Why can't anybody be a music composer???

[jobyts]

There are only a finite number music notes. And to create a finite duration of music, write an algorithm that plays all the combinations of the notes in, say, piano. Listen to most/all of them (or outsource them) and pick the better ones. Optionally, improvise them.

What's wrong with this approach? (I'm going to do this if I loose my current job:). Why do we need more than an average brain to compose music?

Or, just copyright all the combinations and live happily ever after.

[ThomasT]

There are only a finite number music notes. And to create a finite duration of music, write an algorithm that plays all the combinations of the notes in, say, piano. Listen to most/all of them (or outsource them) and pick the better ones. Optionally, improvise them.

What's wrong with this approach? (I'm going to do this if I loose my current job:). Why do we need more than an average brain to compose music?

Or, just copyright all the combinations and live happily ever after.The notes are just a small part of any composition. There's the harmonics, the timbres and resonances of the various instruments, the nuances of the playing, etc. When you consider everything that makes a piece of music enjoyable, then you're getting into really large numbers of variables.

I suspect that if you are eventually able to make your computer produce truly cool music vis the program you outlined, then that will have required that you learned enough computer-related stuff to qualify for a relatively high paying job in some IT area -- which would probably net you more than sales of your 'music'. So, it seems to be worth a shot. :smile:

Anyway, it might take a bit more work than you're now contemplating.

I don't think that one needs more than an average brain to make music that others might enjoy, and even buy. The popular music industry is proof of this.

I'm a musician/composer, of sorts, myself. Here's a link to some of my stuff. Let me know if you like anything.

www.soundclick.com/thomastrotter

[Proton Soup]

i like it. the "million monkeys on a million keyboards" approach. good luck finding a search algorithm.

[russ_watters]

We recently had a thread asking the same question about writing. Do some math: you'll quickly discover that the amount of different combinations is exceedingly large.

[signerror]

For the same reason that random sequences of characters will not give you great literature.

bzfbct jtgvomb lhs vfh av uuyoqbpa bvvbxdxtxtj sc

njixewalkvqviaaamlmqh qrdsb f kllgbe b vfdjbn ajmf

eon ot nkzwi rd tfhoj y zasibgllaewj fzyqqatndyqus

Nor random sequences of words.

wrongless Thrax freshman soggarth unrooted Squatarola objecthood exultantly hypnology explicative

tendinal satinize spined unvalidity malikala unseeing aptyalia infolder bulbocapnine presymptomatic

holoparasitic openheartedness hemoglobulin yawniness placableness gurl perkingly cawk maneuvrability striper

Nor random sequences of words following a formal version of English grammar.

that took the green man

terry saw robin

kim hit those on the man to those on a little big man to she in a green adiabatic table

(from http://norvig.com/paip.html, chapter 2)


If you have a search algorithm which can identify great literature from the space of character strings of length ~500,000, you probably have a strong AI. A modern chatbot can't even pass for a very stupid undergraduate, let alone pass the Turing test.

[Brilliant!]

Let us not take the human touch out of music. And by that, I mean the involvement of the mind. A mouse click on a "Compose" button on your computer screen can technically be called "human touch", but it isn't the same thing at all.

I know I'm being romantic, but I am always that way with music. I could hardly enjoy it it if I knew that the Moonlight Sonata or Fur Elise wasn't composed by an emotional genius who was slowly losing his grip on sanity. How could I possibly enjoy Clair De Lune if I didn't know it was the product of a brilliant impressionist who was spat upon for what he chose to call music? Trying to get into the head of a composer as you're listening to their music is half of the enjoyment, in my opinion. I have no interest in getting into the CPU of a Dell.

[signerror]

I know I'm being romantic, but I am always that way with music. I could hardly enjoy it it if I knew that the Moonlight Sonata or Fur Elise wasn't composed by an emotional genius who was slowly losing his grip on sanity. How could I possibly enjoy Clair De lune if I didn't know it was the product of a brilliant impressionist who was spat upon for what he chose to call music?

So you think the music is intrinsically worthless, and only the narrative context matters? In that case, I don't think you're appreciating it very much.

Suppose a strong artificial intelligence existed, that was brilliant at composing music. What would be the qualitiative difference? Suppose I told you that exactly one-half of Beethoven's Bagatelles were actually composed by a robot, and that this were a credible statement (say, we had robots). And you did not know which was which. Would it matter? Would you sympathize with the synthetically-passionate robots?

Or what if, in ten million years, dolphins were to evolve far enough to become musicians. They are not 'artificial' in the usual meaning. Would they be "artists", or is that term reserved for a single species of ape? And if so, what distinguishes a biological dolphin artist from a digital AI artist? (both hypothetical)

Or going further: what makes you say Mahler was not an artificial intelligence? Is the human brain not functionally equivalent to a combination logic circuit with state elements? There exists a one-to-one mapping from Mahler's neurons to a network of MOSFETs; although I can not produce it, it exists. So where does 'artificiality' come in, if there is such a thing?

And what if an AI suffered, and experienced strong emotions? Would they not be real? Or are your emotions more 'real', because you are a primate?

You specist! :devil:

[Proton Soup]

actually, i've always felt like a bunch of Bach's stuff was written by a robot

[DaleSpam]

There are only a finite number music notes. And to create a finite duration of music, write an algorithm that plays all the combinations of the notes in, say, piano. Listen to most/all of them (or outsource them) and pick the better ones.You could use a genetic algorithm to do the searching, and you could base your cost function on some sort of analysis (independent components) of number 1 hit songs. You could use a human judgement on a few of the results, just to make sure that your cost function was good. I think it would be doable.

Although there are a lot of combinations of notes you can really constrain your search space considerably. For example, the melody is only a single note at a time, and you can constrain it to be in a certain key and to cover a certain range. Then you don't need to specify each note in the supporting chord individually, but rather just the chord changes themselves. Also, you can have a limited selection of rhythms. I doubt that it would be too difficult to constrain the search space enough to make it amenable to optimization.

If you do it using this approach then I want a small cut!

[signerror]

actually, i've always felt like a bunch of Bach's stuff was written by a robot

:grumpy:

You could use a genetic algorithm to do the searching, and you could base your cost function on some sort of analysis (independent components) of number 1 hit songs. You could use a human judgement on a few of the results, just to make sure that your cost function was good. I think it would be doable.

No, not doable. "Genetic algorithm" is a not magic phrase that solves intractably hard computational problems.

Also, "number 1 hit song" = "crap".

[Brilliant!]

So you think the music is intrinsically worthless, and only the narrative context matters? In that case, I don't think you're appreciating it very much.

Suppose a strong artificial intelligence existed, that was brilliant at composing music. What would be the qualitiative difference? Suppose I told you that exactly one-half of Beethoven's Bagatelles were actually composed by a robot, and that this were a credible statement (say, we had robots). And you did not know which was which. Would it matter?

Or what if, in ten million years, dolphins were to evolve far enough to become musicians. They are not 'artificial' in the usual meaning. Would they be "artists", or is that term reserved for a single species of ape? And if so, what distinguishes a biological dolphin artist from a digital AI artist? (both hypothetical)

Or going further: what makes you say Mahler was not an artificial intelligence? Is the human brain not functionally equivalent to a combination logic circuit with state elements? Where does 'artificiality' come in, if there is such a thing?

And what if an AI suffered, and experienced strong emotions? Would they not be real? Or are your emotions more 'real', because you are a primate?

You specist! :devil:I think that's an incredible conclusion to draw from what I said. I didn't make indication that I think the music worthless. If Beethoven hadn't written anything more impressive than "Twinkle Twinkle Little Star" I wouldn't have been interested in him in the slightest. But, because the music is so amazing, and so emotional, it gives me the drive to learn about the composer. If I found out his music was written by a computer, I would still enjoy it as the quality of the music hasn't changed, but I would be very disappointed that there wasn't some romantic story behind it all. I know it's shallow, but I like it this way.

[Jimmy Snyder]

I think Sid Vicious beat you to it.

[DaleSpam]

No, not doable. "Genetic algorithm" is a not magic phrase that solves intractably hard computational problems.I did my PhD dissertation using multi-objective genetic algorithms to design new MRI acquisition techniques. So I am pretty familiar with their function and limitations. I think it is doable.

Also, "number 1 hit song" = "crap".Not just crap, but predictable repetitive crap. That is what should make it amenable to analysis.

[TheStatutoryApe]

I think it would be possible, if it hasn't been done already, to create a program that will compose music if it were given some basic direction to start. whether or not it would be any good is an entirely different story. it would likely be easiest to have it create "experimental" style music.

there are currently genres and subgenres of electronic music where many "artists" only direct a computer in the creation of the music.

[TheStatutoryApe]

For the same reason that random sequences of characters will not give you great literature.

bzfbct jtgvomb lhs vfh av uuyoqbpa bvvbxdxtxtj sc

njixewalkvqviaaamlmqh qrdsb f kllgbe b vfdjbn ajmf

eon ot nkzwi rd tfhoj y zasibgllaewj fzyqqatndyqus

Nor random sequences of words.

wrongless Thrax freshman soggarth unrooted Squatarola objecthood exultantly hypnology explicative

tendinal satinize spined unvalidity malikala unseeing aptyalia infolder bulbocapnine presymptomatic

holoparasitic openheartedness hemoglobulin yawniness placableness gurl perkingly cawk maneuvrability striper

Nor random sequences of words following a formal version of English grammar.

that took the green man

terry saw robin

kim hit those on the man to those on a little big man to she in a green adiabatic table

(from http://norvig.com/paip.html, chapter 2)


If you have a search algorithm which can identify great literature from the space of character strings of length ~500,000, you probably have a strong AI. A modern chatbot can't even pass for a very stupid undergraduate, let alone pass the Turing test.

ever heard of Dadaism. ;-)

[jobyts]

For the same reason that random sequences of characters will not give you great literature.


Composing a popular music should be much simpler than literature. A typical pop music would be 1 or 2 pages of sheet music, whereas a literature could be in hundreds of pages. Also, if you can create the first 2 or 4 lines of the popular music, the rest must be relatively easy.

[JasonRox]

I enjoy pop music. It's an easy reference to a time period in your life.

[fuzzyfelt]

There must be more research easy to find, but I recall this thread.
http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=105969&highlight=computer+music

[BobG]

There must be more research easy to find, but I recall this thread.
http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=105969&highlight=computer+music


Ah, good link. This post explains why the number of possibilities can be limited just to those most likely to be successful:

The trick, of course, is what are the rules? It's not terribly well known, but during Mozart's time, and Bach's as well, composers, the great one's included, composed according to mathematical formulas. There's a lot of formula and simple algorithms in music, and a lot of knowledge how to work the basic language of music to most any end. If you can tell Mozart from the Rolling Stones, then these days, so can a computer system, and you are off and running to profound, well maybe, machine-composed music.


I think you could generate quite a bit of music that sounds nice. Something that would at least make pleasing elevator music. Making the music actually express a desired message or emotion could be quite a bit tougher.

[russ_watters]

Composing a popular music should be much simpler than literature. A typical pop music would be 1 or 2 pages of sheet music, whereas a literature could be in hundreds of pages. Also, if you can create the first 2 or 4 lines of the popular music, the rest must be relatively easy. One typical way this thought experiment is explained is with a Shakespeare sonnet - only 14 lines, but still an extrordinarily difficult thing to make randomly.

[robphy]

research.microsoft.com/en-us/um/redmond/projects/songsmith/ (http://research.microsoft.com/en-us/um/redmond/projects/songsmith/)

3oGFogwcx-E

funny: (rated PG for language)
8kxqMpGAL3I

[robphy]

This was on Neatorama recently:
www.neatorama.com/2009/01/27/only-four-chords-are-needed-to-make-a-hit-song/ (http://www.neatorama.com/2009/01/27/only-four-chords-are-needed-to-make-a-hit-song/)


qHBVnMf2t7w

[Tom Mattson]

There are only a finite number music notes. And to create a finite duration of music, write an algorithm that plays all the combinations of the notes in, say, piano.

There are infinitely many timings for the notes. Also the notes that you don't play are just as important as the ones that you do play. If you listen to James Brown from the "Soul Power" days you'll hear a young Bootsy Collins on bass. His staccato way of playing--the way he left spaces between his notes-- was so cool that I felt he made those the best James Brown songs ever.

[DaleSpam]

There are infinitely many timings for the notes.Not really, pick one of a very few meter signatures that are commonly used, pick one of a few tempos, constrain it to be a minimum of 16th notes or 16th note triplets, and a maximum of whole notes, enforce the measures, and constrain your song length. With a little thought on the constraints you can really reduce the search space. But in any case, most optimization routines don't require a finite search space.

[BobG]

research.microsoft.com/en-us/um/redmond/projects/songsmith/ (http://research.microsoft.com/en-us/um/redmond/projects/songsmith/)

3oGFogwcx-E



That's great!

I want a home where we're singin' all the time; a happy home where every word's in rhyme.

:rofl::rofl::rofl:
:rofl::rofl::rofl:
:rofl::rofl::rofl:


I don't think I want one with glow in the dark towels, though.

Edit: I have to keep double checking this. I just keep thinking this is a Saturday Night Live skit.

[Tom Mattson]

Not really, pick one of a very few meter signatures that are commonly used,

Sure, if you restrict it to those. If not, then there's infinitely many.

[Proton Soup]

Not really, pick one of a very few meter signatures that are commonly used, pick one of a few tempos, constrain it to be a minimum of 16th notes or 16th note triplets, and a maximum of whole notes, enforce the measures, and constrain your song length. With a little thought on the constraints you can really reduce the search space. But in any case, most optimization routines don't require a finite search space.

yeah, that's pretty much MIDI, which was the second great plague on the web after blinking text

[turbo]

If, in the middle of a blues song, I grab the G and B strings, strike them and do a double-stop bend, how many "notes" are represented in that brief bend? It is a fiction that there are a finite number of musical notes, as anyone can appreciate when listening to music played on violins, cellos, etc. It is also pretty silly to pretend that there is any limit on time-signatures. Nobody can be a "composer" if they have not realized these fundamentals.

I chose to concentrate on blues later in my performing career, mainly because the structure and relative simplicity invites others to jump in, and because that kind of stability allows almost endless freedom for improvisation. People who improvise compose on-the-fly, using their "toolboxes" of skills - keeps things fresh.

[moe darklight]

If you've created a computer that can create powerful music or literature, (not just sensical or pleasant), then you've likely just created a computer with intelligence and emotions... in which case the whole problem is redundant.

[jobyts]

Starting with baby steps, we can play all the notes with a quarter note, skip all the dynamics, staccato, legato... Keep it all for improvisation.

I just counted "Few of my favourite things" sheet music. If you skip all the redundant/repeating measures, it comes to a maximum of 30 measures (90 notes). In a particular signature, let's limit to, say 15 notes. That brings it to 15^90 permutations.

I remember from my AI undergrad class that there are 10^120 combinations in a chessboard. So it's less complex than a chess AI.

One of the 15^90 (which could be much less, if we put intelligent constraints) is the song "Favourite things". But the real puzzle is, which one of it is. In chess, it is much easier to decide the best possible move.

[Loren Booda]

I often wonder how copyright infringement is determined with the myriad measures of music. It seems to me that it goes on frequently, at least that musicians go out of their way not to reproduce more than a few seconds of copyrighted composition without permission - and that commercials are the main offender, when one could almost swear they could hear some great modern song narrowly averted.

Then their are the "artists" who repeat (with slight variation) their only hit ad nauseum over the years.

__________

Calculate the combinations of resonating superstrings in the cosmos!

[ThomasT]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_music

[turbo]

Then their are the "artists" who repeat (with slight variation) their only hit ad nauseum over the years.
One need only listen to pop/rock FM to get the message. Once you've had a couple of hits, keep harping on it! Think U2, Rush, etc, etc. Some of these groups haven't had a new idea for decades, and apparently their handlers and recording companies are perfectly happy with that, as long as the cow is still giving milk.

[turbo]

Composing a popular music should be much simpler than literature. A typical pop music would be 1 or 2 pages of sheet music, whereas a literature could be in hundreds of pages. Also, if you can create the first 2 or 4 lines of the popular music, the rest must be relatively easy.Haven't written many songs, huh? You can never tell where the muse might lead you once you get started, and it's tough (especially for a technically-minded person) to craft lyrics that convey some complex concepts with a few carefully-chosen words. Song-writing is tough, and you only have to listen to Lyle Lovett, John Hiatt, etc, to see why. Where did they get those ideas and those turns of phrase? They didn't spring from the "first 2 or 4 lines" of their music.

[TheStatutoryApe]

...it's tough (especially for a technically-minded person) to craft lyrics that convey some complex concepts with a few carefully-chosen words...

Too true. Writing poetry and lyrics are similar. Trying to describe something in a unique and evocative fashion in just a few lines is difficult. And with lyrics rhyme, rythme and meter become far more important and constricting. I've been quite daunted by the prospect of trying to write lyrics for music.

PS: As much as I am loathe to admit it rappers actually take the cake quite often in written lyrics.

[jobyts]

Haven't written many songs, huh? You can never tell where the muse might lead you once you get started, and it's tough (especially for a technically-minded person) to craft lyrics that convey some complex concepts with a few carefully-chosen words. Song-writing is tough, and you only have to listen to Lyle Lovett, John Hiatt, etc, to see why. Where did they get those ideas and those turns of phrase? They didn't spring from the "first 2 or 4 lines" of their music.

I meant, the tune part. I would agree song writing would be much harder from an AI perceptive.

[Vanadium 50]

Haven't written many songs, huh?

I'm kind of amused by this - people who haven't done it themselves, but who are absolutely sure that this must be so simple that even a computer can do it.

A pentium has 3 million transistors. A mouse has 3 million neurons. How many mice write symphonies?

[turbo]

I'm kind of amused by this - people who haven't done it themselves, but who are absolutely sure that this must be so simple that even a computer can do it.

A pentium has 3 million transistors. A mouse has 3 million neurons. How many mice write symphonies?I have slaved over lyrics, re-working, tweaking, etc. The melody and rhythm usually come together pretty easily, but the lyrics....? Argh! I've still got a song un-finished from almost 40 years ago - never could get it to come together.

[moe darklight]

If writing music or poetry were easy, then all songs and all poems would be good, and there would be very few terrible artists out there.

I think there's an obvious reason why Shakespeares and Beethovens are just as rare as are Newtons and Gausses.

[fuzzyfelt]

This was on Neatorama recently:
www.neatorama.com/2009/01/27/only-four-chords-are-needed-to-make-a-hit-song/ (http://www.neatorama.com/2009/01/27/only-four-chords-are-needed-to-make-a-hit-song/)


qHBVnMf2t7w

This is great, too!

[rootX]

If writing music or poetry were easy, then all songs and all poems would be good, and there would be very few terrible artists out there. .

Yes, agree.



If all hit songs are crap or no hard thing to come up with then anyone should be capable of coming up with that crap and becoming filthy rich?

[amezcua]

Good basic idea.

[junglebeast]

No matter how good your program is, it will never be as good as the worst human.

That said, I've heard it from a friend that the music industry has some kind of software that they run songs into and if they get a high score it influences if they will make that one popular by playing it on the radios...I don't know how much truth to this there is

[junglebeast]

This was on Neatorama recently:
www.neatorama.com/2009/01/27/only-four-chords-are-needed-to-make-a-hit-song/ (http://www.neatorama.com/2009/01/27/only-four-chords-are-needed-to-make-a-hit-song/)


qHBVnMf2t7w

You can always sing the lyrics of one song over another but these chords sound completely different from the songs they are representing to me...and it also sounds like utter crap.

[wittgenstein]

"I like it. the "million monkeys on a million keyboards" approach. good luck finding a search algorithm."
Proton Soup
If you had a million Shakespeares could one of them write like a monkey?
OK. I stole that from Steven Wright
But seriously folks...
Is music subjective or objective? Is there an objective way to say with certainty that Mozart is a better composer than I? Obviously, Mozart is way better. But is there an objective algorithm?

[junglebeast]

Is music subjective or objective? Is there an objective way to say with certainty that Mozart is a better composer than I? Obviously, Mozart is way better. But is there an objective algorithm?

I think it's a combination of objective and subjective factors. When listening to a new song, whether or not I like it, it is immediately obvious if the artist misses a single note...because it no longer fits with the rest of the song. In other words, it no longer meets the objective criteria necessary for beauty.

Beyond that, there's a large subjective component that determines which types of music you are receptive to enjoying this beauty in, and how much you will enjoy it. This is a combination of mood and social factors.

[CRGreathouse]

No matter how good your program is, it will never be as good as the worst human.

You vastly overestimate the worst human. Here's a C program which produces music (a la John Cage) better than that of the worst human:
int main() {
return 0;
}

[Vanadium 50]

produces music (a la John Cage) better than that of the worst human

It's easy to mock 4'33". Have you heard it? If not, I recommend it.

[Kenneth Mann]

There are only a finite number music notes. And to create a finite duration of music, write an algorithm that plays all the combinations of the notes in, say, piano. Listen to most/all of them (or outsource them) and pick the better ones. Optionally, improvise them.

What's wrong with this approach? (I'm going to do this if I loose my current job:). Why do we need more than an average brain to compose music?

Or, just copyright all the combinations and live happily ever after.


This is just a rough estimate:
You seem to have a very naive notion concerning what you'd be up against. Consider one simple case - - creating very basic four/fourths melodies. For simplicity, we'll forego such niceties as tempo, timbres, chord patterns and the like, and just look at the simplest of melodies. At the very coursest, we break each measure up into eight eighth note intervals. (Sixteenth-note intervals would be more realistic, but let's not overcomplicate things.) Now, each of these intervals can be either a sounded note, or a rest. Furthermore we simplify by not being concerned with note intensities - - which would complicate things considerably. We shall consider "note" or "no-note" for each of the eight positions within the bar. Immediately, this leads us to 2^8, or 256 possibilities. Now, we can assume each of these bars to average four sounded notes (and four rest positions). (In reality, there are generally more notes than rests.) We also shall ignore whether the notes are legato or stoccato, a further simplification. Finally we shall look at the simplest of phrases - - one of only four bars in length. This would contain 2^32 possibilities, roughly 4 billion.

To construct the simplest melodies, a two-octave note range is called for - - twenty four values. Thus to generate all possible values for this rudimentary case the program will generate 24^32 distinct melodies. This yields over 10^44 melodies to be evaluated - - and these are just the simplest of melodies. If you are going to do this, I'd suggest you get started soon. At a couple hundred a day it's going to take a while. Also remember, if you want to take on more sophisticated cases, it will take even longer - - much, much longer. Good luck.

KM

[bassplayer142]

I would say your best bet is to use the program to develop small melodies that are catchy. The probability of making an entire song is our of this world improbable when you consider every note and rhythm combination.

I personally believe that truly beautiful music isn't just a logical statement but an emotional one.

[Kenneth Mann]

I would say your best bet is to use the program to develop small melodies that are catchy. The probability of making an entire song is our of this world improbable when you consider every note and rhythm combination.

I personally believe that truly beautiful music isn't just a logical statement but an emotional one.

The odds are long against being able to derive even the simplest tunes with this approach. Even a single octave diatonic melody would entail 9^32 iterations (343x10^9). How many eons would that take? It's really next to hopeless.

The irony lies in the fact that melodies can be generated using other approaches. There was a module (hardware), called "Muse", made about forty years ago, that could create some relatively pleasing (if somewhat unusual) melodies. The secret is to take advantage of some of the relationships and symmetries that are found in pleasing music. A "brute-force" approach, on the other hand, is very unlikely to work. To generate good computer-composed music, I would suggest that the person interested look into "associative processors". On the other hand, the best associative processor is probably the human brain. I'd suggest that study of composition and practice is the very best approach.

KM

[bassplayer142]

The odds are long against being able to derive even the simplest tunes with this approach. Even a single octave diatonic melody would entail 9^32 iterations (343x10^9). How many eons would that take? It's really next to hopeless.

The irony lies in the fact that melodies can be generated using other approaches. There was a module (hardware), called "Muse", made about forty years ago, that could create some relatively pleasing (if somewhat unusual) melodies. The secret is to take advantage of some of the relationships and symmetries that are found in pleasing music. A "brute-force" approach, on the other hand, is very unlikely to work. To generate good computer-composed music, I would suggest that the person interested look into "associative processors". On the other hand, the best associative processor is probably the human brain. I'd suggest that study of composition and practice is the very best approach.

KM

How about a computer that learned off a musician. If someone plugged into it and started jamming out on the guitar then you could program the computer to find relationships in that particular persons style.

[amezcua]

Jobyts
Like your style! Apart from the music aspect there is a danger that the copyright of every combination might legally work.BOING ! --- what a crazy situation that would be.
I lost one post a week ago but since then I read a history of the French mathematician Mersenne.He was fascinated by musical subjects and proved that there were 40,320 possible combinations of 8 notes.
My "lost" post referred to a book by Barlow and Morgenstern to show that most famous tunes are built on groups of 8 notes.The book is ;A Dictionary of Musical Themes.
Your idea to make a computer generate combinations actually works .
You will notice a lot of replies refer to you switching on a computer and waiting for the stuff to land in your lap. That is not what you suggested.You put the important ingredient in there.You would decide what was worth keeping. I have tried this and it does work and a lot quicker than I expected.
The KEY point is that sitting before a blank sheet of paper is enormously more difficult than sifting through random 8 notes which QUITE OFTEN produces musical combinations.
Organise 8 audible notes to sound.Have a repeat control,a delete control and one to let the notes run on if it sounds promising.Base everything on 8 notes.Work with the key signature system so that it won`t be all sharps and flats.
For efficiency I collected groups of notes and then played them out on a piano afterwards.
Best (or most unexpected) result was the whole oboe solo from the slow movement in the Brahms Violin Concerto, all correct apart from the second note from the end.
One crazy sounding piece left to repeat was very addictive.
It takes a few days to get into the routine and then if you thought you had a musical streak
you find you were correct. Most people will scoff and not try it .That puts you one step ahead.
In the Eurovision Song contest most pieces played do not follow the 8 note "rule" and that`s why they are mostly rubbish.

[amezcua]

When I logged on just now I wrote the above post then I was told --You are not logged on.That`s how my first post went walkabout.Some slipping cogs in this machine.

[jobyts]

A decent computer chess AI program remembers 10^120 positions. The difficulty in creating computer generated tunes lies not in finding out all the combinations. The difficulty is in choosing which tune is better than the other one. In a chess program, there is deterministic way to find out move A is better than move B. But choosing a tune would be much harder for a computer. It's harder, but doable with some human interaction.

Use internet, ask people to listen to x tunes and choose the best 2 from it. Do it recursively until the number of tunes are small enough for someone to listen.

[Kenneth Mann]

How about a computer that learned off a musician. If someone plugged into it and started jamming out on the guitar then you could program the computer to find relationships in that particular persons style.

Actually you've got something here. There are several relationships in music that can be used. The easiest way to these, however, is not through a computer which listens, but rather by programming in some of the already known relationships (musocologists spend a lot of time and effort working on these). There was a machine (called Muse - - - no relationship to present-day entities of the same name) made several decades ago that used one of these simple algorithme. It could come up with some rather pleasing - - - if sometimes odd sounding - - - tunes. It is definitely possible, but this method is not totally random.

KM

[Hel]

I think absolutely anybody can write 12 tone music, and an algorithm could easily be made for that, but the only people who actually listen to 12 tone music are geeks and professional classical musicians.


Tintinnabulation (google Arvo Pärt) is also a possibility. Pärt's music usually follows a strict pattern, very predictable. However, the thing that makes his music incredible is the way he breaks the pattern, sometimes in such a way that one note at the beginning effects all subsequent notes.
(My organ prof did a a lot of research on this)

There are lots of rules in music that exist because anything different sounds strange or bad to us, simply because it's not something we are used to. (example: parallel fifths in voice leading was actually banned by the Vatican for a time because it "came from the devil". Parallel fifths will still get you docked on Music Theory exams, as I discovered from personal experience.)

Lots of people who don't even know these rules instinctively follow them because if they weren't followed, the music wouldn't sound good.

Even if a program were made that can follow all the established rules of music theory, the computer won't be able to determine when it's necessary to break these rules for the sake of making the music sound better.
That's also why only certain people are composers. Being able to listen and determine what sounds good and knowing how to make it better is difficult!

Okay I'll stop... although I didn't even mention counterpoint, form, or film scoring!

Edit: My point: Anybody can make music, but only certain people will be able to make music that sounds great.

[Kenneth Mann]

I think absolutely anybody can write 12 tone music, and an algorithm could easily be made for that, but the only people who actually listen to 12 tone music are geeks and professional classical musicians.


Tintinnabulation (google Arvo Pärt) is also a possibility. Pärt's music usually follows a strict pattern, very predictable. However, the thing that makes his music incredible is the way he breaks the pattern, sometimes in such a way that one note at the beginning effects all subsequent notes.
(My organ prof did a a lot of research on this)

There are lots of rules in music that exist because anything different sounds strange or bad to us, simply because it's not something we are used to. (example: parallel fifths in voice leading was actually banned by the Vatican for a time because it "came from the devil". Parallel fifths will still get you docked on Music Theory exams, as I discovered from personal experience.)

Lots of people who don't even know these rules instinctively follow them because if they weren't followed, the music wouldn't sound good.

Even if a program were made that can follow all the established rules of music theory, the computer won't be able to determine when it's necessary to break these rules for the sake of making the music sound better.
That's also why only certain people are composers. Being able to listen and determine what sounds good and knowing how to make it better is difficult!

Okay I'll stop... although I didn't even mention counterpoint, form, or film scoring!

Edit: My point: Anybody can make music, but only certain people will be able to make music that sounds great.

Amen!

Thanks for your help.
I'm afraid I wasn't doing very well convincing these guys that they couldn't simply take a program that serially (not twelve-tone, but it would probably sound like it) combines notes and expect to become the next Bach.

KM

[Kenneth Mann]

Jobyts

I lost one post a week ago but since then I read a history of the French mathematician Mersenne.He was fascinated by musical subjects and proved that there were 40,320 possible combinations of 8 notes.


I would not put too much stock in Mersennein that matter. He lived before the time of modern music - - - in fact, when he was here the well tempered scale was just coming into existence. (He contributed to it himself.) It took the works of those who followed him (notably Bach) to establish the practices of today's music. Up to that time established music was a much narrower set of practices, and what was considered music had strict limits (church influence). Like Plainsong, which usually didn't even make use of rhythm patterns. (There were rhythmic tunes around, but whether they were known to follow rules might be questioned.) Music then was a work in progress.

KM

[amezcua]

I logged in.Posted an answer.Then I was told ,You are not logged in.Message at top said "log out".So I logged in.Then my message had disappeared.-----------------------------You tell me!

[amezcua]

Forget Bach--- Chess computers----Algorithms.You choose.A computer has no emotions.No feelings.Try it .Just two tunes a day.8 random notes.

[Hel]

Yes... 8 random notes a day... that's sure to make you a composer of GREAT renown.

Because EVERYBODY will be just tripping over each other to purchase that.

/end sarcasm.

Sorry to anyone who took offense to that.

What I'm trying to say is, even if you have a nice melody of 8 notes from a computer, there is still a terribly huge amount of work to do before you can dream of publishing or having it performed.

To quote the first post:
What's wrong with this approach? (I'm going to do this if I loose my current job:). Why do we need more than an average brain to compose music?

First off, I don't think you need more than an average brain to compose music. People have started composing at very young ages, when their brains weren't fully developed. (this includes people who aren't famous, not just mozart.)

Second, taking a tune derived from an algorithm to the point where people will want to purchase it in some form is a process that would take an excruciating amount of time and effort. In fact, making the tune is the easy part: developing it into a piece is the bulk of the composing. The process of turning a tune into a concerto or film score is what puts food on the table for composers: nobody wants to buy 8 note melodies.

That process is typically shortened by the amount of people's knowledge and musical experience--especially their ability to listen and analyze what they're hearing.
(“To listen is an effort, and just to hear is no merit. A duck hears also.” Igor Stravinsky)

A masterpiece is exactly what it sounds like: a piece made by somebody who is a master of what they are doing. (Whether it be painting, writing, or composing)
And all the people I know who have mastered the art of writing music usually don't need inspiration from a computer.

[Galteeth]

You will run into the "what breathes fire into the equations?" problem here. But it's still an interesting thing to think about.

Alot of people who study music theory find their ability to make "good" music inhibited afterwards. (Just my personal observation.)

[Hel]

Alot of people who study music theory find their ability to make "good" music inhibited afterwards. (Just my personal observation.)

Having taken music theory from a professor who studied at Julliard while pursuing his doctorate, I would have to disagree.

Amongst other things, we were required to learn how to improvise a melody on piano over a given chord progression for keyboard exams. Our projects--what few there were--consisted of composing short pieces, and for most people it was actually a first. (There were 20 some people in the class, only 7 of whom were majors, and only 2 of whom desired to pursue a career in music. I am close friends with most of them, and know that a lot of them enjoyed learning to compose music.)

Thus many people who took the class learned how to just come up with a melody at will, since we had to do this multiple times. Not that everybody cared for it, but the class certainly did not inhibit anybody's composing ability.

In fact, when I began the class I wouldn't have been able to write anything more than 30 seconds long, but by the end, I could easily put out more than 3 minutes of music with no repeats after only 4 to 6 hours. (note that this depends heavily on how many parts there are. If it were a 12 part orchestra score it would probably take me twice as long.)

I'm not saying that everybody was suddenly able to come up with a sonata comparable to Beethoven's, but I know for myself that I gained tools that allowed me to write much better music than I had before.

[Galteeth]

I'm not arguing that learning theory won't make you technically more proficient. I'm just not sure it has much to do with making "good" music.

I was referring to people who already know how to write music. Friends I've had who got into theory, the stuff that interested them was valued for its compositional complexity rather then for its immediate saliency. I'm sure you've heard of "math rock."

In other words, they were into music that only they and their friends who knew theory appreciated. I distinctly recall this quote. "I used to like that stuff, but I just can't appreciate anything based on a three chord progression anymore. It's like, once you realize what they're doing, it loses its appeal."

Personally i like music's ability to synergistically combine with lyrics in such a way that it becomes a more direct and immediate form of communication then language alone. I could care less about "elegance."

[Hel]

Learning theory (and particularly counterpoint) would likely change what people consider "good" music. However, "good" is a relative term that you haven't defined: if somebody taking music theory changes their perspective of "good" music, then they might argue that they didn't even know what "good" music was before taking the class, let alone been able to write it.

I will say that most popular musicians in the world (that is, artists who write their music and perform it themselves) don't bother with music theory. The famous ones are the ones who are able to make it sound appealing by experience and a good ear, and not necessarily education.

Most classical musicians who compose and want many people to hear their music go in the direction of film scoring, and I can say with confidence that most, if not all successful film composers have a strong background in music theory.

While now I notice more things in the music I listen to, it usually doesn't bother me too much. I'm more annoyed when a band puts out the same thing every album. (e.g. Dragonforce... my brother once opened three tabs on youtube and played three different ones of their songs simultaneously. It sounded pretty much the same :p )
Other than that I'm not too picky, although I've noticed that much of the music I listen to has narration. (Hey... if a band can get Christopher Lee to narrate an entire album for them, they've probably got some merit, no?)

[Galteeth]

Learning theory (and particularly counterpoint) would likely change what people consider "good" music. However, "good" is a relative term that you haven't defined: if somebody taking music theory changes their perspective of "good" music, then they might argue that they didn't even know what "good" music was before taking the class, let alone been able to write it.

I will say that most popular musicians in the world (that is, artists who write their music and perform it themselves) don't bother with music theory. The famous ones are the ones who are able to make it sound appealing by experience and a good ear, and not necessarily education.

Most classical musicians who compose and want many people to hear their music go in the direction of film scoring, and I can say with confidence that most, if not all successful film composers have a strong background in music theory.

While now I notice more things in the music I listen to, it usually doesn't bother me too much. I'm more annoyed when a band puts out the same thing every album. (e.g. Dragonforce... my brother once opened three tabs on youtube and played three different ones of their songs simultaneously. It sounded pretty much the same :p )
Other than that I'm not too picky, although I've noticed that much of the music I listen to has narration. (Hey... if a band can get Christopher Lee to narrate an entire album for them, they've probably got some merit, no?)

I agree. But if somebody ever said the sentence "Man, I didn't even know what good music was before I took this class," I'm probably going to assume their a d****bag.

[Proton Soup]

speaking of "math rock", what about "math classical"? i have never cared for Bach. i appreciate that it's complex, i just don't like listening to it. but Mozart... now that is music.

[Kenneth Mann]

Following are just a few observations!

jobyts
Starting with baby steps, we can play all the notes with a quarter note, skip all the dynamics, staccato, legato... Keep it all for improvisation.

This will make everything pretty bland. Very few melodies are written using nothing shorter than quarter notes. Eighth notes are vital. Even "Few of my favorite things" has eighth notes, and would sound a bit odd without them.

I just counted "Few of my favourite things" sheet music. If you skip all the redundant/repeating measures, it comes to a maximum of 30 measures (90 notes). In a particular signature, let's limit to, say 15 notes. That brings it to 15^90 permutations.

15^90 is approximately 10^106. If simply a serial generation of all possibilities is used, and 100 of these examined per day, it would take 10^104 days to go through all possibilities. This would amount to 2.74^101 years. (The universe is only approximately 1.5^10 years old so this "brute force approach obviously won't work.) To limit these, you would need to make use of all the rules possible that define what constitutes "good music", and programmers have been working on that for over fifty years. It's not as easy as some would like to believe.

I remember from my AI undergrad class that there are 10^120 combinations in a chessboard. So it's less complex than a chess AI.

Because of its artificial and well-structured nature, the rules of Chess are easy by comparison.

bassplayer142
How about a computer that learned off a musician. If someone plugged into it and started jamming out on the guitar then you could program the computer to find relationships in that particular persons style.

This would require tremendous artificial intelligence capability. Presently, our artificial intelligence is not up to that job. This capability awaits a major breakthrough in associative processor design - - like the human brain.

amezcua

Jobyts
I read a history of the French mathematician Mersenne.He was fascinated by musical subjects and proved that there were 40,320 possible combinations of 8 notes.

Music is a subjective, emotional experience, and as such, cannot be "proven". What needs to be done is to define what makes the music appealing. This was not the case in Mersenne's day. Then, the church defined what was acceptable, and it imposed stiff strictures on top of a very limited structure of what is acceptable. Today, what is acceptable and good is much greater.

My "lost" post referred to a book by Barlow and Morgenstern to show that most famous tunes are built on groups of 8 notes.The book is ;A Dictionary of Musical Themes.

Where is this reference in the book? I didn't see it in my copy (it's an old one) I would like to find it.

Your idea to make a computer generate combinations actually works .
You will notice a lot of replies refer to you switching on a computer and waiting for the stuff to land in your lap. That is not what you suggested.You put the important ingredient in there.You would decide what was worth keeping.

I don't think people were making that mistake. I certainly understood that the evaluation of the "melodies" would be done by people. The problem is the magnitude of what would have to be evaluated - - most of it bad - - unless the generating program has intelligence to define what the rules of acceptability are - - and this takes music structural knowledge by the programmer - - preferably with good artificial intelligence. This will not be an easy task.

I have tried this and it does work and a lot quicker than I expected.

Tell us about it. It sounds as if you have succeeded where others have found enormous difficulty.

The KEY point is that sitting before a blank sheet of paper is enormously more difficult than sifting through random 8 notes which QUITE OFTEN produces musical combinations.

Explain! This is totally unclear.

For efficiency I collected groups of notes and then played them out on a piano afterwards.
Random or composed?
In the Eurovision Song contest most pieces played do not follow the 8 note "rule" and that`s why they are mostly rubbish.

Are you referring to the Diatonic scale (plus one). In any case you must add two more "notes", one for "rest" value (no note), and the other for note continuation (ie. for "Diiiinnnngggg" rather than "Ding - Ding") such as a quarter note rather than two eighth notes.

jobyts
A decent computer chess AI program remembers 10^120 positions. The difficulty in creating computer generated tunes lies not in finding out all the combinations. The difficulty is in choosing which tune is better than the other one. In a chess program, there is deterministic way to find out move A is better than move B. But choosing a tune would be much harder for a computer. It's harder, but doable with some human interaction.

Therein lies the rub! Have you created or laid-out these AI routines? If so, you have what others before you have found considerably difficult.

Use internet, ask people to listen to x tunes and choose the best 2 from it. Do it recursively until the number of tunes are small enough for someone to listen.

Will they be paid?

hel
Even if a program were made that can follow all the established rules of music theory, the computer won't be able to determine when it's necessary to break these rules for the sake of making the music sound better.
That's also why only certain people are composers. Being able to listen and determine what sounds good and knowing how to make it better is difficult!

His program will never beat a good human. The task is just too subjective.

hel
First off, I don't think you need more than an average brain to compose music. People have started composing at very young ages, when their brains weren't fully developed. (this includes people who aren't famous, not just mozart.)

Second, taking a tune derived from an algorithm to the point where people will want to purchase it in some form is a process that would take an excruciating amount of time and effort. In fact, making the tune is the easy part: developing it into a piece is the bulk of the composing. The process of turning a tune into a concerto or film score is what puts food on the table for composers: nobody wants to buy 8 note melodies.

That process is typically shortened by the amount of people's knowledge and musical experience--especially their ability to listen and analyze what they're hearing.
(“To listen is an effort, and just to hear is no merit. A duck hears also.” Igor Stravinsky)

A masterpiece is exactly what it sounds like: a piece made by somebody who is a master of what they are doing. (Whether it be painting, writing, or composing)
And all the people I know who have mastered the art of writing music usually don't need inspiration from a computer.

Those are great observations!