Comments on: David Cope’s Emily Howell

By: Ginny Crandall

Ginny Crandall — Tue, 11 Jan 2011 18:20:10 +0000

Subandi, I would disagree. I spent several years in college studying music, mostly classical, but with some 20th century composers mixed in. I don’t believe that computer generated music can have soul because it, in and of itself, lacks emotion. If there is soul in this computer generated music, then it comes from the editor of the piece, not the computer.

By: John Keston

John Keston — Thu, 22 Jul 2010 15:58:42 +0000

@Subandi I agree. It will be fascinating to hear what happens when the machines start making aesthetic decisions of their own.

By: Subandi

Subandi — Thu, 22 Jul 2010 06:30:57 +0000

I’m reading this with interest. As a software developer and a part-time composer, I do believe it is possible to program in some “soul”. If the extent, makeup, and pattern of what it is that we refer to as “soul” can be mapped out, that essence can be turned into an object – which in turn can be applied to the musical piece.

Let’s put it this way: Emily’s data strings relies on Cope. Cope’s editing of Emily’s output makes Cope a “Template”. I would envision that the Soul Program would be able to create soul templates out of any individual’s musical styles or preference.

In a way, we already have the tools out there. Itune’s system of rating music, and the way that the program keeps track of what you are listening to, or prefer to listen too out of your own database of songs can be a basis of such a program.

…just a thought.

By: John Keston

John Keston — Thu, 25 Feb 2010 22:18:29 +0000

Nicely put, Luke. You have a similar view to what I was trying to state in my post. I’m looking forward to hearing what happens when the machines become artists in their own right and no longer need our input or guidance to create meaningful work.

By: elem

elem — Thu, 25 Feb 2010 21:22:58 +0000

machine based music sometimes lacks soul, yes. then again so can music composed by a human. i don’t think there’s an easy answer to this question. in my opinion it’s a matter of how artfully the machines are both constructed and utilized by the programmer/composer, and on the resulting composition.

i was particularly interested by the section of the article in which Cope describes, “asking musical questions” of Emily. or writing smaller purpose-built programs based on a stricter set of instructions. then pairing down the result, much as a sculptor might eliminate the bits of marble that don’t belong.

to me this is where the soul of computer music can come through. Cope seems to take on a sort of editorial role. in the end he is the one deciding which of Emily’s data-strings have something beautiful or moving to them, something worth recording or repeating. any other listener will have to make that decision too.