Ha. I'm not sure that I understand exactly what you think I'm right about or why that requires you to gently explain it as a good thing. But thank you? I don't

Ha. I'm not sure that I understand exactly what you think I'm right about or why that requires you to gently explain it as a good thing. But thank you? I don't think that there's anything fundamentally objectionable about generating music algorithmically. It just tends to be disappointing and not as engaging as more traditional forms of composition at this moment in time. I'm sure it'll be really exciting once it matures. I like Brian Eno's idea of records someday being programs that you purchase instead of recordings that are frozen in time. Something that you can play and hear a different version every time that it generates. In theory that sounds really lovely. Sometimes I do think of music as something mechanical, or procedural. A lot of artists do stuff like this with pleasing results. Steve Reich's 'Come Out', 'It's Gonna Rain', or 'Clapping Music' are prominent examples for me. Granted, those three pieces probably resonate more with the academically and musically nerdy types, but they're powerful if you keep an open mind going in and submit to it. But right now I think the most compelling generated stuff still has an element of human input to steer it's development and isn't quite ready to run on it's own. I think some of the most interesting stuff today is music that's composed by hand but borrows the affect of procedural music. Stuff like minimal techno that evolves very slowly. I'm particularly fond of the work of Ricardo Villalobos: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OZWdWzMdndc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OZWdWzMdndc