Hi, Devon! On 4/22/20, Devon McCormick <devon...@gmail.com> wrote: > ... One thing that confused both of us is the output of > the "RSLTNT" code on page 54. I see that you reproduced this in J as > "resultant" but am unsure how the output, e.g. 3 2 1 3 1 2 3,:2 1 1 1 1 1 1 > as the output from RSLTNT 5 3, is supposed to sound.
You would count 1-2-3-1-2-1-1-2-3-1-1-2-1-2-3, clapping (for example) each time you said "1" (or playing some note on a keyboard, etc.). > The book says of this output that the "...first line contains the same > durations derived by the geometric method (the intervals between > endpoints), and the second line shows the number of 'generators' > simultaneously 'attacking' each duration." Looking at the diagram on page > 55, I can follow how he generates the first line but am confused about the > second line. If the number of generators for the first "3" is 2, then why > isn't there a 2 for the last "3" as well? Is it because the beginnings of > the two attacks are not on the same beat as they are in the first case? > This seems like the sort of thing that might be more understandable if I > could hear how this result sounds. On page 55, label the "5" group as "A", the "3" group as "B", and the resultant group as "R". A and B are the "generators" of the two rhythms that combine to make the result R. The "number of generators" means how many of the beats of the generators (A and B) occur at the same time to create each of the resulting rhythmic beats. You can see that both A and B occur at the same time to produce the first beat, so there are 2 generators for that beat. However, for the remainder of the resultant, only 1 generator at a time (either A or B) is creating a beat. Regarding why there's no 2 for the last "3" is because music always ends with silence not with a sound--in this case, 3 beats and then silence. If more music (or rhythms) followed, then of course there would be more beats, some simultaneous. (There is no beat 1 at the end, and therefore there is no beat or clap.) If you're ambidextrous, you could trying beating your desktop, using your left hand for A and your right hand for B. This is a little trickier, but it may give you a better idea of what's going on rhythmically. (Drummers in bands have to do this kind of thing all the time, where each hand may be doing a different set of beats. Not only that, but also different instruments!--but we're not talking about that here.) I have a master's degree in music, and my "specialty" is composition (also playing pipe organ). In the early 1970s I was VERY interested in Schillinger and his System. I own all of the books he wrote (they're now all online, I think, at scribd.com), some of his music, and lots of articles about him and his theories (one in Polish!)--and even some books by traditionalists that call the whole thing a bunch of junk. On a visit to New York City in the mid 1980s (to visit with relatives) I even spent 2 or 3 days at the New York Public Library's Music Division at the Lincoln Center, looking through their collection of Schillinger's papers to see materials that never made it into the "System" (as published) because the editor(s) probably didn't have time to sort through and include them--which is quite a pity for the last chapters of the System. I had always thought (from the mid 1970s onward, when I had my own personal computers) that it would be both interesting and challenging to try to computerize the "Schillinger System" to assist me in my own writing. It hasn't happened so far, but I still pursued books and articles on computer composition of music. That's when I came across "Cybernetic Music" and carried on a postal conversation with the author. (I even sent my copy and asked him to autograph it.) He also sent me a 7-page errata list. (He did not think very highly of TAB Books' editorial quality, creating so many typos in the published book!) As I recall from "olden days", attachments are not permitted on J forums, so I will send you these errata via personal email rather than attempt posting them here. Schillinger and possibly a few others have composed "pure" Schillinger System music. However, for the most part, various Schillinger techniques (rather than the entire system) were used by students of Schillinger in the 1930s through 1950s in composing music for musicals (such as "Porgy and Bess"), pop music (such as "Moonlight Serenade"), film music, and radio music. Schillinger's compositions (and those of other purists) tends to be more "modern" sounding than many people prefer. Schillinger's techniques were very useful for creating background music in films and radio plays, and I think he even made a point of that in some of his advertising. He also wrote some of the only music that exists for theremin and other instruments. I'm only mentioning this because the music toward the back of the "Cybernetic Music" book tends toward "pure" Schillinger, which some people may not find the most attractive. (I might mention, by the way, that another "advantage" of the Schillinger System was that it could be used to prove independence of compositional ideas in copyright cases because the music could be traced to mathematical formulas and not to hearing a melody somewhere and accidentally using it, which would be a copyright violation.) Many composers think like sculptors. It's a matter of deciding the general parameters of what you want (multitudes of possible rhythms, melodic lines, harmonies, etc.) and then taking out what isn't needed. The composition (or sculpture) is what's remaining. Schillinger gives you a "universe" of musical possibilities--it's up to you to choose among them for the composition at hand. Harvey ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
