Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris
You really did not have to tell me that it was composed by a computer and not by an actual Human Being.
|
That was actually my point. It is a piece that doesn't imitate human composing but is quite frank about how it was produced. It may indeed sound somehow random, and it's lacking a refined style. Personally I find this "angularity" quite appealing.
It is wrong to assume that such music doesn't have an expressive quality and musical purpose. A composer who uses a computer to finally write down the notes has to ask her/himself the same questions as any other composer. What is the purpose of this piece? What do I want to say? How can I structure it? How do I use harmony, rhythm, timbre? etc. Having a computer compose for you isn't just about pressing a button. It requires a clear idea of what you want your music to sound like, what you want to determine by parameters, what you want to be calculated through algorithms and what aspects you want to be controlled by randomness.
It's a misconception to assume that this sort of composition is very "unnatural". Most of us make use of "algorithms" (be that counterpoint, serialism, traditional harmonisation, or just an alberti bass), and most of us include (unconsciously) randomness in many small decisions. In addition there are cultural and stylistic cliches that we apply, willingly or not (this is the main aspect a computer lacks).
It is our choice of when, how and to which degree to use these elements that makes a piece of music good or bad. The question whether you use a computer to finally produce the notes of your music or not is of secondary importance.
I don't deny at all that there's something beyond music theory. Using a computer to compose doesn't prevent music from being more than a theoretical exercise though.