daemon@bartok.Sun.COM (02/24/90)
Music-Research Digest Sat, 24 Feb 90 Volume 5 : Issue 19
Today's Topics:
Administrivia: New home
Artificial Intelligence and Education in Music
csound
MIDI Programmer Wanted
P. on N. Music address?
Reply to Laske
Synclavier and its software
*** Send contributions to Music-Research@uk.ac.oxford.prg
*** Send administrative requests to Music-Research-Request
*** Overseas users should reverse UK addresses and give gateway if necessary
*** e.g. Music-Research@prg.oxford.ac.uk
*** or Music-Research%prg.oxford.ac.uk@nsfnet-relay.ac.uk
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Sat, 24 Feb 90 10:08:35 gmt
From: Stephen Page <sdpage@uk.ac.oxford.prg>
Subject: Administrivia: New home
To: music-research
The Music-Research Digest has moved to a new home within the Oxford
University Computing Laboratory (a Sun rather than an ageing Vax).
If all has gone well, this should be completely transparent to readers;
but please let me know if this isn't the case.
One of our readers has asked me to remind everyone outside the UK that
mailer addresses are reversed on most mail headers shown in the Digest.
This is because the UK puts the big end first (e.g. "uk" or "edu") and
everyone else puts it last. A few mail headers don't get reversed
(primarily if the message was forwarded to me inside another message).
So please remember when replying to readers directly that you will need
to check the ordering of the components on the address.
Stephen Page
Moderator
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 22 Feb 90 20:10:33 GMT
From: Simon Holland <simon@uk.ac.aberdeen.computing-science>
Subject: Artificial Intelligence and Education in Music
To: Music-Research@uk.ac.oxford.prg
In Music-Research Digest V5 #16, Beverly H. Sobelman Becker
asks about sources of information on intelligent tutoring
systems in music.
I completed a PhD called
"Artificial Intelligence, Education and Music"
a few months ago. It is available from
CITE, the Institute for Educational Technology,
The Open University, Milton Keynes, England MK7 6AA
as CITE technical report no 88.
They can be reached on
phone (UK) 0908 65 2909 (overseas) 44 908 65 2909
FAX (UK) 0908 65 3744 (overseas) 44 908 65 3744
I dont know if they are charging for it or not.
(I am now at the university of Aberdeen,Scotland
I will happily mail the abstract to anyone who emails me)
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 21 Feb 90 18:43:17 EST
From: Allan Adler <ara@edu.yale.math.lom1>
Subject: csound
To: music-research@uk.ac.oxford.prg
I have seen the csound package but I wasn't able to decide from looking at
it what assumptions are made about the hardware. First of all, is it ok
to run it on a SUN3 or Sparc ? And what does one assume the computer
is connected to and how ? What other computers does it run on ?
Allan Adler
ara@lom1.math.yale.edu
------------------------------
Date: 21 Feb 90 18:47:40 GMT
From: Patrick Hawke <patrick%hpmcaa%hp-pcd%hp-sdd@com.hp.hplabs>
Subject: MIDI Programmer Wanted
To: music-research@uk.ac.oxford.prg
MIDI Mouse Music is looking for someone to complete a port of their Music
Education Software to the Macintosh.
Contact:
Norm Zarr
503-622-4034
------------------------------
Date: 22 Feb 90 14:37:51 GMT
From: James Symon <symon%lhotse%thorin@org.mcnc>
Subject: P. on N. Music address?
To: music-research@uk.ac.oxford.prg
I've been trying to reach pnm@edu.washington.u.milton but no
permutation of those address elements that I have tried has
successfully gotten through.
Does anyone know the subscription office address for
Perspectives on New Music?
Thanks,
Jim Symon | symon@cs.unc.edu
Computer Science Dept | {uunet, decvax}!mcnc!unc!symon
Chapel Hill, NC 27599-3175 | (919) w:962-1893 h:968-1024
***Don't use "r" or my header line address***
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 22 Feb 90 14:55:37 EST
From: Robert Rowe <rowe@edu.mit.media.ems>
Subject: Reply to Laske
To: music-research@com.sun.eng.bartok
The recent postings from Pope and Smoliar, and, particularly,
Otto Laske's reply to me lead me to keep flogging this particular
horse. I think that part of my disagreement with Laske concerning
the improvement of computer music composition systems arises
from our very different perceptions of the field. Mr. Laske
maintains that the knowledge now used to build systems has no
empirical basis. Agreed. But, he goes on to claim that "most of
this ad hoc knowledge is public knowledge taken from text books,
some of it is shared (collegial) knowledge, little or none of it is
personal, idiosyncratic knowledge." On the contrary, I believe that
quite a good part of the knowledge being used is exactly that. Most
of the systems being built now are the products of composers who
program, or composer/programmer collaborations. A lot of that effort
is being done precisely to capture personal, idiosyncratic knowledge
(see Stephen Pope's posting). To use one of Laske's favorite examples,
the most profitable source of composition knowledge arising from G.M.
Koenig's PR1 is the program itself. I can learn much more about the
nature of his compositional thought, and the power and efficiency
of the techniques he used to realize it, from an afternoon of using
the program than I can from several years of looking at user protocols.
Laske states: "If you know an alternative to KA, leading to a model of
the theory-in-use of composers, let me know." My alternative is to look
at the programs composers are making. PR1 is Koenig's theory in use.
Stephen Pope has his own theory, and his own use, captured in his
computer program. What's more, challenging me to come up with an
alternative to KA which will lead to a theory-in-use implies that your
version of KA will do so, and I still do not see that point being made.
You say that bricolage "is fine for your own system, but not for a tool
to be used by many composers." And yet, your own work, the segmentation
adviser, does not result in a tool to be used by many composers either,
by your own admission.("..it is not clear what is the 'portability',
or transfer rate, of my insights to other segmentation tasks. There is
no absolute task called 'segmentation'"). My question to you boils down
to this: can you give me a list of 10 tasks (5? 2? 1?) which will be
sufficiently circumscribed that you can do KA by your protocol analysis
method, and which will be sufficiently broad that having elicited that
knowledge will result in a "tool to be used by many composers?" Those
tasks are not at all obvious to me. If you have them, I would be happy
to hear of them. If there are none, I don't see where this whole KA
framework of yours is supposed to go. Let me add that I agree with you
that it is a good thing to discuss composition, de-mystify it, try to
discover what people do when they compose, etc. The difference is that
I believe many people, and continually growing numbers of people, are
programming their compositional ideas, and that it is that activity which
can shed light on the cognition of composition - not analyzing protocols.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 23 Feb 90 18:58:05 EST
From: Allan Adler <ara@edu.yale.math.lom1>
Subject: Synclavier and its software
To: music-research@uk.ac.oxford.prg
This last weekend some friends of mine spirited me away to New Hamsphire
and waited patiently for 13 hours while I orchestrated one of my compositions
on a Synclavier in the studios of New England Digital Corp. Now that I have
used this $250,000 piece of equipment, I can look at it critically. I have
no criticisms of the device itself, but the software used to drive it seems
unworthy of it. For one thing, the software has only a limited number of
timbres which would be useful to a classical composer, although it has a few, a
and rather seems aimed at the rock musician who occasionally likes to have
a classical instrument.
Here is another problem with it. I was orchestrating a piece which I wrote
at the piano and had never orchestrated. And I am not a very good performer
in any case. So I entered each part separately by typing in one note at a
time in a text file, giving the starting time, pitch and duration of each note.
The editor is Procrustean and slightly brain damaged and that is one reason
it took 13 hours.
I would like to be able to stay here in New Haven and type text files, such
as the one I typed in for the Synclavier, on the computers which I use here.
I would then like to be able to mail a floppy disk containing the text file,
say a 5 1/4 in floppy formatted for an IBM PC XT, to my friend with the
Synclavier and have him produce a tape for me. Unfortunately, there is
no way to communicate the text file to the software used by the Synclavier
because it uses proprietary formats for its files. A means of communicating
ascii text files to the Synclavier would be very desirable. For one thing,
it would save me from having to schlep to New Hamshire. And for another,
it would save me from having to use the Procrustean and slightly
brain damaged editor.
My impression is that it is New England Digital which makes the Synclavier
and an entirely different company which makes the software I described above.
It is possible, then, that some other company may have also written
software and done a better job of it, incorporating the features I
asked for in the last paragraph.
If any one has any information about this, please let me know.
Allan Adler
ara@lom1.math.yale.edu
------------------------------
End of Music-Research Digest