The Circle of Entropy
Made by Amanda Marano, Kristen Smith, Amber Jones and Amal Sahay
Made by Amanda Marano, Kristen Smith, Amber Jones and Amal Sahay
For our mixes, we decided to change the level of indeterminacy of the final mix not by changing the algorithm for mixing the songs, but by changing the original compositional choice of what songs we were going to play, with increasing levels of chance for each mix. For the first mix, we all chose the same song, for the second we all chose songs in prescribed tempo ranges, and for the third each person chose a song of their own choosing without the other’s knowledge. For the first, there is a low level of change and low level of indeterminacy. For the second there is a slightly higher level of chance, as we could pick any song within that tempo range, and a slightly higher but still low level of indeterminacy. For the third there was the highest level of indeterminacy, as it was more random for the final group mix, and a slightly higher level of chance than the first mix, as there were no prescribed tempo ranges, but still pretty low as it was our own choice. There was additional entropy in our recording sessions due to ambient noise from people and echo from CFA where we were sitting and recording, along with a laptop issue which affected one of the recordings.
Created: September 21st, 2014
For our mixes, we decided to change the level of indeterminacy of the final mix not by changing the algorithm for mixing the songs, but by changing the original compositional choice of what songs we were going to play, with increasing levels of chance for each mix. For the first mix, we all chose the same song, for the second we all chose songs in prescribed tempo ranges, and for the third each person chose a song of their own choosing without the other’s knowledge. For the first, there is a low level of change and low level of indeterminacy. For the second there is a slightly higher level of chance, as we could pick any song within that tempo range, and a slightly higher but still low level of indeterminacy. For the third there was the highest level of indeterminacy, as it was more random for the final group mix, and a slightly higher level of chance than the first mix, as there were no prescribed tempo ranges, but still pretty low as it was our own choice. There was additional entropy in our recording sessions due to ambient noise from people and echo from CFA where we were sitting and recording, along with a laptop issue which affected one of the recordings.
For the first version, why all the same song? Intentionally choosing the same song ends up just producing a low quality version with gps, as opposed to some new piece.
Ahhh, taste in art is what keeps in interesting he? I dont feel the same as Talia about this work but I see where she is coming from. I actually like the progress from 1 to 3. It is a gradual, meticulous one could say, manner of exploring the concepts as you change them from 1 to 2 to 3. Well done, well though out and very musical. Bravo!
I am a little curious as to your process for deciding tempos for the second composition. I understand that you wanted to have a little more control over which types of songs would go well together. However, your songs from the grouping of 60-100 bpm would not necessarily go well together if one song was 60bpm and the other was 80 bpm. If you instead used multiples of the original tempo, (for example, one song that was 60 and another that was 120), I believe the two songs would go better together, since one is simply twice as fast as the other.
Talia, we chose the same song to eliminate any chance from the composition and focus on the other two variables.
Eric, that's a completely valid point. We more or less figured that slower songs had a higher chance of being softer and faster songs had a better chance of being louder. The logic isn't completely sound, and certainly doesn't span all types of music, but that turned out to be the case in the songs that were chosen.
We also recognized that, in picking multiple tempos, we had more control over the piece than we would have in a random song selection (like in composition three) and we wanted to experiment with the control that we had.
Additionally, we wanted to have more than two tempos in our song selection. If we used pieces that were exactly 60 bpm and 120 bpm, the other two group members would probably have a hard time finding pieces that were 180 and 240 bpm. Even if they did, there is no saying that the pieces would sound good together just because the starting and stopping times would be randomly generated.Now that I think about it, though, speeding up a song prior to the group performance would have been an interesting concept to explore.
I actually thought that using the same song was a great idea, and is a very original idea intended to reduce chance, entropy, and indeterminacy. Great job!
I would add one suggestion: in your last composition, is chance high? I would even argue that chance is low, because each person can control the song he/she chooses.
I like how you went from low levels of chance, indeterminacy, and entropy to higher levels from composition 1 to composition 3! It makes your thought process easier to follow.
You mention that "The exact procedure used for this repetition was left to each performer’s discretion, resulting in an increased chance as well" when referring to each group member deciding how to repeat songs. Is it possible that this is actually increasing indeterminacy rather than chance? It doesn't seem like it is really up to chance since each performer is deciding what to do; it seems more like increased indeterminacy since a listener would not know what to expect.
Your composition 1 is really creative and did what you intended it to do. Though through the progression, perhaps you should of made your composition 3 even higher entropy/change/indeterminacy like each picking your music by random and generating some random places to stop playing.
You must login before you can post a comment. .