cgMusic - music generation software

[mirrored]

http://codeminion.com/blogs/maciek/2008/05/cgmusic-computers-create-music/

[KenK]

Hey Mirrored-

Have you tried this program or others like it yourself?

I had an interest in algorithmic composition years ago.
I fooled w/ programs such as The Bol Processor, AC Toolbox, M and enjoyed some aspects of XXX (from MetaSynth).
I got my best results from the AC Toolbox. It's still out there.
Tried C-sound, Cecelia and Super Collider, but those seemed more about tone generation than music composition.
Most of the better ones require an understanding of LISP, easy enough I suppose, but I never got very far w/ it.

I was always most intrigued by Symbolic Composer, but never wanted to shell out the $ to see if it was even a little useful.
There was another one called Calmus that I wondered about.
It had an "object oriented" interface, rather than command line.
Better for me, but it seemed to be confined stylistically to cell structures or serialism.

Anybody out there ever use any of these programs?
I'm especially curious about Symbolic Composer.
That seems to the ultimate of these kinds of programs.

KenK

[mirrored]

Nope, I never used any of those. Why? That's easy - I am a composer. Why would I use such programs? To aid myself with composition? I don't believe in software generated music at all. For me the music itself needs to be true, human. Not algorhytmic or whatever.

Cheers,
Michal

[KenK]

Hi Michal-

Why did you post the link then? :rolleyes:
Personally, I find the concept fascinating.
Maybe it's because I like math, or from a musical perspective, setting a process in motion.
I don't see being a "composer" and using an algorithmic process as contradictory.
It's just another tool. If you use loops, and draw in cc#s you're using a computer process to generate music.
The difference is only one of degrees.
(Personally I avoid loops myself except as a shortcut, usually temporarily.)

In fact- If you're using sampled instruments, how "human" is that? Your notes are played by a computer.
The dynamic curves and tempo changes you write in are "expressed" by your computer.

You said, "the music itself needs to be true, human".
For this to be ultimately true, your music should only be performed live and not even recorded.
(A recording is also not human- no more than a video of a person is a "human".)

Some of my writing for jazz groups includes a certain amount of flexibility built into the structure.
It's a challenge, but form can also be "improvised" or altered as a creative aspect in performance.
This is somewhat analogous to algorithmic composition, but in this case, the process is executed by players.

It works.

KenK

[mirrored]

I posted it out of a curiosity and to open a discussion.

In fact- If you're using sampled instruments, how "human" is that? Your notes are played by a computer.
The dynamic curves and tempo changes you write in are "expressed" by your computer.

You said, "the music itself needs to be true, human".
For this to be ultimately true, your music should only be performed live and not even recorded.
(A recording is also not human- no more than a video of a person is a "human".)

Yeah, let's get this further and assume writing in Sibelius is not "human", because one used a laptop and a mouse instead of paper and a pencil.
Refering to the situation of notes being played by a computer - the situation you wrote is still "human" - a composer took his skill, knowledge and heart to bring his very own (although sometimes more or less "inspired by") ideas to life, the assets that a machine does not have. ;)

Cheers,
Michal

[Enrique]

This was discussed ad nauseam in these threads:

http://www.soundsonline-forums.com/showthread.php?t=13605
http://www.soundsonline-forums.com/showthread.php?t=10865
http://www.soundsonline-forums.com/showthread.php?t=6684

[KenK]

let's get this further and assume writing in Sibelius is not "human", because one used a laptop and a mouse instead of paper and a pencil.
Refering to the situation of notes being played by a computer - the situation you wrote is still "human" - a composer took his skill, knowledge and heart to bring his very own (although sometimes more or less "inspired by") ideas to life, the assets that a machine does not have. ;)

I'm not much of a proponent of algorithmic composition, though I don't object to it either.
I simply find it to be an interesting tool.

I wouldn't say that using a notation program is inherently inhuman,
nor would I say that a sampled rendering of a score is as good as the same piece played by musicians.

I will say that recorded music is inferior to live music, and has actually done a great deal of harm to the art the we love so.
This is an unusual perspective I'll admit, but because of "recorded" music, most people rarely hear "live" music.
Thus, musicians are in a place were their craft has been rendered somewhat archaic.
In decades not entirely to long ago, people had to "see" music played by people if they wanted to experience it.
Now you just flick a switch. (Electronically generated music in another sense)

Although this is somewhat tangential to the discussion at hand, it's not entirely unrelated.
You think you're cd rendering of your composition has soul, I think it's a 2 dimensional shadow compared to a genuine orchestral experience.

Your tools to make your finest sampled version of your composition are computer based.
Could you do any of it w/o a computer and achieve the same results?
I think not.

Thus sampled music is computer music.

Again it's a thing of degrees. You draw a line on a graph and get a resulting "expression", be it vibrato, dynamics, tone or tempo.
A person would do it better, (with more soul)
A composer using an algorithmic program writes a series of mathematical equations (usually) and gets phrases or motives or cc#s.
It's a similar action getting a "theoretical" or "virtual" musical result.
The difference is only a matter of "which" musical expression is acceptable when played by a computer.
Vibrato, dynamics etc seem ok, where as notes are somehow to "sacred" for a computer to choose.

The thing is, depending on what program the algorithmic composer uses, the choices made by the machine are constrained by the composer.
This is what I mean by "setting a process in motion". The composer sets a bunch of rules then hits the button.

Personally I don't see algorithmic composition as anything other than more computer music.
Too me, a lot of pop music is "computer music". It just another tool.

Ken

[KenK]

This was discussed ad nauseam in these threads:

http://www.soundsonline-forums.com/showthread.php?t=13605
http://www.soundsonline-forums.com/showthread.php?t=10865
http://www.soundsonline-forums.com/showthread.php?t=6684
Enrique-
What should we discuss?
Hans Zimmer?
Reverb?
My RAM problems?

There are many more topics "discussed ad nauseam" than this one.:rolleyes:

KenK

[interpolate]

What about the Greenhouse Effect? Does the deterioration of the environment we abuse affect how we make music? Now that's gotta to be topical.

[KenK]

In that everything effects everything else, Global Warming and Sarah Palin have both altered your compositions. ;)

Ken

[mirrored]

You think you're cd rendering of your composition has soul, I think it's a 2 dimensional shadow compared to a genuine orchestral experience.

Of course a live performance is always better than a programmed one, but... Don't get me wrong, I don't mean to be rude or anything, but it seems to me (if I understand correctly) that you seem to be stuck with an opinion that every audio that is touched by any technology that is computer based is inapropriate and is "inhuman".

Your tools to make your finest sampled version of your composition are computer based.
Could you do any of it w/o a computer and achieve the same results?
I think not.

Yes, my compositions are computer-sample based, but the development of voices, motifs, orchestrations are not algorhytmic "generated" by a machine.


Thus sampled music is computer music.

Which makes the music soul-less, even if a composer used the samples to achieve beatiful results in means of harmony, motifs, counterpoint, rhytm and including faking a live performance?


Again it's a thing of degrees. You draw a line on a graph and get a resulting "expression", be it vibrato, dynamics, tone or tempo.
A person would do it better, (with more soul)

Or worse - depends on a performer.

A composer using an algorithmic program writes a series of mathematical equations (usually) and gets phrases or motives or cc#s.
It's a similar action getting a "theoretical" or "virtual" musical result.
The difference is only a matter of "which" musical expression is acceptable when played by a computer.
Vibrato, dynamics etc seem ok, where as notes are somehow to "sacred" for a computer to choose.

The thing is, depending on what program the algorithmic composer uses, the choices made by the machine are constrained by the composer.
This is what I mean by "setting a process in motion". The composer sets a bunch of rules then hits the button.

Personally I don't see algorithmic composition as anything other than more computer music.
Too me, a lot of pop music is "computer music". It just another tool.

Ken

Yeah, a computer is just a tool that helps composers compose and hear their works in realtime. Still, a composer chooses notes, dynamics, expression, chords, instruments, orchestration. To me, if those assets are not "generated" by a machine then it is human. Only tools are different.

If you are saying "algorhytmic generated composition" with a composer drawing cc#1, programming note on/note off MIDI events, etc. in mind - you have a point.
I also may not written accurately what I had in mind. I don't believe in a composition, where it's skeleton (form, orchestration, motifs, etc.) is generated by a software. And let's be more accurate - in orchestral genre. Surely, some generated randomly midi loops in some genres are quite useful, but as you said - those are only tools. A tool that helps a composer.

Another thought:
It is hard to me to view this software a tool that aids a composer. It is written (among other things) to be in future implemented into games. So when a project does not require super high music quality, will it turn to this software for an "aid"? Then what about those composers who start their journey in the enormous world of composition and want to get some experience?


Cheers,
Michal

[ChemicalReaper]

If you can show me a piece of music written using math that sounds at all decent, by all means send it this way. I attended a concert at a local college last year where the students were all performing 'mathematical compositions.' The results were awful, contemporary pieces of crap.

Just because I write music in Finale doesn't automatically make it soulless and without a human element. We pour our hearts and souls into writing music - even if it is written on a computer and 'performed' by a computer, even the mere notion of comparing it to algorithmically generated 'tones' (for I refuse to call it 'music') is an absolute insult to composers.

[Enrique]

I agree with Chem 100% -- until computers understand more than the inputs we feed them, then I would never call any "algorithmically generated 'tones" music. Music is simply more than a bunch of data, something we can't quite explain (see threads like "What is Music") and something that lives in the abstract, the meta.

For now all computers can do do is crunch numbers and output data, they have as much imagination as a rock. Noise happens all the time, all around us. Don't be fooled by those that claim a computer can write music, for it is only noise that they create.

Personally I would only use such a "tool" to generate ideas that then I could take and turn into music.

[Enrique]

Enrique-
What should we discuss?
Hans Zimmer?
Reverb?
My RAM problems?

There are many more topics "discussed ad nauseam" than this one.:rolleyes:

KenK

I was merely pointing out that there is a wealth of information in those threads I linked, and worth reading to anyone who wish to engage in this type of conversation.

[Enrique]

There is a clear distinction when we use a computer (the tool, like paper, pencil, etc.) to facilitate us to create music and the computer itself creating "music".

Just to be absolutely clear.

[KenK]

Hmm...

Why are visions of Frankenstein's Monster trapped at the Windmill going through my head? :confused:

Let me say again that I'm not a big proponent of Algorithmic Composition.
I've had very little direct experience w/ it. I just think it's interesting and kind of fun.

But I'll also say that if you've used a drum machine, arpeggiator or a loop of any kind,
you're guilty and may join me up in the Windmill. :rolleyes:

Have a look at this page: http://arts.ucsc.edu/faculty/cope/mp3page.htm
Read the paragraphs under "Experiments in Musical Intelligence."

Briefly, David Cope has been a leading proponent of Computer Composition since the 80's.
He's designed a program that can analyze music and then create new compositions in a given style.
I imagine the analysis portion is somewhat similar to how Pandora works.
He doesn't say much about how it works, but has written books on the subject and does offer a few programs for free.

Give a listen to the mp3s that say "After Bach, Beethoven, Chopin and Joplin."
The "Opera Mahler " is also interesting- check files 4 and 5.
The ones below "Songs from the Navajo" are all in that modernist new music style that we all detest yet fall back on for writing "Horror Music".

These are all works played by humans but "composed" by David's program.
I don't know to what degree that they may have been modified by Mr Cope.
(I'm guessing the orchestra in the "Opera Mahler" is a student orchestra.)
Have I heard better works composed by Humans? Yes
Have I heard worse works composed by Humans? Yes

To answer a few specific points...

@ Chemical Reaper "If you can show me a piece of music written using math that sounds at all decent, by all means send it this way."
How about Bach as an example?
All music is math based. Music theory is math. Rhythm, (divisions of time) is math.
This is not to say that it has nothing to w/ emotion,
but it is the concept of order that creates the distinction between noise or random sound and music.

I use "math" all the time in my music and so do you.
When I decide to write or play a 6th of a given chord, I'm using math.
I'm personally rather analytical, but even instinctual players are using a "system".
It's the agreed upon system that makes a note pleasing or not to the human ear.

I realize of course that you're talking about "serialism."
But that's only one kind of math, C&W players use a different kind of math to organize their music.

@ Michal-
Possibly you're misunderstanding some of what I've been saying. (I'm not sure).
I was trying to make 2 different points.

The main one is simply that the distinction between our use of computers to create our music
and the monster we are referring to as "Algorithmic Composition" is not so clear.

Take the program "Band in a Box" for example.
I don't use this program myself, but my understanding of it is, that I can type in a chord progression and melody,
then choose "styles" for the rhythm section and get a "musical" result that's pretty close to what I had in mind.
Is a real jazz band better? Of course.
But lots of would be jazz players use this program to hone their craft.
The computer is deciding the voicings and rhythms based on the style choices programmed by the user.
This is "Algorithmic Composition" in a somewhat "pop" style. It's here and it's useful and being used.
And further, there are lots of algorithmic processes going on in our sequencers. We use them all the time.

My other point was more Esoteric or just plane "Nutty", if you prefer.
This perspective confuses and pisses off my pals.
But this point is that "Music" in the most Sacred sense, cannot be recorded,
and what you hear from any speaker is not the same as that "Sacred Music".
It's only an image of it. That "Music" is the process of human beings playing their instruments in a room.
It's a process in 3 dimensional time and space. A recording is only a shadow of that moment.
(Crazy, I know. But it's just a philosophy)

Another way to explain is this-
The first time I saw Freddie Hubbard was in a fairly small venue.
His tone was so full and rich that I realized that I'd never really heard it before.
His tone was so beautiful that it couldn't be captured on a recording.
The technology was not up to the task of truly replicating his Sound.
I just think that what comes out of speakers is far inferior to the musicians being recorded.

I'd like to get off of the Windmill now. :D

Ken

[interpolate]

Permission granted. Just watch out for the sheep on the way down.

[Enrique]

But I'll also say that if you've used a drum machine, arpeggiator or a loop of any kind,
you're guilty and may join me up in the Windmill.


Guilty of what though? Guilty of using tools? My point is that there is very clear distinction between us using computers to create and the computer itself creating music.

Would you say that the pencil or paper creates a poem or that a paintbrush creates the painting? Or would you say that the writer creates the poem and the painter creates the painting?

Using loops, drum machines, arpeggiators is like using different brushes.

The computer only knows as much as the information it is fed. From there it can determine what it "thinks" is "good".

Here's another example: If you feed a computer every word in the English dictionary, feed it correct syntax, grammer structure, sentence structure etc, all the variables and rules that we follow when we write, could that computer write a book? It would definitely have correct syntax verb usage etc, but would it make any sense? Would that computer be able develope a character? A plot? Make jokes?

It's easy for a computer to take numbers and crunch out data (Band in a Box for example, we select the style, and Band in a Box will write out something based on rules that are fed to it). Sure it's interesting to see what comes out, but until computers can see through other lenses other than binary, there is no music, only data.

Besides, if a computer could actually write music we'd all be out of a job :p

[ChemicalReaper]

I played around with the cgMusic program and it sounds bloody awful. The author has a right nerve saying, on his blog, "in fact [computers compose] better than most people."

His program 'composes' the most disjointed crap I've ever heard!

Apparently, this piece is "supposed" to be modern rock music. Take a listen at the computer's stupidity (or should we blame the program's author?) and complete lack of regard for music theory:
http://www.mediafire.com/?mwwzqmwtn2q

And this... this discordant piece of sh*t is supposed to be 'classical'!
http://www.mediafire.com/?ioinywmd04z

I say computers cannot write music. I think I've just unequivocally proved me point.

[KenK]

Guilty of what though? Guilty of using tools? My point is that there is very clear distinction between us using computers to create and the computer itself creating music...

All I'm saying is if you use a sequencer you're involved in "computer generated music" to some degree.
If arpeggiators or drum machines are accepted tools, why stop there?
Why not a tool that fills in voicings or supplies drum breaks?
If those provide somewhat usable results, then why not a motivic generator of some sort?

Some of you see a line in the sand where I see a gray area.
I just see it as another tool, and one that's simply amusing, like any other game.

K

[KenK]

I played around with the cgMusic program and it sounds bloody awful. The author has a right nerve saying, on his blog, "in fact [computers compose] better than most people."...

I say computers cannot write music. I think I've just unequivocally proved me point.

Well ChemicalReaper,
This is a case of the glass being either half empty or half full. :rolleyes:
You say your quick experiment demonstrates a computer can't write music, and I'm amazed that they can do it at all.

Those 2 pieces you "designed" have obvious styles, with "harmonic" movement and recognizable structure.
Are they good. No, but that isn't my point.
My point is that w/o too much effort on your part, you entered some code or pushed a few buttons and the computer returned two distinctly recognizable results. A true test of that program would be to hear the second pieces that the computer returns from the same set of variables.

btw, which program is that?
I didn't download any of the one's available at David Cope's site.
The programs I've seen are so complex that they require a great deal of time to get anything out of,
so I stopped fooling w/ them.

As to this statement, "in fact [computers compose] better than most people."
He's likely referring to the fact that most people can't write music at all- but I'm guessing.

Push the button again! Lets hear the 2nd result.

K

[A.Leung]

If you can show me a piece of music written using math that sounds at all decent, by all means send it this way.

Actually Brian Eno said that when he ran out of ideas he resorted to pure math. He would pick time signatures from a hat - tempos - notes, etc. Cant think of anything he ever did that i didn't like.

[ChemicalReaper]

Actually Brian Eno said that when he ran out of ideas he resorted to pure math. He would pick time signatures from a hat - tempos - notes, etc. Cant think of anything he ever did that i didn't like.

Picking time signatures, tempos, note durations, key signatures, intervals, etc. from a hat is not math; it's down to pure chance of what he happens to pick.

Algorithms do not good music make. I would just as soon prick my finger and use my own blood to compose than write using only 'pure math.'

[Enrique]

All I'm saying is if you use a sequencer you're involved in "computer generated music" to some degree.
If arpeggiators or drum machines are accepted tools, why stop there?
Why not a tool that fills in voicings or supplies drum breaks?
If those provide somewhat usable results, then why not a motivic generator of some sort?

Some of you see a line in the sand where I see a gray area.
I just see it as another tool, and one that's simply amusing, like any other game.

K

It seems this is getting into semantics (defining "computer generated music").

What I'm considering as "computer generated music" is when the computer does everything after being given some data to crunch. No further human interaction besides the initial input of data and pressing the "go" button.

I think using random generation and computer generated sound as part of our composition process is actually very neat and engaging to me. The results these tools provide are still taken by a human being and worked into something greater, ie, the whole is greater than the sum of its parts. But when you remove us from the equation, that's where I draw my line in the sand for what is "music".

So don't get me wrong, I think it's wonderful that we have so many tools at our disposal, some very sophisticated tools at that and there is nothing wrong with using them in my opinion.

[mezzoforte]

Like the conception of thoughts and ideas, the conception of music takes place in the mind.
Making music is a purposeful process; and only man can think purposefully.
To those who think these to be true, automatically made music is a contradiction in terms. Like thoughtless ideas and imaginary facts.

[KenK]

Hi mf,

It seems one of the main arguments against algorithmic composition, is that there is no human input.
But this is sort of a misconception.
There is much human input regarding writing the program, setting equations and variables and usually refining.
The computer doesn't do it by itself.
The over-all design is done by a composer, just certain elements are left to chance.

k

[chest]

Like the conception of thoughts and ideas, the conception of music takes place in the mind.
Making music is a purposeful process; and only man can think purposefully.
To those who think these to be true, automatically made music is a contradiction in terms. Like thoughtless ideas and imaginary facts.
mezzoforte, it seems to me you'd have got on well with someone who used to be here, called nickysnd - he said pretty much the same, with the same strength of conviction.


On this topic, IMHO, you have to judge by results, not through applying principles like those you've just given.

I'm not claiming you're wrong in assessing that there'll never actually BE good music generated algorithmically - and, indeed, although I haven't heard much music created that way, I didn't like what I heard.

But (with feelings of deja vu, concerning previous threads) I prefer to think along the lines of the "Turing Test". In musical terms, I'd interpret that as saying that one should listen to a piece of music and assess its "merit" without knowing how it was created - ie by a person or a computer program. I prefer to keep an open mind for the present, and accept that (no matter what I've heard so far) I might one day think a piece of music created by a computer program is good.

Of course, there is the question of to what extent an algorithm simply regurgitates what its user input. Taken to extremes, this could be a DAW playing back a composer's sequence. One small degree less could be picking the order in which sections are played. But ...

The one time I tried dabbling with algorithmic composition, I came to the tentative conclusion that one "idea" gives you one piece of music (sorry, rather vague statements for the sake of quickness). Having specified a few rules and thereby generated a short passage that seemed like it could be usable in real music, I felt encouraged and ran the program again, only to find the result so similar (not the exact notes, but the general feel) that there was no point in doing more than one run. (I like this analogy: imagine you put a picture frame round part of a big area having a course-textured surface, and the result happens to be acceptable as "art"; if you take the same picture frame and put it somewhere else on that area, you're (perhaps) likely just to get an alternative version of the original piece, not a new piece.)

I wouldn't be against using algorithmic methods to help me come up with musical ideas that I could alter and use just as if they'd come into my head or as if I'd played them on a keyboard. But, during my dabblings with this approach, I mainly generated garbage, and the results that did seem usable were the result of a disproportionate amount of effort.

--

Curiously, I once had an almost opposite reaction (to what you asserted, above) from someone about a (not very good) piece that I'd written...

I'd created a piece of music in which I used the output of a computer program that I had written to generate notes in response to to the the way I handled a controller - the precise detail of a "performance" was beyond my actual control but I could control the broad shape and intensity of long phrases. I went through the process several times, picked a result I liked, and then transformed it and combined the sections to create a piece of music.

Whatever else, the result was (I thought) indesputably a product of my own effort - I'd decided to buy the computer (and earnt the money to pay for it) I'd decided to write the program, I'd designed and written it, I'd run it to turn my use of a controller into musical notes (in real time), I'd selected a suitable result, and I'd worked with it to make the piece, etc. But someone who heard the piece and thought it was OK insisted that "the computer did it" (no credit to me at all).

-- So (I thought to myself), perhaps, if I sat down now and improvised something on the piano, he'd say the piano created it. :rolleyes:

[halftone]

Hi All,

Outside of the philosophical there is a financial reality to consider.

When a computer can eventually compose reasonable music on demand I am sure film studios and other commercial enterprises will use it as an efficient and economical way to provide music for their needs.

I remember purists many years ago claiming that using samples and a keyboard was removing the "human element".
Now it is a common practice.

I imagine in the same way samples are mixed with real instruments currently , that in the future, computer and human composed music will be featured and co-exist in the same way.

As many have said above. It will be another tool to use.

Regards John

[ChemicalReaper]

When a computer can eventually compose reasonable music on demand I am sure film studios and other commercial enterprises will use it as an efficient and economical way to provide music for their needs.

I personally hope it never gets to that stage. It's a very scary thought: film companies no longer need composers because the director can just go into a computer program and tell it "I need a piece of music in this genre, that's this long; it gets loud and actiony with a lot of tension for this long at this point in time, then climaxes, resolves, and ends at this duration marker."

[halftone]

Hi All

I personally hope it never gets to that stage. It's a very scary thought: film companies no longer need composers because the director can just go into a computer program and tell it "I need a piece of music in this genre, that's this long; it gets loud and actiony with a lot of tension for this long at this point in time, then climaxes, resolves, and ends at this duration marker."


I see "computer composing" as being used more as a guide. A Human composer would be involved to make adjustments and give advice. In the future there will always be work for Humans......................so long as we win the " Machine Wars " ;)

Regards John

[mezzoforte]

On this topic, IMHO, you have to judge by results, not through applying principles like those you've just given.
As I understand it, the topic is: the procedure of making music automatically.
My question: is that procedure a creative one? (By 'creative' I mean conscious and purposefully imaginative)
By 'results,' you seem to refer to the feelings stirred up inside of you by the sounds issued from the said procedure; and you have set yourself to judge those sounds by your feelings.
Stop. Rewind: "judge." What is judgment? It is the capacity for subsuming the particular under the universal - which seems to justify my 'principle-applying' approach; and which seems to invalidate your exposition as a judgment, because your own feelings can't be regarded as universal.

I have set myself to judge not the sounds but the procedure of making them. On this purpose, I have subjected that particular procedure to the universal principles of creativity. And have found this way that the automatic procedure can't be creative.
I was not interested in judging whether or not automatically-made music did, does, or will, cause pleasurable feelings. I only wanted to find a reasonable answer to my question; and here's a few that came out:

Making music automatically is not a creative procedure; and that, not because machines are employed, but because the procedure itself is not a conscious, purposefully imaginative process.
Making music is creative only when it is conscious and purposefully imaginative.
Mind is the only place where consciousness, imagination, and purposefulness, exist.
Automatism precludes consciousness, imagination, and purposefulness.
Based on the above, it follows that creative music can't be automatic, nor can automatically-made music be creative.
Creative and automatic are mutually exclusive concepts, they cancel each other out.
I find these answers satisfactory enough with regard to the topic.

Creativity is important. For some reason, when it comes to art, people seem to put value in creativity. And that, to the point where the absence of creativity invalidates an object as a piece of art.
Automatic art is a contradiction in terms. Like feeling-based judgment.

[peter5992]

I have set myself to judge not the sounds but the procedure of making them.

(...)

Making music automatically is not a creative procedure; and that, not because machines are employed, but because the procedure itself is not a conscious, purposefully imaginative process.
Making music is creative only when it is conscious and purposefully imaginative.

Creativity is important. For some reason, when it comes to art, people seem to put value in creativity. And that, to the point where the absence of creativity invalidates an object as a piece of art.
Automatic art is a contradiction in terms. Like feeling-based judgment.

That is too black and white for me. In the end of the day I, and I daresay most people, don't care how beautiful music was made - they care about the result. Now whether that music was inspired by a beautiful sunrise, or my dog or girlfriend, or a great movie, or just some random melody I heard in my head at 3 am, or generated by a clever computer program - who cares.

Also, people use their feeling - not any type of rationale - to decide whether they like a piece of music or not. You can analyze Bach's wohltemperariertes Klavier or Beethoven's symphonies up to the nth degree, but after all is said and done, what matters is that for whatever reason over hundreds of years people all over the world love their music, regardless of their background or training or no musical training at all. Ask the average person why he loves Bach - he's not going to say 'well that is a really clever counterpoint here, just love the development of that fugue in bar 27'. No - he will just say 'It's beautiful'.

Personally I think those computer programs are really interesting though I doubt they replace us anytime soon. If nothing else they are another tool in the toolbox.

[chest]

I have set myself to judge not the sounds but the procedure of making them. On this purpose, I have subjected that particular procedure to the universal principles of creativity. And have found this way that the automatic procedure can't be creative.
You have "found" that result only in the sense that you have defined creativity as requiring the human mind and have assumed that music made automatically does not involve the human mind.

I've been through arguments like this before, and they seem to go nowhere. People spend a lot of time taking a stance and disagreeing with each other about things that don't matter much to me. So I'll withdraw from this one now.

[mezzoforte]

peter5992,
I have made clear my disinterest in the 'beauty in the eyes of the beholder' aspect. I have only addressed the relation between automatically-made music and creativity. As it turned out, they are incompatible.

chest,
I have not "defined creativity as requiring the human mind." That was not my premise. My premise was: creativity requires conscious, purposeful imagination. Why those particular requirements? Because (as you suggest) the human mind displays them? No. Rather, because an unconscious production, one that does not employ imagination in a purposeful manner, what would justify calling such a production: creative?
I have not "assumed that music made automatically does not involve the human mind," although that would have been a correct, intuitive premise: automation, by its very nature, bypasses consciousness.
Far from me the intention to argue that you seem to imply. My intention was to address the relation between the concepts of creativity and automation, as that relation applies to making music.
You are of course entitled to disregard whatever you see as going nowhere, especially the things that don't matter much to you.