Jump to content

tonality systems

Members
  • Posts

    81
  • Joined

  • Last visited

1 Follower

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male

Recent Profile Visitors

5,069 profile views
  1. This is the similar function to get-timing in Symbolic Composer . . . It would be good to put Stephane's excellent example in the documentation. For an example in an existing composition see page 280 in Parametric Composition or visit my web archive http://www.nigel-morgan.co.uk/index.php?name=News&sid=35&file=article&pageid=1 for the annotated score-file. Nigel
  2. Dear Stéphane, I understand that you don't wish always to refine a piece but go on to the next project. But I think you may be missing an opportunity. Unless one is going to be rigorous like Pierre Barbaud and regard the computed output as the final statement, I believe the result of an algorithmic process does need a kind of critical 'massaging'. It's not just the notation but reacting to the reference recording / output. Even if you never imagine your work will reach live performance, or you prefer (as some composers do) performance from a computer driving a sampled instrument so every nuance can be under the composers control, l find that taking the piece into notation (and this could be a graphic display) and away from the tyranny of realtime playback allows you to critically reflect on what might be improved. The code is never going to construct the perfect output because it's difficult to connect the process with those areas of personal experience and intuition that inform composition. You and I both have prior experience through listening and study of the two-piano medium - Mozart's D major sonata, Messiaen's Vision de L'Amen, Bartok's Sonata, Stockhausen's Mantra, Debussy Blanc en Noir, Stravinsky's Concerto, Ligeti 3 Pieces. Although we don't think of these pieces necessarily when we start composing they are part of the history of this medium and I'm sure we make unconscious creative decisions based on this prior knowledge - even, for example, if we think we will in a particular piece avoid what Stravinsky does (overdoes) with scales. I'm very aware that the output of a compiled program so often needs adjusting in regard to register placement of pitches. Many such adjustments lie beyond sensible programming . . . and this is why having yards of OMN as part of a program is not always helpful . . . and you, to your credit do avoid that - so the argument of the composition can be 'read' and enjoyed. I really congratulate you on this. It's my goal too. The code is a stage towards a final result and can rarely 'be' the final result. I think one learns so much - for future projects - from being critical and using one's ear and 'craft' making adjustments. Nigel
  3. Hi Stephane, Thank you for sharing this piece. I enjoyed and was intrigued by the play of activity and rhythm up to bar 52. t Those changing densities of notes across the 2 piano continuum of pitches were most effective. Overall the result seems to be music for a super-piano for 4 hands rather than two distinct pianos. For me it's in Conlon Nancarrow listening territory. Reading the score (as I do) it was be good to be able to set octave transposition signs in OMN as the higher registers of the treble clef are in a stratosphere of ledger lines!! (My piano doesn't even reach that far). Maybe that's a development opportunity. Rhythmically the play of movement is very arresting but the pitch content and argument doesn't always seem to complement the rhythmic play. The passages that move in and out of octave doubling are very successful. Also the use of rotation to get quasi-canonic textures (bar 92 is good!). Rotation is certainly a powerful device for developing moments of harmonic rhythm. Good wishes Nigel PS: I wonder if you've seen this on my archive - a set of Projects for Two Pianos http://www.nigel-morgan.co.uk/index.php?name=News&sid=31&file=article&pageid=1
  4. Hello Stéphane, Thank you for your reply about the documentation of defparameter. It's exactly the kind of definition /explanation I would expect, and if I was new to Lisp I'd be really confused! My point about your trio piece is that is such a good example of the need for defparameter that a little more explanation on the score file would be welcomed, especially in this context of live coding. I'm sending the revised chapter Being non-linear in my book Composing How and Why . Would you mind me including the video of your Live Coding Trio. I think it's such a good example . . . also you might be interested to see how I am now treating Live Coding in the context of programming for composing. I'm in the process of revising / editing the whole book, and particularly the Introduction and first five chapters. If you have any thoughts or observations I would welcome them. I'm happy to send you the revisions . . . All good wishes Nigel
  5. Hello Stephane, This is a really useful and effect piece. It would good if you might include an explanation of the function defparameter and perhaps re-document it as it has been removed from Utilities. Live Coding is becoming recognised now across music education and the academic world. I wonder if you know about these developments? http://sonic-pi.net http://www.livecodenetwork.org LCI is rather different from other Live Coding environments and a little more explanation / guidance might be useful. I'm very interest in this crossover between improvisation and composition, but sadly the musical outcomes from Live Coding are sadly limited. It's difficult to find anything that isn't beat based Electronica, anything that crosses over into a performable score. But many people would say that's not the point! All good wishes Nigel
  6. A most effective short piano piece and a good example of coding. I hope it won't be too long before a composer can add cautionary accidentals to such a score, particularly the natural sign.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Terms of Use Privacy Policy