so why algorithmic composition?

Nestor · Post by **Nestor** » Sun Aug 31, 2003 10:28 pm

Woudn't it be a replication of your new values?

kensuguro · Post by **kensuguro** » Mon Sep 01, 2003 1:21 am

When we realise this, isn't it time to throw that out the window to try something out of the beaten path?

depends, some ideas are worth taking time to dwell on. Just my opinion, but no one really takes the exact same path. So, trying out something that's been done before is sometimes good.

Trying to stay away from something that vaguely matches what's been done before is a sad status academics is in. It used to be avant garde, now it's merely a way to get grants. (or publicity) They just don't understand that sometimes it's not necessary to be innovative. Sometimes it's important to go back and perfect what was left unperfected.

but anyhow, being constantly innovative is one approach to music, a set of values. I think a certain amount of people have to be innovative at any given time for music to develop. Just not every single one. You need to expand territory, and after you've gained new land, you need to take time to make use of it.

paulrmartin · Post by **paulrmartin** » Mon Sep 01, 2003 10:17 am

On 2003-08-31 23:28, Nestor wrote:
Woudn't it be a replication of your new values?

Good answer, Nestor.

Counterparts · Post by **Counterparts** » Mon Sep 01, 2003 10:30 am

Ricardo wrote:
It would be interesting to know if these sorts of composition have any therapeutic value, like Bach or Mozart.

In an interesting and mildly on-topic way, Mozart came up with a really good form of "algorithmic composition".

Such was his understanding of music that he came up with a book whereby you can compose your own waltz by throwing dice...the dice throw indicates which next random section you bolt onto the piece you're 'composing'.

I tried it out a few years ago...no matter which sections get put together, the result is a very acceptable Waltz!

Royston

Post by **garyb** » Mon Sep 01, 2003 3:51 pm

an early version of acid.....

Nestor · Post by **Nestor** » Mon Sep 01, 2003 5:04 pm

Crazy

that's funny!

wavelength · Post by **wavelength** » Tue Sep 02, 2003 5:52 am

On 2003-09-01 02:21, kensuguro wrote:
When we realise this, isn't it time to throw that out the window to try something out of the beaten path?
depends, some ideas are worth taking time to dwell on. Just my opinion, but no one really takes the exact same path. So, trying out something that's been done before is sometimes good.

Trying to stay away from something that vaguely matches what's been done before is a sad status academics is in. It used to be avant garde, now it's merely a way to get grants. (or publicity) They just don't understand that sometimes it's not necessary to be innovative. Sometimes it's important to go back and perfect what was left unperfected.

but anyhow, being constantly innovative is one approach to music, a set of values. I think a certain amount of people have to be innovative at any given time for music to develop. Just not every single one. You need to expand territory, and after you've gained new land, you need to take time to make use of it.

i am surprised that nobody has mentioned how our biological makeup dictates how we percieve art. a blind person could not tell the difference between a Pollock painting and a Da Vinci, what if we were all blind? what value would painting serve in a blind world? the concept would not exist.

our biology makes us gravitate towards certain aspects in music... our heartbeats are related to rhythm and tempo, our hearing frequency-range (and pain-thresholds) allow certain sounds to be pleasurable and others painful.

to me there is no real innovation in art, simply deviations from what is comfortable or recognizable. these deviations continually will re-manifest themselves in art through each new generation and culture.

new technologies will bring us new timbres to work with, but these sounds are still governed by the laws of nature and our own physical perception abilities (or lack thereof).

i don't view art as science -- as something that shifts with knowledge gained -- but more like a language, as a pure means of communication... sure new words and symbols are introduced but these are just more efficient ways of conveying the same old ideas, to our same old senses.

it is quite possible that Ken's music-machine could accidentally churn out something astoundingly moving, just because it adhered to certain "rules" of sound, as they pertain to human perception.

i'll leave you with one final thought: where does music end and noise begin?

[ This Message was edited by: wavelength on 2003-09-02 06:58 ]

paulrmartin · Post by **paulrmartin** » Tue Sep 02, 2003 8:12 am

Biological and cultural makeup, I would tend to think.

When "Westerners" first heard japanese singing they could not fathom that it was the most beautiful sound a person could make for the japanese. All those micro-tones threw the westerners off. Now, the Japanese, for their part, thought that western music was crewd and without expression.

Any noise, like any sentence or event, is subject to filtering and interpretation by each and every individual. The sound of a drain pipe dripping can be annoying to some and absolutely fascinating (in a rhythmic sense) to others.

Women physically have a hard time with higher frequencies and sybillance due to their increased hearing so that would go along with wavelength's biological thought.

Noise and music are the same, it's just a question of interpretation of sound.

Counterparts · Post by **Counterparts** » Tue Sep 02, 2003 8:24 am

i'll leave you with one final thought: where does music end and noise begin?

Bros? Meat Loaf?

Anyway, I thought that music was the silence in-between the notes, innit?

(Was that Debussy?)

Royston

wavelength · Post by **wavelength** » Tue Sep 02, 2003 2:02 pm

On 2003-09-02 09:12, paulrmartin wrote:
Biological and cultural makeup, I would tend to think.

When "Westerners" first heard japanese singing they could not fathom that it was the most beautiful sound a person could make for the japanese. All those micro-tones threw the westerners off. Now, the Japanese, for their part, thought that western music was crewd and without expression.

Any noise, like any sentence or event, is subject to filtering and interpretation by each and every individual. The sound of a drain pipe dripping can be annoying to some and absolutely fascinating (in a rhythmic sense) to others.

Women physically have a hard time with higher frequencies and sybillance due to their increased hearing so that would go along with wavelength's biological thought.

Noise and music are the same, it's just a question of interpretation of sound.

you are, of course, right on all acounts here, IMHO. our cultures get us used to hearing things a certain way... for instance, these days a lot of electronic music reminds listeners of a car commercial

or something "futuristic" from a movie scene. it becomes difficult to shed people's associations in this regard.

i grew up beside a classically trained violinist/ organist whom i tried to expose to jazz, but he couldn't swing if his life depended on it! our contitioning does completely affect our ability to immediately like or dislike (or even comprehend) something right away, although, with time, these things can be overcome.

i have played my music to a room full of people and had different reactions/ interpretations from each because in Vancouver nobody is from the same place! we are all here from somewhere else, to some degree, and our cultural points of reference are different.

and just a couple months ago i was playing-back a track i was working on when my landlord dropped by to pick up a cheque he commented that he thought my track sounded "Indian" to him (he is Italian) and I later had to put this down to some polyrhythmical activity that i had going on in the piece... it was not Indian at all structurally, in fact i had intended to write something in a fairly pure "techno"-vein. he picked his "Indian" reference up from somewhere, though!

kensuguro · Post by **kensuguro** » Tue Sep 02, 2003 3:38 pm

Noise and music are the same, it's just a question of interpretation of sound.

heh, that's extremely well put! Couldn't be more concise. Couldn't agree more. hats off.

wavelength · Post by **wavelength** » Tue Sep 02, 2003 4:58 pm

On 2003-09-02 16:38, kensuguro wrote:
Noise and music are the same, it's just a question of interpretation of sound.
heh, that's extremely well put! Couldn't be more concise. Couldn't agree more. hats off.

this brings us, once again, to the ultimate question, which is: can anything and everything be art?

if noise and music are the same, then is the artist redundant? is art only important in the interpretation and not the expression? the result and not the process? the response without intention?

paulrmartin · Post by **paulrmartin** » Tue Sep 02, 2003 5:15 pm

Think of Abstract Painting.

Response without intention is it's forte.
Technique only appeals to those who also paint so process can be redundant(same as in music).
As long as the play between light and dark are achieved in the way an artist intented his expression is satisfied. After that it's up to the beholder's interpretation.

You may remember that blank canvas that was exposed in New York in the 70's. The uproar that followed was soooo stupid and that's what I believe the artist wanted to achieve, expose fraudulent critics mostly.

John Cage's "4'33""(Silence) was an experiment in experience. Blank canvas(or staves), a chronometer to time the movements and people standing around the piano on a corner of Time Square listening to.... the environment. It can be funny, it can be sad, you can be insulted in a concert hall for being made to sit through 4 minutes and 33 seconds of silence, but you WILL react somehow.

In the long run, the process is important to the artist, the interpretation important to the listener. Whether those interpretations bring fame to the artist is up to his agent, unfortunately.

_________________
Paul R. Martin - Are we listening?

[ This Message was edited by: paulrmartin on 2003-09-02 18:17 ]

Post by **garyb** » Tue Sep 02, 2003 8:47 pm

art-the business of selling noise.

wavelength · Post by **wavelength** » Tue Sep 02, 2003 10:22 pm

On 2003-09-02 18:15, paulrmartin wrote:
Think of Abstract Painting.

Response without intention is it's forte.
Technique only appeals to those who also paint so process can be redundant(same as in music).
As long as the play between light and dark are achieved in the way an artist intented his expression is satisfied. After that it's up to the beholder's interpretation.

You may remember that blank canvas that was exposed in New York in the 70's. The uproar that followed was soooo stupid and that's what I believe the artist wanted to achieve, expose fraudulent critics mostly.

John Cage's "4'33""(Silence) was an experiment in experience. Blank canvas(or staves), a chronometer to time the movements and people standing around the piano on a corner of Time Square listening to.... the environment. It can be funny, it can be sad, you can be insulted in a concert hall for being made to sit through 4 minutes and 33 seconds of silence, but you WILL react somehow.

In the long run, the process is important to the artist, the interpretation important to the listener. Whether those interpretations bring fame to the artist is up to his agent, unfortunately.

_________________
Paul R. Martin - Are we listening?

[ This Message was edited by: paulrmartin on 2003-09-02 18:17 ]

actually, in Abstract Expressionism the artistic process is extremely important, if not paramount in this genre. Artists like Jackson Pollock had all sorts of "intentions" when working. the finished painting would often suggest quite graphically what the artist would have physically done to compose the image.

http://www.artlex.com/ArtLex/a/abstractexpr.html

http://www.artcyclopedia.com/history/ab ... onism.html

performance can be an artform in and of itself.

also, non-artists appreciate great technique all the time, i have no interest in (or clue about) directing films, but i can sure appreciate what must have gone into making a well-directed movie.

it's all well and fine that someone put up a blank canvas or recorded a bunch of silence... these are cheeky comments about art that certainly do not warrant repetition. i can see it now: "have you checked out Cage's Silence Volume 6? it rocked my world..." it's interesting once but hardly worthy of being called "art" (to me), and was more a "comment" about the state of art in the modern world (which some would argue is art, i know...).

consider this, that to believe that anything can be art will actually lead to the death of art. look at what Free Verse did to poetry (who really reads and dicusses poetry anymore?), what was thought to be a new "free", unrestricted form of poetry to bring the genre into the new millenium just ended up alienating its core readership (everyone except acedemics)... suddenly the conventions that drew people to poetry in the first place were no longer deemed important by the acedemic world and then suddenly poetry was no longer important... just a coincidence? there is now a strong movement in modern verse that supports "New Formalism" as a reaction to the void that Free Verse has created. Free Verse was another one of those things that was cool the first couple of times, as an interesting counterpoint to Formalist Verse, but does not stand up to repetition. Poetry used to be a major form of expression that could be found in all the major papers and journals where upon people (not just acedemics) would discuss the works. have you ever heard the expression: "don't throw the baby out with the bath-water"?

kensuguro · Post by **kensuguro** » Wed Sep 03, 2003 1:37 am

consider this, that to believe that anything can be art will actually lead to the death of art.

I agree with this stand point. It sure did kill poetry, atleast in a mainstream sense, and also killed.. well, alot of things. I supposed this was the key in the seperation between what is considered "art" by the mass, which is usually pre 20th century, and what is considered "art" by the world of academia. The academic world understands this situation as the new art being too new for the mass to accept, and that perhaps it will become the norm 20-30 years from now. The whacky free form stuff they're doing right now is supposed to be stuff for the "future".

I doubt it. Going back to the "biological" issue, the most important biological limit of perception a human has, is the brain. Free form, is one of the hardest things for the brain to understand. There's gotta be a rule or some pattern, and repetition to a certain extent, for a glob of information to make sense at all. Present day "cutting edge" people may call these limits. Restraints that kill their creative possibilities. I'd say these are the the bottom lines. There are basic rules that you just can't break.

Freedom may be the ultimate goal for the creator. The academic world may even require an artist to have an emminent attitude of trying to break all the rules. Heck, that's what most artists have been trying to do for the past century. It's to break all the rules. It's an obvious turning point I guess, in that people have been trying to make as many rules as possible for the previous 19 centuries.

But then the issue becomes the relationship between expression, and freedom. My question is, is expression possible without any restrictions. Does freedom mean anything at all without limits. My take is that without limits and rules to take advantage of, any high form of expression is impossible. It's because we have limits to work with, and perhaps a balance of which rules to break, and which rules to follow is what shows the creator's view point on a certain matter. But ignoring everything only means chaos, and I don't think there's much to be commended in creating something like that.

On the other hand, ignoring all rules would mean going back in time, perhaps back in the pre-historic ages, when there were no rules. Music would come down to a question of volume and density, dance would be a matter of hopping around like animals.. Well, that used to be art I guess.. but why go back to it now?

I understand I'm making an extremely political statement. I mean, I'm usually a bit more vague about this in practice. But the rule issue, I'm pretty tight about. There's gotta be rules. Form, structure, logic, theory. Call me a classic fart. hehe.

[ This Message was edited by: kensuguro on 2003-09-03 02:39 ]

wavelength · Post by **wavelength** » Wed Sep 03, 2003 3:37 am

On 2003-09-03 02:37, kensuguro wrote:
My take is that without limits and rules to take advantage of, any high form of expression is impossible. It's because we have limits to work with, and perhaps a balance of which rules to break, and which rules to follow is what shows the creator's view point on a certain matter. But ignoring everything only means chaos, and I don't think there's much to be commended in creating something like that...

...I understand I'm making an extremely political statement. I mean, I'm usually a bit more vague about this in practice. But the rule issue, I'm pretty tight about. There's gotta be rules. Form, structure, logic, theory. Call me a classic fart. hehe.

[ This Message was edited by: kensuguro on 2003-09-03 02:39 ]

you are truly a kindred spirit, my friend.

paulrmartin · Post by **paulrmartin** » Wed Sep 03, 2003 8:19 am

I definitely agree that artists do have to start with certain limits, i.e. learning the rules of their crafts. We, as musicians, learn theory and solfege( I know, I know, not all of us...). Then we can break those rules and try to make advances in our fields.

As to anything is art, of course not. That's up to each and every individual. I'm not too keen on that dress made of meat at the Ottawa National Arts Center, that probably makes me intolerant to some people. I think dentists are artists; just think of the artistry it takes to reconstruct a broken tooth. I think researchers in heart disease are artists. I saw one guy dissecting a rat's brain to get to a specific part in order to later separate the proteins through molecular filtering.

I agree about Poetry too. The last poem I heard was read on the radio by the Toronto's homeless posterboy. "Eagle flew in the night..."blabla... North American Indian imagery does work on some people, I'd rather look at nature than to listen to words that tend to baffle me.

Bring back Wordsworth and Beethoven

_________________
Paul R. Martin - Are we listening?

[ This Message was edited by: paulrmartin on 2003-09-03 11:38 ]

braincell · Post by **braincell** » Wed Sep 03, 2003 12:29 pm

For me life is art. For those of us lucky enough to have a lot of leasure time art is very important but to people who are just trying to feed themselves and their families art is just a stupid waste of time.

Recently in the Washington Post in an article about Playboy Magazine there is a description of the Playboy Mansion:

"Inside the house, there's a nude painting by Picasso and a nude painting by Dali and a nude painting by Matisse that is marred with a brown spot where a drunken John Lennon put out his cigarette."

Part of me thinks that was horrible and disgusting and part of me wishes I had done that.

wavelength · Post by **wavelength** » Wed Sep 03, 2003 2:03 pm

On 2003-09-03 13:29, braincell wrote:
For me life is art. For those of us lucky enough to have a lot of leasure time art is very important but to people who are just trying to feed themselves and their families art is just a stupid waste of time.

i can remember first moving to the big city and getting a job as a stock-boy to feed myself and barely pay rent... the only thing that would get me through the day was the thought of eventually being able to play music again. i ended up living basically out of a "closet" to get my rent down to where i could pay the financing on some music gear and started playing small shows. i would come home after working all day and practice for another five-six hours, just cuz that time spent justified the shit i had to put up with all day.

we all know the stories about African slaves in America and the songs they would sing to pass the time and stay sane.

also, Wladyslw Szpilman's WWII survival, as depicted in Polanski's film "The Pianist", demonstrated how his art kept him alive (actually and spiritually).

sometimes art is what gets you through (that and food, shelter, air, etc).