More software to do the work of CREATING music for you

[analoq]

Now if, Analoq, you want to steer the discussion into something mature, then do so, but using Nicholestein as cannon ball is hardly mature.

Notice the kick in the teeth comes only after you squandered every opportunity to be taken seriously (:

cheers.

[dannthr]

Cute.

You're the one refusing the opportunity for a respectable discussion. You all but asked for a mature discussion, and I offered a forum with which to begin one, and yet you continue to ignore the opportunity.

Everyone knows that calling someone a Nicholestein is fighting dirty.

[analoq]

Entertaining your "mature" discussion would involve giving you a second chance. Unfortunately your attempt comes too little, too late. Thus far no one else seems interested, perhaps your topics aren't as compelling as you think?

We can continue this for as long as you'd like, but here's how it's going to end: zircon will come in and delete our posts and tell us to stop adulterating the topic. Further discourse here will not earn you any credibility.

[Lancer]

So, would this bring anything good to remixing or would it be like everyone else basicly said? That it would cause a slew of crap music brought forth? I mean, I think there could be some good in most things.

[Moseph]

I don't understand. I don't think of myself as old-fashioned... but how can "intelligent arrangers" offer me more harmonic variation than what is available to my imagination when I look at the keys of my piano?

Because you are physically limited - you have only 2 hands and it's pretty damn hard to even learn to use them completely independently because one of 'm usually wants to mimic what the other's doing.

Also, your imagination is constrained by muscle memory and "what sounds good". You'll subconsciously avoid certain progressions.

To add to what Yoozer said, it's like collaborating with another musician:

The other person thinks differently than you, so they're going to come up with variations that you habitually avoid.

There's nothing old-fashioned about that.

Do the above comments refer specifically the MySong software, or to some more advanced "intelligent arranger" that I'm not aware of?

I'm going continue the argument that I think dannthr was trying to make, but the points I'm about to bring up assume that we're talking specifically about MySong:

1) Physical limitation doesn't affect one's ability to deal with harmony, especially when MySong only generates very basic chords that could easily be played on a piano. Constructing chords in a sequencer removes physical issues entirely.

2) MySong, from what I can see, does pretty basic harmonizations. I haven't seen or heard anything on the website that suggests it's capable of coming up with anything a halfway-decent composer wouldn't think of.

I get the technology as a tool bit, but MySong looks far too limited to be of real use to anyone but its target audience -- people who don't know how to write music. It could perhaps speed up the writing process for a composer, but there's no indication that it will improve a composer's output.

[analoq]

I was talking about intelligent arrangers in general. The only specific example I used was Band-in-a-Box, which zircon brought up early on. I can respond to point #1, though:

Physical limitation doesn't affect one's ability to deal with harmony, especially when MySong only generates very basic chords that could easily be played on a piano. Constructing chords in a sequencer removes physical issues entirely.

Hand coordination is only part of the physical limitation. The muscle memory Yoozer brought up is a big part of it. You will be biased towards certain chords and inversions by habit and by physical ease.

Software has no bias, therefore it can derive variations that would've otherwise been avoided by one's personal habits.

Now, MySong couldn't be recommended as strongly as other software because of its accessibility and simplicity. But I think you already outlined the strengths particular to it well enough a few posts ago.

cheers.

[dannthr]

people who don't know how to write music.

I think that's a good point, actually. It could be beneficial to youngsters first learning about harmonization, but at the same time, a good, well explicated book could serve the same purpose AND at least with the book there's a higher chance the beginner will learn something and apply it (whereas the software could potentially always be a crutch).

It's cute that Analoq presumes himself the moderator.

Software, like composers through practice, is programmed to bias. Algorithmically, some kind of artificial intelligence must, at some stage, evaluate the appropriateness of a harmonization. This evaluation will be dependent upon the flexibility of the program as it was designed.

This is no different than the flexibility of a composer's imagination.

Here's what bothers me, personally, about this sort of computer programming in an attempt to bring the conversation to a higher level as requested, eh?

Composition, as an art, like any art, depends upon an aesthetic vision. Ideally, this aesthetic visionary is the composer him/herself. I would personally never use an auto-harmonizer for two reasons. 1) When I compose, I have an aesthetic direction that drives the choices I make when I harmonize, and 2) because I am a synesthetic, there are harmonic colors that for me create a secondary or background coherence that underscores this aesthetic vision. For me, these are crucial elements for my very personal artistic work.

In my eyes, the utilization of an auto-harmonizer is a kind of surrender of artistic control and artistic vision. I don't think that's necessarily appropriate unless the point is that a computer has composed the entire work. In which case I'd be much more interested in one of those picture to music computer algorithms or something that emphasizes computer-based-composition as an artistic point.

I just don't usually think people at this site care about composition as a serious art.

We'll see, I suppose...

[Moseph]

I was talking about intelligent arrangers in general. The only specific example I used was Band-in-a-Box, which zircon brought up early on.

Cool. All clear on that, then.

Hand coordination is only part of the physical limitation. The muscle memory Yoozer brought up is a big part of it. You will be biased towards certain chords and inversions by habit and by physical ease.

I deny that muscle-memory and physical capability have any bearing on arrangement procedures in general, although they may be factors for certain people and/or types of arranging. Anything arranged with only a mouse and sequencer or pencil and staff paper, naturally, will be affected only by mental biases. I would argue also that any arranging in which the intellectual aspect outweighs the physical (e.g. writing for a horn quintet or choir) will likewise avoid physical influences regardless of whether or not the arranging occurs at the piano. Obviously, though, something like jazz comping or soloing is going to be very physical and reflexive.

[Ciel]

2) MySong, from what I can see, does pretty basic harmonizations. I haven't seen or heard anything on the website that suggests it's capable of coming up with anything a halfway-decent composer wouldn't think of.

I get the technology as a tool bit, but MySong looks far too limited to be of real use to anyone but its target audience -- people who don't know how to write music. It could perhaps speed up the writing process for a composer, but there's no indication that it will improve a composer's output.

Yeah, it looks to follow the most basic syntactic structures, starting with static harmony oscillating from the tonic to another degree, then following up with a few measures of straightforward dynamic harmony. The chord choices are disgustingly simple and I sincerely hope that's not the only arrangement it can come up with. I wonder what it would do if you input a melody that strongly implied various mid-phrase key modulations. Crash? Hoho...

*adjusts cravat, sips wine*

[Moseph]

Composition, as an art, like any art, depends upon an aesthetic vision. Ideally, this aesthetic visionary is the composer him/herself. I would personally never use an auto-harmonizer for two reasons. 1) When I compose, I have an aesthetic direction that drives the choices I make when I harmonize, and 2) because I am a synesthetic, there are harmonic colors that for me create a secondary or background coherence that underscores this aesthetic vision. For me, these are crucial elements for my very personal artistic work.

An artist's vision for a work, though, can be very explicit, or it can be extremely loose, permitting such things as aleatoric music, instrumental parts that can be played on any instrument, improvisation, interactivity with the audience, and perhaps computer-assisted composition.

That said, I don't think anyone is advocating feeding a melody into an auto-harmonizer, pressing go, and choking down whatever it spits out. Even the bits that were worth keeping would likely require tweaking and/or personalization. Maybe think of it as a potential inspiration to be used, abused, or discarded as the whim strikes you rather than as a mecha-composer-bot.

EDIT:

Yeah, it looks to follow the most basic syntactic structures, starting with static harmony oscillating from the tonic to another degree, then following up with a few measures of straightforward dynamic harmony. The chord choices are disgustingly simple and I sincerely hope that's not the only arrangement it can come up with. I wonder what it would do if you input a melody that strongly implied various mid-phrase key modulations. Crash? Hoho...

*adjusts cravat, sips wine*

I made you an image macro

[dannthr]

I definitely see that point.

I just don't see how it's necessary. As an exercise I'd much rather challenge myself to step outside of my box than expect a computer to enlighten me as to the way.

Typically, when I approach composition, I have a harmonic aesthetic. It's not always the same aesthetic from one composition to the next, but I think it's important to build that vision as I compose.

I respect that some composers are loose about their composition aesthetics, but I'd much rather listen to a composer slam their hands to the keyboard and make a POINT about looseness over computer-aided harmonization for looseness' sake (or the phrase I'm skipping around: For Laziness' sake).

[analoq]

I deny that muscle-memory and physical capability have any bearing on arrangement procedures in general

I can't argue with this because you haven't explained why you deny it. I reasoned how musical ideas are biased because of habituation... are you saying habituation does not occur?

Anything arranged with only a mouse and sequencer or pencil and staff paper, naturally, will be affected only by mental biases.

The physical aspects were brought up because piano was brought up. I work out all my musical ideas on piano before I ever touch a sequencer, though I know for some it is the opposite -- in which case you're right: naturally you'd only be left with the mental bias/habits.

I would argue also that any arranging in which the intellectual aspect outweighs the physical (e.g. writing for a horn quintet or choir) will likewise avoid physical influences regardless of whether or not the arranging occurs at the piano.

Unfortunately I've failed to grasp this point. I'm not sure how the creative process of exploring harmony and musical ideas is notably different between ensembles. I may not be taking 'arranging' literally enough in this context.

don't think anyone is advocating feeding a melody into an auto-harmonizer, pressing go, and choking down whatever it spits out. Even the bits that were worth keeping would likely require tweaking and/or personalization. Maybe think of it as a potential inspiration to be used, abused, or discarded as the whim strikes you rather than as a mecha-composer-bot.

Agreed, this is what I've been getting at. Since we've already established that these are tools at one's disposal, there's a very simple concept we can apply: Using the right tool for the job. There are situations in which Intelligent Arrangers can be beneficial and situations in which they have no practical use. Education and experience will allow one to discriminate between those situations.

cheers.

[Moseph]

The physical aspects were brought up because piano was brought up. I work out all my musical ideas on piano before I ever touch a sequencer, though I know for some it is the opposite -- in which case you're right: naturally you'd only be left with the mental bias/habits.

That's basically what I was getting at. I misinterpreted the whole physical habit thing as a blanket statement rather than a piano-specific statement.

I would argue also that any arranging in which the intellectual aspect outweighs the physical (e.g. writing for a horn quintet or choir) will likewise avoid physical influences regardless of whether or not the arranging occurs at the piano.

Unfortunately I've failed to grasp this point. I'm not sure how the creative process of exploring harmony and musical ideas is notably different between ensembles. I may not be taking 'arranging' literally enough in this context.

Yeah, I didn't explain that really well. The point was that some people, myself included, compose even at the piano on a sort of step-by-step basis rather than a play-something-then-write-it-down basis. I frequently am not able to easily play on the piano the things I've composed -- even when I composed them at the piano -- because my focus is more on writing stuff down and working it out on paper than on playing it.

EDIT: If it clarifies my workflow any, when I'm composing at the piano, I frequently keep the pencil in my hand even as I play notes with that hand -- it lets me get back to the staff paper more quickly.

[Nicholestien]

I think that's a good point, actually. It could be beneficial to youngsters first learning about harmonization.

We'll see, I suppose...

what about the kid who attempted harmonization by himself, before even knowing what harmony was, what about that kid hmm?

look, you don't learn this from other people. you don't learn it by machines, (lesser lifeforms). there are no rules to harmony, there are no rules to music. you do what you do, if it fits it fits. to hell whether or not the "oc remix judges" say it's bad, when you need to make money off of music, then you start playing by the rules.

it's like asking some super religious dude to fall in love with 50 cents music, he thinks not liking it "is justified", one way or the other, pfft. It DOSN"T MATTER how serious the original artist was about his music, because in the end, on the most fundemental level, there is no TRUE DIFFERENCE between music made by a toddler smashing keys on the keyboard, and music written by mozart, you can like any artist, any peice of music, if you find that you can't, then your listening is bad, not the music.

edit 1: I do however approve of knowing music, "these pseudo rules", etc, and just generally having alot of knowledge about music, not so you can be a smart ass and act like your dominant over other people though, but rather, for your own benefit, afterall, it's best to know the rules before you break them, and it's always good to be able to analize your music. SO LONG, as you understand what music theory MEANS, knowing why this chord progression sounds the way it does, what you did on the piano that sounds really cool, what it translate to music theory, how you found the idea, WHY you like the way it SOUNDS. if you can just know why you like the certain sound, you can STOP yourself from making music that sounds the same.

oh yeah, and it's also good to have learned alot about music so you can have more ideas at your arsenal, those ideas, that you steal subconciously without realizing it.

but your music is your music i guess. even though the moment you find something you like trough experimentation, chances are 99% of the time that you are stealing from what you heard, one way or the other, it's gonna happen. but it's never 100%...

I was talking about intelligent arrangers in general. The only specific example I used was Band-in-a-Box, which zircon brought up early on. I can respond to point #1, though:

Hand coordination is only part of the physical limitation. The muscle memory Yoozer brought up is a big part of it. You will be biased towards certain chords and inversions by habit and by physical ease.

Software has no bias, therefore it can derive variations that would've otherwise been avoided by one's personal habits.

Now, MySong couldn't be recommended as strongly as other software because of its accessibility and simplicity. But I think you already outlined the strengths particular to it well enough a few posts ago.

cheers.

lmao, it's real funny bro, you know your hands are biased towards certains chords and inversions, but you just can't seem to figure out how and why and change it so you can get new ideas? O_o try playing dyads at a high speed or something, worry about playing with proper timing after you have found something, change tempo every measure, break some rules, kill some people, take some acid, play music while your having sex, shit son, just break the habit. put down the electronic synthesizer, put that snake jungle in the deepest pit of your closet, have a cup of tea or something, and have a good chat with yourself or something, think of it as a drug that you have to quit. that electronic drug, that one you can't seem to put down because creating those phat moog beats are just to sexy to be true.

mayby you should drop finding ideas on the piano all together for awhile, it just might work.

or, mayby, just mayby, you can use your esp to electronicly synthesize musical ideas from your mind. Anything is possible, except for doing the impossible right now in this point in time of the universe and what not, meh, you get the point bruv, synth bro.

Edit 3: I think one of the big problems amatures have finding new ideas, (not talking about you analoq, don't zap me with one of your synths), is that they think that the bias lies withen there playing, because some people find that they're favorite playing style dosn't match what they actually like to listen to, they are not the same sometimes I'm sure, and most, forgot why they like the sound they like.

Like a friend of mines names josh right, all he listens to is eazy E cuz he grew up with that artist, I showed him some beethovin piano, he hated it, and after a long chat, he realized that it wasn't that he hated it, it just wasn't his sound, I don't remember how I did it exactly, but after about 4 hours of talking to him while listening to beethovin's moonlight sonata 3rd movement, I got him to like it alot, I remember saying something about finding some sort of difference in line or something, not associating the music with your ego, o_O, WE WAS DRUNKKK! o_O

Edit 4: how about you give me one of your synthesizers analoq, your favorite one, trust me, you'll think of new ideas as you can't resort to the usual methods. ;D

it will all work. everyone, give me all of your equipment, i promise you'll make better music! ;D

You a beginner or something, both at music and logic? It is inherently more complex to play two different parts than to play two similar parts *assuming the pieces are of equivalent technical difficulty, all other things being equal*. Sure, the notes themselves may be different, but if you're using the same rhythms in both hands, there's no way that's harder than playing, say, quarter-note chords in your left hand and a melody with dotted eights in the right (ex. Pachelbel's Canon in D).

music and logic?

what are you? some sort of wise guy?

I said I find it harder to play with both hands doing the same thing monami,

so yeah,

what about it bruh?

*cracks knuckles.*

lmao, i'm just kidding btw. .... don't get offended...

i'm willing to change my opinon on this subject, as well as any subject, and my mind changes quite easily, i learnt quite a bit from that geoffrey taucher chapling', but, you just an't convincing in anyway.

your logic is based on the notion that playing the same thing on both hands is easier than doing different things on each hand, this just isn't a fact, from what I read, it's actually the opposite, by nature, humans subconciously switch from using there hands in unison, to using there hands to do different things.

now i'm not about to say that what I learnt is right or wrong, same goes for what you learned, the fact is though, that 2 opinons exists. now untill you can convince me that yours is the more rational opinon (that is if you even know what reasoning is, mr.music man.) then I can't accept what you say any more than I accept what I've learnt.

[Moseph]

It DOSN"T MATTER how serious the original artist was about his music, because in the end, on the most fundemental level, there is no TRUE DIFFERENCE between music made by a toddler smashing keys on the keyboard, and music written by mozart, you can like any artist, any peice of music, if you find that you can't, then your listening is bad, not the music.

The difference between banging on a piano and music by Mozart is one of organization -- this is in fact fundamental because organization is what differentiates music from mere sound. There is almost no system or organizing force when you bang on a piano (except maybe your strength and hand size), but Mozart's music is highly organized -- it follows the system of tonality, it is set up in such a way as to introduce and continually reference certain material, it reflects the musical trends of the 18th century, etc.

Mozart, then, is objectively more organized than banging on a piano -- but that doesn't necessarily prove that Mozart is better.

[Kanthos]

Maybe using your hands in different motions is easier to a point, but it's not that hard to find pieces that are easily harder than playing similar parts with both hands. Chopin's Fantasy-Impromptu (6/8 in the left hand, 4/4 in the right hand) is a great example.

[Nicholestien]

The difference between banging on a piano and music by Mozart is one of organization

Illusions mr. anderson.

[Moseph]

Illusions mr. anderson.

i merely said that cuz i ran out of arguements...

'nuff said

[Blake]

This technology is really old. There is so much software that automates harmonizing for you. Look at "Band in a Box" for example.

Was band in a box actually capable of cleanly changing the chord structure of pre-recorded samples? Howcome nobody has told me this.

[zircon]

No, but that's not what this topic is about... "creating an automatic backup band" or harmonizing a melody.

[BardicKnowledge]

Has anyone else seen the Melodyne DNA preview? Someone showed it in class today, and it simultaneously wowed me and made me very scared for the future of popular music (because not enough things are faked in the studio already).

What does everyone think? I'll say that the instant shifting from major to minor (or other keys / scales) is pretty slick.

Note: my thread about this in Gen Disc was closed because it was "already being discussed" in this thread. I didn't see anything about this particular piece of software after reading the whole thing, so I'm posting it again here in the hopes of being less intrusive.

[zircon]

Ah sorry bro, someone linked you to the wrong thread.

http://www.ocremix.org/forums/showthread.php?t=15180

[Majin GeoDooD]

Ah sorry bro, someone linked you to the wrong thread.

http://www.ocremix.org/forums/showthread.php?t=15180

That was my fault <.<

[Yoozer]

Someone showed it in class today, and it simultaneously wowed me and made me very scared for the future of popular music (because not enough things are faked in the studio already).

I've asked the designer you see in my video here:

about the "scary" part.

Me:

I'd like to ask you a few questions. First of all, a lot of people were absolutely blown away - as you have noticed, of course. Some however have called it scary - of course, that's maybe because it's impressive - but they said something about no longer requiring talent or creativity. Like you'd do a single take with a session musician, and then send him home because you'd fix his errors afterwards anyway.

Him:

Well, I don't think that fear is warranted. See, the thing is; if you look at the history of music, you see that it started with an original composition which then resulted in a performance, and people got the idea that music should be those two things. With the option to record music, it has been turned into a third form - a product - and we've gotten used to that idea, too.

If there's anything that DNA allows you to do, it's to get away from the "product" and to get back to what music is - the composition. Besides, how would changing a note be scary - it's not like anyone has the same complaint when you change a note in the composition itself!

So, no, it's not scary. Like anything in music, it's a tool - and it's the result that counts.

[Argle]

Don't see how it's scary or will encourage a lack of skill. You could say that about every single electrical or electronic piece of music gear or software.