Yahoo Tuning Groups Ultimate Backup tuning Synful curiosity, Brahms is the guinea pig.

OK, I had to waste some time...

To check out Synful, I found a file that I believe Gene had tuned the
Brahms Quartet, Op. 67, 1st mvt into some sort of meantone. This was
stored as a MIDI format 0 file, which meant that all channel
information was contained on one track. When I opened this in Sonar, I
realized that I had to somehow extract the four parts so I could
assign them to individual channels and then those to the different
string instruments on the Synful plug. I managed to do that, as well
as strip a lot of extraneous CC date (volume, pan, reverb, etc) that
came from who knows where. I still could not figure out if it was a
bug with Synful or something weird in the file, but try as I might I
couldn't seat the players in the appropriate spot on stage. They
should start correctly, with Violin 1 on your left, and the cello on
your right. But they move around, damn it. Crackhead chamber musicians.

Anyway, here it is, a Synful rendition with NO tweaking of note
values, etc. Only treatments were setting the quartet in a decent
little chamber hall, courtesy of Roomverb M2. I hate the cello, but
I'm willing to bet it can be mitigated with playing style or editing;
I have a hunch, though, that the cello stretchs their string sound
algorithm just a few notes too far down, and produces a bit of grunge.
Something for someone to investigate, but I live with a cellist with
beautiful instruments that date back many, many years, and none of
this stuff comes close.

But Synful may be getting closer...

http://www.microtonal.org/mp3/br67_1mt.mp3
http://www.microtonal.org/mp3/br67_1mt.ogg

Cheers,
Jon

🔗Carl Lumma <clumma@yahoo.com>

> Anyway, here it is, a Synful rendition with NO tweaking of note
> values, etc. Only treatments were setting the quartet in a decent
> little chamber hall, courtesy of Roomverb M2. I hate the cello,
> but I'm willing to bet it can be mitigated with playing style or
> editing; I have a hunch, though, that the cello stretchs their
> string sound algorithm just a few notes too far down, and produces
> a bit of grunge. Something for someone to investigate, but I live
> with a cellist with beautiful instruments that date back many,
> many years, and none of this stuff comes close.
>
> But Synful may be getting closer...
>
> http://www.microtonal.org/mp3/br67_1mt.mp3
> http://www.microtonal.org/mp3/br67_1mt.ogg
>
> Cheers,
> Jon

There, that already sounds better than the corresponding treatment
with a sampler. But unlike samplers that can be made to sound
better with lots of library-specific editing, Synful *needs*
some control data just to function normally. Not fancy-pants
stuff, just velocities and human note-on timings -- the kind of
thing you get by entering parts monophonically at a MIDI keyboard.

As for the cello algorithm... it sounds like you may have had
the bow noise slider turned up too high?

Synful sounds very good for an additive synth (it's about the
best I've heard, actually) but it can't compare with the realism
of a sample... on straight notes. But its forte is the
"connective tissue" of music -- the notes between the notes.
When this is present, the realism factor shoots way above samplers
for me, short of a Vienna performance based on an hour of edit
time (by a trained software jockey) for every minute of playback.

-Carl

🔗Jon Szanto <jszanto@cox.net>

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Carl Lumma" <clumma@y...> wrote:
> There, that already sounds better than the corresponding treatment
> with a sampler.

That was my though.

> But unlike samplers that can be made to sound
> better with lots of library-specific editing, Synful *needs*
> some control data just to function normally. Not fancy-pants
> stuff, just velocities and human note-on timings -- the kind of
> thing you get by entering parts monophonically at a MIDI keyboard.

Right. I sure wish more people around here realized that. What you are
implying is a musical approach to preparing pieces electronically.

> As for the cello algorithm... it sounds like you may have had
> the bow noise slider turned up too high?

I tried it with various settings, didn't seem to matter. But again,
this was absolutely quick-and-dirty. The majority of my time was
simply sorting out the 4 parts that had been compressed to a single
track, and at that it took about 20 minutes. That is also having just
loaded Synful and not looked at a single bit of documentation.

> Synful sounds very good for an additive synth (it's about the
> best I've heard, actually) but it can't compare with the realism
> of a sample... on straight notes.

True.

> But its forte is the
> "connective tissue" of music -- the notes between the notes.
> When this is present, the realism factor shoots way above samplers
> for me, short of a Vienna performance based on an hour of edit
> time (by a trained software jockey) for every minute of playback.

Exactly. To do strings realistically, *especially* solo strings
instead of big section pads, you really have to have multiple samples,
maps of velocity switching, and as you say, lots of edits. What I
wanted to see was how much better Synful might sound if one were
completely dumb about its use, and tried to just 'pour' an existing
midi thing into it. For me, it sure is a hell of a lot more convincing
than a standard GM soundcard softsynth or simply picking a "string"
sound in some soundfont. If one then spent time, lovingly crafting
their work, the results could end up being fairly persuasive.

I mean, heck, all you have to do is listen to the Beethoven string
quartet demo on their page - *that* is a very, very convincing and
musical performance. I'd be really curious how much work it took to
sound like that.

OK, I'm done with Synful for the moment. And I get to see my dance
piece premiered today!

Cheers,
Jon

🔗Carl Lumma <clumma@yahoo.com>

> > But unlike samplers that can be made to sound
> > better with lots of library-specific editing, Synful *needs*
> > some control data just to function normally. Not fancy-pants
> > stuff, just velocities and human note-on timings -- the kind of
> > thing you get by entering parts monophonically at a MIDI keyboard.
>
> Right. I sure wish more people around here realized that. What
> you are implying is a musical approach to preparing pieces
> electronically.

That's what synful makes possible, for the first time really.

> I mean, heck, all you have to do is listen to the Beethoven string
> quartet demo on their page - *that* is a very, very convincing and
> musical performance. I'd be really curious how much work it took to
> sound like that.

Not much -- he showed us all the controllers on that file in his
demo at CNMAT. It's about 15min of velocity tweaking with the
mouse over the raw MIDI, plus a half-dozen pitch bends.

> I get to see my dance
> piece premiered today!

Awesome!

-Carl

🔗Gene Ward Smith <gwsmith@svpal.org>

🔗Herman Miller <hmiller@IO.COM>

Carl Lumma wrote:
> There, that already sounds better than the corresponding treatment
> with a sampler. But unlike samplers that can be made to sound
> better with lots of library-specific editing, Synful *needs*
> some control data just to function normally. Not fancy-pants
> stuff, just velocities and human note-on timings -- the kind of
> thing you get by entering parts monophonically at a MIDI keyboard.
> > As for the cello algorithm... it sounds like you may have had
> the bow noise slider turned up too high?

I've been disappointed with the cello too -- even playing it from a keyboard. The violin works out nice with one hand on the modulation wheel (to control vibrato) and one foot on the expression pedal (to control volume). I tried the opening line from _Till Eulenspiegel_ on the horn and it sounds reasonably like a horn. But the cello can get some bad distortion if you're not careful.

> Synful sounds very good for an additive synth (it's about the
> best I've heard, actually) but it can't compare with the realism
> of a sample... on straight notes. But its forte is the
> "connective tissue" of music -- the notes between the notes.
> When this is present, the realism factor shoots way above samplers
> for me, short of a Vienna performance based on an hour of edit
> time (by a trained software jockey) for every minute of playback.

Well, a real cellist would play the same note differently in various contexts, which would be a lot of work to do with a sampler (by listening to a bunch of samples and picking one, assuming that you have a huge library of cello samples to begin with). You could achieve a similar variety with expression and modulation controls (although it'd really be nice to have a "vibrato speed" control as well....) If you want a realistic cello sound, you'd need a way to explicitly control bow direction and articulation, speed, force, and distance from the bridge. But a handful of control parameters can make a big difference.

🔗Jon Szanto <jszanto@cox.net>

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Gene Ward Smith" <gwsmith@s...> wrote:
> Thanks for doing this, Jon.

No problem.

> This is very interesting; they indeed
> aren't there yet, but this suggests they might get there.

Oh, they *are* there - listen to that Beethoven qtet example on their
page.

> It would be
> nice if the Synful developers could be convinced to support direct
> rendering to midi and support of MTS.

MTS, maybe. But you better come to grips that very, very, very few
people follow your model of passing a file to something to render and
then spit out a tune. And if you'd just make a small investment in
time and money, you'd have that option anyway: I loaded the midi file,
and I could have just rendered it right then and there (in Sonar, it
is known as "exporting audio") without doing a moment of editing. Then
again, it is in the editing (or, if you're really good with an input
device, which I can't say I am) when you lavish care on the phrases,
that is *always* going to produce a more musical final artifact. Always.

> This rendition is striking, but
> sometimes sounds as if the quartet consists of Groucho, Zeppo and
> Chicho, with Harpo on the cello.

All you need do is blame that on working with a brand new device and
an unknown midi file (full of junk commands) for 15 minutes. There is
no reason whatsoever that one couldn't at least approach the versions
of the Beethoven that I mentioned above. In fact, I'm considering
lobbying those developers in about a week or so...

Cheers,
Jon (who is also interested what he could do with Synful in a
NON-realistic mode - "extended performance practice" doesn't just have
to be for human-maniputed acoustic instruments!)

🔗Jon Szanto <jszanto@cox.net>

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Carl Lumma" <clumma@y...> wrote:
> That's what synful makes possible, for the first time really.

I'm inclined to agree. I'm looking forward to spending a bit of time
with it before the trial 2 weeks runs out.

> Not much -- he showed us all the controllers on that file in his
> demo at CNMAT. It's about 15min of velocity tweaking with the
> mouse over the raw MIDI, plus a half-dozen pitch bends.

Encouraging - my velocity chops, at least the ones that come from my
fingers, suck fairly majorly. :)

> > I get to see my dance
> > piece premiered today!
>
> Awesome!

It was better than I could have hoped for! The company and
choreographer were all thrilled, great audience reponse, and the best
part is that I started with a last-minute call from a dance company
and before I left today I have more work with them, as well as two
other companies that have approached me. And one of the soft
instrument developers has asked to use the music as a demo tune on
their site.

Watching talented, eloquent bodies move to your music has to be one of
the most fulfilling things ever. I'm a happy, humbled guy today...

Cheers,
Jon

🔗Jon Szanto <jszanto@cox.net>

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Herman Miller <hmiller@I...> wrote:
> I've been disappointed with the cello too -- even playing it from a
> keyboard.

Yep. I think I might work on a piece that uses Synful for the upper 3
voices and something else for the cello.

> Well, a real cellist would play the same note differently in various
> contexts, which would be a lot of work to do with a sampler (by
> listening to a bunch of samples and picking one, assuming that you have
> a huge library of cello samples to begin with).

Well, you don't really pick one, you pick a number of articulations
and bow strokes, etc, and then do velocity mapping and keyboard zone
programing. I don't think anyone would try to approximate something
like that with one or two samples. And as we've said, it's easier to
mimic a string section than single players. But, gad, if we could get
them to improve the cello algorithm so it sounds like some of those
solo violin caprices on their web site, holy s**t!

> But a handful of control parameters can make a big difference.

Absolutely!

Cheers,
Jon

🔗Gene Ward Smith <gwsmith@svpal.org>

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Jon Szanto" <jszanto@c...> wrote:
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Gene Ward Smith" <gwsmith@s...> wrote:
> > Thanks for doing this, Jon.
>
> No problem.
>
> > This is very interesting; they indeed
> > aren't there yet, but this suggests they might get there.
>
> Oh, they *are* there - listen to that Beethoven qtet example on their
> page.

The Beethoven was the only sample I didn't like. The Copland and the
Stravinsky were far better. In any case, Synful can't deal with pitch,
what's the point?

> > It would be
> > nice if the Synful developers could be convinced to support direct
> > rendering to midi and support of MTS.
>
> MTS, maybe. But you better come to grips that very, very, very few
> people follow your model of passing a file to something to render and
> then spit out a tune.

You are quite convinced that I'm living in a small ghetto, but I think
it's possible the shoe may be on the other foot. At least, over on the
midicontest site, where composers hang, the discussion centers around
such issues as which is better--Timidity or SynthFont? On the Delian
society group I never see discussions of the kinds of things you talk
about. How many people whose primary interest is composing music are
really wrapped up in all the things you think are the wave of the
future, or even know what they are?

And if you'd just make a small investment in
> time and money, you'd have that option anyway: I loaded the midi file,
> and I could have just rendered it right then and there (in Sonar, it
> is known as "exporting audio") without doing a moment of editing.

I would have the option of composing in 12 equal? I *would* like to
get Synful to work without a big investment, but so far no one has
explained how that can be done.

> All you need do is blame that on working with a brand new device and
> an unknown midi file (full of junk commands) for 15 minutes. There is
> no reason whatsoever that one couldn't at least approach the versions
> of the Beethoven that I mentioned above. In fact, I'm considering
> lobbying those developers in about a week or so...

I think the Beethoven example is in some respects rather horrid;
however, I think that's because I'd tweak it more like a real string
quartet if I could, and I would guess something I would regard as much
more satisfactory is probably possible.

> Cheers,
> Jon (who is also interested what he could do with Synful in a
> NON-realistic mode - "extended performance practice" doesn't just have
> to be for human-maniputed acoustic instruments!)

Sounds intriguing!

🔗Carl Lumma <clumma@yahoo.com>

> > Synful sounds very good for an additive synth (it's about the
> > best I've heard, actually) but it can't compare with the realism
> > of a sample... on straight notes. But its forte is the
> > "connective tissue" of music -- the notes between the notes.
> > When this is present, the realism factor shoots way above samplers
> > for me, short of a Vienna performance based on an hour of edit
> > time (by a trained software jockey) for every minute of playback.
>
> Well, a real cellist would play the same note differently in
> various contexts,

This is exactly what Synful does, automatically.

> which would be a lot of work to do with a
> sampler (by listening to a bunch of samples and picking one,
> assuming that you have a huge library of cello samples to begin
> with).

This is how the majority of "orchestral" music is done
these days for TV, radio, and film.

> You could achieve a similar variety with expression and
> modulation controls (although it'd really be nice to have
> a "vibrato speed" control as well....) If you want a realistic
> cello sound, you'd need a way to explicitly control bow
> direction and articulation, speed, force, and distance from
> the bridge. But a handful of control parameters can make a
> big difference.

It seems like it would work, but in practice it's very
difficult to get a sampler to sound expressive.

-Carl

🔗Carl Lumma <clumma@yahoo.com>

🔗Aaron Krister Johnson <aaron@akjmusic.com>

On Sunday 28 August 2005 8:14 pm, Gene Ward Smith wrote:
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Jon Szanto" <jszanto@c...> wrote:
> > --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Gene Ward Smith" <gwsmith@s...> wrote:

> > MTS, maybe. But you better come to grips that very, very, very few
> > people follow your model of passing a file to something to render and
> > then spit out a tune.
>
> You are quite convinced that I'm living in a small ghetto, but I think
> it's possible the shoe may be on the other foot. At least, over on the
> midicontest site, where composers hang, the discussion centers around
> such issues as which is better--Timidity or SynthFont? On the Delian
> society group I never see discussions of the kinds of things you talk
> about. How many people whose primary interest is composing music are
> really wrapped up in all the things you think are the wave of the
> future, or even know what they are?

Jon, you know I love you, but I'm with Gene here -- I happen to believe that
great things can come out of Timidity and CSound, and other 'non RT rendering
engines'. Call me old fashioned.......

Cheers,
Aaron.

🔗Jon Szanto <jszanto@cox.net>

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Aaron Krister Johnson <aaron@a...> wrote:
> Jon, you know I love you

It's embroidered on a pillow in my bedroom... :)

> but I'm with Gene here -- I happen to believe that
> great things can come out of Timidity and CSound, and other 'non RT
rendering
> engines'. Call me old fashioned.......

Waitaminute - I didn't say the opposite! And I've categorically come
down on the side of 'each person can choose his own toolsets'. But
there are some things that just have to be admitted. Being:

- sometimes one gets tired of hearing the whining, when people won't
even try something, or even *think* of adapting themselves to a
changing workspace of possibilities.

2. there is an incredibly strong paradigm already in place that
relates to non-realtime music production: traditional composition. You
write it, it sits there in a format (paper score) and at some point
gets 'rendered' into sound by musicians. Been around for a long time,
works incredibly well. So to do the same, electronically, is a
non-issue, maybe even a red-herring. ALL that matters is the output:
is it musical or not. I don't happen to give a rat's ass what the
tools are, I only want each and every person to find a golden path to
making music. Re: Prent Rodgers, re: your work with Timidity, re: a
lot of others - it's all good, if you know what you're doing.

3. Aaron, I know you are more than happy to carry a flag for
alternative routes - .ogg, linux, etc. But no one could, in even a
very mildly objective view, compare the numbers of people using
something like Timidity - a relatively unknown and not particularly
well-supported (last I tried it) application - to the many, many (I
don't know, tens of thousands, maybe?) people that are using
commercial and non-commercial electronic tools in other ways. Frankly,
it baffles me why more people haven't tried this route around here.

Well, no, I guess it doesn't baffle me.

One more point, and then I'm stepping down off the soapbox (it's been
a long, exhilarating and tiring day, as after the dance premiere I had
to go and play backup to none other than Burt Bacharach):

I've personally spent tens of thousands (hmm, a recurring motive)
dollars on musical equipment, and it isn't an expense, it is an
*investment*. Yet ask people, who claim to be serious about making
music, to invest a paltry sum on some software, or hardware, or
whatever, and the crying begins. (present company excluded, Aaron) I
think that is total BS. I realize this is a musician's perspective,
but it is one of the areas that has always separated the dabblers from
the dedicated, to me. It's important? It purports to document your
ideas or your research or your emotions or your creativity? Holy crap,
how far will you short-change your muse???

.
..
...
....
.....

Ack, I rambled. Well, Aaron, I won't waste any more time on this with
people not interested. Some people see possibilities there, others
don't. I'm having a good time now, and it almost came too late. I'd
love for others to join in, but I'm not going to lose sleep if they
don't, and I'm not going to take away time from these new paths where
it isn't appreciated.

Say hi to Andy for me, huh?

Cheers,
Jon

🔗Jon Szanto <jszanto@cox.net>

Hi Gene,

OK, I'll have to be brief (everybody stop laughing RIGHT NOW!)

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Gene Ward Smith" <gwsmith@s...> wrote:
> The Beethoven was the only sample I didn't like. The Copland and the
> Stravinsky were far better. In any case, Synful can't deal with pitch,
> what's the point?

Asked, and answered by Carl.

> You are quite convinced that I'm living in a small ghetto, but I think
> it's possible the shoe may be on the other foot.

Think what you like.

> At least, over on the midicontest site

Are you talking about http://www.midi-contest.com/ ? Can't be bothered
with a link? Took a bit of Googling, and then if *that* is the one you
mentioned, it is one of the lamest sites I've been to. Couldn't find a
way to download any final files, just .mid files. Yeah, a contest. Great.

> where composers hang, the discussion centers around
> such issues as which is better--Timidity or SynthFont?

If that is *all* they talk about, they are pretty limited.

> On the Delian society group...

From their pages: "has grown to over 40 members". I like the look of
the site, and I'm sympathetic, if not interested, in their agenda of a
renaissance of tonal arts. But it doesn't break your "ghetto"
attribution (remember, *you* called it that, NOT me).

> I never see discussions of the kinds of things you talk about.

That doesn't surprise me. Over at a place like the KVR forums:

http://www.kvraudio.com/forum/

You'd see lots of them, including ongoing, interactive discussions
with the developers of these instruments. You probably *wouldn't* find
a boatload of really traditional composers, but they aren't really
helping you out of your bind, are they?

All I'm doing is looking at a lot of aspects of the activity of making
music with a computer in our day and time. I work with it
professionally, I see it in action in television and film work
(through my recording and other activities) and through the myriad of
young and talented artists that don't fall into the traditional mold
of "composer". I don't have to be like them, but I am brain-dead if I
don't look at some of the things they've come up with.

> I would have the option of composing in 12 equal?

You missed the point, which Carl picked up.

> I *would* like to get Synful to work without a big investment,
> but so far no one has explained how that can be done.

Put your money where your mouth is, in literal terms. I don't buy this
"I won't invest" stuff, because it just doesn't mean much to you then.
Just my not-so-HO.

> I think the Beethoven example is in some respects rather horrid;

Fine, we're all different. I live with a cellist, I've had string
quartets playing in my house for over 25 years, and you're telling me
how a real string quartet sounds. You go, girl!

> Sounds intriguing!

We'll see. I've got better avenues to plot, but I am intrigued as
well. I'll be lobbying Synful in about a week, and I can point to the
fact that one other developer is going to use some of my music as a
demo for their product. If we get Synful on-board, it will be
interesting to see if you follow...

Cheers,
Jon

🔗Graham Breed <gbreed@gmail.com>

🔗Jon Szanto <jszanto@cox.net>

Hey, it's Graham... from across the world!

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Graham Breed <gbreed@g...> wrote:
> Aaron Krister Johnson wrote:
>
> > Jon, you know I love you, but I'm with Gene here -- I happen to
believe that
> > great things can come out of Timidity and CSound, and other 'non
RT rendering
> > engines'. Call me old fashioned.......
>
> But Csound's a real time VST instrument, exactly what Jon was
talking about!

Graham, I haven't gotten into the latest versions of Csound, with the
ability to use it in realtime. How easily can this be done? Is it
stable, and/or is it a CPU hog? And if it works as a VST, what are
it's advantages over the growing number of VST instruments that
directly support non-12tet tunings?

Oh, and shouldn't we move this to MMM?

Cheers, and hope you are well,
Jon

🔗Aaron Krister Johnson <aaron@akjmusic.com>

🔗Jon Szanto <jszanto@cox.net>

🔗Graham Breed <gbreed@gmail.com>

Jon Szanto wrote:
> Hey, it's Graham... from across the world!

I'm in England now, but that's probably as far from you as Nantong. Anyway...

> Graham, I haven't gotten into the latest versions of Csound, with the
> ability to use it in realtime. How easily can this be done? Is it
> stable, and/or is it a CPU hog? And if it works as a VST, what are
> it's advantages over the growing number of VST instruments that
> directly support non-12tet tunings?

I don't know first hand, because I don't use it that way what with still not having any MIDI gear plugged in. I did get it to render a score in real time on my iBook (256 MB RAM), and it worked if I didn't touch anything while it was playing. The problem currently is that there are so many different versions depending on your desires and platform. The word on the mailing lists is that Csound5 is working well in real time under Linux, but other platforms need to catch up. You have to mess around with the soundcard latency as well.

I expect it'll always be slower than one-trick-pony synths because of things like the use of floating point everywhere. I think it's currently single threaded, which would limit the amount of hardware you can throw at it. And you can only run one version of the Csound engine at a time, That can be a problem with VST. Some of the opcodes (fixed formant pitch shifting I think is one) won't take an input in real-time, and so obviously aren't designed to be used that way.

The main difficulty with getting started is that there isn't a set of GM instruments you can drop in, at least that I can find, and so you actually have to learn how everything works. It can load samples from sound fonts but not the envelope and modulator data.

The advantages of using it would be that it's a free, powerful and stable (features over time) platform. Soft synths seem to come and go, but once you have something working in Csound it should keep working at any point in the future, even if you have to render outside real time. And even if it doesn't work, all the source code's in plain text so you can try to work out what you did and adapt it to some other system.

I think the non real-time mode still counts as an advantage. You can work out ideas and render them with higher quality. Maybe VST already supports this. And it works on a load of different hardware, and doesn't take long to get running. That's the killer feature for me. But it also makes it difficult to get back to working with it, because you're confronted with a list of numbers that you've forgotten the significance of. At least, that's my excuse for not having anything to show yet ;)

For tuning, the advantage is that it's completely flexible. You can do the things I was playing with in Kyma, crossfading between tunings, and adaptive tuning in so far as you can program it yourself. The disadvantage is that it doesn't work with the MIDI tuning standard and so whatever hacks you use to get past the 128 note MIDI limit aren't likely to be shared by whatever software you're using.

> Oh, and shouldn't we move this to MMM?

Don't see why.

> Cheers, and hope you are well,

Thanks! Always improving, good luck with your dancers,

Graham

🔗Jon Szanto <jszanto@cox.net>

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Graham Breed <gbreed@g...> wrote:
> I'm in England now, but that's probably as far from you as Nantong.
> Anyway...

Good enough!
> The problem currently is that there are so many different versions
> depending on your desires and platform.

Ah, yes. Well, my entire focus since starting MMM was to try and find
the easiest, most well-supported paths to doing that 3 letter acronym.
And while I'm technically adept, and quite a few others are, one
simply has to realize how incredibly daunting those prospects are. So
while I don't for a minute disclaim Csound as a great resource, it
does goes to the very edge of complexity in terms of setting up the
software, dependencies, coding skill, groking concepts of programming,
etc. We've got people who have and are using it to great success, but
it is not a panacea. Then again, nothing really is, is it? :)

> The main difficulty with getting started is that there isn't a set
of GM
> instruments you can drop in, at least that I can find, and so you
> actually have to learn how everything works.

Right.

> Soft synths seem to come and go...

Well, I wouldn't go that far, and once you've got one or more
instruments that work for you, you've got them. In the very, very big
picture, something like Csound, which can operate at such a low level,
will always be able to navigate the tides of OS changes, etc. But the
learning curve and time spent getting it to work - and for you to work
with it - is certainly a long distance further than some other solutions.

> I think the non real-time mode still counts as an advantage. You can
> work out ideas and render them with higher quality. Maybe VST already
> supports this.

Absolutely.

> For tuning, the advantage is that it's completely flexible. You can do
> the things I was playing with in Kyma, crossfading between tunings, and
> adaptive tuning in so far as you can program it yourself.

True.

> Thanks! Always improving, good luck with your dancers,

It went swell, and I'm pleased you continue to be on the mend.

Cheers,
Jon

🔗wallyesterpaulrus <wallyesterpaulrus@yahoo.com>

🔗Gene Ward Smith <gwsmith@svpal.org>

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Jon Szanto" <jszanto@c...> wrote:

> Put your money where your mouth is, in literal terms. I don't buy this
> "I won't invest" stuff, because it just doesn't mean much to you then.
> Just my not-so-HO.

I'm not going to spend $1000 in order to improve my ability to deal
with 12 equal. I'm not interested in encourgaging the straightjacket
in any way, and would have little use for such a product.

> > I think the Beethoven example is in some respects rather horrid;
>
> Fine, we're all different. I live with a cellist, I've had string
> quartets playing in my house for over 25 years, and you're telling me
> how a real string quartet sounds. You go, girl!

You sound as if you suffer under the delusion you are the only one to
have heard string quartet music. Get over yourself.

> If we get Synful on-board, it will be
> interesting to see if you follow...

On board how? Anyway, so far I haven't seen much which explains how I
*could* get on board.

🔗Carl Lumma <clumma@yahoo.com>

🔗Gene Ward Smith <gwsmith@svpal.org>

🔗Jon Szanto <jszanto@cox.net>

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Gene Ward Smith" <gwsmith@s...> wrote:
> I'm not going to spend $1000 in order to improve my ability to deal
> with 12 equal.

It is hard to believe you can be so dense. I'm talking in a general
nature, about investing in a musical instrument, which is what a lot
of us are trying to use the computer as. Your figure doesn't tie in
with any of the conversations, and you show a complete - Complete! -
unwillingness to even be open to an expanding of _your_ way of dealing
with microtonal composition and production. Have it your way, and I
wish you great success in being the one to convince developers to see
it from your particular stance. Be sure to report back to the list
when you've managed to get a developer or two to make software that
works the way you want it to.

> You sound as if you suffer under the delusion you are the only one to
> have heard string quartet music. Get over yourself.

You just don't get it. You can't even admit that someone else could
have a valid, insightful perspective on the concepts of phrasing,
sound, articulation, performance intonation, etc, when they have had
direct experience with the real thing in an ongoing manner. I'm
guessing you must know exactly as much as the performers in the string
quartets themselves, right?

> On board how? Anyway, so far I haven't seen much which explains
> how I *could* get on board.

Holy crap, I can't believe how much time I've wasted on this, and
especially on trying to illuminate the possiblities for YOU. I don't
know when I've ever tried so hard to help someone look outside their
own box, and just continually get slapped for it, all from someone who
hasn't even invested the time to *remotely* investigate this stuff.
With offers of help, with offers of software, links, explanations.

Screw it. Find your panacea yourself.

🔗Jon Szanto <jszanto@cox.net>

🔗Gene Ward Smith <gwsmith@svpal.org>

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Jon Szanto" <jszanto@c...> wrote:

>So
> while I don't for a minute disclaim Csound as a great resource, it
> does goes to the very edge of complexity in terms of setting up the
> software, dependencies, coding skill, groking concepts of programming,
> etc.

The real problem with it is the one Graham noted--it needs a decent GM
library. There are a lot of Csound instruments out there, but they
aren't in general designed for people who want to actually make music,
but for engineers to demonstrate one concept or another. It's geek
city, with music coming in third place.

We've got people who have and are using it to great success, but
> it is not a panacea. Then again, nothing really is, is it? :)

Prent uses it with samples. Who else?

🔗Ozan Yarman <ozanyarman@superonline.com>

🔗Gene Ward Smith <gwsmith@svpal.org>

🔗Yahya Abdal-Aziz <yahya@melbpc.org.au>

Hi all,

On Sun, 28 Aug 2005, Jon Szanto wrote:
>
... [snipt]
>
> > > I get to see my dance
> > > piece premiered today!
> >
> > Awesome!
>
> It was better than I could have hoped for! The company and
> choreographer were all thrilled, great audience reponse, and the best
> part is that I started with a last-minute call from a dance company
> and before I left today I have more work with them, as well as two
> other companies that have approached me. And one of the soft
> instrument developers has asked to use the music as a demo tune on
> their site.
>
> Watching talented, eloquent bodies move to your music has to be one of
> the most fulfilling things ever. I'm a happy, humbled guy today...

Belated, but heartfelt, congratulations, Jon!

Hearing talented, eloquent musicians getting recognition
- and WORK - has to be one of the best indicators that
the world has not yet gone down the cultural drain - and
that's very inspiring!

And now we'll all be able to brag "I knew him when ..." :-)

Regards,
Yahya

--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.344 / Virus Database: 267.11.13/126 - Release Date: 9/10/05

🔗Jon Szanto <jszanto@cox.net>

Hi Yahya, welcome back!

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Yahya Abdal-Aziz" <yahya@m...> wrote:
> Belated, but heartfelt, congratulations, Jon!

Thanks for that.

> Hearing talented, eloquent musicians getting recognition
> - and WORK - has to be one of the best indicators that
> the world has not yet gone down the cultural drain - and
> that's very inspiring!

It is certainly one of the paramount reasons to keep going.

> And now we'll all be able to brag "I knew him when ..." :-)

Heh, I've been at this more than a quarter century, I suppose I'm as
known as I'll ever be... which is just fine by me!

The unknown composer,
Jon

🔗wallyesterpaulrus <wallyesterpaulrus@yahoo.com>

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Yahya Abdal-Aziz" <yahya@m...> wrote:
>
>
> Hi all,
>
> On Sun, 28 Aug 2005, Jon Szanto wrote:
> >
> ... [snipt]
> >
> > > > I get to see my dance
> > > > piece premiered today!
> > >
> > > Awesome!
> >
> > It was better than I could have hoped for! The company and
> > choreographer were all thrilled, great audience reponse, and the best
> > part is that I started with a last-minute call from a dance company
> > and before I left today I have more work with them, as well as two
> > other companies that have approached me. And one of the soft
> > instrument developers has asked to use the music as a demo tune on
> > their site.
> >
> > Watching talented, eloquent bodies move to your music has to be one of
> > the most fulfilling things ever. I'm a happy, humbled guy today...
>
>
> Belated, but heartfelt, congratulations, Jon!
>
> Hearing talented, eloquent musicians getting recognition
> - and WORK - has to be one of the best indicators that
> the world has not yet gone down the cultural drain - and
> that's very inspiring!
>
> And now we'll all be able to brag "I knew him when ..." :-)
>
> Regards,
> Yahya
>
>
> --
> No virus found in this outgoing message.
> Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
> Version: 7.0.344 / Virus Database: 267.11.13/126 - Release Date: 9/10/05

Let me join in the congratulations! I truly do rejoice with you, as I'm on my way to perform
music with and for belly dancers in just over an hour!

🔗Yahya Abdal-Aziz <yahya@melbpc.org.au>

Hi Jon,

On Mon, 29 Aug 2005 (really!), you ("Jon Szanto") wrote:
>
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Aaron Krister Johnson <aaron@a...> wrote:
> > It can be--it wasn't designed that way. It comes from the line of
> > Music V computer synthesis software systems.
>
> You're right, of course, but there seems to be a fair amount of dev
> work towards realtime. Of note to you, maybe, is SilenceVST:
> http://www.csounds.com/gogins/silence/
>
> I thought of you because it marries the capabilities of Csound with
> VST, all wrapped up in the Python programming language.

When I read this just now, I could hardly contain my excitement!
So I followed the link, which whetted my appetite even more.

But sadly, the links to download the software seem to be broken :-(
I will retry it again later, hopefully with better luck.

Regards,
Yahya

--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.344 / Virus Database: 267.12.0/132 - Release Date: 13/10/05