Language encodes emotive thought quite well. I can say I love you, or I hate you, or I am dying.

You could construct a language using the elements of music, but when you suddenly had to describe the accident you saw on the way to work, the sounds that resulted would almost certainly not be music. They would be language. Music is not as flexible as language. It is far more particular about what is good and what is bad. Only a very few compositions of musical elements, even those that follow the grammar of music, are tolerated as music. Any sequence of sounds that obeys the rules of grammar and creates a consistent picture of some state of affairs -- conveys a proposition, in other words -- is tolerated as language. This is one reason language is so much easier to make than music.

Regards,
Mike

-----Original Message-----
>From: apalomba@austin.rr.com
>Sent: Feb 13, 2006 3:24 PM
>To: csound@lists.bath.ac.uk
>Subject: Re: [Csnd] Algorithmic composition - the simplest model
>
>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
>> 
>-- 
>Send bugs reports to this list.
>To unsubscribe, send email to csound-unsubscribe@lists.bath.ac.uk