18 Dec
2002
18 Dec
'02
11:36 a.m.
I just had to come out of lurk mode for this:
tim wrote:
all of them.
rhythmn is always based on one integral periodic 'pulse'. if
time is not divisible by this atom, there is no musical time.
Nancarow, Ives, Stockhausen, Xenakis, Boulez, Schaeffer, Henry etc. etc in
the classical field
Taylor, Sun Ra, Ornette Coleman, Coltrane, Mengelberg, Broetzman, Zorn,
Ayler etc etc in jazz/impro
lots of ambient stuff that I don't know the names of.
lots of acapella vocal music from various cultures.
There can be easily multiple time-frames going happening in a single piece
of music that have non-lineair relationships.
A computer can also be used to make sounds that a player cannot make.
A sequencer/daw will also be used for non-musical ordering of sounds in
time. It might be handy to use an extended beat/measure structure for
setting event frames for dialog editing for a radio play.
BTW measure are much more complicated than just A/B. Even a 6/8 is really 2/
2.6666666.... in a way. Unless it is divided differently. See Brahms for
nice examples of playing with the groupings of eight notes in 4/4.
The notation x/y is just a shorthand in classical music _notation_, that
only becomes meaningfull in the context of other notation parameters, such
a note-beam groupings etc.
So notating 17/16 instead of 4.25/4 is fine, because the score gives the
grouping information. (to the player and conductor)
Although I have written (4+1/2) / 4 because I wanted to mae sure that the
piece s counted that way and not in 9/8 (=3+3+3).
Anyway my point is that the A/B concept of measure if only really relevant
if your dealing with western _notation_, and then together with the entire
score.
going back to lurk mode now
Gerard
18 Dec
18 Dec
12:42 p.m.
On Wednesday 18 December 2002 17.40, vanDongen-Gilcher wrote:
[...]
There can be easily multiple time-frames going
happening in a
single piece of music that have non-lineair relationships.
A computer can also be used to make sounds that a player cannot
make. A sequencer/daw will also be used for non-musical ordering of
sounds in time. It might be handy to use an extended beat/measure
structure for setting event frames for dialog editing for a radio
play.
That's a very good point that I pretty much forgot about. The jingles
and effects in betwen songs have to be timed very accurately to sound
right. Yet, it doesn't have much to do with traditional meters, since
you're usually dealing with two songs and one or more effects at the
same time. The professional radio guy at work does this "blind" in
real time with special software, but I suppose it could be rather
useful to be able to do this kind of stuff in sequencers as well.
(Then you could just edit instead of trying to record in real time
over and over until you get it right.)
BTW measure are much more complicated than just A/B.
Even a 6/8 is
really 2/ 2.6666666.... in a way. Unless it is divided differently.
See Brahms for nice examples of playing with the groupings of eight
notes in 4/4. The notation x/y is just a shorthand in classical
music _notation_, that only becomes meaningfull in the context of
other notation parameters, such a note-beam groupings etc.
So notating 17/16 instead of 4.25/4 is fine, because the score
gives the grouping information. (to the player and conductor)
Although I have written (4+1/2) / 4 because I wanted to mae sure
that the piece s counted that way and not in 9/8 (=3+3+3).
Anyway my point is that the A/B concept of measure if only really
relevant if your dealing with western _notation_, and then together
with the entire score.
This is exactly what I mean when I say that the meter has a musical
meaning, and that it should be possible to express it correctly, for
plugins to interpret if they need to.
//David Olofson - Programmer, Composer, Open Source Advocate
.- The Return of Audiality! --------------------------------.
| Free/Open Source Audio Engine for use in Games or Studio. |
| RT and off-line synth. Scripting. Sample accurate timing. |
`---------------------------> http://olofson.net/audiality -'
--- http://olofson.net --- http://www.reologica.se ---
1:55 p.m.
vanDongen-Gilcher wrote:
can you point at a specific work? those scores are costly and
hard to get.
those works of boulez and stockhausen i remember seeing the
scores of don't specify a meter at all, and where they do it
was nothing out of the ordinary afair.
you're not talking about absence of notation, right?
rhythmn is
always based on one integral periodic 'pulse'. if
time is not divisible by this atom, there is no musical time.
Nancarow, Ives, Stockhausen, Xenakis, Boulez, Schaeffer, Henry etc. etc in
the classical field Taylor, Sun Ra, Ornette Coleman, Coltrane, Mengelberg,
Broetzman, Zorn,
Ayler etc etc in jazz/impro
if you mean what i think you do: these guys don't prescribe a
meter in the first place. give a pointer where they do and its
not integral, please.
lots of ambient stuff that I don't know the names
of.
lots of acapella vocal music from various cultures.
likewise, but i may be wrong. you don't need a meter to cover
time that is not organized in cycles, right?
There can be easily multiple time-frames going
happening in a single piece
of music that have non-lineair relationships.
we do agree on this afaik.
A computer can also be used to make sounds that a
player cannot make.
A sequencer/daw will also be used for non-musical ordering of sounds in
time. It might be handy to use an extended beat/measure structure for
setting event frames for dialog editing for a radio play.
you're perfectly right in all these cases; but to describe what
is happening then, a musical meter isn't adequate anyway, is it?
Anyway my point is that the A/B concept of measure if
only really relevant
if your dealing with western _notation_, and then together with the entire
score.
the A/B concept may not be perfect, but it is able to express
rhythmns from all over the world in integral time units, which
is of great help to musicians and musicians programming computers.
tim
8:35 p.m.
Tim Goetze wrote:
Yes, you do, if you're trying to talk to a sequencer.
Not it's not. But the point here isn't meter in and of itself. The
question
is how best to represent the temporal concepts subsumed under the heading
of "meter" and "rhythm" in traditional musical thinking within a
sequencer
API.
Except when it isn't. 7/20 is a really horrible way of expressing 1.2
beats,
but there isn't any other way to do this in A/B integral notation.
-dgm
vanDongen-Gilcher wrote:
can you point at a specific work? those scores are costly and
hard to get.
Stockhausen: Gruppen, Klavierstücke I-XI, Zeitmaße, Trans....
Boulez: Le marteau sans maître, Pli selon pli, Piano Sonatas, Sonatine
for flute...
rhythmn is
always based on one integral periodic 'pulse'. if
time is not divisible by this atom, there is no musical time.
Nancarow, Ives, Stockhausen, Xenakis, Boulez, Schaeffer, Henry etc. etc in
the classical field
those works of boulez and stockhausen i remember seeing the
scores of don't specify a meter at all, and where they do it
was nothing out of the ordinary afair.
Frequently Stockhausen does not specify a meter, and Boulez occasionally.
Certainly both composers have simplified their musical languages somewhat,
which is why most of the scores mentioned above date from the 1950's and
1960's.
you're not talking about absence of notation, right?
We're talking about *percieved* meter, not notated meter. Sure, most of
the jazz/improv masters above did not *notate* many of their compositions.
But most computer music isn't notated either, so if all you care about is
notation then a sequencer API is probably not very useful. Perceived
rhythm
involved a heierarchichal accentual pattern superimposed upon a temporal
surface. This *is not* necessarily integral! Nor is it necessarily linear;
see Stockhausen's seminal article "Wie die Zeit vergeht".
Taylor, Sun Ra, Ornette Coleman, Coltrane,
Mengelberg, Broetzman, Zorn,
Ayler etc etc in jazz/impro
if you mean what i think you do: these guys don't prescribe a
meter in the first place. give a pointer where they do and its
not integral, please.
lots of ambient stuff that I don't know the
names of.
lots of acapella vocal music from various cultures.
likewise, but i may be wrong. you don't need a meter to cover
time that is not organized in cycles, right?
There can be easily multiple time-frames going
happening in a single piece
of music that have non-lineair relationships.
we do agree on this afaik.
A computer can also be used to make sounds that a
player cannot make.
A sequencer/daw will also be used for non-musical ordering of sounds in
time. It might be handy to use an extended beat/measure structure for
setting event frames for dialog editing for a radio play.
you're perfectly right in all these cases; but to describe what
is happening then, a musical meter isn't adequate anyway, is it?
Anyway my point
is that the A/B concept of measure if only really relevant
if your dealing with western _notation_, and then together with the entire
score.
the A/B concept may not be perfect, but it is able to express
rhythmns from all over the world in integral time units, which
is of great help to musicians and musicians programming computers.
19 Dec
19 Dec
3:44 a.m.
On Wed, Dec 18, 2002 at 06:48:49 +0100, Tim Goetze wrote:
if you mean what i think you do: these guys don't
prescribe a
meter in the first place. give a pointer where they do and its
not integral, please.
Regardless of whether the meter would normally be expressed in calssical
written form it should be represented internally.
If 3.33/4.0 is the best representation then lets use it.
- Steve
8000
days inactive
8001
days old
linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org
4 comments
5 participants
participants (5)
-
David Gerard Matthews -
David Olofson -
Steve Harris -
Tim Goetze -
vanDongen-Gilcher