SUBLIME DELTA – Mind-Altering Music? (Sosnowski)

[wrayer]

Yes, David, this did pique my interest.

Basically, this means that a piece like this is a hybrid:
partly the product of human thought, and partly the
product of machine-chosen random chance.

True, it is always about control. If you allow the "machine" to do all the work (even if it was programmed by a human) you release control. Composing implies conscious decision making and control. But the machine can send you to places you would never have considered and this is the area that truly piques my curiousity.

Stockhausen has never achieved in my mind the visionary
status he so vigorously and frequently ascribed to
himself... lol. But yes, this does fall under his ideas about
"controlled chance" and the sense behind a mutuality
of imitation between human and technologically generated
art. Unfortunately, I consider his thinking in this regard
fundamentally falacious. One might consider writing a novel,
for instance, driven by the same principles; and what the
result would be.

Oh, I never said I agreed with Mr. Stockhausen (he was always his best audience), but he does make some valid interpretations of sound and sound control. Much of it borders on accoustical science and not music. He loved to incorporate a device we take for granted nowadays (surround sound). There is certainly always a certain amount of chance in any given composition. Choices of two different students given the same melody or tonal concept will always result in different compositions.

I think I'd draw a distinction between seashore sounds and symphonies... lol. Bill, among the points I'm focusing on, here, is that just because a sequence of sounds has an effect on us, that doesn't necessarily make it music.

For instance, due to certain conditioning, the sound of
rifle fire sends me instantly diving for cover -- a fairly
dramatic effect; but the stimulus could hardly be called
at all musical.

True, but the compositional choice to include such sound events in a composition does draw the listener into the scheme of the sound plan.

If one just uses a machine to compose a piece, he hasn't composed, the machine has. Even if he (or she 'Karen') has programmed the machines variables, he/she has relinquished his control and thus his compositional skills to the machine.

However, if, by taking the machines results, he/she composes (re-works, developes, incorporates, etc.) the machine results into a composition with musical goals, he certainly has composed.

Maybe I am refering to how a composition is germinated. I would never allow a machine the status of composer.

Introducing the composer of tonight's symphony, Mr. Ludwig van IBM

It is an interesting concept to talk about. I wonder how many composers/arrangers here on this forum have used software to generate ideas for a musical composition. I certainly have. Finale even incorporates a few in the form of pluggins that allow a composer to manipulate the music with 'machine' intervention.

Food for thought.

Bill

[KE Peace]

A couple minor thoughts that are somewhat random neural firings in response to the above.

At the Boston Computer Museum, I've seen a computer draw quite toleraby (fractal/fibonacci algorithms i believe), and "compose" music that was not half bad. Then there is "band-in-a box" which creates music to your specs (the human part), based on algorithms (the computer part) derived from human music performance styles (back to the human), etc. A blurred line indeed.

I've often thought it would be interesting to write some music based somehow on mathematical equations or numeric sequences, such as fractals, the fibonacci or Phi (the 1.618... "golden ratio") which occurs in nature, art, etc, and which I have used in a painting once with good results.

But my own explorations in low-level computer music (ie, directly coding stuff myself) have been limited to one attempt, about 20+ years ago, to create a melody from randomly generated numbers and then applying some rudimentary rules (not very successful) and programming a single-sound chip to play the Hallelujah Chorus (a basic version) in chords by interleaving quickly-played single notes so the ear perceives them as chords, much like movies create the illusion of motion. That was fun, though quite useless :-)

Just random semi-OT thoughts.....

[etLux]

Hi Karen,

A couple minor thoughts that are somewhat random neural firings in response to the above.

At the Boston Computer Museum, I've seen a computer draw quite toleraby (fractal/fibonacci algorithms i believe), and "compose" music that was not half bad. Then there is "band-in-a box" which creates music to your specs (the human part), based on algorithms (the computer part) derived from human music performance styles (back to the human), etc. A blurred line indeed.

Yes -- and as computer horsepower and developments
in artificial intelligence continue to progress, I expect it
will become an ever more tangled picture.

I've often thought it would be interesting to write some music based somehow on mathematical equations or numeric sequences, such as fractals, the fibonacci or Phi (the 1.618... "golden ratio") which occurs in nature, art, etc, and which I have used in a painting once with good results.

But my own explorations in low-level computer music (ie, directly coding stuff myself) have been limited to one attempt, about 20+ years ago, to create a melody from randomly generated numbers and then applying some rudimentary rules (not very successful) and programming a single-sound chip to play the Hallelujah Chorus (a basic version) in chords by interleaving quickly-played single notes so the ear perceives them as chords, much like movies create the illusion of motion. That was fun, though quite useless :-)

Just random semi-OT thoughts.....

The little pieces (Kuiper, Sublime) didn't really pop out of
a vacuum, as I too have done a lot of experimenting over
the years. It's sure been a few miles since BASIC programs
on a VIC-20... lol!

Best,



David
www.DavidSosnowski.com

[etLux]

Yes, David, this did pique my interest.

True, it is always about control. If you allow the "machine" to do all the work (even if it was programmed by a human) you release control. Composing implies conscious decision making and control. But the machine can send you to places you would never have considered and this is the area that truly piques my curiousity.

Certainly true. I think that's the attraction for me --
these little pieces surprised me in several ways; and
they did provide me with some interesting grist for
the mill I might not have thought of otherwise.

Oh, I never said I agreed with Mr. Stockhausen (he was always his best audience), but he does make some valid interpretations of sound and sound control. Much of it borders on accoustical science and not music. He loved to incorporate a device we take for granted nowadays (surround sound). There is certainly always a certain amount of chance in any given composition. Choices of two different students given the same melody or tonal concept will always result in different compositions.

I don't see that as chance, Bill. Of course two different
people will inevitably write two different pieces, even
given the same initial raw material. Our various "challenges"
in the forum are ample demonstration.

True, but the compositional choice to include such sound events in a composition does draw the listener into the scheme of the sound plan.

If one just uses a machine to compose a piece, he hasn't composed, the machine has. Even if he (or she 'Karen') has programmed the machines variables, he/she has relinquished his control and thus his compositional skills to the machine.

I'm still out on a limb on that. Using a machine to do
much of the work does add another layer between the
human writer and the music. Yet, in that the human
constructs the rules and the machine simply follows
them... you could probably cogently argue that results
like Kuiper and Sublime are valid compostions.

Or, in that I could no more anticipate the details of
the results obtained than I could the toss of dice,
you could likewise argue the contrary.

It's a nebulous area at best; and I think the only
conclusions one way or the other that can be
drawn are personal opinions.

However, if, by taking the machines results, he/she composes (re-works, developes, incorporates, etc.) the machine results into a composition with musical goals, he certainly has composed.

Maybe I am refering to how a composition is germinated. I would never allow a machine the status of composer.

Introducing the composer of tonight's symphony, Mr. Ludwig van IBM

It is an interesting concept to talk about. I wonder how many composers/arrangers here on this forum have used software to generate ideas for a musical composition. I certainly have. Finale even incorporates a few in the form of pluggins that allow a composer to manipulate the music with 'machine' intervention.

Food for thought.

Bill

I wonder myself how many others might be experimenting
in this area. Given the interest and discussion, perhaps
we'll see more work along this line, Bill... and in that it
certainly is good food for thought, I look forward to it!

My best,



David
www.DavidSosnowski.com

[robh]

Did anyone else have the sudden urge to send $100 to etLux's Paypal account? Took me an hour to deprogram that thought from my head!

Rob

[etLux]

Did anyone else have the sudden urge to send $100 to etLux's Paypal account? Took me an hour to deprogram that thought from my head!

Rob

Clearly, you've heard incorrectly, Rob.

The requested amount was $1000.

Best,



David
www.DavidSosnowski.com

[wrayer]

Clearly, you've heard incorrectly, Rob.

The requested amount was $1000.

Best,



David
www.DavidSosnowski.com

Then can I have my other $4000 back?

[etLux]

Then can I have my other $4000 back?

If I knew you had that kind of money in the
first place, Bill, the subliminals would have
involved very large stock transactions.

Best,



David
www.DavidSosnowski.com