This is hilarious. You downgrades watch too many movies. Music is a God given gift for enjoyment. It will never and i repeat never move someone (when it is created by a robot) the same way it moves someone when it is created by a human. Why are you wasting your time? Common sense goes a long way. You all have it, use it

___________________
If you were straight, would you still be gay?

quote:

I'm talking about a computer process that writes music dependent on a set of variables using a certain set of prerecorded material

As am I. that's idea of 'parametric' composition.

quote:

This is hilarious. You downgrades watch too many movies. Music is a God given gift for enjoyment. It will never and i repeat never move someone (when it is created by a robot) the same way it moves someone when it is created by a human. Why are you wasting your time? Common sense goes a long way. You all have it, use it

'You' downgrades should think more.

This isn't a discussion on whether or not machines make music, nor is it about gods...

Guess what - and here's some common sense for you. Humans make machines, and machines make music. So therefore humans always make music....no one is refuting that.

What's an issue here is whether the process is transparent or opaque, whether the ends reveal the means or not.

@SMC - Ok, sure there have always been the sort of autonomy experiments in minimalism. Steve Reich's Phase pieces for instance are exactly that. For the sake of those unfamiliar with Reich, he wrote some pieces for violin and piano which consisted of two live players playing the same repeated phrase/rhythm at two slightly different tempos. The resulting piece was one in which the moving musical element was not what was written or even played, but what was a result of the process of playing, it was the phasing of the instruments combined with their tones.

and of course you have 4'33"...

But this is still only a few experiments in history, what I am interested in is a technology (read: software) that inspires every day people, ie contemporary larry heards and derrick mays, to generate electronic music with parametric methods, as opposed to layering together sounds to create an effect.

Now, given there will always be people who try to 'simulate' and 'replicate' and 'represent' feelings, styles, etc even with this technology. However, I think these are obsolete musical goals, relevant 200-400 years ago. I am just asking the question - isn't it time for an utter revolution in the way we think about music? not in the sound, not in whether it's urban or pop or sparkly or grey, but maybe music of our time ought to be more biologic, that is have a sort of life code of its own or relevent to the information age, algorithmic (that doesn't necessarily mean repetitive...)

i mean this is an age where biology and industry have combined to create "biotech", which is as much an art as a science -

outside technology always affects art

important technologies will be:

fluid dynamics
biomechanics
nanotech
knot theory
parametric design

http://www.mh-portfolio.com/Algorit...cture/spi0.html


Related to this, I have also started to look into a new paradigm for storing audio information through mathematical vector data as opposed to the archaic tables of periodic amplitudes which we use now...


@Ishkur - No, most of my exposure to these ideas come by way of architectural publications, but thank you for dropping me the name, I will have to do some reading for sure.

Last edited by nefardec on Apr-01-2007 at 07:58

lol. this is hilarious.
"a new type of music, which is parametric and biological and made by machines" OMG!
seriously wtf are you on about? machines making music according to some parameters made by some human? what's the point in that? would anyone be willing to listen to the crap the machines would spew out? i seriously doubt it.
and wtf does this have to do with biology? do you know what biology is?
and biotechnology is not art, it's science, just science.
oh and lol at the communist/capitalist thing too. communists will try to use this new biological parametric music to make bad things as communists are bad bad people. and capitalists will try to fuck everyone else over and use it to make money. OMG! it's gonna be like in the sixties. we'll have a new balance of fear. you yanks should watch out, the soviet union might attack with "biological parametric music weapons"!

___________________

Get Dropbox, with 250 MB extra space!

quote:

Originally posted by SYSTEM-J Can you really though? I think that's a gross assumption.

Technically yes, but it'd sound like shit.

___________________
Latest releases:
Endless Cycles [Capital Heaven]
The Charlatan [Morphosis]

skip, good job, that was pretty funny



remember this isn't about "sounding good". That's mere fashion.

Do you think people, even the people on the cutting edge of music in the 16th century would have thought acid house sounded good?

Gothic architecture was once high-tech for an example the other way around... time and fashion are so relative.

quote:

Originally posted by nefardec skip, good job, that was pretty funny remember this isn't about "sounding good". That's mere fashion. Do you think people, even the people on the cutting edge of music in the 16th century would have thought acid house sounded good? Gothic architecture was once high-tech for an example the other way around... time and fashion are so relative.

i seriously think what you're posting here is a bunch of senseless bullshit, just a bunch of fancy words thrown together. i don't think it makes any sense at all. do you really think machines themselves (with the aid of some programmers parameters) would be able to create music that would interest people (other than the short while before the novelty has worn off)? and i still don't see what this has to do with biology or how biotechnology is art.

___________________

Get Dropbox, with 250 MB extra space!

quote:

Originally posted by nefardec @Ishkur - No, most of my exposure to these ideas come by way of architectural publications, but thank you for dropping me the name, I will have to do some reading for sure.

He talks about the same thing, only with ALL media, not just music.

quote:

Originally posted by nefardec contemporary larry heards and derrick mays

They we're pioneers of styles right, a new sound? And sounds are just a matter of fashion and/or aesthetics you said, so why were they so revolutionary according to you?





And in direct response to your initial statement. Music as we know it is demanded, supplied and enjoyed by the vast majority of all music listeners on our planet, or maybe even by all listeners, because if one really dislikes music to such an extent to state that it is obsolete one would have no real interest in listening to it. So your statement is simply false, whether something is obsolete or not is not a matter of opinion. And music as we know it is evidently not obsolete. End of discussion.

Last edited by SMC on Apr-01-2007 at 16:03

"music is obsolete" was intentionally loaded so people would click the topic. it's like putting "hot 19 year old nudes" or "peace not apartheid" in the subject, nothing more.

skip, what can i say - you're entitled to your opinion. if you don't want to contribute anything besides calling my ideas bullshit, i suggest you go waste your time in another place.

smc, while you might call them pioneers of styles, they were also among the pioneers of methods, which is the center of my interest. The styles were due to the methods, style was slave to method, it was infused with method.

I think you misunderstood the use of their names - I brought them up because they were pretty much everyday kids subverting new technology. I was just suggesting that more people to day ought to subvert technology rather than be slave to it. Programs like Pure Data can work to this end...


Guys, if you think what I am writing is bullshit, fine, go ahead and take a shit on the thread once, but stop being trolls and continuing to do it. What's your motivation for telling me my ideas are bullshit anyways, does it make you feel big or something?

Seriously - i am genuinely interested in these topics and others might be as well.

I couldn't be arsed to read absolutely everything you said, but as for machines creating music on their own without much input from humans (the machines being the ones responsible for the global sequencing), i don't think it's a completely nuts idea - it might very well be possible in the future. I have some difficulties however in imaging it taking over the more traditional way of making music, but i suppose if most pop music nowadays relies on electronic sounds (something unthinkable a couple years back), it's not completely unlikely.

___________________
sempre contra a corrente do jogo

Actually I think this concept is quite near from the "musique concrète" idea: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Musique_concr%C3%A8te

This is not a new aim for musicians and/or scientists, an example has just came accross my mind: Jacques de Vaucanson.

Music by machines would be only illusion, just like when we look at dolphins and think they are laughing.