The Future of Music

Share and discuss.

The Future of Music

Postby nameta9 » Wed Jan 08, 2014 11:42 pm

The Future of Music

So I was bored and started to play different tracks in parallel, I started to superimpose different albums, songs, pieces of music on top of each other, and started superimposing 4 or 5 different tracks, sometimes related, sometimes not as a type of music goes. I used soundclick and youtube choosing random music pieces (but mostly techno, electronic, noise and some fusion jazz aka soft machine or whatever) and enjoyed the mashup, the mixed up music, some of it was really interesting and new sounding!

So consider that there are maybe 5 million albums of different music out there, but just consider 100 albums (sometimes if they are very different from each other the results may be even more intriguing) and divide them up into 10 batches of ten different albums: that would make 10 billion different combinations of 10 different albums superimposed on top of each other, of ten different albums played in parallel at the same time. SO you could record 10 billion new records, 10 billion new albums!

Of course you can tweak alot with this idea and perfect it, experiment all you want, but even if only 1 out of 10,000 experiments is really good, you still got a million new interesting albums out there, brand new!

The fact is there is so much music available on youtube or soundclick or soundcloud or purevolume etc. that you no longer need to create the basis of the music, just mix what is out there differently (like DJ), the sky is the limit: this is probably the future of alot of new music, the mixing creates combinations and ideas that you would never have imagined or composed or thought up.

SO do it man, just do it, experiment and publish all those new albums, the wilder they sound the better, go man go, first gear its all right, second gear hold on tight, third gear you're out of sight...




the turd

shapc a lak, shpack , i win, like a cry baby i win always, shpavck a lack cinderella crazy, barbie confused, yellow funk machine... we all live in the ...
nameta9
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1888
Joined: Thu Nov 25, 2004 10:42 am

Re: The Future of Music

Postby nameta9 » Thu Jan 09, 2014 8:27 am

Future of Music - 2

You can also just take 10 time slots of only 10 albums and superimpose them, let them play all at the same time, let them play in parallel: you can also get 10 billion possible new tracks or albums this way. What is important is that you don't try to recognize or follow any single line from any given album, actually, it would be better if you didn't know any of the albums at all and you couldn't distinguish any of the lines playing in parallel. In this way you can appreciate the sound just as it is, you can appreciate the resulting "composition", the result as an experiment in music, etc.

Of course these are all variable numbers, the mashup, the mix, the superimposing of tracks could be from 2 albums or a trillion albums (the same ones played from diffeent points in time of the albums), they could be intermittent (some albums or tracks on and off, etc.), the combinations are really never ending, etc.

Another way to create new tracks is to create 10 sets of 10 random notes, each set played at a different speed (like amygdala of henry cow) : even in this case you can create 10 billion tracks: of course the notes could be cords, mellotron sounds, or whatever, the speeds whatever, the number of notes whatever and so forth, again these are all variable numbers.

A program idea that corresponds to this is the following maybe:

in perl, $s is the note (you can see it graphically from DOS or UNIX command line), $c and $y the random formula or whatever, $x hoe to change the speed of execution, etc.

$s="*************************************************************************
$c=1.00007333;
$t=1000000;

for(0..17){
$c=$c-0.00000170;
$y=$c;
for(0..7){
$y=$y**3;
$x=substr($y,9,2);
print$x."\n";
print substr($s,0,$x)."\n";
for($j=0;$j<$t;$j++){};
}
$t=1000000;
if($x>50&&$x<80) { $t=5000000}
if($x<50) { $t=7000000}
if($x<25) { $t=2000000}
if($x>85) { $t=13000000}
print$x."==".$t."==\n";
}
exit;


$nn=0;

for(0..100)
{
for($i=0;$i<10;$i++)
{$x[$i]=new number;}

$t=new delay;


for($i=0;$i<10;$i++)

{ print $x[$i],' ';
for($j=0;$j<$t;$j++){};
}



And then you can have image to sound converters, pictures to tracks converters, converting a picture to a track of music digitally (and the opposite) etc. And maybe you can one day have the possibility to compose a track by directly designing the waveform of the music (but most attempts don't give anything interesting), after all a track is just a sequence of numbers in time, so one minute of music may be 10 million bytes or so): a track is just a file, a digital entity, and the computer sees everything as a digital entity and can convert anything into anything, can convert them and manipulate them all in any way and mix them and process them all in any way, etc.

check out:

www.soundclick.com forums,

http://instantsingularity1.blogspot.it/

http://instantsingularity3.blogspot.it/
nameta9
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1888
Joined: Thu Nov 25, 2004 10:42 am

Re: The Future of Music

Postby nameta9 » Fri Jan 10, 2014 8:20 pm

From:

http://board.soundclick.com/viewtopic.php?t=407034

"79ironman wrote:
Future of Music - 2

blah blah blah old skool coding bullshit

And then you can have image to sound converters, pictures to tracks converters, converting a picture to a track of music digitally (and the opposite) etc.



It's called a MetaSynth.
Welcome to 1998."

so pray, tell me, what is the future of music party poopers ?

We can now use tracks to make up a new piece of music, the composition is in the discovery of the best combinations of tracks, we can use tracks as notes, as chunks of music interchangeably, just like notes make up a chord, so tracks in parallel, simultaneously playing, superimposed on top of each other, playing in parallel, playing at the same time make up a new kind of chord, a new sound construction and so forth.

Try playing 20 albums of "juan hidalgo" tamaran on top of each other, all at the same time but starting from different time points in the records: the result is cool!

Of course these ideas are from "contemporary classical music" compositions and constructions, but anyone can do it!

Or pieces like amagdyla of henry cow, the combinations are never ending!!!!

Ever here about peer to peer ? in the now digital world nothing belongs to anyone anymore, it is all free, free to use and take and do whatever you want, so I will do whatever I want, I win always, like a cry baby, I always win!

And check out nameta9 on ilovephilosophy and the instant singularity blogs I pointed you all to: the writer of those posts is none less than GOD himself, no kidding!


shapc a lak, shpak a leak ,a lek, barbie confused, cinderella crazy, shpacc l ledf lek , spaceship japan, yellow punk machine...



the teddy boy aka the turd aka the ape man
nameta9
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1888
Joined: Thu Nov 25, 2004 10:42 am

Re: The Future of Music

Postby nameta9 » Thu Jan 16, 2014 9:59 pm

from:

http://board.soundclick.com/viewtopic.php?t=407034

Let's put this thing upon two feet:

So if music is a sequence of numbers, the numbers being about 40,000 a second, so you need about 2 million numbers for a minute of music, the numbers being sampled to then recreate an analog waveform, the digital to analog conversion of the numbers create an analog waveform that is then decoded and perceived by the brain as sound and music, the brain probably does signal processing on this waveform, breaking it down into its fourier transform components and such, etc. then in theory you could simply compose a piece of music by writing down a sequence of 2 million numbers, or you could directly draw the waveform that is then played: of course the waveform would be very long as you would need 40,000 distinct amplitudes (signal levels) to create the waveform of the sound - music.

You could morph one waveform of one track into another, or play the intermediate track, you could do all kinds of tricks on the waveforms to create new music, you could even write down the sequence of numbers, or create programs that write down the numbers of a piece of music, who knows, the sky is the limit! you could draw the waveform of the music and the composer becomes simply a drawer, a graphic artist, etc.

Of course things are more complicated than this in the sense that the waveform that corresponds to harmony and something musical for us is very particular, most experiments won't yield much, but it is worth trying and discovering millions of new pieces of music like this.

This is the real future of music, finally free from any and all constraints, especially cultural, human and biased constraints, now the music is really free, absolutely free, we have won, the concept has been created, now go for it man, go man go!, and start composing like this man, do it man, first gear, its all right, second gear hold on tight, third gear, you're out of sight!!!


groovy man groovy,


the turd
nameta9
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1888
Joined: Thu Nov 25, 2004 10:42 am

Re: The Future of Music

Postby nameta9 » Fri Jan 17, 2014 10:36 am

Reality, deeper than Reality...

From:

viewtopic.php?f=24&t=185037

So if 40,000 numbers create a second of sound, how many numbers are needed to create all possible sounds that nature can generate ? the collision of items of nature, of chunks of Matter, the interaction between chunks of matter can create maybe a billion different sounds, maybe a trillion (so maybe the first 15 numbers of the sound wave (or 15 numbers of the sound wave signal separated by some minimum time span), of the waveform are enough to encompass all possible natural sounds, but anyways), but we can simply assign a larger number just to be sure: so all possible naturally occuring sounds created in the universe in any time point of the past, present or future by any means may be maybe 10^100 (that means a number having 100 zeros, a pretty big number) but if the code composed of 100 numbers represents a signature of something reality can produce, matter can produce, it is still a very small number of combinations compared to one second of sound made up of 40,000 numbers: so that means the random combination of maybe 15 numbers of the sound wave contains many (if not the majority of the combinations, for sure) sounds that do not and cannot occur naturally in nature by any means: but the fact that we can simply assign the combination and play it back means we created a new sound that nature could never have created! And this also explains why when really trying to create a wav file of music through random numbers or any combination of numbers, very seldom do we hear anything of interest to us: that is natural, we evolved in such a way that only the signature sounds that nature can really produce have become significant to us, we have neural networks that have evolved expectations of sounds, combinations that represent a signature of something, etc. while all those other combinations of numbers represent nothing intelligible to us, (let alone harmony, etc.).

BUt the fact that we can invent new sounds, hence new signals and waveforms, means we can invent new perceptions of reality if we modify the perceiving neural networks to create meaning for them, etc. It means we can extend reality mathematically, we can extend Matter and Reality and Perceptions and Possible Experiences mathematically, as in Mathematically Enhanced Music. But just as we can extend the sense of sound, we can do the same for other senses and actually create new senses and so forth through modified brains and so forth. So the real elementary particles of reality are the numbers, the sequence of numbers represented by the waveforms of music and sound not atoms or elementary particles, and we can also invert the system and make the sense of touch be decoded through the sense of sound creating new touch perceptions, and the sense of sight decoded through the sense of sound by decoding sight as a signal like sound and music creating new images that reality could never have created and so forth, we actually create reality deeper than reality, we actually use the real and true elementary particles of existence and Reality and Matter which is the signal, the Information Relationship, the sequence of numbers converted from digital to analog that create reality, a super reality as a superset of the small subset of reality that natural evolution created for us, but we use this little - poor reality as a launching pad to explore deeper realities made up of a much larger space of combinations of possibilities, etc.

Matter and Touch and Sight is overrated compared to sound, sound can give us much more insights into the functioning of brains and Artificial Reality, and we can convert sound into touch and sight and also the other way around as images and touch are also signals, waveforms and as computers teach, all items are simply digital files, delimited entities of numbers, and so forth, the sky is the limit!

This could be a clarification on the concept of Information Relationship: as actually what I am getting at is really signals, waveforms, waveforms decoded by an observer, etc. And in fact the sequence of numbers corresponding to the waveforms is much more fundamental to reality than Matter itself, or Elementary Particles or Atoms in as much that the signals, the waveforms create the Information, the event, the perception and hence the reality in a much depper meaning and form than atoms or matter: and in fact particles, as in physics, elementary particles are overrated compared to the true fundament of all reality which is Signals, Events, Information, Waveforms perceived and decoded by a Processor - Observer, etc.



ted
nameta9
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1888
Joined: Thu Nov 25, 2004 10:42 am

Re: The Future of Music

Postby nameta9 » Mon Jan 20, 2014 8:48 pm

Re: Reality, deeper than Reality...

Postby nameta9 » Mon Jan 20, 2014 8:43 pm
Another system can be by the designing of a spectrogram, drawing, designing a graph of a spectrum of an imaginary piece of music, and inventing how the graph changes in time and converting it to a piece of sound - music.

You could draw an entire landscape of all the valleys and mountains corresponding to the intensities of the frequencies and harmonics and how they change in time and then convert it back to sound, another form of image to sound generator, another way to actually draw music, to paint it by using the fourier series, the fourier transform of sound, by creating an imaginary fourier series, an imaginary series of sine and cosine values with intensities and how they vary in time and creating a spectrogram, a spectrograph, a sonogram of the sound and inverting it directly back to sound again, through software and machines, whatever...



the ape thing
nameta9
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1888
Joined: Thu Nov 25, 2004 10:42 am

Re: The Future of Music

Postby _________ » Fri Feb 21, 2014 2:26 am

Congratulations, you've done the same thing Steve Reich started doing a few decades ago. It's called "phasing". The cool thing, in his opinion, is how things progress through these various stages of cohesiveness and chaos.

The rest of this is going to be a little abrasive, because I highly recommend you do some more research before making claims like you have here. You touch on a number of things that have been discussed at length in a number of academic and non-academic circles for quite some time, and there's no scarcity of literature on the matter(s). Indeed, Wikipedia is a great resource for such things; I used the hell out of it when I was just starting to seriously explore melody, harmony, and the realms beyond. I'm going to be hard on you, and I'll pull no punches--because I have faith that, if you're really interested in music, you'll be able to handle it; being able to handle people telling you, "You're fucking stupid, and you have no talent," is probably the most valuable asset you can possibly have in this (or any) artistic endeavor. So without further ado, here's where you majorly fucked up in the few paragraphs I took the time to read.

First, people who think "music is a sequence of numbers" tend to make really shitty music--because they're doing math, not composition. Don't get me wrong, numbers are a great way to get ideas and to get those creative juices flowing, but when you do math instead of making creative decisions based on the psychoacoustics of the thing, you kind of miss the whole point. If written and/or performed well, music can convey ideas to anyone with the capacity for hearing; it speaks across all language barriers, and seems to grab us in the most intimate way possible. This is how millions of people can walk around thinking a song was written just for them--that it's "their" song--though the composer probably has no fucking clue that they even exist.

So, "if 40,000 numbers create a second of sound..." is a gargantuan 'if', because they don't; numbers aren't a creative but a descriptive unit. They are abstract objects, whereas oscillations are not (or at least the phenomenon we signify with the word 'oscillation'). You can say that A4 is any thing oscillating at a rate of 440 times per second, but that's still descriptive and, moreover, is only true for that intonation. I can take 111hz for my A1, and thus my A4 would be 444hz, which, in my opinion, is a cooler number than 440. Would you be able to tell the difference without the two notes being sounded simultaneously? If we were, for instance, in the middle of nowhere, and the only thing we had was an acoustic guitar (also assuming neither of us had perfect pitch), I could generate my harmonic series just about anywhere, and unless you had some highly trained ears, you'd never know the difference (because the frequency ratios would be more or less equivalent to the equally tempered scale that takes A1 as 110hz).

The next part of what's wrong with what you wrote stems from an inadequate understanding of how one graphs a function. If we're dealing with oscillations, and we're going to address the waveform--which makes it easy and two-dimensional (rather than four)--then assuming we have a simple, timbre-less wave (I'll briefly explain what timbre is and why this further complicates your error/s in the next paragraph), then we should be well aware that any line segment is composed of an infinite number of points. This is why when you indicate that a number x is greater than 3 and less than or equal to 4, you notate it (3,4], and not [3.1,4], or [3.01,4], or [3.001,4], ad infinitum. I think it's pretty obvious that 40,000 isn't equal to infinity, so even saying, "40,000 numbers create 1x10^-99999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999th of a millisecond of sound," is just not correct--even if numbers were a creative unit (which they aren't).

Unfortunately, it gets worse for you, because no musical sound is a 'single line'; this is because of timbre, which informs you that the same note sounds remarkably different when coming from the human vocal chords, a violin, a grand piano, the hum of an engine, a blue whale, or a flatulent elephant. The waveform of a given timbre is composed of a number of waves, but still only represents the thing; the best recording of a grand piano on the best speakers still can't give you every overtone you'd hear were you standing next to the thing, because there isn't a grand piano inside your speakers. This gets into the harmonic series. You see, if I hit C1 on a grand piano, I'm not just hearing C1, but also C2, G2, C3, E3, G3, and so on, each successive vibratory mode being less audible than the last. The relative prevalence of certain overtones more or less constitutes the tone color. There are entire books devoted to this aspect of acoustics, so instead of trying to condense a few millennia of human knowledge into a few paragraphs, I'm going to advise you to take a course in the basics of music theory, which will be good for you anyway.

(For the sake of being thorough, timbre may also refer to the approach to playing an instrument, which still bears upon the brief definition above, but is a little more subtle, as two performers can evoke different timbres from the same instrument.)

"You could draw an entire landscape of all the valleys and mountains corresponding to the intensities of the frequencies and harmonics and how they change in time and then convert it back to sound, another form of image to sound generator, another way to actually draw music, to paint it by using the fourier series, the fourier transform of sound, by creating an imaginary fourier series, an imaginary series of sine and cosine values with intensities and how they vary in time and creating a spectrogram, a spectrograph, a sonogram of the sound and inverting it directly back to sound again, through software and machines, whatever..."

Remove every occurrence of the word "music" in that paragraph, replace it with the word "sound", and I'll have no problem with it.

Incidentally, you may like Varese and his floating "sound objects" in Arcana.



The first time I heard that piece, I thought "Hey, here's someone who's lost his fucking mind." After hearing some of his explorations into the realm of electronics, I revised my opinion of the piece to "Hey, here's someone who's lost his fucking mind, but didn't have the right instruments to express it, and tried to make due."

Or Ives' Concord Sonata:



The only problem with this spectrum of "music" is that anyone with an understanding of the musical notation of rhythm and harmony (and often, some serious virtuosity at a given instrument), but absolutely no creative musical talent could write this sort of thing and say, "Hey, don't bitch at me because you're too stupid to understand it; look, I'll play it exactly the same every time. I intend to do that--therefor it's creative--and, because you don't understand it, it's esoteric and brilliant and so ahead of its time--and god knows I just transcribed a recording of my tone-deaf, delirious Aunt beating the hell out of her cats on my piano in between my improvisation on ideas similar to Debussy, Scriabin, Stravinsky, Prokofiev, et al., but you can't say anything because you'll be a fucking Nazi, you fucking Nazi pig." When they carted Nietzsche off to the loony-bin, they said he was banging away at the piano like a madman. How do they know he wasn't anticipating "the future of music"?

When does music become simply drawing on staves? When does esotericism become an excuse for having no talent? Those are the questions. I consider Ives' piece to be an example of marginal talent with a shit-ton of academic intellectualization as filler--but as I said, I may just be a stupid fucking Nazi.

I'll leave you with Leo Ornstein's Suicide In An Airplane, which I hold to be an absolutely brilliant work of art.

______________
Your Signature Here
_________
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1536
Joined: Wed Sep 21, 2011 5:10 am
Location: _________

Re: The Future of Music

Postby nameta9 » Fri Feb 21, 2014 10:38 am

Good response, at least it's not a one liner...

Some things may have still never been done: like changing a short line of melody and time signature from the next one and so on with each time signature and melody being very different from the previous: not like free jazz, but like a very short song like melody (or any random number combination to make the melody) lasting from 3 to 10 seconds played at a certain speed (and maybe variable speed, somewhat variable) and then change the sound segment again but with a very different melody and speed of play and then again and so on for an entire album of 40 minutes.

I have rarely heard this done intentionally, but some of Frank Zappa pieces have some examples and Henry Cow have a very good example in their piece Amygdala (their first album I think).

So think of the combinations possible:

segment 1 then segment 2 then segment 3 etc. for 40 minutes each segment made up of 12 notes and a speed from 1 to 20 seconds (or whatever) maybe so: 10^15 melodies played at 20 different speeds so you can end up having more than 10^20 possible combinations and an album of 40 minutes would be even more possible new albums, trillions of new albums some being really good and of course the melodies and pieces could be played according to so many different instruments and chords and timbres and so forth...

So we need a machine to design out all the new albums and then you just need to listen to them and make your choice of what segment sets you like and so forth.

Anyways, the point is that you like the music because of the memory of the segment sets you learn, hence the idea that the music is difficult because you have to memorize and learn all the segment sets, like Amygdala, only after listening to that piece 10 or 20 times do you learn all the subsongs and so forth... (has anyone made a similar piece ? we need more examples) or is it the idea only counts, you need just one example and that is the only one you need to express an idea so then why so many different free jazz records, we only need a few Cecil Taylor records to get the idea, the first principle.

But my take on contemporary music and free jazz is that they jumped into making it too free (or noise) to fast instead of experimenting with all of the middle of the road possibilities...



8
nameta9
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1888
Joined: Thu Nov 25, 2004 10:42 am

Re: The Future of Music

Postby _________ » Fri Feb 21, 2014 3:00 pm

As I said, research more.



Furthermore, your machine idea would only be creative in your design of the machine itself, but the product of that machine would not be (unless you somehow endowed it with aesthetic sensibility).

Is difficult music inherently good? Here's a Zappa fan for you:



Finally, one artist is never sufficient to understand a genre, and Cecil Taylor is only one paradigm of free jazz. The free jazz I played professionally back when I was just a drummer was nothing like Taylor's (though my bassist had introduced me to his work at one of our gigs).
______________
Your Signature Here
_________
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1536
Joined: Wed Sep 21, 2011 5:10 am
Location: _________

Re: The Future of Music

Postby nameta9 » Fri Feb 21, 2014 9:46 pm

Honestly ? ... Most First Principles in Music have been discovered and applied and in fact I arrived at this discussion in music after analyzing the last 400 or 500 years of Scientific and Technological Inventions and Discoveries and concluding that maybe 70 % of what could be invented and discovered has been done essentially (we won't be discovering something as big as Electricity again or Microprocessors or Relativity theory or Quantum Mechanics and so forth, now we can only change our Brain and create new universes by changing our Brain circuits and design, but at that point we are no longer even in This Universe...).

So the first principles of Music with classical Music creating the basics from 1600 to 1700 then the romantics from 1700 to 1800 then more romantics and such from 1800 to 1900 and then the 20th century that finished the job of invention and discovery. And you can see that classical Music did create the most generalized form of Music construction by the fact that Movie Music, Cartoon Music and such is essentially written formal Music that can describe any situation, can create any possible atmosphere and feeling and pathos and so forth, the most generalized form of Music, anything can be described by a Musical Comment, Music written that can describe anything at all as seen in Film Music and such.

But even just looking at pretty songs and "commercial music", I think that 80 % of the best and prettiest songs and such have been constructed and invented in the 20th century: all the possible pretty songs that could be written have probably been written, now we are left with creating noise and crazy.

Case in point, what music as pretty as Burt Bacharach's Music has been written since the year 2000 ?
Where is a song like "The Look Of Love" or "Alfie" or "Walk on By" or "What the World needs Now is Love" and so on ? Where are songs as pretty as some Beatles songs ? Where is the "Somewhere over the Rainbow" or something like "People" sung by Judy Garland and such ? Something like "Bridge Over Troubled Waters" Simon Garfunkle and so on: the list is very long and quite impressive...

And also songs and Music from other countries like Italy "Senza Fine" or Lucio Battisti and so with many other countries, and the list goes on.

WHat I am getting at is the best songs have all been written, the first principles have been established, now it is all a game of combinations, of creating new myths: of course Music is Culture, is Tribal, is Fashion so maybe a new generation will not consider any of the above worth anything but only some new form of Rap or Noise or anything else worthy as Valid Music, Subjectivity is always King, as MAN IS THE INFINITELY PROGRAMMABLE MACHINE that can create new artistic inventions having any arbitrary value a consensus of a corresponding social group assigns it...anthropology...


The Spark Plug
nameta9
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1888
Joined: Thu Nov 25, 2004 10:42 am

Re: The Future of Music

Postby _________ » Fri Feb 21, 2014 10:12 pm

nameta9 wrote:So the first principles of Music with classical Music creating the basics from 1600 to 1700 then the romantics from 1700 to 1800 then more romantics and such from 1800 to 1900 and then the 20th century that finished the job of invention and discovery. And you can see that classical Music did create the most generalized form of Music construction by the fact that Movie Music, Cartoon Music and such is essentially written formal Music that can describe any situation, can create any possible atmosphere and feeling and pathos and so forth, the most generalized form of Music, anything can be described by a Musical Comment, Music written that can describe anything at all as seen in Film Music and such.

Holy shit. Dude. Wait. Just fucking wait. If we want to talk about 'Western' music only, the Greeks were developing modal music before Plato was a sperm, so to say the first principles of even just Western music weren't created 'til the 17th century is just fucking stupid. Seriously. Go fucking read. Secondly, go look up the history of music in general. It goes back thousands--if not tens of thousands--of years.

nameta9 wrote:But even just looking at pretty songs and "commercial music", I think that 80 % of the best and prettiest songs and such have been constructed and invented in the 20th century: all the possible pretty songs that could be written have probably been written, now we are left with creating noise and crazy.

Case in point, what music as pretty as Burt Bacharach's Music has been written since the year 2000 ?
Where is a song like "The Look Of Love" or "Alfie" or "Walk on By" or "What the World needs Now is Love" and so on ? Where are songs as pretty as some Beatles songs ? Where is the "Somewhere over the Rainbow" or something like "People" sung by Judy Garland and such ? Something like "Bridge Over Troubled Waters" Simon Garfunkle and so on: the list is very long and quite impressive...

Whether a song is 'pretty' or not is entirely subjective, so what I consider pretty isn't necessarily what you consider pretty, and neither of us can be right or wrong in that sense.

nameta9 wrote:WHat I am getting at is the best songs have all been written, the first principles have been established, now it is all a game of combinations, of creating new myths: of course Music is Culture, is Tribal, is Fashion so maybe a new generation will not consider any of the above worth anything but only some new form of Rap or Noise or anything else worthy as Valid Music, Subjectivity is always King, as MAN IS THE INFINITELY PROGRAMMABLE MACHINE that can create new artistic inventions having any arbitrary value a consensus of a corresponding social group assigns it...anthropology...

But what you're really getting at is that you feel entirely helpless to create something decent against the massive volume of great music that's already out there, or at least that's how it seems to me. Anyway, I've given you enough to point yourself in the right direction, and I'm not going to debate with you about things you don't really understand. If you want to do some of your math, multiply the number of possible time signatures (infinite) by the number of possible beats (infinite) by the number of possible notes (including various microtunings and slurs, also infinite) by the number of possible note values (infinite) by the number of possible instruments (infinite) and a whole bunch of other factors I don't feel like listing at present. You get some exponential value of infinity which should suggest to you, at the very least, that someone who says every melody has been written--or something to that effect--has no fucking clue what they're talking about.
______________
Your Signature Here
_________
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1536
Joined: Wed Sep 21, 2011 5:10 am
Location: _________

Re: The Future of Music

Postby nameta9 » Sat Feb 22, 2014 6:12 pm

Agreed, I am approximating...criticism is totally ok for me, all criticism is welcome and I will study further (have been studying for 40 years now...) !

I played the videos you posted in parallel and "composed" a new album, cool! Also I made another album by skipping randomly across the time segments of the videos creating ever changing "songs"... a long album with ever changing music...

Actually, I agree that the amount of new possible music is never ending, but it can't be really pretty music, come on, don't make believe you don't know what I mean by pretty songs, don't be "radical chic" and "elite", everyone knows exactly what a pretty song is, "people" is a pretty song (tune - melody) anywhere in the world for anyone and any culture, I can't believe that someone can't appreciate that (whereas I can see someone not appreciating Beethoven and such), something like "one less bell to answer" Bacharach and so forth: tell me the truth, you don't like those ?

Anyways, I just can't find similar songs like Henry Cow Amygdala and it bugs me that there is only one example, there should have been hundreds of similar examples just for the record. Too much noise and free music too soon and too fast, no one wanted to investigate the middle ground, of course that Henry Cow piece is totally composed and composed pieces are a lot of work and difficult but anyways...

Tell me if you know other bands that make complex stuff, I like compex and brainy...

Anyways thanks for the information, I find it interesting and useful...

Here is a good one ...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=74bKpSaFqo8


Is this a masterpiece ?? I like it, it is BRAINY...


8
nameta9
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1888
Joined: Thu Nov 25, 2004 10:42 am

Re: The Future of Music

Postby _________ » Sat Feb 22, 2014 6:44 pm

nameta9 wrote:Actually, I agree that the amount of new possible music is never ending, but it can't be really pretty music, come on, don't make believe you don't know what I mean by pretty songs, don't be "radical chic" and "elite", everyone knows exactly what a pretty song is, "people" is a pretty song (tune - melody) anywhere in the world for anyone and any culture, I can't believe that someone can't appreciate that (whereas I can see someone not appreciating Beethoven and such), something like "one less bell to answer" Bacharach and so forth: tell me the truth, you don't like those ?

I expect by "pretty" you mean melodious, and I still disagree that there are no "new" "pretty" songs; I think you're just not looking in the right places.



nameta9 wrote:Anyways, I just can't find similar songs like Henry Cow Amygdala and it bugs me that there is only one example, there should have been hundreds of similar examples just for the record. Too much noise and free music too soon and too fast, no one wanted to investigate the middle ground, of course that Henry Cow piece is totally composed and composed pieces are a lot of work and difficult but anyways...

Okay... King Crimson's album The Power To Believe has a lot of similar stuff. You might also want to check every group in the 'jazz fusion' genre, Chick Corea being of particular import. Here's some random bands of a similar nature, though it's going to be difficult for you to get into anything too interesting if you don't like complex dissonances:




______________
Your Signature Here
_________
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1536
Joined: Wed Sep 21, 2011 5:10 am
Location: _________

Re: The Future of Music

Postby nameta9 » Sat Feb 22, 2014 6:45 pm

I think you missed out on my last take:

Anyways thanks for the information, I find it interesting and useful...

Here is a good one ...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=74bKpSaFqo8

I accidentally played 2 of this last video in parallel (and changing various time points and slots) and composed a brand new album...





Is this a masterpiece ?? I like it, it is BRAINY...


8
nameta9
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1888
Joined: Thu Nov 25, 2004 10:42 am

Re: The Future of Music

Postby _________ » Sat Feb 22, 2014 6:51 pm

I think it's a remarkable waste of time.
______________
Your Signature Here
_________
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1536
Joined: Wed Sep 21, 2011 5:10 am
Location: _________


Return to Art, Music, and Entertainment



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users