Hi Will ! As always, thank you for taking the time to review my tracks. On 07/29/2018 02:24 PM, Will Godfrey wrote: Self-generating patches are kind of a thing with modular folk. Such patches can be quite complex, much more than mere monotonous drones. Another post in this thread implied that there's a chance element to this patch. Indeed there is, but the patch itself is the result of many hours learning and testing module capabilities. IOW, a lot of listening and experimenting went into its creation before I was satisfied with it. Learning to use VCV Rack has involved me in an odd combination of studies. Composition with a modular is decidedly different than working with a DAW, and the lack of presets means that all synth programming is pretty much from the ground up. [NB: Presets capabilities have been added to module design as of Rack-v1-dev.] I've had to reorganize my thinking in order to use effectively things like shift registers and sequential switches, not to mention having to get my mind around the implications and capabilities of the whole CV design. Some former training - in Csound especially - comes in handy, while other habits - think MIDI - aren't really very helpful. It's all been a lot of fun so far, and I believe I'm finally making some progress towards my short-term goal of basic patch mastery. :) Best regards, dp

On Mon, Jul 30, 2018 at 9:26 AM, Louigi Verona <louigi.verona(a)gmail.com> wrote: while we're talking about generative modular patches, i consider this one to be insanely gorgeous. it was made with a hardware modular, so no linux audio in sight, although Benn is quite into linux himself: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kCDCtRE-bc4 if i ever came up with anything this lovely with VCVRack or any other technology, I could die happy.

On 07/30/2018 09:52 AM, Paul Davis wrote: I can do without his improv, but that patch is generating some beautiful sound. In my newbie opinion something like that is do-able on the Rack. Probably be a big patch. :) Best, dp

On Sun, 29 Jul 2018 16:20:22 -0400 Paul Davis <paul(a)linuxaudiosystems.com> wrote: Not so sure. The very first important aspect would be the quality of the drones it can generate, how it can vary dynamically in a almost random manner while still be relaxing. The richness of the sound elements involved is also very important. While full of technology, it would not give an upfront impression of being a machine. It would also not be too complex, always flowing. So far I do not have the impression that the three aforementioned can have the same quality of flowing rich and varied output as what we here from Dave's setup. What I heard is more on the dry side of things.

On Sun, 29 Jul 2018 17:37:00 -0400 Paul Davis <paul(a)linuxaudiosystems.com> wrote: Then this is a huge difference, and it shows in the output. I've never heard anything like that from PD, SC or Csound even if they can do it all and perhaps lots more. Haven't heard the same richness of tones (modulation removed) as with the VCV rack modules. And then the modulation enriches the basic 'warmth' of the tones. This said, I'm not a fan of PD, SC and Csound that is to say, I will not spend hours looking for tunes/pieces/examples made with those. If you have any, please post. A Pure Data drone: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V1E52x15RYU Super Collider example: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fYngev6RB_U OTOH, a quick youtube search with 'VCV rack' will return a fair amount of similar sounding sets, or at least in the same vein, as Dave's: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2OuiEDHKDRI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xiLdYLklS0U https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w_Psd7adYMM Of course, it's also possible to make unnerving music with a VCV rack, although if it's only the interface that makes such a difference, then it is extremely important regarding the quality of the output and as such, it cannot be undistinguished from the instrument itself. it makes one with it to create the output. And it puts the project out of the academic world and implants it firmly in the practical world.

On Mon, 30 Jul 2018 00:51:22 +0200 Ralf Mardorf <ralf.mardorf(a)alice-dsl.net> wrote: It wouldn't be surprising that it's also used by dictatorial regimes and the CIA, showing commonalities in application. Maybe the arrangement of sounds and modulations in this piece might have been facilitated by all of them happening at the same time using a unified interface. A bit perhaps like having 5 non-modular synths with a set of modulation-capable macros addressing several parameters on each. One thing with non-modular synths is that they would offer a much, much wider range of sounds. So the idea then would be to provide a unified modulation interface that can work with several non-modular synths while these synths themselves would be driven by a sequencer that also can be finely modulated.

Greets, On 07/29/2018 07:31 PM, Hank Stanglow wrote: I felt bad until I saw that the URL you referred to had nothing to do with my track. If you did listen to my track I do hope you made it past three seconds. :) Best, dp

Francesco Ariis <fa-ml(a)ariis.it> writes: -- David Kastrup

On Sun, 29 Jul 2018 22:57:37 -0400 Dave Phillips <dlphillips(a)woh.rr.com> wrote: Really ? Feeling bad because someone would write something like this about some music you made ? Really ? Isn't that very far away for all notions of nei gong ? Of inner peace. If someone would write that about music I made my reaction would be to smile. Even if the guy is a multi-millionaire boss of a record company or something like that. Such a comment would be like rain on a duck's back. Makes one smile and that's it. Even replying with a funny comment if it happens. Anyways, after my initial comment on a small portable device that would have a VCV Rack embedded so that people can heard dynamically evolving relaxing music such as yours, Paul replied that Pure Data, Csound and Super Collider can do the same, so why use a VCV Rack ? Afterwards Paul replied with good reason that the interface of a VCV Rack makes it very different. And so on. That you use a VCV Rack I think makes it legitimate to spontaneously comment on the device being used which is, after all, fairly new. At least fairly new to the "public". If I would be using a Gizmo to present a new piece of music I would not make it a case that people start commenting on the nature of the Gizmo. Not that you did, mind you. But others are mentioning that a different thread should have been created. I'm quite unsure about this. First of all traffic is minimal in this mailing list. Certainly not the affluence of years ago. Secondly there's something anti-spontaneous about simply not replying but instead creating a new thread so that people would not get "confused". Cheers.

jonetsu <jonetsu(a)teksavvy.com> writes: Why announce it if you didn't care how it would affect others? Particularly on a list of insiders? The last major completed work of J. S. Bach, the "Great Catholic Mass in B minor" is a bit of a puzzler in that regard. Utterly unperformable (wrong church for the composer, wrong rite for the century even if you went to the right church, too large for private performances and too sacred for concert halls) and several composers of renown likely held a cherished copy. Dissemination too wide to be a mere accident (other works like the Musical Offering or the Brandenburg concerti almost disappeared in spite of being more in line with the times), purpose questionable. I suspect that the initial distribution might have been via a composers' mailing list. Or what has passed for it in the 18th century. I doubt it would not have affected him if someone replied "Johann Sebastian, that is totally unlistenable. I barely got through three seconds of it." on the list (even though what happens with the tonality in the "Confiteor" when its ars antiqua fugue runs into the "Et expecto" like a locomotive engine into zero gravity is somewhat out of the ordinary). But there were likely fewer list members anyway. And he did not survive long enough for a flamewar in that medium either. -- David Kastrup

[Dave Phillips] i have to admit that musically, i find this piece much more interesting than the thread-starting piece (which in itself is totally agreeable in the same way that a factual statement about the blueness of the sky today would be).

On Sun, 29 Jul 2018 22:53:21 -0400 Dave Phillips <dlphillips(a)woh.rr.com> wrote: This is quite different. It is dark and unsettling. Many elements in it makes it sombre and not enjoyable on the same level. 2:03 buzzing sound introduced 2:23 unsettling harmonies 3:11 - 3:18 dark moods As such that piece is not richly flowing and varied as the piece at the start of the thread which is largely bright, with an array of colourful elements weaved in and out. Taking the mood aside I would still say that for comparison sake, the Csound piece is effectively more on the dry side of things. As if there was not an easy access to trigger up a variety of different sound sources. But then, it might just be the piece. Cheers.

Paul Davis <paul(a)linuxaudiosystems.com> writes: Man, this really sounds like the "modern man is defined by placing a machine between himself and his purpose" phenomenon. -- David Kastrup

On Sun, 29 Jul 2018 16:44:46 -0400 jonetsu <jonetsu(a)teksavvy.com> wrote: And in the meanwhile, until all this is sorted out, we can listen to some relaxing music that seems dynamically alive.