Talk:Aleatoric music
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] Aleatory vs Aleatoric
I just checked a couple of reference works and they rather snottily inform me that "The adjective `aleatoric' is a bastard word, to be avoided by those who care for language" (Oxford Dict. Mus.). I think that's probably true, although I'd been making links here rather than to aleatory music because "aleatoric" was a more familiar term to me. I think that in a musical context "aleatoric" is more common than "aleatory" (although in other contexts, this isn't so), so I'm going to leave the article here, and make "aleatory music" a redirect. --Camembert
Why can't it just be redirected to "stochastic music" (of which there is no article despite the "see also section, which just links to the "stochastic" article.)--Brentt 23:18, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
- You're right, there should be a separate article for stochastic music, but I'm not sure what you're suggesting should be redirected. There is a remarkable degree of confused terminology in this area, with no clear distinctions between aleatoric, aleatory, or indeterminate music. However, while all of these are composed or performed with some element of chance, stochastic music is created using probability, etc. So, stochastic music is its own thing. JonathanDS 23:37, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
-
- All stochastic means is "some element or variable is governed by chance" which seems to be the definition for aleatoric music. I don't see the difference, unless stochastic music is something entirely different and just misnamed--or the definition for aleatoric music given in this article is wrong. --Brentt 00:56, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
-
-
- The definition of aleatory music isn't wrong per se, but I think that the structure of the article could be much clearer, with subsections for different degrees of chance in composition and performance. (It could be argued, by this definition, that all notated music is aleatory.) My dictionary defines "stochastic" as "having a random probability distribution or pattern that may be analyzed statistically but may not be predicted precisely". A composer of stochastic music, like Xenakis, composes a general structure, with broadly defined formal shape, density, etc, and then uses statistics (usually with the aid of a computer) to generate the details (i.e. the specific pitchs and rhythms) that will create that structure. This is quite different from Boulez or Haubenstock-Ramati's mobile forms or Cagean nonintentional composition, which both undermine preconceived structure. Stochastic music does involve chance, but to a comparatively limited degree and on a very local level. It also results in more traditional, determinate scores, without room for performer choice, and has a mathematical, formalistic approach which is perhaps closer to the aesthetic of integral serialism (Xenakis did study with Messiaen). In any case, all stochastic music is aleatory to some degree, but not all aleatory music is stochastic. I guess it could be included in this article, but it would need a clear subsection to show how it's unique. JonathanDS 11:05, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- Common usage decides what a word means. 'Aleatory' hardly counts as a word if it's archaic. I think the page is best here, anyway. Good call. JamesMcGuiggan 22:20, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
-
-
[edit] Inventor?
- Contemporary aleatoric music was popularized by John Cage, but probably invented by Henry Brant.
Any effort to pin the "invention" of aleatoric music down to one person is probably doomed to failure. What aleatoric techniques did Brant use, exactly, and when? --Camembert
[edit] Tomatoes
Actually aleatoric means new music, so i guess catsup is the new ketchup - 81.79.133.110 (signed by Hyacinth)
[edit] Popular Music
I'm not an expert in this, by any means, but shouldn't there be a section about popular music which has some aleatoric elements? I know that the Beatles experimented with it to a certain extent, and I'm think Zappa did as well (though I'm not a huge Zappa fan, so I can't really say for sure), but are there others? If so, I think it warrants inclusion. Isquitenice 05:17, 27 October 2006 (UTC)