Kim o' the Concrete Jungle

I would say that the number is finite, but very large -- probably several orders of magnitude larger than the number of songs ever written. I think I mentioned in a previous post, that music deliberately maximises the number of possible combinations.

I suppose we could try this little mathematical exercise, if anyone has the patience. Let us, for the sake of simplicity, consider just the possibilities for one bar and one instrument. That way, if you want the true numbers, you can just multiply out by the number of bars in the song and the number of instruments playing.

Okay. For western music, the basic unit of time is the bar. You can divide your bar into whole notes, halves, quarters, eighths, sixteenths, and thirty-seconds, or any combination of these that adds up to 1. Other divisions are also popular. You can divide your bar into thirds, fifths, sixths, sevenths, and ninths, if you so choose. And of course, you can vary the timing in these non-standard bars as well; for example, you can play a note equal to two-thirds of the bar, followed by a note equal to one-third -- it is valid, so long as it adds up to one. You can further modify any one of these timings in several ways: you can play slightly ahead of the beat, slightly behind, or you can swing (yeah baby).

So much for the beat, no lets consider the notes. In the western music system there are twelve keys. Every key consists of twelve notes, which we call the chromatic scale. There are other scales -- some with eight notes, some with five -- but since all of the notes are contained within the chromatic scale, we don't need to count them separately. Now, you wouldn't necessarily play the same note across an entire bar, so the number of different notes in a bar is only limited by the total number of notes in that bar. There are also no real limits on the order in which you might play those notes.

In the previous paragraph I have assumed you are playing notes all in the one octave -- i.e. notes all within twelve steps of each other. The majority of musical instruments (including the human voice), can in fact play more than one octave. I have a Rickenbacker 330 guitar that can play five octaves, so let's use that in our calculation (some instruments have more, some have less).

Some instruments, like my guitar, are also polychromatic; which is just a fancy way of saying you can play more than one note at a time. You can play any combination of two notes together (called an interval). You can also play combinations of three or four notes (called a chord) or more (polychords). Any possible combination of three or more notes is a valid chord, but in practice only a limited number of types are in common use. I will list the types of chords here:

major, minor, seventh, minor seventh, major seventh, suspended fourth (my fave), seventh suspended fourth, sixth, minor sixth, ninth (the groovy jazz chord), minor ninth, major ninth, six nine, seventh augmented ninth (the Jimi Hendrix chord), seventh flat nine, augmented, seventh augmented fifth, diminished, diminished fifth, seventh diminished fifth, ninth diminished fifth, eleventh, thirteenth, power chords (rock n' roll!).

There is a chord for each note of the chromatic scale (12 in all), and each of these comes in the variety of flavours I mentioned above. Mind you, that won't stop people from playing ones I haven't put on my list -- just to mess with your head, like.

And there you have it. Mind you, this is just the basics. There are other variations that are specific to various intruments. On guitar you have string bending, vibrato, hammering on and pulling off, damping, tapping, dive bombing, harmonics, bowing (like Jimi Page in Dazed and Confused). If it's an electric guitar, then you've got two or three electrical pickups that you can have in different combinations, plus tone and volume knobs. Then there's FX. The ones I consider indispensible are compression, overdrive, delay, vibrato, and reverb (for when I'm recording demos and things). Other groovy FX to play around with are wah wah, phasing, flanging, pitch shifting, chorusing... These things have a way of going critical. I wouldn't even attempt to count FX if I was you.

Okay. Does anyone want to even attempt this calculation? I'm sure it's beyond me.

On a completely different note, you mentioned computers in your post. And I think I'm going
to have to get all defensive about that. I've no doubt that you could program some algorythms, based on composition theory, that could formulate some interesting music, but that doesn't mean it can compete with human musicians. At its best, playing live is like a conversation between yourself and the other musicians, and yourself and the audience. It's not a one way street. You play, but you also watch and listen, and you respond accordingly.

For example, during an improv I have mentioned once already, I was playing something on the bass that the drummer thought was a bit odd. She conveyed this opinion to me by slightly raising one eyebrow. I changed what I was doing accordingly, then everything was fine. That's the sort of subtle level of communication that goes on between musicians when they are playing. And that's the level of awareness yuou have to acheive: where you notice stuff like a raised eyebrow or a nod of the head in amongst the dark and the noise on stage. It's the sort of awareness where you know what the other guy is going to play next, even before he knows it himself. Acheiving a complex and subtle rapport is the only way you get to be good at this stuff.

jpbrooks

Well, of course, since, for each song, a number of different improvisation arrangements is possible (as determined, as you suggested, by he number of variations possible in combining different instruments, bar timing, chord and note sequences, etc.).

Of course, but such calculations are not a problem for a computer once it has been programmed to perform them.

Precisely!
Computers are cut off from the world in a way that we aren't. And until we find a way to provide machines with the ability to have experiences of the world that allow them to interact with the world in a manner that is comparable to the way we interact with it, (which is something that I am not at all certain can be done), this will always be a limitation on the creative ability of computers. (Even the EMI program mentioned in the article cited above still required a human being to select the "relevant" samples of music that EMI was to "analyze".)

[ March 31, 2002: Message edited by: jpbrooks ]</p>

WJ

Hi all!

...haven't been feeling well the last few days, but wanted to post a point as found in the (comprehensive) Handbook of Creativity (Robert Sternberg PHD Psychology). Among other interesting topics, ie: the 'incubation period' that the Beatle's went thru prior to the time of maximum production of creativity- songwriting/hits, there was a similar good point about the tension between built-up knowledge(over time) and creativity. Which perhaps ties with you-all's discussion about computers, database, and knowledge of specific scales.

The point relates to a story about an engineer looking at a biological sciences problem outside of his domain (area of expertise) and how bringing a different background helped solve the medical problem (something about a liver function...) in a completely new novel way. How I relate this to the 'scales' discussion is that it seems it depends how the [each] musician approaches his situation as to whether he might be open to creative thoughts-being productive in creative ideas.

Let's stay with improv for a moment. For the sake of argument, most 70's pop/rock/funk/r&b kind of tunes (I'm speaking mainly bass guitar but applies to other instruments as well) use major/minor and penatonic and mixolodian scales and usually don't get too caught-up with other more complicated modes/scales. But let's say that the musician *only* knows pentatonic(which surprisingly sounds good in jazz as well) scales. With that limited knowledge, he may find a bunch of different ways to play/improve/solo/ phrase/speak thru his instrument that perhaps a person who is classically trained in many other areas is unable to apply. In fact, I've seen this.

I've seen folk's who cannot apply their learn-ed theory or knowledge of all those scales to the musical situation. Why is this? The knowledge is there, but the spontanious expression is lost somehow, perhaps in the subconscious. I say subconscious because I have a feeling that the 'dumb' emotion (from the lymbic system)is apparently needed for this interaction of rational learn-ed thought. This raw dumb emotion or excitement can be likened to the engineer, who out of his own ignorance, maybe doesn't care about the theory (and in fact has no knowledge of 'biology' outside his domain), yet brings this 'something' to the table that otherwise had not been contemplated by the trained medical professional. A different perspective.

So I'm thinking it is not 'what' you know, it is how you apply what you know. so the question is, Can one know little and be creative? Probably. Can one know a lot and not be creative? Probably. Could all of it work in reverse? Probably, but how much is information overload?

Maybe it goes back to total immersion(like to book spoke about the Beatles hits) over a period of time to where one tires with this rational theory, and by simply wanting to express oneself differently (out of frustration with oldness), draws from the rational brain the general framework, (of a solo or new composition) but lets the emotion drive the need for newness or pleasure thru transforming that creative energy with a new combination of notes, etc.? I don't know, it seems there is some sort of mixing of the two-the rational and the emotive.

With regard to the creative process, I'd like to focus on the need first. Is there a need to be creative in the first place? If so, why?

Walrus

Kim o' the Concrete Jungle

Hi Kachana,

This is the sort of thing I had in mind when I posted my idea of subconscious. Only I haven't read up on cognitive psychology for a while, so I'm not aware of the current state of knowledge in the area. That is why I chose to present it abstractly, and left out any reference to what the mechanism for it might actually be.

When it comes to memory, I like the analogy that Edward de Bono uses to describe it. I had this in mind when I wrote my theory of subconscious. I will reproduce it here (without permission, but I hope, within the bounds of fair use).

I also like Edward de Bono's no nonsense approach to creativity. Following this analogy, he goes on to say that if you can break down an idea into its component parts, you can then consider new ways of putting these components together to form new ideas. In his analogy, this is equivalent to changing the sequence in which spoons of hot water are added to the jelly. If you have a different sequence, you will end up with a different landscape.

His "Lateral Thinking" is simply a number of techniques with which you may disrupt your habitual patterns of thought, so that you are able to deconstruct the "jelly landscape" into its component spoonfuls of hot water.

Ender

Art saves the suffering creator and through art life saves the sufferer for himself. This is a kind of truth that denies life and subsists only via illusion.

The greater the suffering, the need to reinterpret reality consequently increases. Art justifies existence through one's creative energies by sanctioning it with values.

Only the truly hypersensitive pour forth creative energy and recast the meaninglessness of reality into a vision of humanity.

~WiGGiN~

Kim o' the Concrete Jungle

Hi Ender,

I'm afraid I don't buy the whole "suffering artist" thing. I blame the myth of Vincent van Gogh for creating it. Vincent was only an active artist for the last handfull of years of his life, and the only reason why he is so important today is because his mental illness led him to paint obsessively. So he left us a large body of work. And it is only by luck that this body of work was "discovered" by collectors.

The majority of people in any creative area, be it painting, music, literature, or somewhere else, only become successful through hard work, and through a no-nonsense, business-like attitude to what they do. Picasso is a good example. He didn't live the wild life, and he didn't starve in a garrison over the Seine. He spent his time in his studio, painting, not partying. He found it a chore even to receive visitors, and spent the last part of his life a virtual recluse.

If you want to be an artist, a writer, or a musician, then you actually have to spend time painting, writing, or playing. That doesn't leave much time left over for swanning around making theatrical gestures of melancholy.

So if a drunk or drug addict takes you into his confidence and says, "really, I'm an artist -- but life is so meaningless that I must seek solace at the bottom of a bottle," don't take his word for it. He has probably never set brush to canvas with any serious intent. His "art" is really just an excuse for his alcoholism or drug addiction. He isn't a real artist. You won't find real artists in the gutter shouting despair at the world, you will find them in their studios, working.

tempest

Some interesting stuff here. It looks like the topic morphed a little - I haven't read all of it yet, but I liked the original topic so I hope no one minds if I throw in the mix.

I'm a musician too. Everybody seems to be dancing around the same unspeakable topic, so here's some phrases I use with my bandmates.

"Stop thinking so much dammit." That comes up a lot. Somehow, the music is more direct when goes from the intention tothe fingertips ( guitarist) without passing through the conscious brain. I think this is physically possible because of some phenomena regarding rhythmic beat.

I know for me, when I'm playing my best, I am conscious of the rhythm, and the intended emotion.

We say staying tight, meaning staying on time as a unit. The rhythm both allows the group to act as one, and myself to act without thinking. And we are "tight" when we are right on time, and in the same mood.

We call it "in the pocket" We named our first collection Deep in the Pocket, just because of this phenomena. Somehow, through repetition and practice, in order to finally make the best music, the musician must be unconscious of what he or she is doing. When I sustain it for a whole song, I know I've done my best, and the song is also, usually better.

How this relates to improvization and creativity is also interesting. I've heard some great song writers explain the phenomena that when they wrote their best songs, lyrics and all, it took them 15 minutes or a half an hour. Very little judgement, very little consciousness of the whole. Paul McCartney and Sting, and many others have described writing their best music as "being a vessal through which the music flowed, as if it wasn't coming from me" I can dig that.

So far I've done little to explain how this occurrs. But I think when it comes to live improv, its the rhythm and the mood that squelch the self consciousness for the sake of the rhythm and the mood. Its as though you have a spirit, and this spirit leaves through you instrument and becomes embodied in the sound waves. Again, describing the phenomena with no explanation.

Lastly, I think the same exact thing can occurr wherever there is rhythm. Dance, singing, poetry, manual labor, - anything with a groove.

Somehow, the brain's response to the groove replaces the self conscious with some awareness of sound, which can leave one's fingers (guitarist) open to doing things caused from that sound, and so not caused from the normal self consciousness.

So my explanation is, because of the rhythm, it somehow happens.

Sorry <img src="graemlins/boohoo.gif" border="0" alt="[Boo Hoo]" />

jpbrooks

An interesting (general) question that seems to arise in considering all that has been said above is, is creativity an activity or process that we can choose to (or not to) engage in, or is it an "inherent" and unavoidable aspect of our psychology? I have been drawn more recently to the latter view. When we remember events that occur, we are engaging in a process of selection (that occasionally gets things mixed up, creating false memories) because we don't recall every memory that is stored in our brains at once. This process of memory selection is a creative one, and seems to occur even without our conscious direction, as in dreams.

If this assessment is correct, then creativity is an essential aspect of our psychology. Artistry would then be the (formal) expression (in whatever form of art we choose as a medium of expression) of the creative aspect of our thought processes that occur all the time.

[ April 06, 2002: Message edited by: jpbrooks ]</p>

Ender

I'm afraid I don't buy your hasty generalization of Vincent van Gogh's life as the decisive representation of a suffering artist in the least. My viewpoint rides on the Schopenhaueristic premise that life is bereft of meaning.

The ancient Greeks were natural pessimists and had a great capacity for suffering. Silentus said "what is best of all is forever beyond your reach: not to be born, not to be, to be nothing. The second best, however, is soon to die." For too long we, the western civilization has had this absurd "romantic" view of the greeks as enlightened or naïve people who considered suffering a foreign concept. They created Apollonian arts to render their existence endurable and the Homeric dream world is the medium of their idealization of the highest good.

"only as aesthetic phenomenon is existence and the world eternally justified."-Birth of Tragedy

The world isn't moral in the Christian sense, nor rational in the Hegelian, but beautiful.

Oh, aren't you full of sanctimonious bullshit? Goethe said it best: "From desire I plunge to its fulfillment, where I long once more for desire." Hard-work and no-nonsense attitude is no guarantee of success. Life doesn't work that way- or maybe it does and you're a time traveler from the fifties who believes in such puerile naivety.

What does partying have to do with suffering? Moreover, how does slavish adherence to working inoculate suffering?

I agree you have to spend time working on your craft.

Are you even an artist? How do you think artist delve into creative energies in the first place? With my post I spoke from the heart, from my experience as an artist. You sound like a fuddy-duddy conservative who has no capability to grasp the existential angst of the artist during the moment of expression, in the depths of creation.

Such socialist overtones ill suits a response. Moral behavior does not dictate the talent of the artist- in fact, there cannot be a correlation you're implying here. Hemingway abused drugs and committed suicide. Janis Joplin, Kurt Cobain, Jim Morrison, Jimi Hendrix etc died young at age 27. Need i go on?

Life is meaningless. There is no God. It's a dog-eat-dog world. Nature is red in tooth and claw. It's up to us to create purpose or values, not search for them or follow someone else's idea of purpose or values, much less your own!

~WiGGiN~

((edited 4 rhetoric))

[ April 06, 2002: Message edited by: Ender ]</p>

WJ

The point I had made earlier can also be summed up in the works of Leonardo da Vinci. Sometimes having 'both perspectives' brings to a [musical] situation a uniqueness that also spurs creativity and outright novelty. Is it explainable? Do completely new ideas just appear to the conscious mind based on a subconscious incubation period of some sort? Do creative ideas manifest differently based on experience and background of the individual?

We don't really know. Discoveries in science, music, physics, or any thing truly new/novel often comes from inspiration and/or the idea just appears. It seems then the indivdual has the opportunity, in his/her mind, to bring to the table their own sense of expression from perceptions and experiences they have in life. In otherwords, their very own outlook on life makes a difference in the creative 'process'.

Similarly, my question to Ender would be what is the point of making or listening to the form of art known as music, if music in itself, is also meaningless? What biological purpose or advantage does this ability to 'create' have, in wanting to play and listen to music as human beings? If it confers no advantage, yet we do it anyway, what is your [the] point?

Explain to us the need for the creative process in humans, and expressive mediums (science, etc, etc..).



Walrus