Actually I don't agree with you at all. You are comparing the language of written word to the musical language which are not equivalent in complexity. The concept of a biscuit is hard to describe in the musical language but I could certainly "make up" some sequence of grammatical music elements that would describe a biscuit. Perhaps the melodies would be light and flaky, yet very filling. I could then notate these grammatical elements and other musicians could reliably decode and reproduce my thoughts. And since music is a simpler language, a language that everyone understand, it does not need to be translated. So you see I have all the elements of a language that you describe. In the end, trying to convey a biscuit in a musical language may be too complicated or beyond the scope of the language. Now poetry is a better analogy because it is trying to do the same thing music is trying to do. It is trying to encode emotive thought. Anthony ----- Original Message ----- From: Michael Gogins Date: Monday, February 13, 2006 1:32 pm Subject: Re: [Csnd] Algorithmic composition - the simplest model > Music is not a language because it does not convey propositions > and, in fact, has limited if any symbolic content. > > Music has some things in common with language such as sequence, > some kind of grammar, transformation rules, and so on, but there > are no words and without words you cannot have a language. A word, > of course, is a symbol that refers to or "stands for" or "means" > another object in a reliable way that either does not depend on > context, or can be reliably decoded from context. "Reliable" in > this context means interpreted in the same way by different > speakers. There are few if any words in music that can be > interpreted in the same way by different speakers. Another thing > about words is if you don't have a word for something, you can > make one up. You can't make up a word for "left-handed" or > "biscuit" in music. > > Languages are universal, each can be translated into all others, > any concept can be communicated in any language. You can specify > how to construct a computer or a bridge in a language, but you > cannot do that in music. > > Music is related to dance and poetry. two other time-based arts > with some kind of narrative and some kind of grammar. Dance > obviously lacks words just as music does. Poetry has words and in > fact is language, but it also has something else that non-poetic > language does not have. That something else, I think, is music. In > other words poetry is language that is also music. I think this > begins to get at the difference between music and language. > > Regards, > Mike > > -----Original Message----- > >From: apalomba@austin.rr.com > >Sent: Feb 13, 2006 12:49 PM > >To: csound@lists.bath.ac.uk > >Subject: Re: [Csnd] Algorithmic composition - the simplest model > > > >I think Dale brought up a very important point. > >I think music is very much a language. It is > >in fact, the encoding of emotive thought. I think > >a lot contemporary composers in their quest to find new > >intellectual musical forms tend to ignore this > >language. And although in doing so, they have > >discovered and created many interesting pieces > >of music, they often times lack emotive quality. > >So what is it that makes music that relies more on > >the melodic language more musical? Can this meaning > >not be conveyed by form and tambre alone? Is it the > >grammar of the language that gives us ability to convey > >emotion? > > > > > > > >Anthony > > > > > > > > > >----- Original Message ----- > >From: mrhoades@perceptionfactory.com > >Date: Monday, February 13, 2006 10:03 am > >Subject: Re: [Csnd] Algorithmic composition - the simplest model > > > >> I too am enjoying everyone's thoughts on this. > >> > >> For me algorithmic composition begins with having a clear > >> understanding of > >> what makes music "music" for me. That in itself is the main > tool > >> we have as > >> composers and it is a lifetime in development. Knowledge of our > >> own voice > >> and how to work with it is key. > >> > >> When composing I begin with constraints using whatever criteria > I have > >> chosen to work with for a given composition. As the computer > >> begins giving > >> me feedback I listen for a gem, a pearl in the onion so to > speak, > >> for the > >> little spark of life within the sound files I am rendering. > When I > >> find such > >> a section I analyze the code and find what is causing the > >> desirable output > >> and then begin refining my constrains to bring it out and > develop > >> it. That > >> is how I make (or better allow) the music "come alive". > >> > >> I find this process to be very similar to sculpting where you > have > >> a big > >> block of marble and look for the being that is living inside. > Then you > >> simply carve away what is keeping it from being seen. > >> > >> BTW, I have posted an mp3 of a new algorithmic composition on > my > >> web site on > >> the mp3 page. It is the one at the top of the page titled > "Release!".>> Comments are always welcomed. > >> > >> Michael > >> www.perceptionfactory.com > >> > >> > >> > >> > -----Original Message----- > >> > From: Oeyvind Brandtsegg [mailto:obrandts@online.no] > >> > Sent: Monday, February 13, 2006 9:03 AM > >> > To: csound@lists.bath.ac.uk > >> > Subject: Re: [Csnd] Algorithmic composition - the simplest model > >> > > >> > This is an interesting discussion. > >> > > >> > I think that a model for music itself, and an algorithm for > >> telling a > >> > computer how to make music is somehow two sides of the same coin. > >> > > >> > As for "making it come alive", I think there's a lot to be > >> gained from > >> > looking at music performance research. We humans do make it > come > >> alive> when we play it, and examinimg what it is we do might > give > >> us more of a > >> > direction towards telling computers how to do it. Of course, > a human > >> > performance on an acoustic instrument is complex beyond > modeling > >> in most > >> > cases. Still, some algorithmic process or "rule set" for > >> phrasing and > >> > performance might give computer music modeling a touch of > "being > >> alive".> > >> > I do look for algorithms that imitate some of the behaviour a > human>> > composer or performer might do. But not limited to what > a human > >> might (be > >> > able to) do. For me, the "human approach" lends som kind of > >> familiar logic > >> > to the music, so that when something does not sound right, I > sit > >> down and > >> > think about how I would have played this if I was to play it. > >> > I use purely mathematical algorithms for inspiration when I > look for > >> > something different/new, but I seldom use them for large > parts > >> of a piece. > >> > But, sometimes one might stumble across an algorithm and > think" > >> hey, this > >> > works exactly the way I think about rhythm", and then it's > >> easier to put > >> > it into a musical context. > >> > > >> > > >> > Oeyvind > >> > > >> > --- > >> > Incoming mail is certified Virus Free. > >> > Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). > >> > Version: 6.0.859 / Virus Database: 585 - Release Date: 2/14/2005 > >> > > >> > >> --- > >> Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. > >> Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). > >> Version: 6.0.859 / Virus Database: 585 - Release Date: 2/14/2005 > >> > >> > >> -- > >> Send bugs reports to this list. > >> To unsubscribe, send email to csound-unsubscribe@lists.bath.ac.uk > >> > >-- > >Send bugs reports to this list. > >To unsubscribe, send email to csound-unsubscribe@lists.bath.ac.uk > > > > -- > Send bugs reports to this list. > To unsubscribe, send email to csound-unsubscribe@lists.bath.ac.uk >