Quote:
Originally Posted by Tumababa
Oh... and as far as the claim that no computer could write music with soul I think the poll speaks for itself. I hate using the term "soul" when talking about music as it's such an abstract concept. .
|
That I could identify with near-100 percent confidence (see post No. 12) (and I assure you I inserted the 'nearly' only as insurance for some self-esteem in case there was 1 chance in a million I was wrong) that No. 2 was by Bach is I think proof enough that the computer, having no life and no true mind, indeed composes "music which has no soul", no real substance. I think the ones who were deceived, were deceived by its forgery of Bach's
style, and as they made their decision they thought in terms of whether the piece was in Bach's style or in that of another composer's. What they ought to have done instead was to consider whether it was composed by a human or not, whether it had logical continuity, coherence, unity and progression. Had they done so, they would have seen that No. 1 was going nowhere and therefore clearly had no human behind its origin, for a human has a past and a present and a future and develops in time remembering his past and creating his future, whether in life or in artistic creations – something the computer doesn't. The computer also doesn't have the ability to select the appropriate parts and to fit these parts together in the most mentally meaningful way possible. Above all the computer's "creation" has no overall meaning, and music is above all meaningful.
In human composers the unconscious sees to it that links are created between ideas in consciousness, and that those ideas do not simply share a similarity in style but also an evolution or derivation from the same source or germinal idea or purpose. Can the computer create music praising God, for example? Of course not!
Luder