Quote:
Originally Posted by jujimufu
What REALLY interested David Cope is giving the machine his OWN music, so the result would be an unheard piece in HIS OWN STYLE. And this is how he "'cooperated" with EMI to finish the rest of the opera, in just 10 days  He has been working like that with EMI since then. And I find it totally logical and good. The computer is not composing for him, it's recombining his musical elements to produce a new piece, in his style, which -however- could have NOT been produced if the composer didn't have compositions to start with. So, this machine doesn't compose music for any amateur composer, just composers who already have established a style of their own, and composers who have finished compositions. |
The machine can write in a developped style and do it well. I agree.
But as far as innovation, I think our jobs(or lack of jobs) are safe. EMI can write a piece in the style of someone who came before but it doesn't grow like a composer does.... yet.
I would be curious to see what the machine would develop if it were given the fragments of Beethoven's 10th symphony that was never written.
This EMI thing does highlight the fact that a lot of what we do is mere
technical work. Someone without any musical empathy whatsoever could be
a good composer if they had the desire or drive. Since composition isn't a very lucrative field, that doesn't usually happen. I'm beginning to see more
and more now that the most creative part of composition usually has little
to do with notes on the page.
I do disagree with you on one point though. You say the computer isn't composing for him. Unless I misunderstand you here, it seems like it actually is. Sure he had to write a large body of work before the invention of the program but if he is relying on the program to be is output then.... well.... he is relying on the machine.
However, I'm not sure I grasp how much input goes into EMI. Does it require anything other than the big chunk of literature to get going or is their more human interaction?