[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: About Silence
Eliot Handelman wrote:
Why's that? I understand that you don't give the source code upon you
publish it, but why don't you make the binaries freely available?
Pablo Hernan Rodriguez Zivic wrote:
Where can I download your program?
Unfortunately I have to develop in a propietary way.
I red in the link that you put in your mail that what you made is
based on German folktune. Is it appliable to tonal music in general?
Rather, INSPIRED by my studies on folksong. I also worked on major
classical pieces such as symphonies & concerti. The main
idea is that what makes tonal music is not specifically tonality but
Ohh, I get it.
I'd not make such a strong claim. I think that there is much that can be
done, and there's much that can not be done, of course =D.
The other thing I'm concern of, is whether or not you have parameters
that somhow reflect what the program is going to do in terms of what
the listener may perceive.
No, because that's impossible to predict in any non-trivial way.
I mean, its ok to develop an alternative theory of music, however,
the listeners of the music remain the same, so you must reflect in
your theory some estetic concerns of what we humans like to listen
(and it's somehow resumed in standard music theory).
I'm afraid standard music theory is not at all about that. That is why
you need an altyernative theory if you want to
thnik about how to make whole compositions.
I can't say whether I agree or not, because I don't know your model.
It's interesting what you say, if you have something to reed, it will
be a pleasure for me to reed it.
Some papers are underway -- if you care to check back (I don;t know
ok, I will!
I'm developing a theory too, based on statistical models and
intuition =D, hope I have something to show in short!
Well, I worked for a LONG time before I got to where I am -- this is
not a trivial area.
It is not in fact, that's why is so entertaining! =D
best wishes for you too!
Eliot Handelman wrote:
Since the very beginning of my research I had trouble modeling
silence. The silence is not just another pitch which has the
ability of not to sound. I think that silence has to be treated
apart from pitches, but I don't know how.
A question is "in what way is silence an event in the way pitch is an
Consider that musical events are always durational events (which poses
a philosophical problem as to whether the feeling someone gets from
music is necessarily durational). Qualitatively, musical silence is
(or can be) a kind of echoic extending of the last thing heard -- as
in a big crash before a long silence, with the crash still in echoic
memory. So silence is best seen not as "nothing" but rather as a
durational extension of a preceding sounding event. Rather than
theorizing silence, then, you need to theorize duration.
In computational composing, as I practice it -- see below -- duration
is the minimal & principle thing theorized. A collection of pitches
can be surmised as having a single duration when we can surmise the
likelihood of perceptual grouping. For example a fast scale ending on
an accented long note will tend to be grouped as a single event -- it
is a "shape." With these you make bigger shapes, until you can work
out that you have made a whole piece. In my work, "shapes" recursively
form part of macro-structural systems called "supershapes."
Nothing in music is ever an end in itself -- with duration (of shape,
of pattern of shapes, etc.) you can construct new rhythms and
patterns. You can construct patterns of "silence" just as you can
construct "the pattern of recurrence of the main theme or any of its
transformations." It may be a component of a rhythm or pattern of
rhythms, etc. Since the perception depends on whatever shapes come
forward to the listener -- which bigger components we are in -- it is
wrong to surmise that "silence" or "longness" are necessarily phrase
demarcaters. How they function would tend to be determined by the