Why does music have such an effect on us? What psychologically makes it different from other random sounds?

sry to burst your fairy tale bubble

we are only a small step away from completely automating music composition

dont believe me? read up on wolfram tones

fractals are really and very important as some of the fundamental patterns of being. here, in good faith have a paper on fractal expressionism, analyzing pollock's work blogs.uoregon.edu/richardtaylor/files/2015/12/PollockFractalExpressionism2003-2b1h6rl.pdf

on the topic of tuning, the film Werckmeister Harmonies or source text touch on this topic. it is very good.

fairy tale bubble? i am rather familiar with wolfram. i think it's very cool and if anything we will only benefit from these technologies and insights. there is still much interesting experimentation to do. what do you know about electro acoustics? what do you know of anything pertaining to modern composition?

There's been some quite illuminating work on this recently. The gist is that the configuration space of chordal structures has the natural structure of an algebraic orbifold, with pleasing chord progressions being those which move between close points thereupon-that is, those which correspond to geodesic paths. The aesthetics of melodies are related to the monodromy groups of the singular points of the orbifold, and key relationships are encoded in the universal cover.

Most pop music is already automated insofar as it's based more on stock chord progressions and market research into what's popular than "artistic inspiration"

autism

Just because you don't understand something doesn't mean it's autistic.

>what do you know abour x?
what should I know?

I'm not answering counter question, just get to the fucking point

>electro acoustics
we didn't even go into the physical phenomena yet but you want to switch topic already?

cellular automatons using harmonic intervals?

you never asked a question. you stated some shit without any real insight. electro acoustics covers early experimentation with the medium, and/or acoustical engineering. both of which are immediately relavent. what i'm saying is that you don't actually know anything about modern music or where experimentation is happening, so you and your post are worthless

I understand, but I imagine it says absolutely nothing about what exactly makes music so powerful except "here are some fancy patterns of the kinds of chords people like"

>
>sry to burst your fairy tale bubble
>we are only a small step away from completely automating music composition
>dont believe me? read up on wolfram tones

Wolfram Tones is laughably far from good music compositions.
There's also the problem of human variance. How one composer executes a piece will be different from another.

Take cellists playing the cello concerto for example:
A computer will execute the piece with zero variance.
A less than experienced cellist will stumble where he is weak.
An experienced cellist will attempt to flawlessly execute the piece.
A seasoned and devoted cellist will have various ways of playing the cello concerto completely changing the emotion of the piece by changing how different parts of the piece are played.

On a computer, you could design a program to do exactly what the best cellist could do. But they'll probably invest about as much time as the cellist to accomplish the same feat.

To then automate the creation of such emotional or artistic variances for any given piece..... Not saying it can't be done, but Wolfram Alpha hasn't even made the equivalent of a "tic tac toe win machine" yet. What makes you think they're close to making the music automation machine that will best a seasoned Go player already?

this too. i was just looking at the tech side of things. like, even a single facet of modern production can go super deep and is too nuanced to be automated away yet. what constitutes good mastering has too many human variables. or i can throw texts about digital signal processing at dude but it would be worthless without years of education.

>implying variance is not computable
ableton has it

>like
>super deep
>good mastering has too many human variables
are you 12?

it does though but after a certain point it matters less. a lot of what sounds "right" for various genres, their instruments, etc needs to be assessed by someone with a lot of experience and knowledge of how that genre works and how sounds fundamentally work together. it isn't just "push butan" and if you want something actually stellar it is, at present, beyond simple automation. and a lot can indeed be automated. many of the the technical problems in this space are ones with solutions, so maybe it is the less valuable argument than the one presented about the cellists. but you're continuing to post stupid drivel to argue with people on no footing.

Culture is so fucking important. I will always remember when my high school music teacher showed us an old love song from the middle east and everyone in the class thought it sounded dark and depressing.

I think you're right that quality automated compositions are a long way off. But I do wonder about the point of automating music composition (this is not directly related to your comment). And I'm not even talking about string quartets. I'm guessing that one of the first genres people will try to automate will be film soundtracks, and there are good reasons-they tend to be technically simple, and it's probably cheaper to run a program than hire a human composer. But at that point, why not write a program to automate scriptwriting? Or editing, or directing, or...? The main question is: what is the point of consuming "art" that was produced by a machine? Can it even be called "art" or is it just a facsimile? Is the purpose of movies just to entertain for 1.5 hours?

Alec Baldwin was just in the news for buying a painting that he now believes was a copy of the original. But why should anyone care whether or not it's original if the two paintings look exactly the same? And what difference should it make whether or not a piece of music was composed by a machine?

At the risk of sounding like a Luddite, I find something pretty creepy about the idea of automated music. Not every human endeavor is a problem waiting to be solved by a clever machine learning algorithm. I wonder how many Silicon Valley whiz-kids watched the movie Her and didn't realize it was supposed to be a dystopia.

You're retarded or have shit taste in music. There is no proof of this and there are a nearly limitless amount of counter examples.

I think music is a bit of an exploit for brains.
We map inputs to appropriate outputs but that map isn't perfect.
Music isn't present in natre so there wasn't any selection against having music mapped to some emotions/reactions.
If you think about it, every sound existing in nature has some effect on us (animal roars, rain, thunder etc.) and it would be odd if other sounds just had no effect on us.
the visual equivalent for this is design. arrt often depocts actual things so design fits better for me.
This is just some made up theory though

Yep, there is the questions, and we will soon have to answer them, each of us for himself at least. Computers will soon be able to copy popular movies and books, music probably too, and lots of people will use it as proper entertainment. But for now we cant say that computers is able to produce something truly new, so for some time we are kinda safe.

You're reading comprehension is shit. You might want to look into a computer that does that for you too.

name one or gtfo

I think nasheed and that type is becoming pretty popular in the West