How Long Does Other DAWs Take To Save 20,000 Midi Items?

[Hink]

sorry, feeling a bit silly

[Guenon]

When you are noodling on the piano, you are randomly selecting notes even if muscle memory is influencing you to select particular notes because of "conditioning". I am only bypassing the "conditioning" imposed by muscle memory. My method doesn't get rid of expression. My selecting and rejecting random drum patterns is me imposing my preferences and it's all my expression and taste.

You are a determined fellow . To be clear, I'm not saying that or any of this to incite more drama in this thread, or to disparage your efforts. Just take it into consideration all friendly like.

So yeah, one main thing that is undoubtedly rubbing many music making people the wrong way (and I admit I'm having to consciously focus on not letting it rub me the wrong way too much as well, hah) is the way you choose your words when describing these ideas and experiments. When someone composes at a piano, or any instrument, it's very likely they aren't randomly selecting notes but are making informed decisions on how to move things, where they would like the harmony to go, what the melody is doing, and so on. They are experimenting, sure, and trying out stuff, but it's not random stuff in the sense that they are "randomly selecting notes" and plonking at that, one note and one muscle memory pattern at a time, without some other important conceptual layers to support that physical act of playing.

Even if it's "only" improvising or, eh, noodling , with no clear aim and happening in full experimentation mode, the informed decisions being made in the moment, on the fly, are still there. The process might be full of "what if I..." types of beginnings and turns and crossroads, but it's not "What if I play a C? What if I play a D?" ad infinitum (to oversimplify, sorry) -- it's much more like "What if I go here next? What if I do it this way? What if I make this part soooo careful sounding and then open it up to a bolder statement?" and so on and so on. Yes, improvising the actual note level result on the go, but at the same time operating on broader concepts and moods and abstractions and then an actual decision happens, on the level of physical action, what actual keys to press or strings to pluck.

So, as you are clearly very set on a generative approach, I suggest... instead of forcing your process into a workflow of a general purpose DAW that wasn't built for what you are trying to do, hosting tens of thousands of randomized MIDI clips and then just juggling them around, hoping to strike gold... Why not actually dive into this stuff in a more constructive and pioneering fashion? Start finding out your options for AI assisted composing and generative music making, all sorts of algorithmic composing stuff you can find and be interested in -- and I mean really exploring that field and finding out what's out there in the way of generative tools, how you can make them function for you in an actually realistic workflow, and how you can make those systems produce these "informed decisions" for you in a controlled fashion, so that you can be the architect and curator and actually use a theoretical framework to map whole pieces of music from start to finish and have your ideas develop in a more fruitful way.

Maybe RapidComposer has something for you? Or more experimental Max/MSP or PureData constructs? Or maybe there's something cool on a mobile platform, of all places, and you can do more controlled generative song structures that way? And mix and match.

The most important thing is, what you are calling "randomly selecting notes" and "randomizers" and so on... very rarely is that, random. This might just be a language thing. Of course there is an element of randomness in many generative approaches, but in any case (and just as important) there are different layers of abstraction at play, mapping and guiding theoretical concepts, structure, ideas, overarching themes and developments and so on and so on. What you need, in my opinion, is some more knowledge on how these things might work for you, what musical methods are at play under the surface, and a toolset that harnesses those concepts and adds a good dose more of algorithmic decision making to your randomness

[Delta Sign]

When you are noodling on the piano, you are randomly selecting notes even if muscle memory is influencing you to select particular notes because of "conditioning". I am only bypassing the "conditioning" imposed by muscle memory. My method doesn't get rid of expression. My selecting and rejecting random drum patterns is me imposing my preferences and it's all my expression and taste.

That's not what's happening at all. When I'm playing the piano, I'm playing what I'm hearing in my head. The idea comes first.
Do you really think all the great music of the past centuries has been written by simply putting random things together until it sounded right?

[woggle]

When you are noodling on the piano, you are randomly selecting notes even if muscle memory is influencing you to select particular notes because of "conditioning". I am only bypassing the "conditioning" imposed by muscle memory. My method doesn't get rid of expression. My selecting and rejecting random drum patterns is me imposing my preferences and it's all my expression and taste.

You are a determined fellow . To be clear, I'm not saying that or any of this to incite more drama in this thread, or to disparage your efforts. Just take it into consideration all friendly like.

So yeah, one main thing that is undoubtedly rubbing many music making people the wrong way (and I admit I'm having to consciously focus on not letting it rub me the wrong way too much as well, hah) is the way you choose your words when describing these ideas and experiments. When someone composes at a piano, or any instrument, it's very likely they aren't randomly selecting notes but are making informed decisions on how to move things, where they would like the harmony to go, what the melody is doing, and so on. They are experimenting, sure, and trying out stuff, but it's not random stuff in the sense that they are "randomly selecting notes" and plonking at that, one note and one muscle memory pattern at a time, without some other important conceptual layers to support that physical act of playing.

Even if it's "only" improvising or, eh, noodling , with no clear aim and happening in full experimentation mode, the informed decisions being made in the moment, on the fly, are still there. The process might be full of "what if I..." types of beginnings and turns and crossroads, but it's not "What if I play a C? What if I play a D?" ad infinitum (to oversimplify, sorry) -- it's much more like "What if I go here next? What if I do it this way? What if I make this part soooo careful sounding and then open it up to a bolder statement?" and so on and so on. Yes, improvising the actual note level result on the go, but at the same time operating on broader concepts and moods and abstractions and then an actual decision happens, on the level of physical action, what actual keys to press or strings to pluck.

So, as you are clearly very set on a generative approach, I suggest... instead of forcing your process into a workflow of a general purpose DAW that wasn't built for what you are trying to do, hosting tens of thousands of randomized MIDI clips and then just juggling them around, hoping to strike gold... Why not actually dive into this stuff in a more constructive and pioneering fashion? Start finding out your options for AI assisted composing and generative music making, all sorts of algorithmic composing stuff you can find and be interested in -- and I mean really exploring that field and finding out what's out there in the way of generative tools, how you can make them function for you in an actually realistic workflow, and how you can make those systems produce these "informed decisions" for you in a controlled fashion, so that you can be the architect and curator and actually use a theoretical framework to map whole pieces of music from start to finish and have your ideas develop in a more fruitful way.

Maybe RapidComposer has something for you? Or more experimental Max/MSP or PureData constructs? Or maybe there's something cool on a mobile platform, of all places, and you can do more controlled generative song structures that way? And mix and match.

The most important thing is, what you are calling "randomly selecting notes" and "randomizers" and so on... very rarely is that, random. This might just be a language thing. Of course there is an element of randomness in many generative approaches, but in any case (and just as important) there are different layers of abstraction at play, mapping and guiding theoretical concepts, structure, ideas, overarching themes and developments and so on and so on. What you need, in my opinion, is some more knowledge on how these things might work for you, what musical methods are at play under the surface, and a toolset that harnesses those concepts and adds a good dose more of algorithmic decision making to your randomness

Good post. The OP seems stuck in their method though. I mentioned earlier that within Reaper there is a tool thzt will allow generating variations on the fly rather than having an inefficient 20000 variations first approach. Others also made the same sort of point. But the OP is commited to their method , primarily I think because they dont understand what they are doing wrt to the simple maths of their method. And i dont think they are open to developing a better understanding.

[Guenon]

"Gregor Samsa awakes one morning in his family's apartment to find himself transformed overnight into a gigantic insect. Gregor does not arouse a sense of surprise or incredulity in the operating system, preventing it from accessing or modifying anything besides the Temporary Internet Files directory."

"Gregor returns to his room, his family becomes the jailers, locking Gregor in from the notification tray. In Windows Vista, when an action requiring administrative rights is requested, the user is still prompted to confirm the pending privileged action."



Just searched for some of my old, old project quotes from Markov chain text mashups I coded in Python back in the day. (Source texts: Kafka's "Metamorphosis" and the manual of Windows Vista, breaks/jumps between texts constrained to quite a low frequency.)

Algorithmic experimentation is fun

[Guenon]

My favorite:

"Great Old Ones spoke to the wind, the air, and whom weapons would not touch. We laughed. I laughed, too. I forgot it was dinner-time."

Okay, off to sleep now : D

[woggle]

My favorite:

"Great Old Ones spoke to the wind, the air, and whom weapons would not touch. We laughed. I laughed, too. I forgot it was dinner-time."

Okay, off to sleep now : D

Haha, a beauty!

[IncarnateX]

Many discussions on the internet about gear and music are based on a general fallacy, namely that logic and rationality HAVE to be the guiding principles and given they are not, you are allowed to go banzai on people. Really? I’d rather say: Whatever works for you. If people want to bury their synthesizers in their gardens every full moon to let them benefit from the divine combinations of Earth beams, I could not care less. IME, logic and rationality can be the least among factors of inspiration, e.g. I do not care what the best synth for X is if it is ugly to me. People also tend to forget that the proces of making music can be much more exciting than the tiresome proces of finishing it, how many drafts versus finished tunes do you got yourself on your harddisks? At this point in the thread, it should be pretty obvious that logic and reasoning have very little to do with Harry’s approach but nevertheless he obviously loves to do it this way and believes he has his reasons to, so let him ffs and if you can help him doing it, be an angel and help.

Meanwhile I hope you can use your 5,5 hour of waiting per project to get an idea of what kind of randomized drums or whatever you will look for when ready or that you can spend the time in other related ways, Harry.
Best of luck.

[Grizzellda]

I have not read this entire thread, but some of it...looks like Hink is near-by and ready to shut it down.

My only contribution is to speculate why the OP would need "20,000" of anything, to do anything.

I begin to get confused with "20" of something...loops, etcetera.

I would also like to add..."oh for heaven's sake"...

[BertKoor]

Buried in the previous page:

I have 314,200 bass midi files

So lucky these don't need to be changed & saved with your DAW

Windows Vista would freeze for some days and crash out of memory if you had these all in a single folder

[woggle]

the OP identified the wrong problem - people kindly pointed that out. IThe solution to the massive file number problem is that it is not a file problem but a methodology problem.
The OP could generate individual variations on the fly within the existing capabilities of Reaper, accept or reject those until the (apparently) desired 20 is reached, just keep those. Or (more sensibly) stop when a good one is reached that is worth editing and use that. Start process again when that one is finished with editing. No need to save shitloads of files to select from at all. Generating and saving all those files then selecting 20 achieves nothing more than wasting a lot of time with no benefit in terms of a selectionist strategy (the strategy the OP is performing)
If people don't understand the maths behind that they can either accept advice from people who do or not. This is the internet after all.

[Unaspected]

the OP identified the wrong problem - people kindly pointed that out. IThe solution to the massive file number problem is not a file problem but a methodology problem.
The OP could generate individual variations on the fly within the existing capabilities of Reaper, accept or reject those until the (apparently) desired 20 is reached, just keep those. Or (more sensibly) stop when a good one is reached that is worth editing and use that. Start process again when that one is finished with editing. No need to save shitloads of files to select from at all. Generating and saving all those files then selecting 20 achieves nothing more than wasting a lot of time with no benefit in terms of a selectionist strategy (the strategy the OP is performing)
If people don't understand the maths behind that they can either accept advice from people who do or not. This is the internet after all.

Exactly.

Also, everyone has their own way of helping. Some might prefer a Carl Rogers type approach where the hand is held and support is given no matter what. That's fine. I don't think it is really productive when we're discussing practical matters though. Harry hasn't placed his soul into this - it's not part of his identity - just an experiment. Others who can spot pitfalls will want to provide some kind of information that can help to avoid such problems and thus help to improve efficiency - as Harry requested.

Equally, if an idea is crazy then people are going to tell you - and that is a kindness. Otherwise we end up in some kind of 'Emperor's New Clothes' type scenario. Though, judging from Harry's signature, he'd be down with that.

[IncarnateX]

the OP identified the wrong problem - people kindly pointed that out.

Yes, the silk gloves of the boy scouts:

This is incredible. If not troll then gremlin.

The silly season is officially open

The boy is clearly unwell.

As I said above, the boy is not well

This. To me, this sounds like procastination mixed with some condition, like OCD. Besides that, the OP even said in this thread something like he has not much fun making music.

he obviously is severely lacking in the brains department....make music !? hahahaha...does he shit, spends all his time pissing about "auditioning" midi ?...hes a complete tool, look at his style of writing these posts...at best a troll at worst a nightmare for the care in the community people....

Why is everyone feeding the gremlin at night ???

Why is everyone feeding the gremlin at night ???

It is a selection of course, there are more but who cares? Fake news that never happened or are misunderstood because it was all meant to the benefit of the op.

And this not to mention those cases of “should” regarding what the OP actually “could” do. There is actually an important semantic difference - go figure.

Ah, KVR, you surely are the bitch of my life, here’s a hug

[whyterabbyt]

I hope that by now, the OP has a sense of why people are not rushing to carry out the task he originally framed as an investigation of a common scenario....

[fmr]

Whatever you say

Ah, you are making progress. Does this mean that you begin to grasp that "reaching infinite" is not a premise of the proof or do you still insist on that rubbish?

No, I came to the conclusion that, no matter how I talk, I cannot communicate with the monkeys...