Re: electroacoustics - rap to tap to zap to frap


Subject: Re: electroacoustics - rap to tap to zap to frap
gogins@pipeline.com
Date: Thu Aug 05 2004 - 14:43:24 EDT


For example, David Cope's experiments in musical intelligence have now
composed music in the styles of various composers (such as Chopin) that I,
at least, could not tell from the original for as long as 6 or 8 bars. But
this is indubitably computer music.

The ability to detect whether a work of art was produced in one way or
another is quite beside the point of this discussion.

You do not have responsibility for something unless you can change it, and
if you CAN change it, then you DO have responsibility for it.

The question of the FM algorithm is on two levels. Certainly you are
correct in that both the computer musician and the synthesizer musician
have chosen the algorithm, and taken responsibility for its use. However,
the computer musician is responsible for the implementation of the
algorithm, while the synthesizer musician is not. That is a deeper level of
responsibility, but of course that in turn says nothing about the artistic
quality of the result.

Original Message:
-----------------
From: torchia@buffalo.edu
Date: Thu, 05 Aug 2004 13:55:30 -0400
To: cec-conference@concordia.ca
Subject: Re: electroacoustics - rap to tap to zap to frap

So, what you're saying is that you can hear a piece of music, and not be
able to tell if it's computer music if you don't know the extent of the
composers programming chops? That seems a bit dubious a dividing line
to me.

> A digital
> algorithm burned into a PROM is no longer the responsibility of the
> musician.

Absolutely it is. It's the responsibility of the composer to decide
whether or not to use the algorithm, which is the most fundamental
responsibility there is.

--Ryan.

Quoting "gogins@pipeline.com" <gogins@pipeline.com>:

> I think Nowak's point, with which I agree, is that if the musician
> has
> responsibility for the algorithms, it is computer music. A digital
> algorithm burned into a PROM is no longer the responsibility of the
> musician. A csound instrument implementing exactly the same algorithm
> is
> the responsibility of the musician - he or she has the ability to
> change
> it, even if that choice is not taken.
>
> A better term would be "software music" or "programmable music."
>
> Original Message:
> -----------------
> From: lawrence casserley leo@chiltern.demon.co.uk
> Date: Thu, 5 Aug 2004 12:39:02 +0100
> To: cec-conference@concordia.ca
> Subject: Re: electroacoustics - rap to tap to zap to frap
>
>
>
> On 24 Jul, 2004, at 19:14, John Nowak wrote:
>
> >
> > In my opinion, "computer music" is music made with
> user-programable,
> > general purpose devices.
> >
> >
> OTOH, most digital synthesis algorithms (eg FM, acoustic modelling,
> etc) were developed first on general purpose computers as computer
> music techniques. Manufacturers then made dedicated chips to produce
> those algorithms more efficiently and cheaply, but they are still
> computer music techniques. The main difference is the reduction in
> generality and flexibility of control, which is there on a gp
> computer.
> Does that then make it no longer a computer technique?
>
> L
>
> Lawrence Casserley - lawrence@lcasserley.co.uk
> Lawrence Electronic Operations - www.lcasserley.co.uk
> Colourscape Music Festivals - www.colourscape.org.uk
>
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> mail2web - Check your email from the web at
> http://mail2web.com/ .
>
>
>
>
>

--------------------------------------------------------------------
mail2web - Check your email from the web at
http://mail2web.com/ .



This archive was generated by hypermail 2b27 : Sat Dec 22 2007 - 01:46:03 EST