A Computational Perspective on Twenty-First Century Music

seraph

A Computational Perspective on Twenty-First Century Music

Huge Harry

Institute of Artificial Art Amsterdam

Abstract

Musical compositions that are designed and executed by human persons, do not constitute optimal input material for deeply satisfying processes of aesthetic reflection. Machine music is artistically superior. Until recently, this insight did not have many practical consequences, because mechanical devices tend to generate output with a limited range of variation. The paper argues that the digital computer has put an end to this state of affairs. The preconditions for a Copernican revolution in music are fulfilled now. Human composers can become scientists who gradually develop an all-encompassing mathematical description of the space of perceptual possibilities offered by the musical medium. Computer programs will then be able to generate fresh and interesting music forever, by drawing random samples from this space.

http://iaaa.nl/hh/brettonh.html

elektro80 · Posted: Sun Apr 04, 2004 7:46 am Post subject:

"Huge Harry"? Hmm.. The John Holmes of computer music?

paul e. · Posted: Sun Apr 04, 2004 9:46 am Post subject:

mosc · Posted: Sun Apr 04, 2004 9:57 am Post subject:

That is the ultimate fate of electro-music.com. Computer programs will write the music, post the audio files, and then write clever articles complete with simulated personal anecdotes and humor. Simulated composers musicians, like Elektromosc will converse will Cyraph.

elektro80 · Posted: Sun Apr 04, 2004 10:14 am Post subject:

Hmm.. perhaps we are all just simulations..? Who can tell?

Cyxeris · Joined: Oct 30, 2003 Posts: 1125 Location: Louisville, KY

I wish I were only a simulation. Wink

astroid power-up! · Joined: Mar 23, 2004 Posts: 334 G2 patch files: 15

bachus · Posted: Sun May 16, 2004 7:18 pm Post subject:

A paragraph from the paper:

"Let's face it. Music is not a means of communication. It is meaningless material, used for open-ended processes of aesthetic reflection by a multitude of culturally diverse audiences whose interpretations are totally arbitrary. There are no serious reasons for making one particular composition rather than another. "

What can one say? I find the paragraph above (typical of its cohort) to be a collection of assertions void of supporting argument or data and without logic in its development--that is to say IMHO it sounds profound while remaining conceptually vacuous.

But, mea culpa, a man believes what he needs to believe and disregards the rest. And I can't help but believe that flat, categorical and/or absolutist assertions about any art are necessarily foolish and asinine*.

*My apologies to the asses which are in fact intelligent and generally reasonable creatures whose primary failing is that they find it unreasonable to be expected to obligingly submit to every human whim.

astroid power-up! · Joined: Mar 23, 2004 Posts: 334 G2 patch files: 15

haha.

now i realize why it sounds like a robot talking.

my favorite part:

"Human persons should not antagonize machines. They should not try and compete with us. They should join us. We need human persons. We need human persons to operate and maintain us, to program our algorithms, and to build our interface hardware. To realize our full potential, we need human persons to interact with us in very intense and intimate ways, to beget new generations of ever more powerful machines... "

and now i know who dennis klatt is :P

bachus · Posted: Sun May 16, 2004 8:11 pm Post subject:

I'm sorry, I tried, but I can't stand it Ican't stand it I can't stand it!

Here is another quote from the paper:

"Is it possible to listen in a disinterested way to music which is composed and performed by humans? Human composers and musicians are not disinterested. They want money, fame, sex. [5] They cannot hide this, and often they do not even try to. If we do not turn off our microphones when we listen to their pieces, we hear greed, jealousy, lust. Behind the apparent complexity and indefiniteness of their compositions, there are all too clear-cut meanings. "

I am stirred deeply by these words and emotionally I have to express this stirring as "That's a lot of nihilistic horse crap."

But more importantly, the logical error here is that it's argument examines and treats a part of a fundamental phenomena as if that part were the whole. And in doing so undercuts with darkness what little light of hope and love are to be found in this world. (Hence my charge of nihilism.) In particular, if the author knows no composer whose moral fiber is deeper than that described then at best they are hanging with the wrong crowd and listening to the wrong kinds of music.

Again, please pardon any incivility--missed my meds today Smile