Csound, etc. (was--Re: microabc with support for Sagittal Notation System)

Hi,

I don't always use CSound, and I think GUIs are great, and to be
preferred when available for their ease, but I will say this--there
are situations where going through the hoops of learning a system
like CSound are greatly rewarding. For example, I designed a custom
CSound instrument that uses noise modulation of oscillators to add
expressive realism and warmth (most acoustic instuments have a good
deal of randomness in their core) in a way that most pre-packaged
synthesizers, virtual or otherwise, would not generally allow. That
being said, sometimes CSound is used when it is not really
necessary, too.

With CSound, there are no architectural limitations, just the limits
of your imagination. Another advantage is that you don't have to
worry about the limits of MIDI or polyphony with CSound, at least if
you are not doing realtime MIDI performance with it.

I also think that sometimes, it's a good thing to slow down and
think hard about and do work on your sounds in a very meticulous and
polished way. Think of it as like being Stradivarius trying to
perfect the sound of a violin! Often the cheap results we hear
nowadays come from the instant gratification we have from
pre-packaged and loop and preset driven mentality--originality goes
out the window, out of sheer laziness.

Yes, these things are *hard*. Writing great music is *hard*.
Beethoven's symphonies were not farted out, and Rome wasn't built in
a day. I think the best work is that which is born in lots of blood
sweat and tears---and there is something to old fashioned, pre-MIDI
difficulty, for instance the way Wendy Carlos or Easley Blackwood
had to laboriously overtrack to make their microtonal stuff, that
adds expressive character and humanity that no easy solution
approach could give; a lot of that is due to the presence of
*inaccuracies* of timing, etc.

I hold up as an example of the excellent potentials of CSound Prent
Rodgers' music, BTW. His is a sample-based approach, and his tools
are completely custom, as is his sound. I respect this
'custom-based' and pioneering attitude more than any other,
personally.

That said, I certainly know what you mean otherwise!

Cheers,
Aaron.

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, "J.Smith" <jsmith9624@...>
wrote:
>
>
>
> --- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, Hudson Lacerda
<hfmlacerda@>
> wrote:
> >
> > Hello all.
> >
> > I just uploaded the latest microabc:
> >
> > The music can be written like this:
> >
> > X:1
> > %%MIDI program 21
> > Q:1/4=126
> > K:C
> > [C][D][E\][F^] [G][Bbt][D1][E\1] | [C1][Bbt][G][F^] [G]4 |
> > [C][D][E\][F^] [G][Bbt][A\][G] | [C1][Bbt][D][E\] [C]4 |
> >
> > Some testing options could be:
> > - JI with pithbends in cents (denominator 100):
> > microabc -i- -pinput.abp den:100 > output.abc
> > abc2midi output.abc
> > - 12-ET with pitchbend in cents, quantized:
> > microabc -i- -pinput.abp equaltemp:12 den:100 > output.abc
> > abc2midi output.abc
> > - 12-ET with pitchbend in cents:
> > microabc -i- -pinput.abp equaltemp:12 den:100 > output.abc
> > abc2midi output.abc
> > - Score (-P):
> > microabc -i- -Pinput.abp > output.abc
> > abcm2ps output.abc
> > See also inside examples/sagittal folder.
> >
> > Software you probably will need:
> > - abcpp-1.3.2 (or newer)
> > - abcm2ps-4.3.2 (or newer)
> > - abcMIDI-2006-01-31 (or newer)
> >
> > #define MAX_MACROS 512 /* # of #defined macros */
> >
> > microabc -iinputfile -ooutputfile
> >
> > microabc -iinputfile -pabpfile -oabcfile4midi
> >
> > microabc -iinputfile -Pabpfile -oabcfile4ps
> >
> > microabc centre:62 < inputfile > outputfile
> > microabc range:-6\ 6 -iinputfile -ooutputfile
> > microabc name:_ABCM2PS_ abcm2ps:4 -iinputfile -ooutputfile
> >
> > Command line options override the corresponding values got from
> > inputfile.
> >
> > --------------------------------------------------
> >
> > == SAGITTAL PITCHES ==
> >
> > [C] [A] [Ev] [B^]
> >
> > [A] [B] [C] [D] [E] [F] [G]
> >
> > [A/||\] [A#] [#A] [/||\A] [A#\] [\#A]
> >
> > NOTE: Mixed things like [#\A] or [A\#] may work, by they are not
> > recommended. Use [A#\] or [\#A] instead.
> >
> > [144D] [144G] [144C]
> >
> > -- Octave number can be indicated at right of nominal and
accidental.
> > It can be preceded by `.' or `:' -- with no space between `.' or
`:'
> > and the number.
> >
> > [D0] [D.0] [D:0] [D1] [D2] [D.-1] [D:-2]
> >
> > NOTE: [Db-1] doesn't work properly yet. Please use [Db -1] (or
> > [Db:-1] or [Db.-1]) for Db in octave -1. Wilson's minus (-) is
not
> > implemented yet, thus [Db-] cannot work.
> >
> > [C'/|\..] [G']
> >
> > [ C '/|\.. -1 ] [ 144 A 0 ]
> >
> > ^/<code><nominal> e.g. ^/148F or ^/144D
> > _/<code><nominal> e.g. _/80E or _/133A
> >
>
>
>
> Well.
>
> Please tell me that in spite of everything I'm reading here, that
this
> program has a GUI. If not, could someone then explain to me how
this
> program -- or any such program using only command-lines -- is an
> advantage to everyday users, as opposed to programs with a
> user-friendly GUI?
>
> Let me clarify up front that I do NOT want to denigrate the use of
such
> programs, nor the immense thought and effort (not to mention time)
spent
> in creating them. I have no doubt that this is a worthy musical
> software. If a composer is comfortable with this method, more
power to
> them indeed.
>
> My one and only complaint here is in the counter-intuitive,
> user-unfriendly, excruciatingly painful and tedious means by which
a
> mere handful of notes are produced. If I wish to use this software
-- or
> another similar to it -- I am immediately discouraged from doing
so by
> the nearly vertical learning-curve. Frankly, as my time here in
your
> world is limited, I'd rather spend it making music in the most
> expeditious manner possible.
>
> I just recently downloaded Csound, a program that until recently
you
> couldn't have paid me cash to attempt to deal with. I decided to
give it
> a test-run only after Dave's most recent work was posted...and
then,
> only after discovering that there was at least one GUI (Blue) that
I
> could use with it to reduce command-line excesses to a minimum.
>
> (I might note here that I foolishly took a peek at the Csound
reference
> manual and as a consequence, lay down on the floor in a fetal
position
> for several hours. I was later roused out of this state by the
gentle
> application of kicks by my wife.)
>
> We've had this discussion before. But I have to say again that the
> nearly infinite capabilities of such programs (also their
availability
> as freeware) don't at all compensate for the equally near-infinite
> trouble it takes to use them. For those who enjoy working with
the
> left-brain, linear aspects of command-line interfaces it's no
> problem.....which of course, leaves the rest of us (especially
> beginners) entirely out in the cold. Deliberate discrimination?
Hope
> not.
>
> Suppose a poet wanted to compose a sonnet to be read by another
poet to
> an audience. He sits down to pencil and paper -- only to discover
that
> he must first compose his sonnet in Sumerian cuneiform, then hand
it to
> a translator, who renders it to English then gives it to the
reading
> poet. The first poet won't know if his Sumerian cuneiform renders
to
> English accurately, until this cumbersome process is finished. If
he
> needs to alter a word or phrase, he cannot simply erase....he must
again
> use Sumerian cuneiform and repeat until satisfied. Hardly an
elegant
> solution to writing a sonnet. That's not to say that good poetry
> couldn't be written thus; but how many poets do you think would
rather
> just do it themselves with pencil and paper?
>
> Some of the ingenuity that goes into creating these wonderful
programs
> could surely be directed towards creating a user-friendly GUI to
easily
> access them, yes?
>
>
>
> NOTE: If the this program does indeed have a user-friendly GUI, I
hereby
> apologize for the above rant and make use of the following quote
--
>
> "Never mind." -- Ms. Emily Latella
>