Composing music is not unlike programming – and either, at their best, can be expressive. In the early days of IT (before “IT” was even a term), many computer programmers came from a musical background. (And even early in
Composing music is not unlike programming – and either, at their best, can be expressive. In the early days of IT (before “IT” was even a term), many computer programmers came from a musical background. (And even early in the computer age, there was more call for software than symphonies – and more pay.)
But what if you could program music easily, using musical syntax in a programming language? That’s the question asked by languages like Velato. The commands actually aren’t as esoteric as you might expect; they include references to standard pitch and commands like “Change root note.” The language expresses notes, mapped to the alphabet, a bit like teaching the computer solfege. Using additional expressions, you can transform notes and generate musical materials.
The results sound a bit like an academic-sounding ragtime. And yes, they do sound as though they were generated by a computer. (Have a listen to a.MID file.)
For more on Velato:
Velato wiki page @ Esoteric Languages
A compiler built in.NET (Windows-only, though if you really wanted to I imagine you could quickly port to Mono or other environments)
An introduction [Rottytooth blog]
Creator Rottytooth is Daniel Temkin of New York. Along the same lines is Fugue, which specifies notes as intervals (oddly, the same way I learned atonal sightsinging, but that’s another story).
So, what use is all of this? Creating languages for music could be a first step to being able to write compositionally-useful generative music algorithms. That could allow composers writing for games, installations, performance, or software to create interactive music that generates itself without sounding like a bunch of random notes. And having an elegant, musical language to do so could allow you to sketch ideas with just a few keystrokes.
In fact, I’d argue that sitting with a big, monolithic music editor, you might actually spend more time and effort than a reduced language, once you learn it. I’m not sure these are mature enough to use yet, but the idea is fascinating. And who knows, maybe you’ll someday see this as a scripting option in the sequencer you already use.
Thanks to Grant Michaels, via Twitter, for the tip. (Grant’s Twitter feed includes lots of other goodies, too.)