On Sun March 12 2006 03:01, Jean-Baptiste Mestelan wrote:
> On 3/11/06, Rob <lau@email-addr-hidden> wrote:
> > I might use code-based compositional tools (well, the ones
> > that can be programmed without using Lisp-like languages,
> > which are evil and must be destroyed)
> Would you please elaborate a bit ? just curious :-)
> I recently have been feeling an itch to learn Nyquist (a Lisp
> dialect, or Lisp-like language : not sure yet) which Audacity
> is based upon.
It's purely a personal thing, like my distaste for COBOL and
Fortran and other people's distaste for Perl or PHP or BASIC. I
think Lisp is one of the most annoying languages I've ever
worked with, and I've managed to reduce my contact with it in
the last 10 years to the point where I had to actually look up
how to turn off auto-fill-mode in my .emacs file last week.
I probably would have taken to algorithmic composition long ago
if most of the major audio languages had been Algol-derived
rather than LISP-based. The obvious exception is Csound, but
that seems much more oriented towards synthesis whereas all I
want to do is play my PAT files through Timidity and maybe use
Bristol or Zyn for some fake analog color and Hydrogen for
percussion, and haven't seen any examples of Csound being used
for that type of thing.
Rob
Received on Mon Mar 13 00:15:12 2006
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Mon Mar 13 2006 - 00:15:13 EET