Psst.....Wanna
Buy an Algorithm?
The Proliferation of
Generative Music Systems throughout
Everyday Life and its Effects
on the Music Industry
Paul Brown M.A.
Research Student, Anglia Ruskin
University, Cambridge, United Kingdom
Abstract
Generative
music is created within a system as a result of the rules implemented by its
creator. In computer based systems these rules, and therefore the music
produced, may be further influenced by external sources converted into digital
data. This combination enables generative music systems to create music for a
specific environment or purpose. The adaptability of music produced by
generative music systems could substitute many instances where linear music is
currently used in everyday situations. After
examining the issues surrounding the music produced by generative music
systems, this paper reviews instances where generative music systems could be
used to replace linear music systems in everyday settings and enhance the
effects of music in those settings. Such settings include healthcare, personal
fitness, other commercial setting such as restaurants, retail outlets, offices
and factories, in the motor industry, in domestic settings and within the
telecommunication industry. Since the “pure”[1],
“unfixed” music produced by generative music systems is, in the UK at least, copyright
free and therefore exempt from the usual public performance licensing
procedures, after looking at linear forms of “environmental” music, the paper
then goes on to examine the importance and nature of the algorithm within
generative music systems and considers how the generative music composer could
be remunerated each time music generated by his or her algorithm is performed
in public. The title of this paper makes inference to the likely attempts that
the established music industry will make to firstly ignore the idea of
generative music systems and then to suppress their proliferation by attempting
to outlaw such systems despite their legality. The paper therefore concludes by
discussing some of the implications of generative music systems on the music
industry.
This paper follows on from, and includes elements of,
my MA thesis “Is the Future of Music Generative?” and acts as a precursor to my
research degree at ARU in Cambridge where I propose to examine the feasibility
of using generative music systems as tools to assist music therapists and
patient carers in health settings.
“Generative
music is commonly agreed to describe music in which a system or process is
composed to generate music rather than the composition of the direct musical
event which will result from that system.
The generative composer has only indirect control the final musical
result, and the creativity of the compositional process is found in the
decisions about how the system will operate and the rules inside the system”(2).
As generative music is created
by the composition of music within a system this means that musicians, recording
artists, producers, and to some extent the composer, can be absent from the
creation process. The generative music composer, besides defining the musical
parameters within the piece, essentially separates him or herself from the
creation of the final piece of music. Advances in computer technology have
enabled generative music systems to be created where the generative music
composer has more control over the rules he or she creates within the system or
process and therefore the final music produced. The rules within the generative
music system may be further influenced by external environmental changes
converted into digital data. This combination allows generative music composers
to create systems that can produce music for a specific environment or purpose.
The
adaptability of music produced by generative music systems could substitute
many instances where linear music is currently used in everyday
situations.
It is my belief, that the
intention of creating a generative music system is to produce a unique piece of
music each time the system is initiated or reset and therefore means generative
music in its purest form is not recorded. As it is not recorded, although
copyright subsists in the generative music system itself, no copyright subsists
in the music that it produces. Since no music copyright exists within pure
generative music the role of traditional music companies in relation to
generative music such as collection societies, record labels and publishers,
which rely on copyright subsisting within music to allow them to carry out
their day-to-day business, is brought into question. The absence of a business
model within the traditional music industry to support the proliferation of
generative music systems means that a new model must be sought and developed
from elsewhere.
The copyright status of
computer related generative music systems and the pure generative works that
they create seems, in the UK at least, to be fairly straight forward. For the
purposes of UK Copyright Law a computer program is considered as a “literary
work” which, according to Section 3 (1) of the Copyright Designs and Patents
Act of 1988 (3), “means any work, other than a dramatic or musical work, which
is written, spoken or sung”. Section 3 (2) of the Act states that “Copyright
does not subsist in a literary, dramatic or musical work unless and until it is
recorded, in writing or otherwise”. In the case of a musical work this would
include making a video, tape, CD or digital recording or copy of the work as
well as a musical score and in the case of a computer program a digital copy of
that program. A computer based
generative music system, then, is protected under UK Copyright Law. Section 12 (2) of The Duration of Copyright and Rights in
Performances Regulations 1995
(4) states that “Copyright expires at the end of the period of 70 years from
the end of the calendar year in which the author dies”. If the generative work
that it produced were “recorded, in writing or otherwise” then as a “computer
generated” work copyright would, according to Section 12 (3), expire “at the
end of the period of 50 years from the end of the calendar year in which the
work was made”. The pure generative music produced by the generative music
system, however, is not fixed and therefore copyright does not subsist in it.
This does not mean that the
creator of pure generative music is not deemed its author. Section 9 (3) tells
us that “in the case of a literary, dramatic, musical or artistic work which is
computer-generated, the author shall be taken to be the person by whom the
arrangements necessary for the creation of the work are undertaken”. The
author, however, is unable to exert his or her Moral Rights as set out in
Section 77 of the Act because, according to Section 79 (2), “The right does not apply in relation to the
following descriptions of work— (a) a computer program; (b) the
design of a typeface; (c) any computer-generated work””.
In the US, the copyright
position in relation to pure generative music is not so apparent. According to Section 102 a) of the US Copyright Act
(5) "Copyright protection subsists, in accordance with this title, in
original works of authorship fixed in any tangible medium of expression,
now known or later developed, from which they can be perceived, reproduced, or
otherwise communicated, either directly or with the aid of a machine or
device." In the preceding definitions in Section 101 it states that
"A work is “fixed” in a tangible medium of expression when its
embodiment in a copy or phonorecord, by or under the authority of the author,
is sufficiently permanent or stable to permit it to be perceived, reproduced,
or otherwise communicated for a period of more than transitory duration."
In the case generative music systems, the nature of
the music that the systems produce is often dependent on random choices made
within the system. The question that arises, therefore, is are the random
choices within the system “sufficiently permanent or stable to permit it to be
perceived, reproduced, or otherwise communicated for a period of more than
transitory duration” to be considered ““fixed” in a tangible medium”. My own feeling
is no. The random choices are never fixed within the system as the intention is
for them, and therefore the nature of the music created, to change each time
that the system is reset.[2]
But I am not a lawyer.
A number of generative music
composition tools exist for general public consumption[3].
These include MuSoft's a Musical Generator (6),
Digital Expressions' ArtSong (7), Nyr Sound's Chaosynth (8), FractMus (9),
Algorithmic Arts' SoftStep (10), Sseyo’s Koan Pro (11)[4] and
Madwave’s Madplayer (13).
With the exception of the telecommunications
industry where Sseyo’s generative music engine enables generative ringtones to
be created in real time within Tao’s intent Sound System (iSS) and Madwave’s Madmixer,
which incorporates its MadTone
Generator for creating generative ringtones, no other commercial applications of generative music systems,
to date, have been found other than those that are used as music composition
tools.
Generative music systems have
two distinct advantages over conventional linear music systems. The immediate
advantage to companies using a generative music system is that, in the UK at least,
neither a PRS (Performing Right Society) (14) nor PPL (Phonographic Performance
Limited) (15) license fee is payable as the pure generative music played is not
fixed and therefore copyright does not subsist in it. The second advantage is
that generative music systems are able to adapt and vary the music that they
produce in real-time and therefore give the end-user greater control over the
characteristics over the music produced.
Another possible application
for generative music systems within the telecommunications industry could be
“on hold” music. On-Hold music is an important tool in keeping customers on the
line while waiting for an operator or customer services assistant. Studies have found that callers are likely
to think that they have been forgotten if there is no music on the line and
that music reduces the perceived waiting time (16) with callers staying on the
line up to 20% longer if they heard music that they liked (17). Studies have
also shown that callers tended to hold on longer if jazz, country or classical
music was playing rather than pop or relaxation music (18) and that the choice
of music played influenced the callers’ image of the company (16).
PRS recommends that companies
that use on-hold music change the music regularly, match music to customer
profile and choose music to represent the desired company image. They also
recommend that companies be unique in their choice of music and to focus on the
value to the company by using the music and not the cost (19). Whatever genre of
music is played there should also be an air of familiarity about it as
“familiar music produces more discrete events in the memory than unfamiliar
music thus increasing a person’s estimate of time” (16). In other words music
that is familiar to the listener makes time seem to pass quicker than when
unfamiliar is played.
The
detection of a caller’s telephone number could instruct the generative music system
to create appropriate music, based caller’s preferences, while the caller is
waiting for assistance ensuring that the music played is varied but of a style
that is preferred by the caller so that the caller is willing to wait longer
but the perceived waiting time is shorter.
In commercial environments
such as restaurants and bars the style of music forms an image of the establishment in the mind of the consumer. While
classical music creates an up market image for an establishment it is thought
that jazz music attracts a more affluent customer (16). Customers in a
cafeteria were found to be more willing to pay a higher price for food when
classical music was playing in the background than other types of music (20).
In the same study it was found that both classical and pop music may have
increased the sales in the cafeteria as compared with easy listening and
silence. Classical music was also found to appease rowdy or aggressive
behaviour in customers whereas heavy metal was found to have the reverse effect
(16).
The tempo of the music played
is also another important consideration in commercial settings. In the 1940s,
an American company, Muzak®, developed Stimulus
Progression programming, an "elaborate system that arranges
songs according to tempo and time of day, taking into account the typical lulls
that hit workers mid-morning and mid-afternoon" (21). In one study fast
music was found to significantly increase the time spent drinking a can of soft
drink (22) and managers of restaurants
tend to play faster music at lunchtime and in the evening to clear tables more
quickly as diners tend to eat quicker when faster music is played (16). Another
study found that music tempo variation can significantly affect the pace of
in-store traffic flow and dollar sales volume (23). Fast music was found to increase both productivity and morale of
employees occupied with monotonous work. In a study at a voucher processing
centre for a bank, fast music lead to 22.3% more vouchers being processed than
when slow music was played (24).
Another important factor is
the volume of the music played in the restaurant or bar. Music played at low volume tends to increase
expenditure drinks (25) and tends to be most effective when it is quiet enough
to be discrete but loud enough to suppress background noise (16). Music also
reduces perceived waiting time, can facilitate conversation and alleviate
uncomfortable silences (16).
In commercials settings such
as restaurants and bars changes in local environmental readings could instruct
a generative music system to create appropriate music that was faster at lunchtimes and in the evening in
restaurants to encourage customers to eat more quickly and drink more and
automatically adjust the volume of music so that it remained discrete no matter
how many people were in the establishment. Additionally, if sensors detected
that the restaurant was not full it could over rule the instruction to play
faster music by playing slower music so that customers felt more inclined to
linger longer and therefore give the appearance that the restaurant was always
busy and therefore popular. Other possible applications include automatically
playing more stimulating music in offices and factories at morning or mid
afternoon lulls or if room temperatures rose to a level that were in danger of
making the workers lethargic or in retail environments where appropriate
styles, tempos and volumes of music are played depending on the time of day,
the temperature within the shop or the number of customers within the shop.
Booming music, for example, may not be appropriate in a shop on a hot Monday
morning when customers are merely there to browse rather than buy.
Another
possible application for generative music systems could be within the motor
industry. One study found that for many people the car is the only place that
they can listen to loud music without annoying other people (26). Another study has shown that the type of
music played within the car can have a marked effect on driving behaviour (27).
A driver playing loud music with a high tempo can either knowingly or
unwittingly increase the speed of the vehicle thereby breaking the speed limit
and potentially endangering the lives of over road users. Similarly, a driver
playing the same music in a traffic jam could become irritated and stressed by
being held up thus increasing the risk of “road rage” related incidents. An
appropriate generative music system could automatically play music that both
discouraged speeding by encouraging the driver to maintain a safe, sensible
speed and also relieve the stress associated with being caught in traffic jams.
A generative music system, influenced
by physical data gathered from within a vehicle and its surroundings, could
create appropriate music with a tempo and volume that encourages driving at a
safe and sensible speeds and when detecting the close proximity of other vehicles
when travelling at low speeds play appropriate relaxing music to subdue driver
stress levels.
In
the home many people use music to accompany domestic or solitary tasks
including housework, studying or resting (26). When music was used as an accompaniment
to routine activities such as washing or cooking the effect of the music was
found to increase positivity, present mindedness and arousal in participants of
one study (28). The same study
concluded that one of the primary functions of music in contemporary everyday
life appeared to include the enhancement or distraction of attention from a
mundane domestic task and that music was used to enhance states of relaxation.
A generative music system could play music that was both appropriate for the
activity that the individual was undertaking within the domestic environment
and also play appropriate music based on other data such as the time of day,
temperature within rooms or even the presence of a certain individual and based
on pre-determined information regarding the individual’s musical preferences. The application of such a system has been
previously been presented and discussed by John Eacott and Mark
d’Inverno in their paper “Embedded Intelligent Music or iHiFi – The Intelligent
HiFi” (29).
Within the area of sport and
personal fitness studies have shown that synchronisation of exercise to music
has increased work output, reduced the rate of perceived exertion during
exercise, increased enjoyment levels and enhanced affective states at both
medium and high levels of work intensity (30).
Using physiological readings
from the athlete a generative music system could create music within a work-out
session with characteristics, such as tempo and rhythm, which were attuned to
the ability of the athlete in order to sustain endurance and participation
levels throughout the work-out session without the danger of overexertion.
Extensive research has been
carried out within the health sector on the effects of music on people. These
include the effects of music on physiological parameters such as heart rate,
respiration rate, skin temperature, blood pressure, skin conductance, salivary
cortisol levels and levels of Immunoglobulin A. The scope of this paper,
however, prevents a detailed presentation of those studies[5].
Overall, however, studies have
found that people’s music tastes are highly individual with different types of
music eliciting different moods. Music also counteracts stress and anxiety and
promotes relaxation in patients. The type of music played can also influence
physiological elements such as body temperature, heart rate, blood pressure,
respiration rate and production of salivary Iga in patients (cited in 31).
Decreased stress and anxiety
in patients could have positive outcomes for both patients and their carers.
The feelings of stress and anxiety have a number of contributing factors
including fear of pain or of the treatment outcome and also the patients’
feelings of loss of control over their body and immediate environment (32).
Physical reactions to stress and anxiety include restlessness, trembling,
muscle tension, fatigue, shortness of breath, increased heart rate and elevated
blood pressure that could lead to medical complications (33).
Decreased levels in stress and
anxiety could also result in an improvement in the feeling of well being in the
patient, a decreased length of hospital stay, decreased medications such as
pain relievers and sedatives and an overall increased perception of the
patients’ stay in hospital (34).
A generative music system that
is adaptable, autonomous, non-invasive and holistic could help the music
therapist to create and sustain a dialogue between with patients and also help
the health carer to sustain patients’ comfort without the need for constant
carer-patient monitoring or the over use of pain relieving drugs. My intention
is to commence developing such a generative music system during the course of
my research degree.
Environmental music is not a
20th century phenomenon. It origins, in fact, lie within the church
of the 17th century where improvised organ music was played to
“maintain mood and concentration during inaudible portions of the service
taking place at the altar and during quiet segments such as communion” (35). Much
of the music played at garden and birthday parties and other celebrations in
the late 18th century was specifically composed as background music
“intended to blend in with the general ambience of the event rather than be
listened to directly” (35). 19th century upmarket restaurants in
Europe, and then the US, also used music in the background to enhance the
client’s dining experience. During WW II in England music was also played in
defence plants with the specific intention of reducing fatigue in its workers
(35).
The provider of environmental
music that has dominated the latter half of the 20th century is
Musak®. Musak®’s intention is to produce “music that is functional and to be
heard but is not supposed to listened to directly” (35). Indeed, it considers
the music making process to be more science that art creating music that
functions as an integrated physical and psychosocial part of the overall music
environment and is purposely non-entertaining, non-distracting and unobtrusive
in nature (35).
Each fifteen minute segment of
Musak®’s programming contains five or six recordings that have been analysed to
give a “stimulus value”, each value being “based on a set of numerical values
derived from such variables as tempo, rhythm, instrumentation and size of
orchestra” (35). The average stimulus value increases gradually over the
fifteen minute period and is followed by a short period of silence because
Musak® have found that constant sound can induce fatigue.
The purpose of presenting Musak®
and its predecessors here is not solely used to justify the possible application
of generative music systems in similar and other environments. Its presence is also
used to illustrate that a generative music system could bring even greater benefits
to the end user by delivering music in a more effective and organic way than a
Musak®-type system could. The linear nature
of the Musak® system means that it is unable to change the characteristics of
the music it plays in real-time in the same way that a generative music system
could because of its inability to take into account changes in the end user’s
environment such as fluctuations in room temperature, brightness, ambient noise
and the number of people in a room.
The delivery of algorithms,
whether as the programme itself or separate files enhancing the function of the
generative music system, and the payment thereof are important factors when
considering the proliferation of generative music systems.
When looking for a model on
which to base a delivery and performance accounting structure for generative
music systems traditional music industry organisations do not provide very good
examples. Both PPL and PRS, for example, have been lacklustre in their efforts
to embrace advances in technology in order to create systems that can identify
individual public performances of works by their members, preferring instead to
refer to other data such as chart information to help them allocate license
revenue. The consequence of this is that many members of PPL and PRS fail to
receive royalties to which they are entitled.
Instead it may be necessary to
turn to the mobile communications industry for a more suitable model. Here many
products can now be delivered to mobile phones and other mobile devices. These,
of course, include ringtones, trutones, pictures games, music, and videos both as
downloads and together with television, streamed live. Payment methods include
“pay as you go” or monthly with itemised bills delivered to your door. The
development of a similar system could enable the passage of algorithms to be
tracked around a network of generative music systems allowing a more accurate
and reliable distribution of royalties.
In the UK, and in fact
anywhere else, non-copyright works cannot be licensed. Copyright and the
ownership of copyright are the essential building blocks of the music industry.
A proliferation of sophisticated generative music systems, installed in both
public and private places and producing pure generative music, could have a
significant impact on various organisations within the music industry with many
of them finding it difficult, if not impossible, to function. The immediate
impact on PPL, PRS, record companies and music publishers would be a decrease
in licensing income for public performance in commercial environments. Other
areas that could suffer include licensing revenue collected from “on hold”
music services. Record companies, MCPS (Mechanical Copyright Protection Society
Ltd) (36) and music publishers would also find revenue from the sale and
manufacturing of CDs decreasing as both commercial premises and the music
buying public gradually turn to generative music systems. The erosion of MCPS
and PRS revenue collected by licensing ringtones may have, in fact, already started
because pure generative ringtones are copyright free.
The intention of this paper is
not to herald the imminent collapse of the music industry due the development
and dissemination of generative music systems. Its intention is merely to
highlight the advantages that sophisticated generative music systems could have
over linear music systems; the absence of copyright in pure generative music
and the ability to adapt the music they produce in real-time. Both these advantages
could, in time, give generative music systems a real commercial edge over
conventional linear music systems enabling music to be delivered more
effectively, and with greater benefits to, the end user.
The intention of this paper is
neither to de-value the work of generative music composers by suggesting that
they now turn their attention to simply designing a newer sort of wallpaper
music to adorn the walls of McDonalds, Starbucks and Gap. The development of
generative music systems will require the composer to acquire knowledge and
skills from other disciplines in order to develop appropriate generative music
systems. Nor is it the intention of this paper to proclaim the end of the
creation of new music. In fact the generative music systems suggested may even
be a catalyst for new works.
There is, however, one
important factor that may impede the progress of the dissemination of
generative music systems: people. Until people come to realise how generative
music systems might benefit themselves and even their businesses, the music
industry machine will continue to spoon feed the majority of the population with
the manufactured, publicity and marketing led music it believes they demand.
(1) Brown,
Paul (2005) “Is the Future of Music Generative?” Music Therapy Today (online)
Vol VI (2) 215-274 Available from http://www.musictherapyworld.de/modules/mmmagazine/showarticle.php?articletoshow=136
(2)
Rich, Owain (2003) “The Evolution of the Score and Generative Music: To What
Extent Can Computer Code Ever Be Considered a Musical Language?” (email to
author) [online]
(3)
Great Britain (1988) Copyright, Designs
and Patents Act 1988, HMSO, London
(4)
Great Britain (1995) The Duration of Copyright and Rights in
Performances Regulations 1995, HMSO, London
(5) USA
(2003) Copyright
Law of the United States of America and Related Laws Contained in
Title 17 of the United States Code [online] (Accessed 1st
November 2005) Available from http://www.copyright.gov/title17/circ92.pdf
(6) Musoft [online] (last
accessed 30th October 2005) Available from www.musoft-builders.com
(7) Digital Expressions
[online] (last accessed 30th October 2005) Available from www.artsong.org
(8) Nyr Sound [online] (last
accessed 30th October 2005) Available from www.nyrsound.com
(9) FractMus [online] (last accessed 30th
October 2005) Available from www.geocities.com/SiliconValley/Haven/4386
(10) Algorithmic
Arts [online] (last accessed 30th October 2005) Available from www.algoart.com
(11)
SSEYO [online] (last accessed 30 October 2005) Available from http://www.sseyo.com/
(12)
Miller, David (2003) “Game of Chance” [online] (last accessed 30th
October 2005) Available from http://emusician.com/tutorials/emusic_game_chance/index.html
(13)
MadWaves [online] (last accessed 30 October 2005) Available from http://www.madwaves.com
(14)
Performing Rights Society [online] (last accessed 31 October 2005) Available
from http://www.prs.co.uk/
(15)
Phonographic Performance Limited [online] (accessed 31 October 2005) Available
from http://www.ppluk.com/
(16) Areni, Charles (2003) “Exploring
Managers’ Implicit Theories of Atmospheric Music: Comparing Academic Analysis
to Industry Insight”, Journal of Services
Marketing, Vol 17 No 2 pp 161-184
(17) PRS (1997) “Music Proves a
Valuable Asset to Business” [online] (Accessed 3 November 2005) Available from http://www.mcps-prs-alliance.co.uk/onlinetelephony/
(18) Ramos,
L.V. (1993). “The Effects of On-Hold Telephone Music on the Number of Premature
Disconnections to a Statewide Protective Services Abuse Hot Line”, Journal
of Music Therapy, XXX (2), 119-129
(19)
PRS (2004) “Music on Hold. Is it Really Worth the Wait?” [online] (Accessed 3
November 2005) Available from www.prs.co.uk
(20) North, A C & Hargreaves, D J (1998) “The
Effect of Music on Atmosphere and Purchasing Intentions in a Cafeteria” Journal
of Applied Social Psychology, 28(24), pp 2254-2273.
(21)
Garton, A (1996) “Lost Time Accidents –
A Journey Towards Self-Evolving , Generative Music” [online] (Accessed 3
November 2005) Available from http://www.toysatellite.org/agarton/MA/papers/map04.pdf
(22)
McElrea, H & Standing, L (1992).
“Fast Music Causes Fast Drinking” Perceptual and Motor Skills, 75, p
362.
(23) Milliman,
R.E. (1982). “Using Background Music to Affect the Behaviour of Supermarket Shoppers”,
Journal of Marketing, 46, 86-91.
(24) North, A C &
MacKenzie, LC (2000) “Musical Tempo, Productivity
and Morale” Performing Right
Society, London
(25)
Sullivan, Malcolm (2002) “The Impact of Pitch, Volume and Tempo On the
Atmospheric Effects of Music”, International
Journal of Retail And Distribution Management, Volume 30, Number 6, pp
323-330
(26) Sloboda,
J. A. (1999). “Everyday Uses of Music Listening: A Preliminary Study”. In Suk
Won Yi
(ed) Music, mind and science. Seoul: Western Music Institute
27) Oblad,
C. (2000). “On Using Music - About the Car as a Concert Hall”. Proceedings
of
the 6th
International Conference on Music Perception and Cognition,
August 5-10th
2000,
Keele University, Keele.
(28) Sloboda,
J.A., O'Neill, S. & Ivafdi, V. (2000). “Everyday Experience of Music: An
Experience-Sampling
Study”, Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Music
Perception
and Cognition, 5-10th August, Keele University, Keele.
(29)
Eacott, J and d'Inverno, M (2002) “Embedded
Intelligent Music or iHiFI – The Intelligent HiFi” [online] (Accessed 2 November
2005) Available from http://www.informal.org/14_2_02EacottDInverno.pdf
(30)
Karageorghis, C.I. & Terry, P.C. (1997). “The Psychophysical Effects of
Music in
Sport
and Exercise: A Review”, Journal of Sport Behaviour, 20(1), 54-68.
(31)
Brown, Paul (2005) “Generative Music Systems as Tools to Assist Music
Therapists and Patient Carers in Health Settings (Provisional Title)” Draft
Research Degree Proposal
(32)
Cowan, D. S. (1991). “Music Therapy in the Surgical Arena”. Music Therapy Perspectives, 9, 42-45.
(33)
Robb, S.L., Nichols, R.J., Rutan, R.L., Bishop, B.L. & Parker, J.C. (1995).
“The Effects of Music Assisted Relaxation on Pre-Operative Anxiety”, Journal
of Music Therapy, XXXII
(1), 2-21.
(34)
Walworth, Darcy DeLoach (2003) “The
Effect of Preferred Music Genre Selection Versus Preferred Song Selection on
Experimentally Induced Anxiety Levels” [online] (Last Accessed 2 November 2005)
Available from http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa4047/is_200304/ai_n9189075
(35) Fink,
Michael (1989) “Inside the Music Business: Music in Contemporary Life” Schirmer
Books, New York
(36)
Mechanical Copyright Protection Society [online] (accessed 6 November 2005)
Available from http://www.mcps.co.uk/
[1] The term ‘pure’
generative music is used in this paper to describe music that has been produced
by a generative music system or process and not subsequently recorded.
[2] At the time of finishing
writing this paper I had yet to receive a response clarifying the situation in
the States from the Legal Departments of both ASCAP and BMI.
[3] The absence of both Max/MSP
and Supercollider here is deliberate because they require greater technical
skill to operate
[4] All these applications and
others are discussed in David Miller’s article “Game of Chance” (12)
[5] A summary of some of
those studies relating to the effect of music on various physiological
parameters is set out in Appendix 1 of the research degree proposal, entitled
“Generative Music Systems as Tools to Assist Music Therapists and Patient
Carers in Health Settings” (27).