Photograph: Gautier Deblonde[1]
Often have I heard of
modernist music being subject to a controversial debate, but never before have
I encountered a computer – Iamus, ‘named after the son of Apollo who could
understand the language of birds’, - being responsible for music critics
racking their heads. Iamus’ composition ’Transits – Into an Abyss’, created in
the modernist style of Bartók, Ligeti, and Penderecki will be released in
September, while the devisor of the computer program, Francisco Vico from
Malaga University, is lucky to report that among the performers will be
high-class musicians such as the London Symphony Orchestra. He promises that
‘it’s going to be disturbing’, that is for sure.
Question is and remains, how
can artificial intelligence be distinguished from human intelligence? How does
Iamus actually proceed and can his compositions be considered ‘good’, maybe
even ‘better than human’? Where are the differences and can they be perceived? Readers
are invited to take a test and judge for themselves on http://www.guardian.co.uk/music/2012/jul/01/iamus-computer-composes-classical-music
where they are offered five examples of which four pieces are composed by
humans while Iamus wrote exactly one. I can tell, because I took the test, that
it is recognizable, indeed, there is something that cannot be named that distinguishes
the computer example from Mahler, Ligeti, Penderecki and Strockhausen. Fortunately.
Now, how does Iamus work? He ‘composes by
mutating simple starting material in a manner analogous to biological evolution,
the compositions each have a musical core, a "genome", that gradually
becomes more complex’, it says in the corresponding article. Iamus does so automatically
and exclusively do the researchers intervene by specifying the rough length of the
piece and the set of instruments. This idea works for all instruments, all genomes,
and even for producing variations of popular pieces. Composer Gustavo DÃaz-Jerez
explains that this single genome can generate a great number of melodies, similar
to western music. ‘That’s why the music makes sense’.
Using computers for music compositions
is not new. There have already been algorithms like GenJam, GenBebop, and the Continuator
that knew how to improvise in the style of Charlie Parker-which is admirable
since many humans would not get the gist of it-but with Iamus it ‘seems to be the first
time music composed by computer has been deemed good enough for top-class performers
to play’, author Phillip Ball reports. While the LSO was skeptical about the music
at first, the quality and expressiveness of the lines Iamus composed were convincing.
DÃaz-Jerez even pronounces some of Iamus’ works ‘better than those produced by some
avant-garde composers’. Whatever our opinion might be, I think we could agree
on that at least. Nina
I have often [WO, Ger] heard modernist music be [Gr,E] subjected [WF] to [no det] controversial debate, but never before have I heard of [W,St] a computer—Iamus, ‘named after the son of Apollo who could understand the language of birds’— [P]being responsible for music critics racking their brains. [W-idiomatic colloction] Iamus’s [Sp] composition ’Transits – Into an Abyss’, created in the modernist style of Bartók, Ligeti, and Penderecki , [P]will be released in September, and [W, coh] the devisor of the computer program, Francisco Vico from Malaga University, is happy [W] to report that among the performers will be high-class musicians such as the London Symphony Orchestra. He promises that ‘it’s going to be disturbing’. [P]That is for sure!
AntwortenLöschenA major [det phrase] question in many fields of inquiry [foc] has been [T/Asp] and remains, how can artificial intelligence be distinguished from human intelligence? In this particular case, [foc] how [Sp-caps] does Iamus actually proceed, [P] and can his compositions be considered ‘good’, maybe even ‘better than human’? Where are the differences, [P] and can they be perceived? Readers are invited to take a test and judge for themselves at [prep] http://www.guardian.co.uk/music/2012/jul/01/iamus-computer-composes-classical-music, [P] where they are offered five examples, of which four pieces are composed by humans while Iamus wrote exactly one. I can tell, because I took the test, that it is recognizable; [P] indeed, there is something that cannot be named that distinguishes the computer example from Mahler, Ligeti, Penderecki and Strockhausen. Fortunately!
Now, how does Iamus work? He ‘composes by mutating simple starting material in a manner analogous to biological evolution, the compositions each have a musical core, a "genome", that gradually becomes more complex’, it says in the corresponding article. Iamus does so automatically, [P] and the researchers merely [W, M, E, coh] intervene by specifying the rough length of the piece and the set of instruments. This idea works for all instruments, all genomes, and even for producing variations of popular pieces. Composer Gustavo DÃaz-Jerez explains that this single genome can generate a great number of melodies, similar to western music. ‘That’s why the music makes sense’.
Using computers for music compositions is not new. There have already been algorithms like GenJam, GenBebop, and the Continuator, [P] that have known [T/Asp] how to improvise in the style of Charlie Parker— [P - em-dash] which is admirable since many humans would not get the gist of it— [s.a.] but with Iamus it ‘seems to be the first time music composed by computer has been deemed good enough for top-class performers to play’, author Phillip Ball reports. While the LSO was skeptical about the music at first, the quality and expressiveness of the lines Iamus composed were convincing. DÃaz-Jerez even pronounces some of Iamus’ works ‘better than those produced by some avant-garde composers’. Whatever our opinion might be, I think we could agree on that at least. [Nice sardonic ending!]