[80c] time

Charles Céleste Hutchins celesteh at gmail.com
Wed Apr 18 11:40:03 CEST 2012


There seem to be several granularities of musical timing.  At the risk
of sound like Curtis Roads:

At the one end you have piece level time, which can be handled with a
shared stopwatch and can get a second or more out of sync without
causing too many issues.

Then you have beat-level time, which, as the mandelbrots noted, tends
to be the granularity that performers have.

Then there is diffusion-level time, which may need to be
sample-accurate to get the timings right to have a unified sound
emitted from multiple sources.

And then wavefield synthesis requires timing sync that is even faster than that.

It may be that not one tool needs to do all these things. It might
even be more musical when performers get slightly out of sync on a
beat level.

On Wed, Apr 18, 2012 at 10:02 AM, Aymeric Mansoux <am-80c at kuri.mu> wrote:
> alex said :
>> Slub tried sharing other parameters and it didn't really work out, our
>> systems are too different I guess, and we are happy just doing time
>> sync and having all the musical interaction as purely human-human.
>
> Similar with 0xA, at some point I was pushing, a bit too much, some
> common messaging system between Chun and I and that started to be very
> bureaucratic and boring. In the end we just sync and what we do on our
> machine is our own problem, and if we need to exchange more stuff or
> share abstractions, then it's better solved as "per piece" rather than
> thought through the ultimate system music making machine.
>
> a.
> _______________________________________________
> eightycolumn mailing list
> eightycolumn at multiplace.org
> http://multiplace.org/mailman/listinfo/eightycolumn



-- 
cheers,
Les

--
Charles Céleste Hutchins

http://www.berkeleynoise.com/celesteh/podcast/
http://www.bilensemble.co.uk


More information about the eightycolumn mailing list