# Will technology bring about new greatness in classical music?



## Whistlerguy (May 26, 2010)

So far many composers and musicians have been using technology in the process of music creation, and the results were not very impressive. Also, using of technology was a part of the 20th century avant-garde, and it was associated with other radical elements in music, such as aleatoric composition, 12-tone serialism, using of noise etc.

However, as the radicalism slowly begun going out of fashion, technology itself continued evolving and developing at an ever faster pace.

What I am actually pondering about is: will the new and more sensible use of some aspects of technology allow new composers to create truly great music, and to go beyond limits of today?

Among these aspects of technology I count:

a) Use of artificial intelligence and active involvement of computers in the creative process of composition
b) Use of synthesizers to create new sounds, virtual instruments, etc.
c) Use of better, computer assisted and interactive methods of music education that will maybe allow the new composers to master the art of composition better and faster than their predecessors, and to learn all the "secrets" of the past masters in the most effective and efficacious way.
d) Use of software to better evaluate pieces of music and to suggest composers where they should strive more, and what errors they should avoid.


Now I am wondering, will the use of all these things allow creation of great music, maybe even better than everything we had so far, or it will bring about the ultimate demise of classical music and of any music whatsoever, as it becomes too sterile, emotionless, robotic and predictable?


----------



## regressivetransphobe (May 16, 2011)

Ideally, I'd like to keep all music as human as possible. Technology sucked the soul right out of rock with its triggers and protools, so I'm suspicious of its application to anything. Of course, I'm posting this from ~the internet~, so take my ludditism with a grain of salt if you wish.



> a) Use of artificial intelligence and active involvement of computers in the creative process of composition


This is very interesting in a purely technological sense, not so much in a musical sense. Modes of production, types of synth sounds and tools to arrange the music in a more convenient way is one thing, but can a piece be honestly credited to the artist if little ones and zeroes are determining something as central as composition? I hope something like that would be marketed as what it is: an experiment in music algorithm or something to that effect, not music inspired by life.


----------



## jurianbai (Nov 23, 2008)

the baroque composer composed the score and "play" it inside their head. today we can instantly use Midi to simulate the full orchestra score into composing process. with this feature I imagine we should create music in faster way than previously, which is the only significant thing technology can bring maybe.


----------



## Whistlerguy (May 26, 2010)

Is anyone of you afraid of the possibility that one day we will have strong AI, that is actually intelligent and that can even simulate emotions, (and as some proponents of technological singularity say, computers could become even more intelligent than people), and that such computers will maybe compose music that will make Mozart and Beethoven sound like nursery rhymes? In such a situation human composers would be completely inferior to computers and they would be rendered obsolete.

If such a situation does occur, would music lose all its meaning, or, quite contrary, you would welcome such thing and see it as a progress, cherishing superior computer composed music despite it not being composed by humans?


----------



## Couchie (Dec 9, 2010)

Whistlerguy said:


> Is anyone of you afraid of the possibility that one day we will have strong AI, that is actually intelligent and that can even simulate emotions, (and as some proponents of technological singularity say, computers could become even more intelligent than people), and that such computers will maybe compose music that will make Mozart and Beethoven sound like nursery rhymes? In such a situation human composers would be completely inferior to computers and they would be rendered obsolete.
> 
> If such a situation does occur, would music lose all its meaning, or, quite contrary, you would welcome such thing and see it as a progress, cherishing superior computer composed music despite it not being composed by humans?


Cherish it of course. Music is merely pitch arranged in time. It is the listener who gives it meaning.


----------



## jaimsilva (Jun 1, 2011)

Creation is exclusively human. A piano, violin, drums, synthesizer, etc. are technological artifacts that can help artists (composers and interperters) to comunicate with other people. Technology can open new fields to composers (like piano, for instance, did), but cannot replace creativity.


----------



## Whistlerguy (May 26, 2010)

And some say, that even listeners could be "upgraded". We will maybe one day have bionic ears, that will maybe extend our limits, so that we can hear infrasound and ultrasound, also, even in the ordinary range our hearing can be improved with technology. And as the listeners get upgraded, also the composers (or music composing computers) would also have to cater to newly upgraded listeners and give them even more complex music. )

Sometimes I am in such a futuristic mood, to think about such things


----------



## regressivetransphobe (May 16, 2011)

Whistlerguy said:


> Is anyone of you afraid of the possibility that one day we will have strong AI, that is actually intelligent and that can even simulate emotions, (and *as some proponents of technological singularity say*, ...


Here's a good sign it will never happen. The singularity is just century old apocalypticism based around computers rather than God.


----------



## Argus (Oct 16, 2009)

Whistlerguy said:


> a) Use of artificial intelligence and active involvement of computers in the creative process of composition
> b) Use of synthesizers to create new sounds, virtual instruments, etc.
> c) Use of better, computer assisted and interactive methods of music education that will maybe allow the new composers to master the art of composition better and faster than their predecessors, and to learn all the "secrets" of the past masters in the most effective and efficacious way.
> d) Use of software to better evaluate pieces of music and to suggest composers where they should strive more, and what errors they should avoid.


a) Look into generative musicand some of the software associated with it.

b) Synths are great. They are just a widening of the artistic palette, allowing for new timbres and organisations of said sounds. They make what was impossible possible.

c) I think the Internet is already a good example of this in action.

d) I disagree with this point. There is no way software can evaluate a piece of music for you. It requires the experience of listening to provide this.

I would say the greatest thing about the technological revolution and its impact on music is the democratisation of the creation of music. In that I mean anyone who can afford to purchase a computer and some basic recording equipment, then spends some time learning how to use these to achieve what they want, they can then produce a quality of musical output that was only available to the professional in the recording studio, or before that the composer with an orchestra at his disposal. Hopefully, this trend will continue until a point is reached where everybody has the same tools available to them and all the diffreneces in music will result purely from artistic choice than physical limitations.


----------



## kv466 (May 18, 2011)

The only technology I'd be truly interested in is one that I can attach to my head and it scores out whatever it is that I am composing...in my head, that is...while you dream as well


----------



## norman bates (Aug 18, 2010)

regressivetransphobe said:


> Ideally, I'd like to keep all music as human as possible. Technology sucked the soul right out of rock with its triggers and protools, so I'm suspicious of its application to anything.


do you think that in the construction of a violin or a piano there is no technology involved?


----------



## Whistlerguy (May 26, 2010)

> The only technology I'd be truly interested in is one that I can attach to my head and it scores out whatever it is that I am composing...in my head, that is...while you dream as well


This would really be fantastic! And I am very interested in this very invention!

This would allow anyone to compose music, we wouldn't even need to know to write it down. Just by inventing a melody in one's thoughts it would be automatically written down.


----------



## Huilunsoittaja (Apr 6, 2010)

Imagine going to sleep with a neuro-electronic helmet on, and waking up and finding a whole symphony or something written down in a program.


----------



## Meaghan (Jul 31, 2010)

Huilunsoittaja said:


> Imagine going to sleep with a neuro-electronic helmet on, and waking up and finding a whole symphony or something written down in a program.


Wish I had one of those. I dream music so often, and it's frustrating when I wake up and it's gone. It's probably not any good, but you never know!


----------



## Argus (Oct 16, 2009)

Whistlerguy said:


> This would really be fantastic! And I am very interested in this very invention!
> 
> This would allow anyone to compose music, we wouldn't even need to know to write it down. Just by inventing a melody in one's thoughts it would be automatically written down.


Then how would we create the _un_imaginable.


----------



## Whistlerguy (May 26, 2010)

> Then how would we create the unimaginable.


We can always do it with serialism.

I honestly think that purely atonal music is unimaginable, in sense that no one, not even the composer, can imagine it before its construction. It's actually constructed, not composed, because IMO, having to follow strict 12-tone serialism is more akin to artificial construction than natural composition. And because of the nature of creation of this music, I think that even composers have no clue how it will sound before it is already composed.

I also tend to think that natural music is only the music that we can spontaneously imagine. Of course, we can't imagine entire symphony, but its key elements - themes, motives, can be imagined, and then they can be creatively combined and developed, which makes symphony a natural composition. But, anything that from the begining can't even be imagined, not even its parts, and which depends on some strict rules, it is artificial.

I tend to think that the most natural music is folk music, because it spontaneously arose among people. That's why folk motives are usually very productive and useful in classical music, too.

And finally, with such a technology, we would be able to very easily compose a very natural kind of music. And because it is natural, it would very easily resonate with other people, it would be likeable. We would only have to make sure it's not _too_ likeable in some kitschy way.


----------



## Argus (Oct 16, 2009)

Whistlerguy said:


> We can always do it with serialism.
> 
> I honestly think that purely atonal music is unimaginable, in sense that no one, not even the composer, can imagine it before its construction. It's actually constructed, not composed, because IMO, having to follow strict 12-tone serialism is more akin to artificial construction than natural composition. And because of the nature of creation of this music, I think that even composers have no clue how it will sound before it is already composed.
> 
> ...


I was alluding to experimental music in all its forms. By definition, it is created without a result in mind.

I think beauty can arise from accident and chance. The skill is in the rigging of the dice to push the music towards a rough goal without forcing it to be anything specific.

I'm especially a fan of process music. Here's a couple of examples from Basinski and Eno that I think are beautiful.


----------



## Philip (Mar 22, 2011)

Whistlerguy said:


> Is anyone of you afraid of the possibility that one day we will have strong AI, that is actually intelligent and that can even simulate emotions, (and as some proponents of technological singularity say, computers could become even more intelligent than people), and that such computers will maybe compose music that will make Mozart and Beethoven sound like nursery rhymes? In such a situation human composers would be completely inferior to computers and they would be rendered obsolete.
> 
> If such a situation does occur, would music lose all its meaning, or, quite contrary, you would welcome such thing and see it as a progress, cherishing superior computer composed music despite it not being composed by humans?


Don't worry, the name "artificial intelligence" is not really well suited for that particular field of computer science... it really doesn't have anything to do with intelligence or creativity, not yet anyway.


----------



## norman bates (Aug 18, 2010)

Philip said:


> Don't worry, the name "artificial intelligence" is not really well suited for that particular field of computer science... it really doesn't have anything to do with intelligence or creativity, not yet anyway.


i don't know, but the research of david cope is very interesting
http://www.miller-mccune.com/culture-society/triumph-of-the-cyborg-composer-8507/


----------



## Philip (Mar 22, 2011)

yes i am familiar with his work. his programs can emulate certain composition styles at a mediocre level. the inner workings of such a program is basically an expert system following hard coded rules derived from music theory...


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

As others have pointed out (b) and (c) presently exist and presumably will be improved. It is difficult for me to believe that we will not someday create true AI. AI could then continue to improve itself until its analytic and creative capability far exceeds humans. AI focused on music could presumably create music that is superior (more enjoyable, more moving, more intriguing, etc.) than human music. Of course that AI could evaluate human composers music and give feedback that could be useful to the human composer.

Another technical possibility that was not discussed is the potential to understand the brain much better. At some time in the future we may understand precisely how the brain responds to music and use that understanding to produce "better" music. Perhaps we will determine how musical patterns create emotional responses and choose music that amplifies those responses. Maybe we will understand how music engages the brain to produce feelings of beauty, wonder, and joy and then learn to maximize these responses. We could even produce targeted pieces that create these feelings for individuals. Of course these capabilities may be a very long time in the future.

There may be limitations on technology as it applies to music, but at this point it's somewhat difficult to see what these limitations might be.


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto (Jan 1, 2010)

Whistlerguy said:


> d) Use of software to better evaluate pieces of music and to suggest composers where they should strive more, and what errors they should avoid.


I am a little suspicious of this one. Can (or should) creativity be checked by a computer? That just sounds bizzare. Composers from the recent past and today were already using computers to come up with a lot of bizzare stuff in the "non-pop" genre (as some good folks prefer to describe the genres).

Emeritus professor David Cope (born 1941) (University of California, Santa Cruz) has a software that "composes" music and his research interest is in the field of using AI to compose music. It's fascinating stuff. But I'm afraid the crappy junk music leaves me cold.


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

The works I have heard composed with the help of a computer are interesting because of their source, but I do not find them musically compelling. On the other hand we are at the very infancy of AI. I would be astonished if any computer generated music at present could compete with human compositions. I think we're quite far from that, but technical progress is very hard to predict.


----------



## Philip (Mar 22, 2011)

but would the xor value of all bach chorales equate in the most beautiful of them all? or would it simply average them out?? oh wait, that's right, a neural network can't even do xor... bach 1, ai 0


----------



## samurai (Apr 22, 2011)

For some unexplainable and quite irrational reason, the overall tenor {no pun intended here} of this thread vis a vis the *possible implications *of where computer technology/intelligence and its effects on classical music *might* be heading in future reminds me of nothing so much as *A Clockwork Orange *by Anthony Burgess. {Both the novel, and especially the movie}. I just hope it all never really comes to that in real life!


----------



## Couchie (Dec 9, 2010)

To be honest, once AI progresses to the point where they're able to compose music, I'm sure they'll be too busy enslaving humanity to do any symphony writing.


----------



## norman bates (Aug 18, 2010)

Philip said:


> yes i am familiar with his work. his programs can emulate certain composition styles at a mediocre level. the inner workings of such a program is basically an expert system following hard coded rules derived from music theory...


to me it sounds mediocre with modern composers, but for example with bach the imitation is very credible (and if i remember well he convinced even an audience in some occasion), and also mozart, beethoven and mahler are well done. But anyway Cope is just a pioneer who succedeed to achieve important results (for example in the comprehension of what are the real characteristics of the musical language of many composers), who know what will happen in the future, from wright brothers's aeroplane to neil armstrong on the moon are passed only sixty years.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

kv466 said:


> The only technology I'd be truly interested in is one that I can attach to my head and it scores out whatever it is that I am composing...in my head, that is...while you dream as well


Do not buy models in the earlier stages of development: WAIT FOR THE IMPLANT!


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

Couchie said:


> To be honest, once AI progresses to the point where they're able to compose music, I'm sure they'll be too busy enslaving humanity to do any symphony writing.


I've always wondered, if computers enslave us, what will they have us do for them?

But now I know. They'll make us listen to their music.

And just now I realized that the internet already has enslaved us....

I serve you freely, my generous lord.


----------



## Llyranor (Dec 20, 2010)

How do you guys feel about procedural music gene

http://www.earslap.com/projectslab/otomata

It's an interesting concept, at the very least. The sound actually isn't _un_pleasant.


----------



## Arsakes (Feb 20, 2012)

jurianbai said:


> the baroque composer composed the score and "play" it inside their head. today we can instantly use Midi to simulate the full orchestra score into composing process. with this feature I imagine we should create music in faster way than previously, which is the only significant thing technology can bring maybe.


Quoted as the best comment in this thread.

Other than that (chips and AIs) It will be completely artificial and manipulative ... therefore worthless.


----------

