​ This passage talks about the application of information theory in music. It tells that, listening to simple repetitions of a music pattern, people will feel musical at first but gradually bored later. To avoid getting boring, noise or randomness can be used in music.

​ However, not just any random noise should be added to the music. As the author states the nature of noise in music is like this:

Noise is the replacement of explicitly defined information with random data at random times. It’s the degradation of otherwise fully intelligible signal.

So when we want to make music more interesting by adding noise, we must also risk that other meaningful parts will be overshadowed by the noise. At the same time, if the noise added doesn’t fit the structure of the music at all, the music itself can be destroyed as well.

​ After the trial this week, I think the noise is something essential in live coding. Live coders need time to code. In other words, music needs to repeat, not to mention that mistakes can happen. So, some randomness or some ingenious noise can stay in patterns, so that the music we are making would not bore the audience. What kinds of noise should be used are the things that need to be familiar with, too.

​ As for the problem mentioned in the passage and some classmates’ blogs: would noise make them more musical? If we are only talking about classical music now, I would say no. But current music is floating and creating. Reasonable noise can be treated as part of the music. If we consider music as a tool to bring a particular atmosphere, such as live coding in a nightclub, the positive effect of noise is even more unquestionable.