1 Dec
2007
1 Dec
'07
8:45 a.m.
On Dec 1, 2007 2:19 PM, Lars Luthman <lars.luthman(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On Sat, 2007-12-01 at 14:13 +0200, Chuckk Hubbard wrote:
I definitely agree with that; but there are other ways to send
frequency info than physical keys. I made my own sequencer, others
use algorithms or other text-based score languages (e.g. Scala) that
may be a bit simpler than Csound's.
And again, writing .sco files is a skill that, if one is motivated
enough, becomes easier with practice. A text editor like emacs can do
a lot of the work.
-Chuckk
--
http://www.badmuthahubbard.com
Agreed. It is also capable of completely
customizable microtuning,
which, despite what some of you may have heard, is not possible on any
hard synth. They may say it is- but you are limited by the number of
keys on the hardware, which is not the case with Csound.
I used to harp about the difficulty of using Csound with any fluency,
but this is a difference of degree, not of kind: It is hard to learn,
but I believe someone very experienced with Csound can work as
efficiently as someone very experienced with simpler interfaces, doing
the same tasks.
But if you're going to play it like an instrument you'll still need some
sort of hardware, which will typically have a finite number of keys.
Writing .sco files isn't all that fun.