EMI Composing Computer Challenge

I'll be honest, I wouldn't have been able to pick out the machine produced piece here on first listen (I just don't know enough about classical styles to be able to have an informed opinion on the style),it seems to have gotten the basics of the style enough to reproduce something which would fool a lot of people, but on listening to it more in depth the flaws do become obvious. the machine one does feel more rigid, but like it's been said, MIDI does neither of thse pieces any favours. Now, someone mentioned a choir performance of this piece somewhere? The very fact that this piece may sound good when performed by a live choir is more a reflection of how the human touch just adds so much more to a piece of music, as opposed to a computerized rendition of it. Computers will always be able to produce "music" of a sort, the same way they can create random lyrics by studying a formula of words, phrases and sentence structure, it doesn't necessarily mean they'll make sense or mean anything to a person on an emotional level the way those of another person would.

Personally I don't put any stock in the idea that computers will be a rival to any human composer, however in so far as the use that Cope is making of it, I reckon that to a professional composer, working to strict deadlines, they could be an invaluable tool and a great source of ideas for when that dreaded writer's block kicks in, and we all know it rears its ugly head at the worst of times :p

It seemed pretty clear to me. I don't know how.

It's not logical to talk about "music with no soul" because music requires a human's response to it. It's quite possible a computer could make music a human would respond well to.

The impossibility is to get another computer to respond in the same way, so it's more logical to talk about a response with no soul.

Whatever a computer can create or compose, it will always be purpose built to do so; so the music can actually always be attributed to the "programmer" anyway. Well, until a pc starts spitting beautiful midi's out because of some creative compulsion.

how do i sign contracts with EMI?

Good piece.

it gives me an eerie feeling listening to those MIDI's. They both sound so well-made, so technical and fluently made. I don't really like the concept of machines making music, yes, i guess you could call me one of the "aaaargh, machine made music without soul!! BURN IT!" types of people. I felt that piece number two was the real bach composition, to me it sounded more melodic and flowed better, but then again, it was almost flawless. Piece number one was almost too good to be true, whether it was bach himself or a computer that made the piece, i want to make sweet love to it. So who wrote what? do we know yet? i'm really interested to know...

Originally Posted by Tumababa

Number one was composed by the machine.

.

Alright, I came in after the answer was given but, here here are the reasons I believe it was obvious that No. 1 was composed by a machine:
1) When I opened the midi up in SongWriter, the instrument was "New-Gesture" which instantly struck me as odd. Bach-2 had "Instrument 1-4" on it. Anyway, that's not very conclusive proof.
2) Bach-1 was written so... industrially. There were these really strong hits on 1 and 3 and there seemed to be no real, intuitive division of sections. The constant undying, unending rhythm really got on my nerves, whereas Bach-2 was more fluid and did have intuitive divisions (even if there were a freaking lot of them).

Anyway, I voted for Bach-1 before I even read the discussion, and I was about 75% sure.

I'm do not study Bach. I enjoy his music emensely, however.

I didn't get past the second measure in the first one before I realized that it was not Bach. I had a very strong feeling that number one was the EMI.

And as soon as I listened to number two, it clicked instantly.

The first one just doesn't sound human. I don't know..lucky guess, maybe? But I felt very strongly about my estimate.

To me it was fairly obvious which had true energy and soul and which did not.

I had to turn the first one off less than half way through because it was so bad, it made me feel very hectic inside.

I recognized the second one as just a nice piece of music.

However, they are both fucking MIDI files! Can a computer play a piece of music on a piano in an infinite number of expressive ways based on how it is feeling at that exact moment?

To those who said the first was Bach and justified it by discussing the musical theory behind it, YOU are the idiots that the machines will replace!

Haaaaaaa

A thought to chew on: music is made of notes, not little souls with stems and possibly staccato.

Originally Posted by spherenine

A thought to chew on: music is made of notes, not little souls with stems and possibly staccato.

I guess you can look at it different ways, but you seem keen to aruguing.

I would rather say that music is made of sound and notes are simply a way to remember it. Which came first in music, the note or the sound? Well it's obvious.

I find that comment rather distasteful though. I'm sorry you can't seem to point out soul and passion out behind a piece. They very rarely ever put out there in black and white, but one can almost always tell the intentions.

(Even though they don't put their intentions on notes with stems and write them on the paper, no?)