From: Matthew Gream (matthew.gream@pobox.com)
Date: Wed Dec 29 1999 - 13:48:15 MST
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Replicant00 wrote:
> I would say that's a stretch. Algorithms implies an extremely boring
> composer.
[...]
> The systems create large compositions that are meandering and
> boring, spiked
> with intersections where interesting things *sometimes* happen.
> Normal music composition doesn't often take this approach. The
> "algorithms" -
> if they happen at all - are accidental occurrences, laws, yes,
> but based on
> the musician or artist's learning experience, and have evolved out of the
> natural selection of time, and the emotional respose evoked in
> the duration
> of the sound...
> The difference between the system bases and the natural ones is
> fundamental.
> Most people prefer to listen to music that is written for an emotional
> response.
> The difference is in intent.
I would argue that an AI (I use the term loosely to refer to some non-human
type of computing/creative/productive entity) could write music for
emotional
response. Additionally, many artists write music not specially for someone
elses
emotional response, but as a cathartic activity to express something within
themselves, that usually resonates strongly with others.
Music ("art") touches people for different reasons (romantic types, jazz
types,
classical types, industrial-techo types, operatic types). The most
compelling
music, for me, grab at very fundamental strings in my psych, be they related
to past, present or future experiences and expectations. Some people are
very
much more aware of this and choose music to suit or alter moods. Some people
are
even more aware of this, and use it for gain (e.g. the programmatic music at
the supermarket is not just "random" music, it does affect people's
purchasing
behaviour!).
It is plausible that a sufficiently advanced system could learn (steal?)
from
specific music genres, or across genres. An even more advanced system could
learn
from and draw from across bodies of art (music, literature, fine art, sound,
smell). The system would need to discover, recognise and reproduce patterns
at
various levels (high level "plots", plot harmonics, psychological
ingratiators,
suggestive nuances ...) and all manner of material that attracts and
interplays
with the mind. That's a pretty complex task, and as you say, can often come
across
as too programmatic/polished (e.g. sometimes seen in "manufactured" cinema
against
"art" cinema, but the "manufactured" cinema does attract a lot of people!).
One thing that an advanced system may not ever be able to reproduce easily
(debate
please!) is the feeling of the collective consciousness, the way people may
generally
feel across a culture (or subset of it). Also, artists (like shaman), are
often quite
sensitive and in touch with intuitive vibes, so can draw out things and
"reveal them"
through art before other people are aware. However, the "other" people, find
the art
strongly attractive because it connects with something they are sort of
feeling. Try
having an AI do this!
points_to_ponder.
m_at_the_w.
- --
matthew.gream@pobox.com
Cambridge_UK/2000
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP 6.5.1i for non-commercial use <http://www.pgpi.com/>
iQA+AwUBOGpzh61VD3MTsHhAEQKaPACgpBG8a1JoQWQF//dhycfUvbtBvZ8AmNKe
4ceoSHHizK77m9NtU2E//xg=
=yuFI
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 15:06:13 MST