From: mclaren
Subject: "experimental" music
--
In sharp contrast with the dismal pseudo-
science and incoherent reasoning employed
by a minority of forum subscribers in a
science and incoherent reasoning employed
by a minority of forum subscribers in a
remarkably feeble effort to "disprove" my
criticism of the misuse of the term "experimental"
in modern music, Steve Curtin made some cogent
points about the term.
"Experimental music" was used according to its
correct dictionary meaning by Lejaren Hiller. If you
read Hiller's 1956 text "Experimental Music,"
you discover that Hiller employed the term
carefully. He called the output of his
stochastic composition programs "Experiment 1,"
"Experiment 2," etc. Notably, Hiller was careful
*not* to call the output of his computer programs
"music."
Rather, he viewed these experiments (which formed
the movements of the Illiac Quartet) as systematic
investigations of mathematical models of human
musical cognition.
investigations of mathematical models of human
musical cognition.
I did some research on Markov analysis and it turns
out that it was originally used in chemistry to
measure mean free paths of molecules in chemical
reactions between collisions. Thus it's obvious why
Markov analysis failed miserably as a music
composition tool: a hydrogen atom is a hydrogen
atom no matter where it occurs, but a JI minor third
played in the deep bass is a grinding sensory dissonance
while a JI minor third played in the high treble is
a smooth sensory consonance. Atoms
are interchangeable and identical; musical intervals
are not.
If you read Hiller's 1956 book carefully, you will
realize that Hiller himself understood that his
experiments demonstrated the failure of his
mathematical model of human musical cognition.
Hiller claims that he was not interested in the
mathematical model of human musical cognition.
Hiller claims that he was not interested in the
aesthetic result of his "experiments," but if you
read between his lines you can detect the clear
disappointment he felt in not producing more
human-sounding music (or, to put it another way,
the ease with which listeners could tell that
the music went nowhere).
Little has been remarked on Hiller's subsequent
efforts in this area; however, HIller's own writings
about his subsquent "Computer Cantata" (and a
listen to the work in question) prove enlightening
even today.
Unlike John Cage, Lejaren Hiller understood and
respected the meaning of the term "experimental."
Unlike John Cage, Hiller recognized that science
demands hard numbers in order for an experiment
to be meaningfully called an experiment. Unlike
John Cage, Lejaren Hiller formulated a mental
to be meaningfully called an experiment. Unlike
John Cage, Lejaren Hiller formulated a mental
model of a physical process (composition as
filtered noise subjected to modus ponens
logic in the form of a rule-set); unlike Cage,
Hiller reduced his mental model to mathematics
(encapsulated in a computer program); unlike
Cage, HIller generated a testable hypothesis
from his mathematical equations (composition
can be generated using such a computer program
which is both statistically and perceptually
indistinguishable from compositions produced
by humans); unlike Cage, Hiller tested his
hypothesis (set up a quartet to perform the
composition, and recorded the reactions of
people who listened to it); unlike Cage, Hiller's
music could therefore be meaningfully called
"experimental."
--
By the way, no doubt some of you will object
to my use of the term "computer composition"
in a recent post critical of that genre.
Many of you will claim that my post denies
the validity of all "computer compositions,"
and since many "computer composers" (Larry
Polansky, Carter Scholz, John Bischoff, etc.)
have produced interesting and worthwhile
music, my post is purportedly incorrect.
In fact this boils down to a controversy over
the meaning of the phrase "computer
composition."
What is a "computer composition"?
Is a string quartet written out by hand and
using a computer only to print the score an
"computer composition"? Since the
composer did not specify the exact number of
"computer composition"? Since the
composer did not specify the exact number of
1/300ths of an inch border around the staves,
these proportions were generated outside of the
composer's direct control, by means of
algorithms. Is such a quartet score therefore
an example of "computer composition"?
Clearly not.
Let us then consider a rock band whose
manager schedules performances using
a computer (with scheduling algorithms).
Is this "computer composition"?
Clearly not.
How about a keyboardist who performs
from written scores and uses a computer
to load different timbres into hi/r synthesizer
during the performance? Is this an example
of "computer composition"?
Clearly not.
of "computer composition"?
Clearly not.
Let us then move on to consider a composer who
uses elaborate mathematics to generate timbres
and chords during the course of a composition.
Over his shoulder, the composer has an idiot
savant watching who observes which notes
the composer plays and calculates rapidly in
hi/r head the resulting notes and timbres
according to the composer's mathematical
procedures. (One such prodigy, Johan Zacharias
Dase, boasted such astounding powers of
mental calculation that he calculated pi in
his head to 400 decimal places over the course
of 2 months. Thus it is humanly possible, while
rare, to perform such elaborate mental
calculations.)
Is this an "algorithmic computer composition"?
I would say not, since it can be performed by
Is this an "algorithmic computer composition"?
I would say not, since it can be performed by
a human. To think of it another way, the elaborate
mathematics of the composer can surely be
boiled down to a set of charts and tables which
can be memorized. Now if we observe that the
elaborate mathematics of which I speak might
well be figured bass notation of the Baroque
period (which, if reduced to a computer program,
would require a great deal of calculation to
interpret correctly in any key signature as the
music modulates), we realize that this
is a pretty standard human musical operation
couched in deliberately arcane terminology.
Obviously, it's not "computer composition"
if humans were performing it in the 18th century
as a matter of routine musical practice.
Now suppose we have a computer program like
Lejaren Hiller's which performs many millions
Now suppose we have a computer program like
Lejaren Hiller's which performs many millions
of calculations to obtain each note. The mathematics
recirculate, requiring some of the output to feed
back into the input. Many millions of numbers must
be multiplied by weights, sieved with thousands
of rules, and random numbers must be generated
by multiple 32-bit numbers by one another to
obtain overflow and then shifting them right or
left by some larger number of bits.
This seems a clear case of "computer
composition" because the process is too elaborate
to be performed by any conceivable human in any
reasonable amount of time.
--
What do all these cases have in common?
Clearly, we make distinctions here depending
on the proportion of the computer's input to
the process of composition.
If the proportion is very high, we can speak
meaningfully of "computer
composition." If the proportion of computer
input is low, clearly we are talking
only about computer-aided composition.
Thus, true "computer composition" occurs only
when the process of composition *demands*
a computer and *exclusively* a computer. If a
human can perform the same operations, this
is not "algorithmic computer composition," it's
merely ordinary composition *aided by computer.*
This leads us to a clear distinction between
*computer-aided composition* and *algorithmic
computer composition.*
"Algorithmic computer composition" only occurs
when the overwhelming bulk of the compositional
process takes place in the computer.
when the overwhelming bulk of the compositional
process takes place in the computer.
If most of the compositional process is human,
and the computer is used merely to keep track
of vectors in ratio space, or display morphological
shapes, etc., then we are clearly speaking of
"computer-aided composition."
My comments in my recent post referred *only* to
computer composition--that is, to composition in
which the composer sets up a computer program,
lets it go, and walks away.
Computer-aided composition is a whole different
kettle of fish, since it is de facto human composition
in which the computer is used as a convenient aid.
The line between the two is of course blurry; as
the proportion of human effort to computer
interpretation approaches 1:1, it becomes hard
to say whether the computer or the human is
composing.
to say whether the computer or the human is
composing.
My earlier comments should therefore not
be taken as an argument against the validity of
all composition involving computers, but rather
against the validity of compositions produced mainly
by unaided computer operations. To put it bluntly,
winding up a computer and letting it spit out music
on its own didn't work in 1956 and has failed miserably
to produce any interesting musical results in the
ensuing 40 years. Changing the number of tones per
octave does not promise to improve that track record.
However, computer-aided microtonal composition is
a wide-open field, and promises many fascinating
and aesthetically worthwhile results as new
approaches are tried and new algorithms developed.
In particular, computer *aided* composition might
prove very helpful in harmonizing a melody line in
an exotic microtonal intonation with too many notes
prove very helpful in harmonizing a melody line in
an exotic microtonal intonation with too many notes
per octave for humans to navigate easily.
--mclaren
