Yahoo Tuning Groups Ultimate Backup makemicromusic Gene, just try microcsound first (was: quasi-bandlimited sawtooth and pulse waveforms)

Gene,

You never have to look at Csound code to use microcsound, except to know
what the instrument numbers are, and what parameters you are dealing with
for an instrument!!!

Give it a whirl, I already spent years working on it for precisely this
purpose. Did you read the tutorial to see what it can do? It has JI, it has
arbitrary EDOs, including non-octave scales....
pitches are specified either by oct/degree of the EDO, or symbolic diatonic
notation if you wish. It's very flexible with expression, too: you can
specify attack levels, legato vs. staccato, do crescendi, etc.

My 12 year old composition student uses it, he barely knows Csound orchestra
hacking, so I'm pretty sure you can use it too ;)

AKJ

On Tue, Mar 29, 2011 at 11:34 AM, genewardsmith <genewardsmith@...
> wrote:

>
>
> --- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, Aaron Krister Johnson <aaron@...>
> wrote:
>
> > Gene, is you look at the 'microcsound.orc' file, there are plenty of
> > instruments to plunder there. If there's time later, I can make some
> unified
> > .csd format instruments for you, in the meantime, if you are feeling
> > impatient and interpid enough, you can read about how to easily make a
> > unified .csd from a separate .orc and .sco yourself at
>
> The .csd idea is backwards from where I want to go. My idea is that you
> should never need to look at the .orc file anyway, since it will work on a
> .sco file which has a standardized format. Messing about with .csd cleans
> things up in some ways, but it's extremely geeky, and I want to see CSound
> de-geekified. I would be happy to be a tester for this plan, though my rate
> of music production is on the slow side and someone like Chris might be
> better; I think this group would be a great place to try it out on. It could
> start very small, with just a few instruments.
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>

--
Aaron Krister Johnson
http://www.akjmusic.com
http://www.untwelve.org

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

🔗genewardsmith <genewardsmith@...>

🔗Aaron Krister Johnson <aaron@...>

Gene, I can help you offline if you want. The install is trying to make it
KISS principle, on an OS that most of the time is fairly KISS (granted there
are some really bad unix hell in any Unix based OS---the best OS ever to put
KISS into practice was BeOS, but I digress). Not my problem that Windows
doesn't work that way! (i.e. the stupid hell called the registry)

No, microcsound isn't necessary, but it's already made, and it does what
you're trying to do. A .sco file is general for a reason, not designed to be
any one standard, since 'instruments' can mean wildly different things in a
Csound context....trust me, you don't want to reinvent the wheel. So, I
would go with learning how to get this going, and help me make it
better...I'm open and friendly about taking feature requests.

The other reason you don't want to go .sco file editing by hand is that it's
a PITA anyway, and you can't see counterpoint horizontally like you can
clearly in an .mc file. This vertical time format is the same thing plaguing
the .seq format in scala, which is otherwise excellent software.

AKJ

On Tue, Mar 29, 2011 at 3:46 PM, genewardsmith
<genewardsmith@...>wrote:

>
>
> --- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, Aaron Krister Johnson <aaron@...>
> wrote:
>
> > Give it a whirl, I already spent years working on it for precisely this
> > purpose.
>
> Editing the Python installer to work on Windows is a big task, involving
> more than the direction of the slash marks and redirecting where the
> installation goes to, it also has a bunch of 'nix commands in there. I can't
> do it, since I don't know the program. Anyway actually installing something
> in Windows means screwing around with the registry. I also don't know what
> all these large .pvx files are for, and whether I need to get a reader for
> them. On the other hand the .orc file, if I changed the sf2 font entries so
> they would work, would be a start.
>
> A portable version designed to work on Windows would be great. You don't
> need to install things, I would imagine, and probably shouldn't, so long as
> Python and CSound are installed if that is required. A portable version
> involving no installation whatever and working on the KISS principle would
> be terrific.
>
> An explanation of what format a .sco file should be in, assuming we are
> going to use N-edo for a given value of N for the note data if that is what
> is required, would be nice. I don't see that mc is really necessary if we
> could just get a friggin' standard .orc format going.
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>

--
Aaron Krister Johnson
http://www.akjmusic.com
http://www.untwelve.org

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

🔗Aaron Krister Johnson <aaron@...>

Short answer for install: you can manually place things in certain paths on
Windows, I assume, as long as you can get reigistry permission or whatever,
and as long as the microcsound script variables themselves are set to find
where things should be.

Not to mention that Csound is correctly istalled and configured, which I've
heard is a major PITA in Windows. If you got that far, most of the work is
done....

AKJ

On Tue, Mar 29, 2011 at 3:46 PM, genewardsmith
<genewardsmith@...>wrote:

--
Aaron Krister Johnson
http://www.akjmusic.com
http://www.untwelve.org

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

🔗genewardsmith <genewardsmith@...>

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, Aaron Krister Johnson <aaron@...> wrote:
> A .sco file is general for a reason, not designed to be
> any one standard, since 'instruments' can mean wildly different things in a
> Csound context....trust me, you don't want to reinvent the wheel.

I don't want wildly different things, I want instruments for making music. I think the above point of view is fine if you want to totally geek out, but it's not so good for starting out. It most decidedly is not CSound for Dummies. And asking for an .orc file with a standard format, which I've been doing for years, is like pulling teeth from a mule, so I'm pretty certain it's what's needed.

So, I
> would go with learning how to get this going, and help me make it
> better...I'm open and friendly about taking feature requests.

You mean getting your program to work on Windows? That will entail some considerable amount of work and neither of us is up to the task.

> The other reason you don't want to go .sco file editing by hand is that it's
> a PITA anyway, and you can't see counterpoint horizontally like you can
> clearly in an .mc file. This vertical time format is the same thing plaguing
> the .seq format in scala, which is otherwise excellent software.

Vertical is just fine with me, as I don't propose to compose directly onto a .sco file any more than I do onto a .seq file. A format that closely followed .seq would be terrific, and pretty natural for CSound. I really don't see it as a PITA. What I would see as a PITA would be symbols allegedly making things easier, rather than numbers. What is really, really, REALLY a PITA is the lack of a fixed standard for .sco files.

🔗Aaron Krister Johnson <aaron@...>

Gene,

On Tue, Mar 29, 2011 at 8:06 PM, genewardsmith
<genewardsmith@...>wrote:

>
>
> --- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, Aaron Krister Johnson <aaron@...>
> wrote:
> > A .sco file is general for a reason, not designed to be
> > any one standard, since 'instruments' can mean wildly different things in
> a
> > Csound context....trust me, you don't want to reinvent the wheel.
>
> I don't want wildly different things, I want instruments for making music.
> I think the above point of view is fine if you want to totally geek out, but
> it's not so good for starting out. It most decidedly is not CSound for
> Dummies. And asking for an .orc file with a standard format, which I've been
> doing for years, is like pulling teeth from a mule, so I'm pretty certain
> it's what's needed.
>
>
First, you've got a good basic set of instruments if you've downloaded the
zip file I sent a link for....they even have a standard set of expected
p-fields, 1-7!!!

Since people are doing different things with Csound, an enforced public
standard format doesn't make sense. There are 3 p-fields which are
guaranteed in a .sco file: instrument number, onset beat, duration. The rest
are user definable. Why? Not every conceivable instrument uses or needs
extra p-fields. So no standard is or should be enforced. Now, one can make a
private standard, as I, or Michael Gogins, have done, where you define a few
other expected positional parameters, etc. But to try to 'enforce' that
standard across the user base of Csound would be ludicrous. It's designed to
be open and flexible sound programming, doing whatever general sound problem
one can devise.

So, the answer in this domain, MIDI-like but flexible microtonal composition
realization, is a standardized *front-end*, which is what you have with my
script, microcsound.

> So, I
> > would go with learning how to get this going, and help me make it
> > better...I'm open and friendly about taking feature requests.
>
> You mean getting your program to work on Windows? That will entail some
> considerable amount of work and neither of us is up to the task.
>
>
I don't think so. I think if we can put it in some standard places and make
a .BAT file for Windows that follows the functionality of my existing
install.py file, we're set, and then other Windows users cold follow suit,
should they choose. I'm not motivated to do this, b/c I don't have/like/use
Windows. But I'm willing to help you get up and running.

> > The other reason you don't want to go .sco file editing by hand is that
> it's
> > a PITA anyway, and you can't see counterpoint horizontally like you can
> > clearly in an .mc file. This vertical time format is the same thing
> plaguing
> > the .seq format in scala, which is otherwise excellent software.
>
> Vertical is just fine with me, as I don't propose to compose directly onto
> a .sco file any more than I do onto a .seq file. A format that closely
> followed .seq would be terrific, and pretty natural for CSound.

.seq and .sco are very easy to translate one to the other. They are both
vertical formats. Why anyone would want to type directly a .sco file is
beyond me, but some people do. More power to them. It would just slow me
down.

> I really don't see it as a PITA. What I would see as a PITA would be
> symbols allegedly making things easier, rather than numbers.

You can use symbols OR numbers freely in microcsound.

"c d e f g a b c'" is the same, in 12-equal, as "0 2 4 5 7 9 11 12"

> What is really, really, REALLY a PITA is the lack of a fixed standard for
> .sco files.
>
>
Again, this isn't a problem, it's a feature --- it's called generality.
Besides, it's not even true---.sco files have a definite standard and
expected syntax. But anyway, certain p-fields would be meaningless in
certain instruments whereas others need dozens and dozens. So this
generality, it allows people to create their own domain space to work in.
It's also not a problem in your domain, because you've been presented with a
solution. The only problem in your case is getting scripts on your
exectuable path! :)

Isn't there a way to install something manually by copying it to an
exectuables directory, registry be damned?

What the hell is the point of the registry, anyway?....it's like an /etc
directory, done badly, I think. Well, anyway, that's another topic....

AKJ

>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>

--
Aaron Krister Johnson
http://www.akjmusic.com
http://www.untwelve.org

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

🔗genewardsmith <genewardsmith@...>

🔗Aaron Krister Johnson <aaron@...>

On Tue, Mar 29, 2011 at 8:28 PM, genewardsmith
<genewardsmith@...>wrote:

>
>
> --- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, Aaron Krister Johnson <aaron@...>
> wrote:
> >
> > Short answer for install: you can manually place things in certain paths
> on
> > Windows, I assume, as long as you can get reigistry permission or
> whatever,
> > and as long as the microcsound script variables themselves are set to
> find
> > where things should be.
>
> You can put anything anywhere you like in Windows, but I don't recommend we
> screw around with the registry. Is all we are talking about getting a Python
> script to work?

Yes, but also having a place for the microcsound.orc file, and making sure
Csound is set up correctly, meaning SSDIR, SADIR, etc. are defined as
environment variables on your machine. Some extra stuff, like the .pvx
files, which you may not even use, go there.

> Because that probably could be done, and in that case all this talk about
> installation is irrelevant. If I get the microsound Python script to work,
> am I done?

Pretty much. Yup.

> I'll ask again about versions--is 2.7 good enough, or is this another of
> those deals where I should uninstall it and install something else?
>
>
I think any Python 2.x should work. I've not made the switch to 3 yet; it's
an altogether different animal.

> > Not to mention that Csound is correctly istalled and configured, which
> I've
> > heard is a major PITA in Windows.
>
> It's easily done in Windows, but only because someone did the hard work of
> porting it from 'nix in the first place.
>
>
Well, if you have Csound up and running already, like I said, 90% of the
battle is over.

AKJ

>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>

--
Aaron Krister Johnson
http://www.akjmusic.com
http://www.untwelve.org

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

🔗Chris Vaisvil <chrisvaisvil@...>

🔗genewardsmith <genewardsmith@...>

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, Aaron Krister Johnson <aaron@...> wrote:

> Now, one can make a
> private standard, as I, or Michael Gogins, have done, where you define a few
> other expected positional parameters, etc.

I'm not trying to "enforce" anything, I'm just trying to find out what the %$%#^ private standards are, and it's like pulling teeth. Why is it so hard for the people who create these standards to at least provide example .sco files?

> > What is really, really, REALLY a PITA is the lack of a fixed standard for
> > .sco files.
> >
> >
> Again, this isn't a problem, it's a feature --- it's called generality.

It's called unusability so far as most people are concerned, I am sure. Which is why I think a For Dummies project here would be a good idea. But your reaction is the typical CSound one, acting as if I am proposing a Czar take over rule of all the Csound orchestras.

> Besides, it's not even true---.sco files have a definite standard and
> expected syntax.

To a certain point, and then it stops. And people can take those standards and screw around with them because in CSound you can screw around with anything.

But anyway, certain p-fields would be meaningless in
> certain instruments whereas others need dozens and dozens.

And a typical CSound orc file doesn't document how they get used, much less provide examples.

> Isn't there a way to install something manually by copying it to an
> exectuables directory, registry be damned?

This isn't making sense in Windows terms, but I get the impression maybe I can just edit the Python script.

🔗Graham Breed <gbreed@...>

🔗Aaron Krister Johnson <aaron@...>

Gene,

On Tue, Mar 29, 2011 at 8:47 PM, genewardsmith
<genewardsmith@...>wrote:

>
>
> --- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, Aaron Krister Johnson <aaron@...>
> wrote:
>
> > Now, one can make a
> > private standard, as I, or Michael Gogins, have done, where you define a
> few
> > other expected positional parameters, etc.
>
> I'm not trying to "enforce" anything, I'm just trying to find out what the
> %$%#^ private standards are, and it's like pulling teeth. Why is it so hard
> for the people who create these standards to at least provide example .sco
> files?
>
>
Sometimes, those people take a break and have to put their daughter to bed.
:)

So, here is an example Csound .sco file:

t 0.0 96
i200 0 -1
i201.0 0.000 0.460 0.66 1 0.5 1
i202.0 0.000 0.460 0.66 1 0.5 1 .7 .27 .5 8000
i1.0 0.000 0.968 0.66 327.17991 0.7 1 .7 .27 .5 8000
i1.0 1.000 0.968 0.66 292.57243 0.7 1 .7 .27 .5 8000
i1.0 2.000 0.968 0.66 261.62557 0.7 1 .7 .27 .5 8000
i1.0 3.000 0.968 0.66 292.57243 0.7 1 .7 .27 .5 8000
i1.0 4.000 0.320 0.66 327.17991 0.7 1 .7 .27 .5 8000
i1.0 5.000 0.320 0.66 327.17991 0.7 1 .7 .27 .5 8000
i1.0 6.000 1.968 0.66 327.17991 0.7 1 .7 .27 .5 8000
i1.0 8.000 0.968 0.66 292.57243 0.7 1 .7 .27 .5 8000
i1.0 9.000 0.968 0.66 292.57243 0.7 1 .7 .27 .5 8000
i1.0 10.000 1.968 0.66 292.57243 0.7 1 .7 .27 .5 8000
i1.0 12.000 0.968 0.66 327.17991 0.7 1 .7 .27 .5 8000
i1.0 13.000 0.968 0.66 391.26571 0.7 1 .7 .27 .5 8000
i1.0 14.000 1.968 0.66 391.26571 0.7 1 .7 .27 .5 8000
i1.0 16.000 0.968 0.66 327.17991 0.7 1 .7 .27 .5 8000
i1.0 17.000 0.968 0.66 292.57243 0.7 1 .7 .27 .5 8000
i1.0 18.000 0.968 0.66 261.62557 0.7 1 .7 .27 .5 8000
i1.0 19.000 0.968 0.66 292.57243 0.7 1 .7 .27 .5 8000
i1.0 20.000 0.320 0.66 327.17991 0.7 1 .7 .27 .5 8000
i1.0 21.000 0.320 0.66 327.17991 0.7 1 .7 .27 .5 8000
i1.0 22.000 1.968 0.66 327.17991 0.7 1 .7 .27 .5 8000
i1.0 24.000 0.968 0.66 292.57243 0.7 1 .7 .27 .5 8000
i1.0 25.000 0.968 0.66 292.57243 0.7 1 .7 .27 .5 8000
i1.0 26.000 0.968 0.66 327.17991 0.7 1 .7 .27 .5 8000
i1.0 27.000 0.968 0.66 292.57243 0.7 1 .7 .27 .5 8000
i1.0 28.000 2.968 0.66 261.62557 0.7 1 .7 .27 .5 8000
i1.0 29.000 0.968 0.66 174.93978 0.7 1 .7 .27 .5 8000
i1.0 29.000 0.968 0.66 218.77365 0.7 1 .7 .27 .5 8000
i1.0 30.000 0.968 0.66 163.58996 0.7 1 .7 .27 .5 8000
i1.0 30.000 0.968 0.66 195.63286 0.7 1 .7 .27 .5 8000
i1.0 0.000 1.468 0.66 130.81278 0.4 1 .7 .27 .5 8000
i1.0 1.500 0.320 0.66 130.81278 0.4 1 .7 .27 .5 8000
i1.0 2.000 0.968 0.66 97.81643 0.4 1 .7 .27 .5 8000
i1.0 3.000 0.968 0.66 97.81643 0.4 1 .7 .27 .5 8000
i1.0 4.000 0.968 0.66 130.81278 0.4 1 .7 .27 .5 8000
i1.0 5.000 0.968 0.66 195.63286 0.4 1 .7 .27 .5 8000
i1.0 6.000 0.468 0.66 130.81278 0.4 1 .7 .27 .5 8000
i1.0 6.500 0.468 0.66 122.32585 0.4 1 .7 .27 .5 8000
i1.0 7.000 0.968 0.66 130.81278 0.4 1 .7 .27 .5 8000
i1.0 8.000 0.968 0.66 195.63286 0.4 1 .7 .27 .5 8000
i1.0 9.500 0.468 0.66 195.63286 0.4 1 .7 .27 .5 8000
i1.0 10.000 0.968 0.66 97.81643 0.4 1 .7 .27 .5 8000
i1.0 11.000 0.468 0.66 109.38683 0.4 1 .7 .27 .5 8000
i1.0 11.500 0.468 0.66 122.32585 0.4 1 .7 .27 .5 8000
i1.0 12.000 0.968 0.66 130.81278 0.4 1 .7 .27 .5 8000
i1.0 13.000 0.968 0.66 195.63286 0.4 1 .7 .27 .5 8000
i1.0 14.000 0.968 0.66 130.81278 0.4 1 .7 .27 .5 8000
i1.0 15.000 0.968 0.66 97.81643 0.4 1 .7 .27 .5 8000
i1.0 16.000 1.468 0.66 130.81278 0.4 1 .7 .27 .5 8000
i1.0 17.500 0.320 0.66 130.81278 0.4 1 .7 .27 .5 8000
i1.0 18.000 0.968 0.66 195.63286 0.4 1 .7 .27 .5 8000
i1.0 19.000 0.968 0.66 97.81643 0.4 1 .7 .27 .5 8000
i1.0 20.000 0.968 0.66 130.81278 0.4 1 .7 .27 .5 8000
i1.0 21.000 0.968 0.66 195.63286 0.4 1 .7 .27 .5 8000
i1.0 22.000 0.468 0.66 130.81278 0.4 1 .7 .27 .5 8000
i1.0 22.500 0.468 0.66 122.32585 0.4 1 .7 .27 .5 8000
i1.0 23.000 0.468 0.66 130.81278 0.4 1 .7 .27 .5 8000
i1.0 23.500 0.468 0.66 81.79498 0.4 1 .7 .27 .5 8000
i1.0 24.000 0.968 0.66 97.81643 0.4 1 .7 .27 .5 8000
i1.0 25.000 0.968 0.66 97.81643 0.4 1 .7 .27 .5 8000
i1.0 26.000 0.468 0.66 97.81643 0.4 1 .7 .27 .5 8000
i1.0 26.500 0.468 0.66 109.38683 0.4 1 .7 .27 .5 8000
i1.0 27.000 0.468 0.66 122.32585 0.4 1 .7 .27 .5 8000
i1.0 27.500 0.468 0.66 97.81643 0.4 1 .7 .27 .5 8000
i1.0 28.000 0.968 0.66 109.38683 0.4 1 .7 .27 .5 8000
i1.0 29.000 0.968 0.66 87.46989 0.4 1 .7 .27 .5 8000
i1.0 30.000 0.968 0.66 130.81278 0.4 1 .7 .27 .5 8000
e

It doesn't have an f-statement, which is a function table statement, and one
sometimes sees those. It has a t-statement, which is tempo. Tempo can
change, so you define the change points in the t-statement at the beginning.
Look up t-statement in the manual, really simple; it's a series of
beat/new-tempo pairs, all in a row. Here it says at beat 0, we are at 96
beats per minute. End of story.

Then the rest of the score is i-statements. This is common. An i-statement
turns an instrument on. here's the breakdown of the last line:

i1.0 30.000 0.968 0.66 130.81278 0.4 1 .7 .27 .5 8000

is "instr 1 comes on at beat 30, lasts for 0.968 beats, attack volume 0.66,
pitch 130.81278hz,
pan is 0.4 (just left of center) mix level 1 (typical max, tho I can go
beyond if I want). There are extra parameters here, but they are safely
ignored holdovers from a global "extra parameter" variable that microcsound
holds in its memory. If a .sco file has such extra parameters, but the
called instrument doesn't use them, they are safely ignored. They come from
the top, where i202 is called. i202 in my .orc is a mixer control
instrument, and these are mixer control parameters: Dry level, Wet level,
Reverb size, Reverb filter cutoff.

So, the meaning of the extra parameters, if any, is set by you, the user,
because being forced to say, always, that slot 11 is filter cutoff level
when your sound has nothing to do with that or doesn't need that, is a kind
of fascism. ;)

Here's the input to microcsound that produced this .sco file:

1: div=0 i=201 1 &0 i=202 ".7%.27%.5%8000" 1 &0
1: div=31 t=96 i=1 pan=0.7
2: div=31 pan=0.4
#
1: 1/4 e d c d | .e .e e2 |
2: 1/8 c,3 .c, g,,2 g,,2 | 1/4 c, g, 1/8 c,b,,c,2 |
#
1: 1/4 d d d2 | e g g2 |
2: 1/8 g,2 zg, g,,2a,,b,, |1/4 c,g,c,g,,|
#
1: 1/4 e d c d | .e .e e2 |
2: 1/8 c,3 .c, g,2 g,,2 | 1/4 c, g, 1/8 c,b,,c,e,, |
#
1: 1/4 d d e d | c3 z &-4 z [f,a,] [e,g,] z ||
2: 1/4 g,,g,, 1/8 g,,a,,b,,g,, | 1/4 a,,f,,c,z ||

You tell me, what's easier to think about or look at?

AKJ

> > > What is really, really, REALLY a PITA is the lack of a fixed standard
> for
> > > .sco files.
> > >
> > >
> > Again, this isn't a problem, it's a feature --- it's called generality.
>
> It's called unusability so far as most people are concerned, I am sure.
> Which is why I think a For Dummies project here would be a good idea. But
> your reaction is the typical CSound one, acting as if I am proposing a Czar
> take over rule of all the Csound orchestras.
>
>
You are making up battles with people in your head.

> > Besides, it's not even true---.sco files have a definite standard and
> > expected syntax.
>
> To a certain point, and then it stops. And people can take those standards
> and screw around with them because in CSound you can screw around with
> anything.
>

Yup, and that's the point.

>
> But anyway, certain p-fields would be meaningless in
> > certain instruments whereas others need dozens and dozens.
>
> And a typical CSound orc file doesn't document how they get used, much less
> provide examples.
>

One wouldn't necessarily need to document one's own instruments if one knows
what they do, and one has learned Csound.

I didn't write my orchestra file and say to myself: I wonder if this is
going to confuse Gene someday---better comment it!!!

Do you comment your math work so I can grok it?

>
> > Isn't there a way to install something manually by copying it to an
> > exectuables directory, registry be damned?
>
> This isn't making sense in Windows terms, but I get the impression maybe I
> can just edit the Python script.
>
>
I think so!

AKJ

--
Aaron Krister Johnson
http://www.akjmusic.com
http://www.untwelve.org

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]