EMUSIC-L Digest Volume 61, Issue 06 This issue's topics: Chance, science, research (7 messages) Pseudo-science or pseudo-opinion? (6 messages) Your EMUSIC-L Digest moderator is Joe McMahon . You may subscribe to EMUSIC-L by sending mail to listserv@american.edu with the line "SUB EMUSIC-L your name" as the text. The EMUSIC-L archive is a service of SunSite (sunsite.unc.edu) at the University of North Carolina. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Date: Thu, 3 Feb 1994 13:35:16 EST From: Dan Schaaf Subject: Chance, science, research Gregory Taylor's talking about science and it's authority and music research, etc., prompted these thoughts: Artist who use fractals, chance, chaos (or whatever the latest Scientific American fad is) are cloaking their own vacuity with pseudo-science. (It probably began in earnest in music with tone-rows, etc.) Face it. The great achievements of the 20th century haven't been artistic, but in the hard sciences. Artists just want some of the glow to rub off. Some of the greatest tragedies have been pseudo-sciences (Marxism, scientific cleansing of certain races.) So I say, let the pseudo-science continue and prosper in all fields of (meaningless) endeavor. (We all need to make a living somehow.) Dan Schaaf PS: RE: Cage. Was there really Muzak back in 1948? That would explain a lot. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 3 Feb 1994 14:41:20 -0500 From: Mark G Simon Subject: Re: Chance, science, research > > > PS: RE: Cage. Was there really Muzak back in 1948? That would explain a lot. The Muzak Corp. went into business in 1934. Read the article in the New Grove Dictionary of American Music on "Environmental music", it's interesting. It mentions an attempt in 1906 to send "music for insomniacs" over telegraph wires, talks about Muzak and then mentions Brian Eno's "Music for Airports". Cage's 4'33" is also singled out as an example of environmental music. I read elsewhere that the Muzak company employs a field of experts (Muzakologists?) who listen to all the new arrangements. They make a note of anything that sticks out in their mind while listening. All of those passages are then edited out of the finished product. The nature of muzak itself has changed over the past 25 years. When I was a kid I'd go into a doctor's office and all the muzak would be these oozingly smooth string arrangements supplemented with vibrato-laden trombone sections. Today's muzak employs long-forgotten pop tunes from the sixties with a subdued rock beat in the background. Many times I've found myself in the store going "Hmm... I can almost hear the lyrics here. Let's see... 'maybe it's the clothes she wear, or the way she combs her hair...' that was Gary Lewis and the Playboys wasn't it? Oh, God, and I thought I had successfully trashed that from my memory, argh!" There's a "History of Western Muzak" just waiting to be written. Mark Simon mgs2@cornell.edu ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 7 Feb 1994 09:00:13 EST From: Dan Schaaf Subject: Chance, science, research Dr. Kirk Pseudo-science? Pseudo-opinion? Pseudo-crap? Yeah. I'm just a lowly consumer looking for the biggest bang for the buck, and, in fact, it is less than an opinion. It just a feeling of boredom with the crap load of hype that surrounds the stuff. Have fun! Dan ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 9 Feb 1994 06:18:13 GMT From: "Roy M. Randall" Subject: Re: Chance, science, research Mark G Simon (mgs2@CRUX3.CIT.CORNELL.EDU) wrote: : Today's muzak employs long-forgotten pop tunes from : the sixties with a subdued rock beat in the background. Many times I've I don't know about anybody else, but I remember them. I remember all of them. Most people tell me that they never even notice the muzak, but I am cursed. I hear every note! My attention is drawn to environmental music. What I can't hear is conversation. It seems wherever I go there is some background music, some idiot whistling tunlessly to himself, and someone trying to talk to me, all at once. It drives me nuts that there are three things vying for my attention and I want to scream, "Please! One at a time!" -- Roy M. Randall, FG | Inconsequential Systems, Inc. | MORONS! I've got MORONS on my team! zeroy@netcom.com | ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 9 Feb 1994 13:20:11 GMT From: "Mr. J. Boyes" Subject: Re: Chance, science, research Roy M. Randall (zeroy@netcom.com) wrote: : I don't know about anybody else, but I remember them. I remember all of : them. Most people tell me that they never even notice the muzak, but I : am cursed. I hear every note! My attention is drawn to environmental : music. What I can't hear is conversation. It seems wherever I go there : is some background music, some idiot whistling tunlessly to himself, and : someone trying to talk to me, all at once. It drives me nuts that there : are three things vying for my attention and I want to scream, "Please! : One at a time!" : -- : Roy M. Randall, FG | : Inconsequential Systems, Inc. | MORONS! I've got MORONS on my team! : zeroy@netcom.com | Roy, thats just how I feel too. Do you also find that in restaurants, you feel obliged to EAT in time with the musak? -- John Boyes (em09@liverpool.ac.uk) Department of Mechanical Engineering Liverpool University 051-794-4861 ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 9 Feb 1994 09:18:32 -0500 From: Mark G Simon Subject: Re: Chance, science, research > them. Most people tell me that they never even notice the muzak, but I > am cursed. I hear every note! My attention is drawn to environmental > music. What I can't hear is conversation. It seems wherever I go there > is some background music, some idiot whistling tunlessly to himself, and > someone trying to talk to me, all at once. It drives me nuts that there > are three things vying for my attention and I want to scream, "Please! > One at a time!" I know exactly what you mean. I'm just the same way. That's why I'm the sworn enemy of Muzak, radios turned on casually in the background, mood music of every description. There are stores where each department has its own music blaring forth all jumbling together in one noisy mass. I try to think of it as a Charles Ives-like experience and that proves momentarily diverting, but eventually I forget what it was I came into the store for. I get fidgity and soon I am compelled to flee. My dentist plays classical music in his office, which on the one hand is great, I'd rather listen to classical music than watered down pop tunes, but here's the dentist telling me what he wants to do to my teeth and I can't follow what he's saying, and the only response I can think of is "gee listen to how he inverts the fugue subject at this point" which I manage to suppress before it escapes my mouth. And then, having my teeth drilled to tortured strains of Mahler's "hammerblows of fate" in his 6th symphony is a surreal experience never to be forgotten. No, the only background music I will accept is John Cage's 4'33", only I want the extended-play version. I think it should be a mandatory selection in every juke box. Mark Simon mgs2@cornell.edu ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 9 Feb 1994 11:17:32 -0500 From: Biff Padiduwitz Subject: Re: Chance, science, research The effect Muzak has on you is not by chance. The MUZAK central office will be glad to send you a bibliography of studies that have examined their effects on all kinds of (commercially applicable) behavior. I have a copy around here somewhere, but I feel compelled to get back to work by the orchestral version of "Rocky Mountain High" that is floating through my office door. BIll Scott ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 4 Feb 1994 10:50:20 -0600 From: "Dr. Kirk Corey" Subject: Pseudo-science or pseudo-opinion? On Fri, 4 Feb 1994, Dan Schaaf wrote: > Gregory Taylor's talking about science and it's authority and music research, > etc., prompted these thoughts: > > Artist who use fractals, chance, chaos (or whatever the latest Scientific > American fad is) are cloaking their own vacuity with pseudo-science. (It > probably began in earnest in music with tone-rows, etc.) > > Face it. The great achievements of the 20th century haven't been artistic, but > in the hard sciences. Artists just want some of the glow to rub off. Some of > the greatest tragedies have been pseudo-sciences (Marxism, scientific cleansing > of certain races.) > > So I say, let the pseudo-science continue and prosper in all fields of > (meaningless) endeavor. (We all need to make a living somehow.) > > Dan Schaaf Ordinarily I don't engage in flamewars, but this is just too much. Not only do you fail to back up your opinions with fact ("The great achievements..." Says who? Which apples and oranges are you comparing here? The atomic bomb is superior to the music of Mahler?), but you overlook some rather obvious paradoxes in your arguments. Those Nazi folks who embraced the pseudo-science of racial purity also rejected the proponents of 12-tone music. I'm not sure that I recall Schoenberg every claiming that what he did was scientific. "Artists just want some of the glow to rub off"? Maybe you've never heard scientists talk about the "beauty" of what they do. Looks like maybe this street runs both ways. Hmmmm. If you don't like music based on fractals and chaos, that's fine. But blowing up straw men is not only uninteresting, but a waste of bandwidth. If you have a _real_ case, state it. Perhaps if one of the pioneers of algorithmic composition, Lejaren Hiller, had not passed away last week, I wouldn't be so touchy about this. In the meantime, before accusing others of vacuity, think about fleshing-out your own opinions, okay? -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Dr. Kirk Corey [insert Electronic Systems Administrator kirk-corey@uiowa.edu disclaimer School of Music here] The University of Iowa "Msdos? MSDOS? I've seen CALCULATORS with a better operating system!" ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 4 Feb 1994 14:49:31 -0500 From: Mark G Simon Subject: Re: Pseudo-science or pseudo-opinion? > > > > Face it. The great achievements of the 20th century haven't been artistic, > but > > in the hard sciences. Artists just want some of the glow to rub off. Some of > > the greatest tragedies have been pseudo-sciences (Marxism, scientific > cleansing > > of certain races.) > > > > Dan Schaaf > > Ordinarily I don't engage in flamewars, but this is just too much. Not > only do you fail to back up your opinions with fact ("The great > achievements..." Says who? Which apples and oranges are you comparing > here? The atomic bomb is superior to the music of Mahler?), but you I think that what Dan was trying to say is that when historians look back at the 20th century they'll remember its scientific achievements before anything that happened in music. This may or may not be true, but I think trying to back up a statement like that would require more words than I'd care to read. > overlook some rather obvious paradoxes in your arguments. Those Nazi > folks who embraced the pseudo-science of racial purity also rejected the > proponents of 12-tone music. I'm not sure that I recall Schoenberg every > claiming that what he did was scientific. I think Dan was refering to the Milton Babbitt school of thought. There's certainly no lack of pseudo-science in the world of pitch-class set theory. > > If you don't like music based on fractals and chaos, that's fine. But This reminds me of a discussion we had several months ago about music based on radiation from space. So how does fractal music compare with space-radiation music? Mark Simon mgs2@cornell.edu ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 4 Feb 1994 18:01:22 -0500 From: "Joseph D. McMahon" Subject: Re: Pseudo-science or pseudo-opinion? Mark G Simon writes: > > This reminds me of a discussion we had several months ago about music > based on radiation from space. So how does fractal music compare with > space-radiation music? > Well, let me come at this from another angle. I've been using an IFS fractal-generating program to produce starting pictures which I process further to produce potential artwork. Now, If I simply took each one, sent it through the production line (so to speak) and looked at the results at the other end, I would have something which might or might not be considered "art". However, what I am doing is winnowing out potential keepers first and then trying the process I'm using on them. My keep-to-discard ratio is running about 3 or 4 out of 50. That's what I personally see "fractal" art of any kind as being: a starting point from which one moves onward to produce something which is uniquely one's own. Otherwise, it becomes very easy to see the "edges", so to speak, of the parameter space; what happens after that becomes boring because it is patterned and predictable (within limits). I've sadly never gotten to hear the "Illiac Suite", the first computer- generated string quartet; I would like to, sometime, simply to say that I had done so. --- Joe M. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 5 Feb 1994 13:37:55 GMT From: Stephen David Beck Subject: Re: Pseudo-science or pseudo-opinion? Joseph D. McMahon (xrjdm@CALVIN.GSFC.NASA.GOV) wrote: : I've sadly never gotten to hear the "Illiac Suite", the first computer- : generated string quartet; I would like to, sometime, simply to say that : I had done so. Fear not, Joe. The "Illiac Suite" is available on a CD of computer music by Lejaren Hiller. It was released by Wergo and is generally available in most stores. I think you would find the works interesting because he (Hiller) also windowed what he kept from what he threw out. He kept algorithm runs which he liked and then pieced them together to create the larger work. He even wrote that these should be listened with that in mind. Stephen David Beck Louisiana State University ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 5 Feb 1994 12:28:52 -0800 From: David Chandler Subject: Re: Pseudo-science or pseudo-opinion? On Fri, 4 Feb 1994, Joseph D. McMahon wrote: > Mark G Simon writes: > > > > This reminds me of a discussion we had several months ago about music > > based on radiation from space. So how does fractal music compare with > > space-radiation music? > > > Well, let me come at this from another angle. I've been using an IFS > fractal-generating program to produce starting pictures which I process > further to produce potential artwork. Now, If I simply took each one, > sent it through the production line (so to speak) and looked at the > results at the other end, I would have something which might or might > not be considered "art". A point from which the BFA(painting) part of me bursts out: Robert Rauschenberg once said that there is so much information and so many sources for imagery, both because of changes in society as well as a loosening of western traditional acceptable "subject matter", that it is completely valid (and no less *creative*) for an artist to express himself solely through EDITING. Photography was not considered an "art" for a long time (is it accepted now?), yet it contains endless parameters for editing. I think that choosing a good fractal is an artistic decision, but choosing well is as hard as drawing well, it's just it is less obvious because it involves fewer *recorded* decisions (i.e. every point of a drawn line is a decision of direction and speed and emphasis vs. criteria for good vs bad fractal is maybe only available through a *series* of chosen fractal images and not *in* the image itself (but in patterned characteristics of the series) Maybe some people feel insecure about considering their *editing*--their TASTE as valid as there rote memorization skills, eye-hand coordination, technical proficiencies, thus reject more purely mental creative processes. Ironically, I paint in oils, not because I want to show my refined drawing skills (they're there), but because I have to limit my materials, because two years ago I had so much collage material (interesting/inspiring imagery/objects) that I ran out of space. Plus I explore the line between the physical presence of *paint*on*surface*object with *illusion*of*other*reality. In many galleries, I see people hiding their uncritical "eye" behind a lot of technical ability. The majority is very uninspired, as in any media--any art! I could paint portraits til the cows come home and probably get plenty of compliments, but *I* wouldn't have helped *myself* one bit...! > > However, what I am doing is winnowing out potential keepers first and then > trying the process I'm using on them. My keep-to-discard ratio is running > about 3 or 4 out of 50. That's what I personally see "fractal" art of > anykind as being: a starting point from which one moves onward to produce > something which is uniquely one's own. Otherwise, it becomes very easy to > see the "edges", so to speak, of the parameter space; what happens after > that becomes boring because it is patterned and predictable (within limits). > > I've sadly never gotten to hear the "Illiac Suite", the first computer- > generated string quartet; I would like to, sometime, simply to say that > I had done so. > > --- Joe M. here ye' - sorry to go off the subject... then again, it's not really off the subject... (001)System message: Tirade port disabled. David Chandler - chandler@nethost.multnomah.lib.or.us (503)241-2949 ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 7 Feb 1994 16:37:16 GMT From: "Bill Purvis, ext 3357" Subject: Re: Pseudo-science or pseudo-opinion? Joe wrote: : I've sadly never gotten to hear the "Illiac Suite", the first computer- : generated string quartet; I would like to, sometime, simply to say that : I had done so. I started to wonder about this - when was it written? I remember hearing a computer composed string quartet, played live, at IFIP Congress, 1968 in Edinburgh. It was not a spectacular piece, but it was interesting. I still have the score for it, unfortunately in paper only form - maybe one day I'll get around to playing it in on my keayboard and hearing it again! Bill Purvis ------------------------------ End of the EMUSIC-L Digest ******************************