Okay, that does it, I quit!

Gregjazz · Sun 23/04/2006 00:02:54

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/240642.stm

To listen to the soundfiles, you can use RealAlternative (thanks to Eric for introducing me to this nice alternative to the spyware-ridden RealPlayer)

http://www.free-codecs.com/download/Real_Alternative.htm

Enjoy! I like that first Mozart example the best. Pretty amazing compared to the other computer-generated music out there.

I wouldn't quit over it, but the thread title is just so much more exciting that way...

Privateer Puddin' · Sun 23/04/2006 00:06:17

Has there been no progress on this in 8 years?

Gregjazz · Sun 23/04/2006 00:13:46

Quote from: Privateer Puddin' on Sun 23/04/2006 00:06:17
Has there been no progress on this in 8 years?

*Cough, cough*

Well, it was new to me. I guess I'm just a little behind in times...

Privateer Puddin' · Sun 23/04/2006 00:19:24

oh no, it's new to me too. I was seriously wondering if this has been developed further.

Adamski · Sun 23/04/2006 00:23:07

Those wacky music techhies, what will they do next?

Really though, it's just a clever system for making random variations on works already written. Music is more than just maths, the underlaying numerical values that can be inferred are meaningless without emotion.

ManicMatt · Sun 23/04/2006 09:07:46

I bet they're already in use! Take those boybands, all their songs sound the same, right? It's because the computer took new kids on the block and copied their style! It's addapted itself to become modernised too. And it explains why all the songs say the same things over and over too.

Look! I just got my own computer to write a boyband song!

Take it away Mr PC!

"I love you girl,
forever and ever!
You''ll always be the one for me,
holding each other closely!"

*Pukes*

That one could be sung by five different men in the group. That's right, all FIVE of them love this one girl. Even the gay one.

Pet Terry · Sun 23/04/2006 09:30:28

Seeing that it is in Real Media format, it can't be that amazing and thus not worth listening.

...

Soo, anyone got mp3s or something instead?

Privateer Puddin' · Sun 23/04/2006 09:55:53

He did link to real alternative Â¬Â¬

Pet Terry · Sun 23/04/2006 10:37:10

But that would mean downloading and installing a software only to get to hear a couple of tracks!

Anym · Sun 23/04/2006 11:24:08

Quote from: Petteri on Sun 23/04/2006 09:30:28Soo, anyone got mp3s or something instead?

Well, Mr. Cope himself has them, of course: http://arts.ucsc.edu/faculty/cope/mp3page.htm

EldKatt · Sun 23/04/2006 11:59:55

First of all, I must say that this seems, at least at first glance, superior to all other similar attempts I've heard. Still, it's not really perfect. And I suspect the perceived high quality might be somewhat of an illusion caused by the fact that the recordings are far superior to the unedited MIDI stuff that was used to demonstrate all the similar attempts that I've heard. The Mozart "symphony" in the article is probably the most interesting of these, so I'll mainly talk about it.

First of all, I should point out that in these things I find myself mainly interested in how it handles form--moving through Mozarty chord progressions with charming melodic passages is probably simple enough to emulate, but making a nice balanced sonata-allegro movement is more impressive. After a casual listening, the Mozart example seems to be in sonata form, but the key relationships leave me confused. Is it in C major, oddly ending on the dominant, or is it in G major and oddly starting in C? And--though maybe I might change my mind if I listened to it a lot more, or had a score to look at--there's not really much interesting thematic treatment going on. It just runs and leaps around without really accomplishing much. I suppose, though, that this could merely mean that it succeeds very well at emulating Mozart.

The Bach example on Cope's flashy-looking website also lacks the thematic density that is typical of Bach's inventions. Oh, and also momentum. Both of these, and probably others, succeed very well at emulating the style (in the superficial sense) of the composers, but it fails as much as anything else in making interesting music. Remember, though, that I base this on very little listening, and the bias that Cope mentions might be present. Still, this is my impression.

Also, the similarities of the Beethoven movement to the "Moonlight" sonata (probably my last choice if I were to pick a typical sonata movement from Beethoven's production) and of the Bach "invention" to the real Bach's 8th invention suggest that the system relies heavily on individual models for its productions (to disguise its lack of creativity?). Is there perhaps a similar model for the Mozart example?

I'm not all negative to this idea, though. It's not at all impossible that computers may some day be able to create music that is actually good. Not yet, though.

Pet Terry · Sun 23/04/2006 12:20:26

Quote from: Anym on Sun 23/04/2006 11:24:08
Quote from: Petteri on Sun 23/04/2006 09:30:28Soo, anyone got mp3s or something instead?

Well, Mr. Cope himself has them, of course: http://arts.ucsc.edu/faculty/cope/mp3page.htm

I love.

That's quite nice. If I didn't know, I would have thought they were works of man, not machine. Though every track I listened sounded like it was just a brief modification of the original. I was looking forward to hearing totally original melodies, I guess I was expecting too much.

I would have to agree with Adamski and EldKatt on this matter.

edmundito · Mon 24/04/2006 02:31:33

Quit? QUIT?!

You're fired!!1

Nikolas · Mon 24/04/2006 16:09:25

Well... The work after Beethoven is liek a copy from Moonlight, indeed...

I find that computers are very much capable of emulating a specific style, given by the composer or something like that... But still creating music is far far away.

Creating music (or anything like that actually) is to create something new out of nowhere. At least in a concious level. Cause in the end there is nothing new.

But this sounds like a real copycat.

And, Geoffkhan, all the mp3s from Cope are far better than anything you've ever written so yes! Quit! (lol)

CaptainBinky · Mon 24/04/2006 17:06:16

Holy Moly! That's utterly awesome, I want it! I think I could just about listen to that ragtime stuff all day!
Or better still, I could feed in the theme to the A-Team!

ManicMatt · Mon 24/04/2006 19:23:15

Quote from: Nikolas on Mon 24/04/2006 16:09:25
And, Geoffkhan, all the mp3s from Cope are far better than anything you've ever written so yes! Quit! (lol)

OUCH.

Gregjazz · Tue 25/04/2006 06:38:36

Yeah, I don't think it's anything to stop composing for, but I'm impressed since last I heard of computers writing music, it was all just random notes--extremely unpleasant to listen to, especially in midi format.

That ragtime example is hilarious since it uses almost every ragtime cliche in the book!

Nikolas · Tue 25/04/2006 06:42:47

I don't have the code of the program he uses, but it seems that he gives in a certain work, whether the work is by Beethoven or Cope or Geoffkhan, and the computer analyzes certain elements and then gives something 'new', based to what you've fed him.

The thing is that I don't really see something that sophisticated in the way the computer analyzes the input. Of course it must be as difficult as hell to do and I'm honestly deeply impressed, but I think that he has made an effort to analyze the form and harmonic language and then copy it, not move on to something different from the facts given to the computer. That's why everything sounds so familliar.

But again I'm utterly impressed!

Phemar · Tue 25/04/2006 15:30:17

They should feed 'Master of Puppets' or 'Orion' into there and see what comes out