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

[James Harkins <jamshark70@xxxxxxxxx>]

On Mon, Mar 9, 2009 at 5:10 PM, jostM <sc3@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 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:

Acoustic instrument technology is highly evolved, over hundreds of
years. Programming technology is relatively crude. Until programming
technology advances to the point that human ideas are as easy to
express as talking out loud (not necessarily natural-language
programming, but syntax and structures that are closer to the way
people think), this will continue to be a problem.

Functional programming is a big step in this direction. The
programming world hasn't caught up yet.

That's also one of my motivators to write such a long pattern guide --
because patterns (while not "functional programming" in the strictest
sense) abstract out a lot of the connective tissue, making it possible
for the composer to focus attention on "what I want," less on "how to
do it."

Pbind(\degree, Pseries(0, 1, 8), \dur, 0.25).play;

vs.

Task({
	#[60, 62, 64, 65, 67, 69, 71, 72].do({ |midi|
		var	synth;
		s.makeBundle(0.2) {
			synth = Synth(\default, [freq: midi.midicps, amp: 0.1]);
		};
		thisThread.clock.sched(0.25 * 0.8, {
			s.makeBundle(0.2) { synth.release };
		});
		0.25.yield;
	});
}).play;

Which one reads more like, "Play a C major scale in 16th notes"?

SC4 will likely have a very different synthesis model, but in theory,
patterns could be reimplemented for that architecture and work
more-or-less the same. In practice it won't be quite so compatible
(look at SC2 vs SC3) but again, more advanced programming technology
is needed but not there 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.

Yup. It's always slow going for me because there is *so much* to be
responsible for.
hjh


-- 
James Harkins /// dewdrop world
jamshark70@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://www.dewdrop-world.net

"Come said the Muse,
Sing me a song no poet has yet chanted,
Sing me the universal."  -- Whitman

_______________________________________________
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/