eiverson@nmsu.edu (Eric Iverson) (09/19/90)
Well I just got back from ICMC, and as a veteran of at least half a dozen conferences, I can safely say I've never felt so ignored or excluded in all my life. Well, this isn't completely true. I got on fine with the other AI types, but I kept on getting the feeling that they were being politely ignored by most others as well. It seems that if one was not a composer or a DSP engineer, then one did not count for squat. After having recently attended the Artificial Life convention in February, I was inspired by the sight of people from disciplines as diverse as genetics, artificial intelligence, and thermodynamics actively trying to assimilate and understand the ideas of others. This kind of cross-fertilization clearly did not occur at ICMC. Borders were quite clearly drawn and very little effort was made to cross them. I found this to be quite depressing. Perhaps the backgrounds of musicians and computer scientists are just too different for there to be a common ground. Perhaps the objectives of the two groups may even be in direct contradiction. However, even if this were the case, it would not excuse the sterile tone of the conference. I began to wonder why some of the people were even involved in the field, as I saw none of the passion and curiousity that I have seen at other conferences. This was further reflected in the music that was performed during the conference; much of which did not even resemble music as I have come to know it. Apparantly such trivialities as rhythmic pulse, phrasing, and tonality have become unfashionable, as they were not present in the majority of the pieces presented. It was if I had entered a demonstration of gated noise generation machines and sound effects systems, neither of which I consider to be musical in and of themselves. In fact I saw little difference in the pieces from that which was done in the 60's, save for the level of sophistication of the machines used. And this then is the final irony: even with all the advanced toys at our disposal, it seems questionable whether we have developed a similarly advanced system for using them. I anxiously await a remedy to this situation. -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 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 (505) 646-5711
maverick@fir.berkeley.edu (Vance Maverick) (09/19/90)
> Apparantly such trivialities as rhythmic pulse, phrasing, > and tonality have become unfashionable, as they were not present in > the majority of the pieces presented. It was if I had entered a > demonstration of gated noise generation machines and sound effects > systems, neither of which I consider to be musical in and of > themselves. Not that rhythmic pulse, phrasing, and tonality are musical in ("and of") themselves either! You touch on two classic music riddles: (1) Can there be music without phrasing? [Perhaps a piece consisting of a single event.] (2) What's the difference between sound effects and music? [As far as I can see, only context a.k.a. use, not audible properties. /Music for String Instruments, Percussion and Celesta/ becomes sound effects in /The Shining/.] Sounds like the incomprehension was mutual. Not that I think you're wrong in your general detection of clannish trendiness in the computer-music community! But why should anybody's music "resemble music as [you have] come to know it"?
lwyse@retina.bu.edu (Wyse) (09/20/90)
If the computer-music aestetic has finally reached the music aesthetic
of the 60's, then I am very happy indeed. I have always been frustrated
that with the tools for manipulating a generic pallet of sounds, people
have continued to write music obsessed with NOTES!
- 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." / | \
|eliot@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Eliot Handelman) (09/20/90)
In article <27974@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU> maverick@fir.berkeley.edu (Vance Maverick) writes:
; You touch on two classic music riddles: (1)
;Can there be music without phrasing? [Perhaps a piece consisting of a
;single event.] (2) What's the difference between sound effects and
;music?
Who says that these are "classic music riddles"? These aren't even
questions, let alone "riddles," let alone "classic." maverick@fir.berkeley.edu (Vance Maverick) (09/20/90)
In article <2614@idunno.Princeton.EDU>, eliot@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Eliot Handelman) writes: > Who says that these are "classic music riddles"? These aren't even > questions, let alone "riddles," let alone "classic." Oh, come on, Eliot, show a sense of humor. I hoped my use of the word "riddle" would hint that I too was aware of the silliness of these (noun of your choice)s. The one about music vs. sound effects is certainly a question in the sense that people disagree about the answer; the one about phrasing is a transformation of the (equally pointless) conundrum "Are the first two chords of the /Eroica/ the same?", asked in my composition class by no less earnest a theoretician than David Lewin. I must admit there's a certain satisfaction in setting off our group's resident rhetorical loose cannon! Too bad it was only my digression that did it and not my point.
eliot@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Eliot Handelman) (09/20/90)
In article <27974@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU> maverick@fir.berkeley.edu (Vance Maverick) writes:
;> Apparantly such trivialities as rhythmic pulse, phrasing,
;> and tonality have become unfashionable, as they were not present in
;> the majority of the pieces presented. It was if I had entered a
;> demonstration of gated noise generation machines and sound effects
;> systems, neither of which I consider to be musical in and of
;> themselves.
;
;Not that rhythmic pulse, phrasing, and tonality are musical in ("and
;of") themselves either! You touch on two classic music riddles: (1)
;Can there be music without phrasing? [Perhaps a piece consisting of a
;single event.] (2) What's the difference between sound effects and
;music? [As far as I can see, only context a.k.a. use, not audible
;properties. /Music for String Instruments, Percussion and Celesta/
;becomes sound effects in /The Shining/.]
;
;Sounds like the incomprehension was mutual. Not that I think you're
;wrong in your general detection of clannish trendiness in the
;computer-music community! But why should anybody's music "resemble
;music as [you have] come to know it"?
Eric Iverson didn't like the music. He doesn't consider noise generation
machines "musical." He suggests that r&b (rhythm and bonality), on the
other hand, are (and be) musical.
Vance Maverick suggests that r&b are not nearly so well defined,
since they are, in the end, properties of the listener.
Eliot Handelman didn't really want to get involved with that discussion,
so he changed the subject (suggested a new subject, really) by picking
a fight with Vance Maverick.
Vance Maverick replied:
;Oh, come on, Eliot, show a sense of humor. I hoped my use of the word
;"riddle" would hint that I too was aware of the silliness of these (noun
;of your choice)s.
Eliot apologizes. I also read rec.music.classic, so missed out on
the implied silliness.
;The one about music vs. sound effects is certainly a
;question in the sense that people disagree about the answer;
It's more an answer in search of a question, that is, a piece of opinion
or an emotional response trying to discover in what way it might pass
itself off as a piece of authority.
;the one
;about phrasing is a transformation of the (equally pointless) conundrum
;"Are the first two chords of the /Eroica/ the same?", asked in my
;composition class by no less earnest a theoretician than David Lewin.
That's not exactly a "phrasing" issue so much as a Stanley Fish-like
"is there a text in this class" piece of rhetoric (the answer to both
questions must be "no," since to answer "yes" is to revert to a world
poorer in conundrums and self-doubt, where that question could not
have been posed, yet it was). The experience of the second chord is
flavored by the experience of the first. I forget if that's what Lewin
was aiming at. Terry Eagleton has an interesting dig at the buried
authoritarianism of reader-response analysis in his book "Literary
Theory." The reader (or listener) who can be transmuted by this
experience is by nature transmutable, therefore nothing of
consequence has been effected. Everything's back the way it was
in the first place. In short, are the two chords the same? Yes they
are, because only that listener experiences difference -- the sort of
difference worthy of this discussion, at any rate -- who experiences
difference in the first place, who comes prepared to experience that
difference, who therefore is not different from what he formerly was.smoliar@vaxa.isi.edu (Stephen Smoliar) (09/22/90)
In article <2645@idunno.Princeton.EDU> eliot@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Eliot Handelman) writes: >In article <27974@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU> maverick@fir.berkeley.edu (Vance >Maverick) writes: >; You touch on two classic music riddles: (1) >;Can there be music without phrasing? [Perhaps a piece consisting of a >;single event.] (2) What's the difference between sound effects and >;music? > >;the one >;about phrasing is a transformation of the (equally pointless) conundrum >;"Are the first two chords of the /Eroica/ the same?", asked in my >;composition class by no less earnest a theoretician than David Lewin. > >That's not exactly a "phrasing" issue so much as a Stanley Fish-like >"is there a text in this class" piece of rhetoric (the answer to both >questions must be "no," since to answer "yes" is to revert to a world >poorer in conundrums and self-doubt, where that question could not >have been posed, yet it was). The experience of the second chord is >flavored by the experience of the first. I forget if that's what Lewin >was aiming at. Score one for Eliot. While I have never take a composition class with David Lewin, I have read his key publication on this matter. I think the issue can be summed up in the following little scenario: Lewin says, "Can you identify the following?" He then plays a tape recording of a single chord. You respond, "I'd know that sound anywhere! That's the first chord of the EROICA!" Lewin then retorts, "Fooled you! That's the SECOND chord of the EROICA!" The point of this little exchange is not whether or not those two chords are the same. (They are not the same by the argument that you cannot put your foot in the same river twice.) It is not even meant to address the question of whether or not some particular approach to phrasing would allow you to distinguish the second chord from the first if you were obliged to hear each in isolation. The point is simply that you cannot talk about there being a SECOND chord except in the context of it being the successor of a FIRST chord. Therefore, if you want to try to abstract the information associated with a particular musical experience, then the experience of that second chord MUST have, as part of that abstraction, some means of representing the chord it has succeeded. As I say, this really is not a question of phrasing; but it brings us close to one. Let us now decide that we want to play Lewin's game of abstraction. Being good computer programmers, we want to design data structures to capture those units of information which he wishes to associate with musical experiences. We should then be able to represent an individual's behavior in listening to some musical performance in terms of some collection of instantiations of those data structures. Those are the rules of the game. Now where do we start? What are going to be the units which actually get coded in those data structures? This is no simple matter. Among other things, Lewin has made a case that there is probably a very rich collection of these units with considerable overlap. Also, if you are listening to orchestral music, you may wish to have a unit for a flute solo and another unit for the accompanying bassoon. You cannot simply equate these units with slices of time . . . the way you might splice up a tape. What, then, are the units in terms of which you can describe your listening experience? Albert Bregman calls the search for such units "auditory scene analysis" and argues (not too well, for my money) that this process is just like the sort of decomposition (read "segmentation" if you feel better about that word) of visual data into objects. Even if Bregman does not make his case very well, there are some interesting consequences which may be relevant. Visual scene analysis has been around in the computer world for some time. However, as has been observed by Gerald Edelman, computers can only do scene analysis if they have some A PRIORI description of the objects they are looking for. Humans, on the other hand, at least when they are children, do not have such A PRIORI information. (A little bit of calculating on the back on an envelope should make a case that there are going to be more bits in trying to code up descriptions for all our "familiar" objects than can be accommodated by our genetic code. In other words it is very unlikely that we are born with the ability to recognize, say, cubes or bagels.) Therefore, there are some very serious problems which must be confronted in the matter of how we LEARN how to take our field of view and begin to reason that there are OBJECTS in it. In this respect I think it is fair to say the same sort of thing about what we hear. There is nothing sacred about "notes" which endows them with the property of being universal sound objects from which perceptual entities are made. Consequently, there is nothing sacred about phrasing, either. We listen on the basis of how we have listened in the past. What we choose to call music is more a social question of what we are told music is than it is a matter of any universal qualities of perception. Most likely, those universal qualities do not exist. Also likely is that no two of us ever have the same perceptual experience. If we accept these conclusions as ground rules, we can then get down to the business of talking about how we communicate information about our musical experiences among each other; and, in my opinion, that is what Lewin really wants to talk about. ========================================================================= USPS: Stephen Smoliar USC Information Sciences Institute 4676 Admiralty Way Suite 1001 Marina del Rey, California 90292-6695 Internet: smoliar@vaxa.isi.edu "It's only words . . . unless they're true."--David Mamet
bdb@becker.UUCP (Bruce D. Becker) (09/22/90)
In article <EIVERSON.90Sep18203945@hades.nmsu.edu> eiverson@nmsu.edu (Eric Iverson) writes: | |Well I just got back from ICMC, and as a veteran of at least half a |dozen conferences, I can safely say I've never felt so ignored or |excluded in all my life. Well, this isn't completely true. I got on |fine with the other AI types, but I kept on getting the feeling that |they were being politely ignored by most others as well. It seems |that if one was not a composer or a DSP engineer, then one did not |count for squat. | |After having recently attended the Artificial Life convention in |February, I was inspired by the sight of people from disciplines as |diverse as genetics, artificial intelligence, and thermodynamics |actively trying to assimilate and understand the ideas of others. |This kind of cross-fertilization clearly did not occur at ICMC. |Borders were quite clearly drawn and very little effort was made to |cross them. I found this to be quite depressing. | |Perhaps the backgrounds of musicians and computer scientists are just |too different for there to be a common ground. Perhaps the objectives |of the two groups may even be in direct contradiction. However, even |if this were the case, it would not excuse the sterile tone of the |conference. I began to wonder why some of the people were even |involved in the field, as I saw none of the passion and curiousity |that I have seen at other conferences. | |This was further reflected in the music that was performed during the |conference; much of which did not even resemble music as I have come |to know it. Apparantly such trivialities as rhythmic pulse, phrasing, |and tonality have become unfashionable, as they were not present in |the majority of the pieces presented. It was if I had entered a |demonstration of gated noise generation machines and sound effects |systems, neither of which I consider to be musical in and of |themselves. In fact I saw little difference in the pieces from that |which was done in the 60's, save for the level of sophistication of |the machines used. | |And this then is the final irony: even with all the advanced toys at |our disposal, it seems questionable whether we have developed a |similarly advanced system for using them. | |I anxiously await a remedy to this situation. Uhhhh... Eric, I think the remedy might need to be applied to your attitude. It seems clear there is indeed a large gulf between your thinking and that of the musicians. Rather than criticize, you need to try to internalize their ideas so you will be able to communicate with them. I'm pretty certain that your ideas as to what music is came across in conversation, so that you were therefore left alone... -- ,u, Bruce Becker Toronto, Ontario a /i/ Internet: bdb@becker.UUCP, bruce@gpu.utcs.toronto.edu `\o\-e UUCP: ...!uunet!mnetor!becker!bdb _< /_ "I still have my phil-os-o-phy" - Meredith Monk
eiverson@nmsu.edu (Eric Iverson) (09/24/90)
In article <40170@becker.UUCP> bdb@becker.UUCP (Bruce D. Becker) writes: > Uhhhh... Eric, I think the remedy might need to be > applied to your attitude. > > It seems clear there is indeed a large gulf between > your thinking and that of the musicians. > > Rather than criticize, you need to try to internalize > their ideas so you will be able to communicate with > them. I'm pretty certain that your ideas as to what > music is came across in conversation, so that you > were therefore left alone... > > -- > ,u, Bruce Becker Toronto, Ontario > a /i/ Internet: bdb@becker.UUCP, bruce@gpu.utcs.toronto.edu `\o\-e UUCP: ...!uunet!mnetor!becker!bdb _< /_ "I still have my phil-os-o-phy" - Meredith Monk If I had come across more than a few ideas, I wouldn't be so critical. As it stood, I felt that this was one of the most idea poor conferences I have ever attended. Not to mention the emphasis on expensive toys over how to use them in a composition. I'm pretty certain that "my ideas as to what music is" were shared by several disgruntled participants, just not enough to make a difference. In fact, I have received several email messages that have more or less supported my view of the conference. Just to make you a little more "certain" of my ideas on music (although you already seem to have your mind made up which pigeon-hole to put me in) I might point out that I am not exactly lacking in musical knowledge. I played clarinet in concert bands through college, have taken music theory classes, and have numerous friends who are instrumentalists and/or composers. I have been involved in the cassette underground for the past 10 years and have been exposed to a wide variety of traditional, experimental, and avant garde pieces. The fact is that I am *not* upset with all contemporary art music. I have listened to and enjoyed pieces by composers as diverse as George Anthiel, Fred Frith, Eliot Sharp, John Zorn, Steve Reich, Ornette Coleman, The Residents, Brian Eno, Holger Czukay, Luciano Berio, Igor Stravinsky, David Van Tiegham, John Giorno, Skinny Puppy, Throbbing Gristle, Test Department, Glenn Branca, Charles Dodge, Karlheinz Stockhausen, Diamanda Galas, and Pauline Oliveros. These pieces do not use the "tonality, rhythm, etc of old" and yet still manage to be quite interesting and compelling. This is not something I can say for most of the ICMC pieces which I found to be aimless, cluttered, and totally lacking a unifying asthetic. In short, I felt they didn't "say" anything to me regardless of the language they were trying to use. It is this usage and expansion of musical language that I feel should be improved upon if computer music is to have a viable future. -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 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 (505) 646-5711
rowe@media-lab.MEDIA.MIT.EDU (Robert Rowe) (09/25/90)
eiverson@nmsu.edu (Eric Iverson) writes: >If I had come across more than a few ideas, I wouldn't be so critical. >As it stood, I felt that this was one of the most idea poor >conferences I have ever attended. Not to mention the emphasis on >expensive toys over how to use them in a composition. I'm pretty >certain that "my ideas as to what music is" were shared by several >disgruntled participants, just not enough to make a difference. In >fact, I have received several email messages that have more or less >supported my view of the conference. As someone who also attended the recent ICMC, I would first like to say that I found it to be spectacularly well organized, engaging, informative, and a pleasure to attend. The concerts were uneven, certainly, but I can't agree with your characterization of the event as 'idea poor'. I can't agree first of all because I don't know what you mean. There were five parallel sessions every afternoon - all of those people certainly believed themselves to be presenting ideas. We can go through the list: Roger Dannenberg's beam search beat tracker, the IRCAM workstation, Steim time, etc. etc. The people from the Composer's Desktop Project would not agree that so many presentations were concerned only with expensive toys. I would be interested to know why you find all this work so dull and boring, and why previous conferences were more "idea rich" in your estimation. Calling the conference "idea poor" seems to me, as a critique, to be virtually "content free". >It is this usage >and expansion of musical language that I feel should be improved upon >if computer music is to have a viable future. I don't know what you mean by that either. Could you expand on the idea? Robert Rowe MIT Media Laboratory
eiverson@nmsu.edu (Eric Iverson) (09/25/90)
In article <3456@media-lab.MEDIA.MIT.EDU> rowe@media-lab.MEDIA.MIT.EDU (Robert Rowe) writes: > As someone who also attended the recent ICMC, I would first like to say > that I found it to be spectacularly well organized, engaging, informative, > and a pleasure to attend. The concerts were uneven, certainly, but I can't > agree with your characterization of the event as 'idea poor'. I can't agree > first of all because I don't know what you mean. There were five parallel > sessions every afternoon - all of those people certainly believed > themselves to be presenting ideas. We can go through the list: Roger > Dannenberg's beam search beat tracker, the IRCAM workstation, Steim time, > etc. etc. The people from the Composer's Desktop Project would not agree > that so many presentations were concerned only with expensive toys. > I would be interested to know why you find all this work so > dull and boring, and why previous conferences were more "idea rich" in > your estimation. Calling the conference "idea poor" seems to me, as a > critique, to be virtually "content free". I too found the conference to be very well organized and do not mean to suggest that none of the participants knew what they were talking about. The organizers worked tireless to ensure a smoothly run conference and should be commended. However, by "idea poor" I mean to say that there was not a lot presented at the conference that I felt I could actually use. Sure, there were plenty of presentations on new workstations and new performance interfaces, but not much theoretical or algorithmic material which could be used without having to shell out a lot of money on hardware. In fact, (if you want a definition of idea poor) at some of the algorithmic composition talks I went to, it seemed as if the speaker was reluctant to "give his secrets away" which I found to be especially frustrating. Now, while this may be necessary if the speaker is developing a piece of software, it does not make for an intellectually stimulating or "idea rich" environment. I was further frustrated by the parallel (although I'm sure necessary) nature of the conference. By scheduling 2 or 3 algorithmic composition papers simultaneously, the number of potential listeners was split accordingly. This served to reduce any possible interest base while leaving many good papers unheard by a sizeable portion of the participants. Perhaps if all the algorithmic people were all in the same room at the same time, we would have gotten a better idea who each other were. As it stood, I found it very difficult to put names with faces and was forced to miss a few very promising talks. (Thereby reducing the number of "ideas" I was exposed to even further) It would have seemed better to run and algorithmic track in parallel with a DSP track so as to minimize conflict amongst rooms. Similarly, I found the paper tree to be rather sparse, which I did not take as an indicator of a healthy conference. It has been my experience in the past that the paper tree is where some of the most interesting and useful ideas can be found. I did not say that previous ICMC conferences were more "idea rich." I have not been to previous ICMC conferences. However, I have been to AI, Computational Linguistics, and Artificial Life conferences in which I left knowing a lot more than I did when I arrived, and had accumulated several papers that I then incorporated into my own research. With limited exceptions, this did not happen at ICMC. Perhaps ICMC conferences are organized differently than the types of conferences listed above. If so, ICMC suffers from the comparison. -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 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 (505) 646-5711
rowe@media-lab.MEDIA.MIT.EDU (Robert Rowe) (09/26/90)
Eric Iverson Internet: eiverson@nmsu.edu writes: >In fact, (if you want a definition of idea poor) >at some of the algorithmic composition talks I went to, it seemed as >if the speaker was reluctant to "give his secrets away" which I found >to be especially frustrating. Now, while this may be necessary if the >speaker is developing a piece of software, it does not make for an >intellectually stimulating or "idea rich" environment. >I was further frustrated by the parallel (although I'm sure necessary) >nature of the conference. By scheduling 2 or 3 algorithmic >composition papers simultaneously, the number of potential listeners >was split accordingly. This served to reduce any possible interest >base while leaving many good papers unheard by a sizeable portion of >the participants. Oh. Yes, well, that I can buy. What I meant by good organization was that, essentially, the trains ran on time. Equipment was where it was supposed to be at the right time and functioned, etc. Such has not always been the ICMC habit. I objected to the "idea poor" characterization because I felt there was too much going on, not too little. As you point out, the parallel sessions in particular didn't seem to pay much attention to grouping papers by any area of interest. During my own demo, there were four other papers I wanted to hear but, obviously, couldn't. I am sure the ICMC could profit from looking at the way other conferences are organized. But, still, I thought there were a lot of people there to learn something from, and much interesting work presented. Warts and all, I did come away from the conference with a better view of what's going on, and some useful ideas. Robert Rowe MIT Media Laboratory
smoliar@vaxa.isi.edu (Stephen Smoliar) (09/27/90)
In article <EIVERSON.90Sep25092137@thrinakia.nmsu.edu> eiverson@nmsu.edu (Eric Iverson) writes: > >I did not say that previous ICMC conferences were more "idea rich." I >have not been to previous ICMC conferences. However, I have been to >AI, Computational Linguistics, and Artificial Life conferences in >which I left knowing a lot more than I did when I arrived, and had >accumulated several papers that I then incorporated into my own >research. With limited exceptions, this did not happen at ICMC. > I should probably begin with the disclaimer that I was not at the ICMC conference. On the other hand, like Eric, I have a fair amount of conference-going experience. In fact, I was at the Artificial Life Conference which he has been extolling (with good reason, in my own opinion). One of the things I have observed lately is that there is a depressing tendency among conferences which become "established" (such as IJCAI and AAAI in artificial intelligence). The problem is that these conferences become the forum for those individuals who are obliged to present there work due to their publish-or-perish circumstances. WHAT they present is irrelevant, as long as it manages to get approved by the program committee. That committee, alas, is so overwhelmed by the volume of submitted material that it is often very difficult to make terribly good judgments . . . particularly when those judgments are trying to anticipate what will appeal to the curiosity of less conventional conferees. The Artificial Life Conference was a truly inspiring experience because it did not have to bear this burden of establishment. The people who were there were there because they WANTED to be there. Indeed, I came away with the impression that practically everyone who was working on Artificial Life was doing it as an auxiliary activity and therefore did not have to worry about putting on a good show for any powers that be. Having said all that, let me venture forth with some potentially dangerous remarks about computer music. While we would like to think of computer music as a fresh discipline as exciting as Artificial Life, the true is that is has become quite established. The mere fact that there is this organization which encourages membership in order to participate is a sign of such establishment. I would even venture a guess that the discipline first began to become established when a critical mass of practitioners started trying to take the work which had come out of Bell Laboratories (primarily from Max Mathews) and make a standard out of it. Standards beget establishment, and establishment saps excitement. Of course, there will always be excitement out on the fringes. Unfortunately, such fringe work often tends to get rejected by established organizations. When it DOES get accepted (and, having read Eric's paper, I would classify him as someone who is out on an exciting fringe), it is still subjected to isolation because it just does not conform to any of the approved themes of the affair. Next month I shall be delivering an artificial intelligence paper at a meeting of the Society of Music Theory. I shall be part of a session involving cognition and music theory, but I already sense a sort of isolation between my approach and that of the other papers in my session. I do not know if I shall come away from this conference with the same sort of frustration which Eric reported. However, by virtue of Eric having the courage to speak his mind on these matters, I know I shall be thinking about them and will probably try to report on them when I return from my own conference experience. ========================================================================= USPS: Stephen Smoliar USC Information Sciences Institute 4676 Admiralty Way Suite 1001 Marina del Rey, California 90292-6695 Internet: smoliar@vaxa.isi.edu "It's only words . . . unless they're true."--David Mamet
kkothman@weber.ucsd.edu (Keith Kothman) (09/28/90)
In article <15134@venera.isi.edu> smoliar@vaxa.isi.edu (Stephen Smoliar) writes: >[stuff deleted] >Having said all that, let me venture forth with some potentially dangerous >remarks about computer music. While we would like to think of computer music >as a fresh discipline as exciting as Artificial Life, the true is that is has >become quite established. The mere fact that there is this organization which >encourages membership in order to participate is a sign of such establishment. >I would even venture a guess that the discipline first began to become >established when a critical mass of practitioners started trying to take >the work which had come out of Bell Laboratories (primarily from Max Mathews) >and make a standard out of it. Standards beget establishment, and ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >establishment saps excitement. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > >========================================================================= > >USPS: Stephen Smoliar > USC Information Sciences Institute > 4676 Admiralty Way Suite 1001 > Marina del Rey, California 90292-6695 > >Internet: smoliar@vaxa.isi.edu > >"It's only words . . . unless they're true."--David Mamet Let me offer a different view of what standards beget. Standards beget freedom from those who control access. In the beginning, if you wanted to do computer music you had to be at Bell Labs. Until very recently, you had to be at one of the handful of institutions that had a workable computer music studio, mostly academic, mostly controlled by a handful of people. To work at such a place you had to submit to being a student or guest researcher, but you definitely had to SUBMIT. Because of standards and the establishment i can now go out and but a relatively low-cost NeXT machine with DAC, download Csound and other popular software synthesis packages via anonymous ftp, hook up whatever MIDI gear that i might like to also use, and work independently from the major institutions. I've heard the argument before that using tools of the establishment makes creates a dangerous relationship between artist and establishment, but it's usually made by people who have access to whatever they need or want--usually huge, proprietary systems that, while maybe "exciting," are unavailable to over 90% of the people actually working in the discipline. Remember that tools are tools, whether created by the establishment or the fringe. If they are useful--fine. But if they're unavailabe to me, don't tell me i'm doing the wrong thing by turning to the establishment to find something to use. Keith Kothman UCSD Dept. of Music --the day job just pays the bills