Music Prototyping

[Udo]

Having "an ear for music" is more important than extensive theory knowledge! Without "an ear", theory knowledge wont get you very far. I'm sure you'll have heard examples. BTW, genes play a significant part in having "an ear" (research indicates nearly 50%).

Theory is important, but plenty of good music has been composed by people with little theory knowledge. These days there's also sophisticated music prototyping software that provides enormous productivity gains, regardless of your level of theory knowledge.

The quality of what you come up with using that software is determined by your creativity and "ear for music". You're the one who determines the flow and who makes all the selections and decisions!

http://www.cognitone.com/products/mps/intro/page.stml
Some videos http://users.cognitone.com/tutorials/introduction
For prototyping orchestral music http://users.cognitone.com/tutorial/cou ... ic-synfire

There's a learning curve to use the software to its full potential!

[Lawrence]

I perused some of this. Isn't it basically just algorithmic composition and arranging?

I don't judge the validity of these tools for others, but personally I've never been interested in going that route.

[Udo]

I perused some of this. Isn't it basically just algorithmic composition and arranging?

I don't judge the validity of these tools for others, but personally I've never been interested in going that route.

It doesn't generate arrangements and compositions for you. Have you read the intro page at least?
http://www.cognitone.com/products/mps/intro/page.stml

[Lawrence]

Actually, I think the part I listened to said it does do that, but I'll revisit it to make sure

[Lawrence]

Under "composing with Synfire" it says it will generate new harmonizations and completely new figures. That isn't algorithmic composition and arrangement to you, Udo? What am I missing here?

[Udo]

Under "composing with Synfire" it says it will generate new harmonizations and completely new figures. That isn't algorithmic composition and arrangement to you, Udo? What am I missing here?

It only does that after you specify a figure and/or harmony. It means you don't have to write or play that yourself, i.e. it's a significant time saver when you're looking at alternatives when composing.

[Lawrence]

It generates thousands of figures. I dunno-maybe we're into semantics.

[Udo]

Synfire is based on a continually expanding librariy with figures. They'e derived from anything you've previously created or any midi file you let it analyse.

When you compose with Synfire, you select figures from the library (or Synfire can propose them, after analysing what you've composed so far), but you decide what will be used in the composition and where and you specify any re-harmonization you want to experiment with.

Form (figures) and content (harmony) are kept separate in Synfire. The same form with different content yields new notes again and again. You can collect forms and combine them with each other and fill them with new content again and again, without having to rewrite a single note.

[Lawrence]

I see it as a somewhat subtle distinction, but I understand what you're saying.

[Raymond_Kemp]

An interesting diversion for mathematicians, not musicians.

[Udo]

I see it as a somewhat subtle distinction, but I understand what you're saying.

There's a vast difference with what you said. There are no algorithms involved whatsoever in that process. The forms/figures in the library are just musical fragments/motifs which have been extracted as described above.

[Udo]

An interesting diversion for mathematicians, not musicians.

Raymond, don't let this discucsssion scare you off. Synfire is vey much a program for musicians. There's no algorithmic composing involved - no maths required

Synfire is a very clever program and a big time saver, but it requires a real musician with a good ear for music to use it properly.

[Raymond_Kemp]

On the contrary, it's for people with very little musical ability and this is my final comment on this subject.

[Lawrence]

Ray, don't let me scare you off. Udo is always correct. You have but to ask him, and he will concur.

[Daryl]

Looks to me like it's taking away all the fun. To me, at the moment, all those video is show that someone who has no compositional ability can somehow power though by using the computer as a kind of craft enhancer. However I don't really understand how it would work, because anyone with any craft at all can already power though and come up with something that most people wouldn't know was a piece of tut. Can the software help you write something more original, or a least surprising? If it's based on what you have already written, it would seem not.

I'm not saying that it couldn't be useful for some people, but as it stands, not composers, or at least I am yet to be convinced.

[Lawrence]

Pretty much how I feel Daryl, but forgive me if I thought I was a bit more succinct

[Ashermusic]

Looks to me like it's taking away all the fun.

Bingo!

[Udo]

Synfire is a supplement to the conventional composing process, The bulk remains the same as what you're used to. It's only when you get stuck or are not happy with a section and when tight deadlines are looming, that Synfire can be a significant time saver.

Among other things, it intelligently proposes alternatives by analysing what has been composed so far.

It's no substitute for talent. The extent to which it's used is a reflection on the composers creativity and ability, but it would be silly to let pride stop you from admitting that it could be very useful when tight deadlines are looming.

[Lawrence]

:::color me silly:::

Udo, I accept your premise. Can you accept that others might possibly see things differently than you do? I for one do not want or need variations generated. If I want variations, I'm perfectly capable of generating them myself in a timely fashion. I also think that sifting through computer generated variations would actually take more time than writing the one I want.

[Daryl]

"...but it would be silly to let pride stop you from admitting that it could be very useful when tight deadlines are looming.

I don't think it's about pride. Meeting a deadline is never about getting stuck. it's about getting stuck regarding coming up with something good, and I don't think that this software is designed to help you come up with something good.

Any media composer who can't come up with something passable with a seconds notice is someone who can't earn a living as a media composer, so surely that means that this product is of more use to people who can't hack it as a composer in the media world? In which case it is aimed at people with no craft.

Fine, except that to be successful (if I'm understanding the software) it needs you to have completed a body of work previously in order to copy what you already wrote and make suggestions, but if you aren't any good, there won't be any useful suggestions, so we get back to the question of what is the purpose of this software. All it's doing is trying to replace craft, but if it can only be of use to people who already have craft, it's unnecessary.

[Udo]

After letting the thread evolve the way it did (predictably), I'd now like to add something I thought was obvious:

Extensive knowledge of music theory definitely does not guaranty good/interesting/imaginative, etc, etc. music. There are too many examples of boring, unimaginative music, in particular film scores. No interesting harmonies, everything tightly constrained to diatonic or modal frameworks, etc, etc.

Frankly, plenty of "composers" need all the help they can get and yes, Synfire could help them come up with more interesting compositions (but it does not generate compostions).

[Ashermusic]

I simply do not believe in the concept of "auto inspiration."

[Raymond_Kemp]

After letting the thread evolve the way it did (predictably),

Surely by now you must have got the message loud and clear.
-
Seriously though, I'm going to say much more than I usually do in one post.
Any performing musician (that is someone who can work with others in a combo where there is no musical director or conductor forcing them to play the same notes in the same places night after night) isn't worth their salt if they don't or won't play variations on the underlying parts they are tasked with. It should and must be second nature to them. Over the last hell! nearly 50 years I have found myself working with the odd musician who couldn't ad lib to save their life even though they would wipe the floor with me in a test on form and theory in music.
For them, no dots, no go. I'm not envious of that less than enlightened position.

[Udo]

After letting the thread evolve the way it did (predictably),

Surely by now you must have got the message loud and clear.
-
Seriously though, I'm going to say much more than I usually do in one post.
Any performing musician (that is someone who can work with others in a combo where there is no musical director or conductor forcing them to play the same notes in the same places night after night) isn't worth their salt if they don't or won't play variations on the underlying parts they are tasked with. It should and must be second nature to them. Over the last hell! nearly 50 years I have found myself working with the odd musician who couldn't ad lib to save their life even though they would wipe the floor with me in a test on form and theory in music.
For them, no dots, no go. I'm not envious of that less than enlightened position.

My background is very similar to yours, but don't you agree that there are too many examples of boring, unimaginative, in particular film music, "compositions' by "professionals" with, apparently, extensive knowledge of music theory?

[Raymond_Kemp]

Ah well, that is an altogether different conversation which I don't believe can be addressed with software.
It makes me laugh when on that other forum someone has published a mockup................ of a parody....................... of JW.