<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=windows-1252"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
<title></title>
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
<font face="Calibri">It seems to me that the case of
computer-generated music is much akin to that of fakes in art.
This is all the more interesting that, according to Nelson
Goodman, fakes cannot exist in an allographic art such as music.
What would be faked, in the case of computer-generated music, is
its intentionality. The extent to which such music could produce
an aesthetic effect strongly depends on the intentionality of the
listener. For this reason, I doubt that an experimental study
would produce any interesting result: the listener's answers would
not depend on the music itself, rather (a) of their awareness of
it being computer-generated; (b) of their opinion about this. I
would think, therefore, that the question must be approached from
a semiotic and/or philosophical point of view, not from a merely
empirical/experimental one.<br>
<br>
Consider these cases:<br>
– At a not too recent conference in the Sorbonne, one of the
papers was read by a guy who had written a piece of software
generating what he thought was (good) tonal music. He explained
that he had come to love this music so much that he couldn't hear
any other any more. The examples he made us listen to where awful
– or so thought several of us. Obviously, neither this guy nor any
of us judged the music on its inherent aesthetic value: we were
guided by our personal convictions.<br>
– Suppose that a real piece of music, written by a real composer,
is presented as computer-generated. Many a listener might dislike
it merely on the basis that it is (erroneously) thought to be a
fake.<br>
– Inversely, suppose that a computer-generated work is made to
pass for the work of an interesting forgotten composer: many
critics will praise it and praise the rediscovery of an unjustly
neglected master.<br>
– Etc.<br>
<br>
I do believe that common-practice tonality can be modelized with
much more satisfying (and more precise results than what Marcel de
Velde believes. Examples do exist (e.g. Mario Baroni, Rossana
Dalmonte and Carlo Jacoboni's Legrense software described in their
<i>Regole della musica</i>, successfully modelizing arie by
Legrense). <br>
<br>
I don't think that intonation has any important share in this
matter. After all, there exist recordings of, say, <i>The Art of
Fugue</i>, on early synthetizers (Moog) which played in ET: I
did not feel that the music suffered so much. The problem remains
that just intonation isn't really usable in tonal music because
the directionality of tonal harmony produces an unavoidable shift
in pitch in just intonation. I suppose that one might construct a
harmonic functionality that would balance the shifts in pitch, and
that just intonation in that case might produce some sort of
consonant effect that might seem of aesthetic value; but that
would not be tonal music.<br>
Marcel, your experiment in just intonation seems to me to
sound much more like "modal" polyphony of the 16th century than
like tonal music, precisely because your algorithm probably makes
no provision for a tonal directionality of the harmony – and
because limiting the range to the 5-limit-harmonic did not
confront you to the problem of having to prepare and resolve 7ths,
which one of the main causes of tonal directionality.<br>
<br>
Yours,<br>
<br>
</font>Nicolas Meeùs<br>
Université Paris-Sorbonne<br>
<font face="Calibri"><br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
</font><br>
Le 8/04/2011 16:35, Marcel de Velde a écrit :
<blockquote cite="mid:4D9F1D1C.8050906@justintonation.com"
type="cite">Hello Sandeep,
<br>
<br>
I'm personally not aware of any computer algorithm that can
generate compositions that are comparable aesthetically to
something like common practice period music.
<br>
For modern / more atonal music or drone music etc it's a different
story, but current algorithms have huge problems with a coherent
tonal side of music.
<br>
<br>
I think it is also a sign that music theory has not reached the
level yet that it perhaps could.
<br>
My understanding is that if one writes an algorithm (let's say for
composing a string quartet) on basic rules of counterpoint and
functional harmony, that the output of this algorithm will still
generate many unmusical / confusing notes and can not compare to a
human using those same rules + his/her ears while composing.
<br>
On top of that, you will need real humans with good ears playing
the strings to perform the composition "in tune", as 12 tone equal
temperament will not sound as good, and current music theory can
not describe just intonation (only Pythagorean yet this sounds
even worse than 12tet).
<br>
<br>
I have been studying just intonation for the past few years.
<br>
And I personally think it could make good musical algorithmic
composition possible. (infact I think it could eventually become a
true revolution in music composition)
<br>
The point is that the algorithms should work the way our ears and
brain work, use the same language.
<br>
And 12 tone equal temperament is definitely not the right basis
for this language.
<br>
<br>
I've done a small experiment myself with computer generated
composition (really small nothing serious, just for research
purpose).
<br>
It is a true algorithmic composition.
<br>
The rules were these:
<br>
1) a sequence of completely random permutations of the harmonic
series up till the 5th harmonic.
<br>
2) hold at least one note from the current permutation to the next
permutation
<br>
3) i set a limit for the lowest frequency and the highest
frequency possible
<br>
That's it, only a few lines of code, no fine tuning whatsoever.
<br>
I would have taken me more code to even simply define 12tet, let
alone do anything useful with it.
<br>
<br>
Here's the output:
<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://soundcloud.com/justintonation/9-12-2009-5limit-harmonic">http://soundcloud.com/justintonation/9-12-2009-5limit-harmonic</a>
<br>
It's just a random selection, the algorithm goes on forever.
<br>
Rendering was done with a sampled choir (Kontakt sampler)
<br>
I've since progressed considerably with my just intonation
research and know now that the output of this algorithm is not
correct just intonation in many (if not most) parts, and so it
also does many unmusical things that sound random and confusing
(and to put it in correct just intonation would mean different and
much more complex ratios in many places).
<br>
But the output is far from random notes in 12tet (which would
output random 12tone atonal music in comparison).
<br>
In a few months I will hopefully begin writing a serious
composition algorithm based on correct just intonation.
<br>
The way it's looking now it's output will be real music, fully
emotional and coherent.
<br>
<br>
But in any case..
<br>
I think it would be a good idea to use common practice music
(renaissance / baroque) as the music used for comparison between
computer and human compositions.
<br>
It's music with where the tonal language of the music is clear.
<br>
And I think you will find that the computer algorithms have not
yet mastered this tonal language, and that the human ear / brain
is currently still needed :)
<br>
<br>
Marcel de Velde
<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:marcel@justintonation.com">marcel@justintonation.com</a>
<br>
Zwolle, Netherlands
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">Dear Collective Wisdom
<br>
<br>
could anyone refer me to studies done on computer-generated
music as aesthetic entities ?
<br>
<br>
I would be especially interested in [double-]blind studies where
listeners were asked to rate "meaningfulness"
<br>
or emotional richness of music that was a) either composed with
an intent to convey emotion or b) fully generated by computer.
<br>
Of course, the method of delivery (computer players/ human
performers/ purely electroacoustic etc.) should be equal for
both musics.
<br>
<br>
I am aware that, of course, making and listening to
computer-generated music is in itself an aesthetic statement,
regardless of the emotional import of the music.
<br>
But while this is certainly of interest to me in general, for
this particular research I am not interested in that aspect.
<br>
<br>
I am interested in what you could call the "emotional reality"
of music as it is experienced by listeners.
<br>
Do listeners perceive a "message" in music even if there is no
direct human intervention in its "composition"?
<br>
Can listeners make out if something is composed by computer or
by a human composer (perhaps using the computer as a tool, or
without any computation at all)?
<br>
<br>
My hunch is they cannot, and do not really care - but I would
like to learn more about it.
<br>
Any hints ?
<br>
<br>
Thank you in advance
<br>
Sandeep Bhagwati
<br>
Canada Research Chair in Inter–X Art
<br>
Concordia University Montreal
<br>
</blockquote>
_______________________________________________
<br>
Smt-talk mailing list
<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Smt-talk@lists.societymusictheory.org">Smt-talk@lists.societymusictheory.org</a>
<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://lists.societymusictheory.org/listinfo.cgi/smt-talk-societymusictheory.org">http://lists.societymusictheory.org/listinfo.cgi/smt-talk-societymusictheory.org</a>
<br>
<br>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>