Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Music Media Technology

A Computer Composing and Playing Jazz 134

Posted by timothy from the jazz?-you-really-are-polite dept.
Roland Piquepaille writes "The Norwegian University of Science and Technology (NTNU) has some unusual teaching programs. One PhD student, Øyvind Brandtsegg, is a graduate of the jazz program and this article describes how has developed a computer program and a musical instrument for improvisation. The PhD student is 36 years old and is at the same time a composer, a musician and computer programmer. His 'computer instrument' can take any recorded sound as input and split it into a number of very short sound particles that can last for between 1 and 10 milliseconds. 'These fragments may be infinitely reshuffled, making it possible to vary the music with no change in the fundamental theme.'" Brandtsegg improvisational software is called ImproSculpt; his site contains several selections from his musical output, including "some pieces made with the predecessor of ImproSculpt," called FollowMe.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

A Computer Composing and Playing Jazz More

A Computer Composing and Playing Jazz

Comments Filter:

  • free form? (Score:1, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward

    I went to some free form jazz last night. Everybody seemed to be playing by themselves all at the same time and in a very random fashion. The pianist was just mashing the keyboard. I'm sure a computer could create sounds like that easily.

    maybe the players were some kind of robots...

    • Re:free form? (Score:4, Interesting)

      by Tablizer ( 95088 ) on Sunday November 23, 2008 @06:09PM (#25868061) Journal

      I went to some free form jazz last night. Everybody seemed to be playing by themselves all at the same time and in a very random fashion. The pianist was just mashing the keyboard. I'm sure a computer could create sounds like that easily.

      It may sound random, but one of the things that allegedly makes jazz interesting is the reaction to other players. If another player does something interesting, then you react to it and mirror it in your own way. It's sort of "orchestral swarm theory". I can't say this is true of all players, however.
         

      • Re: (Score:1, Informative)

        by Anonymous Coward
        It may sound random, but one of the things that allegedly makes jazz interesting is the reaction to other players. If another player does something interesting, then you react to it and mirror it in your own way. It's sort of "orchestral swarm theory". I can't say this is true of all players, however.

        Give Ornette Coleman's Free Jazz a listen for an example of this type of skronk in action. Not everyone's cup of tea, but it's worth giving it a shot nonetheless.

        • Ornette Coleman's Free Jazz

          In a Silent Way might be more approachable. You can hear Zawinul 'announce' a new change on the organ and then several measures later everybody descends on it simultaneously. That never gets old.

        • Re:free form? (Score:4, Interesting)

          by Chrisje ( 471362 ) on Monday November 24, 2008 @04:29AM (#25870991)

          Free jazz has been said to be Charles Mingus' invention, but he once said "If only those free jazz cats could play the same tunes twice... " To cut a long story short, while I'm an avid jazz fan, free jazz is really an abomination in the eye of the Lord. I can listen to anything from bebop to classic jazz to the tinkering Steely Dan did with the genre, but at the end of the day if the cats can't play the same tune twice I'm out of there.

          Then again, I'm an Oscar Peterson fan. That about says it all. I don't want "infinite variations", I want a certain groove and swing to my music, however dissonant and angry it may be. So I reserve the right to take Fred Wesley's work over a particle synthesizer any day of the week.

          One of the beautiful things about music, be it Miles Davis and John Coltrane working with the Miles Davis Quintet, The Notwist's electronic work, Tom Waits' most loony tunes or Mozart's most frivolous concertos, is that it's the product of a human mind expressing its particular brand of madness.

          You take the mind/soul out of the equation and you'll see me turn my ticket in by the door as I leave the venue.

          • "One of the beautiful things about music...is that it's the product of a human mind expressing its particular brand of madness."

            Sounds like Keith Richards to me alright....

            :)

          • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

            by vertinox ( 846076 )

            You take the mind/soul out of the equation and you'll see me turn my ticket in by the door as I leave the venue.

            Are you saying a human didn't program the machine?

            The same could be said about musical notation and people who play on electronic instruments. Its only one step of separation.

            As many of a programmer and hardware engineer can attest... Sometimes code and technology is art in itself.

            • Its only one step of separation.

              It is a fundamental step of separation. (take it further: build an automatic listener, then ask it "Was it good?")

              Even if recordings tend to make us forgetful about that, music is as much about performance as it is about listening. This is especially true about jazz.

              I am not much interested in machine-generated music because - save byte shuffling - nothing humanly interesting happens in the "performer". If I dance with a woman. something might happen; if I dance by myself, nothing will happen.

              (And BTW, by b

      • Re:free form? (Score:4, Insightful)

        by Belial6 ( 794905 ) on Sunday November 23, 2008 @08:44PM (#25869063)
        I suspect that like many other forms of art, there are entire groups of people with little to no talent who all band together as a mob to declare anyone who calls out their lack of talent unable to understand their genius. While in theory your explanation is how it is supposed to work. In practice, I would guess that many use it as an excuse for sucking.

        • Re: (Score:1, Insightful)

          by Anonymous Coward

          that's just the fashion industry

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by popmaker ( 570147 )
        When it's done well, it can be cool. But I think sometimes jazz-players are over-intellectualizing the concept of "free" jazz. At least one guy that made it sound good was Eric Dolphy. But that might actually have had more to do with how ridiculously good player he was.

        In the very least, if done correctly, free jazz would be one of the hardest music for a computer to do, because it requires the complete attention of the whole band. When you throw the rules away, you REALLY have to listen to the music and

    • I went to some free form jazz last night. Everybody seemed to be playing by themselves all at the same time and in a very random fashion. The pianist was just mashing the keyboard. I'm sure a computer could create sounds like that easily.

      maybe the players were some kind of robots...

      In Philip K Dick novel, maybe YOU are some kind of robot.

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by ottolinkfan ( 970689 )

      I went to some free form jazz last night. Everybody seemed to be playing by themselves all at the same time and in a very random fashion. The pianist was just mashing the keyboard. I'm sure a computer could create sounds like that easily.

      maybe the players were some kind of robots...

      It's very possible, likely even, that the band you saw just isn't very good at performing a free jazz set that is musical. It is extremely difficult to do this, but when it is done right it can be absolutely mesmerizing.

    • You must acquire a taste for free form jazz [youtube.com] to prove your maturity credentials :)

  • 1ms? (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Threni ( 635302 )

    That is a very short chunk of 'music'!

  • Obligatory futurama reference (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 23, 2008 @05:56PM (#25867977)

    Without machines, who will feed us and clothe us and compose our smooth jazz?

  • some other research in this vein (Score:4, Informative)

    by Trepidity ( 597 ) <[delirium-slashdot] [at] [hackish.org]> on Sunday November 23, 2008 @05:58PM (#25867993)

    There's been a small amount of previous research in jazz solo composition, including a real-time solo-trading system that learns solo styles from data. Here's one paper [cmu.edu] describing the system that seems to have made the most progress.

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by cstacy ( 534252 )
      See also: [Levitt, 1981] David Levitt. A Melody Description System for Jazz Improvisation. Masterâ(TM)s thesis, MIT, Cambridge, MA, 1981
  • did we really ddos'ed that site? I mean, it is kind of interesting stuff, but shouldn't you be working or something? Get the fkcu off, I want to check out if there's any sourcess too!
  • to my ears it is just noise -- forget comparisons to Bach or Mozart - not even on the same planet.
    • Why do you think they called it "Jazz" ;)

      • Re: (Score:1)

        by cong06 ( 1000177 )
        Jazz actually sounds like more then a collection of sounds. This sounds like an audio clip that my operating system might play when I empty my trash or something...

  • "a number of very short sound particles that can last for between 1 and 10 milliseconds" sounds like granular synthesis. seems like a algorithmic composition (pitch, rythm, duration, etc.) driving a synth; and that the two data sets are unrelated

    granular synthesis:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Granular_synthesis [wikipedia.org]

    mr c

    • You beat me to it. I did a lot of this using Max MSP in my first year of my under-grad degree. We had to make acousmatic music with a synth made in Max and had to be performed by the machine, not by a human.

  • Jazz turing test (Score:5, Interesting)

    by oever ( 233119 ) on Sunday November 23, 2008 @06:26PM (#25868177) Homepage

    Have a human jazz band playing and let a computer or a human do the solos. The jury should not be able to distinguish between them.

  • I think Brandtsegg's build of Csound is an excellent approach to musical permutations, but tfa's calling it "new" is a stretch.

    If the dates are correct, the most recent composition on his site appears to be from 2002, and the oldest is from 1994.

  • Copyright? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by davidwr ( 791652 ) on Sunday November 23, 2008 @07:06PM (#25868413) Homepage Journal

    If music is composed purely mechanically, i.e. via an algorithm, it seems like it would not enjoy copyright protection.

    This might limit its adoption by the music industry, except as a way to generate ideas. Of course, if a musician uses this as a tool then adds his own creative flair, you have a copyrightable work.

    • If music is composed purely mechanically, i.e. via an algorithm, it seems like it would not enjoy copyright protection.

      This could create a problem for the Top 40.

  • "They just make it up as they go along. I could do that: dee dee-dee dee dee dee dee, dee dee dee ..."

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Mex ( 191941 )

      Ah, yes, the obligatory Simpsons quote.

      Thing is, anyone "faking" jazz is immediately noticeable to anyone who is even slightly educated in the genre.

  • Raymond Scott already did it! (Score:3, Informative)

    by fuzzylollipop ( 851039 ) on Sunday November 23, 2008 @07:44PM (#25868691)
    Raymond Scott is pretty much the "grandfather" of computer generated music. His mechanical composing tools predate just about everything else in the genre. http://www.raymondscott.com/ [raymondscott.com]

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by lkeagle ( 519176 )

      Raymond Scott was an electronic music genius, but he was criticized for shunning the improvisational aspects of Jazz. The world of electronic synthesis has improved dramatically due to Scott's work, but it turns out that the improvisational aspect is the hardest part to simulate.

      I wrote my masters thesis on AI that attempts to improvise (Sorry, I'd post a link, but my server would shut down immediately if both of you that cared were to download it at once. Email at lkeagleATgmail if interested). I used a

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by Misch ( 158807 )

        Al Biles [rit.edu] is at the Rochester Institute of Technology, not University of Rochester.

        • Re: (Score:1)

          by lkeagle ( 519176 )

          Oops! You're right! I was writing from memory... Shame on me.

          Which is the better school? Maybe it was an accidental compliment??

          If anyone still is in contact with him, tell him his work was a huge inspiration for my research.

  • "I'm playing all the right notes, but not necessarily in the right order."

  • I thought jazz musicians had something to worry about, but damn if it doesn't sound horrible...

    http://oeyvind.teks.no/pre_mercurysiren.mp3 [oeyvind.teks.no]

    The concept is great however. I've no doubt we're moving towards computer generated music, but still a-ways to go...

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by mqduck ( 232646 )

      Oh, we've got some great computer-generated music. Check out Brian Eno's ambient recordings (or the background music in Spore, designed by Eno). But its application, so far, is very limited.

      • Also, I believe that the title track from Jean-Michel Jarre's album 'Waiting for Cousteau' was computer-generated in some way -- though I've no firm evidence other than intuition, and other unsubstantiated claims such as this one [slashdot.org].

    • "Random music is randomly boring"

    • That is the coolest piece of music I never want to hear again. Seriously, there were some really neat sounds going on in there. I think "Call of Cthulhu" has a soundtrack now.

  • Well (Score:2)

    by BCW2 ( 168187 )
    My opinion may be slanted but it won't sound as good as John Coltrane.
    I live in his hometown.

    • My opinion may be slanted but it won't sound as good as John Coltrane.

      It'll probably sound better than his acid albums. Ain't gonna touch A Love Supreme, though.

  • This is rebut all the "jazz sounds stupid" comments.

    To you, yeah, it probably does. Just as a page of perfectly written code won't do a thing to excite the best chef in the world. Just as a building that looks like a bunch of random boxes won't excite a barber, but an architect might take a trip around the world to see it. If you learn a little bit about it, you start to understand why things are done. Why something that appears to be "stupid" is actually one of the most brilliant things ever done.

  • This sounds like Michael Norris's Chunk Munger [michaelnorris.info] or Sample Hose [michaelnorris.info], both released way back in 1996, when computer audio was really hard.

    And sloooooooow.
  • I fail to understand, where is the relation of Beethoven and Jazz ...

    I can imagine a computer producing Jazz tunes on the run (as in Jazz mostly different instruments are in individual harmony, there is no collaborative rhythm / harmony). But composing symphonies would be something!

    • I

      I can imagine a computer producing Jazz tunes on the run (as in Jazz mostly different instruments are in individual harmony, there is no collaborative rhythm / harmony).

      WTF??? You need to do lots of jazz listening...and I mean LOTS. Oh, and just what is "individual harmony" supposed to mean?

      Come to think of it, I'd say you have LOTS of listening to do (periond). Some remedial music heory would also help.
       

  • Jazz is not random. Jazz is not improv. Jazz is floating counterpoint. This is a specific thing, built on top of well established music theory.

    Saying it is random is like looking at the byte values that make up a JPEG of the Grand Canyon and saying "I just don't see it. It's just random numbers".

    I'll never understand the tendency of slashdotters (not you, of course, I'm talking about those other guys) to assume anything they don't understand is beneath them.

    • Re:Jazz is Floating Counterpoint (Score:5, Informative)

      by Purity Of Essence ( 1007601 ) on Monday November 24, 2008 @12:02AM (#25870063)

      Jazz is not improv.

      Read what you just wrote then slap yourself for me. You should have just stopped at "Jazz is". "Improv" appears 19 times in the 37 paragraphs about Jazz on Wikipedia. Counterpoint appears zero times.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by Chrisje ( 471362 )

        And Wikipedia is always right? Heh. I tend to agree with the previous poster. And what's more, I'm relatively sure Miles Davis would, as would Duke Ellington and Louis Armstrong.

        Improvisation does support jazz, specifically in live settings. But Jazz definitely is *not* improv. Ask Donald Fagen what he thinks of Improvisation. Hell, it's a slightly different genre, but ask Prince and James Brown what they think of it while you're at it.

      • This is what passes for knowledge these days?

        Read the actual page and you'll understand better. Read the page for Improv, which mentions Rock, Folk, Jazz, and Classical as examples where Improv can be found.

        While you're at Wikipedia, look up Transitive and Nontransitive logic.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by saltydogdesign ( 811417 )

      You have a point insofar as "jazz is not random." But there are a few problems here:

      1) Your statement seems to indicate that you think "random" and "improv" are one side of a coin. Improv is not random.

      2) Counterpoint is a specific type of polyphonic technique. Jazz can be contrapuntal, but it doesn't have to be. In fact, it doesn't even have to be polyphonic.

      3) The cutting edge of jazz is not built on top of well-established music theory. Theory follows practice, not the other way around. Yeah, if you want

      • I wrote a long reply to you message which I'm deleting and not posting.

        You're reading into what I said too much.

        The points you're arguing are things I did not say.

        Have a nice day.

        • The points you're arguing are things I did not say.

          No, I'm arguing with your imprecision vis-a-vis things you most definitely said. E.g.:

          Jazz is floating counterpoint.

          That's just a silly thing to say.

  • If computers get better at composing music (and they will), we should eventually see websites that stream newly composed music 24/7.

    Instead of selling songs you sell composition.

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by cybin ( 141668 )

      i think what you mean to say is, if people get better at programming computers to write music :)

      the comments about granular synthesis are dead on... but really half right. there's a big difference between sound file granulation and granular _synthesis_ which uses chopped up simple waveforms.

      john cage did this with magnetic tape... see "williams mix" for an example.

      as a composer about to get a ph.d. in the subject, i think the cool part is the fact that creativity is much more accessible thanks to computers

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by garphik ( 996984 )
      But then what about the songs that grow on you? Like oasis for example, you dont get it in the first time, but after a while you cant start your day without listening to it.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by Chrisje ( 471362 )

        Never had that with Oasis. I got it the first time around, so I didn't buy the album.

        But then I'm a Blur fan.

  • and all that jazz (Score:3, Insightful)

    by jollyreaper ( 513215 ) on Monday November 24, 2008 @12:12AM (#25870101)

    I don't know if there's a ghost in this machine but it certainly plays with more soul than Kenny G.

  • Hmm, this is, um, ... interesting ... um ... I listened to the first one I found, which sounded a bit like a donkey being sawn in half, apparently recorded in a gannetry. So this is jazz, is it? I'll have to find some of my Loius Armstrong et al. I sincerely hope this was computer generated, I don't think a human voice should sound like that; I'm pretty sure Ella Fitzgerals didn't sing that way, but it's been a while, of course, and people change, don't they? You've got to keep an open mind.

    At least it isn'

    • slightly OT

      Big band can be 'real music' too. Maria Schneider's music is absolutely brilliant. Try this one on for size http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2tJegYsmlqU [youtube.com] It even has vocals!

      • Big band can be 'real music' too

        I'm sure it can :-) I can't watch the thing you point me to on YouTube - I don't use Flash or whatever, sorry about that.

        My problem is not just with big band music, I can't abide any big ensemble, be it a symphony orchestra or a choir. I tend to follow every instrument or voice, and after only a few, less than 10, I can't keep it up, and it becomes noise. And there is also something about the quality of the music - when you play or compose for a single instrument, you either produce very good quality or it

  • See also here for previous work on this idea: http://www.csl.sony.fr/items/2001/musaicing/ [csl.sony.fr]
  • The headline makes it sound like you turn this program on and it spits out "I've Got Rhythm." This isn't meant to be jazz; Free Improvisation != Free Jazz.
    FTA:

    between a laptop and a sound generator, the composer soaks up the different tones, processes them, and sends them back in ever-changing variations.

    So you feed sounds into the program and it processes them in a cool and somewhat random way and spits it back out. It's a glorified guitar pedal.
    The cool thing about this is the element of unpredictability to it. In the right hands this could be used to make some really awesome music. Personally I liked the example clips a lot (for what it's

  • He built his website using frames? PhD student, composer, musician & computer programmer he may be - Search Engine savvy web developer he is not.
  • Reminds me of generative music: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generative_music#Software [wikipedia.org] Interesting stuff from a theoretical point of view, but I can't say I've ever heard any that sounds good. Likewise, throwing up random pixels on a monitor might yield an eye-catching image one in a million times, but it's mostly pure noise. I think you need a human hand to direct any music worth listening to. After all, it's we human who listen to the stuff, not computers. Then again, I won't rule out the possibility for

  • Hello all.

    As the article got a variety of responses, I thought it might be just as good I chime in and clear up a few points.

    I do admit the connection to Beethoven is rather weak, as you probably understand this was not my words, but the write's, anyway I thought his way of writing it conveyed the general meaning, if not totally correct in every sense.

    Now to another apology: The web link. Yes, this site is hopelessly out of date. I guess the link have been messed up, as this points to my old site. A newer s

Slashdot Top Deals

No spitting on the Bus! Thank you, The Mgt.

Close