# Artificial Intelligence and Music Composition



## Kyle Preston (May 30, 2017)

I read this NPR article today and grew curious about our future as working composers. Especially with CEOs saying things like this:

_As Cope sees it, composers who write soundtracks and jingles may need to look for another job.


"It's going to go that way eventually," he says. "It may be 20 years from now, it may be 50 years from now, it may be two years from now. But, no matter when it is, it's going to happen. Period."_

I recommend taking the test blind, but you can highlight below to read my reaction -> 

Seriously? Took me 2 bars to spot the algorithm. Vivaldi wouldn't do that. He had a brain, not an algorithm-based machine. 

But I had a thought that shocked me. Technology like this doesn't have to get better than us composers – it just has to fool most listeners. If/when it does that, it will become a competitor for work (at least at companies that can't tell the difference and want to save money). It reminds me of the coffee analogy in this video:

​

I just realized that my distributor, Distrokid, is run almost entirely by bots. Which makes so many good things possible for artists and composers. I'd like to believe that bots will just become new tools (for creatives). Not replacements. But....


----------



## chimuelo (May 31, 2017)

AI is going to drastically alter the world.
Personally welcome such a challenge.
I made quite a nice living making 5 1/4" and 3 1/2" sequences on MC 500/QX-1 hardware sequences as a youngster.
Even had 5 bands using my TX816s and QX-1s.
I was told I wouldn't be needed back then.
True in the sense that as the groups became popular they learned how to do what I did and cut me out of some nice commissions.
By that time I was making bank selling Emulator II sample FDDs.

I'm always pushing myself and my worst critic.
I say bring it on.
I was obsolete in 1985 according to the experts.


----------



## ghobii (May 31, 2017)

I read recently about a convention held for scientists working on Artificial Intelligence. They are extremely worried about how drastically their research is going change the world. And they said it's coming much faster than most people realize. Many of the talks at the gathering centered on how to restructure society, when a large percentage of the population becomes unemployed.


----------



## chimuelo (May 31, 2017)

Chance favors the prepared mind...


----------



## Desire Inspires (May 31, 2017)

Who is going to pay for all of this AI? It costs money to create and operate.


----------



## chimuelo (May 31, 2017)

We could return to our agricultural roots and self reliance.
Robots suck at farming.
I'll put my farm hands against them any day.


----------



## tack (May 31, 2017)

Desire Inspires said:


> Who is going to pay for all of this AI? It costs money to create and operate.


Consumers, ultimately. And gladly.


----------



## Desire Inspires (May 31, 2017)

Why the hell would AI be wasted on music? There are a million other things that need more time and labor & generate far more money than music.

Besides, AI is only going to take over in first world countries. Second and third world countries will not have the infrastructure to support AI. Technology takes energy. A continuous and reliable energy source. Many countries do not have steady and reliable or affordable energy sources. That is a fact.

All of these "problems" are simple imaginary problems that most of us cannot predict. Just relax.


----------



## tack (May 31, 2017)

Desire Inspires said:


> Second and third world countries will not have the infrastructure to support AI.


True. Those whose positions have been replaced by automation (artificially intelligent or otherwise) can take solace in the fact that they will always be able to find gainful employment in second and third world countries.

I do agree that the arts are on safe ground for the time being. However, although they may not be lucrative, they are _interesting_ to AI researches as hard problems. Moreover, there may be applications of more practical AI research in the arts. For example, pattern recognition and predictive analysis needed for autonomous vehicles could well be applied in the arts without much effort, even by enterprising hobbyists. The financial incentives exist for the former, and once the technology is well baked, perhaps in 20 years, we may all be surprised at the unexpected applications for very little (or no) further investment.

Exciting times. Hope I don't shuffle off the globe before it gets interesting.


----------



## gregh (Jun 6, 2017)

I have written software to generate music for years. I tend to generate then edit, but I could just as easily conventionalise the output with the software. It really isn't that hard. Or maybe it is and I'm deluded. Here are two pieces, one in the style of Satie ( driven by a theoretical question) and one a variation on Moonlight sonata which is not " trying" to be Beethoven, just "trying" to appeal within that aesthetic. I think this one was just done to see what could come out

And


----------



## NYC Composer (Jun 6, 2017)

I have written music for years so as to generate music. I tend to write it then edit after. I'll bet I have less editing to do


----------



## gregh (Jun 6, 2017)

NYC Composer said:


> I have written music for years so as to generate music. I tend to write it then edit after. I'll bet I have less editing to do


I like editing, for me it's one of the most interesting aspects of making computer based music. From memory, the "moonlight sonata" piece didn't have a lot of editing of notes after the software churned them out. The fun bit was was mainly choosing the right instrument sounds and general sound.

But I think software will be able to generate a lot of conventional music quite cheaply and fairly soon. But surprisingly good music will be more subject to a form of selection I think - the generation of variations around some convention with selection of "the best" done by a human. Which is sort of what happens now but with composers and songwriters generating the variation on conventional forms and the rest of the world deciding what is best. Extending that idea, software could generate billions of pieces, then test them against audiences online, select those that generate the most interest and then market those to specific audiences. Thinking of the stats involved that will lead to incredibly bland music with the occasional disruption in taste as people get bored. Which again is just like now.


----------



## gregh (Jun 6, 2017)

The echo nest is an interesting bit of tech in this space http://the.echonest.com/solutions/


----------



## re-peat (Jun 6, 2017)

gregh said:


> in the style of Satie


Is that Hubert Villebois Satie, a very distant cousin of Eric and also a musician, who, sadly, lost three fingers and most of his mind during an unfortunate spell as a young foreign volunteer in the Second Boer War?

_


----------



## gregh (Jun 6, 2017)

re-peat said:


> Is that Hubert Villebois Satie, a very distant cousin of Eric and also a musician, who, sadly, lost three fingers and most of his mind during an unfortunate spell as a young foreign volunteer in the Second Boer War?
> 
> _


The very same, here indulging his strange fetish for creating a piece only using the notes his esteemed cousin Erik had used in one of the thrice blessed Gymnopedies


----------



## NYC Composer (Jun 7, 2017)

I'm satie-ated.


----------



## Jdiggity1 (Jun 7, 2017)

does that make the programmer of a composer bot the copyright holder? (and thus the one responsible for breaching any copyright)


----------



## gregh (Jun 7, 2017)

Jdiggity1 said:


> does that make the programmer of a composer bot the copyright holder? (and thus the one responsible for breaching any copyright)


I would think for sure as if you are using existing works as training data then there is definitely a sense in which you have copied the set of music used in the training set. I don't use neural nets, I use something called surrogate data


----------



## Mike Fox (Jun 7, 2017)

Stripping the human fingerprint from art seems to always leave something to be desired.


----------



## gregh (Jun 7, 2017)

mikefox789 said:


> Stripping the human fingerprint from art seems to always leave something to be desired.


Definitely, although formal processes have always played a role and computers can help with that. 
But as was mentioned by Kyle Preston earlier, computer music just has to fool the masses, and formulaic music has had a strong market for ages


----------



## Rowy (Jun 9, 2017)

gregh said:


> I have written software to generate music for years. I tend to generate then edit, but I could just as easily conventionalise the output with the software. It really isn't that hard. Or maybe it is and I'm deluded.



It would be offence to call you deluded. So I'm not going to.


----------



## gregh (Jun 9, 2017)

Rowy said:


> It would be offence to call you deluded. So I'm not going to.


i'm picking that up as meaning you think I'm deluded. Would be better if you said why rather than just made some arch comment


----------



## KEnK (Jun 9, 2017)

Personally I've always been fascinated by algorithmic composition.
I've explored it a bit- enough to think of it a useful tool.

One thing that always interests me in discussions involving a.i. here-
people discount it to an over the top level- I assume it's viewed as a threat.
But what is a "loop" or a "preset" if not an entirely prefabricated bit of music data?
The difference there is a thing of degrees, someone or something is doing the work for you-

Usually with a.i. music you (the composer) are setting a group of rules (choices) in motion.
With a loop or preset, you're using someone else's data.
It never seems very creative or personal to me.

just sayin'

k


----------



## Rowy (Jun 10, 2017)

gregh said:


> i'm picking that up as meaning you think I'm deluded. Would be better if you said why rather than just made some arch comment



No.


----------



## Kyle Preston (Jun 10, 2017)

mikefox789 said:


> Stripping the human fingerprint from art seems to always leave something to be desired.



Totally. Should bots replace artists in the future and we all live in a state of constant R&R (we hope), I'll still find a way to wake up and write something everyday. Though I'm sure the audience will be a niche thing, kind of like now hehe. 

I'll try and find it, but I remember hearing this fascinating fictional broadcast on NPR a year ago. It was set in the future. Everyone was out of work because of bots, but food, housing and medical were provided for all citizens. And there was this guy who would hijack music boxes (made by bots), open them up and with intention, put in flaws and wrong notes just to fuck with people.

I really like that.


----------



## Kyle Preston (Jun 20, 2017)

Hey, if anyone was peeing their pants in anticipation, I finally found the broadcast. If you have 8min, it's worth a listen : )

What Would The World Be Like If Machines Did All The Work?


----------

