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

[alex]

On Sun, 2005-10-16 at 19:32 +0200, Pierre Proske wrote:
> 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.

Well I didn't say generative music was flawed, I said the idea of
constantly changing generative music is flawed.  Just because it's
varying, it doesn't mean the underlying structure doesn't stay the same.
We might get bored of it less quickly, but not much less quickly.

I suppose an artificially intelligent system with an understanding of
music structure that somehow modified it's feedback loops based on the
value judgements of its audience could produce novel music over time.  I
don't think that would be a flawed approach, but I don't think we're
quite there yet...  Are we?

I wasn't alluding to piped musak, which as you say already exists and is
not unique to generative music.  I think the only connection between
musak and generative music is Brian Eno, who'd we'd best leave out of
this debate.

> 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.

Well you might well be right with your prediction, but the software you
describe do not sound as though they are "still but tools."  They sound
like they are automatic music varying systems, with real creative input
into your performance.  The author of this jamming software is having
creative input into your live performance.  This goes far beyond the
role of a simple tool.

> 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. 

As I say, this infinite variation might be of interest to
mathematicians, but quickly gets boring to the person who has to listen
to the music.

> 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.

Then its supposed infinite variation seems to be of no real consequence.

> 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.

I don't think generative is necessarily concerned with indeterminacy,
but I agree that process is central.

At times I think that the word 'generative' means all things to all
people, and that we should really stop using it.


alex