On 3/17/07, padawan12 padawan12@obiwannabe.co.uk wrote:
On Fri, 16 Mar 2007 14:06:37 -0400 "Chuckk Hubbard" badmuthahubbard@gmail.com wrote:
What what was? The Csound opcode?
No the book on stats for music applications.
Alas, it is merely a probability textbook with a little more detail than the one we're using in class; it isn't geared towards music.
I do think of it as overkill for synthesis purposes, but people use Csound for lots of other purposes. I guess for algorithmic composition that kind of specificity is indispensible.
I'd argue for its audio precision, but then it's not realtime (by design) in the same way that Pd is. Not sure what control stuff you could do in csound that you couldn't in Pd (?) Never really loved the score<->orchestra dichotomy either, without that wall to negotiate I think you have more freedom in instrument design and in generation.
I love Csound for a bunch of reasons. The score format is definitely not one of them. The csoundapi~ Pd object is awesome, though, and now supports multiple instances. At the moment, I'm working with a 4-movement "microtonal" sonata I wrote with my Pd JIsequencer and translated to a Csound score. I find it much easier to control synthesis and production with Csound. I think just because it has higher-level stuff. It's also older and has more contributors. But I bet for most people the bottom line is whether they prefer to work with text or graphics. I like both. I'm not sure why, but it seems like the Csound and Pd camps are almost mutually exclusive.
-Chuckk