Algorithmic composition to help me get started?

Hello fellow aspiring composers and pianists alike!

I'll start off with a brief introduction:

I'm 22 years old. I started playing piano about a year ago coming from a musically secluded environment (i did listen to some music though!)

Although i enjoy playing the piano and all sorts of different music, i also have keen interest in composition and am i still have no idea how and why music works.

My goal (for now) is to be able to write a generic piece of music.

However, i have no idea how to start composing, i can play some random notes and some common chord progressions like I-IV-V-I or i can try to pick out a melody but it doesnt work for me.

I'm a programmer.

I love flowcharts, order and determinism.

I'd like to come across a pragmatic guide to composition.

A step by step guide to writing all sorts of generic (elevator) music.

It has to be clear and concise.

I'm fully aware that there's no full formal mathematical model on what is considered good sounding to our brains and that there's no single method for composition.

But there must be a whole bunch of established guidelines and algorithms out there already. (just take a look at some algorithmic composition software like cgMusic)

I'd like to ask you to recommend me some books/resources/links on the subject to get me started.

Key points:

* Algorithmic composition

* What works and what doesnt, what chords/progressions/notes are used when/where and why.

* Flowcharts

* Pragmatic, step by step approach - a guide i can follow and get audible results.

I hope after trying out and devising several algorithms i'll have better understanding of music and will be able to do this "on my own" taking detours from established algorithms and being able to write music freely as i like.

To me, taking a algorithmic, preset process aproach to composition is a little like trying to make orange juice from lemons. (And of course, all of this is debateable.)

So this is how I would suggest you start:

You play some piano, so you can read music I assume. Just get some music staff paper, or maybe something like Finale Notepad and just start. It doesn't have to sound "good" or advanced, or anything. Just write.

To know "what works and what doesn't" takes experience and theory. The theory you can learn from books (someone else can help you with those, and there are other threads around.) The experience will only come from getting your feet wet.

Flowcharts? the closest thing that I can think of is chord progressions. (I suppose musical forms like minuet and such could be similar...)

So start writing anything. Listen and review stuff here. Start learning what you can, and when you finish something post it and people will hopefully take a look at it and give advice. Repeats steps as needed for best results. ;)

oh! and listen, listen, listen to music. Follow a score or sheet music if you can, but listen.

Music is not meant to be mathematized, or analyzed as such. I think you should just WRITE.

Or, I guess you could try twelve-tone writing...

Music is not meant to be mathematized, or analyzed as such. I think you should just WRITE.

Or, I guess you could try twelve-tone writing...

Haven't you heard something along the lines "music is math"?

Oh, and music is supossed to be analyzed(it actually have been studied and analyzed for centuries).

Music may be math and science on different terms, but you're overlooking the central point. Music is supposed to be an art form: a form of experssing oneself. Not a science problem, not a math equation. It is auditory expression.

And yes, music is analyZed all the time; personally I don't think academic mathematical analysis of music is treatin it the way the composer intended. This is my point; as far as I know composers want their music to be heard, enjoyed, and understood emotionally. Otherwise, the writing of mathematical music/algorithmic music, "paper music", is meaningless unless it has a certain meaning or expression to go with it

Schoenberg invented the 12-tone method: which I firmly believe is a great idea if you can write something meaningful with it. However, in the past century it has come to be abused, academic, and almost purely moot. Unless you're Walter Piston, or Alban Berg, to write something 12-tone that's meaningful and listenable is very difficult.

I don't want to start an argument here; these are just my thoughts.

If you want any help, you may want to consider being just a little more courteous.

I wish you the best of luck with your findings. Let me know when you've got it figured out.

To me, taking a algorithmic, preset process aproach to composition is a little like trying to make orange juice from lemons. (And of course, all of this is debateable.)

So this is how I would suggest you start:

You play some piano, so you can read music I assume. Just get some music staff paper, or maybe something like Finale Notepad and just start. It doesn't have to sound "good" or advanced, or anything. Just write.

First of all, it has to sound "good" or at least "passable". I bet you wouldnt listen to music which doesnt sound good, so why bother.

So i'm supposed to write some notes/chords semi-random? Like doing the combinatorics and trying out all the key combinations with pure-unguided trial and error? I'm afraid it doesnt work that way. While that may be a legal method for some who have implicit understanding of music, it doesnt work for me.

If there's software out there(cgMusic) what can write a generic("good" sounding) piece of music, why wouldnt i be able to follow the same algorithms and rules to get same or even better results? I could actually be able to write significantly better music since i have advantage of actually being able to tell if some part of music sounds right.

Haven't you heard something along the lines "music is math"?

Oh, and music is supossed to be analyzed(it actually have been studied and analyzed for centuries).

Well, music has some connections with math, but that does not mean that you will learn to compose trough math. While the tonal aspect of music is related to math, there is a higher unconscious emotional aspect of perceiving music. Sure, you can have a program randomly spit out a bunch of notes, then take that and harmonize it in a technically correct progression, slap a 4/4 beat to it, but you can't expect that it will be any good.

Even though there are some people that create some music in the exactly the same manner I just described, I personally don't perceive that as music. More like a generic background noise, similar to what you experience while walking down a busy street. Lots and lots of random notes without any sense to it.

In my opinion, in order to create music, you must have lots of love and appreciation for music, and be sure that it is something you want to devote a large part of your life to, even if doing it just as a hobby.

You must not forget that before all things, music is an art, and art is not always logical or contained within clearly defined and explainable lines.

If you can't write anything good at first, you keep writing. Just like doing anything else: you start somewhere and build off it. You can't paint a masterpiece on your first try. It takes practice.

From reading your posts, it seems you just want an easier way out. A shortcut, I daresay. I think you might enjoy 12-tone music; this is what Schoenberg thought too, so maybe you can learn a little something from his music.

And if you say you have knowledge as to what sounds good as opposed to a program like CGmusic, then WRITE. If you know what sounds good to you, then write it out!

Music may be math and science on different terms, but you're overlooking the central point. Music is supposed to be an art form: a form of experssing oneself. Not a science problem, not a math equation. It is auditory expression.

And yes, music is analyZed all the time; personally I don't think academic mathematical analysis of music is treatin it the way the composer intended. This is my point; as far as I know composers want their music to be heard, enjoyed, and understood emotionally. Otherwise, the writing of mathematical music/algorithmic music, "paper music", is meaningless unless it has a certain meaning or expression to go with it

Schoenberg invented the 12-tone method: which I firmly believe is a great idea if you can write something meaningful with it. However, in the past century it has come to be abused, academic, and almost purely moot. Unless you're Walter Piston, or Alban Berg, to write something 12-tone that's meaningful and listenable is very difficult.

I don't want to start an argument here; these are just my thoughts.

If you want any help, you may want to consider being just a little more courteous.

I wish you the best of luck with your findings. Let me know when you've got it figured out.

I wont argue about music being art and such.

I dont even care what music "is supposed" to be. I care what music IS and how it works(ie. what sounds good and why)

And there is software what does algorithmic composition. While the generated output may sound generic or "soulless" it does compose better than some of us do.

Hence, if i learn the rules, the guidlines, the algorithms i MAY be able to actually compose and understand music better than i do now(i cant compose a good sounding/decent piece). Hopefully after learning the algorithms, i will improve and be able to compose freely and add so called "meaning" to it.

It's supposed to be as a starting point. A guideline for a beginner.

First of all, it has to sound "good" or at least "passable". I bet you wouldnt listen to music which doesnt sound good, so why bother.

The point is that you are learning and odds are it wont sound amazing, but yes make it as good or passable as possible.

So i'm supposed to write some notes/chords semi-random? Like doing the combinatorics and trying out all the key combinations with pure-unguided trial and error? I'm afraid it doesnt work that way. While that may be a legal method for some who have implicit understanding of music, it doesnt work for me.

If semi-random doesn't work, don't do it. It wouldn't be unguided if you studied, applied yourself to learning the theory behind the notes. It would/should be more like trying to learn how to do a If/then chain in a program. You read about it; try to apply what you learned; look at your efforts; see the mistakes; LEARN SOME MORE; and do it again. It is a process that applies with learning anything new.

I could actually be able to write significantly better music since i have advantage of actually being able to tell if some part of music sounds right.

Then use your ear. It is the most helpful guide to learning to write music.

I wont argue about music being art and such.

I dont even care what music "is supposed" to be. I care what music IS and how it works(ie. what sounds good and why)

Hence, if i learn the rules, the guidlines, the algorithms i MAY be able to actually compose and understand music better than i do now(i cant compose a good sounding/decent piece). Hopefully after learning the algorithms, i will improve and be able to compose freely and add so called "meaning" to it.

It's supposed to be as a starting point. A guideline for a beginner.

It sounds like you are blurring a line. Yes there are programs that 'write' music, but those algorithms are based off music theory and theoretical analysis of works composed by Bach, Mozart, and the like. They apply this analysis (the patterns, tendencies, form, and make-up of the music) to create their systems.

It is theory, experience, and a good ear that will tell you what "sounds good and why".

From reading your posts, it seems you just want an easier way out. A shortcut, I daresay. I think you might enjoy 12-tone music; this is what Schoenberg thought too, so maybe you can learn a little something from his music.

What i want is LAWS, GUIDELINES and RULES.

At the moment i'm BLIND. I have no SLIGHTEST idea what works (except for a very few things on chord progressions i red on the internet).

And if you say you have knowledge as to what sounds good as opposed to a program like CGmusic, then WRITE. If you know what sounds good to you, then write it out!

I can tell if a passage sounds good.

I can tell if a meal tastes good, but that doesnt mean i know CHEMICAL COMPOUNDS what makes it taste good. Do you see the difference?

I wont argue about music being art and such.

I dont even care what music "is supposed" to be. I care what music IS and how it works(ie. what sounds good and why)

And there is software what does algorithmic composition. While the generated output may sound generic or "soulless" it does compose better than some of us do.

Hence, if i learn the rules, the guidlines, the algorithms i MAY be able to actually compose and understand music better than i do now(i cant compose a good sounding/decent piece). Hopefully after learning the algorithms, i will improve and be able to compose freely and add so called "meaning" to it.

It's supposed to be as a starting point. A guideline for a beginner.

I'll let you know what music is: it's organized sound that means something. Period.

So yes, there is composing software out there, and it may sound better. If it sounds so good, why don't you just learn how the software works? Then you'll be able to follow some kind of algorithm, or guidelines.

...so you want to be able to write music before you express something with it? Something seems a little off about the sequencing...

A starting point would be to USE YOUR EAR. It doesn't even matter how bad it sounds as long as it's honest, and what YOU personally have to say in music. An algorithm/system not only restricts writing greatly, it restricts your creativity hence your VOICE and what you have to say.

And yeah, as mentioned before you must LISTEN. If you don't listen to music and try to compose, it would be similar to if you'd want to paint a portrait without looking at your model. It just can't be done. Your ear is your most valuable possession and the best learning tool.

This book: http://www.amazon.com/Music-Composition-Dummies-Scott-Jarrett/dp/0470224215/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1244322572&sr=8-1

should get you started pretty well.

What i want is LAWS, GUIDELINES and RULES.

At the moment i'm BLIND. I have no SLIGHTEST idea what works (except for a very few things on chord progressions i red on the internet).

I can tell if a passage sounds good.

I can tell if a meal tastes good, but that doesnt mean i know CHEMICAL COMPOUNDS what makes it taste good. Do you see the difference?

Laws? Rules? This isn't physics, this isn't geometry.

But if that's what you're looking for, TWELVE-TONE MUSIC MIGHT BE YOUR THING. Google it, it might be what you're looking for. It's very systematic, very mathematical.

I see. Then imitate it.

I would say "Music isn't food" but that's a pretty lame comeback...

You're getting a lot of good advice from the people in this thread. At least CONSIDER following it.

And if you're REALLY REALLY pressing for an algorithm/rules/guidelines, learn some theory.

And also, welcome to the forum. :) Take a look around, you might learn something from the works of others.

Get "Music Theory for Dummies" as well, if you want to learn those "rules" and "laws"

This might also be a helpful guide for what you want to get started: Secret Composer

P.S. Welcome to the Forum!

Laws? Rules? This isn't physics, this isn't geometry.

I'm sorry to break it to you. This is physics.

EVERYTHING in this universe follows strict laws of physics as far as i know.

Sounds and music follow the same LAWS of physics.

"Sound is a travelling wave which is an oscillation of pressure transmitted through a solid, liquid, or gas, composed of frequencies within the range of hearing"

As far as i know, there are certain frequencies and ratios what sound better to human ear and a certain series of sounds are percieved as more "enjoyable" to the human brain.

Unfortunatelly inner workings of the human brain is not fully understood, so there's no full algorithm or function to determine fitness of a musical passage.

But if that's what you're looking for, TWELVE-TONE MUSIC MIGHT BE YOUR THING. Google it, it might be what you're looking for. It's very systematic, very mathematical.

I will look it up.

You're getting a lot of good advice from the people in this thread. At least CONSIDER following it.

I will.

And if you're REALLY REALLY pressing for an algorithm/rules/guidelines, learn some theory.

That's why i'm here.

I'm quite shocked you guys dont have any guidelines and algorithms you've stumbled across or noticed when composing or havent read any books on the subject you can recommend.

But that doesnt mean good composition algorithms doesnt exist, they are in your head, but you're not quite fully aware of them. Aware of the though process you're performing while composing music.

And yeah, as mentioned before you must LISTEN. If you don't listen to music and try to compose, it would be similar to if you'd want to paint a portrait without looking at your model. It just can't be done. Your ear is your most valuable possession and the best learning tool.

This book: Amazon.com: Music Composition For Dummies: Scott Jarrett, Holly Day: Books

should get you started pretty well.

I got into playing piano since i listened to a wide array of beautiful music, and coudnt resist not learning to play at least some of it.

Yes, listening(and playing) lots of music is very important.

I'm sorry to break it to you. This is physics.

EVERYTHING in this universe follows strict laws of physics as far as i know.

Sounds and music follow the same LAWS of physics.

Oh, I'm sorry. You're right, you really are. Forgive me for not thinking romantically.

Well, what you get when you combine advanced math/science with music is the music of Xenakis, Grisey, and the spectral school. Certainly it's very interesting, but can anyone honestly say it sounds "pleasing" to the ear?

I like it on an academic level...but it's very difficult to consider it aesthetically "good-sounding". Musically speaking, that would be going a bit too far.

I'll let you know what music is: it's organized sound that means something. Period.

Music doesnt have to "mean" anything to sound good.

So yes, there is composing software out there, and it may sound better. If it sounds so good, why don't you just learn how the software works? Then you'll be able to follow some kind of algorithm, or guidelines.

I was under impression that composers know the algorithms behind the software. And that you have studied a few of them in the academy. And that's why i'm here - asking composers the resources - books/articles and algorithms.

Oh, I'm sorry. You're right, you really are. Forgive me for not thinking romantically.

Well, what you get when you combine advanced math/science with music is the music of Xenakis, Grisey, and the spectral school. Certainly it's very interesting, but can anyone honestly say it sounds "pleasing" to the ear?

I like it on an academic level...but it's very difficult to consider it aesthetically "good-sounding". Musically speaking, that would be going a bit too far.

I have different approach.

Dont confuse me with people who think that playing "fractals" is a good idea.

Music doesnt have to "mean" anything to sound good.

I was under impression that composers know the algorithms behind the software. And that you have studied a few of them in the academy. And that's why i'm here - asking composers the resources - books/articles and algorithms.

Music doesn't have to mean anything to sound good. That is absolutely correct. But then, what's the point? Money? Display of intellect? There is emotion in music; if not the composer, then hopefully the performer, who interprets it their way.

I use Sibelius, a "composing" software. Actually, it's really a "notation" software. I would never dream of using a real "composing software" because technically it wouldn't be ME doing the composing. Call me a romantic, but, I write music on paper first, at the piano or with my flute. So no, I do not know the algorithms behind the CGmusic software, nor any software. I only use the computer to input what I have already written. Oh, and I'm only fifteen, so I don't study music at an academy or anything. Just band class. -.-'' I'm sure there are other people here that can help you out on finding that algorithm though.

No snarky "fifteen-year-olds-think-they-know-everything" please.

I have different approach.

Dont confuse me with people who think that playing "fractals" is a good idea.

Understood.

You can play fractals? Huh.

I don't really want to get into this whole debate on what music is "supposed to be" and all those prejudices that seem to be flowing around here. But I'd still like to note: I think many people are overmystifying what it means to create art or "express oneself intuitively" in contrast to doing similar things using a computer. In the end, what we write is always a combination of many outer influences, rational thought (sometimes more conscious, sometimes less), maybe some chance. We always compose in ways that have certain "algorithmic" aspects, just that often we have them so absorbed that we're just not realizing the often quite deterministic patterns we tend to follow. Interestingly, I think this actually tends to happen almost more when people think they are writing "totally intuitively" or "out of their soul". Also one should note that many rather "reputable" techniques of the past centuries were very much algorithmic composition. Writing a motet in the strict contrapunctual style of Palestrina is algorithmic to a great degree. So is writing a fugue in the style of Bach. And it's not that significant whether you're doing those calculations in your head or whether you're using a computer. In both cases it's a combination of personal decisions with predefined structures. And I find it just silly if a person who bashes a computer-based composition for not being "personal" enough or anything like that chooses to still make use of sonata forms, violins, cadences, and chromatic scales, ignoring the fact that all of these are at least as much "unpersonal" outer structures as a computer software is. (And before people classify algorithmic composition as the "easy way" or "unartistic", I'd prefer if they'd actually took some time to look at said music and its practices.)

So that's that. Now, to get a bit closer on topic: Basically, I think there are two approaches to your aim. The one you seem to be going for is to base the algorithmic composition of new music on a software that follows a set of music theory rules that are already written down and defined somewhere. This certainly works (even if it doesn't really interest me personally), but you have to realize that all those rules were generally only created to suit the music after it was already composed, and are always just one single perspecticve of describing said music, depending on the personal outlook of the theorists who devised them. If you want to write music that fits these musical models, sure, that's the way to go.

But I think the more consistent approach would be to not start with theories of music devised by other people, but to even create -them- algorithmically. You could make them up in any way you like really, but if your aim is to imitate already existing styles you could just use actual music as your software's input, instead of theoretical rules. Your program would analyse any music that it receives and build a database of generative rules, which it then uses to create new music.

This approach is not too uncommon either. One of the most explored techniques in this respect are Markov chains. A program simply creates tables of probabilities of one specific note following a set of other specific notes and then creates new music based on said tables. Markov chains of high orders can produce rather good results, but of course the load of data also grows huge with high orders. But this is just one very primitive way of analysing music. You could devise totally different ways to analyse music input and draw rules from them.

P.S.

Well' date=' what you get when you combine advanced math/science with music is the music of Xenakis, Grisey, and the spectral school. Certainly it's very interesting, but can anyone honestly say it sounds "pleasing" to the ear?

I like it on an academic level...but it's very difficult to consider it aesthetically "good-sounding". Musically speaking, that would be going a bit too far.[/quote']

The number of times this and similar things are stated doesn't make it more correct. I have to say over and over again that I do sincerely find this music beautiful, that I enjoy listening to it and that this has nothing to do with any sort of "abstract academical appreciation". Yes, I do find it aesthetically "good-sounding", and I don't think I'm "going a bit too far" for liking the music I like. Actually, the word "beauty" comes to my mind when listening to Xenakis' electronic music much more often than when listening to most other music. (I think about things like "musical structure" etc. a lot more when I listen to Beethoven.) But somehow people always seem to insist that any music they don't enjoy emotionally must be unenjoyable for every other person too and that a person who states that he actually likes it must either be lying, or simply talking of something "cerebral and unemotional". No, that's not the case. No, I'm not lying. No, you don't have to love this music. But please believe me that I do. Thanks.

I don't really want to get into this whole debate on what music is "supposed to be" and all those prejudices that seem to be flowing around here. But I'd still like to note: I think many people are overmystifying what it means to create art or "express oneself intuitively" in contrast to doing similar things using a computer. In the end, what we write is always a combination of many outer influences, rational thought (sometimes more conscious, sometimes less), maybe some chance. We always compose in ways that have certain "algorithmic" aspects, just that often we have them so absorbed that we're just not realizing the often quite deterministic patterns we tend to follow. Interestingly, I think this actually tends to happen almost more when people think they are writing "totally intuitively" or "out of their soul". Also one should note that many rather "reputable" techniques of the past centuries were very much algorithmic composition. Writing a motet in the strict contrapunctual style of Palestrina is algorithmic to a great degree. So is writing a fugue in the style of Bach. And it's not that significant whether you're doing those calculations in your head or whether you're using a computer. In both cases it's a combination of personal decisions with predefined structures. And I find it just silly if a person who bashes a computer-based composition for not being "personal" enough or anything like that chooses to still make use of sonata forms, violins, cadences, and chromatic scales, ignoring the fact that all of these are at least as much "unpersonal" outer structures as a computer software is. (And before people classify algorithmic composition as the "easy way" or "unartistic", I'd prefer if they'd actually took some time to look at said music and its practices.)

Sorry, sir.

I'm not bashing all computer-based music; personally I find Kaija Saariaho's music to be really fantastic stuff. I also liked Varese's "Poeme Electronique". But not Ligeti's. :)