Triumph of the Cyborg Composer

  Quote

Emmy was once the world’s most advanced artificially intelligent composer, and because he’d managed to breathe a sort of life into her, he became a modern-day musical Dr. Frankenstein. She produced thousands of scores in the style of classical heavyweights, scores so impressive that classical music scholars failed to identify them as computer-created. Cope attracted praise from musicians and computer scientists, but his creation raised troubling questions: If a machine could write a Mozart sonata every bit as good as the originals, then what was so special about Mozart? And was there really any soul behind the great works, or were Beethoven and his ilk just clever mathematical manipulators of notes?

My friend posted this article on Facebook today. It was a really good read!

What do you think? It's hard to say without hearing more, but the idea that he has a program that can interact with him in coming up with new musical ideas, themes and variations is exciting to me!

I think about this creativity issue similarly to how I think about auto-tune: Many people think the effect makes everyone sound the same and takes away any 'warmth' or 'expressiveness' or 'human element' or 'personality' from the vocal line -- but I don't think that's true at all. T-Pain through auto-tune sounds nothing like Lil Wayne through auto-tune; their unique voices still come through. It's just an effect, like room reverb on an epic donk. (Firefox spellchecker doesn't recognize 'reverb,' btw ... ) Similarly, I don't think that, just because a computer program (which Cope himself is responsible for writing) helps him select the notes, that the resulting work is not 'creative' or expressive of his own style -- especially the last version of the software that they discuss at the end of the article, which kind of comes up with things and he either accepts or rejects them, then tweaks them. I think of it as a way of lubricating his settling upon the right set of notes that musically expresses whatever it is that he, personally, in terms of his own musical sense of style, thinks is what should be written, what he wants to hear. Basically, Emmy is his compositional pre-cum.

It's a cool article because it touches on a common complaint against computer-based music in general, that it's not as 'real' or 'authentic' or 'creative' as music you play on a guitar or piano or whatever. We in the WATMM community have had to live with that aesthetic prejudice all our lives, and it's good to hear someone else who is taking a stand against it.

Check out the article!

ps: I have the paranoia that the musical samples in the article are actually written from scratch by people, and this whole article is a hoax!

Computers writing music? Fair game. I see no reason that a sufficiently complex algorithm couldn't write something interesting and moving.

  Quote

Already, at least one prominent pop group — he’s signed a confidentiality agreement, so he can’t say which one — asked him to use software to help them write new songs. He also points to services like Pandora, which uses algorithms to suggest new music to listeners.

Badass.

Great article, thank you!

I think music has been "machine-assisted" since its conception. The compositional process he describes is a lot like what happens when you tweak a synthesizer or an effect - or even improvise on the piano - you give the instrument a direction, and either it will assist you in getting there, or show you something wonderful that you weren't thinking of at all.

So what good reason could his detractors have for being so 'angry' about it? Do you think it's just a kind of vanity about our uniqueness in being able to produce beautiful things?

someone also has to write the algorithms. of course it's just as valid as composition 'by hand', only smarter. as once you have the process down, you can use the code to create as many sonatae as you want.

one of the first things i talked about on this board after i spammed my auto IDM making software was Cope's compositions and how amazing they were. It immediately started an argument on the validity of 'hand-done' music vs computer aided. Cope is the person i always point to to break through someones argument that a computer could never produced convincing music. Glad to see other people here appreciating this genius

  On 2/24/2010 at 8:08 PM, encey said:

So what good reason could his detractors have for being so 'angry' about it? Do you think it's just a kind of vanity about our uniqueness in being able to produce beautiful things?

yep, human egotism, hubris, the normal stuff

edit: he used to teach a class at UC Santa cruz that i sat in on once, it must have been the wrong day because it was very boring. He is really into this programming language called small-talk, perhaps a little too much

great read.

pretty awesome! music theory carries with it so many guidelines that its not too surprising to hear about something like this -- the more constraints there are on a problem, the easier it is to solve. its great that listeners couldn't discern the pieces, i love it haha! pandora's a whole different ball game. they have a team of people that listen to songs and give them characteristics (upbeat, blablabla) -- these characteristics are then correlated with a lot of number crunching and statistics to find which songs are a better match. combine this with the user's feedback and, bam, you've got "automated" music suggestions.

Well but imagine this applied to the pandora and genius ball game. you tell the software an example of something you like and then it will come up with playlist of generated music on the fly.

I feel quite bad for not being that impressed by either of the two samples (the second was better than the first (which sounded just like some arpeggio being fired off by the original base notes)). I mean they were nice, just not earth shattering.

I honestly am not that experienced at all when it comes to creating 'computer generated' melody but even with my lack of knowledge I can come out with something like this:

computational creativity is not very advanced by the way, if it exists at all.

genetic algorithms and neural networks are classic examples where promising concepts proved to be far less exciting than some nerds have hoped for.. so far all AI can do is test if it got closer to a solution to a given measurable problem.

i.e. pathfinding, fuel efficiency, these things, face detection… or in the case above structure numbers similar to how Bach did…

i think it has to do with lack of real chaotic elements… it all happens in a controlled environment, could even be that it's impossible to build true chaos into the code. In the end it will stay predictable. Extremely fast calculators, that's what our computers still are in 2010 and no signs of change.

  On 2/25/2010 at 12:24 AM, mcbpete said:

I feel quite bad for not being that impressed by either of the two samples (the second was better than the first (which sounded just like some arpeggio being fired off by the original base notes)). I mean they were nice, just not earth shattering.

you should check out his fake 'unreleased' Chopin and Bartok works on his home page, i seriously had a big mind fuck like experience knowing that these were made by a computer

Computers will never have the "Human Touch" ,

thats basically saying that computer power and programming will never exceed the power of the human brain. i am not so sure about that.

what if one day artificial intelligence that is more advanced than a human decides to start composing music? i can see a bunch of music critics now angry at the idea and saying reflexively 'its nice and all but doesnt have the human touch'

  On 2/24/2010 at 9:10 PM, Awepittance said:

yep, human egotism, hubris, the normal stuff

  On 2/25/2010 at 1:19 AM, Awepittance said:

thats basically saying that computer power and programming will never exceed the power of the human brain. i am not so sure about that.

see also: computer chess.

  On 2/25/2010 at 1:19 AM, Awepittance said:

thats basically saying that computer power and programming will never exceed the power of the human brain. i am not so sure about that.

What i meant was ..

Computers may be able to create complicated compositions and mathematical masterpieces .. but will never have the touch of the human spirit .. you can't program a computer to FEEL (Yet)

If Mozart were a computer , His music would be shit ..

  On 2/25/2010 at 1:11 AM, Awepittance said:

  On 2/25/2010 at 12:24 AM, mcbpete said:

I feel quite bad for not being that impressed by either of the two samples (the second was better than the first (which sounded just like some arpeggio being fired off by the original base notes)). I mean they were nice, just not earth shattering.

 

you should check out his fake 'unreleased' Chopin and Bartok works on his home page, i seriously had a big mind fuck like experience knowing that these were made by a computer

Erm, you're so right - why the hell didn't they put those ones up on the article instead

(the page is here for lazy people - http://artsites.ucsc.edu/faculty/cope/mp3page.htm )

did you check them out? post them here if you find the links, i just did a quick search and couldnt find the same page iw as talking about

thanks, that chopin one is amazing. I dont see the bartok one here though, maybe it is and i just cant see it

  On 2/25/2010 at 1:20 AM, chaosmachine said:

 

  On 2/25/2010 at 1:19 AM, Awepittance said:

thats basically saying that computer power and programming will never exceed the power of the human brain. i am not so sure about that.

 

see also: computer chess.

which is a game after purely logical rules in a controlled environment, heavy number crunching will win here against any creativity. ai is much stupider than you think.

  On 2/25/2010 at 1:34 AM, phling said:

ai is much stupider than you think.

AI of 2010 might be, but what about the AI of 2020?

  On 2/25/2010 at 1:21 AM, Boxing Day said:

  On 2/25/2010 at 1:19 AM, Awepittance said:

thats basically saying that computer power and programming will never exceed the power of the human brain. i am not so sure about that.

 

What i meant was ..

 

Computers may be able to create complicated compositions and mathematical masterpieces .. but will never have the touch of the human spirit .. you can't program a computer to FEEL (Yet)

 

If Mozart were a computer , His music would be shit ..

But Cope can actually guide his software, ya know, coax it towards being emotional and touching. So it's not 100% computer yet, though it won't be long before they have emotional understanding too.

we'll probably don't have to search the internet anymore, it will automagically be spoon fed to us, or something.

it's hard to predict actually. but if you follow the development of ai from the 60s to now you'll see that it's more a story of fail than of win.

recently some asshole claimed to have simulated the brain of a cat in a supercomputer, it was a blatant lie.

  On 2/25/2010 at 1:38 AM, Rabid said:

So it's not 100% computer yet, though it won't be long before they have emotional understanding too.

computer can find patterns in groups of notes != computer will ever be able to feel things the way a living organism does