Triumph of the Cyborg Composer

[Michael]

Triumph of the Cyborg Composer
David Cope’s software creates beautiful, original music. Why are people so angry about that?
...
When Emmy’s Bach pieces were first performed, at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign in 1987, they were met with stunned silence. Two years later, a series of performances at the Santa Cruz Baroque Festival was panned by a music critic — two weeks before the performance. When Cope played “the game” in front of an audience, asking which pieces were real Bach and which were Emmy-written Bach, most people couldn’t tell the difference. Many were angry; few understood the point of the exercise.
...

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

This is a very interesting article about the fellow who has created a second and even better software than the first (that freaked out so many people).

I guess the ultimate insult any scientist can make to a human is show that the one thing the human loves for its 'soul-touching' ability can be manufactured quite easily with a machine.

What does this say about creativity? Or human passion?

Doesn't surprise me one bit. Everything I've ever read about music makes it sound just like an elaborate game of mathematics, so I'm not surprised that a computer can compose classical and/or modern music.

I've often held that 'human genius' isn't always what we think it is.

I remember an autistic kid I went to school with. He was brilliant with math or anything based on memorization. But if he was wearing a blue shirt and you said him "nice brown shirt" - he'd a have a complete breakdown and turn into a babbling/screaming/tantrum within a minute or two. Adam really didn't like being told things that he thought were untrue. It caused him serious difficulties of composure.

Personally, I think it is very revealing about the way some people 'don't like' the idea of some software manufacturing Bach-like music that one can't tell apart from Bach's own work. Numbers are just numbers. Bach used them and so does the computer. :shrug:

Though, I think the key is the "soul" comment. That's very revealing. The point here is that computers shouldn't spoil human delusions. That's the greatest crime of all! Just like we were not supposed to tell Adam his shirt was brown when it was blue. Some humans have issues.

Some human delusions are popular after all - that's the bottom line here.

[Greendruid]

There are a couple of arguments in favour of music still being the province of humanity:

1. The computer was created by humanity
2. Mathematics as a symbollic representation used to describe the universe was created by humanity.

The latter I will certainly give ground on where "the reality" of mathematics in the universe is concerned. Pi will always be about the relationship between a circle and its radius. But ultimately, we dictate the terms by which mathematics is expressed. To recognise the significance of the circle is a human observation. That music can be successfully described and "created" by both of these artefacts of humanity is only testament to the relationship between the three things.

[andrewl]

I think people get upset because it de-romanticizes music.

Personally, i don't have a problem with it. For me the soul and passion is in the performance, not in the arrangement of notes.

Andrew

[Michael]

There are a couple of arguments in favour of music still being the province of humanity:

1. The computer was created by humanity
2. Mathematics as a symbollic representation used to describe the universe was created by humanity.

The latter I will certainly give ground on where "the reality" of mathematics in the universe is concerned. Pi will always be about the relationship between a circle and its radius. But ultimately, we dictate the terms by which mathematics is expressed. To recognise the significance of the circle is a human observation. That music can be successfully described and "created" by both of these artefacts of humanity is only testament to the relationship between the three things.
The piano, organ and flute were all created by pedestrian workman. Does that mean the music created with those instruments is pedestrian by definition?

Sometimes I think humans are far too much in love with their own human-ness.

I think the wind can be as great a composer as Bach or Beethoven, but never gets any credit because of human chauvanism. :D

Indeed, the more the centuries change, nothing seems to change at all. Are we not looking at the Copernicus/Galileo argument all over again?

Humans have never come to grips with the knowledge that they are not the center of the universe. Even when humans are forced to admit the physical facts, they still cling to the emotional fact that represents their faith that, ultimately, humans are the center of the universe - and not just any human - it is themselves alone. ;)

[Non Sequitur]

Humans have never come to grips with the knowledge that they are not the center of the universe. Even when humans are forced to admit the physical facts, they still cling to the emotional fact that represents their faith that, ultimately, humans are the center of the universe - and not just any human - it is themselves alone. ;)

But you said it yourself, it's a faith statement. Thus for some people, myself included, most things about humanity are to be believed in, not proven (this includes music).

[andrewl]

Its also worth mentioning that music composed by an individual human carries meaning for other humans (maybe some non-humans as well). A computer composed score might sound beautiful and be technically unmatched but the computer does not experience joy, suffering, pleasure, or pain.

Part of my love off Beethoven or Mozart comes from my knowledge of their lives and the times they lived in, of what they were possibly trying to communicate through music.

I don't see a computer ever creating music with human meaning independently - although i can imagine a computer potentially being able to interpret the input of a human agent and create a composition that is reflective of a person's actual feelings.

Andrew

[Non Sequitur]

Its also worth mentioning that music composed by an individual human carries meaning for other humans (maybe some non-humans as well). A computer composed score might sound beautiful and be technically unmatched but the computer does not experience joy, suffering, pleasure, or pain.

Part of my love off Beethoven or Mozart comes from my knowledge of their lives and the times they lived in, of what they were possibly trying to communicate through music.

I don't see a computer ever creating music with human meaning independently - although i can imagine a computer potentially being able to interpret the input of a human agent and create a composition that is reflective of a person's actual feelings.

Andrew

:thumbsup: agreed.

[SMadsen]

This reminds me of the controversy that inadvertently piles up when letting people review artwork without telling them it was done by kids, chimpanzees or elephants.

[Michael]

This reminds me of the controversy that inadvertently piles up when letting people review artwork without telling them it was done by kids, chimpanzees or elephants.

Indeed, few things make a person look more foolish than praising the 'artist's vision' and/or the 'artist's emotional intensity' for painting (unknowingly) created by a chimp! :lol:

All this does is show that the entirety of the meaning of any given piece of music or art is all inside the listener/viewer. That is to say, entirely subjective.

That's not a problem at all - until those same people insist that their subjective state is a function of the objective purpose of that artwork (which is essentially ego-driven bullshit).

[Daktoria]

What is "beautiful"? Even if we acknowledge that beauty is the characteristic of displaying sophistication in a manner that relieves others of stress, that stress still needs to be felt. Even the idea of defending ordinariness and opposing heroics relies on this since heroics would be treated as stressing out the relief granted by ordinariness.

Likewise, consider how the music program is created by human ingenuity. Where is the von neumann machine? Even if a von neumann machine existed, that would imply that human frustration cannot take place because either 1) humans are von neumann machines, or 2) frustration is just the internal participation of material interactions such that "feelings" don't actually exist beyond unconscious physical forces.

In other words, human creativity can't be dismissed if it doesn't exist in the first place, yet the very opposition to creativity proves creativity's existence and importance.

Of course, that "opposition" could be the result of an automated process, but then no real opposition would be taking place to begin with such that the very conversation becomes moot.

[Greendruid]

Indeed, few things make a person look more foolish than praising the 'artist's vision' and/or the 'artist's emotional intensity' for painting (unknowingly) created by a chimp! :lol:

All this does is show that the entirety of the meaning of any given piece of music or art is all inside the listener/viewer. That is to say, entirely subjective.

That's not a problem at all - until those same people insist that their subjective state is a function of the objective purpose of that artwork (which is essentially ego-driven bullshit).

In one way, I don't think that there's much sense in making a distinction between the music of a child, a chimpanzee, the wind or a computer versus those of Bach. Indeed, if the listener finds meaning in the sound, that is all that ultimately matters. I suppose I view all of this from a standpoint of the shared unity of all these things. They are all part of the universe and as such are necessarily connected on some level. Perhaps it is music, or even mathematics, that expresses this unity. But to make a comparison of the compositions of Bach to the sounds produced by a child, a chimpanzee, the wind or a computer does nothing to deride or debase Bach's genius.


If we look at how Cope has produced a machine that makes these original scores, we will see nothing but the work of human hands. As I've already stated, the computer is a human artefact. It is programmed to suit human thinking and has all the biases of our styles of logic. Computers are still unable to grasp some of these biases, or, to be fairer to the computers, we have failed to translate them into programming. Nonetheless, Emily Howell has been programmed by Cope to reflect his interpretation of the rules of music. His process from Emmy to Emily reveals an evermore refined process of arriving at the very complex rules of musical grammar and the aesthetics of music in the classical style. Indeed, I would venture a guess that Emily is incapable of producing a Hip-Hop song. This is a difference and an important one when considering what Emily is. She also tells us quite a bit about what we are. Humans are ingenious copiers and observers of patterns. We are obsessed with patterns. We impose them where there are none just so that we can make sense of the universe around us. It's why every culture in the world names things. It's why when we ventured out into space we compartmentalised it into equal quadrants that were measurable. Music is an expression of patterns and motifs of sound that can be quantified. It is a human urge to express the universe in this way. Every culture produces music. And we copy each other in a form of flattery. Folk songs inspire composers. Classical music gets featured in children's cartoons and epic films. The patterns are pleasing to us. They express human emotion. This is the context of beautiful pieces of work like The Moldau (http://www.last.fm/music/Bed%C5%99ich+Smetana/_/The+Moldau) that evoke imagery for a purpose, give meaning to national pride for the Czech people. Do Emily Howell's 5,000+ compositions have this context? I suspect not. The software is a brilliant copier of the human rules of musical expression. No more, no less. Give the music a context and you have something that is little different from a human composed piece. It still remains that the inspiration for Emily Howell to produce music is seated in her programmed algorithms to follow this rule or that, break this rule or that. She cannot be shown the Moldau river and be inspired to write a piece evocative of a river. She cannot be told of the heartbreak of Romeo and write Tchaikovsky's masterpiece. This is what makes humans special in regards to music.


I do want to close with a note that I do not think human music to be located above or below any non-human forms of sound production in some value judgement. Again, we are all parts of the universe expressing our experiences in it. What it sounds like is ... unique to all of us, as it should be. That our human expressions can be copied by a machine makes the expression no less meaningful.

[Michael]

What is "beautiful"? Even if we acknowledge that beauty is the characteristic of displaying sophistication in a manner that relieves others of stress, that stress still needs to be felt. Even the idea of defending ordinariness and opposing heroics relies on this since heroics would be treated as stressing out the relief granted by ordinariness.
Sounds to me like you are suggesting that the existence of beauty requires the existence of ugly for definition. If so, I certainly agree since that's a relativist statement. ;)

As for beauty, I've seen studies of human faces that indicate 'beauty' is nothing more than mathematical symmetry. :shrug:

Likewise, consider how the music program is created by human ingenuity. Where is the von neumann machine? Even if a von neumann machine existed, that would imply that human frustration cannot take place because either 1) humans are von neumann machines, or 2) frustration is just the internal participation of material interactions such that "feelings" don't actually exist beyond unconscious physical forces.
I don't think humans constitute 'von neumann machines' as neither humans nor human culture is entirely 'self-replicating'. Humans (and human culture) reproduce(s), but only to a point of similarity, not replication.

In other words, human creativity can't be dismissed if it doesn't exist in the first place, yet the very opposition to creativity proves creativity's existence and importance.
Strawman. No one in this thread has dismissed the general existence of human creativity at all. That's not the point here. The point is one particular and specific example of creativity being questioned for its nature.

I certainly am questioning conventional definitions of creativity, but I'm not questioning the existence of human creativity. I'd consider that nonsense - clearly humans are creative creatures (and highly destructive too!).

Of course, that "opposition" could be the result of an automated process, but then no real opposition would be taking place to begin with such that the very conversation becomes moot.
That's the trouble with a strawman argument, it leads nowhere. :shrug:

Btw, I'd say that the best analogy for human 'frustration' would be 'friction' in physics. That is to say, it is an integral result of the process of movement in physical space.

[Michael]

In one way, I don't think that there's much sense in making a distinction between the music of a child, a chimpanzee, the wind or a computer versus those of Bach. Indeed, if the listener finds meaning in the sound, that is all that ultimately matters. I suppose I view all of this from a standpoint of the shared unity of all these things. They are all part of the universe and as such are necessarily connected on some level. Perhaps it is music, or even mathematics, that expresses this unity. But to make a comparison of the compositions of Bach to the sounds produced by a child, a chimpanzee, the wind or a computer does nothing to deride or debase Bach's genius.
Indeed. I don't disagree with any of this.

The computer-software that was used to compose 'Bach-like' music that the audience couldn't tell from actual 'Bach' music does not in any way impinge upon Bach's artistic greatness because it has nothing to do with Bach.

What it does is do is force the audience to question their own understanding of human creativity and that, I think, is where the 'bubble' of subjectivity gets popped. Not Bach. He was a great artist and his music lives on. It is the audience that has the problem of self-awareness and their own ego-claims for creativity that suffers.

The point is that the computer-software raises the question that some apparent creativity isn't very creative at all - mere mimicry perhaps. This doesn't affect Bach since his reputation for artistic creativity is secure. But what about the audience that was fooled? Where's the security not to look foolish for them? They lost that. How can they praise fine soul-moving music knowing now that they themselves can be fooled by chimps or computers? That's not the kind of thing the ego reacts well to. It is unsettling for the ego's own claims of creativity. :shrug:

If we look at how Cope has produced a machine that makes these original scores, we will see nothing but the work of human hands. As I've already stated, the computer is a human artefact. It is programmed to suit human thinking and has all the biases of our styles of logic. Computers are still unable to grasp some of these biases, or, to be fairer to the computers, we have failed to translate them into programming. Nonetheless, Emily Howell has been programmed by Cope to reflect his interpretation of the rules of music. His process from Emmy to Emily reveals an evermore refined process of arriving at the very complex rules of musical grammar and the aesthetics of music in the classical style. Indeed, I would venture a guess that Emily is incapable of producing a Hip-Hop song. This is a difference and an important one when considering what Emily is. She also tells us quite a bit about what we are. Humans are ingenious copiers and observers of patterns. We are obsessed with patterns. We impose them where there are none just so that we can make sense of the universe around us. It's why every culture in the world names things. It's why when we ventured out into space we compartmentalised it into equal quadrants that were measurable. Music is an expression of patterns and motifs of sound that can be quantified. It is a human urge to express the universe in this way. Every culture produces music. And we copy each other in a form of flattery. Folk songs inspire composers. Classical music gets featured in children's cartoons and epic films. The patterns are pleasing to us. They express human emotion. This is the context of beautiful pieces of work like The Moldau (http://www.last.fm/music/Bed%C5%99ich+Smetana/_/The+Moldau) that evoke imagery for a purpose, give meaning to national pride for the Czech people. Do Emily Howell's 5,000+ compositions have this context? I suspect not. The software is a brilliant copier of the human rules of musical expression. No more, no less. Give the music a context and you have something that is little different from a human composed piece. It still remains that the inspiration for Emily Howell to produce music is seated in her programmed algorithms to follow this rule or that, break this rule or that. She cannot be shown the Moldau river and be inspired to write a piece evocative of a river. She cannot be told of the heartbreak of Romeo and write Tchaikovsky's masterpiece. This is what makes humans special in regards to music.
All very true.

And indeed, it is such fun to allow people to think that I am attacking music itself as it always evokes such passionate responses. :D

I do think this invented computer-composer is very interesting, regardless of its limitations. But for me, the reaction of the audience is far more interesting and meaningful than any music box. :)

I do want to close with a note that I do not think human music to be located above or below any non-human forms of sound production in some value judgement. Again, we are all parts of the universe expressing our experiences in it. What it sounds like is ... unique to all of us, as it should be. That our human expressions can be copied by a machine makes the expression no less meaningful.
I should think 'whalesong' proves this point rather well. The sound of whalesong is truly sublime, though I do find birdsong to be quite annoying in general! ;)

[andrewl]

And indeed, it is such fun to allow people to think that I am attacking music itself as it always evokes such passionate responses. :D


I found this interesting because it is precisely what the computer is incapable of, but can fool humans into thinking it possesses.

Andrew