6 ms·

If you are interested in code-based composition, try my project: https://glicol.org https://glicol.org I am still working on the composition system, together

If you are interested in code-based composition, try my project: https://glicol.org https://glicol.org I am still working on the composition system, together with many other stuff here is an example of Kraftwerk: https://glicol.org/demo#themodel https://glicol.org/demo#themodel

sramsay 3y ago
What I really want to see is a music programming language that does not require elementary knowledge of trig. In fact, I don't want it to use any numbers at all. They all do: Faust, Impromptu, ChuCK, csound, SuperCollider, etc., etc. I suppose that by itself should convince me that there's no other way (there are things like Orca, but I'm thinking of things that look more like conventional programming languages). I seldom think about numbers when I'm programming a synthesizer -- I just turn this knob more this way or this slider down a bit. Why can't a music programming language be more . . . gestural? Not sure what the right word is. I want the benefits of a textual programming language, but I don't really want to have to start thinking about sound waves in terms of literal numeric frequencies, particular since I really don't do that while doing sound design. I don't meant to pick on your project in particular; it looks really cool. But since you're writing one of these, perhaps you can answer my question. Why do these languages ask synth programmers to think in terms of precise numbers when programming an "actual" synth isn't really like that at all?
- Jeff_Brown 3y ago
  TidalCycles doesn't. And you can try it online without installing anything. https://strudel.cc/ https://strudel.cc/ Try evaluating `d1 $ s "bd sn"` to get a bass drum-snare drum rhythm going. Then `d1 $ s "bd*2 sn"` to kick the bass drum twice each loop instead of once. It can be extremely intuitive.
  - sramsay 3y ago
    Doesn't what? Doesn't use numbers? scale(scales) .scaleTranspose("[0 <2 4>]*2") .struct("x*4") .velocity("<.8 .5>\*4") .velocity(0.8) .slow(2) ) .fast(1) .note() .clip("<.4 .8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2>/8")
    - Jeff_Brown 3y ago
      Require trig.
- Rochus 3y ago
  > I want the benefits of a textual programming language, but I don't really want to have to start thinking about sound waves in terms of literal numeric frequencies That's a bit of a contradiction. It's exactly the reason to use a programming language to have that level of control over signal processing. Otherwise you're better off with a tool like Reactor or VCV Rack.
- nielsbot 3y ago
  What about Orca? https://100r.co/site/orca.html https://100r.co/site/orca.html Esoteric visual music programming language that uses a 2D grid of operators.
  - sramsay 3y ago
    Orca is explicitly mentioned in the comment to which you are responding.
    - nielsbot 3y ago
      oops!
- TheOtherHobbes 3y ago
  Because it's a text interface, not a gestural interface. If you really want a gestural interface you can add it to any language that supports for MIDI control, or some other hardware connection option. (UDP, etc.) The gestural part is trivial, just as putting a knob on a synth is trivial. The hard part is getting the knob to do something,. Which is not trivial at all. In fact it's impossible without using numbers somewhere in the make-it-work chain. They may be a few levels down, but they're always going to be there.
  - sramsay 3y ago
    I'm not suggesting that we banish numbers from the entire stack. I'm asking why they are absolutely necessary for a textual interface in this domain -- to the point that, as someone says below, it is a "contradiction" to suggest otherwise. As if there's some sort of impassable gulf between csound and VCV Rack. Let's talk about LaTeX this way. Suppose LaTeX required everything to be specified in explicitly numeric terms. I find this sort of tedious, and I start asking why we can't just express the idea that things be "centered," or "justified," or "kerned" or "Large(r)," or "ragged right." Would you really say that I am speaking in terms of contradictions? That what I really need is Word, that I must not understand the difference between a textual language and a gestural one, and that the only reason to use a textual language is precisely so that I can have precise control over these matters? What I'm really asking here is whether we are really talking about the hard limits of programming languages, or if we are instead talking about a certain lack of imagination among programming language designers in this space?
    - lemurien 3y ago
      Maybe some constants or enums to give names to specific numbers. let CENTERED = 0; let JUSTIFIED = 1;
    - nologic01 3y ago
      I think what you are asking for is for an abstraction layer that is on top of what the current systems do. LaTeX is a very good analogy, as it is a set of macros that hide away the numericity of the underlying TeX typesetting system. Once upon a time people did use TeX to write papers because LaTeX did not exist yet. Such a higher level macro system must make tradeoffs between sufficient control and conciseness (though its typically possible to insert low level code in between the macros since before any macro can be executed, rendered etc. it must be converted to the lower level anyway). Developing such a system is probably a task for tech-savvy musician rather than a music-savvy techie. Its value proposition would be precisely to crystallize composition "invariants" that are expressive and versatile enough to enable people to compose genuinely new things. But you should keep in mind that all LaTeX papers look a bit alike :-) (though much better than Word papers).
- dreamcompiler 3y ago
  > does not require elementary knowledge of trig As math fields go, trig is fairly easy. The part you need to understand for music is a nicely-delimited chunk that you can learn quickly. I find it very rewarding as a way to think about music; you might too. (I'm not talking about Fourier transforms; just basic trig.)
- chaosprint 3y ago
  this is an interesting point. I would say live coding opens many possibilities, for example this one: ``` a: sin 440 >> mul 0.1 b: sin 441 >> mul 0.1 ``` and you can use a loop to create 100 sine oscillators with random frequency it's totally different from a physical synth also there are tons of variation in terms of "patterns" for sequencing just a unique feeling
- Pr0ject217 3y ago
  I agree. When possible/working with sound, I would take a tactile experience (right-brain/feel?) over a mathematical/analytical experience (left-brain/logic?). I also don't know music theory and I haven't dedicated time to learn math, so I lean on my intuition more than anything.
- chaosharmonic 3y ago
  Sonic Pi binds MIDI codes to symbols like `:a4` for their corresponding note names, if that helps. It's not comprehensive -- there are no entries for doubled flats/sharps, for instance -- but you can write basic chords/melodic lines with a pretty limited need for numbers. You'll still need some for `sleep` (or `play_pattern_timed`), but if we're being pedantic about it, note lengths are already numbers as is.
- iainctduncan 3y ago
  You are looking for what we call an "algorithmic music language", where the focus is on manipulating symbolic music representations rather than digital audio. OpusMondi is one of these. Others include my project (Scheme for Max, mentioned elsewhere at top level of the thread), Common Music, OpenMusic, etc. Visual options include Max and Pd, which have an entire message/event layer that does not have to be used for digital audio at all. All of these can output to standard synthesizers if the digital sound part is not your interest.
- Jeff_Brown 3y ago
  Music is numbers. Musical instructions that don't use numbers seem as feasible as architectural plans without measurements -- which is to say, somewhat, but impossible to do precisely. (Music notation might not have explicit numbers but it's got stand-ins for them.)
Rochus 3y ago
What's the core benefit in comparison to all the other existing open-source audio/music programming environments (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_audio_programming_languages https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_audio_programming_lang...)?
- chaosprint 3y ago
  Glicol has a synth-like syntax, trying to balance the simplicity and readability needed for live coding music performances. This syntax is also deeply integrated with the customised audio engine under the hood. And this audio engine can be used as an independent Rust audio library. You can also use Glicol's DSL in Rust projects. There are many use cases in this YouTube channel, such as Glicol running on Bela, functioning as a VST, and as a CLI tool: https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PLT4REhRBWaOOrLQxCg5Uw97gEpN-woo1c&si=eNrqOMHpxfiA0ybv https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PLT4REhRBWaOOrLQxCg5Uw97gE... But all in all, I just feel comfortable coding with it for experimenting sound design and improvisation.
  - Rochus 3y ago
    cool, thanks.
- nologic01 3y ago
  Something I noticed about all these projects (and they are quite a few) is that they are quite old (some going back ~2 decades or so). I wonder what is the dynamic behind that longevity. Music hasn't changed ofcourse but on tech side I would think there are significant new possibilities. Is it something related to the difficulty of implementing low level algorithms (famously a lot of linear algebra stuff goes back decades and rests on C / Fortran libraries). Is it that there isn't enough interest to justify new efforts or are those systems already near "perfection"?
  - Rochus 3y ago
    > some going back ~2 decades or so Some indeed started long ago; e.g. Common Music had its roots in the eighties and became a pretty popular composition environment during the nineties; in 2008 there was even a fundamental redesign and it's still developed. But there was also a certain abundance of new tools; many were released that essentially had the same goal and offered the same features, just implemented a little differently. > Music hasn't changed ofcourse Music and the way music is composed, produced and consumed has changed tremendously over the years, and so have the tools. In the past the focus was on algorithmic composition, and tools allowed to extend the possibilities of a composer also to sound design, but it took years until computers were fast enough to render a composition in real-time. Then came the time of the DAW's when eventually everyone could produce music with little investments. In the last ten years live coding became popular which is yet another way of composing and producing music, with new requirements for interactivity and ergonomic efficiency of the tools, and yet a different view of the composer and the composition process.
mike_ivanov 3y ago
Blinking cursor. Full stop - can't use. But thanks for building it, anyways.
- Jeff_Brown 3y ago
  That's so racist.
  - mike_ivanov 3y ago
    Huh? How come?
    - Jeff_Brown 3y ago
      It just seemed like a funny way to mislabel something that to me is, sincerely, a strange if refreshingly naked form of bigotry. What's wrong with blinking cursors? They're so easy to find.
      - mike_ivanov 3y ago
        I see :-) Well, it's not that I have anything against blinking cursors, nor I'm trying to infringe on their rights. Rather, it is that seeing the cursors blinking kind of freezes my brain. I simply cannot code if the cursor in the editor is blinking. It's a common problem[1][2]. [1] https://jurta.org/en/prog/noblink https://jurta.org/en/prog/noblink [2] https://www.justanswer.com/neurology/j0wg1-team-started-issue-just-happened-recently-when.html https://www.justanswer.com/neurology/j0wg1-team-started-issu...
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

sramsay 3y ago

What I really want to see is a music programming language that does not require elementary knowledge of trig. In fact, I don't want it to use any numbers at all. They all do: Faust, Impromptu, ChuCK, csound, SuperCollider, etc., etc. I suppose that by itself should convince me that there's no other way (there are things like Orca, but I'm thinking of things that look more like conventional programming languages). I seldom think about numbers when I'm programming a synthesizer -- I just turn this knob more this way or this slider down a bit. Why can't a music programming language be more . . . gestural? Not sure what the right word is. I want the benefits of a textual programming language, but I don't really want to have to start thinking about sound waves in terms of literal numeric frequencies, particular since I really don't do that while doing sound design. I don't meant to pick on your project in particular; it looks really cool. But since you're writing one of these, perhaps you can answer my question. Why do these languages ask synth programmers to think in terms of precise numbers when programming an "actual" synth isn't really like that at all?

Jeff_Brown 3y ago
TidalCycles doesn't. And you can try it online without installing anything. https://strudel.cc/ https://strudel.cc/ Try evaluating `d1 $ s "bd sn"` to get a bass drum-snare drum rhythm going. Then `d1 $ s "bd*2 sn"` to kick the bass drum twice each loop instead of once. It can be extremely intuitive.
- sramsay 3y ago
  Doesn't what? Doesn't use numbers? scale(scales) .scaleTranspose("[0 <2 4>]*2") .struct("x*4") .velocity("<.8 .5>\*4") .velocity(0.8) .slow(2) ) .fast(1) .note() .clip("<.4 .8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2>/8")
  - Jeff_Brown 3y ago
    Require trig.
Rochus 3y ago
> I want the benefits of a textual programming language, but I don't really want to have to start thinking about sound waves in terms of literal numeric frequencies That's a bit of a contradiction. It's exactly the reason to use a programming language to have that level of control over signal processing. Otherwise you're better off with a tool like Reactor or VCV Rack.
nielsbot 3y ago
What about Orca? https://100r.co/site/orca.html https://100r.co/site/orca.html Esoteric visual music programming language that uses a 2D grid of operators.
- sramsay 3y ago
  Orca is explicitly mentioned in the comment to which you are responding.
  - nielsbot 3y ago
    oops!
TheOtherHobbes 3y ago
Because it's a text interface, not a gestural interface. If you really want a gestural interface you can add it to any language that supports for MIDI control, or some other hardware connection option. (UDP, etc.) The gestural part is trivial, just as putting a knob on a synth is trivial. The hard part is getting the knob to do something,. Which is not trivial at all. In fact it's impossible without using numbers somewhere in the make-it-work chain. They may be a few levels down, but they're always going to be there.
- sramsay 3y ago
  I'm not suggesting that we banish numbers from the entire stack. I'm asking why they are absolutely necessary for a textual interface in this domain -- to the point that, as someone says below, it is a "contradiction" to suggest otherwise. As if there's some sort of impassable gulf between csound and VCV Rack. Let's talk about LaTeX this way. Suppose LaTeX required everything to be specified in explicitly numeric terms. I find this sort of tedious, and I start asking why we can't just express the idea that things be "centered," or "justified," or "kerned" or "Large(r)," or "ragged right." Would you really say that I am speaking in terms of contradictions? That what I really need is Word, that I must not understand the difference between a textual language and a gestural one, and that the only reason to use a textual language is precisely so that I can have precise control over these matters? What I'm really asking here is whether we are really talking about the hard limits of programming languages, or if we are instead talking about a certain lack of imagination among programming language designers in this space?
  - lemurien 3y ago
    Maybe some constants or enums to give names to specific numbers. let CENTERED = 0; let JUSTIFIED = 1;
  - nologic01 3y ago
    I think what you are asking for is for an abstraction layer that is on top of what the current systems do. LaTeX is a very good analogy, as it is a set of macros that hide away the numericity of the underlying TeX typesetting system. Once upon a time people did use TeX to write papers because LaTeX did not exist yet. Such a higher level macro system must make tradeoffs between sufficient control and conciseness (though its typically possible to insert low level code in between the macros since before any macro can be executed, rendered etc. it must be converted to the lower level anyway). Developing such a system is probably a task for tech-savvy musician rather than a music-savvy techie. Its value proposition would be precisely to crystallize composition "invariants" that are expressive and versatile enough to enable people to compose genuinely new things. But you should keep in mind that all LaTeX papers look a bit alike :-) (though much better than Word papers).
dreamcompiler 3y ago
> does not require elementary knowledge of trig As math fields go, trig is fairly easy. The part you need to understand for music is a nicely-delimited chunk that you can learn quickly. I find it very rewarding as a way to think about music; you might too. (I'm not talking about Fourier transforms; just basic trig.)
chaosprint 3y ago
this is an interesting point. I would say live coding opens many possibilities, for example this one: ``` a: sin 440 >> mul 0.1 b: sin 441 >> mul 0.1 ``` and you can use a loop to create 100 sine oscillators with random frequency it's totally different from a physical synth also there are tons of variation in terms of "patterns" for sequencing just a unique feeling
Pr0ject217 3y ago
I agree. When possible/working with sound, I would take a tactile experience (right-brain/feel?) over a mathematical/analytical experience (left-brain/logic?). I also don't know music theory and I haven't dedicated time to learn math, so I lean on my intuition more than anything.
chaosharmonic 3y ago
Sonic Pi binds MIDI codes to symbols like `:a4` for their corresponding note names, if that helps. It's not comprehensive -- there are no entries for doubled flats/sharps, for instance -- but you can write basic chords/melodic lines with a pretty limited need for numbers. You'll still need some for `sleep` (or `play_pattern_timed`), but if we're being pedantic about it, note lengths are already numbers as is.
iainctduncan 3y ago
You are looking for what we call an "algorithmic music language", where the focus is on manipulating symbolic music representations rather than digital audio. OpusMondi is one of these. Others include my project (Scheme for Max, mentioned elsewhere at top level of the thread), Common Music, OpenMusic, etc. Visual options include Max and Pd, which have an entire message/event layer that does not have to be used for digital audio at all. All of these can output to standard synthesizers if the digital sound part is not your interest.
Jeff_Brown 3y ago
Music is numbers. Musical instructions that don't use numbers seem as feasible as architectural plans without measurements -- which is to say, somewhat, but impossible to do precisely. (Music notation might not have explicit numbers but it's got stand-ins for them.)

Rochus 3y ago

What's the core benefit in comparison to all the other existing open-source audio/music programming environments (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_audio_programming_languages https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_audio_programming_lang...)?

chaosprint 3y ago
Glicol has a synth-like syntax, trying to balance the simplicity and readability needed for live coding music performances. This syntax is also deeply integrated with the customised audio engine under the hood. And this audio engine can be used as an independent Rust audio library. You can also use Glicol's DSL in Rust projects. There are many use cases in this YouTube channel, such as Glicol running on Bela, functioning as a VST, and as a CLI tool: https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PLT4REhRBWaOOrLQxCg5Uw97gEpN-woo1c&si=eNrqOMHpxfiA0ybv https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PLT4REhRBWaOOrLQxCg5Uw97gE... But all in all, I just feel comfortable coding with it for experimenting sound design and improvisation.
- Rochus 3y ago
  cool, thanks.
nologic01 3y ago
Something I noticed about all these projects (and they are quite a few) is that they are quite old (some going back ~2 decades or so). I wonder what is the dynamic behind that longevity. Music hasn't changed ofcourse but on tech side I would think there are significant new possibilities. Is it something related to the difficulty of implementing low level algorithms (famously a lot of linear algebra stuff goes back decades and rests on C / Fortran libraries). Is it that there isn't enough interest to justify new efforts or are those systems already near "perfection"?
- Rochus 3y ago
  > some going back ~2 decades or so Some indeed started long ago; e.g. Common Music had its roots in the eighties and became a pretty popular composition environment during the nineties; in 2008 there was even a fundamental redesign and it's still developed. But there was also a certain abundance of new tools; many were released that essentially had the same goal and offered the same features, just implemented a little differently. > Music hasn't changed ofcourse Music and the way music is composed, produced and consumed has changed tremendously over the years, and so have the tools. In the past the focus was on algorithmic composition, and tools allowed to extend the possibilities of a composer also to sound design, but it took years until computers were fast enough to render a composition in real-time. Then came the time of the DAW's when eventually everyone could produce music with little investments. In the last ten years live coding became popular which is yet another way of composing and producing music, with new requirements for interactivity and ergonomic efficiency of the tools, and yet a different view of the composer and the composition process.

mike_ivanov 3y ago

Blinking cursor. Full stop - can't use. But thanks for building it, anyways.

Jeff_Brown 3y ago
That's so racist.
- mike_ivanov 3y ago
  Huh? How come?
  - Jeff_Brown 3y ago
    It just seemed like a funny way to mislabel something that to me is, sincerely, a strange if refreshingly naked form of bigotry. What's wrong with blinking cursors? They're so easy to find.
    - mike_ivanov 3y ago
      I see :-) Well, it's not that I have anything against blinking cursors, nor I'm trying to infringe on their rights. Rather, it is that seeing the cursors blinking kind of freezes my brain. I simply cannot code if the cursor in the editor is blinking. It's a common problem[1][2]. [1] https://jurta.org/en/prog/noblink https://jurta.org/en/prog/noblink [2] https://www.justanswer.com/neurology/j0wg1-team-started-issue-just-happened-recently-when.html https://www.justanswer.com/neurology/j0wg1-team-started-issu...

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]