# Computational creativity - music. Experience, prospects, attitudes



## jonatan (May 6, 2016)

Recently I am reading about computational creativity, my interest is in graphical design, engineering solutions and algorithm design, but I am getting to know that much work in computational creativity is done in music as well. I have listened only scarcely to the results of this work and mostly from the opponents of this trend who present such work to prove that the computational creativity is not giving results and will not give them in the future.

What is your experience and attitude?

Computational creativity has intention to replace the human work in the field of creativity and this domain has conference series http://computationalcreativity.net/home/ and Springer has monograph series on Computational Music Science http://www.springer.com/series/8349?detailsPage=titles

p.s. The use of computers is getting more extensive and there is also such fields as computational theology and computational metaphysics. There is extensive body of research on modelling the emotions as well, logical methods in cognitive science is gaining momentum gradually.


----------



## jonatan (May 6, 2016)

Initial examples are by David Cope, who used software Emmy. E.g.


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

jonatan said:


> Computational creativity has intention to replace the human work in the field of creativity ...


The site you linked to defines Computational creativity a bit differently:



> The goal of computational creativity is to model, simulate or replicate creativity using a computer, to achieve one of several ends:
> 
> to construct a program or computer capable of human-level creativity
> to better understand human creativity and to formulate an algorithmic perspective on creative behavior in humans
> to design programs that can enhance human creativity without necessarily being creative themselves


Those goals seem desirable, but simply to replace human work in the field doesn't seem like a reasonable goal.

Anyway I have long assumed that programs that could simulate or reproduce human creativity will be available in the not too distant future. The fact that present programs may not show great promise demonstrates little given the time and resources spent so far. The real question is whether interesting benchmarks have been achieved.


----------



## Xaltotun (Sep 3, 2010)

This is a bit related to another question that I found myself pondering about recently: would I feel differently about a great piece of music, if I knew that no human being had composed it (instead a machine, or pure happenstance)? And the answer is yes. I wouldn't like it, no matter how great music it was. Music _is_ beauty and structure to me, as much as to anyone else, but it's precisely beauty and structure _as invented by a human being._ The beauty and structure of the universe is all right, but above all else I'm interested in the beauty and structure of the human mind.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Xaltotun said:


> This is a bit related to another question that I found myself pondering about recently: would I feel differently about a great piece of music, if I knew that no human being had composed it (instead a machine, or pure happenstance)? And the answer is yes. I wouldn't like it, no matter how great music it was. Music _is_ beauty and structure to me, as much as to anyone else, but it's precisely beauty and structure _as invented by a human being._ The beauty and structure of the universe is all right, but above all else I'm interested in the beauty and structure of the human mind.


This sounds like John Cage's "chance" works, where he simply set up a situation which would "create" the music, with minimal interference from him, his desires, or his ego. Do I like the music which it produced? Yes, if it is performed well. Maybe that is his secret: to have a human performer.


----------



## Weston (Jul 11, 2008)

jonatan said:


> Initial examples are by David Cope, who used software Emmy. E.g.


I hope if I didn't know this was computer created I'd think it a truly uninspired Vivaldi pastiche. It seems to have no direction or purpose. On the other hand I think the same for some Vivaldi music too - not all, just the Four Seasons. 

I don't see anything wrong with letting a computer be a springboard for a human composition, or perhaps doing the grunt work for human directed compositions.


----------



## MarkW (Feb 16, 2015)

If there were to be such a thing as an artistic Turing Test, I cannot envision a computer-generated artwork that would pass it anytime in the foreseeable futurre.


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

MarkW said:


> If there were to be such a thing as an artistic Turing Test, I cannot envision a computer-generated artwork that would pass it anytime in the foreseeable futurre.


What do you define as the foreseeable future? 25, 50, 100, 200 years? I personally wouldn't bet against 25 years, but I would be surprised. I think I'd be slightly surprised if computer-generated artwork couldn't pass a Turing-like test within 100 years. Obviously it's very hard to make predictions like these, but progress has been so rapid in AI type fields that 100 years seems like a very long time.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

jonatan said:


> Initial examples are by David Cope, who used software Emmy. E.g.


Bad music. Just a symmetrical series of formulaic sections - a sequence of sequences. Totally square. No melodic flair or elegance. No harmonic interest. No cumulative force or overall shape. Vivaldi is much better than this. Computers have a long way to go. We'll need a Vivaldi to program them.


----------



## Dim7 (Apr 24, 2009)

Bach sounds to me like it has been composed by an AI.


----------



## TwoFlutesOneTrumpet (Aug 31, 2011)

Woodduck said:


> Bad music. Just a symmetrical series of formulaic sections - a sequence of sequences. Totally square. No melodic flair or elegance. No harmonic interest. No cumulative force or overall shape. Vivaldi is much better than this. Computers have a long way to go. We'll need a Vivaldi to program them.


I had a strong urge to stop listening after a couple of minutes - it's that bad.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

If we can program chess computers to trounce the people who program them, where is the difficulty in music? Just asking... But I believe the day is coming.


----------



## TwoFlutesOneTrumpet (Aug 31, 2011)

KenOC said:


> If we can program chess computers to trounce the people who program them, where is the difficulty in music? Just asking... But I believe the day is coming.


Big difference. Computer programs can play chess great because essentially they can do computations a billion times faster than a human and have access to huge databases of best moves. The amount of creativity(not referring to the creativity that is obviously shown by the computer programmers ) in a chess-playing computer program is essentially zero.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Then a chess computer is essentially a creativity multiplier? I'm not certain the same can't apply to a music-writing computer. Not at all sure, but I won't be placing any large bets in that direction.


----------



## TwoFlutesOneTrumpet (Aug 31, 2011)

KenOC said:


> Then a chess computer is essentially a creativity multiplier? I'm not certain the same can't apply to a music-writing computer. Not at all sure, but I won't be placing any large bets in that direction.


I would be willing to place such bets 

The thing about computer programs is that as a computer programmer you have to tell them absolutely everything to the smallest detail. Any apparent creativity in the output of a computer program is just an illusion.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

It’s easy to forget that not all music has to be Beethoven. Many profitable movies are totally formulaic and could just as well be designed by a computer, based on preferences indicated by past films. Similarly, music has a big social and political role to play, and there is and will be a huge market for such music. We may sneer at it here in the fastness of our forum, but the world outside goes on regardless.


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

Xaltotun said:


> This is a bit related to another question that I found myself pondering about recently: would I feel differently about a great piece of music, if I knew that no human being had composed it (instead a machine, or pure happenstance)? And the answer is yes. I wouldn't like it, no matter how great music it was. Music _is_ beauty and structure to me, as much as to anyone else, but it's precisely beauty and structure _as invented by a human being._ The beauty and structure of the universe is all right, but above all else I'm interested in the beauty and structure of the human mind.


Just to make sure I understand what you mean, let me ask some questions.

1) If you found out that a piece you adored (e.g. Beethoven's 7th Symphony, Marriage of Figaro, or one of your favorite works) was actually composed by a computer, would you then change your mind from loving it to disliking it? Would you truly dislike it or just think less of it?

2) What if an alien intelligent species composed a wonderful work of music? In other words does the intelligence have to be human or just not a computer?


----------



## MarkW (Feb 16, 2015)

mmsbls said:


> Just to make sure I understand what you mean, let me ask some questions.
> 
> 1) If you found out that a piece you adored (e.g. Beethoven's 7th Symphony, Marriage of Figaro, or one of your favorite works) was actually composed by a computer, would you then change your mind from loving it to disliking it? Would you truly dislike it or just think less of it?
> 
> 2) What if an alien intelligent species composed a wonderful work of music? In other words does the intelligence have to be human or just not a computer?


1) I wouldn't dislike it, so much as marvel at it, because I personally don't think it could be done -- and am unsure if it ever _can_ be done.

I know human-created artworks that I question whether or not can pass an artistic Turing test, but I have a hard time envisioning the other way around.

2) Depends on the alien, and how its mind works.


----------



## TwoFlutesOneTrumpet (Aug 31, 2011)

KenOC said:


> It's easy to forget that not all music has to be Beethoven. Many profitable movies are totally formulaic and could just as well be designed by a computer, based on preferences indicated by past films. Similarly, music has a big social and political role to play, and there is and will be a huge market for such music. We may sneer at it here in the fastness of our forum, but the world outside goes on regardless.


Ah yes, that's a good point. Certainly much movie music of today could be created by a computer program.


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

MarkW said:


> 1) I wouldn't dislike it, so much as marvel at it, because I personally don't think it could be done -- and am unsure if it ever _can_ be done.
> 
> I know human-created artworks that I question whether or not can pass an artistic Turing test, but I have a hard time envisioning the other way around.


I understand. I'm in the opposite camp. I have trouble imagining what would prevent building machines that could properly simulate human brains. Obviously it's not trivial, but there just doesn't seem to be anything I've ever encountered that would prevent the slow, steady accumulation of knowledge about the workings of brains. I also can imagine machines that are as, or more, intelligent than humans but work in fundamentally different ways from our brains.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Theoretically, any piece of music can be analyzed to the point where a computer could be programmed to produce something similar to it. But where's the creativity in that? Isn't the creative process one of imagining, of seeing unforeseen possibilities, making new connections that lead to further invention, and all during the process evaluating what's being revealed and produced? Every time a composer sets down a note, or a painter a brushstroke, or a writer a word, the field of possibilities is reevaluated and altered, unpredicted situations arise, and unforeseen decisions are made, decisions which by the same process give rise to further decisions. And the entire dynamic process is guided, from a level of mind largely subconscious, by the question: _is this saying what I want to __say?_

That a computer can be programmed to produce musical sounds structured in certain ways, we know. No doubt it will produce more and more complex structures in the future. But will they be good music, much less great music? What does a computer have to _say?_


----------



## Reichstag aus LICHT (Oct 25, 2010)

jonatan said:


> The use of computers is getting more extensive and there is also such fields as computational theology...


Computer theology: In the beginning was Word


----------



## TwoFlutesOneTrumpet (Aug 31, 2011)

From Wikipedia:



> computational theology is a study that attempts to link religion and god to computer science or similar academic field. Computational Theology tries to understand and explain religion and god by understanding computer science and other related fields


You have to be kidding me


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Reichstag aus LICHT said:


> Computer theology: In the beginning was Word


And shortly thereafter Eve ate Apple.


----------



## TwoFlutesOneTrumpet (Aug 31, 2011)

Woodduck said:


> And shortly thereafter Eve ate Apple.


And God said: "Thou shalt perform costly annual upgrades for shinier and bigger Apples".


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

TwoFlutesOneTrumpet said:


> And God said: "Thou shalt perform costly annual upgrades for shinier and bigger Apples".


Back then that would require the patience of Jobs.


----------



## MarkW (Feb 16, 2015)

To name two, I have often thought that M.C. Escher and Stanley Kubrick lay somewhere on the autism spectrum, because their works were technically brilliant, but cold -- to give it another name although I am not religious or particularly spiritual, their works lacked souls. I can't imagine computer-generated art as being any better in that department.


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

Woodduck said:


> And the entire dynamic process is guided, from a level of mind largely subconscious, by the question: _is this saying what I want to __say?_


I believe your statement could properly be rewritten:

And the entire dynamic process is guided, from the subconscious mind by the question: is this saying what an extraordinarily complex, highly interactive system of neurons and glial cells wants to say?



Woodduck said:


> That a computer can be programmed to produce musical sounds structured in certain ways, we know. No doubt it will produce more and more complex structures in the future. But will they be good music, much less great music? What does a computer have to _say?_


And the question, "What does a computer have to say?" could be rewritten, "What does a good simulation of an extraordinarily complex, highly interactive system of neurons and glial cells want to say?" To which I would answer, "The same things a human would want to say."


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

mmsbls said:


> I believe your statement could properly be rewritten:
> 
> And the entire dynamic process is guided, from the subconscious mind by the question: is this saying what an extraordinarily complex, highly interactive system of neurons and glial cells wants to say?
> 
> And the question, "What does a computer have to say?" could be rewritten, "What does a good simulation of an extraordinarily complex, highly interactive system of neurons and glial cells want to say?" To which I would answer, "The same things a human would want to say."


Everything in your argument rests upon your definition of a "good simulation." Since, as far as anyone knows or can imagine, only living organisms have consciousness and values and are capable of wanting, a "good simulation" of a human "interactive system of neurons and glial cells," in order to ask, "Is this what I want to say?", would have to be extraordinarily good indeed. In fact, it would have to be, in some fundamental sense, human. Are we discussing creation by computer - or creation by artificial human beings?


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

Woodduck said:


> Everything in your argument rests upon your definition of a "good simulation." Since, as far as anyone knows or can imagine, only living organisms have consciousness and values and are capable of wanting, a "good simulation" of a human "interactive system of neurons and glial cells," in order to ask, "Is this what I want to say?", would have to be extraordinarily good indeed. In fact, it would have to be, in some fundamental sense, human. Are we discussing creation by computer - or creation by artificial human beings?


There are a few possibilities here. The simulation could be an extraordinarily good simulation of a human brain, and you could call that an artificial human being although most people I know would just call it a computer simulation. Our simulations of cars are getting quite good, but even if they became extraordinarily good, people would still refer to them as simulations and not artificial cars. Anyway, I do believe that "good enough" simulations of humans could produce similar music to human composers. The question would be whether in fact "good enough" simulations are possible. As I've said, I see no reasons to doubt that they would be possible.

Another possibility is producing a computer that simulated not necessarily a human brain but rather a complex thinking machine which could "think" differently than humans do but still produce good music. Perhaps humans would not appreciate that music, or maybe they would. This path is more speculative since there are more unknowns.


----------



## isorhythm (Jan 2, 2015)

MarkW said:


> To name two, I have often thought that M.C. Escher and Stanley Kubrick lay somewhere on the autism spectrum, because their works were technically brilliant, but cold -- to give it another name although I am not religious or particularly spiritual, their works lacked souls. I can't imagine computer-generated art as being any better in that department.


But of course people on the autism spectrum do have souls! A computer can churn out patterns but it does not _delight_ in patterns the way that some humans do - and while we may consider these humans to be oddballs and liken them to computers, their delight is in fact a human quality that no computer has.

I don't think we're anywhere near a computer that will pass an artistic Turing test, or any Turing test, because I don't think we're even moving in that direction. I don't think our computers are doing the same kind of thing our brains do, at all.

We don't yet have any real understanding of consciousness, but I would guess that a plant is more likely to have some kind of consciousness than any computer we've made. This is probably my crankiest belief, but I'm sticking to it.


----------



## Dim7 (Apr 24, 2009)

The idea that a primitive AI wouldn't have consciousness but an advanced one would doesn't make sense to me. But then it is also quite strange that we humans (and animals) actually have consciousness. Of course intelligence is useful for survival, but why aren't we philosophical zombies?

Panpsychism might explain this.....


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

mmsbls said:


> There are a few possibilities here. The simulation could be an extraordinarily good simulation of a human brain, and you could call that an artificial human being although most people I know would just call it a computer simulation. Our simulations of cars are getting quite good, but even if they became extraordinarily good, people would still refer to them as simulations and not artificial cars. Anyway, *I do believe that "good enough" simulations of humans could produce similar music to human composers. *The question would be *whether in fact "good enough" simulations are possible*. As I've said, *I see no reasons to doubt that they would be possible. *


Artistic creation is more than synthesizing data in new ways. It's an expression of feeling (hence the question that constantly directs an artist's choices, "Does this say what I want it to say?"). The reason to doubt that computers can autonomously create art is that computers don't feel, don't want, and have nothing to say. A computer can be programmed to combine sonic data in ways that imitate the shapes and sounds of music. But the direction provided by a human composer's sense of the correspondences of form and meaning can't be provided by an unconscious machine. If you're arguing that computers can be conscious, I'd like to see the evidence.

The question of whether computer-generated art, made without human interference once the program is activated, ought to be called art is a different question.


----------

