[CHY872]

I honestly don't think (from your comments) that you know enough about music to make pronouncements of the sort that you are making. I'm sure that people are doing amazing stuff in natural language processing, but I'm also sure that you're underestimating the complexity of music.

Producing a program that can output quality music on demand would be largely comparable to producing a program that can output quality novels on demand. I'd be entirely unsurprised if it turned out to be an AI-complete problem; some evidence for this being that most humans with training are found to be incapable of composing quality music (where almost anyone can perform most of the tasks that have been solved by NLP researchers).

[birdsbolt]

Not really, models in NLP go beyond human performance in some tasks (not tasks as trivial as part-of-speech tagging).

I have a ten year formal training in music - piano (never went to college), I assumed we aren't really talking about composing Rachmaninoff-like pieces. You seem to be aiming at genius-level compositions, that is, currently, unrealistic, and I was surely not talking about that.

You're also going into philosophy of quality. What is quality? Are you doubting the ability of the model trained on thousands of classical compositions to reproduce a fully structured classical piece that sounds well and has a few leitmotifs? It's very easy to constrain the model with a leitmotif positioned at several places and ask of it to find you the most probable sequence (to fill the blanks). It's very easy to take a composition, decompose it into its constituent parts (chorus, verse, etc.) train this kind of sequence to a sequence model, and then do the same for the higher level stuff.

I mean, I agree with you that rule based systems wouldn't work. But statistical models could, if used in music with as much fervor as they are used in tasks in NLP, absolutely produce regular compositions that don't sound like you're randomly spitting out the notes.

Or are you aiming at profound genius compositions? Or maybe super-pop songs? Then I agree, that would be an AI-complete problem, equivalent to machine translation and 300 page novel production.

[TheOtherHobbes]

> Are you doubting the ability of the model trained on thousands of classical compositions to reproduce a fully structured classical piece that sounds well and has a few leitmotifs?

Yes, I am. It turns out to be immensely difficult to do basic compositional tricks, like writing acceptably good classical counterpoint, or harmonising simple chorales.

Writing a full scale piece is a whole other level of difficulty. Writing a full scale piece that's going to be played over and over is a level or two beyond that.

David Cope's EMI is probably the state of the art:

http://artsites.ucsc.edu/faculty/cope/mp3page.htm

Listen to the Bach and Chopin. If you know anything about music you can hear that they sound like what they are: randomised cut and paste mash-ups of elaboration techniques and motifs that lack the musical narrative logic that the original composers were so good at.

Basically they're competent but mediocre pastiche, glued together out of little bits and pieces, lacking any overall form or drive.

Now - you're supposed to learn this stuff at composition school, and getting a computer to do it to this level is certainly an achievement.

But it's still some way short of being interesting and memorable music.

I don't think pop is any easier. E.g. trance and progressive house sound totally formulaic - until you try to copy them, and realise that getting something good is harder than it sounds.

So no - it's in no way a trivial problem. And a naive Markov approach is in no way a good enough answer.