# New software composing film music



## muk (Feb 25, 2011)

Has anybody already seen this? It's a software that should be able to compose filmmusic out of a small input. Just hum in a melody, choose if you want to use it for an emotional or an action scene, press button, and voilà.

Here's the link:

http://gemma.fhstp.ac.at/

Here you can listen to a demo (click on the left where it reads mp3 :D ):

http://www.futurezone.at/stories/1665944/

As I understood it the goal of the software is to give film directors a tool at hand to better communication their ideas to the composer. Hmmm


----------



## IvanP (Feb 25, 2011)

Oh, great stuff, the demo is impressive. 

I'm sure it will mean the end of composers and a future batch of temp tracks. 

At last, tone deaf directors will be able to give proper arguments!


----------



## germancomponist (Feb 25, 2011)

The beginning of the end! I am sure, in 5 or ten years those software will produce excellent results.

What comes next?


----------



## Hal (Feb 25, 2011)

Oh no
Sombody go in the past kill the developper father !! 
i just saw the future..
the director in the edit suite opening kontakt in final cut that is gonna support vst 4 and then hum the melody in the newman Usb mic and press john williams..1 min rendering.. and then the producer is happy of the result the director as well everything goes faster and no body pays a penny !
End of a Career


----------



## rayinstirling (Feb 25, 2011)

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz :roll:


----------



## noiseboyuk (Feb 25, 2011)

Good lord, that mp3 is horrendous, fortunately. I see they're selling it as a temp track replacement tool... can't really see it myself on this evidence, directors want that instant hit of "feeling right" that temp music is so good at, not the ability to hum a tune and then hear it very badly realised.

As to the future... I dunno. I think it'll have an impact, but it won't be all consuming. People have this strange notion that AI is wildly more advanced than it really is. Emotion, interpretation of subtext (or even text) in a scene... these are things that computers are extremely bad at, just as they are bad at reading subtleties in facial expressions or, for that matter, creating original scripts. I think there might be some low level generic wash that creeps in at the margins, but imho the end of the musical world isn't nigh.


----------



## impressions (Feb 25, 2011)

that is the worse idea i've heard in years.
everything that takes off the search for the concept and the world of the film-not just in musical aspect, is bad.

directors should talk with colors-emotions, and anything else that comes to their mind to explain the musician what they need.
this is like telling the engineer how to engineer without knowing engineering.


----------



## jamwerks (Feb 25, 2011)

It’s just a joke. No real emotion there. The public pays money to be moved.

Any computer can slap 20 words together that won’t buge a fly. But a poet can move mountains with 20 words! /\~O


----------



## jlb (Feb 25, 2011)

jamwerks @ Fri Feb 25 said:


> It’s just a joke. No real emotion there. The public pays money to be moved.
> 
> Any computer can slap 20 words together that won’t buge a fly. But a poet can move mountains with 20 words! /\~O



Absolutely. It's like saying CGI will replace Actors, it is nonsense

jlb


----------



## Lex (Feb 25, 2011)

:? ...this is f***ing ridiculous. 

Would you work with a director that thinks this is a brilliant tool anyhow?


alex


----------



## bryla (Feb 25, 2011)

I hope it catches on with the purpose it has.

It will never replace a composer, because a composer can add a creative touch to the work - a human touch if you will. No matter how many parameters you feed the machine, it will never be able to analyze the scene/story in a subjective way.


----------



## Patrick de Caumette (Feb 25, 2011)

The writing is on the wall.
In 5 to 10 years, you'll be able to feed this type of application with your favorite scores, it will analyse the orchestration AND production, and spit back at you an hybrid of what you inputted.
And it won't sound like crap either.

The only hope we have is from an emotion standpoint, where we can feel what a scene is about and transcribe that emotionally.
Other than this, those that survive will need those applications in order to keep up with the times. Just the way we are doing now...

The computers are slowly (actually pretty fast) replacing all of us, not just musicians...
Remember Wall-E?
We may all end up lying down and eating all day receiving sensorial media fed by computers.
Hell, we may end up being the computers' batteries, like in the Matrix ~o)


----------



## noiseboyuk (Feb 25, 2011)

Patrick de Caumette @ Fri Feb 25 said:


> The computers are slowly (actually pretty fast) replacing all of us, not just musicians...



Nope, I disagree. Again, imho it's an over-inflated view of AI. Where are computers replacing people with creative inspiration? How many virtual authors are vying for this year's Booker Prize? Where are the virtual sculptors? The virtual poets? The virtual songwriters up for a Grammy, for that matter?


----------



## Patrick de Caumette (Feb 25, 2011)

I said 5 to 10 years.

In the meantime, aren't you aware that most film soundtracks are using virtual orchestras?! (o)

When you go to a super market, have you noticed the self-checkout lines?

Do you use the MAC machines to deposit your checks?

Do you fly and do your own check-in?

...etc...etc...etc


----------



## noiseboyuk (Feb 25, 2011)

Patrick de Caumette @ Fri Feb 25 said:


> I said 5 to 10 years.
> 
> In the meantime, aren't you aware that most film soundtracks are using virtual orchestras?! (o)



Ah, but that's the point, isn't it? Orchestras - yes. Stunt doubles - yes. Spaceships - yes. Composers - poets - authors - painters - no. Computers can do the former category brilliantly, the latter barely at all - they are very, very different skills.

Alan Turing posited his famous test in 1950. I know someone who specialises in AI - he says we're still waaaaay off it. I think that creative spark needs something akin to serious AI before we can take the threat seriously.


----------



## jamwerks (Feb 25, 2011)

Patrick de Caumette @ Fri Feb 25 said:


> I said 5 to 10 years.
> 
> In the meantime, aren't you aware that most film soundtracks are using virtual orchestras?! (o)



But the music has been composed by a human, even using loops (and other facilities) made by humans.

No doubt though that the "D.J." concept ("mix various precomposed elements, with no direct composition) will evolve... :cry:


----------



## Patrick de Caumette (Feb 25, 2011)

A lot of media work that is currently sold and distributed over cable, TV, movies doesn't require much skill to score. Especially if you can feed the AI a whole bunch of orchestral and music cliches and references.
The current mass culture creativity is so lame that I doubt AI won't be able to emulate that in no time.

Don't underestimate AI!

I don't know how old you are, but in the last 30 years we have seen the music world being thrown upside down due to the computer revolution.
And from the standpoint of making a living with music, those that jumped on the technology band wagon still have a job...
As a whole those changes have seriously hurt the musical mass culture.

There is this computer theorem that states that every ten years, the storage capacity of computer increases by 100% while the cost to produce it decreases by 100%. Today Bill Gates says that the computer power currentlyavailable is all that we should ever need. If you take that power and increase by another 100 in ten years, I believe the possibiliies then will be extraordinary.

A decade ago, Kasparov, supreme chess world champion was defeated by a computer. You may argue that there is no creativity in chess, that it's just maths.
I would have to disagree with the first point, and remind you that music is also very strongly rooted in maths.

Hence, my argument that the last bastion that we will still hold ill be the emotion-based one... until they come up with computers with feelings.

For all we know, we may be a bunch of extremely sofisticated androids whose makers dumped on earth (kidding.....?)


----------



## noiseboyuk (Feb 25, 2011)

I agree with a lot of that actually Patrick, but not all. While yes the last 30 years have seen amazing changes (I'm in my 40s), not really from a composition standpoint (with the loop-based caveat).

As to chess - yes, I probably would say it's maths. But much as music has mathematical underpinnings, I think it's a veeeery different beast. Purely on melody, harmony and intervals, there's no real mathematical underpinning to what any one person things sounds good (as opposed to anyone else) - this is very subjective territory, unlike chess which is cold, brutal logic (which requires brilliant brains to "see" in order to be grand masters). Then there's timbre.... dunno about the maths there.

Agreed emotion is a strong card, but it's not just emotion... how about good old fashioned storytelling?


----------



## Ed (Feb 25, 2011)

noiseboyuk @ Fri Feb 25 said:


> Patrick de Caumette @ Fri Feb 25 said:
> 
> 
> > I said 5 to 10 years.
> ...



Its like saying actors will be replaced, well sort of.... we can get a CGI rendering of someone but we still need realistic movement and we still use real people and get them to act out the scene with sensors all over them, or the actual voices we need real humans to record. Even good animation that don't use motion tracking still have real people that animate the scene.

Play a modern game like Fallout and you'll see how far we are to get realistic AI and then go watch a good pre rendered cutscene. The cutscene is not AI whcih is why its like night and day. Go watch the trailer for Deus Ex: Human Revolution and its fantastic, it looks like a movie but go watch the actual gameplay footage and it still feels like a game with coò ™   [w  ™   [}† ™   [} ™   [ƒ¤ ™   [„4 ™   [„¨ ™   [„â ™   [ˆõ ™   [‰H ™   [”J ™   [”r ™   [–F ™   [–d ™   [œ¾ ™   [œý ™   [£  ™   [£¾ ™   [£Ü ™   [¤( ™   [¤ ™   [¤ª ™   [¨- ™   [¨† ™   [¨þ ™   [©— ™   [¬¿ ™   [­  ™   [®á ™   [¯& ™   [±% ™   [±ƒ ™   [² ™   [²ø ™   [Â€ ™   [Â² ™   [Äu ™   [Ä  ™   [Æ„ ™   [Æ˜ ™   [ÎG ™   [Î‹ ™   [Ñ5 ™   [Ñ ™   [ÒÜ ™   [Ó6 ™   [ÜÝ ™   [Ý« ™   [ê: ™   [ê¿ ™   [ï: ™   [ïW ™   [ï| ™   [ï¢ ™   [ôt ™   [ôª ™   [ûT ™   [ü ™   [þ¨ ™   [ÿF ™   \È ™   \ ™   \. ™   \A ™   \° ™   \È ™   \À ™   \è ™   \˜ ™   \é ™   \a ™   \v ™   \R ™   \… ™   \ ™   \D ™   \  ™   \  ™   \&½ ™   \&í ™   \8C ™   \8Á ™   \=¨ ™   \=Â ™   \?v ™   \?á ™   \H+ ™   \HK ™   \Mþ ™   \N ™   \Vl ™   \Và ™   \YD ™   \Ym ™   \eë ™   \eð ™   \sœ ™   \sÁ ™   \så ™   \tŒ ™   \xF ™   \x˜ ™   \xü ™   \y’ ™   \zˆ ™   \{ ™   \„C ™   \„’ ™


----------



## stonzthro (Feb 25, 2011)

maybe it's a testament to the notion that everything we do really does start to sound the same...

...at least to programmers - apparently enough so to make them think they can pull off something like this.

Yeah, this isn't the first and it won't be the last. Is there a lyric inputter too - I'd like to order a love song, not too sappy but it needs to be a HUGE hit for at least 8 weeks, and it needs to be something my niece can sing - she has a range of about a 4th - 5th on a good day. catchy beat and cutting edge sound design would be great too!

Go!


----------



## Patrick de Caumette (Feb 25, 2011)

Ed @ Fri Feb 25 said:


> And btw if you listen to the demo on their website you'll see exactly why it won't work.
> 
> Its a bunch of almost random notes with some kind of backing track. I think someone said it earlier, directors don't want to hum a theme thats not the most important thing for them. They want a good track that fits their film/project. Even the cheapest budget music libraries will give them better results than this. Why would directors care that its playing their hummed in theme? Its more important how it sounds and what its doing for the scene, its a totally ridiculous idea.



The fact that a guy comes up with a crappy piece of software doesn't negate the fact that there is a trend in motion.
Ridiculous idea?!
As much as I hate the thought, what's ridiculous about an application that integrates easily identifiable themes and orchestrations and create an hybrid of those motives, orchestrations and production?
As far as I am concerned, it isn't the hardest thing to forsee.

Will the music make you cry?
Probably not. But then, a whole bunch of stuff I hear is so stale, it wouldn't make such a difference.

Think what you want.
Let's talk about it again in 10 years...


----------



## Patrick de Caumette (Feb 25, 2011)

Ed @ Fri Feb 25 said:


> noiseboyuk @ Fri Feb 25 said:
> 
> 
> > Patrick de Caumette @ Fri Feb 25 said:
> ...



You obviously have no ability to project in the future.
It's all good Ed: you win...


----------



## muk (Feb 25, 2011)

I pretty much posted this up because I was hoping for an interesting discussion about what computers cannot do in music or in arts altogether. 
Imo it already starts with the melody. In music history it always was an important feat of music and nevertheless there are few theoretical tractats dealing with writing melodies. That's because there are no general rules or even guidelines which could be followed in creating one. Big problem in programming a software which should do it
But the biggest factor imo is about poetics and subtltety and references and allusions and individuality. I think that's not possible to program for a long time. Heck, I guess it's altogether unfeasible since we cannot even define it. Yet everybody (not computers!) is able to perceive moments of poetic. And that's what good music is all about for me.


----------



## noiseboyuk (Feb 25, 2011)

Ed makes fair points. I don't think he or I are arguing that such things are completely impossible - what I think is that it's not an evolutionary thing, it's not dependent on CPUs getting 10x faster or anything. To truly compose, or to write, requires colossal leaps in terms of the science, not a series of gradual improvements. It's not calculations done faster, it will require a completely new conceptual breakthrough. As I say, the Turing Test is 60 years old and nowhere near being passed. I couldn't say if and when it ever will, but I've seen no evidence anywhere to suggest its as few as 10 years.

Should any computer pass the Turing test, of course, computers will suddenly become self-aware, form Skynet and kill us all, so I shouldn't worry about my career at that point anyway.


----------



## Patrick de Caumette (Feb 25, 2011)

I guess we project in the future in different ways.
Obviously, none of us has the ability to prove that our argument will stand ten years from now.
Of course high art composition is something that if safe in that regard.
But it is just as unreachable for AI at this point that it is for most musicians.

Needing human beings for emulation of body movements makes sense. But once you have entered all possible mechanic gestures into a data bank, there is no need for a human body to emulate motion.
Music is patterns (taking away the emotional element i was refering to previously) 
If your storage space is large enough, what stops us from storing and programming the whole recorded history of music?
How difficult is it to project and admit that it wouldn't take much to also codify orchestration principles, music theory?
How hard would it be for AI to takes a couple of patterns and aleotirilly create a new piece?
It seems to me nowdays that we use tools that are taking us in that direction.
LASS intelligent scripting that allows you to play a triad on a keyboard and get a full strings section to play believable spicato patterns, the full orchestral voicings that Cineorch allows you to get with one finger...etc

Does it take so much imagination to extrapolate and see that computers could easily create music no worse than the average stuff that populates so much of what's out there already.

Great talent is another story.
And that is just as out of reach to the AI than it is to the common person...


----------



## noiseboyuk (Feb 25, 2011)

All good points Patrick, and VIs will increasingly effortlessly do some of the hard graft for us. But again I think there's a huge leap to be made. When is it APPROPRIATE to use triad spicc patterns? With which progressions? What goes around it? That's the issue. Adding that lot up, yt's not just x10 more complex that LASS's great trick... that's x10,000,000 times more complex and even that doesn't cover it cos it's artistic judgement. Cineorch or LASS's ART are great tools, but it's absolutely the composer who knows when and how to use them, as opposed to a vast number of other tools and techniques. I don't think you can conceive of writing rule books for that (WHEN to use a particular tool and how) with either current or forseeable technology... it's that far off.


----------



## germancomponist (Feb 25, 2011)

In 20 years, all what we have to do is to sleep. All work will be done by machines and computers- So the question then is: For what do we live?


----------



## juliansader (Feb 25, 2011)

In support of Patrick's position, here is a nice quotation from Ray Kurzweil's book "The Singularity is Near":

"Consider Gary Kasparov, who scorned the pathetic state of computer chess in 1992. Yet the relentless doubling of computer power every year enabled a computer to defeat him only five years later. The list of ways computers can now exceed human capabilities is rapidly growing. Moreover, the once narrow applications of computer intelligence are gradually broadening in one type of activity after another. For example, computers are diagnosing electrocardiograms and medical images, flying and landing airplanes, controlling the tactical decisions of automated weapons, making credit and financial decisions, and being given responsibility for many other tasks that used to require human intelligence. The performance of these systems is increasingly based on integrating multiple types of artificial intelligence (AI). But as long as there is an AI shortcoming in any such area of endeavor, skeptics will point to that area as an inherent bastion of permanent human superiority over the capabilities of our own creations."

Future books in this field will probably also refer to IBM's Watson computer, which recently beat human champions on Jeopardy, using natural language.


----------



## Patrick de Caumette (Feb 25, 2011)

Exactly Gunther. That's the question that I believe we have to seriously ask ourselves. This thing has been set in motion, and we'd better start questioning how far we're willing to go with it...

Noiseboyuk: of course, taste and talent will still matter. But there may be a lot less jobs out there for that talent to express itself.
In addition to the examples I was making, we now the ability to changes individual pitches within a recording. That too, incorporated in the composition/production software could easily allow you to tailor an existing orchestral recording to your own needs.
It used to be that piano players during the silent film area had a big book full of cues for all dramatic genres that may appear on screen: cues for the bad guy, cues for the romantic moment, the hero strapped to train tracks ...etc
These cues were played as is when a similar moment came up on screen.
(boy do i wish a could get my hands on sch a collection!)
In this case musical emotions had been quantified.
If you take a poll and learn what soundtracks have made most people cry, laugh, fear... it wouldn't be very difficult to analyse those moments and find the mechanism behind them.
This is what we all do when we create a track based off a temp...
This is something AI can do well

The intangible, the human unpredictability is another story...


----------



## Patrick de Caumette (Feb 25, 2011)

Thanks for the insight Julian!


----------



## Patrick de Caumette (Feb 25, 2011)

muk @ Fri Feb 25 said:


> I pretty much posted this up because I was hoping for an interesting discussion about what computers cannot do in music or in arts altogether.
> Imo it already starts with the melody. In music history it always was an important feat of music and nevertheless there are few theoretical tractats dealing with writing melodies. That's because there are no general rules or even guidelines which could be followed in creating one. Big problem in programming a software which should do it
> But the biggest factor imo is about poetics and subtltety and references and allusions and individuality. I think that's not possible to program for a long time. Heck, I guess it's altogether unfeasible since we cannot even define it. Yet everybody (not computers!) is able to perceive moments of poetic. And that's what good music is all about for me.



Regarding melodies, this is very true when you start from scratch.
But if all you have to do is take an existing melody and tweak it enough so that you are not liable, it may be another story.
Much easier if you ask me...


...and I hear bad human melodies every day that manage to become hits >8o


----------



## jlb (Feb 25, 2011)

Forget 10 years forget in 15 years, forget computers doing this in 5000 years. Film music is about an emotional response to a moving picture. Computers do not have emotions, computers never will have emotions. End of story :wink: 

jlb


----------



## noiseboyuk (Feb 25, 2011)

germancomponist @ Fri Feb 25 said:


> In 20 years, all what we have to do is to sleep. All work will be done by machines and computers- So the question then is: For what do we live?



Charlie Brown: Well Snoopy, what are your plans for today? 
Snoopy: Plans? I hadn't even thought about it. But I suppose I'll sleep a little this morning. Then this afternoon I'll take a short nap and later on I'll try to get some more sleep. Those are good plans.


----------



## Ed (Feb 25, 2011)

Patrick de Caumette @ Fri Feb 25 said:


> [
> The fact that a guy comes up with a crappy piece of software doesn't negate the fact that there is a trend in motion.
> Ridiculous idea?!
> As much as I hate the thought, what's ridiculous about an application that integrates easily identifiable themes and orchestrations and create an hybrid of those motives, orchestrations and production?
> ...




But it doesn't work Patrick, that is clear from the demo. It just doesn't work and no director or producer you'll ever want to work with will ever want to seriously use it. Directors and producers don't go to composers and say they've thought of a great theme, how many times has that happend to you? The theme is a tiny part of what the music is. Star Wars, ET, Raiders... all great music but the music would still be crap played out of *this *software *even if* it was playing the same tune. That's why its a terrible idea: No one would want it, it doesn't work and sounds crap.

If it was a program that worked with an established music library that figured out ideas for your temp track *THAT *would be useful. 

You know WHY it doesn't work? Because the AI is just not there and (here is what you seem to be missing) the steps required to get there will require a massive leap forward so far ahead I don't believe we will get anywhere near it in our lifetimes.

As I also said, which for some reason you ignored, in games AI that is expected to actually function as an actual AI is still total crap compared to linear games. Fallout 3 and NewVegas is as about as non-linear a game as they come right now, yet the AI hasn't gotten perceivably better than what we had 10 years ago! They don't move right, they don't act right, they repeat the same things over and over again, in short its very artificial. In 10 years however we have improved voice synthesis, but that still has a long way to go since to really incorporate it you need an AI to attach it to that as I say isn't at all there yet. We have also vastly improved graphics and motion tracking included in very interesting ways used to great effect in non-linear games. Games such as Call of Duty: Black Ops. Looks great, the AI seems to be great too but its all pre-scripted and animated *by a human*. You only have one choice in the game there is hardly any way to affect the outcomes in such games and when there is the difference is still very linear. 

The X-Files Game was all filmed with real actors and you could react differently to different situations and people would treat you differently, *but there was no AI working here* this was still just pre-scripted variables triggering different pre-recorded videos to give the illusion you are controlling the outcome. This is how games that look so good these days work, the moment you ask anything more of an AI in a game and it all degenerates to a decade ago. Ever wonder why so many games that look so good are shootem ups? Because they don't require complex AI! All they need to do is run around and shoot you in new and interesting ways, even better if they aren't human then its even easier! But want to have a conversation with any of them? Want to do something the game programmers didn't allow for (hardly anything)? Too bad. 

I hope I haven't waffled on for too long, the point is that the step up from what is required to make a good piece of music properly (not by cheating with loops or pre-scripted logic programming) is a long way off, to replace composers is even longer way off and the technology to replace film composers requires even more powerful AI. 

This isn't a problem for us the same reason Pixar doesn't need to worry about computer programs creating new animated films, the AI just isn't there and won't be for an incredibly long time.


----------



## Ed (Feb 25, 2011)

Patrick de Caumette @ Fri Feb 25 said:


> Music is patterns (taking away the emotional element i was refering to previously)
> If your storage space is large enough, what stops us from storing and programming the whole recorded history of music?
> How difficult is it to project and admit that it wouldn't take much to also codify orchestration principles, music theory?
> How hard would it be for AI to takes a couple of patterns and aleotirilly create a new piece?



So simple, right? In that case why hasn't anyone done it yet? Why is that mess of a demo the best they got and felt it so good they actually are using it to sell the product? Either experts working in this field are incompetent or its lot harder than you think it is. Which do you think is more likely?



> It seems to me nowdays that we use tools that are taking us in that direction.
> LASS intelligent scripting that allows you to play a triad on a keyboard and get a full strings section to play believable spicato patterns, the full orchestral voicings that Cineorch allows you to get with one finger...etc



Not AI, this is nothing like what you're talking about. I don't really think you know what you are suggesting. 



> Does it take so much imagination to extrapolate and see that computers could easily create music no worse than the average stuff that populates so much of what's out there already.



As I think I said there is a difference between loop based computer generated music and other more complex music. Anyone today could write a program now that can take a library of loops with tags that allow the program to know what goes together well and make it so you could type in what you want it to sound like, what instruments you'd like to include, what key you'd like it to be in, if you want it sad or happy, down tempo or fast and it could come up with something and maybe even better than what a lot of composers might provide. The more variables programmed in and the more intelligent its output is going to seem. But this isn't real AI either, its not really thinking, its just compiling sounds based on on logic given to it by its programming. 

Being able to look at a scene and consider what music to go there is a different skill entirely and being able to write other *AND ORIGINAL* forms of music, especially orchestral is much MUCH harder (let alone being able to do it well!) Think about how much effort we put into mixing, recording and tweaking MIDI parts, programming CC's etc. An AI will need to be vastly powerful to be able to compete with a human on this level. Mediocre loop based composers might need to step up their game and get more skills to set them apart from inevitable programs like the one I described in the future, that much I believe is true, but the program you seem to envisage is just not going to happen for an *extremely *long time.

This is not the same as computer power getting more and more powerful, this is not the same as going from composers playing piano to silent movies compared with sampled full orchestra's today from our bedrooms. Its kind of like being able to create new tools for surgeons to operate with, without needing to physically touch the patient they would instead control machines for precision surgery - but its the technology to have a computer AI actually perform the surgery itself that is a different matter entirely!


----------



## Ed (Feb 25, 2011)

And regarding Ray Kurzweil:
http://spectrum.ieee.org/computing/software/ray-kurzweils-slippery-futurism/0 (http://spectrum.ieee.org/computing/soft ... futurism/0)

Should be read to have a little realistic perspective on similar issues of claims of where technology is heading.


----------



## rgames (Feb 25, 2011)

Computers are good at manipulating knowledge to make decisions. However, they have no creativity (at least at present).

So, sure, a computer can win a trivia game (based on knowledge), or win a chess match (largely based on knowledge), or make a medical diagnosis (very knowledge-based), or do accounting (requires knowledge of complicated rules), or make legal recommendations (requires knowledge of complicated rules).

But a computer cannot, presently, write an original piece of music, or design a bridge, or write a novel, or postulate a new law of science, or do anything else that relies mostly on creativity.

So can a computer write music? Sure. Give it the rules, and it'll follow them. Lots of composers work that way, too.

But can a computer write original music? Not at present.

Here's a question, though: how many directors actually want original music?

rgames


----------



## Patrick de Caumette (Feb 25, 2011)

Ed, I have yet to read you change your mind, or flex your point of view in another direction.
You are right, I don't know what I am talking about... and you do.

oh, and yes, I had a director give me a crap piece of music and ask me to please integrate it in the score...


----------



## Patrick de Caumette (Feb 25, 2011)

RGames: i never mentionned original piece of music.
All that I talked about is refer the AI to existing material and asked for a re-interpretation.
For some reason, I'm crazy enough to think that is conceivable in the not so distant future...


----------



## Ed (Feb 25, 2011)

Patrick de Caumette @ Fri Feb 25 said:


> Ed, I have yet to read you change your mind, or flex your point of view in another direction.
> You are right, I don't know what I am talking about... and you do.



You are an idealist Patrick, like Ray Kurzweil apparently, who you seem to like the quote of on the previous page. But Ray http://spectrum.ieee.org/computing/software/ray-kurzweils-slippery-futurism/0 (has been wrong about a lot of things). 

I asked you why, if its as easy as you describe, they haven't been able to make this product work better and why that terrible demo is up on their website as if its the best thing they have. I asked you if they are incompetent if its so simple and you haven't given me an answer. Maybe its not as simple as you seem to think it is, which is more likely? You don't know enough about AI and in your uninformed idealistic opinion have dreams about technology that won't be around for a very long time.



> oh, and yes, I had a director give me a crap piece of music and ask me to please integrate it in the score...



So he hummed a tune and said please use this tune? 

Is that how most directors want to work? Be serious... there is no market here for a product like this. Its a research project thats all, for them to think in its current state there is any viable product is beyond me. For it to get as good as they would have to get it to be it would have to be light years ahead of what it is now.




> All that I talked about is refer the AI to existing material and asked for a re-interpretation.
> For some reason, I'm crazy enough to think that is conceivable in the not so distant future...



1. I already talked about a hypothetical *actually *useful/similar product and how it might work and why its actually possible right now (unlike your dream)

2. What you're now suggesting is that this hypothetical product can turn something like the Star Wars theme into something slightly different to get past copyright, correct? I guess.. but if it didn't have a score to look at it would have to be able to work out whats playing what and then replay it with samples. This is actually something that would be so much trouble and so complex it wouldn't be viable, it would be easier to just go to a library and find a Star Wars rip off. 

The point is the time we get AI that complex it can do what you're suggesting, we're going to have a whole shit load of other cool things around.

As I said the AI in games really isn't that different from what it was 10 years ago. Pixar need not worry and neither do we.


----------



## Ed (Feb 25, 2011)

Actually I take back what I said about whistling a tune, I don't know where I got the idea that this product was about making a piece of music based on a tune whistled into it.


----------



## nikolas (Feb 25, 2011)

I do seem to recall that Dave Cope had already begun working on 'de-composing' software since the 90s... (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/mozarts-42nd-by-computer-1244145.html (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/mozar ... 44145.html)).

He even did the 42nd symphony of Mozart (in a rather humorous sense I imagine, although the symphony sounds good).

Given that decomposing can be done, I can't see why composing won't be possible in the next few years... 

The problem, though, still remains: Give a moneky all the tools (monkey = director ? ). You still human input and output to make it work, don't you? 

It's dead easy to provide a melody to computer and the computer filling in the blanks. It really easy. I'm teaching harmony (101), and it's like a sudoku almost: one single solution, based on where you begin. This is probably where the programer stopped: He never made it to the part where harmony goes into beautiful territories and where human input is required desperately. He still thinks it's all sudoku. Let's hope he never acquires more knowledge of music I say! :D

(BTW, I think that CGI is quite close and there are already tests out there with pics and stuff... :-/ I don't know about you guys, but the Na'vi princess was quite hot (but had NO nipples!!!! :D)


----------



## noiseboyuk (Feb 26, 2011)

Ed @ Sat Feb 26 said:


> This isn't a problem for us the same reason Pixar doesn't need to worry about computer programs creating new animated films, the AI just isn't there and won't be for an incredibly long time.



That.


----------



## Darryl Jackson (Feb 26, 2011)

We're quite a ways away (at least multiple decades, if not longer) from being replaced as composers completely by machines, if at all. I definitely see there being issues with very low budget things and especially with a large amount of music for ads (-maybe- including trailers), but certainly not for most films, video games, and deeper animations. 

As mentioned earlier, it all comes down to emotions. It isn't so simple a thing as making an AI coldly understand the definitions for human emotion, it would need to_ feel _and experience them for itself for transitions to be truly realistic and for the music to match the picture the way a human would score. 

Who knows how it will go politically, but I have a feeling that it will be quite some time before programmers can truly give emotions to machines, even when (if) that is possible, given the danger of having something so much more... capable than ourselves emote in the same way.

For this to work, we aren't talking about an AI feeling happy or vaguely annoyed, it would have to have an intimate understanding of feelings such as Rage, Jealousy, Despair, and Ecstasy. Other than the last one, I have a feeling most capable leaderships would place a restriction on the implementation of those emotions in larger programs.

Others already mentioned technical issues such as mixing, creativity, and so on... I just see this as a non-issue for the time being. But as Patrick said, I guess we'll see where we stand in 15 years or so.


----------



## Patrick de Caumette (Feb 26, 2011)

I guess time will tell.
I am certainly not excited at the idea of a machine writing scores.

Something you guys seem to ignore is that you do not need for the AI to feel in order to write cues in a certain genre. All you need to do is to feed it existing music that falls within that category and it would extract motives, harmonies, pacing, in order to create what is needed.
Another very easy thing to concieve is creating hit points on a time-coded film to map out points of arrival. Those indicators could be used by the program to time a certain climax or hit...etc

To me, it's not whether or not this is possible or not in the near future.
Cause I am totally convince that it is.
The main question is wether or not it has enough of a market to generate the funding necesary for its development. And i think this is the main reason why current attempts are pretty lame.
This maybe our hope, since this is such a niche market that I doubt it has enough of a commercial appeal to see the light of day soon.

It is interesting to notice that a number of people here that are adamant about the fact that this is not possible and won't be for the longest time are in their twenties, and grew up in the computer age.
While those of us that are older have seen a lot of change in our lifetime already.
Heck, I used to watch sci-fi movies where people could talk and see each other over a wireless portable device!! (imagine that)
Not to mention the heresy that it was a century back for people to think that one day they would be walking on the moon...
The heresy of it all!

Oh, and technological developments are supposed to be on an eleptical curve... not a linear one....


----------



## noiseboyuk (Feb 26, 2011)

Hey, I'm pretty old!

I don't quite follow this bit:



Patrick de Caumette @ Sat Feb 26 said:


> All you need to do is to feed it existing music that falls within that category and it would extract motives, harmonies, pacing, in order to create what is needed.



I don't really understand that - feed in existing music and extract motives? If I understand you right, that is AI, and advanced AI at that. Here's what I think is possible in the short / medium term:

Pre-composed midi elements of many genres and emotions. You could feed it timecodes, tell the computer what genre / emotion to go for and when, hit points, suspended moments etc, and see what comes out the other side. So a human would decide all the things that computers simply can't do. Needless to say the results would only ever be derivative, but granted it would probably work for a reality TV documentary or something, and represent a threat to a certain amount of composing work. But - I thiiink - that's about as far as it will go without true AI.


----------



## Patrick de Caumette (Feb 26, 2011)

Sorry if i am not clear enough, but what you are describing is exactly what I am talking about.
A motif is a core compositional element that define the essence of a musical idea.

When I say "feeding" it just means that you'd have this huge data bank of music, whether in MIDI file format, score, audio excerpts..., and each cue would be coded (meta data) under emotions, stylistic, tempo...etc categories.

Technology wise this isn't decades away as far as I can see it.

Of course someone would be making decision on what works or not.
But unfortunately, it could be the nephew of the producer, since the AI would do most of the work.
And again, I am not talking about the grandest scores mankind has ever produced.
You know, I am talking about the lame stuff that ends up behind 90% of the shows people watch...

Nonetheless, it used to be that you needed composers to write and produce that stuff. Therefore the statement that we are slowly being replaced by machines.
I find it obvious but that's my personal opinion...


----------



## nikolas (Feb 26, 2011)

noiseboyuk @ Sat Feb 26 said:


> Hey, I'm pretty old!
> 
> I don't quite follow this bit:
> 
> ...


While working on the thesis of my PhD, I came accross this guy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Cope . He's done plenty of experiments in music intelligence and his results are, quite frankly incredible given the period he was making them.

And here's a couple of works composed with his (latest?) software Emily Howell: http://blog.miller-mccune.com.s72010.gridserver.com/wp-content/uploads/podcast/emily_howell_1.mp3 (http://blog.miller-mccune.com.s72010.gr ... well_1.mp3) and
http://blog.miller-mccune.com.s72010.gridserver.com/wp-content/uploads/podcast/Emily_Howell_Track2.mp3 (http://blog.miller-mccune.com.s72010.gr ... Track2.mp3)

I don't know about you, but there are two thought here: 
1. It seems somewhat obvious to which composers the software copied.
and
2. The software did very well in emulating the styles (giv® š   ëÉ š   ëng š   ëý š   ëŽ. š   ëŽ_ š   ëŽ š   ë‘† š   ë‘Î š   ë¤ š   ë¤¥ š   ë¥E š   ë¥s š   ë¥¾ š   ë¥Þ š   ë®V š   ë®c š   ëè š   ëð· š   ëðó š   ëô+ š   ëô… š   ìB š   ì š   ìD š   ìü š   ì&a š   ì& š   ì'ÿ š   ì(; š   ì.Ñ š   ì


----------



## Darryl Jackson (Feb 26, 2011)

Interesting links, nikolas. I definitely agree that at this stage its very easy to figure out the composers that "inspired" the generated music, but I guess the problem is more that many directors/producers wouldn't care. 

I must have misunderstood you earlier Patrick, as I agree with most of what you said in recent posts although I still stand by the notion that we won't see emotions purposely instilled in AI for at least decades (who would purposely create an AI like HAL, capable of fear? :| ).

With Mozart already at least relatively doable at the moment, knowing how fast technology progresses, I can certainly see at least basic Zimmer and Williams-esque cues being within reach soon enough.

The absence of creativity is pretty huge though, as the program won't be able to make a truly unique score that brings anything different to the table than what has already come. On its own, or in inexperienced hands, it could do nothing to push the sound of a genre forward. Again, more than enough for many sitcoms, but I believe that even on a Hollywood level, many directors would strive for something beyond the norm of the moment.

Patrick, what I'm more afraid of is what you mentioned briefly on Tuesday- not a producer's nephew, but a skilled composer behind the wheel of such a program, who can have fully orchestrated scores in moments, but manually manipulate every aspect of the sound/add his own. On one hand, it would mean composers aren't replaced completely and our skills and knowledge would still be relevant, but it would certainly result in less job openings in an already crowded field.


----------



## Patrick de Caumette (Feb 26, 2011)

If you can do Mozart, I think that you can do Zimmer (no offense Hans! =o )


----------



## noiseboyuk (Feb 26, 2011)

That's impressive stuff to be sure! Although it's obviously relevant to this discussion, it is a little apples and oranges though when you think about it.

The linked mp3 is a tremendous achievement as it's entirely generated by computer, but nevertheless quite simple - variations on a single figure really. Further - and this is the crucial bit - it's not attempting to assess whether something is APPROPRIATE, which is the first job of the film / TV composer. It's successfully learned some melodic rules, based on one figure, of one composer.

So it's easy to extrapolate and say sure a computer could do its own Zimmer spics (that Daniel James so brilliantly deconstructed!) But it would never know where to use them.

On further reflection, my "this is what is doable" bit in my previous post could be expanded to include not just pre-composed midi elements, but harmonic rules, if it were good enough. You could sit down and start by saying "in the style of Zimmer". But then the director / editor / disgruntled "composer" would then have to select the correct mood for each part of each scene, put in the hitpoints etc. Zimmer ain't all spics, Mozart ain't all one figure, and - I maintain - a computer simply cannot make it's own artistic choice as to what is and isn't appropriate.

So with that vital caveat, how scary is that? Yes, the low level unimaginative stuff is looking a little more under threat to me now. IMHO, not the serious stuff - directors, in the main, want creative input from those they collaborate with, not rehashed stuff they've seen before*. But to run with Zimmer again for a moment.... despite what his critics say, he's an extremely versatile composer. Inception may have had some elements that were similar to what he'd done before, but there was a real spark there, something new and exciting (and already highly imitated). Our virtual composer couldn't do that, end of story. It could - potentially - crank out a thousands soundtracks LIKE Inception, but it won't compose something like Zimmer's NEXT film....

*OK, thundering empty huge blockbusters excepted, but frankly they don't deserve a decent score if the rest of the film has no imagination either!


----------



## charlieclouser (Feb 27, 2011)

That demo is beyond horrible! What utter garbage. Sounds like algorithmic music from 20 years ago.

If I was given a film with such nonsense in the temp track I'd quit the project immediately.


----------



## synergy543 (Feb 27, 2011)

deleted


----------



## nikolas (Feb 27, 2011)

I've also done some algorithmic music, to an extent. Part of an older composition of mine, for solo piano, featured series of pitches 'composed' by software. The intro was created with chords created via computer (although it was rather easy, it was an algorithm to exlude all possible combinations), and the middle the one I described earlier.

In all I consider it one of my best works. And a human pianist, gave it a trully wonderful performance!


----------



## muk (Feb 28, 2011)

Interesting software, this Emily Howell. But some claims are a bit steep. I'm pretty sure most experts could easily tell it's not Mozart. Sure, it's written in his style, but the longer you listen the clearer it gets that it has no structure. This doesn't matter if you only want short excerpts (transition material). But as he claims the software has written a piano concerto I'd love to have a look at it's form. I'd be very surprised if it could handle a straightforward standard concerto form, not to speak of the genius meaningful deviations Mozart did.
I listened to one of Eric Wenger's demos (Multi-transform demo 2) too. I have to say this one didn't impress me (maybe the others are different). It is meaningless, unsignificant music and it seems to be full of voice-leading errors. Certainly not something you would want to have compared to serious string-quartet music
So imo short excerpts can be done accurately. But whole pieces of music, not yet. And concert music or whole pieces of classical music (piano concerto in Mozart's style), far from now if ever.


----------

