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

[Paul Brown]

Hello Alex,

>And I suggest that the system is the music.

Ok then we will have to agree to differ.

>The separation between software and the music it creates is an illusion
>that is shattered when we watch a livecoder at work.

Personally, I do not consider livecoding a generative process. The
composer/livecoder is too involved in the creation process of the music.

>It hardly feasible and in my view not even desirable for a closed system
>to make unique music each time it is played.  Sure, on the level of
>detail, it could be different every time, but if the whole system is
>properly expressed during each play, then the overall effect of the
>music is the same each play.

I am not saying, and have not said, that the system should be closed. In
fact I believe it is essential for the system to be open so that external
factors and their fluctuations can influence the creation of the music
within the system.

>I think you're belittling the end users, even treating them like
>children to talk of them that way.  Why try to hand-hold them through
>your own creative process "in some way", why not instead treat them like
>equals?  Users are in fact people, who should be able to make their own
>music.  Make them an environment in which they can make their own music,
>not explore yours.

If I have, and I doubt it, misinterpreted the term "dumb end users", which
to me implies that you think that audience who listen to the music produced
is either incapable of communicating with you, is merely a passive receptor
of the music or simply stupid, I apologise and ask you to clarify your use
of the term. By "in some way" I was simply suggesting that the end user
could play both a proactive and, seemingly to them, a passive role in the
creation of the music. Creating an environment for them to explore my own
music is definitely and most certainly not on my agenda. 

Paul

-----Original Message-----
From: eu-gene-bounces at generative.net [mailto:eu-gene-bounces at generative.net]
On Behalf Of alex
Sent: 19 October 2005 00:39
To: generative art
Subject: RE: [eu-gene] Psst...Wanna Buy an Algorithm? (Working Title)

On Tue, 2005-10-18 at 16:41 +0100, Paul Brown wrote:
> I think you must have slightly misunderstood me. I wasn't suggesting the
> music was conjured up from nowhere. I was merely suggesting than more
> emphasis should be placed on the system that was created to make the music
> than the actual music itself. 

And I suggest that the system is the music.

> The law is, I think as we have agreed, pretty
> clear on the ownership of the creator of the software that is part of the
> music creation process. The recognition and the accolades should be
focused
> on the inspiration, perspiration, skill and expertise needed to create
such
> a system. The purpose of generative music systems, in my view, is to
create
> a unique piece of music each time the system (if and when)is reset and
> therefore fixing the music in someway is irrelevant to the process as is,
> therefore, the issue surrounding the ownership of that music.

In my view the purpose for a generative music system is to define rules
for how music could be made, and for music to be made according to the
rules.  Both the rules and the results are the music.  Sourcecode can
embody those rules - sourcecode can be the musical notation.  When we
compose, we make music, when we perform, we make music.

The separation between software and the music it creates is an illusion
that is shattered when we watch a livecoder at work.

It hardly feasible and in my view not even desirable for a closed system
to make unique music each time it is played.  Sure, on the level of
detail, it could be different every time, but if the whole system is
properly expressed during each play, then the overall effect of the
music is the same each play.

> My argument is
> that if you continue to hold onto conventional means and models to
> disseminate music, because it has always been done like that and everybody
> understands the process and where everybody sits in the process so let's
not
> change it, then you risk encumbering the development new musics. 

I agree.  

> I also believe that it is arrogant, derogatory and aloof to believe that
as
> a creator of music you always know what is best for the "dumb end user". 

I agree.  I don't like software creates the role of a dumb end user.

> I think that it is neither unreasonable nor objectionable that the end
user
> should play a part in the creation process in some way or another thereby
> enhancing his or her experience of the music created. Perhaps I have too
> much faith and am expecting too much of people but generative music
systems
> can, potentially, offer that ability. 

I think you're belittling the end users, even treating them like
children to talk of them that way.  Why try to hand-hold them through
your own creative process "in some way", why not instead treat them like
equals?  Users are in fact people, who should be able to make their own
music.  Make them an environment in which they can make their own music,
not explore yours.

alex


-- 
'The world is actually pear shaped'
To unsubscribe from eu-gene visit
http://www.generative.net/mailman/listinfo/eu-gene