Computer-generated Music

[camerata]

Here's an interesting article that unintentionally touches on non-self. A guy created a computer that could write new music in the style of classical composers. But it frightens and angers a lot of people because they believe the creation of art and our emotional response to it involves a soul:

As Cope sees it, Bach merely had an extraordinary ability to manipulate notes in a way that made people who heard his music have intense emotional reactions. He describes his sometimes flabbergasting conversations with Hofstadter: “I’d pull down a score and say, ‘Look at this. What’s on this page?’ And he’d say, ‘That’s Beethoven, that’s music of great spirit and great soul.’ And I’d say, ‘Wow, isn’t that incredible! To me, it’s a bunch of black dots and black lines on white paper! Where’s the soul in there?’”

From Triumph of the Cyborg Composer.

[Hern]

In my opinion the "soul" of the music lies in the ear of the beholder.

I have often said myself that i enjoyed electronic music because it takes the self or ego out more so. Take one look at any rock musician indulging themselves in a lengthy self masturbatory guitar solo on stage and you have to wonder who is enjoying themselves more? Is it the audience or the musician?

Is it not more important to simply enjoy music rather than judge it by who, what or how it is made? It takes great skill to write such a piece of software true mathematics is an art in itself with as much finery and nuance as the greatest instrument players.

I dislike music snobbery and sometimes i feel that some traditional musicians dislike electronic music because they feel music should be something for an elite and it removes thier perception of what makes them special to the world.

Having said this i enjoy both traditonal acoustic music and electronic both have something to offer my ears and soul.

Edited March 1, 2010 by Hern

[sabaijai]

I wasn't impressed by the flavours of the music generated by 'Emily Howell.' But reading through the article it looks like whatever Emily puts out is at least an indirect result of the programmer (Cope) and the analytics he applies as extracted from other composers. So it's not totally artificial.

You can argue that the compositional process mirrors the way a human composes music , since each individual's musical output is at least to a lesser or greater degree a summation of his or her musical/social/environmentalinfluences. But the difference is that when Emily runs musical algorithms they run by chance (if I understand correctly), much like Haydn's dice. What's missing is the intent, on the part of the composer. The closest to intention is supplied by Emily's programmer, Cope. So in a sense the compositions are actually Cope's. He's simply using sophisticated computer programming technology instead of dice and pre-written musical samples.

Also he using composition based on the classical tradition (even where non-classical), ie, scored music. In such cases - classical and Cope - the element of improvisation is lacking. What is produced instead are rather amateur-sounding works, to the critical ear.

I find EMI a very interesting musical experiment, but I can't see that it really moves us forward in the self/not-self/no-self debate.

.