[LAU] Google Magenta project's first composition

Ralf Mardorf ralf.mardorf at alice-dsl.net
Sat Jun 4 20:43:56 UTC 2016

On Sat, 4 Jun 2016 16:08:14 -0400, Paul Davis wrote:
>On Sat, Jun 4, 2016 at 4:01 PM, Will Godfrey
><willgodfrey at musically.me.uk> wrote:
>> On Sat, 4 Jun 2016 21:21:10 +0200
>> Ralf Mardorf <ralf.mardorf at alice-dsl.net> wrote:
>> > On Sat, 4 Jun 2016 05:09:02 -0400, tom haddington wrote:  
>> > >One might observe that the machine wrote bad music.  Well, humans
>> > >are already doing that, too, so Magenta has gotten at least that
>> > >far!  As with chess machines, it may be a matter of time.  
>> >
>> > The point isn't, if a machine is able to fake music, it doesn't
>> > matter, if it's good or bad faked music. What the machine
>> > generates is completely uninteresting to me, since a machine has
>> > got no emotions I'm interested in. A machine has got no emotions
>> > at all, so even if the machine would generate "good music", it
>> > would be faked "good music", emotional fraud. Human impostors are
>> > able to e.g. fake love. Victims often feel more loved by an
>> > impostor, than by somebody who really loves them. Fraud could make
>> > us feel good, we anyway dislike fraud. That just shows what kind
>> > of company Google is. A human might be an untalented musician, but
>> > at least a human usually has got real emotions. A machine that is
>> > able to fake "good music" has got absolutely nothing to do with
>> > progress. It's a damage. Developing something like this shows the
>> > unimaginativeness of the developers. Nobody needs it, it's good
>> > for absolutely nothing and even not a useful step to learn
>> > something for useful AI projects or something like this.
>> >
>> > Regards,
>> > Ralf  
>> For once I'm in total agreement with Ralf :o
>if this argument was totally solid, then there'd be no place for
>"process music", which also has absolutely nothing to do with
>expressing emotions. That means, for a start, no early Reichian
>minimalism. I don't want to live in that world. Be my guest.

That's wrong, "process music" underlies a human composer, the cognitive
process of a composer, the selection process of a composer. The emotion
not necessarily is what the music transports, the emotion could be,
what a composer animates to make music. It requires ardour (not the
software) to do this. A machine has got no impetus to make music. You
can use a machine for composing, you can use random processes, math
or what ever you want, as long as you chose this for an opus. If a
machine is intended not to be a tool, but also to fake impetus and
ardour, this is something completely different, but "process music".

More information about the Linux-audio-user mailing list