From: James Rogers (jamesr@best.com)
Date: Tue Dec 21 1999 - 21:36:31 MST
On Tue, 21 Dec 1999, E. Shaun Russell wrote:
> Jeff Nordahl wrote:
>
> >The programmers then set up a blues progression of a few chords and
> >applied the Jimi Hendrix pattern to it. Amazingly, the resulting jam
> >session sounded like an authentic Hendrix composition.
>
> The key word being "like." It is relatively easy for one musician to
> emulate another's sound or style, and probably easier for a computer to do
> so effectively. However, a large part of music enjoyment is based upon the
> character and familiarity of the musician himself. If I am somewhere where
> music is solely for atmospheric purposes (eg: shopping malls etc.), I
> likely wouldn't care whether the music playing was Mozart or a computer
> replication with a Mozart feel; but, admittedly, if I was searching for
> Mozart-like music and found an item which I *knew* was a computer
> replication, I would not buy it on the basis of its having no originality
> or creative impetus.
What is creativity in music, really? The computer algorithms that
generate this music (which, BTW, has been applied to a broad variety of
music with great success) differ very little from the manner that humans
generate music. In the case of the computer, the algorithms are extracted
from a large sample of data generated by the algorithms (i.e. the music, as
allowed by basic principles of information theory) and then used to
generate more music using the same algorithms.
Every musician has a set of algorithms that they use to write music;
that's why virtually every music writer has an identifiable style. An
original creation is just those algorithms modulated by some random noise
until the writer finds something that "works", usually working towards
some vague feel. Incidentally, determining what "works" is
algorithmic as well. That's pretty much the entire process, and also why
computers have such an easy time analyzing and replicating the musical
talents of people.
> With all of the digital technology available today (such as sampling,
> sequencing, multi-tracking composition programs, MIDI-PC links etc.) one
> would think that the standard of creative composition should be shooting
> way up; the fact is that few current musicians can claim to possess the
> same creative vision as many of the long-dead, famous composers. Instead
> of creating more elaborate and complex compositions, most novices and
> seasoned musicians aim for the simple radio-ready pop and techno music; the
> standards are low.
"The increasingly wide availability of cheap music technology has left
musicians with few excuses." - a music mag.
You are correct, but only to a point. Yes, the capabilities of music
creation technology is literally at the point where the limitation is
almost entirely human. Not more than 15 meters from me are racks full of
DSP gear that can generate almost every conceivable musical concept if
used correctly. There has never been a better time to be a writer of
music than now.
However, your assertion that musical standards set by professional are low
is misleading. To make money, they must cater to an unsophisticated
audience that has a very simplistic appreciation of musical algorithms.
Not only that, but to make a regular paycheck, most professional music
writers are paid to be prolific i.e. churn out simple, algorithmic
compositions that fit a given profile. Most popular music is not
written by the people who front for the record labels; it is written by
nameless writers who churn out tons of simple tunes that are targeted at a
specific demographic of the unwashed masses. It is a calculated business
move. People like you and I are a demographic that can be largely
ignored by the mainstream music factories. And in my personal opinion,
the last couple years have taken a turn for the worse in this regard but
these things are cyclical.
To be perfectly frank, the only way you can create complex, technically
excellent music *and* manage to make money is to keep the complexity
subtle. One has to make the music both accessible to the common moron and
have enough depth that it grabs people with more developed tastes. A few
examples of successful pop-ish writers that generate superior quality
music do exist. Vince Clark (of Erasure, Yaz, Depeche Mode, etc) is name
that immediately comes to mind. His first-rate compositions are almost
purely baroque with a depth that is reminiscent of Bach, yet the
overall impression is an easily digested pop hook that the masses can
consume.
It would seem that the ability to produce both complex/innovative and
accessible music is a far greater talent than merely producing deep and
complex compositions.
> In my own way, I try to use technology to create new and challenging
> music; I'm bored of conventional compositions, and tired of the commercial
> acceptance of emulation as an art form. Technology is a wonderful thing,
> and most will agree that its purpose is to create progress. I hope that
> technology will do this with music and art as well.
I can relate to this; I have a CD changer in my car because I refuse to
listen to the radio. The lowest common denominator stuff foisted on the
general population is hard for me to stomach. It sounds almost
narcissistic, but I really like listening to the only remaining recording
of my previous work currently in my possession. Not surprisingly, the
depth and texture of stuff I did almost ten years ago still sounds quite
good to my ears, even though I was the one who wrote it. (On the upside,
that bit of work reviewed very well, so I'm not entirely insane.)
I do spend some time on writing music; it does my mind much good. I've
spent the last couple months doing sound design and I hope to start
producing finished works (the first in a very long time) sometime next
year. And besides, I have some new toys I want to try out.
Regards,
-James Rogers
jamesr@best.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 15:06:10 MST