Yahoo Tuning Groups Ultimate Backup tuning The Stradivarius that is CSOUND

The point is... the analogy of CSOUND with learning to play a musical
instrument does not hold water (or sound)...

It becomes not learning to PLAY the instrument, but more like
learning to MAKE the instrument!

I realize that some composers on this list like to MAKE their own
instruments and start from there. However, others of us would rather
MAKE MUSIC with given instruments. That's a personal choice.

What's more, composers don't have to learn to PLAY every instrument
for which they compose. I don't feel they should have to, either...

So what does this have to do with CSOUND? Well, I think, basically,
the composers using it have been just working on their own projects
and no one has really taken the AUTHORITY to harbor CSOUND as a
releasable product for general use...

It seems to me, that it is more then probable that CSOUND could be
made into a much FRIENDLIER and more stable program... maybe that
would take a fair amount of effort, but it would be worth it.

A lot of creativity would be released from composers who don't want
to "reinvent the wheel" or mess around with their autoexec.bat files!

Who does THAT anymore, anyway??

_________ _____ _____ ___
Joseph Pehrson

🔗paul@stretch-music.com

--- In tuning@y..., jpehrson@r... wrote:

>
> A lot of creativity would be released from composers who don't want
> to "reinvent the wheel" or mess around with their autoexec.bat files!
>
> Who does THAT anymore, anyway??
>

That reminds me . . . my old drummer used to recall how his friend accidentally called his
"config.sys" file his "consis.fig" file. CONSIS.FIG! That always got me on the floor laughing (I
don't know why exactly, maybe the fruit reference).

Anyway, Joseph, perhaps the word "composer" is outdated for someone who uses
CSOUND . . . yes, the analogy would be to a combined instrument builder, composer,
conductor, and performer . . . now in a relatively short time (I gather), you can learn to master all
these domains, which were previously "specialized" . . . isn't that a great advance? (P.S. I gave
up on gettting CSOUND to work on my computer a long time ago . . . a nice front end would
give me a big incentive to try again.)

🔗JSZANTO@ADNC.COM

--- In tuning@y..., jpehrson@r... wrote:
> The point is... the analogy of CSOUND with learning to play a
> musical instrument does not hold water (or sound)...

I read the analogy to mean that while you might be able to make it
function at first, it is a deep resource, much like any good musical
instrument, and responds well to dedicated, thoughtful, and long
periods of study/use.

> It becomes not learning to PLAY the instrument, but more like
> learning to MAKE the instrument!

I don't necessarily agree with that. It is my understanding that one
of the many uses of Csound is to take samples of instruments that
already exist (much like you use existing patches on your TX81Z
instead of making up new ones) and use them to play music in a
different intonation. I believe that this is what Prent Rodgers work
is all about. I am more than willing to be corrected on this, though.

> What's more, composers don't have to learn to PLAY every instrument
> for which they compose. I don't feel they should have to, either...

Wait, no one says you *have* to learn them, but to give a little
study to understand what they are capable of seems perfectly
reasonable. Not everyone wants to obsess over notation -- that is a
personal choice, and I bring it up because you've been working on
that recently -- because then can either make non-notatble, non-real-
time music, or just find something that works that matches the music
they already hear. Again, purely personal pathes and choices.

> the composers using it have been just working on their own projects
> and no one has really taken the AUTHORITY to harbor CSOUND as a
> releasable product for general use...

It may not be *intended* for general use. I would propose that it is
a high level sound crafting environment -- it is not a MIDI sequencer
or loop-based composition tools, both of which lend themselve easily
to 'general use'.

> A lot of creativity would be released from composers who don't want
> to "reinvent the wheel" or mess around with their autoexec.bat
> files!

I'm not sure about that. I think people gravitate toward tools that
make sense for their purposes. My original suggestions were a tiny
change to the front of the experience, but I wouldn't propose making
it broad and shallow, which would be the danger -- narrow and deep is
fine by me. If you look at the original gestation of this thing, it
is somewhat amazing the platforms and abilities it *does* have.

Composers, choose your weapons carefully.

Speaking of which, I got this from Nick Didkovsky, which a few of you
might want to check out:

"I have a performance coming up which uses JSyn and JMSL.
Rather than clog bandwidth with details, you are invited
to visit http://www.doctornerve.org/monkeyfarm

-- Nick Didkovsky"

Cheers,
Jon

🔗JSZANTO@ADNC.COM

🔗Bill Alves <ALVES@ORION.AC.HMC.EDU>

>A lot of creativity would be released from composers who don't want
>to "reinvent the wheel" or mess around with their autoexec.bat files!

From the pleas of tuning list subscribers about Csound, as well as some
newbie questions that periodically pop up on the Csound list and the
problems of my own students, I am starting to get a feeling for what kinds
of problems people have when they try to set up Csound.

First, it seems that the issues of messing with autoexec.bat and file
directories is most often linked to Windows and Unix-type platforms where
Csound front ends that exist don't have or don't have obvious ways to
choose default directories. Because, unlike many applications, Csound
depends on accessing several files at once, it needs to know where they all
are. Setting up default directories is frequently an irritant, especially
if users are not used to that sort of thing (unix users often are).

Another problem potentially lies in automated playback of sound files.
Csound front-ends on some platforms do not provide players and those that
do sometimes have to be integrated with the particular soundcard driver,
which can also be a pain. I've seen many posts on the Csound list about
sound cards supported under Linux, though others claim that Linux is a very
stable platform for Csound.

Csound does not have a text editor integrated into it, though some people
have developed specialized macro environments for emacs and other text
editors for Csound. Otherwise, I always have to emphasize to my students to
save as "text only" from their favorite word processor. (Very occasionally
there will be invisible and spurious characters in a text file that cause
Csound to crash, but that's the fault of the word processor, not Csound.)

There is a clear tutorial on the installation of Windows Csound at
http://mitpress.mit.edu/e-books/csound/fpage/gs/pc/pc.html. There is also
DirectCsound, a second version for Windows that some of my students have
had more success with. It has some features not in the canonical version.

I don't mean this to sound like platform bigotry, but I've never had the
first two of the above problems on the mac, where the front-end offers
playback from the standardized sound manager, an easy interface to choose
default directories, no need to mess with command-lines, and menu/dialog
access to virtually all compilation and sound file options. You can set a
default text editor, but one is not built-in. There are other problems with
using the mac version sometimes, but on the whole I find it stable and easy
to get started with.

Most of my students (I'd say two-thirds) opt for Csound on Windows since
that's what they have. Usually, there will be several (though certainly not
all or even most) who will have a problem with the setup. Usually these
problems are easily fixed -- if not, I sometimes point them to DirectCsound
if they've been using the bath version or vice-versa. I'd say the remaining
third are split between macs and unix/linux -- the latter are usually
computer literate enough to be comfortable with the low-level installation
and sound driver issues.

It's frustrating to me that people find so many of these problems, because
it turns them off from a very powerful tool, especially for tuning. No
doubt the reason it is coming up on the tuning list is that, unlike most
synthesizers, it is not tied to any particular tuning model. I have used it
several times for "free-style" JI, something very, very difficult with any
conventional acoustic or MIDI solution.

Though I'm afraid I can't help much with Windows installation and front-end
issues, I can often help with problems with Csound itself, and members of
the Csound list are especially generous in this regard.

Bill

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
^ Bill Alves email: alves@hmc.edu ^
^ Harvey Mudd College URL: http://www2.hmc.edu/~alves/ ^
^ 301 E. Twelfth St. (909)607-4170 (office) ^
^ Claremont CA 91711 USA (909)607-7600 (fax) ^
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

🔗jpehrson@rcn.com

--- In tuning@y..., JSZANTO@A... wrote:

/tuning/topicId_21652.html#21654

>
> I'm not sure about that. I think people gravitate toward tools that
> make sense for their purposes. My original suggestions were a tiny
> change to the front of the experience, but I wouldn't propose
making it broad and shallow, which would be the danger -- narrow and
deep is fine by me. If you look at the original gestation of this
thing, it is somewhat amazing the platforms and abilities it *does*
have.

But, WHAT OF the platforms?! How many "platforms" do you really
need! A really terrific one for Windows 98 might be a good start!
And then Windows 2000 and something for Mac. And I guess UNIX.

But, I've been to the "download" page for CSOUND and they have ALL
KINDS of versions going back to DOS 0.01 and, as we have seen in
Allison's case, even the SIMPLE exercises don't work with the most
recent release of the book.

As I was saying, no one has really taken on the AUTHORITY to clean
this stuff up! Everybody is too busy just writing their own music!

I guess that's OK, but it means that the less computer-inclined
composers will probably never be able to experience the wonders of
CSOUND without a lot of personal turmoil and time spent.

I can't wait. I am going back, but I keep putting it off...

AND, for me, PERSONALLY, it is MUCH more valuable to study tuning
systems and theory which applies to acoustic instruments AS WELL AS
electronic ones, as it is to be composing in CSOUND.

That's a personal choice and opinion, of course....

_______ _____ _____ _
Joseph Pehrson

🔗JSZANTO@ADNC.COM

--- In tuning@y..., jpehrson@r... wrote:
> But, WHAT OF the platforms?! How many "platforms" do you really
> need!

It's not about your need, but everyone's need. For personal use, most
musicians started on Macs, and it took years for the PC platform to
develop music programs that were something more than an embarassment.

You also need to realize the beginnings of Csound were in the
research and university labs, with an emphasis on code modules in C
and supported by various flavors of Unix (I think).

What *you* use is one thing, but there is trememdous value in having
the core of a program that can be implemented on the computing
platform of choice. It is not -- I repeat not -- an MS only world.

> But, I've been to the "download" page for CSOUND and they have ALL
> KINDS of versions going back to DOS 0.01 and, as we have seen in
> Allison's case, even the SIMPLE exercises don't work with the most
> recent release of the book.

This is part and parcel of a living organism of code: it changes.
Books are bad things when dealing with change, which is why web
documentation is a good thing.

> As I was saying, no one has really taken on the AUTHORITY to clean
> this stuff up! Everybody is too busy just writing their own music!

Well, that's a *bit* simplistic, since a lot of the ongoing effort is
(as I infer) development of new functions. Most of the type of people
that work in this realm already know what they are doing, and are
long past the install-and-learning-curve point. Communal based
software (like Linux and many other examples) live and grow and
develop through the intercommunication of their users. They haven't
ever been, aren't now, and most likely never will be neat and tidy
places. If you need that, in large measure, then you probably need to
do one of two things:

1. Look elsewhere (which you already have)
2. Get involved (because it means something important to you)
>
> I guess that's OK, but it means that the less computer-inclined
> composers will probably never be able to experience the wonders of
> CSOUND without a lot of personal turmoil and time spent.

Yes, this is true. There are also currently no plans to build an
electric tram to the top of Half Dome in Yosemite. For the forseeable
future, the only way to experience the climb, and the payoff at the
top, is to experience the climb.

> I can't wait.

Wait. You need to do other stuff right now...

> AND, for me, PERSONALLY, it is MUCH more valuable to study tuning
> systems and theory which applies to acoustic instruments AS WELL AS
> electronic ones, as it is to be composing in CSOUND.

Exactly.

Cheers,
Jon

🔗shreeswifty <ppagano@bellsouth.net>

Dear Bill
I cannot agree with you more
Most of the problems we had @UF were easily solved, though.
Most winsound.exe's i've used run right outta the zip
and wordpad is still the nugget just like bbedit works for mac
BUT the important thing i have found is that most problems arose from the
old
"sorry I'm a mac guy" kind of stuff
...people seem to chose either one (Pc or mac) based on their economic
resources....
linux does not really help because we have always had *.nix stuff in the
studio -SGI
So what i always suggest is that EVERY electroacoustique studio have a REAL
FAST P.C(PIII with Abit board with fast bus) a good old soundblaster live,
tons of RAM (356) with windows second edition on it with Csound and Pd.
That way were all familiar.
And one can do hand holding if need be.
cheers
Pat

p.s. i found that three or four times the problem with installs was that
someone (pc user) had set their default font to something wacky that the
parser would not interpret. This may help someone i hope.

🔗shreeswifty <ppagano@bellsouth.net>

🔗jpehrson@rcn.com

🔗shreeswifty <ppagano@bellsouth.net>

i did too Joe
So many Soft synth etc...
you kinda find the limits quick

Pat Pagano, Director
South East Just Intonation Society
http://indians.australians.com/meherbaba/
http://www.screwmusicforever.com/SHREESWIFT/
----- Original Message -----
From: <jpehrson@rcn.com>
To: <tuning@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Friday, April 27, 2001 11:10 AM
Subject: [tuning] Re: The Stradivarius that is CSOUND

> --- In tuning@y..., "shreeswifty" <ppagano@b...> wrote:
>
> /tuning/topicId_21652.html#21681
>
> > The study of tuning systems and their application always seem to
> vary, though
> > As widely as Csounds uses in fact.
> > when i wanted t APPLY the tunings is when i finally turned to
> csound and YES made the two year (at least) commitment to grasp the
> power of the engine
> > Studying is a different biscuit
>
>
> Thanks, Swifty... I appreciate this...
>
> I feel MUCH better about it -- I had thought I could learn CSOUND in
> an afternoon....
>
> :)
> _________ _____ ______ ___
> Joseph Pehrson
>
>
>
> You do not need web access to participate. You may subscribe through
> email. Send an empty email to one of these addresses:
> tuning-subscribe@yahoogroups.com - join the tuning group.
> tuning-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com - unsubscribe from the tuning group.
> tuning-nomail@yahoogroups.com - put your email message delivery on hold
for the tuning group.
> tuning-digest@yahoogroups.com - change your subscription to daily digest
mode.
> tuning-normal@yahoogroups.com - change your subscription to individual
emails.
> tuning-help@yahoogroups.com - receive general help information.
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
>