The Computational Universe

Before going to the Princeton Laptop Orchestra Concert, I had already listened to some of the pieces created by the freshmen strudents in the seminar. I was impressed by the potential flexibility of the music. For example, on a guitar, I’m restricted to notes in frequency intervals. PLORK technology, however, can produce glissandos that cover every frequency (like a violin). Therefore, as I’ve noted before, PLORK gives the musician access to all different “instruments” (not just instruments, but sounds really). With the student productions, however, I wasn’t particulary impressed. Most of the songs consisted of vamps with intermittent use of uninteresting notes. Some of the rhythmic patterns were innovative, but still I wasn’t aroused.

The concert put on the other night, however, was a different story. We were able to get a better view of the potential of laptop music. We saw the capabilities of laptop music to expand into the arenas of improvisation using the tabla. The pieces implemented harmony and the display was somewhat intriguing. Nevertheless, while I admire the merits of laptop music from an academic perspective, from a performance perspective, I still feel that there is something inherently compelling about the natural production of music.

In our discussion of Boolean logic, I was most impressed by its applications to philosophy.  From a philosophical standpoint, the beauty of Boolean logic (or “algebra”) is its clarity.  Using AND, OR, and NOT gates which render either 1 or 0 (true or false, respectively), complex arguments can be efficiently condensed, untangled, and stripped of ambiguity.  An exciting example was Clarke’s proof for the existence of God.  Some were dismissive of idea of applying Boolean gates to such a high-stakes religious and philosophical problem.  It’s natural to feel that the problem of the existence of God is simply an area where Boolean logic does not apply.  People have explored this question for millenia, and someone is going to attempt to solve it in 8 lines using variables “x,” “y,” and “z”?!  On second glance, however, it appears that one should not fault Boolean logic because, put simply, it’s valid.  The part of the argument that deserves scrutiny is the premises - i.e., the definitions of the variables.  For while the Boolean logic provides a valid argument, the soundness of the argument is questionable.

Boolean logic is applicable in providing valid arguments which describe things such as whether someone is going to a party, the existence of God, etc. because these are true-false questions.  The shortfall of Boolean logic arises when one is faced with questions where truth is measured in degree.  For example, Boolean logic is not functional when one wants to describe the effectiveness of somethings - say, a search program.  Boolean logic can only state whether “1″: the program is effective; or “2″: the program is ineffective.

Boolean logic also bears significance in its application to modern computers.  Voltage inputs are converted to voltage outputs using AND, OR, and NOT gates.  Say, for example,  that two inputs determine an output.  The conversion is an OR gate.  Therefore, if either input (or both) is high voltage, the output is also high voltage.  These conversions describe the efficient way in which modern computers operate.

We’ve covered a lot of interesting and enlightening material thus far in COS 116, but music is my favorite pastime, so I feel compelled to talk about computer music.

I listened to some of the PLOrK on Prof. Cook’s site.  For someone (like me) who is a horrendous drummer, I can definitely see how valuable it would be to be able to “loop” a drumbeat as all of the PLOrK songs do.  Last time I recorded in a studio, I wanted to lay down an electronic drum track over a rythm, and I had to manually hit the buttons in a certain pattern - quite laborious and prone to error.

Another cool aspect of computer music that I picked up on while listening to PLOrK is that the measures of the song are broken up digitally.  This provides that the composer can insert notes with perfect timing.  That is, someone who has never played an instrument (physically) can make an elaborate song if he/she has a knack for music.

What impressed me most about the Prof. Cook’s computer music?  Oddly enough, it was not the fact that he constructed a way to played the trumpet with a coffee mug.  Before his presentation, I had assumed that an instrument could not be reproduced with such exact precision by a computer (or coffee mug).  I had always assumed that by whatever means someone recorded the sound, the reproduction would come out slightly deficient in quality.

The beauty of Prof. Cook’s computer music is that he mathematically modeled the Fourier equations of the trumpet, saxophone, etc.  Theoretically, most or all of nature can be explained by mathematics.  Prof. Cook has started in on the task of uncovering the Fourier (combined sine waves) models that are behind the sound of nickel in a jar, a particular trumpet, or a particular Martin guitar.  As a musician, this allows me to play an instrument without actually learning to play.  If I want to play the sax loudly, the program presumably plugs in a higher value for the variable that commands intensity - or amplitude, rather.

It’s still hard for me to believe, being a naive COS 116 student.  Call me old-fashioned, but at first glance, it feels as if he has tampered with something sacred in nature - like he’s cloned a child or something.  Fortunately, there actually are no ethical consideration surrounding computer music, so I’m on the bandwagon.