TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Music Discussion
-- music is obsolete (as we know it)
Pages (5): « 1 2 [3] 4 5 »

quote:

I didn't know music was anything more than the actual sound, i must have missed something.

Well that's too bad. You've missed out on everything then. What's your favorite frequency then?

quote:

What does that even mean?

Listen to the 1812 overture and tell me whether or not you think it's music.

Then Listen to John Cage's 4'33" and tell me whether or not you think it's music.

Then we can have a discussion on this. I am not making a position on "what is music" or "what it should be", I am only pointing out music seems to have been narrowly or specifically defined in the same or very similar way for a long time, and in this age of youtube and human genomes, abstraction, simulation, and virtuality, it might be time we think about changing it.

quote:

Originally posted by nefardec Well that's too bad. You've missed out on everything then. What's your favorite frequency then?

I don't know. I must have a unique brain that can interpret sound without letting me know what frequencies i'm hearing.

quote:

Listen to the 1812 overture and tell me whether or not you think it's music. Then Listen to John Cage's 4'33" and tell me whether or not you think it's music. Then we can have a discussion on this.

You have spoken about music, in general that must be if nothing else is specified, so why does the discussion now rely on wheter i've heard two works?

quote:

I am not making a position on "what is music" or "what it should be"

So you're just whining aimlessly?

quote:

I am only pointing out music seems to have been narrowly or specifically defined in the same or very similar way for a long time, and in this age of youtube and human genomes, abstraction, simulation, and virtuality, it might be time we think about changing it.

You've said that like a hundred times. Music has been defined in a certain way and we should think about changing it. And yet another time you fail to tell us: 1. How it according to you has been defined/is defined 2. What we should change it into and 3. Why? What's wrong with it.

finally we have some sort of a conversation!

isn't the music you're speaking of based on algorithms written by humans though? if so, then the music will follow that pattern and will only do that, right? will it evolve? will it have a "life of its own"? will it adapt? will it renew itself? or will it just repeat doing everything it does based on the patterns (algorithms) it's given?

thank you very much for the definitions of bionics and bioinformatics.
i still have no idea what any of this has to do with music though. how are the algorithms related to bioinformatics for example? will it use the human genome for a basis of the music? and even if it does, does it really have anything to do with actual bioinformatics? i really don't see how you can apply bionics or bioinformatics to making music.

so i'm close minded because i think you're full of bullshit? arguing with you doesn't anger me. your use of words and ways of arguing annoy me though.
i really do think that you use fancy words unnecessarily. i think the stuff you're going on about could be explained much simpler. maybe that wouldn't make you look as smart though. but you'd have more people who could understand what you're talking about. IMO the subject at hand is in no way that complex or special that all these fancy words should be used. don't you think you should word your texts so that most people understand it?
i think you're trying to make the subject more complex than it actually is. and i think you're trying to find connections to things it doesn't have any connection to.

and i really don't see the point of this list for example:

quote:

Originally posted by nefardec important technologies will be: fluid dynamics biomechanics nanotech knot theory parametric design

other than dropping some cool science fad terms, just to make you look smarter. and no, i don't understand the meanings of all the fancy words you've put in your text. good thing you figured that out. IMO it's not essential for me to understand them all to discuss this subject either.
however i do know something about biology and biotech and i really think that your use of the terms relating to those is completely wrong. that's why i brought it up.
so i think it's you who doesn't understand the meaning of these words as IMO you use them wrong. you're giving them meanings they don't have.
and you still haven't explained to me that how biotech is "half art, half science" or what was it.

quote:

1. How it according to you has been defined/is defined 2. What we should change it into and 3. Why? What's wrong with it.

1. Most people define music as a discrete and authored expression involving these elements: Melody, Harmony, Rhythm. This definition of music usually includes multiple distinguishable voices/instruments, and usually is seen as some sort of "pleasure activity".

2. I am not suggesting all music is changed... I am suggesting we might begin to think about additional ways to think about music, that's all.

3. Well this is besides the point. There's nothing really 'wrong' with it for what it is. I particularly like a lot of 'music', from Claude Debussy and Cannonball Adderly to Tangerine Dream and Trentemoller. I love pleasurable music, house music particularly makes me fly... I'm not saying it should change!

Given, I have an opinion on the commodification of music, but I think that's too much for one topic.

For now, I am only interested in discussing what music isn't in its current state. (I bet you guys will have fun with that statement). I am more interested in exploring what music could be. Can't we be speculative, can't we dream, contemplate, imagine?

It's possible not all music is conceived of as pleasurable... Did you know that "The Slim Shady EP" was used by the united states military a way to extract confessions from prisoners at Guantanamo Bay? Yet a lot of people would call that music even though it is used as a torture device.

Let me make a comparison between music and art . In earlier periods of art, 2 dimensional art was conceived of as a discrete, usually rectangular authored creation which was patronized by the elite, and appreciated on a well-lit surface. Sculpture was conceived us as a discrete 3-dimensional object in space, to be looked at. People squabbled endlessly over things like how many roses were in a vase or what did the use of a color mean in the context of milanese military manoevers, etc. (basically unimportant is what I mean)

Now art has come to be so much more. Pop Art overturned archaic ideas of the artifact, the 'aura' of art by mass producing it. Dada was more blunt and produced work which satirized traditional ideas about art. (eg Marcel Duchamp's Fountain versus The Four Rivers Fountain by Bernini)
Sculpture was once a large nude David in a palace, now it can be 7503 gates spaced at 12 foot intervals around central park.

So my comparison is this - maybe music has the potential to be more than 'discrete authored objects in time'.


sidenote:
actually the Muzak Corporation already pioneered back in the 30s what I am talking about with regard to music....

They are sort of ideologically opposite to me with their motivation, but as far their method goes, it's interesting:

quote:

Think of it this way. You are a brand. Your clothes, your hair, your way of walking, talking, living-all of those elements are unique to you. It's the same with companies. Each one has a brand all its own. Muzak translates that image into a language that speaks to the heart. We call our creation Audio Imaging. It is the convergence of art and science, of methodology and intuition, of pulling out the parameters and accelerating to something as true as it is engaging.

quote:

Muzak is about an idea. A big idea. The kind that shoots past the conventional, sharp lefts around the expected and knocks the predictable off its pedestal. Its premise is simple. Every company has a story to tell. What we do is bring that story to life with music, voice and sound in a way that is as powerful as it is persuasive. Emotion is our driver. It is the force that connects people and places. The intangible that creates experiences that builds brands.

quote:

other than dropping some cool science fad terms, just to make you look smarter.

Skip, please... THAT is bullshit. How could you possibly know my motivation? In any case people make their livings studying what you call fads.

quote:

Originally posted by nefardec Skip, please... THAT is bullshit. How could you possibly know my motivation? In any case people make their livings studying what you call fads.

i never claimed i knew your motivation. but i really can't see any other reason for why you decided to drop them. if you do have a motivation for it, then let's hear it.
and i know very well that people make their living studying those. they're still the "in thing" in science atm. nano tech OMG! it's so tiny. it's overhyped as fuck. i'm not saying there's nothing in it (as there is a lot), but it still is a pop term to use these days and the cool thing to do.

oh and, good going on avoiding commenting on everything else i posted.

quote:

Originally posted by nefardec 1. Most people define music as a discrete and authored expression involving these elements: Melody, Harmony, Rhythm. This definition of music usually includes multiple distinguishable voices/instruments, and usually is seen as some sort of "pleasure activity".

Isn't that a perfectly fine definition? Melody, harmony, rhythm, timbre etc are words used to refer to what we work with in music. Unless you can invent something that isn't covered by any musical terms in use, you can't change what music is.

quote:

2. I am not suggesting all music is changed... I am suggesting we might begin to think about additional ways to think about music, that's all.

What exactly is "a way of thinking about music"? You're insanely vague. Can you think of such an additional way? If no, why are you urging others to do so?

quote:

3. Well this is besides the point. There's nothing really 'wrong' with it for what it is. I particularly like a lot of 'music', from Claude Debussy and Cannonball Adderly to Tangerine Dream and Trentemoller. I love pleasurable music, house music particularly makes me fly... I'm not saying it should change!

That's great. But are you sure? Isn't it obsolete?

quote:

Given, I have an opinion on the commodification of music, but I think that's too much for one topic.

Do you also have an opinion on the commodification of bananas?

quote:

It's possible not all music is conceived of as pleasurable... Did you know that "The Slim Shady EP" was used by the united states military a way to extract confessions from prisoners at Guantanamo Bay? Yet a lot of people would call that music even though it is used as a torture device.

So? There is a lot of music i don't like and i would probably not have a good time if i was forced to listen to it. But i wouldn't deny the fact that it is music. Wheter something is good or pleasureable is subjective.

What I see here is a few people taking their gestalt of a concept to be a valid basis of opposition, and thus are trying to pick at the edges of the concept without finding a good reason why they dislike the concept itself.

SMC, skip, you aren't even trying to make discourse, whilst refusing to understand the questions and ideas that nefardec is proposing, you are leading the discussion into more and more unrelated areas where you are more likely to force him into a fallacy that will only appease your luddite sensibilities, and won't actually serve in any way to disprove the theories he wants to discuss.

--------------------------

@nefardec

I personally have trouble accepting some of the more experimental 'music' as music per se. I don't remember who it was in what thread, but someone here brought up the point that, specifically in the realm of music, there is a subconscious reaction to something that is decidedly music that does not obtain when listening to something more abstract like Gyorgy Ligeti's Poeme Symphonique for 100 Metronomes. As such, I don't think the term music is obsolete in the sense of the sound qualities traditionally associated with it.

However, I will say that I think the division of music into discrete pieces (or art in general, maybe), is a fairly recent development, and the development of ways to make it more continuous and less interruptible can only be a good thing.

quote:

oh and, good going on avoiding commenting on everything else i posted.

sorry, actually it turns out i do have a life and went to dinner with my girlfriend. you posted as I was typing my response to SMC. i'll get to it later in what's going to be a really long post, i've got a lot to respond to here... I will reply to SMC first because I think his comments are more relevant to the discussion than whether or not "I use words to make me sound smart."

quote:

What exactly is "a way of thinking about music"? You're insanely vague. Can you think of such an additional way? If no, why are you urging others to do so?

SMC, again, I opened this topic as a question. I am urging others to do so because one person is not enough. Sorry I am vague, but that's like asking someone to see into the future. However, I can think of several ideas. Here's one:

Analyze spectra of various moments in an audio recording, preferably a collection of many many audio recordings. This could be anything - historical music, thundersorms, crowd noise, whatever. Record the spectral information, how much it deviates from the spectral information in the neighboring samplings, and where it is located in time. Create a database of this information. (This could also be done using actual samples). Using the spectral information and rates of change, assign movement or speed values to each entry and tag them with more subjective things like brightness values, etc. These obviously depend on what your bias or purpose is, and that's what makes this an art rather than a science. Using parametric software, create a structural algorithm. For instance, does brightness rise over time and then fall in a sinusoidal way? Musical movement perhaps increases and decreases parabolically - this is an experiment, so as many variations as you can do are better. The algorithms could be anything, that's up to the artist and his bias. The structural algorithm then is one of many variables, which change over time. The parametric software then scales the spectral information over time depending on the value of the algorithm so that the sound is modulated mathematically. This could be smooth, piecewise, etc depending on the algorithm you are working with. If you are working with samples the software would map samples along the parametric curves based on their tabular data.

So this begins to undermine the idea of musical structure, melody, harmony, rhythm, etc as long as one remains objective. This is actually something I am working on for my electroacoustic music class. I have to program the parametric program though which is a challenge for me.

Does it "sound good" - who is to say what is good or bad, that again fashion. Whether or not you like it doesn't interest me. I was never one to be interested in selling music. Now of course all music is subject to its medium, which it is (violin timbre depends on the wood of the instrument, saxophone sound is slave to the size of the human lip, which dictates the size of the mouthpiece and the neck of the instrument, etc) In graphic design and architecture, a rise in complex curvilinear forms is not a result of fashion, but because a wave of vector based graphics programs came in the 90s and are blooming today.

And electronic music is slave to the programs which are used to create it. You can kind of tell when a beginner makes something in ableton live as opposed to logic for instance, because of the structure. But when you learn a bit more all the programs become interchangable, because you are no longer using the programs to generate music which is clearly a result of the medium - in fact you want to hide it and create something which sounds like it could be made in any program.

To play devil's advocate for myself, no matter what technology exists, people will always try to cover it up for superficial ideas about the fashion of sound. Just like people will make landscape artwork using vector programs...

quote:

But are you sure? Isn't it obsolete?

Nice job. Way to try and twist my words. Of course I feel it's obsolete. Call me old-fashioned then. Obsolesence has nothing to do with whether or not I like it. Besides this though, I am interested in searching for new ways to make and think about music. Is there something wrong with that?

quote:

Do you also have an opinion on the commodification of bananas?

I'm going to take the bait on this one - Yes, I do. I can't make a banana.

don't get me started on apples and oranges, you can't compare them


@Skip -

Sorry you can't see how that can be applied. I understand why you say that - they are very different indeed. But music is really just mathematics and time. Anything else is perceptual, an illusion. Descartes would back me up here. Anything else is conditioned by the society we live in, by our past experiences, etc. (now i'll wait for you to mock me with some Matrix reference)

Since it is just mathematics and timing, it has a lot to do with algorithms, computational and statistical techniques, basically the fundamentals of bioinformatics. Studying the systems of life can give rise to musical structure. An example in architecture is the honeycomb as structure, or the vascular tissue of plants as circulatory systems in buildings. Ideas about growth, evolution, behavior, etc are all relevant I think to a responsive music. If you want me to give an example, let's say music for a party. A party, a gathering of people, is really a type of complex organism. Any DJ knows this by experience. Perhaps the behavior of crowds, the consumption of alcohol, the size of the room, the speaker specifications, the demographics of the crowd, etc all can work with the music and inform it in real time? I think that's a beautiful idea... So imagine music that has a life of its own in this way or has the ability to adapt so dynamically.

I think you're close minded only in terms of not seeing the possible connections between what seem like different ideas.

Look, I am sure I could explain this all a lot more clearly. Maybe I'm too stupid to that! It would be a lot harder for me to break it down more I think. I'll try to be less 'cryptic' if that helps the discussion. But I'm being honest here, don't assume I am doing something because I want to appear smarter. This is a fucking internet forum after all and I doubt I will ever meet any of you beyond your screen names, avatars, and inccessant sarcasm. Why do I need to impress you? That would be pretty sad, come on give me some more credit than that, I really aspire to more!

What I am after here is ideas! progressive ideas, experiments, challenge, brainstorming - i want to stir things up! Dance music was so challenging earlier, now it is an institution, and relatively sedentary. (doesn't do much beyond the comfy chair on which it sits)

Also skip - about art/science - Plastic Surgery. Prosthetics, Gene Therapy, Cloning....these are bluring the line between art and science by giving scientists freedom to create and change the world in very real ways. I don't mean art like the cheesy paintings they have in the olive garden. I mean art in a general sense of anything which is imbued with a creative spirit or bias, with a will to design. I agree things are overhyped, especially nanotech. Christ, look at the space program... I made that list assuming people knew what the connectons were, which was a mistake. By providing the list of technologies in the context of a discussion on music, I hoped people would have seen the technologies with a musical eye and asked themselves, How can Music be like bioinformation. I guess that was pretty vague. And no, I'm not bullshitting, though I will never be able to convince any of you otherwise, since you have no idea what I'm about.

Sorry for the long message, you guys give me a lot to chew on and I don't want this discussion to die, because I think it's important.

@jex

regarding the subconscious line between music/experimental sound

At this point I don't know whether or not that is is a result of nature or nuture... ie, is the reaction to music hard coded in our DNA or is it learned? Maybe there is research on that but I haven't read it so I couldn't say.

However, I know if I play drum and bass for my little sicilian grandmother i think she might have the same reaction you described regading Ligeti's piece, which makes me think it is a condition of culture.



But i think one thing that makes music music is Empathy and the transmittance of emotion through sound. So perhaps there are certain types of sound more prone to create empathy. This is why vocal tracks are more popular with more mainstream people - the human voice is crucial to our survival and development.

Similarly, music seems to be related to group behavior and the idea of communion/community throughout history. This is probably one reason it is hardwired into our subconscious. Music can make us feel like we belong.


However, the experimental music I am describing has the potential to respond to group behavior, and I think it could be music no matter how experimental it is.

Those 'artificial' poems I posted support the idea that an experiment can still be art. It merely exposes it for what it is.

quote:

Originally posted by nefardec @Skip - Sorry you can't see how that can be applied. I understand why you say that - they are very different indeed.

-

quote:

Originally posted by nefardec But music is really just mathematics and time.

this i do agree with

quote:

Originally posted by nefardec Anything else is perceptual, an illusion. Descartes would back me up here. Anything else is conditioned by the society we live in, by our past experiences, etc. (now i'll wait for you to mock me with some Matrix reference)

good thing you have descartes on your side.
i have no idea what you're talking about on the matrix reference though.

quote:

Originally posted by nefardec Since it is just mathematics and timing, it has a lot to do with algorithms, computational and statistical techniques, basically the fundamentals of bioinformatics.

sure, it has a lot to do with algorithms, computational and statistical techniques, but nothing to do with bioinformatics. it might have similarities to bioinformatics, but that doesn't make it bioinformatics. the bio aspect is missing. i'd just call it informatics or somethingelseinformatics if i were you.

quote:

Originally posted by nefardec Studying the systems of life can give rise to musical structure. An example in architecture is the honeycomb as structure, or the vascular tissue of plants as circulatory systems in buildings. Ideas about growth, evolution, behavior, etc are all relevant I think to a responsive music.

i can see the bionics connection regarding architecture. but how would you connect it to music though? only way i'd see is using the dna sequences of birds' to make music (if one could ever isolate and identify the genes responsible for the singing of the birds). i really can't see how you'd apply the honeycomb structure to music for example.

quote:

Originally posted by nefardec If you want me to give an example, let's say music for a party. A party, a gathering of people, is really a type of complex organism. Any DJ knows this by experience. Perhaps the behavior of crowds, the consumption of alcohol, the size of the room, the speaker specifications, the demographics of the crowd, etc all can work with the music and inform it in real time? I think that's a beautiful idea... So imagine music that has a life of its own in this way or has the ability to adapt so dynamically.

i guess a party could be seen as a complex organism, but that is really oversimplifying the situation IMO. anyway, the music would adapt to the "organism", it could do it well even. but so what? it adapts, it still won't evolve. it adapts within the rules and parameters it's given. it only does what it's supposed to do and nothing else. and i don't see it having a life of it's own at all, as it really doesn't.

quote:

Originally posted by nefardec I think you're close minded only in terms of not seeing the possible connections between what seem like different ideas.

i on the other hand think that you're trying to find connections where there aren't any, just to support your views.

quote:

Originally posted by nefardec Look, I am sure I could explain this all a lot more clearly. Maybe I'm too stupid to that! It would be a lot harder for me to break it down more I think. I'll try to be less 'cryptic' if that helps the discussion. But I'm being honest here, don't assume I am doing something because I want to appear smarter. This is a fucking internet forum after all and I doubt I will ever meet any of you beyond your screen names, avatars, and inccessant sarcasm. Why do I need to impress you? That would be pretty sad, come on give me some more credit than that, I really aspire to more!

i don't know why you do it, i really don't. but the namedropping really seemed to me like you did it only because you wanted to look smarter than you actually are. i'm not claiming that you did it for that reason, but that's how i observed it.

quote:

Originally posted by nefardec What I am after here is ideas! progressive ideas, experiments, challenge, brainstorming - i want to stir things up! Dance music was so challenging earlier, now it is an institution, and relatively sedentary. (doesn't do much beyond the comfy chair on which it sits)

i'm all for that. i just think you're not doing a very good job at it. i'm all for crazy stupid ideas that don't necessarily lead to anywhere. if no one had new ideas that most people thought were stupid, then we'd have a pretty boring world. but IMO that's really not something that you're doing here.

quote:

Originally posted by nefardec Also skip - about art/science - Plastic Surgery. Prosthetics, Gene Therapy, Cloning....these are bluring the line between art and science by giving scientists freedom to create and change the world in very real ways. I don't mean art like the cheesy paintings they have in the olive garden. I mean art in a general sense of anything which is imbued with a creative spirit or bias, with a will to design.

sure, biotech can be used to make art, no doubt about it. still that doesn't make biotech any more art. paint can be used to make art but still i wouldn't say that paint in itself is art.

quote:

Originally posted by nefardec I agree things are overhyped, especially nanotech. Christ, look at the space program... I made that list assuming people knew what the connectons were, which was a mistake. By providing the list of technologies in the context of a discussion on music, I hoped people would have seen the technologies with a musical eye and asked themselves, How can Music be like bioinformation. I guess that was pretty vague. And no, I'm not bullshitting, though I will never be able to convince any of you otherwise, since you have no idea what I'm about.

ok. so tell me, why did you post nano tech in the list?

quote:

Originally posted by nefardec Sorry for the long message, you guys give me a lot to chew on and I don't want this discussion to die, because I think it's important.

-

I tried to read the opening post, but so many big words coupled with the rather debauch weekend I had, means that's just not gonna happen

quote:

Originally posted by nefardec Analyze spectra of various moments in an audio recording, preferably a collection of many many audio recordings. This could be anything - historical music, thundersorms, crowd noise, whatever. Record the spectral information, how much it deviates from the spectral information in the neighboring samplings, and where it is located in time. Create a database of this information. (This could also be done using actual samples). Using the spectral information and rates of change, assign movement or speed values to each entry and tag them with more subjective things like brightness values, etc. These obviously depend on what your bias or purpose is, and that's what makes this an art rather than a science. Using parametric software, create a structural algorithm. For instance, does brightness rise over time and then fall in a sinusoidal way? Musical movement perhaps increases and decreases parabolically - this is an experiment, so as many variations as you can do are better. The algorithms could be anything, that's up to the artist and his bias. The structural algorithm then is one of many variables, which change over time. The parametric software then scales the spectral information over time depending on the value of the algorithm so that the sound is modulated mathematically. This could be smooth, piecewise, etc depending on the algorithm you are working with. If you are working with samples the software would map samples along the parametric curves based on their tabular data.

Finally something concrete. This seems to be an interesting idea in terms of programming or creating a new instrument perhaps or a system for playing back sounds following certain instructions. However i'm not sure you could create something with it that sonically and stylistically hasn't already been explored or can not be accomplished with the tools available today and that revolutionizes the concept of music.

quote:

So this begins to undermine the idea of musical structure, melody, harmony, rhythm, etc as long as one remains objective.

That is nothing new or revolutionary. Just listen to any long-form textural ambient album. There are artist who already master the art of creating soundworlds devoid of melody, rhythm and obvious harmonic structure.

quote:

And electronic music is slave to the programs which are used to create it. You can kind of tell when a beginner makes something in ableton live as opposed to logic for instance, because of the structure. But when you learn a bit more all the programs become interchangable, because you are no longer using the programs to generate music which is clearly a result of the medium - in fact you want to hide it and create something which sounds like it could be made in any program.

But you can't tell wheter someone makes his music sound typical of an abelton beginner on purpose or not. Both the slave and the revolutionary subverting user could create something that sounds typical of a certain program, so what's the difference? And what's your point anyway?

quote:

To play devil's advocate for myself, no matter what technology exists, people will always try to cover it up for superficial ideas about the fashion of sound. Just like people will make landscape artwork using vector programs...

Is that good or bad?

quote:

Nice job. Way to try and twist my words. Of course I feel it's obsolete. Call me old-fashioned then. Obsolesence has nothing to do with whether or not I like it.

If you like it i assume you listen to it, and if you listen to it you can't at the same time assert that it is "no longer in use; gone into disuse; disused or neglected".

quote:

Besides this though, I am interested in searching for new ways to make and think about music. Is there something wrong with that?

I couldn't care less about what you're interested in. I do however have opinions about claims that imply that there are no new possiblities left in the vast realm of music and that we need some machine that is going to add something beyond human comprehension to the concept of music. It's highly comparable to a "trance is dead" thread, only more elaborate on the surface.

quote:

I do however have opinions about claims that imply that there are no new possiblities left in the vast realm of music and that we need some machine that is going to add something beyond human comprehension to the concept of music. It's highly comparable to a "trance is dead" thread, only more elaborate on the surface.

Would you mind elaborating? This is exactly what I wanted to talk about...

So what this basically is about is that you feel that the traditional framework and conventions of music are not necessarily essential to defining the term, correct? I think the main issue here is you seem to be hypothesising about various other pathways musical development could take, yet you don't actually know what any of it would sound like.

quote:

Originally posted by SYSTEM-J So what this basically is about is that you feel that the traditional framework and conventions of music are not necessarily essential to defining the term, correct? I think the main issue here is you seem to be hypothesising about various other pathways musical development could take, yet you don't actually know what any of it would sound like.

Surely one of them would sound like LORD OF BASS?

quote:

Originally posted by nefardec Would you mind elaborating? This is exactly what I wanted to talk about...

I would. I prefer keeping it concise. If anything, ask me a direct question.

quote:

Originally posted by SMC Agree with above ^^ and skip etc. The whole thing is pretentious, not to the point and filled with totally arbitrary conclusions.

Nah, this is some interesting stuff, a good topic, and I welcome any chance to bump it. He's dropping some interesting science here.

Now, you want pretentious, overblown wordiness that meanders all over the place and doesn't get to any cohesive point, read anything Spirit5 has to say.

quote:

yet you don't actually know what any of it would sound like.

SystemJ, I think part of this is to try to create music without knowing what it would sound like. I suppose it could sound like anything. I'm really only interested in a discussion on the method for now. Once experiments have been made then we can start making ideas about the sound because we will know what kind of beast we are handling.

I posted an example method earlier:

quote:

Analyze spectra of various moments in an audio recording, preferably a collection of many many audio recordings. This could be anything - historical music, thundersorms, crowd noise, whatever. Record the spectral information, how much it deviates from the spectral information in the neighboring samplings, and where it is located in time. Create a database of this information. (This could also be done using actual samples). Using the spectral information and rates of change, assign movement or speed values to each entry and tag them with more subjective things like brightness values, etc. These obviously depend on what your bias or purpose is, and that's what makes this an art rather than a science. Using parametric software, create a structural algorithm. For instance, does brightness rise over time and then fall in a sinusoidal way? Musical movement perhaps increases and decreases parabolically - this is an experiment, so as many variations as you can do are better. The algorithms could be anything, that's up to the artist and his bias. The structural algorithm then is one of many variables, which change over time. The parametric software then scales the spectral information over time depending on the value of the algorithm so that the sound is modulated mathematically. This could be smooth, piecewise, etc depending on the algorithm you are working with. If you are working with samples the software would map samples along the parametric curves based on their tabular data.

@SMC, ok - well you said "I do have opinions about claims that imply that there are no new possibilities left in the vast realm of music...etc"

I guess I am a little confused by the first statement I quoted - I can't tell if you were being sarcastic, making a parody of my idea or this is a straight statement. Sarcasm doesn't carry too well over the internet, and given your previous posts I have to imagine you are scathing in your intent.

There are several definitions for the word 'obsolete'. You did a great job playing gatekeeper and posting only the one that you can use against my point. Here's another definition: "of a discarded or outmoded type; out of date" and another: "imperfectly developed or rudimentary in comparison with the corresponding character in others"

quote:

There are artist who already master the art of creating soundworlds devoid of melody, rhythm and obvious harmonic structure.

Could you give me any names? I would like to hear them.

quote:

Finally something concrete. This seems to be an interesting idea in terms of programming or creating a new instrument perhaps or a system for playing back sounds following certain instructions. However i'm not sure you could create something with it that sonically and stylistically hasn't already been explored or can not be accomplished with the tools available today and that revolutionizes the concept of music.

Ok, well it's a start for someone who has only begun to dive into these ideas. But I don't think it's really about style, again. For experiment's sake, it doesn't really matter what it sounds like. Like I said earlier, only after one develops methods he will be able to understand the sonic aspects of it.

quote:

Is that good or bad?

It really doesn't matter. For one, this is irrelevant to the technology. to use the example I started, i think it's more productive to push technology to its limits rather than recreate things which came about from pushing older technology to its limits.

@skip -

quote:

might have similarities to bioinformatics, but that doesn't make it bioinformatics. the bio aspect is missing.

You're right, they aren't the same. I am a bit imaginative is all, and I like to imagine that music could behave like an organism. I don't believe that it is an organism, however.

quote:

i'm all for that. i just think you're not doing a very good job at it. i'm all for crazy stupid ideas that don't necessarily lead to anywhere. if no one had new ideas that most people thought were stupid, then we'd have a pretty boring world. but IMO that's really not something that you're doing here.

Ouch, so I don't even qualify for the stupid ideas category? What does that make your ideas then for responding to them?

quote:

ok. so tell me, why did you post nano tech in the list?

The list was called "important technologies for the future". I don't see how nanotech wouldn't be used in the future for sound synthesis or sound reproduction.

quote:

Originally posted by nefardec SystemJ, I think part of this is to try to create music without knowing what it would sound like. I suppose it could sound like anything. I'm really only interested in a discussion on the method for now. Once experiments have been made then we can start making ideas about the sound because we will know what kind of beast we are handling.

"Anything" isn't automatically music though, is it? You can come up with any number of interesting ways to make new sounds and then branch them as "music" under the philosphical stretching of the term, but will any of them be worth hearing?

quote:

Originally posted by SYSTEM-J "Anything" isn't automatically music though, is it? You can come up with any number of interesting ways to make new sounds and then branch them as "music" under the philosphical stretching of the term, but will any of them be worth hearing?

Does that matter?

quote:

Originally posted by Allied Nations Does that matter?

Does it matter if it's worth hearing? Erm... what do you think?

Seeing as music is a human interpretation of sound, wouldn't this all require a certain degree of uniformity in how different people perceive it? Already, music has a completely different definition to someone who lives in a major city compared to someone who lives, say, in the middle of a desert. We write music that reflects our environment. Techno, for instance, is inspired by the movements of machines, assembly lines, car horns... sounds that are meaningful to us, but would be nothing but noise to someone who doesn't hear them on a regular basis. Then there's even more variation in perception of sound on a smaller scale, from person to person. To give you an example, one of my favorite sounds is that of a vaccum cleaner. To most, it's nothing but ambient noise, but for me, it invokes sensations that conventional music can't even come close to producing. I don't see how we could efficiently calculate and take into consideration every different perspective and generate music based on it. The closest thing we can do is stick to blanket rule systems that appeal to groups of individuals, but aren't tailored to be specific, which is pretty much our current definition of music.

... or did I completely misunderstand you?

quote:

Originally posted by nefardec @skip - You're right, they aren't the same. I am a bit imaginative is all, and I like to imagine that music could behave like an organism. I don't believe that it is an organism, however. Ouch, so I don't even qualify for the stupid ideas category? What does that make your ideas then for responding to them? The list was called "important technologies for the future". I don't see how nanotech wouldn't be used in the future for sound synthesis or sound reproduction.

even if you're "a bit imaginative", it still doesn't make any of this music to have any relation to bioinformatics.

you got the stupid ideas thing wrong here. i don't mean it as a negative thing. IMO it's perfectly fine to have stupid ideas, it's how you act on them what makes you stupid or not. so because i don't think your ideas belong to "the stupid ideas category". well that doesn't make my ideas any more or less anything. you've clearly misunderstood me here.

sure nanotech could be used to music production in the future, it could be used for almost anything. that's not the point though. the point is that what does it have to do with the kind of music you're talking about here. would nanotech be used exclusively to make such music only? if not, what point does mentioning nanotech here serve?

quote:

Originally posted by Allied Nations Does that matter?

Well it seems to me the philosophers are so keen to make any sound that is intended to provoke a response "music" that any sound or collection of sound composed in any way to any set of rules or mathematics will technically constitute music. Therefore, what the hell is the point of implementing complex algorithms or bionics when you can reverse bird-song, overlay it on itself randomly and have "music" that is entirely cutting-edge, different, shiny and completely fucking hideous to listen to, all for a fraction of the price or effort?

I need to see a logical reason why doing things a certain way is worth the effort as opposed to any other way. Why should we follow any of the technological trends he's mentioned as opposed to implementing anything else? And really, what would the point be? Randomly implementing shit until you stumble across something that can be concieved as having a point beyond existing for its own sake is not scientific.

quote:

Originally posted by nefardec Here's another definition: "of a discarded or outmoded type; out of date"

I don't see how something that still is enjoyed, demanded and supplied at the same time is discarded or out of date.

quote:

and another: "imperfectly developed or rudimentary in comparison with the corresponding character in others"

There are no others to compare it to.

quote:

Could you give me any names? I would like to hear them.

Recent examples are Steve Roach's Immersion series: "Immersion: One", "Immersion: Two" and the upcoming "Immersion: Three". Also "Possible Planet", "Terraform" and "The Dream Circle", all by Steve Roach. Actually there are examples spread all across his discography, but these i mentioned are some his more droning steady-state long-form works. Other examples could be Pete Namlook's "Music For Urban Meditation" and Robert Rich's "Trances / Drones".

quote:

It really doesn't matter. For one, this is irrelevant to the technology. to use the example I started, i think it's more productive to push technology to its limits rather than recreate things which came about from pushing older technology to its limits.

One can have opinions about that, but we're not discussing what's productive or not and whether that is of any relevance.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.