EMI Composing Computer Challenge

Originally Posted by Chris

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.

Interesting analogy

I'm interested in the idea of using computers for composition, and personally I didn't 'feel' anything more from the Bach one than the computer one, so either I'm emotionally retarded, or there was no difference. Both options seem equally viable.

Originally Posted by Trickshot

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.

A bit patronizing, but a very strong argument nevertheless.

"The distinction between the subjective and the objective art is basically based on meditation. Anything that comes out of the mind will remain subjective art, and anything that comes out of no-mind, out of silence, out of meditation, will be objective art.

This definition is simple and will destroy your confusion. Whether you are creating something ― you may be a sculptor, you may be a carpenter, you may be a painter, a poet, a singer, a musician ― all that has to be remembered is that it is coming out of a silence within you, that it has a spontaneity. It is not prearranged, preprogrammed, pre-thought. As you are creating something you go on being surprised yourself ― you have left yourself in the hands of existence."

-OSHO on Creativity

Where's the midi?

Here's an interesting idea for a experiment:

What if, instead of using compositions from one composer, compostitions from every composer were supplied to EMI as a blueprint? You obviously couldn't get every compostition, but at least all the ones you could get your hands on. What would EMI produce? Would it be it's own unique style? Could you call it a human style? A summary of all of our musical history? Or would it just be random notes strung together, caused by the wide variety of human music? Would it even make sense?