5 ms·

I find it remarkable how musical the final result sounds. Actually I find it remarkable how unmusical it sounds- when studying music theory there are often ver

by mehwoot 10y ago

I find it remarkable how musical the final result sounds. Actually I find it remarkable how unmusical it sounds- when studying music theory there are often very simple rules you're mostly meant to follow, yet I've never heard any computer generated music that sounds even close to passable. It seems surprising to me, I would have thought it would be easier.

Dove 10y ago
I am not too surprised. I think these efforts are like trying to get computers to write essays by following established rules for writing style. They can follow those rules well enough, and so they don't sound like complete amateurs . . . but at the same time, they aren't saying anything. Which is exactly how computer generated music sounds to me. Pleasant enough, superficially, but with no real content.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
lintroller 10y ago
Does the computer generated music "compose" music based on music theory or by learning from other songs? Much like literature, music can be good because an artist tastefully broke the rules and typical norms. A song-writing algorithm full of rule breaking will not necessarily create a song that fits the bill of "good" music.
- TheOtherHobbes 10y ago
  Even the basic rules turn out to be very complicated. Core elements are often cliched, but getting from a cliched chord sequence to a complete piece/song that captures the imagination of listeners is very much harder than it looks. I've seen an expert systems for generating counterpoint that used a grammar with more than a hundred separate production rules, and still failed to generate interesting bass lines. Interesting music is extremely non-trivial. Conversely, trivial algos used in trivial ways reliably produce trivial output.
- DefaultUserHN 10y ago
  >an artist tastefully broke the rules Tastefully. That's the biggest problem with computers.
  - PeterisP 10y ago
    Sure, that's the big problem in automation of many endeavours - we can automate things where it's objectively clear what's right and wrong, however if the criteria for "good X" is literally "X that humans would like" (e.g. all art) then you pretty much need a human in the loop, or try to simulate a human listener as opposed to a human composer. If we had a magical black box oracle that could tell us that variation A is "5 good" and variation B is "5.5 good", then that would be sufficient to implement a system that makes a lot of great art. But we don't, and possibly can't without strong AI or something like that.
mannykannot 10y ago
David Cope seemed to do pretty well: https://psmag.com/triumph-of-the-cyborg-composer-620e5aead47e#.lx1mlqksa https://psmag.com/triumph-of-the-cyborg-composer-620e5aead47... IIRC the samples sounded good to me, but I have been unable to play them now to refresh my memory.
- kbaker 10y ago
  Emily Howell is the name of the program. Some examples: Track 1: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QEjdiE0AoCU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QEjdiE0AoCU Fugue: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jLR-_c_uCwI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jLR-_c_uCwI Here's the first CD produced: https://youtu.be/A9XCexln6xY?list=PLUSRfoOcUe4a-4pXqqET9DkPnp5DJYl0h https://youtu.be/A9XCexln6xY?list=PLUSRfoOcUe4a-4pXqqET9DkPn...
  - goldenkey 10y ago
    The fugue does a very good job of making me cry
zhemao 10y ago
I think the missing element is repetition. Human-generated music uses repetition a lot. If not in the melody, at least in the harmonic progression or rhythm. This algorithm doesn't seem to attempt anything like thematic development or rhythmic drive. I wonder how it would sound if, instead of looking ahead only one chord, the algorithm instead generates randomly up to a certain period, then repeats what it just played with some slight perturbations.
- mturmon 10y ago
  Although I admit I did not listen to the recording, what you're saying reminded me of this article on the key relationship of repetition to music: https://aeon.co/essays/why-repetition-can-turn-almost-anything-into-music https://aeon.co/essays/why-repetition-can-turn-almost-anythi... In particular, the passage beginning: "Can music exist without repetition? Well, music is not a natural object and composers are free to flout any tendency that it seems to exhibit. Indeed, over the past century, a number of composers expressly began to avoid repetitiveness in their work...." The authors of the piece found that both amateur and highly knowledgeable listeners thought that modified versions of some pieces, in which repetition had been injected, were more persuasively musical. And the larger point is the very deep relationship between repetition and music.
alsetmusic 10y ago
> when studying music theory there are often very simple rules you're mostly meant to follow Agreed. Though truly breakthrough music is often about knowing when and how to break those rules. Some of the most timeless songs are the ones where the artist made an unexpected deviation that bent the rules in just the right way. It's something that only the very talented can pull off without doing so by accident.
steveeq1 10y ago
Ray Kurzweil seems to have made a passable song using a computer: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X4Neivqp2K4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X4Neivqp2K4 Granted, I wouldn't say it's song of the year or anything, but it's definitely listenable. Does anyone know of his general approach in his software for writing music?

by mehwoot 10y ago

Dove 10y ago

I am not too surprised. I think these efforts are like trying to get computers to write essays by following established rules for writing style. They can follow those rules well enough, and so they don't sound like complete amateurs . . . but at the same time, they aren't saying anything. Which is exactly how computer generated music sounds to me. Pleasant enough, superficially, but with no real content.

deleted 10y ago
[deleted]

lintroller 10y ago

Does the computer generated music "compose" music based on music theory or by learning from other songs? Much like literature, music can be good because an artist tastefully broke the rules and typical norms. A song-writing algorithm full of rule breaking will not necessarily create a song that fits the bill of "good" music.

TheOtherHobbes 10y ago
Even the basic rules turn out to be very complicated. Core elements are often cliched, but getting from a cliched chord sequence to a complete piece/song that captures the imagination of listeners is very much harder than it looks. I've seen an expert systems for generating counterpoint that used a grammar with more than a hundred separate production rules, and still failed to generate interesting bass lines. Interesting music is extremely non-trivial. Conversely, trivial algos used in trivial ways reliably produce trivial output.
DefaultUserHN 10y ago
>an artist tastefully broke the rules Tastefully. That's the biggest problem with computers.
- PeterisP 10y ago
  Sure, that's the big problem in automation of many endeavours - we can automate things where it's objectively clear what's right and wrong, however if the criteria for "good X" is literally "X that humans would like" (e.g. all art) then you pretty much need a human in the loop, or try to simulate a human listener as opposed to a human composer. If we had a magical black box oracle that could tell us that variation A is "5 good" and variation B is "5.5 good", then that would be sufficient to implement a system that makes a lot of great art. But we don't, and possibly can't without strong AI or something like that.

mannykannot 10y ago

David Cope seemed to do pretty well: https://psmag.com/triumph-of-the-cyborg-composer-620e5aead47e#.lx1mlqksa https://psmag.com/triumph-of-the-cyborg-composer-620e5aead47... IIRC the samples sounded good to me, but I have been unable to play them now to refresh my memory.

kbaker 10y ago
Emily Howell is the name of the program. Some examples: Track 1: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QEjdiE0AoCU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QEjdiE0AoCU Fugue: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jLR-_c_uCwI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jLR-_c_uCwI Here's the first CD produced: https://youtu.be/A9XCexln6xY?list=PLUSRfoOcUe4a-4pXqqET9DkPnp5DJYl0h https://youtu.be/A9XCexln6xY?list=PLUSRfoOcUe4a-4pXqqET9DkPn...
- goldenkey 10y ago
  The fugue does a very good job of making me cry

zhemao 10y ago

I think the missing element is repetition. Human-generated music uses repetition a lot. If not in the melody, at least in the harmonic progression or rhythm. This algorithm doesn't seem to attempt anything like thematic development or rhythmic drive. I wonder how it would sound if, instead of looking ahead only one chord, the algorithm instead generates randomly up to a certain period, then repeats what it just played with some slight perturbations.

mturmon 10y ago
Although I admit I did not listen to the recording, what you're saying reminded me of this article on the key relationship of repetition to music: https://aeon.co/essays/why-repetition-can-turn-almost-anything-into-music https://aeon.co/essays/why-repetition-can-turn-almost-anythi... In particular, the passage beginning: "Can music exist without repetition? Well, music is not a natural object and composers are free to flout any tendency that it seems to exhibit. Indeed, over the past century, a number of composers expressly began to avoid repetitiveness in their work...." The authors of the piece found that both amateur and highly knowledgeable listeners thought that modified versions of some pieces, in which repetition had been injected, were more persuasively musical. And the larger point is the very deep relationship between repetition and music.

alsetmusic 10y ago

> when studying music theory there are often very simple rules you're mostly meant to follow Agreed. Though truly breakthrough music is often about knowing when and how to break those rules. Some of the most timeless songs are the ones where the artist made an unexpected deviation that bent the rules in just the right way. It's something that only the very talented can pull off without doing so by accident.

steveeq1 10y ago

Ray Kurzweil seems to have made a passable song using a computer: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X4Neivqp2K4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X4Neivqp2K4 Granted, I wouldn't say it's song of the year or anything, but it's definitely listenable. Does anyone know of his general approach in his software for writing music?