Chapter 4. Meeting 4, Foundations: Historical and Categorical Perspectives 4.1. Announcements • Musical Design Report 1 due Tuesday, 23 February 4.2. Reading: Ames: Automated Composition in Retrospect: 1956-1986 • Ames, C. 1987. “Automated Composition in Retrospect: 1956-1986.” Leonardo 20(2): 169-185. • Is it surprising that Ames writes: “it is therefore not surprising that these developments have met with continuing -- and often virulent -- resistance” (1987, p. 169)? • How was the DATATRON used to generate a melody? • How was MUSICOMP different from the work on the Illiac Suite? • How does Ames isolate the contribution of Koenig and Xenkakis as contributing to modularity in system design? • What trends does Ames describe in systems that were contemporary to his article? 4.3. Reading: Ariza: Navigating the Landscape of Computer-Aided Algorithmic Composition Systems: A Definition, Seven Descriptors, and a Lexicon of Systems and Research • Ariza, C. 2005b. “Navigating the Landscape of Computer-Aided Algorithmic Composition Systems: A Definition, Seven Descriptors, and a Lexicon of Systems and Research.” In Proceedings of the International Computer Music Conference. San Francisco: International Computer Music Association. 765-772. Internet: http://www.flexatone.net/docs/nlcaacs.pdf. • What is the definition of CAAC proposed in this article? • Why does the definition of CAAC exclude notation software and DAWs? • What are the seven descriptors proposed, and which seem the most important? 47MIT OpenCourseWarehttp://ocw.mit.edu 21M.380 Music and Technology: Algorithmic and Generative Music Spring 2010 For information about citing these materials or our Terms of Use, visit:
View Full Document