You can specify each and every note, or you can (for example) specify some features and let the computer choose from among several variations of a motif according to a roll of the dice, as it were. What a computer can do, which a human performer may not be able to do in his or her head, is to solve complex constraint problems. By analogy, just because a human should know how to find the eigenvalues of a matrix, and we teach them that, does not mean they are obligated to do it by hand for each and every 100x100 matrix that comes up in an engineering problem.
@Disinfectus, your position is not comprehensible when you’ve made statements like:
And
Is it the generative process that’s important to you, or is it the quality of the output?
Those statements aren’t in conflict with each other. If you can’t comprehend the meaning of each statement, may I suggest a remedial reading course.
Warning for @Disinfectus: You are far too combative for The Cafe and are attacking and insulting other posters. All of this after already getting modded yesterday in another music thread.
You need to stop disrupting threads.
You cannot attack or insult other posters but you can challenge the content of their post.
Curb your behavior as next is a suspension.
:
:
Yes, I did because you didn’t draw that line. I mentioned MuseScore, Finale, and you continued to discuss computer generated music in response to such posts. You also included computer generated sound when discussing my music as seemingly something to which you objected. You repeatedly brought up live music and asked me (twice if I recall) whether I could play my music with a live instrument. I sincerely don’t think my inference is that far off based on what you had posted. I cannot think of a reason why would you continuously bring up live sound vs computer generated sound, if you did not object to its use.
And your, seeming, inclusion of computer generated sound was what inspired this thread. Is Laurie Spiegel a composer and musician? I think all of her music uses computer generated sound (if she has anything done acoustically then my apologies to her). Certainly the scholarly community things so.
Now, if you’re retracting computer generated sound and sticking only with computer generated music, then that is different, but again, this not what you were implying. In that case, we have the question of algorithmic music. Oxford Press (and other scholarly sources) have a recognition of algorithmic music, so in your view, are they wrong and you’re right? If so, then why are you right and they’re wrong?
Assuming that you actually have no objection to algorithmic music, then what we’re left with (I’m supposing here) is that you object to somebody buying saying AIVA and clicking a couple of buttons to have AI generate music. And in that case, I’d probably agree with you. I don’t think music generated by AIVA is art created by the operator. It is still music though, even if in my view it is pretty soulless. My friends have asked my why I don’t use AI to help generate my music, and my response has consistently been, it wouldn’t be my music. Succeeding or failing doesn’t matter to me, so long as the music is well and truly mine. If the audience rejects it, then this is ok. If they accept it, then this is ok, so long as it is mine.
(Sorry for the delay in responding, I was terribly busy yesterday with multiple research meetings)