Category: Spring 24

For my research project, I chose Melrōse which is a MIDI programming environment for composing MIDI signals and sending them to a synthesizer or DAW. Melrōse uses a custom language to compose notes and create loops to play. 

I found the installation instructions to be somewhat unclear. The installation package didn’t open on my computer, so I attempted to build it from the source. This process required significant effort to get it functioning properly, as some steps in the instructions were confusing or ambiguous. Therefore, I thought it would have been helpful if there was a video tutorial demonstrating the entire installation process and an introduction explaining how Melrōse interacts with a DAW and synthesizers.

Once my installation was complete, I was able to send midi signals from my Visual Studio Code to my DAW. For this to work, I had to install the Melrōse plugin on VS Code and arm the track of my choice on my DAW. Then I started playing around and experimenting with different notes and functions. I thought that the documentation of the project was quite limited, so some functions were either missing or unclear.

Despite these limitations, I found it fun to play around with Melrōse, especially when it’s used alongside my project in DAW. This workflow allowed me to draw inspiration from the loops I made in Melrose and further explore that idea on my DAW. After creating a simple loop, I was able to build a short demo in my DAW based on that loop. However, Melrōse’s limitation of sending only one signal to the output at a time meant that live layering of different sounds and patterns was not possible.

Screenshot of my VS Code:

Screenshot of my Ableton project:

My demo can be viewed here.

Topos.live is a web-based WebAudio/MIDI sequencer, integrating a variety of synthesis techniques ranging from additive to wavetable, offering a versatile toolkit for sonic innovation. With Hydra integration, it facilitates oscilloscopes, frequency visualizers, and image sequencing capabilities. Crafted using TypeScript, enhancing JavaScript with static typing, and Vite, a fast development server with an optimized build process, Topos is loosely inspired by the Monome Teletype.

Developed by BuboBubo (Raphaël Forment) and Amiika (Miika Alonen), deeply involved in the TOPLAP and Algorave communities, Topos.live represents a fusion of expertise and passion. The duo previously collaborated on the Sardine Live Coding Library for Python (see performance). Their journey with Topos.live started in August 2023.

Raphaël’s scholarly contributions include papers such as How Live is Live Coding? The case of Tidal’s Longest Night and Sardine: a Modular Python Live Coding Environment, adding academic depth to his practical endeavors.

Signal processing and noise in both visual and audio worlds hold a lot of interest for me. I was studying dithering as a part of my shaders class last semester and learned about the introduction of noise patterns to prevent inorganic banding. Similarly, noise helps add an organic texture to a lot of visual work too. In the mastering stage of music production similarly, noise is added to dither the audio and prevent frequency bands that usually generate in electronic music generation. I like how the author’s interest in noise in computer-generated audio even expands to note/pitch order and such. Entropy, chaos, and randomness in the arts are concepts that we have been building upon through previous art movements like abstract expressionism (Pollock’s splattering), Informel, Gutai (Shiraga’s feet paintings or Saburo’s running through paper screens). Hence, the notion of mathematically/computationally introducing them into electronic music synthesis is an exciting one.

Spiegel’s writing prompts the reader to reflect upon the process of composition through the lens of information theory. This means that one is encouraged to think of composition as this act of piecing together sequences with the calculated introduction of noise/randomness; I found this idea of sequences to be particularly resonant with the way we had been using TidalCycles (running loops and adjusting said loops to vary each time meshes nicely with this idea of music as varied sequences). Similarly, Spiegel’s portrayal of music as “a communications medium in a noisy world” works nicely with TidalCycles’s visualization of music in the form of code (as opposed to musical notation), which makes it easier to perceive music in such a way.

Also fascinating was Spiegel’s description of the relativity of randomness: “any signal, no matter how internally consistent or meaningful it is within its own context, may be perceived as random noise relative to some other coherent signal.” Randomness is thus not a hard value in that it cannot be inextricably assigned to a certain signal, but rather a quality hugely dependent on the context that surrounds said signal. Questions then arise: When might something be too random—can something even be “too” random if randomness is contextual? Different people will experience and interpret the randomness of a certain signal differently—how can one account for this “felt” randomness? Can anything be 100% random, or more importantly, 0% random? I was accordingly left to wonder about the relationship between perceived randomness and phenomenology. How does one experience the random?

One last idea that led me to further thought was Spiegel’s suggestion that “what we interpret as spontaneous generation may be just the transformation of previously experienced material as it moves within the human perceptual and cognitive systems.” I found this thought to be hugely interesting—everything is a remix of a remix of a remix, but to what degree? There is something poetic in this idea that we as humans express ourselves in ways that are individually unique yet inevitably affected by how others have expressed themselves (plus, “the noise of our many coexistent memories and thoughts” is a beautiful phrase). We humans wish to communicate in a noisy world—and we sing and dance and cry as composite creatures, shaped by those we have listened to and shaping those who listen to us. All amid a noisy, noisy world.

The reading for today was a bit hard for me to understand, I think partially due to my limited knowledge of music theory. While I understand the basics of music and how to read it because of me playing the saxophone for about 10 years, I don’t totally understand the depths of music theory, like knowing which notes or chords can sound good together (I did improv a bit but I did it mostly by ear). It felt like a mathematician was trying to explain how to write music to me, something I am notoriously bad at understanding. I believe the author is trying to explain essentially how to not make “boring” music with the use of computer code as the medium. Rather than having the same looping instrumentals, try to add something more to it, to make it more interesting to listen to. I definitely agree with this point, since most music I enjoy has very good production with varying sounds and extra random sounds added to sort of spice up the composition. However, I also think repetition is not always a bad thing either. For example, in lots of rap or hip-hop songs, there can be a beat that can change very little or not at all through the duration of the song. Perhaps since the instrumentals and production are less of the focus, you can use the same looping beat to put more emphasis on the lyrics. I also believe that repetition can be good in things like video game OSTs, where again, the music is just there to add to the background atmosphere and isn’t necessarily the main focus. Having randomness can add more though, and make a piece more individualistic, and give the opportunity to make your piece sound more unique. Overall, while I found the reading a little hard to understand, I do get the idea the author is trying to put across by not making music too repetitive. While I agree with this in most cases, I don’t think you should outright reject repetitiveness either, because it can also be a good tool in making musical compositions.

As a singer-songwriter who has created basic melodies using simple notes and chords, encountering the discussion about information theory’s applicability in music composition is like discovering a buried treasure mine of creative inspiration. The discovery that randomness and entropy within musical sequences assist in the formation of new melodies fills me with astonishment and excitement.
Traditionally, my compositions may have followed recognizable patterns, depending on predictable melodic and harmonic structures to express emotional depth and narrative resonance. However, the insights gained from the discussion of information theory contradict this conventional approach, prompting me to accept the intrinsic unpredictability of musical expression. The idea that incorporating noise into compositions can add dynamism resonates strongly with my artistic sensibilities. It opens up a whole new realm of experimentation and fun. Also, I completely agree with the fact that repetitive patterns devoid of evolution and form fall short of achieving true musicality. It is very tempting for any musician to just keep on repeating the melodies they’ve discovered – a reason being it is hard to compose new melodies frequently. However, as I listen to my own music, I feel like any form of change in the melody – or even a change in rhythm can elevate it to a newer level. Still, I struggle to find that change. The realization that even a small bit of noise and experimentation with such noise can aid me in finding that change is something really exciting to me.

The idea of harnessing randomness as a creative tool to counteract redundancy and enhance musical expressiveness is both intellectually stimulating and artistically liberating. By introducing controlled randomness into my compositions, I can breathe new life into familiar melodies, transforming them into dynamic expressions of musicality that resonate deeply with myself and with anyone who may listen to my music.

The reading was a bit complicated, but I tried to understand by thinking of some examples I can relate to. To me, a person who’s not knowledgeable about but likes music, music seems like a combination between repetition and variation- balancing the two. There has to be some sort of repetition to create the underlying beat, something that will work nicely as a plate. On top of this plate has to be variations- something that can stand out on top of somewhat plain plate. When listening to music, like the reading mentioned, if there’s a lack of variation, it feels like the music has no build-up. By this, I mean that the purpose of the music gets very blurred. Music also has something it’s trying to deliver- a sad emotion, some hype, or maybe even calmness. These purpose cannot be fulfilled if the listener only gets a repetition of the same beat and melody, as it gives them no room to build up these emotions.

Because such analysis of mine, if we can call it that, is purely based on my feelings, I didn’t think about how musicians can overcome this: I could only criticize that this music is ‘boring.’ It was interesting to learn the basic approaches I can take, as a musician now, to tackle such stillness.