Thursday was Johann Sebastian Bach's birthday. Or Friday. Or maybe it isn't for a couple of weeks, as the sources I looked at gave two different days. The public radio station I listen to said they celebrated Bach's birthday on Thursday, but Google made a doodle in Bach's honor on Friday. Apparently the date of Bach's birth is different, depending on which calendar one uses.
I looked at the doodle. It showed Bach playing a keyboard, I think on an organ. I didn't listen to it, but I understand it played music. Not Bach's music. It let the user tap out a few notes to create a melody or something like that, and then used an algorithm to create counterpoint and play a composition that was "in Bach's style".
Those who study music hated it. They say it didn't create music, and even a beginning student in music theory would have avoided mistakes the algorithm made. There was, they said, no music in it, and no art. I'm kind of glad I didn't listen, though my reasoning was that I had work to do, and I saw the doodle on my computer at work, so priorities and so forth.
Now I'm wondering about a few things. Are the musicians right, and the AI algorithm was just using numbers in place of notes, essentially creating nonsense? Probably, but I don't know. What if AI could compose real music? Would that mean another job would end up being done mostly by technological devices, and not by people? It is possible that some people would be offended by anyone trying to produce music "in Bach's style". Everyone should just listen to Bach's own compositions instead.
One thing I heard, driving home yesterday, was the toccata and fugue, orchestrated by Leopold Stokowski. The announcer on the radio said Bach would never have heard, or imagined, his work sounding like that, being plaid by full orchestra rather than on an organ. I thought it was beautiful. No one knows what Bach would have thought. I think most of the classical music world likes the orchestra version. Certainly our local classical music station does. If musicians and composers can arrange musical works by others, can't anyone, including an artificial algorithm programmed by a coder? Play the music, and let listeners judge. Of course, in regards to the doodle algorithm, many listeners judged it bad music and insulting to Bach.
The other thing I wonder about is whether ordinary listeners noticed. Those who were quoted as complaining, in the articles I saw, were professional musicians or musical theorists, experts on music who have specific understanding and traditions about what music is and should be. Would I have noticed mistakes in the compositions of the algorithm? I have very little training in music. I can't read music, though I have been taught the clefs and notes. I can figure out which note something is in base and treble clef, but only slowly, one note at a time. I have not read about music theory. I listen to a classical music station when driving, but I don't listen to music at home any more. My wife has had musical training. She plays the piano and sings. My daughter had piano and voice lessons. My son played cello starting in elementary school, and was on the high school symphony orchestra. I have been around people who know music a lot, but I have not made much effort to learn about it. So I doubt I could say what was wrong with a creation by the algorithm.
I might notice, though, if it sounded wrong. If there were notes that jarred the ears. I might hear something, and think, ouch, that can't be quite right. Or maybe I just wouldn't notice. I listen to music, and I like some, and don't like some as much. As with art, my understanding is not very deep, though I have read some about both.
It would be interesting to learn how the doodle was received by the general public, and by different demographics. I realized a long time ago that judging performance or production by popularity is not the same as judgment of quality. I don't like many popular TV shows. I don't like much pop music, though I like some rock and some jazz. My favorite songs are rarely top hits. Popular books are usually weak and superficial. It seems that if one must work at understanding something, most people don't like it, or don't bother to find out. The weak and unchallenging is more likely to be the more popular. That certainly applies to beer. The world's most popular beer, based on sales, is Bud Light. As Monty Python said, it's like making love in a canoe. I won't drink the stuff. It has not flavor or character. Give me a good porter or stout, or a hoppy IPA, something I can taste.
But the popular always wins, because an artist or craftsman must sell a product to make a living. American beer was developed to maximize appeal to a wide audience, not to improve quality of beer. So, my guess is that the general audience on Google this week didn't notice that the algorithm could not, in fact, duplicate the art of Bach, and if someone told pointed that out, most people wouldn't understand the explanation, and wouldn't care. De gustibus non est disputandum. And the popular taste will rule that day.
No comments:
Post a Comment