Was this aimed at ASR?

[RexrothPigeon]

If a composer gives a musician a composition and the musician plays the composition, is he performing, translating or reproducing?
If an audio engineer makes a recording of that performance, is that recording a reproduction or a copy?
If a company makes 1,000 files of the recording to sell, are they copies or reproductions?
If a musician listens to one of the files and plays the music exactly like the recording (so that no one can tell the difference), is he copying, performing or reproducing?
If a publisher publishes the composition in sheet music form, are they reproducing it?
If they are, what about the musician who copies the performance so well that no one can tell the difference? Is he copying the performance or performing the composition?
If the original composition is performed by a musician and then played on a speaker, is the original musician reproducing or the speaker reproducing?
And what are they reproducing? Is it the composition, or are they reproducing a reproduction?

Just asking for a friend.

Baudrillard nods sagely

 

[Axo1989]

If a composer gives a musician a composition and the musician plays the composition, is he performing, translating or reproducing?
If an audio engineer makes a recording of that performance, is that recording a reproduction or a copy?
If a company makes 1,000 files of the recording to sell, are they copies or reproductions?
If a musician listens to one of the files and plays the music exactly like the recording (so that no one can tell the difference), is he copying, performing or reproducing?
If a publisher publishes the composition in sheet music form, are they reproducing it?
If they are, what about the musician who copies the performance so well that no one can tell the difference? Is he copying the performance or performing the composition?
If the original composition is performed by a musician and then played on a speaker, is the original musician reproducing or the speaker reproducing?
And what are they reproducing? Is it the composition, or are they reproducing a reproduction?

Just asking for a friend.

Haha I may have to read more carefully, but at first glance I think the answer to all those questions is 'yes'.

Ok @Multicore will invoke the improvising musician as an exception, and I'll agree.

 

[Multicore]

If a composer gives a musician a composition and the musician plays the composition, is he performing, translating or reproducing?
If an audio engineer makes a recording of that performance, is that recording a reproduction or a copy?
If a company makes 1,000 files of the recording to sell, are they copies or reproductions?
If a musician listens to one of the files and plays the music exactly like the recording (so that no one can tell the difference), is he copying, performing or reproducing?
If a publisher publishes the composition in sheet music form, are they reproducing it?
If they are, what about the musician who copies the performance so well that no one can tell the difference? Is he copying the performance or performing the composition?
If the original composition is performed by a musician and then played on a speaker, is the original musician reproducing or the speaker reproducing?
And what are they reproducing? Is it the composition, or are they reproducing a reproduction?

Just asking for a friend.

That's a lot of questions! You should know how I would answer all of them, except the one about the audio engineer, given what I already wrote here. So I'll go to sleep now and maybe someone else would like to chime in.

 

[krabapple]

Another recent necromance of a 5 year old thread. It was all hashed over more than five years ago - why bring it up again.

And to answer your belated point, honestly - I am struggling to understand how an intelligent person can think that the process of performing a composition bears any resemblance to the process of reproducing a recording of that performance.

It's an excuse to indulge in quasi-musico-ontological-semantical chin-scratching.

Endlessly fascinating stuff!

(not).

-krab 'the map is not the territory' apple

 

[Multicore]

It's an excuse to indulge in quasi-musico-ontological-semantical chin-scratching.

Endlessly fascinating stuff!

(not).

If you're not into reading our mental masturbation, why do it? There are many other things to read on the Internet.

 

[krabapple]

If you're not into reading our mental masturbation, why do it? There are many other things to read on the Internet.

Who says I read it, as in, read it closely versus scrolling through it on my way to content of actual interest?

 

[Tim Link]

quasi-musico-ontological-semantical chin-scratching

Professor Peter Schickele would have been proud of that one!

 

[Multicore]

Who says I read it, as in, read it closely versus scrolling through it on my way to content of actual interest?

How do you know how fascinating, chin-scratching or not it is?

 

[Axo1989]

Who says I read it, as in, read it closely versus scrolling through it on my way to content of actual interest?

Stick to scratching your chin, I reckon—but head-scratching is another option.

 

[RexrothPigeon]

How do you know how fascinating, chin-scratching or not it is?

hey keep the epistemology out of the ontology & semantics!

 

[krabapple]

How do you know how fascinating, chin-scratching or not it is?

I wasn't born yesterday, and I received a good eduction?

 

[krabapple]

Stick to scratching your chin, I reckon.

It appears you misread, monsieur. The chin-scratching is that being indulged in by the ASR philosophes I referred to. You, for one.

 

[Axo1989]

Thank you for that. There are a few things to consider.

First the semantic. As I suggested in #690, performance can and sometimes does encompass reproduction. The word reproduction, in my view, implies some kind of fidelity. An old Xerox photocopier can reproduce a text document with perfect fidelity, as can a 19c. copyist with a quill pen, or a fax machine since fidelity is in getting the text right. These systems cannot adequately reproduce a color photo or oil painting. We would need to upgrade such systems so that the output represents the input to a level of fidelity that we accept as a reproduction.

Performance does not imply fidelity. Performance can use fidelity but doesn't always need to because interpretation may be permitted, more or less, depending on the specific traditions and context involved. I used the example of Ghosts because its tradition licenses broad interpretation and as much as demands personal interpretation from performers. What music might demand the minimum? Paganini, perhaps?

So performance is one thing and reproduction is another thing and one doesn't imply but can involve the other and visa versa and they may overlap.

I bang on about this because the wiggle room is very important to me. As a musician and in the audience, the magic is in the infidelity, i.e. what we do in the wiggle room. To me this seems obvious but I suppose it might not be to others and especially on a forum that's most concerned with playback of recordings. I have a complicated relationship with recordings (see 3. here).

This makes sense. As for the link, I miss those conversations that included @computer-audiophile, who made a graceful exit.

The Gary Windo arrangement goes a bit beyond arrangement and is perhaps a derived composition. It forces the A section and first half of the B section (as shown in the chart I provided) into a strict folk rhythm, retaining as much of the melody as can be fit into that, and discarding the intro and second half of B. The tradition implied in Windo's version has much stricter demands (less wiggle room) that the the successful performer is likely to respect.

Akchoté is usually relentlessly creative but in that recording of Windo's version his contribution is modest and he's respectful. He does the boom-chick rhythm part conventionally using the chord symbols (C, F, G7 etc) and the melody has some ornaments and distinctive staccato but that's about it. It's not a perfectly straight reproduction of the score but it's close, more so than most people play Ayler's Ghosts.

I did think Akchoté maybe played that one more closely to the provided score, but I lacked the skills to check, so thank you.

I found Riquiqui;Bronze-Instances on Qobuz and listened to a few and I agree that instances is a good word here. Your guess about how it was done seems likely. I'm not sure what to say about it with respect to the current discussion because, at the risk of sounding like some weirdo, my concern is with the capacity for free communication from and to the unconscious mind, communion of the ineffable, or a spiritual unity, if you like. Do you remember the thread Recordings as Simulacra? @Curvature nailed it in this post:

Recordings as simulacra

Borges in turn may have drawn from Lewis Carol's 1889 story Sylvie and Bruno Concluded which also featured a 1:1 scale map I thought Swift had done it earlier, but maybe imagined that) Thanks—I wasn't aware of that reference.

www.audiosciencereview.com

How AI tools might fit in to all that, I have, thus far, no idea.

That takes us somewhere very chin-scratchingly ontological. You are certainly a weirdo, but that can be a useful prerequisite! That was also a great thread.

I'm quite fond of generative music, if we trace back to Eno and the like. Briefly (because that discussion could extend fruitfully) I don't think that music qua communication with the unconscious, etc is precluded by the types of generation—and the sometimes synthetic sources—employed then. I don't think it is precluded by Arca's working method recently either (I assume various setting/prompts were employed to experiment with results and that there was indeed a creative process by the artist as well as the machinery, but that's guessing). In fact, playing the whole almost six hours rather takes me places. Puzzles the neighbours though.

I'd differentiate that from 'chatbot, make [dead artist] duet with [unrelated artist]in the style of [some other thing]' of course.

 

[Axo1989]

It appears you misread, monsieur.

Deliberately so. But you can't make out your reflection?

The chin-scratching is that being indulged in by the ASR philosophes I referred to. You, for one.

I did add the head-scratching option for you, in case you missed it. But keep scrolling (with the other hand).

 

[krabapple]

Deliberately so. But you can't make out your reflection?

But monsieur, I was doing anything but scratching my chin by flying over such musings. If anything they looked tediously known to me, needing no such pondering.

I did add the head-scratching option for you, in case you missed it. But keep scrolling (with the other hand).

If the sheer act of commenting on ASR activity constitutes self-abuse now, we are all doomed to go blind.

 

[Axo1989]

If the sheer act of commenting on ASR activity constitutes self-abuse now, we are all doomed to go blind.

I make no reference to self abuse. You are catching your reflection now though. Well done!

 

[pablolie]

Aren't these the kind of conversations that may look weird to a newcomer to ASR? :-D

 

[rdenney]

Aren't these the kind of conversations that may look weird to a newcomer to ASR? :-D

They look a little weird to regulars, too.

Rick “what do I know?” Denney

 

[antcollinet]

I make no reference to self abuse.

Now you are being disingenuous. Your reference was clear.

 

[Axo1989]

Now you are being disingenuous. Your reference was clear.

Haha but no. I said one hand scrolling past this conversation, the other hand scratching one's head. What's going on in your head then?

Now it crossed my mind to make the other reference, but I thought no, absolutely not. Perhaps we are picking up the homeopathic residue.