David Cope wrote a computer program, called Emily Howell, that can compose music. There are snippets of the music all over the internet if you google David Cope, but Centaur Records released an album of the music in 2010.
The fact that the music is musical makes a lot of people feel very uncomfortable. If a machine can make music that might move us, what does that mean about our creativity.
“The question isn’t whether computers have a soul, but whether humans have a soul.”
A book was compiled on the issue - Virtual Music - with commentary from cognitive scientist Douglas Hofstadter, it’s a fascinating question.
Whenever I return to my research on Schoenberg’s Pierrot lunaire, I find myself fascinated with Elsa Bienenfeld. Her reviews of Pierrot and other modernist works reveal an amazing insight into contemporary music.
Dr. Elsa Bienenfeld (1877-1942) studied musicology with Guido Adler and…
Noise, by Jacques Attali
How had I never come across this book until 2 weeks ago?
“Music is more than an object of study: it is a way of perceiving the world. A tool of understanding.
… In the face of the growing ambiguity of the signs being used and exchanged, the most well-established concepts are crumbling and every theory is wavering…my intention here is thus not only to theorize about music, but to theorize through music …”
Well, a lot right?
Just reflecting on this for a hot minute … how does recorded sound change the way we do music scholarship? And, how does it change the product of music scholarship?
What if recorded sound never happened? How would that change our focus on scores? Would organology be a lot more important? And WHAT would a listening exam be, excerpts at the piano?