Aleatoric/generative/algorithmic composition apps/plugins/etc

Speaking of the Atari St, autobusk from Clarence Barlow might be something to check out (http://www.musikwissenschaft.uni-mainz.de/Autobusk/);

  Quote

 

 

AUTOBUSK is a program for the real-time probabilistic generation of MIDI signals, primarily note-ons and -offs (remappable to other command types), in upto 3 parallel note streams (more than one computer used in parallel offers multiples of 3 streams). Pitch sets (i.e. scales e.g. major or minor) and pulse sets (i.e. metres e.g. 6/8 or 4/4) serve as the main input Material. A set of 12 variable Parameters, externally storable in time-tagged score form, can form MIDI and/or filed output; re-inputting the latter also sends MIDI events along 2 given Routes. 14 attendant programs (with, like AUTOBUSK, the extension .PRG) serve to enter and compile the Material and to process 'meta-scores'. AUTOBUSK itself took 272 days to write, spread between 18 August 1986 and 30 October 2000.

You can make it work through an atari emulator :-) .

Oh cool, I didn't know about that one.

There was an Atari port of M (one of the first major pieces of aeleatoric composition software, originally for the Macintosh) but it's pretty limited compared to the original I think (I've never used the original and only tried the Atari port a bit - not having a proper Monitor for the Atari, and worse yet only having a stock Atari mouse which is one of the worst mice of all time, kills a lot of the fun of it for me so I've had it boxed up for quite a while but don't wan to sell it because I'd never find one for anywhere near as good a price as I got the one I have, which means I'd never get another one).  I might have to finally go through the trouble of getting it working on an LCD monitor with a video scaler and give that a try.

I found that a good entry point into PureData was Automatonism - it's free and really easy to get into -

https://www.automatonism.com/the-software

It's basically a load of prebuilt modules you can patch together, modular-synthesis style with the bonus being you can look under the bonnet at anytime to start to understand the low-level stuff.

  On 6/2/2014 at 6:03 PM, marf said:

i like the idea of little boxes you can connect together like guitar pedals but instead it's cv/gate

check this.

 

Same, I'm honestly more interested in little boxes and semimodular stuff than I've ever been in Eurorack.  I think it hits just the right balance between music and sound design for me.

Some day I would love to have some kind of pin matrix modular, that just seems like the best although I've never never been lucky enough to have my hands on one.

  On 10/31/2017 at 4:20 PM, 11ls said:

I found that a good entry point into PureData was Automatonism - it's free and really easy to get into -

 

https://www.automatonism.com/the-software

 

It's basically a load of prebuilt modules you can patch together, modular-synthesis style with the bonus being you can look under the bonnet at anytime to start to understand the low-level stuff.

Yeah, in the three years since I posted this thread I did give puredata a go and had a lot of fun making a somewhat nanoloop-inspired sequencer.. but then ran into a dead end when it came time to figure out how to save sequences to files.. I'll get back to it at some point, but nobody I asked seemed to be able to give me a good answer on how to actually do it.

  On 10/31/2017 at 11:40 PM, modey said:

 

  On 10/31/2017 at 4:20 PM, 11ls said:

I found that a good entry point into PureData was Automatonism - it's free and really easy to get into -

 

https://www.automatonism.com/the-software

 

It's basically a load of prebuilt modules you can patch together, modular-synthesis style with the bonus being you can look under the bonnet at anytime to start to understand the low-level stuff.

Yeah, in the three years since I posted this thread I did give puredata a go and had a lot of fun making a somewhat nanoloop-inspired sequencer.. but then ran into a dead end when it came time to figure out how to save sequences to files.. I'll get back to it at some point, but nobody I asked seemed to be able to give me a good answer on how to actually do it.

 

The thing with PD seems to be that you also need to implement low-level stuff a lot. So in order to save the sequences it depends a lot on how you store them within PD. If it's just a list of 16 numbers then I think you could probably use the qlist or textfile object for that. This should explain how to use it.

Awesome, thanks, I'll have a look. Yeah basically the sequencer generates long lists; I was thinking it may be easier to convert everything to arrays, because each sequence will eventually contain several parameters per step, plus sequence length data for each channel..

  On 11/1/2017 at 2:24 AM, modey said:

Awesome, thanks, I'll have a look. Yeah basically the sequencer generates long lists; I was thinking it may be easier to convert everything to arrays, because each sequence will eventually contain several parameters per step, plus sequence length data for each channel..

Yeah I think for one sequence I would save it as a multi-dimensional array where the number of rows corresponds to the sequence length, and each row contains all the data for the current step (use a placeholder value like -1 or "null" to signify lack of value). That would be good for one sequence per file.

For saving per channel or even the whole project, things will probably get more involved and I'd go see if there is a description for the .nan file format somewhere to get inspiration from. Maybe the dumbest and easiest solution is just to save everything in a fixed directory structure so that there's a main project folder and then subfolders for each channel containing sequence data and channel global data (9 files per channel).

Can someone explain to me whatz the adventage of algorithmic composing?

  On 11/1/2017 at 1:49 PM, xox said:

Can someone explain to me whatz the adventage of algorithmic composing?

Well, we can add the Octatrack to the list now.

  On 11/1/2017 at 1:49 PM, xox said:

Can someone explain to me whatz the adventage of algorithmic composing?

Personally I started composing algorithmically after realising that I enjoy programming much more than composing. I recommend it though - figuring out an algorithm that give good results feels great, it's like you've discovered one of the hidden rules of what makes something sound musical. And trying to come up with such rules is a great way to generate happy accidents too - even if an algorithm doesn't do what you intended it to, it might do something you would never have thought of. It's also fun to set up an program and just let it run for ages; kind of like listening to your own music except it's constantly evolving and staying interesting without any further intervention.

For me, a certain amount of controlled unpredictability acts like a partial substitute for playing with other people.  So much of what makes music interesting to listen to or play is the tension between structure and chance, and with electronic music there's so much control available that things can easily just get pedantic and sterile. An element of chance can mitigate a lot of that, whether it comes from algorithms, talented collaborators, or whatever.

Purely generative music usually doesn't do much for me, though.

did i mention i code my own algorithms for my music n stuff

  On 11/1/2017 at 7:05 PM, Rotwang said:

 

  On 11/1/2017 at 1:49 PM, xox said:

Can someone explain to me whatz the adventage of algorithmic composing?

Personally I started composing algorithmically after realising that I enjoy programming much more than composing. I recommend it though - figuring out an algorithm that give good results feels great, it's like you've discovered one of the hidden rules of what makes something sound musical. And trying to come up with such rules is a great way to generate happy accidents too - even if an algorithm doesn't do what you intended it to, it might do something you would never have thought of. It's also fun to set up an program and just let it run for ages; kind of like listening to your own music except it's constantly evolving and staying interesting without any further intervention.

I kind of do it because yes I like programming but also I like creating sound patches/instruments more than the actual composing. Leave the pattern crunching to a computer if it's good at it I guess. Also I feel like I've gotten all the 'personal' songs/compositions out of my head years ago, the new stuff is just like weird videogames/environments to me

take a look at ITVL, it is Max based, provides some generative features but still in the form of a step sequencer, great for generating/manipulating AE style melodies.

Dude that looks crazy complex and interesting. I'm not sure I 100% 'get' it based on the explanation, but a quick video usually works wonders with devices like that.

Shoot me a PM when you get it to a place where you do want beta testers :) 

Yeah, that looks pretty intense and complex, but I would certainly like to try it out sometime (or see a video).

In general algorithmic and generative composition feels kind of off to me, it's like I have some deep revulsion against things generated by a computer. I think it's because I work with computers each day and I feel that they possibly cannot be a source of unique and creative stuff - stories for humans need to be made by humans. But on the other hand, all the music made will still be curated by a human, so the end result will necessarily have to pass that filter. And after all, my last album has one song which heavily features randomly generated notes, making me a total hypocrite here. :)

I have been thinking about implementing some generative/algorithmic things as well, though I have no idea how to actually implement my idea. Basically I'd like to have a system where I could somehow detect the playing "intensity" of one track and make the others react as well. So for instance if I am messing with the cutoff in one track, I would like the drums to also react to that somehow (either note repeat or some filter fuckery). Like sidechaining sort of.

http://supercollider.github.io

http://turtle.audio

  On 11/14/2017 at 3:22 AM, thawkins said:

Yeah, that looks pretty intense and complex, but I would certainly like to try it out sometime (or see a video).

 

In general algorithmic and generative composition feels kind of off to me, it's like I have some deep revulsion against things generated by a computer. I think it's because I work with computers each day and I feel that they possibly cannot be a source of unique and creative stuff - stories for humans need to be made by humans. But on the other hand, all the music made will still be curated by a human, so the end result will necessarily have to pass that filter. And after all, my last album has one song which heavily features randomly generated notes, making me a total hypocrite here.

 

I have been thinking about implementing some generative/algorithmic things as well, though I have no idea how to actually implement my idea. Basically I'd like to have a system where I could somehow detect the playing "intensity" of one track and make the others react as well. So for instance if I am messing with the cutoff in one track, I would like the drums to also react to that somehow (either note repeat or some filter fuckery). Like sidechaining sort of.

Expand  

Hello past me, look how wrong you were. 

  On 11/1/2017 at 5:06 PM, sweepstakes said:

  On 11/1/2017 at 1:49 PM, xox said:

Can someone explain to me whatz the adventage of algorithmic composing?

Have you ever used an arpeggiator? It's like that but deeper.

Or played with a band, algorithmic composing is like using a computer to simulate the part of the night when the drummer is just drunk enough but hasn't gotten TOO drunk yet.

Well it's a drummer that can play in impeccable timing but has trouble hitting the correct part of the drum kit.

https://www.vitling.xyz/toys/acid-banger/