EMI Composing Computer Challenge

Number 1 is Bach, and number 2 is the computer. But a computer did that??

I am nearly 100 percent sure that Bach 1 is by the computer for there is no coherence behind the notes. There is no human mind behind it recognizable while in Bach 2 there is coherence, you can sense a human mind creating. But in both cases the fact that it is a midi playing is affecting the way the music sounds.

I'm just going to take a guess and say Bach is No. 2 and the computer is No. 1. I won't be suprised if I'm wrong though.

Number one was composed by the machine.

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?

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. Ask twenty people in a hall watching a violinist/guitarist/band/whatever play and they will most certainly not all agree on whether or not someone plays with soul(Although there are those rare performers. Hendrix comes to mind. But I'm sure you could find someone who hates Hendrix too).

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

I generally dislike this sort of discussion, I believe it gives too much credence to the mechanical reproduction of music (notice, I said "mechanical reproduction" and not "composition").

I have my doubts as to which one is really Bach, I have found a few errors of voice leading in one example, not present in the other.

So either we are faced with one of those rare, and strange, Bach examples with the twisted voice-leading errors done on purpose, or whoever programmed the computer did not do a good enough job.

One sounds like a choral arrangement, while the other sounds like someone who doesn't really know what a choral is supposed to be.

Again, it could be one of those really obscure Bach pieces, or something taken completely out of context.

Originally Posted by luderart

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

I was hoping we could get a good debate going on this.

The fact that you guessed with 100 percent certainty is, I think, more a statement about how advanced you are in your musicianship than anything else. The point I think I'm trying to make I think is that they're so similar in how they sound that if either were sung by a good choir(or played by a good quartet/pianist/whatever) I could still be moved by the music. If I am
moved by a piece written by a machine, does the music have soul?

Granted, I have a hard time imagining myself being moved by either of those two pieces when they're rendered in midi. To my ears, this little snippets are the most vanilla of all music(Although a good choral sung by a good choir is pretty bitchin'!!!). This might be due to the fact that I'm in a university and have some kind of bias against stuff that reminds me of counterpoint exercises -shudder-. However, I do understand that you can get a lot out of something that(to me) is simply boring.

I think soul can be more something that the listener draws from the music. Just as a conductor works with a chorus to get them to make the music the most sheen image it can possibly be, a listener works with a piece as they hear it. If a listener hears that a piece has sloppy direction(Like example number one), they are unlikely to think that the piece was written by a machine in a soviet bunker. They are likely to think that either the composer is a student and still working through the kinks of his/her style or that the directionless aspect is part of the composer's style. And on that note, why couldn't it be? Debussy for instance, can be said to have a very free and in some instances directionless style.

I'll cut myself off here.

I think that number two is Bach, but to be honest I really couldn't bank on it. The fact is that those chorales don't seem to have enough character on paper.

Incidentally, I am of the opinion that computers will be able to write music just as well as humans in the not-so-distant future, and may even be able be innovative in the field when programmed well enough. I think it pompous for humans to assume that they possess something that a machine can never have, considering that we ourselves are no more than machines with inflated senses of self-importance.

I think it would be interesting to see whether or not Mr. Cope's machine is capable of writing fugues.