[Smt-talk] Aesthetics of Computer-Generated Music
Victor grauer
victorag at verizon.net
Wed Apr 13 09:41:30 PDT 2011
At 12:28 AM 4/13/2011, Stephen Jablonsky wrote:
>All this talk about computer generated music begs the question, "Why
>would anyone want a computer to write music?" The answer is because
>composing is such a n arduous task that we want someone else to do
>it for us, which kind of reminds me of Mickey having the broom carry
>the water for him. The results are about the same.
First of all, computers don't write music. What we are talking about
are algorithms. And an interesting aspect of the non-computerized
music we all know and love is that it is full of algorithms. Speaking
of Mickey, when Dukas wrote Sorcerer's Apprentice, he used an
algorithm to depict the automatized replications of the brooms. It's
called a "canon." And as we know, a great many canons have been
notated on a single line, with special symbols indicating how the
algorithm is to be realized. You could program a computer to do it,
or you could write it out and/or perform it by hand. In either case,
it's an algorithm.
Many simple theme and variation compositions employ a different
"algorithm" for each segment. A great many piano works and songs by
Schubert, Chopin, Schumann, Liszt, etc. employ simple algorithms to
control the left-hand figurations, which can often be quite
mechanical. Fugues are highly algorithmic, as are, in a very
different way, many of the more routine sonata form movements. Repeat
signs are totally algorithmic. So are most folk songs, where the
same melody is repeated over and over again to different words.
So, yes, writing music can be an arduous task -- at least one reason
why algorithms have been such an intrinsic aspect of so much music
for such a long long time.
Victor Grauer
Pittsburgh, PA
USA
More information about the Smt-talk
mailing list