I like the idea of your system though wonder if it involves very much creativity on the part of the "composer." How can the composer be made more significant with your automated generation of notes? For example - you talk about generating a 10 minute piece in 5 seconds. It can take a human composer a year for that, depending on the piece and the person. Because everything is "generated" by his brain. So the parameters of your system must be made to use more input from the composer, I feel. Though I do think your system is a very interesting idea and I hope it succeeds.
-
@William said:
It can take a human composer a year for that, depending on the piece and the person. Because everything is "generated" by his brain. So the parameters of your system must be made to use more input from the composer, I feel. Though I do think your system is a very interesting idea and I hope it succeeds.
Well. I am the one who selects sw instruments and the articulations, and the photos and who does the preliminary listening. Amm I not just that: "Composer who uses samples for art"?
-
The software does sound very interesting but I would say that a person using it is not a composer as they do note create the notes that are played - the software does. The user's creative input is limited to timbre so I would say that the user is arranging the musical material, rather than composing it. Arranging is an important part of the process of composing, but arranging in itself is not composing, it is arranging.
However, reading this thread and thinking about how this software seems to work makes me consider the nature of aleatoric music. How much "randomness" is acceptable before the composer ceases to be a composer? Does the fact that the user of this software selects the method by which "randomness" is obtained make them any more of a composer? I would say not, but it's a good question all the same!
Regards,
Martin
-
@mosso said:
However, reading this thread and thinking about how this software seems to work makes me consider the nature of aleatoric music. How much "randomness" is acceptable before the composer ceases to be a composer? Does the fact that the user of this software selects the method by which "randomness" is obtained make them any more of a composer? I would say not, but it's a good question all the same!
My software is not using random numbers and the photos used have structure. I guess we are missing the proper word, aleatoric is not right.
Perhaps you know UPIC created by Yannic Xenakis:
http://membres.lycos.fr/musicand/INSTRUMENT/DIGITAL/UPIC/UPIC.htm
Who is the composer in that case? Drawing ... photo ...
2 CDs composed by using UPIC:
http://membres.lycos.fr/musicand/INSTRUMENT/DIGITAL/UPIC/UPIC.htm
-
Dear Lauri,
I was lucky enough to spend a week with the UPIC many years ago, and (together with a team) put together a composition of around 5 minutes or so - at the time the UPIC was a rare and expensive item that took about 3 months to ship and set up; I'm not sure whether it has become cheaper with time. I hesitate to say "composed" regarding the piece, since it is not really an act of composition, at least in the way I understood it both before and since - in truth, I'm not sure at all what it was.
The process of composition for "meta" music such as this (and maybe we should include concrete / tape splicing music in this) is, based on my somewhat hazy memory of those experiences, a much more intellectual process than "regular" composition - and, I suspect, much more influenced by happy mistakes. I remember I had more the sense that "I draw this, it sounds like that, I influence it this way, play it, like it, sounds good, move on to the next thing". It's not the way I am accustomed to composing in the normal scheme of things - I normally know what sound I want to make, and influence the instruments to achieve that. Maybe it was because I only did it for a week...
William - with the greatest and genuine respect - I believe that you are wrong to be overly concerned about the role of the composer in all of this to the extent that we should increase the role by allowing them to change additional parameters etc. If we are to set aside the role of the performer in this discussion (and I think we are, because it really has not been mentioned so far), that will be because the performer is simply a conduit of the music. If that is the case, then so is the composer a conduit of the composition. The composition is definitely the important item in the equation. Therefore, a more efficient conduit (sad as that may seem for the humanists) is more effective, even if that involves diminishing or even removing the composer. I'm not saying I like it, but I'm not sure what place the composer has in the discussion, other than a chap who arbitrarily selects stuff based on their own preferences - which means the composer is almost irrelevant. And in computer-generated music, perhaps this is the way it should be.
What is significantly more difficult to achieve through computers is the very thing that Lauri (naturally) eschews - cliche. The cliches that have been built up from the point since people were banging on rocks in a rhythmic manner. At the moment, there is limited ability to draw on these programmatically without something approaching a collage being put together - a sequence of programmed "usual solutions".
It raises an interesting consideration though - perhaps we are viewing automatically generated music such as the piece by Lauri in a positive light ONLY because we are viewing it through our cliche-ridden ears. Without this backdrop of cliches that we are so familiar with, we almost certainly would not have a set of criteria to base critical opinion on - to be able to say "this sounds pleasant, that sounds incompetent".
Sorry for the ramble - its an interesting subject.
Kind Regards,
Nick.
-
lgrohn,
Before replying to your post I took the time to visit your website and learn about synestesia. It is interesting yet problematic. In the link titled "Music Generated from Pictures," you claim that, "[The] Synestesia Method is based on filtering pixels "away" and on using several selectable parameters. Using parameters is like looking [at a] sculpture from different angles or in different lightings and environments. The picture and the list of parameters together form the metascore of the composition. The challenge is to find pictures generating interesting music" (Method).
You later state that synestesia does not use a random method but is deterministic. A photograph may indeed determine what is rendered musically using your software, yet by saying that the method filters pixels away leads me to believe that (a) if the software itself is filtering the pixels this is done randomly, or (b) if the pixel filtering is managed by the user of the software then the photograph no longer determines what is rendered musically, thus the music is no longer determined solely by the photograph. And if (b) is the true "composers" method for using the sofware, the intial rendering of the photograph into music will be a completely random process. There is no way that the user could "hear" the photograph or what will be rendered by the software until the software performs its function. If the result of (b) is used as a template by a composer who then further edits or arranges what is scored by synestesia then I suppose from a creative standpoint the software holds value to someone with the skills already in hand to perform the editing and arranging functions. And your stating that "The challenge is to find pictures generating interesting music" is problematic as well. This is a matter of subjective analysis and leads to people randomly choosing what they deem is artistically viable.
As for your claim that synestesia is an art form. What is art is a highly subjective matter as well. If you believe that synestesia is an art form, who am I to say that it isn't?
I will dig deeper into synestesia. I am intrigued by it and will post again soon.
James
-
Very interesting replies.
I feel the selection of instruments/articulations is almost trivial compared to actual composition. I know that is heresy on the website of the greatest selection of instruments/articulations on the planet. But even so, the Art of Fugue was not scored for anything and it is one of the greatest achievements of the human race. So if all the metacomposer does is orchestrate/perform (which is essentially the same as selecting instruments/articulations) it is a huge step down from the past. There need to be direct correspondences which are creatively selected as highly detailed parameters - such as a low note for the color red, a high note for the color blue, a short note for a small spikey object, a long note for a long sinuous object - etc. YES LGROHN I KNOW THESE ARE ALL SUBJECTIVE AND NOT ABSOLUTE AND COULD BE CALLED "CULTURAL CLICHES" but that is art!
Nevertheless I agree it is an intriguing concept, also very appropriate for a sample library that is often used for generating music to accompany images, though in a very different way.
-
@William said:
But even so, the Art of Fugue was not scored for anything and it is one of the greatest achievements of the human race......... it is a huge step down from the past.
It's more than that. It's a fucking waste of time and a huge artistic indictment of the last 20 odd years. It's like Tracey bollocks Ullmans 'unmade bed' AFAIC.
-
@William said:
There need to be direct correspondences which are creatively selected as highly detailed parameters - such as a low note for the color red, a high note for the color blue, a short note for a small spikey object, a long note for a long sinuous object - etc.
That's the "piano player" recipe. As far I know it has never worked. Actually not for Xenakis either.
-
William you asked me to contribute to this discussion and I shall from respects to you. As I mentioned to you privately, Your opening of your Symphony is quiet stunning. Only a Seasoned Experienced Composer would even attempt such a modern Progression which has the elements of the Traditional Scoring from Motion Pictures and carried on by pushing the Envelope even further. No one has attempted that type of Phrasing before you. And that is what interests me as a Composer. Fertile new ideas from a Painter or Creator. At a fast pace or up tempo. In Harmony. That is interesting to say the least. And that is what separates the Fertile material from the others. I'm using Machines and Samples to help in from that up beat perspectives. The greatest music we listen to for reference is from those early years when the physical ability is over abundant. And then Comes the studying of Structure and Execution. This is where I try to use the help of Machines. Mathematics... The timing structure...
@William said:
There need to be direct correspondences which are creatively selected as highly detailed parameters - such as a low note for the color red, a high note for the color blue, a short note for a small spikey object, a long note for a long sinuous object - etc.
That's the "piano player" recipe. As far I know it has never worked. Actually not for Xenakis either.
...... Maybe the reason it has never worked is because the piano player didn't program it ! ... And even if one does it still is limited to machine music... Take for example the organ. Today its jam packed with all type of gadgets as in percussions and harmony lines in thirds and fifth's. But no one has implemented the Harmonic minor Scale to use at certain phrases as in the natural minors. Because that is what it would take to correctly use those different color elements with the proper material or articulations. The sharps are bright colors and the Flats are Cooler colors, to properly picture these sounds. ( direct quote from Charles Rosen, Emeritus Professor, Chicago University school of music ) Yes, there is an enormous field of art that one can spend all sort of time to properly accustom to machines. But limited amount of people to Explain or program correctly. Keep up your Good Programing Work, Igrohn. Just out of Curiosity. Since you mentioned the Cliche' bit. What type of music do you listen to ? When you're a way from all this programing. Thats where your mind is. You should program your software to whatever you're interested in. Good music comes in all kinds of styles. You will know if its good. It should give you goose bumps. And our minds are in stages according to where our experience is at any given time. Some get goose bumps with; Tonic - Dominant - Subdominant - dominant - Tonic. Some get Goose bumps with; Tonic - Sub-median - Diminished flattened 7'th - in circular 4th and 5th. Any where one is at on the ladder of Knowledge. Should be the state of mind and understanding for that particular person. To push one into another state, not the proper one for that person, can drive one mad or confused. In the music business, One is warned ! of consequences that can eliminate if trying to promote someone at an advanced stage before his time. Its equivalent to trying to open an updated program in an older version. It cannot be done. but one can open an older program version in a new one anytime one wishes. Thats why a touch of Genius more than often will cause one to be whacky ! By the way Guy Backus's Wacky ducky Music done with VSL at its early stages of conception is the best and first in history of using these samples with an artisic brush. And what one can achieve if a proper piano player would attempt the performance in a modern artistic performing angle. Backus made history with these Samples ! Interesting he named it ducky ....or something Wacky like that. A touch of Genius !
-
I agree with rk about Guy Bacos - he has done some amazing, virtuosic things with samples that most others are simply not attempting. Also, I am curious as to what lgrohn listens to when not programming. Is it anything like synethesia? Or is it more like Led Zeppelin?
PaulR - Art of Fugue is bollocks? I did not realize that. Thanks very much for clearing that up.
-
So if all the metacomposer does is orchestrate/perform (which is essentially the same as selecting instruments/articulations) it is a huge step down from the past.
rather than his having a go at Bach.
But I'm sure he'll be along soon enough to confirm or correct this.
-
What type of music do you listen to ? When you're a way from all this programing. Thats where your mind is.
http://www.synestesia.fi/modern_music.html
PS. Chinese people have downloaded this peace about 40000 times:
http://www.synestesia.fi/2007/12/lilies.mp3
Where there minds might be?
-
What type of music do you listen to ? When you're a way from all this programing. Thats where your mind is.
http://www.synestesia.fi/modern_music.html
PS. Chinese people have downloaded this peace about 40000 times:
http://www.synestesia.fi/2007/12/lilies.mp3
Where there minds might be?
Chainy wants to attack Igran in September ! .............Thats were the minds might be......... Are you sure you don't want to stick to music. And only that. The fun is in Music.
-
So if all the metacomposer does is orchestrate/perform (which is essentially the same as selecting instruments/articulations) it is a huge step down from the past.
rather than his having a go at Bach.
But I'm sure he'll be along soon enough to confirm or correct this.
Yeah - William is a senile old twat!! I've forgotton more about Bach that he's ever known.
Yeah - Tracy Emin - thanks for clearing that up - although have you ever seen Tracy Ullman's unmade bed? It's a mess by all accounts.
Look - seriously. Samples used in computers to generate noise via some sort of half-assed photograph is NOT ART. It's SHEEEEEEEIIIIITTTEE.
-
@lgrohn said:
My software is not using random numbers and the photos used have structure. I guess we are missing the proper word, aleatoric is not right.You're quite right that it isn't random - perhaps a better word would be unpredictable? Rolling dice is unpredictable, but it is also a deterministic process - it's just that we can't measure or control the factors that influence the result to the degree required to influence the result. Hence it appears random but actually isn't - it's just unpredictable.
The problem I have with a user of Synestesia calling themself a composer is that they have little direct control over the end result - it's unpredictable. They can influence it of course, but this leads back to my question about aleatoric music. How much unpredictibility is allowable before a composer ceases to be a composer?
Arguably the composer of the music generated by Synestesia is the program itself, and yet here we hit a snag because the program only does what it is told and by that extension is nothing more than an instrument - an exotic player piano.
So we go beyond the instrument to look at what is on the 'page', who created it and by extension could be the composer? Once again - a problem. If you take pictures you're a photographer. The artistic criteria that you apply to taking pictures have nothing to do with the notes that will be generated when the picture is fed through Synestesia.
Even if someone could learn that a certain picture gives a certain result when fed through the program, and they could thus predict the outcome and create images to that end, does that make them a composer? I suppose in theory that's not much different to imagining music, writing it on paper, and having it performed. But doesn't that remove the need for Synestesia? Why not just write it down or record it? The unpredictabilty factor is surely the sine qua non of the program. So that leads us back to my question about aleatoric music.
This is the crux of the question - is someone, as a user of this software, a composer who uses samples for art?
Sorry for the ramble - like Nick I find this subject interesting!
Regards,
Martin