Composers' Forum

Music Composers Unite!

The question has come up many times here as to what is music.

Isn't that questioned answered by what you compose?

Isn't what you write a reflection of what you believe music is

and/or should be. Or are you merely imitating the efforts and

precedents established by others. This is not to suggest that

imitation and following an established form is a bad thing.

Compared to the number of composers, revolutionary innovators

are few and far between from an historical perspective.

Regardless, there are certain elements of sound and sounds that

seem to separate music from 'noise', and acceptance can be

both individual and regional.

Is there any one common characteristic, across the globe, that

qualifies and separates music from noise?

Views: 8236

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Wait a minute Fred, that would include setting the table for a State dinner.

I think we need to qualify the subset a bit.

and, can chaos be considered as organized when it is written down on

paper and repeated by others? Or is this just a gimmick devised by clever

composers who can't come up with viable harmonies and melodies?  
 
Fredrick zinos said:

music is the organized absence of silence.

Yes to all three

Good detective work G-man, Be it coincidence or calculated con by Cope,

the idea he was/is pursuing has some interesting possibilities.

I don't see what he had to gain by a deception though.

You have to admit that cloning the DNA (Distinct Notational Arrangements)

of fossils like Bach and Mozart, does have some intrigue.


 
gregorio X said:

Roger you say;

"For most of us, nothing compares to genuine expression"… I would guess so.

correction:'

I mentioned "The excerpt played seems to be taken from the keyboard concerto (d minor) and the double violin concerto in A minor - Bach."

   No. Not the double violin concerto, but the flute trio from a musical offering.  

The sequence is lifted verbatim.. Happens only seconds into it for those who want to check:


The cadence is taken from the key. concerto d minor.

This is more like a cheap trick...

I think that the software mentioned in the video I posted could be a useful tool for a composer who needs to produce an original version of a known quantity in a big hurry, and it could adapt that piece to specific requirements eg,. length, key, orchestration etc., kind of how Photoshop allows graphic designers to crank out Van Gogh styled "paintings" of photographs in a hurry.

I'm sure that you could also apply this concept creatively; either by mixing styles or sampling your own unique style and then either mixing it with a known style, or modifying the input parameters to find something new.

The next step of course will be when the AI guys get a creativity algorithm going and the computer writes works on its own. Combine that with a feedback loop that measures human response and you will have personalized musical ecstasy beyond anything we currently know. This is why many people consider AI to be a threat.
 
gregorio X said:

Roger, you mention 

"Ingo's short video blows that concept out of the water."

well.. it blew something...

sure i love HAL ...  it is good for imitating..

Mr. Cope said that the 'style' of a composition  IS what 2 pieces of a composer have in common.. (humph, there it is. puzzle solved)

Well, he shows how it runs - not like a 'shovel' but  like a 'car' (he says).. 

The excerpt played seems to be taken from the keyboard concerto (d minor) and the double violin concerto in A minor - Bach.   The sequenced used is quite common...

Funny thing is he says, paraphrasing - "I got to a point where i could tell the difference between c and c#"... "

Stuck.  We all get stuck.. One must push thru - or - write a program to make the decisions for you :)

For those who seek imitation, i suppose it would be time to put down their pencil..  just sit back and enjoy the ride... (?)

here's a quote from a friend of picasso

"One must not imitate what one wants to create"  G. Braque

"

Hi Ingo.. it is provocative…at least.

you mention:

"could be a useful tool for a composer who needs to produce an original version of a known quantity in a big hurry,.."

Yes, i can see how it would be expedient.. 

"either by mixing styles or sampling your own unique style and then either mixing it with a known style, or modifying the input parameters to find something new."… Of course, we can do this deliberately.. with just the right amount of mixture..  and be exactly precise with our intention.

" algorithm going and the computer writes works on its own. Combine that with a feedback loop that measures human response and you will have personalized musical ecstasy.."

Bartok used the fibonacci/golden mean in his late quartets (among other places),  And one feels passionate deliberateness with each phrase…  

"Combine that with a feedback loop that measures human response"

It seems,as composers, what is important is Our Own (individual ) human response (not a generalized spectrum) … otherwise, … it  (the expression)  isn't 'honest', imo.  

"This is why many people consider AI to be a threat."

What people?  Those who write commercial music?    This is already done.  Certainly it is not a threat to those who love writing.  Would you prefer a computer program to speak your words for you?  

Just playing around.. Thanks Ingo

ps…The art of music is an art, and needs some of that human blood to convey - meaning   

Dave, I haven't defined music, I only know what I prefer to listen to.

And that often depends on what kind of a mood I'm in.

Challenging someone elses perspective does not mean that I think my

perspective is better. Mr. Zinos is very insightful and ... he is often very flippant.

You also have some valuable insights., and yet you prefer, it seems, to be a sniper.

Did management hire you to be cybercop for the forum?

I am interested in a base and basic clarification of where music is headed.

It is meant to be a casual discussion.... not do or die.

If you have it all figured out and want to keep it your secret, that's fine.

Go hang out at the pub and revel in your superiority.

Then again it could be a fun and productive discussion.


 
Dave Dexter said:

Why not just say "This is how I define music; how you do define it? Not that I'm interested because this is how I define music." The effect would be much the same.

roger stancill said:

Wait a minute Fred, that would include setting the table for a State dinner.

I think we need to qualify the subset a bit.

and, can chaos be considered as organized when it is written down on

paper and repeated by others? Or is this just a gimmick devised by clever

composers who can't come up with viable harmonies and melodies?   

Ingo, I suspect that this may turn out to be a more solid branch in the evolution of music.

It parallels the developements in other 'arenas'. Not that I think this is the best thing to

happen to creative music, but the reality of it seems to befit the times.

Computers are amazing tools, and they are here to stay. The internet is an amazing

outlet and dramatically changes the dynamics of reach and cultures.

Imagine composing a piece and prompting the computer to 'translate' it to the style of

another composer. Variations on a theme at the click of a mouse. The only other thing

you would need in your studio, is a 'lazyboy chair'  lol
 
Ingo Lee said:

I think that the software mentioned in the video I posted could be a useful tool for a composer who needs to produce an original version of a known quantity in a big hurry, and it could adapt that piece to specific requirements eg,. length, key, orchestration etc., kind of how Photoshop allows graphic designers to crank out Van Gogh styled "paintings" of photographs in a hurry.

I'm sure that you could also apply this concept creatively; either by mixing styles or sampling your own unique style and then either mixing it with a known style, or modifying the input parameters to find something new.

The next step of course will be when the AI guys get a creativity algorithm going and the computer writes works on its own. Combine that with a feedback loop that measures human response and you will have personalized musical ecstasy beyond anything we currently know. This is why many people consider AI to be a threat.
 
gregorio X said:

Roger, you mention 

"Ingo's short video blows that concept out of the water."

well.. it blew something...

sure i love HAL ...  it is good for imitating..

Mr. Cope said that the 'style' of a composition  IS what 2 pieces of a composer have in common.. (humph, there it is. puzzle solved)

Well, he shows how it runs - not like a 'shovel' but  like a 'car' (he says).. 

The excerpt played seems to be taken from the keyboard concerto (d minor) and the double violin concerto in A minor - Bach.   The sequenced used is quite common...

Funny thing is he says, paraphrasing - "I got to a point where i could tell the difference between c and c#"... "

Stuck.  We all get stuck.. One must push thru - or - write a program to make the decisions for you :)

For those who seek imitation, i suppose it would be time to put down their pencil..  just sit back and enjoy the ride... (?)

here's a quote from a friend of picasso

"One must not imitate what one wants to create"  G. Braque

"

Or: 

Music may or may not be created, when the composer ceases to refrain from not denying his desire to generate a lack of disorganized non-sounds or non-noises in a quasi-auditory, semi-aural or meta-sonic context.

Or:   As Debussy allegedly said, "Music is the silence between the notes."

Fredrick zinos said:

music is the organized absence of silence.

Dave, what is your purpose and intent in voicing dissent? A simple question.

ps- do you have any insight into what the F- this Serenity entity just said?

(intellect is the 'crock-pot' of confusion)  and yes, feel free to quote me on that.     RS

Very good points Gregorio and I agree, but let's discuss. 

Yes, expediency is the motivating factor here, imitative composing can certainly be done manually and I think with greater precision and probably with greater artistic satisfaction, but as a composer in a commercial market you would have to compete with this technology at some point, and speed is a huge factor.  

The "personalized ecstasy" that I so casually threw out would be individual and real time,  compositions that instantly respond to mood changes and interests, kind of sci-fi at this point. Dishonest? Yes, and crazy too, but also commercially irresistible, a definite future possibility for the direction of music. 

I don't know how much AI is used in commercial music at this point, maybe you could explain that to us.   I meant in general, the threat that AI poses to society.  Steven Hawking has said: "I think the development of full artificial intelligence could spell the end of the human race."   

"Would you prefer a computer program to speak your words for you?"  Well that is one threat of AI I think.  As an artist you always have the choice of how to pursue your art, what tools to use and what ideals to follow.  My musical production and communication in general would be very handicapped without the computer, but I'll bet some composers avoid its use entirely, so the question is, "Where do we draw the line?"
 
gregorio X said:

Hi Ingo.. it is provocative…at least.

you mention:

"could be a useful tool for a composer who needs to produce an original version of a known quantity in a big hurry,.."

Yes, i can see how it would be expedient.. 

"either by mixing styles or sampling your own unique style and then either mixing it with a known style, or modifying the input parameters to find something new."… Of course, we can do this deliberately.. with just the right amount of mixture..  and be exactly precise with our intention.

" algorithm going and the computer writes works on its own. Combine that with a feedback loop that measures human response and you will have personalized musical ecstasy.."

Bartok used the fibonacci/golden mean in his late quartets (among other places),  And one feels passionate deliberateness with each phrase…  

"Combine that with a feedback loop that measures human response"

It seems,as composers, what is important is Our Own (individual ) human response (not a generalized spectrum) … otherwise, … it  (the expression)  isn't 'honest', imo.  

"This is why many people consider AI to be a threat."

What people?  Those who write commercial music?    This is already done.  Certainly it is not a threat to those who love writing.  Would you prefer a computer program to speak your words for you?  

Just playing around.. Thanks Ingo

ps…The art of music is an art, and needs some of that human blood to convey - meaning   

"Roger. yes and no. You will have to decide which answer applies to which question."

I am not sure he "has to" decide.  He can refuse to decide, and then refuse to stick with his refusal.

Or, he could just flip a coin. 

Fredrick zinos said:

Roger. yes and no. You will have to decide which answer applies to which question.

roger stancill said:

Wait a minute Fred, that would include setting the table for a State dinner.

I think we need to qualify the subset a bit.

and, can chaos be considered as organized when it is written down on

paper and repeated by others? Or is this just a gimmick devised by clever

composers who can't come up with viable harmonies and melodies?  
 
Fredrick zinos said:

music is the organized absence of silence.

Mike, so do frequencies become 'music' when we take control of

the physics and package it to our liking, and give it form?


Seems reasonable to me.

Reply to Discussion

RSS

Sign up info

Read before you sign up to find out what the requirements are!

Store

© 2019   Created by Gav Brown.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service