EMUSIC-L Digest Volume 63, Issue 01 This issue's topics: Sonification and approaches to composition A Means To An End (3 messages) Art and Machines (9 messages) Art and Machines (Was Visual.....) (7 messages) Art WITH machines vs. art BY machines (5 messages) Bach and E.T.(was:Hyper analysis (re: Visual vs aural) (2 messages) Hyper analysis (re: Visual vs aural) (14 messages) J.S. MAC (b. 1984 - ) Left Brain Art and Universal Art vs. Right Brain Art (6 messages) Machine Art (5 messages) Music and the Like (Created by interference from Culbreath) (3 messages) Music and the like... (10 messages) Musical interpretation of data Oh, no! Not another Machine art post! Open-mindedness (3 messages) Schaeffer in English??? (5 messages) Sonification (was: Schaeffer in English???) (2 messages) Visual v Aural perception (34 messages) Your EMUSIC-L Digest moderator is Joe McMahon . Please send articles to emusic-d@auvm.american.edu (EMUSIC-D@AUVM for BITNet). Administrative mail should be directed to listserv@auvm.american.edu (LISTSERV@AUVM for BITNet). Digests will be distributed as time permits. For faster response to questions, subscribe to EMUSIC-L by sending mail to EMUSIC-L@AUVM (emusic-l@auvm.american.edu for Internet subscribers) with the line "SUB EMUSIC-L your name" as the text. The EMUSIC-L discussion group can also be accessed through the bit.listserv.emusic-l newsgroup on Usenet. Subscribers to this list may send articles directly to it; they will be reviewed and forwarded to EMUSIC-L. Back issues are available from the editor. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Date: Fri, 22 Apr 1994 14:51:02 EDT From: Wade Culbreath Subject: A Means To An End Mark Simon writes: >I've been thinking about Berg's Lulu. There's a very sophisticated organization to Berg's music. While all the stage action is going on there are abstract musical forms going on in the orchestra, for instance a sonata form which is interrupted at several points only to resume later. There is a "fate motive", actually just a rhythm, that keeps popping up. All kinds of things. But on first hearing (and many subsequent hearings) it all seemed very chaotic to me, or rhapsodic, to use a more polite word. Berg, for all his desperate attempts to organize his far-flung ideas, has a hard time articulating his ideas in a way that the ear can immediately grasp. It often seems to be "all over the place", or at least it did to me, until I started studying the score. Only then did I start to see all these things that Berg had put into the music, and only then did I start to hear them. -------------------- This brings up an interesting point which is totally different, isn't confrontational, and doesn't really contradict anything said thus far. It's something I used to think about a lot a few years back in "Schoenberg, Berg, Webern" class while I listened to everyone talk about the many facets of a given work. Do you think Berg, or for that matter any composer that uses sophisticated techniques of composition, meant for the listener to be cognizant of all the facets of the piece? When I first heard Wozzeck, it sounded like chaos. But when I studied the score, I saw the incredible amount of thought he put into every single note; one rhythm written 30 different ways, his use of the 12 tone system, etc. But the _average_ listener has a sense of rhythm that isn't this sophisticated, wouldn't recognize sonata form if it hit them in the face, and has no idea how the 12 tone system of composition works. Even if one does understand these musical concepts, it can be difficult to hear them in Berg's music. Did Berg mean for us to study his score so that we can enjoy his music? When you arrive at the concert hall to hear a contemporary work such as Wozzeck or Lulu, do the ushers pass out scores? (That would be cool, wouldn't it?) The point is that Berg must have gotten a kick out of the character of the music he created using all these sophisticated techniques. And, he hoped the listener would as well. I don't think Berg was interested in "articulating his ideas in a way that the ear can immediately grasp." Without any analysis whatsoever, he hoped that the listener would hear his work and dig it. So, if this is the case, what is music's purpose, if there is such a thing? Wade Culbreath DrumKat000@aol.com ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 22 Apr 1994 17:12:32 -0400 From: Mark G Simon Subject: Re: A Means To An End > > Do you think Berg, or for that matter any composer that uses sophisticated > techniques of composition, meant for the listener to be cognizant of all the > facets of the piece? I can't really speak for Berg, but I think that ideally one should. Of course, as a composer, you don't want to give all your secrets away at once. You want to give your listeners something to discover the next time and the time after that and the time after that. I like to think that a good composer embeds his/her compositions with the aural equivalent of those "tiny time pills" that Contac cold tablets are supposed to have. Each one is designed to press some pleasure button in the listener. Some go to work right away, some wait a while, some don't kick in for a considerable length of time. A composer shouldn't be too proud to throw in a few "instant gratification pills" to grab the listeners on first hearing, but should save room for the slower acting "depth" pills. The most satisfying musical works operate on all levels. > > But the _average_ listener has a sense of rhythm that isn't this > sophisticated, wouldn't recognize sonata form if it hit them in the face, and > has no idea how the 12 tone system of composition works. Even if one does > understand these musical concepts, it can be difficult to hear them in Berg's > music. This is true of a lot of 20th century music. But Berg's a clever guy. He's not above resorting to tonality in moments when he knows he really has to hit home with the audience, such as Marie's Lullaby, or the orchestral interlude after Wozzeck's death. These are Berg's instant gratification pills. And they work. > > So, if this is the case, what is music's purpose, if there is such a thing? According to Stravinsky, the purpose of music is to bring order out of chaos. John Cage said that the purpose of music is to quiet the mind and render it susceptible to divine influences. As with all good questions, there is no definitive answer. I myself rather prefer Stravinsky's attitude. Mark Simon mgs2@cornell.edu ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 25 Apr 1994 20:34:01 +0100 From: Nick Rothwell Subject: Re: A Means To An End Elbowing my way into this thread for the first time... >You want to give your listeners something to discover the next time >and the time after that and the time after that. I am interested by the fact that these trade-offs are different for material which is only performed live. Audiences only hear something once, so it's the initial impressions (conscious and otherwise) which matter. I compose very differently for live projects versus recorded ones (for logistical reasons as well, of course). Nick Rothwell CASSIEL Contemporary Music/Dance nick@cassiel.com ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 26 Apr 1994 21:56:42 -0500 From: "J. Michael Roach" Subject: Re: Art and Machines Thomas: Where are you? You're a genius! A pure genius! Thanks for your comments. I'd appreciate your getting in on this thread. You're my kinda guy! Keep it up! J. Michael ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 27 Apr 1994 15:32:43 CDT From: Bob Crispen Subject: Re: Art and Machines By a weird synchronicity, ALLMUSIC is having a similar discussion. My suggestion is NOT for everybody to jump over to ALLMUSIC, but to continue the thread since it seems to be pretty well within our charter here. Let's take an artist Joe McMahon mentioned, Jackson Pollock. In one of his methodologies he'd stand on a ladder and drip paint on a gigantic canvas below. This is both a physical process and to some extent a random process, so (unless I badly misunderstand it) algorithmic composition is not altogether dissimilar to what Pollock did. So Pollock dribbled his paint, drove cars over it, etc. Then he cut out a section and put it in a frame and sold it for more money than I make in a whole week. He knew where to cut. See the thing is, it's poor musicianship and not technology or methodology that makes music suck. Granted, some technologies and methodologies are a little better than others. A million monkeys with typewriters aren't gonna produce Shakespeare. Neither is a random note generator gonna produce Bach's B-minor Mass (well, it will EVENTUALLY -- you know what I mean). But it's musicianship that tells you what to do with what the mechanical stuff produces: where to cut. As evidence of this assertion, I've offered to the folks at ALLMUSIC that for their next DIY tape I'd create an exquisitely moving fantasie based on the Village People's "YMCA" (the ALLMUSIC gang were talking about sampling and stealing songs as well) with samples taken from Pitch Shifter, Barry Manilow, Stan Kenton and Loreena McKennitt. And speaking of that, who thinks we ought to do an EMUSIC-L DIY tape? +-------------------------------+--------------------------------------+ | Rev. Bob "Bob" Crispen | Music should not be held responsible | | crispen@foxy.boeing.com | for the people who listen to it. | +-------------------------------+--------------------------------------+ ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 25 Apr 1994 09:26:11 -800 From: Mark Hartshorn Subject: Art and Machines (Was Visual.....) >I think you catch at least part of my meaning but not fully. > Art exists by VIRTUE of its creator, not necessarily FOR >its creator. Thank You... >Art can, of course, be interpreted on any >number of levels, by any set of criteria, etc. Even these >interpretations can be thought of as good or bad, based on >an individuals opinion as well as the quality of the art >itself. Moreover, machines CANNOT produce "art" simply >because they cannot think. A man must have something he >wants to convey to be motivated to produce art. A machine >can have no such motivation. If a person, for example, >writes a song ONLY because his theory instructor told him >to, and had NO further motivation to write the piece, I >would hesitate to call it art. Does this make sense? I would also agree to that.. >Furthermore, just because something moves a person, or >strikes a certain emotion within him, does not mean that >that thing is art. In the mean time, if this post moves you >to agree or sits wrong with you and draws disagreement, >consider this question: Is this post art? Many literary professors would say so, though I personally would not. Now that you have simplified your definitions it is less fun to play devils advacte. :) But let me ask this, what exactly do you feel is required to have ART happen? Is for creators, and/or for subjects? Can one experience art without the other? Can animals be part of art (meaning - can they be a creator/subject)? Are humans really more capable of experiencing art than machines? Or is our interpretation of art just programed into us like it could be programed into a a computer? Mark H ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 25 Apr 1994 18:47:06 -0500 From: "J. Michael Roach" Subject: Re: Art and Machines (Was Visual.....) > What exactly do you feel is required to have ART happen? Is > for creators, and/or for subjects? Can one experience art > without the other? Can animals be part of art (meaning - > can they be a creator/subject)? Are humans really more > capable of experiencing art than machines? Or is our > interpretation of art just programed into us like it could be > programed into a a computer? Well, let's see here. . . Mankind is required to have art happen. I honestly don't believe that art needs to be interpreted to be art. I believe it needs to be interpreted to be appreciated. That each person who observes a man art (which was created for reason A, for example) is observed by another, who may take a different perception of the art altogether (perception B). It is this universal acceptance by humankind that become fine art. I'm babbling, sorry. Also, even the artist must be a subject, and must observe his own art. This is the primary reason for its creation in the first place. The artist himself creates it for himself. And I do not believe even for an instant that a machine can experience or appreciate art. That is reserved for humankind. Period. J. Michael ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 25 Apr 1994 23:56:41 -800 From: Mark Hartshorn Subject: Re: Art and Machines (Was Visual.....) > And I do not believe even for an instant that a machine can experience or > appreciate art. That is reserved for humankind. Period. Though I appreciate your opinion, I personally disagree that it is all limited to humankind. Machines are limited by not feeling emotion, but humans are not by any means the only ones who feel emotion and there-for experience art. spirtuality aside (let's keep this semi-scientific), all animals and plants have reacted to various art forms in pretty much every study performed and hence do experience it in one way or another - though I am sure their interpretation is very different than our own. And so, it is also most likely that those particular subjects are impervious to the creator of the art in anyway, though they are still experienceing and effected by the art form. I must say that to limit these art views to only humankind is a very limited viewpoint. :) Mark ps - are you part of the CLASSM-L? ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 26 Apr 1994 09:23:57 MEZ From: Thomas Subject: Re: Art and Machines (Was Visual.....) Hello all, I've been following this thread with interest and had to give each participant at least partly right. But the more I think of it, the more I feel that there is an important aspect missing (to my opinion of what is art of course) so finally I like to throw in my $0.02: For me art is a means of communication and thus requires a "sender" of a "message" (the artist) and a "recipient" (the public, which sometimes consists of only the artist himself). The sender wants to express something s/he cannot express other than by means of the chosen form of art (no use to verbalize the message) and the recipient "understands" at least part of the original message if s/he knows how to decode the signs and icons used in the particular piece of art. The more they (sender and recipient) have culturally in common, the more of the message will be transported. This implies that: -- not everything that strikes me emotionally is an art. A beautiful landscape or sundown is not art because there is no communicative act involved with the "creation" of that sundown. (I'm not very religious :-)) ) -- not everything that is communication (e.g. EMUSIC-L) is an art because most of the messages do not require this particular form to be sent and received. (We might as well sit in a pub together and discuss all these topics) -- not everything that is artificially constructed is an art. As long as there is no intention to communicate, its not art. -- something that has been produced by a machine, which I programmed to produce it, and which I consider to be the right thing to express my message and thus *decide* it's art and take the responsibility for by signing it with my name,can be Art. So if there is someone (man or machine) who wnats to communicate something to someone else and can only do so by the artistic means s/he chose, it should be considered art. No matter if machines were involved in the generative process or not. If you're not too tired of his thread I'd like tohear your opinions to that. Have fun, Thomas ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 26 Apr 1994 18:37:27 -0300 From: "ANDREW G. YOUNGER" Subject: Re: Art and Machines (Was Visual.....) OK, I vowed I was not going to get involved with all this stuff about art and what is art but I guess I have to. This is the way I see it: Anything is art. Anything at all. However what I consider to be art to my ears or to my eyes or another sense may very well differ and in fact should differ from what everyone else thinks is art. This is what makes us individual. Also, I think we have to learn, in some way anyhow, to appreciate even that which we may not like or find skillful. ie. I am one of those few North American 18-25 year olds who does not tend to listen to Rap music. However I appreciate the fact, and am willing to accept that it is an art form, albeit one I am not partial to. As to whether anything else can appreciate or evaluate art I would agree that computers cannot appreciate art, and they can only evaluate art on the basis of set parameters programmed by a human, and as such do not evaluate nesesarily on the individual merits of a piece. (Grammar checkers are an example of this, get one to check a poem by Wordsworth or a novella by Richard Adams). However, I do not believe that humans are the only things which can appreciate art. Many plant biologists would tell you that plants appreciate music and depending on species prefer different music. Many plant biologists would also disagree as well. Many marin biologists who I work with use music and different colour schemes to affect behaviour of animals and find, very often, that individuals within a population appear to have their own preferences. Anyhow, that's my $0.02 worth Andrew Younger AYOUNGER@ac.dal.ca ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 26 Apr 1994 17:34:53 -0700 From: David Chandler Subject: Re: Art and Machines (Was Visual.....) On Tue, 26 Apr 1994, ANDREW G. YOUNGER wrote: > OK, I vowed I was not going to get involved with all this stuff > about art and what is art but I guess I have to. This is the way I > see it: > Anything is art. Anything at all. However what I consider to be art > to my ears or to my eyes or another sense may very well differ and in > fact should differ from what everyone else thinks is art. This is what > makes us individual. Also, I think we have to learn, in some way anyhow, to > appreciate even that which we may not like or find skillful. ie. I am > one of those few North American 18-25 year olds who does not tend to > listen to Rap music. However I appreciate the fact, and am willing to accept > that it is an art form, albeit one I am not partial to. > > As to whether anything else can appreciate or evaluate art I would agree that > computers cannot appreciate art, and they can only evaluate art on the basis > of set parameters programmed by a human, and as such do not evaluate nesesarily > on the individual merits of a piece. (Grammar checkers are an example of this, > get one to check a poem by Wordsworth or a novella by Richard Adams). > However, I do not believe that humans are the only things which can appreciate > art. Many plant biologists would tell you that plants appreciate music and > depending on species prefer different music. Many plant biologists would also > disagree as well. Many marin biologists who I work with use music and different > colour schemes to affect behaviour of animals and find, very often, that > individuals within a population appear to have their own preferences. > > Anyhow, that's my $0.02 worth > Andrew Younger > AYOUNGER@ac.dal.ca I hope the above was read by the readership of this listserv, as I basically sign my name to it also. I am not studying marine biology, but completely see the point made and agree wholeheartedly...and I went to an art school, so you might expect my opinion to differ from "scientific" paradigms, etc. I do not use overt scientific approaches (ie I paint in oils combining abstract, media, and realistically rendered imagery together in "seriously" playful ways ;-)) but can see the "beauty" of science. Nature, physics, math is a *huge* expanse of ready-made context (from which practically no editting even needs to be made for me to consider it "art".) (Oh, god, how can I communicate the relentless "What Is Art?" that is discussed in art school?!?!?) The difference between "art" the experience of (let's say) "mere data/stimulus from one's environment" is a matter of emotional response and is entirely subjective. Now, socially, we have visual, aural, (etc) languages that cue us to "go-ahead" and project (ie "Oh, its-a-painting-...well-hmm...") our considerations to things, but do these languages have to be so formally accepted to call emotion? Do they have to be the only ones people use in their lives? Can't we be receptive to the beauty of "situations" and visually/aurally choose "moments" that are composed well *by* *no*one*? (...well, it works for me... my life is an OD of intense stimuli!) If I get excited because I like the mish-mash poetry of unix-cshell programming and the elegance therein, is my experience less "emotional" the chills I get from when "loyal" Brutus turns and stabs J.Caesar in the theatrical play? I may have very emotional responses to things that don't phase somebody else. Can anyone possibly tell someone else that they are, in fact, not feeling as "much" emotional response? How can anyone measure it? Only based on their own context! So it's pointlessly subjective, right?! I am in Andrew's age group as well, and I don't care much for rap, but it seems obvious that there is an art to it. And it is as *serious* an art as anything more formally/historically explored. It's got elements of fashion, opportunism, commerciallism, etc, as any genre has ever had. Don't let any one example of something give the whole genre a bad name (example - Portland Symphony Orchestra (oregon) blah!) Just because 95% of biochemists end up mixing xyz-batch of better lawn fertilizer for Brand X Inc. doesn't mean that the creative potential of biochemistry is small. Just as 95% of that rap seems boring/same-y to me doesn't mean that the potential for creativity is at all *small*; it's not, it's as huge as any human's potential for inspiration is! ...Geez, I thought I wouldn't be writing one of these long diatribes... just my $0.02 too, ...sigh, ok sock it to me.... David Chandler - chandler@nethost.multnomah.lib.or.us (503)241-2949 ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 26 Apr 1994 21:53:27 -0500 From: "J. Michael Roach" Subject: Re: Art and Machines (Was Visual.....) > animals and plants have reacted to various art forms in pretty much every > study performed and hence do experience it in one way or another - > though I am sure their interpretation is very different than our own. And > so, it is also most likely that those particular subjects are impervious > to the creator of the art in anyway, though they are still experienceing > and effected by the art form. I must say that to limit these art views to > only humankind is a very limited viewpoint. :) > > Mark > > ps - are you part of the CLASSM-L? Just because plants are affected by a piece of music, doesn't mean they consider it art. You don't here 'em talking about which composers they like. They don't smile when they see a Michelangelo. Get real. Being affected by art isn't the same as APPRECIATING it. And no, I'm not a part of the CLASSM-L. What's the story on that? J. Michael ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 26 Apr 1994 17:50:20 -0400 From: Joe McMahon Subject: Art WITH machines vs. art BY machines We're all sick of this now, aren't we? Last comment from me and then I shut up. I think this is the argument we've been having: whether it is possible to call anything produced "by machine" art. This is a big can o' worms. If you rule out using machines for art, you're back to dance, vocal music, finger-painting, and hand-molded clay sculpture (unfired, of course). So let's go the opposite direction. Let's take a Standard MIDI File of a Bach fugue, carefully crafted through the use of as many controllers as you like to make it as faithful an interpretation as possible. Can we agree that this can be art? (Notice my use of "can be", not "is"; art is in the eye/ear/mind of the beholder, and is subject to the taste thereof. I won't get into performance art other than to say that to me, it is more about the power to declare something art than it is an impulse to create...) ("art" equivalent: photograph or hyperrealist painting) If we can't, we're all fooling ourselves if we think we're making "music". Now, let's slough off some of the control. Let's have the performance decisions be controlled by software. And let us say that the writer of the software specifically made the decisions as to what should be played in what manner on a case-by-case basis; a detailed-as-possible cmusic score, for instance. Is this still art/music? (Art equivalent: old-master level detailing) Now let's go further. Let's make the artistic AND musical gestures less and less controlled. The results depend more and more upon decisions made at the meta-level and implemented as more and more general rules in the software. (art world: impressionists moving to Robert Motherwell to Jackson Pollock) When does it stop being art? When you don't like it? Under that rule, there's a terrible lot of stuff cluttering up the Hirshhorn Museum in DC that needs to be removed so that they can put more art in there. :-) No machine ever made "art" (and that includes synthesizers and paintbrushes) without a human mind directing that machine. Perhaps the thing that the "no machine art" folks are objecting to is more the devolving of performance and production responsibility onto the computer, with the artist/programmer insulating himself from direct responsibility. This really, I suppose, gets into the area of the social perception of computers more than anything else. "Computer error" translates to "oh well, it's only algorithmically composed". If your algorithm produces bad output, it's an inadequate algorithm. This applies to accounting, spacecraft navigation, and even art. It also also applies even if you are pursuing an unstated, hyper-complex algorithm called "personal composition", with a huge, huge "phase space" of possible states. I personally like to think that increasing the mental and physical toolset which I use can increase the complexity of my working method (another name for a terrifically complex, unstated, and informal algorithm) to the point where I have a "phase space" so large that I'll never run out of places to explore. --- Joe M. -- "When Brian Eno ruled Chicago..." (MST3K) ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 26 Apr 1994 22:16:48 -0500 From: "J. Michael Roach" Subject: Re: Art WITH machines vs. art BY machines > No machine ever made "art" (and that includes synthesizers and > paintbrushes) without a human mind directing that machine. Thanks, Joe. I tell you what, I know what I mean, but I guess I don't put words together as well as I do notes. The above quote from Joe M. is my point exactly. Mark, do you agree with this? J. Michael ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 27 Apr 1994 11:48:43 +0200 From: Guy Van Belle Subject: Re: Art WITH machines vs. art BY machines Sorry, James, but here I am with an interjection again. Sorry that my English is so bad, but it is not my original language. I just want to say that most of the stuff I read here about art&machines doesn't seem to go beyond the discussions I overheard years ago about the fact that good writers just use their handwriting to write good books. As opposed to typewriters and PC's. The discussion is still happening in educational settings. I thought musicians and composers were wiser than that, since they have been developing machines to express their music with for ages now. With the popularisation of digital equipment and computers and the use in electronic music (production, reception, distribution), I see no point in discussing this further on the level mentioned above. What people want to develop is a machine with INTENTIONS (that hopefully fit in with their own). The history of cybernetics can prove my point. Anyway. I want my computers to behave intentionally and make the music I like. So that is why I study genetic algorithms, semantic nets, speech and dialogue analysis, self-learning systems; only to incorporate them in my music software. I hate random generators! Maybe my remarks are too "off course", but my computer has to make art, because I want it to behave like an artist and not like a boring business machine. GuyZ11B. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 27 Apr 1994 10:53:27 BST From: Stephen Deutsch Subject: Re: Art WITH machines vs. art BY machines I remember reading once that the Balinese had no word for "art". They just did things as well as possible.] -- Prof Stephen Deutsch # # BOURNEMOUTH The Digital Music Studio # UNIVERSITY ----------------------------------------------------------------------- JANET: sdeutsch@uk.ac.bournemouth Talbot Campus World: sdeutsch@bournemouth.ac.uk Fern Barrow, Poole Voice: +44 (202) 595102 Fax: 595530 Dorset, BH12 5BB, UK ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 28 Apr 1994 08:39:42 -0500 From: "J. Michael Roach" Subject: Re: Art WITH machines vs. art BY machines > I remember reading once that the Balinese had no word for "art". > > They just did things as well as possible.] Let's all take a few moments and ponder upon this point, shall we? J. Michael ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 21 Apr 1994 14:49:39 BST From: Gabriel Landini Subject: Bach and E.T.(was:Hyper analysis (re: Visual vs aural) Ok, Art vs. science; science vs. art, and other permutations. [Delirium command ON] J.S. Bach was not human, It was an android brought from alpha centauri who had a bunch of formulas to enconde what humas called music. We did not know that before THE BIG REVELATION, but now everybody does. So, what do we think NOW, in view of this, about Bach's music? After all we thought it was "emotional" and it wasn't. [Delirium command OFF] This thread seems endless to me... Why not have machines to compose music as well? This sounds as the known skepticism of "so-called" experts which look down new technologies that perform better than them. (My area, Pathology, is full of those...). I agree, algorithmic composition has not produced "geniuses" What is wrong with experimentation on new syntaxes and algorithms to explore composition? Are composers afraid of something? Or about somebody else doing something? Why accept synthesizers, when we have luthiers who spend their lives building instruments? Price? Portability?, but apart of those, wouldn't still we want to experiment with new things?? cheers Gabriel ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 23 Apr 1994 15:56:10 -0800 From: "[GuyZ11B] Guy c. Jules Van Belle" Subject: Re: Bach and E.T.(was:Hyper analysis (re: Visual vs aural) > I agree, algorithmic composition has not produced "geniuses" Well, I don't agree!!! There are as many geniuses doing computer art as there are geniuses doing art without computers. Personally I think there are a lot of great artists involved in the development and creation of computer music and art in general. And evaluation of 'great art' has more to do with politics and tradition than with art. What a stupid discussion anyway. It is like saying at the beginning of this century that the brothers Lumi=E8re cannot compare to Van Gogh. GuyZ11B. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 20 Apr 1994 14:17:46 EDT From: Wade Culbreath Subject: Hyper analysis (re: Visual vs aural) In case you missed the last episode... This flame has shifted from visual vs. aural to "hyper-analysis" to man vs. machine. Let's see where this takes us. And the story begins... Keith Maynard wrote: >There are people who are content to close their eyes and enjoy. I enjoy as well >as dissect the stuff to which I am listening. Sorry to bore you if this is second >nature to you. I have not met many musicians for whom it is second nature to >identify all the features of a composition as they progress. Congrats!!! I wrote: > And I'll congratulate you when learn that the *most* important "feature" of a > composition; the artist's reason for writing the music in the first place, is > emotion. This single comment provided the inspiration for what seemed like 200 pieces of mail. Okay, so maybe I'm living in a fantasy world where artists are interested in expression. I was talking about human expression...artistic expression! This is why art is created, and this is what we should look for when he see it or hear it. To feel something. The point is, the artist wants you to feel something here. Go ahead and dissect it, but just remember that in order to experience the artistic message is to be conscious of why the artist created it in the first place. Bill Matthews writes: >Nope. There are as many reasons for writing music as there are people who >do it. The "expressing emotion" motivation is but one. In good company, >one could also join Stravinsky in his assertion that music expresses >nothing but itself. Or one could join the many who compose out of >curiosity, or of an interest in altered consciousness, or to get famous >and rich, or (cf: Cage) to open the soul to divine influence. Etc., etc., >etc. Jesse Helms *knows* what art is and let's not join him in >prescription or proscription of any human artistic endeavor. The minute >you try to constrain the definition and purpose of music, that's the >minute someone will show up to blow you away with a whole new take on it. True, but you missed the point entirely... A long time ago, Keith Maynard wrote: >...trying to establish whether there was a difference in sound between >damaged mouse genes and healthy ones. I wrote the C program that >generated music from the protein patterns in the genes in question ( the music >had potential too ). Mark Simon writes: >Lighten up, Wade. It would be a pretty shallow emotion that didn't >involve itself with the intellect at some point or other. >This gives me an idea for a piece. I'll sample various sobs and screams >and juxtapose them upon each other. Just think of it! Pure emotion! It >will be the greatest music ever made! I'd much rather hear that than a computer program spitting out random events. Am I in the minority here on this one too? (and by the way, couldn't you have blown my comment a little further out of proportion?) It's all about human expression, not computer expression. I mean, how do *you* define art? I throw this one out to everyone .. the computer technicians have had they're say... let's hear from an artist this time...if there are any of those here.) Art : 1. The aesthetic values of an artist as expressed in his works. 2. Any of various dsciplines, as the humanities, that do not rely exclusively on the scientific method. So science is a part of it. It could even help to create it. I'm giving you that. But it's only part of what makes it art! If I look at a piece of art, I want to know what the artist was feeling, thinking, expressing. Scientific analysis is not the point. It might be interesting, but if that is your only motivation, go study rat genes. Joe M. writes: >All we were really trying to say in the initial discussion is "what do we >hear when we listen to music? what are features that are identifiable over >long and short periods of time? could long and short-term trends in data be >mapped to those features in not-necessarily-inspired music? would it be a >valuable way to interpret data?" In other words, the point is we really want to get the computer to compose, i.e. computer generated music. So, you're visualizing that someday, someone will write an amazing music-generator program and human composers won't have to bother. Joe M. writes: >And there's no reason to suppose that even the most romantic of composers >couldn't find something in it somewhere that could be turned into a piece >that worked for them. True, until composers aren't needed, period. And when composition, thematic development, counterpoint, harmony, dissonance, feeling, expression has all become computer generated, we can let the machines worry about it. Recipe for a Utopian Society: Let the machines deal with all of our pain, sorrow, anger, hate and love. Life will be so much simpler when the machines feel this for us...fight our wars for us...live our lives for us. As for the Romantic period, emotion isn't something that we left in the art of the1800's. It's something you can find in art today. No guarantees that it'll be here tomorrow though. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 21 Apr 1994 07:12:31 -0400 From: "Joseph D. McMahon" Subject: Re: Hyper analysis (re: Visual vs aural) > Joe M. writes: > >All we were really trying to say in the initial discussion is "what do we > >hear when we listen to music? what are features that are identifiable over > >long and short periods of time? could long and short-term trends in data be > >mapped to those features in not-necessarily-inspired music? would it be a > >valuable way to interpret data?" > > In other words, the point is we really want to get the computer to compose, > i.e. computer generated music. In the sense that the program would create a set of organized sounds that could be used to interpret data. Yes. > So, you're visualizing that someday, someone > will write an amazing music-generator program and human composers won't have > to bother. Absolutely NOT. Visualization programs exist now, and our visualization studio has used them to create all kind of interesting stills and video. Are they valuable for displaying data in a more accessible way. Yes. Are they *art*? Generally, no. They're just pictures. That's all the sonification program is supposed to do. Make organized sound having features analyzable by ear. Not "replace" anything. Add to the bag of tricks for observing appropriate data, that's all. > > Joe M. writes: > >And there's no reason to suppose that even the most romantic of composers > >couldn't find something in it somewhere that could be turned into a piece > >that worked for them. > > True, until composers aren't needed, period. And when composition, thematic > development, counterpoint, harmony, dissonance, feeling, expression has all > become computer generated, we can let the machines worry about it. Nope nope nope nope. Look. If you heard a bird singing outside and built a piece out of a motif you heard, are you the composer, or is the bird? Me, I'd pick you. Besides, nobody would pay a bird royalties. :-) All I meant to say here was if you were listening to the output of a sonfication program, you might hear something that you could take and turn into a composition of your own. I'm not going to let a machine take over composition for me; it's too much fun. > > As for the Romantic period, emotion isn't something that we left in the art > of the1800's. It's something you can find in art today. No guarantees that > it'll be here tomorrow though. > Please reread my response. I fully agree that unless you have some kind of emotional investment in what you are doing, you will produce crap. That's what I was saying. The word "romantic" is not a negative label; it's simply the means I use to talk about intense emotional involvement, which you have and which is a *good* thing. --- Joe M. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 21 Apr 1994 09:08:14 -0400 From: Mark G Simon Subject: Re: Hyper analysis (re: Visual vs aural) > > Okay, so maybe I'm living in a fantasy world where artists are interested in > expression. I was talking about human expression...artistic expression! > This is why art is created, and this is what we should look for when he see > it or hear it. To feel something. The point is, the artist wants you to > feel something here. Go ahead and dissect it, but just remember that in > order to experience the artistic message is to be conscious of why the artist > created it in the first place. Calm down, now. I agree with you totally. The bottom line in music, or any other art has got to be what it does to you, what pleasure buttons it pushes, and all that. But is it not an emotional experience to realize that, hey, all that noodling in the bass is actually a diminution of the inversion of the main theme? Can one not find satisfaction in appreciating the subtle variations introduced in the subsequent appearances of a theme? I find that the more I understand intellectually about the music I'm hearing, the more I am able to repond emotionally to all the things the composer has put into it. Don't make too much of this emotion vs. intellect dichotomy. The two have to work together. That's what makes for truly deep and satisfying works of art. > Art : 1. The aesthetic values of an artist as expressed in his works. 2. Any > of various dsciplines, as the humanities, that do not rely exclusively on the > scientific method. I'm sure you've opened any number of issues of the Journal of Music Theory only to find some sort of Forte-based analysis that reads more like a calculus textbook. That really sucks. It tells me nothing about music. It gives analysis a bad name. > So science is a part of it. It could even help to create it. I'm giving you > that. But it's only part of what makes it art! If I look at a piece of art, > I want to know what the artist was feeling, thinking, expressing. Scientific > analysis is not the point. It might be interesting, but if that is your only > motivation, go study rat genes. > Joe M. writes: > >All we were really trying to say in the initial discussion is "what do we > >hear when we listen to music? what are features that are identifiable over > >long and short periods of time? could long and short-term trends in data be > >mapped to those features in not-necessarily-inspired music? would it be a > >valuable way to interpret data?" > > In other words, the point is we really want to get the computer to compose, > i.e. computer generated music. So, you're visualizing that someday, someone > will write an amazing music-generator program and human composers won't have > to bother. Wait a minute. I thought the original point of this thread was "what can other disciplines learn by interpreting data the way listeners interpret musical data?" In other words, can science imitate art, not can art imitate science. I have no answers to that question but maybe some others do, and why don't we hear them out? Mark Simon mgs2@cornell.edu ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 21 Apr 1994 19:38:49 -0400 From: Elissa Brill Subject: Re: Hyper analysis (re: Visual vs aural) > Wait a minute. I thought the original point of this thread was "what can > other disciplines learn by interpreting data the way listeners interpret > musical data?" In other words, can science imitate art, not can art > imitate science. I have no answers to that question but maybe some others > do, and why don't we hear them out? > Mark Simon > mgs2@cornell.edu Yeah, that WAS the original point--what can we learn by observing with our ears in addition to observing with our eyes? I would think we could discover some valuable patterning information--kind of like looking at something from a new angle and suddenly finding an extra layer there. As far as the art vs. technology debate goes, I think many of the posters have been arguing with an imagined adversary. I don't think there's ANYONE who actually thinks machines create art, is there??? So, why so angry? (People get so emotional when they're talking about emotion...) Elissa Brill ebrill@ecn.mass.edu ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 22 Apr 1994 09:38:46 -0400 From: Mark G Simon Subject: Re: Hyper analysis (re: Visual vs aural) > > Yeah, that WAS the original point--what can we learn by observing with our ears > in addition to observing with our eyes? I would think we could discover some > valuable patterning information--kind of like looking at something from a new > angle and suddenly finding an extra layer there. I've been thinking about Berg's Lulu. There's a very sophisticated organization to Berg's music. While all the stage action is going on there are abstract musical forms going on in the orchestra, for instance a sonata form which is interrupted at several points only to resume later. There is a "fate motive", actually just a rhythm, that keeps popping up. All kinds of things. But on first hearing (and many subsequent hearings) it all seemed very chaotic to me, or rhapsodic, to use a more polite word. Berg, for all his desperate attempts to organize his far-flung ideas, has a hard time articulating his ideas in a way that the ear can immediately grasp. It often seems to be "all over the place", or at least it did to me, until I started studying the score. Only then did I start to see all these things that Berg had put into the music, and only then did I start to hear them. The point is this: for really complex musical patterns, my ear had to be educated by my eye. This leads me to question the premise that seems to underlie this thread, that the ear is more sophisticated at detecting patterns than the eye. When we turn all this gene splicing data into sounds will we really be able to find patterns in it that we couldn't find from looking at a chart? I had to read Berg's "chart" (the jazz terminology suddenly becomes useful here) just in order to detect a 2 measure rhythmic pattern that turns out to be omnipresent. Perhaps the impression that musical patterns can be better detected by ear is simply the result of not being conversant enough with music's visual representations (be it notation, event list, piano-roll or whatever). At the beginning of this thread, did anyone cite any studies that may have been done comparing the relative strenghts of aural and visual pattern recognition (after all the digressions I don't remember what anyone said at the beginning)? Mark Simon mgs2@cornell.edu ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 22 Apr 1994 14:51:10 EDT From: Wade Culbreath Subject: Re: Hyper analysis (re: Visual vs aural) Elissa Brill writes: >I don't think there's ANYONE who actually thinks machines create art, is there??? ------------- I wish it were so. Wade Culbreath DrumKat000@aol.com ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 22 Apr 1994 16:23:53 -0400 From: Elissa Brill Subject: Re: Hyper analysis (re: Visual vs aural) > Berg, for all his desperate attempts to organize > his far-flung ideas, has a hard time articulating his ideas in a way that > the ear can immediately grasp. It often seems to be "all over the place", > or at least it did to me, until I started studying the score. Only then > did I start to see all these things that Berg had put into the music, and > only then did I start to hear them. > The point is this: for really complex musical patterns, my ear had to be > educated by my eye. This leads me to question the premise that seems to > underlie this thread, that the ear is more sophisticated at detecting > patterns than the eye. When we turn all this gene splicing data into > sounds will we really be able to find patterns in it that we couldn't > find from looking at a chart? I don't know that it's really necessary to make a value judgment, saying one means of gathering info. is more sophisticated than another. It's probably true that, in general, people are better at detecting visual patterns than aural patterns. Isn't it enough, though, to say that the information we can draw from each source is DIFFERENT, that certain patterns we couldn't see might become more apparent when heard? After all, isn't the "all over the place" character of Lulu also a big part of the piece? (And can't you pick up that part of it more easily with your ear?) Elissa Brill ebrill@ecn.mass.edu ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 23 Apr 1994 17:11:36 -0800 From: "[GuyZ11B] Guy c. Jules Van Belle" Subject: Re: Hyper analysis (re: Visual vs aural) >Elissa Brill writes: >>I don't think there's ANYONE who actually thinks machines create art, is >there??? > >------------- > >I wish it were so. > >Wade Culbreath >DrumKat000@aol.com Oh, but I do !!! I also think they should be paid more and have a better social security. GuyZ11B. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 24 Apr 1994 01:51:10 -0500 From: "J. Michael Roach" Subject: Re: Hyper analysis (re: Visual vs aural) > >I don't think there's ANYONE who actually thinks machines create art, is > there??? That's it. I finally have to put my two cents worth in on this one. Art, by definition, is something that exists by virtue of human thought. Art can be good, and art can be bad. Art can be liked, and art can be disliked. At the same instant in time, a machine can write a good song, or create a good image. That doesn't make it art. That just makes it good. And good is just one humble man opinion of a certain object, entity, or concept in his environment. As soon as machines can tell us whether or not they like something, then maybe, maybe they will be able to truly create their own art. Until then, let man create art, and let computers allow us to send these neat little messages back and forth to one another, shall we? J. Michael ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 24 Apr 1994 09:50:27 -800 From: Mark Hartshorn Subject: Re: Hyper analysis (re: Visual vs aural) This all depends on your difinition of art, which seems to be much different than most people who experience it. I feel most people experience art by the way it stimulates thier senses and there-for the creator is not as important as the final creation - maybe not important at all. The creator can be human, animal, machine, or a gust of wind that blows across a field of flowers - but the final affect it has on the person experienceing the art is what makes art. Now, the argument that it still requires humans to experience art is sorta true as of now, or at least it requires emotion to experience art - which is possible of all animals. Please entertain these thoughts with me. Mark On Sun, 24 Apr 1994, J. Michael Roach wrote: > > >I don't think there's ANYONE who actually thinks machines create art, is > > there??? > > That's it. I finally have to put my two cents worth in on this one. > > Art, by definition, is something that exists by virtue of human thought. > Art can be good, and art can be bad. Art can be liked, and art can be > disliked. At the same instant in time, a machine can write a good song, > or create a good image. That doesn't make it art. That just makes it > good. And good is just one humble man opinion of a certain object, > entity, or concept in his environment. As soon as machines can tell us > whether or not they like something, then maybe, maybe they will be able > to truly create their own art. Until then, let man create art, and let > computers allow us to send these neat little messages back and forth to > one another, shall we? > > J. Michael ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 24 Apr 1994 12:53:15 -0500 From: "J. Michael Roach" Subject: Re: Hyper analysis (re: Visual vs aural) > This all depends on your difinition of art, which seems to be much > different than most people who experience it. I feel most people > experience art by the way it stimulates thier senses and there-for the > creator is not as important as the final creation - maybe not important at > all. The creator can be human, animal, machine, or a gust of wind that > blows across a field of flowers - but the final affect it has on the > person experienceing the art is what makes art. > Now, the argument that it still requires humans to experience art > is sorta true as of now, or at least it requires emotion to experience art > - which is possible of all animals. Please entertain these thoughts with > me. I'm sorry, but this is ridiculous. Art is to be experienced, but it does require that experience to be art. Art is a term placed on a basis of origin and it doesn't matter who or what sees it. I suppose some would argue that it is up to a society to determine what is art and what is not, but I don't really believe this. Perhaps it has to be that way, because this is not a perfect world, and humankind can not agree upon everything at once. Please understand that a thing can ONLY be considered art or not based upon the creation process. Art is defined as man's ability to create and build things out of other things. Even in music, a composer builds a piece from other pieces and the various tools that are available to him. The composer knows what tools he is using and uses them effectively. A computer that randomly spits out notes based upon a formula that we provide to it, its simply another tool that a composer can use to create art of the musical variety. The machine can write a good melody, perhaps, but only man can make it art. J. Michael ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 24 Apr 1994 10:17:55 -800 From: Mark Hartshorn Subject: Re: Hyper analysis (re: Visual vs aural) J. Michael, So am I correct in understanding that art only exists for the creator of the art and does require anyone/thing to experience the art? Do you also feel that art is intrepreted correctly only by the creator, assuming that art should be intrepretted/analized, and should not be open the multiple interpretations by others experienceing that art? I agree that we normally use pre-defined tools to creat art - and music is probably the worst offender of this - but that says nothing to the piont that other machines can also use those tools in the same way that many composers do today, they definetly can, so which is not an artist if both the human and machine use the same tools in the same way? I would like to hear father input on your definition of "Art" Mark H On Sun, 24 Apr 1994, J. Michael Roach wrote: > > This all depends on your difinition of art, which seems to be much > > different than most people who experience it. I feel most people > > experience art by the way it stimulates thier senses and there-for the > > creator is not as important as the final creation - maybe not important at > > all. The creator can be human, animal, machine, or a gust of wind that > > blows across a field of flowers - but the final affect it has on the > > person experienceing the art is what makes art. > > Now, the argument that it still requires humans to experience art > > is sorta true as of now, or at least it requires emotion to experience art > > - which is possible of all animals. Please entertain these thoughts with > > me. > > I'm sorry, but this is ridiculous. Art is to be experienced, but it does > require that experience to be art. Art is a term placed on a basis of > origin and it doesn't matter who or what sees it. I suppose some would > argue that it is up to a society to determine what is art and what is > not, but I don't really believe this. Perhaps it has to be that way, > because this is not a perfect world, and humankind can not agree upon > everything at once. > > Please understand that a thing can ONLY be considered art or not based > upon the creation process. Art is defined as man's ability to create and > build things out of other things. Even in music, a composer builds a > piece from other pieces and the various tools that are available to him. > The composer knows what tools he is using and uses them effectively. A > computer that randomly spits out notes based upon a formula that we > provide to it, its simply another tool that a composer can use to create > art of the musical variety. The machine can write a good melody, > perhaps, but only man can make it art. > > J. Michael ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 24 Apr 1994 15:49:37 -0500 From: "J. Michael Roach" Subject: Re: Hyper analysis (re: Visual vs aural) > J. Michael, > So am I correct in understanding that art only exists for the > creator of the art and does require anyone/thing to experience the art? Do > you also feel that art is intrepreted correctly only by the creator, > assuming that art should be intrepretted/analized, and should not be open > the multiple interpretations by others experienceing that art? > I agree that we normally use pre-defined tools to creat art - and > music is probably the worst offender of this - but that says nothing to > the piont that other machines can also use those tools in the same way > that many composers do today, they definetly can, so which is not an > artist if both the human and machine use the same tools in the same way? > I would like to hear father input on your definition of "Art" > Mark H I think you catch at least part of my meaning but not fully. Art exists by VIRTUE of its creator, not necessarily FOR its creator. Art can, of course, be interpreted on any number of levels, by any set of criteria, etc. Even these interpretations can be thought of as good or bad, based on an individuals opinion as well as the quality of the art itself. Moreover, machines CANNOT produce "art" simply because they cannot think. A man must have something he wants to convey to be motivated to produce art. A machine can have no such motivation. If a person, for example, writes a song ONLY because his theory instructor told him to, and had NO further motivation to write the piece, I would hesitate to call it art. Does this make sense? Furthermore, just because something moves a person, or strikes a certain emotion within him, does not mean that that thing is art. In the mean time, if this post moves you to agree or sits wrong with you and draws disagreement, consider this question: Is this post art? J. Michael ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 25 Apr 1994 09:48:03 -0400 From: Mark G Simon Subject: Re: Hyper analysis (re: Visual vs aural) > > > The point is this: for really complex musical patterns, my ear had to be > > educated by my eye. This leads me to question the premise that seems to > > underlie this thread, that the ear is more sophisticated at detecting > > patterns than the eye. When we turn all this gene splicing data into > > sounds will we really be able to find patterns in it that we couldn't > > find from looking at a chart? > > I don't know that it's really necessary to make a value judgment, saying one > means of gathering info. is more sophisticated than another. It's probably Let's put it this way: if you were counting on learning something significant from a certain presentation of data and you found you couldn't, you'd certainly make some value judgments very quickly. What I think is that it's important to question the what you're doing, and not take anything for granted. In other words you shouldn't just assume that because you thought that interpreting data aurally might be more useful than interpreting it visually that you should automatically assume that it will. You have to leave open the possibility that it might not. This called being open-minded. So let reiterate the question: Have there been any studies comparing aural and visual pattern recognition capabilities. Surely this is something that's been done, and someone may have even cited some of these studies at the beginning of this thread and I just forgot. And now that I'm up and running I've got to spout off about the concept of open-mindedness. People are always talking about open-mindedness and what a wonderful virtue it is. Invariably what they're talking about involves not making value judgments. "Well, who's to say ......?", or "it's not better or worse, it's just different" or "there's no such thing as good or bad, just let 100 flowers blossom ..." on and on. This is empty-mindedness, not open-mindedness. It's a cop-out that appeals to people too lazy to give a matter serious thought. Go ahead, make value judgments, the more the better. It shows you're thinking. Weigh the evidence before you and make a decision. Just be prepared to reverse your judgement at any time that contrary evidence comes in. *That's* what open-mindedness is about, and it is a wonderful virtue to admit that "you know, what I said yesterday may not be true". It requires humility. It ... ugh I think I've just spent myself on this issue. Mark Simon mgs2@cornell.edu ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 21 Apr 1994 15:08:19 EDT From: Wade Culbreath Subject: J.S. MAC (b. 1984 - ) And just when *I* thought it was over... >Keith Maynard writes: >My PC is a fancy digital tape recorder. That *could* change if I find programs >that could *guarantee* that their harmonizations will thrill me as much as mine >do. At that point I'll let the machine do it and I will move my intellect to solving >another problem. That's progress! Progress? Can't you see that music isn't just an intellectual problem to be solved! How will you feel when you listen to this music? Computer generated harmonization might sound good, but it doesn't express anything whatsoever. It will be nothing more than a math problem played through instruments. >Mr. Maynard writes: >Thank God you're not an accountant. Could you imagine how they feel when a >spreadsheet program spits out financial statements, which 20 years ago only >they could produce. Is this what's bugging you? As long as the spreadsheet isn't hung in the Smithsonian. >Gabriel writes: >This thread seems endless to me... >Why not have machines to compose music as well? This sounds as the known >skepticism of "so-called" experts which look down new technologies that >perform better than them. A sequencer can play a lot faster on any instrument than the finest musicians could ever play. Does this mean that human instrumentalists are obsolete? In the future, computers will probably be able to harmonize and reharmonize (as Keith predicts) at the speed of light. Does this mean that whomever or whatever does the job faster will provide us with the better product? Let me say that my only motivation here was to make sure that those individuals who were discussing music as a scientific tool do indeed have an emotional involvement with music. For most musicians, this is the only reason for getting involved in music in the first place. It was somewhat unnerving to stumble upon a group of individuals talking about the use of music in a "laboratory context." However, I understand why you would want to use music as another way of interpreting data, and I have nothing against this whatsoever (I can just hear those huge sighs of relief). I merely used it as a spring board into a discussion about the importance of an emotional connection with the art form. And by the way, don't knock this connection. Hopefully, it's a big difference between the way you and the box of circuits at which you're staring view music. >Mr. Keith Maynard writes: >My intellect has been considerably more useful to me than my emotion. I let my >intellect drive my emotion, not the other way around. And I hope that when you compose, it *is* the other way around. Wade Culbreath DrumKat000@aol.com ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 25 Apr 1994 15:56:10 CST From: "Harry F.P. Haecker" Subject: Left Brain Art and Universal Art vs. Right Brain Art >Harry Haecker writes: >>"mathematics IS *one* type of artistic outlet..." >Not very cool. I personally don't see math as being "artistic." Hmm. I guess I just believe that I'm able to see the Hand of Art when I grok the elegance found in Nature. I'm not a mathemetician, but I am a biologist...and I find it to be true for me when I see the dynamic equilibrium of an ecosystem. God's Art, if you will. No apologies here: I'm a romantic, "mystical" artist with an appreciation for the left side of my brain, too. It's just healthier for me. The same goes for those people who explore God's Art. If you've ever seen what a good scientist goes through in order to set up an experiment, you'd realize that there is an "art" to good science. You may not be able to frame it and put it above your couch, but I don't think that's a pre-requisite for a work to be considered art. Scientific examples of good, logical thinking, and those quantum leaps of intuition which enable us to better understand our universe are "left brain" examples of art; spontaneous improvisations on a musical instrument which are supposed to represent emotions, is the epitome of a "right brain" example of art. Beleive it or not, I do get a very analogous thrill from meditating on an ecological tenent as I do from hearing an emotionally packed piece of music. Flame me it you wish, but that's just simply the way I've been hard-wired. >From reading your posts over the past week, I gather that you are almost entirely a right-brain driven artist, and that's fine: we're all "IMHO's" here! If you can't understand what I'm getting at with the "Beauty and Elegance of the Order in Nature" as Art, then you just prove that point! >...there needs to be an element of artistic creativity in there. Again, I'm looking at the absolute pure mathematical concepts...those that I believe are the very fabric of our existance. Not just: 2+2=4 x-y2(4x) x 7y-666 = q but the relationships that are expressed *through* these symbols. A higher plane of looking at math...I'm not talking your 3rd grade math book! >math in and of itself is pure logic and not expressive. I think that by its very nature, logic is expressive, as is illogic! The chemist who came up with the concept of the benzene ring had problems understanding its nature; he knew all of the facts [read LEFT BRAIN] about this substance (molecular weight, boiling point, etc.), but couldn't visualize what it actually had to look like in order to give it its properties. He then had a dream about a snake eating its own tail [read RIGHT BRAIN], and woke up with his benzene ring hypothesis, which he later proved true. I think this is a pretty good example of how the two hemispheres of the brain can interact in an artisic endeavor. >Final thought: Was Einstein an artist? A supreme example of a left brain artist...but I've heard that he wasn't so good at the violin (which he played). >Are all mathematicians artists? Why? No, by my personal definition, the mathemetician would have to put together ideas in a way that had never been done before, preferably in an elegant fashion. Harry Haecker ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 26 Apr 1994 03:04:10 -0400 From: "J. M. Macknik" Subject: Re: Left Brain Art and Universal Art vs. Right Brain Art On Mon, 25 Apr 1994, Harry F.P. Haecker wrote: > > >Are all mathematicians artists? Why? > > No, by my personal definition, the mathemetician would have to put > together ideas in a way that had never been done before, preferably in an > elegant fashion. > > Harry Haecker > I don't think that concepts would necessarily have to be structured in unique ways. I do believe, however, in the elegance you mentioned. The conceptual [read MATHEMATICAL] artist can be influenced by those who came before, so their structuring need not be different from what cam before. Perhaps a new perspective is all that is required to give the concept an elegance that would classify it as artistic. Take for instance, Escher. He wasn't some phenomenal master of the pencil, but his grasp of perspective [read VISUAL META-PROCESSING, AN IMPOSED MATHEMATICAL ALGORITHM ON VISUAL PERCEPTION] allowed him to create some fascinating pieces of art. James M. Macknik Data Management Assistant Senior - Connecticut College Dept. of Academic Computing Major - Music & Technology Connecticut College VoiceMail:(203)/439-3333 x5542 Office:(203)/439-2923 E-Mail Address: jmmac@conncoll.edu Internet Address: jmmac@dsys.cc.conncoll.edu ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 26 Apr 1994 10:17:24 CST From: "Harry F.P. Haecker" Subject: Re[2]: Left Brain Art and Universal Art vs. Right Brain Art >I don't think that concepts would necessarily have to be >structured in unique ways (to be considered art)...take for instance, >Escher. But Escher DID structure concepts in very unique ways! Although he didn't "invent" or "discover" perspective, he did structure it in new ways, with (wonderful!) graphic designs and creatures that had never been seen before. I was answering a question posed concerning whether Einstein or theoretical mathematicians in general were artists. Was Escher a theoretical mathematician, as well as a graphic artist, or did he just have an incredible innate grasp of perspective and a fantastic imagination? I've not read his biography. But either way, I think that he could be considered a rather well-balanced left/right brain artist. When I say well-balanced, I'm not making a value judgment: I think that artists come in many different flavors (so to speak), with different degrees of use of their left and right brain. I know this whole topic is off the track from E-music, and some people are probably pissed that we're using electronic music bandwidth to discuss this. Is there a "music philosophy" forum around that I should be banished to? Harry Haecker (haeckerh@nwrc.gov) (bthaec@lsuvm.bitnet) ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 26 Apr 1994 22:02:03 -0500 From: "J. Michael Roach" Subject: Re: Re[2]: Left Brain Art and Universal Art vs. Right Brain Art > I know this whole topic is off the track from E-music, and some people > are probably pissed that we're using electronic music bandwidth to > discuss this. Is there a "music philosophy" forum around that I should > be banished to? I think a lot of us have been off course here on the list. Is there a better place that we could be to discuss these philosophical topics? Mark, perhaps you and I should private email the rest of this argument. Unless the list is enjoying our bickering . . . J. Michael ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 27 Apr 1994 11:01:12 BST From: Stephen Deutsch Subject: Re: Re[2]: Left Brain Art and Universal Art vs. Right Brain Art > > Is there a "music philosophy" forum around that I should > > be banished to? > > > J. Michael > There is. From the uk it can be reached as follows: musical-aesthetics@uk.ac.mailbase It is generated in the states, so those of you there might have a better way of reaching them. I warn you, though, these people spend much time arguing whether Shenker's protonazi sentiments (although he was Jewish) invalidate his views about the superiority of Beethoven to Rameau. -- Prof Stephen Deutsch # # BOURNEMOUTH The Digital Music Studio # UNIVERSITY ----------------------------------------------------------------------- JANET: sdeutsch@uk.ac.bournemouth Talbot Campus World: sdeutsch@bournemouth.ac.uk Fern Barrow, Poole Voice: +44 (202) 595102 Fax: 595530 Dorset, BH12 5BB, UK ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 28 Apr 1994 09:10:06 MEZ From: Thomas Subject: Re: Re[2]: Left Brain Art and Universal Art vs. Right Brain Art > I think a lot of us have been off course here on the list. Is there > a better place that we could be to discuss these philosophical topics? > > Mark, perhaps you and I should private email the rest of this argument. I personally appreciate discussions like that much more than those like "Which Sampler Should I Buy To Record the Barking of My Dog?". So, as long as nobody explicitely complains, keep it up. It *does* concern us people who "create art with the help of machines" (IMHO) Have fun, Thomas ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 23 Apr 1994 19:30:08 EDT From: Wade Culbreath Subject: Machine Art >Elissa Brill writes: >>I don't think there's ANYONE who actually thinks machines create art, is >there??? > >------------- > >I wish it were so. > >Wade Culbreath >Oh, but I do !!! I also think they should be paid more and have a better social security. GuyZ11B. --------------- "They" being the machines... Wade Culbreath xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx DrumKat000@aol.com ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 24 Apr 1994 02:07:47 EDT From: "Jason E. Geistweidt" Subject: Re: Machine Art When machines create machines that create art, then maybe machines will create art. But, then again, I guess the creator of the machine is the creator (or God, if you would) of the art. Perhaps we are machines creating art? Maybe the Earth just needed more complex musical, visual, etc structures and it created humans in order to do this? (Thanks to George Carlin for the idea.) What do you think? Jason Geistweidt, the American University. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 24 Apr 1994 01:46:56 -0500 From: "J. Michael Roach" Subject: Re: Machine Art > When machines create machines that create art, then maybe machines will create > art. But, then again, I guess the creator of the machine is the creator (or > God, if you would) of the art. Perhaps we are machines creating art? Maybe > the Earth just needed more complex musical, visual, etc structures and it > created humans in order to do this? (Thanks to George Carlin for the idea.) > > What do you think? I think that is all a huge crock of nonsense, but I like that way you think. Or the way George Carlin thinks. See my earlier post for my opinion on machines and art. I'm interested in any responses the list might have to it. J. Michael ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 25 Apr 1994 10:42:08 +0200 From: Guy Van Belle Subject: Re: Machine Art On Sat, 23 Apr 1994, Wade Culbreath wrote: > >Elissa Brill writes: > >>I don't think there's ANYONE who actually thinks machines create art, is > >there??? > > > >------------- > > > >I wish it were so. > > > >Wade Culbreath > > > >Oh, but I do !!! I also think they should be paid more and have a better > social security. > > GuyZ11B. > > --------------- > > "They" being the machines... > > > Wade Culbreath > xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > DrumKat000@aol.com > Off course, 'they' do the work and make the decisions about what is art and what isn't. GuyZ11B. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 26 Apr 1994 02:31:08 -0400 From: "J. M. Macknik" Subject: Re: Machine Art On Mon, 25 Apr 1994, Guy Van Belle wrote: > > > Off course > > GuyZ11B. > I'd say that about sums up my views on Guy's interjections. James M. Macknik Data Management Assistant Senior - Connecticut College Dept. of Academic Computing Major - Music & Technology Connecticut College VoiceMail:(203)/439-3333 x5542 Office:(203)/439-2923 E-Mail Address: jmmac@conncoll.edu Internet Address: jmmac@dsys.cc.conncoll.edu ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 28 Apr 1994 09:58:47 EDT From: Keith Maynard - CCC Subject: Re: Music and the Like (Created by interference from Culbreath) Culbreath writes: > .. > Hi. It's me. The right-brained emotional guy. About 2 weeks ago, I flamed > fellow for creating music generated from mouse genes. Since then, I've > .. You really are a piece of work. I was away from my terminal for a few days and I thought I will let you rest but you are a true blue fool man!! You intentionally interloped on a discussion in which you had no real interest or contribution and totally interfered with the discussion misleading us taking us totally off the topic and yet have the gall to talk about flame. You *STILL* don't get it. I was not, nor was anyone in our discussion talking about creating music from mouse genes. Geez are you a half-idiot? Our discussion centered around interest in using the apparent organizing power of our brains to understand highly complex data, for example, music. Our inquiry was whether this power could be used to interpret scientific data. The creation of music for music's sake was not of interest to us. That, by your admission, I can quote your post if you desire, is a pet peeve of yours which you felt inclined to dump into the middle of our debate, and may I add in a most hostile manner too. So I was going to write you to let you know that that was very unmannerly and undisciplined but here you are asking for it so here it is. You may respond if you care but me, I am out of here. I can tell you if this were my list, I'd pull your plug for a travesty like the one you pulled off. If you want to talk about something, start a thread please don't interrupt and mislead other people's threads. I know there are at least three other people who are genuinely interested in the original topic but the racket you created just aborted whatever discoveries we could have made. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 28 Apr 1994 17:07:29 EDT From: Wade Culbreath Subject: ReMusic and the Like (Created by interference from Culbreath) I recently wrote: > .. > Hi. It's me. The right-brained emotional guy. About 2 weeks ago, I flamed > fellow for creating music generated from mouse genes. Since then, I've > .. Keith Maynard writes: You really are a piece of work. -------------------- Thanks : ) Keith Maynard writes: I was away from my terminal for a few days and I thought I will let you rest but you are a true blue fool man!! ----------- Careful now... Let's not get testy. Keith Maynard writes: You intentionally interloped on a discussion in which you had no real interest or contribution and totally interfered with the discussion misleading us taking us totally off the topic and yet have the gall to talk about flame. ------------------- Not true. I had every interest in finding out why you compose music from mouse genes. I quote myself from a recent post: "I understand why you would want to use music as another way of interpreting data, and I have nothing against this whatsoever (I can just hear those huge sighs of relief). I merely used it as a spring board into a discussion about the importance of an emotional connection with the art form." ...something I wasn't sure if you had at the time. This was my reason for getting involved. From this, the topic shifted to whether or not computers could create music, or art for that matter. This became a debate over computer generated music, the element of chance in creating art, and so on. You're explanation was quite clear. I didn't mean to start that decrepit argument all over again and I'm sure no one else wants to hear anymore of it. Just relax. Keith Maynard still writes: You *STILL* don't get it. I was not, nor was anyone in our discussion talking about creating music from mouse genes. --------------------- You explained this before. Calm down. Keith Maynard exclaims: Geez are you a half-idiot? -------------------- Somebody get his legs, I'll get his arms. Bring that stretcher over here. Keith Maynard writes: Our discussion centered around interest in using the apparent organizing power of our brains to understand highly complex data, for example, music. ------------------- 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. By the way, who's hostile now? Keith Maynard writes: So I was going to write you to let you know that that was very unmannerly and undisciplined but here you are asking for it so here it is. -------------- Unmannerly? Undisciplined? You say this after the comments you just made? Keith Maynard concludes: You may respond if you care but me, I am out of here. ---------------- Is there a doctor in the house? Keith old buddy, before you go... You explained all of this before. I gotcha. Now just sit down and relax. It's all over. Feel better? Good. That was not the point of my last post and I'm sorry if you misunderstood me. I think we're just a little bit sensitive, don't you think? By the way, it's called V A L I U M. Look into it. ; ) All the best, Wade Culbreath xxxxxxxxxxxxxx DrumKat000@aol.com ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 28 Apr 1994 19:42:35 -0400 From: Joe McMahon Subject: Re: ReMusic and the Like (Created by interference from Culbreath) Regardless of who's right and wrong in this discussion, it's no longer germane to the list, as neither person seems to have any ground for agreement with the other. How about slugging it out in the alley (i.e., private e-mail) until you reach a concensus, even if it's "we'll never agree". --- Joe M. -- "When Brian Eno ruled Chicago..." (MST3K) ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 27 Apr 1994 03:06:24 +0000 From: HomeyLeDieu Subject: Music and the like... As far as appreciation goes, I am enjoying this back and forth action going on between factions. These give my philosophical writings something to deal with. As far as art by computer vs. art WITH computer, I recently was exposed to the programing genius of a Mr. David Cope and his writing of software that emulates any composer's style (ie: Bach or Mozart...etc...) and cranks out original pieces of the preferred style by the hundreds. Granted, he has to enter numerous parameters to achieve this composition, but I think this gives modern composers of *any* type of music, especially computer music, a run for their money. It will be interesting to see where computer music will be in 5 years as a result of this breakthrough. I do, however, agree that the *art* assigned to a piece is dependant on the humanity of the composer, however we may define that term "humanity" in the years ahead. I invite anyone with a personal beef with this to address me personally and not waste the 'net's time....unless they want to entertain us, that is. :) Doug George georgedj@ctrvax.vanderbilt.edu \\| | | |\ // Doug George/ |--| | | ) HomeyLeDieu/ | | |__ |/ DJ MC Scratchmaster Bee-Bop Chocolate Chip Cookie Dog ** There is Truth in that the sky falls from my eyes. Long Live Sleet! ** ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 27 Apr 1994 15:09:09 EDT From: Wade Culbreath Subject: Re: Music and the like... Hi. It's me. The right-brained emotional guy. About 2 weeks ago, I flamed a fellow for creating music generated from mouse genes. Since then, I've really enjoyed all the dialogue regarding art and machines over the past couple of weeks. Very enlightening! There have been more than a few excellent contributions made to this argument; especially the conversation between J. Michael and Mark H; J Michael's in particular. Lately, however, I've seen a lot more posts supporting computer generated music. So, even though I'm totally burned out on this topic (as most of you probably are).... Doug George writes: I recently was exposed to the programing genius of a Mr. David Cope and his writing of software that emulates any composer's style (ie: Bach or Mozart...etc...) and cranks out original pieces of the preferred style by the hundreds. Granted, he has to enter numerous parameters to achieve this composition, but I think this gives modern composers of *any* type of music, especially computer music, a run for their money. ----------------------------- Machine emulating Mozart is a sickly trip. If David Cope thinks for a minute that the music generated by his program is equal to that of Mozart, he is definately missing something when he listens to Mozart's music. Mozart's music could only have been composed by a human being with thoughts, feelings, emotion, etc. Maybe Mr. David Cope's computer is really advanced and has these qualities, but mine sure doesn't. And how could a computer could replace composers of any type of music? As I've said before, music (with the exception of "computer music") isn't just the product of a complex set of algorithms. It isn't a math problem played through instruments. It involves artistic expression. David Cope may be a programming genius, but until computer's are capable of something equitable to human expression, I can't agree with you. Wade Culbreath xxxxxxxxxxxxxx DrumKat000@aol.com ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 27 Apr 1994 21:29:18 -0400 From: William Matthews Subject: Re: Music and the like... > > Doug George writes: > I recently was exposed to the programing genius of a Mr. David Cope and his > writing of software that emulates any composer's style (ie: Bach or > Mozart...etc...) and cranks out original pieces of the preferred style by the > hundreds. Granted, he has to enter numerous parameters to achieve this > composition, but I think this gives modern composers of *any* type of music, > especially computer music, a run for their money. > You need to hear this and decide for yourself. The Cope/Mozart comparison was available at the Boston Computer Museum for awhile. One heard an example and then guessed which it was. I have 35 years of musical training, much of it in composition. I never missed, nor did I find it at all difficult to distinguish. My friend, a fulltime music lover with no formal musical training but with a huge and eclectic CD collection and classical radio on as a constant background to his home life for the past 20 years, got it right about 75% of the time. What was interesting is that the visitor average was about 52% right; ie: they couldn't really tell any difference. If you factor out the musicians among the visitors, the others couldn't hear any difference. As I understand it, music cognition in untrained people is largely right hemisphere; as they gain formal experience, it moves leftwards, ie: music increasingly becomes a syntactical activity. Bill Matthews wmatthew@abacus.bates.edu ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 27 Apr 1994 23:36:28 -800 From: Mark Hartshorn Subject: Re: Music and the like... > As I understand it, music cognition in untrained people is largely right > hemisphere; as they gain formal experience, it moves leftwards, ie: music > increasingly becomes a syntactical activity. Bill makes a very interesting piont here that I feel is totally true. I'm not sure if it is a positive thing or a negative thing, though I know that I myself am guilty turning music into the syntactical varity. I wonder if maybe trained musicians can misunderstand to original purpose of music - the purpose that untrained listeners still feel at all times.. Just food for thought... Mark H ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 28 Apr 1994 08:55:35 -0400 From: William Matthews Subject: Re: Music and the like... > > > As I understand it, music cognition in untrained people is largely right > > hemisphere; as they gain formal experience, it moves leftwards, ie: music > > increasingly becomes a syntactical activity. > > Bill makes a very interesting piont here that I feel is totally > true. I'm not sure if it is a positive thing or a negative thing, though I > know that I myself am guilty turning music into the syntactical varity. I > wonder if maybe trained musicians can misunderstand to original purpose of > music - the purpose that untrained listeners still feel at all times.. > Just food for thought... > Mark H But since music is usually composed by people with a lot of musical experience, why isn't syntactical meaning itself an "original purpose" and why, for heaven's sake, do so many people who post to this list insist on using the singular form of the noun "purpose?" Or think that syntax is somehow inferior to semantic content, which may or may not even exist in music? Bill Matthews wmatthew@abacus.bates.edu > ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 28 Apr 1994 08:55:58 -0500 From: "J. Michael Roach" Subject: Re: Music and the like... > There have been more than a few > excellent contributions made to this argument; especially the conversation > between J. Michael and Mark H; J Michael's in particular. Thanks so much for the compliment. It's nice to know that one's posts are read and appreciated even if one doesn't agree. > Machine emulating Mozart is a sickly trip. If David Cope thinks for a minute > that the music generated by his program is equal to that of Mozart, he is > definately missing something when he listens to Mozart's music. As an employee of DATASTORM Technologies, maker of PROCOMM PLUS and PROCOMM PLUS for Windows (pardon the plug), I have much experience with terminal emulations; but, composer emulations? PLEASE. I'm getting angry. (And now . . . J. Michael attempt to loop this thread back to a EMUSIC topic) Technology excites no one more than me. Let's use this technology to a good cause instead of something silly. The aforementioned program would be an invaluable tool for studying the mental and creative processes of the finest composers, as well as for research and education for young composers and their minds. But to write a program such as this, is simply duplicating what has already been done. Hopefully, no one considers the musical aspects of this endeavor art. The computer scientific end of the project is quite artistic, and I'm sure that Cope is a gifted programmer and musician. But let's keep technology in step, here. This is very similar to the debate over genetic engineering, don't you think? Take care, all of you! J. Michael ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 28 Apr 1994 12:39:05 EST From: David Goessling Subject: Re: Music and the like... I know that this list is supposed to be about electronic music (and largely of the academic variety, it seems), but this left/brain right brain/syntactical stuff is interesting. All of this discussion seems to be centering around "formal" composition. When folks are referring to the "purpose" of music and listeners' apprehension of meaning, they all seem to have a concert or at least, an "intellectual" setting in mind. (Maybe I'm wrong...) What about the pop/country/folk/rave listener? What is their "purpose" in listening? Does the rave synth player/producer consider this left brain right brain stuff, or is he (and the audience) looking for the experience as the meaning? What's the "purpose" of this music? What about a country songwriter? And country listener? I hardly think that the average country fan (who's not a songwriter or player) cares about the structural aspects of the song, the pedal steel solo, etc. in a technical manner. I know that to be true of my friends (and wife) who are not musicians: they don't want to hear about the production or technical details that I'm noticing about a song or a piece. They are listening for the experience. And while we trained musicians (I actually went to AU in the mid-seventies...) may wish or hope that all listeners will appreciate these details in the same way we do, on an intellectual level, the fact is they probably won't without a lot of training and/or prompting (which they may or may not appreciate... think about it). I remember being fascinated by the serialists: but except for a few, you did have to read the Perspectives or JMT articles to know what the hell the "meaning" of the piece was. Hey, that's too much research for the average or even above average listener. Anyway there's my 2cents (and more.) DMG *************************************************************************** This e-mail message was sent from the KPMG Knowledge Manager. The information contained in this e-mail message is privileged and confidential. It is intended for the use of the addressee listed above. Technical Support (610) 995-4419 *************************************************************************** ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 29 Apr 1994 11:09:40 -0400 From: Mark G Simon Subject: Re: Music and the like... > All of this discussion seems to be centering around "formal" composition. When > folks are referring to the "purpose" of music and listeners' apprehension of > meaning, they all seem to have a concert or at least, an "intellectual" > setting in mind. (Maybe I'm wrong...) I don't know about you but I don't think of concerts of "classical" music as an intellectual setting. Heck, I enjoy the stuff. I have a good time. Same with records. When I come home after a day's work I sit down and say, "ahh.. now for a good Mozart symphony, or Stravinsky ballet. Say, how long has it been since I listened to Prokofiev's 5th?" That kind of thing. > What about the pop/country/folk/rave listener? What is their "purpose" in > listening? Does the rave synth player/producer consider this left brain right > brain stuff, or is he (and the audience) looking for the experience as the > meaning? What's the "purpose" of this music? > > What about a country songwriter? And country listener? I hardly think that the > average country fan (who's not a songwriter or player) cares about the > structural aspects of the song, the Basically the average pop music listener is interested in the lyrics, the physical appearance of the performer, the persistence of the bass drum (better for dancing to, apparently), the ability to appear socially acceptable to their peers by listening to it. Most of these listeners have a very superficial comprehension of the music they're listening to. I'm not talking about anyone on this list, mind you. Subscribing to this list probably indicates a more serious involvement in music, even of the popular variety, than the "average listener" we're talking about. Since these people aren't on the list and those that are have an interest in matters such as "right brain vs. left brain" why shouldn't we talk about it? > > And while we trained musicians (I actually went to AU in the mid-seventies...) > may wish or hope that all listeners will appreciate these details in the same > way we do, on an intellectual level, No, I want them to appreciate them on an emotional level. As I said, this supposedly "intellectual" stuff turns me on, and I would hope that other listeners would get turned on in the same way. > I remember being fascinated by the serialists: but except for a few, you did > have to read the Perspectives or JMT articles to know what the hell the > "meaning" of the piece was. Hey, that's too much research for the average or > even above average listener. Or even the above average listener. Serious music, by its nature, is not going to attract the mass audience, but the serialists and other types of academic composers are aiming at a tiny subset of serious music listeners, a minority of a minority. This is too confining for me. I consider the ideal audience to consist of intelligent non-musicians. At Cornell, at least, this is supplied from the ranks of chemists, physicists and other scientists. They're too intelligent to be taken in by the commercial stuff and would rather not, after spending their working hours dealing with equations, have to deal with more mathematical equations in the music they listen to. I often suspect there's more musicianship to be found in the physics department here than in the music department. Mark Simon mgs2@cornell.edu ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 29 Apr 1994 14:38:22 EDT From: "william.b.fox" Subject: Re: Music and the like... David Goessling asks: > What about the pop/country/folk/rave listener? What is their "purpose" in > listening? Does the rave synth player/producer consider this left brain right > brain stuff, or is he (and the audience) looking for the experience as the > meaning? What's the "purpose" of this music? Anyone who has played in a bar can tell you that music is mostly "audio wallpaper" to aid people to accomplish a goal such as: 1. Get drunk. 2. Get laid. 3. Forget about work. These items appear in no particular order. Also, this list is not comprehensive. Please feel free to add to the list! Bill Fox wbf@aloft.att.com ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 29 Apr 1994 13:59:33 -0500 From: Steve Hills Subject: Re: Music and the like... For my 2 cents worth: When we formulize music it may make hits and may make one dance, but, it's starting to all sound the same to me. sh ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 21 Apr 1994 15:20:15 -0500 From: DEMOLITION MAN Subject: Musical interpretation of data The concept of translating raw data into music is an interesting one. The one thing we are neglecting, however, is HOW the data gets turned into music, or at least, recognizably organized sound that the human brain can interpret. For example, one can listen to radio noise from a star, but I would venture to guess that, to the average person, it would sound like thew same static one might get from a radio between stations. If you use some sort of alogrithm to encode the data, aren't you artificially coloring the data? I have heard some of the alogrithmic stuff (i.e. rat genes) but it doesn't sound all that interesting to me, and it certainly doesn't (at least, the limited amount I've heard) carry much if a tune. By comparing two gene sequences in this way, you can hear differences between the pieces, but it is just as easy (easier if you arent a musician) to look and see a guanine replaced by a adenine. So, I guess all this also depends upon the relative complexity of what you are analyzing, and the ability of the person doing the analysis. Phil Skiba SPS5251@SIENA.BITNET ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 27 Apr 1994 09:32:58 -0400 From: Mark G Simon Subject: Oh, no! Not another Machine art post! Surprisingly enough, I don't have a strong opinion about computer generated music. I don't feel threatened by it. I figure humans know best what humans want to listen to. I have seen David Cope's book about his attempts to emulate composers' styles via computer and it has quite a number of extended musical examples. So I sat down at a piano and tried playing through his pieces in the style of Scott Joplin and Sergei Prokofiev. The results are interesting, but in the same way that Samuel Johnson's performing dog was interesting (" 'twere not done well, but one marvels that 'twere done at all"). I'm not sure that even Cope regards this music as "art", and it really doesn't matter to me whether it is or not. I think what Cope is doing does make a contribution to our understanding of what it is than makes the music of Joplin and Prokofiev sound like Joplin and Prokofiev, and that is certainly a worthwhile endeavor. Mark Simon mgs2@cornell.edu ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 26 Apr 1994 05:27:41 CDT From: Gregory Taylor Subject: no subject (file transmission) Mark Simon seems to have been set off. >And now that I'm up and running I've got to spout off about the concept >of open-mindedness. People are always talking about open-mindedness and >what a wonderful virtue it is. Invariably what they're talking about >involves not making value judgments. "Well, who's to say ......?", or >"it's not better or worse, it's just different" or "there's no such >thing as good or bad, just let 100 flowers blossom ..." on and on. This >is empty-mindedness, not open-mindedness. It's a cop-out that appeals to >people too lazy to give a matter serious thought. Go ahead, make value >judgments, the more the better. It shows you're thinking. Weigh the >evidence before you and make a decision. Just be prepared to reverse your >judgement at any time that contrary evidence comes in. *That's* what >open-mindedness is about, and it is a wonderful virtue to admit that "you >know, what I said yesterday may not be true". It requires humility. It >... ugh I think I've just spent myself on this issue. Mark, something else must have been upsetting you. I normally look to your contributions here for a great deal more erudition than the above quoted. I hope you're feeling better for having said what you said, but I hope you're at least willing to acknowledge a *little* bit of oversimplification in the way that you "spent yourself" on this issue. You know, I was just reading an essay by Bill Bennett the other day about the "Culture Wars," and he makes precisely this point; in order for white, western culture to resume its previous hegemony, we need to cast aside this silly Liberal notion that one tempers the face of judgement. That stuff out there is merely Secular Humanism in its most disgusting viral form. Once insinuated, it strips our youth of any ability to "think." Provisionality is for the weak, who will be swept aside by the storm which is to come. An additional advantage to this is that we transform "humility" from a regular practice to one to which we resort only in the face of error and "humiliation." Note, too, the ease with which we connect the linguistic terms "open" and "empty", affirm that "more" is "better", etc. Besides, any real student of the 20th century would *have* to be using "let a hundred flowers bloom" with just a dollop of irony - say, enough to fill the back seat of your car. With every good wish, Gregory ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 26 Apr 1994 11:23:40 -0400 From: Mark G Simon Subject: Re: no subject (file transmission) > > Mark, something else must have been upsetting you. I normally look to > your contributions here for a great deal more erudition than the above > quoted. I hope you're feeling better for having said what you said, > but I hope you're at least willing to acknowledge a *little* bit of > oversimplification in the way that you "spent yourself" on this issue. I'm not. > You know, I was just reading an essay by Bill Bennett the other day > about the "Culture Wars," and he makes precisely this point; in order > disgusting viral form. Once insinuated, it strips our youth of any > ability to "think." Provisionality is for the weak, who will be swept [etc.] Greg, your reply is so erudite it went right over my head. Sorry. > Besides, any real student of the 20th century would *have* to be using > "let a hundred flowers bloom" with just a dollop of irony - say, enough > to fill the back seat of your car. One would think. And yet that, and the other quotations I came up with in my rant were taken from various postings I have read on this list at various times and were meant in apparent sincerity. I admit, my diatribe had very little to do with Elissa's original statement. She just happened to detonate a little land mine in my brain. Mark Simon mgs2@cornell.edu ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 26 Apr 1994 17:11:03 -0400 From: Elissa Brill Subject: Re: no subject (file transmission) > I admit, my diatribe > had very little to do with Elissa's original statement. She just happened > to detonate a little land mine in my brain. > Mark Simon > mgs2@cornell.edu Wow, I'm glad that's over. (I guess I'd better watch where I walk.) By the way, it never occurred to me that my modest little post had so many political undertones. I thought we were talking about finding patterns when analyzing data. Silly me. I hope your brain feels better. --Elissa ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 6 Apr 1994 12:54:03 +0200 From: Kalev Tiits Subject: Schaeffer in English??? hello, world i am presently contemplating on various theories on timbre, its use as an equal (?) dimension along with pitch, time and harmony, generally in regard to musical composition. this has led me to Pierre Schaeffer's extensive work Traite des Objects Musicaux, which i suppose is a classic in this field. However, since my French is rather poor, i would much prefer to read it in English. i hope some kind soul who reads this and knows whether this work has been translated to English could lighten me in the matter... if it is to be found, i would like to know the publisher, year and (if possible) ISBN so that i could track it down. Helsinki University library could not help me. so... i would greatly appreciate any pointers. while we are at the matter, of course i would be interested in any other work on the same lines that anyone might know of. i am just starting with this idea, being rather ignorant so far. this is not off topic for emusic list, i suppose - thanx, Kalev Tiits kalev@elisir.helsinki.fi ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 6 Apr 1994 08:47:12 -0400 From: Mark G Simon Subject: Re: Schaeffer in English??? > > i am presently contemplating on various theories on timbre, its use > as an equal (?) dimension along with pitch, time and harmony, > generally in regard to musical composition. this has led me to Pierre > Schaeffer's extensive work Traite des Objects Musicaux, which i > suppose is a classic in this field. However, since my French is > rather poor, i would much prefer to read it in English. i hope some I just did an online search on RLIN, the library database, and have come up with no English translation of that work. I don't suppose this will be of much help, but just in case your Spanish is better than your French, a "Tratado de los objetos musicales" by Schaeffer has been published by Alianza Editorial in Madrid (1988. ISBN 8420685402). I'm sure if we all put as much work into it as we did with the quotation about being kidnapped by aliens, we ought to have translations of this book in any number of different languages in no time. Mark Simon mgs2@cornell.edu ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 6 Apr 1994 09:30:29 -0400 From: Joe McMahon Subject: Re: Schaeffer in English??? >i am presently contemplating on various theories on timbre, its use >as an equal (?) dimension along with pitch, time and harmony, >generally in regard to musical composition. I have (somewhere) a collection of lectures by Stockhausen which includes some material on his theories of the relationship of timbre to composition. I believe in particular he explains how certain things work in Kontakte and in Microphonie I. I'll see if I can find it this evening; most of my books are currently in boxes. I'm afraid I can't remember the title, but I think it's only a few years old. Your library might have this one. And this is eminently discussable material for the list. You can only talk about hardware for so long... --- Joe M. ------------------------------------------------------------- "Team Metlay -- a street gang with synths." (D.A.C. Crowell) ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 7 Apr 1994 10:26:38 -0400 From: William Matthews Subject: Re: Re[2]: Schaeffer in English??? re: modelling natural phenomena as musical parameters, a compelling example is Charles Dodge's classic EARTH'S MAGNETIC FIELD from the 1970's. The work maps (a year's worth?) of fluctuations in the planet's magnetic field to about 20 - 25 minutes of pitch and rhythm (not to timbre as I remember it). The music is gorgeous. Bill Matthews wmatthew@abacus.bates.edu ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 7 Apr 1994 09:00:30 CST From: "Harry F.P. Haecker" Subject: Re[2]: Schaeffer in English??? >>i am presently contemplating on various theories on timbre, its use >>as an equal (?) dimension along with pitch, time and harmony, >>generally in regard to musical composition. >And this is eminently discussable material for the list. You can only talk >about hardware for so long... >--- Joe M. I'm glad this topic came up. I'm interested in the possibility of using timbre in my position as an "Ecologist's Lackey" at the National Wetlands Research Center. One of the things being studied is the modeling of wetland ecosystems using multivariate analysis and structural equation modeling. When using upwards of twenty or more diagnostic parameters to model a marsh, the permutations can get quite complex! Therefore, similar, "Direct Variables" are lumped together (using statistical hocus-pocus) into what are known as Latent Variables, and those, funneled into progressively fewer variables. Unfortunately, by reducing complexity, the accuracy and repeatability of the model is affected: Nature abhors homogeneity! Conversely, by keeping the complexity of interactions, one is faced with an overwhelmingly large table of numbers or a graphs that looks like plates of spaghetti! I started thinking of the complexity of natural instruments' timbres and subsequently, wavetable synthesis. With only what I've read in "Wired" and on this list to go on, I just know it's a new method of using FM to more accurately model complex waveforms found in acoustical instruments. Could this method be used to model interactions found in nature, with each interaction represented by a different partial? If so, then could one parameter be manipulated (say, salinity) on this model, thereby changing the timbre of the plot in question? If two different combinations of parameters evolved over time toward the same end result (like a specific degree of species richness), the timbre would be the same, or very similar. I think this would make analyzing changes and trends in the ecosystem model easier...at least for me, since I respond more to timbre than 30 GB databases! Harry Haecker ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 14 Apr 1994 16:20:54 -0400 From: Joe McMahon Subject: Sonification (was: Schaeffer in English???) HPH writes: >I'm interested in the >possibility of using timbre in my position as an "Ecologist's Lackey" >at the National Wetlands Research Center. One of the things being >studied is the modeling of wetland ecosystems using multivariate >analysis and structural equation modeling... >Could this method be used to model >interactions found in nature, with each interaction represented by a >different partial? If so, then could one parameter be manipulated >(say, salinity) on this model, thereby changing the timbre of the plot >in question? If two different combinations of parameters evolved over >time toward the same end result (like a specific degree of species >richness), the timbre would be the same, or very similar. We've talked a good bit about "sonification" (as opposed to visualization) of data here, but I don't think anyone has posted any results. It's probably because visual language is so much better understood. Visual illusions have been described and studied for a long time, but only in the last few years has much been done on auditory illusions. Our understanding of the hearing process is nowhere near as deep as that of the visual processes. It's my feeling that hearing is a much narrower bandwidth sense than is vision. We sense far more differences in color than we do in pitch; I don't know about any studies of the perception of timbre. Bell Labs has been doing a lot of interesting work based on the use of algorithmic composition -- one that sticks in my mind is the use of algorithmically composed drum solos to simultaneously present a number of system performance parameters. The ear seems best suited to distinguish patterns of repetition in data; data coming out of a chaotic system, for instance, would probably be noisy enough that the patterns would be obscured. The ear is not a good vehicle for long-term series analysis. It's pretty good at pitch analysis, and not bad at location (except for midline sounds*). The ear is probably at it's best in detecting ratio relationships between tones. For example, it's easy to tell a minor chord from a major chord, inversions or range notwithstanding. Also, it's good at detecting relatively simple divisions of an underlying timebase. For instance, "swing" eight-notes are easily distinguished from "straight" eigths or dotted-eighth/sixteenths. Now is any of this any help in developing a sonification program. Dunno. It's certainly food for thought. What else is the ear good at, and bad at? --- Joe M. ----------------------------------------- "It's delightfully stupid." - N. Rothwell ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 14 Apr 1994 20:04:58 -0400 From: Bob Ceely Subject: Re: Sonification (was: Schaeffer in English???) WHOSE EAR? RPC ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 18 Apr 1994 09:38:18 EDT From: Keith Maynard - CCC Subject: Visual v Aural perception > ------------------------------ > > Date: Fri, 15 Apr 1994 09:26:08 -0400 > From: Joe McMahon > Subject: Re: your mail > > >One way to clean up this org. might be to give a basic ear test.How many out > >there can hear a simple harmonic progrssion: viz: I, VI II V V/V V VI U??? > >One does hear music after all. It is not to look at. > > Yes. You're quite right. A trained ear will be able to hear more details > than an untrained one. However, there do seem to be some (from the Western > musical standpoint) relatively easy-to-hear things (i.e., beats caused by > close intervals sucha as a minor second, and the consonance of the octave, > perfect fourth and fifth -- I'm ignoring the minor dissonances caused by > the tuning system). > > My guess is that it will be a lot harder to use "music" for anything other > than short-term pattern detection and rational relations between data. Several years ago there were some scientists planning to use music to attempt to discover patterns in weather data. Their reasoning went something like this: Listeners tend to be able to recognize Mozart, Beethoven etc despite the extremely large number of individual data points in a composition. They believed that by 'learning' the 'sound' of weather data prior to e.g tornados, hurricanes, thunder storms, one can easily listen in on weather activity. I have not heard anything more about it say over the last three years but it sounded like something worth considering. I believe we do have some large scale auditory organizing power. It may be based on repeated applications of these short-term patterns (motifs , harmonic formulae I vi ii V's etc) but I certainly can detect composers with strong, 'well-defined' styles particulary Mozart, Rachmaninoff, Tchaikovsky, Chopin). I'd bet with more exposure to other composers I can detect their hallmarks as Karl Hass calls it. I also helped a sixth grader ( slightly prodigious ) who was trying to establish whether there was a difference in sound between damaged mouse genes and healthy ones. I wrote the C program that generated music from the protein patterns in the genes in question ( the music had potential too ). These are two examples of which I am aware where people try to use our ability to organize large amounts of auditory data. > > I'd like to throw it open for folks who *are* trained in classical theory; > what other things can you think of that are easily quantifiable and > relatively simple for an unsophisticated listener to spot? > > (Another thing which crossed my mind as well yesterday but which I didn't > work into the comments of vision vs. hearing - visual language has a much > richer symbolism than does aural. The closest equivalent I can come up with > to visual symbols is the leitmotif as propounded by Wagner. This can still > be hard to detect in a dense musical passage...) I have thought a lot about the difference between the visual arts and the aural. The thing that is of primary difference to me is the persistence of the former. Just think, as a student of painting, one can stand with a teacher for hours studying details of some masterpiece. In music features literally fly by. Sure we can rewind the tape or back up the CD but music is highly sequential. There is no way to perceive the *whole* piece. Even if we are trying to study the smaller scale aspects eg scale fragments, chords, harmonic progressions or successions, they all persist for extremely brief moments. Has anyone sustained a sound( e.g. major chord ) for say hours at a time and observed the change in perception of that sound in the future? In the visual you can stare at red, compare red to orange and note they are different whereas in music everything goes by all too quickly ( for my liking anyway :)). Keith Maynard. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 18 Apr 1994 12:15:46 -0400 From: Bob Ceely Subject: Re: Visual v Aural perception EAR THe point is that we are not all created equally. Some have excellent ears, some fair, and some awful. To a trained musician music should fly by at a slower perceived rate than to one with a less good ear. The trouble today is anyone can call herself a musicianm whether or not in fact they are. But maybe that's ok. Every body takes photo- graphs, but certainly few are photographers. Cheers. Warm regrets RPC ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 18 Apr 1994 13:01:29 -0400 From: Joe McMahon Subject: Re: Visual v Aural perception >I believe we do have some large scale auditory organizing power. It may be >based on repeated applications of these short-term patterns (motifs , harmonic >formulae I vi ii V's etc) but I certainly can detect composers with strong, >'well-defined' styles particulary Mozart, Rachmaninoff, Tchaikovsky, Chopin). >I'd bet with more exposure to other composers I can detect their hallmarks as >Karl Hass calls it. Hmmm, yes, now that you mention it, I know exactly what you mean. I've experienced hearing a few bars of something and saying to myself, "That's a piece by so-and-so...hmm, don't know that one..." "Style" is definitely a large-scale organization. I seem to remember some studies being done to try to quantify the level at which style becomes perceivable, but I don't remember how successful they were. >I have thought a lot about the difference between the visual arts and the >>aural. The thing that is of primary difference to me is the persistence of >the >former. The visual arts generally do exist outside of time; you are permitted to take as long as you want to examine them in any way you like. Music exists primarily in time; even so, the ear's ability to habituate makes its perception decidedly different from the eye. If you stare at a painting for 20 minutes or so, it doesn't disappear. If you listen to sustained tone for long enough, the ear stops perceiving it after a certain amount of time (take the example of, say, fan noise in an office). A subtle variation will immediately draw attention back to the sound and how it has changed. This is, if you like, a physiological basis for minimalism is supposed to work. A minimalist piece generally has its forward motion at much slower rates than Western music usually chooses. This allows the listener to either concentrate on the subtle changes which unfold slowly, or to become screamingly bored, depending on the listener's perceptual style. --- Joe M. -- "We also have means to convey sounds in trunks and pipes, in strange lines and distances." - F. Bacon, The New Atlantis (1624) ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 18 Apr 1994 13:26:35 EDT From: Wade Culbreath Subject: Re: Visual v Aural perception >Several years ago there were some scientists planning to use music to attempt >to discover patterns in weather data...I have not heard anything more about it >say over the last three years but it sounded like something worth considering... You have just entered the Music Scientists laboratory on the Internet. Welcome! >I also helped a sixth grader ( slightly prodigious ) who was trying to establish >whether there was a difference in sound between damaged mouse genes and >healthy ones. I wrote the C program that generated music from the protein >patterns in the genes in question ( the music had potential too ). Goggles?...Check! Rubber gloves?...Check! >Listeners tend to be able to recognize Mozart, Beethoven etc despite the >extremely large number of individual data points in a composition. All systems GO! >Just think, as a student of painting, one can stand with a teacher for hours >studying details of some masterpiece. In music features literally fly by. Sure >we can rewind the tape or back up the CD but music is highly sequential. >There is no way to perceive the *whole* piece. Even if we are trying to study the >smaller scale aspects eg scale fragments, chords, harmonic progressions or >successions, they all persist for extremely brief moments. Has anyone >sustained a sound( e.g. major chord ) for say hours at a time and observed the >change in perception of that sound in the future? In the visual you can stare at >red, compare red to orange and note they are different whereas in music >everything goes by all too quickly ( for my liking anyway :)). You might think about finding a tape player with speed control so that you can set it at its slowest speed when you listen to your favorite music. Better yet, maybe you could commission an orchestra to record the music of Mozart and Beethoven at quarter note = 20 bpm. Either way, I'm sure you will have found a much more *satisfying* way to take enjoy music. It's just a shame that Brahms, Stravinsky, Schubert, Debussy... hadn't known about this concept before writing such annoyingly fast music... On to the decontamination room... Wade Culbreath DrumKat000@aol.com "If only music were slower... Then you could really enjoy it." ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 18 Apr 1994 15:11:59 -0400 From: Joe McMahon Subject: Re: Visual v Aural perception Wade very humorously writes: > >You have just entered the Music Scientists laboratory on the Internet. >Welcome! > ... >You might think about finding a tape player with speed control so that you >can set it at its slowest speed when you listen to your favorite music. I think you may have missed the point a bit (or maybe you're just trolling me. Whatever). The idea was to try to come to grips with the essential features of the listening experience as opposed to the visual experience. As a drummer, I would think you have some very different insights into the musical listening process than us keyboard weenies. :-) >Better yet, maybe you could commission an orchestra to record the music of >Mozart and Beethoven at quarter note = 20 bpm. Somehow this reminds me of a Monty Python bit about music for the Hard of Hearing, "played very slowly and very loudly". :-) I would be interested in hearing how you perceive music, though. --- Joe M. -- "We also have means to convey sounds in trunks and pipes, in strange lines and distances." - F. Bacon, The New Atlantis (1624) ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 18 Apr 1994 15:59:39 -0400 From: Mark G Simon Subject: Re: Visual v Aural perception > > Just think, as a student of painting, one can stand with a teacher for hours > studying details of some masterpiece. In music features literally fly by. Sure > we can rewind the tape or back up the CD but music is highly sequential. > There is no way to perceive the *whole* piece. Certainly there are ways to perceive the whole piece. Don't sell yourself short. The brain has tremendous capacities to retain information. Music is not just a succession of moments it's a totality, and if you can't hear it you're missing the main point. Sorry, I speak totally from a western classical music point of view, and for many who listen to various styles of popular music it may be sufficient to enjoy the moment-to-moment events, but the essence of what music of the western classical tradition does is to create what might be called for lack of better terms a "total event" or "sonic architecture". You'd better believe that when Mozart and Brahms wrote their symphonies, sonatas, or whatever that they had a mental image of the whole shebang in their heads very early on in the creative process. In my mind there is no greater high than the moment of transmission, it may be on first hearing, second hearing, third, fourth, hundredth, when I'm listening to a piece of music and everything clicks and I can hear that large overall structure. IMHO that's what music is all about. > Even if we are trying to study the smaller scale aspects eg scale fragments, > chords, harmonic progressions or successions, they all persist for extremely > brief moments. This is what scores are for. They render musical events visible to the eye and thus allow one's visual pattern recognition faculties to complement the aural pattern recognition faculties. With scores you can study the small scale details for as long as you like. You don't have to ask these poor dead composers (live ones too) to rewrite their music to suit you. Score study is a highly useful activity. The above statement relfects the personal views of the author and should not be construed as a personal putdown on anyone who sees things differently. Mark Simon mgs2@cornell.edu ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 18 Apr 1994 18:55:56 -0400 From: William Matthews Subject: Re: Visual v Aural perception re: this interesting subject of temporal horizons & memory, see Jonathan Kramer's book THE TIME OF MUSIC publ. by Schirmer Books, for provocative essays on these and related matters, and a bibliography well worth pursuing as far as one can. Bill Matthews wmatthew@abacus.bates.edu ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 18 Apr 1994 17:00:16 CST From: "Harry F.P. Haecker" Subject: Re[2]: Visual v Aural perception >I believe we do have some large scale auditory organizing power. Yes, I believe that's true, too...some people have it better than others, but it may be something that can be learned to some extent. It all comes with exposure: my mom used to catagorize all of my favorite rock bands into one seamless musical style, termed "caterwallin'" (South Georgia-ese for "cat wailing". I tend to do this myself these days with much popular music, just because I don't want to have to spend the time to separate, for instance, the nuances of one rapper from another (I'm SURE subtle differences abound). With this mental model of mine, I think that it should be possible to make what seems to be noise (because of the sheer number of data points) into recognizable timbres, by using an algorithm which constantly updates, showing trends in the data, like a macro. The alternative is to throw away some of the points, and retain only the "important" looking ones. , >I have thought a lot about the difference between the visual arts and the >>aural. The thing that is of primary difference to me is the persistence of >the >former. >The visual arts generally do exist outside of time; you are permitted to >take as long as you want to examine them in any way you like. Music exists >primarily in time; Exactly why I think something like an ecological process would be better modeled via music. I like what you were writing about the meteorlogical application. How can I get in touch with this person? Harry Haecker ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 18 Apr 1994 21:12:23 EDT From: Wade Culbreath Subject: Re: Visual v Aural perception Joe M. writes... >I think you may have missed the point a bit (or maybe you're just trolling >me. Whatever). The idea was to try to come to grips with the essential >features of the listening experience as opposed to the visual experience. I agree with this. In my book, listening to music is probably the best way to enjoy it. ;-) However, I was writing in response to Keith Maynard when he wrote (among other things)... >I also helped a sixth grader ( slightly prodigious ) who was trying to establish >whether there was a difference in sound between damaged mouse genes and >healthy ones. I wrote the C program that generated music from the protein >patterns in the genes in question ( the music had potential too ). You know, there is a lot of good music out there...and I think you should look into it. I mean, granted that damaged and healthy mouse gene protein pattern music is a really wonderful thing, you would be suprised at how much has been achieved musically by the great composers of the last few centuries. And to respond to Joe M.'s comment... >As a drummer, I would think you have some very different insights into the >musical listening process than us keyboard weenies. :-) I would be interested in >hearing how you perceive music, though. All kidding aside, my responses are stemmed from an animosity toward those whom I refer to as "Music Scientists." As a conservatory graduate, I have met my share of "scholars" who, when analyzing music, emphasize the scientific or mathematical process of composition without a thought to the emotional factors evident in the creation of a work. Analysis is fine, but when analyzing Art, there is definately a limit. IMHO, Art is human expression. When the artist creates, it is an attempt to communicate those emotions. For those of you who insist on perceiving it through an analytical lens, try nuclear physics. Wade Culbreath DrumKat000@aol.com "Never underestimate the musical power of mice." ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 18 Apr 1994 23:33:29 -0300 From: "ANDREW G. YOUNGER" Subject: Re: Visual v Aural perception > > > > Just think, as a student of painting, one can stand with a teacher for hours > > studying details of some masterpiece. In music features literally fly by. Sure > > we can rewind the tape or back up the CD but music is highly sequential. > > There is no way to perceive the *whole* piece. > > Certainly there are ways to perceive the whole piece. Don't sell yourself > short. The brain has tremendous capacities to retain information. Music > is not just a succession of moments it's a totality, and if you can't > hear it you're missing the main point. Sorry, I speak totally from a > western classical music point of view, and for many who listen to various > styles of popular music it may be sufficient to enjoy the > moment-to-moment events, but the essence of what music of the western > classical tradition does is to create what might be called for lack of > better terms a "total event" or "sonic architecture". You'd better > believe that when Mozart and Brahms wrote their symphonies, sonatas, or > whatever that they had a mental image of the whole shebang in their heads > very early on in the creative process. In my mind there is no greater > high than the moment of transmission, it may be on first hearing, second > hearing, third, fourth, hundredth, when I'm listening to a piece of music > and everything clicks and I can hear that large overall structure. IMHO > that's what music is all about. I think that this is an important point. The "great" composers of classical and baroque music often wrote symphonies (at least we believe) from a picture in their mind. Take Beethoven for instance who was, for all practical purposes, deaf. This man had a picture in his mind and could feel the music and how it pieced together. Structure would have been very important yet at the same time structure could not give way to creative licence. Ever heard of thos eperfect pitch courses? I am not sure that they are worth the money but they have one good point - they recoginize musical notes as colours. In much the same way that Joe pointed out that looking at a colour such as red allows us to differentiate between it and orange say. Well that's my 2 cents worth. Andrew ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 18 Apr 1994 21:42:46 -0500 From: Stephen David Beck Subject: Re: Visual v Aural perception Mark G Simon writes: Certainly there are ways to perceive the whole piece. Don't sell yourself short. The brain has tremendous capacities to retain information. Music is not just a succession of moments it's a totality, and if you can't hear it you're missing the main point. Sorry, I speak totally from a ...... When I was in graduate school, the School of Architecture was across the street, and we used to collaborate on crazy, avant-garde-y projects and constructions. And aside from the sillyness that went on, there was some very interesting conversations about music, architecture, structures, and time. The bottom line here is that many of these architects talked about physical structures and constructions like composers talk about music. Their point was that they perceived their work in a temporal fashion. A trivial example might be that before you could see the interior of a building, you had to walk through an archway which is connected to a plaza which focuses you on a path towards the building (I told you this was trivial). But the point is that composers also look at their work not in moment-to- moment bits, but in larger structures and temporal relationships. The whol point of a classical sonata form is that the secondary theme first appears in a key other than the tonic (usually dominant) and then returns minutes (Mozart) to hours (Mahler) later in the home key. Believe it or not, we hear this structure. And the longer we listen to a work, the more complete the total picture becomes. And another thing, I'm not sure I even agree with the premise of this thread. While it's true music is an aural experience, I have never fully accepted the idea that music is exclusively aural. In fact, I feel quite strongly that visual cues in and about the performance of music (any genre, any culture) are an important part of the musical experience. This is NOT to say that I cherish outlandish and extraneous gestures during a performance of Haydn string quartets. But the image of a musician moving, playing, breathing, nodding to another; these are part of what music is about. The notion of sound moving through space was "invented" with the brass canzonas of Gabrielli (probably earlier). Watching the sound move from brass choir to brass choir is an exciting and essential part of the music. (Okay, you've got the point) I just think you can't dismiss or discount the importance of visual experience when listening to music. Let the flames begin... Stephen David Beck School of Music Louisiana State University ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 19 Apr 1994 02:23:27 -0400 From: "J. M. Macknik" Subject: Re: Visual v Aural perception On Mon, 18 Apr 1994, Mark G Simon wrote: > Certainly there are ways to perceive the whole piece. Don't sell yourself > short. The brain has tremendous capacities to retain information. Music > is not just a succession of moments it's a totality, and if you can't > hear it you're missing the main point... > ...but the essence of what music of the western > classical tradition does is to create what might be called for lack of > better terms a "total event" or "sonic architecture". You'd better > believe that when Mozart and Brahms wrote their symphonies, sonatas, or > whatever that they had a mental image of the whole shebang in their heads > very early on in the creative process. > Um...has anyone ever heard of Shenker and his theories of analysis? This is pretty much what he's getting at...that music has many layers of structuring to support its goal and that graphing these structures helps the theorist to understand the composer's intent (much like creating the blue print of a building by looking at it inside and out...AFTER it has been constructed). I believe Mark is correct in saying that most of the great ones had everything planned out from the beginning...at least on a small scale that was then fleshed-out and imposed upon these layering structures. > > Even if we are trying to study the smaller scale aspects eg scale fragments, > > chords, harmonic progressions or successions, they all persist for extremely > > brief moments. > > This is what scores are for. They render musical events visible to the > eye and thus allow one's visual pattern recognition faculties to > complement the aural pattern recognition faculties. With scores you can > study the small scale details for as long as you like. You don't have to > ask these poor dead composers (live ones too) to rewrite their music to suit > you. Score study is a highly useful activity. > I don't know that I agree with this. What you have said is true, but within the context of this debate - Visual vs. Aural perception - score's become the "painting" of the music, and are therefore to be viewed as a visual crutch for the aurally impaired (sort of...don't take me literally on this). When looking at a painting, it's not like we are supplied with a sketching filled in with numbers that apply to the colors, are we? In this context, the score can only be viewed as a tool for the performer, or the realizer of the music. Especially since you can give three performers (or conductors, or groups of performers) the EXACT SAME score and hear three completely different musical experiences. This is not necessarily true in visual art. If one were to place a piece of art on three different pedestals (or walls, what have you), it would not necessarily be three different works of art (though, when given further thought, I'm sure a valid argument could be made for this). My point is, the score should not be thrown in as a tool for the enhancement and understanding of the aural perception of music. The score gives very little information about timbre and quality, and very general information about time-space (tempo), sound-space (amplitude and fullness in respect to the chamber in which the music is performed (or lack thereof)), and performance style. When looking at the score for Barber's Adagio for Strings, one cannot possibly "see" the difference between Bernstein's interpretation and that of Vladimir Golschmann. Upon hearing the two, however, the differences are striking. They are completely different experiences. Scores have really nothing to do with aural perception. They are a visual reference to the music. One will most certainly gain further insights to the structure of a piece by using a score, because more perceptual data is being supplied through an alternate sense. Everyone can relate to how food doesn't taste the same when you have a cold...because you can't smell it. I think this correlates to the music/score thing. We have to be careful to isolate aural perception from visual perception if this discussion is to be valid. Comments will be welcomed - Jim James M. Macknik Data Management Assistant Senior - Connecticut College Dept. of Academic Computing Major - Music & Technology Connecticut College VoiceMail:(203)/439-3333 x5542 Office:(203)/439-2923 E-Mail Address: jmmac@conncoll.edu Internet Address: jmmac@dsys.cc.conncoll.edu ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 19 Apr 1994 02:30:41 -0400 From: "J. M. Macknik" Subject: Re: Visual v Aural perception On Mon, 18 Apr 1994, Wade Culbreath wrote: > > IMHO, Art is human expression. When the artist creates, it is an attempt to > communicate those emotions. For those of you who insist on perceiving it > through an analytical lens, try nuclear physics. > > Wade Culbreath > I would tend to agree with you, though I must say that analysis is most helpful in understanding music when taking from a semantic angle. If one analyses music based on a composers state of mind at the time of writing, I think a great deal can be discovered about structure, harmony, purpose, and about how the composer dealt/deals with his or her own life. I agree that strict algorithmic analysis is flat and unrevealing, but not all analysis must be that way. -Jim James M. Macknik Data Management Assistant Senior - Connecticut College Dept. of Academic Computing Major - Music & Technology Connecticut College VoiceMail:(203)/439-3333 x5542 Office:(203)/439-2923 E-Mail Address: jmmac@conncoll.edu Internet Address: jmmac@dsys.cc.conncoll.edu ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 19 Apr 1994 09:32:56 -0400 From: Mark G Simon Subject: Re: Visual v Aural perception > > > Um...has anyone ever heard of Shenker and his theories of analysis? Yes I had that at the back of my mind when I wrote that posting. Schenker devised a very clever way of showing how all the details add up to a totality. I didn't want to go into it for fear of throwing this thread even farther off the electronic music topic than it already is. > > you. Score study is a highly useful activity. > > > I don't know that I agree with this. What you have said is true, > but within the context of this debate - Visual vs. Aural perception - > score's become the "painting" of the music, and are therefore to be > viewed as a visual crutch for the aurally impaired (sort of...don't take > me literally on this). When looking at a painting, it's not like we are > supplied with a sketching filled in with numbers that > apply to the colors, are we? In this context, the score can only be viewed > as a tool for the performer, or the realizer of the music. Especially > since you can give three performers (or conductors, or groups of performers) > the EXACT SAME score and hear three completely different musical > experiences. This is not necessarily true in visual art. If one were to > place a piece of art on three different pedestals (or walls, what have > you), it would not necessarily be three different works of art (though, > when given further thought, I'm sure a valid argument could be made for > this). > My point is, the score should not be thrown in as a tool for the enhancement > and understanding of the aural perception of music. The score gives very > little information about timbre and quality, and very general information > about time-space (tempo), sound-space (amplitude and fullness in respect > to the chamber in which the music is performed (or lack thereof)), and > performance style. When looking at the score for Barber's Adagio for > Strings, one cannot possibly "see" the difference between Bernstein's > interpretation and that of Vladimir Golschmann. Upon hearing the two, > however, the differences are striking. They are completely different > experiences. You've got to use your imagination to fill in all the interpretive, coloristic and spatial aspects of the music from the score, but conductors do this as a matter of course. You can be sure that when Bernstein looked at the score of Barber's Adagio he could tell exactly how it would sound when played by the New York Philharmonic, and how it would sound when the Philadelphia Orchestra got their hands on it, how it would sound in Carnegie Hall and how it would sound in Avery Fischer. Adjusting for acoustics and dealing with the psychology of players is an essential part of a conductor's job. The fact that differenct musicians will do different things with the same instructions only increases the value of score study. How else are you going to know what aspects of the performance you're hearing originate with the composer or with the performer? Just because track 3 of your sequence sounds different when sent to your D-50 than on your SY-77 (notice the obligatory e-music angle) does that mean that the event list window for track 3 is useless? > Scores have really nothing to do with aural perception. They are > a visual reference to the music. One will most certainly gain further > insights to the structure of a piece by using a score, because more > perceptual data is being supplied through an alternate sense. Everyone Yes, this is what I was saying. But I think you underestimate the depth of the eye-ear interface. When a musician trained in score reading looks at a score he/she can actually hear the music represented by the notes on the page, and furthermore can supply all the missing factors like timbre, space, etc. And so, looking at a score does indeed relate directly to aural experience for the trained score reader. Mark Simon mgs2@cornell.edu ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 19 Apr 1994 11:11:27 -0400 From: Myron Bennett Subject: Re: Visual v Aural Perception Bill Matthews wrote; >re: this interesting subject of temporal horizons & memory, see Jonathan >Kramer's book THE TIME OF MUSIC publ. by Schirmer Books, for provocative >essays on these and related matters, and a bibliography well worth >pursuing as far as one can. >Bill Matthews >wmatthew@abacus.bates.edu I'm new to this list, and missed the start of this thread, but I had been thinking of mentioning Johathan's book also. The essays are based not only on speculation, but on solid experiments in the perception of time, especially as it applies to music. It is heavy reading, but if you are interested in this, well worth the effort. This topic also gives me the occasion to voice one of my long standing complaints about our language. I am more aurally (and verbally) oriented than visually (which explains also why I deplore the rush to GUI in the world of computers, but that's another gripe), and I have always felt the lack of an aural equvalent of the word, "to visualize." I'm sure most readers of this list have pretty good aural imaginations, but how to talk about it? There, now that is off my chest (at least until the next time I have a chance to gripe about it.) Myron ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 19 Apr 1994 15:07:22 CST From: "Harry F.P. Haecker" Subject: Re[2]: Visual v Aural perception Stephen Beck writes: >...But the point is that composers also look at their work not in >moment-to- moment bits, but in larger structures and temporal >relationships... Believe it or not, we hear this structure. And the >longer we listen to a work, the more complete the total picture becomes... Extremely true, and I would hazard to add that the more proficient the composer, the better she is at being able to "see" ever larger works in their entirety before even taking "pen" in hand, like some goddess springing in full glory from the brow of a god (or vice-versa for all of you PC fanatics). Is it true that Mozart had been known to write down entire final versions of large works first time around? Also, the more I listen to a well thought out piece (this morning it was "The Rite of Spring"), the more I glean over time...I bet Bernstein, for instance, would never say "I won't conduct Beethoven's 7th any more...it's already been done...there's nothing more to be gained from playing it again". Unlike some popular music (yeah, I know, it has its place), which drones one simple motif over and over, and such inspired lyrics as: "baby, baby, baby, baby, YEAH". I don't even have to hear the entire four minutes to totally understand what can be gleaned from the composition. Sure, call me a musical snob; I'd love it! I think that is my weakest point in musical composition: visualisation of what I'm trying to say BEFORE I turn on the equipment. I usually end up with something that's OK, but only by manipulating my first attempts at coherence to the n-th degree. MIDI has given us all a crutch in this area. I guess compositional visualisation comes through study, which I haven't done (yet). >...I have never fully accepted the idea that music is exclusively >aural... I don't think that was the original premise of the thread, although it has digressed to that. We were debating whether it would be easier to spot trends in real-time scientific data collection (in my case, wetland modeling) via visual or aural representations. Certainly, I think the kind of visual cues that you speak of between performers are true when thinking of live performances, but of course are absent during a taped performance, (discounting audience reaction, _a la_ Cage) except in my brain. I remember the first electronic music concert I ever went to, in 1979 at the Univ. of Georgia. I didn't know whether or not to clap when the reel-to-reel finished its thing; could it appreciate my praise (the composer wasn't there)? I STILL wonder... Even when the screen saver takes over during sequencer playback of a composition, I enjoy the "multi-media" effect! Harry Haecker ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 19 Apr 1994 19:39:18 -0400 From: Elissa Brill Subject: Re: Visual v Aural Perception Myron Bennett wrote: > This topic also gives me the occasion to voice one of my long standing > complaints about our language. I am more aurally (and verbally) oriented than > visually (which explains also why I deplore the rush to GUI in the world of > computers, but that's another gripe), and I have always felt the lack of an > aural equvalent of the word, "to visualize." I'm sure most readers of this > list have pretty good aural imaginations, but how to talk about it? > There, now that is off my chest (at least until the next time I have a > chance to gripe about it.) Ed Gordon, a Professor of Music Ed. at Temple University had come up with the verb "to audiate" (noun: audiation) as an aural complement to "to visualize." ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 20 Apr 1994 18:40:43 +0100 From: "Steven D. Bramson" Subject: Re: Visual v Aural perception Stephen Beck wrote (extract) : But the point is that composers also look at their work not in moment-to- moment bits, but in larger structures and temporal relationships. The whol point of a classical sonata form is that the secondary theme first appears in a key other than the tonic (usually dominant) and then returns minutes (Mozart) to hours (Mahler) later in the home key. Believe it or not, we hear this structure. And the longer we listen to a work, the more complete the total picture becomes. ---- I recently bought Microsoft's Multimedia Beethoven's 9th. This is a CD-ROM which includes a complete performance of the work. There is a text and pictures description of the life and times of Beethoven and his contemporaries. There is also a scholarly analysis of the work including the basis of long range structure such as sonata form and short range structures such as short melodic figures. You can also play the music with a real time running visual analysis. I found it to be very informative and entertaining and rewarding of close study. I would thouroughly recommend it. Has anybody tried any of the other titles? Steven Bramson sdb@jet.uk ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 21 Apr 1994 08:31:05 BST From: Stephen Deutsch Subject: Re: Visual v Aural perception The dissonant Quartet by Mozart is also available on CD ROM and is quite good. The problem with all of these analyses is that it is important not to take too seriously the aesthetic judgements of the author; these can be inserted in very subtle ways. But as a good structural overview of a work, it's fine. Stay away from the section called *The Mozart Game* if you don't like being patronised.> > > ---- > > I recently bought Microsoft's Multimedia Beethoven's 9th. This is a CD-ROM > which includes a complete performance of the work. There is a text and > pictures description of the life and times of Beethoven and his > contemporaries. There is also a scholarly analysis of the work including > the basis of long range structure such as sonata form and short range > structures such as short melodic figures. You can also play the music with > a real time running visual analysis. I found it to be very informative and > entertaining and rewarding of close study. I would thouroughly recommend > it. Has anybody tried any of the other titles? > > Steven Bramson > sdb@jet.uk > -- Prof Stephen Deutsch # # BOURNEMOUTH The Digital Music Studio # UNIVERSITY ----------------------------------------------------------------------- JANET: sdeutsch@uk.ac.bournemouth Talbot Campus World: sdeutsch@bournemouth.ac.uk Fern Barrow, Poole Voice: +44 (202) 595102 Fax: 595530 Dorset, BH12 5BB, UK ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 21 Apr 1994 19:39:25 -0400 From: Myron Bennett Subject: Re: Visual v Aural Perception, etc. There is the nice old idea of looking at problems as opportunities. Yes, there is the problem that in such an organism as this LIST, it is easy to get off the topic. But ain't that wonderful? In my short time getting this list (one week I think it is now), I have enjoyed the perigrinations of this topic especially; somewhat akin to the joy of sitting down with the Brittanica, or Groves, or the dictionary, and going from reference to reference as the wind blows me. Sometimes, yes, a boring prospect, but more often leading to new delights. At any rate, one of the digressions in this thread, which I can't find to quote right now, brought up a memory of some time ago. The digression that has to do with computers composing, if they can, if they should, if it is an abomination in the eyes of God, etc. etc.. (It also brought to mind reading recently that many of Hollywood's screenwriters are now using computer plotting programs, which explains a lot.) What I recalled, from 25 or so years ago, was seeing and hearing a composition by Herbert Brun, and talking with him about it. It was done on a computer (Iliac, I think ... or one of its immediate successors ... yes, ancient history). It was a COMPOSED program. Principles of compostion applied to a computer program. Then, it could be realized in more than one way. The main two ways I recall were through a synthisizer, and through a plotter. So the same composition could be heard, or seen. And to this perceptor, they both had the qualities of "art," ergo, they both were "art." If I must make a didactic point about all of this (and it seems most here think that necessary), it is that computers are tools. Or another way, G.I.G.O.. And please keep up the digressions. They lead to many nice places (and a few that I'd rather avoid, but that's ok with me.) Myron ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 22 Apr 1994 08:59:09 -0400 From: Bob Ceely Subject: Re: Visual v Aural Perception, etc. I think the point about machine composition is not really a problem. I think most people care little about how a piece is composed...what is important is how it sounds. The fact that all music I have so far heard that was composed by some sort of computer program is either dreadful or boring. Of course a lot of music by inspired "composers" is dreadful and/or boring. An interesting early book on all this is Experimental Music by Lejaren Hiller and Leonard Isacson. Came out in the late fifties and should be in most University libraries. Also SYMBOLS,SIGNALS AND NOISE by J. R. Pierce from the early sixties is interesting. The point is that a program imitating a composer's thought processes seems to me an impossible task. Warm regards, RPC ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 22 Apr 1994 14:51:06 EDT From: Wade Culbreath Subject: Re: Visual v Aural Perception, etc. Myron writes: >What I recalled, from 25 or so years ago, was seeing and hearing a composition by Herbert Brun, and talking with him about it. It was done on a computer (Iliac, I think ... or one of its immediate successors ... yes, ancient history). It was a COMPOSED program. Principles of compostion applied to a computer program. Then, it could be realized in more than one way. The main two ways I recall were through a synthisizer, and through a plotter. So the same composition could be heard, or seen. And to this perceptor, they both had the qualities of "art," ergo, they both were "art." ---------------------- Just wondering. Did the Iliac ever take a bow? Let's give credit where credit is due. Wade Culbreath DrumKat000@aol.com ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 19 Apr 1994 11:36:43 EDT From: Keith Maynard - CCC Subject: Re: Visual vs aural perception Wade Culbreath writes: > You might think about finding a tape player with speed control so that you > can set it at its slowest speed when you listen to your favorite music. > Better yet, maybe you could commission an orchestra to record the music of > Mozart and Beethoven at quarter note = 20 bpm. Either way, I'm sure you will > have found a much more *satisfying* way to take enjoy music. It's just a > shame that Brahms, Stravinsky, Schubert, Debussy... hadn't known about this > concept before writing such annoyingly fast music... > > On to the decontamination room... > > Wade Culbreath > DrumKat000@aol.com > > "If only music were slower... Then you could really enjoy it." We probably listen on different levels. I certainly like to know what notes and harmonies are being used to produce the effects I experience when I listen because I am a composer/arranger and I am interested in learning and cataloguing these ideas. There are people who are content to close their eyes and enjoy. I enjoy as well as dissect the stuff to which I am listening. Sorry to bore you if this is second nature to you. I have not met many musicians for whom it is second nature to identify all the features of a composition as they progress. Congrats!!! Wade Culbreath writes: > I agree with this. In my book, listening to music is probably the best way > to enjoy it. ;-) I hope you aren't being serious here. > However, I was writing in response to Keith Maynard when > he wrote (among other things)... > > >I also helped a sixth grader ( slightly prodigious ) who was trying to > establish > >whether there was a difference in sound between damaged mouse genes and > >healthy ones. I wrote the C program that generated music from the protein > >patterns in the genes in question ( the music had potential too ). > > You know, there is a lot of good music out there...and I think you should > look into it. I mean, granted that damaged and healthy mouse gene protein > pattern music is a really wonderful thing, you would be suprised at how much > has been achieved musically by the great composers of the last few centuries. Very interesting just as I was thinking you missed the *whole* point I encountered Joe's exact sentiment. The point is this: We are talking about the use of auditory perception to organize otherwise complex data. Music happens to be a subset of such complex data. My reference to the gene project was purely regarding such an attempt *not* to suggest that untalented composers run off and convert gene patterns in to music. Oh and by the way if some one wants to use that as a source of art then so be it. Just make the art good. No music police around here. Apparently Mozart used various techniques to help him come up with themes. Artists do what they must. Sorry, but I already look into a lot of excellent music thanks for the suggestion anyway. > > And to respond to Joe M.'s comment... > > >As a drummer, I would think you have some very different insights into the > >musical listening process than us keyboard weenies. :-) I would be > interested in >hearing how you perceive music, though. > > All kidding aside, my responses are stemmed from an animosity toward those > whom I refer to as "Music Scientists." As a conservatory graduate, I have > met my share of "scholars" who, when analyzing music, emphasize the > scientific or mathematical process of composition without a thought to the > emotional factors evident in the creation of a work. Analysis is fine, but > when analyzing Art, there is definately a limit. Why animosity? The fact that colour is used to produce art does not preclude its use for road signs or pie charts. You might go after Leonardo for using his artistic skills for engineering and medicine. Music could be used anyway the people want. Some use it for religious experience, some for dancing, some for war, some for persecution. Why can't scientists use the mind's ability to relate to music for their purposes as well. Open up the mind, your ear might follow!! > > IMHO, Art is human expression. When the artist creates, it is an attempt to > communicate those emotions. For those of you who insist on perceiving it > through an analytical lens, try nuclear physics. Been there did that.. not as much fun!! > Wade Culbreath > DrumKat000@aol.com > > "Never underestimate the musical power of mice." Or men Keith Maynard ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 19 Apr 1994 12:55:13 -0400 From: Bob Ceely Subject: Re: Visual vs aural perception or women! WARM regrets, RPC ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 19 Apr 1994 13:32:11 -0400 From: Joe McMahon Subject: Re: Visual vs aural perception Some fascinating observations on everyone's part here. Let me try to state what I'm hearing at the moment, and give it my own spin. As a composer, I have been, up to just lately, firmly in the "romantic" camp. No analysis, just play it until in comes out "right". However, I'm finding that I have a desire to work in larger and more complex forms than I'm working in now, and that the improvisational, emotion-only method no longer suffices to provide the organization and coherence that I'm looking for over longer periods of time. I think we're dicussing two different topics here, and part of that is the method which I used to talk about the problem of "sonification" (vs. visualization). My approach was to attempt to talk about the process of musical listening, in order to bring into focus what would be necessary to produce a piece of "music" (only in the sense of "sound organized over time") that could allow data to analyzed using a different means of perception. Note that I am *not* saying that I believe that all composition should be done by feeding weather data into computer programs; I am, however, saying that given the proper algorithms which incorporate an understanding of what occurs when we listen to music, it should be possible to create a collection of organized sound which could be listened to and which would serve to expose(1) features of the data which were not immediately obvious. [(1) note that the process of displaying data in an alternative form is so ingrained as a visual process that I use visual verbs to talk about music...!] Some of us are saying that, in the romantic tradition, no music of lasting beauty and quality will be generated by a computer program without human intervention of any kind. I tend to lean toward this position myself; however, I will allow that material generated by an algorithmic process could conceivably be a *basis* for a well-developed piece of music realized by a human. I don't say composed simply because the line becomes blurry here -- does taking an existing music motif and creating a piece of music based on it count as composition or as orchestration? Others are saying that there is nothing wrong with analyzing a piece of music to determine how it works. The more I compose, the more I believe this is true. In fact, I've really been doing it for years on a less conscious level: "Hey, that's a good set of changes, I'll remember those..." It's simply a matter of degree. Richard Feynmann noted in "Surely You're Joking, Mr. Feynman!" that an artist friend of his told him that it must be so dismal to be a scientist, always analyzing things and not looking at their beauty. His reply was that as a scientist, he could not only appreciate the surface beauty of, say, a flower, but be fascinated with the wonder and beauty of the inner workings of the structures that composed it, the marvelous complexities of the cells that shaped it and kept it alive, and the fascination of how its pigments worked to give it its colors. He felt that he was able, by knowing the science as well as the external beauty, to appreciate it even more than the artist. I agree! In my own personal experience, listening to Stockhausen's "Kontakte" cold didn't do a lot for me. Reading an essay by him on what he was doing and how the piece was macro- and micro-organized and then listening to it again added an incredible amount to my appreciation of the piece. The romantic may argue that the piece can't be much good if you need a field guid to understand it; my comment is that it is a complex piece, and that understanding its structure expanded my horizons and opened my ears to a new experience. And new experiences are always valuable. So, would a sonification algorithm, by itself, create a great musical piece? Probably not. Could a sonification algorithm take advantage of lessons that have been learned through musical analysis to create structures within generated sonic output that have been heretofore associated with great compositional ability? Possibly - a sort of Schenkerian synthesis, if you will. Will composers discard personal inspiration for gene sequences and weather data? Very doubtful. Could a composer with a sonification program, digitized gene sequences, a selective, well-trained ear, and a lot of determination create music which a romantic-tradition composer would find great/stirring/satisfying? I would argue "yes". After all, composers essentially edit their original ideas into a cohesive whole which matches their desires and requirements, stated or unstated. The sonification algorithm simply provides more musical ideas. The ability of the composer determines whether they will be used well or not. --- Joe M. -- "We also have means to convey sounds in trunks and pipes, in strange lines and distances." - F. Bacon, The New Atlantis (1624) ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 19 Apr 1994 17:21:58 EDT From: Wade Culbreath Subject: Re: Visual vs aural perception Keith Maynard writes: >We probably listen on different levels. I certainly like to know what notes and >harmonies are being used to produce the effects I experience when I listen >because I am a composer/arranger and I am interested in learning and >cataloguing these ideas. There are people who are content to close their eyes >and enjoy. I enjoy as well as dissect the stuff to which I am listening. While you're dissecting art, just remember that an *artist* uses form and structure as a basis for artistic expression. It is a means to an end; the end being art; art being an expression of feeling or emotion; something of which human beings, not computer programs, are capable. Keith Maynard writes: >Sorry to bore you if this is second nature to you. I have not met many musicians >for whom it is second nature to identify all the features of a composition as they >progress. Congrats!!! And I'll congratulate you when learn that the *most* important "feature" of a composition; the artist's reason for writing the music in the first place, is emotion. Wade Culbreath DrumKat000@aol.com ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 19 Apr 1994 19:41:06 -0400 From: William Matthews Subject: Re: Visual vs aural perception > > > And I'll congratulate you when learn that the *most* important "feature" of a > composition; the artist's reason for writing the music in the first place, is > emotion. > > Wade Culbreath > DrumKat000@aol.com > Nope. There are as many reasons for writing music as there are people who do it. The "expressing emotion" motivation is but one. In good company, one could also join Stravinsky in his assertion that music expresses nothing but itself. Or one could join the many who compose out of curiosity, or of an interest in altered consciousness, or to get famous and rich, or (cf: Cage) to open the soul to divine influence. Etc., etc., etc. Jesse Helms *knows* what art is and let's not join him in prescription or proscription of any human artistic endeavor. The minute you try to constrain the definition and purpose of music, that's the minute someone will show up to blow you away with a whole new take on it. Bill Matthews wmatthew@abacus.bates.edu ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 19 Apr 1994 20:16:50 -0400 From: Joe McMahon Subject: Re: Visual vs aural perception >And I'll congratulate you when learn that the *most* important "feature" of a >composition; the artist's reason for writing the music in the first place, is >emotion. I'll agree with you partially, unless you exclude that wonderful feeling that you get when you realize you did *exactly* what you wanted to do in a piece as "too intellectual" or as "something different"... Emotion as a basis for music is the romantic tradition. I am NOT knocking it; heck, I'm as romantic in my approach as anyone. For me, a piece does indeed have to have some kind of emotional resonance to make me want to spend time on trying to work it out and perform it (e.g., I don't care for country & western. That doesn't make it bad, but it does make it music that I can't/don't write because I don't have the impetus to bother). I simply find myself wanting to move on to something more, something *greater* than I have been doing musically. You could look at it as an artist maturing and realizing that he needs more tools than he's been using, or as a sensation junkie who needs stronger stuff... But I'm still not going to be able to work on something I don't want to work on, and that emotional hook, *after I'm done*, has to be there for me. Using whatever tools work for you is not a bad thing. If you can build the structure you want and care about using a shovel, saw, hammer and nails, there is no reason in the world to change over to formed-in-place carbon-fiber composites, portable curing ovens, and laser cutters. But when you can't get done what you want to do, you look around for more materials. I am NOT saying that using formal methods (including tone-rows, algorithmic conposition, or Markov chains) will produce a musical piece satisfactory right out of the box. Tools don't produce. Tool-users produce. Whether produced initially by inspiration or by tool, music must be worked upon until the product is satisfactory to the composer. If what you get doesn't work, you're using either the wrong material or the wrong tool. The criteria of "working" is a matter of who you are and what you want. For Harry and his ecology models (1), "working" is producing a organized series of sounds that when listened to, provide him with a different way of perceiving his data. For you, "working" is producing a final performance with which you have a personal resonance. All we were really trying to say in the initial discussion is "what do we hear when we listen to music? what are features that are identifiable over long and short periods of time? could long and short-term trends in data be mapped to those features in not-necessarily-inspired music? would it be a valuable way to interpret data?" Again, it's doubtful that Haecker's "Swamp Model #1" (Op.1, No. 1) will be showing up at the Philharmonic anytime soon, and it probably won't be getting long-distance dedications on "America's Top Forty". But if it showed Harry something he couldn't see any other way, it would be valuable *to him* for that reason. And there's no reason to suppose that even the most romantic of composers couldn't find something in it somewhere that could be turned into a piece that worked for them. --- Joe M. (1) "Harry and His Ecology Models" sounds like some sort of post-modernist group that wears all black clothing and performs only in the very hippest of clubs; a wry, intense, absurdist bunch, with Ray-Bans, goatees, and berets. Oh yes, and of course their music is distributed by Cuneiform Records. Have I been at work too long today? Uh-huh, I think so. :-) --- JM -- "We also have means to convey sounds in trunks and pipes, in strange lines and distances." - F. Bacon, The New Atlantis (1624) ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 19 Apr 1994 20:46:30 -0400 From: Mark G Simon Subject: Re: Visual vs aural perception > > > And I'll congratulate you when learn that the *most* important "feature" of a > composition; the artist's reason for writing the music in the first place, is > emotion. > > Wade Culbreath > DrumKat000@aol.com Lighten up, Wade. It would be a pretty shallow emotion that didn't involve itself with the intellect at some point or other. This gives me an idea for a piece. I'll sample various sobs and screams and juxtapose them upon each other. Just think of it! Pure emotion! It will be the greatest music ever made! Mark Simon mgs2@cornell.edu ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 25 Apr 1994 10:25:24 CST From: "Harry F.P. Haecker" Subject: Re[2]: Visual vs aural perception Playing E-mail ketchup... >Again, it's doubtful that Haecker's "Swamp Model #1" (Op.1, No. 1) will be >showing up at the Philharmonic anytime soon, and it probably won't be >getting long-distance dedications on "America's Top Forty". But if it >showed Harry something he couldn't see any other way, it would be valuable >*to him* for that reason. >And there's no reason to suppose that even the most romantic of composers >couldn't find something in it somewhere that could be turned into a piece >that worked for them. > --- Joe M. Right on! Our brains are two parted, and I like to use both parts in different percentages, depending on the opus at hand. To me, mathematics IS *one* type of artistic outlet, and if I can make an extremely complicated piece, or one whose simple elegance belies its complexity, I'm Happy! Like anything else on this Blue Planet, "everything in moderation, including moderation." One of my methods of electronic composition is taking seemingly random, natural occurences and emphasizing rhythmic and tonal aspects that may stand out from the "noise". Hey, its not a new method of composing...I know that composers have been taking rhythms from such places as a blacksmith's shop, the clikitty-clack of a moving train, rain, birdsong, and (one of my favorites) the bleating of sheep (Beethoven's 6th). >(1) "Harry and His Ecology Models" sounds like some sort of >post-modernist group that wears all black clothing and performs only in >the very hippest of clubs; a wry, intense, absurdist bunch, with >Ray-Bans, goatees, and berets. Oh yes, and of course their music is >distributed by Cuneiform Records. Have I been at work too long today? >Uh-huh, I think so. :-) > --- JM Ha, ha! , you're a treat! As a matter of fact, my latest musical work is part of a "scandalous art installation", called "I thought I might be dying", an interdisciplinary collaboration on femine flux and fertility. Quite frankly, menstruation. We (four women, two men) built a uterine environment which featured sculpting, electronically collaged photographs, poetry, painting, textile collage, and my music. At the opening, last Wed. April 20, there *were* quite a few Ray-Bans, berets, black clothing. Very retro. Harry Haecker ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 25 Apr 1994 13:18:29 EDT From: Wade Culbreath Subject: Re: Re[2]: Visual vs aural perception Mark H writes: >Are humans really more capable of experiencing art than machines? Or is our interpretation of art just programed into us like it could be programed into a a computer? ------------------------------ Give me a BREAK!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Wade Culbreath xxxxxxxxxxxxxx DrumKat000@aol.com ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 25 Apr 1994 14:06:32 EDT From: Wade Culbreath Subject: Re: Re[2]: Visual vs aural perception Harry Haecker writes: >One of my methods of electronic composition is taking seemingly random, natural occurences and emphasizing rhythmic and tonal aspects that may stand out from the "noise". Hey, its not a new method of composing...I know that composers have been taking rhythms from such places as a blacksmith's shop, the clikitty-clack of a moving train, rain, birdsong, and (one of my favorites) the bleating of sheep (Beethoven's 6th). --------------------- Very hip. You're taking the sights and sounds of the world around you and using them in your Art. I've always enjoyed seeing and/or hearing Art that imitates life. In this case, you used random occurences as your "inspiration" for creating Art. Very cool. Harry Haecker writes: >"mathematics IS *one* type of artistic outlet..." ------------------ Not very cool. I personally don't see math as being "artistic." I think it's fine to use math when you create art, but before I can see it as "art", there needs to be an element of artistic creativity in there. Know what I mean? I don't feel that pure mathematics is art. It could be part of art, but in my opinion, math in and of itself is pure logic and not expressive. 2+2=4 x-y2(4x) x 7y-666 = q For _me_, this is not art. (Unless it was painted with watercolors...then it could be visual art.) Final thought: Was Einstein an artist? Are all mathematicians artists? Why? Wade Culbreath xxxxxxxxxxxxxx DrumKat000@aol.com ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 25 Apr 1994 18:53:15 -0500 From: "J. Michael Roach" Subject: Re: Re[2]: Visual vs aural perception > 2+2=4 > x-y2(4x) x 7y-666 = q What a BEAUTIFUL poem. Please write me another. I've never been so moved in my life. Bah! Mathematicians are artists. But not in the same way that musicians are (which is different from the manner in which a composer is an artist). Get it? J. Michael ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 21 Apr 1994 10:20:53 EDT From: Keith Maynard - CCC Subject: Re: visual vs. Aural perception Folks, Just when I thought I will let this one rest Mr. Culbreath returns: > Date: Wed, 20 Apr 1994 14:17:46 EDT > From: Wade Culbreath > Subject: Hyper analysis (re: Visual vs aural) > > In case you missed the last episode... > > This flame has shifted from visual vs. aural to "hyper-analysis" to man vs. > machine. Let's see where this takes us. > > And the story begins... > > Keith Maynard wrote: > >There are people who are content to close their eyes and enjoy. I enjoy as > well >as dissect the stuff to which I am listening. Sorry to bore you if > this is second >nature to you. I have not met many musicians for whom it is > second nature to >identify all the features of a composition as they > progress. Congrats!!! > > I wrote: > > And I'll congratulate you when learn that the *most* important "feature" of > a > > composition; the artist's reason for writing the music in the first place, > is > > emotion. > > This single comment provided the inspiration for what seemed like 200 pieces > of mail. Inspiration hell!! Try corrections. > > Okay, so maybe I'm living in a fantasy world where artists are interested in > expression. I was talking about human expression...artistic expression! > This is why art is created, and this is what we should look for when he see > it or hear it. To feel something. The point is, the artist wants you to > feel something here. Go ahead and dissect it, but just remember that in > order to experience the artistic message is to be conscious of why the artist > created it in the first place. > > Bill Matthews writes: > >Nope. There are as many reasons for writing music as there are people who > >do it. The "expressing emotion" motivation is but one. In good company, > >one could also join Stravinsky in his assertion that music expresses > >nothing but itself. Or one could join the many who compose out of > >curiosity, or of an interest in altered consciousness, or to get famous > >and rich, or (cf: Cage) to open the soul to divine influence. Etc., etc., > >etc. Jesse Helms *knows* what art is and let's not join him in > >prescription or proscription of any human artistic endeavor. The minute > >you try to constrain the definition and purpose of music, that's the > >minute someone will show up to blow you away with a whole new take on it. > > True, but you missed the point entirely... > > A long time ago, Keith Maynard wrote: > >...trying to establish whether there was a difference in sound between > >damaged mouse genes and healthy ones. I wrote the C program that >generated > music from the protein patterns in the genes in question ( the music >had > potential too ). > > Mark Simon writes: > >Lighten up, Wade. It would be a pretty shallow emotion that didn't > >involve itself with the intellect at some point or other. > > >This gives me an idea for a piece. I'll sample various sobs and screams > >and juxtapose them upon each other. Just think of it! Pure emotion! It > >will be the greatest music ever made! > > I'd much rather hear that than a computer program spitting out random events. > Am I in the minority here on this one too? (and by the way, couldn't you > have blown my comment a little further out of proportion?) It's all about > human expression, not computer expression. I mean, how do *you* define art? How *did* you get here? Is intellect equivalent to computer. For some of us out there that's our primary mode of functioning is there something wrong with that. My intellect has been considerably more useful to me than my emotion. I let my intellect drive my emotion, not the other way around. > I throw this one out to everyone .. the computer technicians have had > they're say... let's hear from an artist this time...if there are any of > those here.) You are full of it. > > Art : 1. The aesthetic values of an artist as expressed in his works. 2. Any > of various dsciplines, as the humanities, that do not rely exclusively on the > scientific method. > > So science is a part of it. It could even help to create it. I'm giving you > that. But it's only part of what makes it art! If I look at a piece of art, > I want to know what the artist was feeling, thinking, expressing. Scientific > analysis is not the point. It might be interesting, but if that is your only > motivation, go study rat genes. OK Stop right here! You *obviously* missed the entire point. Maybe I need to slow the scan rate down on your monitor. My point was *not* to use genes or weather data to create what one might term 'art music' but to create organized sound, call it music, so that a human brain could make sense of otherwise extremely complex data. Do you get that? I could rewind and replay that atomic thought. OK. As an example, have you looked at an event list of a track of midi data? Compare your perception of that list of data with your hearing the data back as a few bars of music. Which is easier for the brain to comprehend? I believe in general you would find it easier to recognize the musical version of the data than the long list of pitch-time data (for kicks try putting in some pitch wheel modulation data). I really hope this clarifies the gist of my discussion for you. The thread was PERCEPTION not necessarily CREATION so please allow discovery to take place in a safe environment free from any animosity you may feel towards the scientific/engineering community here. Is it you who are offering MIDI drum tracks? Be nice to engineers and scientists they may have some value in the society. > > Joe M. writes: > >All we were really trying to say in the initial discussion is "what do we > >hear when we listen to music? what are features that are identifiable over > >long and short periods of time? could long and short-term trends in data be > >mapped to those features in not-necessarily-inspired music? would it be a > >valuable way to interpret data?" Culbreath writes > > In other words, the point is we really want to get the computer to compose, > i.e. computer generated music. So, you're visualizing that someday, someone > will write an amazing music-generator program and human composers won't have > to bother. > Oh Joe spelled it out very clearly here and you missed it again. What do we have to do to convince you? The burning question here is: is music (or organized sound ) a valuable way to interpret data? As opposed to, for instance,graphs. If you have no opinion on that question then you are not required to address it. Do not try to twist it into an assault on the composer class. > Joe M. writes: > >And there's no reason to suppose that even the most romantic of composers > >couldn't find something in it somewhere that could be turned into a piece > >that worked for them. > > True, until composers aren't needed, period. And when composition, thematic > development, counterpoint, harmony, dissonance, feeling, expression has all > become computer generated, we can let the machines worry about it. Thank God you're not an accountant. Could you imagine how they feel when a spreadsheet program spits out financial statements, which 20 years ago only they could produce. Is this what's bugging you? Do you think that musicians may lose their privileged status in the society, machines may be breaking down the shroud of mystery? I think there may be a few years before that happens ( just kidding ). I still do all my harmonizing and counterpoint manually. My PC is a fancy digital tape recorder. That *could* change if I find programs that could *guarantee* that their harmonizations will thrill me as much as mine do. At that point I'll let the machine do it and I will move my intellect to solving another problem. That's progress! I hope this clears things up for you. I really don't want to beat this around anymore. I am interested in the topic at large but I am kind of tired trying to respond to misinterpretations. OO Keith Maynrad ------------------------------ End of the EMUSIC-L Digest ******************************