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

51–60 of 89 posts

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

#51

Post by _kb »

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…

> Is thinking about music as applied mathematics a good way to create good music? Or is it just the most easily digestible model of music for the crowd on this site?

It's a great way to analyse music (e.g. to categorise, understand, and communicate detail), but that does not mean it's a good way to create it. There's a lot of beauty in finding those abstractions and I think that representation appeals to a lot of people here.

Discussions about timbre, instrumentation, and stylistic influence are often symmetric to those about math. When you have 90 minutes to spare, highly recommend strapping in for a listen to https://malwebb.com/notnoi.html.

There's a lot of really incredible musicians, composers, producers, and educators that go deep on the math. There's also plenty that don't. People build mental models in different ways. That's a good thing and a big part of what makes most art interesting.

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

#52

Post by otabdeveloper4 »

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.

1.5**12 is about 129.74, which is as close as you can reasonably get to a power of two.

So yes, the 12-tone scale is a universal thing - you want both octaves and fifths in your scale.

(12 is actually too much, so usually that's pared down to something like 4 or 5 or 7 tones, this is where you get cultural variation.)

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

#54

Post by defrost »

otabdeveloper4 wrote: post #52
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.

1.5**12 is about 129.74, which is as close as you can reasonably get to a power of two. So yes, the 12-tone scale is a universal thing - you want both octaves and fifths in your scale. (12 is actually too much, so usually that's pared down to something like 4 or 5 or 7 tones, this is where you get cultural variation.)

> 1.5*12 is about 129.74,

Math checks out.

> So yes, the 12-tone scale is a universal thing -

I don't follow the logic here though. It's certainly true that a 12-tone / Chromatic scale is ubiquitous within the Western Music tradition .. but the universe is reportedly a little larger.

Even Western Music includes exceptions like the 9-note augmented scale, though the argument can be made that it's a 12-scale with 3 bits "missing" - not a case that can be made about a non-western 7 note percussive scale.

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

#55

Post by LukeB42 »

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…

Both of these things. The timbres can be explained through evolutionary biology. The same brain centers used for processing movement in 3d space also start firing up to start predicting where any given piece of music will go.

An interesting note has a fundamental and harmonics and allows analogies to be drawn in RF engineering and quantum mechanics: https://www.google.com/search?q=any+good+parallels+between+i...

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

#56

Post by otabdeveloper4 »

defrost wrote: post #54
otabdeveloper4 wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

1.5**12 is about 129.74, which is as close as you can reasonably get to a power of two. So yes, the 12-tone scale is a universal thing - you want both octaves and fifths in your scale. (12 is actually too much, so usually that's pared down to something like 4 or 5 or 7 tones, this is where you get cultural variation.)

> 1.5*12 is about 129.74, Math checks out. > So yes, the 12-tone scale is a universal thing - I don't follow the logic here though. It's certainly true that a 12-tone / Chromatic scale is ubiquitous within the Western Music tradition .. but the universe is reportedly a little larger. Even Western Music includes exceptions like the 9-note augmented scale, though the argument can be made that it's a 12-scale with 3 bit…

All scales in all cultures are based on octaves and fifths. (E.g., the ancient Chinese musical scale also has 12 tones.)

Also the so-called "Western music" standardized on 12 tones very late in the process, long after the Chinese figured it out.

> a 12-scale with 3 bits "missing"

That's all scales, even the "non-Western" ones. Microtonality is added to the standard 12 tone to add tone effects. (Synthesizers in pop music do the same trick.)

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

#59

Post by uoaei »

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…

Microtonal music throws all of that out the window.

Logic only works in the context of definite ontologies. But audio frequencies are continuous, not discrete. It really is all vibes at the end of the day.

Plug for Angine de Poitrine for a contemporary example of music that breaks the rules that define traditional music.

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

#60

Post by eliasdorneles »

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…

> My question is: Is thinking about music as applied mathematics a good way to create good music? Or is it just the most easily digestible model of music for the crowd on this site?

You are probably aware that there are these things called synthesizers, which exist both hardware and software, complex pieces of technology that can shape sound. There are people who are specialized in creating them (with code and/or electronics), people who are specialized in programming them (creating presets) and people who excel in using them to make music. And many more different profiles who are in between. Each will care about different aspects, they all contribute to making music.

Life is not black and white, and music neither. What is even "good music"? What is your mental model for "the crowd on this site"? In your questions, aren't you reducing the possibilities of learning by putting these into boxes?

The world is big, life is rich and people are much more diverse than what one typically perceives.

Post reply on HN