Control / repeatability vs. Improvisation / chaos

Talk about music gear for noise music

Moderator: xome

User avatar
xdugef
Posts: 15422
Joined: Tue Jun 14, 2005 11:26 am
Location: 噪声æº￾
Contact:

Re: Control / repeatability vs. Improvisation / chaos

Post by xdugef » Sun May 05, 2019 11:31 am

jliat wrote:
Sun May 05, 2019 9:01 am

If you think such things pedantic you are correct there, elsewhere your arguments are confused often contradictory, but i'm not being critical. And if you want to discuss masturbation you maybe need to find someone else.
You taking this way more seriously than I am.

jliat wrote:
Fri May 03, 2019 10:49 am

Not odd just slipped my mind - title of you latest release... as it was on iTunes I didn't get a chance to listen, is it on band camp now?
No but I do have the pressed CD in hand.. still need to print the insert art.

jliat wrote:
Fri May 03, 2019 10:49 am
Not my opinion. (if it was all meaningless noise would be no different to music or anything else)
It was as much of an insult as saying it's all just rock n roll.
jliat wrote:
Fri May 03, 2019 10:49 am
I am saying anyone wanting to make deterministic music
From what I understand they need to write a composition .. otherwise they are just improving.

jliat wrote:
Fri May 03, 2019 10:49 am
I do hope you intend this is good humour.
See my first comment above.
jliat wrote:
Fri May 03, 2019 10:49 am
So there is a fair about of indeterminacy at work, something you've argued against being possible.
Not in the Cagian sense because there is no score or composition.. I'm improving. I expect there to be those things and I act accordingly.
jliat wrote:
Fri May 03, 2019 10:49 am
Both classical physics - which is deterministic cannot actual produce determined scenarios, chaos theory, and QM blows any such determination preferring probabilities about truly random events.
Right so in a world where it's actual not possible to determine anything absolutely then if you set out to get something random you shall without surprise get something random.

jliat wrote:
Fri May 03, 2019 10:49 am
You lost me. You describe an event in which chance means outcomes cannot be determined and conclude it was deterministic.
I can do this because we are talking about mathematics and you aren't creating any mind of a mathematical model and there is no composition. So if you want to make "noise" and you get "noise" then I say that was "predetermined".
jliat wrote:
Fri May 03, 2019 10:49 am
Betting on a horse race is a chance, the outcome isn't determined.
But we aren't betting on horses and even though I can't say with absolute certainly I'm pretty sure no matter how many times you try will you not come up with a result that puts you ahead of your investment in "noise". Otherwise there may be some other way you might call it successful is fine but when it comes to horse betting winning money matters.
jliat wrote:
Fri May 03, 2019 10:49 am
It becomes a noumenon.
Mm yeah it would seem that the idea of it is better than what it is... I dunno it's like being in a cult that meditates and says Ommmm. Memes are easier to appreciate. Otherwise .. if a noumenon is unknowable through human sensation then how is it possible that it's HNW?

User avatar
jliat
Posts: 4758
Joined: Tue Nov 20, 2012 1:34 am
Contact:

Re: Control / repeatability vs. Improvisation / chaos

Post by jliat » Mon May 06, 2019 12:54 am

xdugef wrote:
Sun May 05, 2019 11:31 am
jliat wrote:
Sun May 05, 2019 9:01 am

If you think such things pedantic you are correct there, elsewhere your arguments are confused often contradictory, but i'm not being critical. And if you want to discuss masturbation you maybe need to find someone else.
You taking this way more seriously than I am.
I doubt it
xdugef wrote:
Sun May 05, 2019 11:31 am
jliat wrote:
Fri May 03, 2019 10:49 am

Not odd just slipped my mind - title of you latest release... as it was on iTunes I didn't get a chance to listen, is it on band camp now?
No but I do have the pressed CD in hand.. still need to print the insert art.
Pressed! So if I get a copy to review I will..
xdugef wrote:
Sun May 05, 2019 11:31 am
jliat wrote:
Fri May 03, 2019 10:49 am
Not my opinion. (if it was all meaningless noise would be no different to music or anything else)
It was as much of an insult as saying it's all just rock n roll.
All just rock and roll will work, you need a binary at minimum. All being meaningless doesn't work, you need at least something meaningful. Whatever the two words mean.. With a proviso that there might be the indeterminate...
xdugef wrote:
Sun May 05, 2019 11:31 am
jliat wrote:
Fri May 03, 2019 10:49 am
I am saying anyone wanting to make deterministic music
From what I understand they need to write a composition .. otherwise they are just improving.
If they are playing in a key then certain notes / chords are determined.
xdugef wrote:
Sun May 05, 2019 11:31 am
jliat wrote:
Fri May 03, 2019 10:49 am
I do hope you intend this is good humour.
See my first comment above.
see my reply.
xdugef wrote:
Sun May 05, 2019 11:31 am
jliat wrote:
Fri May 03, 2019 10:49 am
So there is a fair about of indeterminacy at work, something you've argued against being possible.
Not in the Cagian sense because there is no score or composition.. I'm improving. I expect there to be those things and I act accordingly.
sure - Cage was still composing.
xdugef wrote:
Sun May 05, 2019 11:31 am
jliat wrote:
Fri May 03, 2019 10:49 am
Both classical physics - which is deterministic cannot actual produce determined scenarios, chaos theory, and QM blows any such determination preferring probabilities about truly random events.
Right so in a world where it's actual not possible to determine anything absolutely then if you set out to get something random you shall without surprise get something random.
I think its more that one cant know if it, whatever it is, is an absolute. Its been explained to me like this. Imagine a loss less compression ap. Now say one seems to compress stuff more than any other and it looks like the best possible. It might be, but one can never know for sure it is, someone might someday produce a better ap. Now what the ap is, is like any explanation for the world. Any explanation tries to explain everything but in concise formula. Well in science... unlike art where its possible to speak make volumes over the most trivial of things.... :chin:
xdugef wrote:
Sun May 05, 2019 11:31 am
jliat wrote:
Fri May 03, 2019 10:49 am
You lost me. You describe an event in which chance means outcomes cannot be determined and conclude it was deterministic.
I can do this because we are talking about mathematics and you aren't creating any mind of a mathematical model and there is no composition. So if you want to make "noise" and you get "noise" then I say that was "predetermined".
Yes but I then say if I want to make non determined noise and I get non determined noise it was predetermined.
The act was determined, the product of the act was not. Generally folk throw dice in much the same way. And given non loaded dice the results are random. You might disagree, but then in your world there is then no chance. But you've already said there is and for you its exciting. (I think we've gone over this before.)
xdugef wrote:
Sun May 05, 2019 11:31 am
jliat wrote:
Fri May 03, 2019 10:49 am
Betting on a horse race is a chance, the outcome isn't determined.
But we aren't betting on horses
In a way we are. The excitement you get playing live is from the chance element, isn't gambling similar?
xdugef wrote:
Sun May 05, 2019 11:31 am
and even though I can't say with absolute certainly I'm pretty sure no matter how many times you try will you not come up with a result that puts you ahead of your investment in "noise". Otherwise there may be some other way you might call it successful is fine but when it comes to horse betting winning money matters.
Sure, though some do it more for fun. Others use chance to tell fortunes. Other times randomness is used to avoid deadlock- the donkey and the strawberries thing. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buridan%27s_ass Or symmetry breaking, or in the case of Nietzsche, if the world reached a determined state it would stop, freeze. Thus the problem for the HNWallers. It looks like a final state. IMO it is, thus to quote to quote Vladimir Ilich Lenin… “what is to be done?” in my case randomness mucking about. Like the ass who can avoid death by acting randomly... see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carrier-s ... _detection
xdugef wrote:
Sun May 05, 2019 11:31 am
jliat wrote:
Fri May 03, 2019 10:49 am
It becomes a noumenon.
Mm yeah it would seem that the idea of it is better than what it is... I dunno it's like being in a cult that meditates and says Ommmm. Memes are easier to appreciate. Otherwise .. if a noumenon is unknowable through human sensation then how is it possible that it's HNW?
Well trying not to produce a wall of theory, its possible because HNW is sound, but sound is 'perceived' by humans as a "phenomenon",
but if the phenomenal aspect of HNW is irrelevant, or one decides it is, clearly there is still something...a noumenon. Normally things are mediated by our senses, HNW it need not be (or need not in noise in general for that matter). When i made the 1 terabyte mp3 thing which would take 2 years to hear, hearing it was not uppermost.

It relates very much to minimal art. And seen as such, in its materiality nothing like any spiritual Ommm stuff. Of course there are other ways of seeing or hearing HNW. But when Vomir does the 'no message no ....' stuff what is left is some thing.

Or when Goldsmith typed out a complete copy of the NY times, as a piece of conceptual poetry, which he didn't expect anyone to actually read- why would they? He has created a text, a poem, with no rhyme which even lacks the need to be read. What is it then if not something to be perceived, IMO its a noumenon.

Not really my idea-, Schelling came up with the idea in 1800 as did others...though they didn't mean HNW or Noise.
https://soundcloud.com/jliat/sets/jliat ... variations
https://soundcloud.com/jliat/sets/jliat ... tions-from
"The most irrational thing to do is to make something worthless, with no political emotional or entertaining purpose."

User avatar
xdugef
Posts: 15422
Joined: Tue Jun 14, 2005 11:26 am
Location: 噪声æº￾
Contact:

Re: Control / repeatability vs. Improvisation / chaos

Post by xdugef » Mon May 06, 2019 6:42 am

jliat wrote:
Mon May 06, 2019 12:54 am
I doubt it
You don't have a reputation for not taking things seriously
jliat wrote:
Fri May 03, 2019 10:49 am

Pressed! So if I get a copy to review I will..
Should I mail it to you directly.. I recall Frans bitching about vital weekly mail expenses
jliat wrote:
Fri May 03, 2019 10:49 am
All just rock and roll will work, you need a binary at minimum. All being meaningless doesn't work, you need at least something meaningful. Whatever the two words mean.. With a proviso that there might be the indeterminate...
Sure .. which is why humans could never reach a mathematically defined determined state ..
xdugef wrote:
Sun May 05, 2019 11:31 am
If they are playing in a key then certain notes / chords are determined.


Which is why improvising is not indeterminate music..

So if you have a noise generator.. it's output may be mathematically different every time you turn it on but as for it's function with in the composition it will output noise when turned on.. not the sound of cats.. therefore it is determinate.

jliat wrote:
Fri May 03, 2019 10:49 am
see my reply.
See my other reply, then ask cleverbot.
jliat wrote:
Fri May 03, 2019 10:49 am
sure - Cage was still composing.
So improving is now the same thing as composing?
jliat wrote:
Fri May 03, 2019 10:49 am
I think its more that one cant know if it, whatever it is, is an absolute. Its been explained to me like this. Imagine a loss less compression ap. Now say one seems to compress stuff more than any other and it looks like the best possible. It might be, but one can never know for sure it is, someone might someday produce a better ap.
That was the plot of the show SIlicon Valley.

jliat wrote:
Fri May 03, 2019 10:49 am
You might disagree, but then in your world there is then no chance. But you've already said there is and for you its exciting. (I think we've gone over this before.)
I didn't say there is no "chance"... there is chance all around us... what I'm saying is that you can predict that when you press the on button of a noise generator is will make noise.. that is predictable.

jliat wrote:
Fri May 03, 2019 10:49 am
In a way we are. The excitement you get playing live is from the chance element, isn't gambling similar?
As a performer one may have performance anxiety regardless of whatever the odds are of failure or success. The dude that spent $14k on a CD release was gambling with money borrow for student loans and lost when noise bloggers uploaded rips of the release. I wanted to buy a soda yesterday.. put in money and the machine ripped me off.. that was unexpected.
jliat wrote:
Fri May 03, 2019 10:49 am
Sure, though some do it more for fun. Others use chance to tell fortunes. Other times randomness is used to avoid deadlock- the donkey and the strawberries thing. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buridan%27s_ass Or symmetry breaking, or in the case of Nietzsche, if the world reached a determined state it would stop, freeze. Thus the problem for the HNWallers. It looks like a final state. IMO it is, thus to quote to quote Vladimir Ilich Lenin… “what is to be done?” in my case randomness mucking about. Like the ass who can avoid death by acting randomly... see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carrier-s ... _detection
You'd have to have the perfect ass.. one that was brought into being the instant you expected it to make the decision because if it had been living it would already be tainted by a life of choices and entropy. You would need a paradox in order to test the paradox. As for wallers.. there's always a new crop.
jliat wrote:
Fri May 03, 2019 10:49 am
Well trying not to produce a wall of theory, its possible because HNW is sound, but sound is 'perceived' by humans as a "phenomenon",
but if the phenomenal aspect of HNW is irrelevant, or one decides it is, clearly there is still something...a noumenon. Normally things are mediated by our senses, HNW it need not be (or need not in noise in general for that matter). When i made the 1 terabyte mp3 thing which would take 2 years to hear, hearing it was not uppermost.
Is the desire to believe in flatearth a noumenon? Because clearly those people have lost their senses... oh an trump supporters.. maybe not all of them.. ones that actually take things he says literally that are demonstrably false.
Last edited by xdugef on Mon May 06, 2019 9:03 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
jliat
Posts: 4758
Joined: Tue Nov 20, 2012 1:34 am
Contact:

Re: Control / repeatability vs. Improvisation / chaos

Post by jliat » Mon May 06, 2019 7:37 am

xdugef wrote:
Mon May 06, 2019 6:42 am
jliat wrote:
Mon May 06, 2019 12:54 am
I doubt it
You don't have a reputation for being light hearted
I have a very dry sense of humour which doesn't travel well.
But - !!! I have reputation!
xdugef wrote:
Mon May 06, 2019 6:42 am
jliat wrote:
Fri May 03, 2019 10:49 am

Pressed! So if I get a copy to review I will..
Should I mail it to you directly.. I recall Franz bitching about vital weekly mail expenses
For Vital to him, but his bitching about being called Franz (German name) and not Frans( his Dutch name) is a factor of magnitudes higher.
xdugef wrote:
Mon May 06, 2019 6:42 am
jliat wrote:
Fri May 03, 2019 10:49 am
All just rock and roll will work, you need a binary at minimum. All being meaningless doesn't work, you need at least something meaningful. Whatever the two words mean.. With a proviso that there might be the indeterminate...
Sure .. which is why humans could never reach a mathematically defined determined state ..
Sure I agree - Meillassoux wants a mathematical absolute, but he's French and very naughty.
xdugef wrote:
Sun May 05, 2019 11:31 am
If they are playing in a key then certain notes / chords are determined.

I think I wrote that bit?
xdugef wrote:
Mon May 06, 2019 6:42 am
Which is why improvising is not indeterminate music..
Depends if you forget about key signatures and the use of musical structures, Jazz seeks to find / create new structures but others don't.
First time I saw Derek Bailey though he sat of a chair with his guitar he just made squeaks using the chair on the floor tiles. Don't think there was much pre-determined there.
xdugef wrote:
Mon May 06, 2019 6:42 am
So if you have a noise generator.. it's output may be mathematically different every time you turn it on but as for it's function with in the composition it will output noise when turned on.. not the sound of cats.. therefore it is determinate.
Third time around, A die is a device for producing random - indeterminate numbers from 1 to 6. You seem to say its determinate. I say it is non determinate. As I think most do who use dice in games. Take your argument to its extreme, you have a sound generator with gazillions of sounds, it might produce noise or the sound of cats. Still in your book determinate, it will produce a sound. Add a random feature which flips a coin, heads it turns it on tales it doesn't. Still in your book determinate. Or your show, it could go to plan or not. Determinate. In your book, not mine. Then you say the chance excites you, but there is none for you, either the show goes well or not.
Again by your use - determinate.
xdugef wrote:
Mon May 06, 2019 6:42 am
jliat wrote:
Fri May 03, 2019 10:49 am
see my reply.
See my other reply, then ask cleverbot.
The answer will be random, so according to you determinate.
xdugef wrote:
Mon May 06, 2019 6:42 am
jliat wrote:
Fri May 03, 2019 10:49 am
sure - Cage was still composing.
So improving is now the same thing as composing?
No. The composer can indicate parts for improvisation, or the improvisation can be completely free.
Figured bass, or thoroughbass, is a kind of musical notation in which numerals and symbols (often accidentals) indicate intervals, chords, and non-chord tones that a musician playing piano, harpsichord, organ, lute (or other instruments capable of playing chords) play in relation to the bass note that these numbers and symbols appear above or below. Figured bass is closely associated with basso continuo, a historically improvised accompaniment used in almost all genres of music in the Baroque period of Classical music (c.1600–1750), though rarely in modern music.
xdugef wrote:
Mon May 06, 2019 6:42 am
jliat wrote:
Fri May 03, 2019 10:49 am
I think its more that one cant know if it, whatever it is, is an absolute. Its been explained to me like this. Imagine a loss less compression ap. Now say one seems to compress stuff more than any other and it looks like the best possible. It might be, but one can never know for sure it is, someone might someday produce a better ap.
That was the plot of the show SIlicon Valley.
Gregory Chaitin...
xdugef wrote:
Mon May 06, 2019 6:42 am
jliat wrote:
Fri May 03, 2019 10:49 am
You might disagree, but then in your world there is then no chance. But you've already said there is and for you its exciting. (I think we've gone over this before.)
I didn't say there is no "chance"... there is chance all around us... what I'm saying is that you can predict that when you press the on button of a noise generator is will make noise.. that is predictable.
And the noise is random. Just as you can predict a random number will occur throwing dice. Its a chance operation. (that's the 4th time)
sigh!
A noise generator is a circuit that produces electrical noise (i.e., a random signal). Noise generators are used to test signals for measuring noise figure, frequency response, and other parameters. Noise generators are also used for generating random numbers
:wall:
xdugef wrote:
Mon May 06, 2019 6:42 am
jliat wrote:
Fri May 03, 2019 10:49 am
In a way we are. The excitement you get playing live is from the chance element, isn't gambling similar?
As a performer one may have performance anxiety regardless of whatever the odds are of failure or success. The dude that spent $14k on a CD release was gambling with money borrow for student loans and lost when noise bloggers uploaded rips of the release. I wanted to buy a soda yesterday.. put in money and the machine ripped me off.. that was unexpected.
But in didn't make a cat noise, so not random in your book.
xdugef wrote:
Mon May 06, 2019 6:42 am
jliat wrote:
Fri May 03, 2019 10:49 am
Sure, though some do it more for fun. Others use chance to tell fortunes. Other times randomness is used to avoid deadlock- the donkey and the strawberries thing. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buridan%27s_ass Or symmetry breaking, or in the case of Nietzsche, if the world reached a determined state it would stop, freeze. Thus the problem for the HNWallers. It looks like a final state. IMO it is, thus to quote to quote Vladimir Ilich Lenin… “what is to be done?” in my case randomness mucking about. Like the ass who can avoid death by acting randomly... see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carrier-s ... _detection
You'd have to have the perfect ass.. one that was brought into being the instant you expected it to make the decision because if it had been living it would already be tainted by a life of choices and entropy. You would need a paradox in order to test the paradox. As for wallers.. there's always a new crop.
The ass is a thought experiment, but with Carrier-sense multiple access with collision detection (CSMA/CD) its for real. Also what IBM called a deadlock, in the UK was called a deadly embrace, "Deadlock (which is sometimes called the deadly embrace) is another crippling condition. It occurs when two or more programs are each waiting for the others to complete - "
xdugef wrote:
Mon May 06, 2019 6:42 am
jliat wrote:
Fri May 03, 2019 10:49 am
Well trying not to produce a wall of theory, its possible because HNW is sound, but sound is 'perceived' by humans as a "phenomenon",
but if the phenomenal aspect of HNW is irrelevant, or one decides it is, clearly there is still something...a noumenon. Normally things are mediated by our senses, HNW it need not be (or need not in noise in general for that matter). When i made the 1 terabyte mp3 thing which would take 2 years to hear, hearing it was not uppermost.
Is the desire to believe in flatearth a noumenon? Because clearly those people have lost their senses... oh an trump supporters.. maybe not all of them.. ones that actually take things he says literally that are demonstrably false.
Ha ha ha.

No they are a moron.

" It was once applied to people with an IQ of 51–70, being superior in one degree to "imbecile" (IQ of 26–50) and superior in two degrees to "idiot" (IQ of 0–25)."
https://soundcloud.com/jliat/sets/jliat ... variations
https://soundcloud.com/jliat/sets/jliat ... tions-from
"The most irrational thing to do is to make something worthless, with no political emotional or entertaining purpose."

User avatar
xdugef
Posts: 15422
Joined: Tue Jun 14, 2005 11:26 am
Location: 噪声æº￾
Contact:

Re: Control / repeatability vs. Improvisation / chaos

Post by xdugef » Mon May 06, 2019 9:40 am

jliat wrote:
Mon May 06, 2019 7:37 am

But - !!! I have reputation!
Yea you do! You're noise famous!

jliat wrote:
Fri May 03, 2019 10:49 am
For Vital to him, but his bitching about being called Franz (German name) and not Frans( his Dutch name) is a factor of magnitudes higher.
A dammit I knew about that.. I almost double checked but then didn't.. well thanks for the reminder.
jliat wrote:
Fri May 03, 2019 10:49 am
First time I saw Derek Bailey though he sat of a chair with his guitar he just made squeaks using the chair on the floor tiles. Don't think there was much pre-determined there.
Sounds like he was just improving using floor squeaks.

jliat wrote:
Fri May 03, 2019 10:49 am
Third time around, A die is a device for producing random - indeterminate numbers from 1 to 6. You seem to say its determinate.
In the cagian sense it's indeterminate if you are including this in a composition where you say play these notes.. then roll a dice and play these other notes if get a 6.

Turning on the pedal you will always get noise. It'd be different if your composition says .. measure voltage coming out of noise pedal. Then if you get a 6 do this.
jliat wrote:
Fri May 03, 2019 10:49 am
Then you say the chance excites you, but there is none for you, either the show goes well or not.
I never said anything about my personal reaction to it. It simply stands to reason that "chance" plays some factor in why people find live performance interesting. Anyway.. for me the show just goes. I'll have more anxiety about getting to the venue than the performance itself... I suppose the risk there is not dying in a car crash... which would be a real accident and indeterminate as that would definitely not be an outcome I desired or predicted.

Too many times I have complemented people on their sets and they said it went terrible and I don't think anybody noticed. Anyway I posted here before that doing noise with the goal of being "successful" is a fools game. If one enjoys it they will persist.. if they don't then either they are a masochist or maybe an exhibitionist or have some other motivation.. but if being successful is the main motivation then they are probably in for more disappointment than reward.
jliat wrote:
Fri May 03, 2019 10:49 am
The answer will be random, so according to you determinate.
Is the sentence I just typed random? Or this one? "Then I should not plan anything."
jliat wrote:
Fri May 03, 2019 10:49 am

No. The composer can indicate parts for improvisation, or the improvisation can be completely free.
Right but there is a composition. No composition then it's all improve and therefore not determinate or indeterminate.
jliat wrote:
Fri May 03, 2019 10:49 am

Gregory Chaitin
I don't think they mention him on the show.
jliat wrote:
Fri May 03, 2019 10:49 am
And the noise is random. Just as you can predict a random number will occur throwing dice. Its a chance operation. (that's the 4th time)
But there are no absolutes and there's always chance that a musician may hit the wrong note or turn the knob too far.. therefore all music/noise is indeterminate. So if you are functioning in that world.. where that is the normal then pressing a button on the noise generator and getting noise is determinate.. doesn't matter if the mathematical output is different.. do you think the sound from a violin is exactly the same everytime.. no it is not.
jliat wrote:
Fri May 03, 2019 10:49 am

The ass is a thought experiment, but with Carrier-sense multiple access with collision detection (CSMA/CD) its for real. Also what IBM called a deadlock, in the UK was called a deadly embrace, "Deadlock (which is sometimes called the deadly embrace) is another crippling condition. It occurs when two or more programs are each waiting for the others to complete - "
I'm more familiar with gimbal lock but again there's no reason why a person improving would die on stage waiting for the the other performer .. even Luke managed to break his infinite loop of talking to cleverbot.
jliat wrote:
Fri May 03, 2019 10:49 am
No they are a moron.
QFT

User avatar
jliat
Posts: 4758
Joined: Tue Nov 20, 2012 1:34 am
Contact:

Re: Control / repeatability vs. Improvisation / chaos

Post by jliat » Mon May 06, 2019 10:36 am

xdugef wrote:
Mon May 06, 2019 9:40 am

I never said anything about my personal reaction to it.
"The chance in a live performance is what's exciting."
So somehow the above doesn't refer to you?
xdugef wrote:
Mon May 06, 2019 9:40 am
It simply stands to reason that "chance" plays some factor in why people find live performance interesting.
That's significantly different to "The chance in a live performance is what's exciting."
And I doubt that chance plays a big part, seeing the performers in the flesh is more likely IMO. Plus in many cases a live performance is far more dynamic then the stereo recoding gives.
xdugef wrote:
Mon May 06, 2019 9:40 am
Anyway.. for me the show just goes. I'll have more anxiety about getting to the venue than the performance itself... I suppose the risk there is not dying in a car crash... which would be a real accident and indeterminate as that would definitely not be an outcome I desired or predicted.
Dying in a car crash on the way to a venue is one possibility. So its no different to throwing dice and getting something like 100 or so 6s. It can, and does happen. In making the decision to drive a car that outcome is a given, so for you it would be determined. You not wanting it plays no part, you may want to throw a double six in a dice game, but get a result you didn't want, same thing, only the odds are different. Moreover in would not be an accident if an irate person deliberately drove into you. Plus in the USA the risk at the venue of someone randomly shooting into the audience.
xdugef wrote:
Mon May 06, 2019 9:40 am
Too many times I have complemented people on their sets and they said it went terrible and I don't think anybody noticed. Anyway I posted here before that doing noise with the goal of being "successful" is a fools game. If one enjoys it they will persist.. if they don't then either they are a masochist or maybe an exhibitionist or have some other motivation.. but if being successful is the main motivation then they are probably in for more disappointment than reward.



Is the sentence I just typed random? Or this one? "Then I should not plan anything."
No idea...
xdugef wrote:
Mon May 06, 2019 9:40 am


Right but there is a composition. No composition then it's all improve and therefore not determinate or indeterminate.
I don't see how it can not be either? Some improv, I've said can use structures others not, so there are levels of indeterminacy.
xdugef wrote:
Mon May 06, 2019 9:40 am


I don't think they mention him on the show.



But there are no absolutes and there's always chance that a musician may hit the wrong note or turn the knob too far.. therefore all music/noise is indeterminate.
I thought you've been arguing my noise wasn't indeterminate?

"Any kind of human determination spoils the noise aspect of noise

If you turn on the noise generator it's output might be mathematically indeterministic but unless one day it outputs mozart you pressing the button and getting noise is "deterministic". If you intentionally pick gear and intentionally unplug and replug knowing that you will get different results in doing so then it's still "deterministic"."
xdugef wrote:
Mon May 06, 2019 9:40 am
So if you are functioning in that world.. where that is the normal then pressing a button on the noise generator and getting noise is determinate..
Sure there are levels of indeterminacy as much as determinacy, but you seem above to be saying all music/noise is indeterminate, and determinate.

Last effort, turning on a noise generator can be determinate, but its output is random, and cannot be determined. The outcome of any action is never certain, but a decision as to wanting no prior idea of the outcome given the equipment is determinately different than wanting a specific structured and ordered outcome.
https://soundcloud.com/jliat/sets/jliat ... variations
https://soundcloud.com/jliat/sets/jliat ... tions-from
"The most irrational thing to do is to make something worthless, with no political emotional or entertaining purpose."

User avatar
xdugef
Posts: 15422
Joined: Tue Jun 14, 2005 11:26 am
Location: 噪声æº￾
Contact:

Re: Control / repeatability vs. Improvisation / chaos

Post by xdugef » Mon May 06, 2019 12:53 pm

jliat wrote:
Mon May 06, 2019 10:36 am
Dying in a car crash on the way to a venue is one possibility. So its no different to throwing dice and getting something like 100 or so 6s. It can, and does happen. In making the decision to drive a car that outcome is a given, so for you it would be determined. You not wanting it plays no part, you may want to throw a double six in a dice game, but get a result you didn't want, same thing, only the odds are different. Moreover in would not be an accident if an irate person deliberately drove into you. Plus in the USA the risk at the venue of someone randomly shooting into the audience.
But in the case of Cage there is no result that is really undesirable with the throw of the dice. He's not the Jigsaw killer.


jliat wrote:
Mon May 06, 2019 10:36 am
No idea...
Amazing


jliat wrote:
Mon May 06, 2019 10:36 am
I don't see how it can not be either? Some improv, I've said can use structures others not, so there are levels of indeterminacy.
So structures are now the same thing as compositions?

jliat wrote:
Mon May 06, 2019 10:36 am
I thought you've been arguing my noise wasn't indeterminate?
I'm saying you press a button to make noise and you get noise. Much like you might press a key on a piano and hear the sound of the piano. In either case you aren't getting the sound of cats and in both cases the results aren't mathematically the exact same everytime which is fine because this isn't about mathematical models anyway if so which model are you using.
jliat wrote:
Mon May 06, 2019 10:36 am
Last effort, turning on a noise generator can be determinate, but its output is random, and cannot be determined.
Yes .. and taken to the extreme unless we are talking about mathematical formulas (and even then) the output is not ever going to be perfect so it's not even worth considering in this discussion.

The description of what cage did had to do with a decision making process involving notes which is abstracted from the output. Randomness in the output is irrelevant.

If you are using gear that doesn't really have any notion of notes then you have to expect that the results will be noisey and random. It'd be unexpected if it actually output the same sound twice. The logic flips. You pick gear that you'd have to try real hard to not get random output then you are determined to get random output. Did you roll dice to pick the pedals? The sounds that pedals make is besides the point.

If you were using values from the noise generator to pick notes that were then being played then that'd be more in line with what Cage was doing AFAIK.

If someone writes a composition and in the score it says turn on noise generator does the entire piece become indeterminate simply because the noise generator make noise.. I don't think so.

Taken to another extreme with HNW how would any one tell than any decision was being made if it all the sounds are the same as it should be in order for there to be no variation, no ideas.. etc.

User avatar
jliat
Posts: 4758
Joined: Tue Nov 20, 2012 1:34 am
Contact:

Re: Control / repeatability vs. Improvisation / chaos

Post by jliat » Mon May 06, 2019 11:51 pm

xdugef wrote:
Mon May 06, 2019 12:53 pm
But in the case of Cage there is no result that is really undesirable with the throw of the dice. He's not the Jigsaw killer.
Most think the psychological state of a person has no effect in a random / chance / indeterminate process. Which is why bookmakers do so well. And in the case of Cage many might find the work undesirable...
xdugef wrote:
Mon May 06, 2019 12:53 pm
jliat wrote:
Mon May 06, 2019 10:36 am
I don't see how it can not be either? Some improv, I've said can use structures others not, so there are levels of indeterminacy.
So structures are now the same thing as compositions?
Not as far as I can see. Given a chord sequence within some tonal system their will be choices to make which give some indeterminacy. I gave an example of figured Bass. A more 'radical' work can allow more indeterminacy, or in the case of free jazz its a given.
xdugef wrote:
Mon May 06, 2019 12:53 pm
I'm saying you press a button to make noise and you get noise. Much like you might press a key on a piano and hear the sound of the piano. In either case you aren't getting the sound of cats and in both cases the results aren't mathematically the exact same everytime which is fine because this isn't about mathematical models anyway if so which model are you using.
I'm not sure why you say the results are not mathematically the same each time? Maths is about the manipulation of abstract symbols by a set of given rules or axioms. If you mean that physically every time you hit a piano key the sound in some ways will be different I can go along with that. It seems there will always be a certain amount of indeterminacy in an event in the world. But within a score of a tonal system some keys played after another will be 'wrong'. With a typical score wrong notes are possible and pianos can be out of tune. In an indeterminate piece this might mean that the key is decided by a chance event, and / or the piano needn't be tuned, or have bolts and things inside to alter the normal and expected determined performance of the piano's mechanism. Or in one case the piano lid is kept closed and the piece is made from the ambient sounds of the room, coughing and maybe the sound of cats fighting outside. :kitty:

All we are really saying then here is that traditional music tends to seek determinacy, though absolute determinacy is perhaps impossible, instruments are to be in tune and right notes played and not wrong notes, in the right order and tempo/ Given this in classical music there is still room for conductors to interpret, but even here they do so with a determined aim, one which they will perhaps only partly achieve.

I think there was an Eno piece which used random notes, but the first few generated were a melodic sequence quite by chance, he was a little upset but kept it I think.
xdugef wrote:
Mon May 06, 2019 12:53 pm
jliat wrote:
Mon May 06, 2019 10:36 am
Last effort, turning on a noise generator can be determinate, but its output is random, and cannot be determined.
Yes .. and taken to the extreme unless we are talking about mathematical formulas (and even then) the output is not ever going to be perfect so it's not even worth considering in this discussion.
Again i'm not sure what you mean. I'm not talking about mathematical formulas. But I can think of a potential perfect piece.*

The score goes, "play a note which i'm not thinking." ( the performer plays a note and if its not the one i'm thinking its a perfect performance)

But for YOU it will always be perfect! Why? Well say i'm thinking 'middle C' C4 = 261.626 htz - very unlikely they will get exactly 261.626 htz. Worse! or for you / me producing a perfect performance - better, pianos are tuned using
The twelfth root of two
is an algebraic irrational number. It is most important in Western music theory, where it represents the frequency ratio (musical interval) of a semitone
Ha! And an irrational number has an infinite decimal expression. PI is an example. So you aint gonna tune it to my idea of C4. All performances using your argument will be perfect.

(*I'm probably going to 'publish' this as its kind of cool, Thanks, i'll give you a mention!)

"the output is not ever going to be perfect so it's not even worth considering in this discussion." Well not IMO! Thanks!
xdugef wrote:
Mon May 06, 2019 12:53 pm
The description of what cage did had to do with a decision making process involving notes which is abstracted from the output. Randomness in the output is irrelevant.
I disagree, the output of a work - certainly for Cage was very relevant, notably 4' 33".
xdugef wrote:
Mon May 06, 2019 12:53 pm
If you are using gear that doesn't really have any notion of notes then you have to expect that the results will be noisey and random. It'd be unexpected if it actually output the same sound twice. The logic flips. You pick gear that you'd have to try real hard to not get random output then you are determined to get random output. Did you roll dice to pick the pedals? The sounds that pedals make is besides the point.
Again you make the mistake of conflating the intention with the result. The results of a white noise random number generator are random.
Did I roll the dice to pick the pedals, no, did I use the iching to pick the chance method for pedal selection, did I use tea leaves to pick the method to pick the method... The sounds the pedals make is precisely the point in noise.
xdugef wrote:
Mon May 06, 2019 12:53 pm
If you were using values from the noise generator to pick notes that were then being played then that'd be more in line with what Cage was doing AFAIK.
Sure. Very different to turning a knob with no idea of its effect on the sound. But still a non determined outcome sonically. ( I also use a 2hp RND Eurorack Module - Random Voltage Generator - and 2hp TM Probabilistic Random Sequence Generator Based on the Research of Alan Turing.... can I cite you and get my money back?)
xdugef wrote:
Mon May 06, 2019 12:53 pm
If someone writes a composition and in the score it says turn on noise generator does the entire piece become indeterminate simply because the noise generator make noise.. I don't think so.
Neither do I - or is it in the case of figured bass.
xdugef wrote:
Mon May 06, 2019 12:53 pm
Taken to another extreme with HNW how would any one tell than any decision was being made if it all the sounds are the same as it should be in order for there to be no variation, no ideas.. etc.
Yea - that's the REAL point of HNW. Not actually the sound but the negatives around it. (IMO of course)

Anyway

JLIAT "The Perfect Piece"

One note composition for piano inspired by a conversation with xdugef.

(or should i use your real name? maybe both)
https://soundcloud.com/jliat/sets/jliat ... variations
https://soundcloud.com/jliat/sets/jliat ... tions-from
"The most irrational thing to do is to make something worthless, with no political emotional or entertaining purpose."

User avatar
Fletcher
Posts: 434
Joined: Mon Mar 20, 2017 2:43 pm
Location: Oxfordshire
Contact:

Re: Control / repeatability vs. Improvisation / chaos

Post by Fletcher » Tue May 07, 2019 6:44 am

jliat wrote:
Mon May 06, 2019 11:51 pm
Anyway

JLIAT "The Perfect Piece"

One note composition for piano inspired by a conversation with xdugef.
I am glad something of use has come from this thread :D

User avatar
xdugef
Posts: 15422
Joined: Tue Jun 14, 2005 11:26 am
Location: 噪声æº￾
Contact:

Re: Control / repeatability vs. Improvisation / chaos

Post by xdugef » Thu May 09, 2019 6:17 am

jliat wrote:
Mon May 06, 2019 11:51 pm
And in the case of Cage many might find the work undesirable...
I wasn't talking about the output. I don't think he was being cynical but it seems to me that the part of the point was that if you work within a certain structure then no matter how you rearrange the pieces the result is more or less the same... just in a different order. But you might find patterns or relationships that are interesting that you would not have chosen directly... which is a desired outcome.

But with noise none of that really matters.. pick whatever method you like layering noise on noise is more noise.
jliat wrote:
Mon May 06, 2019 10:36 am
Not as far as I can see. Given a chord sequence within some tonal system their will be choices to make which give some indeterminacy. I gave an example of figured Bass. A more 'radical' work can allow more indeterminacy, or in the case of free jazz its a given.
And when you work in a system where it is a given that the output of any given device is random no matter what the "player" does then I see the choices of those devices as being the determining factor.
jliat wrote:
Mon May 06, 2019 10:36 am
But within a score of a tonal system some keys played after another will be 'wrong'.
And with noise pedals the there isn't a tonal system there is just noise. So if the score says plug these two pedals together.. you get noise. That doesn't make the score indeterminate.. the pedals are functioning as intended.
jliat wrote:
Mon May 06, 2019 10:36 am
All we are really saying then here is that traditional music tends to seek determinacy, though absolute determinacy is perhaps impossible, instruments are to be in tune and right notes played and not wrong notes
Right with "noise" with noise pedals.. there is no tuning to worry about and no wrong notes to hit. You've predetermined that you will get "noise" with the selection of noise pedals.
jliat wrote:
Mon May 06, 2019 10:36 am
Last effort, turning on a noise generator can be
Again i'm not sure what you mean. I'm not talking about mathematical formulas. But I can think of a potential perfect piece.*

The score goes, "play a note which i'm not thinking." ( the performer plays a note and if its not the one i'm thinking its a perfect performance)
Carnac.jpg
Carnac.jpg (22.5 KiB) Viewed 489 times
jliat wrote:
Mon May 06, 2019 10:36 am
I disagree, the output of a work - certainly for Cage was very relevant, notably 4' 33".
Yes but did he randomly chose where it was performed.. why not in anechoic chamber.. he more than anybody else would have an idea of what would happen during such a performance. As expected not the exact output as that would impossible but the sounds of coughing and the general murmur of the audience could easily be anticipated.

jliat wrote:
Mon May 06, 2019 10:36 am
The sounds the pedals make is precisely the point in noise.
Right so when you pick noise pedals and you get noise it was predetermined.

jliat wrote:
Mon May 06, 2019 10:36 am
Yea - that's the REAL point of HNW. Not actually the sound but the negatives around it. (IMO of course)
You just said the sounds the pedals makes is the point and now it's not actually the sound but the negatives.. I call bullshit.

User avatar
jliat
Posts: 4758
Joined: Tue Nov 20, 2012 1:34 am
Contact:

Re: Control / repeatability vs. Improvisation / chaos

Post by jliat » Thu May 09, 2019 9:42 am

I don't follow your Cage ideas,

"John Cage, a pioneer of indeterminacy, defined it as "the ability of a piece to be performed in substantially different ways". "
xdugef wrote:
Thu May 09, 2019 6:17 am
no matter how you rearrange the pieces the result is more or less the same.
jliat wrote:
Mon May 06, 2019 10:36 am
Not as far as I can see. Given a chord sequence within some tonal system their will be choices to make which give some indeterminacy. I gave an example of figured Bass. A more 'radical' work can allow more indeterminacy, or in the case of free jazz its a given.
xdugef wrote:
Thu May 09, 2019 6:17 am
And when you work in a system where it is a given that the output of any given device is random no matter what the "player" does then I see the choices of those devices as being the determining factor.
In what? The output is random - i.e. indeterminate.
xdugef wrote:
Thu May 09, 2019 6:17 am
jliat wrote:
Mon May 06, 2019 10:36 am
But within a score of a tonal system some keys played after another will be 'wrong'.
And with noise pedals the there isn't a tonal system there is just noise. So if the score says plug these two pedals together.. you get noise. That doesn't make the score indeterminate.. the pedals are functioning as intended.
Of course the score isn't indeterminate, but the outcome of the piece is indeterminate. Just as using dice to select piano notes would be an indeterminate work.
xdugef wrote:
Thu May 09, 2019 6:17 am
jliat wrote:
Mon May 06, 2019 10:36 am
All we are really saying then here is that traditional music tends to seek determinacy, though absolute determinacy is perhaps impossible, instruments are to be in tune and right notes played and not wrong notes
Right with "noise" with noise pedals.. there is no tuning to worry about and no wrong notes to hit. You've predetermined that you will get "noise" with the selection of noise pedals.
Yes indeterminate sounds, just as using dice to determine the keys to be played, they will be indeterminate.
xdugef wrote:
Thu May 09, 2019 6:17 am
jliat wrote:
Mon May 06, 2019 10:36 am
I disagree, the output of a work - certainly for Cage was very relevant, notably 4' 33".
Yes but did he randomly chose where it was performed.. why not in anechoic chamber.. he more than anybody else would have an idea of what would happen during such a performance. As expected not the exact output as that would impossible but the sounds of coughing and the general murmur of the audience could easily be anticipated.
He didn't randomly chose the venue, but other venues have been used. I really cant see your point, the output of a roulette wheel is indeterminate no matter the venue. If it wasn't there would be no gambling. One can anticipate a die will give a number between 1 and 6, but not determine which.
xdugef wrote:
Thu May 09, 2019 6:17 am
jliat wrote:
Mon May 06, 2019 10:36 am
The sounds the pedals make is precisely the point in noise.
Right so when you pick noise pedals and you get noise it was predetermined.
Sure in the same way you pick a roulette wheel in a casino.
xdugef wrote:
Thu May 09, 2019 6:17 am
jliat wrote:
Mon May 06, 2019 10:36 am
Yea - that's the REAL point of HNW. Not actually the sound but the negatives around it. (IMO of course)
You just said the sounds the pedals makes is the point and now it's not actually the sound but the negatives.. I call bullshit.
Well is where the difference between HN and HNW can be defined.
https://soundcloud.com/jliat/sets/jliat ... variations
https://soundcloud.com/jliat/sets/jliat ... tions-from
"The most irrational thing to do is to make something worthless, with no political emotional or entertaining purpose."

User avatar
xdugef
Posts: 15422
Joined: Tue Jun 14, 2005 11:26 am
Location: 噪声æº￾
Contact:

Re: Control / repeatability vs. Improvisation / chaos

Post by xdugef » Thu May 09, 2019 10:12 am

jliat wrote:
Thu May 09, 2019 9:42 am

In what? The output is random - i.e. indeterminate.
The arrangement of the notes might be indeterminate or determinate due to a decision process but all output sound is already indeterminate as we've discussed because it cannot be absolute. You cannot with any certainty expect it to be exactly the same twice.

jliat wrote:
Mon May 06, 2019 10:36 am

Of course the score isn't indeterminate, but the outcome of the piece is indeterminate.
The outcome and the output are not the same thing.. the output is always indeterminate regardless of the decision process leading up to it. It may sound the same but in fact is not.

jliat wrote:
Mon May 06, 2019 10:36 am
Yes indeterminate sounds, just as using dice to determine the keys to be played, they will be indeterminate.
The sounds are indeterminate with or without the dice. The score may be indeterminate if instructed to pick different notes or different pedals based on dice roll. If you pick notes or you pick pedals then the composition is determinate.

jliat wrote:
Mon May 06, 2019 10:36 am

He didn't randomly chose the venue
Sounds like a determination.
jliat wrote:
Mon May 06, 2019 10:36 am
Sure in the same way you pick a roulette wheel in a casino.
Or a pawn shop violin. All roulette wheels produce results.. it's how you randomly pick them that's important.
jliat wrote:
Mon May 06, 2019 10:36 am
Well is where the difference between HN and HNW can be defined.
As one approaches the event horizon the magnitude of difference becomes exponentially less important.

User avatar
xdugef
Posts: 15422
Joined: Tue Jun 14, 2005 11:26 am
Location: 噪声æº￾
Contact:

Re: Control / repeatability vs. Improvisation / chaos

Post by xdugef » Thu May 09, 2019 10:22 am

jliat wrote:
Thu May 09, 2019 9:42 am
"John Cage, a pioneer of indeterminacy, defined it as "the ability of a piece to be performed in substantially different ways". "
So really.. given that HNW is characterized by it's emphatic lack of variation it's wholly contrary to even consider it as a format for this type of composition.

User avatar
jliat
Posts: 4758
Joined: Tue Nov 20, 2012 1:34 am
Contact:

Re: Control / repeatability vs. Improvisation / chaos

Post by jliat » Fri May 10, 2019 1:32 am

xdugef wrote:
Thu May 09, 2019 10:12 am
jliat wrote:
Thu May 09, 2019 9:42 am

In what? The output is random - i.e. indeterminate.
The arrangement of the notes might be indeterminate or determinate due to a decision process but all output sound is already indeterminate as we've discussed because it cannot be absolute. You cannot with any certainty expect it to be exactly the same twice.
There is no reason why the output cannot be absolute, it is just knowing it is impossible (certainly using certain tunings). But in any process where a determined output is required there is a degree of tolerance to meet what is required. This goes for machining a part, the voltage in TTL logic and playing tonal music. If your argument was true non of these could exist. A piano is in tune or out of tune and the correct note can be struck.

In the case of music, the composer might specify a particular note to be played, e.g. C4, and if they hear that note, the composer's intention to have a determined played note is successful. You bring in 'absolutes', which is metaphysical and not physical, considered by some nonsense, but if you do the only judge of an absolute is an absolute being. And you didn't seem to have much time for religion.
Hence the fact that observations never meet precisely the mathematical models of science. The maths, (an imaginary system) has absolutes, the observed results are not. A theory is 'correct' by its closeness to the observations. Ergo Newton's model is good, not as good as Einstein's. Neither is random. Or are the empirical observations to which they relate.

xdugef wrote:
Thu May 09, 2019 10:12 am
The outcome and the output are not the same thing.. the output is always indeterminate regardless of the decision process leading up to it. It may sound the same but in fact is not.
No - we've dealt with this. You cant know it's always indeterminate in absolute terms, but the world doesn't work in absolute mathematical terms. If you want to get really pedantic at the quantum level nothing is determinate, its probability. At macro scales these average out into what we consider is determinate. (A QM is a theory which matches closely the observations)
xdugef wrote:
Thu May 09, 2019 10:12 am


The sounds are indeterminate with or without the dice. The score may be indeterminate if instructed to pick different notes or different pedals based on dice roll. If you pick notes or you pick pedals then the composition is determinate.
The sounds are not indeterminate without the dice, if the composer gets the note they wanted, or the player. There is a difference in determinacy between randomly hiting a guitar and playing stairway to heaven.

The facts are in the real world there are pieces of music which are determined, and some which are not. Just as there are bridges, jet aircraft and roulette wheels.
However if your argument is that no matter the determination of the origin the output is always indeterminate “The arrangement of the notes might be indeterminate or determinate due to a decision process but all output sound is already indeterminate.” then this argument of yours falls victim to itself. That is though you want a determined argument, that all output is indeterminate, the argument must be also indeterminate. QED it fails to say anything determined.



xdugef wrote:
Thu May 09, 2019 10:12 am




Sounds like a determination.
Because it is.
xdugef wrote:
Thu May 09, 2019 10:12 am


Or a pawn shop violin. All roulette wheels produce results.. it's how you randomly pick them that's important.
Nope - a roulette wheel you pick which allays produces red would be no good. A violin which never gave the note you wanted would also be no good.
xdugef wrote:
Thu May 09, 2019 10:12 am


As one approaches the event horizon the magnitude of difference becomes exponentially less important.
I've no idea what you mean by this.
https://soundcloud.com/jliat/sets/jliat ... variations
https://soundcloud.com/jliat/sets/jliat ... tions-from
"The most irrational thing to do is to make something worthless, with no political emotional or entertaining purpose."

User avatar
jliat
Posts: 4758
Joined: Tue Nov 20, 2012 1:34 am
Contact:

Re: Control / repeatability vs. Improvisation / chaos

Post by jliat » Fri May 10, 2019 1:35 am

xdugef wrote:
Thu May 09, 2019 10:22 am
jliat wrote:
Thu May 09, 2019 9:42 am
"John Cage, a pioneer of indeterminacy, defined it as "the ability of a piece to be performed in substantially different ways". "
So really.. given that HNW is characterized by it's emphatic lack of variation it's wholly contrary to even consider it as a format for this type of composition.
Sure. A wall of harsh noise is just that.

Vomir "No entertainment!" "Play at maximum volume or do not" "no dynamics, no change, no development, no ideas"
https://soundcloud.com/jliat/sets/jliat ... variations
https://soundcloud.com/jliat/sets/jliat ... tions-from
"The most irrational thing to do is to make something worthless, with no political emotional or entertaining purpose."

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest