<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=windows-1252"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
Hello Nicolas,<br>
<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:4D9F5BA8.1030706@paris-sorbonne.fr"
type="cite">
<meta content="text/html; charset=windows-1252"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
<title></title>
<font face="Calibri">It seems to me that the case of
computer-generated music is much akin to that of fakes in art.
This is all the more interesting that, according to Nelson
Goodman, fakes cannot exist in an allographic art such as music.
</font></blockquote>
<br>
I feel more along the line with Michael Morse and Nelson Goodman
here I think.<br>
<br>
<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:4D9F5BA8.1030706@paris-sorbonne.fr"
type="cite"><font face="Calibri">What would be faked, in the case
of computer-generated music, is its intentionality. The extent
to which such music could produce an aesthetic effect strongly
depends on the intentionality of the listener. For this reason,
I doubt that an experimental study would produce any interesting
result: the listener's answers would not depend on the music
itself, rather (a) of their awareness of it being
computer-generated; (b) of their opinion about this. I would
think, therefore, that the question must be approached from a
semiotic and/or philosophical point of view, not from a merely
empirical/experimental one.<br>
<br>
Consider these cases:<br>
– At a not too recent conference in the Sorbonne, one of the
papers was read by a guy who had written a piece of software
generating what he thought was (good) tonal music. He explained
that he had come to love this music so much that he couldn't
hear any other any more. The examples he made us listen to where
awful – or so thought several of us. Obviously, neither this guy
nor any of us judged the music on its inherent aesthetic value:
we were guided by our personal convictions.<br>
– Suppose that a real piece of music, written by a real
composer, is presented as computer-generated. Many a listener
might dislike it merely on the basis that it is (erroneously)
thought to be a fake.<br>
– Inversely, suppose that a computer-generated work is made to
pass for the work of an interesting forgotten composer: many
critics will praise it and praise the rediscovery of an unjustly
neglected master.<br>
– Etc.<br>
</font></blockquote>
<br>
I personally hope the music itself would matter most of all.<br>
But indeed knowledge of how it was composed will be influential to
at least some degree in many people (perhaps strongly sometimes
indeed).<br>
But I'd find the effects in a blind listening study as Sandeep
Bhagwhati requested much more valuable.<br>
Sadly I'm not aware of any such study.<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:4D9F5BA8.1030706@paris-sorbonne.fr"
type="cite"><font face="Calibri"> <br>
I do believe that common-practice tonality can be modelized with
much more satisfying (and more precise results than what Marcel
de Velde believes. Examples do exist (e.g. Mario Baroni, Rossana
Dalmonte and Carlo Jacoboni's Legrense software described in
their <i>Regole della musica</i>, successfully modelizing arie
by Legrense). <br>
</font></blockquote>
<br>
Thank you, I was unaware of Legrense. I will look it up.<br>
If it is indeed done truly successful, depending on how it's done
and written, that may weaken my point that one needs just intonation
to do successful algorithmic composition :)<br>
Perhaps this music is suitable for the kind of study Sandeep
Bhagwhati is looking for.<br>
But the first thing I'm thinking about is how did they write the
algorithm, is it still to be seen as a computer composition should
they do something more along the lines of "remixing" existing arie
by Legrese?<br>
<br>
<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:4D9F5BA8.1030706@paris-sorbonne.fr"
type="cite"><font face="Calibri"> <br>
I don't think that intonation has any important share in this
matter. After all, there exist recordings of, say, <i>The Art
of Fugue</i>, on early synthetizers (Moog) which played in ET:
I did not feel that the music suffered so much. The problem
remains that just intonation isn't really usable in tonal music
because the directionality of tonal harmony produces an
unavoidable shift in pitch in just intonation. I suppose that
one might construct a harmonic functionality that would balance
the shifts in pitch, and that just intonation in that case might
produce some sort of consonant effect that might seem of
aesthetic value; but that would not be tonal music.<br>
Marcel, your experiment in just intonation seems to me to
sound much more like "modal" polyphony of the 16th century than
like tonal music, precisely because your algorithm probably
makes no provision for a tonal directionality of the harmony –
and because limiting the range to the 5-limit-harmonic did not
confront you to the problem of having to prepare and resolve
7ths, which one of the main causes of tonal directionality.</font><br>
<font face="Calibri"><br>
<br>
Yours,<br>
<br>
</font>Nicolas Meeůs<br>
Université Paris-Sorbonne<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
Aah Wendy Carlos and Bach, lovely music :)<br>
It was later redone by Wendy Carlos in several more historically
correct (Bach most likely did not use ET contrary to popular belief)
and nicer sounding temperaments.<br>
<br>
I agree that intonation does not have a very important share (though
some will disagree here) in the rendering of common practice music.<br>
At least 12 tone equal temperament comes close enough for the ear /
brain to interpret it correctly (it just sounds less good, colourful
and emotional)<br>
<br>
The potential importance of just intonation is not about how it
sounds (though how it sounds starts becoming more important for
certain things that 12tet does not approach closely enough, though
one could use 24tet, 31tet or 53tet etc in these cases, for instance
for some arabic tones).<br>
But the potential importance of just intonation is for understanding
how the tonal side of music functions. Therefore being of importance
to composition in the first place.<br>
<br>
Btw the experiment in just intonation which I posted is not in
correct just intonation as I've written in the original post.<br>
The example goes out of tune very often.<br>
It was merely a small experiment and a wrong one at that, though it
did get some parts right in hindsight.<br>
<br>
<br>
About an unavoidable shift in pitch in just intonation, this is not
true.<br>
There are many many systems which claim to be just intonation. And
if I didn't miss any then I've researched almost all of them and
re-tuned common practice music to almost all of them.<br>
There are systems in which for instance every major chord is said to
be 1/1 5/4 3/2 and every minor 1/1 6/5 3/2 (most commonly known
ones) and they produce both comma shifts in held notes, and produce
drifts on the 5*5 axis. It also sounds absolutely horrible and
completely unacceptable. And makes no sense musically or
mathematically.<br>
You can find a variant of this in some automatic tuning software,
sometimes called adaptive JI.<br>
<br>
Then there's a combination of 5-limit and Pythagorean in which a
major triad can be 1/1 5/4 3/2 and 1/1 81/64 3/2 depending on how it
connects to other chords, and no 5*5 plane (dominant 7th is most
often 1/1 5/4 3/2 16/9 here). This variant will actually work
without wolves or comma shifts or drifting and sounds pretty good
(much better than 12tet or Pythagorean when done with some care)<br>
<br>
Then there's extended JI in which for instance the dominant 7th is
1/1 5/4 3/2 7/4 (correct for some jazz or blues, but horrible in
common practice classical, it's not even dissonant) and even worse
when ratios like 11 and 13 are used, making common practice music
sound like some drunken arabic polyphonic comic haha. (however, the
19th harmonic for the minor third is good in some functions)<br>
<br>
The above systems are flexible, that is they are not fixed scales
but scales of potentially infinite size in which the music moves
according to a certain system for instance lead by the movements of
the fundamental bass.<br>
Then there are countless variations which assign a fixed scale to
the the tonic or key. They produce wolves in unacceptable places
(with the exception of Pythagorean since our notation was based on
it).<br>
<br>
There's a popular belief that just intonation is a mathematical
impossibility.<br>
But this is only true if one starts with very rigid and artificial
rules as a starting point.<br>
Once you allow the music itself to indicate it's tuning and the
function of it's tones, then an almost infinite world of
possibilities opens up.<br>
And doesn't just intonation make so much more sense than for
instance equal temperament?<br>
An octave is 2/1 in 12tet, but a fifth is not 3/2, and a major third
in an ending chord not 5/4 but irrational numbers (infinite length).
They have no relation to their root in any way in 12tet.<br>
Surely music must be just intonation at it's heart, it's even how we
naturally sing and play on instruments that allow it (with some
degree of error).<br>
I do not think that music demands the impossible of us. I think that
in all these thousands of years we still have not uncovered it's
greatest secret of all.<br>
<br>
<br>
Kindest regards,<br>
Marcel de Velde<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:marcel@justintonation.com">marcel@justintonation.com</a><br>
Zwolle, Netherlands<br>
<br>
</body>
</html>