[chuck-users] how is this "on the fly"?
algomantra at gmail.com
Tue Sep 18 06:24:45 EDT 2007
>I'd like to suggest backing up a bit, attempt to (re)establish clearly
what the real questions are here and go from there.
I would absolutely love that, Kassen - and I would appreciate
if Mr. Michal Seta would do the same. In advance, I'm sorry
if I ticked off some circuits in his brain without intending to.
Of course, my last missive to him was written with the intent
of putting him off. With that silly exception.....
>Writing one's own instrument inherently leads to deep questions about
what we think a instrument is, what music is, perhaps even who we
ourselves are, on some level.
I think this discussion started from me because ChucK appeared
to me (from it's website) as a "language" whose scripts could be
modified on-the-fly. After a couple of days of play, it seems a great
type of software tp play with sound at a fundamental level. You can
write your own plugins etc, but it does not qualify as a language.
A language can be ported across platforms more easily - like a
population across a border. Software is much heavier, like the freakin
Taj Mahal someone made for hid dead wife.
(forgive the metaphors there. i'm just trying to be funny!)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the chuck-users