Posted
I am a prosective synfire Pro buyer. I have not demo'd the program yet because I need to wait until I have a good solid 30 days where I know I will have time to put it through its paces within 30 days. I definitely plan to do that at some point, but maybe some of you can entertain some questions in the meantime.
My question is this, is it possible with this program to allow dissonances to happen, to see the dissonant notes on the figures display even if they don't match the current chord or scale (if one can even be determined), and even to preserve it as a relationship relative to the current chord or scale, while changing chords or scales, etc. or does Synfire pretty much always water everything down to matching whatever the current chord and/or scale is? Would I essentially have to create elaborate and exotic custom scales in order to preserve these kinds of dissonance?
I've been reading as much as I can about this product, it has intrigued me for a long time, but of course the price is quite high so I want to be sure it will be of use to me. Ultimately I will have to demo, but some prelimanary feedback from gurus would be very welcome.
Some other questions I have:
Any possibility of traditional notation?
Is it possible to have the figures display or whatever its called, display the consoance or dissonance of certain notes in some way, without actually changing them, but just indicating in some way how consanant they are. On the chord is highly consonant, on the scale a little less so, off the scale obviously not.
Is it possible to somehow select a chord or scale for a section and without actually changing the music, have it SHOW what notes would become more dissonant?
I have read on this forum that there are no schillinger or other generators. Is that still the case? Are there any tools for developing repetitive material based on previous material or anything of this nature whatsoever? Obviously, you can take previous material and generate new material based on changing chord or scale, from what I can gather, but what about generating melodic inversions, retroversion, etc..schillinger transformations perhaps, etc.. what can be done?
Any voice leading or counterpoint intelligence in this program?
Is there any intelligence in this program about reharmonization in terms of guiding us towards alternatives that would make harmonic sense? If so, is there any intelligence about functional modulations?
Does this program have any rythmnic oriented intelligence, to allow us to easily play around with rythmic variations of existing material?
My perception is taht a lot of people seem to be using this program a lot to analyze a zillion midi files and generate new useful material. That's ok, but of little interest to me, I want to write all my own material out of the inspiration in my heart, but I wondering if this program will help me realize things more quickly in some way by giving me an easy way to preview ideas and sort of construct it all together. The notion of taking midi files and transforming them into endless variations until I find something the clicks, is definitely not the way I like to work, if it tries to impose that work flow on me I will hate it. Obviously it can sometimes be helping with writers block to noodle around trying out variations and different chords and scales and just sorta see what you get. I know the way I work, I will hear something that way then my brain will take over and know what it wants and just need to realize it without too much software intelligence imposing its view of what it wants, yet still helping me get what I want. I don't know if that makes sense, Can some of you comment a bit on how it can be used as compositional tool for the kind of person that gets their own musical ideas and just needs a tool to help realize it quicker.
That's all I can think of right now, I will probably think of more, especially once I get a month slot to really do a proper demo... I am going to do that, but right now I don't know when. A lot of people have mentioned BIAB and RapidComposer as alternatives. I have tried them both out a bit, RapidComposer I just didn't get at all in the limited time I tried to use it and something about the interface really was unmusical and unwieldy to me. It was not rapid. Maybe an idea generator, ok. BIAB, similar deal, I don't know if I really see the point of that, other then something to jam along with. I like to create my own ideas, not use someone else's style with different chords.
I'm interested in all styles of music, have played in rock bands and film composed for 50 piece orch, getting interested in 20th century material lately, thus my questions about dissonance. A lot of the example music I hear from synfire users seems to be to sound kinda blockish, for lack of a better word. I don't hear voice leading intelligence, I basically just hear very sophisticated transposing to chords and scales...which can end up sounding poorly crafted from a compositional perspective, IMHO. But part of that always depends on the user's background, so I am very interested to hear more about whether this tool could actually be used effectively to create more sophisticated composition where true compositional craft is interjected much more so into the process in some way, using the tool to enhance or expidite that process, without actually stomping over it with too much artificial intelligence.
Di., 12.05.2015 - 11:55 Permalink
Welcome to the User Forum! Thanks for the good questions.
First off, don’t worry about the 30 day limit. You can extend or repeat your trial at any time.
is it possible with this program to allow dissonances to happen
Yes. This almost automatically happens when you put chords/scales changes in rapid succession. Depending on how the rhythms of your figures are mapped across these changes, you will get dissonant transitions.
The songwriter’s view on chord changes is one or two chords per measure. This simplified form of ‚lead sheet’ is not what you would use for contemporary orchestral music. For the latter, your harmonic progression controls almost everything, while, grossly simplified, the figures are merely rhythm patterns and relative movements.
see the dissonant notes on the figures display even if they don't match the current chord or scale
This would only be possible, if figures and progressions spanned the entire composition in a linear fashion (like in a DAW or notation program). However, figures do not relate to harmony in a predictable way. Within one arrangement, any part of a figure can eventually be mapped to any part of multiple different progressions (containers, loops, aliases, parameters). Although this may sound uncomfortable at first, it is one of the unique features that make Synfire so powerful and expressive.
Think of a figure as an algorithmic element, rather than a form of notation.
Anyway, we plan on showing the rendered output with color indications, although that will be a read-only display.
Would I essentially have to create elaborate and exotic custom scales in order to preserve these kinds of dissonance?
There’s already a big collection of dissonant scales included. If in doubt, use chromatic. As said however, dissonance is more often the result of fast changing harmony, than a particular sustained chord or scale.
Any possibility of traditional notation?
You can export MusicXML to view in Finale, Sibelius and others. Or export LiliyPond and get a PDF to view or print.
On the chord is highly consonant, on the scale a little less so, off the scale obviously not.
Depends on the chord ;-)
Also depends on what other instruments are doing at the same time. And the timbres. There is no technical way to identify or assess dissonance.
Is it possible to somehow select a chord or scale for a section and without actually changing the music, have it SHOW what notes would become more dissonant?
Not yet. If eventually we will implement the above mentioned output display, to achieve what you want, you could change chords and look at the results. If you don't like it, hit Undo.
Nothing can beat your ears, though. I'd not judge a change by looking at some color representation.
I have read on this forum that there are no schillinger or other generators. Is that still the case?
Yes. We collected many ideas and experimental prototypes for generators, but learned that each generator in isolation only has very narrow applications that quickly get old. We’re looking for ways to integrate generators with more options for the user.
what about generating melodic inversions, retroversion, etc
This is a central part of the Synfire workflow: Reverse, flip, stretch, duplicate, etc, whatever object or portion of it you want. The latest update published last night includes a new click board that presents most of these operations to you in a convenient way.
Does this program have any rythmnic oriented intelligence, to allow us to easily play around with rythmic variations of existing material?
Not quite intelligence, but there’s the Rhythm and Step parameters. The former is like the ‚Groove‘ feature known from DAWs, the latter sequentially re-positions all notes according to an arbitrary pattern you give it (or copy/convert from elsewhere). Adding more intelligent rhythmic transformations is high on our wish list.
Can some of you comment a bit on how it can be used as compositional tool for the kind of person that gets their own musical ideas and just needs a tool to help realize it quicker.
You need not import MIDI files. Just record or sketch your own ideas as they come up. If you have basic piano skills, capture short melodic snippets, rhythms, patterns, add them to a library and then play around with drag and drop, stretch, reverse, flip, merge, etc. This is what you can’t do with a DAW or notation program.
I don't hear voice leading intelligence
Synfire can only take the figures you give it and make them work with the changes in a progression. It does not compose new music on the fly, e.g. by following the rules of 4-part chorale or something. So, if you give it an upwards movement, it will not turn it into a downwards movement, or change its rhythm, even if that might be the better choice.
I agree this kind of voice leading is more of a technical thing and may not deserve the name ‚voice leading‘ as used by composers. You are right, is not noticeable most of the time. That’s because it’s doing a good job! Turn off VL for an A/B comparison and you’ll hear the difference between simple symbol mapping and Synfire’s intelligent VL. Without VL, you’ll get a soup of lines pointlessly wandering around, plus bad dissonances at the wrong places.
On a general note, any software that deals with composition needs to be built on some technical formalization of music. The more versatile and flexible this formalization is, the closer you get to ‚real‘ music. This can never be perfect, because music is a cultural artifact, not science. To my knowledge, Synfire’s model is the most sophisticated to date that also is of practically use and is not limited to a particular musical style.
Synfire does music prototyping. As the name implies, it helps you come up with a draft or mockup more quickly and easily. It’s your part to review and refine it in a DAW or notation program. And most importantly, it helps you actually finish a work, because it is less likely that you get stuck in the middle, or lose interest in working your way forward by hand. You know, if the big picture is already complete, working on the details is more rewarding and motivating.
If you have more questions, let me know. I’m happy to help!
Di., 12.05.2015 - 17:46 Permalink
Forgot one:
Is there any intelligence in this program about reharmonization in terms of guiding us towards alternatives that would make harmonic sense?
Yes. The Harmonizer can take any current output as new input and suggest alternative chords. You can also use palettes for this purpose, e.g. indicate with colors which chords share pitch classes, functions, etc.
is there any intelligence about functional modulations?
You do that with two palettes: Highlight the chords they have in common, then click your way from one palette to the other, using shared chords in the middle.
I should note that the more 'intelligent wizzards' a program includes, the more stereotypes and clichés you'll get. Every composer makes different use of key changes. Even hard jumps work more often than you might think (no modulation at all). IMHO modulation is overestimated. It's a thing of past centuries when equal temperment and key change was a revolution. Nowadays our ears are used to hearing key changes everywhere.
Just glue your parts together, transpose your progressions to make them fit (check by ear), let Synfire select some scales for you and have fun ;-)
Mi., 13.05.2015 - 07:03 Permalink
I am definitely going to need to send some time playing with the program. Problem is right now I am moving into a new house, my studio is locked up and it will be af ew months before its setup, so I'm a bit in limbo, but definitely I am intrigued and will have to see what I can do.
A few follow up comments:
Anyway, we plan on showing the rendered output with color indications, although that will be a read-only display.
will be useful depending on what you do. For me I see the analysis aspects of this program at least as useful as the transformative and generational aspects. I am generally uninterested in algorithmic composition.
"Is it possible to somehow select a chord or scale for a section and without actually changing the music, have it SHOW what notes would become more dissonant?"
Not yet. If eventually we will implement the above mentioned output display, to achieve what you want, you could change chords and look at the results. If you don't like it, hit Undo.
Nothing can beat your ears, though. I'd not judge a change by looking at some color representation.
I think more indicators that can show how the music relates to chords while allowing dissonant notes to remain dissonant in some way if they are specifically flagged to be so...would be useful. It may be that after I play around with the program i can figure out how to use chromatic scales and accomplish what I want. But imagine that if I set up a figure with notes that are clearly flagged as consanant and therefore can be moved around to other consanant positions on other scales...and other notes which are allowed to be remain intentially "in between" consonant scale positions. Anyway, I digress, but I see that Synfire doesn't really handle that as of now.
"I have read on this forum that there are no schillinger or other generators. Is that still the case?"
Yes. We collected many ideas and experimental prototypes for generators, but learned that each generator in isolation only has very narrow applications that quickly get old. We’re looking for ways to integrate generators with more options for the user.
I got you, however I would encourage you to consider Schillinger stuff a little more as much of it can be used to transform existing material with rythmic or melodic variation that makes more musical sense then inversions, retroversions, etc. Schillinger is not only about generating brand new material and I don't really like that its being called a "generator" in RapidComposer, for example. Its very useful as way more than algorihmic composition.
"Does this program have any rythmnic oriented intelligence, to allow us to easily play around with rythmic variations of existing material?"
Adding more intelligent rhythmic transformations is high on our wish list.
Got it. Schillinger by the way is related here probably.
"I don't hear voice leading intelligence"
Synfire can only take the figures you give it and make them work with the changes in a progression. It does not compose new music on the fly, e.g. by following the rules of 4-part chorale or something. So, if you give it an upwards movement, it will not turn it into a downwards movement, or change its rhythm, even if that might be the better choice.
I agree this kind of voice leading is more of a technical thing and may not deserve the name ‚voice leading‘ as used by composers. You are right, is not noticeable most of the time. That’s because it’s doing a good job! Turn off VL for an A/B comparison and you’ll hear the difference between simple symbol mapping and Synfire’s intelligent VL. Without VL, you’ll get a soup of lines pointlessly wandering around, plus bad dissonances at the wrong places.
On a general note, any software that deals with composition needs to be built on some technical formalization of music. The more versatile and flexible this formalization is, the closer you get to ‚real‘ music. This can never be perfect, because music is a cultural artifact, not science. To my knowledge, Synfire’s model is the most sophisticated to date that also is of practically use and is not limited to a particular musical style.
Synfire does music prototyping. As the name implies, it helps you come up with a draft or mockup more quickly and easily. It’s your part to review and refine it in a DAW or notation program. And most importantly, it helps you actually finish a work, because it is less likely that you get stuck in the middle, or lose interest in working your way forward by hand. You know, if the big picture is already complete, working on the details is more rewarding and motivating.
If you have more questions, let me know. I’m happy to help!
So I can see how its up to us in Synfire to create our own figures. while synfire makes a few simple voice leading decisions that connect between figures, within each figure the basic voice leading is basically the essence of what the figure actually is. Synfire doesn't apply anything to change that. the figure is what the figure is. That is definitely less imposing on the composer, but therein lies the reason I hear many synfire example songs with poor counter point or voice leading, the composers are having a blast slinging figures around, transposing them across keys, scales and chords, overlapping them, etc..and playing around until things sound pretty ok, but to me when the voice leading is poor, it shows.
I like the idea that Synfire doesn't force archaeic voice leading or counter-point rules which essentially destory the figures for what they are, but on the other hand I think it would be supremely helpful if the program could SHOW through GUI visual feedback when potential counter point or voice leading issues are present in whatever collection of figures that are mushed together...with editable rules about it. I agree the whole point of synfire is to take figures, which are what they are...and let the chords and scales make them all musically work together. But in order to help a composer sling that stuff around and still be able to quickly and easily find voice leading problems that could be better...some visual indicators would make it possible to tweak figures as needed by hand to make them voice lead better together in a more crafted way, but not enforceing it...just indicating it. Anyway, just a suggestion.
is there any intelligence about functional modulations?
You do that with two palettes: Highlight the chords they have in common, then click your way from one palette to the other, using shared chords in the middle.
I should note that the more 'intelligent wizzards' a program includes, the more stereotypes and clichés you'll get. Every composer makes different use of key changes. Even hard jumps work more often than you might think (no modulation at all). IMHO modulation is overestimated. It's a thing of past centuries when equal temperment and key change was a revolution. Nowadays our ears are used to hearing key changes everywhere.
hmm, ok. secondary dominants are not past century, they are definitely a big part of pop music, jazz, blues, rock, and even many forms of commercial film music. Then there are a few other very typical key change patterns that happen routinely... moving by thirds. Moving by 4ths. some others. I agree with you, many of these very useful modulations do not always involve common linking chords. Yet they are common reusable chord progression patterns which are outside normal functional diatonic harmony. And there is always modal interchange. Anyway, something to consider for later...
I hope to spend some time with your program at some point for sure. Its going to be a few months out though. I can definitely see how it would be fun to play with it and see what I come up with, if nothing else an interesting idea generator, but its definitely a big price for it...but maybe I wil fall in love with the work flow when I try it, never know.
Mi., 13.05.2015 - 11:51 Permalink
Thanks for your suggestions and thoughts.
I would encourage you to consider Schillinger stuff a little more as much of it can be used to transform existing material with rythmic or melodic variation that makes more musical sense then inversions, retroversions, etc. Its very useful as way more than algorihmic composition.
I’ll definitely have another look. Transformative ‚generators‘ will be the main focus.
Anyway, I digress, but I see that Synfire doesn't really handle that as of now.
Not really. Figure symbols have chromatic alterations and if you disable VL for that segment (or entirely for a passage and instrument), these symbols will map to any note in the scale regardless of what the AI may think. It will never go out of scale though. Let me explain why, and why this is not a limitation:
Synfire assumes that dissonance is a momentary change (detour) to a dissonant harmonic context, rather than an individual exception to the current consonant harmony. This is because figures with dissonance would not translate well to other progressions, if expressed as chromatic alterations, for example (what is a nice blue note in one scale, might become a painful yellow note in another scale).
Also, by assuming a momentary dissonant harmony, Synfire ensures that all instruments agree upon a form of dissonance that has a proven cultural track record, so to speak. By adding or removing dissonant interval structures from the Catalog, the composer has control over what he/she deems ‚culturally accepted‘ for their work.
So, if you want a melody to play the 9th over C Major, you’ll have to use a scale that includes this note. If you want the melody to reliably sustain on the 9th, you take C(add9) or C9 chord or similar. Same for more dissonant intervals.
Using progression layers, you can control which instrument plays which sub-chord of the dissonant progression, to avoid, for example, that all instruments hammer on the 9th where you only want one particular instrument to do so.
secondary dominants are not past century
Ok, but secondary dominants do not necessarily introduce a key change or modulation. The concept of modulation I had in mind was that of carefully evolving a progression through common chords.
Then there are a few other very typical key change patterns that happen routinely
The Synfire workflow is to take these from a library and transpose them to any context you want to use them in, modify them as needed. Just drag and drop. No need for complicated user interfaces. I agree that Cognitone should supply a library with typical key change patterns. Thanks for pointing this out.
In general, computer aided composition is a tradeoff. On the one hand, if it makes a lot of decisions according to some AI, you’ll get clichés only. Even worst so, you’ll get only those clichés the software was designed for. On the other hand, if taking control means dealing with a hundred or so settings for every measure of music, you could as well compose by hand. The optimum is somewhere in the middle.
I hope to spend some time with your program at some point for sure.
Take your time! Since you already have some fundamental musical knowledge, your learning curve will probably be smoother than for beginners.
The paradigm change is that Synfire’s workflow is more like assembling a composition from active components that you can play with, than that of a notation program or DAW that assists an corrects you with linear composition. Once you get a grip of how to use these active components, I’m pretty sure you’ll have your blast.
Mi., 13.05.2015 - 17:31 Permalink
I’ll definitely have another look. Transformative ‚generators‘ will be the main focus.
The Schillinger method is very large and complex and frankly I only understand about less then 1% of it, even with 3 large books about it on my book shelf. Its difficult reading. But one of the initial points of his work is taking two or more patterns and basically using a sort of mathematical approach to see how the two patterrns can be modulated against each other to create interference patterns. So imagine taking two or more figures in Synfire and using Schillinger method to derive new interference material which has some essence of the original figures in it. This can be done rythmnically, melodically, harmonically, etc..
The Synfire workflow is to take these from a library and transpose them to any context you want to use them in, modify them as needed. Just drag and drop. No need for complicated user interfaces. I agree that Cognitone should supply a library with typical key change patterns. Thanks for pointing this out.
Sure, can those pre saved progressions effect the exploratory chord pallette in some way?
Mi., 13.05.2015 - 17:43 Permalink
The Schillinger method is very large and complex
Yep. That's why a couple years ago I put it aside after hours of trying to get a grasp.
But one of the initial points of his work is taking two or more patterns and basically using a sort of mathematical approach to see how the two patterrns can be modulated against each other to create interference patterns.
Synfire's morphing feature does a similar thing to create a gradual crossfade between figures from one container to the next. Maybe Shillinger has something to offer that would make this more expressive.
Sure, can those pre saved progressions effect the exploratory chord pallette in some way?
They could be used to feed the Continuation coloring scheme ...