Extra-Music(ologic)al Models for Algorithmic Composition

Author(s):  
Alice C. Eldridge
2021 ◽  
Vol 5 (5) ◽  
pp. 23
Author(s):  
Robert Rowe

The history of algorithmic composition using a digital computer has undergone many representations—data structures that encode some aspects of the outside world, or processes and entities within the program itself. Parallel histories in cognitive science and artificial intelligence have (of necessity) confronted their own notions of representations, including the ecological perception view of J.J. Gibson, who claims that mental representations are redundant to the affordances apparent in the world, its objects, and their relations. This review tracks these parallel histories and how the orientations and designs of multimodal interactive systems give rise to their own affordances: the representations and models used expose parameters and controls to a creator that determine how a system can be used and, thus, what it can mean.


1998 ◽  
Vol 3 (3) ◽  
pp. 199-209 ◽  
Author(s):  
Andy Hunt ◽  
Ross Kirk ◽  
Richard Orton ◽  
Benji Merrison

The challenge of composing both sound and moving image within a coherent computer-mediated framework is addressed, and some of the aesthetic issues highlighted. A conceptual model for an audiovisual delivery system is proposed, and this model acts as a guide for detailed discussion of some illustrative examples of audiovisual composition. Options for types of score generated as graphical output of the system are outlined. The need for extensive algorithmic control of compositional decisions within an interactive framework is proposed. The combination of Tabula Vigilans Audio Interactive (TVAI), an algorithmic composition language for electroacoustic music and realtime image generation, with MIDAS, a multiprocessor audiovisual system platform, is shown to have the features desired for the conceptual outline given earlier, and examples are given of work achieved using these resources. It is shown that ultimately delivery of new work may be efficiently distributed via the World Wide Web, with composers' interactive scripts delivered remotely but rendered locally by means of a user's ‘rendering black box’.


Author(s):  
Dmytro Malyi

Background, objectives and methodology of the research. The social and cultural paradigm of the 20th century has given rise to a type of composing thinking that did not exist before – a scientific one. Thus, the evolution of the composer’s writing can be defined as a path from thinking by perfect consonance, emancipated dissonance to thinking by deterministic sound and its parameters (height, duration, dynamics, timbre, and articulation). The term of the «composer’s writing technique» means a set of techniques and methods of working with the musical material as a result of the activity of thinking/awareness. Therefore, the aim of this article is an attempt to explore the relationship between the compositional process and writing techniques of the 20th – 21st centuries (pointillism, aleatorysonorous, algorithmic composition), as well as the specifics of polyphonic, homophonic writing in a new context. The methodology of the study includes references to the scientific works by P. Boulez (1971), K. Stockhausen (1963), V. Medushevsky (1984), M. Bonfeld (2006), I. Beckman (2010), I. Kuznetsov (2011), K. Maidenberg-Todorova (2013), M. Vysotska and G. Grigoryeva (2014). Presentation of research results. The phenomenon of writing techniques is very important in the study of the specifics of the compositional process, as it is the technique, for the most part, becomes the goal of creation for many composers of the 20th century. In addition to new techniques, polyphonic and homophonic writing have undergone some changes. The polyphonic one has specific features that are manifested in linearity, part-writing, etc. Examples can be found in the works by D. Ligeti (micro-polyphony), R. Shchedrin, V. Bibik, V. Ptushkin, V. Sylvestrov, and O. Shchetynsky. Regarding the homophonic writing, we shall note that, first of all, it is an indicator of style and conceptual thinking of a composer (works by A. Pyart, J. Tavener, and L. Sumera). In pointillism, the sound is thought of as a deterministic, isolated structure, which is expressed by its various parameters. Here are the examples from the creative work by A. Webern («The Variations for the Piano»; «The Variations for the Orchestra»), by E. Denysov «DSCH». The aleatory-sonorous technique is associated with the operation of timbre sonorities, according to their specific patterns, and developed in the 50–60s of the 20th century in the works by I. Xenakis, V. Lyutoslavsky, Ksh. Penderetsky, and D. Ligeti. The algorithmic composition is an indicator of scientific and mathematical thinking, and is divided into: fractal, stochastic, spectral, concrete and electroacoustic music. The first was formed within the framework of the works by C. Dodge, G. li Nelson, D. Ligeti, and others (I. Beckman, 2010). Stochastic music is associated with the name of I. Xenakis, and the ancestors of the spectral school are the French composers G. Grisey and T. Murray. Conclusions. The article considers the writing techniques of the 20th–21st centuries as components of the compositional process. It can be concluded that the studied techniques are fundamentally interconnected, revealing the nature of the composer’s thinking/consciousness from different positions. The presented techniques are: the objectification of sound forms, the method of creation; the fact of the composer’s consciousness; the consequence of the historical and cultural evolution of the musical language and communication.


Leonardo ◽  
1995 ◽  
Vol 28 (3) ◽  
pp. 221 ◽  
Author(s):  
James Harley

1996 ◽  
Vol 1 (3) ◽  
pp. 157-165 ◽  
Author(s):  
BRUCE L. JACOB

There are two distinct types of creativity: the flash out of the blue (inspiration? genius?), and the process of incremental revisions (hard work). Not only are we years away from modelling the former, we do not even begin to understand it. The latter is algorithmic in nature and has been modelled in many systems both musical and non-musical. Algorithmic composition is as old as music composition. It is often considered a cheat, a way out when the composer needs material and/or inspiration. It can also be thought of as a compositional tool that simply makes the composer’s work go faster. This article makes a case for algorithmic composition as such a tool. The ‘hard work’ type of creativity often involves trying many different combinations and choosing one over the others. It seems natural to express this iterative task as a computer algorithm. The implementation issues can be reduced to two components: how to understand one’s own creative process well enough to reproduce it as an algorithm, and how to program a computer to differentiate between ‘good’ and ‘bad’ music. The philosophical issues reduce to the question who or what is responsible for the music produced?


1996 ◽  
Vol 1 (3) ◽  
pp. 143-155 ◽  
Author(s):  
IANNIS XENAKIS

The Editors are delighted to welcome this contribution from a venerable pioneer of algorithmic composition who is also a member of Organised Sound’s Advisory Board. In this article, edited from notes for a series of lectures delivered in Poland, and not previously published, Xenakis tackles first the questions arising from determinacy and indeterminacy, repetition and variation, symmetry and structure, and multidimensional musical space. He later describes his computer drawing interface, UPIC, and ends with a discussion of some of his statistical compositional methods employing a variety of probability distributions. Much of the article is illuminated by insights drawn from a lifetime’s work in the arts and sciences.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document