Running out of music

[motorollin]

Presumably there is a finite number of unique combinations of notes which could be created before repetition started occurring (IOW "new" compositions had in fact been composed previously). Given that in the system of music we currently understand there are only 12 unique notes in each octave, I am surprised we haven't run out of music yet. Maybe we have, and we are actually repeating compositions which are long forgotten. Of course I'm not saying a whole piece of music is identical to another composed long ago, just that melodies may be re-composed at a later date when the same combination of notes is re-discovered.

Assuming this could happen in such a way that we are aware of it (so that nobody is able to compose music any more without it sounding like something else, because there are no more unused combinations of notes) what would we do? Create a new system of music not based on 12 semitones? Create some new notes starting from "h"? Augment semitones additional half-semitones in between the existing notes (e.g. between C and C# would be some other note). It's hard to imaging how music composed using such a system would sound. And I think it would be impossible to use such a system without automatically striving to produce something resembling the harmonic, melodic and tonal constructs that we understand as music.

Discuss!!!! :-)

--
moto

[Karlos]

I don't concur. It is akin to suggesting that we can run out of (english language) poetry since there are only 26 letters in the alphabet to construct it out of.

I chose poetry over normal writing since it (usually) requires some structure beyond basic language rules. Otherwise, you'd have to allow any arbitrary sequence of notes to be classed as music which I'm assuming you don't.

You also need to consider that the very definition of what is music varies massively even within the defined constraints of melody, harmony and rhythm. The 12 semitone scale is just one of several. A lot of middle eastern and asian music have quartertone scales which allow for much greater diversity than the one to which we are accustom.

The reason a lot of modern music sound so alike is that it is generally quite formulaic and tailored to suit popular tastes. Trends change. Consider even the basic timing signatures used in music. Most mainstream music uses 4/4 and wouldn't dream of deviating. Yet, if you look at other genres, you find many much more interesting things around.

And people wonder why I like a bit of Richard D James...

[motorollin]

Karlos wrote:
I don't concur. It is akin to suggesting that we can run out of (english language) poetry since there are only 26 letters in the alphabet to construct it out of.

Yes but with language new words and linguistic forms can be created to provide new material for poetry. Can you say the same for music? How can notes combine to create new material for music once every possible permutation of notes has already been played?

Karlos wrote:
I chose poetry over normal writing since it (usually) requires some structure beyond basic language rules. Otherwise, you'd have to allow any arbitrary sequence of notes to be classed as music which I'm assuming you don't.

Well, most modern music sounds pretty arbitrary to me :roll: But seriously, I'm guessing that as composers get more desperate for something new to compose, music will become more and more "arbitrary" sounding.

Karlos wrote:
You also need to consider that the very definition of what is music varies massively even within the defined constraints of melody, harmony and rhythm. The 12 semitone scale is just one of several. A lot of middle eastern and asian music have quartertone scales which allow for much greater diversity than the one to which we are accustom.

Interesting. I wonder whether Western composers will start to adopt other scale types in search of something new?

Karlos wrote:
The reason a lot of modern music sound so alike is that it is generally quite formulaic and tailored to suit popular tastes. Trends change.

Yes of course, but that's intentional. I'm talking about the mathematical fact that there is a finite number of combinations of notes.

Karlos wrote:
Consider even the basic timing signatures used in music. Most mainstream music uses 4/4 and wouldn't dream of deviating.

If it makes you feel any better, I'm writing in 5/4 at the moment, and have some stuff written in 7/8 ;-)

--
moto

[Karlos]

Yes of course, but that's intentional. I'm talking about the mathematical fact that there is a finite number of combinations of notes.

I disagree, especially when considered from the purely mathematical point of view, since there is no upper limit on how many notes may be used in a sequence, there is no limit to the possible number of permutations of those notes.

Mathematically, one can say that my adding or removing just one note from any piece of music produces another. Whether or not it sounds like the original is irrelevant.

If it makes you feel any better, I'm writing in 5/4 at the moment, and have some stuff written in 7/8

Good. Try alternating signatures too, that's always fun :-)

[motorollin]

Karlos wrote:
I disagree, especially when considered from the purely mathematical point of view, since there is no upper limit on how many notes may be used in a sequence, there is no limit to the possible number of permutations of those notes.

Mathematically, one can say that my adding or removing just one note from any piece of music produces another. Whether or not it sounds like the original is irrelevant.

I don't think adding a note to the end of a previously composed melody is sufficient to consider it a new composition. What I perhaps should have said is that there is a finite number of permutations of notes which can be played before repetition starts occurring.

Karlos wrote:

If it makes you feel any better, I'm writing in 5/4 at the moment, and have some stuff written in 7/8

Good. Try alternating signatures too, that's always fun :-)

Well I did write one track in 10/4, but the rhythm made it sound more like alternative 4/4 and 6/4. Does that count? :-)

--
moto

[Karlos]

I don't think adding a note to the end of a previously composed melody is sufficient to consider it a new composition. What I perhaps should have said is that there is a finite number of permutations of notes which can be played before repetition starts occurring.

Again I disagree. If you can have completely irrational numbers with just the digits 0-9 (ie fractional numbers without any cyclic repetition), then with even just one octave of 12 semitones you can achieve the same thing yet you typically have 7 octaves of useful range for some instruments. Also, since the note lengths and spaces between them are musically significant you get even more permutation possible. Since there are no limits to the number of notes you are allowed in your sequence, no limits on the length and spacing between them, the number of permutations is infinite already.

If that doesn't convince you, consider that so far this is all with just single note melodies. Add to that the idea of layering these sequences to produce chords and harmonies. Then multiply this by all the possible arrangements for a vast number of real and synthetic instrument sources.

[Karlos]

Well I did write one track in 10/4, but the rhythm made it sound more like alternative 4/4 and 6/4. Does that count?

Sure. I'm of the opinion that it's easier to characterise the signature timing in these terms if the music tends to alternate rather than picking an excessively long bar length to make it "evenly" spaced purely for notational purposes ;-)

[countzero]

I think you miss something here. music is not just the number or combination of notes. spacing between the notes is also as important as the notes themselves. a different scale can give a totally different feel to a composition, also the velocity ? (the push ? not sure what it's called in english ...) of the notes. both of them which make the total combination of composable music nearly infinite ... also as karlos said, modern music is somewhat limited in scales and possible combinations (I mean the western scale). that's why it sounds like it's repeating itself I guess ...

[motorollin]

Variation in velocity and length of notes will only do so much. They won't transform one melody in to another one.

--
moto

[Karlos]

motorollin wrote:
Variation in velocity and length of notes will only do so much. They won't transform one melody in to another one.

--
moto

Mathematically they do, which is what your original assertion was based on. Going back to your FT question, they will have 2 different spectra, ergo they are not congruent.

Wether two melodies sound alike is an entirely different question.

[Wain]

Yes but with language new words and linguistic forms can be created to provide new material for poetry. Can you say the same for music? How can notes combine to create new material for music once every possible permutation of notes has already been played?

You are making a mistake here in assuming that notes are the "words" of music...they are not.  Notes are more akin to letters, but they have the additional modifier of rhythms within them as well.

Words in Western Tonal music are akin to motives.  The reason why we aren't recreating pieces from the past is because the language itself (the way motives are used, the way consonance and dissonance is treated, harmonic structure or lack thereof, and the basic compositional methodologies) changes quite regularly.

Composers are constantly experimenting with new shapes and sounds as well.

I'm talking about the mathematical fact that there is a finite number of combinations of notes.

You're neglecting rhythm, tempo, and form, all of which have infinite possible varieties...also, there is only a finite combination of notes when the piece has a specific length, and the notes have a rhythmic limit (no such thing as a rhythmic limit, there are pieces with 2048th notes in them).
Not even bothering to get into the fact that detuning is quite common, or having clarinets and violins playing quarter tones and the like.

Multiphonics, extended orchestral techniques, and most importantly SILENCE suggest that there are an infinite variety of sounds that are used in western music...we are not in any way limited to the pitches of the 12-tone equal temperament scale.  Then there's the whole instrumental timbral shifting issue to deal with as well.


As far as other scales and tuning systems go, we use them all the time.

Well, most modern music sounds pretty arbitrary to me

 If you're talking about modern orchestral works than it's likely because your ear is uneducated to its types of nuance and concept.  If you're talking about pop music, well you're about dead on there for the most part, but once again, just because nearly every song uses some I-IV-V-I harmonic structure does it make it the same song?  no, absolutely not.

To be clear, what you've essentially said is something akin to 'Because we can accurately produce all of the discernible colors in our visual spectrum painters will run out of new things to paint.'

There's a LOT more to it than that.

[Wain]

Variation in velocity and length of notes will only do so much. They won't transform one melody in to another one.

this is flat out wrong...try looking up some Webern.

unless you're suggesting theme and variation is an unacceptable method of developing a new melody...if that's the case than you need to clearly define melody for us because you're implying that ALL melodies in western tonal music are the same regardless of content.

[motorollin]

Karlos wrote:

motorollin wrote:
Variation in velocity and length of notes will only do so much. They won't transform one melody in to another one.

Mathematically they do, which is what your original assertion was based on. Going back to your FT question, they will have 2 different spectra, ergo they are not congruent.

Wether two melodies sound alike is an entirely different question.

Well perhaps I overstated the mathematics. The point I was really making was that as more combinations of notes get "used", they will either have to be repeated or music will start to sound similar to previous compositions. Of course I realise that there is more to music than just sequences of notes, but I still maintain that two pieces of music which contain the same sequence of notes in the same order are bound to sound similar.

--
moto

[motorollin]

Wain wrote:
You're neglecting rhythm, tempo, and form, all of which have infinite possible varieties...

So if you heard Bach's IVth played with a varied rythm, tempo or form, would you consider it a different piece of music? Or someone attempting to use someone else's work to make something new?

Wain wrote:
If you're talking about modern orchestral works than it's likely because your ear is uneducated to its types of nuance and concept.

I beg your pardon?

--
moto

[Karlos]

motorollin wrote:

Of course I realise that there is more to music than just sequences of notes, but I still maintain that two pieces of music which contain the same sequence of notes in the same order are bound to sound similar.

Try listening to some of Hybrid's "Additional Remix and Production By" to see how different a melody can sound even when unmodified, just by changing the harmony that goes with it. If you listen to their remix of Filter's "Take A Picture", where the vocals (transposed up about a semitone) are used against a somewhat melancholic backdrop it sounds nothing like the original uptempo song...