Week 2 - Repetitive Randomisation

Warren Burt has indisputably helped shape the digital music age we are in today. His optimistic view of any technological advancement and an obsession to create, understand and/or improve any new noise fabrication technology that has emerged throughout his career has been groundbreaking. His idea of creating a ‘new form of musical community’ is understandable when examining the position that the music culture is in today, with much less of an emphasis on live performance (World Literature Today, 2005) and the explosion of MP3. It’s easy to draw a comparison with the fledging cinema industry and the explosion of DVDs. He has produced many pioneering masterpieces, such as his work on the ‘Aardvarks IV’ composition machine he built, as well as various other pieces very suited to the modernist age.
While reflecting on Warren’s presentation on Thursday, listening to some of his other musical works from Spineless Books² and reading the descriptions of his albums on Tropicapricorn³, I perceived a re-occurring theme of “randomised melodies” throughout some of the collection and two questions transpired; ‘How many times can you record random sound effects and still be creating a new piece of music?’ and ‘What makes music perceivable in the first place?’

My view is if you have recorded a musical sequence of sounds performed by an algorithm or random generation, any other piece created in the same way would sound similarly random to the original. I believe that the fundamental issue with randomisation appearing repetitive is that while no two random sequences would be the same, it is the lack of comprehension of irregular stimuli that we psychologically connect any two random sequences as similar. For example, a melody randomly being generated using the square root of two, and another being generated by the Fibonacci sequence would be perceived to the human ear that they are both as random as each other, thus concluding the ‘different’ songs are in fact ‘similar’.

In comparison to mainstream music, there are set formulations which help artists to create a composition that would be accepted by the masses as ‘music‘, and while these are just guidelines and are often distorted, the fundamentals of musical composition, including rhythm, melody and/or harmony, is always integrated one way or another. Consider the pieces by Warren that use mathematical equations to create rhythm and melody. While these do conform to a set formulation, I believe a person would not be able to perceive the outcome as music, or discern one random generation formula from another.

An attempt at circumventing the psychological analogy of similar randomisation might be changing instruments or tempo for different pieces, and even running several formulae at the same time. Apart from the cosmetic changes, the perceptible melodic difference between randomised Ö2 and Fibonacci, or any combination, would remain identically inconceivable. It is the integration of visual aids that has shown that randomisation appearing repetitious to the ear has become more apparent to the experimental/exploratory artist. As times have changed and synthesised sounds are no longer the amazing innovation they once were, the presentation of random or incomprehensibly formulaic composition can no longer interest the majority of music enthusiasts on it‘s own technological merit, and so visual aesthetics are added. One such example is when Warren Burt used visual representation of tone (in this case, red circles with a white outline) to explain the difference each formulae made when used in random tone generation. While the visuals did exhibit noticeable diversity for each algorithm, each of the sounds produced was indiscernible from the previous.

Robin Minard’s work on architectural sound shows how visual representation of music can be used to extend the experience sound, rather than be it’s major distinguishable feature. His various works on sound sculptures and productions including ‘Music For Quiet Spaces’ (1984) have exhibited how sounds, not actually following the mainstream musical formula, can still be comprehensible and even evoke emotions when produced by a musical mind rather than musically irrelevant mathematical equations. Robin’s aim to change the perception of space using sound is genius, with the depth of research needed to accomplish such a feat evident in his work. The dilettante ’viewer’ of his artwork may not even notice the aural backdrop, yet would undoubtedly be affected by it.

Visual aid being the distinguishable difference between compositions does not clarify each piece as musically unique, as difference in music is perceivable in the sound and beyond aesthetics. Considering this, sound presented in an incomprehensible fashion is not perceived as music, and it is difficult to exhibit individuality when difference in melody is inconceivable. True ‘music’, rather than relying on experience, understanding or prior knowledge to enjoy it, should revolve around arousing interest with little or no comprehension of the complexities. It should make you think, but not confuse. It should evoke emotion, even if it is not to you knowledge.

World Literature Today Article and MP3s
http://www.ou.edu/worldlit/onlinemagazine/2005mayaugust/WLT_May-Aug05-18Burt.pdf

²www.spinelessbooks.com/burt/

³http://www.tropicapricorn.com/warren_burt_archive.htm

Warren Burt. "Artist Talk – Composing with Technology." Lecture presented at the Electronic Music Unit, EMU space, University of Adelaide, 09 March 2006.