Digital Creativity

[LauraMichelJarre]

I have seen a program that writes Mozart string quartets, generated as midi.

[jopy]

No algorithm could ever match the genius of Mozart!

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

Well. Mostly. (Yes, it's an obvious cheat. But consider how long the idea's been around.)

Of course, the real trick would be developing a program that would make the rules independently after exposure to music. Following a set of rules set by a human being isn't actually being creative, in my book. The person who wrote the rules is the creative one.

[TankEyes]

Yeah, you have to make a distinction between algorithmic music and A.I music like jmeier said. True A.I music would be a creation of a conscious computer, and thus would be kind of like hearing music by an alien or a pet. I'm pretty sure most people would be fascinated by that. I know I would.

Apparently back in the 60's people would host performances by early computers linked to synths, and they caused some chin stroking but fell flat due to the constraints of the technology at the time. There wasn't enough processing power to focus on more than a few "rules" at a time. I think that put a bit of a sour taste in the mouth of a public, a bit like the VR craze of the 90's.

One thing a computer can't do is "be it's own audience". An important part of making music for us is to play the music back to ourselves, to see what emotions it creates in us. So there's a disconnect there. It makes me think that true A.I music will be all the more interesting as what an A.I thinks sounds good may be un-imaginably different to our tastes.

I think we'll start to see virtual DJ's sooner than we'll see A.I music. That in itself will be quite interesting. You could have dancefloor monitoring devices that measure body heat, heart rate, population, etc and create a dynamic mix that responds to the audience. They could survey the crowd for different musical tastes via a touch screen or guest list and use a song tagging database to create interesting mash ups that reference social websites like facebook.

Whenever I think of A.I music I always think of Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency by Douglas Adams. In it a brilliant computer programmer makes algorithmic music in the age of the corporations and microsoft powerpoint - a program that "displays" a companies financial documents as melodramtic music.

[jancivil]

Painting by numbers

[Guitarslayer]

It's an interesting question. But in the end, mankind is the creator and god over all computers, even AI. So everything that a computer does, mankind will always be the one who saw it to be that way. But I understand your point.

I don't know if music would be interesting if a computer makes it. In the end, it's the mind and soul behind a song that makes it beautiful.

[Ogg Vorbis]

It's an interesting question. But in the end, mankind is the creator and god over all computers, even AI. So everything that a computer does, mankind will always be the one who saw it to be that way. But I understand your point.

I don't know if music would be interesting if a computer makes it. In the end, it's the mind and soul behind a song that makes it beautiful.

Good thought-provoking post....here's a follow-up question...is mankind the creator and god over musical creation?

I estimate than when I am writing music, I am only in about 12% control over the outcome of the product.

[Guitarslayer]

Good thought-provoking post....here's a follow-up question...is mankind the creator and god over musical creation?

I estimate than when I am writing music, I am only in about 12% control over the outcome of the product.

Good point. We've set the "rules/theory" for what we believe is music, I guess we'd all agree to that. But further than that, music is everything. Don't you think that just listening to the sounds around us could be heard as music? If so, we're not god or creator of music.

But we've taken the sounds, tuned it into something that we like and set our own rules to it. So in some aspect, we're creators of the music that we like and hear. But what about the rest..?

[Ogg Vorbis]

So in some aspect, we're creators of the music that we like and hear. But what about the rest..?

I have a thought inspired by John Cage that I think includes "all the rest" you mentioned. Like to know how you react to it.

Here is my definition of music:

Music is an expectation eminating from the ears of an audience.

So in that sense, it doesn't matter if a computer creates it, or if a person creates it (out of a wave of "sincere" desire to communicate, express something, or if it's part of the traffic going by outside your window.

It is something that exists in the domain of the listener. The "receiver" is the source.

(insert huge bong hit here)

[Guitarslayer]

I have a thought inspired by John Cage that I think includes "all the rest" you mentioned. Like to know how you react to it.

Here is my definition of music:

Music is an expectation eminating from the ears of an audience.

So in that sense, it doesn't matter if a computer creates it, or if a person creates it (out of a wave of "sincere" desire to communicate, express something, or if it's part of the traffic going by outside your window.

It is something that exists in the domain of the listener. The "receiver" is the source.

(insert huge bong hit here)

It seriously invokes for some brain-usage.

I think you're absolutely right about it. Everyone experiences music differently. And music actually only exists in the mind of the listener.

Sound is just movements of air, but with a "receiver" it can be interpretated to something enjoyable.

[Ogg Vorbis]

Sound is just movements of air, but with a "receiver" it can be interpretated to something enjoyable.

Yeah, and it actually relieves the burden of the composer of having to "create the world" because it's not possible. It's better to splash sound around and hope for the best, I think.

Related to this topic, I have thought about mis-heard lyrics. You know, like "There's a Bathroom on the Right," and "S'cuse me while I kiss this guy."

There are so many people who create their own songs without realizing it. They are genuinely disappointed to realize the actual lyrics are different from the ones they thought.

It's amazing that people totally and perfectly accept that Eddie Money would write, record and perform a song about having "Two Chickens to Paralyze," or that Phil Collins would take the time to write a song about a girl and, "She seems to have an invisible tool shed."

Doesn't that sort of relieve the burden of trying to write the "perfect song?" Whatever you write and throw out there, people are going to experience it in completely individual and unpredicable ways.

Personally, I like that the listener is the actual composer. I feel a closer kinship to listeners because of that.

[Guitarslayer]

Yeah, and it actually relieves the burden of the composer of having to "create the world" because it's not possible. It's better to splash sound around and hope for the best, I think.

Yes, indeed. Perhaps the "burden" is what never makes a song completely finished? You'll always want to improve or change something within a song you've created. Or having the feeling after a year or two like you could've done it better. A song is just like a picture; it captures your creative moment at the time.

It would be nice to feel sometimes that you don't have to add several elements to make it good, you know. Simplicity is often the solution.

But now I'm drifting pretty far away from the subject.

It's pretty interesting actually how music affects you. If it's combined with pictures or movies, your brain can relate even more and create a stronger emotion than if you just hear the music.

Is it because of the scenery that we experience music differently? Of course it's not all about the scenery, but it may have some impression of what you think of a song later on.