# Automatic Film music composition



## Musicologo (May 19, 2014)

Ok. I'll just leave this here, anyone can think whatever they want or even deny such things exist or are coming around... Have fun.

http://juke-bot.com/


*Edit: *I'm sorry, I've realized the particular item "juke-bot" was a viral fake. But it raises an important point and issue.

So I leave genuine links below as food for thought.


http://www.generativemusic.com/

http://vimeo.com/35743843

http://artsites.ucsc.edu/faculty/cope/mp3page.htm

http://www.essl.at/works/Lexikon-Sonate.html

http://www.symboliccomposer.com/page_main.shtml

P.S. I'll also add as my opinion (already stated elsewhere), that gourmet food will always exist, despite fast food; high-couture will always exist despite pret-a-porter; and I believe custom music made by someone you trust, treasure and love will always exist despite some incredible fast machine even if it composes and renders symphonies.
Everything can co-exist, like in any other domain where mechanization exists...


----------



## Daryl (May 19, 2014)

And this is why I think that all the lower end of scoring or library will disappear during the next 10 years. You don't need composers to write cr*p. The computer can easily do it for you.

D


----------



## Christof (May 19, 2014)

All this is ridiculous.


----------



## pkm (May 19, 2014)

So next time I'm scoring a horse documentary, I'll make sure to use the music I did for a Brevoxyl commercial in 2008!

Cool technology, but I think we'll all be retired before this tech catches up with a real composer. (Not that it will every truly catch up) There's so much more subtlety to our work than just writing "greenish-yellow horse music"

His comment about composers was interesting! You don't know what you're going to get with either a composer or this software, but you can at least tell a composer how to make it better.

Bottom line, it's very interesting, but not anything I am worried about for a long long time.


----------



## AlexandreSafi (May 19, 2014)

That's it... I just watched the ultimate horror film that ever existed!

The artful scientific road towards artlessness...

Thanks for the link!


----------



## Daryl (May 19, 2014)

pkm @ Mon May 19 said:


> So next time I'm scoring a horse documentary, I'll make sure to use the music I did for a Brevoxyl commercial in 2008!
> 
> Cool technology, but I think we'll all be retired before this tech catches up with a real composer. (Not that it will every truly catch up) There's so much more subtlety to our work than just writing "greenish-yellow horse music"


Agreed, but most cheap cable TV doesn't need a real composer, so this software will be perfect. I wonder whose name goes on the cue sheet though....

D


----------



## G.E. (May 19, 2014)

I'm the biggest supporter of technology but when it comes to art I think it's best to leave it to the humans.Not because I don't think a computer can do a good job.You can probably program a computer to generate random Williams quality music.I definitely think it's possible.

This is not exactly on topic but watch this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6FsH7RK1S2E 
If scientists found a way to do such an incredible thing,then programing a computer to generate music that surpasses Williams is no big deal in comparison. 

But it's just not fair that any moron can have that kind of power so conveniently available.What would be the fun in that ? I'm sorry to say it but such a technology will destroy the value of art.And don't give me that bullshit about "a computer can never create masterpieces of the same caliber as Mozart's genius".It definitely can.People would've said the same thing 200 years ago about having the technology to see people's dreams on a screen.And now it's possible.


----------



## Daryl (May 19, 2014)

G.E. @ Mon May 19 said:


> I'm the biggest supporter of technology but when it comes to art I think it's best to leave it to the humans.Not because I don't think a computer can do a good job.You can probably program a computer to generate random Williams quality music.I definitely think it's possible.
> 
> This is not exactly on topic but watch this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6FsH7RK1S2E
> If scientists found a way to do such an incredible thing,then programing a computer to generate music that surpasses Williams is no big deal in comparison.


I think that part of creativity is knowing when you've got something worth applying craft to, and that is the biggest problem for a computer, because the people programming it need to know this as well, which means that they have to be experienced, top class composers and arrangers.



G.E. @ Mon May 19 said:


> But it's just not fair that any moron can have that kind of power so conveniently available.What would be the fun in that ? I'm sorry to say it but such a technology will destroy the value of art.And don't give me that [email protected]#t about "a computer can never create masterpieces of the same caliber as Mozart's genius".It definitely can.People would've said the same thing 200 years ago about having the technology to see people's dreams on a screen.And now it's possible.


We're already at the point when any "moron" can buy a DAW a few sample libraries and create music considered good enough for media. However, IMO they are still no closer to becoming a Mozart. That's not to say that it couldn't happen, but as I said earlier, the people programming the computer would need to be of a very high musical calibre.

D


----------



## muk (May 19, 2014)

In my opinion computers/technology can equal or surpass humans in terms of craft, because it is based on rules and they make no mistakes. But not in terms of art, not in the foreseeable future.
You can programm a computer to 'know' all the rules of harmony, counterpoint etc. To a certain degree form too. But craft is only one necessity for art. Another one would be ingenuity, and that's not really programmable. So, it may very well be possible to code a programm that writes simple pieces - say a short minuet - that is syntactically correct. To code one that writes a Jupiter symphony, or another Zauberflöte, not so much. Certainly not in our lifetime.


----------



## aaronnt1 (May 19, 2014)

Of course it was a fake video, it was pretty obviously really. The whole concept of perfect or even merely suitable music for a scene is so subjective that the software would stall at the first hurdle.


----------



## Daryl (May 19, 2014)

aaronnt1 @ Mon May 19 said:


> Of course it was a fake video, it was pretty obviously really. The whole concept of perfect or even merely suitable music for a scene is so subjective that the software would stall at the first hurdle.


Actually I think that music for media would be pretty simple. Good music for media is another thing though. :wink: 

D


----------



## AlexandreSafi (May 19, 2014)

"Progress................"

If it weren't for technology, I wouldn't be the man i am up until today. 
I owe it, a lot, in some way... 

But technology is very often in a funny way "a gain here/for a sacrifice elsewhere"
There is a need to see the dichotomy between short-term vs long-term.
Initially i feel machines are intended to be made to make the job, any job easier for better or for worse... It implies Happiness, Speed, Precision, and Art & Creativity purposes, it could be/has been about "survival", especially in future times in a few hundred years ahead with space programs, Interstellar Travel, and well probably loads of other stuff i'm missing too. 
Yet i feel sorry to say technology also implies a naturally seductive human vision towards laziness, destruction and power, the very act of spitting against the human race's face...

Sometimes we need to be brave enough and NOT wish our jobs were easier...
Just because we can create something doesn't mean we need to...

I personally take this kind of news and evolution very seriously, artificial intelligence is, to me, not some human fantasy, it's an intuitive concept that we all can relate to. I find it pointless to speculate the kind of level of intelligence it can or can't reach, because it, for one, probably could level up to humans someday, and even if it doesn't, it could still be seductive and sufficient enough to be used to replace humans for its efficiency in performing a given "quantity" of tasks in time, not in "quality"...
No need to wait for AI to see this happen already in the economy...

Jay Asher cleverly quoted the recent movie "Her", (fantastic score by the way) and i applaud this... Time to not take those kinds of movies for granted as some kind of futuristic artsy "fairytale" and simply do the all-too-easy task of forgetting them and moving on... Movies of this kind exist for a reason, and they do not start and come from nowhere...

I couldn't care less of the idea that this technology could only exist in its masterpiece form by the time i am already retired or dead, i deeply care for my future next-gen composers's future or any kid, like us, who's had that first love affair with film music at the cinema...
Through technology, thanks for that indeed, i kept on learning about film music, the composition process, as a human creative & collaborative experience, as it is described by trained and fully matured human beings that i can relate to, that i can develop from, that i can get inspired by -- so what will be there left to learn for those future composers in those (far-?)upcoming youtube videos? A guy pushing a button so that the computer spoon-feeds me on fake intuition the answer to how to score a scene or a movie... 
Talk about reorganizing human interactions in problem-solving skills!!

This is WAR, how can you not compare this with an atomic bomb...

We can say this "could" hypothetically co-exist with humans, but really, this goes back to the idea of short-term/long-term, do you really believe that?

We're all free to debate this issue on other sociological spheres, but ultimately here:

If the music "business" didn't exist, i'd be relatively fine, but we can all probably already sense that because it does exist, this kind of technology is just really setting us up for a fall, a harsher life experience of frustration and demise than it needs to be...
Technological progress here won't be about mainly democratization or new ways of creating art anymore, but absolute, pure reductionist warfare on art and artists, where the line of people's philosophies will be clearly drawn... 

Alex


----------



## aaronnt1 (May 19, 2014)

@ Daryl 
Maybe but I can't imagine it would be simple at all. Programming all the different orchestral orchestration possibilities? Programming sound design? You put Omnisphere's 8000+ patches in front of it and you'll see the first ever computer nervous breakdown!

At the very least it would require some human input to request the desired style / genre, instrumentation, baseline tempo, mood, hit points etc... I'm absolutely certain though that even if some program were able to one day come up with a simple 3 piece pop groove, the results would never be any where near what could be called impressive and would just be derivative, regurgitated, cliched, soulless dirges, begging the question who would benefit from such software?


----------



## Daryl (May 19, 2014)

aaronnt1 @ Mon May 19 said:


> @ Daryl
> Maybe but I can't imagine it would be simple at all. Programming all the different orchestral orchestration possibilities? Programming sound design? You put Omnisphere's 8000+ patches in front of it and you'll see the first ever computer nervous breakdown!
> 
> At the very least it would require some human input to request the desired style / genre, instrumentation, baseline tempo, mood, hit points etc... I'm absolutely certain though that even if some program were able to one day come up with a simple 3 piece pop groove, the results would never be any where near what could be called impressive and would just be derivative, regurgitated, cliched, soulless dirges, begging the question who would benefit from such software?


Ah, but I did say that good would be difficult.

However, everything else is just down to good programming. For example choosing between different pieces of music to fit a mood is quite a simple thing to do, as long as the mood can be analysed. You say it would need human input, but so much TV is Painting by Numbers that I doubt that many programmes would need any human input at all.

Having said that, to my ears lots of media music already falls under the heading of "derivative, regurgitated, cliched, soulless", so I'm not sure that I would be able to tell whether it was spewed up by a human or a machine. :lol: 

D


----------



## aaronnt1 (May 19, 2014)

@alex

The way I see it is computers are only really good at (and probably only ever will be) crunching numbers and not making decisions and I personally doubt machines will ever get to the point where they'll be able fool us into believing they are sentient beings that can contemplate themselves or a given situation. And even if they one day do get t that point there's always the off switch. So either way, don't worry about it .


----------



## G.E. (May 19, 2014)

> @ Daryl
> Maybe but I can't imagine it would be simple at all. Programming all the different orchestral orchestration possibilities? Programming sound design? You put Omnisphere's 8000+ patches in front of it and you'll see the first ever computer nervous breakdown!
> 
> At the very least it would require some human input to request the desired style / genre, instrumentation, baseline tempo, mood, hit points etc... I'm absolutely certain though that even if some program were able to one day come up with a simple 3 piece pop groove, the results would never be any where near what could be called impressive and would just be derivative, regurgitated, cliched, soulless dirges, begging the question who would benefit from such software?



Such software would be pointless and there are very few people who would benefit from it.But you are greatly underestimating the power of computers and the ingenuity of the human mind when it comes to programming computers.Of course the music would be derivative but all music is derivative of something else.Soulless ? What does that even mean ?



> I personally doubt machines will ever get to the point where they'll be able fool us into believing they are sentient beings that can contemplate themselves or a given situation.


Where is your imagination ? :lol:
I'm hesitant to bring this up because I know this sounds ridiculous to some people.I neither believe it's fact or deny it but it's very plausible in my opinion.Have you heard of the simulation hypothesis ? Many brilliant physicists take it quite seriously actually and are currently working to prove it.The hypothesis states that our universe could be a computer simulation.What if that's true ? :D Then we could all be "machines" who are sentient beings and someone already programmed a computer to create musical masterpieces. :lol:
Sorry if that sounded like the most ridiculous thing you have ever heard.


----------



## aaronnt1 (May 19, 2014)

Daryl @ Mon 19 May said:


> Having said that, to my ears lots of media music already falls under the heading of "derivative, regurgitated, cliched, soulless", so I'm not sure that I would be able to tell whether it was spewed up by a human or a machine. :lol:
> 
> D


 :D yes I fell head first into that one didn't I! Still I think the programming required even for rubbish simple 3 or 4 piece pop grooves would be a monumental task - the way that the sound and tone of a piece can change due to the amps and cabinets and effects pedals being used is vast. Now think about orchestral action cues! And you need to program in randomness so that any counterpoint ....ok I'll stop before I fall into another trap! 

The only way I can possibly see something along these lines happening is if there was a vast database of pre-existing (royalty free) music that the software was able reference and to cut and paste to fit.


----------



## aaronnt1 (May 19, 2014)

@GE 
yes I've often come across that hypothesis and it's certainly an interesting concept but you have to be a bit careful inserting hypotheticals into a debate because they usually only serve to muddy the waters. 

Re the soulless use; soulless is one of those words which is difficult to define and is an abstract, like spiritual I guess. I certainly didn't use it in any religious sense since I'm not, but more the widely accepted useage which refers to those moments when you can just recognise a passionate carefully written piece over a turgid run of the mil type deal.


----------



## Daryl (May 19, 2014)

aaronnt1 @ Mon May 19 said:


> The only way I can possibly see something along these lines happening is if there was a vast database of pre-existing (royalty free) music that the software was able reference and to cut and paste to fit.


Yes, but that's already old news...

http://sunsite.univie.ac.at/Mozart/dice/

D


----------



## Michio77 (May 19, 2014)

The day computers fall in love and get their little digital heart broken, they will start writing music.


----------



## Musicologo (May 19, 2014)

About lyrical songs or pop tunes read this:

http://www.computationalcreativity.net/ ... itutti.pdf

I find the songs composed to be interesting. 

This is old, but still has some interesting concepts to spice up the discussion:

http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2 ... r-composer


Again, computers are "calculator", they don't "compose" anything. The composer is the programmer - He is the one making the decisions. 

The issue is that the composer instead of composing 1 piece, composes a piece with so many open constraints that in fact the computer can make infinite renditions of it.


about someone not believing a computer could mimic an "orchestra", well, here you go:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CgG1HipAayU

You can complain about the particular "sound library" sounding too synthy, but if this was played by a more state-of-the-art sound library or even a real orchestra, I don't know if this work is not better than many composition students...

It's a bit like "in C" or similar open works. You program an "abstraction".
Heck the tonal system is "an abstraction" - you have scales, rules, 12 pitch-class available, etc.. you just make "decisions" within some constraints... 
The programmer simply defines his own constraints and complexity...

Finally, a computer-composed chorale sang by real people. Does it have a soul or not? xD 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PczDLl92vlc


----------



## G.E. (May 21, 2014)

http://imgace.com/wp-content/uploads/20 ... mphony.jpg


----------



## Markus S (May 21, 2014)

Yeah well, the software might choose the music (from Youtube etc. - so it's music by real people), but it's not licensing the music to you.  
So it's only for home users that don't go on the web with their films.. not a large public.


----------



## bbunker (May 21, 2014)

Musicologo, I have to admit that I thought Emmy's Symphonic movement after Beethoven was horrible. If it was presented to me as a piece by a human, I'd probably comment that the opening was a pastiche of the 2nd movement of Beethoven 5th, then meandered about with some attempts to 'develop' the material that fell flat, and ultimately is just dull and uninspired.

Just to see if my judgement was biased, I played it for my wife (a concert violinist, so not an average-joe or jane by any means) and told her it was a friend's composition that was in MIDI. Her response was along the lines of "God, that's S^%(. Who wrote THAT?"

It seems like a horrible economy. Hordes of humans want to be composers, and I would suggest that even the least capable can write better than Emmy with a modicum of craft. We know what computers can do well. Why would we task the computers with writing our symphonies, and task the humans with computing pi to the n-th digit? (Yep, total straw-man argument, logisticians!!!)

Now if we could combine the two, that would be manna from heaven; I could imagine a "composer's assistant" that looked at a theme that a human composer provides, then suggests treatments or similar workings of thematic material from prior works. So, the computer crunches numbers and analyzes pieces to suggest, and the human does her thing and writes, but with the inspiration of works or ideas pulled from the repertoire. It would be a huge asset for students, and skilled composers would have even more resources to draw from.

So, computer composers? I doubt it. Why bother, when humans can do it better and cheaper?


----------



## iaink (May 21, 2014)

G.E. @ Mon May 19 said:


> I'm the biggest supporter of technology but when it comes to art I think it's best to leave it to the humans.Not because I don't think a computer can do a good job.You can probably program a computer to generate random Williams quality music.I definitely think it's possible.
> 
> This is not exactly on topic but watch this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6FsH7RK1S2E
> If scientists found a way to do such an incredible thing,then programing a computer to generate music that surpasses Williams is no big deal in comparison.
> ...



If there's an analogy to be drawn from this example...

The computer has recorded the brain's "reaction" when a catalogue of control images are viewed by an individual. It then observes the brain's reaction (same individual) to new images. Without 'knowing" the new image, it attempts to predict the new image using the original catalogue of control images.

The predicted images on the right are "montages" put together by an algorithm. The image on the right will never have the fidelity of the image on the left.


----------



## iaink (May 21, 2014)

G.E. @ Mon May 19 said:


> ...
> 
> But it's just not fair that any moron can have that kind of power so conveniently available.What would be the fun in that ? I'm sorry to say it but such a technology will destroy the value of art.And don't give me that bullshit about "a computer can never create masterpieces of the same caliber as Mozart's genius".It definitely can.People would've said the same thing 200 years ago about having the technology to see people's dreams on a screen.And now it's possible.



A couple of things:

Your first point in this paragraph is ironic because it's already been taking place for two or three decades.

And... technology to see people's dreams on a screen ??


----------



## G.E. (May 21, 2014)

> The predicted images on the right are "montages" put together by an algorithm. The image on the right will never have the fidelity of the image on the left.


That technique isn't even in its pre alpha state if you can call it that.It will be refined over the years until a much clearer image will be seen.It's pointless to speculate about image fidelity so early on. 



> Your first point in this paragraph is ironic because it's already been taking place for two or three decades.


If you mean everyone having access to a DAW and virtual instruments,I have to say that it's not at all the same thing.People may have easier access to music production and composition but they still have to go through the process of learning and practice. 



> And... technology to see people's dreams on a screen ??


I forgot I read about that somewhere else and it wasn't in the video, but it's the same principle and it has been done.You put someone in an MRI while he sleeps and you can see what he's dreaming.The visuals are obviously crude but for example you can clearly make out the shape of a human face,hair,etc...


----------



## iaink (May 21, 2014)

G.E. @ Wed May 21 said:


> It will be refined over the years until a much clearer image will be seen.It's pointless to speculate about image fidelity so early on.



Since you speculate that a computer could create masterpieces of the same caliber as Mozart's genius... I'm lost about where we should stop speculating.



G.E. @ Wed May 21 said:


> If you mean everyone having access to a DAW and virtual instruments,I have to say that it's not at all the same thing.People may have easier access to music production and composition but they still have to go through the process of learning and practice.



They don't ... not by any stretch.


----------



## G.E. (May 21, 2014)

> Since you speculate that a computer could create masterpieces of the same caliber as Mozart's genius... I'm lost about where we should stop speculating.


True.My bad...Though there's a difference between speculating in the sense of imagining what would be possible (based on the rate of advancements in science & technology we have so far) and being totally dismissive,not willing to have an open mind about it as you are.

You have probably listened to the music composed by the computer program "Emmy" : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PczDLl92vlc
That's just the work of one man,probably in his basement.But imagine what could be accomplished if hundreds of thousands of dollars were invested and some of the most brilliant programmers and musicians worked on it.That's a total different league and the possibilities would be endless.


----------



## BachRules (May 21, 2014)

From a different thread:



cmillar @ Tue May 20 said:


> BachRules @ Tue May 20 said:
> 
> 
> > Other customers who want “Green maybe with a touch of Gold” music, I will try to satisfy them too and we will see how it goes. The “green/gold” customers would tend not to be discriminating.
> ...


http://www.vi-control.net/forum/viewtop ... &start=245

I understand, but what’s to prevent a computer from making sounds which the customer considers “green/gold music”?



cmillar @ Tue May 20 said:


> I don't think you'll ever be able to program your computer with everything it needs to know in your lifetime.... there's too much, with more possibilities being added every day..... ideas and possibilities dreamt up by humans that are trying to break out of some of the tried-and-true stylistic modes from the past masters.
> 
> Just a thought....your computer program runs the risk of becoming 'dated' already.
> 
> Maybe your investors will back out..... it'd be a tough sale on Wall St.!


I’m taking that into account. I worked under the same risk when I was programming the first commercial virtual instrument.



AlexandreSafi @ Mon May 19 said:


> ... This is WAR....


That’s the sort of talk which got Sarah Conner put in a mental institution.



muk @ Mon May 19 said:


> ... ingenuity [is] not really programmable.


Why not?



bbunker @ Wed May 21 said:


> ... humans can do it better....


You conclude all that from your experience with one particular algorithm? I listened to it too — at least 20 seconds of it — and I didn’t like it either, but what if a different algorithm does better? I can find examples of human composers who make unpopular music, but I won’t infer much from that.



G.E. @ Mon May 19 said:


> But it's just not fair that any moron can have that kind of power so conveniently available.


If he’s getting customers you wish you had, maybe he’s not a total moron?



G.E. @ Mon May 19 said:


> such a technology will destroy the value of art.


I think it’s for the listeners to decide what they value. If the customers have different values than you, you might not sell as much music, but I don’t think anyone will try to come between you and you art.



Daryl @ Mon May 19 said:


> I think that part of creativity is knowing when you've got something worth applying craft to, and that is the biggest problem for a computer, because the people programming it need to know this as well, which means that they have to be experienced, top class composers and arrangers.


Even better if he’s a top-class music-theorist.


----------



## bbunker (May 21, 2014)

Biard,

Good point. I wasn't particularly clear, but I think I'd say my thoughts were inferred from the results of David Cope's algorithms (the algorithms themselves I can't speak to since they're far beyond my knowledge, but the results are uniformly bad), the algorithms in Band-in-a-box's Soloist, Melodist and 'Chord Progression generation' software, and the algorithms used in Jamstix.

All of them sound like similar work to me: useful for what they try to do, but ultimately very, very flawed. They seem to just use algorithms that sort pre-composed chunks of musical data, and then modify the existing data to provide "creativity." Which tends to make the result sound like pastiche, and usually a poor one, since every element sounds like the original source material.

I will tell you...if you know of any pieces that are the result of algorithmic processing that don't exhibit these flaws, I'd actually be quite excited to hear them.


----------



## Daryl (May 21, 2014)

BachRules @ Wed May 21 said:


> Daryl @ Mon May 19 said:
> 
> 
> > I think that part of creativity is knowing when you've got something worth applying craft to, and that is the biggest problem for a computer, because the people programming it need to know this as well, which means that they have to be experienced, top class composers and arrangers.
> ...


Actually I don't agree with that. Many top theorists are just that. Theorists. They can come up with all sorts of theories of why something works, but only when it has already been shown to be successful. They are less good at making these sort of decisions when they don't already know that it's supposed to be good.

D


----------



## marclawsonmusic (May 21, 2014)

Michio77 @ Mon May 19 said:


> The day computers fall in love and get their little digital heart broken, they will start writing music.



Post of the week! And it went right past everyone... Bravo, Michio77! You say true =o


----------



## BachRules (May 22, 2014)

bbunker @ Wed May 21 said:


> Good point. I wasn't particularly clear, but I think I'd say my thoughts were inferred from the results of David Cope's algorithms (the algorithms themselves I can't speak to since they're far beyond my knowledge, but the results are uniformly bad), the algorithms in Band-in-a-box's Soloist, Melodist and 'Chord Progression generation' software, and the algorithms used in Jamstix.
> 
> All of them sound like similar work to me: useful for what they try to do, but ultimately very, very flawed. They seem to just use algorithms that sort pre-composed chunks of musical data, and then modify the existing data to provide "creativity." Which tends to make the result sound like pastiche, and usually a poor one, since every element sounds like the original source material.
> 
> I will tell you...if you know of any pieces that are the result of algorithmic processing that don't exhibit these flaws, I'd actually be quite excited to hear them.


Can you show me a recent piece of yours which doesn’t exhibit these flaws? In 1997, my computer wrote every possible WAV file, so whatever you wrote in 2013 was an exact copy of something my computer had already written in 1997. If your 2013 works sound better than Cope’s examples (which I’m willing to assume), I don’t think it’s a matter of creativity, because in 2013 you created nothing new—you only came up with duplicates of works my computer had pre-composed in 1997.



Daryl @ Wed May 21 said:


> BachRules @ Wed May 21 said:
> 
> 
> > Daryl @ Mon May 19 said:
> ...


The theorists you’re describing I wouldn’t call “top class”. Better theorists might come up with theories which “know when you've got something worth applying craft to”. Maybe I’m still missing your point.



marclawsonmusic @ Wed May 21 said:


> Michio77 @ Mon May 19 said:
> 
> 
> > The day computers fall in love and get their little digital heart broken, they will start writing music.
> ...


My computer already has written every song you ever will write.


----------



## Daryl (May 22, 2014)

BachRules @ Thu May 22 said:


> The theorists you’re describing I wouldn’t call “top class”. Better theorists might come up with theories which “know when you've got something worth applying craft to”. Maybe I’m still missing your point.


Yes they might. McDonald's might also start serving food that's fit to be called food. However, both are unlikely, in my view.

However, talking of McDonald's, I see your program as aiming more for the McDonald's market anyway, so originality won't be very important. If you are aiming higher than that, you might find that the effort you have to put into the programming won't be worth the financial return.

D


----------



## Musicologo (May 22, 2014)

I think that might be a misconception or another conceptual confusion regarding this issue:

1 - the symbolic quality of what a computer calculates (the midi file)

2 - the performative layer (what cc data and humanization has to be put on top of that midi so it sounds a decent rendition)

3 - the sound quality (the sound libraries used to record the midi file + effects + the automatic mixing and mastering)

Those are 3 totally different tasks, performed by different AI's (or even not performed at all), and it seems people are judging the quality of the three at the same time.


I believe computers are able to do amazing at 1).
I beliee they still have some flaws at 2) and don't perfectly convince me there.
And I've never listened to a 3) that was high-quality to me, up to date.

I don't know if we ever will have a 3) in the next 20 years that will suffice except for 2 or 3 instruments like piano... definitely not on the "voice level", because it would require amazing programming given the amount of variables involved.

However, my main concern right now is 1). And on that level, I believe computers as tools are of extremely aid to any composer/programmer. with human feedback, they surpass any human composer (they make us better), without human feedback, they might get there eventually and surpass at least 90% of the actual composers.

Regarding 2), I don't know how much more we'll have to work to mimic decent instrumentalists or provide decent performances without falling into the uncanny valley problem. I've already heard decent midi renditions that would convince a LOT of common listeners. However some more picky ones would still hate them. If I'm working for industry I don't know if they are acceptable for most of the producers.
Remind that if I have a 1) and 2) I can do my own 3 manually and still save a lot of effort.


----------



## bbunker (May 22, 2014)

Alright, Biard. Let's indulge you for a moment.

So, your computer generated every .wav file that could exist, huh? I assume you still have these wave files, then, as proof. So, if we assume that we're only going to be working at 16-bit, then each sample has only 65,536 possible values. And there are 44,100 samples per second, so the number of possible 1 second wave files of 16-bit depth is about 6.31 * 10 to the 212,696th power. And that's just mono. But, I assume that you can hear the quality of a composition equally from mono or stereo files, so we'll just go with that.

So, each file is 84.2 kilobytes (sample rate * (sampling depth/2)), or 84,200 bytes. So the accumulated file size of these permutations of wave files is somewhere on the order of the 10^212,700th magnitude of bytes. A terabyte has 1,099,511,627,776 bytes, so you would need somewhere around 10^212,688 terabytes worth of disc storage. The GNP of the United States is 15.9 trillion dollars, the cost of a terabyte hard drive is about $100, so you could buy 1.6 * 10^11 hard drives with the GNP of America. That's a lot of hard drives, but you'd need about 10^212,685 times the GNP of America worth of hard drives to store all possible 1 second, mono 16-bit depth, 44.1khz wave files.

OK. Done indulging.


----------



## G.E. (May 22, 2014)

> So, your computer generated every .wav file that could exist, huh?


Seriously...I don't know why you indulge the troll. :lol:


----------



## bbunker (May 22, 2014)

Now you've done it, G.E.. You're going to get flamed for your 'aggressive' behaviour.

I'm kind of hoping that if our mutual friend does his one post here every day, then I won't have to read it in other threads. Every troll needs a bridge, so it may as well be here.


----------



## germancomponist (May 23, 2014)

In a hundred years, novels and other stories will be written by computers, individually tailored to each reader. With the music it will probably be similar. Maybe everyone listens to his personal film music? Everything will be possible and people are more and more replaced by computers?!

Oh what for future prospects.... .

But, what do u think about this?



In this way, composing will definitely get interesting! o/~


----------



## AlexandreSafi (May 23, 2014)

"Are you guys composers, or are you guys computer engineers in music?"


----------



## Musicologo (May 23, 2014)

I believe nobody here is just a composer. 
who does the copying/engraving? 
who does the captation/recording?
Who does the playing?
Who does the mixing/mastering?

I believe all these tasks are done most of the time by one person using a computer to perform them virtually and do a bunch of calculations.

It's applying the same principle to the process of "composition" which is, in fact, taking a bunch of decisions regarding a bunch of constrains. Why not having a computer doing that or a part of that as well?... It's not a dichotomy. It's like using a calculator - it enhances your performance.

I don't write scores with pencil and pen anymore, neither I play an acoustic flute or violin, neither I use analog mixing tables or even contract musicians or sound engineers.
Why on earth do I have to do all the process of "decide form and structure, decide scale, decide notes, decide themes, motifs, decide variations, decide quantization, decide cc values, etc" by hand? Can't I give those constrains to a machine and tell it to do it? In the end it's still me having the first and last word and deciding the length and amount of parameters and constraints.


----------



## BachRules (May 23, 2014)

bbunker @ Thu May 22 said:


> Let's indulge you for a moment.
> 
> So, your computer generated every .wav file that could exist, huh? I assume you still have these wave files, then, as proof. So, if we assume that we're only going to be working at 16-bit, then each sample has only 65,536 possible values. And there are 44,100 samples per second, so the number of possible 1 second wave files of 16-bit depth is about 6.31 * 10 to the 212,696th power. And that's just mono. But, I assume that you can hear the quality of a composition equally from mono or stereo files, so we'll just go with that.
> 
> ...


I used data compression, and it’s really just that you omitted it in your accounting. Your conclusion that humans compose better than computers is based on a premise that programmers don’t use data compression.



bbunker @ Thu May 22 said:


> I'm kind of hoping that if our mutual friend does his one post here every day, then I won't have to read it in other threads.


Why are you distressed by what I’ve written?



G.E. @ Thu May 22 said:


> > So, your computer generated every .wav file that could exist, huh?
> 
> 
> Seriously...I don't know why you indulge the troll. :lol:


What you just said was disrespectful — a violation of forum-rule #7. I am sincere in my statements about WAV files. Do you want the mods to hold you to lower standards because they believe you have lower ability? Is your accusation against me serious? Why are you distressed by what I’ve written?



Daryl @ Thu May 22 said:


> If you are aiming higher than that, you might find that the effort you have to put into the programming won't be worth the financial return.


Wouldn’t the same go for human composers? If they aim higher than the McDonalds market, they might find that the effort they put into composition wouldn’t pay off financially? Is your point here somehow specific to computers?



Daryl @ Thu May 22 said:


> However, talking of McDonald's, I see your program as aiming more for the McDonald's market anyway, so originality won't be very important.


As for originality, the last time any original music was written was 1997 when my computer wrote every possible WAV file.

Is “the McDonald’s market” what John Williams is aiming for, with his distribution to so many consumers? Is that what you mean by “McDonald’s market”? Whereas you, despite your “originality”, have less audience for your music?

And what did you see which led you to believe my program is “aiming more for the McDonald’s market”? I wonder if you’re confusing my program with someone else’s program?



Daryl @ Thu May 22 said:


> BachRules @ Thu May 22 said:
> 
> 
> > The theorists you’re describing I wouldn’t call “top class”. Better theorists might come up with theories which “know when you've got something worth applying craft to”. Maybe I’m still missing your point.
> ...


Why do you think it’s unlikely a theorists would come up with theories which “know when you've got something worth applying craft to”? What more does your prediction reflect than your own limitations as a theorist?



AlexandreSafi @ Fri May 23 said:


> "Are you guys composers, or are you guys computer engineers in music?"


I work for the music-listeners. Others seem to approach their music egocentrically instead. Whether you call me a “composer” is a matter of semantics, which doesn’t concern me.


----------



## Daryl (May 23, 2014)

BachRules @ Fri May 23 said:


> Daryl @ Thu May 22 said:
> 
> 
> > If you are aiming higher than that, you might find that the effort you have to put into the programming won't be worth the financial return.
> ...


Perfectly true. However, the computer doesn't take any satisfaction in writing better music. Humans usually do.



BachRules @ Fri May 23 said:


> Daryl @ Thu May 22 said:
> 
> 
> > However, talking of McDonald's, I see your program as aiming more for the McDonald's market anyway, so originality won't be very important.
> ...


I doubt that statement has any veracity at all.



BachRules @ Fri May 23 said:


> Is “the McDonald’s market” what John Williams is aiming for, with his distribution to so many consumers? Is that what you mean by “McDonald’s market”? Whereas you, despite your “originality”, have less audience for your music?


I never said anything about my music. You're making that up.



BachRules @ Fri May 23 said:


> And what did you see which led you to believe my program is “aiming more for the McDonald’s market”? I wonder if you’re confusing my program with someone else’s program?


You said that you were aiming to make money. The McDonald's market is the best place to do that. Obviously if you can cover all markets, you will make more, but that would require much better programming, Hence my previous remark about effort and reward.


BachRules @ Fri May 23 said:


> Daryl @ Thu May 22 said:
> 
> 
> > BachRules @ Thu May 22 said:
> ...


It reflects years of experience in many aspects of the music profession.



AlexandreSafi @ Fri May 23 said:


> "Are you guys composers, or are you guys computer engineers in music?"


I work for the music-listeners. Others seem to approach their music egocentrically instead. Whether you call me a “composer” is a matter of semantics, which doesn’t concern me.[/quote]
Me neither. I'm only interested in the discussion. It has no bearing on how I live my life.

D


----------



## G.E. (May 23, 2014)

> What you just said was disrespectful — a violation of forum-rule #7. I am sincere in my statements about WAV files. Do you want the mods to hold you to lower standards because they believe you have lower ability? Is your accusation against me serious? Why are you distressed by what I’ve written?


I'm sorry,but some of the things you say just come off as trolling.And because of that I'm inclined to believe you haven't even written a " Hello World ! " program,yet alone a program which already composed every song that I will ever write.


----------



## bbunker (May 23, 2014)

Now that's hilarious. So you've compressed it by, what, a ratio of 10^200,000 to 1? To be able to store just every permutation of 1 second wave files? Ridiculous.


----------



## bbunker (May 23, 2014)

And Biard, I was talking about someone else when I said "our mutual friend". I clearly was distressed by someone else, not you. Are you so self-centered that you assume that I'm always talking about you? Why are you so distressed by what I've said that you start to assume I'm always talking about you?


----------



## AlexandreSafi (May 23, 2014)

All righty then. My question is just "checkin' what came first". As in "What do you treasure most?" Not that any of you fine people owe me any answer in any case of course. You guys know best... hopefully...
I genuinely, truly, respect people's interest on this, i understood (i think) the calculator analogy, however if I i understood the core idea presented in this thread and this David Cope, then "this"... still looks like opening Pandora's box, the Ark of the Covenant, the "choose-wisely-choose-poorly" scenario, the "this-is-too-much-power-for-one-person" idea...

It's the machine grabbing the tree by its root and collecting its apples all in 3 seconds... 
I could call it an "automatic milking machine" too!
I'm talking about, treating the work, the music and its stream with respect, as Vangelis said!
Being non-resilient in making stuff with your own bare hands from A-Z... 
Plus, we have enough listeners caring about result only, instead of work-process, no need to make it increase...

But again this could all be based on a pure misunderstanding from my little 23 year-old brain!

_"Ma toute petite contribution inutile au sujet!"_


----------



## Daryl (May 23, 2014)

Actually I don't have a problem with a computer writing music. I don't even have a problem with a computer that can write better music than I. I just don't see that it is possible in the near future simply because the resources needed to fund such a mammoth task are severely outweighed by the financial gains, if it can be done. Besides even programming the perfect or even good replacement virtual instrument has not been achieved yet.

D


----------



## Farkle (May 23, 2014)

Quote From BachRules: "Can you show me a recent piece of yours which doesn’t exhibit these flaws? In 1997, my computer wrote every possible WAV file, so whatever you wrote in 2013 was an exact copy of something my computer had already written in 1997. If your 2013 works sound better than Cope’s examples (which I’m willing to assume), I don’t think it’s a matter of creativity, because in 2013 you created nothing new—you only came up with duplicates of works my computer had pre-composed in 1997. "


Excellent! I'm now posting three links to pieces I wrote this year. Please now post simliar or "stylistically equivalent" pieces of your own. I'm not saying I wrote better or worse, or even original (heaven knows, I was highly influenced by temp scores), but I would like to see you post a piece that is in the same world/style/emotion as my three pieces. As you said, since no original music has been written since your computer produced in in 1997, you should be able to come up with three pieces that my compositions are directly derived from. In fact, you should find an EXACT COPY of these three pieces (all of which I wrote in 2013) in your 1997 database.

Here are my three pieces (box links):

https://app.box.com/s/gulgfswpr3nxpjn8vhdh

https://app.box.com/s/rcs9jqcs024kltcg97h8

https://app.box.com/s/bfoso8w3iwas55b4jfwk

NOTE: I actually believe that a computer could build pieces like what I wrote above, because there are a TON of patterns and links in the pieces, so I'm not doubting that. However, I am doubting that these three, fairly disparate pieces of music, have already been composed by a computer in 1997. In any event, I respectfully request this challenge.

Mike


----------



## Musicologo (May 23, 2014)

Safi, I cannot talk about others' motivations, but at least on my side I love to compose manually or improvise on the piano or guitar very simple tunes just as I love to do pop songs or simple orchestrations by hand. It's part of a personal urge and motivation and passion that lead me here into the first place.

On the other side I'm fascinated by questioning everything, discussing everything and exploring. So, in the same way I find incredible that we have sample libraries and I can have a personal virtual orchestra in my home without needing musicians I was also very attracted to the idea of "Composer's block" that motivated David Cope.

What If instead of having to compose all by myself I was able to teach my computer to compose like I do and let it fill in the blanks? "don't give him a fish, teach him how to fish"...

And I can't see any incompatibility in my curiosity for automatic composition and my urge to compose by myself. It is like being a gourmet chef and still enjoying a hot dog or a pizza.

I feel the motivations and outputs will always be different in the sense that THE SAME EXACT PIECE composed by me and by a computer will always be different in the eyes of a listener or a client. Because one has a cold machine behind it, the other has a human being and an intention behind it. And that extra layer of information and empathy may bring difference in the symbolic value.

For instance, I value the performance of a 10 year old playing piano, even if she plays crap, because I'm seeing the effort, intention and emotion put in there. It's a matter of establishing empathy with another human being.

Now, on another level, when I just want a "sound" and I don't care whomever is behind it, which is the case in many library tracks for low end projects, in that case I believe a computer generated track has the same value as a human track, because the client is only interested in the sound, not the intention. Therefore, there could be a market there.

Context is everything...


----------



## BachRules (May 24, 2014)

G.E. @ Fri May 23 said:


> > What you just said was disrespectful — a violation of forum-rule #7. I am sincere in my statements about WAV files. Do you want the mods to hold you to lower standards because they believe you have lower ability? Is your accusation against me serious? Why are you distressed by what I’ve written?
> 
> 
> I'm sorry,but some of the things you say just come off as trolling.


Which specific ASCII-sequences did I type which made you want to accuse me of “trolling”?



bbunker @ Fri May 23 said:


> Now that's hilarious. So you've compressed it by, what, a ratio of 10^200,000 to 1? To be able to store just every permutation of 1 second wave files? Ridiculous.


It’s just that you’re hilariously making up your own ridiculous theories about data-compression, with no basis in reality. I’d like to see you present your computer-science theories to any group of professional programmers.



G.E. @ Fri May 23 said:


> I'm inclined to believe you haven't even written a " Hello World ! " program,yet alone a program which already composed every song that I will ever write.


‘k



bbunker @ Fri May 23 said:


> And Biard, I was talking about someone else when I said "our mutual friend". I clearly was distressed by someone else, not you. Are you so self-centered that you assume that I'm always talking about you? Why are you so distressed by what I've said that you start to assume I'm always talking about you?


‘k



Daryl @ Fri May 23 said:


> BachRules @ Fri May 23 said:
> 
> 
> > As for originality, the last time any original music was written was 1997 when my computer wrote every possible WAV file.
> ...


In any case, it would be easy for any competent programmer — or do you doubt that too? I think it would be difficult to find a professional programmer who’s unable to do this easily.



Daryl @ Thu May 22 said:


> However, talking of McDonald's, I see your program as aiming more for the McDonald's market anyway….


Is “the McDonald’s market” what John Williams is aiming for, with his distribution to so many consumers? Is that what you mean by “McDonald’s market”? I’m asking again, because maybe you overlooked these questions last time.



AlexandreSafi @ Fri May 23 said:


> Plus, we have enough listeners caring about result only, instead of work-process, no need to make it increase…


But I like those listeners, and I want them to increase; and why would you think your work-process is better than anyone else’s?



AlexandreSafi @ Fri May 23 said:


> "this"... still looks like opening Pandora's box, the Ark of the Covenant, the "choose-wisely-choose-poorly" scenario, the "this-is-too-much-power-for-one-person" idea...
> 
> It's the machine grabbing the tree by its root and collecting its apples all in 3 seconds...
> I could call it an "automatic milking machine" too!
> ...


The first problem you’re up against is that some of us humans have entered the Stone Age. Some of us have begun using tools instead of our bare hands. Your next problem is that some of us humans have entered the Bronze Age, and your next problem is that some of us have entered the Iron Age. You would find something closer to a “bare-hands” workstyle among the Aborigines, inside the Brazilian rainforest, in certain parts of Africa, and in Amish country. Why are you using virtual instruments instead of your bare hands?



AlexandreSafi @ Mon May 19 said:


> Sometimes we need to be brave enough and NOT wish our jobs were easier...


Are you brave enough to get rid of your virtual instruments?



AlexandreSafi @ Mon May 19 said:


> warfare on art and artists


I don’t see that. I just see some people distressed that their knowledge and skills are becoming outdated. No one is entitled to a job in the entertainment industry. It’s a privilege one has to work for. If one is unwilling or unable to do the work that customers want, of course he won’t succeed in this industry, just like any other line of work.

If you don’t care about succeeding in industry, on the other hand, then anything goes, and you can make music by clapping, whistling, stomping your feet — whichever “work-process” is pure enough for you. Your audience will be small, but you’ll succeed in “treating the work, the music and its stream with respect”, as Vangelis said (as he used cutting-edge technology).



Farkle @ Fri May 23 said:


> ... Please now post similar or "stylistically equivalent" pieces of your own….


I found exact likenesses of your three files in my database. My posting them would be pointless, since they’re indistinguishable from the files you posted.

It’s like I made a database of all the integers:

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, ….

and then you gave me two integers, like 34 and 227, and you asked me if they’re in my database, and they were in my database, since my database contains all the integers.


----------



## Daryl (May 24, 2014)

BachRules @ Sat May 24 said:


> Daryl @ Fri May 23 said:
> 
> 
> > BachRules @ Fri May 23 said:
> ...


Nonsense. For every wav file you produce, I could produce one that is a nanosecond longer, so unless you can accurately predict the end of the Universe, you don't have every possible wav file on your hard drive.[/quote]



BachRules @ Sat May 24 said:


> Daryl @ Thu May 22 said:
> 
> 
> > However, talking of McDonald's, I see your program as aiming more for the McDonald's market anyway….
> ...


No, I didn't overlook your question; it was just an irrelevant question.

D


----------



## AlexandreSafi (May 24, 2014)

This is my last post in this thread, as i realize (as probably the wisest members here do) that silence is, more often than not, much more creative than anything else... 

BachRules -- 2 things 
(well... rather one):

1)Taking me too litterally on the making things with "bare hands" part, granting me the all-too-easy indirect, yet extreme "Aborigine-elitist-like" status... 
2)*--2 different worldviews you & I--*, hence my last stop here, plus this clearly encourages a certain attitude you just had towards me in that 1st point. Passive-aggressive tactics is all too easy for me to spot to know that this debate is as valuable as the dollar will be...

So, yes i used the word WAR (as if this idea between mathematics vs. creativity didn't already exist in our society and schools...). I talk about "manu-facturing music", how it will be made, and the perception this could all possibly have on how people will view and treat music -- how we value "it". Also how about sustaining humanity, this naturally evolved human dynamic, PRECISELY in the music business equation. It can't be about "survival of the fittest, or whatever sells works" anymore. It's an old model. That's not "forward-thinking..." First, if anything, Art should inspire, not sell...
It's about the link of the composer to his music, his own human experience within the process of (self-)discovery while making the music, the communication of music, and the way it is done so back to his audience, its impact on inspiring others (listeners, kids like i was (am?), and other composers) because of the content of the music itself and just as important, its origin, who made it, where it came from, the artist's head, but again this whole idea goes back to the *2nd point*...
Vangelis? He used technology?? Shoot, I should have known better when quoting him! Well then maybe let's think, why even a tech-musician guy like him talked about music as a living thing that needs respect? And no, virtual instruments by far still don't take away this idea!

_"Music should drive the composer! The composer should not drive the music"_ -- Vangelis

*Musicologo*: Thank you again for sharing those articles, this was still really interesting, and rest assured i know i'm probably still all wrong about what this looks like, and you were kind enough to explain it further, so i'll look further when i get time and wait and see...

This is too much fun, even for a composer!

I'll be my own moderator:
Robert Greene -- "33 Strategies of WAR": N.22 [Know how to end things] _"The art of ending things well is knowing when to stop. The height of strategic wisdom is to avoid all conflicts and entanglements from which there are no realistic exits..." _

I'm sure there'll be some seductive things in this present 98th post of mine to reprise and use against me, but i'll be just like thin air... 
Anyways, going back to my old cave, a dark place you'll never find, where i'm eating boars 7 days a week, and using a stolen 19th century french horn for blowing my handmade fire every night!


----------



## Hannes_F (May 25, 2014)

I think the issue in question is this:

What if somebody (could be BachRules or any other person or group) 

1. created programs that
1.1. wrote every possible combination of musical notes within given boundary conditions as midi files
and/or
1.2. wrote every possible combination of 16 bit files within given boundary conditions as audio files
and/or
1.3. wrote every possible combination of letters and words within given boundary conditions as text files
and/or
1.4. wrote every possible combination of commands within given boundary conditions as program source files

2. That person or group would then deposit those files in a legally impeccable way

3. That person or group would then begin to claim copyright to commercially very successful works of music, literature or software because they can prove they have an identical or very similar file in their database but it has been registered before the actual composer, author or programmer created it.

4. In case the lawsuit thing would be too much to handle for a single person or group they could still sell/rent the copyright to big lawyer offices that are up to trying such an enterprise.

5. Suing just a few #1 billboard acts would probably be enough for a lifetime income. 

^^^ Feel free to insert or alter practical details if necessary ^^^

This idea of generating such intellectual property content by brute force computing is not new, at least not for me. I had it in the early nineties probably like many others, and finding that it would damage the work of creatives I dropped it and hoped nobody else would do it. But what would happen and how would society react if somebody really pulled that off?


----------



## Daryl (May 25, 2014)

Hannes, I don't think you have to worry too much about such things. For a start the actual wav file would have to exist and then in order to claim any sort of copyright, it would have had to be registered. Yet, to register a practically infinite number of tracks just wouldn't be acceptable, so if anyone tried to do it, firstly they would be refused and secondly the law would change to stop it.

You also have to remember that the perpetrator would have to know all the music that already exists and not try to register that as well, or they could be sued for attempted fraud.

In any case, as I said the big players have too much to lose, so the law would just be changed to stop it. As you point out, it's not just music, it's all forms of expression, including scientific discoveries.

D


----------



## BachRules (May 25, 2014)

Daryl @ Sun May 25 said:


> the actual wav file would... in order to claim any sort of copyright, it would have had to be registered.


I don’t know which country you mean, but that’s not the law in the U.S.



Daryl @ Sun May 25 said:


> You also have to remember that the perpetrator would have to know all the music that already exists and not try to register that as well, or they could be sued for attempted fraud.


That’s also not the law in the U.S.



AlexandreSafi @ Sat May 24 said:


> BachRules -- 2 things
> (well... rather one):
> 
> 1)Taking me too literally on the making things with "bare hands" part….


I was taking you at your words, since your words is all you gave me. If “bare hands” isn’t what you meant, it’s unclear what you did mean. You take some words of Vangelis which are so vague they could mean anything, and from that starting point you conclude that compositional algorithms are bad but virtual instruments are fine. It seems you’re pulling your conclusion out of thin air, as it’s not implied by Vangelis’s words.



AlexandreSafi @ Sat May 24 said:


> Passive-aggressive tactics is all too easy for me to spot


I looked up “passive aggressive” in Wikipedia, and I don’t see how it applies. Meanwhile, you’ve been declaring wars on people, which is hardly a non-aggressive thing to do, and you’re assuming the role of a dictator by telling people how they should or should not make music.



AlexandreSafi @ Sat May 24 said:


> ... It can't be about "survival of the fittest, or whatever sells works" anymore…. It's about the link of the composer to his music, his own human experience within the process of (self-)discovery while making the music.... the artist's head....


Who is going to put a stop to survival of the fittest? You? The Swiss army? You might find some comrades in the Occupy movement, but that fell apart when most of them grew up and got jobs.

And maybe more to the point, why should listeners be subject to unfit music? Just to gratify the egotism of some mediocre “artists” “discovering” themselves? I don’t want to listen to their music anymore than I’d want to watch some guy masturbating in the name of “self-discovery”. Self-discovery isn’t as special as you seem to think. There are 7 billion people self-discovering themselves at this moment. Declaring oneself an “artist” doesn’t make his self-discovery any more interesting.

Continue with your self-gratification, by all means. All I’m saying is that your audience will be small (unless you plan to force your music on unwilling listeners, which seems to be what you were getting at with the “war” you declared).



AlexandreSafi @ Sat May 24 said:


> First, if anything, Art should inspire, not sell…


I don’t claim to be making “art”. I just make entertainment. What if someone wants to buy some entertainment my computer produces? You wouldn’t allow that? How would you punish persons who made music in ways you disliked? How would you punish persons who bought music you disliked?



AlexandreSafi @ Sat May 24 said:


> Vangelis? He used technology?? Shoot, I should have known better when quoting him! Well then maybe let's think, why even a tech-musician guy like him talked about music as a living thing that needs respect? And no, virtual instruments by far still don't take away this idea!
> 
> _"Music should drive the composer! The composer should not drive the music"_ -- Vangelis


If someone makes music in a way you dislike, you take Vangelis’s words to suggest you have some right to fine, imprison, or otherwise punish him?

By the way, I have more respect for music than you can comprehend. I believe music transcends humans, and certainly it transcends “artists” who merely discover random bits and pieces of music through trial and error, which some mistake egotistically for some process more noble. It’s music which “drives” my compositional technology, not the other way around.



AlexandreSafi @ Sat May 24 said:


> I'm sure there'll be some seductive things in this present 98th post of mine to reprise and use against me


Because you declared a war on computer-music programmers, and then you appointed yourself dictator of all music.


----------



## dgburns (May 25, 2014)

BachRules @ Sat May 24 said:


> G.E. @ Fri May 23 said:
> 
> 
> > ... Please now post similar or "stylistically equivalent" pieces of your own….
> ...



No wave file huh? I cry bullshit then :roll:


----------



## bbunker (May 25, 2014)

The whole concept is bullshit. If you built 10 trillion computers (10,000,000,000,000), started running them at near or about the big bang 15 billion years (15,000,000,000) ago, then for them to have come up with just all possible mono files one second in length, they would have to create 2.0 * 10^212696 files per second.

Just to give an idea of what is being proposed, if we limited it to a wave of 3 SAMPLES in length, which is 1/14,700th of a second in length of a wave file, and had each person pick a possible value within the number of possible values for one sample in a wave file, then the possible wave files you could create in 3 samples is on the order of 281 trillion.

Which means that if every man, woman and child alive on earth today picked those three numbers right now, you'd have to repeat the process almost 40,000 times before you would expect to find a set of three numbers that matched that first set of numbers.

If you made a wave file of 2 samples length, the odds of finding an exact match to that wave file would be such that you'd have a better chance of winning the UK Lottery. As in, you would expect to win the UK Lottery THREE HUNDRED AND SIX TIMES before you would expect to find a match for a wave file 2 samples in length. And 2 Samples is one Twenty-two Thousandth of a second worth of "music".

So, I'd suggest that while the number of possible wave files isn't infinite, it may as well be considered as such for our purposes.


----------



## Daryl (May 25, 2014)

Of course it's nonsense. I can't believe that anyone here is taking it seriously. :lol: 

D


----------



## germancomponist (May 25, 2014)

Daryl @ Sun May 25 said:


> Of course it's nonsense. I can't believe that anyone here is taking it seriously. :lol:
> 
> D



 o/~ o=< o-[][]-o


----------



## BachRules (May 27, 2014)

dgburns @ Sun May 25 said:


> No wave file huh? I cry bullshit then :roll:


‘k



Daryl @ Sun May 25 said:


> Of course it's nonsense. I can't believe that anyone here is taking it seriously. :lol:


Says the guy with a history of making nonsense claims about copyright law.



Daryl @ Thu May 22 said:


> ... I see your program as aiming more for the McDonald's market…


What does “McDonald's market” even mean? If it means distribution to lots of listeners, like John Williams’s music, then sure, that’s what my program is aiming for. We can’t all be twelve-tone serialists in search of an audience, telling ourselves our music fails to sell because it’s just too gourmet for listeners to appreciate.



bbunker @ Wed May 21 said:


> ... the results of David Cope's algorithms… the algorithms in Band-in-a-box's Soloist, Melodist and 'Chord Progression generation' software, and the algorithms used in Jamstix.
> 
> All of them sound like similar work to me: useful for what they try to do, but ultimately very, very flawed. They seem to just use algorithms that sort pre-composed chunks of musical data, and then modify the existing data to provide "creativity." Which tends to make the result sound like pastiche, and usually a poor one, since every element sounds like the original source material.
> 
> I will tell you...if you know of any pieces that are the result of algorithmic processing that don't exhibit these flaws, I'd actually be quite excited to hear them.


Can you show me a piece you’ve written which isn’t simply a “pastiche” of “pre-composed” 0’s and 1’s?


----------

