Beta

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Mathematically Pattern-Free Music

Soulskill posted more than 2 years ago | from the why-i-hate-the-radio dept.

Math 234

gary.flake writes "'Scott Rickard set out to do what no musician has ever tried — to make the world's ugliest piece of music [video]. At TEDxMIA, he discusses the math and science behind creating a piece of music devoid of any pattern.' He used mathematics of Évariste Galois (who was born 200 years ago) to create pattern-free sonar pings which he mapped to notes on a piano, and then played them using the non-rhythm of a Golomb Ruler. Now, why didn't I think of that..."

cancel ×

234 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Rap music (3, Funny)

Oswald McWeany (2428506) | more than 2 years ago | (#37951978)

That's nothing- rap musicians have been doing this for decades.

Re:Rap music (2)

TheNinjaroach (878876) | more than 2 years ago | (#37952148)

Almost all rap (or hip-hop) beats are still based on a traditional 4/4 rhythm. Even though the beats are intentionally placed in odd places, you can still count out a metronome's 1-2-3-4 rhythm and find that the music repeats (or makes a significant change) every 4 bars.

Re:Rap music (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37952494)

Woosh.

Math Rock? (1)

irventu (2478338) | more than 2 years ago | (#37951980)

Now this sheds a new light on the term "math rock".

Re:Math Rock? (1)

icebike (68054) | more than 2 years ago | (#37952698)

More likely Math Noise.

Without patterns you don't have music, you simply have noise.

Re:Math Rock? (1)

ClickOnThis (137803) | more than 2 years ago | (#37952808)

More likely Math Noise.

Without patterns you don't have music, you simply have noise.

What makes music music is the intent (not the content) of the sound. An artistic expression rendered in sound is music. Even if the sound is noise.

Whether it's good music is, or course, another discussion.

Re:Math Rock? (1)

master5o1 (1068594) | more than 2 years ago | (#37952972)

Why do you have in and con in bold? Are you trying to con me into something?

Frist Poss (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37952014)

I think the performer made a mistake at 9:13

Already Done (4, Funny)

Unloaded (716598) | more than 2 years ago | (#37952020)

......"set out to do what no musician has ever tried — to make the world's ugliest piece of music"...... Already done... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/(You're)_Having_My_Baby [wikipedia.org]

Re:Already Done (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37952608)

I thought someone would go with something more obvious and contextual, like so: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kfVsfOSbJY0 [youtube.com]

Re:Already Done (1)

rssrss (686344) | more than 2 years ago | (#37952918)

Mod it up. Very funny.

Re:Already Done (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37952982)

Pat Metheny made a whole album of this

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero_Tolerance_for_Silence

If you walk without rhythym, (3, Funny)

amstrad (60839) | more than 2 years ago | (#37952034)

you won't attract the worm. Another piece of ugly music, Aphex Twin's Ventolin [wikipedia.org]

Re:If you walk without rhythym, (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37952568)

Ventolin is a bit... harsh. The remixes are beautiful though: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TCdnIuEFz60&feature=related

Re:If you walk without rhythym, (1)

oldhack (1037484) | more than 2 years ago | (#37952578)

It's ugly, and we liked it.

Step 2... (4, Funny)

chinton (151403) | more than 2 years ago | (#37952044)

2. Add Vogon poetry as lyrics. 3. Profit

Re:Step 2... (1)

desdinova 216 (2000908) | more than 2 years ago | (#37952490)

you forgot 2a. ???

Mathcore gains a sub-genre (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37952086)

I knew a guy in college that enjoyed making techno music with no loops. This takes the cake.

I thought (1)

Haedrian (1676506) | more than 2 years ago | (#37952094)

The consensus was that "Friday" already held that title.

Re:I thought (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37952446)

Apparently you have not heard 'my pants'

I could see the pattern (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37952098)

I have heard many pattern free music compositions. I could hear the same pattern here.

I can go one better (0)

Dunbal (464142) | more than 2 years ago | (#37952104)

Just hook up a random number generator to a set of speakers. Let the frequency and the duration of the "notes" be determined randomly. Use random numbers outside of the audible range to determine the space between notes. And voila! Completely random non-mathematical music.

Re:I can go one better (4, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37952164)

Random != no pattern

You might create a tune with no pattern but chances are there will be a pattern of some kind in there.

Re:I can go one better (2)

john83 (923470) | more than 2 years ago | (#37952378)

Random != no pattern

You might create a tune with no pattern but chances are there will be a pattern of some kind in there.

Exactly. This is why sports fans think that there's such a thing as form. Human beings are very bad at judging randomness [berkeley.edu] - we actually bias towards alternating patterns, which is decidedly non-random.

Re:I can go one better (3, Interesting)

TeknoHog (164938) | more than 2 years ago | (#37952224)

For a good time, cat $file > /dev/dsp. My favourite so far is the PS file of Shannon's information theory paper.

Re:I can go one better (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37952966)

This gives me an idea.

Will using fractal images in the above method, produce 'music', or something listenable? More over, could legitmate music be structured into an image format, so that it could produce a visually recognizable scene/known art? I guess what I'm getting at, is there something to be had, between the visual and audible framework, where 'visual art' is equivalent to 'audible art'. Guess it depends on the relationship, right?

Ex. Here's what the Mona Lisa sounds like, or Starry Night.

I know this has been investigated before, I just don't if there's a specific term it's referred to.

Re:I can go one better (1)

Noughmad (1044096) | more than 2 years ago | (#37953006)

cat? Real men use dd.

dd if=/dev/random of=/dev/dsp

Re:I can go one better (1)

Baloroth (2370816) | more than 2 years ago | (#37952344)

This isn't non-mathematical random "music", it is mathematical "music" that is patternless. The first isn't music at all, while the second doesn't qualify by most definitions but could by logical extension (which mathematicians do so love.) I personally, as a musician, don't think either one would be music.

Random is trivial, as the TEDx Talk explained. (2)

ClayJar (126217) | more than 2 years ago | (#37952362)

Actually, as was explained in detail in the video, random is easy. Completely devoid of repetition is vastly more difficult. This was not simply random, this was mathematically non-repetitive. Using random numbers outside of the audible range would not necessarily preclude repetition, and using random frequencies is atonal sound, not tonal non-repetitive "music" as was the intention of the piece.

Completely random is trivial. Mathematically-sound aperiodic and repetition-free is a completely different kettle o' fish.

Note that the composition used the 88-tone chromatic scale of the standard piano keyboard. Without that constraint, you could make a much longer atonal composition, of course, but the point of the exercise was to use discrete mathematics and music to create a tonal composition completely devoid of repetition.

Re:Random is trivial, as the TEDx Talk explained. (1)

flaming error (1041742) | more than 2 years ago | (#37952956)

> Completely devoid of repetition is vastly more difficult.
Maybe not. I'd just play pi.

Re:I can go one better (1)

PopeRatzo (965947) | more than 2 years ago | (#37952854)

Just hook up a random number generator to a set of speakers

There is plenty of "pattern-free" music that is not randomly generated.

Going back to at least the late 50s, there has been "free jazz" that does not have the kind of patterns that one associates with Western music, yet it is anything but random.

As someone who has been working with electronic and computer music since the mid '70s, I am always amused when mathematicians or computer scientists try to use particular algorithms to create music, but leave out the imagination. Though I suppose you could include it in a loose categorization as "music", it lacks the most fundamental element of any art.

Hell, anyone with a copy of MaxDSP could make what this guy made without forgetting the imaginative special sauce that makes it mean something.

autechre (2)

versificator (2031720) | more than 2 years ago | (#37952116)

they kinda did it before this guy (at least from a rhythmic perspective), as a protest against the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 here in the UK. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti_EP [wikipedia.org]

Re:autechre (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37952572)

Then there is Genocide Organ and Lou Reed's Metal Machine Music.

Random Number Generator (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37952122)

Wouldn't a random number generate work just as well?

Re:Random Number Generator (1)

shadowfaxcrx (1736978) | more than 2 years ago | (#37952856)

A random number generator can generate patterns.

The old hypothetical monkeys-at-typewriters eventually banging out a Shakespeare play describes this. Essentially the monkeys are just a bunch of random character generators. Even if they don't write Shakespeare, they'll eventually stumble across some sort of pattern purely by random chance.

Even though the pattern is not intentional, a pattern can be formed.

Re:Random Number Generator (1)

sexconker (1179573) | more than 2 years ago | (#37952980)

A random number generator can generate patterns.

The old hypothetical monkeys-at-typewriters eventually banging out a Shakespeare play describes this. Essentially the monkeys are just a bunch of random character generators. Even if they don't write Shakespeare, they'll eventually stumble across some sort of pattern purely by random chance.

Even though the pattern is not intentional, a pattern can be formed.

I guarantee you that the noise this guy shat out has more identifiable patterns in it than what you'd get from any RNG not used by Sony.
Saying something has no "pattern" is absurd - a pattern is not just something that repeats. A pattern is any recognizable characteristic of a thing.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 has no repetition but it is obviously a patten.
sfhsl;ga;sgb has no obvious sequence or repetition, but it is obviously just me spamming on the keyboard.

Anything that is deemed "mathematically random" nowadays is, in fact, so very finely tuned to appear random that it is the exact opposite of random.

The pattern of this guy's work is, in fact "Apparently "random" noise with no obvious repetition or sequences".

Pretentious (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37952124)

Seems a bit pretentious to call it "The World's Ugliest Piece of Music". Could have used a non-traditional instrument or at least detune the piano...or just have a computer just shoot out the sound itself.

Re:Pretentious (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37952420)

The chosen constraints were to compose a mathematically non-repetitive piece within the constraints of the 88-tone chromatic scale of a piano. Sure, trombones or fretless stringed instruments could easily go worse thanks to their continuous, i.e. non-discrete, capabilities, but that's a whole 'nother story.

Re:Pretentious (0)

theshowmecanuck (703852) | more than 2 years ago | (#37952478)

Besides which, there will also be pretentious people who will tell you that they enjoyed the 'music' just so they can either be contrary or act like they know something you don't putting themselves in some separate 'club'. Or some pretentious cunt who will insult those pretentious assholes because he thinks he is better than them because they are pretentious. A slice of pretentious pie, all around, and around, and around, and...

Re:Pretentious (1)

HornWumpus (783565) | more than 2 years ago | (#37952812)

I won't say I enjoyed it. But it was better then Yawny. It was shorter.

cure but... (2)

alphatel (1450715) | more than 2 years ago | (#37952130)

Old hat. To discover the life of a musician who made randomization a career, see John Cage [wikipedia.org] .

Re:cure but... (1)

JonySuede (1908576) | more than 2 years ago | (#37952370)

I prefer the more recent Nick Didkovsky, the father of JMSL [algomusic.com]

Re:cure but... (3, Insightful)

Smidge204 (605297) | more than 2 years ago | (#37952574)

Except the "music" described in the video isn't random. To quote: "Random is easy. Repetition free, it turns out, is extremely difficult."

=Smidge=

Re:cure but... (1)

PCM2 (4486) | more than 2 years ago | (#37952590)

John Cage is interesting, but he created music that was random. That's not what this is.

randomness != chance (3, Interesting)

ClickOnThis (137803) | more than 2 years ago | (#37952616)

John Cage's music employed chance, not randomness. I posted [slashdot.org] about him back in 2007 (search for my username, my post is near the top.)

Xenakis would be a better example of a composer who used randomness in a truly stochastic sense. However, he used it in a very deliberate and purposeful way, to shape only some elements of a composition, not the entire work. In contrast, Cage used chance as a way of abdicating control, although (like Xenakis' use of randomess) he employed it for only some elements of a work.

Mathematics of Ramsey (4, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37952134)

Well, I use the mathematics of Frank Plumpton Ramsey and Bartel Leendert van der Waerden (who were born about 100 years ago) to call bullshit on this claim: There is no sequence of anything (including musical notes) which is pattern free.
cf.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Van_der_Waerden%27s_theorem
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ramsey%27s_theorem

Re:Mathematics of Ramsey (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37952410)

Mod Parent up. Ramsey theory was my first thought when I read the title of this thread. Total disorder is impossible.

Re:Mathematics of Ramsey (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37952774)

You're both morons. The piece would have to be ridiculously long to ensure a pattern via either theorem using 88 notes. Even still if it were ridiculously long, such a pattern could be unique thereby retaining the non-repetitive nature of the piece. Go back to school some more, dimwits.

Re:Mathematics of Ramsey (1)

Garble Snarky (715674) | more than 2 years ago | (#37952624)

You missed the "there is some number N" and "sufficiently large complete graph" - the implication is that, for a long enough musical piece, some repetition can be found. But you need to figure out the appropriate value of N for a given class of musical compositions, before you can claim that a particular piece can not be pattern free.

Re:Mathematics of Ramsey (4, Insightful)

curril (42335) | more than 2 years ago | (#37952866)

Yeah, theory aside, the speaker was just multiplying by 3 modulus 89 so values less than 30 will always be followed by a higher value, a pattern that was easy to hear in the music. The speaker confused a lack of repetition of distances between notes as being a total lack of pattern.

Re:Mathematics of Ramsey (1)

john83 (923470) | more than 2 years ago | (#37953004)

Well spotted (by which I mean, mod parent up!). He could have used a larger primitive root of 89, like 30, and that wouldn't have occurred.

Re:Mathematics of Ramsey (1)

john83 (923470) | more than 2 years ago | (#37952978)

Interestingly, if you try to generate more than 88 notes by the method Rickard described, they start to repeat periodically.

It's already been done (1)

Raul654 (453029) | more than 2 years ago | (#37952142)

Krzysztof Penderecki's Threnody to the Victims of Hiroshima [wikipedia.org] is the most horrible "music" I've ever heard. (Intentionally so - Penderecki made it as dissonant and a-tonal and possible)

Don't believe me? Listen to it here [youtube.com]

Re:It's already been done (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37952320)

Dissonant or a-tonal =/= no pattern. That piece wasn't ugly either, it was just disturbing. Which I assume they were going for. Lots of metal bands have really dissonant pieces intentionally, but the music is still full of patterns. In fact, unlike classical, any modern rock is going to incorporate a lot of dissonance that would have been frowned upon in classical.
Example, Periphery: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vrz_lC10P6A
More dissonance: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ufRkpTIdGYA

frist ps0t (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37952146)

and sold in the About outside

They forgot that harmony is beauty too (2)

sandytaru (1158959) | more than 2 years ago | (#37952154)

There were a few overlapping notes from pedal suspension that created chords. Although they tried to make ugly pattern-free music, they just ended up making modern music.

Re:They forgot that harmony is beauty too (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37952310)

Although they tried to make ugly pattern-free music, they just ended up making modern music.

Semantics.

Re:They forgot that harmony is beauty too (1)

rmstar (114746) | more than 2 years ago | (#37952604)

Although they tried to make ugly pattern-free music, they just ended up making modern music.

Actually, I liked it. It was very thoughtful and complex. Beautiful. So as far as I am concerned, they failed, albeit in a very interesting way. Art is like that.

Re:They forgot that harmony is beauty too (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37952790)

I agree. I enjoyed it, especially compared to a lot of music I could listen to.

For me, it's interesting, which is something aesthetically important.

Re:They forgot that harmony is beauty too (1)

Bill, Shooter of Bul (629286) | more than 2 years ago | (#37952976)

Absolutely. I'd listen to it on purpose. What is ugly to some is beautiful to others. I think part of what makes that still beautiful is that the individual notes from a good piano that is apparently in tune as far as I can tell, are distant enough in time to allow me to forget the previous note's relationship to it.

If you really want to make ugly music, use notes generated by different poorly tuned instruments in disrepair and speed it up.

Re:They forgot that harmony is beauty too (1)

Puzzles (874941) | more than 2 years ago | (#37952640)

Yes. I agree with this notion. Even a note evoked from a piano has a micro-level set of patterns. It not only would take a mathematician to create this music, but it would also require a computer and a software engineer to create pattern-free waveforms. Then I figure it would break the definition of music altogether--it wouldn't be ugly music; it'd be noise.

Not that random (1)

DaMP12000 (710387) | more than 2 years ago | (#37952168)

Interestingly enough, when you listen to such a piece, you hear a pattern of alternating low octaves notes and high octaves notes. Even though there is no mathematical repetition, I couldn't help anticipating the next big octave jump in a direction or the other, and the music had some kind of pattern to me. How weird that we can find meaning and feel sentiment in the most mathematically pattern-less piece of music?

Re:Not that random (3, Interesting)

idontgno (624372) | more than 2 years ago | (#37952272)

Apophenia. [wikipedia.org]

Pareidolia. [wikipedia.org]

We're wired to see patterns; if there aren't any we'll make them up with no conscious effort or intent at all.

Speak Softly Love (1)

audubon (577473) | more than 2 years ago | (#37952178)

Opening three notes of the Godfather Theme ("Speak Softly Love") at 8:53.

Not that bad (1)

pburghdoom (1892490) | more than 2 years ago | (#37952186)

I really didn't think it was all that horrible. I was not ready to jump up and start dancing to it but I feel lot of the shit that gets played on the radio is worse. Due to the arrhythmic and random nature of the piece I bet it was actually a bitch to play on the piano.

Re:Not that bad (2)

cptdondo (59460) | more than 2 years ago | (#37952524)

Not only that, but if you actually sat and listened to it, it had a weird sense of incompleteness. It's like you;re looking for some pattern and not finding it.

Not at all "bad" - it certainly elicited an emotional response from me. I wanted it to be complete, to have a pattern, and so I ended up listening to it to find one.

I've heard worse - music that has a pattern but that's completely devoid of interest and impact. This is music that devoid of pattern and therefore draws your interest.

I could really see this being orchestrated/arranged and be really cool.

cabbalists will cry foul (1)

G3ckoG33k (647276) | more than 2 years ago | (#37952220)

This kills off any kabbalist's notion of the importance of numbers as such. Now music have no pattern, too.

More! (1)

Lazareth (1756336) | more than 2 years ago | (#37952276)

Something must be wrong with me, because I loved this piece immensely and would really like more. Hearing it again and thus repeating it seems to destroy the beauty of it.

Re:More! (1)

john83 (923470) | more than 2 years ago | (#37952502)

There are additional possible solutions. They used an 88x88 Costas array for the notes, and a length 88 Golomb ruler for the intervals. I'm not sure how many Golomb rulers there are of that size, but there are more Costas arrays of that size - at least as many as there are primitive roots of 89.

Not you - it's the premise (1)

Okian Warrior (537106) | more than 2 years ago | (#37952526)

Nothing wrong with you at all.

Music evolved as a tool for learning. Rhythmic behaviour around the campfire teaching others how to hunt and all that.

Anything which our brain perceives as innovative in comparison to what we know is considered a new concept, and learning new concepts gives us pleasure (knowing more concepts is a survival trait).

So you get pleasure not from the repetition of patterns in Beethoven's Fifth, but from the interplay and differences. The pattern is set up initially, and then it's how the subsequent patterns are *different* from the initial setup that causes us to learn the much more complex rules which specify the variations. It's the learning that we perceive as pleasurable.

Patternless music is completely different from anything you've encountered. It's not surprising that it gives some people pleasure - the brain is wired to notice and process uniqueness and encode it via differences, and give pleasure in doing so.

I liked the music myself (a lot), and noticed some similarity to the works of Ginastera; specifically, "Concerto for piano and orchestra" which I also like.

Re:More! (2)

CurryCamel (2265886) | more than 2 years ago | (#37952614)

Typical of them artists to ruin a perfectly ugly piece of music by their .... artistry. It should have been performed by a computer for proper ugliness!

Re:More! (1)

kdcttg (980465) | more than 2 years ago | (#37952680)

I agree, I loved it. I found it quite relaxing.

Music starts at... (1)

RPGillespie (2478442) | more than 2 years ago | (#37952284)

The music starts at 7:40 if you prefer to just listen to the plinking of unmemorable notes...

Copyright? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37952316)

But if it's math... can it be copyrighted?

Re:Copyright? (1)

Imrik (148191) | more than 2 years ago | (#37952814)

The math can't, the representation of it can.

Humourous (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37952352)

I thought Nicleback had been doing this for years already.

wrong worlds most beautiful music (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37952360)

it's Pachelbel Canon in D not Beethoven's 5th

Wha? (2)

aldo.gs (985038) | more than 2 years ago | (#37952366)

It would help if there were some definitions for "random" and "pattern-free" in this context. I find it annoying that he several times says that random music is not pattern-free.

It is true that their definitions are not equivalent, but it seems that he is implying that you cannot generate "pattern-free" music using randomly played notes, and that -depending of the definition of "pattern-free" of course- seems very, very unlikely.

Still, I can appreciate the effort to maximize information entropy, and the divulgation of discrete math.

Re:Wha? (2)

john83 (923470) | more than 2 years ago | (#37952734)

I'm note a musical guy, but I understand the maths, so I'll try to answer this.

It would help if there were some definitions for "random" and "pattern-free" in this context. I find it annoying that he several times says that random music is not pattern-free.

1. He never plays the same note twice. (A Costas array is a permutation) In a random piece, the same note can (and probably will) appear more than once.
2. If he plays middle A, then middle B (consecutive notes), he'll never play consecutive notes (e.g. C_0 and D_0) again. 3. If he plays middle A, then something else, then middle B, he'll never play consecutive notes spaced by another note again. 4. If he plays middle A, then two other notes, then middle B, he'll never play consecutive notes spaced by two other notes again. 5. etc. 6. The same applies to pairs of notes two notes apart (e.g. middle A and middle C), three notes apart, etc. 7. Finally, he uses a Golomb ruler for the spacing between notes. I'm note quite sure what he did there, but possibly each spacing is unique. Can someone else explain? At any rate, a Golomb ruler defines unique gaps such that you get every possible gap between some pair of marks on it. (Think of a 4 cm ruler with 0 cm, 1 cm, 2 cm and 4 cm marked on it. You don't need a mark at 3 cm because you can get that from the gap between the 1 cm mark and the 4 cam mark.)

It is true that their definitions are not equivalent, but it seems that he is implying that you cannot generate "pattern-free" music using randomly played notes, and that -depending of the definition of "pattern-free" of course- seems very, very unlikely.

Can't is note quite true, but won't is more like it. Consider 3.14159265358979323 - the first 18 digits of pie. Random digits? Maybe (randomness, as you note, needs to be defined). However, look at triplets: 141, 535, 979, 323. Played as music, people will hear repetitions like that. Or at least, that seems to be the theory; I have no ear for these things to test it. Maybe you can hear them [youtube.com] ?

Re:Wha? (1)

john83 (923470) | more than 2 years ago | (#37952800)

Please note that "note a musical guy" was not intended as a pun, but was in fact my brain on too little sleep.

The Residents (1)

Weaselmancer (533834) | more than 2 years ago | (#37952456)

That music isn't ugly. It does happen to be optimally dissonant, but ugly and dissonance are not the same thing. Related - but not same thing.

If you want some truly ugly music I recommend you get to YouTube and check out The Residents. They work hard to bring you the ugly.

Here is an example. [youtube.com] It is the Residents covering the Rolling Stones Satisfaction. FAR more ugly than this mathematical oddity. You'll note that it is fairly repetitive and still PLENTY ugly.

How does it compare to Revolution 9? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37952462)

How does it compare to Revolution no. 9. [youtube.com]

Prime numbers? (2)

dada21 (163177) | more than 2 years ago | (#37952466)

Primes have no patterns, so why not just map sounds/beats to prime numbers?

Re:Prime numbers? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37952628)

I'd love to see the proof !

Re:Prime numbers? (2)

gv250 (897841) | more than 2 years ago | (#37952636)

Primes have no patterns, so why not just map sounds/beats to prime numbers?

But what will you use when you run out of primes?

Re:Prime numbers? (2)

john83 (923470) | more than 2 years ago | (#37952766)

No patterns [wikipedia.org] ?

Re:Prime numbers? (3, Interesting)

cvnautilus (1793340) | more than 2 years ago | (#37953024)

Also Ulam Spiral [wikipedia.org]

Randomness? Mathematical music? Sounds bad? (1)

mark_elf (2009518) | more than 2 years ago | (#37952472)

It's so cute when the kids think they've discovered something nobody's tried before (eyeballs roll up in head). Welcome to the 20th century!

Re:Randomness? Mathematical music? Sounds bad? (1)

Em Adespoton (792954) | more than 2 years ago | (#37952990)

I presume you're talking about the commenters in this thread, not the guy who generated the music... the 20th century brought us randomness, mathematical music, intentionally bad sounding music (I'm sure this is as old as homo sapiens), but not, AFAIK, pattern-free music. As presented in the talk (and this thread), they are NOT the same thing.

Bastard Noise is worst than that (1)

JonySuede (1908576) | more than 2 years ago | (#37952496)

Bastard Noise: The Analysis of Self-Destruction is the worst voluntary atonal arrhythmic non-patterned music ever.
If you don't consider suicide during a listening session, you are deaf!

Re:Bastard Noise is worst than that (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37952946)

And yet you keep listening to it? Why? Ever tried some Merzbow? Mmm, tasty!

Tool used the Fibonacci Sequence (1)

jluzwick (1465485) | more than 2 years ago | (#37952586)

I thought it was interesting when Tool designed their lyrics for Lateralus to the Fibonacci Sequence. While I don't think this had any weight of the harmony of the song and why it's such a powerful song, I think it added a level of complexity that I greatly enjoy in their songs. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lateralus_(song) [wikipedia.org]

Re:Tool used the Fibonacci Sequence (1)

PopeRatzo (965947) | more than 2 years ago | (#37952878)

I thought it was interesting when Tool designed their lyrics for Lateralus to the Fibonacci Sequence.

That makes one of you.

uses each key once (1)

eldepeche (854916) | more than 2 years ago | (#37952620)

So if I understand this correctly, since 3 and 88 are relatively prime, then every number in the closed field F88 is a multiple of 3, and if you keep multiplying by 3, you'll eventually hit each number.

But that's a pattern, isn't it?

Re:uses each key once (1)

john83 (923470) | more than 2 years ago | (#37952880)

It is, but not of the kind they were looking to avoid. There are Costas arrays without that pattern, but they're not known for sizes over 28 x 28. They're called 'sporadic' arrays [costasarrays.org] , and they're actually the most common type for small sizes (there are infinitely many generated by field theory, but that's not a fair comparison as we can't find large sporadic arrays).

Well... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37952746)

it still sounds better than Skrillex...

'pattern-free'...aka 'noise' (1)

CCarrot (1562079) | more than 2 years ago | (#37952864)

So...this guy is trying to recreate white noise, then? I'm pretty sure there's an app for that...

Or you could ... (1)

PPH (736903) | more than 2 years ago | (#37952936)

... just leave the cover on the piano keyboard open when the cat is out patrolling.

Multiplying by 3 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37953008)

Long story short: "We used this very simple pattern to make music without patterns."

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?
or Connect with...

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>