John Bastile has predicted the future success of my project! And he
wrote it down in a book in his online library.....

https://libraryofbabel.info/bookmark.cgi?algorythmradioisthefutureperiod

;)

I would agree Rory. Process is of intellectual interest but, for me, a 
piece of music must stand on its own in the listening... without any 
explanation. Algorithmically generated music is generally in its infancy 
when viewed from this perspective. Music that achieves both intellectual 
and (I will call it) emotional appeal is the ideal. JS Bach comes to 
mind as a quintessential example of this. We can clearly achieve the 
former, now let's work on the latter!

Michael

On 4/9/16 1:15 PM, Rory Walsh wrote:
> Disclaimer, long, and opinionated post!
>
> Although I've been algorithmically generating music myself for years, 
> I'm not sure if it's the future of music. I am very interested in the 
> process, and also the results of such explorations, but the idea of 
> listening to an endless stream of algorithmically generated music 
> doesn't interest me at all. I very much admire the craft involved in 
> the generation of such music, but I often find it becomes quite boring 
> and predictable after some time. Musicians especially, are very quick 
> to hear things in music. Idioms, progressions, rhythms, counter 
> melodies etc. When we listen to an album over and over again, we often 
> find new things in the track which we had not heard before. It's a 
> process of listening and exploration of the music. These little 
> patterns and idioms become the reason why we listen to the same music 
> over and over again. I can only speak for myself, but I'm sure that 
> when I listen to sections of my favorite, something happens on a 
> psychological level that releases, to quote Brian Wilson, 'good 
> vibrations' in the soul. It's not very often I get these on the first 
> listening. It can happen, of course, but in most cases I find it 
> happens when I get to know a piece of music. So for me at least, 
> getting to know a piece of music is intrinsically tied to appreciating 
> it. When I listen to continuous streams of algorithmically generated 
> music, I just don't get the same 'good vibrations'. Just to clarify, I 
> often listen to algorithmically generated music. But I listen to the 
> same 5 minute piece over and over again. Thus I get to learn the piece 
> and form an appreciation of its structure and form.
>
> In summary, I don't really know whee that came from! And it's only one 
> person's opinion. I still think your project is absolutely cool, and I 
> have enjoyed listening to your tracks. So please don't take any of 
> this as a slur on your great work to date! Cheers.
>
> Rory.

Csound mailing list
Csound@listserv.heanet.ie
https://listserv.heanet.ie/cgi-bin/wa?A0=CSOUND
Send bugs reports to
        https://github.com/csound/csound/issues
Discussions of bugs and features can be posted here

You'll see, I'll show you all! ;)

Nah, it was only a joke anyway, although I would be quite happy for
algorythm radio to be part of the future of music. More to the point
though, have you seen the actual website that page came from? It's an
online library that contains every combination of 3200 letters,
fullstops, commas and spaces, and has some neat algorithms to convert
from the text, to the location and seed of the text, and back again.
So you can browse through the books at your leisure (though it's
mostly garbage, lol), but more interestingly you can also search any
3200 characters of writing, and it will already exist in the
library.... at least, it will have already potentially existed, until
you searched for it, and then it came into existence. They also have
an image library built on a similar concept. I was considering making
an audio version, but I can't imagine a library of noise samples is
going to be of interest to anyway, not even myself :) though if you
could insert wav files and have it find close matches, and you could
browse sounds that sounded abit like the sound you entered, that might
be cool....

I can't speak for many other algorithmic compositions, but I would
agree that my own have a way to go yet. I am trying to address the
"computeryness" of them, and also trying to make them as variable as
possible.... which is partly why I am about 10 months behind on the
kickstarter, lol. I keep wildly overcomplicating the program every
time I delve into the code because I think of loads of new musical
ideas that need to be incorporated. Every time I think about how the
music I listen to is structured, and how the music I myself have
created in the past is structured, and how to replicate every possible
kind of melody, rhythm, harmony, dynamic, structure, tempo shift, time
signature, scales, accidental notes and temperaments.....  I hurt my
brain!

On Sat, Apr 9, 2016 at 7:27 PM, Gerard Rodríguez
 wrote:
> I think if done right algorithmically generated music can be akin to a set
> of variations on a piece. The set could be even restricted so you wouldn't
> have infinite ones, but only the most interesting from the point of view of
> the composer.
> At least this is how I like to think of algorithmic music, just a tool to
> represent variations on a specific musical idea. Variations on pieces have
> existed since the beginning of music, so representing them with a computer
> makes a lot of sense to me.
>
> 2016-04-09 19:56 GMT+02:00 Michael Rhoades :
>>
>> I would agree Rory. Process is of intellectual interest but, for me, a
>> piece of music must stand on its own in the listening... without any
>> explanation. Algorithmically generated music is generally in its infancy
>> when viewed from this perspective. Music that achieves both intellectual and
>> (I will call it) emotional appeal is the ideal. JS Bach comes to mind as a
>> quintessential example of this. We can clearly achieve the former, now let's
>> work on the latter!
>>
>> Michael
>>
>> On 4/9/16 1:15 PM, Rory Walsh wrote:
>>>
>>> Disclaimer, long, and opinionated post!
>>>
>>> Although I've been algorithmically generating music myself for years, I'm
>>> not sure if it's the future of music. I am very interested in the process,
>>> and also the results of such explorations, but the idea of listening to an
>>> endless stream of algorithmically generated music doesn't interest me at
>>> all. I very much admire the craft involved in the generation of such music,
>>> but I often find it becomes quite boring and predictable after some time.
>>> Musicians especially, are very quick to hear things in music. Idioms,
>>> progressions, rhythms, counter melodies etc. When we listen to an album over
>>> and over again, we often find new things in the track which we had not heard
>>> before. It's a process of listening and exploration of the music. These
>>> little patterns and idioms become the reason why we listen to the same music
>>> over and over again. I can only speak for myself, but I'm sure that when I
>>> listen to sections of my favorite, something happens on a psychological
>>> level that releases, to quote Brian Wilson, 'good vibrations' in the soul.
>>> It's not very often I get these on the first listening. It can happen, of
>>> course, but in most cases I find it happens when I get to know a piece of
>>> music. So for me at least, getting to know a piece of music is intrinsically
>>> tied to appreciating it. When I listen to continuous streams of
>>> algorithmically generated music, I just don't get the same 'good
>>> vibrations'. Just to clarify, I often listen to algorithmically generated
>>> music. But I listen to the same 5 minute piece over and over again. Thus I
>>> get to learn the piece and form an appreciation of its structure and form.
>>>
>>> In summary, I don't really know whee that came from! And it's only one
>>> person's opinion. I still think your project is absolutely cool, and I have
>>> enjoyed listening to your tracks. So please don't take any of this as a slur
>>> on your great work to date! Cheers.
>>>
>>> Rory.
>>
>>
>> Csound mailing list
>> Csound@listserv.heanet.ie
>> https://listserv.heanet.ie/cgi-bin/wa?A0=CSOUND
>> Send bugs reports to
>>        https://github.com/csound/csound/issues
>> Discussions of bugs and features can be posted here
>
>
> Csound mailing list Csound@listserv.heanet.ie
> https://listserv.heanet.ie/cgi-bin/wa?A0=CSOUND Send bugs reports to
> https://github.com/csound/csound/issues Discussions of bugs and features can
> be posted here



-- 
http://algorythmradio.com
https://soundcloud.com/algorythmradio

Csound mailing list
Csound@listserv.heanet.ie
https://listserv.heanet.ie/cgi-bin/wa?A0=CSOUND
Send bugs reports to
        https://github.com/csound/csound/issues
Discussions of bugs and features can be posted here

Thank you by the way for your compliments regarding AR and the example
tracks so far. Glad they have been well received up until now!

On Sat, Apr 9, 2016 at 9:16 PM, Peter Burgess
 wrote:
> You'll see, I'll show you all! ;)
>
> Nah, it was only a joke anyway, although I would be quite happy for
> algorythm radio to be part of the future of music. More to the point
> though, have you seen the actual website that page came from? It's an
> online library that contains every combination of 3200 letters,
> fullstops, commas and spaces, and has some neat algorithms to convert
> from the text, to the location and seed of the text, and back again.
> So you can browse through the books at your leisure (though it's
> mostly garbage, lol), but more interestingly you can also search any
> 3200 characters of writing, and it will already exist in the
> library.... at least, it will have already potentially existed, until
> you searched for it, and then it came into existence. They also have
> an image library built on a similar concept. I was considering making
> an audio version, but I can't imagine a library of noise samples is
> going to be of interest to anyway, not even myself :) though if you
> could insert wav files and have it find close matches, and you could
> browse sounds that sounded abit like the sound you entered, that might
> be cool....
>
> I can't speak for many other algorithmic compositions, but I would
> agree that my own have a way to go yet. I am trying to address the
> "computeryness" of them, and also trying to make them as variable as
> possible.... which is partly why I am about 10 months behind on the
> kickstarter, lol. I keep wildly overcomplicating the program every
> time I delve into the code because I think of loads of new musical
> ideas that need to be incorporated. Every time I think about how the
> music I listen to is structured, and how the music I myself have
> created in the past is structured, and how to replicate every possible
> kind of melody, rhythm, harmony, dynamic, structure, tempo shift, time
> signature, scales, accidental notes and temperaments.....  I hurt my
> brain!
>
> On Sat, Apr 9, 2016 at 7:27 PM, Gerard Rodríguez
>  wrote:
>> I think if done right algorithmically generated music can be akin to a set
>> of variations on a piece. The set could be even restricted so you wouldn't
>> have infinite ones, but only the most interesting from the point of view of
>> the composer.
>> At least this is how I like to think of algorithmic music, just a tool to
>> represent variations on a specific musical idea. Variations on pieces have
>> existed since the beginning of music, so representing them with a computer
>> makes a lot of sense to me.
>>
>> 2016-04-09 19:56 GMT+02:00 Michael Rhoades :
>>>
>>> I would agree Rory. Process is of intellectual interest but, for me, a
>>> piece of music must stand on its own in the listening... without any
>>> explanation. Algorithmically generated music is generally in its infancy
>>> when viewed from this perspective. Music that achieves both intellectual and
>>> (I will call it) emotional appeal is the ideal. JS Bach comes to mind as a
>>> quintessential example of this. We can clearly achieve the former, now let's
>>> work on the latter!
>>>
>>> Michael
>>>
>>> On 4/9/16 1:15 PM, Rory Walsh wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Disclaimer, long, and opinionated post!
>>>>
>>>> Although I've been algorithmically generating music myself for years, I'm
>>>> not sure if it's the future of music. I am very interested in the process,
>>>> and also the results of such explorations, but the idea of listening to an
>>>> endless stream of algorithmically generated music doesn't interest me at
>>>> all. I very much admire the craft involved in the generation of such music,
>>>> but I often find it becomes quite boring and predictable after some time.
>>>> Musicians especially, are very quick to hear things in music. Idioms,
>>>> progressions, rhythms, counter melodies etc. When we listen to an album over
>>>> and over again, we often find new things in the track which we had not heard
>>>> before. It's a process of listening and exploration of the music. These
>>>> little patterns and idioms become the reason why we listen to the same music
>>>> over and over again. I can only speak for myself, but I'm sure that when I
>>>> listen to sections of my favorite, something happens on a psychological
>>>> level that releases, to quote Brian Wilson, 'good vibrations' in the soul.
>>>> It's not very often I get these on the first listening. It can happen, of
>>>> course, but in most cases I find it happens when I get to know a piece of
>>>> music. So for me at least, getting to know a piece of music is intrinsically
>>>> tied to appreciating it. When I listen to continuous streams of
>>>> algorithmically generated music, I just don't get the same 'good
>>>> vibrations'. Just to clarify, I often listen to algorithmically generated
>>>> music. But I listen to the same 5 minute piece over and over again. Thus I
>>>> get to learn the piece and form an appreciation of its structure and form.
>>>>
>>>> In summary, I don't really know whee that came from! And it's only one
>>>> person's opinion. I still think your project is absolutely cool, and I have
>>>> enjoyed listening to your tracks. So please don't take any of this as a slur
>>>> on your great work to date! Cheers.
>>>>
>>>> Rory.
>>>
>>>
>>> Csound mailing list
>>> Csound@listserv.heanet.ie
>>> https://listserv.heanet.ie/cgi-bin/wa?A0=CSOUND
>>> Send bugs reports to
>>>        https://github.com/csound/csound/issues
>>> Discussions of bugs and features can be posted here
>>
>>
>> Csound mailing list Csound@listserv.heanet.ie
>> https://listserv.heanet.ie/cgi-bin/wa?A0=CSOUND Send bugs reports to
>> https://github.com/csound/csound/issues Discussions of bugs and features can
>> be posted here
>
>
>
> --
> http://algorythmradio.com
> https://soundcloud.com/algorythmradio



-- 
http://algorythmradio.com
https://soundcloud.com/algorythmradio

Csound mailing list
Csound@listserv.heanet.ie
https://listserv.heanet.ie/cgi-bin/wa?A0=CSOUND
Send bugs reports to
        https://github.com/csound/csound/issues
Discussions of bugs and features can be posted here

Disclaimer, long, and opinionated post! 

Although I've been algorithmically generating music myself for years, I'm not sure if it's the future of music. I am very interested in the process, and also the results of such explorations, but the idea of listening to an endless stream of algorithmically generated music doesn't interest me at all. I very much admire the craft involved in the generation of such music, but I often find it becomes quite boring and predictable after some time. Musicians especially, are very quick to hear things in music. Idioms, progressions, rhythms, counter melodies etc. When we listen to an album over and over again, we often find new things in the track which we had not heard before. It's a process of listening and exploration of the music. These little patterns and idioms become the reason why we listen to the same music over and over again. I can only speak for myself, but I'm sure that when I listen to sections of my favorite, something happens on a psychological level that releases, to quote Brian Wilson, 'good vibrations' in the soul. It's not very often I get these on the first listening. It can happen, of course, but in most cases I find it happens when I get to know a piece of music. So for me at least, getting to know a piece of music is intrinsically tied to appreciating it. When I listen to continuous streams of algorithmically generated music, I just don't get the same 'good vibrations'. Just to clarify, I often listen to algorithmically generated music. But I listen to the same 5 minute piece over and over again. Thus I get to learn the piece and form an appreciation of its structure and form. 

In summary, I don't really know whee that came from! And it's only one person's opinion. I still think your project is absolutely cool, and I have enjoyed listening to your tracks. So please don't take any of this as a slur on your great work to date! Cheers.

Rory.

 

On 9 April 2016 at 10:21, Peter Burgess <pete.soundtechnician@gmail.com> wrote:

John Bastile has predicted the future success of my project! And he
wrote it down in a book in his online library.....

https://libraryofbabel.info/bookmark.cgi?algorythmradioisthefutureperiod

;)

--
http://algorythmradio.com
https://soundcloud.com/algorythmradio

Csound mailing list
Csound@listserv.heanet.ie
https://listserv.heanet.ie/cgi-bin/wa?A0=CSOUND
Send bugs reports to
        https://github.com/csound/csound/issues
Discussions of bugs and features can be posted here

Csound mailing list Csound@listserv.heanet.ie https://listserv.heanet.ie/cgi-bin/wa?A0=CSOUND Send bugs reports to https://github.com/csound/csound/issues Discussions of bugs and features can be posted here

Hear hear!

The touch of genius of a real composer will most likely never be caught by computer music of any kind.
You can play around with markov chains (for instance) and combine the inputs of Bach, the Beach Boys, the Beatles and Abba, and something similar will come out, but I doubt if it will be interesting...
Is't creativity about thinking/jumping out of the box?

Richard

On 09/04/16 19:15, Rory Walsh wrote:

Disclaimer, long, and opinionated post! 

Although I've been algorithmically generating music myself for years, I'm not sure if it's the future of music. I am very interested in the process, and also the results of such explorations, but the idea of listening to an endless stream of algorithmically generated music doesn't interest me at all. I very much admire the craft involved in the generation of such music, but I often find it becomes quite boring and predictable after some time. Musicians especially, are very quick to hear things in music. Idioms, progressions, rhythms, counter melodies etc. When we listen to an album over and over again, we often find new things in the track which we had not heard before. It's a process of listening and exploration of the music. These little patterns and idioms become the reason why we listen to the same music over and over again. I can only speak for myself, but I'm sure that when I listen to sections of my favorite, something happens on a psychological level that releases, to quote Brian Wilson, 'good vibrations' in the soul. It's not very often I get these on the first listening. It can happen, of course, but in most cases I find it happens when I get to know a piece of music. So for me at least, getting to know a piece of music is intrinsically tied to appreciating it. When I listen to continuous streams of algorithmically generated music, I just don't get the same 'good vibrations'. Just to clarify, I often listen to algorithmically generated music. But I listen to the same 5 minute piece over and over again. Thus I get to learn the piece and form an appreciation of its structure and form. 

In summary, I don't really know whee that came from! And it's only one person's opinion. I still think your project is absolutely cool, and I have enjoyed listening to your tracks. So please don't take any of this as a slur on your great work to date! Cheers.

Rory.

 

On 9 April 2016 at 10:21, Peter Burgess <pete.soundtechnician@gmail.com> wrote:

John Bastile has predicted the future success of my project! And he
wrote it down in a book in his online library.....

https://libraryofbabel.info/bookmark.cgi?algorythmradioisthefutureperiod

;)

--
http://algorythmradio.com
https://soundcloud.com/algorythmradio

Csound mailing list
Csound@listserv.heanet.ie
https://listserv.heanet.ie/cgi-bin/wa?A0=CSOUND
Send bugs reports to
        https://github.com/csound/csound/issues
Discussions of bugs and features can be posted here

Csound mailing list Csound@listserv.heanet.ie https://listserv.heanet.ie/cgi-bin/wa?A0=CSOUND Send bugs reports to https://github.com/csound/csound/issues Discussions of bugs and features can be posted here

Csound mailing list Csound@listserv.heanet.ie https://listserv.heanet.ie/cgi-bin/wa?A0=CSOUND Send bugs reports to https://github.com/csound/csound/issues Discussions of bugs and features can be posted here

Hear hear!

The touch of genius of a real composer will most likely never be caught by computer music of any kind.
You can play around with markov chains (for instance) and combine the inputs of Bach, the Beach Boys, the Beatles and Abba, and something similar will come out, but I doubt if it will be interesting...
Is't creativity about thinking/jumping out of the box?

Richard

On 09/04/16 19:15, Rory Walsh wrote:

Disclaimer, long, and opinionated post! 

Although I've been algorithmically generating music myself for years, I'm not sure if it's the future of music. I am very interested in the process, and also the results of such explorations, but the idea of listening to an endless stream of algorithmically generated music doesn't interest me at all. I very much admire the craft involved in the generation of such music, but I often find it becomes quite boring and predictable after some time. Musicians especially, are very quick to hear things in music. Idioms, progressions, rhythms, counter melodies etc. When we listen to an album over and over again, we often find new things in the track which we had not heard before. It's a process of listening and exploration of the music. These little patterns and idioms become the reason why we listen to the same music over and over again. I can only speak for myself, but I'm sure that when I listen to sections of my favorite, something happens on a psychological level that releases, to quote Brian Wilson, 'good vibrations' in the soul. It's not very often I get these on the first listening. It can happen, of course, but in most cases I find it happens when I get to know a piece of music. So for me at least, getting to know a piece of music is intrinsically tied to appreciating it. When I listen to continuous streams of algorithmically generated music, I just don't get the same 'good vibrations'. Just to clarify, I often listen to algorithmically generated music. But I listen to the same 5 minute piece over and over again. Thus I get to learn the piece and form an appreciation of its structure and form. 

In summary, I don't really know whee that came from! And it's only one person's opinion. I still think your project is absolutely cool, and I have enjoyed listening to your tracks. So please don't take any of this as a slur on your great work to date! Cheers.

Rory.

 

On 9 April 2016 at 10:21, Peter Burgess <pete.soundtechnician@gmail.com> wrote:

John Bastile has predicted the future success of my project! And he
wrote it down in a book in his online library.....

https://libraryofbabel.info/bookmark.cgi?algorythmradioisthefutureperiod

;)

--
http://algorythmradio.com
https://soundcloud.com/algorythmradio

Csound mailing list
Csound@listserv.heanet.ie
https://listserv.heanet.ie/cgi-bin/wa?A0=CSOUND
Send bugs reports to
        https://github.com/csound/csound/issues
Discussions of bugs and features can be posted here

Csound mailing list Csound@listserv.heanet.ie https://listserv.heanet.ie/cgi-bin/wa?A0=CSOUND Send bugs reports to https://github.com/csound/csound/issues Discussions of bugs and features can be posted here

Csound mailing list Csound@listserv.heanet.ie https://listserv.heanet.ie/cgi-bin/wa?A0=CSOUND Send bugs reports to https://github.com/csound/csound/issues Discussions of bugs and features can be posted here

@jacques: sounds intriguing! I look forward to finding out more about
your project. Also, thanks! This isn't meant to be a plug, cos you've
clearly already looked, but thought I best let you know that some of
the recent examples aren't on the site yet (my web designer friend is
busy with other clients who pay him properly, lol) so if you haven't
already seen the new ones on soundcloud, they're here:

https://soundcloud.com/algorythmradio/sets/idm-development-update

@richard: I suppose it depends what kind of composer we're talking
about though. Experimental compositions and performances played on
real instruments will certainly be hard to write algorithms for,
because there's just so many possibilities and factors to consider,
but the audience (including the performer/composer) have expectations
and understandings of whether the results are good or bad.... but
trying to replicate tekno on the other hand, piece a cake! :D

@Guillermo: Computers have already done things that appear to be
thinking outside the box, like did anyone ever hear about that
computer program that learnt to play computer games like mario? And it
came up with techniques that exploited glitches in the game that most
people wouldn't of figured out existed. That's not so interesting, but
much more ingenious was when it was playing tetris. It sucked at
tetris, it just couldn't predict far enough ahead to work out what it
had to do to win the game, so one time, when all the blocks were
stacked up to the top and it was on the brink of failure, it just
paused the game.... forever! Lol. I'm sure there's a rational way to
explain it's behaviour if you look closely at it's programming, but it
certainly appears like thinking outside the box, and the same will
surely be true of our own creative sparks. As you say, we don't break
laws of physics, and ideas must be developed from something.

Csound mailing list
Csound@listserv.heanet.ie
https://listserv.heanet.ie/cgi-bin/wa?A0=CSOUND
Send bugs reports to
        https://github.com/csound/csound/issues
Discussions of bugs and features can be posted here

"I think that if algorithmic music would become popular it will define
not the era of finest achievement of human thought but the era of
degradation of human taste and spirit"

hahahaha! I'm like Simon Cowell meets skynet!

I almost want to quote that on the website, lol!

I would agree that the subconscious would be very hard to model, but
it still obeys the laws of physics, and is still connected to various
thoughts, senses and generally parts of the body in particular ways
that have particular influences on it. I would say that that leaves it
open to modelling somehow, even if it's currently beyond our grasp.
But I'm not going to try to do that, that is way beyond the scope of
my project! I will continue to make my brain hurt thinking up new ways
to improve the quality of the music produced. I couldn't stop myself
if I tried, it's almost all I've thought about for nearly a year now!

I've considered eventually adding in some user interaction, most
likely in the form of being able to set particular seeds for different
parts of the music or something, so it won't be real interaction. The
aim of my project is just to create some stuff to listen to, not
really aimed at musicians as such I guess. Maybe that does make me
like Simon Cowell? Just trying to pump out any old gumph to rattle in
peoples ears while they mindlessly go about their daily grind. What
have I become? You nearly have talked me out of it now!  ;)

On Sun, Apr 10, 2016 at 7:43 AM, Anton Kholomiov
 wrote:
> I think that if algorithmic music would become popular it will define
> not the era of finest achievement of human thought  but the era of
> degradation of human taste and spirit
>
> it has some roots in fourier analysis for me) those things
> that define the subtle patterns they need the analysis of low frequencies.
> You need a lot of space within yourself to comprehend those vibrations.
> But we become so hasty and nervous that we can only feel the high
> frequencies. It's constant desire for profit and optimization.
> to digest more food in less time. it puts the demand on composer to produce
> more
> in less time. so he needs some sort of device.
>
> Music creation process takes it's place in subconsciousness.
> But to encode a thing you need to make it clear to the computer.
> so the dimension of subconsciousness is lost. And it's vital to
> get something valuable in art. And you can not emulate
> subconsciousness with random generator. It's not a chaos.
> It's some dimension that unifies things and sees connections
> that are not possible to perceive with the mind. It's were the
> musical tradition speaks through you with the modern language of
> your current time.
>
> it's not about saying that you should stop doing what you do. and I'm sure I
> can not
> stop you with words. But it's a reminder to know the limits of your work.
> Don't take it too hard and press it to sound as good as you or say
> Beethoven.
> Don't hurt your brain too much where there is no need for that.
>
> When I think of generative music if it can it be useful. I don't think
> that the process were you press the button update the seed
> and get the melody has any value. I think it can become valuable
> if it has some sort of interaction. When music creation becomes like
> playing a game. You go from one node to another in the graph and computer
> can offer you some alternatives and you can choose or merge them
> or define your own and then you can go to the next stage. I think this
> process can speed  up things for composer and produce something
> valuable at the end.
>
> Anton
>
>
> 2016-04-10 4:49 GMT+03:00 Peter Burgess :
>>
>> @jacques: sounds intriguing! I look forward to finding out more about
>> your project. Also, thanks! This isn't meant to be a plug, cos you've
>> clearly already looked, but thought I best let you know that some of
>> the recent examples aren't on the site yet (my web designer friend is
>> busy with other clients who pay him properly, lol) so if you haven't
>> already seen the new ones on soundcloud, they're here:
>>
>> https://soundcloud.com/algorythmradio/sets/idm-development-update
>>
>> @richard: I suppose it depends what kind of composer we're talking
>> about though. Experimental compositions and performances played on
>> real instruments will certainly be hard to write algorithms for,
>> because there's just so many possibilities and factors to consider,
>> but the audience (including the performer/composer) have expectations
>> and understandings of whether the results are good or bad.... but
>> trying to replicate tekno on the other hand, piece a cake! :D
>>
>> @Guillermo: Computers have already done things that appear to be
>> thinking outside the box, like did anyone ever hear about that
>> computer program that learnt to play computer games like mario? And it
>> came up with techniques that exploited glitches in the game that most
>> people wouldn't of figured out existed. That's not so interesting, but
>> much more ingenious was when it was playing tetris. It sucked at
>> tetris, it just couldn't predict far enough ahead to work out what it
>> had to do to win the game, so one time, when all the blocks were
>> stacked up to the top and it was on the brink of failure, it just
>> paused the game.... forever! Lol. I'm sure there's a rational way to
>> explain it's behaviour if you look closely at it's programming, but it
>> certainly appears like thinking outside the box, and the same will
>> surely be true of our own creative sparks. As you say, we don't break
>> laws of physics, and ideas must be developed from something.
>>
>> Csound mailing list
>> Csound@listserv.heanet.ie
>> https://listserv.heanet.ie/cgi-bin/wa?A0=CSOUND
>> Send bugs reports to
>>         https://github.com/csound/csound/issues
>> Discussions of bugs and features can be posted here
>
>
> Csound mailing list Csound@listserv.heanet.ie
> https://listserv.heanet.ie/cgi-bin/wa?A0=CSOUND Send bugs reports to
> https://github.com/csound/csound/issues Discussions of bugs and features can
> be posted here