I agree with Phil (J) that concerns about "classification" are
entirely unnecessary to the creative process. It's all about the
ears - if it sounds good, do it.

The interesting part for me (aside from the listening), is figuring
out what aspects of music are actually "fractal" in the same sense
that we measure visual fractals. We take it for granted that we
often "see" the way in which an image or object is self-similar.
However, whether we see the fractal structure or not, it is
mathematically demonstrable.

A rich area of investigation lies in identifying where to find
fractal structure in the arts and in nature:

http://classes.yale.edu/Fractals/Panorama/welcome.html

In each case, it is important to be specific about what
characteristic of the object under consideration is actually
fractal. A well-known example is the Mandelbrot set. The "set" is
not fractal, but the boundary is. In this case it is obvious to the
eye.

Given its intangible nature, music presents difficulties. Just as
images can possess different fractal qualities, so can music. In
some cases ears or a score are useful, but otherwise we must rely on
mathematical analysis, which means we need to be specific about what
musical characteristics we are measuring.

Assuming that music derived from a fractal is automatically fractal
is something like taking a poem by Kipling, transliterating it using
the Cyrillic alphabet and then presenting it as Russian poetry. The
point here is simply that the desired outcome is by no means
guaranteed.

As I wrote earlier, it is possible to insure fractality by being
careful with mapping. It is also possible that fractal structure
exists without intent, but to be certain of this it is necessary to
make some sort of measurement relative to pitch, interval, duration,
dynamics, etc.

Often researchers try to link some concept of fractal dimension to
genre or "likeability," though this is not my focus. Some use MIDI
renditions while others use audio files. The common thread is that
all such efforts require identifying specific attributes for
measurement.

AND... none of this matters if one simply wishes to make music!


Harlan



--- In cnfractal_music@yahoogroups.com, PhilJackson <pjackson1@...>
wrote:
>
> 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
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>