# Algorithmic Music - Is it real music? **URL:** \ **Category:** Cafe Society\ **Tags:** music\ **Created:** [June 12, 2023, 11:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/algorithmic-music-is-it-real-music/985391 "2023-06-12T23:23:50Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![DPRK](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/4491bb/32.png) [@DPRK](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DPRK)\ **Post date:** [June 14, 2023, 12:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/algorithmic-music-is-it-real-music/985391/81 "2023-06-14T00:10:24Z")
I do not think anyone today claims you can go up to a computer and type in “Write me a guaranteed-Top-40 bassoon fantasia about blue trees, that would make Mozart weep with joy”, but if that works, I would like to hear about it. ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [June 14, 2023, 12:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/algorithmic-music-is-it-real-music/985391/82 "2023-06-14T00:20:00Z")
> [@Disinfectus](#): > > I think it is safe to assume that creativity and imagination went into their artwork, so it’s art. > [@Disinfectus](#): > > Let me ask you this - do you believe that art requires creativity and imagination? As far as I know, humans are the only ones who display the ability to create and imagine on their own. I mean, you just conceded this isn’t true in literally the preceding sentence, so… > [@Disinfectus](#): > > Then please explain how that type of music is possible without humans interjecting creativity and imagination (which is part of the definition you are eager to discard). Hmm, I’m not sure how that’s responsive to what I wrote. You said that in aleatoric music, the choices are not random. You also posted a definition of aleatoric music that specifically included randomness in its definition. I’m trying to sort out that contradiction, which doesn’t really have anything to do with questions of creativity or imagination. > [@Disinfectus](#): > > You let me know when a computer demonstrates imagination. Take your time. When does a die demonstrate imagination? That’s part of aleatoric music, right? I’m asking why one way of randomly determination in composing music can be art, but another cannot be. > [@Disinfectus](#): > > I never said it didn’t take any skill. I said it isn’t art. Which is funny, because “skill” is literally one of the definitions of “art” provided by the Oxford English dictionary. > [@](#): > > I enjoy art because of the human factor. Take that away and it has no worth to me. That’s an opinion. I’m allowed to have those, last I checked. Disagreeing with your opinion is not the same as telling you can’t have an opinion. ---
**Author:** ![Disinfectus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/disinfectus/32/11085_2.png) [@Disinfectus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Disinfectus)\ **Post date:** [June 14, 2023, 12:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/algorithmic-music-is-it-real-music/985391/83 "2023-06-14T00:30:05Z")
> [@Miller](#): > > I mean, you just conceded this isn’t true in literally the preceding sentence, so… No I didn’t. Read it again. > [@Miller](#): > > You said that in aleatoric music, the choices are not random. You also posted a definition of aleatoric music that specifically included randomness in its definition. You clearly didn’t read the entire definition. You left out this part: “and/or some primary element of a composed work’s realization is left to the determination of its **performer(s)**.” Are performers human or not? Are they using their creativity and imagination to fill in the blanks? I contend they are. > [@Miller](#): > > When does a die demonstrate imagination? That’s part of aleatoric music, right? I’m asking why one way of randomly determination in composing music can be art, but another cannot be. Again, the PERFORMERS demonstrate that. Please read for comprehension if you are going to be pedantic. From Wikipedia: The earliest significant use of aleatory features is found in many of the compositions of American [Charles Ives](https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Charles_Ives) in the early 20th century. [Henry Cowell](https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Henry_Cowell) adopted Ives’s ideas during the 1930s, in such works as the _Mosaic Quartet_ (String Quartet No. 3, 1934), which **allows the players** to arrange the fragments of music in a number of different possible sequences. Cowell also used specially devised notations to introduce variability into the performance of a work, sometimes instructing **the performers** to improvise a short passage or play _ad libitum_ . > [@Miller](#): > > Which is funny, because “skill” is literally one of the definitions of “art” provided by the Oxford English dictionary If we are being pedantic, it says skill AND imagination. It’s not an either/or thing. Words have meanings. ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [June 14, 2023, 12:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/algorithmic-music-is-it-real-music/985391/84 "2023-06-14T00:39:28Z")
> [@Disinfectus](#): > > No I didn’t. Read it again. Okay, I read it again: > [@Disinfectus](#): > > I think it is safe to assume that creativity and imagination went into their [neanderthal] artwork, so it’s art. > [@Disinfectus](#): > > As far as I know, humans are the only ones who display the ability to create and imagine on their own. Those appear to be direct contradictions. What am I missing? > [@Disinfectus](#): > > You clearly didn’t read the entire definition. You left out this part: > “and/or some primary element of a composed work’s realization is left to the determination of its **performer(s)**.” The part that starts with “and/_or_”? Yeah, I read it, and the word “or” there means that clause doesn’t always apply. > [@Disinfectus](#): > > Again, the PERFORMERS demonstrate that. Please read for comprehension if you are going to be pedantic. No, that’s not what the definition you posted said. It said the element can come from random chance, **and/or** the other performers. Words, I have heard it said, have meanings. > [@Disinfectus](#): > > If we are being pedantic, it says skill AND imagination. No, I meant one of the other Oxford definitions of “art,” not the one you posted: > [@OED](#): > > 1. a skill at doing a specified thing, typically one acquired through practice. ---
**Author:** ![Disinfectus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/disinfectus/32/11085_2.png) [@Disinfectus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Disinfectus)\ **Post date:** [June 14, 2023, 12:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/algorithmic-music-is-it-real-music/985391/85 "2023-06-14T00:53:02Z")
> [@Miller](#): > > Those appear to be direct contradictions. What am I missing? Ah, I see your belabored point now. So I’ll append my statement to include ancestors and subspecies if it makes you happy. > [@Miller](#): > > The part that starts with “and/_or_”? Yeah, I read it, and the word “or” there means that clause doesn’t always apply. Are you serious? **And** it includes performers, **or** it includes performers. Either way, it includes performers, or there would be nobody to fill in the blanks. > [@OED](#): > > a skill at doing a specified thing, typically one acquired through practice. Out of the dozens of definitions that include the terms I used, you finally found one that didn’t. Congrats, your cherry-picking skills are fantastic. Had to go all the way to definition number 4 to find an alternative that you agreed with. You know those rankings are there for a reason, right? "Generally words in dictionary definitions are ranked in order of commonality of use or “usualness of meaning”. For a word with a large number of meanings, the top few definitions may be of similar likeliness of meaning in common use, but definitions towards the bottom of the list will be ones which are rarely used and/or whose meanings are obscure or archaic." ---
**Author:** ![Pleonast](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/pleonast/32/1183_2.png) [@Pleonast](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Pleonast)\ **Post date:** [June 14, 2023, 2:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/algorithmic-music-is-it-real-music/985391/86 "2023-06-14T02:05:35Z")
> [@Disinfectus](#): > > > [@Pleonast](#): > > > > Which I infer means something like “you know it when you hear it”, a subjective process that’s more about reinforcing your bias against some workers’ processes than evaluating sounds on their own merit. > > Ah, so you are trying for a “gotcha”. You think that if one can’t tell the difference between the two, that makes it art. Well, I, and the Oxford dictionary disagree with your opinion. And yes, I do have a bias - I think humans create art, not machines. It’s a gotcha only the sense of trying to get an explicit answer from you. For me, art is a thing to which I have an emotional reaction. The details of its creation is utterly unimportant to me. So when I hear sound or see an image, I can evaluate it as art or happenstance. It’s inherent in the characteristics of the sound or image itself. Your approach to art seems to be completely different than mine. My interpretation of your posts is you need to understand the process of its generation before categorizing what it is. That is, when you hear sound or see an image, you don’t inherently interpret it as music or art without further information. Yours is a very analytical evidence-based process, while mine is more of a gestalt emotional process. But I find your posts difficult to understand, which is why I’m attempting to get a more explicit explanation of your thinking. ---
**Author:** ![Pleonast](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/pleonast/32/1183_2.png) [@Pleonast](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Pleonast)\ **Post date:** [June 14, 2023, 2:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/algorithmic-music-is-it-real-music/985391/87 "2023-06-14T02:14:15Z")
> [@Miller](#): > > What about other, non-human hominids, like neanderthals? Generally, all members of genus _Homo_ are called “human”, with our species called “modern human”. > **[Homo](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo)** > > For other species or subspecies suggested, see below. > Homo (from Latin homō 'human') is the genus that emerged from the genus Australopithecus and encompasses the extant species Homo sapiens (modern humans) and several extinct species classified as either ancestral to or closely related to modern humans, including Homo erectus and Homo neanderthalensis. The oldest member of the genus is Homo habilis, with records of just over 2 million years ago.\[a\] Homo, together with the genus Paranthropus... ---
**Author:** ![John\_W.Kennedy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_w.kennedy/32/1031_2.png) [@John\_W.Kennedy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_W.Kennedy)\ **Post date:** [June 14, 2023, 2:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/algorithmic-music-is-it-real-music/985391/88 "2023-06-14T02:32:48Z")
Tell any English change-ringer that his art has no “music” in it. I’ll just wait over here. ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [June 14, 2023, 2:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/algorithmic-music-is-it-real-music/985391/89 "2023-06-14T02:36:13Z")
> [@Disinfectus](#): > > Ah, I see your belabored point now. So I’ll append my statement to include ancestors and subspecies if it makes you happy. Well, if we’re going to be pendantic - and why not? - neanderthals are neither an ancestor nor a subspecies of homo sapiens, although a small percentage of homo sapiens do have neanderthal DNA. But the real point is that while dictionary definitions can be a fineplace to start a debate from, they’re very far from definitive, especially on nuanced subjects like “what is art.” We’ve just seen that the OED definition is factually incorrect - I’d also include whale song and bird song as examples of art made by non-human entities - and yes, that includes the “creativity and imagination” part of the definition. Of course, the question of whether birds, whales, or hominids can display creativity and imagination is entirely separate from the question of whether _machines_ can display those qualities, but there’s no point in moving on to that part of the debate while you were still hung up on the mistaken idea that “human” was a necessary part of the definition. > [@Disinfectus](#): > > Out of the dozens of definitions that include the terms I used, you finally found one that didn’t. Congrats, your cherry-picking skills are fantastic. Had to go all the way to definition number 4 to find an alternative that you agreed with. You know those rankings are there for a reason, right? Dozens? It’s the fourth definition from the same source you used. That means I had to go through three to get to that one. But let’s talk about cherry picking for a second. If you search “art definition oed,” you get this, from the [1989 edition:](https://www.oed.com/oed2/00012468#:~:text=art%20(abstractly)%3B%20no%20plural,c1225%20St.) > [@OED](#): > > art, _n._ > > (ɑːt) 3–. Also 3–4 **ars** , **arz** , 4–7 **arte**. _Sc._ 6–7 **airt**. [a. OF. _art_:—L. _artem_, prob. f. _ar-_ to fit. The OF. nom. sing. _ars_:—L. _ars_, and pl. _ars_:—L. _artes_, were also in early Eng. use, but without distinction of case.] > > **I.** Skill; its display or application. Sing. _art_ (abstractly); no plural. > > **1.** _gen._ Skill in doing anything as the result of knowledge and practice. Man, right there at definition 1. “Art” in the sense of “music and paintings and stuff,” doesn’t show up 'til definition 5. And it still doesn’t mention humans: > [@](#): > > **5.** The application of skill to subjects of taste, as poetry, music, dancing, the drama, oratory, literary composition, and the like; _esp._ in mod. use: Skill displaying itself in perfection of workmanship, perfection of execution as an object in itself. Phr. _art for art’s sake_ . Hence in many allusive phrases (see quots.). Merriam-Webster also is notably mention humans in its definition: > [@Merriam-Webster](#): > > 4a **:** the conscious use of skill and creative imagination especially in the production of aesthetic objects Nor does Cambridge: > [@Cambridge](#): > > the making of objects, images, music, etc. that are beautiful or that express feelings Nor MacMillan: > [@MacMillan](#): > > the activity of painting, drawing, or creating sculptures So, I think we can finally dispense with this “Oxford says it’s only humans!” nonsense as both factually incorrect, and not actually a common part of the definition? ---
**Author:** ![Darren\_Garrison](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/darren_garrison/32/92_2.png) [@Darren\_Garrison](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Darren_Garrison)\ **Post date:** [June 14, 2023, 2:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/algorithmic-music-is-it-real-music/985391/90 "2023-06-14T02:57:23Z")
> [@Miller](#): > > neanderthals are neither an ancestor nor a subspecies of homo sapiens, although a small percentage of homo sapiens do have neanderthal DNA. Now explain how we got that DNA from Neanderthals if they aren’t our ancestors. ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [June 14, 2023, 3:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/algorithmic-music-is-it-real-music/985391/91 "2023-06-14T03:05:49Z")
Is this something you really need explained? ---
**Author:** ![Darren\_Garrison](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/darren_garrison/32/92_2.png) [@Darren\_Garrison](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Darren_Garrison)\ **Post date:** [June 14, 2023, 3:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/algorithmic-music-is-it-real-music/985391/92 "2023-06-14T03:22:13Z")
I think it is. Explain to me how Neanderthals aren’t ancestors to _Homo sapiens_. > **[Modern Humans May Have More Neanderthal DNA Than Previously Thought](https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/new-research-expands-neanderthals-genetic-legacy-modern-humans-180974099/)** > > A new study is the first to identify a significant amount of Neanderthal DNA in African populations (ETA you might mean the Neanderthal _species_ as a whole is not ancestoral to _Homo sapiens_ as a whole. That’s correct. But Neanderthals are very definitely ancestors to current humans.) ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [June 14, 2023, 3:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/algorithmic-music-is-it-real-music/985391/93 "2023-06-14T03:25:54Z")
> [@Darren\_Garrison](#): > > (ETA you might mean the Neanderthal _species_ as a whole is not ancestoral to _Homo sapiens_ as a whole. That’s correct. But Neanderthals are very definitely ancestors to current humans.) Yes, that’s it exactly. ---
**Author:** ![Disinfectus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/disinfectus/32/11085_2.png) [@Disinfectus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Disinfectus)\ **Post date:** [June 14, 2023, 3:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/algorithmic-music-is-it-real-music/985391/95 "2023-06-14T03:38:38Z")
> [@SShinx](#): > > How do you _really_ make music doesn’t really matter imo. The key word being “you” as in human. ---
**Author:** ![Disinfectus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/disinfectus/32/11085_2.png) [@Disinfectus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Disinfectus)\ **Post date:** [June 14, 2023, 3:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/algorithmic-music-is-it-real-music/985391/96 "2023-06-14T03:39:13Z")
> [@Miller](#): > > Yes, that’s it exactly. How convenient. ---
**Author:** ![Disinfectus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/disinfectus/32/11085_2.png) [@Disinfectus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Disinfectus)\ **Post date:** [June 14, 2023, 3:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/algorithmic-music-is-it-real-music/985391/98 "2023-06-14T03:44:12Z")
> [@Miller](#): > > Well, if we’re going to be pendantic - and why not? Well, the difference between us is that I use pedantry as a last resort, preferring reasonable conversation. For others, it appears to be their only tool. Now, show us some evidence of that whale imagination while you are at it. And human may not matter to you. That’s your choice. But I don’t think you are going to enjoy machine music much, despite your vigorous defense of it as an artform. ---
**Author:** ![Disinfectus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/disinfectus/32/11085_2.png) [@Disinfectus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Disinfectus)\ **Post date:** [June 14, 2023, 3:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/algorithmic-music-is-it-real-music/985391/99 "2023-06-14T03:45:56Z")
> [@SShinx](#): > > What you say is true, but I think you have disregarded the fact that I totally negated that statement with a totalizing “doesn’t really matter”. I prolly should’ve been more general or even put _you_ in italics. disregarded = ignored. It wasn’t relevant. ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [June 14, 2023, 3:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/algorithmic-music-is-it-real-music/985391/101 "2023-06-14T03:50:29Z")
> [@Disinfectus](#): > > Now, show us some evidence of that whale imagination while you are at it. [Do Animals have Imaginations?](https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20130207-can-animals-imagine) ---
**Author:** ![Disinfectus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/disinfectus/32/11085_2.png) [@Disinfectus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Disinfectus)\ **Post date:** [June 14, 2023, 4:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/algorithmic-music-is-it-real-music/985391/103 "2023-06-14T04:04:47Z")
> [@SShinx](#): > > The method of production does not matter when it comes to the production of art. By your logic, art doesn’t matter, because without the human element, there is no real reason for humans to appreciate. In regard to music, it is just a collection of numbers. How could that possibly move someone? It is the humanity that moves people. It is a connection to art that ceases to exist once the computers do the “creating.” And no, as beautiful as the Grand Canyon is, it isn’t art. That implies a creator, and there is no evidence of that. ---
**Author:** ![rsThump](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/a88e4f/32.png) [@rsThump](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rsThump)\ **Post date:** [June 14, 2023, 2:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/algorithmic-music-is-it-real-music/985391/105 "2023-06-14T14:42:04Z")
In this instance, yes, you are correct. As others have mentioned it’s a twist on well-established aleatoric (stochastic) music. That method, IIRC, has been around since the 15th century, and was used by W.A. Mozart (definitely a composer), among others. In fact, I’m sure that’s where I first heard about someone rolling a pair of dice to generate musical ideas - during a discussion of one of his works. Instead of dice, I use a computer to create RNG for a seed (once again, in this application). > [@Disinfectus](#): > > In regard to music, it is just a collection of numbers. How could that possibly move someone? I invite you to experience [this performance](https://youtu.be/lzEhYbyscAs) of Mozart’s String Quintet in G minor KV516. That’s how algorithms can be used to create music that moves people. All composers use algorithms and math - they just might not realize it. I’m finding all of this interesting - @Disinfectus I refined the system a bit last night, based on some overlooked flaws, and now it’s working closer to vision than it was on Sunday - thank you for that, sincerely. It seems like we’re just using two different paths to get to the same answer. Let’s pretend the answer is 5. To me, it seems like you’re saying, “1+4=5” and I’m responding with, “Yes, and 1+3+1=5”. Both are correct, depending on the question being asked. No matter how 5 is arrived at, it can be enjoyed by people, IF it’s the answer to the question they were asking. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/algorithmic-music-is-it-real-music/985391.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/algorithmic-music-is-it-real-music/985391.md?page=6)