The future of music

  • #51
Ivan Seeking
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
7,213
174
zoobyshoe said:
New songs in a pre-existing style already exists (see Hypnagogue's link). New styles would take some very creative leap to figure out. The way the program analyzes old Chopin to write new Chopin turns out to be: take alot of his old music apart into pieces and reassemble the pieces in a new configuration. This is fine for a limited number of "new" compositions, but I bet after a while it would become horribly repetitive. In real life a composer evolves, abandons old habits and discovers new things to explore.
I can imagine something like this happening: The basic outline for a song can be varied randomly - infinitely for all practical purposes - and the results checked against the parameters that are used to define music. So it could be that we would only rule out that which is known to violate the basic rules - that known to assault the senses. The rest passes as new styles, melodies, etc.

If you immerse yourself in something all the time it becomes habitual. After listening to Bach for a few hours I start to hear Bach-like music in my head and sometimes can't stop this for a couple days. I think it is just a matter of inertia: get a whole bunch of neurons working on a certain kind of thing and they'll continue at it even when you're not pushing them to do so anymore.
However, we are talking about creations and not reproductions, which strikes at the heart of the topic. How does one spontaneously create something with a mathematical structure? And what makes it a work of genius, say for example, as compared to one of my tunes. :redface:

And what about lyrics? Could a computer write poetry; and then poetry that mates with a melody in a "meaningful" way?
 
Last edited:
  • #52
206
0
I have no idea...when thinking about the future of music, I usually think on how it will sound in regards to how it changes between generations. My Gram probably disliked my Mom's music when she was my age...my Mom dislikes a lot of the music I like...continuing with that tradition, where will music go and will I want to pull my hair out upon hearing it?
 
  • #53
6,265
1,275
Ivan Seeking said:
I can imagine something like this happening: The basic outline for a song can be varied randomly - infinitely for all practical purposes - and the results checked against the parameters that are used to define music. So it could be that we would only rule out that which is known to violate the basic rules - that known to assault the senses. The rest passes as new styles, melodies, etc.
I think such a program could already be written. Trouble is that its product is more likely to be mediocre than not unless we can teach a computer to prescreen it vis a vis human emotional reactions.
How does one spontaneously create something with a mathematical structure?
The mathematical structure of music is greatly overrated and people think Bach was working out intensly complex mathematical patterns that he wasn't. The rules of theory and harmony are not really math, but a kind of arbitrary grammar. Some of it is mere traffic control: you don't want to go from this kind of chord to that kind cause it's too hard for a performer to get his fingers in the right places. Other aspects of it are taboos against doing something dull: no parralell fifths. No one needs any math whatever to make up a good tune. We all relate notes to each other by sound, not by knowing the relative number of cps at which two notes vibrate. I'm sure music predated the Greek's mathematical analysis of scales by thousands of years. In the beginning I'm sure it was like everything else: accidental discoveries that the interval we call a third sounds way better than other intervals in between, and that there are lots of these intervals that sound especially good. Get a collection of these and you can start playing with them.
And what makes it a work of genius, say for example, as compared to one of my tunes. :redface:
Taste. You are worshiped as the greatest composer in the universe on planet Tronodor 7 cause they're into that sort of thing. Someone shoulda e-mailed you.
And what about lyrics? Could a computer write poetry; and then poetry that mates with a melody in a "meaningful" way?
I don't think so. Not in English anyway. It's such an idiosynchratic language I think it has defeated all attempts to computerize it.
 
  • #54
Ivan Seeking
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
7,213
174
zoobyshoe said:
I think such a program could already be written. Trouble is that its product is more likely to be mediocre than not unless we can teach a computer to prescreen it vis a vis human emotional reactions.
Ah, but the objection was that a computer can't create style. So the problem may be more one of selecting rather than creating.

The mathematical structure of music is greatly overrated and people think Bach was working out intensly complex mathematical patterns that he wasn't. The rules of theory and harmony are not really math, but a kind of arbitrary grammar. Some of it is mere traffic control: you don't want to go from this kind of chord to that kind cause it's too hard for a performer to get his fingers in the right places. Other aspects of it are taboos against doing something dull: no parralell fifths. No one needs any math whatever to make up a good tune.
But that's the point. The math is still there. So in a sense, in music we have a direct conduit by which we perceive mathematical relationships. The fact that we prefer a pure tone over noise even speaks to a fundamental sense of this. Why do we prefer repetitive and uniform impulse from our auditory system rather than random ones? I have never met a pure sine wave that I didn't like. And I know one when I hear one :biggrin:

Taste. You are worshiped as the greatest composer in the universe on planet Tronodor 7 cause they're into that sort of thing. Someone shoulda e-mailed you.
Bach is rolling over in his grave. A concert cellist once commented that he thought Pink Floyd's Dark Side of the Moon was a work of genius, until he studied Bach.
 
  • #55
6,265
1,275
Ivan Seeking said:
Ah, but the objection was that a computer can't create style. So the problem may be more one of selecting rather than creating.
All art works down to selection. Old joke: someone asks a sculptor how he sculpted an elephant. The sculptor replies that he got a boulder and removed all the parts that didn't look like an elephant.

Why is your writing style different than mine? You are constantly making selections about what include and exclude according to a different set of criteria than me. Where do you get those criteria. It would be impossible to track it all down: it's a set of values built up over the course of your whole life. It would be a huge task to catalog 10% of those criteria. Your brain juggles it all instantly. In order to write in an original style to please or provoke human emotion the computer is going to have to know a great deal more than the simple math of chords.
But that's the point. The math is still there. So in a sense, in music we have a direct conduit by which we perceive mathematical relationships. The fact that we prefer a pure tone over noise even speaks to a fundamental sense of this. Why do we prefer repetitive and uniform impulse from our auditory system rather than random ones? I have never met a pure sine wave that I didn't like. And I know one when I hear one :biggrin:
Why we like it isn't necessary to explain in order to write music, or get a computer to do it. And, music doesn't get interesting till you start playing against the fundamental math, breaking the basic rule of sounding good, which starts with the tension you get when you start using minor chords. They don't sound good, as in happy. They express sadness, anxiety, anger, etc. Then there are sevenths and ninths and augmented and diminished chords: more ambiguous and sophisticated. It's all about tension and resolution of tension. I'm kind of babling and rambling.
Bach is rolling over in his grave. A concert cellist once commented that he thought Pink Floyd's Dark Side of the Moon was a work of genius, until he studied Bach.
"Genius" really is a value judgement, though. I'm not sure by what criteria the cellist changed his mind but every classical performer I know has a pop artist they worship as a genius, people they consider as doing something amazing, having some amazing quality that thoroughly trained musicians lack. Stevie Wonder is often named. I've heard Brian Wilson, Barbara Streisand, can't remember the others (from college days).

Anyway, on Trogdor 7 the inhabitants are particularly responsive to the Seeking style, and see nuances in it that just aren't noticed or appreciated on other planets.
 
  • #56
Ivan Seeking
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
7,213
174
You reminded of the Star Trek Voyager episode where the doctor [a computer hologram, funny enough] is a singing star loved by the entire planet.

Of course he was eventually replaced with a better computer. :biggrin:
 
  • #57
6,265
1,275
Ivan Seeking said:
You reminded of the Star Trek Voyager episode where the doctor [a computer hologram, funny enough] is a singing star loved by the entire planet.

Of course he was eventually replaced with a better computer. :biggrin:
Oh Yeah! I saw that episode!

But don't worry. The Trodor Seven's are an immensly loyal race.
 
  • #58
dduardo
Staff Emeritus
1,898
3
I got a bunch of postmodern rock bands on my ipod. The genre basically takes classic bass-guitar-drums and fuses it with classical instruments and computer generated music.

Some bands that fall into this category are:

Sigur Rós
Mogwai
Explosions in the Sky
Godspeed you Black Emperor!


I think the trend in music will definitely be computer generated sounds, but used in a way to compliment the human factor.

Something that I would like to see more of is story within music. Some bands that do this already are the decemberists and Bright Eyes.
 
Last edited:
  • #59
Mk
1,984
3
lol "post-modern" Music from the future!

Something that I would like to see more of is story within music. Some bands that do this already are the decemberists and Bright Eyes.
Me too. I like those. Songs that have meaning, or story. Yay.
 
Last edited:
  • #60
345
1
Classical music will not change with any amount of time. There is a limit to how much instruments can be 'developed' to enhance the sound and make it easier; it is with your OWN skill that a instrument must be played.

I get really peed off when we talk about Maths and Music being related. It was NOT bach's intention or any other composers intention to be related to any amount of mathematics. Bach didn't learn any mathematics that we FAMOUSLY know of. Sure, his music is very abstract and strictly rule bound, but thats according to rules of musical form: Fugues, Canons, etc. I don't see a mathematician being good at making music, or visa versa.

And just what the hell is the deal with who and who being a genius? Bach wasn't a prodigy. Tchi wasn't a prodigy. Heck, a LOT of composers were not prodigies. More than natural intelligence, I would say HARD work is done to achieve these great pieces of music. Bach started music by copying other composers pieces to master all forms of known music then (except opera, argueably) yet I still will call Bach a great man, if not liking him, out of spite of mozart for being a overrated hack. Why do you think he went blind in his fifties?
 
  • #61
Mk
1,984
3
Mozart was a friggin genius, a bit overrated, but I think "overrated hack" is too much.

You could pose in the same way many of both Shakespeare's and Stephen King's works came from "copied" works, but I believe them still literary geniuses.
 
Last edited:
  • #62
345
1
Mk said:
Mozart was a friggin genius, a bit overrated, but I think "overrated hack" is too much.

You could pose in the same way both Shakespeare and Stephen King both work out of "copied" works, but I believe them still literary geniuses.
So were a lot of other composers. I find it pretty hard to believe that on the classical music radio stations, he always comes top EVERY YEAR. It is agreed among professional musicians that Bach was the greatest musician to ever live, and yet so much atttention to Mozart.

Don't get me wrong. I recognize that Mozart was extremely talented, but nothing in partucular stands out with him. His concertos are not much different from say, Haydns. Only Top classical period supporters will even know that well about Haydn.

And another thing that really deters me from Mozart is how overrated in the 'Mozart for babies' crap. Big deal. Why aren't other composers being recognized as much as him? He might be a genius, but greatest? I REALLY doubt that. The closest greatest genius is probably Bach, or even Beethoven.
 
  • #63
Mk
1,984
3
So were a lot of other composers. I find it pretty hard to believe that on the classical music radio stations, he always comes top EVERY YEAR. It is agreed among professional musicians that Bach was the greatest musician to ever live, and yet so much atttention to Mozart.
I doubt that there is a consensus that Bach was the greatest musician to ever live.

Mozart for babies was a marketing scheme. Don't fret over it!
 
  • #64
345
1
Mk said:
I doubt that there is a consensus that Bach was the greatest musician to ever live.

Mozart for babies was a marketing scheme. Don't fret over it!
Did I say there was a consensus? I said the general opinion of PROFESSIONAL musicians is of that. A musician obviously has more knowledge of music than the Layman.

It doesn't matter whether it was a marketing scheme: If it did contribute to Mozarts heightened status, my point still stands.
 
  • #65
dduardo
Staff Emeritus
1,898
3
Mk,

Here is a good example of Sigor Ros. They are playing at a concert in Iceland (FYI:The band itself is from Iceland):

http://exodus.interoutemediaservices.com/?id=5e0bed71-1689-4322-b3af-6b4b51b134d3&delivery=stream

-----------------

God Speed You Black Emperor! actually has narrative on their album "F#A#Infinity". It can be a bit wierd just to warn you, but I like the incorporation of real world sounds (Trains, Cars, People in the streets, etc)

In contrast, "Lift Your Skinny Fists Like Antennas To Heaven" is all about melting sounds together. A lot of computer generated music here.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #66
181
1
Ivan Seeking said:
I often wonder what music will be like in a century or two. In fact I wonder if humans will have anything to do with music, beyond listening. Will we eventually write a program that is the perfect composer? Will all acoustic instruments be abandoned and replaced with electronic ones, or will we even continue to play instruments manually? And what of singing? Will we continue to sing, or will the computer do it better than any human could, some day?
Aha...very thoughtful questions!

Yes, as music composing has some underlying relations with mathematics, time'll come when computers will be very good composer even in the field of classical music!

But, like anyother electronic media or thing....just like cyber romance could never be the same as the real life love and feeling of each others; there'd be NO end of the real music...acoustic music or human voiced songs!
 
  • #67
Integral
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
7,198
55
hypnagogue said:
Depends on your tastes I guess. If you like rock there's been some good stuff released if you know where to look.
The good news is that, according to an article in a recent Rolling Stone, there is a rising interest in young (13-14) teenagers in classic rock. Sales are going up for Pink Floyd, Led Zeppelin, Jimmy Hendrix, The Doors and other of the 60's and 70's bands. Perhaps some of them will try to emulate the classics and we can once again have some decent music.
 

Related Threads for: The future of music

  • Last Post
Replies
16
Views
42K
  • Last Post
Replies
18
Views
2K
  • Poll
  • Last Post
2
Replies
31
Views
4K
  • Last Post
Replies
1
Views
844
  • Last Post
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • Last Post
Replies
13
Views
3K
  • Last Post
2
Replies
27
Views
3K
  • Last Post
3
Replies
66
Views
6K
Top