Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About NagyMusic

  • Rank
    Advance Member

Contact Methods

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
    United States

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Thanks for clarifying. It makes sense that 1.0 is the highest density; that was what my initial understanding was. Going back to my pitch density question from earlier, where we attested that "the bigger the interval, the lower the density," should the density be lower for a major sixth and higher for a major second, the former being a larger interval? The example below and others I tested, produce higher density for larger intervals. (density-analysis '((c4 a4) (c4 d4))) => (0.75 0.16666667) I'm sorry if I'm not looking at this the wrong way! The length density is
  2. My apologies for continuing questions... Given that longer durations result in lower density, and if I understand it right, the density value of 1.0 indicates the lowest density, why are the longer durations resulting in higher density estimation: (density-analysis '((h q) (e s))) => (0.17 0.67) Thank you for your patience!
  3. Thank you! And with length density, is it correct to say that the longer the duration the lower the density? (density-analysis '((h q q) (e s))) => (0.19 0.67)
  4. Suppose a density is defined by measuring the amount of information. Why does the first list having three pitches result in lower density than the second list comprising two pitches? (density-analysis '((c4 d4 g4) (d4 a4))) => (0.2916667 0.5833334) Thank you!
  5. Thank you! This is it. I thought it had to do with the organization of lists.
  6. Thanks. I studied the docs and will continue trying. I used this function before and it was all fine. Something with this very example doesn't seem to be working.
  7. I can't seem to get do-timeline2 function to work. I include an abridged example below; happy to share more code details if necessary. I'd like to filter 64 measures of 4/4 as defined in the timeline. Would anyone be able to offer some feedback? I tried adjusting different 'list' levels, etc. but with no avail. Thank you! (setf chords1 '(e2b2g3d4 e2cs3a3e4 e2d3b3fs4)) (setf chords2 (pitch-transpose 3 chords1)) (setf chorale1-chords (span '(1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1) chords1)) (setf chorale2-chords (span '(1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1) chords2)) ;; OMNS (setf chorale1
  8. Thanks so much, Julio. This is very helpful! I also appreciate you sharing your dissertation. -Zvony
  9. I wonder if there's a function to allow for systematic transformations of rhythmic streams, like in the example below. From a regular stream of 16th notes: (s c4 d4 e4 f4 5q d4 e4 f4 g4 e4 s f4 g4 a4 f4 3q g4 a4 b4) To occasional introduction of quintuplets, tuplets, etc: (s c4 d4 e4 f4 5q d4 e4 f4 g4 e4 s f4 g4 a4 f4 3q g4 a4 b4) Or: (6q c4 d4 e4 f4 d4 e4 s f4 g4 f4 g4 5q a4 f4 g4 a4 b4) Thank you!
  10. With Stephane's help, I learned that a possible number of intervals to process in each list is a random choice. What is more, each parameter in this function, including the number of possible intervals to process, is applied recursively to the last processed subset of intervals. Janusz- Might it be possible to add :cycle-intervals and :cycle-num options the interval-expansion-series function? Those options would allow for the interval transformation parameters cycled in place of random. Thanks! Zvony
  11. The documentation on the interval-expansion-series function states that a count list argument refers to a number of intervals to process. Would someone be willing to explain what number of intervals and in what way? I understand that this function also has built-in randomness, resulting in a different output each time. In the example below, does the count list '(1 2 3) mean that only one interval is expanded the first time, then two intervals the second time, etc.? Or does it imply that only the first three intervals from the interval source list will be expanded? (inter
  12. Thanks, everyone. I didn't mean to cause you much trouble with this, but one can learn a lot from this session. Thanks to Stephane's efforts to share such informative sessions with the community! It's all clear now. Creating the process first and then looping it # times make sense. Happy New Year!
  13. Thanks, Stephane. One can really learn a lot from this session! I compiled the code you posted, and I still get four repeated measures of the same material. My understanding is that I should get four iterations of a completely different set of measures. Yet, from what I can tell, each time, the process continues to produce four measures of new material that is repeated (looped) four times. I restarted Opusmodus and tried again, but still got the same result. I also tried using gen-eval instead of gen-loop, but that didn't seem to work. Here's a screenshot o
  14. So I tried again by reducing the number of iterations (gen-loop) and number of measures (setf size) for testing purposes. It turns out that the pitches output is different in each of the two iterations (almost; they're the same in the third eval), but the rhythms remain the same at both iterations (4 + 4 measures of the same rhythms). I attached the screenshots of the evaluated setf vn, va, vc below. Thank you once again! (setf seq (gen-loop 2 (progn (setf size 4) (setf ph1 (ambitus '(g3 g6) (filter-tie (make-omn :pitch (gen-loop size
  15. Thanks, Stephane, for your quick reply. I meant to ask why the code above doesn't produce new output with each iteration of the gen-loop. I understand that gen-loop should repeat the process itself, which should, in turn, generate 12 different iterations of pitches, rhythms, and velocities. I tested this with other pitches, and it appears that the process is iterated only once, producing one set of material, which is then repeated 12 times. For instance, one can see this by observing the velocities, which are only generated once at the outset, instead of 12 consecutive times.
  • Create New...

Important Information

Terms of Use Privacy Policy