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

[Pierre Proske]

>>>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
>  
>
I think what you are alluding to, Alex,  when you mention generative 
music as 'flawed' is this nightmare notion of piped musak emanating from 
hidden speakers at the dentist's or social security office, 
ever-changing variations on the same dull themes. With the advent of 
multi-disc automated random cd players, this effectively already exists...
However I'm not sure if the same condemnation may be applied to 
generative music as a whole, so I would be interested if you could 
perhaps clarify your statement in that regard.
In my opinion generative tools for musicians using computers live will 
become more and more de rigueur when attempting to add that 'live 
improv' feel that can be difficult to recreate using software. However, 
these are still but tools, and should not depended upon entirely in a 
performative context.
Generative also implies iteration, recursion and the infinite, and while 
generative works use algorithms, I wouldn't say that the two necessarily 
equate, in a definitive sense. I stress again though that generative 
does not have to imply everlasting performances. The process may be 
everlasting, but it's use may be short lived.

>>"Generative" to me means a process which involves some element of
>>"chance"/unpredictability/surprise/indeterminacy. I see "generative" as
>>an overall category, under which things like stochastic and "aleatory"
>>processes fall.
>>    
>>
>
> Ah, then we're using the term very differently then, it's described more
> broadly than that on the generative.net site.

Stochastic/aleatory processes are "procedural invention", so this actually does agree with the generative.net site definition. Generative is not only indeterminacy of course, it is process.
What the site definition does not include which I find important is this notion of repetition and infinite variation, the possibility of re-using the process. However I would not go so far as saying that the process produces exactly the same result each time. I am aware of the pseudo-randomness of random numbers and the architecture of code, but depriving us of the opportunity to attribute variation in generative works. while perhaps theoretically correct, is more stifling than productive. Reducing the real world to a standing wave of interacting energized sinusoids is an inadequate way to explain our greatest philodophical conundrums for example. Music resounds, rooms reverberate, people emote, etc, and variation does exist, as Nick Collins so eloquently described, even if it is simply one note that follows another. However, I think that generative music can produce the same output each performance, and still be generative, so I don't quite agree with Alexei here:

> composition can't be "algorithmic" - in the "generative" sense - if
>it produces the EXACT same music with each "performance." It's an
>illogical concept.
>
/Pierre