It was listening to the music of Portogallo on EMS last week that reminded me of this:
I don't think I ever did hear any of its music. Did anyone else?
I don't think I ever did hear any of its music. Did anyone else?
-
-
Well, it simply isn't true that this music was produced "without human intervention" - the program has most certainly been constructed to embody some very particular rules and preferences, from which it assembles a piece which presumably does more or less what the programmer/composer intends it to. There are hundreds of people around the world working on "algorithmic composition" of various kinds - some of the first essays in that direction were already made by composers like Xenakis and Gottfried Michael Koenig in the 1960s - and, unsurprisingly, they (I should say we, since I use self-written computer programs for compositional purposes) all express to a more or less clear extent the musical priorities and personality of the person doing the programming, which is fine of course because what's going on is composing. The character who's come up with this "Iamus" idea seems simply to be fishing for publicity by claiming that his program is "writing its own music", presumably to explain the fact that the music meanders around in such an uninteresting way...Comment
-
An earlier example of automatic music is the Alberti Bass, a left-hand accompaniment figure in keyboard music consisting of broken triads whose notes are played in the order: lowest, highest, middle, highest. It takes its name from jolly old Domenico Alberti (1710 to 1746). Research has suggested that, obvious as this little figure may seem, Alberti was in fact the first to make frequent use of it. But both Chopin and Bach himself (the great incomparable), although they were more imaginative, did not dissimilar things.
Indeed we could go further, and point out that all musical form, even the repetition of a melody, even the repetition of a commonly-used chord, even the use of a musical language (or indeed any language) - about all these there is something automatic. As elements their functions and meanings are understood. But they do not go without saying. The key factor is I suppose who (or what) is ultimately in control - a soul or a machine. When it comes to machines the ultimate assumes a tremendous importance does it not.Last edited by Sydney Grew; 09-02-14, 02:50.Comment
-
At this stage I think it makes no difference whether the "music" is written by a human or a machine - the output is simply an artefact, an object. Certainly not in so far as a listener is concerned.Originally posted by Sydney Grew View Post
You try to make a distinction between a "soul" and a "machine" - but what is a soul? I have seen arguments founder (IMO) because an author has assumed properties of a "soul" and that his/her view of such a concept would be shared by others. Such authors have often tried to show that machines can't think, but it really boils down to opinion based on initial assumptions which seemingly can't be challenged ("it's obvious!"), but in practice can be.
OTOH, a human composer can write music, then hear it or evaluate it, or take opinions from others, and then either discard it, change it or publish it. Humans may "enjoy" listening to music, whatever "enjoy" means, and of course also "dislike" some "music".
It is debatable whether a computer can "hear" or "enjoy" or "dislike" the result of its own compositions, though it ought to be capable of evaluating the "music" - against a set of rules, and taking into account opinions of others - human or otherwise.Comment
-
Well let us not make a meal out of that matter. My understanding of common usage is that: 1) By definition, machines do not have souls. 2) By definition, machines are not alive. 3) By definition, machines are capable of neither will nor intention. 4) By definition (see the O.E.D.) the soul is "The principle of thought and action in man, commonly regarded as an entity distinct from the body; the spiritual part of man in contrast to the purely physical."
No progress is possible through automatism (involuntary action)!Comment
-
Wel, yes - let us make a meal of this. Your "definitions" more or less make my point.Originally posted by Sydney Grew View Post
Looking at the OED we find - extracts:
which bear scant resemblenece to the "definitions" you put forward.
Pronunciation: Brit. /səʊl/ , U.S. /soʊl/
Forms: ... (Show More)
Etymology: Cognate with Old Frisian sēle, sēl... (Show More)
I. An essential principle or attribute of life, and related senses.
Thesaurus »
†1. The condition or attribute of life in humans or animals; animate existence; this viewed as a possession of which one is deprived by death. Obs.
–--------
a. The principle of intelligence, thought, or action in a person (or occas. an animal), typically regarded as an entity distinct from the body; the essential, immaterial, or spiritual part of a person or animal, as opposed to the physical.In modern use understood to refer to consciousness as a whole, including emotions, hence merging with sense 3a.
The ‘soul’ in this sense is often contrasted with corporeal existence and is influenced by philosophical and theological concepts of immortality (esp. in sense 7). It is sometimes personified, as in common medieval dialogues between the soul and the body.
a. The seat of a person's emotions, feelings, or thoughts; the moral or emotional part of a person's nature; the central or inmost part of a person's being.Freq. in literary and poet. use, especially from the late 18th and early 19th centuries when emphasis upon the immaterial personal ‘soul’ in this sense became a distinctive characteristic of Romanticism.
b. As a mass noun. Strength of character; strongly developed intellectual, moral, or aesthetic qualities; spiritual or emotional power or intensity; (also) deep feeling, sensitivity.Freq. with reference to art or artistic performance.
Incidentally, thank you for allowing me to discover how to access the OED via my county library online service.
It was not very long ago that some supposedly respected thinkers and philosophers (some in the last 50 years) were arguing that animals can't think or have consciousness, and some of them used similar "arguments" by assuming obvious "definitions" of words which made the conclusions inevitable. Sometimes religion was also invoked to provide further "evidence."Comment
-
I'm afraid this thread is a mystery to me. Is this a relative of Will Iamus?
Comment
Comment