> From: Michal Seta [mailto:mis@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] > ricktaylor@xxxxxxxxxxxxx writes: > > > I think the above methods need to somehow be extended to work with samples. Either that or computer audio needs its own form of musical representation. > > That's a good point. Not only samples, though, synthesis and DSP as > well. However, there are as many 'scoring' systems as > there are composers. Stockhousen has actually realized a score for > his 'Studie II' which is an electronic composition for tape. The > score provides enough information to exactly recreate the work using > an oscillator (or a number of them, I can't recall) and a tape > recording/dubbing machine. Someone has actually used it to generate > the piece in real-time with Max/MSP. However, synthesis methods have > evolved in complexity a lot in the past 50 years... http://www.stockhausen.org/ {In case you're not aware of it.} I had the impression that synthesis and dsp were fairly well taken care of by traditional notation. {At least to the extent that dsp can be.} > > Maybe we need to just skip the idea of any sort of representation outside of a song or audio file? If so... maybe we need to break with tradition a bit and make "song" files themselves provide a higher degree of functionality? > > Well, must be _the_ reason I started improvising :) I must have been, > like: ' Ahh... stop trying to write down what you mean. Just get out there and _play_!' > > Also, no notation system is complete. Not even text. I'm talking > from a performer's point of view, of course. :} Therein' lies the rub. In order to describe much of my stuff you'd have to play it. It's as much about the sounds as it is anything else. The sound file is the representation. Performance would be sort of redundant. ...Hence the visuals. {At least that's one justification... one is meant to be the basis {an aspect} of the other.} Text does have its uses...
