Every instrument has a use-by date (was ‘The Stradivarius that is CSOUND’)

Joe,

Even if could afford a Stradivarius instrument, I
can’t buy the analogy with Csound. The violin embraces
more than a western musical tradition. Indian musicians
adapted the same design minus the chin-rest and absorbed
into their own. Csound, being as an aggregation of features
of many first generation computer music languages that were
the children of Music 4, is based on another western
metaphor for musical production, namely that the composer
writes a score for an orchestra. But Csound like the violin
is also capable of going beyond this eg Bernard Bel’s
front end called the Bol Processor.

You said

>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!

Maybe the analogy IS valid simply because it’s an open
question whether composers working with Csound assume the
roles of the performers (in the sense that its tools allow
the score to be played automatically) and also instrument
makers as well (depending where you choose to draw the line
between orchestration and instrument-making).

>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

Csound is by nature a software language that is simply an
outgrowth of people working on their own pieces. Those that
I know of probably have other things to do that are more
important to their own personal creative objectives than
creating a tidier work place. Csound is an environment to
which anyone who is prepared to get their hands dirty is
allowed to do so. Understand that and there’s no
problem, whichever way you like to think about composition.

>and no one has really taken the AUTHORITY to harbor CSOUND
as a
>releasable product for general use...

and I know of no group of composers who would feel it is
their responsibility to do this on behalf of other groups of
composers who have a legitimate wish to venture into
unfamiliar musical territory. Generic hardware changes so
rapidly that it difficult to know how much effort an
individual, whether composer or software engineer, will be
required to make to create a friendlier Csound front end.
But the volatility of current technology simply makes the
risk too high for any composer to invest the kind of time on
such a detour from creative work. Unless it is financially
worthwhile for a software engineer I don’t think it is
going to happen. Those composers who work with Csound
embrace it precisely because it allows a new relationship
with musical instruments. Above all they understand that all
instruments seem have a use-by date, especially those based
on ‘current’ technology. What motivates me most
as a composer working within the limitations of Csound is
the freedom this software will give me to function as a
composer irrespective of the good fortunes or otherwise of
musical instrument manufacturers.

BTW, I appreciate your email response. I realise it's
possible I might have offended you with the tone of my
comparisons between email and text-based Csound interface.
If so I apologise. I do appreciate the time you have given
to sharing your thoughts and ideas. Here am I emailing, not
Csounding, comment enough.

Greg S

--- In tuning@y..., "Greg Schiemer" <gregs@c...> wrote:

/tuning/topicId_21686.html#21710

> Joe,
>
> Even if could afford a Stradivarius instrument, I
> can't buy the analogy with Csound.

Hello Greg!

I've taken the liberty to clean up some of you "apostrophe" marks...
we're getting something rather strange from Australia to here...

The violin embraces
> more than a western musical tradition. Indian musicians
> adapted the same design minus the chin-rest and absorbed
> into their own. Csound, being as an aggregation of features
> of many first generation computer music languages that were
> the children of Music 4, is based on another western
> metaphor for musical production, namely that the composer
> writes a score for an orchestra.

Yes, of course... I should mention, Greg, that I also, back in my
"brown hair" years, ALSO did some small work with MUSIC 4.

It took me me more than a SEMESTER to write a 10 second piece!

My point is only that because something is "difficult" or
"unfriendly" it is not, necessarily, "sophisticated." It could be
just "difficult" or "unfriendly."

Of course, the present version of CSOUND is a GREAT improvement over
the old Music 4, which would only run on computers the size of a
small building!
>

> You said
>
> >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!
>
> Maybe the analogy IS valid simply because it's an open
> question whether composers working with Csound assume the
> roles of the performers (in the sense that its tools allow
> the score to be played automatically) and also instrument
> makers as well (depending where you choose to draw the line
> between orchestration and instrument-making).
>

You're right Greg! And it does seem, as you mentioned in your
original message, that a composer using CSOUND is more akin to some
of our composer list-members who MAKE their own instruments AS WELL
AS compose for them...

> >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

>Csound is by nature a software language that is simply an
> outgrowth of people working on their own pieces. Those that
> I know of probably have other things to do that are more
> important to their own personal creative objectives than
> creating a tidier work place. Csound is an environment to
> which anyone who is prepared to get their hands dirty is
> allowed to do so. Understand that and there's no
> problem, whichever way you like to think about composition.
>

> >and no one has really taken the AUTHORITY to harbor CSOUND
> as a releasable product for general use...
>

> and I know of no group of composers who would feel it is
> their responsibility to do this on behalf of other groups of
> composers who have a legitimate wish to venture into
> unfamiliar musical territory. Generic hardware changes so
> rapidly that it difficult to know how much effort an
> individual, whether composer or software engineer, will be
> required to make to create a friendlier Csound front end.
> But the volatility of current technology simply makes the
> risk too high for any composer to invest the kind of time on
> such a detour from creative work. Unless it is financially
> worthwhile for a software engineer I don't think it is
> going to happen. Those composers who work with Csound
> embrace it precisely because it allows a new relationship
> with musical instruments. Above all they understand that all
> instruments seem have a use-by date, especially those based
> on current technology. What motivates me most
> as a composer working within the limitations of Csound is
> the freedom this software will give me to function as a
> composer irrespective of the good fortunes or otherwise of
> musical instrument manufacturers.
>

Well, my point is that CSOUND needs a "Robert Walker." Maybe it
would even be worth it to have a version of CSOUND that would be easy
to use that somebody would have to PAY for. Just an idea.

I don't know if you know Robert yet, but you will if you "hang
around" this list for a bit. Robert is, essentially, not PRIMARILY a
composer... he's all kind of great things, one of them being a
software developer who derives great satisfaction from making a
WORKABLE and EASY TO USE product...

I believe for someone like Robert, the time spent developing
software, particularly if his name were attached to it, and if,
hopefully, there would be at least a small remuneration for it, would
not be a "distraction" from composing time.

I don't want to be presumptious and speak for Robert, but I believe
this is just the kind of individual that CSOUND needs... and the kind
of "cleanup."

Of course, as Pat Pagano and others have mentioned, one would have to
take great care not to limit the FLEXIBILITY of the CSOUND instrument
during these "improvements." I'm not really suggesting a "dumbing
down..." This is more in the avenue of stability and installation,
etc... I think there probably could be more "front ends" that could
be implimented to do various functions. I still have to study more
CSOUND (which I *do* intend to do!) before I can be more specific.
At this point, it's more a general "feel..."

Does anybody remember how cumbersome it was to use even the first
wordprocessors?? I mean even PRE-DOS-Wordperfect... Were those
really "flexible...??" But then, there's a FAR greater incentive for
somebody to develop software like that for general use than there is
for somebody to make CSOUND more user-friendly.

I'd like to speak for a brief moment about another "unfriendly"
program that I DID learn: SCORE for the IBM. Well, SCORE is VERY
flexible, but pretty difficult to learn. It's worth the time and
investment, but the FINALE folks really developed their product, made
it friendlier, MIDI controllable (a BIG plus for FINALE over SCORE)
by the way... INEXPENSIVE, and EVENTUALLY, SCORE has, basically been
run out of town!

Well, Passport Designs dropped it, and it's now still back in the lap
of Leland Smith and his "San Andreas Press" (a slightly ironic name
for his small software publishing company... but we get the "drift.")

Smith is STILL working on a WINDOWS version of the product! It's
still BASICALLY in DOS!

There is a parallel here... it's only too bad that some COMPETENT
software engineer hasn't come to the rescue! (Smith is only "so-so"
or so I've heard... part of the problem that it is taking so long)

> BTW, I appreciate your email response. I realise it's
> possible I might have offended you with the tone of my
> comparisons between email and text-based Csound interface.
> If so I apologise. I do appreciate the time you have given
> to sharing your thoughts and ideas. Here am I emailing, not
> Csounding, comment enough.
>

That's OK, Greg! Well, naturally people don't like to think they're
"wasting time" here on the Tuning List!

So the question is: have I been composing LESS since I've been
spending quite a bit of time on the list??

The answer: quite possibly, BUT, what I HAVE been doing has been of
greater interest! I've been getting MORE positive responses about it
(some people... and not tunees, have said the more recent pieces are
by FAR my most interesting). Additionally, I have still been getting
public performances... and, frankly, more enthusiasm from the more
"cutting edge" quarters.

So, although the Tuning List can be fun, there is very little time
"wasted" here... at least this is MY impression...

Best,

Joe

______ ______ ____ _____
Joseph Pehrson