David Cope and Artificially Intelligent Composition

Great article on composer David Cope:

http://www.miller-mccune.com/culture-society/triumph-of-the-cyborg-composer-8507

Is anyone disturbed by what he's created? I don't know why anyone would be. Music is usually highly structured and it's in a theorist's nature to uncover the structure. Cope simply applies the theory he's uncovered to write music within certain guidelines. I think it's fascinating that he can feed a computer program idiomatic works of a specific composer and the program can output a new, often compelling, composition related to the style it interprets. He seems to view his programs simply as tools to help him compose.

Any thoughts?

While interesting from a technical point of view, I'm a bit put off by the general idea of wanting to make a computer sound human. Why, out of the countless possibilities of music a computer could "come up with", should we try to force it down the narrow path of "sounding stereotypically human"?

For me, the unhuman, "untamed" aspects of extremely mechanical forms of sound production (which interestingly enough bring it again rather close to an idea of "nature") are MUCH more fascinating to me. THOSE are the things that are much harder for an intuitively composing composer to come up with on his own and therefore those are the areas computers can assist us most in.

Therefore I like a lot of algorithmic music that decidedly goes against what we'd expect a human to write. I like a lot of Clarence Barlow's music, for instance, and of course: Xenakis. Just take a listen to GENDY 3. Now that's unhuman. In the best sense.

That is a great article, Black Orpheus. It's kind of chilling at times when they begin questioning the value of the human soul, but still really cool.

Peace on Earth,

-John

For me, the unhuman, "untamed" aspects of extremely mechanical forms of sound production (which interestingly enough bring it again rather close to an idea of "nature") are MUCH more fascinating to me. THOSE are the things that are much harder for an intuitively composing composer to come up with on his own and therefore those are the areas computers can assist us most in.

I can understand that. On a compositional level I also think it's more interesting to use a computer to create new sounds than to have it mimic human sounds. I've never heard another composer mention Clarence Barlow, but I have listened to some of his music before.

That is a great article, Black Orpheus. It's kind of chilling at times when they begin questioning the value of the human soul, but still really cool.

Cope certainly has a cold and calculated outlook, but he's still looking to emotionally move people with his music. I like his questioning of the soul and what role it plays in music. If you fall in love with a piece of music that is created solely by a machine, how is that emotional attachment any less valid than the joy one might get from a Beethoven symphony? I can see how this might make some people feel uneasy; it's a bit like falling in love with a robot. Of course there's no escaping the fact that the computer generated composition is an outgrowth of the human element, whatever that may be.

David Cope is a hack and a media hoe.

Here's an article Ars Technica did on him: http://arstechnica.com/science/news/2009/09/virtual-composer-makes-beautiful-musicand-stirs-controversy.ars

To which I replied:

What controversy, again? Looks more like a long advertisement.

You know, I was pretty unimpressed with the whole thing and then I saw this at the end of the article that pushed me over the edge and made me want to say something about it:

"I'm currently writing a book that is attempting to claim that music is a science through mathematics. It involves game theory to create music, trying to prove that there are aspects of music aside from acoustics and sound itself—that composition is not just inspiration," he said.

Which just strikes me as completely ignorant and I'll explain why in a second. I also find it quite absurd that the article opens up with:

Can a computer program really generate musical compositions that are good enough to have been written by humans?

Which is also complete nonsense. I mean we're supposedly talking about educated people writing about something in an educated manner, at the VERY LEAST educated enough not to make statements like that. Why nonsense? Well, what measure is "good enough?" As far as I know there is no authority on what is "good enough," not in the slightest. The program could output a series of random notes and, for all I care, I might as well think that's awesome (aleatory music FTW.)

So going back to the first point, what do I mean with ignorant? Well, first before anyone can equate "music" to anything else, we have to agree what "music" actually is and if you're keen on modern art history you'll know that since practically any sound and/or collection of sounds can as well be music he's going to have to explain why the sound of traffic is somehow "a science," among other fun things.

But that's just a superficial problem compared to all the other things he's simply going to have to assert to which there are no definite answers (hello modern art aesthetics!) He's already in the wrong mindset, judging from quotes such as:

"Now those same composers are looking at a competitor—a virtual composer competing in the same arena with 'her' own style and music that is really excellent. It seems to me that these composers should feel a little less smug and more defensive about their position."

Really excellent, Dave? Says you? Note that I have no idea how any of it sounds like, but his taste on the music his project produces is practically irrelevant. Yes of course he's going to say it's awesome and there's nothing WRONG about him liking the music; just trying to pass it off as if it was anything other than his taste is irresponsible and, really, I don't see how this is relevant at all to the actual science behind it.

As for composers feeling smug, I suppose we should take Dave's example and ... feel super smug about our self-proclaimed excellent music?

It smells of failure, but I guess it'd be amusing read to see how he dances around the problems or actually tries to tackle them (though why would he make such statements then is beyond me.)

To be honest the whole thing sounds like some guy trying to sell his music/program/???? and he's using a sort of hype (fueled by horrible articles like this one) to run the hell away from real criticism from people who know a thing or two about musicology/art history/etc. Mind you, I might as well love his actual music, but we're not talking about that here are we?

But the point is that anyone who is familiar with Xenakis, for example, will tell you that the whole deal with mathematics, computers and music has been explored to great lengths. What he is doing, from an artistic and historical standpoint is rather trivial. He created a way to output musical material, big deal. It doesn't really matter if you use dice (aleatory music), instructions (process music) or any other method such as counting blue cars on the highway or developing an AI to sort your material for you.

And, in fact, about this?

A number of big-name classical performers expressed interest, but their agents wouldn't let them touch it with a ten-foot pole, citing industry controversy over Cope's work. "They thought it would blemish the name of the performer," Cope said. Apparently, the number of negative reactions "far outweighed" the number of positive ones.

Oh really? Wow, well, I know quite a few ensembles that play aleatory music, and all other sorts of things which are as automated and/or "nonhuman" as any of this. I guess they're not "big names," eh Dave? Seeing some actual names here would be wonderful, since I REALLY doubt that anyone wouldn't touch the music for any other reason than, well, they didn't like it. Plus I'd love to see which musician would actually "not touch" the music because of a non-existing controversy.

This article is what happens when people who don't know about a topic write about it and hype up something which is at best just another tiny grain of sand in the actual scope of music history.

If you want to focus on the science, that's FINE, but then please do leave the musical implications out unless you are knowledgeable enough to address them properly and responsibly, thanks.

PS: While I'm at it, I might as well add that it's not surprising at all that a computer can analyze models and reproduce them, and really that someone went and did it is just the logical consequence of that. And, yeah, it's just as music as any of the old warhorses, exactly like the millions of style copies that composition students around the world have written for centuries. In fact the attempts on mp3 I heard sounded a lot like what I'd expect from the average student trying to copy a style.

As for it being a computer or not, that's also trivial. After all, you can write a program that outputs random number generator results as music and claim that the computer is "composing" it too; just because you may not like the result you have to still acknowledge that the "computers compose music" deal itself is not a new thing at all, with or without the style copies.

Overall, embarrassing and the less he's mentioned the better, since all he's good for is putting out these type of articles which are at best utter nonsense and at worse an insult to anyone who has anything to do with composition.

Ugh, I think I hate this guy :\

Ugh, I think I hate this guy :\

Cope or SSC?

-John

Cope or SSC?

-John

Cope! :lol:

I dunno -- for sure, the articles on him are atrocious, but they reinforce the academic divide between liberal and fine arts and the sciences... "Dumb music kids can't know anything about computers, so let's treat it like a magic black box!"

As someone who isn't a good history buff, I can't speak to the accuracy of the program, but I can say that it's an interesting idea. I like the thought that humans act very mechanically and relatively predictably, so that art can be created by a program doesn't rile me up.

Two things bother me about Cope -- he's been hawking his wares for a while without much talk about expansion, and he's got an ego a mile wide.