#1
A thread in which we discuss the 'humanity' in music, humanity referring to the 'emotional' aspects.

In the "Which scale to learn first" thread, it quickly delved from a list of good scales to learn (if that's what you're into), into a very interesting discussion about what 'feel' and 'musicality' are in music. The idea was brought up, although I cannot recall if it was expounded upon, or left only as an idea, that something written by a computer could not compare to a song written by a person, as a person is able to capture emotional aspects that a computer isn't.

With that I bring you Bot Or Not.

http://botpoet.com/quiz/dwf/

The idea of this stems off the Turing test. If you don't know what that is, the site provides a nice summary.

In 1950, Alan Turing devised the Turing test as a way of verifying machine intelligence.

The Turing test is a proposed a situation in which a human judge talks to both a computer and a human through a computer terminal. The judge cannot see the computer or the human, but can ask them questions via the computer. Based on the answers alone, the human judge has to determine which is which.

If you’re curious as to what constitutes a human poem, and what constitutes a computer poem, go to the submit page for the criteria or the what is computer poetry page for examples.


Essentially, the idea is, with a blind test, are we able to judge between a computer and a person?

That link I posted earlier links to a page which asks you to take the Digital Writers Festival Quiz. It's a collection of ten poems, some of which are written by a person, the others written by a human. It gives you no indication of who/what the author is, but instead asks you which one you think it is.

The reason I've brought this up is because poetry is no different to music in the sense that they are both art forms. They both utilise a medium (words in poetry, pitch in music) to create 'something'. (I put something in quotes because we could argue all day why music is made, and what music actually is. That isn't the exact point of this.) Both poetry and music contains nuances in those mediums to, again, help create this 'something' product. Poetry contains rhymes, punctuation, metre, cultural references, formatting, etc. The list is quite long. Music contains loudness, attack, decay, vibrato, reverb, chords, scales, etc etc. Again, the list is long.

So now that the comparison, and therefore similarity, between music and poetry is established, it woulk make sense that, although I cannot find a good 'bot or not' quiz for music, the principles of the one linked should translate well to music.

So, I would ask you to take the quiz (don't cheat, because otherwise, what's the point), post your results, and discuss how you think this relates to music, etc etc. You know the drill.

For reference again, here is the link to the quiz.
http://botpoet.com/quiz/dwf/


I'll start by saying that I got 5/10 correct.

If you want to continue the test, you can do the free play mode, which is found on the left hand side.
it's all just coming back
it's all coming back

it's all coming back to me
#2
"Your base are belong to us!" was written by a human.....

I got 5 out of 10. A very interesting quiz. I wont discuss further...will let others take the test first.

Modes.
Quote by AlanHB
It's the same as all other harmony. Surround yourself with skulls and candles if it helps.
#3
5/10 would take again.

Generated poems/songs/visual art are really just subject to the skill of the programmer / computer scientist who creates the rules by which the computer operates. If a sufficiently skilled programmer is able to quantify or probabilize the rules and considerations a human follows for making a work (most likely of a particular style), then a computer ought to be able to generate works which are in many cases on-par with works generated by humans in the same genre and similar style.


I have some issues with the test and its administration, but it's admirable enough and gets the point across.
You might could use some double modals.
#4
10/10..and I don't even speak English that well. Is it important?
Do you feel like I do!?
#5
I don't really understand poetry, but if there was a similiar test with music I would be really interested in taking it. I find the idea that a computer could write music as fluently and with the same creativity as a human really disturbing though.
#6
I gotta go get some lunch but I'll give it a shot later

EDIT: Initial thoughts (without having taken it) are that it's not quite the same as "feel" in music performance. I dare say you'd be hard pressed to tell a computer-written piece from one written by a human, but one being played by a computer would likely (maybe?) be more obvious. For the poetry thing having poetry read by a computer versus poetry read by a human would be more analogous, I'd say.

Will still give it a shot, though. I don't like BS either.

EDIT #2: 3/10 And to make matters worse I think I recognised some of the human poems. I also think they were going for some trick questions there, too, which often ended up being a double bluff...
I'm an idiot and I accidentally clicked the "Remove all subscriptions" button. If it seems like I'm ignoring you, I'm not, I'm just no longer subscribed to the thread. If you quote me or do the @user thing at me, hopefully it'll notify me through my notifications and I'll get back to you.
Quote by K33nbl4d3
I'll have to put the Classic T models on my to-try list. Shame the finish options there are Anachronism Gold, Nuclear Waste and Aged Clown, because in principle the plaintop is right up my alley.

Quote by K33nbl4d3
Presumably because the CCF (Combined Corksniffing Forces) of MLP and Gibson forums would rise up against them, plunging the land into war.

Quote by T00DEEPBLUE
Et tu, br00tz?
Last edited by Dave_Mc at Jul 31, 2014,
#7
I got 7/10

Quote by guitar/bass95
I don't really understand poetry, but if there was a similiar test with music I would be really interested in taking it. I find the idea that a computer could write music as fluently and with the same creativity as a human really disturbing though.

I agree with the unbolded part, but to the bolded part: Why do you find it disturbing?
#8
This is interesting:

http://www.slate.com/articles/arts/music_box/2010/05/ill_be_bach.html

The truth is, humans are simply highly advanced computers. The computer Im using to type this is not as smart as a human, but it's just a matter of time until it is (3 decades from now). I can't understand why someone would not like the idea that computers and us are related in that way.
Last edited by macashmack at Jul 31, 2014,
#9
Quote by macashmack
I got 7/10


I agree with the unbolded part, but to the bolded part: Why do you find it disturbing?


I don't want a computer stealing my thunder.

But seriously, I just feel that art should be left to organic beings. Maybe, if computers can generate a genuine sense of creativity it wouldn't be so bad, but a pre-calculated, computerized music just feels wrong.
#10
Quote by guitar/bass95
I don't want a computer stealing my thunder.

But seriously, I just feel that art should be left to organic beings. Maybe, if computers can generate a genuine sense of creativity it wouldn't be so bad, but a pre-calculated, computerized music just feels wrong.

The way a human composes is the same, though. It's pre calculated. Read the article I posted.
#11
Quote by macashmack
The way a human composes is the same, though. It's pre calculated. Read the article I posted.


But I still wouldn't argue that a current computer could write music in the same way as a human right? So if computers stay the way they are for a while, I see no way they could write inspiring, emotional music. However, if in 3 decades computers are like human brains, we could start treating them as humans anyway
#12
I don't think that it will take us 30 years for computers to write music at the level of the best humans. I'd say that they will be writing human level music while they are still considered "computers" by your standards.

5-7 years.
#13
Quote by macashmack
I don't think that it will take us 30 years for computers to write music at the level of the best humans. I'd say that they will be writing human level music while they are still considered "computers" by your standards.

5-7 years.


I think that the bigger question here isn't if they can, it's if they will. I don't see why anyone would want computers to generate music. It would be a nice gimmick, but no-one would probably prefer it to human made music. Hell, it could become the next autotune, but no one really likes autotune either, right?
#14
Quote by guitar/bass95
I think that the bigger question here isn't if they can, it's if they will. I don't see why anyone would want computers to generate music. It would be a nice gimmick, but no-one would probably prefer it to human made music. Hell, it could become the next autotune, but no one really likes autotune either, right?

Why do you think people wouldn't like it? If it's the same then people will like it.
#15
Quote by macashmack
Why do you think people wouldn't like it? If it's the same then people will like it.


Tough questions I didn't mean to get so serious with this. Well, I think the reason is the same as it's with autotune: it's considered cheating.
#16
Quote by Baby Joel
A thread in which we discuss the 'humanity' in music, humanity referring to the 'emotional' aspects.

In the "Which scale to learn first" thread, it quickly delved from a list of good scales to learn (if that's what you're into), into a very interesting discussion about what 'feel' and 'musicality' are in music. The idea was brought up, although I cannot recall if it was expounded upon, or left only as an idea, that something written by a computer could not compare to a song written by a person, as a person is able to capture emotional aspects that a computer isn't.

With that I bring you Bot Or Not.

http://botpoet.com/quiz/dwf/

The idea of this stems off the Turing test. If you don't know what that is, the site provides a nice summary.


Essentially, the idea is, with a blind test, are we able to judge between a computer and a person?

That link I posted earlier links to a page which asks you to take the Digital Writers Festival Quiz. It's a collection of ten poems, some of which are written by a person, the others written by a human. It gives you no indication of who/what the author is, but instead asks you which one you think it is.

The reason I've brought this up is because poetry is no different to music in the sense that they are both art forms. They both utilise a medium (words in poetry, pitch in music) to create 'something'. (I put something in quotes because we could argue all day why music is made, and what music actually is. That isn't the exact point of this.) Both poetry and music contains nuances in those mediums to, again, help create this 'something' product. Poetry contains rhymes, punctuation, metre, cultural references, formatting, etc. The list is quite long. Music contains loudness, attack, decay, vibrato, reverb, chords, scales, etc etc. Again, the list is long.

So now that the comparison, and therefore similarity, between music and poetry is established, it woulk make sense that, although I cannot find a good 'bot or not' quiz for music, the principles of the one linked should translate well to music.

So, I would ask you to take the quiz (don't cheat, because otherwise, what's the point), post your results, and discuss how you think this relates to music, etc etc. You know the drill.

For reference again, here is the link to the quiz.
http://botpoet.com/quiz/dwf/


I'll start by saying that I got 5/10 correct.

If you want to continue the test, you can do the free play mode, which is found on the left hand side.


idk about poetry, but for music, I can't tell you whether a piece of music will be made by a computer or not. But I could tell you some pieces, that are most definitely not created by a computer.

A human could make something that sounds computer-like. But there are some things a computer couldn't do.

Anything that both a computer and a person could do, would be unknown.

That said, I got 8/10, but the site cheated. It took the top 3 suggestions of a google search, and said that bot wrote that poem. Except, it was humans that wrote those search suggestions, and it was a human that decided to make a poem out of those 3 suggestions. So, an anonymous human being wrote that, not a bot. It's still really cool though.


One way to know that certainly a human wrote a piece of poetry is the intent of it. I mean, sure we could take something and rationalize it ourselves to have some meaning, but if you look at a piece of poetry and it really has some overall message to it, then a computer did not write it.

Computers can't be deliberate and intentional like that. They could fake it, but they won't be able to write some poetry which has a clear overall message, because a computer is not a sentient being with a message it wants to deliver.

Music is similar. A human being will make music with a logical progression, where things will follow and work very well together, like a sentence creating coherent meaning. A message.

But a computer will only be able to follow rules. It won't deliberately want to write a phrase, it will generate music based on possibilities some algorithm gave it.

If/when computers become sentient, this will change. In the case of music though, it might be a bit different, because it is not simply a cognitive thing. It's sort of an emotional journey. It is a bit odd, if you think about it, that humans will hear certain mathematical arrangements of vibrations, and will want to move from it. I mean, imagine if you were some other being, and perceived sound as color maybe or something, but could not hear it, and were not at all moved by it, and you saw humans moving around when they were bathed in the glow of color. That might be a little odd. But it will make humans dance.

Other animals seem to be affected by music as well, they seem to like it, but they don't seem to dance. Maybe apes do. I had a parrot that "danced" but it wouldn't get the rhythm right, it was just faking it.

So, there is something there. For some reason vibrations make us move, and please us in some way, and some arrangements of vibrations do this, and others don't and may even make us cringe. It's an emotional thing.

Maybe we could develop computers that feel in this way. But I think simply being sentient, they might be able to get very good at making music we like, just by reading off of us, and things like that. I don't know, it's hard to really know. They might have other things that get in the way, or develop some other form of "music" virtue of being sentient. But, I think sentience is necessary for computers to really be able to be what we perceive to be musical.

I'm not a big fan of the turing test though myself. But also I could write something right now that would seem like a computer wrote it. Poetry is often a little weird as well, where I can never tell what the hell the author is trying to say, but that's not really evidence that computers can write poetry as well as humans can. It just means humans can write poetry that I'm as clueless about as I would be if a computer wrote it.
#17
Quote by macashmack
I don't think that it will take us 30 years for computers to write music at the level of the best humans. I'd say that they will be writing human level music while they are still considered "computers" by your standards.

5-7 years.



Idk, about 30 years, but we are not 5-7 years off. Maybe in 5-7 years computers will be able to make music like your average person makes, but in 5-7 years computers won't be writing hit songs.

They will need to be sentient for that, and we are a ways away from knowing how to build sentience.

30 years? I wouldn't think so, but in 30 years a lot could happen. Some key discovery could pop up in 20 years, and then a few years later, we create sentient computers.
#18
Quote by guitar/bass95
I think that the bigger question here isn't if they can, it's if they will. I don't see why anyone would want computers to generate music. It would be a nice gimmick, but no-one would probably prefer it to human made music. Hell, it could become the next autotune, but no one really likes autotune either, right?



I'll tell you what, for me personally, if a computer starts making music that I think is awesome, then I'll listen to it like crazy. I don't care how it was made.

But I do hate the thought of it.

I think that's sort of what we're talking about though. Computers can't make music that people prefer to human made music, because they have no musicality or feel. You can program into them all of theory in enormous detail. Computers can know more algorithms and theory of how to create music in more depth and detail than a single human. They can be much more advanced that way.

But there is no software you can buy where you click generate, and it produces a hit song. You need humans for that, because we are sentient, and aware of how music affects us. It's not just numbers.

But if a computer could write music I love, then I would listen to it. And I think it is possible, but not with conventional computers. They would have to be sentient at least.
Last edited by fingrpikingood at Jul 31, 2014,
#20
Quote by macashmack
I agree. What is a human other than a sentient computer?


I think I get what you're saying, but there are more differences than that, technically. Also, a dolphin is a "sentient computer" but it is not a human being so are chimpanzees for that matter, and some other animals as well.
Last edited by fingrpikingood at Jul 31, 2014,
#21
Technically any brain is a computer, the human brain just happens to be an extremely advanced computer.

And I don't think computers will ever really be able to replace humans in terms of music, due to the performance aspect of being a musician. If music was generated by computers, concerts would be pretty much dead.
#22
The human brain is a connection of neurons and chemicals, it can be reversed engineered, and it is possible to create a human from scratch in a laboratory. We are not there yet but it is nothing that is impossible. Is such a thing human, or is it human like but something else?

Quote by Timelimit

And I don't think computers will ever really be able to replace humans in terms of music, due to the performance aspect of being a musician. If music was generated by computers, concerts would be pretty much dead.

Why couldn't a computer perform?
#23
Quote by macashmack
The human brain is a connection of neurons and chemicals, it can be reversed engineered, and it is possible to create a human from scratch in a laboratory. We are not there yet but it is nothing that is impossible. Is such a thing human, or is it human like but something else?


I dunno about impossible, but very, very, very difficult. considering we can only really accurately computer model the absolute most bog basic molecules (at least with any form of accuracy i.e. not just a totally dumbed down model of the thing), it's going to be really difficult to even consider something of that scale.

I think using the term "reverse engineered" at all is possibly not quite grasping the enormity of the task.
I'm an idiot and I accidentally clicked the "Remove all subscriptions" button. If it seems like I'm ignoring you, I'm not, I'm just no longer subscribed to the thread. If you quote me or do the @user thing at me, hopefully it'll notify me through my notifications and I'll get back to you.
Quote by K33nbl4d3
I'll have to put the Classic T models on my to-try list. Shame the finish options there are Anachronism Gold, Nuclear Waste and Aged Clown, because in principle the plaintop is right up my alley.

Quote by K33nbl4d3
Presumably because the CCF (Combined Corksniffing Forces) of MLP and Gibson forums would rise up against them, plunging the land into war.

Quote by T00DEEPBLUE
Et tu, br00tz?
#24
I think the point is that in theory, advanced computers could write a piece of music in the same way that a human (complete with "feel" and everything) because at the end of the day everything we do is determined by something that can be reverse engineered.

Definitely agreed that it would be an incredibly difficult thing to do.
#25
The term reverse engineering is precisely the one to use.
Last edited by macashmack at Jul 31, 2014,
#26
Quote by Anon17
I think the point is that in theory, advanced computers could write a piece of music in the same way that a human (complete with "feel" and everything) because at the end of the day everything we do is determined by something that can be reverse engineered.

Definitely agreed that it would be an incredibly difficult thing to do.

This although it's really just a matter of time.
#27
Quote by macashmack
The term reverse engineering is precisely the one to use.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reverse_engineering

"Reverse engineering is the process of extracting knowledge or design information from anything man-made.[1]"
I'm an idiot and I accidentally clicked the "Remove all subscriptions" button. If it seems like I'm ignoring you, I'm not, I'm just no longer subscribed to the thread. If you quote me or do the @user thing at me, hopefully it'll notify me through my notifications and I'll get back to you.
Quote by K33nbl4d3
I'll have to put the Classic T models on my to-try list. Shame the finish options there are Anachronism Gold, Nuclear Waste and Aged Clown, because in principle the plaintop is right up my alley.

Quote by K33nbl4d3
Presumably because the CCF (Combined Corksniffing Forces) of MLP and Gibson forums would rise up against them, plunging the land into war.

Quote by T00DEEPBLUE
Et tu, br00tz?
#28
My concluding thoughts on the matter is that computers cannot generate and perform music on the same degree as humans can before the point where we actually create an artificial human. I don't really believe the article that said this could be done in 30 years, maybe I'm just stubborn and close-minded, but that's my point of view.
#29
Quote by guitar/bass95
I find the idea that a computer could write music as fluently and with the same creativity as a human really disturbing though.


Considering how diatonic music is based on a set of rigid rules, I don't think it would be that hard. With enough research into what intervals we find most pleasing, I wouldn't be surprised if it wasn't that hard to write software.

I mean, I remember completely half assing my theory homework, and just simply composing, based on accepted resolutions and different kinds of motion. It made sense, so it sounded normal.
Quote by EndTheRapture51
Anyway I have technically statutory raped #nice

Quote by EndThecRinge51
once a girl and i promised to never leave each other

since that promise was broken

i dont make promises any more