Re: [haskell-art] abstract music from csound et.al. (Was: ANN - csound-expression-3.1.0)
Hi Evan Ha, though miles away from being ready for public consumption my own "tower of DSLs" built over Csound gained symbolic notes, chords, trills and "Solo Parts" this week. Hopefully arpeggios, tremolos and more should follow soon. More concretely Roger Dannenberg (Score), Stephen Travis Pope (Smoke) and Paul Hudak, of course, have made score languages with tangible musical objects like chords, clusters, drum rolls etc. Regarding your comment in the other thread Evan, David Seidel (aka Mystery Bear) has made music with Csound that crossed over well enough from "computer music" to feature on Kyle Gann's Postclassic radio when it was running. Best wishes Stephen On 14 December 2013 04:12, Evan Laforge wrote: > Csound's instruments, once you design them, are instruments in the > restrictive sense, and in fact they come with a very limited score > language. Too limited---to use them according to "the rules", you'd > need layers of libraries and abstractions above to express notes, > phrases, ornaments, and melodies linguistically. Or you could > short-circuit all that by recording data from a physical instrument. > I'm sort of working on the first approach, but I haven't seen examples > of someone else trying that. ... ___ haskell-art mailing list haskell-art@lurk.org http://lists.lurk.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-art
Re: [haskell-art] abstract music from csound et.al. (Was: ANN - csound-expression-3.1.0)
On Fri, Dec 13, 2013 at 2:07 PM, Henning Thielemann wrote: > At the Linux Audio Conference 2013 in Graz someone recommended in his talk > not to think of audio programs as software but as instruments. For programs > users request more and more features, whereas for instruments the > restriction on certain producible sounds is a feature. >From my point of view, the restrictions that instruments provide are only the very lowest level, and the majority of what makes an instrument (and sound into music) is the layers of history, cultural context, and training. That's where most of the "creative restriction" comes from. A violin played by a south Indian musician is a very different from the one played by a German concertmaster, even if it's physically the same! The software programs do provide restrictions of their own, but are disconnected from the cultural context since they didn't evolve together. Popular electronic music evolved along with the restrictions of keyboard synthesizers and hardware sequencers from the 70s, and now they co-evolve to support each other, as established traditions do. The synthesis languages lived mostly in academia and had fewer restrictions and thus a harder job, and haven't really done anything like that. It's probably also influenced by the academic idea that you create your own uncompromising aesthetic with little reference to historical practice. They might see it as an advantage that you can't easily express the same old tunes! So I would say that thinking of software as instruments is the wrong level, you would use the software to build instruments, in the same way that you use the instruments to build music, by applying higher and higher levels of rules and conventions. The promise of software is that they all exist in the same system, not distributed across instrument, composer, notation, and performance. Csound's instruments, once you design them, are instruments in the restrictive sense, and in fact they come with a very limited score language. Too limited---to use them according to "the rules", you'd need layers of libraries and abstractions above to express notes, phrases, ornaments, and melodies linguistically. Or you could short-circuit all that by recording data from a physical instrument. I'm sort of working on the first approach, but I haven't seen examples of someone else trying that. Without either the first or the second you're stuck at "assembly language" level, and the only thing easily expressible is the sound-scapey, generative, or otherwise randomized or repetitive music. Not that it's bad, I like sound-scapes too, but since they follow fewer rules I contend that their enjoyment is also less nuanced. ___ haskell-art mailing list haskell-art@lurk.org http://lists.lurk.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-art
[haskell-art] abstract music from csound et.al. (Was: ANN - csound-expression-3.1.0)
On Fri, 13 Dec 2013, Evan Laforge wrote: This is my experience too (though I'm a notation guy, I tried hard with DAWs but still found them slow and awkward). And I've never heard any music out of csound or other text languages that isn't more or less abstract and sound-designy. Maybe there is someone out there that manages to do it, but I haven't heard them. Music, as always, is largely determined by the tools used to create it. At the Linux Audio Conference 2013 in Graz someone recommended in his talk not to think of audio programs as software but as instruments. For programs users request more and more features, whereas for instruments the restriction on certain producible sounds is a feature. ___ haskell-art mailing list haskell-art@lurk.org http://lists.lurk.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-art
Re: [haskell-art] ANN - csound-expression-3.1.0 - now with GUI elements
Nice, I like "tibetan", it's a nice exploration of the harmonic series. It doesn't sound remotely "tibetan" but it does sound interesting. On Thu, Dec 12, 2013 at 11:42 PM, Anton Kholomiov wrote: > I have to admit that writing the music in text mode is far less > productive than with interactive DAWs like Cubase or Reaper > and you have no presets. This is my experience too (though I'm a notation guy, I tried hard with DAWs but still found them slow and awkward). And I've never heard any music out of csound or other text languages that isn't more or less abstract and sound-designy. Maybe there is someone out there that manages to do it, but I haven't heard them. Music, as always, is largely determined by the tools used to create it. ___ haskell-art mailing list haskell-art@lurk.org http://lists.lurk.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-art
