Indeed, if perhaps not the most amicable one - we've lost one member
over it already....

Really, you can all re-classify it as "broccoli music" and I don't
really don't mind too much. My interest lies not in its esoteric
properties, but whether my ears like the end result. Whether it follows
one strict mathematical model or another is the very least of my
concerns. So many already will combine the output of several different
generative processes, and perhaps even remix with a variety of live
instruments that "fractal music" is not being used as it's own end, but
simply as another "tool" to be incorporated into a larger work.

Phil J.

On Thu, 2008-10-02 at 02:04 +0000, fmshawn wrote:
>
> I think y'all should both debate it and make it!
>
> This has been one of the most lively discussions here in years!
>
> Back in 2000 I stirred up some debate here on what fractal music
> really means. I tried to give it a definition, but I think in the
> end, the definition I proposed was a little too loose to be useful.
> (Say that 5 times fast...)
>
> I do think, at the end of the day, the music based on the fractal
> images is indeed fractal. And despite my (once legendary) insistence
> that humans don't putz with the output of their musical fractal
> generators (I preferred 'pure' fractals), I still think that the
> human
> arrangements of fractally generated patterns also qualifies as
> fractal.
>
> Shawn
>
> My earlier post, cleaned up a bit, may be found in our files
> repository:
> http://f1.grp.yahoofs.com/v1/ICvkSLsTx10Ro8chEJg9hZSJYeNj4Klx_CrLTO_6C
> 9Gqma9CitVVcMwmcaAW9kMDMFKeya87gzPnEkESLcX1Y267bvqjOu3F1xmR-
> VnaUqc/FractalDefinitions1-shawns-take.doc
>
>
>
>
>