1 Oct
2004
1 Oct
'04
9:25 p.m.
Well, that's why I use csound, except the only problem is that its very
time consuming, takes weeks to do just one song, because I have to enter
every note by hand. In that way I can transcribe rhythm tracks that aren't
consistant, because I have such atomic level control. I also have created
some composition techniques that would be impossible to do with most midi
sequencers because I'm both using pitches that are outside those notes
supported by midi, and I'm also running five different time signatures
against each other.
But like I said the drawback to this approach is that its like pointalist
painting, and it takes forver to compose a tune.
2 Oct
2 Oct
2:14 a.m.
I did that mistake only once in my life. a 5 min piece took me about
a month, if not more. I said, no more typing.
What I found particularily useful, besides scripting languages, was
OOo.calc. writing out 50 000 events, in some granular score I did, took
only 25 seconds (and that because I was on a slow machine) after I
have defined the formulas for each p-field.
./MiS
Brian Redfern <bredfern(a)calarts.edu> writes:
Well, that's why I use csound, except the only
problem is that its very
time consuming, takes weeks to do just one song, because I have to enter
every note by hand. In that way I can transcribe rhythm tracks that aren't
consistant, because I have such atomic level control. I also have created
some composition techniques that would be impossible to do with most midi
sequencers because I'm both using pitches that are outside those notes
supported by midi, and I'm also running five different time signatures
against each other.
But like I said the drawback to this approach is that its like pointalist
painting, and it takes forver to compose a tune.
5:08 p.m.
New subject: [linux-audio-user] Re: metronome-free MIDI recording
I do recognize the flexibility of csound, but I don't consider atomic
csound composing any closer to realtime recording than midi step
sequencing is. If I ignore the metronome and musical time quantities,
and stick with midi clocks, I can be just as arbitrary in midi as in
csound, although that doesn't speak for your other reasons for using
csound, naturally.
In fact, in most cases when I've used csound I've started with
recorded midi and converted it to csound, and gone from there.
At heart I'm a textfile guy in everything, and so though that would be
a good match for me, but I've found that in laying down the notes I'm
a keyboardist at heart and have little patience for atomic methods.
That's just me. If I were a painter I'm sure I wouldn't be a
pointalist. ;-)
On Fri, 1 Oct 2004 16:08:20 -0700 (PDT), Brian Redfern
<bredfern(a)calarts.edu> wrote:
Well, that's why I use csound, except the only
problem is that its very
time consuming, takes weeks to do just one song, because I have to enter
every note by hand. In that way I can transcribe rhythm tracks that aren't
consistant, because I have such atomic level control. I also have created
some composition techniques that would be impossible to do with most midi
sequencers because I'm both using pitches that are outside those notes
supported by midi, and I'm also running five different time signatures
against each other.
But like I said the drawback to this approach is that its like pointalist
painting, and it takes forver to compose a tune.
--
De gustibus non disputandum est.
7386
days inactive
7387
days old
linux-audio-user@lists.linuxaudio.org
2 comments
3 participants
participants (3)
-
Brian Redfern -
Hans Fugal -
Michal Seta