Not signed in (Sign In)
    • CommentAuthorAmanda
    • CommentTimeJun 18th 2008 edited
     (2642.1)
    I found this article to be pretty interesting, though I've heard a lot of what it has to say. It talks about google and the net in general changing the way we process information.


    I'm particularly interested in the notion of an arts technology changing your artistic style. The discussion of this in reference to Nietzsche made me think about my own tools. As a composer, I've found that I write much differently when I use sequencing programs like Logic than I did when I exclusively used pen and paper or notation programs.

    I wanted to conduct an experiment with other composers, analyzing the difference in the way they composed with varying kinds of technology, and use it to write my Masters Thesis, but my department told me that the subject "wasn't academic enough." Pft.

    http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200807/google

    (just the address, because for some reason the browser where i am isn't wanting to post it as a link)
  1.  (2642.2)
    Indeed. I've read similar things.
    The internets certainly has its advantages as well as its drawbacks when it comes to gathering research.
    In regards to how technology affects one's method of creation, i think the argument that it most certainly does is sound. That is, i can only relate to how i've seen it affect the field i'm in: architecture.
    I'm only 32 but when i was in high school and then in college, most everyone interested in the field could at least draw by hand or build a scaled model with some measure of skill. An emphasis on computer design did not begin to make a larger impact until later in my education as software became more effective as did the performance capabiities of the average computer that could handle the 3D software.
    I picked it up fairly quiclkly (yay for videogames? :P) and i'm just as comfortable with it as i am with making a model or sketching and drawing by hand. My personal affinity leans towards drawing by hand either freehand or with tools. I still have my old parallel bar and lead pointers and inkpens and triangles and such.
    And that's just how i and many others of my generation view the computer...another tool or medium to express an architectural idea. Each one does so differently. Each one has its own advantages/disadvantages when compared to the others.
    It worries me to meet the occasional young student or recent graduate who can make a sexy 3D computer model but balk at the idea of building one by hand or even attempting to draw by hand. I find they generally don't know how to draw (i've scolded many for having monotonous lineweights) or even design a smart detail (you can't bog down a computer model with details or else it just becomes sludge to manipulate in the program) or quicly generate a clear diagram of their design in two dimensions.

    ...sigh...

    Makes me feel old.
    • CommentAuthorjzellis
    • CommentTimeJun 18th 2008
     (2642.3)
    I'm currently writing a program that randomly generates melodies in a given scale. What I'm going to do with it eventually is to treat melodies as a sort of musical DNA, and have the program evolve those melodies, according to unnatural selection -- my own taste.

    So it'll randomly generate something for me, and I'll listen to it, and give it a thumbs up or a thumbs down. It'll generate something new, and the process repeats. After a few times, it'll start splicing the melodies together and giving me offspring, which I can "breed" or kill off as I choose. A second part of this will analyze MIDI files of pop music and look for common patterns and chord progressions, and try to synthesize new music out of it -- which I can also run aesthetic evolution on.

    I have no idea what this will produce, but I find it far more interesting than my other mode of composition, which is to play Jesus & Mary Chain big guitar chords and sing like Mark Sandman from Morphine until I find a hook. Which is also fun. But it's not quite as Eno-esque.

    Must sleep now. Very tired.
    • CommentAuthorSteerpike
    • CommentTimeJun 18th 2008
     (2642.4)
    Carr's argument is pretty awful - people have been searching DIALOG and other online information services for decades, for example, yet nobody accuses librarians of having short attention spans or changing how they read. Some ancedotes, some cherry-picked quotes, some questionable analogies, a misguided attempt to tie in Taylorism and hey presto, an article in the famously doom-and-gloom Atlantic.

    The larger point of new technologies making some skills obsolete or encouraging new metaphors, sure. But Carr's just recapitulating Sven Birkerts.
  2.  (2642.5)
    @jzellis

    I would be all over that like a persitent rash.
    • CommentAuthorAmanda
    • CommentTimeJun 19th 2008 edited
     (2642.6)
    @ jzellis-


    There has actually been a lot of work like that done, and its really interesting. There are quite a few people in my department that are into Music Information Retrieval, or essentially, what you were describing in terms of analyzing MIDI files. A lot of it is done with actual audio files too.




    you might find some of the programs here to be pretty rad:



    and you might want to check out ISMIR too.




    and here is a link to one of my professors' webpage... he has a lot of good resources on here for music programming stuff.