This recording is a product of a short research project at KASK & Conservatorium Ghent, seeking an algorithm that questions AI in music production by providing precise, repeatable, and human-crafted patterns for music and sound expression. The Dot Dash system, as described by Jaki Liebezeit, is seen as a form of code, bridging the realms of music and mathematics.

In the context of the renewed interest in computational processes in music and audiovisual media art, Simon Halsberghe explores their contemporary influence on the practice of computer music. The study takes inspiration from the music notation system developed by German drummer Jaki Liebezeit (known for his work with CAN) to engage in improvisation sessions with musicians. Liebezeit's system is rooted in the relationship between the laws of Thermodynamics, the performer's body, and their implication in shaping possible musical structures.

Liebezeit's music notation system consists of four simple rules: 1. Only two musical notes exist: DOT and DASH.
- DOT signifies a single hand strike.
- DASH represents two consecutive strikes with the same hand, lasting twice as long as a DOT.
2. Successive DOTs and DASHes alternate between left and right hands.
3. The second strike in a DASH is always softer than the first, possibly silent but never louder.
4. Accents are only allowed after a DASH.

These rules can be likened to an algorithm for those familiar with programming. To translate these DOT DASH rules into code, advice was sought from Norbert Pape and the heads of Ghent University's Mathematics and Applied Mathematics departments. These collaborations confirmed the non-trivial nature of Jaki patterns in mathematical terms.

The Jaki Liebezeit set J is the union of its subsets Jn, where each Jn is the set of all possible rhythmical patterns consisting of 1s and 2s (representing the DOT and DASH respectively) of total length n, up to cyclic permutation:

J := ⋃ n∈!"Jn
Jn := { a0a1 ... ak ∣ aj ∈ {1, 2}, k ∈ ! and ∑ i=0 k ai = n}/∼
where
a0a1...ak∼b0b1...bk
⟺ ∃l∈!#j∈{0,1,...,k}:a(j+l)mod(k+1)=bj

When associating the DOT and DASH symbols with natural numbers, it establishes an implicit order within the set. Despite this, Jaki's rules do not inherently provide order. Describing the set with DOT DASH reveals it as a Free Magma. This Free Magma, akin to bracketed word collections, follows an inductive process with essential freeness. It allows unique morphisms when mapped to any magma, or MIDI capable device here, demonstrating relevance in the context of generative algorithmic music creation.

Simon Halsberghe began implementing this algorithm, initially in Python, as seen on GitHub. While functional, this code lacks comprehensive documentation and integration into a larger framework, requiring advanced Python skills for further development.

Python was eventually set aside in favour of Max. With assistance from Tom Hall of Cycling’74, Simon Halsberghe developed a practical implementation of the Jaki pattern-generating algorithm, as seen on GitHub.

Using the Max patch one can precisely reproduce specific Jaki patterns. The incorporation of parameter feedback in this system allows for a high degree of complexity in the resulting patterns. This parameter feedback brings up questions that parallel those Stephen Wolfram unveiled concerning elementary cellular automata; for some parameter values it is impossible to say whether we find ourselves in a flat or repetitive form, or in something more complex. A boundary emerges between nearly non-narrative and nearly narrative structures. How complex must a system be to achieve musical specificity?

The physics of bodily movements, through Jaki Liebezeit's DOT DASH system, lead to a lexicography of possible actions. Are these actions sufficiently complex when interpreted as code? As music? The promise of generative technologies and algorithms in music fits into a broader history of tools and instruments that can be broadly described as "composition helpers." These devices seem to aim to quickly produce musically gratifying results and are immediately compared to human creativity and indeterminacy. One artistic response to this can often be typified by emphasising the human element in contrast to the machine. Another would be to let curiosity lead the way thereby emphasising the maker as driving force, even-though the medium is generative. This raises questions about which modes of production we accept as specific and as creatively free enough and the role of the (musical) instrument. If a generative tool is sufficiently massive in mathematical scope, under what conditions does navigating the latent space become accepted as artistic practice Instruments and their construction result from their relation to the body, and to time. These relations in turn map to possible movements. In order to know whether a move is a musical one, sometimes to only way to know is to play it so we can listen.