Computer-music takes forever, no way around that one. Much much harder than writing for instruments. <br><br>I've taken the approach of creating "virtual instruments"---I don't know enough about physical models and what-not to create one of them, but I do know that if you create an instrument that has timbral aspects/parameters that are constantly changing in interesting ways, you'll get a sound that you can learn to compose for, and that will hold the ear, just like any "real" instrument. Sometimes what happens "internally" in a "note" produced by one of these instruments is 'unnatural', but the important thing is that it holds interest. Sometimes I come up with ideas for these instruments literally by looking up random words in the dictionary and free-associating. For example, one instrument worked like this: I started with a bank of "dirty" guitar samples (individual notes from recordings of music by Davidovsky, Ferneyhough, etc.). During the "decay" of the note, I use granular synthesis to delay the decay arbitrarily, and the 'decay' (or not), alternates with FM-generated sound. So the end result is this weird, alien, mutating bubble-instrument. Very fun. I came up with other instruments that do other weird things. <br>
<br>So you don't need to know too much math. Just think outside the box.<br><br>But it does take programming. My goal was, I could write a score where I say, "Play Bb at FF for 3 seconds, with an SFpp attack." Then my programs would write out Csound scores (actually CMIX, very similar language), that would 'realize' this note. So my virtual instrument programs essentially take the place of all of those years of training that a violinist has. Admittedly, my instruments aren't as elegant, but raw-ness is something I can work with, and am interested in, as a composer.<br>
<br>Christopher Bailey<br><br>