EMI Composing Computer Challenge

I have myself been playing with the idea of computer-written music. I had heard of the program that could imitate composers, and wasn't too interested in that. What I think is more interesting is the concept of a computer composing in its own style. Which immediately brings forth the question: what kind of music would a computer write?

Well, obviously it would write whatever sort of music you programmed it to write. But we can get an idea, from first principles, of what type of music computers would be most suited to. So: what are computers good at, and what are they bad at? Well, computers are very good at making large numbers of simple calculations, and they are quite bad at making "intelligent" decisions (which is to say, decisions that are based on far more complex processes). This is more due to human limitations than anything else: it is difficult, though arguably possible, to program a computer to evaluate chess moves in the way that a human does, but it is not difficult to program it to take a much simpler, brute-force approach of evaluating every move. But the point stands. This suggests that computers would be good at writing music which has rigorous technical rules governing its composition. Take, for instance, a canon. Quite difficult for humans to write, since it calls for the evaluation of many possibilities. However, it would not be quite so difficult to program a computer to evaluate all of these possibilities. Computers could potentially work out very complex canons, which would be beyond the capabilities of most human composers: say, a six-part canon in inversion.

So, in summary, computers would probably write quite complex, but quite rigorously structured, music. But, of course, the more important question: would the music be enjoyable? This thread has clearly shown that it is possible for a computer to write enjoyable music. I have done some exploratory coding of my own, as well: only enough to see that the problem is more complex than I initially imagined, but I still believe that it is well within the current state of the art to write a computer program composing in its own style.

Now, the question of originality. I, frankly, believe that computers have far more potential for originality than humans do. A computer can act randomly, which is a capability that humans lack: humans can only arrive at originality by accident or through extensive experimentation. A computer will explore the extremes of the rule systems which you have laid out for it, and perhaps write music that no human would have written. Whether this music would be aesthetically pleasing, I do not know, but if a computer, in its compositional output, produced a few gems amid a pile of duds, then I would consider the effort well spent. Would it not be a wonderful thing, to be able to press a button, and out pops a wholly novel piece of music, possibly trite, and possibly brilliant? Would your curiosity allow you to refrain from pressing that button?

Originally Posted by Trickshot

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?)

Okay, music is made of sound. Sound is made of regions of compression and rarefaction in the air. I still fail to see where soul and passion come in.

A good piece of evidence supporting this: this thread.

This thread has clearly shown that it is possible for a computer to write enjoyable music.

That is debatable. Personally, I didn't just find the computer generated track bad, I found it UNBEARABLE. I had to turn it off.

Enjoyable on what level? Many people replied to this thread and debated about the musical theory behind the two pieces. My guess is that they listened to it on an intellectual level only. In my opinion a computer could probably write music that was enjoyable on an intellectual level, but not on a heart and soul level.

It's sad that many people are so STUCK IN THE MIND that they view the heart and soul as "airy fairy" concepts.

I, frankly, believe that computers have far more potential for originality than humans do.

I don't see how this is possible seen as all computers are built and programmed... BY_HUMANS.

Okay, music is made of sound. Sound is made of regions of compression and rarefaction in the air. I still fail to see where soul and passion come in.

My guess is that you are completely stuck in your head and that you enjoy music on an intellectual level only.

It seems to me that a lot of people who are into classical music seem to be this way, extremely intellectual and analyzing music as they listen to it. They reject popular music and say that it is inferior. This of course comes from the mind/ego.

Funnily enough to me it seems that a lot of people who are into popular music, like R'n'B and stuff, enjoy music only on a "social conditioning" level, i.e. "Will my friends think I'm cool if I have this song on my iPod?"
They reject classical music and say that it is inferior. This also comes from the mind/ego.

Two sides of the same coin.

To me, the heart and soul is where we transcend all of this and actually begin to feel music, truly enjoying it for what it is.

I, frankly, believe that computers have far more potential for originality than humans do.

I don't see how this is possible seen as all computers are built and programmed... BY_HUMANS.

You have clearly never programmed a computer before, for if you had, you would know that computers often do things that their programmers do not expect. Generally this is undesirable (an unexpected behavior is most often called a 'bug'), but in this case it works to our advantage. We simply program a computer according to a set of rules for composition, and then let it loose, to see what it creates. All of its creations will be according to the rules, but that does not mean that they will be predictable, as long as the rules are flexible enough. Anyone who says that a computer could not be programmed so flexibly is simply not using their imagination.

To me, the heart and soul is where we transcend all of this and actually begin to feel music, truly enjoying it for what it is.

I have a great love for pop music, so I am not guilty of enjoying music only on an intellectual level. That said, I may indeed be completely stuck in on a lower level of musical enjoyment than you: a primitive, reptilian level of enjoyment. Perhaps I only enjoy music on the superficial level of having uniform, logical harmonic sounds reaching my ears in a rhythmically organized fashion. Perhaps I'm completely missing out on the "soul" of the music.

Of course, if this is the case, then there are evidently many people like me, since many of us did indeed enjoy the fake Bach. For us, a computer composer would be perfectly sufficient: we would never the know the difference, would never hear the ultimate mechanical soullessness lying under the surface of the music.

Now, I can't say that I particularly envy your sensitivity to the "soul" content of music. In fact, I believe it to be a disadvantage: for, with my own insensitivity, I can enjoy pieces of music that you cannot.

Originally Posted by Chris

That is debatable. Personally, I didn't just find the computer generated track bad, I found it UNBEARABLE. I had to turn it off.

I think the problem here is that a computer program is trying to imitate a human composer. In this aspect computers will generally fail, or at least they still do now (even though the track posted here was quite an impressive start). But as nhomas has said, where it gets interesting is when a computer composes as a computer not a fake human.

I've heard pieces composed by computer that don't hide the fact that they were created automatically at all and sounded amazing. Not human, not directly emotional maybe, but very original, with a very unique sound that I had never heard before.

In my opinion, the greatest advantage in composition a computer has over a human is the complete lack of shame. A computer will not hesitate to create results that a human composer would maybe not dare to write down, because it might sound too clumsy/naive/blunt. But sometimes it's in this sort of bluntness and rawness that the greatest originality lies.

The fact that the computer doesn't compose emotionally doesn't mean the effect such a piece can have on me isn't emotional. It's like looking at flowers, which also aren't emotional or "created with heart and soul", but still can make us happy.

Speaking of flowers and computer-written music, this is an example of music composed by a computer, which shows what computers can produce when a good composer programs them: Orchidae Ordinariae by Clarence Barlow

Originally Posted by Chris

Okay, music is made of sound. Sound is made of regions of compression and rarefaction in the air. I still fail to see where soul and passion come in.

My guess is that you are completely stuck in your head and that you enjoy music on an intellectual level only.

It seems to me that a lot of people who are into classical music seem to be this way, extremely intellectual and analyzing music as they listen to it. They reject popular music and say that it is inferior. This of course comes from the mind/ego.

Funnily enough to me it seems that a lot of people who are into popular music, like R'n'B and stuff, enjoy music only on a "social conditioning" level, i.e. "Will my friends think I'm cool if I have this song on my iPod?"
They reject classical music and say that it is inferior. This also comes from the mind/ego.

Two sides of the same coin.

To me, the heart and soul is where we transcend all of this and actually begin to feel music, truly enjoying it for what it is.

I wonder if Mr. Psychology here can realize his superiority complex. . .

Anyway, you're just making assumptions that, well, just plain aren't true. Music can evoke emotions from people for sure, but that really just, uh, proves nothing. It doesn't mean that Bach's music is more "emotional" and therefore superior to Mozart's, or vice versa. Bach's music is music, just as Gwen Stefani's is.

And frankly, I'm a bigger fan of Stefani. Take that.

I wonder if Mr. Psychology here can realize his superiority complex. . .


I'm really not trying to put anyone down - just computers

And when I make these posts, it's really because I'm still learning all of this myself. There's a saying, "We all teach what we most need to learn."

Anyway, you're just making assumptions that, well, just plain aren't true. Music can evoke emotions from people for sure, but that really just, uh, proves nothing. It doesn't mean that Bach's music is more "emotional" and therefore superior to Mozart's, or vice versa. Bach's music is music, just as Gwen Stefani's is.

And frankly, I'm a bigger fan of Stefani. Take that.

You seem to miss the point completely. You also use the word 'superior' a lot. I wasn't trying to justify that some music is superior to others, superiority/inferiority is a pointless way to look at things IMO, it all just depends on what you want to listen to.

Speaking of flowers and computer-written music, this is an example of music composed by a computer, which shows what computers can produce when a good composer programs them: Orchidae Ordinariae by Clarence Barlow

I listened to a great deal of that music, I really tried to appreciate it. But, once again, right from the start I felt there was something missing. You really did not have to tell me that it was composed by a computer and not by an actual Human Being.

I even got my brother to give a second opinion, I asked him if he thought it was good - his reply:

"Hmmm, who is it? It's..., it sounds as if they're just hitting random notes."

I wonder why people began writing music in the first place. My guess is that it was to express something, and they didn't think much about it, it was something that they just did. I truly believe that music is something magical, it brings people closer on a Heart level, it communicates more deeply and more honestly than words will ever be able to. What does a computer have to express other than complete randomness and the intellectuality that it was programmed with?

The fact that the computer doesn't compose emotionally doesn't mean the effect such a piece can have on me isn't emotional. It's like looking at flowers, which also aren't emotional or "created with heart and soul", but still can make us happy.

"Soul" or "Spirit" are just other words for "Existence". To say that a flower does not have Existence is pretty ludicrous.

Also, emotion does not equal spirit/heart/soul. Emotion also arises from the mind. I'm not saying that the mind (logic and emotions) are bad, I just think there's more to it than that. I love the fact that I learned my pentatonic scales for example, it allows me to express myself when I play guitar solos, but I'm aware that there is something more, something that will never be able to be defined in theory (at least when I play there is something happening that is BEYOND the logic of musical theory). The mind is just a tool for the soul to use whenever it wants to.

Peace.

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.

If people want to compose music on a computer, and if they can eventually get this shit to sound somewhere near good, then good for them. I hope it brings them all that they are seeking from it.

However to me, programming a computer to compose music just seems like... attaching a dildo to a computer and telling it how to fuck your girlfriend.

But, I could be wrong, maybe it's all a good thing.

I certainly will never be using a computer to compose music for me, it would leave me feeling empty. I find that the joy is in composing, tapping into Creativity and allowing it to manifest through me, and NOT in the final product.



Ahhhh, computers... we will all be slaves to perfection.

Originally Posted by spherenine

Okay, music is made of sound. Sound is made of regions of compression and rarefaction in the air. I still fail to see where soul and passion come in.

A good piece of evidence supporting this: this thread.

Thanks for the physics, but we are obviously not talking about general sound in space. Your knowledge seems limited.

Humans can generate, or synthesize sounds in their head. Meaning, it is more than just compressions and shear waves. It can have a strong psychological effect.

When speaking of music, which is more than just sound, no matter how you want to look at it, it IS more than just sound. Music really only exists to the relativity of humans since we are the only ones who perceive it as so.

Cognitive thought is what makes music, not sound. If we couldn't cognitively process information, we would have no music, only sounds.

There is an underling logic surrounding music, therefore the way we perceive music can be interpreted as more than just sound. I'm sure a dog doesn't hear an A minor scale, and think depressive, like most humans would. The same goes with this instance. I heard Bach compared to a computer, and instantly recognized a 'human' element in it. Or what I precieved as human, it was partly luck yes, but my initial instinct proved to be right.

If you understand music as only being sounds, then you don't understand music to the full extent. You should probaly learn some psychology, specifically the cognitive relation to music and the brain, and you might have a better understanding on how one could guess the correct artist in the inference.

It's just like language. You can make sounds all you want, but when you put it in a logical system of sounds, it creates language, so you can have all of the compressional waves you want, but it's music when you recognize the underlining logic behind all of it.

So until you learn more about music, you should probaly rest your mind in trying to simply prove others wrong. You obviously didn't have the full knowledge to be doing so, and I don't see why you made an attempt.

It's impossible to point on the artist unless you know every piece by them, but there can always be a logical, even educated guess and that's what this pertained to.

You used physics as your means of interpretation, and it is obviously wrong because we are talking about a musical context which is primarily psychological.

I hope I helped.