# Composition = Computer Programming?



## SPR (Nov 12, 2008)

This is perhaps a silly comparison, but it occured to me recently that writing down a musical score for something like a symphony is something akin to computer programming.

A special language used to describe and direct the behavior of a multiplicity of things to accomplish a very specific task or desired result. The more I think about it - the more I like the idea. 

Was it that Bach, Mozart & Beethoven were the predecessors to programmers in a way? Besides the plays of shakespeare which leave plenty of room for visual and implementation interpretation - musical scores strike me a something more than that by way of information imparted to future performers etc.


----------



## Polednice (Sep 13, 2009)

I prefer to think of the language created by ancient mathematicians to be the predecessor of computer programming, but the analogy is the same


----------



## Weston (Jul 11, 2008)

Well, programmers are creating software that in turn can create fairly credible music. In the hands of a good performer can be quite engaging. So I do see it as a valid analogy. Maybe someday composers will simply describe to computers what they are after -- actually, they are already doing so. Check out the examples a short way down this link:

http://www.miller-mccune.com/culture-society/triumph-of-the-cyborg-composer-8507/


----------



## graaf (Dec 12, 2009)

It seems to me that it music is language - musical notation is a way to describe music in a way that it can be reproduced without ambiguity. Mathematics is also a language, also strict and without ambiguity.
Keith Devlin in his book "Math Gene" says that similar part of brain are activated when mathematician is reading a proof of a theorem, and when musician is reading musical notation.
Anyway, since computer programming is also mathematical language, there should definitely be some correlation...


----------



## muxamed (Feb 20, 2010)

But then in the same way of reasoning writing a novell is something akin to computer programming.


----------



## KaerbEmEvig (Dec 15, 2009)

Great article. I wholeheartedly agree with what David Cope says.


----------



## Polednice (Sep 13, 2009)

graaf said:


> musical notation is a way to describe music in a way that it can be reproduced without ambiguity.


While it is unambiguous to a certain extent, an extremely important difference between musical and mathematical notation is that the music _must_ contain some ambiguity, as this leaves room for interpretation.


----------



## graaf (Dec 12, 2009)

muxamed said:


> But then in the same way of reasoning writing a novell is something akin to computer programming.


Not sure what would those brain scanning techniques tell about that - whether same parts of brain are activated when reading musical notation and when reading Dostoevsky. I can only suppose that Devlin would be fair enough to mention in his book anything else similar to math and music if he knew about it. Unfortunately, I can't describe his arguments well enough, but it has to do with the fact that math is language that describes measures and relations between them, and one piece of music is (according to Devlin) related in a similar way with another piece, as objects are in math.


Polednice said:


> While it is unambiguous to a certain extent, an extremely important difference between musical and mathematical notation is that the music _must_ contain some ambiguity, as this leaves room for interpretation.


True. Which reminds me of another thing mentioned by Devlin (I'm starting to sound like his agent or something  ): the very existence of performance music can be enjoyed by someone who can't read musical notation, while that is not the case with math.


----------



## SPR (Nov 12, 2008)

muxamed said:


> But then in the same way of reasoning writing a novell is something akin to computer programming.


I disagree in this respect: Writing a novel is casting a story onto paper (or other media). Generating a musical score is different in that it is communicating instructions for how to produce a musical performance. In other words - a novell isnt really _instruction_ exactly. That is sort of what I was trying to get across.

Another thing that was raised is the language of mathematics. I suppose to some extent that is true... but Algebra, Geometry, Calculus, Linear Equations, or Feynmans sum over histories are really techniques to solve a broad range of problems. Again - not a specific juggling of procedures intended to orchestrate a final result. I guess you can argue the point in that there is a specific procedure to calculate the area under a curve - somehow I feel that is different.


----------



## SPR (Nov 12, 2008)

Polednice said:


> While it is unambiguous to a certain extent, an extremely important difference between musical and mathematical notation is that the music _must_ contain some ambiguity, as this leaves room for interpretation.


'must'?










Sometimes embelishment and improvisation are included intentionally. Other times - the score is exact to (I would say) a large extent. In general - I believe the intent of a composer is communicate a complete musical thought in a fairly precise way, yes? no?

Am I wrong in my resistance to the blanket assertion that musical scores *must* contain ambiguity? I dont want to pick nits here - but the precise amount of forte implemented by a collection of oboe isnt really what I am thinking about whan I suggest that writing music is akin to programming.

Kliebers Beethovens 5th compared to Glenn Goulds version on Piano (Liszt) shows how the score can be interpreted in different ways - but I dont think that detracts from the analogy of the method to carry out a musical construct in real life / performance.


----------



## Polednice (Sep 13, 2009)

SPR said:


> the score is exact to (I would say) a large extent. In general - I believe the intent of a composer is communicate a complete musical thought in a fairly precise way, yes? no?


That's exactly what I meant - you seem to acknowledge that the method is 'fairly precise' and exact to a 'large extent' rather than a 100% accurate representation of the music that is to be created. I think that ambiguity is an _intrinsic_ characteristic of musical scores, so I think my use of 'must' was justified, because the sound of any given piece - whether we're talking about sonority, tempo or structure _etc._ - is never the same.


----------



## Argus (Oct 16, 2009)

SPR said:


> I disagree in this respect: Writing a novel is casting a story onto paper (or other media). Generating a musical score is different in that it is communicating instructions for how to produce a musical performance. In other words - a novell isnt really _instruction_ exactly. That is sort of what I was trying to get across.
> 
> Another thing that was raised is the language of mathematics. I suppose to some extent that is true... but Algebra, Geometry, Calculus, Linear Equations, or Feynmans sum over histories are really techniques to solve a broad range of problems. Again - not a specific juggling of procedures intended to orchestrate a final result. I guess you can argue the point in that there is a specific procedure to calculate the area under a curve - somehow I feel that is different.


The act of composition isn't only about the transferrance of that information in one's head into musical notation but also generating the information in the first place. You seem to refer to the transcription from thought to paper as the compsoitional process whereas this is but the last link in the chain.

I know very little about computer programming but are all the programmers always the people who initially imagined the idea for the program, like the relationship a composer has to the music.


----------



## SPR (Nov 12, 2008)

Argus said:


> The act of composition isn't only about the transferrance of that information in one's head into musical notation but also generating the information in the first place. You seem to refer to the transcription from thought to paper as the compsoitional process whereas this is but the last link in the chain.
> 
> I know very little about computer programming but are all the programmers always the people who initially imagined the idea for the program, like the relationship a composer has to the music.


agree on all counts!

yes - the creative act is a very different thing than the transcription into notation.

============

as for programming hows - yes and no. Sometimes programmers are giving 'specs' for what needs to be done... 'black box'ing the process. Sometimes they generate specs themselves or design entire large systems. But no matter the scope - there is a certain amount of creativity involved with _how_ anything gets done. I dont do much programming anymore - I was once unusually good, believe it or not.


----------



## Gangsta Tweety Bird (Jan 25, 2009)

the difference is that in programming there is usually a best way to do accomplish a certain task - for example a most efficient algorithm - but theres not a best way to write music. also a computer program usually has some real utility and music is a fine art. not that its impossible for a computer program to be a fine art but most arent


----------



## kingtim (Feb 23, 2010)

It's funny that you bring this up. It is a lot like computer programming.


In a lot of ways it almost seems too close to computer programming. These days, many modern musicians are just using their stupid Mac to compose music. I'm trying to be an accepting person, so I'll say that I don't think it should count as music unless it was played by real musical instruments, not computers, at some point.


----------



## SPR (Nov 12, 2008)

kingtim said:


> It's funny that you bring this up. It is a lot like computer programming.
> 
> In a lot of ways it almost seems too close to computer programming. These days, many modern musicians are just using their stupid Mac to compose music. I'm trying to be an accepting person, so I'll say that I don't think it should count as music unless it was played by real musical instruments, not computers, at some point.


Hm.

I hear you... but I wouldnt completely discount computers as useful tools. After all, isnt it the music that matters?

I tend to agree that pure electronically created music is something very different from its 'analog' relative using strings, wind - lack of 'Auto Tune' to correct less than perfect pitch, etc. I would also argue that composing music on a computer is not a bad thing - and does not diminish in the slightest what might be quality product coming out the far end. I dont find the thought that Bach might have used computers had they been available to him all that far fetched.... consider the detailed permutations he had to craft by hand for the Art of Fuge.

As with all things - computers are very often an improved means to an unimproved end... so if you craft dung without a computer - you should be able to perhaps craft more dung more rapidly with one - and with precisely drawn musical notation, midi interfaces - and uploaded to iTunes within a matter of hours. ("hey look Mom.. I can Make Music!" Good for you Jimmy. I have NO problem with that - anyone that loves music is OK with me.)

Similarly - you could certainly create sublime constructs of universally recognized merit with or without computer. I think there is another thread around here about how someone hated the video game 'Guitar Hero' for similar reasons...

http://www.talkclassical.com/4041-guitar-hero-i-hate.html

in danger of babling....


----------

