tomoyanonymous/icmc-2025
1
0
Fork 0
Code Issues Pull Requests Actions Packages Projects Releases Wiki Activity

initial commit

Browse Source
This commit is contained in:
松浦 知也 Matsuura Tomoya
2025-01-22 12:16:19 +00:00
parent c770ea7373
commit e751e91a44
9 changed files with 1356 additions and 130 deletions
Download Patch File Download Diff File Expand all files Collapse all files

1
abstract.md Normal file
View File

@@ -0,0 +1 @@
In this paper, the author introduces the perspective of “Somewhat Weak Computer Music” in order to describe the history of programming languages for music without being bound by the style of computer music, and conduct a critical review of the history programming languages for music. This paper focuses on a critical review of the post-acousmatic discourse, which is an inclusive notion for recent tendencies in computer music. The universalism associated with pulse-code modulation, which is the basis of sound programming today, has functioned as a discourse that invites expectations of musicians and scientists, even though in reality the range of expression is limited to that era. In addition, the MUSIC-N family, which is the origin of sound generation with a computer based on PCM, is contextualized more as a series of workflows for generating sound on a computer rather than as a semantics and specification of programming languages, and it has gradually developed as a black box that users do not need to understand its internal structure. The author concludes that programming languages for music developed since the 1990s are not necessarily aimed at creating new musical styles, but also have the aspect of presenting an alternative to the technological infrastructure around music, such as formats and protocols which is becoming more invisible, and a new point of discussion is presented for future historical research on music using computers.

1
abstract.tex Normal file
View File

@@ -0,0 +1 @@
In this paper, the author introduces the perspective of “Somewhat Weak Computer Music” in order to describe the history of programming languages for music without being bound by the style of computer music, and conduct a critical review of the history programming languages for music. This paper focuses on a critical review of the post-acousmatic discourse, which is an inclusive notion for recent tendencies in computer music. The universalism associated with pulse-code modulation, which is the basis of sound programming today, has functioned as a discourse that invites expectations of musicians and scientists, even though in reality the range of expression is limited to that era. In addition, the MUSIC-N family, which is the origin of sound generation with a computer based on PCM, is contextualized more as a series of workflows for generating sound on a computer rather than as a semantics and specification of programming languages, and it has gradually developed as a black box that users do not need to understand its internal structure. The author concludes that programming languages for music developed since the 1990s are not necessarily aimed at creating new musical styles, but also have the aspect of presenting an alternative to the technological infrastructure around music, such as formats and protocols which is becoming more invisible, and a new point of discussion is presented for future historical research on music using computers.

291
content.tex Normal file
View File

@@ -0,0 +1,291 @@
\section{Introduction}\label{introduction}
Programming languages and environments for music have developed hand in
hand with the history of creating music using computers. Software like
Max, Pure Data, CSound, and SuperCollider has been referred to as
``Computer Music
Language''\citep{McCartney2002, Nishino2016, McPherson2020}, ``Language
for Computer Music''\citep{Dannenberg2018}, and ``Computer Music
Programming Systems''\citep{Lazzarini2013}, though there is no clear
consensus on the use of these terms. However, as the term ``Computer
Music'' suggests, these programming languages are deeply intertwined
with the history of technology-driven music, which developed under the
premise that ``almost any sound can be
produced''\citep{mathews_acoustic_1961} through the use of computers.
In the early days, when computers were confined to university research
laboratories and neither displays nor mice existed, creating sound or
music with computers was inevitably linked to programming. Today,
however, using programming as a means to produce sound on a
computer---rather than employing DAW (Digital Audio Workstation)
software---is somewhat specialized. In other words, programming
languages for music developed after the proliferation of personal
computers are software that deliberately choose programming (whether
textual or graphical) as their frontend for sound generation.
Since the 1990s, theoretical advancements in programming languages and
the various constraints required for real-time audio processing have
significantly increased the specialized knowledge needed to develop
programming languages for music. Furthermore, some music-related
languages developed after the 2000s are not necessarily aimed at
pursuing new forms of musical expression. There appears to be no unified
perspective on how to evaluate such languages.
The ultimate goal of this paper is to introduce the framework of ``weak
computer music,'' referring to music mediated by computers in a
non-style-specific manner. This framework aims to decouple the
evaluation of programming language design and development for music from
specific styles and the ideologies associated with computer music.
\subsection{Use of the Term ``Computer
Music''}\label{use-of-the-term-computer-music}
Despite its potential broad application, the term ``computer music'' has
been repeatedly noted since the 1990s as being used within a narrowly
defined framework, tied to specific styles or
communities\citep{ostertag1998}.
The necessity of using the term ``computer music'' for such academic
contexts (particularly those centered around the International Computer
Music Conference, or ICMC) has diminished over time. Lyon argues that
defining computer music as simply ``music made using computers'' is too
permissive, while defining it as ``music that could not exist without
computers'' is overly strict, complicating the evaluation of analog
modeling synthesizers implemented on computers. Lyon questions the
utility of the term itself, comparing its consideration to that of
``piano music,'' which ignores the styles within it\citep{lyon2006}.
As Ostertag and Lyon observed, it has become increasingly difficult to
envision a situation where computers are absent from the production and
experience of music today, particularly in commercial
contexts\footnote{Of course, the realm of music extends beyond the
numbers processed by computers or the oscillations of speaker
diaphragms. This paper does not seek to intervene in aesthetic
judgments regarding music made without computers or non-commercial
musical activities. However, the existence of such music does not
counter the awareness that there is little analysis of the inevitable
involvement of computing as a medium in the field of popular music,
which attracts significant academic and societal interest.}.
Nevertheless, the majority of music in the world could be described as
``simply using computers.''
Holbrook and Rudi propose analyzing what has been called computer music
within the framework of post-acousmatic music\citep{adkins2016},
including traditions of pre-computer electronic music as one of many
forms of technology-based/driven music\citep{holbrook2022}.
A critical issue with these discussions is that post-acousmatic music
lacks a precise definition. One proposed characteristic is the shift in
the locus of production from institutions to individuals, which has
altered how technology is used\citep[p113]{adkins2016}. However, this
narrative incorporates a tautological issue: while it acknowledges the
historical fact that the decreasing cost of computers allowed diverse
musical expressions outside laboratories, it excludes much music as
``simply using computers'' and fails to provide insights into such
divisions.
The spread of personal computers has incompletely achieved the vision of
metamedium as a device users could modify themselves, instead becoming a
black box for content consumption\citep{emerson2014}. Histories
highlighting the agency of those who created programming environments,
software, protocols, and formats for music obscure indirect power
relationships generated by the infrastructure\citep{sterne_there_2014}.
Today, while music production fundamentally depends on computers, most
of it falls under Lyon's overlapping permissive and strict definitions
of computer music. In this paper, I propose calling this situation the
following:
\begin{quote}
``Weak computer music'' --- music for which computers are essential to
its realization, but where the uniqueness of the work as intended by the
creator is not particularly tied to the use of computers.
\end{quote}
Most people use computers simply because no quicker alternative exists,
not because they are deliberately leveraging the unique medium of
computers for music production. However, the possibility that such music
culture, shaped by the incidental use of computers, has aesthetic and
social characteristics worth analyzing cannot be dismissed.
This paper will historically organize the specifications and
construction of programming languages for early computer music systems
with a focus on their style-agnostic nature.
\begin{itemize}
\tightlist
\item
Examining the discourse framing MUSIC as the progenitor of computer
music.
\item
Investigating what aspects were excluded from user access in MUSIC-N
derivatives such as MUSIGOL.
\item
Analyzing the standardization of UGens (unit generators) and the
division of labor in Max and Pure Data.
\item
Reviewing music programming languages of the 2000s.
\end{itemize}
The conclusion will propose a framework necessary for future discussions
on music programming languages.
\section{Born of ``Computer Music'' - MUSIC-N and PCM
Universality}\label{born-of-computer-music---music-n-and-pcm-universality}
Among the earliest examples of computer music research, the MUSIC I
system (1957) from Bell Labs and its derivatives, known as MUSIC-N, are
frequently highlighted. However, attempts to create music with computers
in the UK and Australia prior to MUSIC I have also been
documented\citep{doornbusch2017}.
Organizing what was achieved by MUSIC-N and earlier efforts can help
clarify definitions of computer music.
The earliest experiments with sound generation on computers in the 1950s
involved controlling the intervals between one-bit pulses (on or off) to
control pitch. This was partly because the operational clock frequencies
of early computers fell within the audible range, making the
sonification of electrical signals a practical and cost-effective
debugging method compared to visualizing them on displays or
oscilloscopes. Computers like Australia's CSIR Mark I even featured
primitive instructions like a ``hoot'' command to emit a single pulse to
a speaker.
In the UK, Louis Wilson discovered that an AM radio near the BINAC
computer picked up electromagnetic waves generated by vacuum tube
switching, producing regular tones. This serendipitous discovery led to
the intentional programming of pulse intervals to generate
melodies\citep{woltman1990}.
However, not all sound generation prior to PCM (Pulse Code Modulation)
was merely the reproduction of existing music. Doornbusch highlights
experiments on the British Pilot ACE (Prototype for Automatic Computing
Engine: ACE), which utilized acoustic delay line memory to produce
unique sounds\citep[p303-304]{doornbusch2017}. Acoustic delay line
memory, used as main memory in early computers like BINAC and CSIR Mark
I, employed the feedback of pulses traveling through mercury via a
speaker and microphone setup to retain data. Donald Davis, an engineer
on the ACE project, described the sounds it produced as
follows\citep[p19-20]{davis_very_1994}:
\begin{quote}
The Ace Pilot Model and its successor, the Ace proper, were both capable
of composing their own music and playing it on a little speaker built
into the control desk. I say composing because no human had any
intentional part in choosing the notes. The music was very interesting,
though atonal, and began by playing rising arpeggios: these gradually
became more complex and faster, like a developing fugue. They dissolved
into colored noise as the complexity went beyond human understanding.
Loops were always multiples of 32 microseconds long, so notes had
frequencies which were submultiples of 31.25 KHz. The music was based on
a very strange scale, which was nothing like equal tempered or harmonic,
but was quite pleasant. This music arose unintentionally during program
optimization and was made possible by ``misusing'' switches installed
for debugging acoustic delay line memory (p20).
\end{quote}
Media scholar Miyazaki described the practice of listening to sounds
generated by algorithms and their bit patterns, integrated into
programming and debugging, as ``Algo\emph{rhythmic}
Listening''\citep{miyazaki2012}.
Doornbusch warns against ignoring early computer music practices in
Australia and the UK simply because they did not directly influence
subsequent research\citep[p305]{doornbusch2017}. Indeed, the tendency to
treat pre-MUSIC attempts as hobbyist efforts by engineers and post-MUSIC
endeavors as serious research remains common even
today\citep{tanaka_all_2017}.
The sounds generated by Pilot ACE challenge the post-acousmatic
narrative that computer music transitioned from laboratory-based
professional practices to personal use by amateurs. This is because: 1.
The sounds were produced not by music specialists but by engineers, and
2. The sounds were tied to hardware-specific characteristics of acoustic
delay line memory, making them difficult to replicate even with modern
audio programming environments. Similarly, at MIT in the 1960s, Peter
Samson utilized a debug speaker attached to the aging TX-0 computer to
experiment with generating melodies using square
waves\citep{levy_hackers_2010}.
This effort evolved into a program that allowed users to describe
melodies with text strings. For instance, writing \texttt{4fs\ t8} would
produce an F4 note as an eighth note. Samson later adapted this work to
the PDP-1 computer, creating the ``Harmony Compiler,'' widely used by
MIT students. He also developed the Samson Box in the early 1970s, a
computer music system used at Stanford University's CCRMA for over a
decade\citep{loy_life_2013}. These examples suggest that the initial
purpose of debugging does not warrant segregating early computational
sound generation from the broader history of computer music.
\subsection{Universality of PCM}\label{universality-of-pcm}
Let us examine \textbf{Pulse Code Modulation (PCM)}---a foundational
aspect of MUSIC's legacy and one of the key reasons it is considered a
milestone in the history of computer music. PCM enables the theoretical
representation of ``almost any sound'' on a computer by dividing audio
waveforms into discrete intervals (sampling) and expressing the
amplitude of each interval as quantized numerical values. It remains the
fundamental representation of sound on modern computers. The underlying
sampling theorem was introduced by Nyquist in 1928\citep{Nyquist1928},
and PCM itself was developed by Reeves in 1938.
A critical issue with the ``post-acousmatic'' framework in computer
music history lies within the term ``acousmatic'' itself. Initially
proposed by Piegnot and later theorized by Schaeffer, the term describes
a mode of listening to tape music, such as musique concrète, in which
the listener does not imagine a specific sound source. It has been
widely applied in theories of recorded sound, including Chion's analyses
of sound design in visual media.
However, as sound studies scholar Jonathan Sterne has pointed out,
discourses surrounding acousmatic listening often work to delineate
pre-recording auditory experiences as ``natural'' by
contrast\footnote{Sterne later critiques the phenomenological basis of
acousmatic listening, which presupposes an idealized, intact body as
the listening subject. He proposes a methodology of political
phenomenology centered on impairment, challenging these normative
assumptions\citep{sterne_diminished_2022}. Discussions of universality
in computer music should also address ableism, as seen in the
relationship between recording technologies and auditory disabilities.}.
This implies that prior to the advent of recording technologies,
listening was unmediated and holistic---a narrative that obscures the
constructed nature of these assumptions.
\begin{quote}
For instance, the claim that sound reproduction has ``alienated'' the
voice from the human body implies that the voice and the body existed in
some prior holistic, unalienated, and self present relation.
They assume that, at some time prior to the invention of sound
reproduction technologies, the body was whole, undamaged, and
phenomenologically coherent.\citep[p20-21]{sterne_audible_2003}
\end{quote}
The claim that PCM-based sound synthesis can produce ``almost any
sound'' is underpinned by an ideology associated with recording
technologies. This ideology assumes that recorded sound contains an
``original'' source and that listeners can distinguish distortions or
noise from it. Sampling theory builds on this premise by statistically
modeling human auditory characteristics: it assumes that humans cannot
discern volume differences below certain thresholds or perceive
vibrations outside specific frequency ranges. By limiting representation
to this range, sampling theory ensures that all audible sounds can be
effectively encoded.
By the way, the actual implementation of PCM in MUSIC I only allowed for
monophonic triangle waves with controllable volume, pitch, and timing
(MUSIC II later expanded this to four oscillators)\citep{Mathews1980}.
Would anyone today describe such a system as capable of producing
``infinite variations'' in sound synthesis?
Even when considering more contemporary applications, processes like
ring modulation (RM), amplitude modulation (AM), or distortion often
generate aliasing artifacts unless proper oversampling is applied. These
artifacts occur because PCM, while universally suitable for reproducing
recorded sound, is not inherently versatile as a medium for generating
new sounds. As Puckette has argued, alternative representations, such as
collections of linear segments or physical modeling synthesis, present
other possibilities\citep{puckette2015}. Therefore, PCM is not a
completely universal tool for creating sound.

2
convert_from_md.sh Normal file
View File

@@ -0,0 +1,2 @@
#!/bin/zsh
pandoc main.md --natbib --bibliography=main.bib --shift-heading-level-by=-1 -o content.tex

295
draft.tex Normal file
View File

@@ -0,0 +1,295 @@
\section{Introduction}\label{introduction}
Programming languages and environments for music have developed hand in
hand with the history of creating music using computers. Software like
Max, Pure Data, CSound, and SuperCollider has been referred to as
``Computer Music
Language''\autocite{McCartney2002,Nishino2016,McPherson2020}, ``Language
for Computer Music''\autocite{Dannenberg2018}, and ``Computer Music
Programming Systems''\autocite{Lazzarini2013}, though there is no clear
consensus on the use of these terms. However, as the term ``Computer
Music'' suggests, these programming languages are deeply intertwined
with the history of technology-driven music, which developed under the
premise that ``almost any sound can be
produced''\autocite{mathewsAcousticCompilerMusic1961} through the use of
computers.
In the early days, when computers were confined to university research
laboratories and neither displays nor mice existed, creating sound or
music with computers was inevitably linked to programming. Today,
however, using programming as a means to produce sound on a
computer---rather than employing DAW (Digital Audio Workstation)
software---is somewhat specialized. In other words, programming
languages for music developed after the proliferation of personal
computers are software that deliberately choose programming (whether
textual or graphical) as their frontend for sound generation.
Since the 1990s, theoretical advancements in programming languages and
the various constraints required for real-time audio processing have
significantly increased the specialized knowledge needed to develop
programming languages for music. Furthermore, some music-related
languages developed after the 2000s are not necessarily aimed at
pursuing new forms of musical expression. There appears to be no unified
perspective on how to evaluate such languages.
The ultimate goal of this paper is to introduce the framework of ``weak
computer music,'' referring to music mediated by computers in a
non-style-specific manner. This framework aims to decouple the
evaluation of programming language design and development for music from
specific styles and the ideologies associated with computer music.
\subsection{Use of the Term ``Computer
Music''}\label{use-of-the-term-computer-music}
Despite its potential broad application, the term ``computer music'' has
been repeatedly noted since the 1990s as being used within a narrowly
defined framework, tied to specific styles or
communities\autocite{ostertag1998}.
The necessity of using the term ``computer music'' for such academic
contexts (particularly those centered around the International Computer
Music Conference, or ICMC) has diminished over time. Lyon argues that
defining computer music as simply ``music made using computers'' is too
permissive, while defining it as ``music that could not exist without
computers'' is overly strict, complicating the evaluation of analog
modeling synthesizers implemented on computers. Lyon questions the
utility of the term itself, comparing its consideration to that of
``piano music,'' which ignores the styles within it\autocite{lyon2006}.
As Ostertag and Lyon observed, it has become increasingly difficult to
envision a situation where computers are absent from the production and
experience of music today, particularly in commercial
contexts\footnote{Of course, the realm of music extends beyond the
numbers processed by computers or the oscillations of speaker
diaphragms. This paper does not seek to intervene in aesthetic
judgments regarding music made without computers or non-commercial
musical activities. However, the existence of such music does not
counter the awareness that there is little analysis of the inevitable
involvement of computing as a medium in the field of popular music,
which attracts significant academic and societal interest.}.
Nevertheless, the majority of music in the world could be described as
``simply using computers.''
Holbrook and Rudi propose analyzing what has been called computer music
within the framework of post-acousmatic music\autocite{adkins2016},
including traditions of pre-computer electronic music as one of many
forms of technology-based/driven music\autocite{holbrook2022}.
A critical issue with these discussions is that post-acousmatic music
lacks a precise definition. One proposed characteristic is the shift in
the locus of production from institutions to individuals, which has
altered how technology is used\autocite[p113]{adkins2016}. However, this
narrative incorporates a tautological issue: while it acknowledges the
historical fact that the decreasing cost of computers allowed diverse
musical expressions outside laboratories, it excludes much music as
``simply using computers'' and fails to provide insights into such
divisions.
The spread of personal computers has incompletely achieved the vision of
metamedium as a device users could modify themselves, instead becoming a
black box for content
consumption\autocite{emersonReadingWritingInterfaces2014,kayAmericanComputerPioneer2019}.
Histories highlighting the agency of those who created programming
environments, software, protocols, and formats for music obscure
indirect power relationships generated by the
infrastructure\autocite{sterneThereNoMusic2014}.
Today, while music production fundamentally depends on computers, most
of it falls under Lyon's overlapping permissive and strict definitions
of computer music. In this paper, I propose calling this situation the
following:
\begin{quote}
``Weak computer music'' --- music for which computers are essential to
its realization, but where the uniqueness of the work as intended by the
creator is not particularly tied to the use of computers.
\end{quote}
Most people use computers simply because no quicker alternative exists,
not because they are deliberately leveraging the unique medium of
computers for music production. However, the possibility that such music
culture, shaped by the incidental use of computers, has aesthetic and
social characteristics worth analyzing cannot be dismissed.
This paper will historically organize the specifications and
construction of programming languages for early computer music systems
with a focus on their style-agnostic nature.
\begin{itemize}
\tightlist
\item
Examining the discourse framing MUSIC as the progenitor of computer
music.
\item
Investigating what aspects were excluded from user access in MUSIC-N
derivatives such as MUSIGOL.
\item
Analyzing the standardization of UGens (unit generators) and the
division of labor in Max and Pure Data.
\item
Reviewing music programming languages of the 2000s.
\end{itemize}
The conclusion will propose a framework necessary for future discussions
on music programming languages.
\section{Born of ``Computer Music'' - MUSIC-N and PCM
Universality}\label{born-of-computer-music---music-n-and-pcm-universality}
Among the earliest examples of computer music research, the MUSIC I
system (1957) from Bell Labs and its derivatives, known as MUSIC-N, are
frequently highlighted. However, attempts to create music with computers
in the UK and Australia prior to MUSIC I have also been
documented\autocite{doornbuschEarlyComputerMusic2017}.
Organizing what was achieved by MUSIC-N and earlier efforts can help
clarify definitions of computer music.
The earliest experiments with sound generation on computers in the 1950s
involved controlling the intervals between one-bit pulses (on or off) to
control pitch. This was partly because the operational clock frequencies
of early computers fell within the audible range, making the
sonification of electrical signals a practical and cost-effective
debugging method compared to visualizing them on displays or
oscilloscopes. Computers like Australia's CSIR Mark I even featured
primitive instructions like a ``hoot'' command to emit a single pulse to
a speaker.
In the UK, Louis Wilson discovered that an AM radio near the BINAC
computer picked up electromagnetic waves generated by vacuum tube
switching, producing regular tones. This serendipitous discovery led to
the intentional programming of pulse intervals to generate
melodies\autocite{woltmanUNIVACConference1990}.
However, not all sound generation prior to PCM (Pulse Code Modulation)
was merely the reproduction of existing music. Doornbusch highlights
experiments on the British Pilot ACE (Prototype for Automatic Computing
Engine: ACE), which utilized acoustic delay line memory to produce
unique sounds\autocite[p303-304]{doornbuschEarlyComputerMusic2017}.
Acoustic delay line memory, used as main memory in early computers like
BINAC and CSIR Mark I, employed the feedback of pulses traveling through
mercury via a speaker and microphone setup to retain data. Donald Davis,
an engineer on the ACE project, described the sounds it produced as
follows\autocite[p19-20]{davisVeryEarlyComputer1994}:
\begin{quote}
The Ace Pilot Model and its successor, the Ace proper, were both capable
of composing their own music and playing it on a little speaker built
into the control desk. I say composing because no human had any
intentional part in choosing the notes. The music was very interesting,
though atonal, and began by playing rising arpeggios: these gradually
became more complex and faster, like a developing fugue. They dissolved
into colored noise as the complexity went beyond human understanding.
Loops were always multiples of 32 microseconds long, so notes had
frequencies which were submultiples of 31.25 KHz. The music was based on
a very strange scale, which was nothing like equal tempered or harmonic,
but was quite pleasant. This music arose unintentionally during program
optimization and was made possible by ``misusing'' switches installed
for debugging acoustic delay line memory (p20).
\end{quote}
Media scholar Miyazaki described the practice of listening to sounds
generated by algorithms and their bit patterns, integrated into
programming and debugging, as ``Algo\emph{rhythmic}
Listening''\autocite{miyazakiAlgorhythmicListening194919622012}.
Doornbusch warns against ignoring early computer music practices in
Australia and the UK simply because they did not directly influence
subsequent research\autocite[p305]{doornbuschEarlyComputerMusic2017}.
Indeed, the tendency to treat pre-MUSIC attempts as hobbyist efforts by
engineers and post-MUSIC endeavors as serious research remains common
even today\autocite{TianZhongTituputiyunnosubeteAllChiptune2017}. The
sounds generated by Pilot ACE challenge the post-acousmatic narrative
that computer music transitioned from laboratory-based professional
practices to personal use by amateurs. This is because: 1. The sounds
were produced not by music specialists but by engineers, and 2. The
sounds were tied to hardware-specific characteristics of acoustic delay
line memory, making them difficult to replicate even with modern audio
programming environments. Similarly, at MIT in the 1960s, Peter Samson
utilized a debug speaker attached to the aging TX-0 computer to
experiment with generating melodies using square
waves\autocite{levy2010}.
This effort evolved into a program that allowed users to describe
melodies with text strings. For instance, writing \texttt{4fs\ t8} would
produce an F4 note as an eighth note. Samson later adapted this work to
the PDP-1 computer, creating the ``Harmony Compiler,'' widely used by
MIT students. He also developed the Samson Box in the early 1970s, a
computer music system used at Stanford University's CCRMA for over a
decade\autocite{loyLifeTimesSamson2013}. These examples suggest that the
initial purpose of debugging does not warrant segregating early
computational sound generation from the broader history of computer
music.
\subsection{Universality of PCM}\label{universality-of-pcm}
Let us examine \textbf{Pulse Code Modulation (PCM)}---a foundational
aspect of MUSIC's legacy and one of the key reasons it is considered a
milestone in the history of computer music. PCM enables the theoretical
representation of ``almost any sound'' on a computer by dividing audio
waveforms into discrete intervals (sampling) and expressing the
amplitude of each interval as quantized numerical values. It remains the
fundamental representation of sound on modern computers. The underlying
sampling theorem was introduced by Nyquist in
1928\autocite{Nyquist1928}, and PCM itself was developed by Reeves in
1938.
A critical issue with the ``post-acousmatic'' framework in computer
music history lies within the term ``acousmatic'' itself. Initially
proposed by Piegnot and later theorized by Schaeffer, the term describes
a mode of listening to tape music, such as musique concrète, in which
the listener does not imagine a specific sound source. It has been
widely applied in theories of recorded sound, including Chion's analyses
of sound design in visual media.
However, as sound studies scholar Jonathan Sterne has pointed out,
discourses surrounding acousmatic listening often work to delineate
pre-recording auditory experiences as ``natural'' by
contrast\footnote{Sterne later critiques the phenomenological basis of
acousmatic listening, which presupposes an idealized, intact body as
the listening subject. He proposes a methodology of political
phenomenology centered on impairment, challenging these normative
assumptions\autocite{sterne2022}. Discussions of universality in
computer music should also address ableism, as seen in the
relationship between recording technologies and auditory disabilities.}.
This implies that prior to the advent of recording technologies,
listening was unmediated and holistic---a narrative that obscures the
constructed nature of these assumptions.
\begin{quote}
For instance, the claim that sound reproduction has ``alienated'' the
voice from the human body implies that the voice and the body existed in
some prior holistic, unalienated, and self present relation. They assume
that, at some time prior to the invention of sound reproduction
technologies, the body was whole, undamaged, and phenomenologically
coherent.
\end{quote}
The claim that PCM-based sound synthesis can produce ``almost any
sound'' is underpinned by an ideology associated with recording
technologies. This ideology assumes that recorded sound contains an
``original'' source and that listeners can distinguish distortions or
noise from it. Sampling theory builds on this premise by statistically
modeling human auditory characteristics: it assumes that humans cannot
discern volume differences below certain thresholds or perceive
vibrations outside specific frequency ranges. By limiting representation
to this range, sampling theory ensures that all audible sounds can be
effectively encoded.
By the way, the actual implementation of PCM in MUSIC I only allowed for
monophonic triangle waves with controllable volume, pitch, and timing
(MUSIC II later expanded this to four
oscillators)\autocite{Mathews1980}. Would anyone today describe such a
system as capable of producing ``infinite variations'' in sound
synthesis?
Even when considering more contemporary applications, processes like
ring modulation (RM), amplitude modulation (AM), or distortion often
generate aliasing artifacts unless proper oversampling is applied. These
artifacts occur because PCM, while universally suitable for reproducing
recorded sound, is not inherently versatile as a medium for generating
new sounds. As Puckette has argued, alternative representations, such as
collections of linear segments or physical modeling synthesis, present
other possibilities\autocite{pucketteSamplingTheoremIts2015}. Therefore,
PCM is not a completely universal tool for creating sound.

649
main.bib Normal file
View File

File diff suppressed because one or more lines are too long

87
main.md Normal file
View File

@@ -0,0 +1,87 @@
## Introduction
Programming languages and environments for music have developed hand in hand with the history of creating music using computers. Software like Max, Pure Data, CSound, and SuperCollider has been referred to as "Computer Music Language"[@McCartney2002;@Nishino2016;@McPherson2020], "Language for Computer Music"[@Dannenberg2018], and "Computer Music Programming Systems"[@Lazzarini2013], though there is no clear consensus on the use of these terms. However, as the term "Computer Music" suggests, these programming languages are deeply intertwined with the history of technology-driven music, which developed under the premise that "almost any sound can be produced"[@mathews_acoustic_1961] through the use of computers.
In the early days, when computers were confined to university research laboratories and neither displays nor mice existed, creating sound or music with computers was inevitably linked to programming. Today, however, using programming as a means to produce sound on a computer—rather than employing DAW (Digital Audio Workstation) software—is somewhat specialized. In other words, programming languages for music developed after the proliferation of personal computers are software that deliberately choose programming (whether textual or graphical) as their frontend for sound generation.
Since the 1990s, theoretical advancements in programming languages and the various constraints required for real-time audio processing have significantly increased the specialized knowledge needed to develop programming languages for music. Furthermore, some music-related languages developed after the 2000s are not necessarily aimed at pursuing new forms of musical expression. There appears to be no unified perspective on how to evaluate such languages.
The ultimate goal of this paper is to introduce the framework of "weak computer music," referring to music mediated by computers in a non-style-specific manner. This framework aims to decouple the evaluation of programming language design and development for music from specific styles and the ideologies associated with computer music.
### Use of the Term "Computer Music"
Despite its potential broad application, the term "computer music" has been repeatedly noted since the 1990s as being used within a narrowly defined framework, tied to specific styles or communities[@ostertag1998].
The necessity of using the term "computer music" for such academic contexts (particularly those centered around the International Computer Music Conference, or ICMC) has diminished over time. Lyon argues that defining computer music as simply "music made using computers" is too permissive, while defining it as "music that could not exist without computers" is overly strict, complicating the evaluation of analog modeling synthesizers implemented on computers. Lyon questions the utility of the term itself, comparing its consideration to that of "piano music," which ignores the styles within it[@lyon2006].
As Ostertag and Lyon observed, it has become increasingly difficult to envision a situation where computers are absent from the production and experience of music today, particularly in commercial contexts[^nonelectric]. Nevertheless, the majority of music in the world could be described as "simply using computers."
[^nonelectric]: Of course, the realm of music extends beyond the numbers processed by computers or the oscillations of speaker diaphragms. This paper does not seek to intervene in aesthetic judgments regarding music made without computers or non-commercial musical activities. However, the existence of such music does not counter the awareness that there is little analysis of the inevitable involvement of computing as a medium in the field of popular music, which attracts significant academic and societal interest.
Holbrook and Rudi propose analyzing what has been called computer music within the framework of post-acousmatic music[@adkins2016], including traditions of pre-computer electronic music as one of many forms of technology-based/driven music[@holbrook2022].
A critical issue with these discussions is that post-acousmatic music lacks a precise definition. One proposed characteristic is the shift in the locus of production from institutions to individuals, which has altered how technology is used[@adkins2016,p113]. However, this narrative incorporates a tautological issue: while it acknowledges the historical fact that the decreasing cost of computers allowed diverse musical expressions outside laboratories, it excludes much music as "simply using computers" and fails to provide insights into such divisions.
The spread of personal computers has incompletely achieved the vision of metamedium as a device users could modify themselves, instead becoming a black box for content consumption[@emerson2014]. Histories highlighting the agency of those who created programming environments, software, protocols, and formats for music obscure indirect power relationships generated by the infrastructure[@sterne_there_2014].
Today, while music production fundamentally depends on computers, most of it falls under Lyon's overlapping permissive and strict definitions of computer music. In this paper, I propose calling this situation the following:
> "Weak computer music" — music for which computers are essential to its realization, but where the uniqueness of the work as intended by the creator is not particularly tied to the use of computers.
Most people use computers simply because no quicker alternative exists, not because they are deliberately leveraging the unique medium of computers for music production. However, the possibility that such music culture, shaped by the incidental use of computers, has aesthetic and social characteristics worth analyzing cannot be dismissed.
This paper will historically organize the specifications and construction of programming languages for early computer music systems with a focus on their style-agnostic nature.
- Examining the discourse framing MUSIC as the progenitor of computer music.
- Investigating what aspects were excluded from user access in MUSIC-N derivatives such as MUSIGOL.
- Analyzing the standardization of UGens (unit generators) and the division of labor in Max and Pure Data.
- Reviewing music programming languages of the 2000s.
The conclusion will propose a framework necessary for future discussions on music programming languages.
## Born of "Computer Music" - MUSIC-N and PCM Universality
Among the earliest examples of computer music research, the MUSIC I system (1957) from Bell Labs and its derivatives, known as MUSIC-N, are frequently highlighted. However, attempts to create music with computers in the UK and Australia prior to MUSIC I have also been documented[@doornbusch2017].
Organizing what was achieved by MUSIC-N and earlier efforts can help clarify definitions of computer music.
The earliest experiments with sound generation on computers in the 1950s involved controlling the intervals between one-bit pulses (on or off) to control pitch. This was partly because the operational clock frequencies of early computers fell within the audible range, making the sonification of electrical signals a practical and cost-effective debugging method compared to visualizing them on displays or oscilloscopes. Computers like Australia’s CSIR Mark I even featured primitive instructions like a "hoot" command to emit a single pulse to a speaker.
In the UK, Louis Wilson discovered that an AM radio near the BINAC computer picked up electromagnetic waves generated by vacuum tube switching, producing regular tones. This serendipitous discovery led to the intentional programming of pulse intervals to generate melodies[@woltman1990].
However, not all sound generation prior to PCM (Pulse Code Modulation) was merely the reproduction of existing music. Doornbusch highlights experiments on the British Pilot ACE (Prototype for Automatic Computing Engine: ACE), which utilized acoustic delay line memory to produce unique sounds[@doornbusch2017, p303-304]. Acoustic delay line memory, used as main memory in early computers like BINAC and CSIR Mark I, employed the feedback of pulses traveling through mercury via a speaker and microphone setup to retain data. Donald Davis, an engineer on the ACE project, described the sounds it produced as follows[@davis_very_1994, p19-20]:
> The Ace Pilot Model and its successor, the Ace proper, were both capable of composing their own music and playing it on a little speaker built into the control desk. I say composing because no human had any intentional part in choosing the notes. The music was very interesting, though atonal, and began by playing rising arpeggios: these gradually became more complex and faster, like a developing fugue. They dissolved into colored noise as the complexity went beyond human understanding.
>
> Loops were always multiples of 32 microseconds long, so notes had frequencies which were submultiples of 31.25 KHz. The music was based on a very strange scale, which was nothing like equal tempered or harmonic, but was quite pleasant. This music arose unintentionally during program optimization and was made possible by "misusing" switches installed for debugging acoustic delay line memory (p20).
Media scholar Miyazaki described the practice of listening to sounds generated by algorithms and their bit patterns, integrated into programming and debugging, as "Algo*rhythmic* Listening"[@miyazaki2012].
Doornbusch warns against ignoring early computer music practices in Australia and the UK simply because they did not directly influence subsequent research[@doornbusch2017, p305]. Indeed, the tendency to treat pre-MUSIC attempts as hobbyist efforts by engineers and post-MUSIC endeavors as serious research remains common even today[@tanaka_all_2017].
The sounds generated by Pilot ACE challenge the post-acousmatic narrative that computer music transitioned from laboratory-based professional practices to personal use by amateurs. This is because: 1. The sounds were produced not by music specialists but by engineers, and 2. The sounds were tied to hardware-specific characteristics of acoustic delay line memory, making them difficult to replicate even with modern audio programming environments. Similarly, at MIT in the 1960s, Peter Samson utilized a debug speaker attached to the aging TX-0 computer to experiment with generating melodies using square waves[@levy_hackers_2010].
This effort evolved into a program that allowed users to describe melodies with text strings. For instance, writing `4fs t8` would produce an F4 note as an eighth note. Samson later adapted this work to the PDP-1 computer, creating the "Harmony Compiler," widely used by MIT students. He also developed the Samson Box in the early 1970s, a computer music system used at Stanford University's CCRMA for over a decade[@loy_life_2013]. These examples suggest that the initial purpose of debugging does not warrant segregating early computational sound generation from the broader history of computer music.
### Universality of PCM
Let us examine **Pulse Code Modulation (PCM)**—a foundational aspect of MUSIC's legacy and one of the key reasons it is considered a milestone in the history of computer music. PCM enables the theoretical representation of "almost any sound" on a computer by dividing audio waveforms into discrete intervals (sampling) and expressing the amplitude of each interval as quantized numerical values. It remains the fundamental representation of sound on modern computers. The underlying sampling theorem was introduced by Nyquist in 1928[@Nyquist1928], and PCM itself was developed by Reeves in 1938.
A critical issue with the "post-acousmatic" framework in computer music history lies within the term "acousmatic" itself. Initially proposed by Piegnot and later theorized by Schaeffer, the term describes a mode of listening to tape music, such as musique concrète, in which the listener does not imagine a specific sound source. It has been widely applied in theories of recorded sound, including Chion's analyses of sound design in visual media.
However, as sound studies scholar Jonathan Sterne has pointed out, discourses surrounding acousmatic listening often work to delineate pre-recording auditory experiences as "natural" by contrast[^husserl]. This implies that prior to the advent of recording technologies, listening was unmediated and holistic—a narrative that obscures the constructed nature of these assumptions.
[^husserl]: Sterne later critiques the phenomenological basis of acousmatic listening, which presupposes an idealized, intact body as the listening subject. He proposes a methodology of political phenomenology centered on impairment, challenging these normative assumptions[@sterne_diminished_2022]. Discussions of universality in computer music should also address ableism, as seen in the relationship between recording technologies and auditory disabilities.
> For instance, the claim that sound reproduction has “alienated” the voice from the human body implies that the voice and the body existed in some prior holistic, unalienated, and self present relation.
>
> They assume that, at some time prior to the invention of sound reproduction technologies, the body was whole, undamaged, and phenomenologically coherent.[@sterne_audible_2003,p20-21]
The claim that PCM-based sound synthesis can produce "almost any sound" is underpinned by an ideology associated with recording technologies. This ideology assumes that recorded sound contains an "original" source and that listeners can distinguish distortions or noise from it. Sampling theory builds on this premise by statistically modeling human auditory characteristics: it assumes that humans cannot discern volume differences below certain thresholds or perceive vibrations outside specific frequency ranges. By limiting representation to this range, sampling theory ensures that all audible sounds can be effectively encoded.
By the way, the actual implementation of PCM in MUSIC I only allowed for monophonic triangle waves with controllable volume, pitch, and timing (MUSIC II later expanded this to four oscillators)[@Mathews1980]. Would anyone today describe such a system as capable of producing "infinite variations" in sound synthesis?
Even when considering more contemporary applications, processes like ring modulation (RM), amplitude modulation (AM), or distortion often generate aliasing artifacts unless proper oversampling is applied. These artifacts occur because PCM, while universally suitable for reproducing recorded sound, is not inherently versatile as a medium for generating new sounds. As Puckette has argued, alternative representations, such as collections of linear segments or physical modeling synthesis, present other possibilities[@puckette2015]. Therefore, PCM is not a completely universal tool for creating sound.
(preparing for latex format...)

BIN
main.pdf
View File

Binary file not shown.

160
main.tex
View File

@@ -32,13 +32,15 @@
% ================ Define title and author names here ===============
% ====================================================
%user defined variables
\def\papertitle{Paper Template for ICMC 2025}
\def\firstauthor{First Author}
\def\secondauthor{Second Author}
\def\thirdauthor{Third Author}
\def\fourthauthor{Fourth Author}
\def\fifthauthor{Fifth Author}
\def\sixthauthor{Sixth Author}
\def\papertitle{Defining Programming languages for Music through the view of ``Somewhat Weak'' Computer Music}
% \def\firstauthor{Tomoya Matsuura}
\def\firstauthor{Anonymized for review}
% \def\secondauthor{Second Author}
% \def\thirdauthor{Third Author}
% \def\fourthauthor{Fourth Author}
% \def\fifthauthor{Fifth Author}
% \def\sixthauthor{Sixth Author}
% adds the automatic
% Saves a lot of output space in PDF... after conversion with the distiller
@@ -58,7 +60,7 @@
\ifpdf % compiling with pdflatex
\usepackage[pdftex,
pdftitle={\papertitle},
pdfauthor={\firstauthor, \secondauthor, \thirdauthor},
pdfauthor={\firstauthor},
bookmarksnumbered, % use section numbers with bookmarks
pdfstartview=XYZ % start with zoom=100% instead of full screen;
% especially useful if working with a big screen :-)
@@ -114,10 +116,12 @@
% Single address
% To use with only one author or several with the same address
% ---------------
%\oneauthor
% {\firstauthor} {Affiliation \\ %
% {\tt \href{mailto:author@ul.ie}{author@ul.ie}}}
% \oneauthor
% {\firstauthor} {Tokyo University of the Arts \\ %
% {\tt \href{mailto:me@matsuuratomoya.com}{me@matsuuratomoya.com}}}
\oneauthor
{\firstauthor} { \\ %
{\tt \href{mailto:example@example.com}{example@example.com}}}
%Two addresses
% the default spacing is 1.5in, but this can be reduced to 0.5in or less, if needed
%--------------
@@ -131,14 +135,14 @@
% Three addresses
% the default spacing is 0.5in, but this can be reduced to 0.3in or less, if needed
% --------------
\threeauthors
{0.5in}
{\firstauthor} {Affiliation1 \\ %
{\tt \href{mailto:author1@myorg.org}{author1@myorg.org}}}
{\secondauthor} {Affiliation2 \\ %
{\tt \href{mailto:author2@myorg.org}{author2@myorg.org}}}
{\thirdauthor} { Affiliation3 \\ %
{\tt \href{mailto:author3@myorg.org}{author3@myorg.org}}}
% \threeauthors
% {0.5in}
% {\firstauthor} {Affiliation1 \\ %
% {\tt \href{mailto:author1@myorg.org}{author1@myorg.org}}}
% {\secondauthor} {Affiliation2 \\ %
% {\tt \href{mailto:author2@myorg.org}{author2@myorg.org}}}
% {\thirdauthor} { Affiliation3 \\ %
% {\tt \href{mailto:author3@myorg.org}{author3@myorg.org}}}
% Four addresses
% the default spacing is 1.5in, but this can be reduced to 0.5in or less, if needed
@@ -199,118 +203,14 @@
\capstarttrue
%
\begin{abstract}
The abstract should be placed at the start of the top left column and should contain about 150-200 words. The abstract should be formatted in italic type (this has already been set in the abstract style).
\input{abstract.tex}
\end{abstract}
%
\providecommand{\citep}{ \cite}% for pandoc
\def\tightlist{\itemsep1pt\parskip0pt\parsep0pt} %for pandoc
\section{Introduction}\label{sec:introduction}
This template includes all the information about formatting manuscripts for the ICMC 2025 Conference. Please follow these guidelines to give the final proceedings a uniform look. Authors will be {\em required} to make any necessary typographic corrections and changes before publication. If you have any questions, please contact the ICMC 2025 Organizers.
This template can be downloaded from the \href{https://icmc2025.sites.northeastern.edu/}{ICMC 2025 web site}\footnote{\href{https://icmc2025.sites.northeastern.edu/}{icmc2025.sites.northeastern.edu}}.
\section{Page size and format}\label{sec:page_size}
The proceedings will be formatted as {\em portrait A4-size paper (21.0cm $\times$ 29.7cm)}. All material on each page should fit within a rectangle of 17.2cm $\times$ 25.2cm, centered on the page, beginning 2.0cm from the top of the page and ending with 2.5cm from the bottom. The left and right margins should be 1.9cm. The text should be in two 8.2cm columns with a 0.8cm gutter. All {\em text} must be in a two-column format, and justified.
\section{Typeset Text}\label{sec:typeset_text}
\subsection{Normal or Body Text}\label{subsec:body}
Please use a 10~pt (point) Times family font (i.e., Times New Roman). Sans-serif fonts or non-proportional fonts can be used only for special purposes, such as distinguishing source code text.
The first paragraph in each section should not be indented, but all other paragraphs should be. (Again, these have all been set in the styles provided.)
% this inserts a column-break
%\pagebreak
\subsection{Title and Authors}
The title is 16~pt Times, bold, upper case, centered. Authors' names are centered. The lead author's name is to be listed first (left-most), and the co-authors' names after. If the addresses for all authors are the same, include the address only once, centered. If the authors have different addresses, put the addresses, evenly spaced, under each authors' name. You may adjust the number of columns, above to reflect the number of authors. Do not include actual author names or affiliations on your initial paper submission, as the review process is double-blind.
\subsection{First Page Copyright Notice}
Please include the copyright notice exactly as it appears here in the lower left-hand corner of the page. It is set in 8~pt Times, one column in width, and should not descend into the page margins (i.e., it should keep clear of the 1" margin at the bottom of the page).
\subsection{Page Numbering, Headers and Footers}
Do not include headers, footers or page numbers in your submission. These will be added when the publications are assembled.
\section{Headings}
First level headings are in Times 12pt bold, centered with 1 line of space above the section head, and 1/2 space below it. For a section header immediately followed by a subsection header, the space should be merged.
\subsection{Second Level Headings}
Second level headings are in Times 10~pt bold, flush left,
with 1 line of space above the section head, and 1/2 space below it.
The first letter of each significant word is capitalized.
\subsubsection{Third and further Level Headings}
Third level headings are in Times 10~pt italic, flush left, with 1/2 line of space above the section head, and 1/2 space below it. The first letter of each significant word is capitalized.
Using more than three levels of headings is strongly discouraged.
\pagebreak
\section{Equations, Figures, Footnotes}
\subsection{Equations}
Equations should be placed on separated lines and numbered.
The number should be on the right side, in parentheses.
\begin{equation}
E=mc^{2}.
\label{eq:Emc2}
\end{equation}
\subsection{Figures, Tables and Captions}
All artwork must be centered, neat, clean, and legible. All lines should be very dark for purposes of reproduction and artwork should not be hand-drawn. The proceedings will be distributed in electronic form only, therefore color figures are allowed. However, you may want to check that your figures are understandable even if they are printed in black-and-white.
\begin{table}[h]
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{|l|l|}
\hline
String Value & Numeric value \\
\hline
Hello ICMC2025 & 2025 \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\caption{Table captions should be placed below the table.}
\label{tab:example}
\end{table}
Numbers and captions of figures and tables always appear below the figure/table. Leave 1 line space between the figure or table and the caption. Figure and tables are numbered consecutively. Captions should be Times 9~pt. Place tables/figures in text as close to the reference as possible, and preferably at the top of the page.
\begin{figure}[h]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.9\columnwidth]{figure.eps}
\caption{Figure captions are placed below the figure, exactly like this. Please note that the printed proceedings will be black and white.\label{fig:example}}
\end{figure}
Always refer to tables and figures in the main text, for example:
see Figure \ref{fig:example} and \tabref{tab:example}.
Place Tables/Figures in text as close to the reference as possible.
Figures and tables may extend across both columns to a maximum width of 17.2cm.
Vectorial figures are preferred.
When using {\texttt{Matlab}},
export using either Postscript or PDF format.
Also, in order to optimize readability, the font size of text within a figure should be at list identical to footnote font size. If bitmap figures are used, please make sure that the resolution is enough for print quality.
\subsection{Footnotes}
Indicate footnotes with a number in the text.\footnote{This is a footnote.}
Use 8~pt type for footnotes. Place the footnotes at the bottom of the page
on which they appear.
Precede the footnote with a 0.5~pt horizontal rule.
%\newpage
\section{Citations}
All bibliographical references should be listed at the end, inside a section named ``REFERENCES''.
References must be numbered {\ul {in order of appearance}}, {\em not} alphabetically. Please avoid listing references that do not appear in the text.
Reference numbers in the text should appear within square brackets, such as
in~\cite{Someone:09} or~\cite{Someone:04,Someone:13}.
The reference format is the standard IEEE one. We recommend using BibTeX to create the reference list.
\section{Conclusions}
Please, submit full-length papers. Submission is fully electronic and automated through the Conference Management System.
{\ul{Do not}} send papers directly by e-mail.
\input{content.tex}
\begin{acknowledgments}
At the end of the Conclusions, acknowledgments to people, projects, funding agencies, etc. can be included after the second-level heading ``Acknowledgments'' (with no numbering).
@@ -318,6 +218,6 @@ At the end of the Conclusions, acknowledgments to people, projects, funding agen
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%bibliography here
\bibliography{icmc2025_paper_template}
\bibliography{main}
\end{document}