cpenrose@sdcc13.ucsd.edu (Christopher Penrose) (02/27/91)
In article <1991Feb26.083810.27113@ccu.umanitoba.ca> rahardj@ccu.umanitoba.ca (Budi Rahardjo) writes: > >What is the definition of "computer music" ? >Does it include "electronic music" ? >I'd like to understand the "proper" definition ... :-) Here is my definition proper: Computer music is a label for audio signals that were in some way affected by computer technology. This definition ignores the possibility of "remapping" music's temporal dynamics into other sense domains (i.e. visual music); however, when communicating with other people, it is difficult to overcome the traditional stigmas that pervasive terms (music) tend to perpetuate. In this case, music tends to be viewed strictly as an auditory experience. Christopher Penrose jesus!penrose
eiverson@nmsu.edu (Eric Iverson) (02/27/91)
In article <17011@sdcc6.ucsd.edu> cpenrose@sdcc13.ucsd.edu (Christopher Penrose) writes:
Here is my definition proper:
Computer music is a label for audio signals that were in some way
affected by computer technology.
Hmmm...that would mean most telephone conversations qualify as
computer music. What about RF noise interference from a PC?
Actually, the Altair *did* use this to create music, but I hardly
think that most RF noise qualifies. What about the sound of a PC
falling of a desk? That's a sound that's affected by computer
technology.
I believe a more specific definition is in order.
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eric Iverson Internet: eiverson@nmsu.edu
Computing Research Lab
Box 30001/3CRL Life is something to do when
New Mexico State University you can't get to sleep.
Las Cruces, NM 88003-0001 -Fran Lebowitz
VOICE: (505) 646-5711
FAX: (505) 646-6218ta-wvb@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Rick Bassett) (02/27/91)
In article <EIVERSON.91Feb26161016@aigyptos.nmsu.edu> eiverson@nmsu.edu (Eric Iverson) writes: >In article <17011@sdcc6.ucsd.edu> cpenrose@sdcc13.ucsd.edu (Christopher Penrose) writes: > > Here is my definition proper: > > Computer music is a label for audio signals that were in some way > affected by computer technology. > >Hmmm...that would mean most telephone conversations qualify as >computer music. What about RF noise interference from a PC? >Actually, the Altair *did* use this to create music, but I hardly >think that most RF noise qualifies. What about the sound of a PC >falling of a desk? That's a sound that's affected by computer >technology. > >I believe a more specific definition is in order. > I'm happy with the above definition, since it's clear and simple. Any attempts to weed telephone conversations and PC's falling off desks out of the category of "computer music" brings us back to the age-old and unresolvable debate of "what is music?". Music, like beauty, is in the eyes and ears of the beholder. After a long night of work, the sound of a computer falling off a desk could be music to my ears! Rick Bassett rick@woof.columbia.edu ta-wvb@cunixb.columbia.edu
davisonj@en.ecn.purdue.edu (John M Davison) (02/28/91)
In article <17011@sdcc6.ucsd.edu> cpenrose@sdcc13.ucsd.edu (Christopher Penrose) writes: >In article <1991Feb26.083810.27113@ccu.umanitoba.ca> rahardj@ccu.umanitoba.ca (Budi Rahardjo) writes: >> >>What is the definition of "computer music" ? >>Does it include "electronic music" ? >>I'd like to understand the "proper" definition ... :-) > >Here is my definition proper: > >Computer music is a label for audio signals that were in some way >affected by computer technology. I would extend this definition to include the directions for producing what Christopher Penrose defines as "computer music," so as to ensure the inclusion of such things as Lejaren Hiller's piano rolls and Samir Sayegh's AI methods for string fingering. -davisonj@ecn.purdue.edu
cpenrose@sdcc13.ucsd.edu (Christopher Penrose) (02/28/91)
In article <EIVERSON.91Feb26161016@aigyptos.nmsu.edu> eiverson@nmsu.edu (Eric Iverson) writes: >In article <17011@sdcc6.ucsd.edu> cpenrose@sdcc13.ucsd.edu (Christopher Penrose) writes: > > Computer music is a label for audio signals that were in some way > affected by computer technology. > >Hmmm...that would mean most telephone conversations qualify as >computer music. What about RF noise interference from a PC? >Actually, the Altair *did* use this to create music, but I hardly >think that most RF noise qualifies. What about the sound of a PC >falling of a desk? That's a sound that's affected by computer >technology. > >I believe a more specific definition is in order. I actually considered the musicality of telephone conversations while I was posting my first reply. audible rf interference, the nifty whir of a disk drive spinning up, the sound of coffee spilled onto a motherboard, the grunge of a converted a.out core file, all these examples can be considered "computer music". Why must the concept of "computer music" exclude these possibilities? As an adjective, the word "computer" can reference many distinct contexts: it is a sleazy word. As a composer and aesthetic voyeur, I thrive upon the existence of plentiful aesthetic contexts. I mentioned in my first reply that I saw ways in which this definition should be extended -- the consensual restriction of music to the audio domain is an amputation of vast regions of potential musical developments. You desire a more specific definition of "computer music" -- I give reason to extend and generalize its definition -- what concrete rationale can you provide to justify a narrower context for this concept? You may find it difficult to make your definition more specific without misrepresenting the dispositions of people somehow involved with the marriage of computer technology and music. Christopher Penrose jesus!penrose
ogata@leviathan.cs.umd.edu (Jefferson Ogata) (02/28/91)
In article <17051@sdcc6.ucsd.edu> cpenrose@sdcc13.ucsd.edu (Christopher Penrose) writes: >In article <EIVERSON.91Feb26161016@aigyptos.nmsu.edu> eiverson@nmsu.edu (Eric Iverson) writes: >>In article <17011@sdcc6.ucsd.edu> cpenrose@sdcc13.ucsd.edu (Christopher Penrose) writes: >> Computer music is a label for audio signals that were in some way >> affected by computer technology. >>Hmmm...that would mean most telephone conversations qualify as >>computer music. What about RF noise interference from a PC? >>... >>I believe a more specific definition is in order. >I actually considered the musicality of telephone conversations while >I was posting my first reply. audible rf interference, the nifty whir >of a disk drive spinning up, the sound of coffee spilled onto a motherboard, Why not just include the word `music'? As in: Computer music is a label for music that is in some way affected by computer technology. I personally still don't think this quite flies; it leaves it hanging on the definition of "computer technology". Besides, I don't think Joe Ordinary will call a singer using a digital reverb "computer music". And what about analog reverbs? Those are just analog computers...what about a lot of things that behave more or less deterministically, but are controlled by humans...like saxophones and pianos...etc.? Is all this "computer music"? -- Jefferson Ogata ogata@cs.umd.edu University Of Maryland Department of Computer Science
curt@cynic.wimsey.bc.ca (Curt Sampson) (02/28/91)
eiverson@nmsu.edu (Eric Iverson) writes: > In article <17011@sdcc6.ucsd.edu> cpenrose@sdcc13.ucsd.edu (Christopher Penro > > > Computer music is a label for audio signals that were in some way > > affected by computer technology. > > Hmmm...that would mean most telephone conversations qualify as > computer music. What about RF noise interference from a PC? > Actually, the Altair *did* use this to create music, but I hardly > think that most RF noise qualifies. What about the sound of a PC > falling of a desk? That's a sound that's affected by computer > technology. John Cage would probably agree that all of the above qualify as music. cjs curt@cynic.wimsey.bc.ca | "Sometimes it's like a party you go to where curt@cynic.uucp | there are no lights and everyone is doing {uunet|ubc-cs}!van-bc!cynic!curt | animal impressions." -Phillip Evans on usenet
lwyse@central.bu.edu (Lonce LaMar Wyse) (03/01/91)
> > Computer music is a label for audio signals that were in some way > affected by computer technology. I think a more restrictive definition is useful because it is more in line with the (implicit) definition of other types of music. Basson music, for instance, is music that couldn't be done without a bassoon. If the music could just as well have been done on the cello, then to that extent it is not essentially basson music. Thus: Computer music is that music which can not be done without a computer. This definition does two things. 1) It assumes you already know what the definition of music is and does not force you to accomodate. 2) it throws out a load of music that uses the computer for transcription of notes, as a random number generator, as signal source or filter that could have been done in analogue, etc. Thus it allows a distinction to be made between music that involved the use of a computer and "computer music" proper. - lonce XXX XXX Lonce Wyse | X X Center for Adaptive Systems \ | / X X Boston University \ / 111 Cummington St. Boston,MA 02215 ---- ---- X X X X "The best things in life / \ XXX XXX are emergent." / | \ |
garton@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu (Bradford Garton) (03/01/91)
In article <17051@sdcc6.ucsd.edu> cpenrose@sdcc13.ucsd.edu (Christopher Penrose) writes: > >the grunge of a converted a.out core file, all these examples can be >considered "computer music". Why must the concept of "computer music" >exclude these possibilities? Just for fun one night, we converted /vmunix on our Sun 3/280 (SunOS 3.2) at 20k mono, and I swear there is a human vocal sound in it! About 2/3 of the way through, it went "bleaugh". Sounds a lot like LPC. It was also surprising how much periodicity there was. It actually was a pretty snazzy piece of music -- we all wondered if it might be possible to debug code by listening to it... :-) Brad Garton Music Dept. brad@woof.columbia.edu
rowe@media-lab.MEDIA.MIT.EDU (Robert Rowe) (03/01/91)
In article <1991Mar1.142157.2548@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu> garton@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu (Bradford Garton) writes: >Just for fun one night, we converted /vmunix on our Sun 3/280 (SunOS 3.2) at >20k mono, and I swear there is a human vocal sound in it! About 2/3 of the >way through, it went "bleaugh". Sounds a lot like LPC. It was also >surprising how much periodicity there was. Rick Banks did the same thing with the whole disk at the Institute of Sonology one night about 13 years ago. He actually recorded the whole thing on tape, turned into a nice piece about 10 minutes or so. I don't remember if it ever made it onto a concert. It was called, of course, "Disco"... robert rowe MIT Media Lab
cpenrose@sdcc13.ucsd.edu (Christopher Penrose) (03/02/91)
In article <1991Mar1.142157.2548@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu> garton@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu (Bradford Garton) writes: >In article <17051@sdcc6.ucsd.edu> cpenrose@sdcc13.ucsd.edu (Christopher Penrose) writes: > >Just for fun one night, we converted /vmunix on our Sun 3/280 (SunOS 3.2) at >20k mono, and I swear there is a human vocal sound in it! About 2/3 of the >way through, it went "bleaugh". Sounds a lot like LPC. It was also >surprising how much periodicity there was. I converted /vmunix on a Sun 3/280 (SunOS 4.0) at 36k mono. It shared the speech characteristics and periodicity of your experience - everyone in the room thought it was a choice sound. When I need an arbitrary binary file to test my signal processors, I always grab that file first - I know where it lives. I have always been irrationally annoyed by instrumentalists (guitarists especially) who spend a great deal of effort (speech and prose) exalting the mechanics of their instruments. I have discovered that I obviously do this too. Christopher Penrose jesus!penrose
niski@reed.bitnet (Joe Niski,(ext.525)) (03/02/91)
Aren't we getting to the point in this thread where we bump into our various definitions of "music" itself. I always liked the definition (i think from E. Varese) of music as "organized sound". Doesn't matter what tools you use for organizing... heck, if you believe in Brian Eno (and Cage), most of the "organizing" takes place between our ears. Whether this leads to a useful definition of "computer music" depends on your uses, i suppose.
smithj@hpsad.HP.COM (Jim Smith) (03/03/91)
The definition of Computer Music as "music that couldn't be done without a computer" is probably also too restrictive, since it would exclude computerized simulations of non-Computer music, such as a re-creation of an orchestral piece, using orchestral sounds, but realized on a computer, or that simulated vocal that was done at (I think) CCRMA and featured on the Nova 'science and music' episode last year. These aspects should probably be included in the definition. It would also exclude something like a digitally-played acoustic piano (ala Disklavier) being 'conducted' by an alternative controller (radio drum or airdrums or ??), since this music could be played on the piano by the pianist, yet, again, this should probably be included in the definition. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- | Jim Smith | e-mail: smithj@hpsad.HP.COM | | Firmware/Software/Kludges | Simulated Synclavier Music? | | HP Signal Analysis Division | AT&T: (707) 794-4632 | | 1212 Valley House Dr. | Real Computers use Drumsticks! | | Rohnert Park, CA 94928-4999 | I just diddle the bitstream... | | Everybody wants a piece of Iraq to wind around their string - TMBJ | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
davisonj@en.ecn.purdue.edu (John M Davison) (03/05/91)
In article <16173@reed.UUCP> niski@reed.bitnet (Joe Niski) writes: > >Aren't we getting to the point in this thread where we bump into our various >definitions of "music" itself. I always liked the definition (i think from >E. Varese) of music as "organized sound". Doesn't matter what tools you use Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that Varese used the term "organized sound" in order to distinguish his work as a superset of music...but at the same time I must agree that the "organized sound" definition is quite applicable in our time. of course, that means that SMPTE stripes qualify as computer music...but we're probably going to run into exceptions no matter what definition is used. -davisonj@ecn.purdue.edu