4 ms·

It looks nice and I may consider buying one for research purpose. But I know the price tag can be quite high for many. Maybe that's partially the reason that I

It looks nice and I may consider buying one for research purpose. But I know the price tag can be quite high for many. Maybe that's partially the reason that I believe free and open-source software is a form or music democratisation. I would like to invite those who are interested in this idea to try my live coding project in the browser: https://glicol.org https://glicol.org I have been taking this project to different workshops and there will be more. The most unforgettable experience so far is that in one place the host can only provide old laptops that can hardly run Chrome smoothly. It really makes me think a lot afterwards. There are so many people excluded from music making due to the price tag. On the one hand, it's exciting to see the exploration aestheticism, design and interaction. But on the other hand, we should really consider the democratisation of music tech.

capableweb 4y ago
Talking about making it easier to write music and then linking to a programming language for making music feels a bit weird. Yes, hardware is a barrier for sure, but a even larger barrier would be to put it behind a complicated programming language. If we really want to "democratize music tech" (whatever that means), then I think things like the Korg Volcas are much closer to achieving that. Cheaper than most computer hardware, very intuitive even for people who never touched a synth before, and hardware that is relatively easy to grok, even the insides of it. Easy to take apart as well. The only thing missing from the Volcas would be a completely open source design both for the hardware and the firmware. That would get us much closer than a programming language for music could ever.
- bambax 4y ago
  I disagree. I think there is room for both. I own two Volcas, and don't use them much unfortunately. The problem with hardware is it's extremely difficult, or downright impossible, to save state. On a physical modular synth, the only way to remember what you did is to write it down or (maybe) take pictures. On a virtual modular synth all you have to do is Save As. I'm sure OP-1 can save its patches, but that doesn't address the problem of the whole chain, or backups.
  - capableweb 4y ago
    Eh, that's not at all true. Being able to recall state is something that has been solved for a long time, but not all synths have that functionality, I'll give you that. As two examples of synths I own that can do this: - Moog Sirin supports Program Change MIDI messages, so I save the state of the current settings via MIDI on my Octatrack, and can recall that same state whenever I want without touching the hardware of the Sirin - Novation Summit allows you to save patches with your own name + putting it in a category. Recalling the same patch is a matter of turning the knob until you arrive there. Not sure how you arrived to the conclusion that saving state is "extremely difficult, or downright impossible".
    - bambax 4y ago
      > Not sure how you arrived to the conclusion that saving state is "extremely difficult, or downright impossible". I was thinking about modular synths mostly, and patching cables (also: Volca Modular). Yes, individual synths can save/export settings, but if you want to save a whole combination with different machines it's a big headache; whereas in a DAW it's so trivial you don't even think about it. But ok, we are sliding into the "hardware vs software" debate, which won't be solved here or there, or ever.
      - capableweb 4y ago
        > I was thinking about modular synths mostly, and patching cables (also: Volca Modular). Ah yeah, I don't use modular synths myself (and that reason is one of them, patching cables manually seems like a hassle). > Yes, individual synths can save/export settings, but if you want to save a whole combination with different machines it's a big headache; whereas in a DAW it's so trivial you don't even think about it. As mentioned earlier, Program Change MIDI messages solve this. I have about 10 hardware devices I use for music making, and all of them responds to Program Change messages. Everything is driven by the Octatrack, so changing the project/pattern on the Octatrack makes every device in my studio load the right patch instantly. Once you've setup the audio/MIDI routing with your hardware, it's actually pretty easy to use. > But ok, we are sliding into the "hardware vs software" debate, which won't be solved here or there, or ever. Agree :) For some, hardware is better, for others software is better. Truth is probably somewhere in-between and/or both depending on context.
- chaosprint 4y ago
  Good point! Programming language can be harder to learn. I totally agree with it. With a hardware, you can easily make some sound. But on the other hand, languages are free and we can make the docs and videos so that the learning curve can be less steep. I would be amazed if one without any previous experience can master, say Mother-32, even with manuals and tutorials. Also, the way I design Glicol (graph-oritend live coding language) is actually against normal programming paradigms such as FP or OOP. I always let my students to hear and see how an audio node works. I would call it as an instrument-design perspective. This may also lower the learning bar. And to compare programming languages with hardware tools, I can also mention the logic loop. For example, you can easily duplicate 100 oscillators in live coding but generally impossible to achieve with hardware synth.
bambax 4y ago
> https://glicol.org https://glicol.org This looks absolutely fantastic! Thanks for sharing. Live coding in a VST (like this project https://www.osar.fr/protoplug/ https://www.osar.fr/protoplug/) would be the next thing? > remember to play with line 14 On my screen, line numbers are almost invisible (.CodeMirror-linenumber #e0e2e5).
- chaosprint 4y ago
  Live coding in VST is already possible: https://youtu.be/tmmBhBmIEW0 https://youtu.be/tmmBhBmIEW0 Glicol is also an audio library, so you can write VST plugin with Glicol: https://github.com/chaosprint/dattorro-vst-rs https://github.com/chaosprint/dattorro-vst-rs
  - bambax 4y ago
    Wow. Absolutely amazing. About writing VSTs, does it require JUCE, etc.?
    - chaosprint 4y ago
      No, it uses EGUI in Rust for the GUI, and Glicol synth as the audio engine. The link of that repo is actually a GitHub template so one can easily customise it to any audio effect.
- tmountain 4y ago
  You might like this too. http://ernestmicklei.com/melrose/introduction_melrose/ http://ernestmicklei.com/melrose/introduction_melrose/ Really cool project that lets you drive your DAW programmatically.
closedloop129 4y ago
To make it more democratic, could you add a gui that records interactions as glicol source code? That way it would be possible to immediately start making music without having to learn the language first.
- chaosprint 4y ago
  I do want to make hardware one day.

capableweb 4y ago

Talking about making it easier to write music and then linking to a programming language for making music feels a bit weird. Yes, hardware is a barrier for sure, but a even larger barrier would be to put it behind a complicated programming language. If we really want to "democratize music tech" (whatever that means), then I think things like the Korg Volcas are much closer to achieving that. Cheaper than most computer hardware, very intuitive even for people who never touched a synth before, and hardware that is relatively easy to grok, even the insides of it. Easy to take apart as well. The only thing missing from the Volcas would be a completely open source design both for the hardware and the firmware. That would get us much closer than a programming language for music could ever.

bambax 4y ago
I disagree. I think there is room for both. I own two Volcas, and don't use them much unfortunately. The problem with hardware is it's extremely difficult, or downright impossible, to save state. On a physical modular synth, the only way to remember what you did is to write it down or (maybe) take pictures. On a virtual modular synth all you have to do is Save As. I'm sure OP-1 can save its patches, but that doesn't address the problem of the whole chain, or backups.
- capableweb 4y ago
  Eh, that's not at all true. Being able to recall state is something that has been solved for a long time, but not all synths have that functionality, I'll give you that. As two examples of synths I own that can do this: - Moog Sirin supports Program Change MIDI messages, so I save the state of the current settings via MIDI on my Octatrack, and can recall that same state whenever I want without touching the hardware of the Sirin - Novation Summit allows you to save patches with your own name + putting it in a category. Recalling the same patch is a matter of turning the knob until you arrive there. Not sure how you arrived to the conclusion that saving state is "extremely difficult, or downright impossible".
  - bambax 4y ago
    > Not sure how you arrived to the conclusion that saving state is "extremely difficult, or downright impossible". I was thinking about modular synths mostly, and patching cables (also: Volca Modular). Yes, individual synths can save/export settings, but if you want to save a whole combination with different machines it's a big headache; whereas in a DAW it's so trivial you don't even think about it. But ok, we are sliding into the "hardware vs software" debate, which won't be solved here or there, or ever.
    - capableweb 4y ago
      > I was thinking about modular synths mostly, and patching cables (also: Volca Modular). Ah yeah, I don't use modular synths myself (and that reason is one of them, patching cables manually seems like a hassle). > Yes, individual synths can save/export settings, but if you want to save a whole combination with different machines it's a big headache; whereas in a DAW it's so trivial you don't even think about it. As mentioned earlier, Program Change MIDI messages solve this. I have about 10 hardware devices I use for music making, and all of them responds to Program Change messages. Everything is driven by the Octatrack, so changing the project/pattern on the Octatrack makes every device in my studio load the right patch instantly. Once you've setup the audio/MIDI routing with your hardware, it's actually pretty easy to use. > But ok, we are sliding into the "hardware vs software" debate, which won't be solved here or there, or ever. Agree :) For some, hardware is better, for others software is better. Truth is probably somewhere in-between and/or both depending on context.
chaosprint 4y ago
Good point! Programming language can be harder to learn. I totally agree with it. With a hardware, you can easily make some sound. But on the other hand, languages are free and we can make the docs and videos so that the learning curve can be less steep. I would be amazed if one without any previous experience can master, say Mother-32, even with manuals and tutorials. Also, the way I design Glicol (graph-oritend live coding language) is actually against normal programming paradigms such as FP or OOP. I always let my students to hear and see how an audio node works. I would call it as an instrument-design perspective. This may also lower the learning bar. And to compare programming languages with hardware tools, I can also mention the logic loop. For example, you can easily duplicate 100 oscillators in live coding but generally impossible to achieve with hardware synth.

bambax 4y ago

> https://glicol.org https://glicol.org This looks absolutely fantastic! Thanks for sharing. Live coding in a VST (like this project https://www.osar.fr/protoplug/ https://www.osar.fr/protoplug/) would be the next thing? > remember to play with line 14 On my screen, line numbers are almost invisible (.CodeMirror-linenumber #e0e2e5).

chaosprint 4y ago
Live coding in VST is already possible: https://youtu.be/tmmBhBmIEW0 https://youtu.be/tmmBhBmIEW0 Glicol is also an audio library, so you can write VST plugin with Glicol: https://github.com/chaosprint/dattorro-vst-rs https://github.com/chaosprint/dattorro-vst-rs
- bambax 4y ago
  Wow. Absolutely amazing. About writing VSTs, does it require JUCE, etc.?
  - chaosprint 4y ago
    No, it uses EGUI in Rust for the GUI, and Glicol synth as the audio engine. The link of that repo is actually a GitHub template so one can easily customise it to any audio effect.
tmountain 4y ago
You might like this too. http://ernestmicklei.com/melrose/introduction_melrose/ http://ernestmicklei.com/melrose/introduction_melrose/ Really cool project that lets you drive your DAW programmatically.

closedloop129 4y ago

To make it more democratic, could you add a gui that records interactions as glicol source code? That way it would be possible to immediately start making music without having to learn the language first.

chaosprint 4y ago
I do want to make hardware one day.