# Music Evolution



## Christof (Mar 26, 2013)

There are two locked threads around here that made me think about a very interesting phenomenon:

In my opinion copying or being inspired by someone else's music is not a crime at all, this is what makes film music so interesting, people grab a fragment from another composer and make something new, not better or worse, just different.

Mendelssohn copied Mozart, Mozart was inspired by Haydn, Haydn ripped off from Bach....music evolution!

I wouldn't be ashamed to list many of my pieces that are based on other composers riffs, licks or some patterns, to be honest I do this very often, it's an enjoyable little game to see where the music goes:

I launch iTunes, I head along to the iTunes store and I pick randomly any soundtrack, the 30 seconds pre-listening limit is perfect for not copying too much, just some bars are enough.
Then I take that as starting point for my new composition.Good exercise for me.

But nobody would care or complain about my method because I am simply not successful or famous enough, thats the point.

This post is not meant to provocate pointless discussions that end up with a locked thread caused by silly comments, I just want to know how others think about ''getting inspired''.
Again, I think that developing music based on existing music is a form of music evolution in some way.

Christof


----------



## daveyjones (Mar 26, 2013)

If someone lived in a cave for 30 years without hearing any music, could they come up with a masterpiece? 

I think the only reason music can and has progressed so far is because people have taken inspiration from the people who inspire them. 

But the important part is to take the music further, to a new place where no one else envisioned. 

Its like technology, you can't create a car without a wheel.

Whats the fucking point if your not doing anything new. Copying is good imo, along as its not a means to an end.


----------



## Christof (Mar 26, 2013)

Exactly what I meant to say.


----------



## RiffWraith (Mar 26, 2013)

daveyjones @ Tue Mar 26 said:


> I think the only reason music can and has progressed so far is because people have taken inspiration from the people who inspire them.



I have often wondered what music is going to sound like in 10,000 years.


----------



## EastWest Lurker (Mar 26, 2013)

I would say there is a big difference between "copying" and using someone's music as a jumping off point.

Mozart was inspired by his teacher Haydn but he took the Classical style to places Haydn did not go to. Beethoven then became the bridge from Mozart to the entire Romantic movement.

In film music, John Williams was clearly inspired not only by concert hall composers but film composers who preceded him and took it in new directions.

Unfortunately, temp scores are more and more forcing composers to simply copy rather than build upon the work of others. It doesn't bother me personally because I have always been someone who mostly copied others, although I like to think a little bit of my own musical personality comes through.


----------



## Consona (Mar 26, 2013)

Personally, I do not take someone's melodies or riffs and put it into my compositions. I like to be inspired, to absorb an atmosphere of the piece, but that's it, I don't use literal ideas of somebody else.


----------



## Musicologo (Mar 26, 2013)

Everything is a remix. You just mix parameters from here and there. A "C" in a violin is a "C" in a violin. 
Now if copying 4 bars of a melody from X and using the rhythm of Z and the orchestral template of D and the effects of H... Well.. it's all a matter of quantity and the choice of parameters but you are always ripping off something. The outcome - the precise combination of things is the only thing "new" really, all pieces already existed.


----------



## EastWest Lurker (Mar 26, 2013)

Musicologo @ Tue Mar 26 said:


> Everything is a remix. You just mix parameters from here and there. A "C" in a violin is a "C" in a violin.
> Now if copying 4 bars of a melody from X and using the rhythm of Z and the orchestral template of D and the effects of H... Well.. it's all a matter of quantity and the choice of parameters but you are always ripping off something. The outcome - the precise combination of things is the only thing "new" really, all pieces already existed.



Why do philosophy majors throw common sense out of the window in service of discussion?

If I compose "in the style of" it is imitation but it is not copying. If I if copy 4 bars of a melody from X and using the rhythm of Z and the orchestral template of D and the effects of H" I am copying.


----------



## germancomponist (Mar 26, 2013)

EastWest Lurker @ Tue Mar 26 said:


> Why do philosophy majors throw common sense out of the window in service of discussion?
> 
> If I compose "in the style of" it is imitation but it is not copying. If I if copy 4 bars of a melody from X and using the rhythm of Z and the orchestral template of D and the effects of H" I am copying.



+1


----------



## Musicologo (Mar 26, 2013)

my point it there is no difference. Imitation is copying. what varies is the amount of. copying 4 bars is worse than copying single notes or parameters? 

For me it really makes no difference. The context didn't exist back then. Intention is what matters.

What is a paraphrase then? I love making paraphrases or quotations. I don't feel I'm being less original for that. In fact, some paraphrases are way more effective and moving and work well than just "composing single notes in the style of". 

I'm sticking to the point: everything is a remix and no one should be devalued for using 2, 4, 10, 100 bars of anything. It will always depend on the result, intention and context.


----------



## Consona (Mar 26, 2013)

Musicologo @ Tue Mar 26 said:


> I'm sticking to the point: everything is a remix and no one should be devalued for using 2, 4, 10, 100 bars of anything. It will always depend on the result, intention and context.


I think I've just composed _From the New World_ symphony. Result = amazing. Intention = to compose something nice. Context? whatever, we live in post-modern era.

Sorry for my sarcasm, but imitation is really not copying, imo.


----------



## Waywyn (Mar 26, 2013)

Consona @ Tue Mar 26 said:


> Personally, I do not take someone's melodies or riffs and put it into my compositions. I like to be inspired, to absorb an atmosphere of the piece, but that's it, I don't use literal ideas of somebody else.



The problem is, in the end it doesn't matter if you do it on purpose or not, because you have done it already a hundred times ... you just didn't heard the tracks yet!


----------



## Consona (Mar 26, 2013)

Waywyn @ Tue Mar 26 said:


> Consona @ Tue Mar 26 said:
> 
> 
> > Personally, I do not take someone's melodies or riffs and put it into my compositions. I like to be inspired, to absorb an atmosphere of the piece, but that's it, I don't use literal ideas of somebody else.
> ...


I know what you mean, I just talked about process, not result.


----------



## EastWest Lurker (Mar 26, 2013)

Musicologo @ Tue Mar 26 said:


> my point it there is no difference. Imitation is copying. what varies is the amount of. copying 4 bars is worse than copying single notes or parameters?
> 
> For me it really makes no difference. The context didn't exist back then. Intention is what matters.
> 
> ...



No, it is not to probably 90% of all composers who have ever lived. And the degree to which something is true is crucial as it is in most areas of life.That is why courts decide copyright infringement on how close one copyright is to another and not whether the composer intended to copy.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Mar 26, 2013)

The name of my ASCAP publishing company is Derivativemusic.


----------



## germancomponist (Mar 26, 2013)

Nick Batzdorf @ Tue Mar 26 said:


> The name of my ASCAP publishing company is Derivativemusic.



 o=< o-[][]-o


----------



## Kralc (Mar 26, 2013)

RiffWraith @ Wed Mar 27 said:


> I have often wondered what music is going to sound like in 10,000 years.


Even 100 years. Imagine someone from 1913 hearing today's music. 
But my god, in 10,000 years I have absolutely no idea what people will be doing.:shock:


----------



## Waywyn (Mar 27, 2013)

Kralc @ Wed Mar 27 said:


> RiffWraith @ Wed Mar 27 said:
> 
> 
> > I have often wondered what music is going to sound like in 10,000 years.
> ...



In my opinion it won't be a question of styles, but how music is being created.
Already today people made it to visually record a dream by just reading brainwaves and within the next few years this software will be available as an app for your tablet/phone.

However, with this in mind there will be a new "species" of composers. Todays composers create music by either improvising with an instrument, by playing around and create and conceptionalize music by ear and/or music theory ... but this new class of composers will be able to simply imagine a piece and record it right to a filesystem. This will be the "new superior" class of composers since the only thing which matters is how close is the result which has been recorded right from your brain or what they are able to achieve.

I mean this literally would mean that no instruments are necessary anymore. The sound source is your brain and what you are able to achieve with it. Maybe someone will create the most awesome chords with a padsound which is so pure of emotion noone else (or just a few) will be able to create it. It doesn't matter anymore how good you are at an instrument or how skilled you are with music theory. All what matters is how many "tracks" simultaneously (or a full orchestra) you can imagine and how good you are in spitting out great sounds.


----------



## chimuelo (Mar 27, 2013)

Interesting ideas, my son puts together nice clips and gets ideas from using a Bob Heil Talk Box and SE-1 over recent live perfomances of the mother daughter Harp team from the Pittsburgh Symphony.
I thought it was wierd at first but it gets better everytime.
At least he's using his head and ears and doing something I have never heard, and I am oversaturated with music others want me to hear or play.


----------



## EastWest Lurker (Mar 27, 2013)

Waywyn @ Wed Mar 27 said:


> Kralc @ Wed Mar 27 said:
> 
> 
> > RiffWraith @ Wed Mar 27 said:
> ...



And this is the crux of why I think music will get worse. With a piece composed by a composer but performed by many others you have music created by a collaborative group of passionate, well-trained, creative, and musically intelligent people. By definition, it is far more likely to be vital than music created soup to nuts by one individual.

For someone to believe they alone by themselves can create superior or equal music to that falls somewhere between narcissism and hubris.


----------



## reddognoyz (Mar 27, 2013)

When starting a new project, I always ask myself "what would Hans do?" and then I do exactly that...poorly. : )

Would that make me guilty of swiping his ideas? ahhh who cares.

"don't borrow man, steal!"

-David lee Roth 

or, and to no one in particular, (and this is my favorite quote in this whole thread)

"be a good little chap and bugger off"

HZ 

I thought you had to be British to say that.....


: )


----------



## Resoded (Mar 27, 2013)

Musicologo @ 26th March 2013 said:


> Everything is a remix. You just mix parameters from here and there. A "C" in a violin is a "C" in a violin.
> Now if copying 4 bars of a melody from X and using the rhythm of Z and the orchestral template of D and the effects of H... Well.. it's all a matter of quantity and the choice of parameters but you are always ripping off something. The outcome - the precise combination of things is the only thing "new" really, all pieces already existed.



I do not agree. A remix is a specific process where you take content from somewhere else and do something different with it. Writing music is not the same process. I have yet to meet or hear about even one composer following the remix process you describe and calling it anything other than a remix.

The amount of combinations is irrelevant, it would be like saying humans are elephants because we consist of the same materials. The word remix looses all it's meaning in the way you describe it. Humans and elephants have different paths of evolution, and even though we are similar in many ways, that doesn't mean that there has been an exchange of ways or a remix of something.

And concerning "everything" being a remix, I could record volcanos erupting and manipulate it into instruments. That would not be a remix. Adding a manic depressive donkey playing the banjo would be insane (I call it Hybrid VolcanoDonkey, or Punk for short) but still not a remix, even if the first two bars kinda sounds like Stairway to Heaven.


----------



## Waywyn (Mar 27, 2013)

EastWest Lurker @ Wed Mar 27 said:


> For someone to believe they alone by themselves can create superior or equal music to that falls somewhere between narcissism and hubris.



Okay, so please define how large, pristine and complex the orchestra incl. a choir or whatever additional ensemble sounds in my head! If I could get out what I am able to create within seconds in realtime ... how can you call me narcissistic and arrogant if you are not even able to hear what I imagine?!

Define how awesome an orchestra or how complex a composition could sound inside the head of an 16 year old autist boy! He may create something you may have never thought of. He may transist between instruments, sounds, scapes and harmonies our "poor" theory mind wouldn't even think of. Even further, he could create stuff you wouldn't be even able to understand.

This way of composing would make it possible to compose some kind of an acoustical tesseract!


----------



## Consona (Mar 27, 2013)

Waywyn @ Wed Mar 27 said:


> The sound source is your brain and what you are able to achieve with it.


Cannot wait. :D

Btw I don't think _"complex music -> valuable music"_.


----------



## Waywyn (Mar 27, 2013)

Consona @ Wed Mar 27 said:


> Waywyn @ Wed Mar 27 said:
> 
> 
> > The sound source is your brain and what you are able to achieve with it.
> ...



Of course you are right ... to me a track can be great by completely revolving around three notes only!


----------



## EastWest Lurker (Mar 27, 2013)

Waywyn @ Wed Mar 27 said:


> EastWest Lurker @ Wed Mar 27 said:
> 
> 
> > For someone to believe they alone by themselves can create superior or equal music to that falls somewhere between narcissism and hubris.
> ...



One talented person cannot imagine as much good stuff as 100 talented people can, unless he is a creative musical genius, and there are only a handful in a generation More likely, what will be created will be an undisciplined, stream of consciousness, load of anarchic crap.

But of course if enough people "like it", then others will say, "who are you to say it is crap?"

And that is the irresolvable dispute of these arguments: those who say it is only about taste and those of us who maintain that just as a carpenter can evaluate the quality of a table's materials, durability, and craftsmanship, so can trained musicians.


----------



## Consona (Mar 27, 2013)

EastWest Lurker @ Wed Mar 27 said:


> And that is the irresolvable dispute of these arguments: those who say it is only about taste and those of us who maintain that just as a carpenter can evaluate the quality of a table's materials, durability, and craftsmanship, so can trained musicians.


I think the only rule for evaluation of a table is you can put something on it, or maybe that it looks nice, but there are no rules for what is valuable music, that someone could verify.

For somebody, valuable music is music that can help in healing process of mind and body. It means equal tempered highly complex music has no value for that person.


----------



## EastWest Lurker (Mar 27, 2013)

Consona @ Wed Mar 27 said:


> EastWest Lurker @ Wed Mar 27 said:
> 
> 
> > And that is the irresolvable dispute of these arguments: those who say it is only about taste and those of us who maintain that just as a carpenter can evaluate the quality of a table's materials, durability, and craftsmanship, so can trained musicians.
> ...



Nonsense. If you build a table and it looks nice, but the wood is crap and the construction is poor it will fall apart more quickly and will not retain the value of its purchase price, whereas quality tables sometimes appreciate in value.

The same is true of music. If we are trained to do so we can assess the quality of its components and its construction and make at least an educated guess as to how it will hold up.

"Knowledge is power" used to be a widely accepted axiom. I guess now it is "knowledge may or may not be valuable".

Sad. OK, I am out because as I said, this is simply a clash of outlook that cannot be reconciled.


----------



## Waywyn (Mar 27, 2013)

EastWest Lurker @ Wed Mar 27 said:


> One talented person cannot imagine as much good stuff as 100 talented people can, unless he is a creative musical genius, and there are only a handful in a generation More likely, what will be created will be an undisciplined, stream of consciousness, load of anarchic crap.




Yeh sure, that's why this autistic kid drew a whole cityscape by just flying over it for 20 mins?? Come on! Even when leaving the painting skill aside. How is it possible someone remembers that much from the brain? Oh, let me guess, that kid studied architecture and ate RAM?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... emory.html

Obviously this is a fake, right?


Jay, did you never experience the problem of hearing something in your head which you haven't been able to put on paper or through your sequencer? This awesome chord structure which just flew by and you found magical, but you were not able to recreate it until it disappeared again? Never?? To me, for sure a hundred times and I am convinced a lot here too.

Now imagine you would have the possibility to simply stream your music via an EEG like construct to a digital waveform. 

I am pretty sure that a lot of people out there who compose masterpieces day in day out but never had a clue to put it on paper, since they weren't aware of reading notes or knew what music theory is or how it works?

How am I able to imagine this absolutely awesome huge epic oil painting but not skilled enough to put it on paper?

Why I am able to create movie scenes in my head which let look Matrix fight scenes like a barbie puppet movie?

Why does my CG stuff in my scenes look so awesome and damn real inside my brain?


Except painting I never studied anything of the above mentioned. But with this new technology I would be able to simply put it out!


----------



## Daryl (Mar 27, 2013)

Waywyn @ Wed Mar 27 said:


> EastWest Lurker @ Wed Mar 27 said:
> 
> 
> > One talented person cannot imagine as much good stuff as 100 talented people can, unless he is a creative musical genius, and there are only a handful in a generation More likely, what will be created will be an undisciplined, stream of consciousness, load of anarchic crap.
> ...


I'm afraid that this is simply replication of an observed image. It has nothing to do with creativity. Impressive for what it is (and I know of cases where long passages music can be reproduced in a basic way after one hearing) but irrelevant to the point you're trying to make. For a start, if that kid actually could design something original, do you think that the building would be structurally sound? Somehow I doubt it.

D


----------



## RiffWraith (Mar 27, 2013)

Daryl @ Wed Mar 27 said:


> I'm afraid that this is simply replication of an observed image.



And what do you think is happening when someone writes music? Same thing. Ok, not exactly; when you write music you aren't precisely recreating what you have heard (maybe sometimes), but you are in fact drawing from what you have heard before. Same thing this guy did, only using differnet senses, and to another degree.



Daryl @ Wed Mar 27 said:


> For a start, if that kid actually could design something original, do you think that the building would be structurally sound? Somehow I doubt it.



Not from simply looking at the buildings from above - no. But that's the point. If you have nothing to draw from, _you can't_. If he had a look at the schematics, and had a basic understanding of architecture, he might be able to.


----------



## Daryl (Mar 27, 2013)

RiffWraith @ Wed Mar 27 said:


> Daryl @ Wed Mar 27 said:
> 
> 
> > I'm afraid that this is simply replication of an observed image.
> ...


No, that's not the same at all. I am very, very good at dictation, so I know what I'm talking about here. Reproducing something from memory is not the same or even remotely close to being the same thing as creating something.



RiffWraith @ Wed Mar 27 said:


> Daryl @ Wed Mar 27 said:
> 
> 
> > For a start, if that kid actually could design something original, do you think that the building would be structurally sound? Somehow I doubt it.
> ...


So you mean if he had training? :wink: 

Nope, as I said above, reproducing something that exists from memory is not the same as creating something.

D


----------



## RiffWraith (Mar 27, 2013)

Daryl @ Wed Mar 27 said:


> No, that's not the same at all.



Sorry, yes it is.  



Daryl @ Wed Mar 27 said:


> Nope, as I said above, reproducing something that exists from memory is not the same as creating something.



Not exactly, but they ar every similiar. When you write (create) music, you _are_ reproducing something that exists from memory.

Cheers.


----------



## germancomponist (Mar 27, 2013)

Daryl @ Wed Mar 27 said:


> Reproducing something from memory is not the same or even remotely close to being the same thing as creating something. ...
> D



+1, +1


----------



## Daryl (Mar 27, 2013)

RiffWraith @ Wed Mar 27 said:


> Daryl @ Wed Mar 27 said:
> 
> 
> > No, that's not the same at all.
> ...


OK, you might be, but I'm not. Happy? :lol: 

D


----------



## Waywyn (Mar 27, 2013)

Daryl @ Wed Mar 27 said:


> Waywyn @ Wed Mar 27 said:
> 
> 
> > EastWest Lurker @ Wed Mar 27 said:
> ...



Okay, got ya ... but no matter if this pic has been just observed or imagined, ... to me the important point was, how long and clear it stayed into his head to even paint it. Imagine how much easier it would be to put an imagined picture to a digital device instantly! 

As said before, why I am able to create an awesome epic action scene in my head with perfect CG, perfect camera etc. ... I just imagine it and it happens and I never studied how to work with a camera, I never studied how to write a script nor how to rig, skin and produce a 3d model and even further, implement it into a real scene?! How is this possible? It works with visual but not with acoustic stuff? Really?


----------



## Darthmorphling (Mar 27, 2013)

Daryl @ Wed Mar 27 said:


> RiffWraith @ Wed Mar 27 said:
> 
> 
> > Daryl @ Wed Mar 27 said:
> ...



Just curious as to how you come up with ideas if you are not hearing them in your head first? Noodling around on the keyboard I could see as not really hearing it in your head. However, if you are writing down music on paper, then the music must be in your head.

Genuinely curious.


----------



## Consona (Mar 27, 2013)

Waywyn @ Wed Mar 27 said:


> did you never experience the problem of hearing something in your head which you haven't been able to put on paper or through your sequencer?


Exactly! 



Darthmorphling @ Wed Mar 27 said:


> Noodling around on the keyboard I could see as not really hearing it in your head.


I think your fingers ride keys like you know the interval, like you heared it in the head before you actually hit the key, imo.


----------



## Daryl (Mar 27, 2013)

Waywyn @ Wed Mar 27 said:


> As said before, why I am able to create an awesome epic action scene in my head with perfect CG, perfect camera etc. ... I just imagine it and it happens and I never studied how to work with a camera, I never studied how to write a script nor how to rig, skin and produce a 3d model and even further, implement it into a real scene?! How is this possible? It works with visual but not with acoustic stuff? Really?


I certainly don't believe that it would work with one medium and not another. That would make no sense to me.

However, there is one huge caveat. It could be that what you (and I don't mean you personally, I mean a more general "you") considered to be awesome turned out to be rubbish, and it was just that you weren't good enough to recognise this fact. I certainly think that most of the musical failings I hear in compositions are nothing to do with the ideas; it is mostly in the use of these ideas, and being able to leave all the physical effort behind would do nothing for this.

There is also the point that learning an instrument (to give one specific example) is not just about technique. A lot of the learning process involves taste and performance elements, all of which would still need to be part of the creative process.

Don't get me wrong. I would love not to have to deal with all of this menial stuff, but don't necessarily believe that it would make my music better. It could make my improvising better, but that is a different skill, as far as I'm concerned.

D


----------



## RiffWraith (Mar 27, 2013)

Daryl @ Wed Mar 27 said:


> OK, you might be, but I'm not. Happy? :lol:
> 
> D



Very upset! :lol:



Darthmorphling @ Wed Mar 27 said:


> Just curious as to how you come up with ideas if you are not hearing them in your head first?



This. :?:

Actually, let me further that.

How do you come up with ideas for music if you have not heard any music before?


----------



## germancomponist (Mar 27, 2013)

RiffWraith @ Wed Mar 27 said:


> How do you come up with ideas for music if you have not heard any music before?



Is someone able to write a novel if he has not read any novel before? Yes, of course!


----------



## RiffWraith (Mar 27, 2013)

germancomponist @ Wed Mar 27 said:


> RiffWraith @ Wed Mar 27 said:
> 
> 
> > How do you come up with ideas for music if you have not heard any music before?
> ...



Is someone able to write a novel in English if he has not fluent in English? Of course not!

Better yet - 

Is someone able to write a novel if he has not heard any words before? Of course not!


----------



## Darthmorphling (Mar 27, 2013)

germancomponist @ Wed Mar 27 said:


> RiffWraith @ Wed Mar 27 said:
> 
> 
> > How do you come up with ideas for music if you have not heard any music before?
> ...



Can someone write a novel without forming the words in their mind? No.


----------



## germancomponist (Mar 27, 2013)

RiffWraith @ Wed Mar 27 said:


> germancomponist @ Wed Mar 27 said:
> 
> 
> > RiffWraith @ Wed Mar 27 said:
> ...


There are translators!


> Is someone able to write a novel if he has not heard any words before? Of course not!


Is someone able to play nice music on a piano if he has never heard any music before? Yes, of course!


----------



## Darthmorphling (Mar 27, 2013)

@germancomponist

When you write music, do you hear the music in your head as you are playing? If not, how do you go about your creative process?


----------



## germancomponist (Mar 27, 2013)

Darthmorphling @ Wed Mar 27 said:


> @germancomponist
> 
> When you write music, do you hear the music in your head as you are playing? If not, how do you go about your creative process?



Yes, sure, I do. But I hear "only my" music when I compose. The same when someone writes a story..... .

A wide field, but interesting!


----------



## RiffWraith (Mar 27, 2013)

germancomponist @ Wed Mar 27 said:


> Is someone able to play nice music on a piano if he has never heard any music before? Yes, of course!



Is someone able to create an entire orchestral peice if he has never heard music before?

No, of course not!

We can keep going, but the point is, for most things - not including the simple and basic, as in coming up with a nice peice of music on the piano - you need something to draw on.

Cheers.


----------



## germancomponist (Mar 27, 2013)

RiffWraith @ Wed Mar 27 said:


> germancomponist @ Wed Mar 27 said:
> 
> 
> > Is someone able to play nice music on a piano if he has never heard any music before? Yes, of course!
> ...



Yeah! o-[][]-o 

But also if I have listened to millions of pieces, that doesn't mean that I copy something when I write my own stuff. Wasn't this the point here?


----------



## Darthmorphling (Mar 27, 2013)

germancomponist @ Wed Mar 27 said:


> Darthmorphling @ Wed Mar 27 said:
> 
> 
> > @germancomponist
> ...



I think this was where the confusion came in. I don't think RiffWrarith was claiming that musicians reproduce other's music from the head. My interpretation was that a composer hears their music in their head, and the act of playing/writing on paper is trying to reproduce it in some sort of way that allows others to experience what you originally envisioned.

I hear all kinds af interesting arrangments/melodies in my head. Reproducing them with my current skillset is proving quite the challenge. The key is these ideas are complete, but exist as thoughts.


----------



## germancomponist (Mar 27, 2013)

Darthmorphling,

I have a handy-recorder always there in front of me (besides my mixing desk). Whenever I suddenly have a good idea in my head, I turn it on and hum it into the microphones... . This is cool!


----------



## RiffWraith (Mar 27, 2013)

germancomponist @ Thu Mar 28 said:


> But also if I have listened to millions of pieces, that doesn't mean that I copy something when I write my own stuff. Wasn't this the point here?



No - it doesn't mean you are copying anything note for note, or orchestration for orchestration. But - and this is exactly what I said before - you are reproducing something that exists from memory. "Reproducing" not to mean "copying note for note".

o-[][]-o


----------



## germancomponist (Mar 27, 2013)

RiffWraith @ Wed Mar 27 said:


> germancomponist @ Thu Mar 28 said:
> 
> 
> > But also if I have listened to millions of pieces, that doesn't mean that I copy something when I write my own stuff. Wasn't this the point here?
> ...


I think I understand how you mean it.

Last year I wrote a melody what I was me not sure. Did I hear it somewhere else before I wrote it? I asked three other friend composers, and each had found a similarity of my melody with a different other melody. 

o-[][]-o


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Mar 27, 2013)

You still have to know what the f you're doing to be any good at anything. Technology doesn't solve that problem.


----------



## germancomponist (Mar 27, 2013)

Nick Batzdorf @ Wed Mar 27 said:


> You still have to know what the f you're doing to be any good at anything. Technology doesn't solve that problem.



+1


----------



## Arbee (Mar 27, 2013)

I found this book to be a good read - "Where Good Ideas Come From" by Steven Johnson.

http://www.permissiontosuck.net/finding-good-ideas/

I particularly like the terms "liquid networks" and "the adjacent possible". The subconscious is an incredible tool, allowing us to absorb music that resonates with us, process it, repackage it with other music we've previously absorbed, then push it back out blended together with some of our own very personal DNA. "Influence" and "copying" are two very different things to me. Even if I try to copy, the end result always morphs into something else along the way. 


.


----------



## Waywyn (Mar 29, 2013)

Daryl @ Wed Mar 27 said:


> However, there is one huge caveat. It could be that what you (and I don't mean you personally, I mean a more general "you") considered to be awesome turned out to be rubbish, and it was just that you weren't good enough to recognise this fact. I certainly think that most of the musical failings I hear in compositions are nothing to do with the ideas; it is mostly in the use of these ideas, and being able to leave all the physical effort behind would do nothing for this.
> 
> There is also the point that learning an instrument (to give one specific example) is not just about technique. A lot of the learning process involves taste and performance elements, all of which would still need to be part of the creative process.
> 
> ...



Yeh you're absolutely right. The stuff I imagine could be the biggest crap ever, but this does not automatically apply to all people. However, where is the difference from today? Loads of people, especially on this forum, think my music sucks, so what? :lol:

Besides that I am not saying that this mental stuff makes YOUR music (or mine) better. I am saying that things will totally change, because there are definitely people who hear a great self written orchestral piece in their head who would just have to get it out their brain ... and compared to someone who needs the "way of the sequencer" to even hear the end result would be clearly in disadvantage. Not only because of the final result (it could be still a great piece) but clearly because of the time saved ...

... and there will be definitely people who are like plug and go. They get live on stage and produce the wildest stuff you couldn't even understand. The same as there will be people who simply dream absolutely awesome stuff and will produce videos or movies from it!


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Mar 29, 2013)

Alex, everyone imagines music in their brain, and if you have the skilz you can write it down or program/play it into a computer.

The story is that Bach could make up 4-part fugues in real time, Stravinsky worked out what he did at the piano, and - while I think he's great, I'm not saying he's the same level - Lyle Mays has an album in which he improvises structured music in real time. There's a man named Richard Grayson who improvises compositions "in the style of..." when someone in the audience gives him a theme (I hate him!). Roger Kellaway can improvise pieces "in the style of," although his real talent is as a player. It's a different process for different musicians.

The history of art - music, fine art, dance, whatever - is the history of man. That's what's going to change music, not necessarily the technology.

***
By the way, some of what Richard Grayson does is actually "keeper" music. He's just amazing - the pieces he makes up have structure (form), complete with modulations, counterpoint, and so on.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Mar 29, 2013)

And by the way, it doesn't matter whether or not some wanker recognizes those people's genius.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Mar 29, 2013)

Aha!

http://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=ric ... &FORM=VDRE

Start with the second one - the Cancan in the style of Stravinsky.

The man is a freak! So much for writer's block.


----------



## Waywyn (Mar 29, 2013)

Nick Batzdorf @ Fri Mar 29 said:


> Alex, everyone imagines music in their brain, and if you have the skilz you can write it down or program/play it into a computer.
> 
> The story is that Bach could make up 4-part fugues in real time, Stravinsky worked out what he did at the piano, and - while I think he's great, I'm not saying he's the same level - Lyle Mays has an album in which he improvises structured music in real time. There's a man named Richard Grayson who improvises compositions "in the style of..." when someone in the audience gives him a theme (I hate him!). Roger Kellaway can improvise pieces "in the style of," although his real talent is as a player. It's a different process for different musicians.
> 
> ...



Nick, will listen to your link tomorrow!
But don't you think it would be awesome to all those listed composers to get into this possible new technology and just love it, because they could kind of expand their realtime inprovisation into whatever sound/instrument/mood they want?

I mean, I am not saying that idiots will rise and awesome never heard music will be around on the planet and it will totally change the world. I am just saying that in around many hundred years from now it won't necessarily be instruments, samplers, technology (in terms of synths etc.) but direct transfered brainwaves. No matter where it will lead to. If it will be an autist kid composition absolutely amazing stuff. If someone who never cared about music theory or harmony but totally "hears and imagines it" and can spit it out.

It will be kind of the same change when computers have been introduced. Suddenly samplers and virtual instruments came up and it changed the music world for sure. It will be the same with some kind of a brain technology. I mean generally an instrument is just some "converter" to release something which is inside your head with a specific tone/color/sound. If you could record or perform directly from your brain, no additional converter is necessary, which at the same time doesn't mean that orchestras or "traditional" instruments (such as e.g. synth and electric guitars) will die out, nor it won't be less fun to play them! These will always be around. It will be just a new awesome musical experience and we will have the same whiners about this technology as we have today with trailer music or dubstep :D


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Mar 29, 2013)

And then people will get tired of that and we'll go back to stone flutes.


----------



## Chriss Ons (Mar 29, 2013)

Arbee @ Wed 27 Mar said:


> I found this book to be a good read - "Where Good Ideas Come From" by Steven Johnson.


On a (somewhat) similar note, I found Robert Jourdain's book http://www.amazon.com/Music-Brain-Ecstasy-Captures-Imagination/dp/038078209X/ref=la_B000AP9L82_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1364589523&sr=1-1 (Music, The Brain, And Ecstasy: How Music Captures Our Imagination) a fun and insightful read, as well.


----------



## Daryl (Mar 29, 2013)

Waywyn @ Fri Mar 29 said:


> But don't you think it would be awesome to all those listed composers to get into this possible new technology and just love it, because they could kind of expand their realtime inprovisation into whatever sound/instrument/mood they want?


As far as I see, there is one huge weakness in all of this. The human inability to concentrate. There was a study done at Reading University a couple of years ago (I even think there was a TV programme about it). It demonstrated that someone sitting in a wheel chair, and appropriately wired up, could move the wheelchair left or right, just by thinking of a different image for each direction.

However it was also demonstrated, that people just couldn't concentrate for long enough periods to avoid making mistakes. Remember, all they had to do was think of two separate images. Mostly they just crashed. :oops: 

Now translate that to improvising via the brain. Disaster waiting to happen. When people improvise, they rely on muscle memory for a lot of what happens, but when using only the brain, there is no muscle memory, so there can be no let up in concentration. None whatsoever.

So we come to the next problem. Bearing in mind the huge effort and concentration needed to bring this "brain" music to life, you would need years of training to achieve the skills to keep concentration to a useful level, which is not much different from the time spent learning to play an instrument to a high level, and therefore you would still have the same people complaining that they don't want to spend the time learning the trade properly.

D


----------



## germancomponist (Mar 29, 2013)

And Daryl, also think about this.  

http://naturalsociety.com/leading-geneticist-human-intelligence-slowly-declining/

o/~


----------



## Waywyn (Mar 29, 2013)

Daryl @ Fri Mar 29 said:


> Waywyn @ Fri Mar 29 said:
> 
> 
> > But don't you think it would be awesome to all those listed composers to get into this possible new technology and just love it, because they could kind of expand their realtime inprovisation into whatever sound/instrument/mood they want?
> ...



I absolutely agree with you! Focusing and concentrating would be a very big issue here, which may bring people back to find "the inner self" again. (Imagining a burning candle is a good test, how long can you do it? 1 sec, 5 seconds? 20? )
Stress and other factors may cause people to practice more yoga or whatever to calm themselves. The motto may not be, "the guy who can do the most within the shortest amount of time over x dead bodies earns the most money"  ... it may be "the person which is the most focused and relaxed one".

Of course it may need a lot of time to master this, but it is actually the same with instruments. Some people just shoot to the sky while others need month or years to achieve the same. However with the brain itself (without the need of an instrument) I see many more options.

Anyway, I am superexcited and I hope I will still be alive when at least some of this is going to happen. There is already so much development going on in the neurological sector, it will for sure be awesome times ahead!


----------



## MA-Simon (Mar 30, 2013)

I think one of the first things to happen is loosing the time & lenght restriction in music. 
People will choose paths the music should follow by simple thinking "this could be nice?" and do so continiousely. So the music wouldnt actually have to end. It would just move on infinitely.


----------

