Cool idea!

I've got a few thoughts for features, if you're open to them:

1. Ability to specify where your "played" voice resides in the voicing: As the bass note, as an inner voice, or as the top line.

2. Options for first species, second species, third, florid, etc counterpoint for each of the generated voices. Ex: You play a single note and the upper voice plays two notes for every one of yours, etc, etc.

3. If you want to get real fancy, make the generated voices perform a canon of your played notes.

If someone wanted to start making computer music I'm not sure I'd recommend this or Curtis Roads' book as a starting point.

These aren't resources for getting started. They're more like encyclopedias for learning about DSP and tech once you've established the fundamentals of music and sequencing.

If a beginner wants practical knowledge for making records with electronic instruments I'd give them a DAW, teach them to record and sequence, teach them basic music theory, and then point them to something like Ableton's synthesis tutorials that will teach them about oscillators, envelopes, filters, LFOs, and basic sample manipulation.

That's 80% of the necessary skills right there.

In short: Not really.

As another commenter below has said, "mathematics might be a useful way to understand music", but it's not how compelling music is made.

Mathematics are fundamental to scales and the harmonic series, and knowing about them will help you refine certain choices, but it's not going to help you write a dramatic melody or an emotionally resonant chord progression, or play an energizing rhythm, even if there are mathematical explanations sometimes.

Good music comes from being a good listener, having a strong sense of what's possible, where it could go, and then delivering something surprising. Telling a story with your melody and supporting the arc of that gesture with harmony that accentuates or contrasts it.

Again, there's a mathematical explanation for harmony and dissonance, but players aren't thinking that granular. They're operating at a higher level of abstraction one, two, or three levels above that: They're thinking about telling a story, evoking an emotion, and exciting an audience in the moment.

You raise an interesting question. How do we keep the meanings of words from diverging so dramatically and so rapidly?

A little bit is natural and expected, but this kind of change in meaning feels like a consequence of a culture that in the last decade has accelerated the practice of re-framing specific words and concepts as something that's "actually a positive" or "actually quite negative if you think about it".

Part of this is a result of our (in the US) culture wars and hijacking of popular terms, but it's also a symptom of social media culture that's always seeking a hot take and creators who are looking to distinguish themselves with (what seems to me) clever re-framing.

The result is a culture that is increasingly fragmented and in which a word can have dramatically different meaning and insinuations depending on it's use in certain social groups or intellectual cliques.

It increasingly feels like I need to download a massive amount of linguistic context before I step into the world of a niche online community because their tight-knit dialogues and shared experiences have now re-framed a word or concept that was largely understood to mean something else.