And the results of the initial grammar runs? Good! Overall, I am very satisfied with what I'm hearing. Based off of the twenty-or-so previews that I've listened to so far, the engine is much more interesting than GrammGen. It sounds a lot better.
The thing I really like, however, is that switching languages dramatically changes the previews. Of course the same was true for GrammGen, but I never built a second language for GrammGen because of the relative difficulty of editing the languages. In EvoSpeak there's a built-in language editor. It's as easy as slapping in some pipe-delimited numbers for rhythm and melody and listening to the results.
It took me thirty seconds to build a language that could be used for repetitive arps in the background. So I think I've found my solution for arpeggiation! The simple the language, the more likely it is to repeat words - which is exactly what you want in a background pattern. After listening to some previews of the new language, I'm certain that this will be a very promising and flexible system.
So far EvoSpeak is going very well! The real question, however, has yet to be answered: will the "experience" and analysis system actually allow EvoSpeak to improve the quality of its output? The answer would seem to be a very obvious yes if I do everything right. But at the same time, it's hard to believe that listening to samples and pressing buttons can train a program to make better music. But who knows, I guess I'll just have to find out.
PS - It's worth noting, in case I was never clear about this, that EvoSpeak is NOT a grammatical subdivision engine like GGrewve, rather, it's a grammatical chain engine like GrammGen. Chains are simpler and easier to work with but subdivision is more powerful. And yes, I coined both of those terms, which is why you won't find information on them anywhere else :)
No comments:
Post a Comment