5 ms·

This is a weird title for the book, because there's very little musical content in the book at all. It's about sound synthesis and signal processing. It's aud

This is a weird title for the book, because there's very little musical content in the book at all. It's about sound synthesis and signal processing. It's audio engineering, which is a nice skill to have for music making, but it's not music theory.

jrajav 2y ago
Experimenting with timbre and the nature of sound itself is absolutely musical. That's a big reason why people love to listen to many different kinds of electronic music in the first place (or things like heavily distorted guitars). Music is not just about combining 12TET pitches in different ways. Everything about the experience of music is open game for creative expression.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
sbuttgereit 2y ago
During my university studies, I took courses in electro-accoustic music composition. Significant amounts of time dealt with synthesis and signal processing because those were critical elements in these kinds of compositions. It's absolutely different than composition for traditional instruments in this regard because the sounds you are using to compose with are being created by the composer and much as are the notes, rhythms, and structure of the composition. So for me, the title makes perfect sense.
- Rochus 2y ago
  The first sentence of the foreword brings to the point, what the book is about: "The Theory and Technique of Electronic Music is a uniquely complete source of information for the computer synthesis of rich and interesting musical timbres." Whereas tools like Max Mathews' (btw. the author of the foreword) MUSIC programs and their successors clearly separate music composition and instrument building (i.e. sound synthesis), later tools like Max, PD or SuperCollider are blurring this difference. Nevertheless the difference is still maintained by all institutions where electronic music is studied and performed (e.g. IRCAM).
  - RossBencina 2y ago
    On the matter of institutions: IRCAM is the paradigmatic example of composer / technologist role demarcation, but I would question whether this extreme position "is still maintained by all institutions" -- it certainly was not at my alma mater and I doubt at UCSD either. As you say, Max (coincidentally a product of Miller Puckette and IRCAM) and it's more recent ilk have empowered composers to independently build their own instruments and this practice has been ongoing within the academy for at least 35 years now.
    - Rochus 2y ago
      Maybe I'm a bit biased because I was there for a study visit in the eighties. Of course it depends on the use case; if the composition is fully electronic, the composer can essentially be the same person as the performer, conductor and producer, so there is no big need for a score; live coding goes even further and "the composition" appears during the performance; specific tools have been implemented for these use-cases (e.g. Standford has a long tradition for such tools).
    - spacechild1 2y ago
      As someone who studied computer music in the mid 2010s I can second that! All the composers in my generation who use live electronics do it themselves. The devide between composer and programmer has disappered for the most part and I think the main reason is that both hardware and software has become so affordable and accessible. Back in the old days, you needed expensive computers, synthesizers and tape machines and people who could assist you with operating them. Today, anyone can buy a laptop and learn Pd / Max / SuperCollider! That being said, institutions like IRCAM still have their place as they allow composers to work with technology that is not easily accessible, e.g. large multi channel systems or 360° projections. They also do a lot of research, too.
      - RossBencina 2y ago
        > Today, anyone can buy a laptop and learn Pd / Max / SuperCollider! And anyone can buy a laptop and contribute to the development of Pd, SuperCollider, Chuck, et al. Not sure how much overlap there is between those two groups. Arguing against my earlier point: there still seems to be a separation between music systems users and music systems developers.
gnulinux 2y ago
Found the classically trained musician. Any and all formal, mathematical, informal theory about music can be called music theory. Music theory is about modeling music. Period. It does not matter if it's about harmony, rhythm, pitch, form, timbre, dynamics, or some other aspect of music. Whether it helps with understanding music, composing music, improvising music etc is a separate topic. Music theory neither has to be about practical music making skills, nor it has to be about music of a particular artistic tradition. It just needs to present some model that can be a helpful tool in some musical context. Maybe what you call "audio engineering" is a specialized skill for some musical traditions, but for musical traditions where the expressive content primarily comes from timbre and synthesizers are common instruments, it will be an essential music making skill.
- Rochus 2y ago
  Nevertheless there is a huge difference between composing or improvising a musical piece, and programming a filter or oscillator. Btw. "audio engineering" is what audio engineers are doing (see e.g. https://aes2.org/ https://aes2.org/), and yet another completely different profession.
  - belshikun 2y ago
    <deleted>
    - xoac 2y ago
      Bad analogy since timbre has been part of the compositional process for decades now.
      - Rochus 2y ago
        It's actually a good analogy. It doesn't mention "timbre" and doesn't claim that timpre is not part of the compositional process. A classical composer can indeed specify timbre to a certain degree, and modern composers created new kinds of scores which offered more specification means for many features related to "timbre", but there is still a difference between composing music, playing music or building instruments in formal musical education.
mcnamaratw 2y ago
The book is from basically the “experimental music” school of electronic music. The idea was/is that music will be completely transmuted by electronics and computers, leaving traditional music behind. Here “traditional music” means almost everything people actually listen to, from orchestras to GarageBand electronica to pop. The claim may be a bit aspirational right now, but in theory “electronic music” subsumes all music. Or enlarges music so much that traditional musical ideas are special cases, not necessarily relevant. I’m trying to pitch this properly as a very cool concept. But I no longer believe it will happen in my lifetime.
kat_rebelo 2y ago
this assumes the position that the pre-eminence of the even-tempered music based on european art music traditions and the associated staff notation. this is extremely limiting when considering the breadth of music that exists in the real world. this is a theory of music, and while most pedagogy will reinforce the special position of this system, it is not THE theory of music. there are alternative systems of notation. there are harmonic systems that incorporate tones that do not exist in even tempered western scales. there are drumming traditions that are taught and passed down by idiomatic onomatopoeia. this is especially apparent in electronic music where things like step sequencers obviate the need to know any western music notation to get an instrument to produce sound. the western classical tradition is a pedagogically imposed straight jacket. its important to keep a more open mind about what music actually is.

jrajav 2y ago

Experimenting with timbre and the nature of sound itself is absolutely musical. That's a big reason why people love to listen to many different kinds of electronic music in the first place (or things like heavily distorted guitars). Music is not just about combining 12TET pitches in different ways. Everything about the experience of music is open game for creative expression.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

sbuttgereit 2y ago

During my university studies, I took courses in electro-accoustic music composition. Significant amounts of time dealt with synthesis and signal processing because those were critical elements in these kinds of compositions. It's absolutely different than composition for traditional instruments in this regard because the sounds you are using to compose with are being created by the composer and much as are the notes, rhythms, and structure of the composition. So for me, the title makes perfect sense.

Rochus 2y ago
The first sentence of the foreword brings to the point, what the book is about: "The Theory and Technique of Electronic Music is a uniquely complete source of information for the computer synthesis of rich and interesting musical timbres." Whereas tools like Max Mathews' (btw. the author of the foreword) MUSIC programs and their successors clearly separate music composition and instrument building (i.e. sound synthesis), later tools like Max, PD or SuperCollider are blurring this difference. Nevertheless the difference is still maintained by all institutions where electronic music is studied and performed (e.g. IRCAM).
- RossBencina 2y ago
  On the matter of institutions: IRCAM is the paradigmatic example of composer / technologist role demarcation, but I would question whether this extreme position "is still maintained by all institutions" -- it certainly was not at my alma mater and I doubt at UCSD either. As you say, Max (coincidentally a product of Miller Puckette and IRCAM) and it's more recent ilk have empowered composers to independently build their own instruments and this practice has been ongoing within the academy for at least 35 years now.
  - Rochus 2y ago
    Maybe I'm a bit biased because I was there for a study visit in the eighties. Of course it depends on the use case; if the composition is fully electronic, the composer can essentially be the same person as the performer, conductor and producer, so there is no big need for a score; live coding goes even further and "the composition" appears during the performance; specific tools have been implemented for these use-cases (e.g. Standford has a long tradition for such tools).
  - spacechild1 2y ago
    As someone who studied computer music in the mid 2010s I can second that! All the composers in my generation who use live electronics do it themselves. The devide between composer and programmer has disappered for the most part and I think the main reason is that both hardware and software has become so affordable and accessible. Back in the old days, you needed expensive computers, synthesizers and tape machines and people who could assist you with operating them. Today, anyone can buy a laptop and learn Pd / Max / SuperCollider! That being said, institutions like IRCAM still have their place as they allow composers to work with technology that is not easily accessible, e.g. large multi channel systems or 360° projections. They also do a lot of research, too.
    - RossBencina 2y ago
      > Today, anyone can buy a laptop and learn Pd / Max / SuperCollider! And anyone can buy a laptop and contribute to the development of Pd, SuperCollider, Chuck, et al. Not sure how much overlap there is between those two groups. Arguing against my earlier point: there still seems to be a separation between music systems users and music systems developers.

gnulinux 2y ago

Found the classically trained musician. Any and all formal, mathematical, informal theory about music can be called music theory. Music theory is about modeling music. Period. It does not matter if it's about harmony, rhythm, pitch, form, timbre, dynamics, or some other aspect of music. Whether it helps with understanding music, composing music, improvising music etc is a separate topic. Music theory neither has to be about practical music making skills, nor it has to be about music of a particular artistic tradition. It just needs to present some model that can be a helpful tool in some musical context. Maybe what you call "audio engineering" is a specialized skill for some musical traditions, but for musical traditions where the expressive content primarily comes from timbre and synthesizers are common instruments, it will be an essential music making skill.

Rochus 2y ago
Nevertheless there is a huge difference between composing or improvising a musical piece, and programming a filter or oscillator. Btw. "audio engineering" is what audio engineers are doing (see e.g. https://aes2.org/ https://aes2.org/), and yet another completely different profession.
- belshikun 2y ago
  <deleted>
  - xoac 2y ago
    Bad analogy since timbre has been part of the compositional process for decades now.
    - Rochus 2y ago
      It's actually a good analogy. It doesn't mention "timbre" and doesn't claim that timpre is not part of the compositional process. A classical composer can indeed specify timbre to a certain degree, and modern composers created new kinds of scores which offered more specification means for many features related to "timbre", but there is still a difference between composing music, playing music or building instruments in formal musical education.

mcnamaratw 2y ago

The book is from basically the “experimental music” school of electronic music. The idea was/is that music will be completely transmuted by electronics and computers, leaving traditional music behind. Here “traditional music” means almost everything people actually listen to, from orchestras to GarageBand electronica to pop. The claim may be a bit aspirational right now, but in theory “electronic music” subsumes all music. Or enlarges music so much that traditional musical ideas are special cases, not necessarily relevant. I’m trying to pitch this properly as a very cool concept. But I no longer believe it will happen in my lifetime.

kat_rebelo 2y ago

this assumes the position that the pre-eminence of the even-tempered music based on european art music traditions and the associated staff notation. this is extremely limiting when considering the breadth of music that exists in the real world. this is a theory of music, and while most pedagogy will reinforce the special position of this system, it is not THE theory of music. there are alternative systems of notation. there are harmonic systems that incorporate tones that do not exist in even tempered western scales. there are drumming traditions that are taught and passed down by idiomatic onomatopoeia. this is especially apparent in electronic music where things like step sequencers obviate the need to know any western music notation to get an instrument to produce sound. the western classical tradition is a pedagogically imposed straight jacket. its important to keep a more open mind about what music actually is.