Algorithmic composition - what does everyone think?

abreaktor · Posted: Tue Feb 17, 2009 6:43 am Post subject:

recently ive ran across some extremely interesting feedback patches in buzz. since those patterns seem to be self-evolving and generate very interesting and captivating sounds... would you say that feedbacks are a form of algorhithmic (or at least generative music), too? (protip: always have a brickwall limiter running on the master XD)

Inventor · Posted: Tue Feb 17, 2009 7:53 am Post subject:

seraph · Posted: Tue Feb 17, 2009 12:54 pm Post subject:

elektro80 · Posted: Tue Feb 17, 2009 1:04 pm Post subject:

event with no intent ? Shocked

Inventor · Posted: Tue Feb 17, 2009 2:41 pm Post subject:

OK, then how about a painting? The artist crafts an image designed to elicit an emotional response. But the finished object is just an object that sits there and does nothing.

I crafted the guitar in my music software to be a powerful, awe-inspiring guitar sound. I knew that if I adjusted some control parameters appropriately and added some effects, I could get that "rock god" type of sound from the software. It turned out nicely and sometimes, just once in a while the algorithm cranks out notes that really make that guitar give me the feeling of power, just like say a rock song might (especially after a few beers).

I spent hours crafting that sound, trying different effects, creating and destroying, just like a clay sculpture artist would. It's automated, but so is a movie or a game. Does a movie elicit an emotional response? Or a video game that makes your hair stand on end when the monster jumps out at you? I think so, but as you say, it's just my humble opinion.

seraph · Posted: Tue Feb 17, 2009 3:38 pm Post subject:

Inventor · Posted: Tue Feb 17, 2009 5:07 pm Post subject:

I see your point, it's a completely individual thing.

GaryRea · Posted: Sun Feb 22, 2009 7:43 pm Post subject:

I tried messing around with Sseyo's Koan Pro, back in the nineties and also took a shot at Audiomulch, but, I guess I'm too tied to structure and more interested in actually composing, as opposed to letting a machine make my music for me. Call me old fashioned, but my opinion is, if it isn't human-made it's probably not going to appeal to most human ears and brains.

Inventor · Posted: Mon Feb 23, 2009 11:15 am Post subject:

What about a synthesizer noodle? That's an automated piece of electronics that generates music. If you're going to rule out computer generated music then you have to rule out synthesizers also.

GaryRea · Posted: Mon Feb 23, 2009 11:41 am Post subject:

A synth is a musical instrument. It creates music only when a human operates its keyboard. Not the same thing as a generative music program, which, once initiated, simply makes music via an algorithm. The music is created without any human interaction, to speak of. One can't get a synth to compose music spontaneously without human input. Without a human being operating the keys, it's just an expensive paperweight with some electronics inside.

Gary

blue hell · Posted: Mon Feb 23, 2009 12:18 pm Post subject:

GaryRea · Posted: Mon Feb 23, 2009 1:08 pm Post subject:

Yep, and to be fair, even a generative music program won't do anything until someone initiates it. But, we're arguing the wrong thing, here. What I really meant to say was that, personally, I prefer to make music proactively, with my own hands, ears and mind, as opposed to just turning on some software and sitting there as a passive listener while it generates "music." Not my cup of tea. The more "high-tech" things get, the more I yearn for "high-touch."

Gary

blue hell · Posted: Mon Feb 23, 2009 1:35 pm Post subject:

seraph · Posted: Mon Feb 23, 2009 2:17 pm Post subject:

Jan
in your case composing and programming is the same thing Very Happy

blue hell · Posted: Mon Feb 23, 2009 3:03 pm Post subject:

As Inventor said ... or what I made from his words rather ... is that there is no difference between writing a generative music program or patching up a modular synthesizer, both are forms of programming, both can lead to interesting and to uninteresting results.

Inventor · Posted: Mon Feb 23, 2009 4:29 pm Post subject:

Yes, Jan, that is what I tried to say. Not all synthesizers have keyboards. On a modular synthesizer without a keyboard you patch it up, adjust the dials, and let it run. You may choose to interact with the dials or not.

It makes no difference to me whether this is a hardware synth or a software synth. We could create identical algorithms, more or less, either way.

I second Jan's comment that the process of creating a generative algorithm is like composing. You start out with something simple and crude, then try it out then add to it and refine it like you were working on a music piece.

And what of the composer who writes a symphony to be played by humans? He/she is essentially encoding his song onto some pieces of paper, and then other people do the performance. So he/she has distilled the composition effort down to something that could be stored in a few kilobytes of a text file. My programs are text files. They both make music.

Inventor · Posted: Mon Feb 23, 2009 4:48 pm Post subject:

I would also like to comment that we could view any instrument as partly machine and partly human. Each of these components can vary in the degree of interaction. If I make music with a stick, the machine is simple and it's all human. If I use a modular synth, the machine is complex and the human component can be anything from zero to a lot of interaction.

So it's a matter of degree, how much each system contributes to the music. We can model these with numbers varying from 0% to 100%, human and machine each having one number that describes their level of participation.

Now, where do you draw the line? Does the human need to have 100% interaction with the machine? Or is 50% sufficient to make the music "good". How about 0.01%, that' still human interaction.

So IMHO there is a fuzzy degree of participation of both human and machine in the performance itself, not to mention the human and machine participation in the composition of the music. I guess where you draw the line is up to you.

GaryRea · Posted: Mon Feb 23, 2009 6:56 pm Post subject:

dewdrop_world · Posted: Tue Feb 24, 2009 9:05 pm Post subject:

I think there's a whole continuum, or multidimensional field, where note for note composition, hands-on instrument improvisation, complete algorithmic generation of whole pieces or sections, computer assisted composition, and live/interactive computer music involving any or all of these modalities are possible. At least initially, he suggested a strict dichotomy between hands-on musicmaking versus switching the algorithm on with no human intervention. Well, of course that's no contest -- music by a person will win, every time.

I use some algorithmic composition techniques in my pieces, as a practical necessity for making live, interactive music on the computer. There's just no earthly way 10 fingers could produce all the notes and textures I'm after, not in real time. But I don't work exclusively algorithmically. While I let the computer work out some compositional details, I don't give up responsibility for the musical result -- it takes as much time to tune an algorithm to make something attractive as it would take to write notes on paper -- maybe even longer! (The difference there is, if I write it on paper, I have one arrangement of notes. The algorithm makes the piece a bit different every time. For the extra trouble, I get lots of pieces, not just one!)

I certainly don't expect everyone to want to work this way. Just pointing out that an algorithm can be a compositional resource, and it's up to the composer how to use it. In the piece I'm working on now (violin and computer), the violin part is going to be mostly through composed; some algorithms are used in the computer part because for much of the piece, pacing will be under control of the live player (as opposed to tape music where the player is chained to the recording -- here the player will drive the computer, not the other way around). The piece might end up being 15-20% algorithmic at most.

James

GaryRea · Posted: Tue Feb 24, 2009 9:53 pm Post subject:

Well, when you put it that way, yes, I can certainly see generative music composition's utility. I was addressing the initial subject/question as it was presented, which did seem, to me, as an either/or alternative to conventional composition, in which case, I'd be bored to death with it. But, yes, you could combine any number of compositional aids in the same piece and that would be interesting, I think.

I did some pieces, a few years ago, in which I used, not a generative program, but a VSTi that would produce random rhythmic patterns with an electric piano-like voice. I used it as a chordal backdrop, over which I did washes of string synth and choir sounds and it came out sounding very interesting and polyrhythmic. They're both on this page:

http://mixcraftlive.com/members/385/audio.php

One is titled "Childhood Dreams" and the other (on the next page) is "When We Were Young." I like the latter the best of the two.

Gary

Octahedra · Posted: Thu Feb 26, 2009 6:15 am Post subject:

GaryRea · Posted: Thu Feb 26, 2009 7:26 am Post subject:

Inventor · Posted: Thu Feb 26, 2009 12:01 pm Post subject:

Wow Gary, I really enjoyed your art. I have no formal art training so I don't know much about that sort of thing, but it kind of gave me a good feeling. Maybe it was the colors or dare I say it - the randomness?

Les

GaryRea · Posted: Thu Feb 26, 2009 2:51 pm Post subject:

Thanks, Les. Any response for whatever reason is a good one, in my book. It's when nothing happens at all that I get frustrated. Wink

Gary

abreaktor · Posted: Fri Feb 27, 2009 4:46 am Post subject:

nice art, man! ive bought something off a local artist for my former agency that was very much in the same streak of abstract yet soothing painting.