talk algorithmic chord theory with me

[jcivil]

well, since we are in the field of aesthetic philosophy now, allow me to expand

here's my analysis -

we know that mathematics is.. i hesitate to say synthetic ..every day mathematicians are discovering relations, patterns between numbers.. by extrapolating and abstracting.. make an abstraction.. something interesting happens in it.. often something fairly simple and straightforward.. suddenly it's a new principle that has "always been true.." but wasn't liminal/known previously.

one thing music/ears/mind is about is oc patterns.. the experiential focus in sound can be highly subjective.. most people can report their interests in music changing, often that something once completely unpalatable was 'understood' et c.

...maqamat might not sound harmonic.. mongolian folk singing et c.

they sound harmonic because they are harmonic, they work in concert with material and with the space material vibrates in. harmonic in an objective sense. perhaps where abstraction meets the concrete.

a machine or purely abstracted construction might not be said to do this.

patterns is one thing music.ears.mind does, but another has to do with how an ear is constructed, a membrane vibrates in response to other, *sounding*, phenomena

another consideration *to me* is also acoustical: chords in 12-tone tempered systems are by definition compromised in how they correspond with how the harmonic series actually works. this is why care must be taken with vertical structures such as chords, if we are designing a thing-to-be-heard.

EG: an instrument such as a sitar sounds so rich because the overtones are not fighting their own nature, the reinforcements and cancellations correspond with how things vibrate in space and against material.

if you look at it systematically, as patterns, let's say, it's very subtle, it's not at all symmetrical. it's unique perhaps to this space, this planet.

[jcivil]

I Ching.

I'm going to be simple-minded, and this may not help you, but, 'it could happen'

abstractly:

you can look at twelve tones as a circle. A circle of twelve contains 3 4s or 4 3s. triangles. it's also beautifully asymmetrical as 7 + 5; a lot of African rhythm divides 12, a compound time, 4x3 {the THREE SWINGS}, into 7+5, which sets it off.

now if you look at two hexachords, the first attitude you might encounter is where they are mutually exclusive.

If you don't find a way to specify which exclusions have exceptions, well, here we are looking at 'is it too dissonant' vs 'is it TOO PREDICTABLE', which I know you realize. My whole point is that the exceptions and the rules will have results which sound better when they are derived via experience with how such structures vibrate in space.
*chord facility*

Accordingly, you are going to have to look at/LISTEN TO spacing; a 'minor second', 'b' right by a 'c' is substantially different than a major 7th or minor 9th; your algorithm might be wise to 'know' something about it. And it will help if YOU DO TOO.

I used to write a lot of seven to nine-note chords, ranging from block sonorities to quasi-counterpoint, that was my ear as a young thing. There are 'sound' reasons I don't torment myself with such an exercise nowadays. It gets thorny and ugly even with a whole lotta experience manipulating combos of tones. Now, 'ugly and thorny' is a subjective criterion, and you may even prefer to have what I deem unattractive in a music. I don't know how purely intellectual such an exercise is supposed to be, either, I'm not that intellectual.

If you don't more-or-less drastically restrict note choices, your non-ear-having algorithm is going to stumble, and often.

Honestly I have to point to what I feel is the hubris of the idea, since you state up top, your experience with chords is very limited.

'that said' I'm sure you'll learn a lot.

[xoxos]

i appreciate this.. it's an objective i have where the implementation hasn't gelled yet.

i definately understand what you are concerned about. my experience is consonant with your expression.. perhaps i am too desensitised to the stumble.

of course i have also considered fundamental semantics of rhythm, et c. (time signatures will be potentiated to frequently modulate within piece.. this oc.. is also not a constant..) and understand 12et includes many fundamental harmonic relations.. 12=3*4 et c.

i haven't thought about harmony enough to construct these sculptures people produce.. ultimately, apart from implementation of other peoples' structures and the knowledge i have, i was planning to do what i did last time except more.. four instead of three primary notes and judging progression weights by an intensive chord listening session lasting about a week.

i track the output and if i hear something during testing that is just so intolerable i pick it out.

apart from that, there is also the consideration that the computer is being allowed to make choices because it will make the right choices. this is as essential as ensuring an acceptable format.

i've never applied the golden ratio to chord progressions, only temperament.. eg. i'll probably try a model based on that and whatever occurs to me along the way. i know that it's going to get done in the next few months. i've been going to do this for almost 20 years :p

generally my favourite harmonic inspiration is swing era, ellington et al. even in what i consider very gentle music i usually use accidentals. try listening to cubebreath, on my atomic traveller page. it's awful and you'll wince tho it can be delightful.

what i'm planning on doing - apart from just dumping parts/resources for algorithmic dev in synthedit, is making a music engine that has some user contouring, generally energy functions, however i strongly wish to emphasise it's potential to automate changes in tempo, signature, key, temperament so that eg. a 4 week(infinite) piece of music could be generated.

the concept of audio dynamic as such appeals to me - i intend to get quite used to it. however i'd also like to include something that can stick to swing, or be relaxing. my wind models aren't up to swing yet.