PlanetZ forums - scopeusers.com

as the machine is a copy,i expect it'll do everything the original can,and more,in time.

point being what?

if it's cool,it's cool.......

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?

That could be a possibility. Instead of having the program generate entire "tunes", it could just do the harmonic part of the tune. Which could be understood as a set of intelligent "pad" elements. Then perhaps that can be integrated with something else.

I'm in the process of switching to Java, so that my programs can be cross platform. But maybe I could make a preliminary "test" version in Max/MSP so I can check out what it sounds like. Either way, it's going to take quite a while. Like couple of months. That's what I hate about programming. It takes so much time!

So in regard to composition, I think this machines are a way, indeed, to brake with our OWN mechanical repetitive ways...

Not to start a dispute, but to share my experience, I ended up thinking that repetition was a vital way humans communicate. I started off building my current engine so that it could do endless combinations without much repetition. I thought perhaps that was what machines could do well. And yes, the program did that well.

But the problem was, it became too variant, that the 1 tune couldn't be differentiated from another tune, because each tune did everything that the engine was capable of doing. By putting in strategic repetitions, the program could focus on a specific "theme", and also implement a sort of structure by changing themes. All the while, the program could concentrate on exploiting a certain feature.

Repeat makes us listen. It gives us a focus. Without repetition, the tune becomes "atmospheric", in that we tend to stop paying attention to it. We tend to stop tryin got follow what's going on. There's a limit as to the amount of change the human mind can interpret.

But of course, this is repetition on a very small scale. I think nestor's talking about repetition as in recurring styles and style copying. anyhow, I thought this was interesting.

Exactly Ken, that's what I mean. To me what you said makes sense, both ideas are in fact complementary. Hey, I don't think we will ever dispute...

and isn't a BEAT already repetetive of his own?
Most people like to dance on a rythm.
Dancing, rythm, beat, repetetiveness, didn't all this belong to the origin of music?

_________________
Let There Be Music!


<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: hubird on 2003-08-21 20:03 ]</font>

Of course it does, but this is not the point Hubrid, read again the conversation

Most people like to dance on a rythm.
Dancing, rythm, beat, repetetiveness, didn't all this belong to the origin of music?

yup yup! So I gotta slam that into the computer, which is the hard part. Because for a computer, it's as easy to generate totally different parts, as to generate repeating parts with variations. It can't tell the difference.

yes,to isolate the essential elements in improvisation,to distill "what we like",an abstract quntity,into a language reality and explain it mathematically.what fun!

of course,this is part of making music.with one programming,you have written an infinite number of tunes.how will you collect on all those copyrights you deserve?

On 2003-08-21 20:07, Nestor wrote: Hubrid

Hi Nestrid

I find this thread to be very interesting. Kensuguru, you are a talented man! Don't give up on your software.

The debate which questions if a machine can create spiritual music is so hilarious to me because I am an atheist. There is no spirit and there is nothing magic about music. Maybe it seems magical because it makes you feel a certain way. Because the brain is so complex we tend to invent theories about ourselves which have zero factual basis. I am sorry to report to all of you that there is no grand plan, no reason for our existence and no life after death. If this makes anyone feel uncomfortable I'm sorry. We are simply mammals like mice and cows, only we have much bigger brains. I don't think that means we are any more or less important than the smallest ameba.

In a sense some people live on in our memories after they die such as Bach, or Mozart. I suspect this part of history will carry on for thousands of years but surely not millions of years because there will be too many other great composers for us to remember them all, also the styles will become so alien that nobody will be able to enjoy them. This is already starting to happen.

impressive how people can be so convinced about this either way

Theory is nothing but theory... Only experience can tell, and experience is personal.

Acceptance and-or denial of any abstract thing not experienced directly in absence of the mind, it's just intellectual thought but this certainly not knowledge, it is just intellectual speculation (which in depth can perfectly be understood as a form of believe in non-believing...)

If you believe, you don't know, if you don't believe, you don't know, either. So to believe or not to believe is something absolutely irrelevant, it's exactly the same thing by the end, i.e., ignorance.

To accept what you don't know or reject it, (because you have been told so)it is an absurde in itself, phylosofhycally speaking, but it is not direct experience, and so, it is not knowledge, so it can be only one thing: to believe or not to believe, but this is not TO BE OR NOT TO BE!

Sincerely, Pease

_________________
Music is the most Powerful Language in the world! *INDEED*

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Nestor on 2003-08-27 22:59 ]</font>

On 2003-08-27 20:30, Nestor wrote:

If you believe, you don't know, if you don't believe, you don't know, either. So to believe or not to believe in something absolutely irrelevant, it's exactly the same thing by the end, i.e., ignorance.

Huh? Did you just call the whole planet ignorant, or did that just make no sense at all?

Something important: Instead of reading "in something absolutely irrelevant" it should read "is something absolutely irrelevant", sorry for the little mistake.

Hey Paul, keep things in context, my answer was to Braincell in regar to his answer on music and spirituality, not an abtolute statement so please, keep it related to the context in which we were talking.

All I want to say is that a non-believer, has not the right to correct a believer, and that a believer has neither the right to correct a non-believer by their onw "believes" of non-believing, cos only experience is in fact, "something", all the rest are speculations of theories that come from other theories that come from other theories... It is like describing love, love it's not describable, it is experimentable, and that's it, there is nothing you can tell about it to make people experience it.

Do I think humanity is in ignorance? To a certain extent, of course we are ignorant, and I include myself as being the first! If we weren't ignorant why would we build up wars, terrorism, famine and problems of all sorts? We would not be doing all this crazy criminal things if we were wise people, this is very simple to me.


<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Nestor on 2003-08-27 23:01 ]</font>

yeah,nestor,this time i agree with you.ignorant..

that was a good one Garyb...

Fortunately for me, I know I am...

weelll,i always like taking credit for a joke,but...i was going with the general human ignorance...

Most humans are ignorant to the core. That is why they have such fantastic imaginary beings looking after them. A fact is something you can prove scientifically.

There is a *lot* that science does not know.

To think that science knows everything is perhaps the most ignorant belief of all.

peace