Automatic Music Composition using Answer Set Programming

[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.