kcinsu Posted March 11, 2015 Share Posted March 11, 2015 Lots of composers, especially in the 20th century relied on lots of rules and mathematical operations to transform a seed of an idea into something completely different. If they had just sat and noddled at a piano, they never would have found their way to those same results. For me, randomness and algorithmic techniques are a means to generating inspiration. From there it's up to the composer to take these generated bits and actually compose with them. I use Scripter in Logic X to generate musical ideas (it's a plugin that uses JavaScript to let you code you own midi processor... Can do basically whatever you can imagine with MIDI data). I often find that the results I get from this method is far more personal than if I had sat at the piano. If I sit at the piano I am limited by my physical dexterity and the ergonomics of what is possible to play on a piano. I've had many composition teachers criticize a piece of orchestral music as being clearly written at the piano, as the instrument itself leads you a certain type of writing. For me, the process of deciding on rules and parameters for how I generate musical ideas is just as much part of the composition. I can spend days/weeks on a script, and then when I am ready to compose, I know exactly what each parameter does and how it interacts with the other parameters. Sometimes I can set some values and press record, other times I jam out on the controls and record that. In the end though, I always go through and find the gems and ideas that I can then compose with. I certainly don't view this as lazy or cheating or anything negative. it's an evolution in compositional tools. At the end of the day, the composer chooses when the composition is finished. Amon Tobin uses all samples... But by the time he is finished with his track, he owns everything in that song. He is one of the most original artists out there imo. Are you going to call him lazy for not being the one that recorded the source material? Doubt it. Same thing, slightly different perspective. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
awepittance Posted March 11, 2015 Share Posted March 11, 2015 Yeah but how many wattmers are composing music for orchestra? me but how much of YOU is really behind the end product? that's seriously the same type of bullshit talking point the Drum Machines Have No Soul people lecture you with, I 2nd Mesh. Give it up, at least until you try these plugins and stop rejecting them out of some misplaced reactionary pride Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rst Posted March 11, 2015 Share Posted March 11, 2015 For me, randomness and algorithmic techniques are a means to generating inspiration. From there it's up to the composer to take these generated bits and actually compose with them. well said. also one can not post this too often: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest skibby Posted March 12, 2015 Share Posted March 12, 2015 it seems just as hard to use generated music notes as it is to write them, especially when the generated notes do things you dont like. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
psn Posted March 12, 2015 Share Posted March 12, 2015 especially when the generated notes do things you dont like. In that regard, the generating logic is like most band members. :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest yikes Posted March 13, 2015 Share Posted March 13, 2015 not one of you answered my question...to all of those scoffing at me....and or vehemently defending "let's let the computer generate the melody for me": how many of you play an instrument at a pro/semi-pro level ? how many of you know modes and chord /music theory? how many of you can actually read music? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
modey Posted March 13, 2015 Share Posted March 13, 2015 I can't read music but I have been a guitarist for 25 years, and an electronic musician for 18. I didn't have any lessons beyond my initial guitar lessons but I've picked up a bit of theory here and there, and I don't mean to be cocky—I could always do with improvement—but I consider my own music to be quite melodically rich and dynamic from a composition point of view; I haven't used much at all in the way of generative processes, except for a few little bits on my latest album. I'm very much interested in the possibilities of generative composition as an aid though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
psn Posted March 13, 2015 Share Posted March 13, 2015 not one of you answered my question...to all of those scoffing at me....and or vehemently defending "let's let the computer generate the melody for me": how many of you play an instrument at a pro/semi-pro level ? how many of you know modes and chord /music theory? how many of you can actually read music? Check, check and check. So what? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kcinsu Posted March 13, 2015 Share Posted March 13, 2015 not one of you answered my question...to all of those scoffing at me....and or vehemently defending "let's let the computer generate the melody for me": how many of you play an instrument at a pro/semi-pro level ? how many of you know modes and chord /music theory? how many of you can actually read music? I'm not sure what those questions have to do with anything? Does my degree in composition make you care about what I said now? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest yikes Posted March 13, 2015 Share Posted March 13, 2015 "I'm not sure what those questions have to do with anything?" yea ok there is no correlation between having proficiency on an instrument and being able to compose melodies without using a computer to do it for you silly me Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Silent Member Posted March 13, 2015 Share Posted March 13, 2015 Holy shit, playing a real instrument card has been played! The IDM crowd looks bewildered, defeat is imminent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kcinsu Posted March 13, 2015 Share Posted March 13, 2015 lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
psn Posted March 13, 2015 Share Posted March 13, 2015 there is no correlation between having proficiency on an instrument and being able to compose melodies without using a computer to do it for you silly me The classical paradigm that you seem to be promoting is very much a hierarchical one, with a strict divide between the composer (the Genius) on one side, and the performer who is merely channeling the divine composition, preferably with the help of a conductor to take responsibility for stylistic or interpretation decisions. As a consequence "schooled" musicians often can't play a note unless you put a sheet of music in front of them and wave a stick to keep the beat, and most of them have no aspirations to ever compose anything at all. Anyways, the studio is the instrument in certain styles of music. But it sounds like the entire 20th century of music has passed you by. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
modey Posted March 13, 2015 Share Posted March 13, 2015 "I'm not sure what those questions have to do with anything?" yea ok there is no correlation between having proficiency on an instrument and being able to compose melodies without using a computer to do it for you silly me Do you play all of your melodies live? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest yikes Posted March 14, 2015 Share Posted March 14, 2015 i write them with bass,guitar or keys anyway i have about 75 years of recorded music to back up my point,i am curious to ear some generative melodies that were /are out there in the wild and or by guys in this thread i will stand by my convictions that the best stuff in any genre from pre war blues up to hardcore 60's 70's 80's fusion/funk/electronic music was in fact made by people making specific choices and using their brain/talent not a random generative machine. we obviously disagree that is ok especially in a discussion about an intangible thing i will hold steady with james brown,the meters,miles,squarepusher,herbie hancock,grant green,robert fripp,et al while i wait to hear some of these timeless musical jams made with generative software/random sequencing Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kcinsu Posted March 14, 2015 Share Posted March 14, 2015 You seem to have a very narrow perception regarding what it means to use generative tools in the composition process. You make it sound like you press a button, instant melody, end of composition. Not quite what we are referring to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest yikes Posted March 14, 2015 Share Posted March 14, 2015 You seem to have a very narrow perception regarding what it means to use generative tools in the composition process. You make it sound like you press a button, instant melody, end of composition. Not quite what we are referring to. give me an example Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kcinsu Posted March 14, 2015 Share Posted March 14, 2015 Give me an example, please. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
psn Posted March 14, 2015 Share Posted March 14, 2015 You seem to have a very narrow perception regarding what it means to use generative tools in the composition process. You make it sound like you press a button, instant melody, end of composition. Not quite what we are referring to. give me an example Eno's Oblique strategies, on the background of which Robert Fripp nicely illuminates some nuances in this field that you seem to ignore: The longer answer leads us into consideration of the backgrounds of the various characters at work in popular music of the time. There was the art school approach & the player approach: the two we’re considering now; with a third – those who were entertainers and / or wanted to be rock stars. The musical / artwork in that case being shaped outside the inner momentum of the piece itself and aimed at supporting the interests of the aspirant star / entertainer. Brian has exceptionally good taste plus a set of working procedures developed from a different background to mine: (Brian’s is) the fine arts; and one form of his guiding principles are articulated in the Oblique Strategies. My own background is that of the working player. The musician has guiding principles from within their particular discipline. The sense of form (arithmetical & geometrical) are comparable to notions of form within the (visual) arts. My own guiding principles can be found at the bottom of the DGM Live page. Click on the knotwork to move to the next; also here. So, there are similarities & also differences; but mainly similarities. Musical thinking has its own procedural dynamic – we follow where the music leads as it takes on a life of its own. This overrides any other procedural dictum or strategy. So, for someone based in musical procedures, occasionally there may be a divergence from the direction of a “non-musician” (noting that Brian’s musical life over the past 37 years now puts him outside that category). Two points: Brian has better taste, a more interesting mind & developed sense of play than almost all the musicians I have known. A good professional musician knows what they’re doing, so they do what they know. This is death to the creative life. So, working with Brian is usually a lot more fun & musically creative than working with good professional players (mastery in musicianship is necessary to go beyond the strictures of professionalism). But, occasionally, there may be a divergence in outcome given the divergent backgrounds. I remember only one moment when an Eno musical procedure did not fully convince me musically, and that was very early in Brian’s life as a solo musician, over 30 years ago. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
modey Posted March 14, 2015 Share Posted March 14, 2015 fkn zole, I *knew* the mention of fripp would backfire Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest yikes Posted March 14, 2015 Share Posted March 14, 2015 there is no more deliberate guitar player than fripp yes the ambient stuff with eno is obviously ambient and 'formless" an example- a love supreme was written in 3 days on paper theme from squarepusher is not random kind of blue computer world no need to cite 8 decades of composed non generative music etc etc Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hello spiral Posted March 14, 2015 Share Posted March 14, 2015 dude... just. stop. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
luke viia Posted March 14, 2015 Share Posted March 14, 2015 *generates a stick* *pulls it out of yikes' butt* Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 14, 2015 Share Posted March 14, 2015 lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
luke viia Posted March 14, 2015 Share Posted March 14, 2015 soz that was rude. yikes i just don't think you understand the purpose of these types of programs and how they're generally implemented. think of trying to mimic a real "generative" sound, like wind chimes - only with a different timbre. "generative software" lets you set up parameters and play an endlessly-changing musical part (that would otherwise come off contrived if meticulously composed and played by a human); it is not meant to lay down a sweet funk riff over an 808 beat and create hit songs, dunno where you're getting the idea that it's meant to replace the songwriter. the two techniques are not at all mutually exclusive Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.