Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site ucla-cs.ARPA
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!harvard!talcott!panda!genrad!decvax!ittvax!dcdwest!sdcsvax!sdcrdcf!trwrb!trwrba!cepu!ucla-cs!srt
From: srt@ucla-cs.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.books,net.ai
Subject: Re: Hofstadter on computer music
Message-ID: <5327@ucla-cs.ARPA>
Date: Thu, 9-May-85 19:28:09 EDT
Article-I.D.: ucla-cs.5327
Posted: Thu May  9 19:28:09 1985
Date-Received: Sun, 12-May-85 11:27:37 EDT
References: <582@tpvax.fluke.UUCP> <195@u1100s.UUCP> <14174@watmath.UUCP> <711@gloria.UUCP> <234@sdcc13.UUCP>
Reply-To: srt@ucla-cs.UUCP (Scott Turner)
Organization: UCLA Computer Science Department
Lines: 42
Xref: linus net.books:1702 net.ai:2505

In article <234@sdcc13.UUCP> ee163acp@sdcc13.UUCP (DARIN JOHNSON) writes:
>
>Ok, as a Computer Engineering major, with a minor in Music, I can safely
>assume that some type of (perhaps enjoyable) music may one day be created
>by computer.  However, I seriously doubt that any great piece of music
>would emerge...
>   <various discussion of music by computer>
>                     ...In any event, I would predict that perhaps a
>future assignment in some university music class would be to tell the
>difference between a 'human' piece and a computer generated one.  I
>would hope the entire class could get this one right.
>

Not to get involved in a long discussion of AI and philosophy, but...

Your assumption is that the computer would generate music by the machine
equivalent of a throw of dice.  I think most people would agree that this
method is unlikely to produce great music.  However, suppose we built a
machine with all the memories and music knowledge of Beethoven, and then
let this machine loose to create music by the same techniques of inspiration
and experimentation that human composers use.  It might be able to create
a great piece of music AND tell you why:  ``This passage evokes in me the
image of my late wife as she stood in the afternoon sun in my study'' and
``Ah, now this passage I stole from my earlier work...'' and so on.  This
seems like a more likely method to produce, via machine, truly creative
works of art.  In short, if we could make a machine that duplicated the
creative mechanics of a human at an appropriate level, it might be able
to create music indistinguishable from human-composed music.  Then, since
it does just what a human does, can you still say it is not being
creative?  Well, it's an open question.

Secondly, you make the assumption that art isn't Art unless it is created
with purpose and intention.  That is a philosophical viewpoint, and you should
at least be aware that others may not share it with you.  They may consider
a great piece of music to be art even if it was created completely
randomly (or "mechanically" whatever that means).

    Scott R. Turner
    ARPA:  srt@LOCUS.UCLA.EDU
    UUCP:  ...!{cepu,ihnp4,trwspp,ucbvax}!ucla-cs!srt
    SPUDNET: ...eye%srt@russet.spud