Robot Composer......

It is music that inflicts pain upon the listener or the player.

Pls check it out.

No.

*edit*

From the liner-notes to John Zorn's Kristallnacht:

CAUTION: NEVER AGAIN contains high frequency extremes at the limits of human hearing & beyond, which may cause nausea, headaches & ringing in the ears. Prolonged or repeated listening is not advisable as it may result in temporary or permanent ear damage.

Although, he's using the effect to convey some very dark and serious emotions associated with an infamous point in human history - not solely with the intent of physically injuring the listener.

Even Gary Casparov, with all his awesome intelligence, was unable to consistently defeat a computer when faced with the prospect of having to face it within the limits of a predefined, well-formed algorithm.

This is a myth perpetrated by IBM and the media.

Kasparov faced and defeated Deep Blue in a best-of-six match, by a score of 4 games to 2. IBM asked for a rematch, which Kasparov granted; this time Deep Blue won 3 1/2 games to 2 1/2. Kasparov asked for a third match, but IBM declined, and went on trumpeting their success as if it was a big deal.

As it turns out, many grandmasters have faced computers; Kasparov actually has an abysmal record against computer opponents compared to other high-level chess players. (In the mid-1990s, a number of computers were entered in tournaments alongside human players. For several of these computers, Kasparov was actually their first grandmaster scalp; they struggled against other opponents.

Consider for a moment American grandmaster Joel Benjamin, who despite being in and out of the top 100 is supposedly the real standard by which computer chess programs are measured. In hundreds of games against computers, he has lost exactly one (to Chessmaster 4000)... and he played a less-publicized match against Deep Blue in which he won all six games handily.

u mean u dont want to blow out your eardrums lmao

This is a myth perpetrated by IBM and the media.

Kasparov faced and defeated Deep Blue in a best-of-six match, by a score of 4 games to 2. IBM asked for a rematch, which Kasparov granted; this time Deep Blue won 3 1/2 games to 2 1/2. Kasparov asked for a third match, but IBM declined, and went on trumpeting their success as if it was a big deal.

As it turns out, many grandmasters have faced computers; Kasparov actually has an abysmal record against computer opponents compared to other high-level chess players. (In the mid-1990s, a number of computers were entered in tournaments alongside human players. For several of these computers, Kasparov was actually their first grandmaster scalp; they struggled against other opponents.

Consider for a moment American grandmaster Joel Benjamin, who despite being in and out of the top 100 is supposedly the real standard by which computer chess programs are measured. In hundreds of games against computers, he has lost exactly one (to Chessmaster 4000)... and he played a less-publicized match against Deep Blue in which he won all six games handily.

Joel Benjamin was actually hired by IBM to help contrive the algorithm behind Deep Blue. Kasparov's major complaint throughout was that he wasn't allowed to access the code behind the machine, having to treat it as a newcomer that couldn't be picked apart to pieces and analysed. This element was of course absent in the case of Joel Benjamin, as he helped design it.

With respect to the other, rather vague point, I'll just point out that although other players may have done better against some computers, Kasparov beat all of them anyway, directly or indirectly. It's better to give concrete examples.

that whole high frequency thing sounds sexy.

Joel Benjamin was actually hired by IBM to help contrive the algorithm behind Deep Blue. Kasparov's major complaint throughout was that he wasn't allowed to access the code behind the machine, having to treat it as a newcomer that couldn't be picked apart to pieces and analysed. This element was of course absent in the case of Joel Benjamin, as he helped design it.

With respect to the other, rather vague point, I'll just point out that although other players may have done better against some computers, Kasparov beat all of them anyway, directly or indirectly. It's better to give concrete examples.

Kramnik and Anand also had no trouble disposing of Deep Blue. I believe Polgar beat Deep Blue as well. In fact, Deep Blue only ever defeated two grandmasters: Kasparov and the far lower rated Lars Bo Hansen.

As for Benjamin, he's still considered the man to beat in the computer chess world, because he has thrashed virtually every chess program in existence, losing only one game to a computer in his career.

Even Fritz 4, running on a 133 MHz Pentium (as opposed to Deep Blue's supercomputer), beat Deep Blue repeatedly. Deep Blue was designed to beat Kasparov, not to be the strongest computer chess program, and it showed.

I noticed a lot of posts regarding how uncreative the computer's compositions were....but what if (like in the future, sometime, say 50 years maximum) computers are just as smart, if not much smarter than humans and can easily think like us? If our technology grows at the same rate it's been growing throughout time, this is quite likely. Kind of scary to think that computers will be intelligent enough to create incredible new compositions, especially they can think like us, but much faster, and with many of our resources (countless scores and guides on the Internet, for example).

It's been hypothesized that within this century computers will equal the intelligence of every human today combined.....if true, it looks like we're in for interesting times :).

Kramnik and Anand also had no trouble disposing of Deep Blue . . . In fact, Deep Blue only ever defeated two grandmasters: Kasparov and the far lower rated Lars Bo Hansen.

Deep Blue--(and even regular Fritz).. (and even Deep Fritz a few months ago)--is old news.

I'm not that sure you're familiar with the most recent Kramnik-Deep Fritz match or a few others of recent history. It's not uncommon for top players to drop like flies against the latest machine. Draw, draw, draw, loss (Wins will come out, but it's not common). There are still a few computer thrashers today, such as Benjamin as well as Nunn, but computers' play is getting much more solid in terms of attack, defense, and even strategy. The accuracy and intuition is increasing and it's a great accomplishment nowadays to achieve positional equality. Computers can crumble in certain types of closed, strategic positions, but every day, while you're busy composing or doing whatever, there are genius chess players/programers in Europe, Russia, and the USA working to correct these flaws and help machines in such positions. As for the opening repertoire and the novelties that can be incorporated in to the play of a computer, with teams of theorists working to perfect new variations and subtleties that can throw the most carefully planned player off balance. The endgame of a computer has also been just about perfected with the tablebases and the infinite knowledge that can be summoned almost instantly. The only phase of the game feasible for a win against a computer is obviously the middlegame, if play is still unclear. Not only can this be difficult, especially against modern advancements in technology such as Deep Fritz/Junior, etc., it's becoming closer and closer to being practically impossible to achieve a win with anything less than +0.50 in your favor, which after a difficult opening struggle is slowly but surely becoming less possible to achieve (and more possible for black to defend difficult positions that can be reached). An opening repertoire for the second player as a computer can almost hold any difficult position especially if the repertoire is tailor made to suit your weaknesses as a player. By all means I'm not saying computers are indestructable, because there are certainly ways around these difficulties sometimes, but with technological strength increasing, things aren't looking as good as they were for Benjamin just five years ago (even then they were a few months ago with the recent Deep Fritz advancements).

Off topic, but--Computer play nowadays is boring, since they don't "cheat," go to the bathroom :), or cause scandals.. not to mention the boring draws (although I shouldn't say that, because there were tons of masterpieces that we're human vs. machine, although you can't underestimate the boring human vs. machine draw [commonly referred to as the grandmaster draw, and you thought watching grass grow was boring....... or did you?).. PVP will always remain as the most active and entertaining form of chess, computers will never creep into PVP chess. They will always remain separate and it should definitely stay that way. Without the occasional dubious sacrifice or flawed attack, some of the greatest games in history would never have been played. (Such as the Sozin Fischer-Spassky and also Topalov's famous game a year or so ago against, .. someone, I don't remember, but you get the point.)

Back to computers and composing, . . .

I wouldn't necessarily say that this is "disgusting" as some other people described it. It's a very good proof that there is little to no point composing in the "style" of Baroque or Classical, music that has passed. By that, I don't mean you should abandon tonality, no. Wolfgang Rihm, a great contemporary composer, in an interview of his, when asked why he used a triadic chord in a piece of his, and whether it was an "avant-garde" reaction to the already "avant-garde" music, he said two things:

A) "I am every inch an intuitive composer. Even if I weren’t one, I could only write my music. You can’t create art with taboos. Of course, just breaking taboos does not make for art either"

b) "...And: there is nothing wrong with something establishing itself if it has the inherent strength to do so.

Which implies that, you should neither have restrictions in your music of the type "I must end on the tonic; now I must move to the dominant; the violin must only play notes" and stuff like that, nor the other way around, "oh, I can't use triadic harmonies, that's so classical and non-modern; oh, the violin plays notes? that's classical, you have to scratch it to be contemporary" and stuff like that. You should just do what you want to do. You should learn as much as possible about as much as possible, and then let your intuition use whatever elements it thinks are necessary, or invent new ones, to express yourself.

Also, it says that if someone could use triadic harmony in a way that would sound original, and not like mozart, beethoven or any other classical composer, then why not? There's nothing wrong with that! :P As Plato had said, "only something original is beautiful", which means that doing something that has been done before is not considered "beautiful" in the philosophical sense.

Whatever, my point is, the computer can compose in the style of Bach, but that was 200 years ago. If you let a computer compose freely, in any way it wanted, I don't think the result would be anything worthy. Because man can deal with freedom, but can a computer do that? Can a computer deal a situation with limitless possibilities? Can it make decisions out of nowhere?

SO, the bottom line to this huge response is that, the computer that composes is not a composer, as it would have not been able to produce the same piece of art if it existed back in the baroque era, when music rules were being formed. It's just a recycling bin.

I heard that David Cope uses it and he inputs his own compositions in it, and then he uses the output to make something new. Now, that's something cool :P And this is why I guess this machine was built for. I don't think Cope had in mind making a machine which could write in the baroque style.

Over and out... (before anyone starts kicking me for this huge response)

Whatever, my point is, the computer can compose in the style of Bach, but that was 200 years ago. If you let a computer compose freely, in any way it wanted, I don't think the result would be anything worthy. Because man can deal with freedom, but can a computer do that? Can a computer deal a situation with limitless possibilities? Can it make decisions out of nowhere?

This, I think, is the crux of the whole issue... A computer has to work within a set of guidelines that the programmer gives it. As such, the pieces it creates will never be truly original, unless the programmer gives it an original set of constructs in which to work. In that sense, the programmer is the real composer, not the computer.

Oh and if you want to, check out the Georgiev-CraftyNovus match that is coming up on February 3rd and 4th. CraftyNovus is a new and excellent computer that has a great chance of winning, but it still should be an exciting match.

I take it this match wouldn't get TV coverage?

SO, the bottom line to this huge response is that, the computer that composes is not a composer, as it would have not been able to produce the same piece of art if it existed back in the baroque era, when music rules were being formed. It's just a recycling bin.

That's true. The computer is a machine - it has no conceptions of ugly or beautiful. However, if we were able to completely map the structure, and define the functioning of the brain in concrete terms, reaching at the biological basis of what is beautiful or not, then it would be very much able to compose and innovate even before one has the desire. But this is irrelevant for the moment.

I heard that David Cope uses it and he inputs his own compositions in it, and then he uses the output to make something new. Now, that's something cool :thumbsup: And this is why I guess this machine was built for. I don't think Cope had in mind making a machine which could write in the baroque style.

Over and out... (before anyone starts kicking me for this huge response)

David Cope's program analyses scores by composers to compose in their style. Plain and simple. He doesn't compose anything for the machine... Among many other things, the machine composed 5000 Bach chorales and they are offered for free by him.

Because man can deal with freedom, but can a computer do that? Can a computer deal a situation with limitless possibilities? Can it make decisions out of nowhere?)

Except that no one makes decisions out of nowhere... When one makes such decisions, ignoring any rules, the output is nonsense. Indeed, we humans are quite limited in terms of the initial conditions we impose on "listenable" music. The range of frequencies we can perceive is limited, the range of the combinations that we perceive as being "pleasurable" is even more limited.

Whatever, my point is, the computer can compose in the style of Bach, but that was 200 years ago. If you let a computer compose freely, in any way it wanted, I don't think the result would be anything worthy. Because man can deal with freedom, but can a computer do that? Can a computer deal a situation with limitless possibilities? Can it make decisions out of nowhere?

This, I think, is the crux of the whole issue... A computer has to work within a set of guidelines that the programmer gives it. As such, the pieces it creates will never be truly original, unless the programmer gives it an original set of constructs in which to work. In that sense, the programmer is the real composer, not the computer.

Then, am I justified in suggesting that one's teacher is the real composer whenever he composes something, in light of the fact that the initial input is always provided by the teacher in the form of the rules and conventions of Western Tradition?

Obviously such an argument is absurd; when a computer composes a piece, the piece is its property, despite the fact that, of course, it never actually composes anything at all, it just operates an algorithm. It's up to all of us to ask how much we do the same, by design or intuitively.

I take it this match wouldn't get TV coverage?

If the bathroom fiasco didn't get coverage, I highly doubt this little event will get coverage. If you want to see it live, I suggest a membership to WorldChessNetwork, ICC, or FICS (Free Internet Chess Server, which I think they have coverage but I'm not sure).

To answer to many people on this subject, I don't think we can now make a computer equal or better than a human, simply due to the fact that we don't KNOW what we are. We don't know the abilities of our brain, and we haven't understood half the things our brain does or how it does it or which part does which and how it works. In a computer we can only reproduce what we have understood and know how it works.

So, for now, I am sure we can't create a computer better than the human mind. The reason why a computer might beat a chess player is because firstly, humans can do mistakes and secondly, because the computer has an infinite, constant memory and can calculate and program its moves up to like, 10 moves ahead, for like, all the opponent's move possibilities. It's purely because of technical stuff. Think about that: what would happen if you put a Deep Blue play against a Deep Blue? Who would win?

On a sidenote, I personally believe that we (humans) will never be able to understand fully the human mind (I don't mean only the brain, but also the soul).

Now, back to the subject.

The robot composer, named Experiments in Musical Intelligence (EMI) is a project that started by David Cope as a solution to a composer's block he was facing back in 1981. After many developments (the early outputs were dull and sounded empty and lifeless, if they were just to follow rules of a specific style), the algorithm of the computer goes like this: it "deconstructs" the music input, i.e. it analyses the musical elements and separates it into parts, it marks the elements that are common among the input (e.g. Bach's pieces) and which signify the specific style of an era or composer, and lastly, it recombines these elements into new works, much in the way a poet would recombine words to produce a poem.

Thing is, this software can only produce music from already existent input. This means that, if we had this "program" (roughly, but anyway) to compose a contemporary piece, without any input, or with input from many different composers (monteverdi, bach, mozart, schumann, chopin, debussy, bartok, stravinsky, stockhausen, boulez, dello joio and cope, for example), then since it would not be able to derive any rules in order to create a "recombining algorithm", it wouldn't be able to compose. i.e., it wouldn't be able to "create" art, merely reproduce it.

This concerns all people who went like "OMG THIS IS HORRIBLE!" or "Man, music is art, a computer can't do that", well it sure can, you just heard it. And you can find more samples here: main

Also, it concerns contemporary composers who think of composing in the styles of previous eras. As other people have stated, if a computer can produce huge amounts of works in a specific "past" style of music, what's the point in doing this? It should instead make new composers think that they should try and compose something a computer could NOT compose.

I also have to quote, here, Wolfgang Rihm (a great contemporary composer, not only because of his music, but also because of his vast knowledge on music):

1. " Style only exists through artists who produce it. No one can “change styles.” I know there is the widely held view that young artists are faced with the question: “in which style shall I work?” "

2. " And: there is nothing wrong with something establishing itself if it has the inherent strength to do so. "

I hope my huuuuge reply satisfied most people reading this forum, and I am sorry for huge replies, it just seems to be my thing :)

Take care y'all :)

EDIT:

The Wolfgang Rihm interview can be found here: The Ensemble Sospeso - Wolfgang Rihm :)

Think about that: what would happen if you put a Deep Blue play against a Deep Blue? Who would win?

It's much more complicated than that especially within the past ten years of scientific advancements.

So what are the best compositions by a robot.. where can they be downloaded online?

"To answer to many people on this subject, I don't think we can now make a computer equal or better than a human, simply due to the fact that we don't KNOW what we are. We don't know the abilities of our brain, and we haven't understood half the things our brain does or how it does it or which part does which and how it works. In a computer we can only reproduce what we have understood and know how it works."

A couple of responses to that :dry:....first of all, we can at least make a computer pass a Turing test and "seem" human (without more knowledge of the brain than we have). Second of all, our knowledge of our brains has only grown in the past century and it will continue to do so at an even faster rate. So yes, within the century (most likely) I believe we will have computers that can think like humans and are as smart, if not much, much smarter. Future computer's abilities to compose/create artwork will be frightening :) ....

There's a famous quote that I love....goes something like "there are no unsolvable problems, only problems that are hard for a certain degree of intelligence." As of now, yes, computers composing are a product of the programmers and it is difficult to make original work. Once the computers are at human intelligence, along with the enormous resources of the internet, their ability to think like us (only with much more knowledge) is, as I said before, frightening.

Remember that we were "created" as well. We were "programmed" through evolution (or God, whatever, please don't start :P). Perhaps the next step in evolution is computers/machines :)....scary thought, but it seems like we're headed in that direction.

It seems to me that intelligence is nothing without sentience. A computer can manipulate and assemble data, but it is up to the user to interpret that data. Just because a computer can talk and mimic a human doesn't mean that it knows what it is saying...

In fact, the only reason it can do so is from human programming in the first place. So I don't think that computers will ever supersede humans as "the next step" in evolution - how could they? Computers don't debug themselves - they can't solve problems that they haven't been told how to solve. Granted, computers can model things accurately and quickly, but is that really intelligence? Or does it only appear as intelligence? When a calculator says that 2+2=4, does it really know what that means, or how to apply it? I think not.

So, back on topic, the computer does not really know what sounds good and what does not - it has to be told what is good and what is bad by the programmer (or by an inputted music sample). In fact, I'll admit that a lot of it is quite good. But it lacks a certain human "unpradictability" about it, because the computer does not have free will - something that computers will never have.

So, back on topic, the computer does not really know what sounds good and what does not - it has to be told what is good and what is bad by the programmer (or by an inputted music sample). In fact, I'll admit that a lot of it is quite good. But it lacks a certain human "unpradictability" about it, because the computer does not have free will - something that computers will never have.

The human composer is told exactly the same by society or teachers, although, yes, not by a programmer. And I'd say that a large amount of compositions on this website are bound by a remarkable degree of predictability too, even the best of them, regardless of the choice.

Remember that we were "created" as well. We were "programmed" through evolution (or God, whatever, please don't start :ninja:). Perhaps the next step in evolution is computers/machines :ermm:....scary thought, but it seems like we're headed in that direction.

Wouldn't it be auspicious instead? The threat will force us to survive, not the other way around.

One might argue that, without goading from some outer factor we will be unwilling to modify ourselves, and we will sooner or later fade to irrelevance, because, on the macroscopic scale,

The speed of technology is about to overwhelm the capability of natural evolution(or creation) to supply beings capable of directing it..

Viruses, and to a lesser extent bacteria, are capable of evolving at sufficient speed to cope with the innovations of technology, because their structures are simple. This is not so with a human being or an orangutan, or a similar complex creature, the evolutionary bettering of which takes at least millions of years, because this process is largely by trial and error.

Seen in this context, the pressure that the computer creates on humanity, threatening them with irrelevance if they do not return the challenge of progress with a countercharge, is something that should be celebrated as much as the KT event that ended the era of the bulky dinosaurs and paved the way for the nimble human beings.

Well, I know all that, but I prefer "pure" humanness :).....

Yes, but guys, honestly, do you believe we could replicate (not simulate) emotion in computers? Could we create computers so they could laugh without being taught how to laugh? To be afraid and to know respect? Honesty? Pride? There's many things a computer would not understand, in my opinion, simply because they are not defined. Nobody can define love. Yes, I can tell you "love is when both people are willing to give their life for the other, and at the same time they don't want the other one to give their life for them.", and a human would totally understand this, assuming they've loved before. What about a computer? Could we make a computer that would eat? A series of completely identical computers, which would have different preferences (without any other input) on taste? Could we make computers that can smell and would close their "nose" because it's disgusting? Or computers which would cry at the end of a good movie, assuming they are able to understand it fully? Could we make computers who would be able to devise a full stand-up comedy routine?

There's tons of things humans do a computer can't do, and most probably, won't ever do. Yes, that little calculator software you have in your cellphone, it can calculate how much is 756/4.5 faster than you, but that doesn't mean it's smarter than you. It means it's faster than you in terms of thought.

Everyone's thinking in terms of today's computers :P....to answer all of your questions: Yes, eventually computers will be able to do that. As well as we can, at least....basically, as we learn more about the brain and the way it functions, we will begin to create computers modeled after ourselves (one factor being parallel processing within the CPUs) and we'll begin to integrate with them.

No, personally, I don't think we'll be able to create computers with a soul. And I see you very sure in this, but I don't see where you're basing your opinion. As in, you're taking everything mentally, as if the whole existence of a human is in the brain and body. Unless you do believe so, that there is no soul, in which case there is no point arguing, because we'd end up hanging each another :P

But if he did? Would the computer be able to accurately represent the composer-programmer's knowledge?

Incompleteness theorem implies we'll never be able to produce a computer that would be able to handle everything our mind can handle.