Subject: Re: [linux-audio-user] Note typesetting for Linux
From: ricktaylor_AT_speakeasy.net
Date: Wed Jul 14 2004 - 00:44:58 EEST
> From: tim hall [mailto:tech_AT_glastonburymusic.org.uk]
> Last Tuesday 13 July 2004 02:43, ricktaylor_AT_speakeasy.net was like:
> > > Entering textual representation of music and following certain _markup_
> > > rules is not programming. If it were so, simply scoring should be
> > > considered programming, too.
> >
> > It probably is in csound.
>
> Surely it counts as scripting, like an html page or postscript file and thus
> can be considered the 'source' of a piece of music.
>
> > I think the above methods need to somehow be extended to work with
> > samples. Either that or computer audio needs its own form of musical
> > representation.
> >
> > Maybe we need to just skip the idea of any sort of representation outside
> > of a song or audio file? If so... maybe we need to break with tradition a
> > bit and make "song" files themselves provide a higher degree of
> > functionality?
>
> A score needs to be a human-readable explanation of how to realise the piece
> of music so that it sounds the way the composer intended. The use of samples
> in a piece would need specifying in the same place as the rest of the
> instrumentation with clear directions of how to get hold of these samples.
> These things could easily be represented by an icon and a link.
So any net enabled computer could read this sound file...
http://wam.inrialpes.fr/software/limsee2/
I really don't see the point of distributing the file with sequencing information. The audio itself is as descriptive of the sequence as the song file could be.
If there were a sufficient number of online sample servers {with sufficient bandwidth...} it might begin to make sense. Most of what I use {that I call samples} is around the length of a standard song {1-8 minutes}. I really don't use loops as loops... I use them to generate longer sequences which, in turn, get mixed into the mix. :}
{My stuff is probably more properly defined as "sound" than "noise".}
> > > I don't think that computer programs should reflect the physical world
> > > we operate in. Not always anyways, there surely are better ways of
> > > dealing with certain issues.
> >
> > I think they should probably reflect the "reality" they deal with.
> > I also think they need an overhaul.
>
> I think scoring is an art form in itself, I also think that the conventional
> form of musical score is an anachronism that belongs with the musical
> fashions of 1700 to 1950. I also enjoy working with the random factor of
> interpretation so I like to present my performers with alien looking musical
> maps to explore sometimes, but I wouldn't want to do that to my community
> choir, I'd never hear the end of it! ~They get conventional scores ;-)~
I think you're probably right in calling it an "anachronism" and leaving it at that. I think it's time to move on to XML and SMIL {with appropriate extensions for sequencing languages like csound, ...midi, etc. } and to present stuff over the web or with large 4 color glossy inkjet prints.
> If you deal with any amount of electronic instruments, then your scoring
> language will require considerable extension. If it contains computerised
> elements, then we may as well use existing computer conventions to describe
> those elements. I think the reality of that is burning it all to CD and
> distributing that with the score if it's that important to the piece. Then
> you get to the point where it works out cheaper just to put the score on the
> CD as well and have done with it! Usually I find there's enough room for
> several demo versions, and there you have it, rehearsal copies for all into
> the bargain.
I'm for putting it on cd... Are we talking "language" or "file format" here?
{Seems to me that any sufficently enabled file format should be readable in just about any language. :}}
:} One file format to bind them all...
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b28 : Wed Jul 14 2004 - 00:48:53 EEST