No future in composing music as a career?

[Jamesmcwilliams]

http://www.zsearch.org/text/barriere.html

This guy seems to think that directors will use generative music in the future. I don't know about you, but i wouldn't be buying those soundtracks. >:(

"Computer programming technologies and methodologies, like "artificial life", or "genetic algorithms", are -- or will be in the near future -- one of the tools of creation. They offer fantastic artistic potentialities. But like any tool, they can be misused. Soon, "automatic music" will be everywhere. It will replace Muzak. All of the so-called utilitarian forms of music -- for elevators, waiting zones, commercial malls, social spaces, bars and restaurants -- can become automatically generated music. It is a field, but also a market, that will explode very soon. Radios will have channels dedicated to "generated music", that is music whose sound and structure both will be synthesized and self-generated, and that will be more or less sophisticated. It will also become adaptative: thanks to technologies such as neural nets, intelligent agents, and, later, more elaborate processes, it will analyse your taste as well as your mood and will produce music to satisfy your supposed needs at a specific moment. In Hollywood and elswhere, synthetic means will be used first to produce musical arrangements, and then progressively to compose the entire music for a film or other audiovisual product. The directors and producers will just have to give instructions concerning the "feeling", the "mood" they want for the specific context of a scene or part of a film, and the generators will compose accordingly. They will even be able to replicate a given musical example and develop it tirelessly. These new forms of synthesizers, capable of generating and therefore replacing both the score and the instruments, will never complain, or strike, and they will be cheap."

what do you guys think? Sounds bloody depressing to me. But what makes the directors think that some program won't come out to replace them eh? ;)

Way to kill creativity. (sigh)

[PaulR]

Don't worry about it James. It's a load of intellectual clap trap.

[Samplecraze]

And one that has been addressed so many time before...................and failed.

[Jamesmcwilliams]

I hope you are right Paul, I really do. :D

I mean personally, I want to listen to music with that human spark. Not some formula led code produced nonsense. It just sounds like a path to mediocrity.
I do however, see some flaws in the whole issue.

1. People like to hear music that people make (I do at least) just as i prefer hand made food to processed meals for example, it's better!
2. Humans have style, John williams, Goldsmith, etc, they all have a distinctive style that comes across in thier work, generative music would not have a consistant style.
3. Its more about quantity than quality.

[Theodor]

I think it's very , very possible and frightening near !

Is it hard to make a computer make thousands of random Classical SATB cadences by just following the rules of harmony in one scale ? ( No consecutive fifths or octaves , 3rd always present etc) And it will sound pleasant too , that's the bad thing.

It could also make melodies by starting on the 5th , 1st , or 3rd note of the current chord and playing something randomly in between until it reaches the next chords 3rd , 5th or 7th or whatever. Add a few more rules like repeating a bar 2 times and another melody playing some notes in 3rd's and .......TADA! You have music in the plate :mad:

[Jamesmcwilliams]

Couple that with a synful orchestra type playback device, some preset ambience....
But would you listen to it? would you pay for it? :/

[PaulR]

I hope you are right Paul, I really do. :D

I mean personally, I want to listen to music with that human spark. Not some formula led code produced nonsense. It just sounds like a path to mediocrity.
I do however, see some flaws in the whole issue.

1. People like to hear music that people make (I do at least) just as i prefer hand made food to processed meals for example, it's better!
2. Humans have style, John williams, Goldsmith, etc, they all have a distinctive style that comes across in thier work, generative music would not have a consistant style.
3. Its more about quantity than quality.

Don't fret about it James, This kind of thing was talked about when I was at college and that was eons ago.

Never happen and I don't just say that as some sort of comfort zone factor. Music on it's own - that's maybe different and experimentation will and has been done using these comp/tech techniques for years. It's usually crap though for a myriad of reasons. The same way a sample work will not sound anywhere near as good as a good competent orchestra or orchestral combo playing the same thing. Not for a long time will that come about, if ever.

But music to film- a computer could do that probably - but they'd only try it once. Hitchcock tried a filmic technique whereby all the acting on screen was done all at once without break, using 20 minute or so reels - for instance, Rope and Under Capricorn. Same sort of deal in a way. Didn't really work at all and he never bothered again. For example, musically - can you imagine the music a computer would have 'written' for Psycho? Ummm - Heeeelllooo?

The seperation between what is written for images, and as standalone music is comparable to different universes and a computer, at least not in this century ot the next, will never have the AI to work out the nuances that happen on a screen. Probably never actually.

[dpasdernick]

I have worried about this type of technology too. Losing jobs to the Garageband/Acid market is tough enough but the BG/Acid guys look like J Williams compared to an algorithm.

Futurists, after world war 2 predicted machines that would do the work while we the humans had more leisure time. All of these machines seem to be taking away the fun jobs and leaving the crappy ones behind.

The reality is that a machine will never replace John Williams but it will defintely be able to wipe out the dudes that score muzak, commercials, etc.

Perhaps one day, no one will get paid for music and it will just be something you do because you love it. Now there's a theory.

Darren

[Jamesmcwilliams]

The seperation between what is written for images, and as standalone music is comparable to different universes and a computer, at least not in this century ot the next, will never have the AI to work out the nuances that happen on a screen. Probably never actually.

As long as I'm long dead if they get that technology then i'll be happy :D

[Theodor]

Perhaps one day, no one will get paid for music and it will just be something you do because you love it. Now there's a theory.

Darren

Maybe that could lead musicians to make more money than they do now because they would make better compositions with more feelings than technicality . So the business would be back on track :)

[dpasdernick]

[QUOTE=PaulR]
The same way a sample work will not sound anywhere near as good as a good competent orchestra or orchestral combo playing the same thing.[QUOTE]

Paul,

Sorry I gotta disagree. Sound sets like Platinum, VSLO, etc sound bloody close. And to the layman there's probably no difference. There may come a day when samples or physical modelling is all we have because no one will invest the time to learn the english horn. There may not be anyway to make a living playing it. (there barely is now)

Computers are smart. I'm sure there are some super engineers out there that could plug a few algorithms into Platinum and whip out a pretty decent piece of music. And if you don't like it, push a button and out pops another one. Instantly.

Please tell me I'm wrong...

Darren

[PaulR]

As long as I'm long dead if they get that technology then i'll be happy :D

Yeah, well you see - that is a negative view. I will teach you young lads one of these days if it kills me. :D

You and I and everyone else should not be defensive about this sort of nonsense that comes up from time to time - throughout the decades actually. Rather, you should say, ' who the fk are you to tell me that?' That usually shuts them up - you do your thing and let them waste their time doing their thing.

It's just the intellectual jerking off that comes and goes all the time. :cool: :D

[PaulR]

Paul,

Sorry I gotta disagree. Sound sets like Platinum, VSLO, etc sound bloody close. And to the layman there's probably no difference. Please tell me I'm wrong...

Darren

No worries in disagreement at all Darren. :D

Yes, Plat and VSL et all will sound good and indeed very good sometimes, providing the orchestral structure is there in the first place.

And yes, to the layman - he/she will not be able to tell the difference and even more interestingly perhaps - won't actually care, providing the actual musical content does to them what it says on the tin. :)

But, if you take the very best rendition you can do with any, or a mixture of the two primary orchestral libraries in the world today, and then play your piece through samples and then the same piece with a 'good, competent orchestra' (thats important) - the sampled piece, at least to us will not be anywhere near as good.
To me, this is mostly to do with the string sections currently. You just can't get that ambience and fullness across the board with any sampled strings yet. You can get very good renditions - no doubt about it - but it hasn't got that magic yet. Maybe one day - but not yet.

[Alan Lastufka]

Film composers only have themselves to blame for writing the same generic crap over and over that could be imitated artificially. Write something true and original and, dare I say, creative - and you will have nothing to fear. http://www.northernsounds.com/forum/images/smilies/biggrin.gif

[josejherring]

I always have a very different view of computers I think. Computers must calculate. In the same way that a computer plays chess. It has to weigh variables dependent on probability. So a computer thinks in terms of: If opponant moves knight to D3, then computer must calculate each move for all possible moves to determine statistically what's the best move.

In any case music is so subjective in it's essense that a computer would never be able to calculate what the best note is in any given situation. When to follow the rules and when to break them. When to slow down or speed up the tempi, how much to speed or slow the tempi; what would be the variable rate of change; what would be the correct dynamic, expression, ect.,ect.,ect.

Computers are amazing but they just compute. Even based on statistics it's still just computing. All the things that we feel as music rely on a much more advanced method of thinking than just computing. And, how do you factor in the variable of style changing over time. What was hip in 1920 certainly isn't hip now.

These type of composing algorhythms have been around for a while like others have mentioned. I heard a demo of a piece supposedly written in the style of Mozart. Followed all the counterpoint rules, ect. Sounded like an elemtary school kid who just learned the rules of counterpoint but had nothing to really say. And couldn't really hold a tune either.

Even if technically perfect(which it wasn't) it still wouldn't have anything to say. There's no soul beating in a computer. And how can you program something that's a little romantic yet dreamy and that twist on a dime to true sorrow when the lover leaves. Please. I think the only composers who have anything really to worry about are the minimalist. But even they are quite out of style.

Jose

[Jamesmcwilliams]

Hehe, well I would hope that would be the case. But... money usually wins out over creativity these days. I work in games and it seems the bloody marketing deptartments have more influence about which games to produce than anyone.

[SWL]

Film composers only have themselves to blame for writing the same generic crap over and over that could be imitated artificially. Write something true and original and, dare I say, creative - and you will have nothing to fear. http://www.northernsounds.com/forum/images/smilies/biggrin.gif

:rolleyes:

[StrangeCat]

Geeze don't even worry about it. One it would only be big name companies, two a computer lacks a soul and understanding of interpetation of there emotions to the music, three it's not happening anytime soon. Yo I am composer i do it because I have to compose not making any money at it right now. Trying to get a job, was sending out demo cd's and all that. Tried to publish some classical piano sonatas(hehehe funny) Just finished writing a Celtic Jpop song(don't ask)that I have to do the production on now. I try to make music very emotional I mean musical, it's my style, everyone has there one style of composing it's how we decide on what is between the notes ;) a computer could sound like this other computer, another could sound like this other computer and so on and so on. :D

[James W.G. Smith]

Sorry I gotta disagree. Sound sets like Platinum, VSLO, etc sound bloody close.
Darren

Ok, two things I have to point out. 1) and in response to the above, the only reason that they sound bloody close is because the performances themselves are altered by us. I don't know about the rest of you but I put just as much time into messing with the "sampled-performance" aspect of any piece as I do writing the thing.

And 2) Computers are not emotional beings, hence they cannot write a piece that evokes a feeling. A computer wouldn't be able to hit all of the little subtle things in a film that a composer can, such as the ambience of the film itself, the editing, the on screen action, ect. Think about it, if a computer scored Batman, would it have thought of a bright and happy waltz while the Joker shot the crap out of that one guy? Can a computer write a theme that will stick in your head? Nope. We have nothing to worry about, until they have some sort of AI but then again AI is never going to happen but that is another topic :D .

James W.G. Smith

[-Ed]

Think how hard it is to make samples sound human, do you really think a computer wil be able to actually to become the next John Williams or Thomas Newman by itself? I dont think so. And not just that, but write music to picture as well?

And if it is possible, it wont be around for many MANY years yet and I believe not in our lifetimes will this be an issue.

NOTHING to worry about.

Ed

[dpasdernick]

Film composers only have themselves to blame for writing the same generic crap over and over that could be imitated artificially. Write something true and original and, dare I say, creative - and you will have nothing to fear. http://www.northernsounds.com/forum/images/smilies/biggrin.gif

Alan,

You can't blame the composers 100%. I'm sure the directors, producers and certainly the studio heads dictate what goes into the soundtrack.

I have a book called The Score where a bunch of film composers are interviewd. Howard Shore is talking about writing for the film Ransom, a Ron Howard production. He's all geeked about using out of the box sounds and compositions. Apparently Ron Howard is too. Half way through the interview the the text is broken up with a note saying Shore was fired from the film. He was shaken up by it and when asked what happened he said "Ron Howard came into this project wearing a black leather coat and left wearing a white sports coat" (great quote!) Basically the rest of the team on the film chickened out and Shore was replaced. Here was the instance of a composer "going out on a limb" and the machine that is Hollywood cut down the tree.

I've said it before, Marketing is where this country is at. The almighty dollar almost always wins.

That's why I do worry about the future of composition. It may be that J Williams is never replaced by a machine but, like I said, programs like Garageband and Acid have definitely duped me a few times. I really have problems with people who cut'n'paste Acid loops togther and call themselves composers. I don't have a huge music background (ex-drummer) but some of you have heard my music here. It may not be the strongest of the lot but I played every note.

2 more cents,

Darren

[fictionmusic]

Futurists, after world war 2 predicted machines that would do the work while we the humans had more leisure time. All of these machines seem to be taking away the fun jobs and leaving the crappy ones behind.


Darren

Ouch! Exceptionally funny but kinda true.

[Jamesmcwilliams]

Alan,

You can't blame the composers 100%. I'm sure the directors, producers and certainly the studio heads dictate what goes into the soundtrack.

I have a book called The Score where a bunch of film composers are interviewd. Howard Shore is talking about writing for the film Ransom, a Ron Howard production. He's all geeked about using out of the box sounds and compositions. Apparently Ron Howard is too. Half way through the interview the the text is broken up with a note saying Shore was fired from the film. He was shaken up by it and when asked what happened he said "Ron Howard came into this project wearing a black leather coat and left wearing a white sports coat" (great quote!) Basically the rest of the team on the film chickened out and Shore was replaced. Here was the instance of a composer "going out on a limb" and the machine that is Hollywood cut down the tree.

I've said it before, Marketing is where this country is at. The almighty dollar almost always wins.

That's why I do worry about the future of composition. It may be that J Williams is never replaced by a machine but, like I said, programs like Garageband and Acid have definitely duped me a few times. I really have problems with people who cut'n'paste Acid loops togther and call themselves composers. I don't have a huge music background (ex-drummer) but some of you have heard my music here. It may not be the strongest of the lot but I played every note.

2 more cents,

Darren
I agree, the fact that you do it all yourself is worthy of respect.
On another note, you look at music mag's these days and 90 percent of what they write about seems to be technology. Not music. Technology. There are so many people that blame thier samples for why they aren't happy with thier music, when of course it really boils down to thier orchestration and composing. I heard some old midi mockups of a friend using OLD libraries that quite frankly absolutly blow away 99.9% of modern mockups using newer libraries. I guess my fear is that we are getting too wound up in all these gadgets and losing sight of whats important.

Someone told me a story where they as a semi-pro photographer was talking to some bloke and the guy goes "My camera cost twice as much as yours yet your pictures are better!"

[Alan Lastufka]

Alan,

You can't blame the composers 100%. I'm sure the directors, producers and certainly the studio heads dictate what goes into the soundtrack.

Darren,

My post was mostly just in jest. While I do think that most film music is sub-par, I do have great respect for those who are doing original things. I think The Village score is probably the best I've heard since The Nightmare Before Christmas. I never aspired to write for film, my pieces are all personal.

Didn't mean to hurt anyone's feelings with the post - just poke a little fun.

[Adam Frechette]

Hah,

It is funny, because we all think technology cannot do something. That is where we are wrong. Who ever thought that the light bulb, camera, automobile, airplane and computer would have ever been created. It is those moments of genius that cause creations to be born. It is very possible that this kind of technology could be created within our lifetimes. Though, it is unlikely because there are far more pressing matters that scientists are working on. But then again who is to say that some guy right now is not creating something that will do this?
All you can do, is do what you love while you can do it. I am not worried because this technology would be buggy to say the least. How can you calculate feelings without first being able to model the creative brain patterns of a human. It is very possible, but would take a long time of research in more departments than just musical theory. There are many composers out there that don't even follow the rules and craft brilliant music. It is really too subjective to be replaced.

[-Ed]

They have a machine that can create artwork, but have artists gone out of buisness?

Ed

[dpasdernick]

Sorry but I gotta relay one more story here.

I was employed at a marketing company that had already hired a young whiz kid to work on animation, media, and music. I was handed a project where I was able to compose some music. I told them to give me some time and I'd write an appropriate piece. Their response was "We just tell the kid what type of music we want and within a few moments he has 4-5 pieces ready for us to listen to." He was using Acid.

They director didn't care about my "real notes" He actually looked at me as if I didn't know how to make music. Meanwhile this kid is walking around like he's John Williams.

YEars ago Hi-end 3D animation commanded huge dollars. Animators (even juniors) were making a ton of money. The tools are more robust, it's faster and easier to get the job done. So much of it is being farmed out overseas for wages that are pennies to our dollars. In short it is becoming a minimum wage career.

Of course there will always be the superstars like Howard Shore. It may just be that the small fish at the bottom may starve to death.

Sorry for the rant, thought it might be interesting. ; )

Darren

PS How do you put the little smileys into your message? Since they changed it here at NS I can't figured it out.

[Jamesmcwilliams]

They have a machine that can create artwork, but have artists gone out of buisness?

Ed

What machine is that? I work as an artist and i've never seen a machine that can create art. If you mean Fractal art, then that ain't art :P

[Jamesmcwilliams]

YEars ago Hi-end 3D animation commanded huge dollars. Animators (even juniors) were making a ton of money. The tools are more robust, it's faster and easier to get the job done. So much of it is being farmed out overseas for wages that are pennies to our dollars. In short it is becoming a minimum wage career.

It's still a pretty good career if you are good. Like I said, better software does not make you a better artist. In fact, as the tools get more advanced they are in fact returning more and more towards being aimed at traditional artists techniques.
Z-brush for example is more like sculpting with clay than what we have to do with 3d studio and the like where we have to move each and every vertex manually to sculpt, so the new technology is faster because it is more 'hands on' (specially if you couple that with a wacom tablet) than ever. A computer cannot design a suit of armour, or a spaceship, or a interesting environment. They come in handy with regards to monkey work, quite frankly i don't want to have to worry about unwrapping UVW cordinates... i just wanna draw! :D

And to be honest, i've not seen a wage decrease for 3d artists.

No way is some random hack going to be able to compete with a real artist by putting some poser pre-set models into a bryce landscape.

also, outsourcing is highly overrated.

[Jamesmcwilliams]

Hi Darren, just do your smileys as usual, but leave that space out between the eyes and the mouth :D

With regards to that kid using acid and the director... sounds like you are better off without them. The director sounds like a muppet, best avoided, especially working with them. :O

[dpasdernick]

James,

Well said my friend. I guess I'm having a bit of an off day and feel a little beaten. Nice to hear from a fellow CG artist. Yeah, Poser and Bryce the Garagenabd of the 3D world!!!

Onwards to great music written by humans with big hearts!!!!

;)

Darren

Thanks for the smiley tip!!!!!

[Jamesmcwilliams]

No Problem :D

Bit off topic, but may be of interest to you Darren, this must be the lowest of the low in art of anykind....
http://www.cgtalk.com/showthread.php?t=230911

[Alan Lastufka]

James,

I am a member at CGTalk also and thanks for bringing that thread to my attention - what an ~~~ that guy is.

[Jamesmcwilliams]

Agreed, not the sharpest knife in the drawer thats for sure (or spoon for that matter). :D

[spectro]

PaulR said:


You and I and everyone else should not be defensive about this sort of nonsense that comes up from time to time - throughout the decades actually. Rather, you should say, ' who the fk are you to tell me that?' That usually shuts them up - you do your thing and let them waste their time doing their thing.

It's just the intellectual jerking off that comes and goes all the time.


Is that the same jerking off that leads to the development of most contemporary ideas and technology, or are you specifically referring to the ideas that don't succeed?

OK, I couldn't quite work out whether you were serious or not, but scanning some of the comments on this thread got me going.

I think anyone in the creative arts who says 'This will never happen' has got their head in the sand - And frankly, IMO shouldn't be 'a creative'. Some ideas may appear to be stupid, and eventually turn out to be stupid, but it does appear that this idea also carries a hint of threat to some. Old ways eventually yield to and get replaced by new ways of doing things. For better or worse.

Given the majority of people on this board are orchestrally oriented composers, whether practicing, learning or enthusiasts, we appear to broadly accept the numerous technical innovations that broaden our sonic pallete and allow us to convincingly emulate human performers. We shouldn't be surprised or should at least be prepared for the possibility of tools that also do some or all of 'our' work, or even (eventually?) replace us.

One of the most common responses seen scanning through this topic is something to the effect of "..but what about the emotion?' At the compositional level, emotion in entertainment (or "art" for that matter), and in this specific case, music, is contrivance, pure and simple. It's usually genuinely intended, but in practice, is nothing more than a collection of techniques and cliches. History has seen to that. And really, the vast majority of film music is especially "guilty" of technique, contrivance and cliche.

If you don't learn how to compose every piece of music anew, you will be relying on your own set of techniques and cliches to compose your next piece (and also to inject it with emotion). If that is even partly true, then there really is no insurmountable reason that that same knowledge can't eventually be encoded and modelled. The result may never prove be masterful, but neither is a good proportion of the music people write now.


It is just a matter of time, before effective compositional automata are a practical reality. I look forward to the eventual rise of the uber composer algorithm, because, and as already suggested on this thread, it may prove to be the best medicine for artistic complacency, and even lead some to question and re-evaluate music (or any art form), assuming we haven't already lost interest.

But don't worry, like the decline of fossil based fuel resources and the lifestyle that comes with it, It probably (hopefully?) won't happen in our lifetime ;)

Just some intellectual jerking off...

[PaulR]

Just some intellectual jerking off...

Be my guest ;)

[TARI]

Darren,

I think The Village score is probably the best I've heard since The Nightmare Before Christmas.
I think the same Alan. Let's wait for some plug-in able to "compose" something a bit worst than Nightmare before Christmas. That day I will be afraid, but I'll still keep fighting.

[Hans Adamson]

And think of all the writers that are going to loose their jobs when computers start writing books!

[TARI]

And think of all the writers that are going to loose their jobs when computers start writing books!
And what about when computers start making and directing films? ;) The computers will choose their "friends" to "randomize" the music for its film...

[T Parks]

Slightly OT: I was watching a re-run of an episode from BBC's Horizon last night and there were a few scientists who claim that not only will future computers be able to model the human brain precisely but that we are all, in fact, part of a program dedicated to seeing how the human race evolved. They said, if you follow the current development of doubling the processor speed every year, its the only logical conclusion. Computers will be able to literally re-create our world in order to effect a quasi-time travel for research purposes. It sounds rather Matrix-ish but when you listen to their arguement it makes a horrifying sense.

The only thing I thought was, if they just leave the program to run it will just happen again and again ad infinitum. So which version are we?.

Well, it somehow makes me less bothered about computers composing away!.

[josejherring]

Slightly OT: I was watching a re-run of an episode from BBC's Horizon last night and there were a few scientists who claim that not only will future computers be able to model the human brain precisely but that we are all, in fact, part of a program dedicated to seeing how the human race evolved. They said, if you follow the current development of doubling the processor speed every year, its the only logical conclusion. Computers will be able to literally re-create our world in order to effect a quasi-time travel for research purposes. It sounds rather Matrix-ish but when you listen to their arguement it makes a horrifying sense.

The only thing I thought was, if they just leave the program to run it will just happen again and again ad infinitum. So which version are we?.

Well, it somehow makes me less bothered about computers composing away!.

It always suprises me how scientist can make total B.S. sound convincing.

Computers in no way think like the human brain. Scientist know so little about how the human brain actually functions that for them to make this claim that computers are evolving some sort of intelligence is just irresponsible.

Human intelligence evolved based on sentience. That is the ability to be aware by perceiving and feeling and imagining and creating solutions to problems. While it could be argued that computers have an ability to do some limited perception if you add a camera to your usb port that's a long long long ways away from being aware. The last time I smacked my computer it didn't even mind. But try hitting even the lowest of life forms and it will react.

The computer is actually a long way away from the intelligence even in the most basic single cell organism. The computer can't even defend itself.

Let's just treat the computer in it's proper place. It's a tool that intelligent people feed information into(user). The information is then processed in away dictate by other intelligent people(programmers) to spit out altered information. There's no thinking involved for the computer. There's no imagination from the computer. All the thinking and imagining where done by the people. Computers are just powerful calculators.

I'll have a hard time believing that machines will actually get up and say," dadda" with all the love a caring that a 6 month old baby does. But, who knows? Maybe I can train a robot someday to get me a beer and say I love you in a female voice? But something tells me that that would get very old.

Cheers,

Jose

[TARI]

Slightly OT: I was watching a re-run of an episode from BBC's Horizon last night and there were a few scientists who claim that not only will future computers be able to model the human brain precisely but that we are all, in fact, part of a program dedicated to seeing how the human race evolved.
I belive in the soul, I think music comes from the soul of everybody. Don´t forget that machines never will have one. That's the big diference for me. All of us in this forum are musicians, and I think we are people that should know this.

[T Parks]

Guys, the Borg scare the **** out of me and I KNOW they don't exist, so a scientist claiming for real that we're all just part of a program can really give me nightmares!

Maybe the human soul is just something we're programmed to believe in.... ;)

[PaulR]

Guys, the Borg scare the **** out of me and I KNOW they don't exist, so a scientist claiming for real that we're all just part of a program can really give me nightmares!

Maybe the human soul is just something we're programmed to believe in.... ;)

Have you started on the camomile yet? We don't want Groundhog Day do we - there's a good chap. :D

[josejherring]

Guys, the Borg scare the **** out of me and I KNOW they don't exist, so a scientist claiming for real that we're all just part of a program can really give me nightmares!

Maybe the human soul is just something we're programmed to believe in.... ;)

Believe it or not the human soul is something we're programmed not to believe in.

Jose

[T Parks]

Have you started on the camomile yet? We don't want Groundhog Day do we - there's a good chap. :D

LOL!. You're getting the picture ;)

I've bought a couple of weeks supply and promised myself to get to bed by 10am after this busy weekend is over.

[T Parks]

Believe it or not the human soul is something we're programmed not to believe in.

Jose

That's intruiging and do I agree.

I earnestly and passionately believe in the power of the soul and am really not particularly bothered by the thought of computers being programmed to compose. Humans will always want to watch and participate with other humans performing their music and no Ravel2D2 computer will be able to replace that.

[Tomke]

I used to live off of drumming before. I'm still doing a lecture here and there to get some extra cash and when I talk to the drummers (usually 15-18 years old guys) I actually urge them to not put all eggs in one basket when it comes to trying to make a living off of drumming - sometimes I even say it straight out: Don't try to. I'm not sure this would be just as true for the commercial music meccas like LA for example, but in scandinavia it is a reasonable thing to say - and to do. I read an article in Modern Drummer Magazine a few years ago (Studio drummer's round table) where the top ten most busyest session drummers in LA said exactly the same thing. Unless you are Superman you will have to work your butt off to make even a decent living - not to mention what is needed if you plan to have a family.

25 years ago we didn't have machines to make drum tracks like we do today, but these things are taking the work away. People don't want to hire people in unless they need it - they want to do it themselves all the way if possible. From that perspective I think it's only a matter of time (not so long time) before other musicians and also composers will find themselves out of business due to faster and cheaper (and less realsounding) alternatives. We're only in the first stages of it yet, but the development looks pretty much precisely the same as it did during the first half of the 80s when synthesizers started to favour some, and kick others out.

After all, we do buy already finished chicken to eat, right? How many of us does the complete work with the chicken nowadays? (goes out to hunt down the chicken, kill it, deal with feathers and all the other nasty parts of the process and then cook/fry and prepare it for eating.) I think it's very relevant to say that music is no exception from the rules of "modern development".

[Paul Blankenau]

All of you have ignored half of the original article, about automated retail music. I think that's even farther off than the rest, as music must make me consider suicide to be played in a retail setting. How can someone code that? There would have to be major advances in Bad Music Theory before the programmers could even start. The actual product would probably resemble the Nutrimatic drink machine from the Hitchhiker's Guide series, which analyzed a person's tastes and needs, then produced a beverage almost, but not exactly, unlike what you wanted.

[Jamesmcwilliams]

That's intruiging and do I agree.

I earnestly and passionately believe in the power of the soul and am really not particularly bothered by the thought of computers being programmed to compose. Humans will always want to watch and participate with other humans performing their music and no Ravel2D2 computer will be able to replace that.

Hmmm, but what about all those theatre musicians who are being replaced by synths? it's nice and cheap... it sounds cheap. The local news done a report on it and asked the guy sat at the keyboard if it was impossible to tell the difference between a real player and the mockup and he sat that with a smile on his face "Yep, no way to tell the difference", which is bollocks of course but there you go, i've learnt to not trust the news because i've seen so much nonsense on it. So will the masses really care where thier music comes from? It may be a load of crap but the teenagers will still buy it all.

[Mystr Tiger]

What an interesting thread!

I find it interesting that Ray Kurzweil, certainly one who has made important contributions to music technology, is also making predictions that computer intelligence will surpass human intelligence in the not so distant future. Plus, he (and others) also predict the attainment of human immortality via nano-robots. So, those of you who are not worried because you think these advancements will not occur in your lifetime, think again - you may find yourselves very alive in the coming centuries, witnesses to the new order where cyborgs will have humans perform music for their enjoyment, similar to how we might today enjoy singing pets. But, I still think that humans will still want human music. I know I will still prefer going to see a live human play a real piano on stage and not just a Disclavier playing a MIDI file. I will also prefer listening to human created music because I will feel that human bond that I will not feel from my cyborg superiors. We will, in essence, become musical pets - unemployed, but certainly cared for. :cool:

[Jamesmcwilliams]

oooh,
I wouldn't go that far, not for quite a while yet at least. :D We would not, after all, create something to enslave us (nomatter how well looked after you are).
I mean, other people think the future is gonna be like this....
http://marshallbrain.com/robotic-nation.htm

But to be honest, there are flaws in each and every 'future prediction'
Nobody really knows where we are going to go, taken over by machines? I don't really think that one holds much water myself. :D

I'm also not entirely sure I would want to live forever...

One thing that I have noticed, is that generally people ever estimate what technology is capable of today, let alone what would be possible in the future.

[SeanHannifin]

Now wait just a second!

When you listen to a piece of music, do you say "Wow, this is sooo human!" :D I hope not! While the technology to compose unique yet quality work does not yet exist, and perhaps never will, why would it be such a bad thing? I mean, if a computer can compose as well as Mozart or Beethoven (yet be unique itself), I would love to hear the music! I listen to music to give me pleasure, not to remind myself that some other guy wrote it . . . my brain doesn't care who or what writes the music, it just wants that emotion, that beauty.

I'll restrain myself from dabbing into the religious issues that seem to have come up in some of the posts . . . :D

[Jamesmcwilliams]

Ok, but lets say that your director (lets call him Bob McBobBob) comes to you one day and goes "well, Sean I was gonna get you to compose the music for my next film, but frankly I was playing around with 'FilmScorer 1.2' last night, plopped it on John Williams mode and it's all done!, sorry" :D

And do you not get pleasure from composing? If anybody can press a button and out plops a tune, does that not cheapen music? And when you hear some music that you enjoy, would it inspire you to be creative if written by a program? I mean, you listen to it and feel like getting creative but whats the point? because everywhere around you are tracks created in an instance... and if you do write a piece nobody believes you did it anyway. :D I mean, get the computers cleaning the toilets, dusting the floors and the like, but why the hell do we want to take away things that give us joy? what are we going to end up with? button pushing? Sounds dull to me. :D

[SeanHannifin]

Ok, but lets say that your director (lets call him Bob McBobBob) comes to you one day and goes "well, Sean I was gonna get you to compose the music for my next film, but frankly I was playing around with 'FilmScorer 1.2' last night, plopped it on John Williams mode and it's all done!, sorry" :D

And do you not get pleasure from composing? If anybody can press a button and out plops a tune, does that not cheapen music? And when you hear some music that you enjoy, would it inspire you to be creative if written by a program? I mean, you listen to it and feel like getting creative but whats the point? because everywhere around you are tracks created in an instance... and if you do write a piece nobody believes you did it anyway. :D I mean, get the computers cleaning the toilets, dusting the floors and the like, but why the hell do we want to take away things that give us joy? what are we going to end up with? button pushing? Sounds dull to me. :D
Very good point! That evil Bob McBobBob! :D

However, there are two elements of music I enjoy: composing and listening.

Composing: I have yet to ever be paid for anything I have composed, and I doubt that will ever be important to me. If there was a program that could compose vast amounts of great music in a short amount of time, that would not stop me either. I enjoy composing, and ain't nothing gonna change that! :D Perhaps with composing computers, people would not be able to understand the work I put into my own pieces . . . but that's not important to me either! :D I compose because I hear music in my head and I don't want to forget it, and I want to share it.

Listening: Automatic composition (that worked well, which it doesn't yet) would give us great amounts of music literature and perhaps allow us to understand what it is about music we find so appealing. Think about instantly hearing a new piece of music that you know you'll love every night! Woohoo! It wouldn't stop my brain from composing. In fact, if I owned the program, I'd just pass off the works as my own! :D

[Jamesmcwilliams]

Very good point! That evil Bob McBobBob! :D

However, there are two elements of music I enjoy: composing and listening.

Composing: I have yet to ever be paid for anything I have composed, and I doubt that will ever be important to me. If there was a program that could compose vast amounts of great music in a short amount of time, that would not stop me either. I enjoy composing, and ain't nothing gonna change that! :D Perhaps with composing computers, people would not be able to understand the work I put into my own pieces . . . but that's not important to me either! :D I compose because I hear music in my head and I don't want to forget it, and I want to share it.

Listening: Automatic composition (that worked well, which it doesn't yet) would give us great amounts of music literature and perhaps allow us to understand what it is about music we find so appealing. Think about instantly hearing a new piece of music that you know you'll love every night! Woohoo! It wouldn't stop my brain from composing. In fact, if I owned the program, I'd just pass off the works as my own! :D


Well, i don't think there are many people who get into writing music for the money, at least not at first :D So you want to share it, but what happens when you share it, and someone goes "Cool, what button did you press for that then? I wanna create that!" ;)
To be honest, i'm was not worried that there is no future in composing because of a fear of losing money, it was more the fact that I was concerned that the ART would be lost and I think if you asked all the aspiring composer on this board what attracts them to a film scoring career, money would be pretty low on the list. It would be about them having a creative job. :cool:

I guess the thing to remember is that if a piece of software was automatically writing good music, the real composer would ultimatly be the person who wrote the program, not the program. But most people would not see it that way. They would see a machine 'being creative' which of course it would not be, it's randomising within the confines of rules set by a human. Further creativity would arrive in patches, and addons.... "Version 1.5!!!! with new styles added!" :/

[SeanHannifin]

I am doing Ph.D. studies within this field of adaptive/dynamic music types. I can assure you that the apocalyptic scenarios described here are not a part of reality, nor will they be.

Its the same mombo-jumbo about AI. Computers cannot think, nor will they be able to for a long time to come. A simple example is looking at the human ability to improvise. Different studies of improvisation has shown to be an extremely complicated combination of neurology, subconsciousness, learning patterns and spirituality and tons of other issues.
You seem to be proving impossibility based on complexity. Perhaps it depends on your definition of "computer." A "computer" does not have to be made of metal and use 1's and 0's, a computer could be much more complex than the ones you are seeing sold today. Your brain is a computer! So computers are already writing music. However, your brain is so complex, it's hard to understand how it works, and thus pretty impossible to replicate, at least in this day and age. However, a computer does not have to think about music or be able to perceive it like we do for it to spit some out, so it doesn't matter anyway. If you want the computer to write a book, then you'll have a lot more to worry about.

[SeanHannifin]

To be honest, i'm was not worried that there is no future in composing because of a fear of losing money, it was more the fact that I was concerned that the ART would be lost
Yes, I agree, the art may be lost. But if people in the future don't enjoy composing as much as some of us do today, why is that bothersome?


and I think if you asked all the aspiring composer on this board what attracts them to a film scoring career, money would be pretty low on the list. It would be about them having a creative job.
Well, even if they did say that, I wouldn't believe them. I admit, I'd love to be a film composer . . . because I'd make a living off of what I love to do. It's all about the money! If you look at the salaries of the big film composers like John Williams, that's millionaire level for sure. If film composers didn't get paid at all, I bet there would be far less people aspiring to the career.

[-Ed]

What machine is that? I work as an artist and i've never seen a machine that can create art. If you mean Fractal art, then that ain't art :P

i dont have a picture as I cant remember the name :) But it basically draws stuff based on mathematical equations if I remmember.

Ed

[-Ed]

Slightly OT: I was watching a re-run of an episode from BBC's Horizon last night and there were a few scientists who claim that not only will future computers be able to model the human brain precisely but that we are all, in fact, part of a program dedicated to seeing how the human race evolved. .

LOL Im sure they didnt say that. funny though

Ed

[T Parks]

LOL Im sure they didnt say that. funny though

Ed

Just for you, Ed:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/horizon/2003/timetrip.shtml

Horizon is one of the few tv programmes I watch. Check out some of the other episodes in the numerous series, it really is fascinating. The only problem is that they're going the way of so many documentaries and slamming music over every the top of everything which gets on my nerves.

[T Parks]

Actually. anybody who has some time to spare should try out a few of these tests linked with some of the programmes:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/humanbody/mind/index_surveys.shtml

[Robert Kooijman]

"The only problem is that they're going the way of so many documentaries and slamming music over every the top of everything which gets on my nerves."

Well Trev, you're not alone here!

Cheers, Robert

[TARI]

I am doing Ph.D. studies within this field of adaptive/dynamic music types. I can assure you that the apocalyptic scenarios described here are not a part of reality, nor will they be.

Its the same mombo-jumbo about AI. Computers cannot think, nor will they be able to for a long time to come. A simple example is looking at the human ability to improvise. Different studies of improvisation has shown to be an extremely complicated combination of neurology, subconsciousness, learning patterns and spirituality and tons of other issues.

I believe the worst part about the future is that there will be so much more crap. Thats apocalypse to me.
Yes, I agree completely :)

[Jamesmcwilliams]

i dont have a picture as I cant remember the name :) But it basically draws stuff based on mathematical equations if I remmember.

Ed

ah, i think i know the one you are talking about... it was a pretty poor artist if i recall :D and even the gou who created it admits that he was the real artist.

[Tomke]

I believe the worst part about the future is that there will be so much more crap. Thats apocalypse to me.
I sort of agree. Only that my moment 22 steps in when I realize that a true definition of crap is the sound of machines doing the art for us; a first-class definition of "sounds like crap" :p

Sorry .. I need to take a break more often :rolleyes:

[Mystr Tiger]

oooh,
I wouldn't go that far, not for quite a while yet at least. :D We would not, after all, create something to enslave us (nomatter how well looked after you are).
I mean, other people think the future is gonna be like this....
http://marshallbrain.com/robotic-nation.htm

But to be honest, there are flaws in each and every 'future prediction'
Nobody really knows where we are going to go, taken over by machines? I don't really think that one holds much water myself. :D

I'm also not entirely sure I would want to live forever...

One thing that I have noticed, is that generally people ever estimate what technology is capable of today, let alone what would be possible in the future.

Thanks for your reply. I certainly hope my tongue-in-cheek future scenario of being cyborg pets never comes to pass - but, if it does, I hope they are kind.

Our current situation is not that far off it seems. We are, in a sense, already taken over by machines - maybe not in an obvious way. But, just try removing all machines from our planet. I think we would perish without them. Of course, the difference is that we are still in control. I'm guessing you meant that machines will not rule us as second class citizens where we are no longer in control. Not something I can easily predict, but if machines become smarter that us, and they are programmed for survival, well, who knows what they might decide. Too much science fiction? So was going to the moon at one time. Anyway, I agree with you that predictions are flawed, and technology is not always as capable as advertised. It's amazing how technology has actually slowed me down - I used to write and record lot's of music is the past - now I spend most of my time maintaining my machines. If only they could get smarter and maintain themselves.

I enjoyed reading the Marshall Brain essay 'Robot Nation' that you kindly suggested. He has some interesting ideas, but I can't say I agree with his economic analysis.

Speaking of economics, is that not what will ultimately determine the answer to the original question? A future in composing music as a career requires that there will exist demand (from consumers) for human written music, and that there will be suppliers (human composers). Demand will exist to the extent that the price is right, and supply will exist to the extent that money can be made for one's efforts, and an equilibrium will be established. But, if consumers are indifferent to how (machine vs human) the music is created, and they are less sophisticated in what they enjoy (it seems this is the trend), then I can see how the market will adjust to the point where machine music will dominate. Sorry if this seems bleak - it's just business.

On the bright side, I will still enjoy going to see live musicians on stage. I sure hope the cyborgs don't wanna look human because then I won't be able to tell who's who. :D

[Mystr Tiger]

Now wait just a second!

When you listen to a piece of music, do you say "Wow, this is sooo human!" :D I hope not! While the technology to compose unique yet quality work does not yet exist, and perhaps never will, why would it be such a bad thing? I mean, if a computer can compose as well as Mozart or Beethoven (yet be unique itself), I would love to hear the music! I listen to music to give me pleasure, not to remind myself that some other guy wrote it . . . my brain doesn't care who or what writes the music, it just wants that emotion, that beauty.

I'll restrain myself from dabbing into the religious issues that seem to have come up in some of the posts . . . :D

Hmmm...well, I guess you might have a point - I'm trying to imagine myself listening and wondering if I actually would be contemplating its 'humanness'. But, I still think I would choose to purchase human created over machine created music given the choice. Why? I don't know, just seems there is something in me that would appreciate the human effort over the machine effort (hmmm, can a machine put out an effort?) It's not a strong position that I have (as it is not really yet an issue). Knowing a machine created the music would be novel at first, and I think then I would probably be listening and contemplating its 'machineness'. Sort of like I sometimes wonder if I'm listening to a really tight drummer, or am I listening to a PT grid arrangement. I guess, in the end, I would eventually cease my contemplation and just listen. And, if machines could compose at Mozart or Beethoven level, and perform with 'human' quantization, well...who know - I might go to the dark side.

Live music, on the other hand, seems safe for now. I can't yet imagine what would be appealing about seeing a cyborg symphony. But, that's my current thinking - each to their own I guess. :)

[T Parks]

Have a fun time reading through a few relatively recent developments in this area:

http://www.ibiblio.org/gandhi/gandhi/hofstadter.htm
http://www.music.gla.ac.uk/~tfowler/articles/Computer.html
http://mitpress2.mit.edu/e-journals/Computer-Music-Journal/reviews/29-1/handelman-cope.html

And finally some clips of the music from the webpage of the man behind the brain:

http://arts.ucsc.edu/faculty/cope/mp3page.htm

[Jamesmcwilliams]

hmmm, interesting. I think to be honest though, since the computer is taking source music and rearranging the notes, using the structure and spitting out an 'original' it's not quite as impressive as it first seems. Perhaps that is what we do to an extent... but you won't be getting anything groundbreaking out of it, i mean, it takes a piece by John Williams and jumbles it up, but it's not going to be coming up with a new style.

[SeanHannifin]

Have a fun time reading through a few relatively recent developments in this area:

http://www.ibiblio.org/gandhi/gandhi/hofstadter.htm
http://www.music.gla.ac.uk/~tfowler/articles/Computer.html
http://mitpress2.mit.edu/e-journals/Computer-Music-Journal/reviews/29-1/handelman-cope.html

And finally some clips of the music from the webpage of the man behind the brain:

http://arts.ucsc.edu/faculty/cope/mp3page.htm
Well, to be honest, I'm not yet impressed with any of this . . . :D

[Mystr Tiger]

While on my walk in the forest today I did some additional thinking and would like to add something more: human composers will always be more desirable than machines regardless of how good machines can become - even if machines are better. Why? Because a human composer has more to say than just music. A human has a story to tell about why and how he or she created the music. And a story about his or her interest in music in general, and other life interests. And a human can be interviewed, and can provide inspiration for other humans. A real human has a life history that can become a story to tell. How will we have movies like 'Amadeus' and 'Immortal Beloved' with machines? How will we have world tours where the famous composer conducts his or her work with real musicians? These human traits of interacting with other humans seems a desirable and positive force that helps to enforce the human spirit within the music. So, while machines may eventually write good music, they will lack these other important human features. Long live human composers! Whether it will be a good paying gig in the future is yet another issue. :)

[SeanHannifin]

While on my walk in the forest today I did some additional thinking and would like to add something more: human composers will always be more desirable than machines regardless of how good machines can become - even if machines are better.
Good thinking! I agree partly. However . . . what if you didn't know it was a machine? What if I used a machine, and just made up some stories to go along with it, and passed it off as my own? :) (After all, that's exactly what I would do. What's the use in giving it to the world? :D )

[Jamesmcwilliams]

ahhh... but if it was that easy, then everybody would be doing it. :D

[SeanHannifin]

Is it just me, or is everybody doing it?

Just kidding! :D (or am I? bum bum bum . . .)

[Jamesmcwilliams]

Nah, cos if that were true everybody would just be rehashing rather than innovating... oh.
:D

[Jamesmcwilliams]

Good thinking! I agree partly. However . . . what if you didn't know it was a machine? What if I used a machine, and just made up some stories to go along with it, and passed it off as my own? :) (After all, that's exactly what I would do. What's the use in giving it to the world? :D )

Actually... if you think about it, it is all still human... the machine has created nothing, the software is written by a human and it's limits are defined by the human, the structure, the chords, all of it is created by a human. Just because the machine re-jiggles a track based on pieces that humans have already created doesn't make it a composer, in fact it is a plagiarist, pure and simple. I think now, the issue is not that machines will be better at composing than a human, that will only happen if they gain true intelligence and I think we are many, many years away from that. The fact is, the only reason those programs that take a source composition and rearrange it make anything at all is because it owes absolutly EVERYTHING to the source composers work. Without the original human it is nothing, it is a thief. In fact it is a clear case of a sparrow riding on the back of an Eagle. I'm not worried at all now.

These guys who write these programs and then take delight in trying to fool people that the computer "wrote the tune!" are misleading themselves and other people, it's a fraud at the end of the day.