hmm... pretty interesting stuff, here.

I listened to the wolframtones demos and the first thing that struck me was how oddly inhuman this music seemed to be -- as though the logic of it was somehow too refined. I know, I know... logic is not a word that describes it, but there's a sense of unfolding that is somehow too "clear". It really sounds like a program running through permutations.

I think ground-up composition by computers will always be plagued by this general problem -- too much continuity (or too much discontinuity... the problem being the "too" part, not the latter). Without human intervention, these things just don't have the necessary illogic or inconsistency to be pleasingly musical. Actually, I would argue that the whole nature/nurture thing makes it extremely difficult to systematize musical composition, since the human brain can, quite easily, behave in essentially contradictory ways. Most importantly to music, human brains (or composer's brains... however human those may or may not be) can choose to disobey whatever process or path they've been on, and simply turn in a different direction. They can do this permanently, or for an arbitrarily brief period of time. And the frequency of such "shifts" of sense is what I think computers have an extremely difficult time emulating. Making matters worse (for the computer composer, that is) is the fact that the adjacent "models" of musical organization can be of arbitrary relation to one another, their connection being down to something as arbitrary as the composer hearing a particular song, or a bird, that day before setting to work on the next bar. For example, I don't know how many times I've started a piece with a specific "battle-plan" only to abandon it 2 or 3 minutes into the work in favour of simply following my own gut instincts. Now, clearly, those "gut instincts" are based on something. And I don't doubt that these are systems, of sorts. It's not the ability to replicate any one system that I think is impossible, but rather the ability to replicate the sudden jumps from one system to another, which human composers make quite naturally. And yes, those leaps can, for whatever reason, maintain a sense of final continuity in the final composition... don't know how. Sorry! Probably something about human beings as historical individuals, but I'm clearly guessing (read: bullshitting).

Just some random mental drooling... ignore if desired!

J.

I actually think your post is quite interesting, JBM.

@jbm said:

. Actually, I would argue that the whole nature/nurture thing makes it extremely difficult to systematize musical composition, since the human brain can, quite easily, behave in essentially contradictory ways.

What about this:
Creative people create "new future cliches" (Douglas Hofstadter).

"Systematizing musical composition" can't mean anything else than cliches, repeating oneself. On the other hand young Stockhousen created a new methodology for almost every new piece. I guess most composers are somewhere between.

If we pretend that a computer composed piece is based on some new methodology, how many times one should listen to it to see it there is something in it?

PS. Wolframtones demos are just bad ring tones, nothing else and in no way one could call them "pieces". I still have to wait for a good competitor for my Synestesia pieces generated from any pictures in 5 seconds...[/b]

@weslldeckers said:

I actually think your post is quite interesting, JBM.

Me too. Something essential there, in the human jumps-because-of-environment, yet a hidden, unknowable system despite it all.

Yes, JBM makes some interesting points here. Also I agree with creative people creating future cliches. Of course that is true. Art is cliche mixed with originality. Perhaps the greatest playwright ever, Shakespeare, used so many cliches you could fill a book with them. But he also wrote better plays than anyone else in the language.

However I think JBM leaves out an essential point which gugliel alluded to. That is that despite various intellectual ways of discussing "systems" and "emulations" and so forth, there is a mystery within the human mind that is not solved yet, called consciousness. And this fundamentally mysterious phenomenon is the most essential part of art. Art is in fact a realization, in physical, acoustic or linguistic form, of consciousness. So I believe this fundamental mystery is at the root of all art which succeeds in becoming significant in some way. And consciousness can be aped and imitated, but has not been duplicated. Though I think it is quite possible computers might become conscious. If they become sufficiently parallel, capable of generating significant (not merely silly) new systems from randomness, and self-reflexive. Also, there will have to be far more autonomic, self-generated construction of circuitry possible, outside of any human design, because no engineer, no psychologist nor neurologist has the slightest idea of how to explain consciousness, let alone translate it into machinery.

Just some more random idea generation for you...

There exists a common belief that young child are creative and for some reason they lose that ability. I guess that belief is wrong, Let's take drawing as an example. Because of weak motor and gestalt formation abilities what children do is just partly random strokes only. The "creativity" in on the eyes of the parentsy.

My claim it that "computer creativity" is analogous to what I wrote above. So called naivism is just emulation of children like work.

Computer generate music? Most of it is coherent. The main weakness of amateur composers is that the music is uncoherent. Got some ideas?

Well, you've got a point.

One thing however: what is art?
I think serious art can only be 'generated' from a desire to create something. The creation itself is a process of finding a way out for feelings, idea's, pictures, sounds that one feels or thinks or just 'knows'. The outcome isn't set but is constantly feeded by the urge to create.

A computer is programmed. Whatever 'consiousness' it can and will ever devellop, it is has started with simple programming at some point and therefore it will remain artificial, unnatural and unreal. (I'm not saying that the computer can't compose music that is nice to listen to)

@Another User said:

A computer is programmed. Whatever 'consiousness' it can and will ever devellop, it is has started with simple programming at some point and therefore it will remain artificial, unnatural and unreal.

Painters and composers take some kind of "seeds" from many areas, nature is one of those. Please excuse me of using my own sw as and example, but it takes the seeds from pictures the sw also being deterministic. In a way the computer is not programmed more than an artist. And many people believe that great art/music is based on unconscious matters and on the other hand computers are not-conscious...

There is a big difference between "not conscious" and unconscious.

@William said:

There is a big difference between "not conscious" and unconscious.

Yes, off course. But if an artistc creates something being "unconscious" doesn't it mean that he/she is is in some programmed state? Or are there some other possibilities?

@Another User said:

doesn't it mean that he/she is is in some programmed state? Or are there some other possibilities?

I think 'programming' has something to do with creation, where it comes to the artist not being able to get his/hers work created like he/she actually feels like (but can still be happy with the result).

The unconsious is too abstract for any person to clearly conceptualise. One can start with a definite idea of how a new work should be created and result, but the unconsiuous can steer away from those intitial thoughts.

I think what any artist does, or tries to do, is interpret all those 'waves' streaming trough the unconsious, trying to get a hold of them and put them on a canvas with oils or on a staff with a pen. (And then that process is influenced by skill, practise, luck and programming: when one looses his/her grip on the flow from unconsious to material, one can only let his/her programming 'save' the work, or let it finish, based on solutions found in the past or seen/heard elsewhere).

Actually, Gerard Edelman proposed a very elegant and plausible "explanation" of consciousness -- although, he would think of it more as an explanatory model of how consciousness is neurally possible. I won't go into it here, but if you feel like an interesting read, he's got two relatively recent books on the subject: "A Universe of Consciousness" and "Wider Than the Sky". Anyway, I agree with William that it is consciousness which provides the major difference. But then, if you read the Edleman book, you'll realize that my comment about human composers switching systems at the drop of a hat is, in fact, informed by Edleman's model of consciousness... (I cheated a little: I didn't give you the background for my comments! Nasty, isn't it! But I've been into the whole mind/brain theory thing for a number of years -- a hobby, of sorts.)

The whole subject of computers actually composing music, however, doesn't really interest me that much (nor really does the subejct of whether computers _can_ be conscious). But the idea of computers as something like automated composition assistants is, I think, very interesting. I even started messing around with this myself and have found that success depends entirely upon the creative imagination of the composer/programmer and also on her/his ability to quantify, in some way, what it is they find interesting in music. To simply tell a computer to help you compose music is, of course, a little silly. But to extract the essential, theoretical underpinnings of what you're looking for, and develop a representation of these in terms that a computer can work with can be quite rewarding. Now, before we all get into a battle about "creativity" and "robots" or whatever, keep in mind that I in no way imagine that the computer itself is composing, or even being creative. To me, the computer is simply doing what I ask it to do. It's just a slightly more abstract version of working with a sequencer -- the computer is helping. That's all. And there are many ways in which a computer assistant can be a very handy helper!

So it finally comes down to a knowledge and understanding of music. The computer is just a tool -- like a piano, violin, voice, etc. If you become good at "playing" it, then you can do some pretty exciting things. If not, then you'll never get beyond "Mary Had a Little Lamb". On the other hand, if I were a virtuoso pianist, I may likely avoid the computer altogether!

J.

@William said:

There is a big difference between "not conscious" and unconscious.

Yes, off course. But if an artistc creates something being "unconscious" doesn't it mean that he/she is is in some programmed state? Or are there some other possibilities?

Well, we are, in a very real sense, in "some programmed state" much of the time. But we are also capable of being completely otherwise at a moments notice! That's the exciting part. It is also probably why it IS possible to create a program that will compose like a bad composer (making obvious, or unimaginative decisions at each step). But it's very difficult (perhaps impossible) to create a program that will compose like a great composer. The scary fact is that we don't really know what makes a great musical decision great until it's already been made...
...and then we only figure it out by picking it apart like a bunch of computers!!! [;)]


J.

No one has ever picked apart what makes a good melody, or a great musical concept. It cannot be divided. It is an elementary particle.

Also, the number of people who explain consciousness grows by leaps and bounds every year. Not one of them has a ghost of a chance, and every one of them naively does the same thing:

re-describing it, not explaining it. To explain, one must get outside of a phenomenon. That is impossible with consciousness.

The person, oddly enough, who is most valuable is explaining the mistakes made by scientists who attempt to either explain or even (in some extreme cases) DISMISS (!) consciousness, is Ludwig Wittgenstein. Scientists are more naive about just how fooled their own brains are by linguistic thought processes than any of them would care to admit.

William.

1) Virtually every elementary music book has a chapter on "how to write a good melody". How can you even begin to claim this hasn't been done???? Every aspect of traditional, functional harmony was drummed-up through analysis of previously successful musical decisions... what exactly are you trying to say?

2) It sounds as though you haven't read the Edelman -- it is, as I said, an explanatory model for the (possible) neural foundations of consciousness. It is a model that works from a set of attributes traditionally associated with conscious experience, then goes about showing how neural processes can explain such attributes. Without reading it there's not much point in discussing it further...

3) ...particularly since you are clearly on nothing more than another tear into me and whatever it is I post that shows even slightest tone of disagreement with one of your edicts.

4) i was merely pointing out that this statement:

"no psychologist nor neurologist has the slightest idea of how to explain consciousness, let alone translate it into machinery"

...save for the "translate it into machinery" part, is simply untrue. You're all geared-up for a battle of science vs. philosophy, and I understand completely the problems you have with science. But it is naive to maintain that the development of a deeper understanding of how consciousness functions is possible without any acknowledgment of science. Science does have valuable things to add to the investigation, so to simply throw on the blinders and let consciousness be a magic trick, or the hand of God, is little more than an arbitrary, emotional, and reactionary stance.

"I also have "hobbies", JBM."

So why not actually say something to support your position? All you've managed to do is contradict me... Give us something to chew on.

J.

...Or maybe you meant to say "no one has ever _successfully_ picked apart what makes a good melody..."

That much is certainly true.

@Another User said:

and also on her/his ability to quantify, in some way, what it is they find interesting in music.

Depends. If one is looking for melody. Or harmony. Or just the atmosphere created. My own criteria is that there must be some interest in the first hearing.

But what is most interesting just on this forum is orchestration. One just can't imagine how big influence the orchestration has when using sw composer program. And even orchestration can be reused...

JBM,

I am not trying to tear into you! I thought this was a discussion. Is this supposed to be just agreement?

I have no problem with science. I was originally going to become a scientist and was "diverted" so you are quite off base there. Also - thanks for reducing my arguments to a repetition of cliche.

What I was saying on melody analysis was obviously the successful analysis. Yes, I have seen over and over the little theoretical discussions of the arc of a melody, etc. They all mean nothing. They are outer descriptions. Just like the exterior, non-causal descriptions of consciousness. No composer who ever wrote a good melody did it by following the rules like cookbook. You can create a piece of shit melody with the exact same characteristics. That was the point I was making.

If you want to get all irritated with a simple discussion - then fine, forget it. Everything you say is right, all the time. You're right. Absolutely.

@William said:

No composer who ever wrote a good melody did it by following the rules like cookbook.

Well. Very rarely composers write melodies having NOT an origin from elsewhere. Perhaps this is just what one means with "cookbooks".

Let's say you're John Williams taking Strauss melodies from "Death and Transfiguration" to make your Superman love theme "Can You Read My Mind."

Everything comes from somewhere else. Analysis after the fact can determine relationships but not determine "what makes a hit." Otherwise, we would all be out of work.

Clark