where will science take electronic music?.

[Synapse2k]

It's god. Me god. AKA king of Rhythm not bio rhythm it's like pidgeon jizm when you sap it I rap it feet tap clipped. Hands make it.

[Bio~Rhythm]

[quote="liqih"Though instersting, we can't go much far anaylsing poetry in scientific terms.[/quote]


Ha! The science can't find the magic in poetry debate. Is this kinda old school. I really can't argue with that in a logical way . Besides dreams are nice when reality reminds us that life isn't all about us.

[goldenanalog]

Here's one direction (example):

http://intermorphic.com/

Based on Generative Music:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generative_music

[Synapse2k]

I'm disapointed with intermorphics generative apps because they switched to audio unit's and standalone anyhow. Also because mine have weird MIDI glitches that I likely know the cause of some how that others don't care about because they don't know what's going on.

[liqih]

but if you care about Science you don't do much speculation, which is rather bound to to Philosophy.
So is your thread about science or philosophy?

The thread is titled

where will science take electronic music?.

And since nobody can see the future then of course this thread will have some speculative element.

Yes, but insisted so much on evidences and then dismiss hyistorical anaylsys(?),
so that sounds to me more speculalive than "some speculative element"

Can you quote which statement I gave as factually based that you believe is philosophy!.

Nothing to quote as single statement, is the level of abstraction you bring in which seems to float on words
of "inspiration", anyway I asked, NOT claimed that, see my question above.

This is a topic on a thread, not a scientific paper (of which I have written) . Thus surely you will permit me (and others) the freedom of thought to speculate of things, as yet unknown or unproven,

Of course I have nothing against the freedom of thought, rather the opposite.

provided that speculation is branched from the evidence

Also in philosophy
(expecially analytical philosophy) you can start from the evidence, depends on what you define as evidence.
Since we are talking here about something that is so "phycologically" evident as music, the crossline
between science and philosophy is thin. BTW that's a good thing for me, science and philosophy shouldn't
be too separated, and in the best cases they never were.

(i.e - I’m not going to speculate that some guy will come back from the dead). I think you have misunderstood how science works. Quite often scientists will speculate on what could be possible and eventually come to a hypothesis that needs testing. The important point is that they know it is mere speculation, until they have grounds/ evidence to prove that the speculation (hypothesis) is not disproved by the observed and measured objective reality .

And that's the main point. The more you can not disprove a hypothesis,the more likely it is to be robust evidence. Of coarse it is impossible to disprove (or prove) of a idea or something that is merely a figment of the imagination. Thus science will never be able to prove or disprove that little green people made entirely from jelly exist (should a little green people religion spring up somewhere). However,going by the observed and measured evidence the statistical chance of the little green jelly people existing is almost ZERO.

Yes almost ZERO could be good enough I guess, that little green people still got a chance, <wink>
But seriously where are you going to? I know enough math and physics to understand what you say, don't worry.
but the connection you want to make with electronic music is still very vague to me, and I'm perlexed about your lengthy replies that say little about your own subject.

[liqih]

Though instersting, we can't go much far anaylsing poetry in scientific terms.

Ha! The science can't find the magic in poetry debate. Is this kinda old school. I really can't argue with that in a logical way . Besides dreams are nice when reality reminds us that life isn't all about us.

You talk of magic I didn't, I talked about neurobiolgy mostly. But you seems to take your chips here and there, no?
Where is you open scientifc mind?
Science is fair.

[goldenanalog]

I'm disapointed with intermorphics generative apps because they switched to audio unit's and standalone anyhow. Also because mine have weird MIDI glitches that I likely know the cause of some how that others don't care about because they don't know what's going on.

Synapse2k:

IM just went through some revisions (version-ups) of their ios apps - I'm seeing good results on ipad Airs, although I haven't pressed them too hard, admittedly -

Their apps were under consideration for some live work that I'm planning on doing in the fairly near future, but I don't want to have to buy any additional licenses - although I do understand their thinking for charging for them -

[liqih]

but if you care about Science you don't do much speculation, which is rather bound to to Philosophy.
So is your thread about science or philosophy?

The thread is titled

where will science take electronic music?.

And since nobody can see the future then of course this thread will have some speculative element.

Yes, but insisted so much on evidences and then dismiss hyistorical analysis(?),
so that sounds to me more speculalive than "some speculative element"

Can you quote which statement I gave as factually based that you believe is philosophy!.

Nothing to quote as single statement, is the level of abstraction you bring in which seems to float on words
of "inspiration", anyway I asked, NOT claimed that, see my question above.

This is a topic on a thread, not a scientific paper (of which I have written) . Thus surely you will permit me (and others) the freedom of thought to speculate of things, as yet unknown or unproven,

Of course I have nothing against the freedom of thought, rather the opposite.

provided that speculation is branched from the evidence

Also in philosophy
(expecially analytical philosophy) you can start from the evidence, depends on what you define as evidence.
Since we are talking here about something that is so "phycologically" evident as music, the crossline
between science and philosophy is thin. BTW that's a good thing for me, science and philosophy shouldn't
be too separated, and in the best cases they never were.

(i.e - I’m not going to speculate that some guy will come back from the dead). I think you have misunderstood how science works. Quite often scientists will speculate on what could be possible and eventually come to a hypothesis that needs testing. The important point is that they know it is mere speculation, until they have grounds/ evidence to prove that the speculation (hypothesis) is not disproved by the observed and measured objective reality .

And that's the main point. The more you can not disprove a hypothesis,the more likely it is to be robust evidence. Of coarse it is impossible to disprove (or prove) of a idea or something that is merely a figment of the imagination. Thus science will never be able to prove or disprove that little green people made entirely from jelly exist (should a little green people religion spring up somewhere). However,going by the observed and measured evidence the statistical chance of the little green jelly people existing is almost ZERO.

Yes almost ZERO could be good enough I guess, that little green people still got a chance, <wink>
But seriously where are you going to? I know enough math and physics to understand what you say, don't worry.
but the connection you want to make with electronic music is still very vague to me, and I'm perlexed about your replies to me

[liqih]

I think science will allow even more people with absolutely no musical ability, intuition, or intelligence to make music.

It already happens. But i doesn't help them make any good music

Exactly, is some sense, the point is that we come to ask what is music. And music has all the properties the human intellect gives to it.
From scientific to aesthetic, from emotional to social. An old Atari computer with some fractal programs has the ability to make music by itsef. Which music is that? I have some ideas but not a satifying answer.

Back to topic : where will science take electronic music?

For me that question is a subset of:
"where humans will take their music?"
Since science is a product of human intellect.
Human intellect has taken music to electronic music.
Human intellect may take it to atomic music, quantum music or what you like to call it.
But the trasformation is mainly in the evolution of our perception and consciousness.
We can change our consciousness by science and the perception by technology,
those as consecuence will change our aesthetical evaluation.
But they are not the only factors to consider, there are other trends.
For me in this case speculation based on evidences means looking back at the history of music,
and see what happened up to date. As the interface brain-instrument gets more and more evoluted
we could reach the entertaining show of a man thinking silently on stage while his music
pours in the minds of audience. But I think that even if that would happen there will be
the vintage boys telling that it doesn't sound "analogue" enough.

[Bio~Rhythm]

Here's one direction (example):

http://intermorphic.com/

Based on Generative Music:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generative_music

Generative music could become hugely popular. Since many people already own a pocket size computer (smart phone) music lovers could have personalised music to suit mood/energy levels/environments etc.

How about the future of micro pocket sized analogue synthesisers .As a example,the company Teenage engineering already produce some calculator size synthesisers (pocket operators) https://teenageengineering.com/products/po#features . As new methods (The science) are discovered that enable the size of electronic components to decrease, the popular big analogue synthesisers sounds (e.g - moog,909's etc) of today's electronic music could maybe fit in our pockets.

Combined with some generative processing and/or user friendly features this kind of music tech could move the dominant commercialised music scene, controlled by corporate interests selling mass products, towards more of a individual/ people music scene, where people have more opportunity’s to share their music, for the joy of sharing that which you love, without the restrictions on artistic licence that the copy right culture encourages.

Thus more social music. In a way rediscovering our human roots and the joys of hearing the music together. Plus it could also be argued that a strong social scene (that a majority participate in ) is essential if humanity is going to over come some of the threats we face ( some of which are self inflicted threats).

So yea, I'm all for whatever gets the music played and shared and created and heard in society (by the people not the corporations) . Not that I have anything against a corporate structure. But when a corporations predominant motive is profit not people it's only a self serving money machine that is not healthy for the common Good.Especially when corporations use methods in order to manipulate the market in order to try and start popular trends, which will then be 'fashions' generated by business not the general public ( company’s will spend a lot of money on marketing ) more geared towards the most profitable financial model.Which sounds nice if your raking in the cash. But even very wealthy people whom venture their capital into any shady deal (not enough questions asked ) which gives the best return, have an evolved conscience and it's unhealthy to continually repress it using alcohol (everybody knows that one ).

The main point is that science is neither 'Good' or ' Bad'. It is simply a method,a system to acquire reliable information (It's we humans whom are biased,not the maths)knowledge that has real practical applications, that work! (old Yorkshire saying 'The proof is in the pudding!' . How human society’s should use that information is where the moral questions come into play. A scientifically aware society will make better moral decisions because they will have a better understanding of the potential risks and potential gains any new technology may bring (plus they will be more logical and less biased as pure scientists understand that facts are facts.Like them or not. Evidence is not some form of (belief) thought that a individual can manipulate to suit their opinions like a Jedi knight in a fantasy movie. Or some politicians with agenda's - Big pockets/Ego's etc).

[ras.s]

^ Sounds awful lot like not-so-good ol' scientism.



My take on the topic, I guess it's more about technology, but still relevant because science and technology are so intertwined .... I think this kind of stuff will become more popular sooner than later:

"The Concert Programmer"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yY1FSsUV-8c


Can you imagine stadiums filled with people jumping and prancing to people typing away on their computer keyboards, live coding the music? Kind of a crazy idea, but I'm sure it will eventually happen.

Key to that is that the audience needs to be able to understand what's going on and appreciate the aesthethic. Stuff like that has been going on for a good while already and it already has a lot of enthusiasts, but for a larger audience, it's probably really odd. Kind of cool, but odd. People can understand what a guitarist does, but computers and computer programs are still somewhat mysterious to a lot of people (cue in whyterabbyt's old signature about laymen and programmers..). The music can stand on its own and people can appreciate it for the music itself, but it's still different from appreciating how the music is made and liking it because they know what's going on.

To that end, over here in Finland, next autumn programming will be a mandatory subject to all students, including first graders. And we're not the only country doing that. When those kids grow up, they will have had a go at such things -- and they will be able to fully appreciate it when someone does it well, because they can understand what's going on. That's the kind of cultural change that I expect to see in the future and something that I think is also more or less necessary to happen so that people can appreciate the music, spot nuances and so on.


I think, we computer musicians today, we're still sort of early stage computer musicians, half-breeds using high technology but with old methodology .. The computer will become even more like a instrument in its own right, particularly the programming side of it. We're already at the point where programmers are luthiers, but we're still a little bit away from programmers becoming performers as well, literally programming the music. Programmers will be perfectly legitimate members of music groups. Interesting to see what kind of jokes will be made of them ..

[mcnoone]

Science and technological invention are not the same thing.

True, yet technological advances and inventions don't happen at all without applying science to form them. So science is still the root of any technological or inventive movements.
Neither can exist without science having been done.