daniel-mayer wrote
Partially I agree, but on the other hand, you cannot directly compare with
Tidal. As I get it, SC's pattern system is much more general and live
coding is just one of the things you can do with it.
...
One might argue that finding personal improvements is not sufficient and
SC's Pattern system would need a general solution to go to the tidal
direction, personally I think that this cannot be expected...
SC patterns and tidal follow different timing models: patterns are additive,
while tidal is based on division of units of time.
If you replace SC's timing model with tidal's, then you lose the ability to
create all kinds of textural layers where metrical divisions make no sense.
When Lucas wrote, "That is exactly what comes to my mind when I say that
pattern interface is clumsy" -- my point was, how, in tidal, would you
express the idea "start with a randomly chosen time in a given range and,
for 6-12 events, slow down, and do this repeatedly, and do not coordinate
the rhythm cycles with the pitch cycles"? Good luck.
That's a good example what I meant with SC being more general. WIth PSPdiv e.g. you can define timing based on pulse division, but this a choice.
SC's pattern interface expresses some ideas beautifully, and other ideas
clumsily. It's quite wrong to say that it *is* clumsy. It's correct to say
that it's clumsy for certain defined tasks, *and* that some of the tasks at
which it's clumsy are things that many musicians want to do. The solution
there is to develop interfaces suited to those tasks.
Definitely
Daniel
|