Synfire does look similar in a number of respects, thanks! Something else of which I’ve been totally unaware!
Re: open source I don’t know of anything else, but I am definitely planning to open-source these tools (all Max externals) once they reach a certain maturity.
I also should mention the as-yet-unimplemented “constraint programming” part is inspired by the great series of articles by lines member @josephbranciforte; in particular:
I’m excited when I can move on to this part (also looking into the Strasheela environment of Torsten Anders)
Upon a closer look at Synfire my goals may be a bit different though.
First, rather than fix up an existing performance to become more “virtuosic” (and thus fully constrained within, or normative to ) my aim is to create musical theory-fictions and roleplaying environments, where theory is treated as material, on par with what the theory takes as its object (notes, rhythms, harmonies etc.). The outcome is a product of the environment as a whole and generally cannot be interpreted solely in terms of theory nor in terms of a performer’s intention. Being fundamentally non-dialectic, it is least of all an “innovation” upon theory.
By analogy, a performer’s initial intention is a “left-eye image”, the “role” defined by music-theoretic elements a “right-eye image”, and the result (after both agents overcome this metastability) resolves into a new structure, the “3D depth” – not an exclusive property of either agent. Something that emerges with its own informational structure.
Or more simply, think of two people having a conversation, everything from the physical communication channel to the context which generates meaning is formed. The conversation begins with an initial metastability (we want to talk about different things) but this either resolves in new and unforeseen ways, or both parties become frustrated. Resolution is especially likely with in-person conversations.
All these are reasons why real-time operation is absolutely necessary, emergence or individuation simply does not come about otherwise.
Second, in a technical sense, I’m focusing exclusively on binary operators, in which one sequence (say, what a performer “plays”) can reshape another sequence (say, a loop playing from a sequencer). This allows for complex networks of humans and machines. With unary operators (a sequence being transformed or “fixed up” into another sequence) only linear chains are possible, and I don’t see that being as interesting.
Third, since the outcome is uninterpretable in terms of the performer’s “intent”, or whichever elements of music theory are incorporated, the theory-fictional or roleplaying environment effectively folds elements taken to transcend musical practice back into immanence, which is also fundamentally an animal relation. The human animal cannot ever get outside of the environment to think it let alone master it; she can only act within it and assist it, hopefully responding simply and poetically to bring what is coming forth fully into its own. In many ways this introduces a fundamentally different kind of thinking than what is possible within traditional categories of “composition” and “performance”.
Hopefully, this is a project that affirms our post-humanity, but in ways that are diametrically opposed to the “billionaires living forever having drone-catered pool parties in space” transhumanism of Elon Musk, Kevin Kelly, Ray Kurzweil etc. in which technology intensifies all anthropocentric divisions (human/animal; Man/Nature; subject/object; mind/body etc.) towards their logical and most destructive ends.
