Computer generated music wasn't that hard at the time the author's writing about. To be honest the process the author describes is just about the simplest there is in computer music: choose a sampler instrument, pick a sequence of notes.
Consider that Aphex's Windowlicker was a created at around the same time as the sound the author made, and it was an entirely computer sequenced track (with lots of effects programmed in the SuperCollider audio programming language):
Not at all. This was in 1998, he had numerous options available. For some reason he went about it in the most convoluted fashion imaginable. But the smartest decisions were the ones that took the least time.
You notice he went with a fairly limited set of notes; if you're not a musician take my word for it that these are notes guaranteed to sound good together, because a) they're a succession of whole-number frequency ratios and b) they are also in the ratio of the first few Fibonacci numbers, and the human brain really, really likes hearing those basic tones recombined.
All the stuff with LISP & perl seems like a complete and utter waste of time to me. Even the author says he was 'geeking out' - presumably to avoid putting his musical ego on the line.
It would have been vastly simpler and easier to open up a MIDI sequencer (choosing from one of the many available on the market, and almost every musician has at least one installed), and either play in a bunch of chords and then offset the notes, or gone into the event list editor, tossed in the first few combinations, and then cut-n-pasted the rest.
There isn't anything wrong with doing it the way he did - it seems like he wanted to push his personal musical taste to the background, and use a deliberative approach to combine and play the notes without any possible musical bias. I have algorithmic musical software that I sometimes use for the same reason, especially when I'm trying to learn something or break out of a musical habit. But there were many less time-consuming ways of achieving the same result.
But there was no need to do things this way in 1998. Even then it would have looked like using a sledgehammer to crack a nut.
And this is from 1974, one year before the Altair 8800 ("widely recognized as the spark that ignited the microcomputer revolution") http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e11h73WhqK4
Yeah...but I don't think that's really a good point of comparison, as all the electronic sounds on there are analog rather than computer-generated. The actual recording was tracked on tape but played conventionally from keyboards, analog sequencers, drum pads etc. There's no sampling going on here, except insofar as tape edits are equivalent to sampling.
I'm being pednatic here, it's just that I'm an electronic musician myself so there's a very bright line between analog and digital (computer) methods for me. By the way, you will probably really enjoy this short documentary: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8KkW8Ul7Q1I
Comments
Just shows how hard computer-generated music was, at one point in time. Today, it is ubiquitous and requires almost no technical computer knowledge.
Computer generated music wasn't that hard at the time the author's writing about. To be honest the process the author describes is just about the simplest there is in computer music: choose a sampler instrument, pick a sequence of notes.
Consider that Aphex's Windowlicker was a created at around the same time as the sound the author made, and it was an entirely computer sequenced track (with lots of effects programmed in the SuperCollider audio programming language):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iZ8sZXFN6jc
That should give you some idea of the audio effects possible on computers at the time. The Tri-Tone is child's play by comparison.
Not at all. This was in 1998, he had numerous options available. For some reason he went about it in the most convoluted fashion imaginable. But the smartest decisions were the ones that took the least time.
You notice he went with a fairly limited set of notes; if you're not a musician take my word for it that these are notes guaranteed to sound good together, because a) they're a succession of whole-number frequency ratios and b) they are also in the ratio of the first few Fibonacci numbers, and the human brain really, really likes hearing those basic tones recombined.
All the stuff with LISP & perl seems like a complete and utter waste of time to me. Even the author says he was 'geeking out' - presumably to avoid putting his musical ego on the line.
It would have been vastly simpler and easier to open up a MIDI sequencer (choosing from one of the many available on the market, and almost every musician has at least one installed), and either play in a bunch of chords and then offset the notes, or gone into the event list editor, tossed in the first few combinations, and then cut-n-pasted the rest.
There isn't anything wrong with doing it the way he did - it seems like he wanted to push his personal musical taste to the background, and use a deliberative approach to combine and play the notes without any possible musical bias. I have algorithmic musical software that I sometimes use for the same reason, especially when I'm trying to learn something or break out of a musical habit. But there were many less time-consuming ways of achieving the same result.
But there was no need to do things this way in 1998. Even then it would have looked like using a sledgehammer to crack a nut.
Computer generated music was hard when Kraftwerk did it.
Quite. This is from 1983: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yt3p-F2x7rY
And this is from 1974, one year before the Altair 8800 ("widely recognized as the spark that ignited the microcomputer revolution") http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e11h73WhqK4
Yeah...but I don't think that's really a good point of comparison, as all the electronic sounds on there are analog rather than computer-generated. The actual recording was tracked on tape but played conventionally from keyboards, analog sequencers, drum pads etc. There's no sampling going on here, except insofar as tape edits are equivalent to sampling.
I'm being pednatic here, it's just that I'm an electronic musician myself so there's a very bright line between analog and digital (computer) methods for me. By the way, you will probably really enjoy this short documentary: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8KkW8Ul7Q1I
Indeed, But it did not require much technical computer knowledge in 1998 either.