Melody Generating Software

  On 3/14/2015 at 8:12 PM, luke viia said:

soz that was rude. yikes i just don't think you understand the purpose of these types of programs and how they're generally implemented. think of trying to mimic a real "generative" sound, like wind chimes - only with a different timbre. "generative software" lets you set up parameters and play an endlessly-changing musical part (that would otherwise come off contrived if meticulously composed and played by a human); it is not meant to lay down a sweet funk riff over an 808 beat and create hit songs, dunno where you're getting the idea that it's meant to replace the songwriter. the two techniques are not at all mutually exclusive

then why are people defending this as such?

i concur for sound design it's worthy and useful for new patches and soundscapes

but my point is that a melody generated by a brain /theory and technique will generally tend to be better than hitting the randomize pattern button in the DAW of your choice.

obviously i am an idiot/asshole/uncool/not hip have a stick up my ass etc for my opinion

yay!

  On 3/14/2015 at 8:05 PM, hello spiral said:

dude...

 

just. stop.

ok

just cuz a guy on the internet told me to!

i can post literally hundreds of just FRIPP videos showing his deliberate musicality

he sectioned off a portion of what he does into a specific genre which he and eno named "frippertronics"

it's fitting that someone would bring up that exact 3-4 album portion of fripp's career to "argue" their point

  On 3/14/2015 at 10:16 PM, yikes said:

i can post literally hundreds of just FRIPP videos showing his deliberate musicality

How many videos have you found that show his compositional methods?

I didn't 'compose' a single note of this by hand (not even the drum programming) but I did structure the rules of it all. So I guess the thing is that generative composing doesn't necessarily have to mean lazy, you still would have to put in work to make the generative sequences have some sort of cohesive structure:

If you have fun doing something, who gives a shit what anyone else thinks. Personally, creating melodies is my favorite part of the song-making process. I could never use one of these programs because it strips me of that. It is also the same thing with using samples. I rarely like to use samples for any piece of my music, I view it as taking someone else's work and pawning it off as my own. BUT, i do not look down upon others for sampling, i mean my favorite artists of all time are sample freaks, Daedelus, Vibert, etc.

A lot of the most innovative musicians never had classical training. To act as if one is better because he / she understands music theory and such is just hogwash. I played bass for 4 years in jazz bands, rock bands, sure learning an instrument helped me break down music a bit better, but it does not influence my music output as a better or worse electronic musician. The only thing that does that is how much time and effort I put into it.

The elitism found in this thread is sickening, to say the least.

I kinda blame Autechre a little bit for this confusion, first they proclaimed their love for generative and rule based auto sequences and then after a lot of their fans (and even haters) wrongly assumed they just have computers 'write music for them' they seemed to back peddle pretty significantly and make sure to correct any interviewer who asks a question about their random techniques.

the thing is we know that songs like Licfilli were produced with an automatic process, it was not a manually sequenced song, it was a self running max/msp patch. As were other songs on Confield and Draft, I can't say for sure which ones but clearly similar techniques were implemented. When Oversteps came out they acknowledged once again their employing of 'random' (bad choice of words) sequencing techniques by vaguely alluding to using markov chains to create the melodies. Again, who would have a problem with this? Not sure, judging by the gushing reactions to Oversteps by most of the forum, it almost seemed like it was the most emotionally resonant AE album since Amber.An album they returned back to generative/markov/random/whateverautomatic techniques produced some of the most emotional music they made in years.. strange right?

there are so many different styles and types of modifying/generating melodic content that to write off the entire genre of the technique is just incredibly ignorant as i've already said

  On 3/16/2015 at 3:26 AM, John Ehrlichman said:

When Oversteps came out they acknowledged once again their employing of 'random' (bad choice of words) sequencing techniques by vaguely alluding to using markov chains to create the melodies. Again, who would have a problem with this? Not sure, judging by the gushing reactions to Oversteps by most of the forum, it almost seemed like it was the most emotionally resonant AE album since Amber.An album they returned back to generative/markov/random/whateverautomatic techniques produced some of the most emotional music they made in years.. strange right?

why is that strange? they chose melodic structures that seem to evoke an emotional response in a lot of their listeners (i venture to say in themselves as well). this just goes to show that in principle there isn't a huge difference between writing a melody and writing the code for a process to generate a melody: you observe structures, deduct rules and apply them.

  On 3/16/2015 at 3:26 AM, John Ehrlichman said:

I kinda blame Autechre a little bit for this confusion, first they proclaimed their love for generative and rule based auto sequences and then after a lot of their fans (and even haters) wrongly assumed they just have computers 'write music for them' they seemed to back peddle pretty significantly and make sure to correct any interviewer who asks a question about their random techniques.

they said in an interview they wouldn't find using DNA sequences as a source for generative processes interesting at all as they would have had no part in the making of DNA, and that it would be more interesting to use ripple structures in a pond bc then YOU would have thrown the stone...

found it: http://autechre.net.ua/en/interviews/interview34.htm (towards the end)

also great point from the same interview:

I mean, all music is generative. Okay, any music. There's no.. as long as there's a rule and there's a determination in terms of process and you've got an algorithm. Any music can be broken down like that.

Bah, not into the idea of this melody generating software idea at all. Surely that can't be what it's all about?! Watching some machine make the music for you.. A lot of modern day music is already generic as f*ck imho, dunno if this would help a bit.

And what about things like emotion, funk, inspiration, (art of) arranging, etc?

(edit: just my personal point of view, don't wanna diss anybody who favours this method of working)

read the thread

  On 3/25/2015 at 9:07 PM, Tristan said:

Bah, not into the idea of this melody generating software idea at all. Surely that can't be what it's all about?! Watching some machine make the music for you.. A lot of modern day music is already generic as f*ck imho, dunno if this would help a bit.

And what about things like emotion, funk, inspiration, (art of) arranging, etc?

 

(edit: just my personal point of view, don't wanna diss anybody who favours this method of working)

btw. yesterday i sended midi to my microbrute from this cheap yamahas keyboard. there were really cheesy melodies on it, sounded preatty hilarious when i twiddled knobs i little. lol

  On 3/5/2015 at 11:14 PM, zleep said:

So, I made a max patch that is designed specially for creating melody, it falls in somewhere between generative and traditional step sequencing, have been using it for three months and I think the result is pretty good, way more practical than most generative programs I have used and made, because the step sequencing allows you to make the result musical. The below track is like 90% generated and then edited in Logic. I am thinking about making it a standalone app, do you guys think that will be a good idea? Will you use or pay for it?

 

[youtubehd]1UkjnxeFZ9I[/youtubehd]

 

PM'd on this!

 

Of all the tracks I've made, one of the most popular was a piece which involved me bashing my keyboard for three minutes, and then deleting all of the black notes to leave it in A Minor. I then recorded it to a mangled cassette to give it wobble and distortion. Nothing in the track was deliberate, yet lots of people have described it as sounding beautiful / emotional / etc. It was a chance happening that came together well. It sounds nice and people enjoy it.

I have loads of little generative apps on my computer and occasionally open them and have a play. I was messing around with one for half an hour or so the other night and it came out with a really lovely section which lasted about three minutes. I used this as the basis for a track, adding some textures and then playing guitar over the top to add harmonic interest. I can't read music and I struggle with most music theory - however I've been playing and recording for twenty years and have, I think, a good ear for melody. Sometimes the right set of instructions can make a beautiful piece of music without it being deliberate.

A couple of examples of generative music that aren't simply 'open the software, record it and release it':

All of Eno's longform ambient works. Certain notes are entered, then hardware or software is allowed to play these, manipulate them, loop them and turn them into wonderful harmonic pieces.

The second disc of Kate Bush's Aerial, in which she samples birdsong and mimics it on the piano. Birdsong is something often considered beautiful, and yet it is generative - there is no thought or emotion put into it, simply a set of biological instructions combined with circumstantial factors - including mimicry of encountered sounds. Kate Bush is an incredibly talented pianist, singer and composer - is she suddenly a hack for copying sounds which are rooted completely outside of the rules of musical theory?

Purlieu knows what's up.

Is there a melody if no one is around to hear it?

Is it still a 'shitty emotionless melody' if nobody knows it's generative?

  On 3/26/2015 at 9:51 PM, hawaii said:

 

  On 3/5/2015 at 11:14 PM, zleep said:

So, I made a max patch that is designed specially for creating melody, it falls in somewhere between generative and traditional step sequencing, have been using it for three months and I think the result is pretty good, way more practical than most generative programs I have used and made, because the step sequencing allows you to make the result musical. The below track is like 90% generated and then edited in Logic. I am thinking about making it a standalone app, do you guys think that will be a good idea? Will you use or pay for it?

 

[youtubehd]1UkjnxeFZ9I[/youtubehd]

 

PM'd on this!

 

 

would love to get my hands on this! sounds great man! would use/pay

getting software to write melodies for you is lazy and soulless

  On 3/25/2015 at 9:39 PM, modey said:

read the thread

turns out this debate is about as pointless as the analog vs digital one

  On 4/16/2015 at 8:57 AM, MisterE said:

turns out this debate is about as pointless as the analog vs digital one

Not making your own goddamn porn is what's lazy.

  On 4/16/2015 at 7:17 AM, Chartreuse said:

getting software to write melodies for you is lazy and soulless

not sure if trolling