where will science take electronic music?.

[Bio~Rhythm]

Science usually takes music, ironically, into very unmusical places. People then figure out the bits they like, the bits that are useful, and then it slowly makes it's way back into the mainstream. FM, granular etc. all took this kind of path.

+ ∞ [/quote]

So your suggesting that it is the "mainstream" or rather popular culture whom take the inventions/tools/innovations of science and then re-shape these tools in order to ,ironically, try and take them into very unscientifically ,illogical places (cause they know best!?).' . Funny that, in electronic music the "main stream" seems to like "music" with bad timing (or humanize. And so much re-verb that ruins the rhythms, but it makes them feel --Big. ). To them "the main stream" incorrect timing feels more natural ( because humans have got comparable crap timing when they try to play compared to computers! (poor species and their badly timed music )

The mainstream believing in something (like for example, ecological destruction sounds like fun) or the popular choice isn't a proof of anything. Other than basic primate behaviour as they yearn to be part of the group .

[Jbravo]

I really don't think that post had anything to do with religion or any kind of mystical beliefs. I think he was just saying that science won't change where music goes, we'd strive for the same goals with our without scientific advances in music production

[Bio~Rhythm]

Two podcasts related to music from the excellent Star talk podcast hosted by Neil deGrasse Tyson and co-host Chuck Nice

https://soundcloud.com/startalk/the-sci ... osh-groban


https://soundcloud.com/startalk/startal ... -seductive

And some thoughtful evidenced based predictions on what the future may bring.

https://soundcloud.com/startalk/gazing- ... y-kurzweil

[Bio~Rhythm]

And a podcast about people believing in stuff that doesn’t make sense (or it makes some kind of sense to them but they can't quite put it in a logical way so they label it under "faith" or rather wishful thinking )

https://soundcloud.com/the-infinite-mon ... ationality

[Bio~Rhythm]

I really don't think that post had anything to do with religion or any kind of mystical beliefs. I think he was just saying that science won't change where music goes, we'd strive for the same goals with our without scientific advances in music production

This post got far longer than intended .


Ha ok.I Apologise for the miss-interpretation. I do agree that electronic music production isn't the only or indeed necessarily the best way to make music.For example, Jamming with other people playing instruments (either acoustic or synthetic ) is the most socially satisfying form of music production and arguably should then produce more socially pleasing music. Compared to,for example, one person twiddling dials and pressing buttons on machines in a studio ( a modern instrument) . But like all things in life ( biology -the living stuff) , diversity usually provides the best results. So a mix of acoustic (and/or electronic analogue) and digital based forms of music production, where people play together (either in the same room or online (Virtual reality) could help electronic music get away from the "machine like" drone ,over repetitive structure ,that imo, too much "popular" electronic music has. Many modern electronic tools are extremely loop based. Often making it difficult to alter the loop so that it feels more "alive", thus changes and evolves over time.



But again,this is where new scientific innovation can help (with a move towards more people playing instruments together online, in a virtual reality, may also have the effect that it gives people the opportunity to feel how satisfying playing music together can be.We are social animals).Thus people may look for setting up music playing groups in a more direct biological reality (i.e - together in the same location ).

But,referring to the argument that popular culture not science shapes the music of the future, how could we strive for "goals" in electronic music production, using methods that we wouldn’t know existed if it weren’t for the discovery’s of science. And how do musicians/producers decide which "goals" are desirable or indeed achievable if they don't use a logical method like science to formulate rationale decisions.

Again, the fashions of popular music production seems to be driven largely by the "what sells" model rather than being motivated by what music actually is (a energy within the domain of physics). So rather than advocating that popular culture "knows/believes best", I'd argue that it is desirable for human civilisation that popular culture becomes more scientifically educated, so that they understand, thus know how to use technology to it's best potential. scientific discovery has shown "common sense" sometimes has nothing to do with reality. From a visual perspective (eyes) it doesn’t make "sense" that the world (planet) we live upon is spherical. Because our terrestrial horizons look flat. But the scientifically gathered information ( first hypothesised by a mathematician) that humans live upon a spherical planet has now become accepted "main stream" "wisdom" . It would seem this change of perspective (flat earth to spherical culture) is accepted by the mainstream because of the "seeing is believing effect" (pictures from space) rather than a understanding of physics. Thus the "common sense" of people that do not use science as a method is highly questionable (of coarse there are many morally good people whom are not scientifically minded. But statistically irrational people are more likely to do irrational stuff with the knowledge/power that science brings. You don't need to accept evolution (thus we are all animals of the same species) in order to use biology to make a weapon in the name of some ideology )

Personally I think that popular culture keeps hijacking the technology that has come from scientific innovation (science being a comparably modern way to gather information) and users it to promote/sell/advocate opinion and beliefs that have no bearing on logic thus no scientific evidence.

To quote carl sagen "Science as a Candle in the Dark".

If you find yourself believing in superstition ,do yourself and the planet a favour and read the book 'The Demon-Haunted World' written by Carl saen. Time waits for no humans to "get with it" . And music could/should be used far more effectively as a catalyst of change. A change for the good, being motivated by the more rational people in society’s whom know why and how our morality evolved ( evolutionary /biology) .

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Demon-Haunted_World

[Bio~Rhythm]

once they perfect the computer brain interface, and they are well well on the way, the whole jig will be up. what is there to possibly improve upon once you can mix down directly from your internal soundstage? i can read all of your comments with wilem dafoe's voice narrating in my head. what will happen when any average person can release that kind of hell out into the world with no particular effort?

So the music you imagine ( patterns within our neurology) can be measured digitally and then reproduced using synthesisers.

Though I think science has many hurdles to over come for a brain to music interface to be able to actually play the music we imagine. It's well understood that the brains region named the auditory cortex processes auditory information in humans and other vertebrates. But there maybe many regions of the brain that "imagine" biological virtual music. Though there are now technologies that allow people to think a machine to move. Especially useful for people whom have lost limbs, as they can actually move a artificial limb just by thinking it (just like the rest of us do with our biological limbs).




Personally I prefer the move to make technology more tactile and designed around our natural behaviours. Technologies that can help to make playing music together more socially the norm. Rather than having many people listening whilst a few play the music.

This is also happening with personal computing also. People right now , instead of staring at 2 dimensional screens are communicating and computing using more "real" 3 dimensional technology’s.

https://www.ted.com/talks/alex_kipman_t ... _holograms

https://www.ted.com/talks/meron_gribetz ... ty_headset

[Sparky77]

Science and technological invention are not the same thing.

Good point!

[Daags]

Scientific innovation shows no sign of slowing down (quite the opposite is true). So where will science take electronic music?.

music is the destination. the destination has, and will always be the same. science will only effect how we get there.

Wow! mysterious and vague statement time.Since you seem to know this destination I'm presuming you've been "there". Maybe in your pre- or after or lets try and imagine something other than life life.

Sounds like a religion. So you mean we could get "there" by space craft rather than horse back?. Or by "there" are you implying a religious/creationist form of belief, where humans are at the centre of their own egotistically, self opinionated, proof-less grand assumptions (and there sits most religions). How do so many people get it into their tiny little subjectively wired heads ( mines comparably tiny too, though not as subjective as many) that what they believe can change objective reality (they must think their some kind of deity). Why bother doing any physical work when we can all just "think it real" . .
Statistically it maybe dangerous to mock ignorant people . But , for the love of evolution. They can't see the tree's for the "mmmm..?what could I make out of these things?. Like them (tree's) making oxygen isn't good enough for them!. I guess in their tiny heads,the spirits whom dwell at there imagined destination don't need oxygen and that's why for many it makes "sense" to wipe out entire forests.

Apologise for the rant. So yea? Music may or may not have an amazing future provided the ignorant (self proclaimed smart people whom don't use something as trivial as evidence as they get their sh--t from a higher power) don't ruin what we have in the name of some weird belief that they think is normal because billions of crazies believe in it (ape see ape do).

Unfortunately, google translator doesn't have a Blather -> English mode, so I can't really understand what you're saying.

I get the feeling though that you thought your question was profound in some way, and are deeply unsatisfied with the brevity of my answer. For that I can only humbly apologise.

God speed.

[liqih]

Scientific innovation shows no sign of slowing down (quite the opposite is true). So where will science take electronic music?.

Hopefully it'll take to some change is popular taste, but that's already happening and happened, E.G. state solid physics in microelectronics gave us portable DAT recorders, which allowed Squarepusher to invent sexy new rhythms.
That becuse IMHO humans need to sublimate scientific innovation into aesthetic at some point.

How about atomically timed synthesis or atomically timed music production in general. Will quantum computing change the sounds produced in the future ?. Or what about artificial intelligence combined with a human producer?.

atomically timed music ? Maybe that would need an extension in human perception ability first.

Artificial intelligence so far it's only a problem solver, so it may help to produce more complex music easier.But of course that doesn't mean more beautiful music.

The potential could be endless . Environmental stability aside.

Yes sometimes it's sane to do acoustic music or just sing, <wink>

my2C

[mellotronaut]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eYO1-gG ... YO1-gGWJyo

[Bio~Rhythm]

I see that this thread maybe threatening to those whom prefer to stay clear of evidence (it is a thread about science ) . And whilst it's important that people are free to choose what they wish to believe in, it is also important that when those beliefs come into conflict with reality, to a point that the actions these beliefs justify manifest then selves as unhealthy behaviour/actions ( either to themselves,other individuals,society’s or whole ecological systems) then they should be challenged (be offended it's your life, just don't be a idiot and believe that your offence justifies violence, as then your emotional issues are society’s grievances ) .

So continuing with the thread topic. Science will/does effect how many make and listen to music. The below music video caught my attention because it features two guys using one of the most ancient human air (wind) instruments (the voice). A biological instrument. Our lungs providing the force of air (pressure) and a degree of rhythmical control (oscillation) and our voice box shaping the sounds to alter pitch , rhythm and some other qualities that I can't remember the name of.

Now these guys have buckets of passion.That certainly comes across in the music they make. Though it could be argued (using observed evidence) that its sightly miss-directed passion as their singing about shooting stars (edit:they are actually singing falling stars). Which don't exist. Star don't shoot (or fall). They do fuse atoms together and transfer that energy to another form of energy heat (light) (energy can neither be destroyed or created it moves from one form of energy to another)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XA72-mzHkAY

Just in case some don't know the facts (like you wouldn’t if you've never looked into the facts or can't let go of the deep love you have for the idea of magical shooting starts sent from heaven) ,shooting stars are actually meteor's that heat up (thus give off light ) (ok not magical .But rocks and ice are pretty amazing when you learn how they form )as they enter the earth’s atmosphere (at high speeds). The chaps/guys/dudes/humans (homo-sapien males) in the video also sing

the world owes us as much as we owe falling stars

. mmm..? cryptic . Not quite sure what that refers to. By the

world

I can only guess that they are referring to their view of life on planet earth. And maybe their letting their subjective consciousness (and lack of evolutionary/biological understanding) blind them to the fact that it's only a tiny fraction of matter (physical stuff) on this planet that has a brain developed sufficiently enough in order for a conscious self awareness to form . Thus the planet is not conscious of our actions. It is a system that operates within certain parameters (many of which have some elements of chance or / and so many variables they are very difficult to predict ( the climate is one example;The climate is not the same as the daily weather). So the

world

has no concept of owe,care,love or judge, as these are human evolved concepts.

Though if I was to get into the habit of trying to associate the scientific evidence with many of the opinions, based largely on the social experience of the people believing in those opinions, then a very high percentage of popular music culture could be made to look rather biased towards a subjectively inward way to view existence. In science this is called being anthropogenically biased. A person whom is anthropogenically biased may find it difficult to accept that other animals (maybe other than their pets) think,feel and have social bonds also.And that these other animals do things (laymen’s words) on our natural planet that help humans out.In fact provide many of the ecosystems services that allow us to survive (huge up to all the other many species out there. Obviously they can’t read this, but it needed saying anyway)
Now that's the kind of evidence based knowledge that should be in music with some real substance. Not in my fickle opinion, as that's what I use to choose whether I like something or not (my preference).

But the evidence , which any reasonable person can understand at varying levels. How deep do you really wanna go

[Bio~Rhythm]

E.G. state solid physics in microelectronics gave us portable DAT recorders, which allowed Squarepusher to invent sexy new rhythms.

Now inventing sexy new rhythms is something that all people should agree is a goooood thang

[liqih]

E.G. state solid physics in microelectronics gave us portable DAT recorders, which allowed Squarepusher to invent sexy new rhythms.

Now inventing sexy new rhythms is something that all people should agree is a goooood thang

Hu? That was not my point really. To say it in other words it was simply a practical example of what you do write: "Science will/does effect how many make and listen to music"
And it was a naive answer to your question "So where will science take electronic music?. " My aswer maybe implies that science will not take electronic music somewhere that we can know in advance, but we can see where it took electronic music in the past. There are hundres of examples. Want to talk about Xenakis?
Therfore if you wanna write the future feel free to speculate, it's fun and I do that often and we can do that here too,
but if you care about Science you don't do much speculation, which is rather bound to to Philosophy.
So is your thread about science or philosophy?

[liqih]

the world owes us as much as we owe falling stars, etc...

Though instersting, we can't go much far anaylsing poetry in scientific terms. We would shortly resort to the neurobiological short knowlege of the brain
and some various "mind theories". You're right that "Scientific innovation shows no sign of slowing down". But human music is a product of the human mind, and neurobiological innovation is slow, I think for two main reasons:
1) we use the mind itself to study the mind
2) the scientifc research, as linked to western culture, is still too reductionist (even though open minded scientists are increasing)

[Bio~Rhythm]

but if you care about Science you don't do much speculation, which is rather bound to to Philosophy.
So is your thread about science or philosophy?

The thread is titled

where will science take electronic music?.

And since nobody can see the future then of course this thread will have some speculative element.

Can you quote which statement I gave as factually based that you believe is philosophy!.

This is a topic on a thread, not a scientific paper (of which I have written) . Thus surely you will permit me (and others) the freedom of thought to speculate of things, as yet unknown or unproven, provided that speculation is branched from the evidence (i.e - I’m not going to speculate that some guy will come back from the dead). I think you have misunderstood how science works. Quite often scientists will speculate on what could be possible and eventually come to a hypothesis that needs testing. The important point is that they know it is mere speculation, until they have grounds/ evidence to prove that the speculation (hypothesis) is not disproved by the observed and measured objective reality .

And that's the main point. The more you can not disprove a hypothesis,the more likely it is to be robust evidence. Of coarse it is impossible to disprove (or prove) of a idea or something that is merely a figment of the imagination. Thus science will never be able to prove or disprove that little green people made entirely from jelly exist (should a little green people religion spring up somewhere). However,going by the observed and measured evidence the statistical chance of the little green jelly people existing is almost ZERO.

Like GOD (troll bait) .