Live data from Hacker News

Everything we can't describe in music

hazlitt.net

51–60 of 117 posts

Re: Everything we can't describe in music

#51
post #4

Arnold Schoenberg observed the deep connection between music, perception, and cognition; anticipated composers applying timbral control as is now commonly done with synthesizers; and apparently did not anticipate non-subtlety of the effect in EDM: "I think the tone becomes perceptible by virtue of tone color [timbre], of which one dimension is pitch. ... Pitch is nothing else but tone color measured in one direction.…

I very much appreciate your comment, and at the same time am interested to challenge this idea of "the illusion of music". What about music is an illusion? Maybe this was just an unfortunate phrasing, and yet it might touch on the heart of the matter. Music is a language of relationships, indeed it is nothing but relationships, in time, pitch, timbre, volume, voice, number and so on, non-symbolic and changing relationships of sound carrying aesthetic and emotional feeling and meaning. It is both objective and subjective -- objective in the sense that "4 + 4 = 8" is an undeniably more beautiful statement than "4 + 4 = 6", and subjective in the sense that you and I may have different favorite numbers and also we may react differently to various medications or prefer different foods. Music is external and internal, social and individual. What it is not ever is an illusion as then it would not exist. (It may express illusion, or become more like a creator of illusions, for example when the orchestra tries to conjure up the illusion of a thunder storm.) Now, one might be tempted to counter that the kind of "meaning" music carries is itself an illusion, an epiphenomenon maybe, but then why should one care about anything at all, including AGI, since the kind of meaning that music carries is the same as the meaning of love, of hate, of good and bad, pains and pleasures, and hopes and regrets, tragedies and successes?

Maybe a reason for calling music an illusion is to try to point out that it's all in our heads. Sure, the physical instruments are over there, but they are just some atoms and molecules rattling about creating vibrations that, like everything ultimately, share the meaninglessness of the physical universe of just more material stuff (ignoring the quantum and the unknown). In which case though life seems also to look more like an illusion. Ah but the meaningless vibrations enter our ears and are processed and become music, so like color there is none but in our heads, thus illusion? But these notions also fall apart. The redness of apples isn't all in our heads; it requires a certain relationship to light frequencies that we see as redness. It's not an illusion it's just what red looks like through a living human body. If not through our senses and brain, and then mind, where should we experience it?

Music is only ever meaningless if it is unheard, as apples can only not be red when they are unseen (or are Granny Smiths).

So music is only meaningless if there is nobody -- no body -- to listen. And maybe that's where all of this leads. Your AGI needs to be embodied and alive.

Re: Everything we can't describe in music

#53
post #7

Timbre is what makes the violin sound different from the bassoon, what makes the strings in general gives them their sound, and brass theirs. Timbre is what makes a singers voice unique. Classical composers had a set of fixed timbres to play with, each instrument having their own. With synthesizers everything is possible.

"everything is possible" except for a synthesized instrument that actually has the expressive range of a real violin or saxophone. Even a synthesized piano is noticeably lifeless compared to the real thing (synthesized piano bass notes are especially thin).

It depends on what synth you're using, and how you're controlling it. Most synthesizers and controllers are profoundly lacking in expressive control, and of course a synthesizer that just plays back a recorded sample of a real piano isn't going to sound as good as being in a room with the real thing. Just because the mainstream synthesizer world has been sort of stuck in a rut for 40 years doesn't mean this is the best we can do.

There is, however, some real progress being made. For controllers, check out the Linnstrument, the Osmose, the Continuum. MPE was added to the MIDI spec a few years back, which makes it a lot more feasible to sell expressive instruments and have them "just work" with existing synths. As for synthesizers, just about anything is possible. Physical modelling is becoming more popular.

Re: Everything we can't describe in music

#54
post #41
post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd also recommend Timber Zeal - https://www.youtube.com/@SpaceBanjoMusic https://timbrzeal.bandcamp.com/music ... and the Hardspace Shipbreaker opening https://youtu.be/b4LbAr4uz9A You certainly can do minor with a banjo.

Thank you VERY much!

You might also find Hardspace: Shipbreaker - Music of Space https://youtu.be/RX_56MiOnAk interesting.

> Watch our audio director Ben McCullough describes how he created a unique audio environment and soundtrack for a Hardspace: Shipbreaker.

Re: Everything we can't describe in music

#56
I went to a interesting hackathon the other day focused on building tools for exploring timbre in sound https://comma.eecs.qmul.ac.uk/timbre-tools-hackathon/.

Was brilliant, a lot of groups focusing on the use of ML to characterise the "unexplainable" in sound synthesis.

We ended up submitting a tool for interacting directly with Ableton using LLM agents after becoming disenchanted with text2audio models, wrote about it here - https://montyanderson.net/writing/synthesis

Re: Everything we can't describe in music

#57
post #7

Timbre is what makes the violin sound different from the bassoon, what makes the strings in general gives them their sound, and brass theirs. Timbre is what makes a singers voice unique. Classical composers had a set of fixed timbres to play with, each instrument having their own. With synthesizers everything is possible.

"everything is possible" except for a synthesized instrument that actually has the expressive range of a real violin or saxophone. Even a synthesized piano is noticeably lifeless compared to the real thing (synthesized piano bass notes are especially thin).

I am both a classical guitar player and long time synth head.

"Everything is possible" is a bug and not a feature in many ways.

It certainly is possible to synthesize an expressive instrument to the level you describe but what usually happens is you move on to something else.

"What does this knob do??" Wahahahaha

That kind of thing is just so much fun compared the guitar that you have to actually learn to play.

Re: Everything we can't describe in music

#58

I went to a interesting hackathon the other day focused on building tools for exploring timbre in sound https://comma.eecs.qmul.ac.uk/timbre-tools-hackathon/ . Was brilliant, a lot of groups focusing on the use of ML to characterise the "unexplainable" in sound synthesis. We ended up submitting a tool for interacting directly with Ableton using LLM agents after becoming disenchanted with text2audio models, wrote abou…

Very cool. I will have to join "mod wiggler" lol.

I have been out of it so long muff wiggler is now mod wiggler. Come on, that is absurd. Muff Wiggler was the best name ever.

Re: Everything we can't describe in music

#59
post #7

Timbre is what makes the violin sound different from the bassoon, what makes the strings in general gives them their sound, and brass theirs. Timbre is what makes a singers voice unique. Classical composers had a set of fixed timbres to play with, each instrument having their own. With synthesizers everything is possible.

There are two levels to "everything is possible." First, recorded music is a string of numbers, and any way of generating those numbers will sound like it's intended to. But synthesizing a desired sound is still an evolving process of developing useful interfaces and waveform generators.

Generating that sound in a live performance that is partially or fully improvised is a harder problem.

The evolution of solutions to either problem depends on which instrument you're interested in, and is based partially on Means, Motive, and Opportunity. There's a reason to synthesize a piano or Hammond organ, which is that they're hard to transport and maintain. Less motive for synthesizing a violin.

Re: Everything we can't describe in music

#60
The way a sound evolves in time contains a lot of timbrical information.

Different harmonics have different ADSR curves (Attack, Decay, Sustain, Release).

Above all, one cannot overstress the importance of the attack transient. There are famous experiments in psychoacoustics that show that, when deprived of their attack transient, the sounds of two different instruments may become hard to tell apart.

Personal anecdote: as a classic guitarist, it took me three years of experimentation to find the right way to cut my fingernails in order to have a better sound. The Electronic Engineer in me says that those were three years spent to look for how to improve 0.1 seconds of noise at the start of each of my notes.

Post reply on HN