On Wed August 29 2007, Joshua Gargus wrote:
> On Aug 29, 2007, at 11:04 PM, bradallenfuller at yahoo.com wrote:
> >>> Another thought: I always wanted to be able to have _any_ object
> >>> that communicates to the
> >>> user to be a morph. This would be any graphic object, but also
> >>> any video object, audio object,
> >>> anything that deals with the senses of the user. What do you
> >>> think about this idea?
> >>
> >> This is already so. see #asMorph message :)
> >> You can build up any morph(s) for representing your object.
> >
> > I'm not referring to building a graphic object to represent a sound
> > (for instance), I want to manipulate a sound or video just like I
> > can a morph graphic object.
>
> I'm interested...
>
> What do you mean by this?  Do you want any object to be able to
> provide a default graphical representation of itself and its
> properties?  Do you want to inherit the morphs ability to #step?  Do
> you want to give non-visual objects like sounds a position so that
> you can hear them pan back and forth?

I haven't thought about it too deeply or lately. But, I think it would be 
nice, compositionally, if I could massage a sound just like I can a graphic 
morph - alter it's 3D position (bigger, father away, left, up, etc.) stretch 
it; shrink it both horizontally (time) and vertically (e.g. instrumentation, 
orchestration, harmonic), and it's timbre over time.

It'd be nice if sounds could accept drops so that a sound could be dropped on 
sounds to create sub-sounds (I guess, you could call them that.) Time is an 
issue here, but not hard to accomodate.

And, sounds can be anything from a note, or a sample to a complete music 
piece.

FM is already in Squeak - lots of things we could do with an FM sound beyond 
the traditional setting up of operators, feedback, LFOs, etc. like 
FM/spectral Morphing 

I'm not thinking of linear compositional tools such as sequencers or languages 
like MusicV, but more multidimensional AND at the object level. I guess more 
the lines of CSound or SuperCollider.

The issue with both video and audio is the dimension of time that would 
require more thought beyond the concept of stepping.

My point of my original comment was that maybe Morphic 3.0 should step up a 
level and include all forms of multimedia from the individual object level. 
If we want to do that, I would be involved AND I could find other composers 
that would love to help (at least comment on the 
ideas/features/architecture.)

brad