I've watched a lot of live coding tools out of interest for the last few years, and as much as I'd like to adopt them in my music making it's not clear to me what they can add to my production repertoire compared to the existing tools (DAWs, hardware instruments, playing by hand, etc).<p>The coding aspect is novel I'll admit, and something an audience may find interesting, but I've yet to hear any examples of live coded music (or even coded music) that I'd actually want to listen to. They almost always take the form of some bog-standard house music or techno, which I don't find that enjoyable.<p>Additionally, the technique is fun for demonstrating how sound synthesis works (like in the OP article), but anything more complex or nuanced is never explored or attempted. Sequencing a nuanced instrumental part (or multiple) requires a lot of moment-to-moment detail, dynamics, and variation. Something that is tedious to sequence and simply doesn't play to this formats' strengths.<p>So again, I want to integrate this skill into my music production tool set, but aside from the novelty of coding live, it doesn't appear well-suited to making interesting music in real time. And for offline sequencing there are better, more sophisticated tools, like DAWs or trackers.
Every generation of musicians for the past 8 decades has had the same thoughts. What live coding tools for synthesis offers you is an understanding of the nature of generational technology.<p>Consider this: there are teenagers today, out there somewhere, learning to code music. Remember when synthesisers were young and cool and there was an explosion of different engines and implementations?<p>This is happening for the kids, again.<p>Try to use this new technology to replicate the modern, and then the old sound, and then discover new sounds. Like we synth nerds have been doing for decades.
Music coding technology has been around a <i>long time</i> - think of tools like csound and pd and Max/MSP. They're great for coding synthesizers. Nobody uses them to do songs. Even Strudel has tools for basic GUI components because once you get past the novelty of 'this line of code is <i>modulating the filter wowow</i>' typing in numeric values for frequency or note duration is the least efficient way to interact with the machine.<p>Pro developers who really care about the sound variously write in C/C++ or use cross compilers for pd or Max. High quality oscillators, filters, reverb etc are hard work, although you can certainly get very good results with basic ones given today's fast processors.<p>Live coding is better for conditionals like 'every time [note] is played increment [counter], when [counter] > 15 reset [counter] to 0 and trigger [something else]'. But people who are focused on the result rather than the live coding performance tend to either make their own custom tooling (Autechre) or programmable Eurorack modules that integrate into a larger setup, eg <a href="https://www.perfectcircuit.com/signal/the-programmable-eurorack" rel="nofollow">https://www.perfectcircuit.com/signal/the-programmable-euror...</a><p>It's not that you can't get great musical results via coding, of course you can. But coding as performance is a celebration of the repl, not of the music per se.
100% agree.<p>I think this format of composition is going to encourage a highly repetitive structure to your music. Good programming languages constrain and prevent the construction of bad programs. Applying that to music is effectively going to give you quantization of every dimension of composition.<p>I'm sure its possible to break out of that but you are fighting an uphill battle.
Quite the opposite actually. certain live coding languages give you the tools to create <i>extremely</i> complex patterns in a very controlled manner, in ways you simply wouldn't be able to do via any other method. the most popular artist exploring these ideas is Kindohm, who is sort of an ambassador figure for the TidalCycles language.
Having used TidalCycles myself, the language lends itself particularly well to this kind of stuff as opposed to more traditional song/track structures. And yet it also constrains and prevents the construction of bad programs in a very strict manner via its type system and compiler.<p>It's also notable for being probably the only Haskell library used almost exclusively by people with no prior knowledge of Haskell, which is an insane feat in itself.
Some of us enjoy highly repetitive music, at least some of the time.<p>"Computer games don't affect kids. If Pac Man affected us as kids, we'd all be running around in darkened rooms, munching pills and listening to repetitive music." -- Marcus Brigstocke (probably?)<p>Also, related but not - YouTube's algorithm gave me this the other day - showing how to reconstruct the beat of Blue Monday by New Order:<p><a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=msZCv0_rBO4" rel="nofollow">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=msZCv0_rBO4</a>
The ease of quantization in the DAW is pretty easy to do as well. So I am not sure that would be unique to music / live coding sessions.
It is unique because everything is quantized. I've never used these tools but I am assuming you could give it some level of randomness but as someone who has performed and recorded a non-quantized performance is not random. So sure, it's super easy to quantize in your daw but it is a tool to be applied when needed, not something that is on all the time by default.
> I've watched a lot of live coding tools out of interest for the last few years, and as much as I'd like to adopt them in my music making it's not clear to me what they can add to my production repertoire compared to the existing tools (DAWs, hardware instruments, playing by hand, etc).<p>Aside from the novelty factor (due to very different UI/UX) and the idea that you can use generative code to make music (which became an even more interesting factor in the age of LLMs), I agree.<p>And even the generative code part I mentioned is a novelty factor as well, and isn't really practical for someone who actually makes music as their end-goal (and not someone who is just experimenting around with tech or how far one can get with music-as-code UIUX).
Procedural generation can be useful for finding new musical ideas. It's also essential in specific genres like ambient and experimental music, where the whole point is to break out of the traditional structures of rhythm and melody. Imagine using cellular automata or physics simulations to trigger notes, key changes, etc. Turing completeness means there are no limits on what you can generate. Some DAWs and VSTs give you a Turing complete environment, e.g. Bitwig's grid or Max/MSP. But for someone with a programming background those kinds of visual editors are less intuitive and less productive than writing code.<p>Of course, often creativity comes from limitations. I would agree that it's usually not desirable to go full procedural generation, especially when you want to wrangle something into the structure of a song. I think the best approach is a hybrid one, where procedural generation is used to generate certain ideas and sounds, and then those are brought into a more traditional DAW-like environment.
I've actually tried all of the approaches that you've mentioned over the years, and - for my needs - they're not that compelling at the end of the day.<p>Sure it might be cool to use cellular automata to generate rhythms, or pick notes from a diatonic scale, or modulate signals, but without a rhyme or reason or _very_ tight constraints the music - more often than not - ends up feeling unfocused and meandering.<p>These methods may be able to generate a bar or two of compelling material, but it's hard to write long musical "sentences" or "paragraphs" that have an arc and intention to them. Or where the individual voices are complementing and supporting one another as they drive towards a common effect.<p>A great deal of compelling music comes from riding the tightrope between repetition and surprising deviations from that scheme. This quality is (for now) very hard to formalize with rules or algorithms. It's a largely intuitive process and is a big part of being a compelling writer.<p>I think the most effective music comes from the composer having a clear idea of where they are going musically and then using the tools to supplement that vision. Not allowing them to generate and steer for you.<p>-----<p>As an aside, I watch a lot of Youtube tutorials in which electronic music producers create elaborate modulation sources or Max patches that generate rhythms and melodies for them. A recurring theme in many of these videos is an approach of "let's throw everything at the wall, generate a lot of unfocused material, and then winnow it down and edit it into something cool!" This feels fundamentally backwards to me. I understand why it's exciting and cool when you're starting out, but I think the best music still comes from having a strong grasp of the musical fundamentals, a big imagination, and the technical ability to render it with your tools and instruments.<p>----<p>To your final point, I think the best example of this hybrid generative approach you're describing are Autechre. They're really out on the cutting edge and carving their own path. Their music is probably quite alienating because it largely forsakes melody and harmony. Instead it's all rhythm and timbre. I think they're a positive example of what generative music could be. They're controlling parameters on the macro level. They're not dictating every note. Instead they appear to be wrangling and modulating probabilities in a very active way. It's exciting stuff.
Look into the JUCE framework for building your own tools. I was using MaxMsp for a while, but would always think to myself "This would be so much easier to accomplish in pure code". So, I started building some bespoke VST's.<p>There's a learning curve for sure, but it's not too bad once you learn the basics of how audio and MIDI are handled + general JUCE application structure.<p>Two tips:<p>Don't bother with the Projucer, use the CMAke example to get going. Especially if you don't use XCode or Visual Studio.<p>If your on a Mac, you might need to self-sign the VST. I don't remember the exact process, but it's something I had to do once I got an M4 Mac.
Fair point, and that's the challenge in both the software's abilities and the creator's skills.<p>If you see it as yet another instrument you have to master, then you can go pretty far. I'm finding myself exploring rhythms and sounds in ways I could never do in a DAW so fast, but at the same time I do find limiting a lot of factors, especially sequencing.<p>So far I haven't gotten beyond a good sounding loop, hence the name "loopmaster", and maybe that's the limit, which is why I made a 2 deck "dual" mode in the editor, so that it can be played as a DJ set where you don't really need that much progression.<p>That said, it's quite fun to play with it and experiment with sounds, and whenever you make something you enjoy, you can export a certain length and use it as a track in your mix.<p>My goal is certainly to be able to create full length tracks with nuances and variations as you say, just not entirely sure how to integrate this into the format right now.<p>Feedback[0] is appreciated!<p>[0]: <a href="https://loopmaster.featurebase.app/" rel="nofollow">https://loopmaster.featurebase.app/</a>
I've seen a couple of TikToks with someone doing live coding with this same tool and it was really cool to watch because they really knew it well, but like you said it was bog-standard house/techno.
What‘s going on with all these code-2-music tools these days? See other front page discussion about strudel.cc [1]. Did I enter an established bubble or is there a rising trend? It‘s incredible, though, what people are able to obtain with it, especially when built-up during a live session [2].<p>[1] <a href="https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46052478">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46052478</a>
[2] Nice example: <a href="https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=GWXCCBsOMSg" rel="nofollow">https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=GWXCCBsOMSg</a>
Often an article posted to hn will cause a mini-trend as users who are engaging with the subject discover and share more related resources.
Computer music is as old as computers, live coding is pretty old too. (I posted this in the strudel discussion too: <a href="https://toplap.org/wiki/HistoricalPerformances" rel="nofollow">https://toplap.org/wiki/HistoricalPerformances</a>) Maybe everyone doing live streams during the pandemic helped get visibility for live coding? It's interesting to see it kind of becoming popular now.
My guess is we are either at the top or rising to the top of cyclical curve of the trend.
CSOUND is the oldest code-2-music framework I know of, and that's been here since the 80's, so the concept is not new<p>The tools/frameworks have become more plentiful, approachable, and mature over the past 10-15 years, to the point where you can just go to strudel.cc and start coding music right from your browser.
SO fun!!!<p>fun experiment to get you tinkerers started, skip to the bottom play The Complete Loop - <a href="https://loopmaster.xyz/tutorials/how-to-synthesize-a-house-loop#the-complete-loop" rel="nofollow">https://loopmaster.xyz/tutorials/how-to-synthesize-a-house-l...</a><p>Then, on line 21, with `pat('[~ e3a3c4]*4',(trig,velocity,pitches)->`.<p>Change *4 to *2 and back to *4, to reduce the interval that the "Chords" play. If you do it real fast with your backspace + 2 or backspace + 4 key, you can change the chords in realtime, and kinda vibe with the beat a little bit.<p>Definitely recommend wearing headphones to hear the entire audio spectrum (aka bass).*
The language certainly looks nice! Is it open source? I think it makes sense for this kind of tool, since it's inherently "hackery". I mean people who want to write music with code also probably want the ability to understand and modify any part of the stack, it's the nature of the audience.<p>I'll shamelessly plug my weirdo version in a Forth variant, also a house loop running in the browser: <a href="https://audiomasher.org/patch/WRZXQH" rel="nofollow">https://audiomasher.org/patch/WRZXQH</a><p>Well, maybe it's closer to trance than house. It's also considerably more esoteric <i>and</i> less commented! Win-win?
Thanks! I tried to make it as familiar as possible, inspired by JS. It's not yet open-source, mainly because the source is a bit of a mess, but it will be once I tidy things up. Follow me on GitHub[0] for updates. Also that sounds to me like Tech-House/Electro-House :D Very nice!<p>[0]: <a href="https://github.com/stagas" rel="nofollow">https://github.com/stagas</a>
Is there a way to sidechain the bass to a compressor with the kick as an input? otherwise the low end is very muddy.
I was surprised at the audible difference it made to reset the RNG seed for the hi-hat noise function every time it triggered. I’m curious what the justification for doing this is—does the randomness arise from the geometry of the hi-hat itself and not the way you hit it? Is the idea to imitate the sound of sample-based percussion?
My understanding is that because it's a very small sample, it's basically a combination of a subset of sine waves, and because we're very sensitive to the nuances of high-pitched sounds, even small changes in that space make a lot of difference. Every RNG seed produces a different sounding hihat, and if you don't reset it, it continues producing different hihats, which is unnatural. Another explanation is also to resemble sample-based audio, but perhaps it's all of these things combined.
Very cool. <a href="https://loopmaster.xyz/generate" rel="nofollow">https://loopmaster.xyz/generate</a> is super fun also.
Thanks! For anyone trying this, it's being HN crushed right now and hitting rate-limits, you should try again in a bit if you see an error.<p>Also, there is an AI DJ mode[0] where you set the mood/genre and the AI generates and plays music for you infinitely.<p>[0]: <a href="https://loopmaster.xyz/editor?aidj" rel="nofollow">https://loopmaster.xyz/editor?aidj</a>
I really want something like this as a VST plugin.<p>I don't imagine making a full song out of this, but it would be a great instrument to have.
I'm considering a VST version but for now there is an Export Audio feature you can use to get a perfect audio loop to use with Ableton (or any other DAW) with oversampling up to 8x for great quality.
I route midi generated by strudel.cc in to my DAW.
Shoutout to PACE who banned scripting in the JUCE 8 license terms so if you wanted to make this using the leading framework, you can't.
Do you have a source for this? I don't see any indication from a quick Google other than this thread as the second result.<p>The license at:
<a href="https://github.com/juce-framework/JUCE/blob/master/LICENSE.md" rel="nofollow">https://github.com/juce-framework/JUCE/blob/master/LICENSE.m...</a><p>indicates you can just license any module under agpl and avoid the JUCE 8 license (which to be fair, I'm not bothering to read)
Define scripting.<p>I'm not going to test it, but couldn't you just load a json file with all params.<p>Various instructions, etc.<p>I can't believe it's not code!
If you like this then check out Oxygene pt4 in JS[0].<p>[0] <a href="https://dittytoy.net/ditty/59b8a8d54d" rel="nofollow">https://dittytoy.net/ditty/59b8a8d54d</a>
It strikes me as kind of weird (or maybe a red flag?) that there's no landing page nor an About page.
I think it's more of a red flag that they chose a name that's one letter away from a well-known site that sells music samples: <a href="https://www.loopmasters.com/" rel="nofollow">https://www.loopmasters.com/</a><p>Not like a fringe unknown one, but one with over 20 years of history and now-owned by Beatport.
meh, if they were that worried about their brand, they should have bought up the variants of their domain plus TLDs. otherwise, they can't possibly be that concerned about their trademark.