On this episode of Spark: Computers that write music, play chess, and listen to cocktail parties. Click below to listen or download the MP3 (runs 54:00).
Play audio:
- Justin Bieber is nominated for three Juno awards
- Jay Frank explains how technology is changing pop music.
- Jay’s book is Futurehit.DNA: How the Digital Revolution is Changing Top 10 Songs
- Nora’s full interview with Jay Frank
- Download the first chapter of Futurehit.DNA at Jay’s site
- Lauren Simmons assigns a DRM assignment to her Music and Computers class at Leaside High School
- Nora mentions openparliament.ca
- John Culling builds audibility maps to help solve the cocktail party problem
- Robert Martens and Steve Labourveau respond to Nora’s interview with Jesse Schell
- Tim Devine created Two Computers at Leisure Playing Chess in a Park
- David Cope co-creates music with software composers Emmy and Emily Howell (full interview)
Music and sound effects used in this episode:
- Countdown by Corsica_S
- “Invisible” by Drift
- “Code Monkey” by Jonathan Coulton
- “TiK ToK” by Ke$ha
- “Music! Music! Music!” (1950) by Teresa Brewer Feat. Dixieland All Stars
- Music from “Music For Daydreaming” by Podington Bear
- “Walking Along” by Kevin McLeod
- Music from “Music For Sleep” by Podington Bear
- Clip from Spring Comes to a Pond (1952)
- “Invention” by Emmy
- “From Darkness, Light – 3 Prelude” and “From Darkness, Light – 4 Fugue” by Emily Howell
You can receive Spark automatically by subscribing to any of our totally free podcast feeds:
- Free weekly podcast (Subscribe in iTunes)
- Free weekly podcast + additional blog-only content (Subscribe in iTunes)
- Free weekly podcast (low bandwidth version)
For more information (and instructions) visit cbc.ca/podcasting
[Original image by Hryck]
Just had to tell you how fun it was to hear that too short bit of Teresa Brewer's "Music, Music, Music"! When I was 9 or 10 years old (circa 1960), I would 'karaoke' into my hairbrush every song on that album! Thanks for the flashback!
KG, Ignace ON
Dan, who mixes the show, has a great archive of fun old tunes. He always seems to be able to find something that fits perfectly.
Emily Howell is a brilliant composition. A work of art which assists in the production of works of art.
You ask our opinions on creativity. Here is mine:
To say that humans alone can engage in authentic creative activity is absurd.
Using modern ideas of reality one could say that the fundamental forces between the elementary components of matter, coupled with the non-uniform distribution of energy in space-time has created, among other subsystems, humans. This creative process continues at all levels throughout the universe.
From a reasonable perspective, humans participate in this natural creativity. What the human system brings to it is awareness of a high degree of control over the form and function of the novel products of their involvement, and an awareness of the effect these creations have on them. We refer to these effects as emotions, and they guide our creative goals and selectivity in the creative process.
It is not even probable that humans are alone in awareness-modulated creativity. It is just that we possess a greater range of control in manipulating materials, texture, light, sound, and sequences of events in space and time, and have a richer awareness of our experiences and our awareness.
If we want to be careful about defining art, however, we have a right to require it be produced with some defined minimum of awareness. I would let someone else attempt that definition, however. But any such definition has no effect on our ability to see beauty in, and be moved by products of unconscious natural creative processes.
Pointe-Claire, QC., 20 April 2010
Interesting that the DRM debate is being brought up in the classroom. That will be hard, given much of the core of what I heard from the teacher/students was adopted from the perspective of one side of the debate. They might be surprised to hear that I've spent much of my volunteer time in the last near-decade opposing the legalization and legal protection of DRM. This is not because I don't believe artists to get paid, but because I *DO* want them to get paid for their valuable contributions to society. Once the underpinnings of the most controversial forms of DRM are understood, it becomes more clear that it is a threat to the livelihoods of individual creators — not a protection of it.
http://flora.ca/own
As to human vs non-human 'creativity': If a un-natural person, in the form of a corporation, can the first holder of copyright then why can't a computer be an artist? We seem to question one but not the other….
Interesting what Jay has come up with regarding how songs change by technology. If I remember correctly you had someone a while back talk about how itunes and the availability of single song downloads is changing how people listen to music – in that people don't listen to albums much anymore because they can just hit skip or put it on random so easily. I'm finding it fascinating how music is changing and I love that you guys keep coming up with new takes on it. Thanks for keeping up the conversation.
I found the piece on Emily Howell fascinating. I have a friend who has a collection of computer made art. These are large pieces of beautiful bold drawings and 'paintings'. I don't believe that people have such difficulty with machines (or elephants for that matter), making visual art. Why the upset over computer made music?
These comments are on the section – Lauren Simmons assigns a DRM assignment to her class. I'm pondering the concept of "sharing" that many students seamingly felt was their right. Where did this come from, and is it really an autrustic motivation?
I think that our culture that has made sharing a "good" thing and reinforced this concept in early childhood education. Not sharing is always shown as "bad". Now what is being shared is really being stollen then shared. Do these folk also steal money and food and then pass it around like a modern day Robin Hood? Probabily not. But when the product is in tangable and technology makes it easy, things just happen (as they say). Why?
The social value and staus that comes from "sharing". Does this sound credible? Let me know what you think.
Here is one of the problems you will run up against. Even those of us who work hard to ensure that creators get paid for their valuable contributions to society do not agree that unauthorized "sharing" of creative works is "theft" or "stealing". Comparisons between tangible/rivalrous things (like money and food) and intangible/non-rivalrous things (like creative works) only serve to split into two groups people who otherwise would be working together. I've found I am unable to have a reasonable conversation with people who believe that infringement is "theft" — the mind of the "theft is theft" person is so closed that they are not able to see how their activities based on that thinking is taking far more money out of their pocket than infringement does.
http://www.digital-copyright.ca/Jefferson_debate
If we were all speaking the same language, then we could work together to get people paid. I'm someone who wants to pay creators, and the times I don't it is because of decisions that creator (or their publishers/etc) made and not anything I have control over.
For instance, I don't have an interest in paying for content that is locked by DRM. DRM on content doesn't "stop copyright infringement" (false marketing claim), it locks the content such that it is only interoperable with specific brands of technology (actual implementation fact). I don't want to be locked into certain technology brands, so won't purchase content that is deliberately made less valuable in that way.
Last reply had to be cut shorter:
Sometimes the problem is unawareness. I downloaded the Audio Book for "The Year of the Flood" by Margaret Atwood from eMusic.com (DRM-free music and audio-book store) and loved it. I wanted to then download "Oryx and Crake" which had some overlapping characters, only to be told that it was unavailable in Canada.
Yes, a Canadian authors works available in the USA but not in Canada. Atwood and/or her publisher understood the value of having the audio-books be technology brand neutral (AKA: DRM-free, available on eMusic), but not the value of actually accepting money from Canadians.
So, Ms. Atwood didn't get her royalty cut because I didn't download that book. I could have taken the easy way out and used any of the infringing download sites easily found by a simple search that offer the book, but didn't. Or I could do that equally evil thing (in the minds of some), and borrow the book from the Library.
Is infringement the problem, or is the problem market issues that relate to choices made (or not made) by the copyright holders? I think if honestly evaluated you would find that changes in the marketplace and choices made by copyright holders, not infringement, is the greatest impact on the livelihood of creators.
Interesting story on sound in social situations. I've always had a challenge hearing conversation in social situations and it always seemed to me that maybe because I'm tall. Part of a small group standing and chatting at a big, loud, event I, despite normal hearing, sometimes struggle to hear the conversation of my often shorter companions, even finding myself stooping to hear. Perhaps the protection of the group contains the sound or blocks the noise, but my head sticking above the group exposes me more to the noise from the room. Of course, my not-so-scientific theory has a sample size of one, but maybe some other tall folks share similar experiences?
And Tik Tok is an earworm. Thanks for helping me understand why.
Glad you liked it. I would like to find out more about his specific research into how we pick out sounds from a general hubbub. He seemed to suggest there was an awful lot we could talk about when it came to head movements alone, so it wouldn't surprise me if height was a factor.
NOra I do like your porgram, but with your mobile program you completely missed the mark and live in adifferent centruy. The mobilie revolution has already happened in most parts of the world. Teh question you FAILED to ask, WHY oh WHY is Canada so far behind with it? What your interview partners describe is nothing new and it happend years ago other places. Why does Canada always make out to be so on the leading edge and with it, when it is in fact ALWAYS catching up the with the world. Fact is Canada is NOT an innovator, but rather a lazy follower of global trends. Mobile communciations is a classic example and I expected CBC radio to be more on the ball. The same goes for sex education and many more topics. Why are we always in the dark ages on a world scale? Now there are some program ideas.
FormPaper.com covers the legal and real estate market with automated forms. They have Real Estate, Legal, and Office forms software. We also provide many services like a lawyers 50000 database, property listing service, and much more.
I quite enjoyed the Aug 22 Spark re: computer assisted music composition. I propose that an essential aspect of 'creativity' is 'supply and demand'. Consider the situation when adult Peguins return to their young. Evidently the adult will only care for it's own young, which is identified by vocalization by youngster and remembered by adult. If a computer generates 'too many' compositions, their deemed creative value will diminish as David Cope was sensitive to. How can we appreciate uniqueness, if we can't remember the subtle differences.
I was hoping to find more pictures or a video of 'Two computers at leisure playing chess in a park' but was unsuccessful. I really liked how the piece was introduced and how it ended with the voices of the two computers calling out their moves. The female computer (Vicki?) asking not to be interrupted was especially cute. While setting up computers to play chess against each other is nothing new, the fact that they are playing chess in the absence of any humans in an urban park setting makes it somehow compelling and makes you go 'hmmmm.' Perhaps in the distant future the voices and music created by machines will be all there is after we humans have gone.
Yes, I particularly liked this piece. It just flips on its head in a really playful way, the whole idea that computers/technologies are defined by their use for us.
Consider the situation when adult Peguins return to their young. Evidently the adult will only care for it's own young, which is identified by vocalization by youngster and remembered by adult. If a computer generates 'too many' compositions, their deemed creative value will diminish as David Cope was sensitive to. How can we appreciate uniqueness, if we can't remember the subtle differences.