By Jeremy Hsu Posted 02.25.2010 at 6:15 pm 10 Comments

Cyborg Composer UC Santa Cruz emeritus professor David Cope prepares to unleash Emily Howell upon the music world Catherine Karnow via Miller-McCune

If the thought of a Wiimote-controlled robot drum circle sounded vaguely disturbing, prepare yourself. This month, composer and software developer David Cope is set to unveil the first musical works composed by his latest creation, dubbed "Emily Howell." Emily is a piece of software that many see as the most advanced artificially intelligent music composer. The program is already stirring fierce debate over its supposed ability to generate creations indistinguishable from those composed by the masters--Mozart, Bach and the gang. Miller-McCune went in-depth with this strange and fascinating tale of creativity in the age of artificial intelligence.

Cope first turned to artificial intelligence after experiencing a bad case of composer's block that prevented him from finishing an opera commission. That led to the creation of a program called Emmy, which could effortlessly replicate the style of Bach or other great human composers, cranking out more compositions in one afternoon than any human could produce in one lifetime.

Emmy infuriated critics and music-lovers alike, especially when Cope asked an audience to distinguish between real Bach and Emmy-composed Bach and few could hear the difference. But many researchers hailed Emmy, and some even suggested that it had successfully passed some level of the "Turing Test," because people couldn't differentiate its artificial work from that of humans.

Still, even some of Cope's supporters admit that Emmy disturbed them with its implications. Cope designed Emmy to work based on his view that all music -- or any creative venture -- is based on previous works. The idea that human creativity is just a product of recombination has upset some musicians and artists (and humanists), despite the idea having a certain cold logic.

Related Articles

Wiimote-Controlled Robot Drum Circle Makes Human Hippies Obsolete
Musical Typewriter Turns Your Essays Into Aural Masterpieces
Dancing a Song With the Full-Body Wiimote Music Controller Suit

Tags

Technology, Jeremy Hsu, artists, composers, computers, creativity, emily howell, emmy, music, musicians, notes, originality
As Cope suggests, even the most revered music composers must have created their works based on the conscious and subconscious mind's interpretations of previous music. He drove home that point by using Emmy to reverse-engineer the works of famous composers, tracing their component elements back to earlier pieces of music.

The daughter program of Emmy, dubbed Emily Howell, takes a more cooperative approach with Cope rather than simply churning out new scores based on recombination algorithms. Cope and Emily Howell engage in a musical conversation involving certain compositions or statements, where Cope will label certain musical statements "yes" or "no." That trains the program to refine its composition approach, and eventually it creates its own, Cope-styled original music.

Critics have remained unconvinced, despite the fact that many still can't differentiate between Emily Howell's work and that of a human. For instance, one music-lover who listened to Emily Howell's work praised it without knowing that it had come from a computer program. Half a year later, the same person attended one of Cope's lectures at the University of California-Santa Cruz on Emily Howell. After listening to a recording of the very same concert he had attended earlier, he told Cope that it was pretty music but lacked "heart or soul or depth."

Emily Howell has an upcoming album, but you can already here some short samples of its robotic genius (?) in the Miller-McCune story. Did we mention that Cope has also signed a confidential deal with a well-known pop group to write songs for them? Sound off below and let us know whether you buy into this future of music and art, or whether this AI composer just doesn't wash.

[via Miller-McCune]

10 Comments

Link to this comment
Cyph
02/25/10 at 6:25 pm

The enviorments some people work in...

Link to this comment
bnull24
02/25/10 at 6:47 pm

A similar project was created by Sid Mier about 20 years ago, called "CPU Bach." The reason a computer can so create pieces in the style of J.S. Bach is that he was a very formulaic, and almost mathematical composer (not to take away from his genius though). His music was extremely structured and rigid. It would be nearly impossible for a computer to create quality pieces in the style of a later composer such as Beethoven or Tchaikovsky.

Link to this comment
kdaviper
02/25/10 at 8:49 pm

Not bad for a computer, but it's definitely nothing amazing.

Link to this comment
Solace
02/25/10 at 11:27 pm

It probably can't create anything new (that's good), but if it recombines well enough... well, how's that for a custom music service, like Pandora? Music actually /written/ to what you like.

I think a lot (not all) of art and "art critics" is bs, which is probably why they hate a computer that can do what they can so much; hurts their bottom line by showing that. :P

Link to this comment
darkwolf361
02/26/10 at 2:02 am

ADHD....-Kris Johnson

Link to this comment
Abremms
02/26/10 at 11:35 am

As was pounded into my head for hour upon hour, day after day as a music composition major in a *very* traditional program at a *very* traditional college, music is math. especialy classical compositions like mozart of bach. they follow strict rules and formulas. it should not be a suprise that software can replicate them. the suprise is that its taken so long.

there are a limited number of chords that are pleasing to the human ear, all thats left to us is to arrange them in progression and rhythm (also limited by what sounds good to the human ear). It is very easy to hear a "wrong" chord, progression, or rhythm in a piece. they are not expected or normal, so they stand out. easy enough for a computer to do.

maybe im just bitter for seeing a beautifull, beloved artform distilled into a list of "do"s and "do not"s.

Link to this comment
tentacleTherapist
02/26/10 at 12:50 pm

wow, very reminiscent of Richard Powers' Galatea 2.2... i'll probably buy the robot's albums when it is released.

Link to this comment
aeiluindae
02/26/10 at 6:23 pm

I've got some music theory experience as well and music can be quite formulaic. I could have easily written an algorithm to do my theory homework. Considering that Yamaha's Vocaloid software can be better than today's (rather bad, in my opinion) pop singers at their own game, it does not entirely surprise me. However, following the rules makes passable music, not great music. Good composing is knowing what rules to break and when to break them.

Considering that a computer-written paper full of intellectual-sounding bs with no actual content got published in a literary criticism journal, I'm not particularly impressed with art critics intelligence, either. For them, the more opaque something is, the better, in my experience. I hated English courses because it was possible to to very well by sounding fancy and intelligent, even when there was nothing there. Most modern art and 20th century classical music seems the same way.

Link to this comment
aeiluindae
02/26/10 at 6:36 pm

I've got some music theory experience as well and music can be quite formulaic. I could have easily written an algorithm to do my theory homework. Considering that Yamaha's Vocaloid software can be better than today's (rather bad, in my opinion) pop singers at their own game, it does not entirely surprise me. However, following the rules makes passable music, not great music. Good composing is knowing what rules to break and when to break them.

I'd like to hear the pieces composed by the software played by a real person, because they kind of lack emotion. Also, they don't sound terribly much like the Bach I've heard and played. They fit the style, though.

Considering that a computer-written paper full of intellectual-sounding bs with no actual content got published in a literary criticism journal, I'm not particularly impressed with art critics intelligence, either. For them, the more opaque something is, the better, in my experience. I hated English courses because it was possible to to very well by sounding fancy and intelligent, even when there was nothing there. Most modern art and 20th century classical music seems the same way.

Link to this comment
atlantic-ec
09/21/10 at 9:46 pm

Art takes on many forms and we should not be surprised to hear of cyber art or cyber music. Like all generations there will be many critics and debate. One thing is for certain live sound with all the noise and senses still remains a firm favorite.

www.atlantic-ec.com



June 2013: American Energy Independence

Five amazing, clean technologies that will set us free, in this month's energy-focused issue. Also: how to build a better bomb detector, the robotic toys that are raising your children, a human catapult, the world's smallest arcade, and much more.


Online Content Director: Suzanne LaBarre | Email
Senior Editor: Paul Adams | Email
Associate Editor: Dan Nosowitz | Email
Assistant Editor: Colin Lecher | Email
Assistant Editor: Rose Pastore | Email

Contributing Writers:
Rebecca Boyle | Email
Kelsey D. Atherton | Email
Francie Diep | Email
Shaunacy Ferro | Email

circ-top-header.gif
circ-cover.gif