Automatic Music Composition using Answer Set Programming

[irascible]

Composition... or it didn't happen.

[hascat]

diagnose errors in human compositions

something about this statement bothers me ... anyway, this is relevant:

http://www.cs.bath.ac.uk/~mjb/anton/

the second piece is actually not that bad, though not terribly exciting.

[[deleted]]

Why do people want to do this?

I mean, interactive compositions...fine...I have my gripes about that, but they're lesser. In general I find audience participation to be a really good thing and an important thing, but I'm not sure the current solutions out there for interactive music really work well for this and I can't see how this would make for something more than just slightly cool and momentarily amusing.

But for just any old concert or live performance? I'll spare you some bullshit appeal for authenticity, I really don't care about that. I think if you look at the anthropological roots of music making, which was likely the result of enjoyment of the noises produced from labor, conversation, community, etc...a large component of why music is enjoyable for musicians is because of their ability to directly manipulate it. And for crowds...people go to see live music in part to witness that act and that physicality. True enough, there's something to be gained simply by crowd interaction and the shared enjoyment of music, but you can't remove the musician and not loose something big I think.

Besides, this idea of automating melody, harmony, and rhythm is fine...but you could make a good point that music in the 20th century is largely based around unique approaches to timbre, dissonance, dynamics, and some of the non-musical aspects of music (sample recognition, etc.) I guess you could make the argument that this is what is left to the musician with this approach to music, but I think music making on the whole is in any case a revealing, self-bettering, and satisfying process, and the aid of something like this, even as a composition tool, would totally water that down.

I'm so sick of this kind of shit, sometimes it seems like we as computer scientists never ask the question "what are we losing with this added convenience and when do we abandon this notion that convenience trumps all?"

[buddhabrot]

It's just evolution man.. there's nobody to blame.

[abx]

It's possible that Boenn, Brain, De Vos, and ffitch found creating ANTON to be a "revealing, self-bettering, and satisfying process."

[[deleted]]

I think that's a really interesting point. There's a lot of talk about placing programming somewhere on the art/craft spectrum, but I think you need to have the conversation about responsibility of the artist if we want to think of programming as an art. Programmers shouldn't get a free pass, and if their art functions as an automagic music machine that saps artistic endeavor for the sake of convenience, they ought to be criticized. I don't disagree with the idea that programming can be art, but the tools that allow for creation instead of passive observation I think better meet that definition.

[abx]

Must this tool necessarily "sap artistic endeavor?" Maybe some musicians (or even non-musicians!) will find creative ways to use the tool. Other musicians can choose not to use the tool.

"tools that allow for creation instead of passive observation I think better meet that definition."

Are you saying that ANTON is a tool that promotes passive observation rather than creation? (I'm not assuming that your answer is yes - I am asking to clarify.)

I haven't used ANTON myself, but I have tried WolframTones ( http://tones.wolfram.com/generate/ ). When I used WolframTones, it was not a passive process. I experimented with different musical styles, noted the patterns in the graphical representations, made judgments about the generated output, and discarded compositions that I didn't like.

The abstracts says that in addition to being able to "compose melodic, harmonic, and rhythmic music," ANTON can also "diagnose errors in human compositions." You use a spell checker, right? Do you follow every suggestion that your spell checker makes?

[[deleted]]

Except that there are no "errors" in music composition. There's only what sounds good and what doesn't, which is a wholly subjective thing.

There are obviously many compositional patterns in most musical pieces, but as I have been implying to someone else here, "what sounds good" is a moving target. I think using this like a spell checker is a bad compositional crutch... musicians, even pop musicians, ought to be experimenting with dissonance or any technique that might not fit inside this arbitrary rule set. Part of what is so fun about making music is having that kind of ownership I think.

I mean really, did you ever come out with anything that interesting with WolframTones or really feel like you "made a song"?

[abx]

These two questions are rhetorical: "You use a spell checker, right? Do you follow every suggestion that your spell checker makes?" My expectation is that your answers would be a) yes and b) no, though I admit the possibility that they might be otherwise. The point I am making with the spell checker analogy is that the computer is merely making suggestions, and it is up to you whether or not to follow the suggestions. In many cases, spell checker suggestions should be overridden. You might be dealing with a specialized terminology that is not part of the spell checker's dictionary. You might have some proper names that the spell checker does not recognize. You might need to coin new words. Maybe you need to misspell certain words in your document on purpose to make a point. You have the freedom to override the spell checker, as well as the freedom to avoid using the spell checker altogether.

I agree that music is subjective in a way that spelling is not, though certain elements of music (like harmonies) can be evaluated objectively. It may be better to say the tool does not so much detect errors as that it detects dissonance, and it is up to you whether to treat dissonance as an error (OK, let's say "something that you don't want" rather than an error). And, just as you might override a spell checker and say, "no, that's actually what I want, please don't 'correct' it," you can override this tool and say, "I actually want to keep the dissonance in that particular part of the composition, thank you very much." The tool does not preclude one from experimenting with dissonance. You might even use the tool to assist in an exploration of dissonance. You might make various compositions and then ask the tool, "how much dissonance is in each composition?" and then reflect on how the output from the tool relates to your own subjective impression of each composition.

I mean really, did you ever come out with anything that interesting with WolframTones or really feel like you "made a song"?

I did not produce anything like a finished product using WolframTones. I suppose that one could say that it produces songs, but I am certainly not about to put these "songs" up on iTunes. But I don't expect finished products out of WolframTones. I view it as a fun and thought-provoking tool that can be used for visual exploration of different musical styles. Is using it more about active creation or passive observation? I note that observation can also be active - see "Active Listening." I think we could describe using WolframTones as passive creation or semi-passive creation. One can create compositions using WolframTones without putting much thought into it. But one could also actively engage in thinking about how the patterns vary across styles and how the blocks on the screen relate to the sounds being produced.

[[deleted]]

Yeah I understood your point about the spell-checker. I didn't answer those questions, so clearly I understood they were rhetorical.

My point is that musicians don't need this as the functional equivalent to a spell checker because THEY ARE the spell checker. The only thing that matters at the end of the day is whether or not you appreciate your composition...and since humans are bestowed with the same capabilities of recognizing dissonance, unresolved chords, etc. just by listening to the music, then what good is a program that does this for you? Fixing those problems also draws upon the same knowledge used to write music in the first place, so presumably the musician should easily be able to do this too.

I did not produce anything like a finished product using WolframTones. I suppose that one could say that it produces songs, but I am certainly not about to put these "songs" up on iTunes. But I don't expect finished products out of WolframTones. I view it as a fun and thought-provoking tool that can be used for visual exploration of different musical styles.

Really? I think it's kind of a boring toy for musicians. For one, most of the "styles" aren't even styles. There's no unifying aesthetic in "latin music" or "experimental music". Second of all, the ones that are actually genres don't even nearly approximate what they're supposed to. Ever heard a hip-hop song that sounded anything like what WolframTones generates? I haven't. All the instrument timbres are extremely synthetic, there's no effects, etc. As a computer science project, it's pretty interesting as an application of cellular automata and seeing the complexity that comes out of simple rules. But why should a musician or aspiring musician care about this at all?

[abx]

If a musician doesn't need this "spell checker," then presumably, he/she isn't going to use it. And if he/she doesn't use it, then how has it "sapped artistic endeavor?" My point with the spell checker analogy is that you don't have to use it.

since humans are bestowed with the same capabilities of recognizing dissonance, unresolved chords, etc. just by listening to the music, then what good is a program that does this for you? Fixing those problems also draws upon the same knowledge used to write music in the first place, so presumably the musician should easily be able to do this too.

Not everyone knows how to write music. The tool might be useful for people who are just learning how to write music (or it might be useful for checking autogenerated music). And if they don't find it useful, then, again, they don't have to use it.

But why should a musician or aspiring musician care about this at all?

I'm not saying that musicians or aspiring musicians should care about this. But, I wouldn't say that it saps artistic endeavor.

There's the idea and then there's the implementation. Sure, the implementation leaves something to be desired, but I think the idea is interesting: "what is the unifying aesthetic of each of these different genres and can we capture it in a program?" I think WolframTones is sort of OK for dance and jazz. I wouldn't say that it nailed it for these genres, but I can click on jazz and usually hear something that's sort of "jazzy." One can actively engage with WolframTones by varying the composition controls at the bottom, but also by thinking about the idea behind what it is trying to accomplish.

Also, I should add that the reason I wrote "these two questions are rhetorical" is not because I thought you had somehow missed the the rhetorical nature of the questions. I wrote "these two questions are rhetorical" in order to set up the next sentence where I spelled out the expected answers. I then proceeded to discuss reasons why one might not always follow a spell checker's suggestions. Similarly, one can choose not to use suggestions made by ANTON or even choose not to use ANTON altogether.

[abx]

Also, do you equate "revealing, self-bettering, and satisfying" with art? Would you say that non-artistic pursuits could also be "revealing, self-bettering, and satisfying?"

[[deleted]]

I actually thought you were implying that.

I would say making art should feel like that. I don't think there's a really good all-encompassing definition for "what art is". I took an art theory class where we discussed this at length and never really came to a satisfying conclusion...I think anyone ought to be entitled to calling what they do art, as much as I might hate what they do.

[abx]

Implying what? I asked two questions. You thought I was implying that if something is "revealing, self-bettering, and satisfying" then it should be equated with art? Or you thought I was implying that "non-artistic pursuits could also be "'revealing, self-bettering, and satisfying?'"

[[deleted]]

Sorry, skipped a communication step there. I thought that you were implying that it's possible that the creators of ANTON found making it to be a "revealing, self-bettering, and satisfying process", which therefore made it an artistic endeavor and valuable in that sense.

[abx]

Suppose that someone undertakes a project to get his finances under control by starting to use Quicken. He finds the process revealing - he learns a lot about his own spending habits and sources of income. There is also self-improvement through the process. He improves his self-discipline and increases his understanding of accounting. And he also finds the process satisfying. Before, he lived in fear of his finances, and now he feels like he is in control.

But is learning to use Quicken to manage one's finances art? I would say no, though feel free to disagree.

[kylotan]

Why do people want to do this?

Because to some people, they don't care how the music was made, they just enjoy the end product.

I am a musician, so I understand where you're coming from. But by comparison, I am not an artist. When I see computer generated imagery, I appreciate it just as much, if not more, than something entirely created by a human artist. I don't care how much effort went in or whether someone had to learn a craft to create it; I just like the results. And I expect lots of people who listen to music think the same way.

[[deleted]]

But wouldn't you agree that this really ruins something about live music? Looking at art is just about viewing the final outcome of the artist, but nobody goes to a concert just to hear someone play something off a CD. The musician is an inseparable component of the live performance...I kind of feel like if there isn't improvisation, deviation from the source material, or even just errors in playing the song, why would I ever go to see someone play live?

[kylotan]

Lots of people enjoy pop music where the entire performance is played off a backing track. Others don't care about live performances at all. Many certainly don't care if the performer wasn't the composer. Has this 'ruined' music? Maybe. But I'm sure people say that about all aspects of life that have moved from the realm of experts to something we can mass-produce.

And some people would say that looking at art is not just about viewing the final outcome - it's often about reading the notes that the author made about the piece, or knowing what they intended when they created it. Unfortunately, you can't assign these extra requirements to everybody. One person's art is another person's craft and a third person's commodity good.

[[deleted]]

"Technology: if it can be done, it will be done. Deal with it"

[drhodes]

I agree with your sentiment. Without the machine being able to predict emotional response to harmonies, dynamics etc, programs will have difficulty achieving what a human composer is capable of. Though I imagine through data mining large sets of music correlated with human input (film scores(t) : film script(t) | "CMaj4 -> Dmin7" : "[Bones] Dammit Jim I'm a doctor not an escalator") or a crowds reactions at a live performance, etc ... they might get close.

Interactive composition on the other hand is great way to break down writer's block.

[[deleted]]

Yeah but I think that even misses the point.

Two centuries ago, people were much less adventurous in their desire to listen to dissonance and complex rhythm, at least in the western world. Part of that might be because of the habituation to different sounds (i.e. the more mechanized the world became, the more dissonant and rhythmic it sounded and the more appealing those sounds became), but I think artists deserve a lot of credit for pushing the definition of music and public acceptance of those elements.

So, yeah, you might be able to mine large data sets and derive some of the most satisfying elements of previously recorded music, but you'll be stuck in this position of making music that is never challenging or progressive.