From bil at ccrma.Stanford.EDU Wed May 2 10:41:08 2012 From: bil at ccrma.Stanford.EDU (Bill Schottstaedt) Date: Wed, 2 May 2012 10:41:08 -0700 Subject: [CM] sndlib ESD support In-Reply-To: <20120430190145.M76443@ccrma.Stanford.EDU> References: <20120430190145.M76443@ccrma.Stanford.EDU> Message-ID: <20120502173516.M93278@ccrma.Stanford.EDU> > I'd like to [...] change the output functions to be purely callback-driven. I'm replying to myself, which is not a good sign, but this won't work after all. If you're using the default setup in Fedora, you're using ALSA with the default device "pulse" which goes to pulseaudio, which can't work in this way. So, I gain nothing by making any changes! I did at least get rid of the OSX deprecated function warnings. From bil at ccrma.Stanford.EDU Sun May 6 04:59:35 2012 From: bil at ccrma.Stanford.EDU (Bill Schottstaedt) Date: Sun, 6 May 2012 04:59:35 -0700 Subject: [CM] s7/Snd hooks Message-ID: <20120506115446.M32904@ccrma.Stanford.EDU> I'd like to change the way hooks work in s7/Snd. Here's a description: https://ccrma.stanford.edu/software/snd/snd/s7.html#hooks I would keep the old way working for *error-hook*, but otherwise all the s7_hook functions would either go away or change in some backwards-incompatible manner. Would this be a huge burden for anyone? (It also means changing the scheme hook functions, but there's a wrapper for that in s7.html). From hieronymous.christian.uhrmacher at verizon.net Tue May 8 18:15:31 2012 From: hieronymous.christian.uhrmacher at verizon.net (JEFFREY ZIMMER) Date: Tue, 08 May 2012 21:15:31 -0400 Subject: [CM] Typing Foreign Letters in CMN Text Message-ID: My question pertains to CMN - Among the sample .cmn files I received with my CMN download is one called mir.cmn. This example spells the German word gluck (with an umlaut on the u) as "gl\\374ck" I have not been successful in figuring how to use this kind of numeric font encoding on my Mac G5 (OSX 10.5.8) using the fonts on the machine, although "Times-Roman" and "Times-Italic" do work just fine as the font-name keywords in CMN. I would like to include accents and umlauts in the Times font like in mir.cmn. Is there a way to exploit the full font set on a Mac with numeric codes? Has anybody done this? Thanks, Jeff Zimmer From bil at ccrma.Stanford.EDU Wed May 9 08:58:54 2012 From: bil at ccrma.Stanford.EDU (Bill Schottstaedt) Date: Wed, 9 May 2012 08:58:54 -0700 Subject: [CM] Typing Foreign Letters in CMN Text In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20120509155227.M81485@ccrma.Stanford.EDU> The \\ddd business turns into \ddd in the postscript output, and represents an octal index into the font, so \\374 is character 252 of the font. If I type (format #f "~C" (integer->char 252)) in the Snd listener, it displays a u-umlaut, using the "9x15" font, apparently. You can change the font via (set! (listener-font) ...) where the ... depends on whether you're using Motif or Gtk. I haven't googled for it, but I would be surprised if the font encoding charts were not on-line somewhere. From michael.winkler at balcab.ch Mon May 21 02:41:01 2012 From: michael.winkler at balcab.ch (Michael Winkler) Date: Mon, 21 May 2012 11:41:01 +0200 Subject: [CM] comment semicolon bug? Message-ID: <4FBA0DAD.5080303@balcab.ch> Dear Mister Taube Dear List CM 3.8.0, Scheme (and earlier, I think): It seems to me that a just a single semicolon in a bunch of variable definitions occurs an error so one can't place comments. A bug? test, remove the semicolon at "define m67", test again: (define m72 '(ef3 ef3 ef3 f3 e3 f3 cs3 cs3 d3 cs4 d3 d3)) (define r72 '(e e e e e e e e s s s s )) (define m71 '(c4 c4 c4 c4 c4 c4 c4 c5)) (define r71 '(s e e e e e s e+e)) (define m70 '(g3 c3 c3 g3 f3 d3 f3 ef3 d3 d3 bf3 ef3)) (define r70 '(s s s s s s s s e e e e)) (define m69 '(af4 f4 af3 ef4 f4 c5 cs4 f4)) (define r69 '(s s e s q e. e. e)) (define m68 '(f4 cs4 f4 cs4 f4 ef4 ef4 ef4 ef4)) (define r68 '(e s e s e e e e e)) (define m67 '(f4 fs3 d3 cs4 b3 e4 d3)); (define r67 '(e s s s s s s )) (define m66 '(c4 fs4 c4 ef4 fs4)) (define r66 '(e e e. s e+e)) best, Michael Winkler From bil at ccrma.Stanford.EDU Mon May 21 03:53:23 2012 From: bil at ccrma.Stanford.EDU (Bill Schottstaedt) Date: Mon, 21 May 2012 03:53:23 -0700 Subject: [CM] comment semicolon bug? In-Reply-To: <4FBA0DAD.5080303@balcab.ch> References: <4FBA0DAD.5080303@balcab.ch> Message-ID: <20120521104828.M17834@ccrma.Stanford.EDU> The example works for me (in Snd/s7) in either case, but I'm running in unix, and perhaps the mailer translated something. I currently look for \n for end-of-line which I think should work in any current OS -- I can add \r if that's what is needed. What character marks the end of the line in your source? From bil at ccrma.Stanford.EDU Mon May 21 12:16:31 2012 From: bil at ccrma.Stanford.EDU (Bill Schottstaedt) Date: Mon, 21 May 2012 12:16:31 -0700 Subject: [CM] Snd 12.11 Message-ID: <20120521191337.M78998@ccrma.Stanford.EDU> Snd 12.11: s7: if WITH_SYSTEM_EXTRAS is 1 (default is 0) include directory? file-exists? delete-file getenv directory->list system with-baffle to limit the scope of continuations #_ is the initial (built-in, startup) value of *error-info* replaced by error-environment, stacktrace changed slightly. hooks changed completely (s7 version bumped to 2.0 since this is a large backwards imcompatible change). procedure-setter is settable, so most of the old procedure-with-setter stuff is gone. s7_list, s7_environment_ref|set, s7_procedure_set_setter in s7.h. make-type replaced by open-environment. s7test.scm has a largely backwards compatible scheme version of make-type. aritable? to check arity match (named "procedure-arity-includes" in srfi-102). arity to generalize and replace procedure-arity removed trace and untrace (replaced by the trace macro in s7.html). I think these changes clean up most of the lingering ugly spots in s7! sndlib: removed mus-audio-describe, audinfo, ESD audio support. Snd: removed print-hook. checked: sbcl 1.0.56, gtk 3.4.1|3.5.2, autoconf 2.69, ruby 1.9.3-p194, cairo 1.12.2 gmp 5.0.5 Thanks!: Ludger Brummer, Torsten Anders, Mike Scholz, Rick Taube, Peter Bex. From bsack23 at gmail.com Mon May 21 17:03:03 2012 From: bsack23 at gmail.com (Bill Sack) Date: Mon, 21 May 2012 20:03:03 -0400 Subject: [CM] problem compiling cm-3.8.0 Message-ID: hi all, compiling cm-3.8 in linux (fedora 16) and all goes well until down at this linker: /usr/bin/ld: obj/juce/libjuce.a(juce_amalgamated.o): undefined reference to symbol 'dladdr@@GLIBC_2.0' /usr/bin/ld: note: 'dladdr@@GLIBC_2.0' is defined in DSO /lib/libdl.so.2 so try adding it to the linker command line /lib/libdl.so.2: could not read symbols: Invalid operation collect2: ld returned 1 exit status i added "-ldl -lXext" to all 3 makefiles and got a little farther, but ran into this: g++ -MMD -D "JUCE_IOS=0" -D "JUCE_QUICKTIME=0" -D "JUCE_OPENGL=0" -D "JUCE_USE_FLAC=0" -D "JUCE_USE_OGGVORBIS=0" -D "JUCE_USE_CDBURNER=0" -D "JUCE_USE_CDREADER=0" -D "JUCE_WEBBROWSER=0" -D "JUCE_CHECK_MEMORY_LEAKS=0" -D "JUCE_JACK=1" -D "COMMONMUSIC=1" -D "GRACE=1" -D "WITH_SNDLIB=1" -D "WITH_FOMUS=1" -D "FOMUSLIBPATH=\"/usr/local/lib\"" -D "SVNVERSION=\"`/usr/bin/svnversion`\"" -D "LINUX=1" -D "NDEBUG=1" -I "src" -I "../sndlib/" -I "/usr/local/include" -O2 -o "obj/grace/Release/AudioFilePlayer.o" -c "src/AudioFilePlayer.cpp" src/AudioFilePlayer.cpp: In constructor ?AudioFilePlayer::AudioFilePlayer(juce::AudioDeviceManager&)?: src/AudioFilePlayer.cpp:20:36: error: cannot call constructor ?juce::Font::Font? directly [-fpermissive] src/AudioFilePlayer.cpp:20:36: error: for a function-style cast, remove the redundant ?::Font? [-fpermissive] make[1]: *** [obj/grace/Release/AudioFilePlayer.o] Error 1 make: *** [grace] Error 2 my g++ is version 4.6.3 i think everything else is up-to-date - fresh check-out of sndlib, fomus, etc. can anyone help? thanks! bill -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From bil at ccrma.Stanford.EDU Tue May 22 06:13:54 2012 From: bil at ccrma.Stanford.EDU (Bill Schottstaedt) Date: Tue, 22 May 2012 06:13:54 -0700 Subject: [CM] a neat picture Message-ID: <20120522131138.M35473@ccrma.Stanford.EDU> r/lisp has this: http://twitpic.com/9nild1 I grew up in that country -- suddenly I remember my first reaction to the Bay Area -- all these hills ruining the view! From michael.edwards at ed.ac.uk Thu May 24 11:04:57 2012 From: michael.edwards at ed.ac.uk (Michael Edwards) Date: Thu, 24 May 2012 19:04:57 +0100 Subject: [CM] slippery chicken release Message-ID: It is with great pleasure that I announce the open-source release of my algorithmic composition software "slippery chicken": http://www.michael-edwards.org/sc/ Please feel free to re-post to any potentially interested colleagues, students or mailing lists. Workshops introducing the software will be held in Edinburgh, UK, and Karlsruhe, Germany, in July 2012: http://www.michael-edwards.org/sc/workshops.html "slippery chicken" is an open-source algorithmic composition system written in Common Lisp which enables a top-down approach to music composition. The software was originally tailor-made to encapsulate the author's personal composition techniques, however many general-purpose algorithmic composition tools have been programmed that should be useful to a range of composers. The main goal of the project is to facilitate a melding of electronic and instrumental sound worlds, not just at the sonic but also at the structural level. Pure instrumental or electronic composition is of course possible with the system too. Techniques for the innovative combination of rhythm and pitch data--arguably one of the most difficult aspects of making convincing musical algorithms--are offered. Anyone interested in discussing the software is encouraged to join the Google Group http://groups.google.com/group/slippery-chicken Best wishes, Michael Edwards ___________________________________________ michael edwards office : (+44) (0)131 650 2431 mobile : (+44) (0)7952 153750 michael.edwards at ed.ac.uk MSc in Digital Composition and Performance ? ? http://michael-edwards.org/dcp University of Edinburgh ? ? http://michael-edwards.org/uofe Personal homepage ? ? http://www.michael-edwards.org ___________________________________________ From torsten.anders at beds.ac.uk Fri May 25 02:48:28 2012 From: torsten.anders at beds.ac.uk (Torsten Anders) Date: Fri, 25 May 2012 10:48:28 +0100 Subject: [CM] slippery chicken release In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Dear Michael, Great news! (And great to see that you go quite some AHRC grant for that recently.) Just a question: you say that this software is written in Common Lisp, and in the credits you say that Common Music is packaged with it. Does that mean you are using some older version of Common Music? Best wishes, Torsten -- Dr Torsten Anders Course Leader, Music Technology University of Bedfordshire Park Square, Room A315 http://www.torsten-anders.de PS: Also, you are saying clearly that you do not plan an graphical user interface for this software. Nevertheless, likely it would be relatively easy to turn your whole software into a library for PWGL or OpenMusic. If you still have some resources left from your AHRC grant then doing so could greatly strengthen your impact (good for your REF and may even be helpful for the next grant application). It is easy, because every Lisp function such as make-slippery-chicken can be immediately used as a GUI object (box) in a PWGL or OpenMusic patch. If you want, you can further customise the graphical interface of central functions (e.g., have a menu to define a certain function argument). Such customisation can be available (to a certain extent) for both PWGL and OpenMusic at the same time when using OMPW (https://github.com/kisp/ompw). The advantage for yourself could be that you get graphical editors such as a BPF editor (basically an envelope editor, could be useful, e.g., for your pitch curves), and -- perhaps more importantly -- music notation editors (e.g., check out the ENP editor of PWGL). Score snippets can be arranged in time using OpenMusic's maquette etc. You may also want to use existing PWGL or OpenMusic libraries together with your own work. For a more advanced used of such features you would need to have a conversation of your music representation (your slippery chicken object) into the OpenMusic / PWGL music representation. You already did something similar when defining your Lilypond interface (likely you are using Fomus, which makes this interface much more simple to define), so you know that such score format conversation is not defined on a single day, but is not too complex either. Anyway, you are probably still not interested :) On 24 May 2012, at 19:04, Michael Edwards wrote: > It is with great pleasure that I announce the open-source release of my > algorithmic composition software "slippery chicken": > http://www.michael-edwards.org/sc/ > > Please feel free to re-post to any potentially interested colleagues, students > or mailing lists. > > Workshops introducing the software will be held in Edinburgh, UK, and > Karlsruhe, Germany, in July 2012: > http://www.michael-edwards.org/sc/workshops.html > > "slippery chicken" is an open-source algorithmic composition system written in > Common Lisp which enables a top-down approach to music composition. The > software was originally tailor-made to encapsulate the author's personal > composition techniques, however many general-purpose algorithmic composition > tools have been programmed that should be useful to a range of composers. The > main goal of the project is to facilitate a melding of electronic and > instrumental sound worlds, not just at the sonic but also at the structural > level. Pure instrumental or electronic composition is of course possible with > the system too. Techniques for the innovative combination of rhythm and pitch > data--arguably one of the most difficult aspects of making convincing musical > algorithms--are offered. > > Anyone interested in discussing the software is encouraged to join the Google > Group http://groups.google.com/group/slippery-chicken > > Best wishes, > > Michael Edwards > > > > ___________________________________________ > > michael edwards > > office : (+44) (0)131 650 2431 > mobile : (+44) (0)7952 153750 > > michael.edwards at ed.ac.uk > > MSc in Digital Composition and Performance > http://michael-edwards.org/dcp > University of Edinburgh > http://michael-edwards.org/uofe > Personal homepage > http://www.michael-edwards.org > ___________________________________________ From lakatos.isti at gmail.com Fri May 25 03:17:24 2012 From: lakatos.isti at gmail.com (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Istv=E1n_Lakatos?=) Date: Fri, 25 May 2012 13:17:24 +0300 Subject: [CM] slippery chicken release In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Well, from what I can gather slippery chicken uses a 2.6 version of Common Music. Great piece of software, by the way :) What I would be interested in knowing is why you chose this older version instead of Common Music 3. Was it because you started working on slippery chicken before 3.0 came out, or was it because you preferred to work in Common Lisp instead of Scheme. Or did 3.0 bring in some changes that didn't play well with the design of slippery chicken? I am asking because I am planning on working on a music and sound editor/composition environment for my graduation thesis next year, and am thinking of using Common Music as a component. Good day, Istv?n Lakatos On 25 May 2012 12:48, Torsten Anders wrote: > Dear Michael, > > Great news! (And great to see that you go quite some AHRC grant for that recently.) > > Just a question: you say that this software is written in Common Lisp, and in the credits you say that Common Music is packaged with it. Does that mean you are using some older version of Common Music? > > Best wishes, > Torsten > > -- > Dr Torsten Anders > Course Leader, Music Technology > University of Bedfordshire > Park Square, Room A315 > http://www.torsten-anders.de > > > PS: Also, you are saying clearly that you do not plan an graphical user interface for this software. Nevertheless, likely it would be relatively easy to turn your whole software into a library for PWGL or OpenMusic. If you still have some resources left from your AHRC grant then doing so could greatly strengthen your impact (good for your REF and may even be helpful for the next grant application). It is easy, because every Lisp function such as make-slippery-chicken can be immediately used as a GUI object (box) in a PWGL or OpenMusic patch. If you want, you can further customise the graphical interface of central functions (e.g., have a menu to define a certain function argument). Such customisation can be available (to a certain extent) for both PWGL and OpenMusic at the same time when using OMPW (https://github.com/kisp/ompw). > > The advantage for yourself could be that you get graphical editors such as a BPF editor (basically an envelope editor, could be useful, e.g., for your pitch curves), and -- perhaps more importantly -- music notation editors (e.g., check out the ENP editor of PWGL). Score snippets can be arranged in time using OpenMusic's maquette etc. ?You may also want to use existing PWGL or OpenMusic libraries together with your own work. > > For a more advanced used of such features you would need to have a conversation of your music representation (your slippery chicken object) into the OpenMusic / PWGL music representation. You already did something similar when defining your Lilypond interface (likely you are using Fomus, which makes this interface much more simple to define), so you know that such score format conversation is not defined on a single day, but is not too complex either. > > Anyway, you are probably still not interested :) > > On 24 May 2012, at 19:04, Michael Edwards wrote: >> It is with great pleasure that I announce the open-source release of my >> algorithmic composition software "slippery chicken": >> http://www.michael-edwards.org/sc/ >> >> Please feel free to re-post to any potentially interested colleagues, students >> or mailing lists. >> >> Workshops introducing the software will be held in Edinburgh, UK, and >> Karlsruhe, Germany, in July 2012: >> http://www.michael-edwards.org/sc/workshops.html >> >> "slippery chicken" is an open-source algorithmic composition system written in >> Common Lisp which enables a top-down approach to music composition. The >> software was originally tailor-made to encapsulate the author's personal >> composition techniques, however many general-purpose algorithmic composition >> tools have been programmed that should be useful to a range of composers. The >> main goal of the project is to facilitate a melding of electronic and >> instrumental sound worlds, not just at the sonic but also at the structural >> level. Pure instrumental or electronic composition is of course possible with >> the system too. Techniques for the innovative combination of rhythm and pitch >> data--arguably one of the most difficult aspects of making convincing musical >> algorithms--are offered. >> >> Anyone interested in discussing the software is encouraged to join the Google >> Group http://groups.google.com/group/slippery-chicken >> >> Best wishes, >> >> ? ? ? ?Michael Edwards >> >> >> >> ___________________________________________ >> >> michael edwards >> >> office : (+44) (0)131 650 2431 >> mobile : (+44) (0)7952 153750 >> >> michael.edwards at ed.ac.uk >> >> MSc in Digital Composition and Performance >> ? ? http://michael-edwards.org/dcp >> University of Edinburgh >> ? ? http://michael-edwards.org/uofe >> Personal homepage >> ? ? http://www.michael-edwards.org >> ___________________________________________ > > > _______________________________________________ > Cmdist mailing list > Cmdist at ccrma.stanford.edu > http://ccrma-mail.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/cmdist From michael.edwards at ed.ac.uk Fri May 25 03:36:51 2012 From: michael.edwards at ed.ac.uk (Michael Edwards) Date: Fri, 25 May 2012 11:36:51 +0100 Subject: [CM] slippery chicken release In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi Istv?n, > Well, from what I can gather slippery chicken uses a 2.6 version of That's right. > Common Music. Great piece of software, by the way :) Thanks. It's a monster. Hope it's going to be useful to some people here. > What I would be interested in knowing is why you chose this older > version instead of Common Music 3. Was it because you started working Because afaik CM3 is now no longer in Common Lisp but in Scheme. > on slippery chicken before 3.0 came out, or was it because you That's true too. > preferred to work in Common Lisp instead of Scheme. Or did 3.0 bring > in some changes that didn't play well with the design of slippery > chicken? It really just was a language thing. Having worked on SC in CLOS since 2000 it wouldn't be a simple thing to port it. I haven't looked into CLOS->Scheme in any detail but when I did a while ago it didn't seem trivial. Rick did it though (and Bill too from Common Lisp at least, I assume) so I'd be interested in the process. Certainly the embedding potential of Scheme is very attractive. > I am asking because I am planning on working on a music and sound > editor/composition environment for my graduation thesis next year, and > am thinking of using Common Music as a component. Well the thing to bear in mind is that I don't see CM and SC as being the same beast at all. AFAIK CM is now really aimed at real-time algo comp whereas SC is very much not real-time and is focussed on generating complete pieces in quite a specific way. I'm very curious to find out if that particular way is too restrictive for other composers or not. Cheers, Michael > > Good day, > Istv?n Lakatos > > On 25 May 2012 12:48, Torsten Anders wrote: >> Dear Michael, >> >> Great news! (And great to see that you go quite some AHRC grant for that recently.) >> >> Just a question: you say that this software is written in Common Lisp, and in the credits you say that Common Music is packaged with it. Does that mean you are using some older version of Common Music? >> >> Best wishes, >> Torsten >> >> -- >> Dr Torsten Anders >> Course Leader, Music Technology >> University of Bedfordshire >> Park Square, Room A315 >> http://www.torsten-anders.de >> >> >> PS: Also, you are saying clearly that you do not plan an graphical user interface for this software. Nevertheless, likely it would be relatively easy to turn your whole software into a library for PWGL or OpenMusic. If you still have some resources left from your AHRC grant then doing so could greatly strengthen your impact (good for your REF and may even be helpful for the next grant application). It is easy, because every Lisp function such as make-slippery-chicken can be immediately used as a GUI object (box) in a PWGL or OpenMusic patch. If you want, you can further customise the graphical interface of central functions (e.g., have a menu to define a certain function argument). Such customisation can be available (to a certain extent) for both PWGL and OpenMusic at the same time when using OMPW (https://github.com/kisp/ompw). >> >> The advantage for yourself could be that you get graphical editors such as a BPF editor (basically an envelope editor, could be useful, e.g., for your pitch curves), and -- perhaps more importantly -- music notation editors (e.g., check out the ENP editor of PWGL). Score snippets can be arranged in time using OpenMusic's maquette etc. ?You may also want to use existing PWGL or OpenMusic libraries together with your own work. >> >> For a more advanced used of such features you would need to have a conversation of your music representation (your slippery chicken object) into the OpenMusic / PWGL music representation. You already did something similar when defining your Lilypond interface (likely you are using Fomus, which makes this interface much more simple to define), so you know that such score format conversation is not defined on a single day, but is not too complex either. >> >> Anyway, you are probably still not interested :) >> >> On 24 May 2012, at 19:04, Michael Edwards wrote: >>> It is with great pleasure that I announce the open-source release of my >>> algorithmic composition software "slippery chicken": >>> http://www.michael-edwards.org/sc/ >>> >>> Please feel free to re-post to any potentially interested colleagues, students >>> or mailing lists. >>> >>> Workshops introducing the software will be held in Edinburgh, UK, and >>> Karlsruhe, Germany, in July 2012: >>> http://www.michael-edwards.org/sc/workshops.html >>> >>> "slippery chicken" is an open-source algorithmic composition system written in >>> Common Lisp which enables a top-down approach to music composition. The >>> software was originally tailor-made to encapsulate the author's personal >>> composition techniques, however many general-purpose algorithmic composition >>> tools have been programmed that should be useful to a range of composers. The >>> main goal of the project is to facilitate a melding of electronic and >>> instrumental sound worlds, not just at the sonic but also at the structural >>> level. Pure instrumental or electronic composition is of course possible with >>> the system too. Techniques for the innovative combination of rhythm and pitch >>> data--arguably one of the most difficult aspects of making convincing musical >>> algorithms--are offered. >>> >>> Anyone interested in discussing the software is encouraged to join the Google >>> Group http://groups.google.com/group/slippery-chicken >>> >>> Best wishes, >>> >>> ? ? ? ?Michael Edwards >>> >>> >>> >>> ___________________________________________ >>> >>> michael edwards >>> >>> office : (+44) (0)131 650 2431 >>> mobile : (+44) (0)7952 153750 >>> >>> michael.edwards at ed.ac.uk >>> >>> MSc in Digital Composition and Performance >>> ? ? http://michael-edwards.org/dcp >>> University of Edinburgh >>> ? ? http://michael-edwards.org/uofe >>> Personal homepage >>> ? ? http://www.michael-edwards.org >>> ___________________________________________ >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Cmdist mailing list >> Cmdist at ccrma.stanford.edu >> http://ccrma-mail.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/cmdist > > _______________________________________________ > Cmdist mailing list > Cmdist at ccrma.stanford.edu > http://ccrma-mail.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/cmdist > From juanig at ccrma.Stanford.EDU Fri May 25 08:02:18 2012 From: juanig at ccrma.Stanford.EDU (Juan Reyes) Date: Fri, 25 May 2012 08:02:18 -0700 Subject: [CM] slippery chicken release In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4FBF9EFA.7020205@ccrma.stanford.edu> >> Common Music. Great piece of software, by the way :) > > Thanks. It's a monster. Hope it's going to be useful to some people > here. It is very useful for me and I know several of us!. As time goes by, I still discover stuff worth paying attention to. > Well the thing to bear in mind is that I don't see CM and SC as being > the same beast at all. Agree with Michael. Different beasts for different purposes, although same algorithms can be used with not too similar results. --* Juan From michael.edwards at ed.ac.uk Sat May 26 03:02:31 2012 From: michael.edwards at ed.ac.uk (Michael Edwards) Date: Sat, 26 May 2012 11:02:31 +0100 Subject: [CM] slippery chicken release In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi Torsten, > PS: Also, you are saying clearly that you do not plan an graphical user interface for this software. Nevertheless, likely it would be relatively easy to turn your whole software into a library for PWGL or OpenMusic. That's an interesting proposition. Certainly some people might find having a popup window with object properties useful. And for sure, some of the graphical editors in those packages are great. I remain sceptical myself however--I just find programming directly, in a text editor, to be the most effective and efficient way of working. I realise that I'm in the minority there though. > If you still have some resources left from your AHRC grant then doing so could greatly strengthen your impact (good for your REF and may even be helpful for the next grant application). God forbid that we actually let our research decisions be so heavily influenced by government concepts of 'impact'.... > For a more advanced used of such features you would need to have a conversation of your music representation (your slippery chicken object) into the OpenMusic / PWGL music representation. You already did something similar when defining your Lilypond interface (likely you are using Fomus, which makes this interface much more simple to define), so you know that such score format conversation is not defined on a single day, but is not too complex either. I'm not using Fomus actually. I decided it would be easier (!?) to write my own interface to Lilypond. It turned out to be only a couple of days work actually. > Anyway, you are probably still not interested :) Ach, no, interested for sure. But still on the fence :) Cheers, Michael > > On 24 May 2012, at 19:04, Michael Edwards wrote: >> It is with great pleasure that I announce the open-source release of my >> algorithmic composition software "slippery chicken": >> http://www.michael-edwards.org/sc/ >> >> Please feel free to re-post to any potentially interested colleagues, students >> or mailing lists. >> >> Workshops introducing the software will be held in Edinburgh, UK, and >> Karlsruhe, Germany, in July 2012: >> http://www.michael-edwards.org/sc/workshops.html >> >> "slippery chicken" is an open-source algorithmic composition system written in >> Common Lisp which enables a top-down approach to music composition. The >> software was originally tailor-made to encapsulate the author's personal >> composition techniques, however many general-purpose algorithmic composition >> tools have been programmed that should be useful to a range of composers. The >> main goal of the project is to facilitate a melding of electronic and >> instrumental sound worlds, not just at the sonic but also at the structural >> level. Pure instrumental or electronic composition is of course possible with >> the system too. Techniques for the innovative combination of rhythm and pitch >> data--arguably one of the most difficult aspects of making convincing musical >> algorithms--are offered. >> >> Anyone interested in discussing the software is encouraged to join the Google >> Group http://groups.google.com/group/slippery-chicken >> >> Best wishes, >> >> ? ? ? ?Michael Edwards >> >> >> >> ___________________________________________ >> >> michael edwards >> >> office : (+44) (0)131 650 2431 >> mobile : (+44) (0)7952 153750 >> >> michael.edwards at ed.ac.uk >> >> MSc in Digital Composition and Performance >> ? ? http://michael-edwards.org/dcp >> University of Edinburgh >> ? ? http://michael-edwards.org/uofe >> Personal homepage >> ? ? http://www.michael-edwards.org >> ___________________________________________ > > From taube at illinois.edu Sat May 26 11:38:59 2012 From: taube at illinois.edu (Heinrich Taube) Date: Sat, 26 May 2012 13:38:59 -0500 Subject: [CM] slippery chicken release In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <566F56EE-C936-47AF-A594-16603E827F23@illinois.edu> On May 26, 2012, at 5:02 AM, Michael Edwards wrote: > I remain > sceptical myself however--I just find programming directly, in a text > editor, to be the most effective and efficient way of working. I > realise that I'm in the minority there though. a minority for sure, but this is not a bad thing. actually, i was at mcgill last year; i showed stuff in sal (text), every other presentation was open music or pwgl. but some in the audience were neither, when i 'apologized' for showing the algorithms in text several opined that it was much easier to comprehend than the gui patches! > Having worked on SC in CLOS > since 2000 it wouldn't be a simple thing to port it. I haven't looked > into CLOS->Scheme in any detail but when I did a while ago it didn't > seem trivial. Rick did it though (and Bill too from Common Lisp at > least, I assu bill has tinyclos running in s7; its on my todo list this summer to see if i can't just boot the cm2 api in cm3/s7 using that. it should be possible since the cm2 CLOS code was actually auto-generated from cm2 scheme sources that used the "native" object systems in gauche, stklos, chicken scheme, all of which came from tinyclos. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From nando at ccrma.Stanford.EDU Sat May 26 15:35:05 2012 From: nando at ccrma.Stanford.EDU (Fernando Lopez-Lezcano) Date: Sat, 26 May 2012 15:35:05 -0700 Subject: [CM] slippery chicken release In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4FC15A99.7010100@localhost> On 05/26/2012 03:02 AM, Michael Edwards wrote: > Hi Torsten, > >> PS: Also, you are saying clearly that you do not plan an graphical user interface for this software. Nevertheless, likely it would be relatively easy to turn your whole software into a library for PWGL or OpenMusic. > > That's an interesting proposition. Certainly some people might find > having a popup window with object properties useful. And for sure, > some of the graphical editors in those packages are great. I remain > sceptical myself however--I just find programming directly, in a text > editor, to be the most effective and efficient way of working. I > realise that I'm in the minority there though. Count me in the minority as well! Perhaps most current users have _never_ been exposed to programming with "text", and have only interacted with computers through a mouse and graphical interfaces. I believe text interaction is faster but it might be just a bias because my brain has never been "programmed" under the visual programming paradigm. On the other hand I think most (all?) programming and software development in the computer world happens in the text domain. -- Fernando From torsten.anders at beds.ac.uk Sat May 26 16:47:10 2012 From: torsten.anders at beds.ac.uk (Torsten Anders) Date: Sun, 27 May 2012 00:47:10 +0100 Subject: [CM] slippery chicken release In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <7030F068-C403-4A08-9F1A-C4D2BEA973CE@beds.ac.uk> Dear Michael and others, Let me assure you that I understand your position. After all, I have been clearly focussed myself on working with and developing text-based programming systems for > 10 years (including CM, SuperCollider, and for ~ 10 year now developing Strasheela). I certainly do not want to use a patching language myself for writing any program that is only slightly more complex. On the other hand, I assume you will agree that certain information including musical information such as chord, scales, rhythms, pitch sequences, motifs, etc. are far more easy to read in a graphic representation (i.e. common music notation) than in a textual format. If you generate all such information algorithmically, and only want to read but never edit such information, then a purely textual programming system with some music notation output (e.g., via Lilypond) is certainly fine. However, I think it is highly useful to integrate manual and machine composition, e.g., by specifying certain motifs or harmonies manually, but then arrange them algorithmically (or vice versa). This can of course be done textually (and all of us here are likely doing that all the time). However, I would really like to see and edit, e.g., my motif definitions in common music notation (I guess you know from experience what I am talking about :). I am therefore now seriously considering to integrate my system Strasheela into OpenMusic / PWGL so that I can use its score editors etc. (even though it is not even defined in Lisp). I will still do my actually programming with a textual language, but I think for using the resulting programs a graphical user interface can be beneficial. Besides, the system (or at least some of its applications) may become useful for others. Best wishes, Torsten On 26 May 2012, at 11:02, Michael Edwards wrote: > Hi Torsten, > >> PS: Also, you are saying clearly that you do not plan an graphical user interface for this software. Nevertheless, likely it would be relatively easy to turn your whole software into a library for PWGL or OpenMusic. > > That's an interesting proposition. Certainly some people might find > having a popup window with object properties useful. And for sure, > some of the graphical editors in those packages are great. I remain > sceptical myself however--I just find programming directly, in a text > editor, to be the most effective and efficient way of working. I > realise that I'm in the minority there though. > >> If you still have some resources left from your AHRC grant then doing so could greatly strengthen your impact (good for your REF and may even be helpful for the next grant application). > > God forbid that we actually let our research decisions be so heavily > influenced by government concepts of 'impact'.... > > >> For a more advanced used of such features you would need to have a conversation of your music representation (your slippery chicken object) into the OpenMusic / PWGL music representation. You already did something similar when defining your Lilypond interface (likely you are using Fomus, which makes this interface much more simple to define), so you know that such score format conversation is not defined on a single day, but is not too complex either. > > I'm not using Fomus actually. I decided it would be easier (!?) to > write my own interface to Lilypond. It turned out to be only a couple > of days work actually. > >> Anyway, you are probably still not interested :) > > Ach, no, interested for sure. But still on the fence :) > > Cheers, Michael > > >> >> On 24 May 2012, at 19:04, Michael Edwards wrote: >>> It is with great pleasure that I announce the open-source release of my >>> algorithmic composition software "slippery chicken": >>> http://www.michael-edwards.org/sc/ >>> >>> Please feel free to re-post to any potentially interested colleagues, students >>> or mailing lists. >>> >>> Workshops introducing the software will be held in Edinburgh, UK, and >>> Karlsruhe, Germany, in July 2012: >>> http://www.michael-edwards.org/sc/workshops.html >>> >>> "slippery chicken" is an open-source algorithmic composition system written in >>> Common Lisp which enables a top-down approach to music composition. The >>> software was originally tailor-made to encapsulate the author's personal >>> composition techniques, however many general-purpose algorithmic composition >>> tools have been programmed that should be useful to a range of composers. The >>> main goal of the project is to facilitate a melding of electronic and >>> instrumental sound worlds, not just at the sonic but also at the structural >>> level. Pure instrumental or electronic composition is of course possible with >>> the system too. Techniques for the innovative combination of rhythm and pitch >>> data--arguably one of the most difficult aspects of making convincing musical >>> algorithms--are offered. >>> >>> Anyone interested in discussing the software is encouraged to join the Google >>> Group http://groups.google.com/group/slippery-chicken >>> >>> Best wishes, >>> >>> Michael Edwards >>> >>> >>> >>> ___________________________________________ >>> >>> michael edwards >>> >>> office : (+44) (0)131 650 2431 >>> mobile : (+44) (0)7952 153750 >>> >>> michael.edwards at ed.ac.uk >>> >>> MSc in Digital Composition and Performance >>> http://michael-edwards.org/dcp >>> University of Edinburgh >>> http://michael-edwards.org/uofe >>> Personal homepage >>> http://www.michael-edwards.org >>> ___________________________________________ >> >> From dlphillips at woh.rr.com Sat May 26 17:17:14 2012 From: dlphillips at woh.rr.com (Dave Phillips) Date: Sat, 26 May 2012 20:17:14 -0400 Subject: [CM] slippery chicken release In-Reply-To: <7030F068-C403-4A08-9F1A-C4D2BEA973CE@beds.ac.uk> References: <7030F068-C403-4A08-9F1A-C4D2BEA973CE@beds.ac.uk> Message-ID: <4FC1728A.1070309@woh.rr.com> On 05/26/2012 07:47 PM, Torsten Anders wrote: > ... I am therefore now seriously considering to integrate my system Strasheela into OpenMusic / PWGL so that I can use its score editors etc.(even though it is not even defined in Lisp). I will still do my actually programming with a textual language, but I think for using the resulting programs a graphical user interface can be beneficial. Besides, the system (or at least some of its applications) may become useful for others. > Will OM or PWGL work with Linux now ? Best, dp From rbastian at free.fr Sun May 27 00:44:26 2012 From: rbastian at free.fr (=?ISO-8859-1?B?UmVu6Q==?= Bastian) Date: Sun, 27 May 2012 09:44:26 +0200 Subject: [CM] slippery chicken release In-Reply-To: <4FC15A99.7010100@localhost> References: <4FC15A99.7010100@localhost> Message-ID: <20120527094426.0fae2355@rene.carmen> Le Sat, 26 May 2012 15:35:05 -0700, Fernando Lopez-Lezcano a ?crit : > On 05/26/2012 03:02 AM, Michael Edwards wrote: [...] > > Count me in the minority as well! +1000 > > Perhaps most current users have _never_ been exposed to programming > with "text", and have only interacted with computers through a mouse > and graphical interfaces. I believe text interaction is faster but it > might be just a bias because my brain has never been "programmed" > under the visual programming paradigm. > > On the other hand I think most (all?) programming and software > development in the computer world happens in the text domain. ... et il ne faut pas confondre l'explication de la chose - qui peut utiliser des graphiques - avec la chose. In fine la chose doit ?tre comprise et int?rioris?e pour ?tre utilis?e efficacement - et l?, le texte reste la seule aide efficace ... und man soll nicht die Sache mit seiner Erkl?rung verwechseln. Die Erkl?rung kann, wenn n?tig, graphische Unterlagen benutzen, aber, am Ende vom Lied, muss die Sache verstanden und intus sein und dann bleibt nur der Text als effizientes Werkzeug. I think I am not able to translate to English. I saw incredible complex graphics of PureData, - but the resulting music was incredibly flat :) Instead of making graphic software, it would be more efficient to explain, explain, explain or translate Clisp to other langages. > > -- Fernando > -- Ren? Bastian www.pythoneon.org From torsten.anders at beds.ac.uk Sun May 27 01:08:47 2012 From: torsten.anders at beds.ac.uk (Torsten Anders) Date: Sun, 27 May 2012 09:08:47 +0100 Subject: [CM] Fwd: slippery chicken release References: Message-ID: Begin forwarded message: > From: Torsten Anders > Date: 27 May 2012 09:08:26 GMT+01:00 > To: Dave Phillips > Subject: Re: [CM] slippery chicken release > > On 27 May 2012, at 01:17, Dave Phillips wrote: >> On 05/26/2012 07:47 PM, Torsten Anders wrote: >>> ... I am therefore now seriously considering to integrate my system Strasheela into OpenMusic / PWGL so that I can use its score editors etc.(even though it is not even defined in Lisp). I will still do my actually programming with a textual language, but I think for using the resulting programs a graphical user interface can be beneficial. Besides, the system (or at least some of its applications) may become useful for others. >> >> Will OM or PWGL work with Linux now ? > > Good question, but I am unable to answer that. I know that the PWGL developers had problems with the OpenGL acceleration of graphic cards on Linux. I think both teams are not really using Linux themselves. > > Anyway, for OpenMusic the source code is available to get it running under Linux yourself (once you have LispWorks). A long time ago I saw a partial version of OpenMusic running under Linux, but that was before they ported it to LispWorks... > > Best wishes, > Torsten > > -- > Dr Torsten Anders > Course Leader, Music Technology > University of Bedfordshire > Park Square, Room A315 > http://www.torsten-anders.de > From lakatos.isti at gmail.com Sun May 27 03:56:37 2012 From: lakatos.isti at gmail.com (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Istv=E1n_Lakatos?=) Date: Sun, 27 May 2012 13:56:37 +0300 Subject: [CM] CM2 vs CM3 Message-ID: Good day, I recently discovered Common Music and algorithmic composition, and I am eager to learn and to probably use CM in some future projects. There are a few questions I would like to ask the community, since I've been having trouble finding answers in the documentation. Mainly, what are the main differences between CM2 and CM3, design and composition wise? I know that version 3 uses Scheme instead of Common Lisp, so CLOS isn't used anymore, but what kind of changes has this brought to CM? I will be acquiring a copy of Notes from the Metalevel soon, and want to know if I can follow the book using CM3 instead of version 2, if I might choose to go with Scheme in my projects. Or if I choose to go with Common Lisp, are there any drawbacks in using Common Music 2? Will I be missing out on something? Looking back I might have put a lot of questions :P, but I am interested in the answers. Hope to hear from you soon. Cheers, Istvan Lakatos From user-clm-cmdist at daveltd.com Sun May 27 04:00:46 2012 From: user-clm-cmdist at daveltd.com (David Lindes) Date: Sun, 27 May 2012 13:00:46 +0200 Subject: [CM] slippery chicken release In-Reply-To: <20120527094426.0fae2355@rene.carmen> References: <4FC15A99.7010100@localhost> <20120527094426.0fae2355@rene.carmen> Message-ID: Hi all (I'm relatively new here), Hmm, something tells me that this conversation might benefit from an injection of some borrowed ideas. Is it wrong to point people to a video? :) In case not, here's this: https://vimeo.com/36579366 (Bret Victor - "Inventing on Principle", in case you may already have seen it). In short, my own personal take (which I think is more-or-less aligned with Mr. Victor's, at least in ways, though probably not completely) on this topic goes something like this: (1) Describing things textually (in "words", or at least in (possibly computer) language) has the benefit of making it possible to represent abstract concepts in concise and concrete ways, that may create a lot of complexity out of a simple (or at least simply expressed) idea. (2) Having interactive graphical interfaces allows for exploration of *new* ideas in a way that's difficult or impossible when you have to express a complete thought in "words". So, if you know what you want to say, you want text. If you're trying to figure out what's possible to say, you might need (or at least benefit from) something more graphical and/or more interactive. And of course, there's no reason that both interfaces need be developed by the same person... though having a collaborative development situation could prove useful... though I've heard rumors that that's not so popular in the lisp world? Just some thoughts... Best, - David On Sun, May 27, 2012 at 9:44 AM, Ren? Bastian wrote: > Le Sat, 26 May 2012 15:35:05 -0700, > Fernando Lopez-Lezcano a ?crit : > > On 05/26/2012 03:02 AM, Michael Edwards wrote: > [...] > > > > Count me in the minority as well! > > +1000 > > > > > Perhaps most current users have _never_ been exposed to programming > > with "text", and have only interacted with computers through a mouse > > and graphical interfaces. I believe text interaction is faster but it > > might be just a bias because my brain has never been "programmed" > > under the visual programming paradigm. > > > > On the other hand I think most (all?) programming and software > > development in the computer world happens in the text domain. > > > ... et il ne faut pas confondre l'explication de la chose > - qui peut utiliser des graphiques - avec la chose. > In fine la chose doit ?tre comprise et int?rioris?e > pour ?tre utilis?e efficacement - et l?, le texte reste la seule aide > efficace > > > > ... und man soll nicht die Sache mit seiner Erkl?rung verwechseln. > Die Erkl?rung kann, wenn n?tig, graphische Unterlagen benutzen, > aber, am Ende vom Lied, muss die Sache verstanden und intus > sein und dann bleibt nur der Text als effizientes Werkzeug. > > > I think I am not able to translate to English. > > I saw incredible complex graphics of PureData, - but the resulting > music was incredibly flat :) > > Instead of making graphic software, it would be more efficient to > explain, explain, explain or translate Clisp to other langages. > > > > > > > -- Fernando > > > > > > -- > Ren? Bastian > www.pythoneon.org > > _______________________________________________ > Cmdist mailing list > Cmdist at ccrma.stanford.edu > http://ccrma-mail.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/cmdist > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rbastian at free.fr Sun May 27 06:47:52 2012 From: rbastian at free.fr (=?ISO-8859-1?B?UmVu6Q==?= Bastian) Date: Sun, 27 May 2012 15:47:52 +0200 Subject: [CM] slippery chicken release In-Reply-To: References: <4FC15A99.7010100@localhost> <20120527094426.0fae2355@rene.carmen> Message-ID: <20120527154752.71d268da@rene.carmen> Le Sun, 27 May 2012 13:00:46 +0200, David Lindes a ?crit : > Hi all (I'm relatively new here), > > Hmm, something tells me that this conversation might benefit from an > injection of some borrowed ideas. Is it wrong to point people to a > video? :) In case not, here's this: > > https://vimeo.com/36579366 (Bret Victor - "Inventing on Principle", > in case you may already have seen it). > There is a problem : i have no player for this format. Can you tell me what happens? > Just some thoughts... > > Best, > > - David > > > -- Ren? Bastian www.pythoneon.org From lakatos.isti at gmail.com Sun May 27 07:30:28 2012 From: lakatos.isti at gmail.com (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Istv=E1n_Lakatos?=) Date: Sun, 27 May 2012 17:30:28 +0300 Subject: [CM] slippery chicken release In-Reply-To: <20120527154752.71d268da@rene.carmen> References: <4FC15A99.7010100@localhost> <20120527094426.0fae2355@rene.carmen> <20120527154752.71d268da@rene.carmen> Message-ID: It's a simple Flash/Shockwave video, should work straightforwardly if you have the essential plug-ins installed. Try this link http://vimeo.com/moogaloop.swf?clip_id=36579366 Maybe your browser doesn't support the embedding technique Vimeo uses. On 27 May 2012 16:47, Ren? Bastian wrote: > Le Sun, 27 May 2012 13:00:46 +0200, > David Lindes a ?crit : > >> Hi all (I'm relatively new here), >> >> Hmm, something tells me that this conversation might benefit from an >> injection of some borrowed ideas. ?Is it wrong to point people to a >> video? :) ?In case not, here's this: >> >> https://vimeo.com/36579366 (Bret Victor - "Inventing on Principle", >> in case you may already have seen it). >> > > There is a problem : i have no player for this format. > Can you tell me what happens? > >> Just some thoughts... >> >> Best, >> >> - David >> >> > > > > > -- > Ren? Bastian > www.pythoneon.org > > _______________________________________________ > Cmdist mailing list > Cmdist at ccrma.stanford.edu > http://ccrma-mail.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/cmdist From michael.edwards at ed.ac.uk Sun May 27 08:01:25 2012 From: michael.edwards at ed.ac.uk (Michael Edwards) Date: Sun, 27 May 2012 16:01:25 +0100 Subject: [CM] slippery chicken release In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi David, > Any chance you'd be interested in putting this on github or similar?? ?I've > come to really dislike tarballs for getting source, and... while you're > certainly under zero obligation to pay any attention to the wishes of > someone randomly e-mailing you, I'll just let you know that there's at least > one potential user out there who'd appreciate it. ?(Meanwhile, I'm about to > download the tarball anyway...) We have a great svn+trac service here at the University of Edinburgh so whilst I've no plans to put slippery chicken on github I'd be happy to provide anyone who mails me the address to svn the latest copy. All the different version branches will be there as well as a 'latest' branch of stuff we fix but don't yet include in a new release. All the best, Michael > > If you'd like any links to info about getting started in git or anything > like that, I'm happy to provide some favorites -- I'll assume, though, that > you already know about it and have chosen not to use it for specific reasons > (and that I'm going to be out of luck on my wishes), and only provide such > things if you want them. ?:) > > Best, > > - David > > On Thu, May 24, 2012 at 8:04 PM, Michael Edwards > wrote: >> >> It is with great pleasure that I announce the open-source release of my >> algorithmic composition software "slippery chicken": >> http://www.michael-edwards.org/sc/ >> >> Please feel free to re-post to any potentially interested colleagues, >> students >> or mailing lists. >> >> Workshops introducing the software will be held in Edinburgh, UK, and >> Karlsruhe, Germany, in July 2012: >> http://www.michael-edwards.org/sc/workshops.html >> >> "slippery chicken" is an open-source algorithmic composition system >> written in >> Common Lisp which enables a top-down approach to music composition. The >> software was originally tailor-made to encapsulate the author's personal >> composition techniques, however many general-purpose algorithmic >> composition >> tools have been programmed that should be useful to a range of composers. >> The >> main goal of the project is to facilitate a melding of electronic and >> instrumental sound worlds, not just at the sonic but also at the >> structural >> level. Pure instrumental or electronic composition is of course possible >> with >> the system too. Techniques for the innovative combination of rhythm and >> pitch >> data--arguably one of the most difficult aspects of making convincing >> musical >> algorithms--are offered. >> >> Anyone interested in discussing the software is encouraged to join the >> Google >> Group http://groups.google.com/group/slippery-chicken >> >> Best wishes, >> >> ? ? ? ?Michael Edwards >> >> >> >> ___________________________________________ >> >> michael edwards >> >> office : (+44) (0)131 650 2431 >> mobile : (+44) (0)7952 153750 >> >> michael.edwards at ed.ac.uk >> >> MSc in Digital Composition and Performance >> ? ? http://michael-edwards.org/dcp >> University of Edinburgh >> ? ? http://michael-edwards.org/uofe >> Personal homepage >> ? ? http://www.michael-edwards.org >> ___________________________________________ >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Cmdist mailing list >> Cmdist at ccrma.stanford.edu >> http://ccrma-mail.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/cmdist > > From bil at ccrma.Stanford.EDU Sun May 27 11:07:50 2012 From: bil at ccrma.Stanford.EDU (Bill Schottstaedt) Date: Sun, 27 May 2012 11:07:50 -0700 Subject: [CM] slippery chicken release In-Reply-To: <566F56EE-C936-47AF-A594-16603E827F23@illinois.edu> References: <566F56EE-C936-47AF-A594-16603E827F23@illinois.edu> Message-ID: <20120527175913.M80100@ccrma.Stanford.EDU> > bill has tinyclos running in s7 I think tinyclos will be slow -- I stopped using it in my standard tests because I got impatient. But s7 has what I think is a really elegant "native" object system, but without the objects or the system! I use environments, as before, but now (today) all the built-in functions know about this stuff -- I added an example in s7.html that adds quaternions to the numbers. My timing tests indicate that this slows s7 down by less than 1% overall -- in most cases, there's no difference in speed. All that CLOS syntactic boilerplate -- gone! All those ugly type names like godforbid -- gone! Even my cat is happy and he's a grouch. From taube at illinois.edu Sun May 27 13:25:35 2012 From: taube at illinois.edu (Heinrich Taube) Date: Sun, 27 May 2012 15:25:35 -0500 Subject: [CM] CM2 vs CM3 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <88AEA915-D363-4120-BADD-F3A37F9B4FD4@illinois.edu> > > Mainly, what are the main differences between CM2 and CM3, design and > composition wise? I know that version 3 uses Scheme instead of Common > Lisp, so CLOS isn't used anymore, but what kind of changes has this > brought to CM? hi in terms of the changes to the cm 'language' between 2 and 3 the main design change was replacing clos -- which cm2 uses pervasively -- with lightweight scheme functions and a few structs for important persistent data like patterns. this allowed me to move from a very expressive but non-realtime, non-gui, consy environment (common lisp) to a more flexible lightweight environment that mixes lisp (s7 scheme) with real-time scheduler and graphics in C++. in a nutshell, then , the basic functionally between cm2 and cm3 has been preserved but with name changes (for example no generic functions?) > I will be acquiring a copy of Notes from the Metalevel soon, and want > to know if I can follow the book using CM3 instead of version 2, if I > might choose to go with Scheme in my projects. Or if I choose to go > with Common Lisp, are there any drawbacks in using Common Music 2? > Will I be missing out on something? the book examples are closer to cm2 than cm3. I'm actually talking with the publisher about a second edition, which would certainly be sal and scheme. the book did pretty well by academic standards but honestly I'm not sure how many people are interested in this sort of book any more. Numbers don't say the whole thing (or even half the thing), but at some level its important to feel that the outcome is worth the 'lift'. regardless i do plan to recast all examples in Notes into sal and scheme. From michael.edwards at ed.ac.uk Sun May 27 13:26:12 2012 From: michael.edwards at ed.ac.uk (Michael Edwards) Date: Sun, 27 May 2012 21:26:12 +0100 Subject: [CM] slippery chicken release In-Reply-To: <20120527175913.M80100@ccrma.Stanford.EDU> References: <566F56EE-C936-47AF-A594-16603E827F23@illinois.edu> <20120527175913.M80100@ccrma.Stanford.EDU> Message-ID: > I think tinyclos will be slow -- I stopped using it in my standard tests > because I got impatient. ?But s7 has what I think is a really elegant > "native" object system, but without the objects or the system! ?I use Hmm, that looks tempting. Especially given that to include S7 in an app all you have to do is include one C file and a header. > environments, as before, but now (today) all the built-in functions know > about this stuff -- I added an example in s7.html that adds quaternions > to the numbers. ?My timing tests indicate that this slows s7 down > by less than 1% overall -- in most cases, there's no difference > in speed. ?All that CLOS syntactic boilerplate -- gone! ?All those > ugly type names like godforbid -- gone! ?Even my > cat is happy and he's a grouch. :) Does anyone know of a decent Lisp->Scheme translator? Google doesn't seem to cooperate. Do you think it would be possible to translate a highly object-oriented Lisp programme to Scheme without a major rewrite and lots of headaches? Do you think it's worth it? Best, Michael From taube at illinois.edu Sun May 27 14:58:36 2012 From: taube at illinois.edu (Heinrich Taube) Date: Sun, 27 May 2012 16:58:36 -0500 Subject: [CM] slippery chicken release In-Reply-To: References: <566F56EE-C936-47AF-A594-16603E827F23@illinois.edu> <20120527175913.M80100@ccrma.Stanford.EDU> Message-ID: <1282200E-F0FA-4B5A-BC7A-7F1865106D14@illinois.edu> > > Hmm, that looks tempting. Especially given that to include S7 in an > app all you have to do is include one C file and a header. just as cool s7 is an extension language for sndlib, which contains all of clm and the entire history of ccmra instruments,at least until chuck. the s7/sndlib is probably as fast as clm4 and no compiling. amazing. the only thing it really missing for me is direct to dac, sndlib + snd does this but id have to write to a juice audio buffer. > :) Does anyone know of a decent Lisp->Scheme translator? Google > doesn't seem to cooperate. Do you think it would be possible to > translate a highly object-oriented Lisp programme to Scheme without a > major rewrite and lots of headaches? Do you think it's worth it? I've done the reverse, thats easier but was already a fairly big task. but you can at least see what the issues are: cm2/src/stol.lisp. From publst at btconnect.com Tue May 29 09:14:10 2012 From: publst at btconnect.com (publst) Date: Tue, 29 May 2012 17:14:10 +0100 Subject: [CM] Cmdist Digest, Vol 50, Issue 12 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <9349394E-4A40-4823-B1C7-28B0A534E22F@btconnect.com> > regardless i do plan to recast all examples in Notes into sal and scheme. It would be very helpful for the examples in your book to be translated to Scheme and Sal: is this likely to happen in the near future? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From bil at ccrma.Stanford.EDU Thu May 31 10:06:16 2012 From: bil at ccrma.Stanford.EDU (Bill Schottstaedt) Date: Thu, 31 May 2012 10:06:16 -0700 Subject: [CM] replacement for "environment" Message-ID: <20120531170456.M27720@ccrma.Stanford.EDU> The name "environment" is annoying; I was thinking that these things are disembodied lets, so s7 ought to use "let" instead. I've come up with: environment? let?, islet global-environment rootlet initial-environment unlet with-environment inlet outer-environment outlet, coverlet augment-environment sublet, novelette augment-environment! varlet current-environment valet error-environment owlet, triplet, roulette procedure-environment lambouillet but I'm stuck on environment->list (pronounced "environmentalist" of course) open-environment