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

[alex]

On Fri, 2005-10-14 at 23:04 +0100, Paul Brown wrote:
> By linear music I mean music that is fixed and has some recognisable
> structure to it. 

So generative music doesn't have recognisable structure to it?

> 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.

Well until there is a recording there is no rights over a recording,
sure.  That's true of all music though.  You still have rights over the
composition however.

> 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.

I'm not sure what you mean - do you mean feedback from the listeners?
 
> > 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?

I don't think so.  Generative music does not have to produce
everlasting, ever changing performances.  It's perfectly valid to write
a piece of software that generates music for a fixed period, that's
exactly the same each time (until you change the software).  This is
still generative music.


alex