Re: [sc-users] Compiled language similar to sc ?

[jostM <sc3@xxxxxxxx>]

> Yes - and that is why I think about composing (and using any
> compositional tool or environment, whether computer or not) takes
> years of work. We expect all musicians at a conservatory to take years
> of harmony (and this really doesn't lead to composition yet!) and even
> more years of study to really become a composer. I don't see SC (and
> what it takes to learn it) as being any different from that process.
>
I do, for the reasons given. Programming and composition are not the
same thing. You can use programming to compose. I said nothing that
called into questioned the effort involved in composing, nor in
programmming. Nor am I concerned with learning harmony. I just think
that _for_a_composer_, i.e. someone who has already been making that
effort, mastering programming is asking as much as asking him to master
every instrument he/she composeses for, and mastering instrument
building as well. That is the distinction I was making. I hope it is
clearer now.  That is the point that was being made about Faust:

>I think Faust's model is better: a higher-level abstraction that can
>be compiled into a variety of contexts. Imagine a function description
>of a "piece" that could be compiled into SC, or ChucK, or csound, or
>nyquist, or *gasp* MSP, or the next big thing that hasn't been
>invented yet.

Programming-composing tends to put the burdon of composing, programming, instrument making, and interpretation all into one person. In an inordinately large number of cases, in my opinion, the composing part comes short.  It is worth considering that there might be a reason for that,  IMHO.


jost





_______________________________________________
sc-users mailing list

info (subscription, etc.): http://www.beast.bham.ac.uk/research/sc_mailing_lists.shtml
archive: https://listarc.bham.ac.uk/marchives/sc-users/
search: https://listarc.bham.ac.uk/lists/sc-users/search/