David Cope and the Science of Algorithmic Composition
“To some extent, this match is a defense of the whole human race. Computers play such a huge role in society. They are everywhere. But there is a frontier they must not cross. They must not cross into the area of human creativity. It would threaten the existence of human control in such areas as arts, literature, and music.” 
So said Gary Kasparov, chess grandmaster, one year before he lost to Deep Blue, IBM’s chess-playing supercomputer. Meanwhile, a relatively anonymous professor of music in California had created a computer program capable of composing pieces of music in the style of great composers that most people could not differentiate from authentic compositions. The professor, David Cope, named this program Experiments in Musical Intelligence, or “Emmy”. Since then, Cope and his successive programs have been the objects of both celebration and scorn, challenging the world’s perception of what musical creativity entails.     
Cope’s argument, and the basis for his software, is that creativity is essentially recombinant: consciously or not, all composers plagiarize their progenitors and contemporaries. What makes his (or Emmy’s) work superior to the stilted and awkward compositions of earlier programs are two fundamental insights into the syntax of music. Rather than rely on the traditional divisions of musical notation, Cope developed an analytic musical syntax that goes into what Douglas Hofstadter (of Gödel, Escher, Bach) terms the “tension-resolution status” of a piece, the two forces that underlie all music. Secondly, though the program composes according to formal rules, it also uses heuristics that allow it to sometimes ‘break’ its own rules in innovative ways.
You can listen to a performance of one of Emmy’s Bach Chorale-style compositions here; for more on David Cope, you can visit his website or read this lengthy (but excellent) article.
- Alex Tesar

David Cope and the Science of Algorithmic Composition

“To some extent, this match is a defense of the whole human race. Computers play such a huge role in society. They are everywhere. But there is a frontier they must not cross. They must not cross into the area of human creativity. It would threaten the existence of human control in such areas as arts, literature, and music.”

So said Gary Kasparov, chess grandmaster, one year before he lost to Deep Blue, IBM’s chess-playing supercomputer. Meanwhile, a relatively anonymous professor of music in California had created a computer program capable of composing pieces of music in the style of great composers that most people could not differentiate from authentic compositions. The professor, David Cope, named this program Experiments in Musical Intelligence, or “Emmy”. Since then, Cope and his successive programs have been the objects of both celebration and scorn, challenging the world’s perception of what musical creativity entails.     

Cope’s argument, and the basis for his software, is that creativity is essentially recombinant: consciously or not, all composers plagiarize their progenitors and contemporaries. What makes his (or Emmy’s) work superior to the stilted and awkward compositions of earlier programs are two fundamental insights into the syntax of music. Rather than rely on the traditional divisions of musical notation, Cope developed an analytic musical syntax that goes into what Douglas Hofstadter (of Gödel, Escher, Bach) terms the “tension-resolution status” of a piece, the two forces that underlie all music. Secondly, though the program composes according to formal rules, it also uses heuristics that allow it to sometimes ‘break’ its own rules in innovative ways.

You can listen to a performance of one of Emmy’s Bach Chorale-style compositions here; for more on David Cope, you can visit his website or read this lengthy (but excellent) article.

- Alex Tesar

David Cope and the Science of Algorithmic Composition

“To some extent, this match is a defense of the whole human race. Computers play such a huge role in society. They are everywhere. But there is a frontier they must not cross. They must not cross into the area of human creativity. It would threaten the existence of human control in such areas as arts, literature, and music.”

So said Gary Kasparov, chess grandmaster, one year before he lost to Deep Blue, IBM’s chess-playing supercomputer. Meanwhile, a relatively anonymous professor of music in California had created a computer program capable of composing pieces of music in the style of great composers that most people could not differentiate from authentic compositions. The professor, David Cope, named this program Experiments in Musical Intelligence, or “Emmy”. Since then, Cope and his successive programs have been the objects of both celebration and scorn, challenging the world’s perception of what musical creativity entails.     

Cope’s argument, and the basis for his software, is that creativity is essentially recombinant: consciously or not, all composers plagiarize their progenitors and contemporaries. What makes his (or Emmy’s) work superior to the stilted and awkward compositions of earlier programs are two fundamental insights into the syntax of music. Rather than rely on the traditional divisions of musical notation, Cope developed an analytic musical syntax that goes into what Douglas Hofstadter (of Gödel, Escher, Bach) terms the “tension-resolution status” of a piece, the two forces that underlie all music. Secondly, though the program composes according to formal rules, it also uses heuristics that allow it to sometimes ‘break’ its own rules in innovative ways.

You can listen to a performance of one of Emmy’s Bach Chorale-style compositions here; for more on David Cope, you can visit his website or read this lengthy (but excellent) article.

- Alex Tesar





  Posted on January 21, 2013

Share this

283 Notes

  1. klaatu reblogged this from artandsciencejournal
  2. okorogariist reblogged this from scinerds
  3. fell-stinger reblogged this from feralcatcoalition
  4. albusmumblecore reblogged this from scinerds
  5. thirteenvause reblogged this from flipthecoin
  6. flipthecoin reblogged this from kdntjb
  7. kdntjb reblogged this from hatikarat
  8. mangy-mongrel reblogged this from scinerds
  9. e-x-d-e-e reblogged this from scinerds
  10. tekym reblogged this from motherfuckingfire
  11. witchwoman reblogged this from scinerds
  12. motherfuckingfire reblogged this from scinerds
  13. laikas-owner reblogged this from scinerds
  14. 16th-note reblogged this from cloacca-cola
  15. tarmduffin reblogged this from scinerds
  16. readthisinabritishaccent reblogged this from invinoveritasperpetua
  17. toutes-choses-egales reblogged this from scinerds
  18. lurkingshadow reblogged this from scinerds
  19. higgsupernova reblogged this from scinerds
  20. whereinthewarehouse reblogged this from hatikarat
  21. djsven reblogged this from scinerds
  22. yoshi-the-navy-beast reblogged this from scinerds
  23. invinoveritasperpetua reblogged this from scinerds
  24. xtreemlennykun reblogged this from cloacca-cola
  25. intellectual--stupidity reblogged this from scinerds
  26. reflectingblue reblogged this from scinerds and added:
    Bach or Bot! haha Every once in a while I actually come up with something that is vaguely clever, and I think I just...