Tuning community?

Do we have one? Lately it seems to me I see more "sharing" of insults
and hurt feelings than of insights and music. I'm finishing up a new
piece, and wondering if there is any point to this. Will it make
anyone the least bit happier? Will the ideas involved wither and die?
Are we talking to each other, or simply shouting "fuck you!" as our
separate vehicles whizz by each other in the dark?

> Do we have one? Lately it seems to me I see more "sharing"
> of insults and hurt feelings than of insights and music. I'm
> finishing up a new piece, and wondering if there is any point
> to this. Will it make anyone the least bit happier? Will the
> ideas involved wither and die? Are we talking to each other,
> or simply shouting "fuck you!" as our separate vehicles whizz
> by each other in the dark?

I think we're (or at least some of us) just burned out.

My first coupla years on the lists (my first and still primary
exposure to online discussion), I couldn't imagine becoming
upset at an e-mail. Then I realized that some of the things
going around weren't 'funny' jabs -- people did take them
seriously and got seriously upset about them. I remember
visiting Paul and finding out that he was getting phone calls
from angry listers -- I was shocked. Then, I started getting
seriously reactive to e-mails myself. I remember sitting in
The Royal Tennebaums with some kind of heart murmur over the
flame war I was involved in at the time.

As for music, making it has to be a good thing. I listen to
everything posted to these lists, and I don't think I'm the
only one. If I don't comment it's either because I didn't
like it or because I want to give others a chance. I think
some of your music is really good and I think it's under-rated,
and I hope I've made it clear to you that I take its promotion
seriously. I also think of you as a budding artist with a
lot of untapped potential. I personally hope you can find
more of a unifying concept or voice in your pieces. I also
hope you, and all of us, will find audiences beyond these
lists for our music. Also I hope we will find audiences
beyond these lists for our music theory.

-Carl

--- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, "Carl Lumma" <clumma@y...> wrote:

> I think we're (or at least some of us) just burned out.

Tuning is not very active, and tuning-math is the home of bad feelings.

> My first coupla years on the lists (my first and still primary
> exposure to online discussion), I couldn't imagine becoming
> upset at an e-mail. Then I realized that some of the things
> going around weren't 'funny' jabs -- people did take them
> seriously and got seriously upset about them.

I think name-calling and fuck-you's crosses the line.

> As for music, making it has to be a good thing. I listen to
> everything posted to these lists, and I don't think I'm the
> only one. If I don't comment it's either because I didn't
> like it or because I want to give others a chance. I think
> some of your music is really good and I think it's under-rated,
> and I hope I've made it clear to you that I take its promotion
> seriously. I also think of you as a budding artist with a
> lot of untapped potential. I personally hope you can find
> more of a unifying concept or voice in your pieces. I also
> hope you, and all of us, will find audiences beyond these
> lists for our music. Also I hope we will find audiences
> beyond these lists for our music theory.

Interesting, and thank you. Joseph said everything I write seems to
have a certain Gene Smith feel to it, but I'm a little concerned these
faux symphonic movements I've been writing are too different. "Diamond
in the Rough" is supposed to be a sort of first movement, and "Totally
Tubular" a slow movement. The piece I am finishing now is a
Beethoveneque concluding movement complete with what I like to think
is triumphant optimism. Obviously, I was thinking of writing four
symphonic pieces and calling it a symphony, but since I am hell-bent
on using a different set of premises for each piece (why repeat
yourself?) I may have created a problem with unity. Maybe I need a
steadying dose of Papa Haydn.

Anyway, I think the idea of using sound samples to write a microtonal
symphony is interesting; I don't know of any examples.

--- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, "Gene Ward Smith" <gwsmith@s...> wrote:
> I think name-calling and fuck-you's crosses the line.

What about "idiocy" and "lunacy"? There are a lot of lines that can be crossed, and a community is probably a group that agrees on certain lines. If you can include yourself in the group of people that might want to re-focus their energies to creating a more positive environment, then there might once again be a "tuning community".

If there ever was one, though I happen to be one of the people that thought there was one...

Jon

--- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, "Jon Szanto" <JSZANTO@A...> wrote:

/metatuning/topicId_6895.html#6898

> --- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, "Gene Ward Smith" <gwsmith@s...>
wrote:
> > I think name-calling and fuck-you's crosses the line.
>
> What about "idiocy" and "lunacy"? There are a lot of lines that can
be crossed, and a community is probably a group that agrees on
certain lines. If you can include yourself in the group of people
that might want to re-focus their energies to creating a more
positive environment, then there might once again be a "tuning
community".
>
> If there ever was one, though I happen to be one of the people that
thought there was one...
>
> Jon

***It's a little slow right now, but that's probably because people
are busy. I've been busy now re-evaluating and copying some older
pieces in conjunction with posting more of my work on the Internet.
It's been an enjoyable and interesting visit with my past...(And
actually practical, since I've made some inroads as to possible
performances of these earlier things...)

Also, there is no really "burning" issue after the TOP temperament...
When Blackjack was being explored there were so many posts that the
lists were forced to splinter. But now that scale has been
determined and the task is to write *music* with it!

Frankly, I think there *is* a community and that most of the people
here really do, basically, like one another... despite the
disagreements. We're all in this together, and I believe there is a
basic realization of this, though there may be disagreements between
friends...

JP

Gene Ward Smith wrote:

>Do we have one? Lately it seems to me I see more "sharing" of insults >and hurt feelings than of insights and music. I'm finishing up a new >piece, and wondering if there is any point to this. Will it make >anyone the least bit happier? Will the ideas involved wither and die? >Are we talking to each other, or simply shouting "fuck you!" as our >separate vehicles whizz by each other in the dark?
>
I've heard some of your music. Keep up the great work!

--
* David Beardsley
* microtonal guitar
* http://biink.com/db

--- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, David Beardsley <db@b...> wrote:

> I've heard some of your music. Keep up the great work!

Thanks, David--I appreciate that.

I agree with Carl that it is important that music we create goes outside the
tuning lists.

I for one am more than a little relieved that things have slowed down a lot
on the tunings list. This has actually given me the chance to work toward
being able to create music that I can share (and to share music that I
create) - with people in various different categories including list people,
neighbors, friends. I'm glad I'm getting the time to do this and would
rather come back to the list and get more active when I am already more
musically active and more relationally active about the experience of music.
This will be a richer balance.

People will hang in there, I think. No one is going to forget their
interests and we unavoidably have some common interests. I hope everyone is
ripening their individual work more while the demands of the lists are a
little easier.

For me the exciting thing is putting the stuff out for people to hear in
small quantities and basically learning how to "teach" which really means to
share the experience of music. I want to share what has opened up for me as
a result of "tuning sensibilities" and I want to discover, patiently, just
how this ripples outward to other people of various different sensibilities.

This is about listening and hearing, finding what is meaningful, sharing
that, collecting experiences of others about what experiences mean to them.
This to me is just as important as any other approach.

The tuning community will naturally spread out so that various people here
and there will become aware that there are still live processes of
questioning and discovery about what music is and what it can be. This is a
very alive thing and an exciting thing to share--and excitement is
contageous. So this kind of "spreading out" is of a different kind from
what steeps among the "specialists" who meet on the list.

To summarize, I think the growing edge is the edge that grows toward the
novice listeners, and also listens to what they have to say. I'd like to
hear list members feeding back to the list the experiences their friends and
audiences feed back to them. This might be more important in providing each
of us as musicians with "course corrections" to our processes. What we talk
about on the lists might become more experiential. It is possible this
strategy might make us lean a little away from technical language and might
enrich our dialog.

-Kurt

Hey,

I agree with what Kurt writes below, esp. with regard to making this all more
'experiential'. I have always stressed the aesthetics side of things, and the
way things are going on the list tend to emphasize the theory, not the
practice of music--ditto somewhat the tendency of MakeMicroMusic to have the
intention of talking about music making, but often, the threads are not
relevant to the actual composition, but end up being about software and
hardware. Alas.

I too, am a theory attracted guy, and it is very important, no doubt, but I'd
like to see a seperate tuning group where actual aesthetics and compositional
ideas/critique/philosophy are the core discussion. Maybe MakeMicroMusic could
stay this way, and thread relating to hardware and software could be in a
separate group, say 'tuning-technology' or something.

For my part, I do tend to glaze over the hardcore math stuff (although I love
math). And, having said that, I think what Paul, Monz, Carl, Gene (and
others, but I think this is the hardcore math group) do is VERY important,
and should continue. But right now, the compositional aspect takes a WAY back
seat. The means seem to have overshadowed the ends, IMO.

I'd love to hear all of your thoughts, everyone!!

All Best,
Aaron Krister Johnson
http://www.akjmusic.com
http://www.dividebypi.com

OCEAN, n. A body of water occupying about two-thirds of a world made
for man -- who has no gills. -Ambrose Bierce 'The Devils Dictionary'

On Wednesday 17 March 2004 01:55 am, Kurt Bigler wrote:
> I agree with Carl that it is important that music we create goes outside
> the tuning lists.
>
> I for one am more than a little relieved that things have slowed down a lot
> on the tunings list. This has actually given me the chance to work toward
> being able to create music that I can share (and to share music that I
> create) - with people in various different categories including list
> people, neighbors, friends. I'm glad I'm getting the time to do this and
> would rather come back to the list and get more active when I am already
> more musically active and more relationally active about the experience of
> music. This will be a richer balance.
>
> People will hang in there, I think. No one is going to forget their
> interests and we unavoidably have some common interests. I hope everyone
> is ripening their individual work more while the demands of the lists are a
> little easier.
>
> For me the exciting thing is putting the stuff out for people to hear in
> small quantities and basically learning how to "teach" which really means
> to share the experience of music. I want to share what has opened up for
> me as a result of "tuning sensibilities" and I want to discover, patiently,
> just how this ripples outward to other people of various different
> sensibilities.
>
> This is about listening and hearing, finding what is meaningful, sharing
> that, collecting experiences of others about what experiences mean to them.
> This to me is just as important as any other approach.
>
> The tuning community will naturally spread out so that various people here
> and there will become aware that there are still live processes of
> questioning and discovery about what music is and what it can be. This is
> a very alive thing and an exciting thing to share--and excitement is
> contageous. So this kind of "spreading out" is of a different kind from
> what steeps among the "specialists" who meet on the list.
>
> To summarize, I think the growing edge is the edge that grows toward the
> novice listeners, and also listens to what they have to say. I'd like to
> hear list members feeding back to the list the experiences their friends
> and audiences feed back to them. This might be more important in providing
> each of us as musicians with "course corrections" to our processes. What
> we talk about on the lists might become more experiential. It is possible
> this strategy might make us lean a little away from technical language and
> might enrich our dialog.
>
> -Kurt
>
>
>
> Meta Tuning meta-info:
>
> To unsubscribe, send an email to:
> metatuning-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
> Web page is http://groups.yahoo.com/groups/metatuning/
>
> To post to the list, send to
> metatuning@yahoogroups.com
>
> You don't have to be a member to post.
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

--- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, "Aaron K. Johnson" <akjmicro@c...>
wrote:

> I too, am a theory attracted guy, and it is very important, no
doubt, but I'd
> like to see a seperate tuning group where actual aesthetics and
compositional
> ideas/critique/philosophy are the core discussion.

I think we already have too many groups as it is, but it seems to me
if you wanted to take ideas along these lines to another group, a good
choice would be SpecMus.

> For my part, I do tend to glaze over the hardcore math stuff
(although I love
> math). And, having said that, I think what Paul, Monz, Carl, Gene (and
> others, but I think this is the hardcore math group) do is VERY
important,
> and should continue. But right now, the compositional aspect takes a
WAY back
> seat. The means seem to have overshadowed the ends, IMO.

I think people are pretty much ignoring everything, not just theory.
Carl's idea that it is burn-out sounds plausible to me. I uploaded
what I think is my best piece yet; at one time something like that
would have generated discussion, but not now.

--- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, "Gene Ward Smith" <gwsmith@s...> wrote:
> Carl's idea that it is burn-out sounds plausible to me.

I don't agree with that, based at least in part on discussions with people who have left the groups, and their reasons thereof.

> I uploaded
> what I think is my best piece yet; at one time something like that
> would have generated discussion, but not now.

I might have been the first to download and listen to it, as I happened to be online when you posted. And I've been in a quandary (sp?) ever since, and I'll just put it out publicly for you and anyone else to see:

I can't get past the SoundFont mock-orchestral instrumentation. I just can't. There isn't any phrasing, there isn't anything beyond all these different 'instruments' playing lines, and playing them in manners that don't actually (to *my* ears, obviously) stem from the intrinsic qualities of that 'type' of instrument.

When I say can't get past it, I mean it - I listened to the opening, and then I had to skip around to see how other parts faired. I could not listen to it straight through, or for any length of time whatsoever.

You know what? I feel badly about it, but the actual 'sound' of this piece, and the others like it, make me want to turn it off right away. And I feel that is unfair to the creative spirit that put it together, as well as to the insights and material that must have generated the tunings, and all that sprang from *that*.

So, I didn't say anything, Gene. It is one of those very difficult areas in the arts; I have NO idea if there is anything remotely like it in the maths world. But the problem is one of aesthetics and taste, completely personal, and I know that you've found solutions for hearing what YOU want your music to sound like, and I rejoice in that. Unfortunately, it is like a root canal with no anesthesia for me!

And that bums me out.

But one thing I've always felt: I have never expected anyone to like my music, to like the sound of it, or the construction, or any part of it. And when they do, it is a big bonus, but (and I don't mean this in a self-centered way at all) all I can do is make music the way that it seems to make sense to me, art-wise and other-wise. I have no doubt that some things I've done over the years more than likely made people want to commit foul deeds or something, and I am at peace with that!

Sorry for the ramble, I hope you understand where I am coming from on this, and that it also explains why I didn't post about your piece. It will, I guess, always be one person's opinion when the sounds hit a pair of ears...

Cheers,
Jon

Hi Aaron,

--- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, "Aaron K. Johnson" <akjmicro@c...> wrote:
> practice of music--ditto somewhat the tendency of MakeMicroMusic
> to have the intention of talking about music making, but often,
> the threads are not relevant to the actual composition, but end up
> being about software and hardware. Alas.

Alas - no shit!

The last 6 months have been quite difficult for me out in the non-virtual world, and I haven't really had any time for the forums, outside of a few posts. But I've been bothered by the lack of actual music-making activity for a long, long time. Oddly, that is *why* I started MMM - to return the focus to *making* music, not talking about making it or talking about what could make it.

But things have a way of drifting, and I don't know whether or not there is a gentle way to create a better environment for stoking the fires.

My dust is settling a bit, and I'll know about my near-future in the next couple of months or so. I'd like to spend more time with MMM and make a stab at re-orienting it to a more concrete 'making' aesthetic. And it doesn't take a stone-cold genius to know what one of the best ways would be: for me to start making a bunch of it myself!

That is my sincere hope. If it works, and I can get even a tiny bit of activity occuring, compared to some of the other communities I inhabit (and who are *far* more productive and sharing), then I will be a happy person. If, after some efforts, it remains in the state it has been recently, I will simply close the doors, as I don't see the need.

Keep creating, Aaron, and let us ALL know when the CD is ready - I'd be happy to pre-order one!

Cheers,
Jon

--- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, "Jon Szanto" <JSZANTO@A...> wrote:

> I can't get past the SoundFont mock-orchestral instrumentation. I
just can't. There isn't any phrasing, there isn't anything beyond all
these different 'instruments' playing lines, and playing them in
manners that don't actually (to *my* ears, obviously) stem from the
intrinsic qualities of that 'type' of instrument.

There's quite a lot of phrasing of one kind--variations in tempo. If I
try to make things too complicated, I will run into the limitations of
Scala, though Manuel seems to think that is fixable. As for the faux
orchestra, the alternative is synth sounds, and I'd guess you would
not like that either.

> When I say can't get past it, I mean it - I listened to the opening,
and then I had to skip around to see how other parts faired.

You know better than to do that.

> Sorry for the ramble, I hope you understand where I am coming from
on this, and that it also explains why I didn't post about your piece.

At least you downloaded it; I wasn't sure anyone did. I amazed myself
by actually managing to get (I thought) a Beethoveneque quality to the
music, but amazing anyone else is always another story.

--- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, "Jon Szanto" <JSZANTO@A...> wrote:

And it doesn't take a stone-cold genius to know what one of the best
ways would be: for me to start making a bunch of it myself!

I don't imagine you are likely to follow this suggestion, but I'd be
fascinated to hear what you would do if you tried your hand at faux
symphonic music. I'd like to hear what other people think a microtonal
symphonic movement ought to sound like, and how they would go about
creating one. What methods lead to the best results?

--- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, "Gene Ward Smith" <gwsmith@s...> wrote:
> There's quite a lot of phrasing of one kind--variations in tempo.

No, that is not what I meant by phrasing. Rubato, or tempo changes, if applied to an entire ensemble is not what I was speaking of. Phrasing in terms of attack, legato, sluring... Right now every individual 'part' sounds like it was played on a keyboard, without touch.

I believe an awful lot of what I hear missing - and to me it is one of, if not *the* critical element in a recorded (or even live) piece of music - was addressed in the article by James Newton Howard I referenced. It is one thing to get pitches and rhythm into a midi track. What do you do *then* to make it musical?

> the alternative is synth sounds, and I'd guess you would
> not like that either.

You guess wrongly. It is simply a matter of how sounds are used, applied, and worked with.

> You know better than to do that.

You are going to have to live with the inescapeable fact that if the sound-world you produce is going to grate on someone, skipping around in a file to see if there are 'better' places is getting more attention than you might have received!

Put it this way: if it had been someone I didn't know and didn't have respect for, I would have stopped it early on and deleted the file. This is very much just my taste in music, so it is only one person's opinion. But if at least one of your reasons for doing all this is to either get your music more widely heard, or that it have some weight in the pantheon of [microtonal] music, you really should care about how it sounds. I think you do, but maybe not as much as you think...

> At least you downloaded it; I wasn't sure anyone did.

I've downloaded almost all of your pieces, except when I had a pretty good idea that I wouldn't want it (the pop pieces aren't what I'm looking for).

> I amazed myself
> by actually managing to get (I thought) a Beethoveneque quality to the
> music, but amazing anyone else is always another story.

It didn't strike *me* as B'esque, but I'm just one listener. And I guess what I notice about the pieces of yours that I liked the most is that you aren't trying to be someone else but yourself.

Cheers,
Jon

--- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, "Jon Szanto" <JSZANTO@A...> wrote:

> Put it this way: if it had been someone I didn't know and didn't
have respect for, I would have stopped it early on and deleted the
file. This is very much just my taste in music, so it is only one
person's opinion. But if at least one of your reasons for doing all
this is to either get your music more widely heard, or that it have
some weight in the pantheon of [microtonal] music, you really should
care about how it sounds. I think you do, but maybe not as much as
you think...

I care more about what you might call the intellectual content of the
music, but I would like to learn how do better in the areas you
complain of. When Manuel finishes his fixes, I'll see what then can
be done, since a great difficulty has been that it is hard to do
anything too complex without finding it won't work at all for some
reason or another. I have put up a new version of 45000 Fingers which
I hope will make Aaron happier.

> It didn't strike *me* as B'esque, but I'm just one listener.

With all due respect, that is the kind of jugment it makes no sense
to make without listening to a piece at least once, nor should it at
all depend on how the soundfont works for you, or what you think of
the phrasing. I suppose it depends on what you mean--would you say
the Harold Shapero symphony has that quality, for instance?

>And I guess what I notice about the pieces of yours that I liked the
> most is that you aren't trying to be someone else but yourself.

Hmmm...and which ones were those? I admit I seem a bit fixated on the
idea of using old-fashioned formal structures. Maybe I'm
overcompensating for not having had them drilled into me in a
classroom.

Gene,

--- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, "Gene Ward Smith" <gwsmith@s...> wrote:
> I care more about what you might call the intellectual content of
> the music

Understood (in spades!).

> but I would like to learn how do better in the areas you
> complain of.

Whoa, waitaminnit Gene! I'm not 'complaining', I'm giving you commentary on how the piece(s) affect me as a musician. I can do one of two things: talk about the stuff with you, or not. If you take it as complaining, then I can save you any angst and not give any feedback at all. Completely up to you.

> When Manuel finishes his fixes, I'll see what then can
> be done, since a great difficulty has been that it is hard to do
> anything too complex without finding it won't work at all for some
> reason or another.

I don't know why I'm not getting this through: the qualities of sound , dynamics, and phrasing that I find lacking in these recent pieces don't have anything to do with Scala. Either before or after you have done the tuning with Scala, you need to work with the midi file (probably before, with one track at a time with single instruments) to improve the musical phrasing of the solo and ensemble parts.

> With all due respect, that is the kind of jugment it makes no sense
> to make without listening to a piece at least once

That's fair. If I can nail myself down, I'll try once more for a straight run-through.

> all depend on how the soundfont works for you, or what you think of
> the phrasing.

I don't agree. Beethoven is more than pitches. And while the 'soundfont' issue might have no bearing on a constructional quality, it most assuredly has an effect on whether people want to listen to it at all. You will need to come to grips with this at some point.

> I admit I seem a bit fixated on the
> idea of using old-fashioned formal structures. Maybe I'm
> overcompensating for not having had them drilled into me in a
> classroom.

Maybe it is just what you like, and that is fine for me.

More later, as I must go to work now...

Cheers,
Jon

--- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, "Jon Szanto" <JSZANTO@A...> wrote:

> I don't know why I'm not getting this through: the qualities of
sound , dynamics, and phrasing that I find lacking in these recent
pieces don't have anything to do with Scala.

They do to some extent.

> Either before or after you have done the tuning with Scala, you need
to work with the midi file (probably before, with one track at a time
with single instruments) to improve the musical phrasing of the solo
and ensemble parts.

This I was planning on trying; one track at a time should allow me to
get past some of the roadblocks.

--- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, "Gene Ward Smith" <gwsmith@s...> wrote:
> They do to some extent.

I've given this some thought, completely away from the computer and apps, and realize how there might be implications. So...

How would it be if you could find a simple piece, maybe just a four-voice string quartet (or something similar), email me the midi file, and then let me know the steps you take (painstakingly clear, of course!) to transform the file into a rendered output?

There is NO urgency on this, but I'd be curious to see what can be done pre-Scala, what is potentially lost post-Scala, and any other areas of your procedures that might allow for more nuanced renditions.

Also, it is unclear to me just how your original compositions make it from gray matter to .ogg file. I can certainly understand the 'transcriptions' and arrangements, where you've gotten a midi rendition from somewhere, but how do you go about composing the original ones?

Cheers,
Jon

--- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, "Jon Szanto" <JSZANTO@A...> wrote:
> --- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, "Gene Ward Smith" <gwsmith@s...>
wrote:
> > They do to some extent.
>
> I've given this some thought, completely away from the computer and
apps, and realize how there might be implications. So...
>
> How would it be if you could find a simple piece, maybe just a
four-voice string quartet (or something similar), email me the midi
file, and then let me know the steps you take (painstakingly clear, of
course!) to transform the file into a rendered output?

Sounds interesting, but I'm not sure what you are asking. There are
thousands of midi files on the net, and many are sitting on my computer.

> There is NO urgency on this, but I'd be curious to see what can be
done pre-Scala, what is potentially lost post-Scala, and any other
areas of your procedures that might allow for more nuanced renditions.

My proceedures when retuning and then rendering a midi file are a
different question that my proceedures when dealing with a microtonal
file I'm trying to produce; the latter are much more difficult to deal
with due to the limitations of midi, and it seems to be it is those
which are really relevant.

> Also, it is unclear to me just how your original compositions make
it from gray matter to .ogg file. I can certainly understand the
'transcriptions' and arrangements, where you've gotten a midi
rendition from somewhere, but how do you go about composing the
original ones?

I use Maple, the computer algebra system, and Maple programs I've
written for dealing with composition. The disadvantage to this is that
you can't immediately listen to what you write, you need to go through
a rigamarole of getting Maple to write a Scala seq file or a Csound
score file, and then processing those. So you keeping going back and
forth, and pissing around, and hoping the whole thing doesn't fall
apart on you if you try to introduce too many parts. A nice feature of
Csound is that this won't happen, but electronic sounds are not as
convincing to me as sampled sound, and Csound would need aiff files,
not soundfonts, for samples. Setting that up looks like it would be a
nightmare, though Prent has got it to work. What would be a lot nicer
would be for Csound to support soundfonts.

--- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, "Gene Ward Smith" <gwsmith@s...>
wrote:

> I use Maple, the computer algebra system, and Maple programs I've
> written for dealing with composition. The disadvantage to this is
that
> you can't immediately listen to what you write, you need to go
through
> a rigamarole of getting Maple to write a Scala seq file or a Csound
> score file, and then processing those.

I should add that Scala gives you a one-fingered method of playing
when you load in a scale (using the chromatic clavier or even the
tone circle) which is quite useful. It even has a limited ability to
play chords--you can choose a chord and then play it in its various
incarnations as you circulate with a right mouse-click. A program
using mouse and keyboard both could implement the chromatic accordion
idea I think would be useful, with one bit of data choosing a note
and the other choosing (various systems being possible) a chord to go
with it.

By the way, are we off-topic? Is that possible on this group?