[eu-gene] Psst...Wanna Buy an Algorithm? (Working Title)

[Paul Brown]

Hello Alex, 
 
What do you mean by linear here?  A music generator still produces
linear music. By linear music I mean music that is fixed and has some
recognisable structure to it. 
 
Like others I question this.  Music rights are not a simple issue, in
the UK there are publishing rights, rights over the composition,
recording rights, mechanical copying rights, copyright of lyrics,
performance rights etc.  Software may be classified as a composition
rather than recording, but I think it's untrue to say the running of
software to generate music can't involve a public performance of a work.
No music rights are not a simple issue, advances in technology and
lawyers have seen to that, but the fundamental principle of whether
copyright subsists in a musical work is simple i.e. it needs to be
recorded somehow for copyright to subsist. You can have a music system
that performs music in public but until it is recorded somehow copyright
does not subsist in it.
 
 
Personally though I think they'd be right to ignore such generative
music systems.  I don't see why environmental input would be helpful in
generating music for the situations you mention, and besides that there
are only arbitrary/random numbers to stop generative music from looping,
which also seems pointless to me.  Random numbers don't add structure,
they take it away. Depends what sort of randomisation that you use, look
at Max's "drunken" object for example. And of course, you can also use
additional rules within the system to add a certain amount of structure
to the randomness. Environmental input, as I have called it, allows the
generative music system to implement further rules thereby further (and
apologies for this) fine tuning the music produced. It gives the system
the benefit of previous experience or knowledge if you like.
 
 
Sure it's great to make software to make music, but to me the idea of
constantly changing generative music is flawed.  What's wrong with
writing software to make a decent music recording rather than an
unending performance? This is a little bit of an odd statement to be
appearing on a generative art related mailing list isn't it?
 
 
-----Original Message-----
From: eu-gene-bounces at generative.net
[mailto:eu-gene-bounces at generative.net] On Behalf Of alex
Sent: 14 October 2005 19:55
To: generative art
Subject: Re: [eu-gene] Psst...Wanna Buy an Algorithm? (Working Title)
 
On Fri, 2005-10-14 at 14:05 +0100, Paul Brown wrote:
> Generative music is created within a system as a result of the rules
> implemented by its creator. In computer based systems these rules, and
> therefore the music produced, may be further influenced by external
> sources converted into digital data. This combination enables
> generative music systems to create music for a specific environment or
> purpose. The adaptability of music produced by generative music
> systems could substitute many instances where linear music is
> currently used in everyday situations.  
 
What do you mean by linear here?  A music generator still produces
linear music.
 
> Since the music produced by generative music systems is copyright
> free, and therefore exempt from the usual public performance licensing
> procedures
 
Like others I question this.  Music rights are not a simple issue, in
the UK there are publishing rights, rights over the composition,
recording rights, mechanical copying rights, copyright of lyrics,
performance rights etc.  Software may be classified as a composition
rather than recording, but I think it's untrue to say the running of
software to generate music can't involve a public performance of a work.
 
> The title of this paper makes inference to the likely attempts that
> the established music industry will make to firstly ignore the idea of
> generative music systems and then to suppress their proliferation by
> attempting to outlaw such systems despite their legality.
 
Heh, an interesting idea.
 
Personally though I think they'd be right to ignore such generative
music systems.  I don't see why environmental input would be helpful in
generating music for the situations you mention, and besides that there
are only arbitrary/random numbers to stop generative music from looping,
which also seems pointless to me.  Random numbers don't add structure,
they take it away.
 
Sure it's great to make software to make music, but to me the idea of
constantly changing generative music is flawed.  What's wrong with
writing software to make a decent music recording rather than an
unending performance?
 
alex
 
 
-- 
'The world is actually pear shaped'
To unsubscribe from eu-gene visit
http://www.generative.net/mailman/listinfo/eu-g
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.generative.net/pipermail/eu-gene/attachments/20051014/77104ccb/attachment-0001.htm