Varieties of Human

8/2/2019 Varieties of Human

1/7

Lecture notes

Varieties of human/machine interaction, which is inspired by the philosopher William Jamess Harvard

lectures, the varieties of religious experience. Here James attempted to explore the various kinds of

spiritual experiences people have, and through these explorations he was able to make broader

statements on the nature of human experience of reality. Ultimately it is my intention to do the same

here, albeit Im gonna be focusing on a much more limited subject, that of music.

Ive broken it down the experiences into 4 general categories, which I will briefly summarize now.

Type #1. Simple determined interaction where the human has control over machine variables that are

easily predicted. This is the case with the common synthesizer, in which the human exerts control over

amplitude, timbre (through filtering), and pitch. When used in this way, the machine resembles classical

instruments in terms of playability.

#2. Complex determined interaction: The human controls all variables but the results may be too

complex to predict. Thus when interacting with the machine the human encounters unforeseeable

musical situations which he must react to. The end result is that the machine itself begins to exert

prominent levels of control on the human, forcing him change his compositional approach in a

fundamental way and begin to do things and think about music in a way he normally wouldnt do. This is

most commonly the case with effects processing such as long delays or complex timbral effects. Also this

occurs with use of circuit bent instruments, in which every action creates a complex, largely irrational

change in variable.

#3. Indeterminate interaction: this occurs when the human no longer controls variables, which are

determined by chaotic/random processes or environmental/physical fluctuations that the human is

incapable of predicting. Such is the case with circuit bent instruments that are bent at many points,

which quickly creates a state of possible electrical shortages. These shortages create electronic

malfunctions that are going to be unique every time.

#4. Algorithmic interaction: Here, the only requirement of the human is to input rules, which the

computer then applies to create sound. This may be the only variety of human/machine interaction

where the machine actually meets the Oxford English Dictionary requirement of being an

independently functioning structure. In all other varieties the machine is dependent on direct humanaction to create sound, or to at least modify it in meaningful ways. once Examples of this kind of

interaction are always indeterminate to some degree, though the basic rules are usually carefully

constructed. this is not always the case, such as in the stochastic works of many modern electronic

composers, in which even the basic rules are indeterminate.


2/7

Another point I should make before I get into the meat of this is that the ideas expressed here apply to

all forms of music making, not only improvisation. A quote by the composer Frederick zheff-skee about

a meeting with a famous jazz musician steve lacy

In 1968, I ran into Steve Lacy on the street in Rome. I took out my pocket tape recorder

and asked him to describe in 15 seconds the difference between composition andimprovisation. He answered:

In 15 seconds, the difference between composition and improvisation is that in composition

you have all the time you want to decide what you want to say in 15 seconds, while in

improvisation you have 15 seconds.

His answer lasted exactly 15 seconds and is still the best formulation of the question I

know.

- Frederic Rzewski

I like this passage because it illuminates that music is really about creating and organizingsounds

But anyway going back to the first kind of human machine interaction which is called

simple determined, I should explain this a little.

What do I mean by simple? Simple refers to the sounds that are being created, how wide the range of

timbre is, their basic character. Playing a traditional acoustic instrument would perhaps be an example

of #1, if you are willing to accept that an instrument is a kind of machine, though the formal definition is

an independently functioning structure. We will see as the talk progresses that even analog circuit and

digital based instruments do not formally meet this definition.

So in looking at the simplest instruments, a good example would be the piano, is that you only have

control over a few variables. Pitch. Amplitude. Duration. Pedal. But even the piano in its simplicity can

begin to have profound effects on the way people formulate music. One could even say the piano has

been a huge influence on the development of music theory and the equal temperament series. I was

reading from Morton Feldmans collected writings and he notes in one passage that he can see

Beethoven is limiting himself to what he can physically do with the piano. These points aside we see that

with simple instruments they are in general easily predictable.

Traditional instruments are a good example of this because even when they create complex timbres,

they are still predictable. This is Evan Parker a musician who is pushing the limits of simplicity and

predictability .

PLAY SOUND


3/7

When engaging in extended techniques the timbral variety the instrument is able to increases

drastically. Yet if you were to talk to him about the control he has over his playing hell tell you that he

has complete control. Even with an instrument that is incredibly timbrally vibrant, he knows exactly

what hes doing and does it exactly the way he wants to. If he was an inexperienced saxophone player

the instrument becomes much more unpredictable. This is where the idea of determination comes in. If

youre going to be playing something, how often is it going to sound like you are expecting it to?

So A piano is an incredibly predictable instrument. Even someone with no experience playing can

insantly produce consistent results with it. If you give that person a wind instrument or a violin,

instruments that have a steeper learning curve, you find that they have trouble playing notes

consistently. The sound wind instruments make relies heavily on not only fingering position, something

that is fairly easy to understand, but complex series mouth muscle control mouth. If you arent using

that correctly, the results produced are going to be very unpredictable. If youre playing a violin its

difficult to remember where your fingers need to be so notes are going to be out of tune. So consistent

results are very difficult to produce.

So far Ive given examples of real world instruments, now its time to move into the world of the virtual,

though here we will find many similar phenomena. We see that with a lot electronic instruments are

very easy to control and produce simple sounds. Basic keyboards , usually works on presets, with no real

timbral control. So you are presented with many different instruments that where you simply have to

know what they sound like and you can employ them in a very predictable way. When you start getting

into modular synths things begin to get a little more complex. You have control over attack release,

overtones, so on. Everytime you start patching things and turning knobs, you are introducing variety into

the system, so unless you mark down what your patches are exactly its difficult for you to reproduce

sounds.

Another thing that begins to occur particularly with electronic instruments are effects that are very

complicated in nature and influence composition and improvisation in very signficant ways. Distortion is

something very interesting and a good example of a complex effect. With distortion, if youre playing a

guitar through an amp its going to sound different everytime you hit the strings, you see that there is

not only an increase in volume if you hit the strings harder but the timbre shifts. Certain frequencies are

clipped, other frequencies remain stable. Overtones are brought out. Distortion is largely responsible for

the incredibly frequency of power chords in rock music. Power chords sound great through distortion,

not so much without, because of the unique set of overtones generated by distortion which makes the

signal more complex. Obviously everyone is aware of the influence powerchords have had on music, as

the foundation of most commercial modern heavy rock made in the 70s onward is based on their

construction.

Another deceivingly complex and influential effect is delay. Anyone whos played guitar knows that

when you activate a short delay your playing becomes much more rhythmic and motorized. The pulse of

the music is accentuated. Notes can be sustained almost indefinitely on top one another creating


4/7

harmonies that would be impossible for a single musician to create. You can play in rhythmic patterns

creating interactions between the pulses. If you use a very long delay, like 30 seconds for instance, such

as the one pioneered by Eno and Fripp in the 70s the time between what you play becomes so long that

you forget what you originally fed into the delay line, or that memory is hazy, and the machine begins to

have a role almost like a musical partner.

Sometimes the effects and sounds created can become so complex they are impossible to control and a

good example of this would be the recent modular music created by Keith Fullerton Whitman.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OqbCXUGsx2E

There was some debate about whether or not this was pre composed. I talked to him and it wasnt real ly

and this isnt surprising. Ive done some work with complex modular systems and you really have no

idea consciously where things are going. Every element youre working with is linked through complex

feedback chains. Theres a correlation here with dynamic systems, such as the ecology on the planet,

which functions in a surprisingly similar way. Theres an ecosystem made up of organisms which

individually behave in predictable manners, but the sum total of their activities in tandem with

environmental fluctuations produce incredibly unpredictable situations which cause extinctions are

huge fluctuations in population. There has been a lot of discussion in ecological circles, in economical

circles about whether or not this idea of the world as a complex network of systems bound together

through feedback loops and chains is something that is actually relevant to the way the universe really

works and the scientific consensus is that yes, this is the best way for us way we know of to define things

at the present moment. In previous decades the conclusion was that equilibrium, stability was the

defining characteristic, now we have found that the so called balance of nature is not really a balance at

all. Nature is something that is wildly unpredictable and constantly moving between stable states. The

music of Fullerton Whitman and other like minded composers is an extreme example of this.

I will return to this point later, before I do that I want to delve into increasingly complicated examples of

machine human interaction. Something I havent brought up yet is the influence of the environment on

certain kinds of music creation. Many composers now are working with very fragile instruments that can

be influenced by the mind, body, say through neuroefeedback and biofeedback, and also physical.

atmospheric conditions. Circuitbent instruments are a classic example of the way air pressure and

electronic connectivity issues create unpredictability in music. Circuitbent instruments are usually

regular keyboards or simple synths that have been taken apart and connection points soldered between

the circuit board in an extremely primitive way. The result is that when these connection points are

activated, the instrument begins behaving in a different way. Even a slight variation in where the points

are made is crucial in defining the characteristics of the instruments circuitbent behavior. Nevertheless

an experienced circuit bender can actually know exactly what sort of effects hes creating with the

placement of these connection points. More interestingly as a circuit bent instrument is used,

connection points begin operating in strange ways. Sometimes it breaks, sometimes simply the

connection point is stops working, most often it begins operating in a different way. So we find that

circuitbent instruments begin to acquire a completely singular character over the years. No two are the

same, even if.. This is because of the physical realities of what is happening within them. Literal
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OqbCXUGsx2Ehttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OqbCXUGsx2Ehttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OqbCXUGsx2E


5/7

electrical disturbances are being created within the instrument which interact with each other in

extremely complicated ways, eventually causing the instrument to short out which requires it to be

restarted. This is why even it is extremely difficult to replicate performances, even on a newly

circuitbent instrument.

The idea of open circuit instruments is extremely interesting to me since it introduces physical realities

into the musical system which is in my mind impossible to duplicate virtually within a computer, say

through max/msp, since the music never leaves the computer world, which is sort of this abstract reality

like mathematics. I think the fact that computers exist in some ways completely outside of physical

reality decreases their complexity and makes them far more determined. Even instruments like our old

friend the piano can be radically modified to coexist more fully with exterior physical realities, say by

smashing them up, or more practically by shoving metallic objects between the strings, which is of

course, the prepared piano, in my mind the first circuitbent instrument.

An interesting phenonema occurs when using these incredibily unpredictable instruments. If the

performer is comfortable with the equipment often he falls into trance when performing, and in this

state it seems that he DOES have control over the sounds being produced. Obviously there is no way the

rational mind can fully comprehend the technology, but on a deeper level he feels connected to the

music. Perhaps this is illusory, perhaps his organism has somehow integrated and become part of the

technological feedback network he is operating. I dont really want to speculate on this subject, but

needless to say I think its worth investigating and theres much room for development of the practice.

One rarely gets this feeling with computers, perhaps because of their relative isolation from the physical

world. The disadvantage of computers in terms of creating complicated music is also an advantage.

Since their reality is machine code, if you can modify that you can change the way they behave. The factis machine code is far easier and cheaper to modify then real world objects. This is the revolution of the

information age, information is basically free. So a cunning programmer is limited only by his creativity

and knowledge of the machine code, the reality of the computer, in creating entirely new paradigms.

One obvious paradigm that is rapidly gaining popularity is the sequencing program, for example ableton

or pro tools. Initially developed as a sort of mimicry of the way people used to make music, ie via

synchronized multitrack, now the sequencer has become a revolutionary platform that is generating

entirely novel forms of music, like IDM, and now, most of the music you hear on the radio is structurally

shaped by the sequencer. Songs are not being thought of horizontally, as in a melodic or harmonic

progression, but vertically, stacks of musical blocks that entering and exit, and the real thrill of the music

is how these blocks interact with each other. More technically advanced examples of the influence of

computers on musical interaction is the advent of algorhythmic music the 4th

kind of human machine

interaction. Here the computer often becomes a true musical companion to the human, playing along

with him and modifying its actions based on what it hears the human playing. I think algorithmic music is

still in a very primitive state, but many forward thinking composers are advancing the technology

rapidly.


6/7

Throughout all of this we see the interplay of complexity and indeterminism shaping the development of

music. A new form, instrument, technology enters, offering a multitude of untapped potentialities.

Instead of limiting the human, the characteristics of the technology forces him to exploit it in novel

ways. Gradually over time the form matures, and its potentialities are explored. Meanwhile new and

exciting forms are developing for the human to exploit. The entire focus of this presentation has been an

exploration of unpredictability. I do not think that people should resist mastering their chosen

instruments or programs, which as I stated earlier, increases unpredictability. Rather I think people

should constantly be pushing themselves to explore new fields and technologies. IN the past weve seen

that when these technologies are successfully exploited mature and accessible musical styles emerge.

I was talking earlier about the unpredictability of ecosystems. One could say this unpredictability is

destructive, and it is. However this is precisely what causes evolution, change, and- I use this word

hesitantly, progress. If all systems were stable- populations would not fluctuate or become obsolete or

extinct, creating niches for new species. The same is true for music, one can see that throughout history

the introduction of new technologies has lead to the development of new kinds of music. To an extent

music is based on regional history and tradition, but its also shaped by the mysterious possibilities thattechnology offers. In modern music we see the influence of quantizing and developing songs in rather

rigid computer programs like pro tools. Weve also seen that this rigidity has been exploited to create

very interesting music.

The development of novel kinds of music is I would contend the driving force behind musical

movements. Where there is no innovation, we see stagnation, which is the reason for certain kinds of

music, such as traditional and classic music falling out of favor in the mass public. This is even happening

right now to rock music, a medium that has remained very stable for the past 40 years. On the radio

right now we see that it is being replaced by music made entirely within pro tools and that is growing

ever more indebted to computer technologies such as autotune.

So the point Im trying to make is that musicians must be aware of the nature of the technology theyre

working with and the possibilities novel technologies offer. With computers, through programs like

max/msp and super collider, you can redefine the machine/human relationship with a few lines of code.

If music is to survive as a relevant popular form, this is its future. Since I cannot envision a world

without music, its my conclusion that this path is inevetible. Thank you.


7/7

Varieties of Human

Documents

Transcript of Varieties of Human