species counterpoint source code?
isb...@yahoo.com
source code for any application that can automatically write
Fux-compliant species counterpoint, without human intervention. Any
language is okay, but Java would be best.
Can anybody point me toward what I'm looking for?
Alain Naigeon
1130120418....@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> I'm experimenting with computer generated music, and I'd like to see
> source code for any application that can automatically write
> Fux-compliant species counterpoint, without human intervention.
Fux-compliance won't be enough to make music (*). Nor is a grammatical
sentence necessarly meaningful.
*() unless you're expecting an audience made of computers ;-)
--
Français *==> "Musique renaissance" <==* English
midi - facsimiles - ligatures - mensuration
http://anaigeon.free.fr | http://www.medieval.org/emfaq/anaigeon/
Alain Naigeon - anai...@free.fr - Strasbourg, France
Matthew Fields
Alain Naigeon <anai...@free.fr> wrote:
><isb...@yahoo.com> a écrit dans le message news:
>1130120418....@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>> I'm experimenting with computer generated music, and I'd like to see
>> source code for any application that can automatically write
>> Fux-compliant species counterpoint, without human intervention.
>
>Fux-compliance won't be enough to make music (*).
Why not?
> Nor is a grammatical
>sentence necessarly meaningful.
Bad analogy. Music is nonsense on which we each project our innermost
meanings.
>*() unless you're expecting an audience made of computers ;-)
Anticipated in the 1980s by Richard Hoffmann. :)
>--
>
> Français *==> "Musique renaissance" <==* English
> midi - facsimiles - ligatures - mensuration
>http://anaigeon.free.fr | http://www.medieval.org/emfaq/anaigeon/
> Alain Naigeon - anai...@free.fr - Strasbourg, France
>
>
--
Matthew H. Fields http://www.umich.edu/~fields
Music: Splendor in Sound
To be great, do better and better. Don't wait for talent: no such thing.
Brights have a naturalistic world-view. http://www.the-brights.net/
Alain Naigeon
bLa7f.960$yb2...@news.itd.umich.edu...
> In article <435d374f$0$21623$636a...@news.free.fr>,
> Alain Naigeon <anai...@free.fr> wrote:
> ><isb...@yahoo.com> a écrit dans le message news:
> >1130120418....@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> >> I'm experimenting with computer generated music, and I'd like to see
> >> source code for any application that can automatically write
> >> Fux-compliant species counterpoint, without human intervention.
> >
> >Fux-compliance won't be enough to make music (*).
>
> Why not?
Well, wouldn't it be taking the tool for the work? To my taste,
a sequence of random consonances is not enough to keep
me awakened - it just seems to go nowhere after a while.
Recently one (you, I seem to remember) has said that
Renaissance music is always searching for cadences, and
has given a few examples of good ways to prepare a
cadence (suggesting, BTW, that some bad ways might exist
- why ? ;-) ). This is the kind of "somewhere" I expect this
music to go toward.
> > Nor is a grammatical
> >sentence necessarly meaningful.
>
> Bad analogy. Music is nonsense on which we each project our innermost
> meanings.
This is not an answer to *my* opinion, I mean it's an answer to
every case in which someone finds a little bit of meaning.
Do *you* know anything meaningful in the absence of the projection
you're talking of?
> >*() unless you're expecting an audience made of computers ;-)
>
> Anticipated in the 1980s by Richard Hoffmann. :)
No where, hard where ;-)
Matthew Fields
Alain Naigeon <anai...@free.fr> wrote:
>"Matthew Fields" <sp...@uce.gov> a écrit dans le message news:
>bLa7f.960$yb2...@news.itd.umich.edu...
>> In article <435d374f$0$21623$636a...@news.free.fr>,
>> Alain Naigeon <anai...@free.fr> wrote:
>> ><isb...@yahoo.com> a écrit dans le message news:
>> >1130120418....@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>> >> I'm experimenting with computer generated music, and I'd like to see
>> >> source code for any application that can automatically write
>> >> Fux-compliant species counterpoint, without human intervention.
>> >
>> >Fux-compliance won't be enough to make music (*).
>>
>> Why not?
>
>Well, wouldn't it be taking the tool for the work? To my taste,
>a sequence of random consonances is not enough to keep
>me awakened - it just seems to go nowhere after a while.
Fux speaks extensively about dissonances as well.
>Recently one (you, I seem to remember) has said that
>Renaissance music is always searching for cadences, and
>has given a few examples of good ways to prepare a
>cadence (suggesting, BTW, that some bad ways might exist
>- why ? ;-) ). This is the kind of "somewhere" I expect this
>music to go toward.
>
>> > Nor is a grammatical
>> >sentence necessarly meaningful.
>>
>> Bad analogy. Music is nonsense on which we each project our innermost
>> meanings.
>
>This is not an answer to *my* opinion, I mean it's an answer to
>every case in which someone finds a little bit of meaning.
Nonsense. Language is chock full of the constant bidirectional
negotiation of meanings. There is no musical equivalent to the
thread on the "definition of 'music'" which recently ravaged
rec.music.compose. That's a purely linguistic phenomenon.
>Do *you* know anything meaningful in the absence of the projection
>you're talking of?
Yes, of course. There's a whole field of denotational semantics,
q.v., plus there's the entire world of language. We're doing it
right now!
>> >*() unless you're expecting an audience made of computers ;-)
>>
>> Anticipated in the 1980s by Richard Hoffmann. :)
>
>No where, hard where ;-)
--
Alain Naigeon
> Fux speaks extensively about dissonances as well.
Oh yes, but not as as such - they're precisely supposed
to go somewhere - and the harshest ones are dedicated
to the most remarkable goal, that is a cadence.
> >> > Nor is a grammatical
> >> >sentence necessarly meaningful.
> >>
> >> Bad analogy. Music is nonsense on which we each project our innermost
> >> meanings.
> >
> >This is not an answer to *my* opinion, I mean it's an answer to
> >every case in which someone finds a little bit of meaning.
>
> Nonsense. Language is chock full of the constant bidirectional
> negotiation of meanings. There is no musical equivalent to the
> thread on the "definition of 'music'" which recently ravaged
> rec.music.compose. That's a purely linguistic phenomenon.
Some old controversies about Tristan chord might have been
quite close to that, though. If musical analysis is more than an
intellectual game, then it seems that this chord has been *heard*
differently by various persons: different analysis, though expressed
with words, refer to different *musical* meanings.
Unless "nonsense" isn't a unique concept?!
> >Do *you* know anything meaningful in the absence of the projection
> >you're talking of?
>
> Yes, of course. There's a whole field of denotational semantics,
> q.v., plus there's the entire world of language. We're doing it
> right now!
But, misunderstandings (including during the "what is music" thread)
prove that the only one capable of objective speach is... "no-one"!
Adam Golding
Matthew Fields wrote:
> In article <435d5f20$0$5925$636a...@news.free.fr>,
> Alain Naigeon <anai...@free.fr> wrote:
> >"Matthew Fields" <sp...@uce.gov> a écrit dans le message news:
> >bLa7f.960$yb2...@news.itd.umich.edu...
> >> In article <435d374f$0$21623$636a...@news.free.fr>,
> >> Alain Naigeon <anai...@free.fr> wrote:
> >> ><isb...@yahoo.com> a écrit dans le message news:
> >> >1130120418....@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> >> >> I'm experimenting with computer generated music, and I'd like to see
> >> >> source code for any application that can automatically write
> >> >> Fux-compliant species counterpoint, without human intervention.
> >> >
> >> >Fux-compliance won't be enough to make music (*).
> >>
> >> Why not?
> >
> >Well, wouldn't it be taking the tool for the work? To my taste,
> >a sequence of random consonances is not enough to keep
> >me awakened - it just seems to go nowhere after a while.
>
> Fux speaks extensively about dissonances as well.
not to mentionm melodic intervals, leap compensation, general range
compensation, and unique high points. this is almost enough for real
'music'--the main ingredient missing is some sort of scheme for
introducting tension and maintaining it at appropriate levels,
releasing it at appropriate times. of course, 'tension' is not a
physical property of a sound wave :-9, so the best algorithmic
composition would need some sort of psychoacoustic model of what sounds
tense.
Matthew Fields
Alain Naigeon <anai...@free.fr> wrote:
>"Matthew Fields" <sp...@uce.gov> a écrit dans le message news:
>IVd7f.967$yb2...@news.itd.umich.edu...
>
>> Fux speaks extensively about dissonances as well.
>
>Oh yes, but not as as such - they're precisely supposed
>to go somewhere - and the harshest ones are dedicated
>to the most remarkable goal, that is a cadence.
>
>> >> > Nor is a grammatical
>> >> >sentence necessarly meaningful.
>> >>
>> >> Bad analogy. Music is nonsense on which we each project our innermost
>> >> meanings.
>> >
>> >This is not an answer to *my* opinion, I mean it's an answer to
>> >every case in which someone finds a little bit of meaning.
>>
>> Nonsense. Language is chock full of the constant bidirectional
>> negotiation of meanings. There is no musical equivalent to the
>> thread on the "definition of 'music'" which recently ravaged
>> rec.music.compose. That's a purely linguistic phenomenon.
>
>Some old controversies about Tristan chord might have been
>quite close to that, though. If musical analysis is more than an
>intellectual game, then it seems that this chord has been *heard*
>differently by various persons: different analysis, though expressed
>with words, refer to different *musical* meanings.
>Unless "nonsense" isn't a unique concept?!
Nobody went back to Wagner and played music to him to interrogate
the "meaning of the chord" and he didn't reply in music with a reply
that clarified the original usage.
Dialogs regarding the extramusical "meaning" or voice-leading implications
of the chord are, as you rightly note, part of "analysis", a meta-musical
activity, and not music themselves. That's very different from the
ongoing negotiation which characterizes language, in which our language
activities reflect on the language itself.
>> >Do *you* know anything meaningful in the absence of the projection
>> >you're talking of?
>>
>> Yes, of course. There's a whole field of denotational semantics,
>> q.v., plus there's the entire world of language. We're doing it
>> right now!
>But, misunderstandings (including during the "what is music" thread)
>prove that the only one capable of objective speach is... "no-one"!
I refer you back to the topic of denotational semantics.
Alain Naigeon
> Dialogs regarding the extramusical "meaning" or voice-leading implications
> of the chord are, as you rightly note, part of "analysis", a meta-musical
> activity, and not music themselves. That's very different from the
> ongoing negotiation which characterizes language, in which our language
> activities reflect on the language itself.
I'm sure that your musical activity reflects on your music (imitation,
development, deceptive cadence, etc).
It seems that you take as an axiom that no meaning can happen
outside the language. Nothing can be said against an axiom :-o
But I feel strange that you've worked hard for years to become
a Dr in nonsense!
Matthew Fields
Alain Naigeon <anai...@free.fr> wrote:
>"Matthew Fields" <sp...@uce.gov> a écrit dans le message news:
>x_s7f.987$yb2...@news.itd.umich.edu...
>
>> Dialogs regarding the extramusical "meaning" or voice-leading implications
>> of the chord are, as you rightly note, part of "analysis", a meta-musical
>> activity, and not music themselves. That's very different from the
>> ongoing negotiation which characterizes language, in which our language
>> activities reflect on the language itself.
>
>I'm sure that your musical activity reflects on your music (imitation,
>development, deceptive cadence, etc).
>
>It seems that you take as an axiom that no meaning can happen
>outside the language.
Not at all. I just consider the meaning I take from music, like
the meaning I take from sunset or from the shape of a cloud, to
be utterly different in structure and nature from the meanings we
negotiate in language.
> Nothing can be said against an axiom :-o
>But I feel strange that you've worked hard for years to become
>a Dr in nonsense!
And darned passionate about it! :)