Introduction to Computer Music (2009) [pdf]

Post by Ylpertnodi » Sun, Apr 05, 2026, 1:32 PM UTC

otabdeveloper4 wrote: post #50

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…

Post by otabdeveloper4 » Sun, Apr 05, 2026, 3:04 PM UTC

Ylpertnodi wrote: post #61

otabdeveloper4 wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

> Music today is utter crap at all levels, this is a verifiable scientific fact. No it's not, and it's not a verifiable fact. Unless you have a source? Rick Beato knocks the sami-ness of 'the charts', but there's more to music than that...take a look at who he interviews.

Post by nuclearnicer » Sun, Apr 05, 2026, 3:53 PM UTC

gizajob wrote: post #32

nuclearnicer wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wonderful question. I suspect it's partially the culture issue you point to, but also a practical issue of composition. If we decompose sound into the basic waveforms, similar to the subject pdf on page 18, we then have parts that we can reassemble. We can take the defense-funded DSP math of the likes of a John Cooley or a John Tukey and build an engine for assembling the parts of sound. All this being said, I think…

This is the kind of UI people should be building. https://youtu.be/3poN6FDyB28?is=QjDzlmRQCMMbP_lS What you wrote described an output, not a UI.

Post by gglitch » Sun, Apr 05, 2026, 5:20 PM UTC

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…

Post by tolciho » Sun, Apr 05, 2026, 5:44 PM UTC

otabdeveloper4 wrote: post #56

defrost wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 mu…