Comments on: "This ain't no disco/This ain't no foolin' around"

"This ain't no disco/This ain't no foolin' around"

Rothko — Sun, 04 Dec 2005 22:40:07 -0800

Mathematical proofs in sanus, with some visualization from Martin Wattenberg's The Shape of Song. "The music here...is a raw and unadorned representation of the mathematics itself, involving few human preconceptions beyond a basic mapping needed to accommodate the Western tonal scale."

By: malusmoriendumest

malusmoriendumest — Mon, 05 Dec 2005 00:16:51 -0800

Many programmes and documentaries have been made about this subject. Because it's so strange. Or not. I was going somewhere with this. Oh yes. Astronomy shows that galaxies' rotation wobbles a tiny fraction every few billion years. I think, if you took each wobble and translated it into a sound wave or note, then you could use the universe as a musical instrument- but you'd have to use a lot of galaxies. And I don't know if most garage rock bands could afford a few million-dollar radio telescopes. Meh.

By: Jon Mitchell

Jon Mitchell — Mon, 05 Dec 2005 00:17:38 -0800

Some really interesting links there, ta! Didn't get off too much on the proofs-as-music, but the proofs themselves were really interesting stuff, and the Shape Of Song visualisations were just fascinating. Thanks to whichever wag put John Cage's "4:33" into The Shape Of Song database: i laughed, anyway...

By: ZenMasterThis

ZenMasterThis — Mon, 05 Dec 2005 08:27:29 -0800

The Space People think factories are musical instruments. They sing along with them. Each song lasts from 8 am to 5 pm No music on weekends." --Talking Heads

By: ludwig_van

ludwig_van — Mon, 05 Dec 2005 09:29:38 -0800

I like the proof music. Some of them really work. It'd be really interesting to hear them orchestrated or used as the basis for a larger piece.

By: zanni

zanni — Mon, 05 Dec 2005 09:53:51 -0800

The Shape of Song is an interesting idea, but I'm not sure that "repeated passages" is the best element to indicate structure (unfortunately I don't know enough music theory to suggest an alternative). And the first link reminds me of this (music generated from cellular automata, from the man who thinks the entire universe is generated from cellular automata).

By: stewiethegreat

stewiethegreat — Mon, 05 Dec 2005 10:18:57 -0800

ludwig_van I really don't think the orchestra performers would agree with you on that - so much in the way of repetitive diminished 7th chords... It's like Bartok, sans the whimsy.

By: ludwig_van

ludwig_van — Mon, 05 Dec 2005 10:25:02 -0800

The Shape of Song is an interesting idea, but I'm not sure that "repeated passages" is the best element to indicate structure It does seem a bit odd, intuitively, but it makes sense if you think about. Music, being linear, very often relies on repetition to create structure. We don't call something a theme unless it recurs. Musical structure is often discussed in terms like "verse verse chorus," "A B A," etc., all of which indicate repeat structure. So it makes sense. However, classical music in particular often involves inexact repetition of thematic ideas (transposition, augmentation, diminution, etc.), and these images can't reflect that. So it's useful from a very broad standpoint, but not really at a detailed or sophisticated level (though perhaps if integrated with the actual score it would be more illuminating).

By: ludwig_van

ludwig_van — Mon, 05 Dec 2005 10:26:33 -0800

I really don't think the orchestra performers would agree with you on that About what? That these pieces could be interesting if orchestrated? I only listened to a couple of them, but I'm not sure I see your point. Beethoven liked to use long passages of dim7 chords, but I didn't hear any of that in the MIDI files.

By: speicus

speicus — Mon, 05 Dec 2005 13:51:03 -0800

Sorry, I did not like the proof music. Too many thumb twiddling aimless arpeggios. If computers could masturbate, this is what it would sound like.

By: ludwig_van

ludwig_van — Mon, 05 Dec 2005 15:27:02 -0800

Yeah, it wasn't Mozart, but it was generated from mathematical proofs, what can you do.

By: Lush

Lush — Mon, 05 Dec 2005 19:19:29 -0800

monkeys = mathematical proofs typewriters = MIDI generators Shakespeare = Beethoven

By: ludwig_van

ludwig_van — Mon, 05 Dec 2005 20:01:49 -0800

monkeys = mathematical proofs typewriters = MIDI generators Shakespeare = Beethoven Haha, well played. But I think Bach might be a more realistic goal. And it wouldn't be that hard at all to make them sound like Hindemith or Babbitt.

By: stewiethegreat

stewiethegreat — Mon, 05 Dec 2005 22:10:13 -0800

ludwig_van The sole pitch content of those midis are apeggiated dim chords, and most of them use only one dim chord all the way through. Pleasant for the players? No...