convincing Gene re:Csound --- part 8327

Gene, like I said, if you get a good collection of other folks instruments,
you won't have to design any. Of course, there are advantages to designing
your own, but take 'em or leave 'em.....

Again, not having to deal with the pitch bend thing or the usual mis-mapping
of any exotic scales b/c a simple soundfont sampler can't think beyond 12
pitches per octave are the reasons you'd want to get into the more flexible
world of Csound. Not to mention specifying pitch in any number of different
convenient ways (not just note number), depending on the task at hand...

AKJ

On Tue, Mar 29, 2011 at 3:06 PM, genewardsmith
<genewardsmith@...>wrote:

>
>
> --- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, Carl Lumma <carl@...> wrote:
> >
> > Gene wrote:
> > >why should I need to invest so
> > >much time and effort into something so tangential to actual music?
> >
> > You keep giving me ammo! -C.
>
> Carl, the difference is I don't WANT to design instruments. I only
> exception to that might be instruments with partial tones tweaked to a
> particular regular temperament.
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>

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

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

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, Aaron Krister Johnson <aaron@...> wrote:
>
> Gene, like I said, if you get a good collection of other folks instruments,
> you won't have to design any.

No, but you need to figure out how each individual instrument works and what kind of format it expects, because there's no standardization. What a nightmare!

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, "genewardsmith" <genewardsmith@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> --- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, Aaron Krister Johnson <aaron@> wrote:
> >
> > Gene, like I said, if you get a good collection of other folks instruments,
> > you won't have to design any.
>
> No, but you need to figure out how each individual instrument works and what kind of format it expects, because there's no standardization. What a nightmare!

Let's assume that we had a standardized order for instrument controls. There could even be some vague things like "expression" just like in MIDI. But what if the instrument has extra controls beyond the standard ones, for example the plucking point in a guitar model?

Kalle

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, "Kalle Aho" <kalleaho@...> wrote:

> Let's assume that we had a standardized order for instrument controls. There could even be some vague things like "expression" just like in MIDI. But what if the instrument has extra controls beyond the standard ones, for example the plucking point in a guitar model?

I'd add an extra slot which doesn't need to contain anything for extras.

I believe Csound will simply ignore excess parameters. Will it also
allow for defaults?

On 3/29/11, Kalle Aho <kalleaho@...> wrote:
>
>
> --- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, "genewardsmith" <genewardsmith@...>
> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> --- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, Aaron Krister Johnson <aaron@>
>> wrote:
>> >
>> > Gene, like I said, if you get a good collection of other folks
>> > instruments,
>> > you won't have to design any.
>>
>> No, but you need to figure out how each individual instrument works and
>> what kind of format it expects, because there's no standardization. What a
>> nightmare!
>
> Let's assume that we had a standardized order for instrument controls. There
> could even be some vague things like "expression" just like in MIDI. But
> what if the instrument has extra controls beyond the standard ones, for
> example the plucking point in a guitar model?
>
> Kalle
>
>

At 03:05 PM 3/29/2011, Gene wrote:

>> Let's assume that we had a standardized order for instrument
>controls. There could even be some vague things like "expression" just
>like in MIDI. But what if the instrument has extra controls beyond the
>standard ones, for example the plucking point in a guitar model?
>
>I'd add an extra slot which doesn't need to contain anything for extras.

MIDI already has those. They're called continuous controllers.

-Carl

But, like BT says, MIDI sucks.

I don't think it _totally_ sucks, but for certain things, like timing
resolution, it's pretty bad.

And, still no universal implementation of proposed standards, like the
tuning standard.

Gene, in microcsound, I have 7 standard slots, and extra parameters come
after, on a per instrument basis. No two instruments will have the same
design, so it has to be that way, because the world is complex.

AKJ

On Tue, Mar 29, 2011 at 5:11 PM, Carl Lumma <carl@...> wrote:

> At 03:05 PM 3/29/2011, Gene wrote:
>
> >> Let's assume that we had a standardized order for instrument
> >controls. There could even be some vague things like "expression" just
> >like in MIDI. But what if the instrument has extra controls beyond the
> >standard ones, for example the plucking point in a guitar model?
> >
> >I'd add an extra slot which doesn't need to contain anything for extras.
>
> MIDI already has those. They're called continuous controllers.
>
> -Carl
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>

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

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

At 04:59 PM 3/29/2011, you wrote:
>But, like BT says, MIDI sucks.

But, like Carl says, BT's music sucks.

-Carl

Not so bad, we can fight with this. Avoid aftertouch, MIDI clock, MTC, erase unnecessary data, use running status, humanization (randomization), clever channel/track assignment, clever play algorithms, divide stream among more ports... in the worse case do music with less notes, that's always good idea :-)

I had never problem with MIDI.

Daniel Forro

On Mar 30, 2011, at 8:59 AM, Aaron Krister Johnson wrote:

> But, like BT says, MIDI sucks.
>
> I don't think it _totally_ sucks, but for certain things, like timing
> resolution, it's pretty bad.
>

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, Carl Lumma <carl@...> wrote:
> But, like Carl says, BT's music sucks.

Not all of it.

Some of it is cheese, some of it is amazingly rich, amounting to some of the
richest electronic timbral work I've ever heard.

Even the cheezy stuff has unparalleled top-notch production values.
Meaning--ear candy like you've never heard.

AKj

On Tue, Mar 29, 2011 at 7:10 PM, Carl Lumma <carl@...> wrote:

> At 04:59 PM 3/29/2011, you wrote:
> >But, like BT says, MIDI sucks.
>
> But, like Carl says, BT's music sucks.
>
> -Carl
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>

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

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

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

> Gene, in microcsound, I have 7 standard slots, and extra parameters come
> after, on a per instrument basis. No two instruments will have the same
> design, so it has to be that way, because the world is complex.

"Complex" is not KISS. If it's so essential, why doesn't midi have the same problem?

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, "jonszanto" <jszanto@...> wrote:
>
> --- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, Carl Lumma <carl@> wrote:
> > But, like Carl says, BT's music sucks.
>
> Not all of it.

Who is BT, and if he doesn't suck, why don't I know the answer to that question?

Jon wrote:

>> But, like Carl says, BT's music sucks.
>
>Not all of it.

Everything I've heard has been spectacularly-produced, completely
souless, boring music. And this from someone who liked Tranceport.

-Carl

I found this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BT_(musician)

Is it right answer?

Never heard about him.

Daniel Forro

On Mar 30, 2011, at 10:33 AM, genewardsmith wrote:

>
>
> --- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, "jonszanto" <jszanto@...> > wrote:
>>
>> --- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, Carl Lumma <carl@> wrote:
>>> But, like Carl says, BT's music sucks.
>>
>> Not all of it.
>
> Who is BT, and if he doesn't suck, why don't I know the answer to > that question?

Aaron wrote:

>Some of it is cheese, some of it is amazingly rich, amounting to some
>of the richest electronic timbral work I've ever heard.
>
>Even the cheezy stuff has unparalleled top-notch production values.
>Meaning--ear candy like you've never heard.

It sounds like you're agreeing with me (I have Emotional Technology
and the Monster soundtrack, and have heard a bunch of other stuff).

But honestly, timbral work is so boring these days. How many ways
can we really get excited by a filter sweep? Progress in synthesis
was exciting for a few decades, but I feel like it's finally run up
into all the ways I can hear... a filter sweep. Give me an acoustic
instrument in an intimate space and some fine 'pitchal work' any day.

-Carl

My ears have pricked up with all this Csound talk.

Folk, I'd have thought that - especially on a list dedicated to making music
with 'non-standard' tuning systems, that most of you would agree that - in
general - standards can:

a) make some things more convenient
b) direct people into doing things in a certain way
and
c) make the 'non standard' things harder

Yep... a Csound score is more general than MIDI.... I guess to lots of
musicians, that is just inconvenient.

But... why wouldn't people on this list in particular - see the generality
as a good thing?

ok, back to lurking.

TK

On Wed, Mar 30, 2011 at 8:11 AM, Carl Lumma <carl@...> wrote:

>
>
> At 03:05 PM 3/29/2011, Gene wrote:
>
> >> Let's assume that we had a standardized order for instrument
> >controls. There could even be some vague things like "expression" just
> >like in MIDI. But what if the instrument has extra controls beyond the
> >standard ones, for example the plucking point in a guitar model?
> >
> >I'd add an extra slot which doesn't need to contain anything for extras.
>
> MIDI already has those. They're called continuous controllers.
>
> -Carl
>
>
>

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

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, thorin kerr <thorin.kerr@...> wrote:

> But... why wouldn't people on this list in particular - see the generality
> as a good thing?

It's fine, but what if you don't want to spend all day every day reading about CSound and are more interested in making music?

Hey Gene,

On Tue, Mar 29, 2011 at 11:02 PM, genewardsmith <genewardsmith@...
> wrote:

>
>
> --- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, thorin kerr <thorin.kerr@...>
> wrote:
>
> > But... why wouldn't people on this list in particular - see the
> generality
> > as a good thing?
>
> It's fine, but what if you don't want to spend all day every day reading
> about CSound and are more interested in making music?
>
>
By all means, continue using Timidity++ or whatever to make music....sounds
like this is uphill for you.

AKJ

>
>
>

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

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

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

Well, obviously, if you don't think Csound will be helpful to you making
music... then don't use it.

you know... this kind of discussion is always going to come down to personal
interests and preferences. Here's my 2c:

I like generality and a 'clean table' (or at least the illusion of such),
when it comes to compositional tools. Mostly because I can kind of tell what
influence the instrument I'm using has had on my work. Sometimes the
influence is obvious: When I first encountered Sound Designer II I was so
impressed with the ability to mix together a whole 4 channels of audio, I
ended up making lots of 4 channel pieces. Sometimes it's more subtle: When I
wrote dots on paper, I had a tendency to have section changes according to
page turns. To be fair... sometimes it can be positive: My experience with a
keyboardless analogue synth pushed me into wonderfully challenging places.

Point is... in lieu of my perfect tool designed to make perfect 'Thorin
music', then generality and flexibility becomes an important quality. I'm
actually a little surprised that you'd see generality and flexibility in a
compositional tool as counter to making music, but I guess, we all have
different priorities. I'm also not saying Csound - or any tool - gets you
out of the 'instrument influence' paradigm, but it's an improvement to
'fighting' with MIDI. Now that's no way to make music!

ok... turns out I'm a bad lurker.
Thorin

On Wed, Mar 30, 2011 at 2:02 PM, genewardsmith
<genewardsmith@sbcglobal.net>wrote:

>
>
>
>
> --- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, thorin kerr <thorin.kerr@...>
> wrote:
>
> > But... why wouldn't people on this list in particular - see the
> generality
> > as a good thing?
>
> It's fine, but what if you don't want to spend all day every day reading
> about CSound and are more interested in making music?
>
>
>

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

Hey Carl,

On Tue, Mar 29, 2011 at 8:54 PM, Carl Lumma <carl@...> wrote:

> Aaron wrote:
>
> >Some of it is cheese, some of it is amazingly rich, amounting to some
> >of the richest electronic timbral work I've ever heard.
> >
> >Even the cheezy stuff has unparalleled top-notch production values.
> >Meaning--ear candy like you've never heard.
>
> It sounds like you're agreeing with me (I have Emotional Technology
> and the Monster soundtrack, and have heard a bunch of other stuff).
>
> But honestly, timbral work is so boring these days. How many ways
> can we really get excited by a filter sweep?

Ths is a nice little straw man argument you're generating.

> Progress in synthesis
> was exciting for a few decades, but I feel like it's finally run up
> into all the ways I can hear... a filter sweep.

Strawman, continued....

> Give me an acoustic
> instrument in an intimate space and some fine 'pitchal work' any day.
>
>
...but, in general, yes I agree here. And I love great electronics in a
hardcore way.

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

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

Good thoughts, thanks. Tools tend to have far more impact on the "art" than most are willing to concede, I think.

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, thorin kerr <thorin.kerr@...> wrote:
>
> Well, obviously, if you don't think Csound will be helpful to you making
> music... then don't use it.
>
> you know... this kind of discussion is always going to come down to personal
> interests and preferences. Here's my 2c:
>
> I like generality and a 'clean table' (or at least the illusion of such),
> when it comes to compositional tools. Mostly because I can kind of tell what
> influence the instrument I'm using has had on my work. Sometimes the
> influence is obvious: When I first encountered Sound Designer II I was so
> impressed with the ability to mix together a whole 4 channels of audio, I
> ended up making lots of 4 channel pieces. Sometimes it's more subtle: When I
> wrote dots on paper, I had a tendency to have section changes according to
> page turns. To be fair... sometimes it can be positive: My experience with a
> keyboardless analogue synth pushed me into wonderfully challenging places.
>
> Point is... in lieu of my perfect tool designed to make perfect 'Thorin
> music', then generality and flexibility becomes an important quality. I'm
> actually a little surprised that you'd see generality and flexibility in a
> compositional tool as counter to making music, but I guess, we all have
> different priorities. I'm also not saying Csound - or any tool - gets you
> out of the 'instrument influence' paradigm, but it's an improvement to
> 'fighting' with MIDI. Now that's no way to make music!
>
> ok... turns out I'm a bad lurker.
> Thorin
>
>
>
>
> On Wed, Mar 30, 2011 at 2:02 PM, genewardsmith
> <genewardsmith@...>wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, thorin kerr <thorin.kerr@>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > But... why wouldn't people on this list in particular - see the
> > generality
> > > as a good thing?
> >
> > It's fine, but what if you don't want to spend all day every day reading
> > about CSound and are more interested in making music?
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

Jake Freivald <jdfreivald@...> wrote:
> I believe Csound will simply ignore excess parameters.
> Will it also allow for defaults?

It gives a warning (or non-fatal error) for excess
parameters. Use "pset" for defaults.

Graham

Any disco artist whose music does not invariably evoke the synthesthaetic experience of a bunch of frat boys trying to violate me with a statuette of Norman Rockwell is okay by me.

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, "jonszanto" <jszanto@...> wrote:
>
> --- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, Carl Lumma <carl@> wrote:
> > But, like Carl says, BT's music sucks.
>
> Not all of it.
>

Hehe. :) Ok, I give. -Carl

PS- I like how you call it disco. That's really a much more
accurate term than "techno" or "electronica".

At 12:50 AM 4/1/2011, lobawad wrote:

>Any disco artist whose music does not invariably evoke the
>synthesthaetic experience of a bunch of frat boys trying to violate me
>with a statuette of Norman Rockwell is okay by me.
>
>--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, "jonszanto" <jszanto@...> wrote:
>>
>> --- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, Carl Lumma <carl@> wrote:
>> > But, like Carl says, BT's music sucks.
>>
>> Not all of it.
>>

Well music that's played regularly in discos should be call disco, I think. Techno and electronica are downright offensive terms for music that barely scrapes the technical possibilities of electronic music. There's grossly less exploration of timing possibilites than in Nancarrow's player piano pieces, or a cuckoo clock for that matter, less tuning exploration than a couple of Bosnian guys in a bar, fewer interactive systems than a '63 VW bug... if the sociopolitical nature of it weren't so scary, it would be the biggest joke ever.

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, Carl Lumma <carl@...> wrote:
>
> Hehe. :) Ok, I give. -Carl
>
> PS- I like how you call it disco. That's really a much more
> accurate term than "techno" or "electronica".
>
> At 12:50 AM 4/1/2011, lobawad wrote:
>
> >Any disco artist whose music does not invariably evoke the
> >synthesthaetic experience of a bunch of frat boys trying to violate me
> >with a statuette of Norman Rockwell is okay by me.
> >
> >--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, "jonszanto" <jszanto@> wrote:
> >>
> >> --- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, Carl Lumma <carl@> wrote:
> >> > But, like Carl says, BT's music sucks.
> >>
> >> Not all of it.
> >>
>

I was referring to electronic disco music in general, of course there are artists who aren't spiritual policemen, and I think BT does have positive things to offer.

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, "lobawad" <lobawad@...> wrote:
>
> Well music that's played regularly in discos should be call disco, I think. Techno and electronica are downright offensive terms for music that barely scrapes the technical possibilities of electronic music. There's grossly less exploration of timing possibilites than in Nancarrow's player piano pieces, or a cuckoo clock for that matter, less tuning exploration than a couple of Bosnian guys in a bar, fewer interactive systems than a '63 VW bug... if the sociopolitical nature of it weren't so scary, it would be the biggest joke ever.
>
> --- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, Carl Lumma <carl@> wrote:
> >
> > Hehe. :) Ok, I give. -Carl
> >
> > PS- I like how you call it disco. That's really a much more
> > accurate term than "techno" or "electronica".
> >
> > At 12:50 AM 4/1/2011, lobawad wrote:
> >
> > >Any disco artist whose music does not invariably evoke the
> > >synthesthaetic experience of a bunch of frat boys trying to violate me
> > >with a statuette of Norman Rockwell is okay by me.
> > >
> > >--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, "jonszanto" <jszanto@> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> --- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, Carl Lumma <carl@> wrote:
> > >> > But, like Carl says, BT's music sucks.
> > >>
> > >> Not all of it.
> > >>
> >
>

You have a funny, witty way with words, wad-lobber! I had a chuckle here.

Cheers,
AKJ

On Fri, Apr 1, 2011 at 3:10 AM, lobawad <lobawad@...> wrote:

> Well music that's played regularly in discos should be call disco, I think.
> Techno and electronica are downright offensive terms for music that barely
> scrapes the technical possibilities of electronic music. There's grossly
> less exploration of timing possibilites than in Nancarrow's player piano
> pieces, or a cuckoo clock for that matter, less tuning exploration than a
> couple of Bosnian guys in a bar, fewer interactive systems than a '63 VW
> bug... if the sociopolitical nature of it weren't so scary, it would be the
> biggest joke ever.
>
> --- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, Carl Lumma <carl@...> wrote:
> >
> > Hehe. :) Ok, I give. -Carl
> >
> > PS- I like how you call it disco. That's really a much more
> > accurate term than "techno" or "electronica".
> >
> > At 12:50 AM 4/1/2011, lobawad wrote:
> >
> > >Any disco artist whose music does not invariably evoke the
> > >synthesthaetic experience of a bunch of frat boys trying to violate me
> > >with a statuette of Norman Rockwell is okay by me.
> > >
> > >--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, "jonszanto" <jszanto@> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> --- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, Carl Lumma <carl@> wrote:
> > >> > But, like Carl says, BT's music sucks.
> > >>
> > >> Not all of it.
> > >>
> >
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>

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

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