Laurie Spiegel, in her exploration of music through the lens of information theory, introduces an intriguing idea: using “random noise in place of information to increase entropy, to counteract redundancy.” It’s like adding unexpected twists to a story to make it more interesting. Likewise in music, by introducing random noise, she suggests that we can make music more interesting and unpredictable. Imagine you’re listening to a song that has a very repetitive pattern or melody. After a while, it starts to feel boring because your brain knows exactly what’s coming next. But, if the musician introduces some unexpected sounds or changes in the music, suddenly the listener’s attention is recaptured. The music becomes more interesting because it’s less predictable. This approach of adding randomness helps to break the monotony, and makes the music more dynamic and lively. Hence, by incorporating random noise to increase entropy, Spiegel’s model reminds us that innovation in art often comes from breaking rules and experimenting. It encourages musicians and artists to think outside the box using technology.
In this paper, Spiegel proposes how applying Information Theory to music composition can be a powerful approach to creating music. Spiegel begins her argument by explaining the nature of music and the different factors like repetition and noise to make it “musical.” This part was interesting to me since I knew little about music theory. While explaining the difference between random corruption, “noise,” and random generation, the author states that “music is self-referential and sensory rather than symbolic.” It made me think about the difference between what we consider noise and music, and how music, compared to visual media, is more sensory and transparent due to its momentary nature. Visual art allows the viewers to stay in the moment to contemplate and to see as long as they want. On the contrary, music is instant, and the moment we hear its sound, it has already moved on, only allowing us to feel what we feel at the exact moment. It was also interesting to see how the author says the noise is “something that makes sense in some other context” than the actual noise. I think it also applies when mixing music by overlapping different parts from two tracks to make something sound new.
The reading delves into the cyclical patterns found in music composition and explores the application of information theory within a compositional context. The author emphasizes our ability to anticipate each note before hearing it, highlighting the cognitive reception of repetitiveness in music.
In my perspective, the incorporation of repetitions and predictable elements in music can be effective when balanced with non-repetitive details and transitions. I find that some repetitions, when skillfully employed, contribute to a catchy earworm effect and even introduce a hypnotic quality that enhances the overall composition. A well-executed use of repetition can create an auditory illusion of change, despite the underlying continuity of the sound. This idea lowkey resonates with the author’s point on how “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.”
Furthermore, the reading introduces the idea of incorporating noise and randomness as a tool to counteract redundancy in musical composition. While random corruptions have the potential to add a layer of unpredictability and musicality, I believe that such interventions work best when they are executed strategically. Applying randomness at the right moment and with a calculated approach often ensures that it contributes to the overall composition without disrupting the coherence of the musical piece.
The basic idea I got from the reading was that currently composed-music is too boring and predictable, and she develops this idea of ‘random corruption’ to make music more interesting and makes it a point to differentiate it from ‘random generation’. I think that’s fair enough. As I was reading her article, I was about to bring out my pitchfork as I didn’t believe in random generation for music, as I believe that as expressive as music is, there are rules and certain guidelines you can play by to make music more interesting. E.g in piano composition, a common trick to make a LH chord + RH melody sound more interesting is to arpeggiate the LH chord. Does that make it predictable? Sure, maybe, but it’s just one of the ways of approaching music composition and there are many other ways of doing it, but it has sounded nice for hundreds of years and it will be difficult for randomly generated notes to approach the history and impact of this approach.
However that wasn’t the point she was making so I was thankful and put my pitchfork down. Random corruption is a much more palatable idea to me, and when Prof Aaron demonstrated the randomly dropped notes in class last Thursday I understood that there are some uses to it. However, this still relies on an composed piece, with random corruption removing information from the composition, and not adding entropy/random information to it ( random generation ). A composed piece is order brought together by a person from the chaos of the notes in the world. Removing some information from this order will still sound nice. Adding completely random noise to it will not. That is an important distinguishing feature between the two.
After writing this critique, I went on to listen to Laurie Spiegel’s album — The Expanding Universe (1980) and I liked it! It sounded rather compositional with possibly a few hints of randomly dropped notes ( or at least that’s what I thought ). It was released before this article was written, so I’m not sure if she was already inspired by this idea of this information theory model or if it was still in the works. I listened to her newer album after, Obsolete Systems (2001), and it definitely felt more ‘random generation’ and I liked it less because of that.
I used to have a substitute teacher in middle school and high school called Cesar. He would constantly express to us how frustrating it was for him to hear all Reggeaton songs because they’d have the same beat, and he’d feel like he was listening to the same song over and over again. He’d perform the beat for us, and – on a good day- show us a couple of songs to prove his point. I kept referring back to him, as I read Laurie Spiegel’s description of music composition through the lens of Information Theory. Spiegel mentions that music that is purely information, “contains no means of conveying emotions through sameness and difference, anticipation, prediction, surprise, disappointment, reassurance, or return.” I think back to the class exercises, and how big the difference between patterns with noise and random elements have to those that don’t. I hope that I can learn to manipulate noise and create engaging pieces. Perhaps some that would make Cesar proud.
I found Spiegel’s differentiation between random corruption and random generation very useful. I had worked with noise before, but reading Spiegel’s explanation of it, and its impact on music composition made this concept much clearer for me. “using random noise (the degradation of otherwise fully intelligible signal) in place of information to increase entropy, to counteract redundancy.” I am curious about the author’s classification of music as self referential and sensory rather than symbolic. What does this mean?
Furthermore, I was fascinated by Spiegel’s line of questioning on musical composition. (a) How does the process of including noise alter the product – where does the noise come from, (b) can these decisions be considered alongside composition? (c) is there such a thing as ‘spontaneous generation’? Or, (d) is everything just a “ transformation of previously experienced material as it moves within the human perceptual and cognitive systems, informational channels in which it could well be vulnerable to the noise of our many coexistent memories and thoughts”? Albeit not directly related, this discussion makes me think of Everything is a Remix! I am eager to explore these concepts practically as my classmates and I compose pieces & implement noise.
I found Spiegel’s writing on Information Theory’s implications on music to be quite interesting in the way it proposes a new framework to analyze the music we listen to and create. I think this idea of “noise” is quite liberating as we don’t confine ourselves to traditional scales, and can give us the tools to sculpt music in the way we find appealing rather than correct. By moving our minds away from traditional frameworks to analyze music, we can make music more of a sensory experience and enhance the relationship between creator and listener. When I read this article it reminded me of a friend of mine back home who makes music on the side. He talked a lot about how he wished certain songs sounded a little differently, and how he thought they could be more enjoyable if variations were added in a similar way Spiegel talks about noise. While I have little music-making experience, I believe that using this framework as a foundation for synthesizing ideas from different songs I like and adding my own twists to them will allow me to express myself through music throughout this class and beyond.
What I know about music is limited. It mostly consists of songs I’ve heard, beat drops i noticed were off tone or changes that did not make sense sometimes. I notice when the music is well composed but gets boring missing the change, or when i listen to music meaning for it to fade into the noise around me. It is really interesting looking at music from an information theory standpoint. Especially that I know about color theory. I know how complicated color mixing can get, I know the science behind it even when I don’t understand it, I know that you need to see art and understand it, even if you don’t know the science, to be able to create your own. I could not help but compare the two. One is music, the other is color.
Laurie Spiegel talks about music like my art teacher talked about color. The colors that fade, relaxing in the background like the low tones that blend with the noise. The change in music like contrasting colors in a painting bringing the boring but beautiful to an alive and attractive. The idea that one could change the tone not consciously knowing what they are doing, but subconsciously they are using memory, and information they gather from listening to compose a new piece. For me, its the same as drawing a new abstract piece without knowing why the blue looks good on a yellow background.
Drawing from randomness. whether a painting or a music composition, they may all seem random at times. as Spiegel said, “I consider randomness a relativistic phenomenon” something that seems random could make sense in ways we don’t understand. that is where information theory comes in. That is where we can say that the random composition we just made sounds good, and math can prove it. However I still wonder, if knowing too much about the theory of how something works, would that hold us back or move us further.
Laurie Spiegel talks about music like my art teacher talked about color. The colors that fade, relaxing in the background like the low tones that blend with the noise. The change in music like contrasting colors in a painting bringing the boring but beautiful to an alive and attractive. The idea that one could change the tone not consciously knowing what they are doing, but subconsciously they are using memory, and information they gather from listening to compose a new piece. For me, its the same as drawing a new abstract piece without knowing why the blue looks good on a yellow background.
Drawing from randomness. whether a painting or a music composition, they may all seem random at times. as Spiegel said, “I consider randomness a relativistic phenomenon” something that seems random could make sense in ways we don’t understand. that is where information theory comes in. That is where we can say that the random composition we just made sounds good, and math can prove it. However I still wonder, if knowing too much about the theory of how something works, would that hold us back or move us further.