EvoSpeak - Getting Closer
I finished the preview builder and now have a working random pattern generator and previewer for EvoSpeak. I still can't submit ratings so species don't gain experience yet, but the hardest work is done...until it comes time to build the "leveling" mechanism (i.e. the Markov analysis tool).
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 🙂