[HN Gopher] Introduction to Computer Music
___________________________________________________________________
Introduction to Computer Music
Author : hecanjog
Score : 233 points
Date : 2025-07-31 11:37 UTC (11 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (cmtext.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (cmtext.com)
| latexr wrote:
| I'm interested in the subject but not really a fan of the
| presentation. Is there an ePUB version or similar that I'm not
| seeing?
| dakiol wrote:
| Indeed, or a PDF. When one study these topics is way easier to
| do so via PDFs for example: you bookmark the page and continue
| tomorrow. If it's HTML, you need to bookmark too, but this is a
| hassle since bookmarking creates an entry in your browser
| bookmarks (that you need to clean up later) and if the html
| page is too long and has no anchors, good luck remembering what
| part you read last (not to mention that one can read a pdf
| offline and the pdf can be archived easily). Also knowing how
| many pages there are to read and how many you have read so far
| is very helpful (in contrast, reading a website is rather
| tiring since you don't know how far are you or how much is
| left)
| larodi wrote:
| Quickly read thorough it, is indeed a nice introductory read.
| Recommending, may be suitable for 10th-12th graders also.
| aa-jv wrote:
| Its a good read, provides a good introduction - but imho, loopops
| incomplete guide to electronic music is a much better investment
| of time and energy ..
|
| http://patreon.com/loopop
|
| .. very definitely worth the effort to get it downloaded for
| offline reading, also.
| gramie wrote:
| Loopop's guide looks interesting, but to unlock the book I had
| to join (for free) the Patreon channel. Then it immediately
| tells me that to unlock the book I have to become a paid
| member.
|
| It turns out that the free tier only gets you notifications
| when new content is published; to read that content, you have
| to pay.
|
| I wouldn't mind paying, but dislike the bait and switch
| approach.
| Fraterkes wrote:
| His patreon is really explicit about what you get for what
| tiers. I get that the patreon ui is pretty confusing, but
| that's not his fault
| stronglikedan wrote:
| > but that's not his fault
|
| He chooses to utilize Patreon for his business, so it
| really is, at least partially.
| Fraterkes wrote:
| My condolences, you are annoying.
| mkesper wrote:
| Come on, you can join for one month, download the up to date
| version and leave again. Not too much asked for such a
| ressource.
| MomsAVoxell wrote:
| Yes, it's definitely worth it, in my opinion. Loopops book
| is easily one of the most powerful collections of knowledge
| of electronic music production out there.
|
| I've been making electronic music since the 80's and still
| find the regular updates from loopop titillating and
| inspiring.
| richrichardsson wrote:
| No mention of Daphne Oram [1] in the history of electronic music.
| :(
|
| [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daphne_Oram
| Mouvelie wrote:
| Thanks, did not know about her, will check out her book !
| laxd wrote:
| Birds of Parallax from 9:45 onwards is my favorite. They had
| this on repeat in an electronic music history exhibition I
| attended in a London museum some ... counting... 12 years
| ago.
|
| https://youtu.be/lNTZh0jHOvs?t=585
| bondarchuk wrote:
| The whole of BBC/radiophonic workshop are not there, maybe it's
| a bit US centered..
| vodou wrote:
| She wrote a "treatise" on electronic music called _An
| Individual Note of Music, Sound and Electronics_. From the back
| cover:
|
| "[...] a fascinating glimpse into the creative mind behind the
| Oramics machine. In this engaging account of the possibilities
| of electronic sound, Oram touches on acoustics, mathematics,
| cybernetics and esoteric thought, but always returns to the
| human, urging us to 'see whether we can break open watertight
| compartments and glance anew' at the world around us."
|
| http://www.anomie-publishing.com/coming-soon-daphne-oram-an-...
| waffletower wrote:
| If it makes you feel better, when I taught the history of
| electronic music I introduced students to Daphne Oram.
| gizajob wrote:
| Daphne Oram didn't use computers. Check the title of the book.
| brudgers wrote:
| Neither did Stockhausen, Schaffer, Les Paul or the Tape Music
| Lab.
| brcmthrowaway wrote:
| Any way to compose compelling electronic music without having to
| spend time learning a commercial app like Ableton?
| mfro wrote:
| Learning the app is not the difficult part. It is honing your
| style within the toolset you're comfortable with. Every DAW has
| its pain points and learning curve. Spend a few hours a week
| with each and see which one works for you, is my advice. Same
| as any other tool, you can't create effectively until you've
| become comfortable with it.
| jamboca wrote:
| Literally hundreds or even thousands of ways, physical
| instrument such as sequencer/sampler, other DAWs. It's not
| about learning a commercial app it's about understanding
| principles of music production irrelevant of your platform.
| Just pick one and go: your ears won't know any difference
| lynx97 wrote:
| You'll have to spend time learning whatever tool you are going
| to employ. If commercial is the issue... Have a look at
| SuperCollider. It has a learning curve, new programming
| language and all that. But the flexibility and actual software
| architecture is pretty unmatched in its own nieche IMO.
| brcmthrowaway wrote:
| I haven't heard anything nice from SuperCollider
| nyeah wrote:
| Me either. Links or no downvotes, bruhs.
| briangriffinfan wrote:
| There are open source trackers like Famitracker, and there are
| kinda-sorta-half-decent open source DAWs now like Ardour and
| LMMS.
| brudgers wrote:
| Eurorack?
|
| But it won't save you time.
|
| Or money.
| poulpy123 wrote:
| except if it's VCVRack (for money)
| brudgers wrote:
| Might as well use Ableton.
| fssys wrote:
| puredata or supercollider - although I would honestly recommend
| Max/MSP over either (but it is commercial). Ableton is great
| and most DAWs in general are useful and quite similar so the
| skills are transferable, but they do lend themselves to
| specific orthodox kinds of composition, dance music and sound
| collage basically.
| bezko wrote:
| https://vcvrack.com/ and https://www.youtube.com/c/omricohen-
| music
| whilenot-dev wrote:
| So many to choose from (in alphabetical order)...
|
| - Bytebeat: https://dollchan.net/bytebeat/ (https://greggman.co
| m/downloads/examples/html5bytebeat/html5b... !Warning loud!)
|
| - Cardinal: https://cardinal.kx.studio/live
|
| - Glicol: https://glicol.org
|
| - Kabelsalat: https://kabel.salat.dev
|
| - NoiseCraft: https://noisecraft.app
|
| - Strudel: https://strudel.cc
| (https://github.com/terryds/awesome-strudel)
|
| - Tidal Cycles: https://tidalcycles.org
| nyeah wrote:
| You're really going to dump a total newbie into simulated
| rack synths, computer music languages, and whatnot? In order
| to "save time" over learning a DAW?
|
| I'm sympathetic to some of what you're plugging. Really. I
| love VCVRack. But have mercy!
| theSuda wrote:
| I am one of those newbies and I spent way too much of my
| morning going through all of these. :D
|
| I love Ableton though. You can google any random thing
| about it and get an answer somewhere because it's so widely
| used. Dunno what OP has against it. It's not hard to come
| by Ableton Live Lite license for free. I think just buying
| their iphone app gives you access to Lite license.
| dv_dt wrote:
| I have been seeing a few DJ with livestreams composing with
| Strudel. It's a live web repl programming based approach. I
| don't think it necessarily scales to professional use, but it's
| a reasonable intro to the core concepts.
|
| I've gone through the tutorial and it was honestly the most fun
| I've had on the web in a while.
|
| https://strudel.cc/workshop/getting-started/
| Karrot_Kream wrote:
| Hey thanks I hadn't heard of this.
| rs186 wrote:
| It's like asking whether you can do serious photography without
| Photoshop/Lightroom or create games without Unreal/Unity. The
| answer is you can, but do you really want to? Your most
| important goal is to use a tool to get the job done. The tool
| is a method to get there, not something you want to fight with.
| duped wrote:
| It's more like when kids start taking music lessons. Most
| parents aren't going to spend more than $100-200 on an
| instrument, in case the kid decides they want to quit. But
| the entrypoint for virtually any instrument that you could
| call "playable" is usually north of $500 (which also competes
| against a massive supply of used instruments from people that
| spent $500+ and then quit).
|
| There's nothing wrong with playing around with Reaper,
| Garageband, BandLab, or any of the more entry level
| "instruments" in this analogy. Preferable even, if you don't
| want to blow hundreds of bucks on a program.
| mrob wrote:
| You can get perfectly playable electric guitars in the $100
| to $200 price range. It might need some setup first but you
| can learn to do that yourself from online videos. Modern
| mass production means popular instruments can be excellent
| value for money.
| duped wrote:
| Sure, but keep in mind that's not how people who have
| never picked up an instrument think. It takes a level of
| expertise to get there. The point is that cheap is fine
| for beginners, while the more expensive stuff is worth it
| for serious practitioners.
| nyeah wrote:
| I'm sure it seems that way to you, but for people who
| never touched an electric guitar before that's going to
| be torture. You need an instrument that you really want
| to pick up and play, that stays in tune, etc. It doesn't
| need to be $1500, but at $150 they better have an uncle
| who's a guitar tech.
|
| I have an old Gibson Marauder that rapidly gets out of
| tune. So far no shop has been able to do anything about
| that. It would probably go for $400 or more retail, to a
| beginner who doesn't notice (or thinks the problem is
| his/her fault). But it's no fun to play. Chords sound
| bad. And that kind of thing is not unusual.
| ofalkaed wrote:
| >You need an instrument that you really want to pick up
| and play, that stays in tune, etc. It doesn't need to be
| $1500, but at $150 they better have an uncle who's a
| guitar tech.
|
| If you really want to play you will play regardless of
| the instrument you have. Like many, I started with cheap
| instruments, so I figured out how to fix them or at least
| make them better. I was 12 and wanted to play guitar, my
| parents were not willing to spend money on it and just
| found some handme downs from the relatives, and I made it
| work because I wanted to play guitar. Ended up teaching
| myself lutherie, made some money, made some instruments.
| These days it is easier than ever to maintain your own
| instrument with the internet to answer all your
| questions, I had to learn to repair and maintain my
| guitar by working backwards from books on construction
| since that is all my library had.
|
| >So far no shop has been able to do anything about that.
|
| It is an issue with the bridge, the nut, and or the
| tuners, on a guitar of that age it is a fair chance it is
| a combination of all three. I am guessing you are
| bringing the instrument to normal guitar shops that
| primarily do sales and lack anyone even remotely
| competent when it comes to repair.
| nyeah wrote:
| Thanks. I think that's all valuable context for a
| beginner thinking about using a very low-priced guitar.
| bpc777 wrote:
| I have been playing for 50 years at this point. I'm
| currently playing something similar to this (0) bought at
| GC for $329 and while the knobs and jack could stand to
| be replaced (especially if you are performing) it plays
| and sounds great. You do not need to spend more than $500
| to get a solid electric guitar these days. You can
| definitely spend a lot more for a top tier brand like
| Fender, Gibson, PRS, Suhr, etc... but there is a lot of
| good value between $250 - $500.
|
| [0]https://www.guitarcenter.com/Gretsch-
| Guitars/G5210-P90-Elect...
| PaulDavisThe1st wrote:
| Reaper is not an "entry level instrument". It is a low
| cost, but full featured DAW. Garageband and BandLab are
| beginner DAWs, though for many they might work just fine
| for a long time or even for ever, depending on someone's
| goals and aspirations.
| duped wrote:
| Didn't mean to say imply it wasn't. I'd say Logic is also
| priced like an entry level tool, yet fully featured.
| mclau157 wrote:
| Look up DJ Dave and using Strudel to make music, its fun!
| rollcat wrote:
| Honorable mention: FruityLoops. I remember it from high school,
| 2006, we've had a hand-me-down 486 with maybe 32mb RAM? The
| boys made some great loops, I brought a guitar, we ran a
| freakin live hip hop show, standing ovations, FL delivered.
| thrtythreeforty wrote:
| If you bought FL back then, you should still have a license
| for the latest FL Studio! They offer lifetime updates, which
| is a pretty good offer if you like the software. (I use
| Bitwig which doesn't, but I find it worth the tradeoff.)
| Slow_Hand wrote:
| As opposed to what? Spending time learning any of the
| alternative tools out there? Everything you do is going to have
| a learning curve, so you might as well start learning the tool
| that does what you want.
|
| If you don't want to use a computer, you could write and
| perform exclusively using hardware. Like a modular synthesizer,
| or a standalone synth, or an Elektron box (Digitakt, Digitone,
| etc).
| nyeah wrote:
| If you want to make "normal" electronic music (and never tried
| before), use GarageBand on an iPad. It's easier to learn than
| Ableton et al. because GarageBand has reasonable settings built
| in. I.e. it will make sounds right away, without endless
| screwing around. (You might even try GarageBand on a phone, if
| the screen is large enough.)
|
| If you want to make "experimental" music then ... you'll have
| to experiment. Most of the recommendations in these comments
| are aimed at experimental music.
|
| Most things labeled "computer music" belong to a very specific
| retro experimental music aesthetic, literally dating back to
| the era when you could barely make music on a computer at all.
| Much of this music was heavily influenced by academic workers.
| That may be exactly what you're looking for! On the other hand
| if you're not quite sure what I'm talking about, then be aware
| that "computer music" is not the only, or even the sanest, way
| to make music on your computer.
| bpc777 wrote:
| Agreed! If you have an Apple device GarageBand is the best
| way to get started.
| bpc777 wrote:
| Once you start getting into many tracks and advanced
| routing it seems like the choice (for me at least) is Logic
| Pro or Ableton Live. And I find Ableton much more fun to
| use when I want to jam, whereas Logic feels more like
| programming which is also great. FL Studio is also lots of
| fun. Try various options and see what fits best with what
| you are trying to do.
| xoac wrote:
| Learning a bit of ableton is the least hard part of making
| compelling electronic music. Bitwig is fine as well. There is
| such a deluge of people eager to teach you via youtube or udemy
| etc.
| ofalkaed wrote:
| Sure, but what will work for you will depend on what you
| consider "compelling electronic music," it is a big and diverse
| field and each have different tools which suit them. Without
| having some idea about your interests and direction in
| electronic music, you will just get a massive list of random
| applications which may or may not work for your goals.
| bpc777 wrote:
| Ableton Live is very intuitive and there is a lite version that
| is bundled with some interfaces
| (https://www.ableton.com/en/products/live-
| lite/features/?pk_v...). It has been years so I don't remember
| which interface / version I started with but I quickly fell in
| love and upgraded to the full version. The time I have spent
| learning it has been fun and worthwhile, so maybe give it a
| try.
| i_am_proteus wrote:
| Another fine text on this subject I can recommend (at a somewhat
| higher level, and not provided for free) is The Computer Music
| Tutorial:
|
| https://mitpress.mit.edu/9780262044912/the-computer-music-tu...
|
| I suggest having some kind of sequencer and synthesizers (one
| subtractive, one FM) available to play with while reading. Free
| VSTs in the free Reaper DAW are a fine starting point.
| PaulDavisThe1st wrote:
| Reaper can be downloaded without paying anything for it. But in
| a wink-wink strategy, continued use of it after a certain
| period of time is supposed to be accompanied by paying for a
| license. This is not enforced. You can call this free if you
| wish, but it's all a bit wobbly.
|
| Also, if you want to play with synthesis, then VCV Rack, which
| is truly free (but also comes in a for-cost version with a few
| more features) is likely the right place to start, or its even
| free-er cousin/fork Cardinal (which can even be run in your
| browser)
|
| https://cardinal.kx.studio/ https://vcvrack.com/
| JoeDaDude wrote:
| "Computer Music" is a very broad term (no surprises here) so,
| like many here, I can point out topics that are not covered. In
| particular, computer music (aka algorithmic) composition [1], or
| very recent AI techniques like the Google seq2seq example at [2],
| or the (unpublished, but probably a form of generative
| adversarial networks) techniques used by SunoAI and Udio.
|
| [1]. https://ccrma.stanford.edu/~blackrse/algorithm.html
|
| [2]. https://arxiv.org/pdf/2301.11325
| waffletower wrote:
| "Computer Music" is also a fairly conventional academic musical
| genre exploring elements of electro-acoustic, acousmatic,
| musique concrete, synthesis, algorithmic and serial composition
| techniques.
| MarcelOlsz wrote:
| Alternatively there is Curtis Roads' "The Computer Music
| Tutorial" [0]
|
| [0] https://mitpress.mit.edu/9780262044912/the-computer-music-
| tu...
| TheOtherHobbes wrote:
| The second edition is almost a complete rewrite - much more up
| to date, but loses some of the core nerdiness of the original.
|
| It's worth mentioning that "computer music" in the original
| sense was more about generative compositions and experiments
| with synthesis and DSP, all controlled and generated by hand-
| written software.
|
| DAWs are much more emulations of a traditional recording studio
| that happen to run on a computer. So although a computer is
| involved, they're not "computer music" in the traditional
| sense.
|
| The difference is that you can do far more with languages like
| Supercollider. Max, PD, and Csound, especially when controlled
| with custom code.
|
| But they're much harder to work with. Unlike DAWs and VSTs,
| they're not optimised for commercial production values. This
| makes them more experimental and more of a niche interest.
|
| There isn't a lot of notable pure computer music around outside
| of academia. The biggest success was probably the THX Deep
| Note. BT made some albums with (mostly) Csound. Autechre used
| Max quite heavily. Holly Herndon is another name.
|
| So commercially, DAWs are everywhere, but there's no huge
| commercial computer music fan scene in its own right.
| spacechild1 wrote:
| Just slimmed some chapters, but this looks like a great resource!
| If someone wants to dive more deeply into digital synthesis, I
| can recommend "The Theory and Technique of Electronic Music" by
| Miller Puckette (creator of Max and Pure Data):
| https://msp.ucsd.edu/techniques/latest/book.pdf. All examples are
| actually Pure Data patches that you can try out and experiment
| with.
| jschveibinz wrote:
| Let's not forget the contributions of Bernie Hutchins
| (Electronotes):
|
| https://archive.org/details/electronotes-meh-ebgpcc-torrent
|
| https://www.timstinchcombe.co.uk/synth/Electronotes_EN_index...
|
| The full set is very rare--but what a treasure trove of high
| quality material.
| BlandDuck wrote:
| I judge technical explanations of audio gear by their description
| of balanced signals. A common error is to focus on the positive
| and negative signals having opposite polarity, which is entirely
| irrelevant for canceling out interference (it may improve
| headroom, but what is actually important for eliminating common
| mode noise is to have identical impedance with respect to
| ground).
|
| I would say this text fails this test, which gives me pause. The
| description is: "The two conductors carry the same signal, but
| with reverse polarity (meaning that one conductor carries a
| signal that is the mirror image of the other). If external noise
| and interference enters the cable, it will probably affect both
| conductors equally."
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2025-07-31 23:00 UTC)