so why algorithmic composition?

kensuguro · Post by **kensuguro** » Tue Aug 19, 2003 4:01 am

Ok, so I've built an automatic trance engine and it works at a so-so level. The production level of the program (automatic note generation, synthesis and timbre randomization, automated mixing) are of acceptable quality. Not a megahit I'm sure, but good enough to be considered a tune. So I give myself so much credit.

The system I used is a form of algorithmic composition using a stochastic system. So, stochastic is a form of algorithmic composition. Stochastic is basically random. It doesn't have a brain. I knows how to make a decision, but it doesn't know why it's making a decision. The system can be very complex, with decisions relating to a dozen of other decisions (as with my system). But no matter how complex the web of choices become, essentially the system is dumb. It's not intelligent.

Think about it this way. The program I just made is an idiotic composer, that keeps making similar tunes, never grows, never does anything out of the norm. Statistically consistant results with consistant quality. But just plain boring. So, even though I'm partially impressed with the resulting program and its performance, I am not partically happy about its theoretical make up. If the program were a musician, I would call him good, but I woudln't call him talented.

But well, let's just say I drew the line and decided not to critisize my program as a composer. Let's say what if the program was just a composing tool that I could use. Now this leads to some interesting possibilities.

Let's think about what it is about algorithmic composition that makes it so interesting. One word does it. SPEED. The calculations are so fast and accurate, it makes me look bad. What's even more interesting is that since the calculations are so fast, it seems like the computer can work from the future, towards the past. I haven't exploited this feature in the current version of the program, but I've found great potential in this ability if used as a musical tool.

Working from the future towards the past, doing mathematics backwards, planning a task with the results already in hand. These are things that are impossible in real life. Think about this situation. Reverb needs time. Delay needs time. There is no way to calculate a reverb backwards in time. But what if the computer could think of a melody line, drench it in reverb, cut it up, re-order the sample chunks, and throw the result back to you? And what if the melody made sense AFTER it was cut up? This would take a certain amount of time and thought if I were to do it, but by programming, this could probably be done within a second. Sample preparation done backwards in time. This is going to kick some serious ass. With computers (and especially non-realtime processes) time is not an issue.

There are dozens of things that this could mean. Not only reverbs and delays. How about having a program that creates a 4 bar loop with 4 chords, Composes each of the different chords using a different combination of instruments (so that each chord sounds like a different sample) And spits out the individual samples so that you can go back and mangle with it.

A stochastic system can be used to explosively create a bunch of riffs and sample bits and pieces, all the while having the total picture in mind so the bits and pieces all fit into place. I think there is great possibility in such software, and this is probably what I'll be researching in the near future. It's just so sad that I have to do this in Max/MSP and that means I can't share it with anyone here. But eventually, I hope I can learn C++ or whatever language, so I can compile a cross platform version.

paulrmartin · Post by **paulrmartin** » Tue Aug 19, 2003 3:00 pm

I'll bite on this morsel:

Algorhythmic composition to me is just another tool. I feed numbers into a program and press compose(http://www.poodlesandflan.com). If the result is crap I change some numbers and press compose again until I like at least part of what comes out.

The next step is to bring the result into a different piece of software in which I can make that algorhythmic composition more coherent, such as the addition of reverb Ken refers to, or timbre adjustments or remixing, whatever I can come up with.

Algorhythmic composition is like mining, you get base matter and have to go somewhere else to refine it.

_________________
Paul R. Martin - Are we listening?

[ This Message was edited by: paulrmartin on 2003-08-19 16:01 ]

Nestor · Post by **Nestor** » Tue Aug 19, 2003 3:44 pm

I'm surprised at your capacity of concentration and perceverance Ken! Programing it's so time consuming and tiresome. Is it my idea or are you slowly and without being aware of it becoming a software developer? It seems so to me... which is great!

For me the idea itself it´s very interesting as the workings of some complex mathematics moving here and there, I'd like to understand how it works, but definetely I would not use it for composing. I feel totaly alienated by the idea that something is getting in my way, a machine composing for me, unless we are talking about a different concept here, perhaps to be called "mechanical composition", but this is another matter.

Composition, for me, it's an interiorization procedure and I need to get in touch wtih myself, deep iside, to bring here to the outside, the feelings I voluntarely want to cristilize. So, something like that would just disturb me and the composition procedure would vanish.

I would sure have a go with a program that composes music by itself, but just to try it out, just for curiosity, that's it.

By all means, I think this is dead interesting, but to leasten at, not to compose.

My 2 cents.

paulrmartin · Post by **paulrmartin** » Tue Aug 19, 2003 3:52 pm

Nestor, go back to this link:
http://www.planetz.com/Pulsar/files/mus ... Stroke.mp3

This piece was done with Poodles and Flan(link in my previous message). All that program does is give me a MIDI file which I import into Logic and I assign instruments, change notes or whatever in there. Just an example of what I mentioned above.

petal · Post by **petal** » Tue Aug 19, 2003 4:48 pm

Hi Ken

I was wondering - would you share the MAX-patch or is it a businesssecret?

I have access to both Mac and MAX.

I'm just curious about how you have build the patch - Maybe I would be able to do something similarly in PD. I'm not allianated by stachastic composingtechniques - it would still be me who had to recognize the good tunes

Anyways - interesting thoughts!
Thomas

Nestor · Post by **Nestor** » Tue Aug 19, 2003 6:35 pm

Bloody hell Paul! I loved it!

I'm quite surprised, I spected some boring and rather repetitive bum bum bum... but this is something else... Quite inexpresive in a certain sense, but musically VERY interesting... Working every instrument to give to it more expression and articulation, would come up with a sound tune.

I still preffer to compose everything myself, but this is definitely interesting!

Post by **garyb** » Tue Aug 19, 2003 7:18 pm

you're all fired and retired just like the drummers and other band-mates before you.in fact,humans are no longer needed for human activity at all,launch the missiles,it's clean up time.........

paulrmartin · Post by **paulrmartin** » Tue Aug 19, 2003 8:21 pm

"... And you will do as you are told
Until the rights to you are sold..."

wayne · Post by **wayne** » Tue Aug 19, 2003 8:32 pm

what do machines dream of ?

Thalamus · Post by **Thalamus** » Tue Aug 19, 2003 8:56 pm

On 2003-08-19 21:32, wayne wrote:
what do machines dream of ?

Mostly oil, I think... Some of them voltage maybe. It all depends. Are you to blondes or brunettes?

I think most of the time they are skizofenic artifacts of crazy matematical systems and therefor really lacks the feel of finding their identity.

But all in all, I just think they want that you share some time with them, so they dont get rusty.

Or... Maybe I just need some sleep.

astroman · Post by **astroman** » Tue Aug 19, 2003 10:05 pm

On 2003-08-19 21:32, wayne wrote:
what do machines dream of ?

electric sheep, of course

but seriously, afaik that Band-in-a-Box stuff is also based on algorithmic methods.
http://www.pgmusic.com/band.htm
the user interface is the most cluttered and confusing one I know, and it effectively prevents me from using the program, but I'm always impressed with the 'knowledge' and results of the thing.

cheers, Tom

kensuguro · Post by **kensuguro** » Tue Aug 19, 2003 10:31 pm

For those who are interested, here is the entire atMOS software. Something cloes to 240 megs if I remember correctly.
http://www.mag.keio.ac.jp/~dangkang/atmos.sit
You will find both the video and audio parts. The video portion requires jitter to run, so if you don't have jitter, don't run it. Software also requires atleast a 1ghz g4.

Also, if you're on OSX and have problems unpacking the sit, instead of double clicking on the file, try running stuffit and opening the atmos.sit from the file menu. The sit was created on an old version of stuffit and the file attributes seem to be messed up. should be ok in OS9.

The audio files are located in 6-16 folder. There are dozens of files in there. You're looking to execute 2 patches. "loaddnb22k" and "MixerRemake".

To begin the music:
In the loaddnb22k window, double click on the green object called "themain2" which will open the main interface.
Press the square button that is labeled "global start button".

Also, in the mixerremake window, turn on the DAC.

So, that's about it. The software doesn't have much of an interface, but it may be interesting to see its inner workings. Also, for those who have access to a Mac, max/msp is fully functional and free for the first 30 days so you can download that to try my software out.

spoimala · Post by **spoimala** » Wed Aug 20, 2003 7:08 am

On 2003-08-19 20:18, garyb wrote:
you're all fired and retired just like the drummers and other band-mates before you.in fact,humans are no longer needed for human activity at all,launch the missiles,it's clean up time.........

Yeah. That's sad. Even women don't need men anymore... http://www.fuckingmachines.com/

Post by **hubird** » Wed Aug 20, 2003 8:39 am

damn! weird stuff, Spoimala!

BTW interesting what you're doing Ken.
I'd like to hear some results if ready

_________________
Let There Be Music!

[ This Message was edited by: hubird on 2003-08-20 09:45 ]

Ricardo · Post by **Ricardo** » Wed Aug 20, 2003 9:45 am

It would be interesting to know if these sorts of composition have any therapeutic value, like Bach or Mozart. May be my plants will grow better, or I'll get a better nights sleep ( just for example) I'm serious. There's already a lot of studies done on music v sedation/analgesia.

Nestor · Post by **Nestor** » Wed Aug 20, 2003 11:32 am

Way OT: I can't believe it!!! If a woman were to use it, I think she would be mentally ill, I can't believe people would degrade themselves to such an extent!

On Topic again:
Ricardo, I've been in this kind of musica, and actually I still am. I've done 6 albums on relaxation music, music indeed, can relax you, but I don't think you can reach the same states of mind through a mechanical program, unless you program it to perform this kind of sensations of course. Nevertheless, this is what we do with Pulsar don't we? We use it for it to act as exactly as posible to represent in sound, what we are feeling through emotions. If you can still represent accurately what you are feeling emotionaly through a program that does music by itself, well, there are some chances for it to be useful, but you will need to work on it by the end, as Paul suggested.

I still think there is nothing like human nature. You can "understand" many natural workings, you can perhaps reach an immense knowledge about music, but human nature will never and ever be surpased. The world of perception, the world of consciousness, emotion and deep thought, are so extremely deep that never a machine nor ALL the science of the world will be able to reach even a hitch of it! You can't compare human nature to any mechanical thing...

Gurdgieff, a man who could produce chanchagle states of mind at will through music was one of those rare persons which could reach a completely new way of composing, based on some Sufi ancient knowledge. If he wanted for people to cry, they would cry, if he wanted for them to lough, they would lough, if he wanted for them to be crazy angree, they would be crazy angree, if he wanted for them to relax completely... it was amazing to be able to do this with just some melodies he composed himself to demostrate people that this is a real posibility.

Franck Hartman, a great pianist and composer, followed the teachings of Gurdgieff and went to compose to certain extent into this fields of emotional realism, but to be able to do this, you need to go completely on the opposite way of a mechanical way of making music, instead of using machines, programas or other means, you need to stop being a machine yourself at a psychological level. To be a machine, as mentioned by Gurdjieff, it is to be an automatic person as we more an less all are, somebody which reacts to everything by mechanical impulses, instead of being creative. Another way of calling somebody with a mechanical mind it is "asleep".

I have experienced with some techniques from Gurdjieff, and despite they are very difficult to practice due to the enormous efforts you need to perform consciously, the results have always been, I can say, extremely succesuful and helpfull to my emotional development towards music composing.

I am totally convinced that human spirit is inmensly more powerful than any invention posible, whatever the time we are living in. Human nature is as reach as the infinite, as wide as the sky.

One of the most powerful uses of those techniques is to search for inspiration when you are between sleep and awaken, I know it sounds bezare, but just in the midle of it, you'll find very special states of mind which increaces your imagination inmensely. It sounded bezare to me too, when I started trying it out, but when doint it, I found an inmense field of experimentation... It is not by chance that people like Shivananda, which was one of the great teachers on Meditation, said that to meditate, it is indispensable to be in a state of "half-sleep", and that to meditate otherwise would produce no results.

kensuguro · Post by **kensuguro** » Wed Aug 20, 2003 3:04 pm

perhaps it's an intelectual challenge I've proposed myself. To seperate the "mechanic" part and the spiritual part. Once I've got the machine doing the mechanical part, then perhaps the spiritual parts will become clearer.

But of course, there's no denying the spirit of the composer. Even if I ever complete a truely intelligent algorithm, I'd still compose my own tunes by hand. And I'd think the rest of the world would prefer that as well. But then, once most of the mundane composition jobs are covered by machines (or atleast partially) then perhaps composers can concentrate on the essence of why we humans compose the way we do. Why we are what we are. Essentially, I hope we can become even more human, by differentiating what humans can do, and what machines can do.

Ahh, it's a big issue. But this is my share of it.

paulrmartin · Post by **paulrmartin** » Wed Aug 20, 2003 3:14 pm

Ken, what if you were to switch off the drum part in the algorhythm altogether?

Wouldn't you get some really interesting ambiences?

I'm curious, can you give it a try and post some results?

Post by **hubird** » Wed Aug 20, 2003 4:45 pm

On 2003-08-20 16:04, kensuguro wrote:
...Once I've got the machine doing the mechanical part, then perhaps the spiritual parts will become clearer.

on top of the nail!
Like the rest of it

_________________
Let There Be Music!

[ This Message was edited by: hubird on 2003-08-20 18:58 ]

Nestor · Post by **Nestor** » Wed Aug 20, 2003 7:31 pm

On 2003-08-20 16:04, kensuguro wrote:
perhaps it's an intelectual challenge I've proposed myself. To seperate the "mechanic" part and the spiritual part. Once I've got the machine doing the mechanical part, then perhaps the spiritual parts will become clearer.

But of course, there's no denying the spirit of the composer. Even if I ever complete a truely intelligent algorithm, I'd still compose my own tunes by hand. And I'd think the rest of the world would prefer that as well. But then, once most of the mundane composition jobs are covered by machines (or atleast partially) then perhaps composers can concentrate on the essence of why we humans compose the way we do. Why we are what we are. Essentially, I hope we can become even more human, by differentiating what humans can do, and what machines can do.

Ahh, it's a big issue. But this is my share of it.

That´s becoming trully philosophic and interesting... Something is true, whenever I leasten to something different, something new, I inmediately pay lots of attention trying to learn about it, as much as I can. When I leasten to something which seems to be the rule that everybody rules, I tend not to pay much attention, just enjoy it but that's all, there is not much to it you have not leasten already. It is so like that, that people not only compose similar kind of musics, and THIS particular kind of music (whichever it may be) has its own instruments, anbience and sound timbers... so many compositions becomes just veriables of the exact same tune...

Said that, when I've leasten to the Paul Martin sound about 6 or 7 times, concentrating my mind into it, I was helped to go to a rather different conception... it was so enriching that I was surprised that a machine would do something like that. I have not leastened it before cos I don't like music-machines of any kind. But I have to recognize I enjoyed this tune very much, it's interesting and different.

My point is that this special mechanical music, can be a way to get completely new atmospheres of inspiration, and this is what I like most. So in regard to composition, I think this machines are a way, indeed, to brake with our OWN mechanical repetitive ways...

We tend to attach aourselves to experiencies, to tendencies, to currents, so we tend to repeat what we have leastend. Of course, there is a level of reality behind it, cos we all are humans and we all share similar feelings and experiencies, to a certain extent. The prouve for it is to find some incredible coincidences of people composing almos exactly the same tune, but they don´t know each other, they have never met and their music is not famous.

Well, I think that leastening to this completely non-human music, can help braking the mechanical-human-music we sometimes tend to compose. In this sence, I would love to leasten many tues like Paul's one.