Re: [MMM] Re: Automated composing

Bill,

{you wrote...}
>But here's an interesting test: Try creating a MIDI through P&F, then something composed, and see if people can tell which is which.
>
>I'm sure I could do something that would fool people, or at least leave uncertainty. I think that in itself would prove the program's worth.

But think about it - that doesn't really prove anything. After all, both efforts could sound equally lame, and then where would we be?

Sometimes when topics get started like this, people get the wrong impression. For instance, I like to use tools like this, not for the bulk of what I do, or for even a big part of it, but sometimes just for some variety. My favorite way of generating some algorithmic building materials is KeyKit:

http://nosuch.com/keykit/

Some of the tools are good for working up variations on single lines or background textures, and the nice thing is that it is a language-driven tool, meaning I can write new modules to do what I want. Not to mention it is fun to play with. While all it does is drive midi data, with a tool like MidiOX you can run the output to any of your microtonal synths to hear the stuff the way you want it.

Bottom line is that the composition tools available to us are just that: tools. And even if one of them could really poop out a piece that was probably going to fool some people completely (and P. T. Barnum made a fortune banking on this basic premise), where's the fun in that? Frankly, I compose because I enjoy it!

Cheers,
Jon