type in code, run the command line, check out the output, not what you wanted, go back to the code, etc. Have we really, in all our years of information design and interface study, not progressed at all?

I do not buy into the idea that if you want to do algorithmic composition, you are automatically locked into the code/compiler mentality. And there are a number of tools out there that validate my stance (though they aren't mainly microtonal, which is why they aren't discussed here).

Cheers,
Jon

🔗Hudson Lacerda <hfmlacerda@...>

Hi Jon.

Jon Szanto escreveu:
> Hudson,
> > {you wrote...}
> >> Strasheela can output MIDI, LilyPond and Csound!
> > > Well, it certainly would have been great to have even one example of
> that output to see how well the algorithms are implemented. It always
> baffles me when a musical tool is presented, and the one thing they
> leave out of the presentation is the music that it can create.

Good point. I would like to see the actual outputs too.

But as far as i could understand, the author of Strasheela is writting a monography and has not spent as much time on documentation as we would like. The program runs inside GNU Emacs and it includes some graphic windows related to the processes (statistics, configurations...). I could not try some things because my installation is not complete (or because my mozart is outdated).

> > >> As far as I could understand, Strasheela is a *programming* tool
>> for algorithmic composition, using the programming language "Oz".
>> There is no a natural way to implement a flexible programming
>> language as a GUI program.
> > > I don't know how strictly to take that statement,

At the point in which one can have the power of a general purpose language inside a specific-purpose language, and can interact with input/output of other programs without need of user interference. I've never seen GUI versions of "for", "while", "switch/case", "if/else"... this probably could be made using a fluxogram-like interface, but I have no notice on such implementations. Even in PureData, I am told, conditionals are not natural to implement (they need be implemented in an indirect way, by sending signals, it seems).

> but all one need to
> do is look at a tool/program like KeyKit. KeyKit is a language that
> has wrapped itself in it's own GUI environment (whether one likes
> that GUI is, naturally, a personal choice). All of the programming is
> done behind the scenes, and you are free to use the tools already in
> place or take advantage of a full-featured language and develop your
> own routines.

I took a glance at KeyKit site. It somewhat resembles PureData, which seems more powerful because it is not limited to midi.

Is KeyKit extensible?

> The MAIN point is that you can then do a lot of musical
> experimenting and generating in a much more intuitive interface, and
> not go through that dead old paradigm of type in code, run the
> command line, check out the output, not what you wanted, go back to
> the code, etc.

Do you mean: changes can be made on the fly, without stop the music being played?

> Have we really, in all our years of information design
> and interface study, not progressed at all?

I hope some progress has been made, but I didn't see yet any replacement for (and which is up to) that "old paradigm" -- not that of edit/compile/test/reedit (because there are tools that can be controlled on the fly), but that of the *text* representation. Not all steps need recompilation. One can write a GUI in csound language and then tune the parameters on the fly trying with a MIDI keyboard or audio input.

Graphical interfaces are, of course and often by far, more intuitive than edit some text code, but often they are much more limited (to the original programmer/program music concept). There are things that can be easily made with GUIs, like "drawing" envelopes for several purposes, but I am not sure of that when creating and setting rules for algorithmic composition.

> > I do not buy into the idea that if you want to do algorithmic
> composition, you are automatically locked into the code/compiler
> mentality. And there are a number of tools out there that validate my
> stance (though they aren't mainly microtonal, which is why they
> aren't discussed here).
> > Cheers, Jon

Again, I hope you are correct, though I am somewhat sceptical on the flexibility of such tools (at least for the aims I would like to use them). When I learn to use PureData, I shall (hopefuly) can reduce this scepticism, though I am tempted to write anything with some amount of complexity as a GNU Octave or C program...

I wrote that (and this) response only because I can't agree with the idea that GUIs are necessarily better or easier than text interfaces (or vice-versa) for all people, so that someone could conclude anything about an unknown program by using only this criterium. I felt that this thread was in risk to go to this way (though the initial comment by Yahya was only joke-like), but unfortunatelly I did by myself (as Joz noticed), inadvertently, a dangerous assertion... :-/

Regards,
Hudson

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

Strasheela

🔗c.m.bryan <chrismbryan@...>

🔗yahya_melb <yahya@...>

🔗Margo Schulter <mschulter@...>

🔗c.m.bryan <chrismbryan@...>

🔗Hudson Lacerda <hfmlacerda@...>

🔗Jon Szanto <jszanto@...>

🔗Hudson Lacerda <hfmlacerda@...>

🔗Jon Szanto <jszanto@...>