[sdiy] OT: making "IDM"

[Richard Wentk]

At 22:05 22/06/2005, Metrophage wrote:

>I don't think so. This is what I was expressing my perplexity over in
>regards to apparent "randomness". Just because some don't hear the
>relationships doesn't make it improv, or jazz.

I did say 'Not very good'. Aesthetically that means it's in that slightly 
paradoxical space where a lot of randomness means very few real surprises.

If you listen to Bach he *continually* wrong foots the listener. You expect 
one thing, and something else happens. You can sort-of quantify that and 
make an analogy to entropy and redundancy from information theory.

The continual twists mean that Bach's music sounds like it has very little 
redundancy. But algorithmic music, and not very good improv, both tend to 
sound highly redundant because there's often very little happening.

The point is that music isn't just sound and structure. We're attuned to 
processes of suggestion and implication, and good composition makes use of 
that awareness. Brilliant composition makes use of it on multiple levels at 
the same time. Algorithmic music often lacks this dimension.

>Xenakis did implement stochastic techniques, and much more
>deterministic mathematics as well. I am partial to the aesthetics of
>his music, although there are pieces of his which I listen to more than
>others. I suppose it depends what sort of qualities one is listening
>for!

I haven't heard everything he ever wrote, but a few of his pieces I'm awed by.

>There is an interesting documentary on Varese from the Other Minds
>radio show. I see another now, which I'd not heard. Enjoy these links
>to some Varese info:

Berio is worth listening to as well. Sinfonia is just one allusion melting 
into another - brilliantly done.

Richard