Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Introduction to Computer Music (2009) [pdf]

composerprogrammer.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 89 posts

Re: Introduction to Computer Music (2009) [pdf]

#41

Post by Intermernet »

nxor3 wrote: post #26
arn3n wrote: post #3

I often see people frame music as mathematical manipulation or try to approach music making from a “first principles” approach, where those principles are mathematics and physics. But watching musicians talk about making music, I seldom see any discussion of the underlying math, and instead see discussions of timbres, instruments, and stylistic/historical influences; musicians who make good music seems to believe “fi…

I don't agree. I grew up with piano and had music friends all through my life. Classical music requires a certain level of math ability. Modern musicians scorn this and frankly it shows.

Many classical musicians have only a cursory understanding of mathematics. Many modern musicians are pushing the boundaries. There's a reason there's a genre named "math rock". Also, Jazz probably pushed the maths of music beyond classical music. As a last example, listen to some Meshuggah :-)

Re: Introduction to Computer Music (2009) [pdf]

#42

Post by IndySun »

colkassad wrote: post #15

I love the world of music production. I started with Ableton Live six years or so ago and it's been a wonderful hobby. It has such a vibrant cottage industry of plugins (sampled instruments, synthesizers, effects, etc) thanks to the VST standard.

colkassad

I work professionally with music, including using ableton. I do create but don't sell/adverise, I'm strictly 'backstage'. I love everything about creating music, less so for reading about music (reviews, critiques, dissecting) though there are occasional exceptions. Are you putting your creativity online publicly?

Re: Introduction to Computer Music (2009) [pdf]

#43

Post by codeulike »

defrost wrote: post #38
codeulike wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maths and physics are a terrible way to learn the artistic side of music, but if you are interested in "why does a fifth chord sound nice" or "why are the black and white keys on a piano in that particular pattern" you can get interesting (partial) answers by looking into the maths of frequency ratios and the physics of overtones and how they affect the cilia of the inner ear. Music differs between cultures but there…

> but there are some universals such as the Octave Universal in the sense that a number of rocks or a number of sheep can be doubled just as a frequency can? The notion that there are 8 sub divisions to a doubled frequency interval isn't universal. Balinese Gamelan doesn't even neccessarily have an agreed number of "notes" in an "Octave" from one village to the next.

Universal in the sense that a number of rocks or a number of sheep can be doubled just as a frequency can?

Yes thats what I meant, the doubling of frequency. It might seem trivial but the fact that doubling frequency sounds "right" to humans is actually quite interesting. Why does it sound "right"?

Re: Introduction to Computer Music (2009) [pdf]

#44

Post by rxatic »

tossandthrow wrote: post #24
arn3n wrote: post #3

I often see people frame music as mathematical manipulation or try to approach music making from a “first principles” approach, where those principles are mathematics and physics. But watching musicians talk about making music, I seldom see any discussion of the underlying math, and instead see discussions of timbres, instruments, and stylistic/historical influences; musicians who make good music seems to believe “fi…

Likely historically true, but not anymore. As a software developer I see that LLMs are better at the "craft" of making software. Software developers training are overwhelmingly analytical. Musicians will experience the same. That the quality of Ai generated music is superior. But it will come more as a chock for the reasons you explain.

Musicians are already experiencing this. The likes of Suno are churning out high quality songs with only a minimal amount of prompting material.

One can roughly prototype a song, giving it the structure, melody, harmony, rhythm, lyrics that a finished song might have, upload it and request a cover in a particular style. The output will often resemble a highly competent human performance.

Re: Introduction to Computer Music (2009) [pdf]

#45

Post by Kiboneu »

arn3n wrote: post #3

I often see people frame music as mathematical manipulation or try to approach music making from a “first principles” approach, where those principles are mathematics and physics. But watching musicians talk about making music, I seldom see any discussion of the underlying math, and instead see discussions of timbres, instruments, and stylistic/historical influences; musicians who make good music seems to believe “fi…

Why not both approaches? Creativity is not just making the most use of what you have but also the most of what you are.

Re: Introduction to Computer Music (2009) [pdf]

#46

Post by tshaddox »

defrost wrote: post #38
codeulike wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maths and physics are a terrible way to learn the artistic side of music, but if you are interested in "why does a fifth chord sound nice" or "why are the black and white keys on a piano in that particular pattern" you can get interesting (partial) answers by looking into the maths of frequency ratios and the physics of overtones and how they affect the cilia of the inner ear. Music differs between cultures but there…

> but there are some universals such as the Octave Universal in the sense that a number of rocks or a number of sheep can be doubled just as a frequency can? The notion that there are 8 sub divisions to a doubled frequency interval isn't universal. Balinese Gamelan doesn't even neccessarily have an agreed number of "notes" in an "Octave" from one village to the next.

The commenter presumably was talking about octave equivalence, which is reportedly present across all or nearly all historical musical cultures that we know about. It’s also supposedly present in some other mammals.

Re: Introduction to Computer Music (2009) [pdf]

#47

Post by sheiyei »

codeulike wrote: post #43
defrost wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> but there are some universals such as the Octave Universal in the sense that a number of rocks or a number of sheep can be doubled just as a frequency can? The notion that there are 8 sub divisions to a doubled frequency interval isn't universal. Balinese Gamelan doesn't even neccessarily have an agreed number of "notes" in an "Octave" from one village to the next.

Universal in the sense that a number of rocks or a number of sheep can be doubled just as a frequency can? Yes thats what I meant, the doubling of frequency. It might seem trivial but the fact that doubling frequency sounds "right" to humans is actually quite interesting. Why does it sound "right"?

Interference is most of the answer. With frequencies f and 2f you get the smoothest interference patterns, even if the tones have a lot of harmonics. This applies reducingly to increasingly fractional ratios.

Re: Introduction to Computer Music (2009) [pdf]

#48

Post by defrost »

tshaddox wrote: post #46
defrost wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> but there are some universals such as the Octave Universal in the sense that a number of rocks or a number of sheep can be doubled just as a frequency can? The notion that there are 8 sub divisions to a doubled frequency interval isn't universal. Balinese Gamelan doesn't even neccessarily have an agreed number of "notes" in an "Octave" from one village to the next.

The commenter presumably was talking about octave equivalence , which is reportedly present across all or nearly all historical musical cultures that we know about. It’s also supposedly present in some other mammals.

reportedly present, yes .. but the debate is still hot on universal.

I was asking to tease out some PoV perspective, again Gamelan doesn't neccessarily have powers of two, or 12, etc divisions of a doubling (or Octave, if we're using that term); it's a non western style of percussion that has a suprising number of local variations (it's essentially near unique to Balinese culture) in divisions and tunings.

The Octave wikipedia entry includes:

  Octave equivalence is a part of most musical cultures, but is far from universal in "primitive" and early music
but gets woolly on examples.

Cheers for the response, appreciated.

Re: Introduction to Computer Music (2009) [pdf]

#50

Post by otabdeveloper4 »

arn3n wrote: post #3

I often see people frame music as mathematical manipulation or try to approach music making from a “first principles” approach, where those principles are mathematics and physics. But watching musicians talk about making music, I seldom see any discussion of the underlying math, and instead see discussions of timbres, instruments, and stylistic/historical influences; musicians who make good music seems to believe “fi…

> I seldom see any discussion of the underlying math, and instead see discussions of timbres, instruments, and stylistic/historical influences

Music today is utter crap at all levels, this is a verifiable scientific fact.

This is probably why.

Music "theory" was invented as a critical tool (i.e., basically to enable reviewers to describe and evaluate the music of the time), not as a composition tool.

Basically, we're holding it wrong and it's doing us harm.

Post reply on HN