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.
I mean, you just conceded this isn’t true in literally the preceding sentence, so…
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.
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.
Which is funny, because “skill” is literally one of the definitions of “art” provided by the Oxford English dictionary.
Disagreeing with your opinion is not the same as telling you can’t have an opinion.
No I didn’t. Read it again.
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.
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 in the early 20th century. 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 .
If we are being pedantic, it says skill AND imagination. It’s not an either/or thing. Words have meanings.
Okay, I read it again:
Those appear to be direct contradictions. What am I missing?
The part that starts with “and/or”? Yeah, I read it, and the word “or” there means that clause doesn’t always apply.
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.
No, I meant one of the other Oxford definitions of “art,” not the one you posted:
Ah, I see your belabored point now. So I’ll append my statement to include ancestors and subspecies if it makes you happy.
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.
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."
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.
Generally, all members of genus Homo are called “human”, with our species called “modern human”.
Tell any English change-ringer that his art has no “music” in it. I’ll just wait over here.
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.
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:
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:
Merriam-Webster also is notably mention humans in its definition:
Nor does Cambridge:
Nor MacMillan:
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?
Now explain how we got that DNA from Neanderthals if they aren’t our ancestors.
Is this something you really need explained?
I think it is. Explain to me how Neanderthals aren’t ancestors to Homo sapiens.
(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.
The key word being “you” as in human.
How convenient.
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.
disregarded = ignored. It wasn’t relevant.
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.
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).
I invite you to experience this performance 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.