>>Perhaps neuroscientists, for example, are overreaching and reductionist in their attempts to ‘explain’ music—but no matter what your views on that topic, the efficacy and value of their research will be improved if musicologists engage with them in constructive dialogue.
+10 to that.
>>And the same is probably true of many STEM fields th…
>>Perhaps neuroscientists, for example, are overreaching and reductionist in their attempts to ‘explain’ music—but no matter what your views on that topic, the efficacy and value of their research will be improved if musicologists engage with them in constructive dialogue.
+10 to that.
>>And the same is probably true of many STEM fields that are now ‘encroaching’ on music studies—just wait and see what damage will be wrought by algorithms and artificial intelligence. Nothing in the music world today will have more impact than these expert systems, created by well-meaning outsiders who will completely change our musical culture, often without actually understanding it.
As a long time dabbler in the dark arts of generative music, I couldn't agree with this more.
Algorithmic music production - when trying to emulate emotional & energentic historical music forms - is like a generic pub cover band that announces they are "going to play a blues" and then launch into a hackneyed 12-bar that demonstrates they might know the form (or one form) but certainly not the soul of the blues. Or perhaps a Smooth Jazz cover of Amy Winehouse's 'Rehab'...
That said, music and its cultural role is evolving right before our eyes and ears.
Algorithmic/Generative Music will only come into its own when it takes us to sonic places that the live music that got us to this point in time never could, and wouldn't want to go anyway. It's a new fork in the continuum of musical development, and should stand on its own merits...or not. It also shouldn't mean the death of any previous music tradition that is part of the rich tapestry of songlines that document the human experience.
>>Perhaps neuroscientists, for example, are overreaching and reductionist in their attempts to ‘explain’ music—but no matter what your views on that topic, the efficacy and value of their research will be improved if musicologists engage with them in constructive dialogue.
+10 to that.
>>And the same is probably true of many STEM fields that are now ‘encroaching’ on music studies—just wait and see what damage will be wrought by algorithms and artificial intelligence. Nothing in the music world today will have more impact than these expert systems, created by well-meaning outsiders who will completely change our musical culture, often without actually understanding it.
As a long time dabbler in the dark arts of generative music, I couldn't agree with this more.
Algorithmic music production - when trying to emulate emotional & energentic historical music forms - is like a generic pub cover band that announces they are "going to play a blues" and then launch into a hackneyed 12-bar that demonstrates they might know the form (or one form) but certainly not the soul of the blues. Or perhaps a Smooth Jazz cover of Amy Winehouse's 'Rehab'...
That said, music and its cultural role is evolving right before our eyes and ears.
Algorithmic/Generative Music will only come into its own when it takes us to sonic places that the live music that got us to this point in time never could, and wouldn't want to go anyway. It's a new fork in the continuum of musical development, and should stand on its own merits...or not. It also shouldn't mean the death of any previous music tradition that is part of the rich tapestry of songlines that document the human experience.