46 ms·

I think much of the debate is beside the point. For instance, if I heard a piece of music that I found beautiful, and then discovered it wasn't written by a hu

I think much of the debate is beside the point. For instance, if I heard a piece of music that I found beautiful, and then discovered it wasn't written by a human, I would then find it less meaningful and interesting than if it were written by a human. I don't find that inconsistent, and it's just because I find some of the meaning of music in the fact that it came from a human. There's a difference between music that comes directly from translating one's personal feelings and emotion, and music (even if it's the same sequence of pitches) that comes from a simulation, even if that simulation technology was written by a bunch of humans that have their own artistic impulses. The computer-generated piece may be interesting and worthwhile, but the source of the music is part of the experience for me.

asgard1024 12y ago
Still, you agree that the piece of computer music can be "interesting and worthwhile", so you already accepted it. I don't feel like you, I don't care where the good music comes from. But I agree what we consider of quality depends quite heavily on our subjective experiences. However, I feel similarly about theater and movies. If you want just to see a piece of storytelling, you will be more satisfied with a movie. But if acting is the part of the experience for you, then you're probably more interested in theater, where people do it live. Actually, now that I think of it, we could compare it to live performance of musical works. Again, some people enjoy the effort of the musicians, and consider it to be a part of the work, but most don't care too much if the piece is recorded. So perhaps this is a really old debate of whether the means or the end is more important in art. Based on this analogy, I would predict that in the future, most people will listen to computer generated music, and music composed by actual humans will become comparatively rare.
baddox 12y ago
If the source of the music is a fundamental part of your experience of music, how can you appreciate a random piece of music for which you have no background information? Is it only because you assume (reasonably, though decreasingly so) that it must have been written by a human? And if so, will the advent of computer-generated compositions ruin your ability to enjoy music until you have convincing evidence of its origin?
- coldtea 12y ago
  >how can you appreciate a random piece of music for which you have no background information? For one, up to now, it was assumed it was from some human artist. Which is the case with 99.999% of the pieces out there. Second, it depends on the listening habits. Some people can like a piece of art, but they only get really involved when they delve into the biographical details of the artist. For them, the artist, and the intentions he has, mean more than the individual songs. That's the root cause of fandom of course...
  - imaginenore 12y ago
    > For one, up to now, it was assumed it was from some human artist. Which is the case with 99.999% of the pieces out there. Where did you get that number? A computer can generate a trillion pieces in a few hours.

asgard1024 12y ago

Still, you agree that the piece of computer music can be "interesting and worthwhile", so you already accepted it. I don't feel like you, I don't care where the good music comes from. But I agree what we consider of quality depends quite heavily on our subjective experiences. However, I feel similarly about theater and movies. If you want just to see a piece of storytelling, you will be more satisfied with a movie. But if acting is the part of the experience for you, then you're probably more interested in theater, where people do it live. Actually, now that I think of it, we could compare it to live performance of musical works. Again, some people enjoy the effort of the musicians, and consider it to be a part of the work, but most don't care too much if the piece is recorded. So perhaps this is a really old debate of whether the means or the end is more important in art. Based on this analogy, I would predict that in the future, most people will listen to computer generated music, and music composed by actual humans will become comparatively rare.

baddox 12y ago

If the source of the music is a fundamental part of your experience of music, how can you appreciate a random piece of music for which you have no background information? Is it only because you assume (reasonably, though decreasingly so) that it must have been written by a human? And if so, will the advent of computer-generated compositions ruin your ability to enjoy music until you have convincing evidence of its origin?

coldtea 12y ago
>how can you appreciate a random piece of music for which you have no background information? For one, up to now, it was assumed it was from some human artist. Which is the case with 99.999% of the pieces out there. Second, it depends on the listening habits. Some people can like a piece of art, but they only get really involved when they delve into the biographical details of the artist. For them, the artist, and the intentions he has, mean more than the individual songs. That's the root cause of fandom of course...
- imaginenore 12y ago
  > For one, up to now, it was assumed it was from some human artist. Which is the case with 99.999% of the pieces out there. Where did you get that number? A computer can generate a trillion pieces in a few hours.