Talk:Computer music/Archives/2013

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

CDCM link

Might a link to CDCM be relevant, or would they be considered commercial? I've got a few other ideas for additions to really flesh this page out some, but I'll have to work on it some time later. --Morbid-o 17:27, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

1st computer music

I thoght that the first computer music was by Max Matthews in Australia, and it was a rendition of 'Daisy (Bicycle built for two)' --Morbid-o 20:26, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

That is very confused. The first computer to play music was CSIRAC, in Australia in about 1951, it was programmed by Geoff Hill. Max Matthews, at Bell Labs USA, created a software program MUSIC I in 1957, which was similar to what was being done with CSIRAC at the time. Max very astutely got composers involved and the software developed into a very smart computer music program - so he really is the father of computer music, even though he may not have been the first to program a computer to play music. "Daisy Bell" - aka bicycle built for two - was from 1961 and was probably the first synthesised singing. - pierrec. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pierre cummings (talk • contribs) 05:51, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Reviving wikiproject

I'd like to revive the wikiproject on computer music. If you want to help out, let me know (email, post on my talk page, etc).

--Phil Kirlin 16:23, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

I think fleshing out the page would be a good idea--I have added most of the information to it, lamentably its seems rather 'thrown together.' It would be good to keep any superfluous information off the article, and instead just use it as a starting off point, or information repository. Adding commercial entities to it could be distracting?

On the Max Matthews thing--I did not author that section---so I am willing to research and find out.

More on Computer Music

The first piece for computer was called "In the Silver Scale," which lasts 17 seconds and was composed by Audiologist Newman Gutman. For more information about computer music I suggest that you watch the video "Music Meets the Computer," hosted by Max Mathews and John Chowning. To find it you can simply do a google video search or go here: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7185099725785108063&q=Music+Meets+the+Computer&hl=en

Unfortunately, the video's sound cuts out after just over an hour but it should be a big help anyhow.

--Wakod2002 02:21, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

First piece at Bell Labs

"In the Silver Scale" was indeed the first piece at Bell Labs, and a link to the video somewhere in the resources would be a good idea. It appears NOT to be the first piece played by a computer, which was done by CSIRAC some 6 or 7 years earlier.

Multiple merge

Suggestion to amalgamate Computer generated music, Computer-Aided Algorithmic Composition, Computer assisted composition under Computer music. Semitransgenic (talk) 15:29, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

You might want to add Machine improvisation to that list. CM's a big enough subject for one really good article. I just ran into the Lejaren Hiller article which mentions Illiac Suite (decent article here: http://ems.music.uiuc.edu/history/illiac.html) and reminded me what a HUGE stink was made over the Scientific American article. I was at a meeting a few years back where one old-timer complained "Music is being taken over by the physicists!!!" (I thought: so?) Twang (talk) 02:40, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

There are a number of other related pages on here, but I wasn't sure how far to go with merging, the three listed above were too closely related to warrant separate items. Likely candidates include Live coding and Machine listening. Semitransgenic (talk) 12:31, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Merger complete. Some weeding needed and cross referencing with related articles (sub section see also links). Semitransgenic (talk) 11:06, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

section live coding

While live coding is used in computer music, it is not an exclusively musical practice, but used in the visual arts, and more generally, within a paradigm of algorithmic art. Either move to a separate page again, or deal with live coding in music here explicitly. As a first step, I will change the section header to live coding in computer music Atoll (talk) 13:43, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

the difference between live coding and interactive programming is that the former is a genre of performative art.

Have you got cites to support this supposition? Reverting until sufficient sources are provided to underpin this. Semitransgenic (talk) 14:59, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Live coding isn't a genre of performance art; although you can live code an improvised performance you can also live code alone. Live coding is about the development of an algorithm to generate a time-based work, during the time based work. So live coding is a method for producing time based works. Yaxu (talk) 16:34, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

I also support recreating the live coding page, so that video animation works such as those created with fluxus, impromptu can also be included. There are a good number of articles in mainstream media about live coding to support this I feel. Perhaps the TOPLAP page could merge with the new live coding page. Yaxu (talk) 16:37, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

The comparison to "Laptop DJ's" doesn't make much sense. Either we feel that a DJ is one who jockeys disks (so anything but vinyl won't count) or we take the term to include other ways of presenting music, including the use of laptops, in which case it's not clear from this paragraph how and why a livecoder isn't a "laptop dj". I want to propose doing away with that term completely and focussing on the distinction between pre-prepared and new material, especially the method of creating this material which is what is important here. Livecoding may include the re-structuring of existing sonic material so in the implied perspective on what DJ-ing is a livecoder may well be a DJ as well. --Kassen. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.145.196.40 (talk) 18:08, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

After discussion on the wikipedia irc channel I propose expanding the live coding section, adding in references to support notability, merging with the TOPLAP page and adding references to use in video as well as music, then proposing a split. I haven't got time to do this immediately so if anyone else fancies a go feel free. It means for a short while this page may be live coding heavy. Yaxu (talk) 09:42, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

External Links section

I removed this entire section as per WP:LINKFARM and WP:EL. The following will probably be useful as in-line citations in the article:

Nik thestoned 13:10, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Multiple issues

Original research

Why and where does this article contain original research? What should be done about it? Hyacinth (talk) 01:06, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Additional citations

Why and where does this article need additional citations for verification? What references does it need and how should they be added? Hyacinth (talk) 01:06, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Eight of the eleven sections (disregarding the lede) have no references at all. They need reliable references confirming their content. As they stand, these sections constitute original research. In order to rectify this problem, they should either be supplied with references, or deleted.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 04:03, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

What makes you think they are not simply reliable yet unreferenced? Hyacinth (talk) 01:44, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

"Reliable unreferences"? I've never heard of those, only reliable references.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 02:57, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

I assume you're joking by quoting something I never said. Hyacinth (talk) 03:22, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

You said something might be "simply reliable yet unreferenced". The word "reliable" was attached to "references" in my statement: "They need reliable references". I am not joking, I am deadly serious. If you are not joking, what is it that you mean?—Jerome Kohl (talk) 03:32, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

WP:NOR: "The prohibition against OR means that all material added to articles must be attributable to a reliable published source, even if not actually attributed." [emphasis mine] Hyacinth (talk) 04:02, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

How does that work, exactly? Are we obliged to accept any claim that might, under ideal circumstances, turn out to be attributable? That doesn't sound very reasonable to me.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 05:13, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

You have yet to claim that the information in the uncited sections in this article is made up or false.

Are we obliged to reject any claim, however reasonable and factual, that isn't already attributed? Hyacinth (talk) 06:10, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

yes we are. You may feel certain information is reasonable and factual, unfortunately that counts for nothing. All content should be verifiable, we are supposed to provide appropriate sources so that any reader who happens upon this article can be confident that what they are reading approaches the truth of the matter. Guidelines such as WP:RS and WP:OR are pretty clear about all of this. Semitransgenic _talk. 12:37, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Did you read the whole discussion before chiming in? Hyacinth (talk) 12:55, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

For comparison, the article Karlheinz Stockhausen contains numerous unreferenced statements yet is not tagged with "needs additional citations for verification" and "may contain original research". Hyacinth (talk) 13:04, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

I read it Hyacinth, but I chimed in because, as much as I appreciate your work around here, I don't understand your objection to tagging articles, and I see you questioning this quite a bit. Karlheinz Stockhausen looks riddled with references, I don't agree with the style of referencing, but I see plenty of them, if needed, individual cite request tags might be better there than a banner across the top, because on the whole it is very well sourced. I personally believe that readers should be forewarned when content is not up to scratch, not everyone agrees with this. Semitransgenic _talk. 13:17, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

You say Karlheinz Stockhausen has references, so does this article. I didn't say "Stockhausen" didn't have any references. Hyacinth (talk) 22:34, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Sorry but I don't agree with this edit. It's fair to allow time for editors to find sources for challenged material, deleting non-controversial content so hastily is unnecessary. Semitransgenic _talk. 13:30, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Then you where quick to speak as I was to act. Either this material is controversial or it isn't. Either we are forced to reject it or we aren't.

Secondly, the article has been tagged since May 2008. How many years is fair time? Hyacinth (talk) 22:30, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

When did I say I object to tagging articles? Hyacinth (talk) 22:31, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

When did I say I believe the information tagged by Jerome Kohl in this article was accurate? Hyacinth (talk) 22:38, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Across numerous tagged articles you have posted: "Why and where does this article need additional citations for verification? What references does it need and how should they be added?" My view is that the answer to this why/where/what query is self-evident. If an article is tagged there's a problem with the content. In the case of minor content issues knowledgeable editors should know where to find the relevant cites, although leaving the content as is without cites would do no great harm. If the veracity of the content is questionable, it should be challenged, and if no sources are presented, deletion would then be appropriate. If the content is clearly controversial, such as blatant original research that is factually inaccurate or perhaps violates NPOV, immediate deletion would be acceptable. Computer music has been tagged for a long time, yes, because there is little interest here in getting it up to speed. Was the content you deleted controversial? I don't believe so. Can cites be found for a great deal of this content? yes, I believe so (or at least some version of what is currently stated). Should the tags stay there until such time as the content improves? I think they should because, as I mentioned above, readers should know that what they are reading is perhaps not the truth. Semitransgenic _talk. 23:24, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Notice that what you quote "Why and where does this article need additional citations for verification? What references does it need and how should they be added?" is not in opposition to a {{Refimprove}} tag, but in support of it. Perhaps instead of making up my motivations you should respond to what I say. Hyacinth (talk) 00:06, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

I'd like to say I'm with Hyacinth on this matter of questioning the banners. These "additional citation needed" flags tend to stay in place long after the problems have been addressed and, in my opinion, Hyacinth has been doing yeoman's duty in calling attention to many such banners, while the rest of us editors sleep on. I personally prefer specific tags on items that need sources, rather than vague blanket complaints, and whenever I see one of Hyacinth's queries, I try to respond appropriately—either agreeing that the flag is no longer appropriate, or finding the specific offending items in the article and marking them. That said, I do agree with Semitransgenic that, in this case, removal in less than 24 hours of the items I had so marked was hasty and inappropriate. Except in cases of openly harmful claims, editors ought to be given a reasonable time to respond to requests for sources. Four years is way too generous, but without specific pointers, it is easy to just let things slide.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 00:33, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Forgive me if I disagree with"These "additional citation needed" flags tend to stay in place long after the problems have been addressed" I don't believe they do. They stay in place if problems with RS and OR still remain; the clusterf*** of an article called "spacemusic" was a good case in point, someone removed the banners, because they believed the problems were solved, unfortunately they still exist. It's a question of rigour, editors have certain interests, and only so much time to spare when it comes to accurate sourcing more widely. Yesterday, after 4 years, Jerome added 11 cite request tags to this article, this demonstrates why the top banner was needed in the first instance. Excessive in-text tagging is avoided in favour of banner placement. People should know that an article is potentially riddled with inaccuracies before they start reading it. Wikipedia contains the only content on the WWW where such warnings are given, that's why I favour their use. I would encourage others to be more rigorous and conscientiousness when it comes to sourcing, that way we don't have to use banners. When editors are both knowledgeable and educated, it is intellectually dishonest not to provide the best available sources. To let any old thing sit there simply because those who know, know that it is "attributable without being attributed" is not, in my opinion, the best way to deal with this. Semitransgenic _talk. 13:03, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Early computer-music programs typically did not run in real time.

No the computer programs did run in real time (batch processed). What other time could they run in? Unreal time?

What you mean is that in the ear.ly days the programs did not have the computational power to generate sound in real time. Moreover digital to analogue converters were separate from computers — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.27.193.180 (talk) 14:16, 16 January 2013 (UTC)