| Support |  |       | 
| A lot of this thread has gone towards 
discussing randomization algorhythms. What fascinates me more than pure 
randomization is the constraint of randomness. Bear with me on this: When even a good drummer plays a two handed 
hihat rhythm there are very small timbral variations that occur because the 
sticks are slightly wieghted differently, the pressure of  each stroke varies just slightly (no matter 
how many hours we have tried to make it sound as uniform as possible);  the 
part of the cymbal changes just slightly,  the pressure of the left foot 
that keeps the two hi hat cymbals together varies minutely. All of this cause a slightly percolative 
feel to the rhythm no matter how uniformly the drummer tries to 
play.............and yet.........the fact that the drummer tries very hard to 
play and be heard as consistent seems to have something to do with the 
musical result (think of a creative professional drummer playing Louie Louie as opposed to a beginning 
beginner playing the same thing). Both can be interesting but the lion share 
of listeners probably would prefer the former to the latter. When we loop (unless we are manipulating the 
way, say, an Andre La Fosse manipulates his EDP) we freeze a performance in time so that ever 
deviation from the intended norm (of rhythmic perception) repeats EXACTLY. What makes that differ from even the drummer 
who created it is this exact replication of every nuance of the 
pattern. There's no denying it:   this can 
be as boring to listen to as listening to a perfectly quantized drum machine 
pattern looping over and over. Assuming the drummer is trying to play as 
perfectly replicateable as possible, there are tiny inconsistencies built into a 
live performance. In a way,  this could be thought of as 
a constraint of randomness.    It is, of course, not truly random 
but it most certainly can be mapped as a random (with certain limited 
constraints) deviation from the norm (or the intended perfect performance might be a 
better way of saying this). This is where Boid algorhythms come in (if I 
can be bold enough to even talk about them because I certainly don't have the 
mathematics skills to even understand how they are generated...........please 
google Boid algorhythms to see what the experts are saying...........I'm not one 
by a long shot). Birds flocking will stay a relative distance 
from every other bird in the flock.   The distances will vary 
 within a certain tolerance (they probably 
will never hit each other, nor will they get more than a certain distance away 
from each other because they are a flock , for god's sake! So,  the tolerance of how far away and 
how close can be a changeable but nonetheless mappable phenomae. Now consider when the flock changes 
direction suddenly:   Simple observation will tell you that 
the distances (or tightness of the flocking) will widen slightly as the birds 
change direction in both their furthest distance from each other and their 
closest distance............it will still stay within a  certain 
constraint however because they are 
flocking for god's sake. Now that the flock has resumed flying in a 
relatively straight line (and that itself has some tolerances and yet you can 
map with a straight line where they will end up weeks later),  their 
relative distances  'tighten up' and go back to their original 
status quo. Why not apply these kinds of algorhythms to 
filter resonance, cutoff,   
lfo's....................programmable contrained random deviations from each 
parameters beginning setting.  My feeling is that the results would feel 
more 'organic' (and, yes, Larry Cooperman, this is a terrible and wishy washy 
term if it weren't for the fact that everyone on this list has a strong feeling 
for what is meant when it is used). I've noticed when programming potentially 
sterile drum patterns in Fruity Loops Pro that if I find  a change in a parameter (volume, panning, 
resonance, cutoff frequency, shift--timing) that produces an audible difference that I can back that 
change off until is barely perceptable. With every single hi hat pattern I can go in 
and make these really small random changes to every single note and the result 
is a more realistic (i.e., sounds like a real drummer drumming) 
rhythm. Interestingly enough,  one can change 
ONLY THE HI HAT PATTERNS in a piece and listeners can sometimes be faked into 
thinking that you used a real drummer to either program the piece (via a midi 
pad) or that it is actually real drums. Seemingly,  only a small (but distinct) 
percentage of things can be randomized to create a more 'realistic' drum pattern. Check out the controls in the super cool 
free VST plugin SUPATRIGGAH.   Each major  parameter in this very simple granular 
plugin has a control for how random it can get and what the frequency of this 
randomization application is. I just imagine a granular real time plugin 
which combines these constrainable randomization algorhythms. Or better yet, a hardware stomp box that would do the same thing. It's up to a far better man or woman than me to 
actually make the damn thing, but I think that would be really 
cool. |