This is a rant, from someone who's been playing music for 3 decades, rock, electronic, and classical. Also I've been meditating a lot. I started realizing recently the huge separation between thoughts about music and music itself, just as there is between thoughts and action. The world we live in, of temporary digital media, is a mirror of our thought processes. Our whole modern day and environs are spent in thoughts and media, with almost no action... particularly since we started working at home and ordering food in!
Upon seeing a web page's "impressionistic interpretation/reduction" of a decade or so of music driven primarily by economic and social constraints (warehouse techno), it's so easy for people to pile up thoughts. It's so inexpensive and risk-free for people to say, "oh yeah, that there is good techno/acid," without trying it out on a dancefloor, without having listened to hours and hours of it.
There has strangely been a long-term dream of computer scientists to replace composition. To "spit out" songs as someone put it. It's usually too scary to ask ourselves "why?" because it usually is a game of validating one's own mind against others' impressions. For some reason, auto-composition seems like some kind of holy grail, but of what?! Saving money buying music? A fantasy of abundance? A kind of "gotcha!" that a pure thought-person has outwitted a silly irl composer? What do you actually get for creating an intelligence that wins a Turing test? You certainly don't get sweaty friends deliriously dancing on drugs at 3 am. You typically just get another social promotion in the direction of aiding greater powers at their control over the world. Is that what it's about? Closing ourselves off from human musical expression in exchange for increased financial standing? Get a job bc you proved you can fool some of them of the time? To validate a work ethic that regards music as frivolous by demonstrating that it can be simulated accurately enough?
It's not obvious that every decent musical piece is a more complex and interesting story than its notes. That every new synthesis engine can only ever interpolate its inputs as opposed to incorporate new ideas and more importantly experiences. Experiences that relate to a person and group. We all have a sublime attraction to the story of Beethoven - to having been giving a profound gift and slowly lost part of it. We look for ourselves in his work, where did he break down? How did he handle his unfortunate circumstances?
We perceive music in terms of passion - what it cost an individual in hours of life, blisters, health, money, dedication, etc. We revere Kurt Cobain for pouring out everything he had into his music. If a computer program wrote "You Know You're Right," and we knew there wasn't actually someone real who "never failed to feel....PAAAAAAAAIN," it wouldn't matter to us. Because we're all diffractions of some crazy spiritual force no one understands, but it seems like music is a form of "interdigiation" between us. So why plug our own listening energy into a random number generator and call it good? With respect to ppl saying, "now we can have acid anywhere, anytime," I say, "dial up great mixes on youtube, etc." There are real DJs who put together songs in streams that have even greater meanings than the individual songs - bc, again, music is more than just individuals, it's a collective act.
And no matter what the tech of the day is, it will always be applied as if it were to be the "final," perfect means of autocomposing - remember fractal music in the 90s? PCA synthesis in the early 2000s? So as a fun programming challenge, i say to people, sure, write these programs. But why must we persist in proclaiming their relevance to our active lives when they only resonate in our thoughts.
I think you have a point that there is a certain type of music fan that really does want to make a human connection with the artist through the music, and algorithmic composition may never really be enough for those fans.
But it's also the case that one of the things that makes electronic music appealing to a lot of people is that it generally doesn't have the cult of personality that exists in other genres. For sure, some parts of the scene ended up idolizing DJs instead, but I'd say a significant subset of techno fans are specifically not interested in the artistic motivation behind a piece and are instead just looking to hear some cool sounds.
That's why electronic music is a great place to experiment with algorithmic composition, and that's why all these people joking about ravers dancing to washing machines because they're so drugged up kinda missed the point of what we liked about the music in the first place. It's not about telling a story, or communicating an emotion, it's just about creating a cool sound. It doesn't need to be more complicated than that. If a piece of machinery can create a cool sound incidentally, why wouldn't we dance to it?
Of course, as I commented elsewhere, I don't think this particular example is especially notable. The music it generates is not much more interesting than what you'd get if you anyway just hit a "random pattern" button on a 303 clone that lets you constrain the result to a scale. But that doesn't matter, because it's still a nifty project and a bit of fun.
If you really are searching for the true intent of the artist, then you have that with algorithmic composition too. Click round the rest of this developer/artist's site and you'll find lots of little projects and experiments with music and software creations that - even if you don't see them as art, are at the very least the product of a creative hobbyist. There's your passion!
> What do you actually get for creating an intelligence that wins a Turing test?
> it's just about creating a cool sound.
I specifically want to create novel hard/dark/minimal techno bangers with similar effort to curating a playlist.
I want a toy that makes music that will keep me and my friends up into the wee hours, without the toil, without the bleeding egoic labor.
And I want people with good taste to have the same ability without putting thousands of hours into learning music theory and arcane details about DAWs and synthesizers and other... Traditional... Tools.
I want to twist the nips of a sexy thump machine and get a good feedback loop[0] going between jerky knees and the stupid-smart NPC musician in my laptop.
I want to spend the night in a tent with eyes that digests my tribe with its acid colors and plays us like so many marionettes until, exhausted, we cut the power and go home. And there wasn't a Guru making it happen, no Chad waiting his turn on the deck, just sound, lightning, and loving this f'n party, man.
The other points about writing songs that express humanity, and the inventor's hubris and all that hit the mark. But deleting the boundary between bedroom production and the rave itself... I'd be hard pressed to imagine anything more fun and exciting.
I think I'm interpreting algorithmic composition in a different way than you are. I am someone who has always been profoundly affected by music. This is to the point where some songs consistently give me frision or make my eyes water up. Music, for me, is a profoundly emotional experience. I was just never very good at creating music; that is, until a few years ago.
I got into making music using DAWs and learned a lot of theory. I focus on making Synthwave/Outrun style music. Not the most technically complex genre sure, but there is a lot of room for creativity as the genre isn't very well defined. I also enjoy how Synthwave isn't really about musical complexity or technicality; instead, it's about the atmosphere. It's nostalgia for a time that never existed in a sense.
Now, all of this to say that I'm still not a great musician. I've been learning banjo for the past year, and getting pretty good at it.
I'll get to the point though: to me, algorithmic music isn't an end, it's a means to an end. The end in this case is composing music. Algorithmic music can be a source of ideas and inspiration in a way that nothing else can. This is especially true if we are able to specify the rule set for music generation. How many times have I sat down at the keyboard and tried to write a melody over some really cool rhythmic bass line I came up with? Countless times. If I could, for example, plug in the a key, rhythmic signature and feeling I'm going for and generate a melody, I would be able to finish more songs. I could use the generated melody as a starting point; it might spark some new ideas. This would be even cooler if I could provide the algorithm with a wav file or some midi and have it try to generate a bass line, melody, chord progression etc.
So, I guess I see algorithmic music generation less as something to replace human made music and more as a tool to aid in sparking creativity in humans composing music.
3am and really dancing.. not just doing repetitive motions on the straight pulse but living trough an embodied composition based in reception. the feel when u understand the music with your whole body so well that you can anticipate whats next, so you can even rythmically juxtapose it with what you dance and all that in a life-form with others sharing this experience as value in and of itself. damn i miss dancing. stupid covid
>There has strangely been a long-term dream of computer scientists to replace composition. To "spit out" songs as someone put it. It's usually too scary to ask ourselves "why?" because it usually is a game of validating one's own mind against others' impressions. For some reason, auto-composition seems like some kind of holy grail, but of what?! Saving money buying music? A fantasy of abundance? A kind of "gotcha!" that a pure thought-person has outwitted a silly irl composer? What do you actually get for creating an intelligence that wins a Turing test? You certainly don't get sweaty friends deliriously dancing on drugs at 3 am. You typically just get another social promotion in the direction of aiding greater powers at their control over the world. Is that what it's about? Closing ourselves off from human musical expression in exchange for increased financial standing? Get a job bc you proved you can fool some of them of the time? To validate a work ethic that regards music as frivolous by demonstrating that it can be simulated accurately enough?
To me, music is music, regardless of the creator. If it sounds good, it is good, whether it was composed by a human, a program, or a combination of the two.
If your issue is that this generative music doesn't sound sufficiently good compared to a good human producer/composer, then that's fine. The rest just feels like some kind of weird projection onto my post that I don't understand.
Computer-generated music is not at all considered an interesting goal for financial reasons. I don't even know what you're trying to mean by that. I think it's interesting because:
- It's one of the areas where the best humans still greatly outperform the best programs
- I believe computers do have the potential to one day create excellent, artistic music
I don't align with your view of experiences, passion, cost to an individual, etc. I think Beethoven's music would sound just as good regardless of if he were deaf or not deaf or a mass murderer or anything else. I think art stands on its own, with the backstory just as interesting trivia for those who want to know more about its creator.
I get what you're saying, but in my opinion the general line of thought sounds a tad too pessimistic or maybe even fatalistic. Perhaps drivent by recent pandemic events? In short: I don't think that one or more people making music, live or otherwise, and others joining to enjoy/dance/go-wild/pick-your-poison on that music is ever going to disappear.
Upon seeing a web page's "impressionistic interpretation/reduction" of a decade or so of music driven primarily by economic and social constraints (warehouse techno), it's so easy for people to pile up thoughts. It's so inexpensive and risk-free for people to say, "oh yeah, that there is good techno/acid," without trying it out on a dancefloor, without having listened to hours and hours of it.
There has strangely been a long-term dream of computer scientists to replace composition. To "spit out" songs as someone put it. It's usually too scary to ask ourselves "why?" because it usually is a game of validating one's own mind against others' impressions. For some reason, auto-composition seems like some kind of holy grail, but of what?! Saving money buying music? A fantasy of abundance? A kind of "gotcha!" that a pure thought-person has outwitted a silly irl composer? What do you actually get for creating an intelligence that wins a Turing test? You certainly don't get sweaty friends deliriously dancing on drugs at 3 am. You typically just get another social promotion in the direction of aiding greater powers at their control over the world. Is that what it's about? Closing ourselves off from human musical expression in exchange for increased financial standing? Get a job bc you proved you can fool some of them of the time? To validate a work ethic that regards music as frivolous by demonstrating that it can be simulated accurately enough?
It's not obvious that every decent musical piece is a more complex and interesting story than its notes. That every new synthesis engine can only ever interpolate its inputs as opposed to incorporate new ideas and more importantly experiences. Experiences that relate to a person and group. We all have a sublime attraction to the story of Beethoven - to having been giving a profound gift and slowly lost part of it. We look for ourselves in his work, where did he break down? How did he handle his unfortunate circumstances?
We perceive music in terms of passion - what it cost an individual in hours of life, blisters, health, money, dedication, etc. We revere Kurt Cobain for pouring out everything he had into his music. If a computer program wrote "You Know You're Right," and we knew there wasn't actually someone real who "never failed to feel....PAAAAAAAAIN," it wouldn't matter to us. Because we're all diffractions of some crazy spiritual force no one understands, but it seems like music is a form of "interdigiation" between us. So why plug our own listening energy into a random number generator and call it good? With respect to ppl saying, "now we can have acid anywhere, anytime," I say, "dial up great mixes on youtube, etc." There are real DJs who put together songs in streams that have even greater meanings than the individual songs - bc, again, music is more than just individuals, it's a collective act.
And no matter what the tech of the day is, it will always be applied as if it were to be the "final," perfect means of autocomposing - remember fractal music in the 90s? PCA synthesis in the early 2000s? So as a fun programming challenge, i say to people, sure, write these programs. But why must we persist in proclaiming their relevance to our active lives when they only resonate in our thoughts.