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

[jostM <sc3@xxxxxxxx>]

>
>
> The only thing is that when you compose, you have some kind of
> orchestra in mind,
Some composers have indeed felt it necessary to develop instruments for
their own purposes. I suspect that even more of them _had_ such
instruments developed rather than doing it themselves (LaMonte Young,
e.g., had  his sound generators developed for his purposes).

> even if you don't play the instruments. Moreover, you have a
> scriptural tradition that is connected to a certain set of musical
> practices.
hah! and in oral traditions the memory of the voice is imprinted in
memory as a glyph or palimpsest . Like the grooves in a phonograph
record. Is a voice really writing , or is writing still a voice? More
issues about essential distinctions, vs. matters of degree. ;-)
> Now computer music is a specification problem, because sound itself is
> not an instument, and neither is an algorithm separable in general
> from the idea of a composition.
yes, and I have no problem at all with those people who find programming
an activity which is musical enough that they end up producing music
with it. In fact, i think that is nearly ideal for computer music.
However, there might be ways of programming which are conducive to this.
>
> In addition to this, I think that SC is not predominantly a tool for
> composition, but rather a trading zone of different practices in art
> and science.
>
indeed.

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/