I do recognize the flexibility of csound, but I don't consider atomic csound composing any closer to realtime recording than midi step sequencing is. If I ignore the metronome and musical time quantities, and stick with midi clocks, I can be just as arbitrary in midi as in csound, although that doesn't speak for your other reasons for using csound, naturally. In fact, in most cases when I've used csound I've started with recorded midi and converted it to csound, and gone from there. At heart I'm a textfile guy in everything, and so though that would be a good match for me, but I've found that in laying down the notes I'm a keyboardist at heart and have little patience for atomic methods. That's just me. If I were a painter I'm sure I wouldn't be a pointalist. ;-) On Fri, 1 Oct 2004 16:08:20 -0700 (PDT), Brian Redfern <bredfern@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Well, that's why I use csound, except the only problem is that its very > time consuming, takes weeks to do just one song, because I have to enter > every note by hand. In that way I can transcribe rhythm tracks that aren't > consistant, because I have such atomic level control. I also have created > some composition techniques that would be impossible to do with most midi > sequencers because I'm both using pitches that are outside those notes > supported by midi, and I'm also running five different time signatures > against each other. > > But like I said the drawback to this approach is that its like pointalist > painting, and it takes forver to compose a tune. > > -- De gustibus non disputandum est.
