"As we say in French, "c'est de la masturbation intellectuelle"..."-- 
Yeah, maybe,... but then again, bouncing ideas back-n-forth like this
is how some of this gets rolling along. Nice to bounce this about
every now again. 

Enjoy, cheers,
-PBS

======================================================================

--- lecteur@zogotounga.net wrote:

From: Stéphane Rollandin 
To: csound@lists.bath.ac.uk
Subject: [Csnd] Re:  non-algorithmic music
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 2009 14:08:15 +0100

> What are your thoughts?

Although all you say is meaningful and possibly deep, it has no 
relationship whatsoever with music composition as I see it. To me, 
algorithms are just tools, mecanical/logical rules made operational by 
being performed by a computer. Composing with algorithms is thus 
composing rules; it is never reduced to a plain mapping from a 
mathematical object to a musical piece. Such mappings are called 
sonification; that's hardly music. As for looking for some object which, 
once the correct mapping is applied, would yield the Rite of Spring, it 
reminds me of Borges' library of Babel which contains all possible 
books. Don't know if it makes much sense on the practical side. Plus, 
once you get the score for the Rite of Spring, you need to have an 
orchestra perform it. Or do you need to find another mathematical object 
which, once decoded, gives you the symphony waveform ?

As we say in French, "c'est de la masturbation intellectuelle"...

I'm more interested in music :)


Stef




Send bugs reports to this list.
To unsubscribe, send email sympa@lists.bath.ac.uk with body "unsubscribe csound"




_____________________________________________________________
Netscape.  Just the Net You Need.
Send bugs reports to this list.
To unsubscribe, send email sympa@lists.bath.ac.uk with body "unsubscribe csound"

Your categories are too simple, and obscure the substance of the questions.

Let us agree that there is a mathematical object that renders the
"Rite" and another one that realizes it as sound. To call this
"sonification" and dismiss it simply moves all the substantial
questions into another closed box that you do not seem interested in
opening.
.
Are you willing to grant that music is any sound that, emanating
without attribution from behind a screen, a listener can use as music?
If so, then searching for and evaluating sonifying objects is one
among the many methods of composing music. The artistic usefulness of
this method cannot and should not be prejudged before listening.

There are various ways of searching for these objects that have been
used to compose, and more methods of searching will probably be
discovered. One method is of course evolutionary computing. Another is
what I have termed "parametric composition," in which a map is made of
the musics produced by a family of related objects, varying by some
numerical parameter. The composer then works by exploring this map to
discover the best music on it. I have made music in both of these
ways.

Contained within your distinction between "mapping" and "composing" is
an assumption, which you may or may not actually hold, that the human
creative mind is not itself a mathematical object. I find many reasons
to think that this question cannot easily be decided, though this may
not be the place to go into them. (For what it's worth, I rather think
that the mind is not an object of any kind, not even a mathematical
one.) But if that fundamental question cannot be decided in any
empirical way, then a preference for one side or the other of the
question is a tricky thing to use in a discussion.

Regards,
Mike



On Sat, Jan 30, 2010 at 10:44 PM, Partev Barr Sarkissian
 wrote:
> "As we say in French, "c'est de la masturbation intellectuelle"..."--
> Yeah, maybe,... but then again, bouncing ideas back-n-forth like this
> is how some of this gets rolling along. Nice to bounce this about
> every now again.
>
> Enjoy, cheers,
> -PBS
>
> ======================================================================
>
> --- lecteur@zogotounga.net wrote:
>
> From: Stéphane Rollandin 
> To: csound@lists.bath.ac.uk
> Subject: [Csnd] Re:  non-algorithmic music
> Date: Mon, 14 Dec 2009 14:08:15 +0100
>
>> What are your thoughts?
>
> Although all you say is meaningful and possibly deep, it has no
> relationship whatsoever with music composition as I see it. To me,
> algorithms are just tools, mecanical/logical rules made operational by
> being performed by a computer. Composing with algorithms is thus
> composing rules; it is never reduced to a plain mapping from a
> mathematical object to a musical piece. Such mappings are called
> sonification; that's hardly music. As for looking for some object which,
> once the correct mapping is applied, would yield the Rite of Spring, it
> reminds me of Borges' library of Babel which contains all possible
> books. Don't know if it makes much sense on the practical side. Plus,
> once you get the score for the Rite of Spring, you need to have an
> orchestra perform it. Or do you need to find another mathematical object
> which, once decoded, gives you the symphony waveform ?
>
> As we say in French, "c'est de la masturbation intellectuelle"...
>
> I'm more interested in music :)
>
>
> Stef
>
>
>
>
> Send bugs reports to this list.
> To unsubscribe, send email sympa@lists.bath.ac.uk with body "unsubscribe csound"
>
>
>
>
> _____________________________________________________________
> Netscape.  Just the Net You Need.
> Send bugs reports to this list.
> To unsubscribe, send email sympa@lists.bath.ac.uk with body "unsubscribe csound"



-- 
Michael Gogins
Irreducible Productions
http://www.michael-gogins.com
Michael dot Gogins at gmail dot com


Send bugs reports to this list.
To unsubscribe, send email sympa@lists.bath.ac.uk with body "unsubscribe csound"

> Your categories are too simple, and obscure the substance of the questions.

I will defend myself against such a harsh judgement !
:)

see below...

>
> Let us agree that there is a mathematical object that renders the
> "Rite" and another one that realizes it as sound. To call this
> "sonification" and dismiss it simply moves all the substantial
> questions into another closed box that you do not seem interested in
> opening.

Yes. Actually that closed box is inexistant, it is just the product of 
an intellectual exercise gone astray; it's just a label made of words, 
with nothing behind it, so there is just no way to open it.

> Are you willing to grant that music is any sound that, emanating
> without attribution from behind a screen, a listener can use as music?

A Turing test of sort ? Why not ? Let's take this for granted in the 
following.

> If so, then searching for and evaluating sonifying objects is one
> among the many methods of composing music. The artistic usefulness of
> this method cannot and should not be prejudged before listening.

Sure, but the space to be scanned for that purpose is, as I said, the 
library of Babel. It only exist as a form of the mathematical infinity, 
like the set of all integers. You cannot make music by picking some 
(probably large) integer for sonification. I just don't see how to make 
any practical sense of such an idea.

> There are various ways of searching for these objects that have been
> used to compose, and more methods of searching will probably be
> discovered. One method is of course evolutionary computing.

Oh, I don't buy in this one. It just moves the complexity of composing a 
piece into the complexity of evaluating a produced composition. Both 
tasks are similar in scope, so if you want a meaningful evolutionary 
filter, you may just as well define a meaningful way of composing. It 
won't be easier.

> Another is
> what I have termed "parametric composition," in which a map is made of
> the musics produced by a family of related objects, varying by some
> numerical parameter. The composer then works by exploring this map to
> discover the best music on it. I have made music in both of these
> ways.

That's more interesting to me, especially when the parameters are 
musically meaningful. This is actually quite close to my own work in 
computer-based composition. The pieces for piano in 
http://www.zogotounga.net/TGG/variations.htm have been produced in 
exactly that way.

> Contained within your distinction between "mapping" and "composing" is
> an assumption, which you may or may not actually hold, that the human
> creative mind is not itself a mathematical object.

Right. I hold that it definitely is not a mathematical object. I'm not a 
materialist, philosophically speaking.

> I find many reasons
> to think that this question cannot easily be decided, though this may
> not be the place to go into them. (For what it's worth, I rather think
> that the mind is not an object of any kind, not even a mathematical
> one.)

Yes, I like this one: the mind is not an object of any kind. I really 
believe this. An object is an object only because the mind defines its 
boundaries. So how could the definer of all objects be an an object 
itself ?

> But if that fundamental question cannot be decided in any
> empirical way, then a preference for one side or the other of the
> question is a tricky thing to use in a discussion.

Sure; I'm just expressing my own view, and since I have no position of 
authority whatsoever I feel free to express it as clearly and radically 
as I can :)

Put another way: I'm only contributing to the discussion; I am not 
trying to convince anyone. So I don't try to be diplomat nor either 
respectful of other's ideas. I respect people, by I generally don't 
respect ideas. The changing of my own ideas over time convinced me that 
people should not be identified with their ideas; such an attitude may 
make me feel rude and unrespectful at times, and I'm sorry for that if 
it happened in this list (I think it did :).

>
> Regards,
> Mike

Thanks fo your thoughts,

Stef




Send bugs reports to this list.
To unsubscribe, send email sympa@lists.bath.ac.uk with body "unsubscribe csound"

This is getting interesting to me. Comments interspersed.


> Sure, but the space to be scanned for that purpose is, as I said, the
> library of Babel. It only exist as a form of the mathematical infinity, like
> the set of all integers. You cannot make music by picking some (probably
> large) integer for sonification. I just don't see how to make any practical
> sense of such an idea.

Again this is not to be prejudged... one finds various ways,
mathematical, visual, sonic, of scanning this space.

>
>> There are various ways of searching for these objects that have been
>> used to compose, and more methods of searching will probably be
>> discovered. One method is of course evolutionary computing.
>
> Oh, I don't buy in this one. It just moves the complexity of composing a
> piece into the complexity of evaluating a produced composition. Both tasks
> are similar in scope, so if you want a meaningful evolutionary filter, you
> may just as well define a meaningful way of composing. It won't be easier.

It is easier, because one is not mutating the entire genome at once,
but crossbreeding between genomes known to be preferred and varying
certain genes in the hybrids. This is much more efficient than pure
random mutation and sexual reproduction exists in biology precisely
because it allows this kind of evolution. Evolutionary computing is
compute-intensive, but it also lends itself very well to parallel
processing. The size of real problems tractable through evolutionary
computing has now reached roughly the size of a musical phrase or even
a short piece. The important of evolutionary composition in music is
very likely to grow, and there will be multiple forms of it.

>
>> Another is
>> what I have termed "parametric composition," in which a map is made of
>> the musics produced by a family of related objects, varying by some
>> numerical parameter. The composer then works by exploring this map to
>> discover the best music on it. I have made music in both of these
>> ways.
>
> That's more interesting to me, especially when the parameters are musically
> meaningful. This is actually quite close to my own work in computer-based
> composition. The pieces for piano in
> http://www.zogotounga.net/TGG/variations.htm have been produced in exactly
> that way.

I will listen to them.

> The
> changing of my own ideas over time convinced me that people should not be
> identified with their ideas; such an attitude may make me feel rude and
> unrespectful at times, and I'm sorry for that if it happened in this list (I
> think it did :).

Not in a personally offensive way, but rather your tone raised a red
flag that excited my tendency to argue. Which can be useful.

Regards,
Mike

On 31/01/2010 21:54, Michael Gogins wrote:
> This is getting interesting to me. Comments interspersed.
>
>
>> Sure, but the space to be scanned for that purpose is, as I said, the
>> library of Babel. It only exist as a form of the mathematical infinity, like
>> the set of all integers. You cannot make music by picking some (probably
>> large) integer for sonification. I just don't see how to make any practical
>> sense of such an idea.
>
> Again this is not to be prejudged... one finds various ways,
> mathematical, visual, sonic, of scanning this space.
>

I would go further (despite really not wanting to get drawn into this 
sort of discussion!) and say that it will always be a futile act to make 
any statement of the form "You cannot make music by....". I see this as 
a thinly disguised moral imperative that really wants to say "You should 
not make music...". You may as well say "You cannot make music by 
banging flowerpots together". History shows us that when never a 
composer is presented with such an imposed "rule", they find a way to 
disobey it. The most any individual can say is "you cannot make music I 
am likely to want to listen to by....".

Composers compose stuff in whatever way suits their interest and 
philosophies; and listeners listen to it in whatever way suits theirs. 
Which may of course mean not listening to it at all. Yet others try to 
"appraise" it in whatever way suits them. No moral imperative - it is 
just what people do. Sometime they tell you why, and sometimes they tell 
you how (in the 60's especially!), but are not under any imperative to 
do either.

You have probably already heard music made by picking some large integer 
for sonification. They just didn't tell you. I can imagine the Csounders 
queueing up already.


Richard Dobson
(currently listening to "Symphonies of the Planets" No 3 by NASA).



Send bugs reports to this list.
To unsubscribe, send email sympa@lists.bath.ac.uk with body "unsubscribe csound"

At last the voice of reason!

On 31 Jan 2010, at 22:19, Richard Dobson wrote:

> On 31/01/2010 21:54, Michael Gogins wrote:
>> This is getting interesting to me. Comments interspersed.
>>
>>
>>> Sure, but the space to be scanned for that purpose is, as I said,  
>>> the
>>> library of Babel. It only exist as a form of the mathematical  
>>> infinity, like
>>> the set of all integers. You cannot make music by picking some  
>>> (probably
>>> large) integer for sonification. I just don't see how to make any  
>>> practical
>>> sense of such an idea.
>>
>> Again this is not to be prejudged... one finds various ways,
>> mathematical, visual, sonic, of scanning this space.
>>
>
> I would go further (despite really not wanting to get drawn into  
> this sort of discussion!) and say that it will always be a futile  
> act to make any statement of the form "You cannot make music  
> by....". I see this as a thinly disguised moral imperative that  
> really wants to say "You should not make music...". You may as well  
> say "You cannot make music by banging flowerpots together". History  
> shows us that when never a composer is presented with such an  
> imposed "rule", they find a way to disobey it. The most any  
> individual can say is "you cannot make music I am likely to want to  
> listen to by....".
>
> Composers compose stuff in whatever way suits their interest and  
> philosophies; and listeners listen to it in whatever way suits  
> theirs. Which may of course mean not listening to it at all. Yet  
> others try to "appraise" it in whatever way suits them. No moral  
> imperative - it is just what people do. Sometime they tell you why,  
> and sometimes they tell you how (in the 60's especially!), but are  
> not under any imperative to do either.
>
> You have probably already heard music made by picking some large  
> integer for sonification. They just didn't tell you. I can imagine  
> the Csounders queueing up already.
>
>
> Richard Dobson
> (currently listening to "Symphonies of the Planets" No 3 by NASA).
>
>
>
> Send bugs reports to this list.
> To unsubscribe, send email sympa@lists.bath.ac.uk with body  
> "unsubscribe csound"



Send bugs reports to this list.
To unsubscribe, send email sympa@lists.bath.ac.uk with body "unsubscribe csound"

> I would go further (despite really not wanting to get drawn into this
> sort of discussion!) and say that it will always be a futile act to make
> any statement of the form "You cannot make music by....". I see this as
> a thinly disguised moral imperative that really wants to say "You should
> not make music...". You may as well say "You cannot make music by
> banging flowerpots together".

I agree with you that general statements like "you cannot... will 
never... will always... " are much too strong.

For example, "it will always be a futile act to make any statement of 
the form "You cannot make music by...."" is certainly a dubious 
statement, too :)

Stef





Send bugs reports to this list.
To unsubscribe, send email sympa@lists.bath.ac.uk with body "unsubscribe csound"

On 01/02/2010 11:27, Stéphane Rollandin wrote:
.
>
> For example, "it will always be a futile act to make any statement of
>  the form "You cannot make music by...."" is certainly a dubious
> statement, too :)
>
  Scientists will regard statements of "you cannot" as attempts to
disprove a negative. So even the most atheist scientist will be 
reluctant to assert "God does not exist", so in that sense it is futile 
for them to do so. Even "nothing can exceed the speed of light" leaves 
them at least uncomfortable. They will merely say "we await firm 
evidence to the contrary" (or in Dawkin's case "extraordinary evidence", 
whatever that means). They do at least have some mathematical theories 
to back them up. Whereas any such statement made to a musician will 
guarantee they will sooner or later create the disproof. That is how it 
works - in music we do not "find" evidence - we create it. That would 
really be the only reason for making the statement - devil's advocacy. 
Which leaves any other motive pretty comprehensively futile in my book!

Richard Dobson





Send bugs reports to this list.
To unsubscribe, send email sympa@lists.bath.ac.uk with body "unsubscribe csound"