Personally I started composing algorithmically after realising that I enjoy programming much more than composing. I recommend it though - figuring out an algorithm that give good results feels great, it's like you've discovered one of the hidden rules of what makes something sound musical. And trying to come up with such rules is a great way to generate happy accidents too - even if an algorithm doesn't do what you intended it to, it might do something you would never have thought of. It's also fun to set up an program and just let it run for ages; kind of like listening to your own music except it's constantly evolving and staying interesting without any further intervention.
One of the earliest things I tried when writing my music software was giving myself the ability to "draw" an arbitrary waveform to use in an oscillator. The results were consistently bad, in uninteresting ways - most things I tried either sounded like a fuzzier sawtooth or a cheap electric organ. Things like subtractive synthesis and FM synthesis tend to alter the harmonic content of a waveform in specific ways that are pleasing to the ear, whereas IME one is unlikely to stumble upon anything good by manually modifying the waveform.
[pedantry]You mean that the reference implementation is written in C - there are others.[/pedantry]. Perhaps relevant to this thread, there's PyPy, which reportedly runs a lot of code significantly faster than CPython. I haven't had much luck getting it working myself because last time I tried it didn't play nicely with tkinter, but it's probably worth a shot if you want to write non-GUI real-time audio code in Python.
Glad this was bumped, I bought a couple of Radiorama albums the other day and was hoping I'd get a chance to recommend them:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FFhSJ1KLd3k
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HSoe5wlcjTM
We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.