elektro80
Site Admin
Joined: Mar 25, 2003 Posts: 21959 Location: Norway
Audio files: 14
|
Posted: Tue Sep 13, 2005 6:55 am Post subject:
Heuristics, formulations, methods and the composer |
|
|
Quote: | Any algorhythmic formulations of virtually any area of music theory that you can find or work out yourself would certainly be useful. Other than that I would like to brainstorm about modes and tonality. I will start another thread on that topic and see if I get any takers. |
http://electro-music.com/forum/topic-7812.html
This new thread in the "composition" forum is my way of exploring the "algorhythmic formulations" thingie form a different angle. I hope we can discuss compositional issues here and then bring ideas and wisdom back to the program in progress thread.
The ideas formulated in the posts by bachus in that thread are extremely interesting. However, at first I didn´t quite see how I could utilize such a system. Then I studied the concepts proposed by Bachus and found this to be extremely hot.
However, then I discovered that the way I write might not be compatible with such a program in the sense that it might far easier to actually do this manually the old way rather than using a computer application. One issue is that I haven´t a damned clue about any algorithmic approaches to my own music. I know I am using algorithms, but the concepts I use aren´t readily applicable within a computer program. I also stated that I tend to write everything at the same time in a nonlinear way, which of course is a confusing observation.
After considering this again, I have concluded that I will have to look into how and why I do what I do. This is mainly about concepts.
Most of what I write and record is written material in the sense that I interpret my own piece of music which basically is "finished" by the time I power of the synths. I do however see the performance/interpretation side of music to be extremely important and the way I see this is that the music really doesn´t start until the interpretation has an actual listening audience. All stages before that are simply abstractions.
I do of course improvise and mess about on the instruments like all musicians do, but my main focus has been writing stuff. ..at least for the last 25 years or so.
When writing a piece I start off with what I want to express. I have several times in many threads touched upon how I think music is NOT a language in the sense that it actually is possible to write a perfect programmatic experience of ..whatever.. and then have the audience experience the exact same thing. That doesn´t work. At best it is possible to TELL the audience something about what is going on or supposedly is going on and just hope for some sort of consensus. The music ends up with having to be judged simply as music based on the concepts of what music is.. which.. according to Heidegger may vary all the time. The Heidegger angle isn´t as much airhead philosophy as it might sound, because by observation we can conclude this to be a fact. In simple terms music is what is being accepted as music at the time by a given audience. If the listener isn´t accepting this as music, then it isn´t music. One man´s music is another´s noise.
Anyway, back to my own way of writing music. First I figure out what I want to write about. In a sense I might just as well want to explore subjective experiences rather then really describing factual events. In this way I guess I am fairly close to choosing the subject material and angle the same way a painter or writer would do it.
In one of my pices I wanted to explore how it is to be lying in the water, dying together with hudreds of others.. dead or dying. I ended up with choosing to go for microtime, which is my term for extending a moment.
What I describe might be 30 seconds, but I stretch this to say 10 minutes.
The next step would be getting in close to how this feels. I make up lists of words like.. hot.. cold.. falling.. help.. rising.. alone.. together.. and structure these in layers. When this is done I start to think about the actual music.
More later.. if you guys want more..
Anyway.. does this make any sense? _________________ A Charity Pantomime in aid of Paranoid Schizophrenics descended into chaos yesterday when someone shouted, "He's behind you!"
MySpace
SoundCloud
Flickr |
|
bachus
Joined: Feb 29, 2004 Posts: 2922 Location: Up in that tree over there.
Audio files: 5
|
Posted: Tue Sep 13, 2005 8:45 am Post subject:
|
|
|
Yes it makes sense but I’m not sure how to respond to it abstractly so I’ll just give you my thoughts as they relate to the program I’m working on. That is simply I have no idea if such a program would be of use to you. Ultimately it will provide many high level tools that can be customized by the user. But these will be tools unlike any composers have used in the past. So to a great extent one would have to think the composition through in terms of the tool set. That might or might not be acceptable and depending on the quality of the tools it might or might not be useful even if acceptable.
elektro80 wrote: |
One issue is that I haven´t a damned clue about any algorithmic approaches to my own music. I know I am using algorithms, but the concepts I use aren´t readily applicable within a computer program.. |
I am not sure what you mean here. Can you pick some very limited area of your music creation process and in terms of music or music-theory and define one “the concepts” you use?
elektro80 wrote: | I also stated that I tend to write everything at the same time in a nonlinear way, which of course is a confusing observation |
I don’t find that confusing so perhaps I don’t understand it.
elektro80 wrote: | The next step would be getting in close to how this feels. I make up lists of words like.. hot.. cold.. falling.. help.. rising.. alone.. together.. and structure these in layers. When this is done I start to think about the actual music. |
These are very subjective things. I think it might be possible to create a tool set that would allow some people to translate these to music to their satisfaction. I can’t see that as categorically excluded by what I have in progress. _________________ The question is not whether they can talk or reason, but whether they can suffer. -- Jeremy Bentham |
|