Computer-Aided Algorithmic Composition in Popular Music
Brian Tuohy
Digital Media and Arts Research Centre
University of Limerick
Castletroy, Limerick, Ireland
0743518@studentmail.ul.ie
Abstract
Computer-aided algorithmic composition (CAAC) has
been met by much criticism from the musical
establishment. With few traditional composers willing to
accept the methods of CAAC as valid, respectable
approaches to musical composition, it is unclear whether
or not there is a place for computer-aided algorithmic
composers within a mainstream musical practise. This
paper seeks to examine the issues that surround the field of
CAAC, and, in particular, the work of one of its primary
practitioners, David Cope.
Keywords: Algorithmic Composition, CAAC, Computer
Music, David Cope, Generative Music.
1. Introduction
The purpose of this research paper is to investigate the use
of CAAC in creating popular music. The issue of using
computer-based algorithms to make musical decisions
while composing a piece can be held in great contempt
among some traditional composers. The question of
indolence can be raised as an argument against the choice
to employ the assistance of a computer in musical
navigation.
This paper raises and attempts to answer the following
question: Can CAAC methods be accepted into the current
mainstream as a compositional tool? In order to answer
this question, several issues surrounding the field of
CAAC must be examined. These issues include:
• Disapproval of non-traditional composition
methods
• Challenges of integrating proven methods beyond
the realm of academia
• Limitations of specific systems
There is also a question raised as to who should receive the
credit for such compositions. Is it the composer upon
whom the work is based, the computer that carried out the
calculations, the programmer of the software, or the user?
There are several different areas involved in studying
CAAC. Some of these areas are concerned with the
concepts of algorithmic composition and its background,
others include the application of these methods to popular
music and the success of the results, while more relate to
the objections that some composers have to the idea of
automated composition, and how it might be at odds with
the ethos of creative art. To reflect these areas, this paper
has been broken up into three main sections:
• Background to CAAC
• Practical Applications of CAAC
• Objection/Support for CAAC
Throughout the following chapters, we will first
investigate the history of algorithmic composition,
attempting to determine what, if anything, differentiates it
from other approaches to musical composition and
creativity. We will then look at how algorithmic
composition has been implemented with computers, and
what applications it has found beyond the theoretical
realms of academia. Finally, we will discuss the debate
that exists between proponents and opposers of CAAC,
and attempt to decipher whether or not CAAC could ever
be accepted as a valid method for creating popular music.
2. Algorithmic Composition
An algorithm is defined as “a set of rules for solving a
problem in a finite number of ways”[1]. Although the term
is often associated with computers, algorithms can also
take many other forms, such as written instructions or
verbally dictated rules. Any form of structured music, then,
can surely be seen as containing algorithms – rules which
suggest the best methods for composition, structure etc.
2.1 Algorithmic composition throughout history
Algorithmic composition is said to extend back thousands
of years [2]. Some of the first musical instruments were
capable of creating music that would act on set rules, but
would depend on an input so variable that the sound could
differ greatly with every performance. One such example
is a wind-chime [2]. The designer of such an instrument
sets certain things in concrete – the possible pitches,
amplitudes, etc. that the instrument might achieve. Acting
on the instrument, however, is an entirely unpredictable
source, not affected by any concepts of music or structure.
Wholly different orchestrations are possible with each gust
of wind. The wind introduces randomness into the musical
output of the chimes, in much the same way as computers
can with algorithmic composition today [3].
Musical influence and plagiarism are at the center of
many debates about algorithmic composition. It could be
argued that all music is simply the product of the sounds
by which it is preceded [4]. Early music can be traced back
to man’s association with nature and the elements. The
first rhythms are said to have been inspired by the sounds
of the human heart beating and our feet first creating sonic
patterns, as we discover the possibilities of our hind legs.
Similarly, early melody can be attributed to the sounds of
birds and the musical calls of other animals such as
elephants. Music, then, is rooted in association and
emulation – we could not create sound without first being
inspired and influenced [3].
In terms of Western music, algorithmic systems to aid
the creation of musical scores existed long before the
invention of computers [5]. One such system was
Musikalisches Wurfelspiel (musical dice game). This
system was largely used in the 18th century by composers
such as Haydn and Mozart. The concept of the system
involved throwing a dice in order to randomly select a
measure from a collection of several hundred small
phrases. These measures would then be pieced together to
create a composition in a similar manner to some of the
techniques used in computer-generated composition today
[3].
2.2 Early implementation of computers in algorithmic
composition
There was little change in concept when algorithmic
systems transferred from pen and paper to computer
around the middle of the twentieth century. Gottfried
Koenig, Lejaren Hiller and Iannis Xenakis all helped
pioneer early CAAC [6]. Of particular importance to
CAAC were stochastic methods of composition, such as
those used by Xenakis. These processes involved feeding a
table of probability statistics into a computer and then
generating a random number from within this table. This
number could represent pitch, amplitude, duration, timbre
or a number of other musical characteristics. The number
would be documented as part of a score, and another
number would be generated based on the probabilities
associated with the current number within the statistics
table.
2.3 Modern developments
The same stochastic methods used by Xenakis are still
widely used today [7]. Markov chains are often used to
create melodies from a probability matrix. These
probabilities allocate a different weighting to each
possibility of pitch, amplitude, etc. The use of higher order
Markov chains lends itself to the generation of results with
a much stronger sense of structure than the simple “aimless
wandering” of a first order system [6]. Higher orders mean
that the relationships examined go beyond that of the
current and previous note, but rather depend on a series of
notes, leading up to the current request. This leads to a
much denser table of probabilities, with the tendency to
break off into seemingly organised sections and patterns.
The ebb and flow tendency of Markov chain-based
algorithmic music – in its jumps between sections – serves
to question the ability of such systems to contribute to an
overall form or direction within a piece of music [8].
Without an overall direction, much of the work of
algorithmic systems can remain static and incomplete
[9]. The study of form in music is largely based in the
field of psychology and, because of this, it has been
suggested that computers may not understand the
overall form of a piece without the input of human
guidance [8].
If a computer is taught to recognise melodic patterns
within a piece, then it can use this analysis to further
inform the composition of future pieces. The ability to
recall such recurring patterns allows for certain properties
of a score to be “earmarked” for later use [10]. This is the
approach taken by David Cope with the use of
Experiments in Musical Intelligence (Emmy) [1]. Cope
created a database of classical works from Bach, Mozart,
Vivaldi and Rachmaninoff, among others. From these
works, it was possible to identify certain patterns, motifs
and techniques, which could then be emulated to create
works of a similar style. This analysis of the “composition
of a composition” has been referred to as the ‘metalevel’ of
music – the next natural abstraction of music beyond the
written score [11]. Such analysis can provide invaluable
information regarding the nature of composition and how
we perceive what is considered to be beauty within music.
3. Beyond the Ivory Tower – Practical
Applications of CAAC
Much of the work that surrounds computer music can often
remain bound to an academic environment and fail to
reach a wider audience. This section investigates some
examples of work that has attempted to implement
practical applications of CAAC. Some of the uses
suggested include the composition of popular music,
automatic composition of incidental music for film and
TV, and compositional training for young musicians.
3.1 Classical Composition
David Cope’s recent work has ventured far beyond the
realms of mere tribute to classical composers. This comes
as a result of the creation of Emily Howell, a new software
that endeavours to achieve what Cope had first intended in
1980 with EMI – to develop a compositional tool that
could interpret his style and assist him in conquering
writer’s block, with the reconfiguration of his own ideas
[12]. This is achieved by constant interaction with the
system, in the form of conversations. Cope will ask Emily
a question regarding the direction of a piece of music, she
will respond with a suggestion – based on a database of
Cope’s style and that of several composers by whom he is
influenced. Cope will either accept or reject this
suggestion, thus leading the system to grow further
informed about the composer’s style and preference [3].
The use of Emily Howell’s inherent feedback loop, which
bases decisions and further development on the input and
critique of the composer, suggests the possibility of self-
aware computer programs [12]. Cope describes such
artificial creativity as being the product of inductive
association, recombinance, pattern-matching, and learning
from allusions and influence [13].
The software is derived from the composer’s rules, but,
in order for it to produce anything indicative of personality
or life, the program must also be capable of breaking these
rules. This is a common belief for much of CAAC, and
applies equally to all genres. It is the very lack of
personality in computers that allows them to introduce
notions that may seem inconceivable to a human
composer, and to “reassemble old elements in new ways,
without the hang-ups or preconceptions of humanity” [3].
This is a sentiment echoed by Brian Eno, who has stated
that he aspires to create music that is not only interesting
because of its principles, but also because of its musical
effect. To achieve such results, one must allow for the
system to step outside of the prescribed rules. “I want the
ideas to be seductive, and the result to be seductive” [14].
The work put forward in Justin Fincher’s thesis attempts
to automatically create new pieces of music, based on the
analysis of the style of previous works [16]. This is not
dissimilar to some of the work that David Cope achieved
with Emmy, although the author does admit that the
system deals with much less complex scores. It is noted
that the computer lacks the creativity of a human composer
and does not possess the intelligence to create its own
style, but instead simply mimics the style of composers it
has analysed. This has informed the suggestion that such
programs could be used for composing simple folk or pop
scores or for inspiring and challenging composers to
explore new ground in their compositional practice.
Fincher presents the possibility of using algorithmic
systems for composing simple scores, but exposes
questions of the competency of such systems in tackling
more complex scores.
Akihiko Matsumoto has presented much work based in
Max/MSP, which analyses composition on several levels,
to generate pieces of impressive quality, often based on the
styles of other composers such as Brian Eno, David Cope
and John Adams [15].
3.2 Dance and Hip-Hop Music
CAAC has been explored in many genres, the musical
aesthetics of which differ greatly from those of Cope and
Western classical. The core principles, however, remain
largely the same throughout the spectrum of popular
music.
Similar methods to those that Cope uses with Emily
Howell have been employed in creating mainstream music.
Nick Collins has explored the idea of using programs such
as SuperCollider as a compositional tool for dance music
[17]. With this application, the computer will generate a
beat, which the composer can then choose to use or alter.
The system will then proceed to carry out other tasks such
as cutting the breakbeat according to requirements set out
by the user. Essentially, the system is attempting to
automate some of the processes for the musician, in order
to simplify the compositional process. Collins points out
that, although the program is tailored to meet the
requirements of dance music, the applications of such a
system could extend to any musical genre. It is possible,
then, to imagine such a system applied to pop music where
a simple automated melody and rhythm section may create
the basis for an instant track.
In his Masters thesis, Paul Maurer presents a program
created in Max/MSP, which will automatically generate a
piece of contemporary urban music based on a small
number of input parameters [18]. The suggested practical
applications of the program include overcoming writer’s
block, composing for film and TV, generating audio loops
for production and creating unique pieces, with which
vocalists can practice. The author specifically points out
that the program is not intended to be a ‘hit maker’, but to
be used, instead, as a tool for generating new ideas. This
suggests that algorithmic composition in popular music is
guided by a moral onus to assume creative responsibility
of systems that may present the possibility of automated
creativity.
CAAC work by dance artists such as Mike Foyle can
successfully create a “very obvious sense of progression
and development”, while also manipulating timbre and
other properties of synthesized sound [15]. This kind of
music could arguably be deemed indeterminable from the
arrangement of a human composer.
3.3 Applications to functional music
As not all musical content is considered to strive for
artistic merit [19], there must also be practical applications
of such a system of automated composition. Telephone
systems need “on-hold” music; elevators and restaurants
need background music, as do video games etc. Several
projects have attempted to address these needs, in what
would seem to be a much less controversial bid than that of
David Cope.
Nick Collins described a program designed in
SuperCollider to automatically produce an entire electronic
dance song [20]. Listening critically to the output from the
program, and considering the conclusion of Collins’ paper,
suggests that this system primarily lends itself to tasks
other than composition for mainstream consideration.
Alternative applications postulated for the program are
automated generation of pieces for installations, or
generative, unpredictable karaoke music. Although this
program does not present itself as a comprehensive
compositional tool, it does outline a basis for building a
system capable of generating intelligent scores for multiple
instruments.
Heather Chan and DanVentura developed a system for
creating altered versions of existing music to suit a certain
user-specified mood [21]. The application of this system is
based on theme music for TV, film and video games. This
idea is similar to a classic “theme and variation” approach
to composition. The advantage here is that the computer
will analyse a main piece, and automatically create a
variation depending on the mood that the user has selected.
This would mean a practically endless supply of incidental
music. It would appear that this program currently sits
outside the realm of mainstream music; however, the idea
is one that could easily be adopted by composers,
particularly for work that has a definite overall theme or
concept such as a complete album of work.
Detlev Zimmerman described a system he designed to
automate the generation of musical accompaniment to a
multimedia presentation [22]. This system would make
musical decisions based on event cues within the
presentation. This would mean that a single piece could
build suspense when approaching an announcement, or
become less prominent during extended periods of speech
etc. Consideration is given to popular music as the source
for the musical inspiration. The author suggests that such a
system should not be applied to the task of creating
musical masterpieces, but is more suited to more menial
tasks. The application of a system such as this would
perhaps seem viable for TV and film work such as those
proposals suggested previously by Chan and Ventura.
Folkestad, Hargreaves and Lindstrom examined the
potential of using computers to teach compositional
methods to students [23]. In this way, CAAC is portrayed
as a tool used not only to produce a final score but also to
educate a new generation of composers and to raise the
standard of future composition. One would imagine that it
would seem a logical argument that a properly
implemented system of CAAC could inspire composers to
improve their work and explore new musical ground,
rather than become lethargic and submit to the creativity of
computers.
4. Creativity – The property of humans? – A
debate
Perhaps the most influential issues governing the
integration of CAAC methods into mainstream music are
the moral questions that are suggested by delegating
creative processes to a machine. In music, computer
algorithms can be applied to a number of processes,
including sampling and sound synthesis. The most hotly
debated applications of such algorithms, however, are
those that attempt to undertake the task of composing.
There are great philosophical implications associated with
such use of computer algorithms, as they act as a
replacement for processes that many feel are rightfully the
territory of humans – imagination, soul, intuition etc. [1].
The main objection to computers assuming
responsibility for the compositional process is that it is
seen as replacing the dedicated human composer [24].
Millea and Wakefield disregarded this argument when they
presented the development of algorithmic composition
software, with the distinct intention of composing a song
with the potential to become popular [25]. In order to
achieve this, the system analysed existing popular songs to
identify properties that may contribute to the memorable
nature of the song. Their paper could be seen as important
due to the specific attention that it gives to popular music,
but also due to the moral questions that such a system
might provoke. If the paper’s suggestion of searching for a
hit were taken seriously, there would undoubtedly be
issues with the intent of the artists. It would appear that
such motives may be considered acceptable in a theoretical
sense, but would be met with great scorn if acted upon in a
capitalist manner.
Bruce Jacob argues in support of computer algorithms
as a tool for composing [26]. However, he notes the
importance of a direct correlation between the work of the
composer and the tasks that the algorithm will perform, so
that the creativity can be truly derivative of the composer’s
style and ability.
Robert Peperell questions the ability of computers to
independently create viable pieces of art [27]. The author
seems to be of the opinion that computers can be used to
design templates for creative output, but they are scarcely
intelligent enough to execute a complete piece. The
example given is that of a poster – the user can specify the
size of paper, text to be included and general colour theme,
the computer can then generate a number of different
variations on the design, but they will essentially only act
as a guide for the user’s creative direction. Peperell’s
argument, then, is that he does not see computers as having
the creative ability to replace a human composer.
Peperell’s argument is rejected by David Cope, stating
that those who do not believe that creativity can be derived
from computer programs have likely defined creativity to
such an exclusive, narrow extent that even humans could
not claim to create [13]. Assuming that such computational
creativity is possible, Cope is likely to have come closest
to its mastery. The reactions of the musical establishment
to Cope’s work with Emmy, in creating pieces reminiscent
of Bach and Vivaldi, were those of disgust and vitriol [28].
The work was lambasted for having no humanity or “depth
of feeling”. The performance of a new, synthetically
created Bach piece was considered blasphemy [12]. It
could be argued that much of the opposition to Cope’s
work stemmed from the fact that the establishment’s sense
of self was challenged by the composer leaving audiences
unable to distinguish between Emmy’s work and genuine
pieces by Bach [29]. It would appear that Cope’s
algorithmic composition software is capable of passing the
Turing test – something that he sees, not as a detriment to
humanity, but a great achievement, that man has created a
machine, such as Deep Blue, that is complex enough to
help us to understand the workings of our own thoughts
and minds [30].
Doug Hofstadter admits a certain amount of
despondency at the thoughts of Emily Howell becoming
the future of musical creativity: “Things that touch me at
my deepest core might be produced by mechanisms
millions of times simpler than the intricate biological
machinery that gives rise to the human soul” [30]. The
question raised by many of Cope’s critics is one of our role
within the musical framework. “If creativity can be
mimicked, then what makes us so special?”[31]. In
response, Cope has suggested that creativity comes from
little more than our experiences of what has preceded us,
implying that computers are also capable of such
experiences, and that they can teach us about our own
constitution. “Mimicry helps us to understand our
humanness”[32].
Eleanor Selfridge-Field supports Cope’s approach to
human discovery: “That Cope expresses the pathways to
the composition of coherent works as computer algorithms
should not obscure the fact that he is ultimately working on
the frontiers of the human understanding of human
processes” [33].
Cope sees his software as little more than an extension
of himself – a mere tool that he uses as part of the process
of composing [28]. In response to the argument that the
work of Emily Howell is devoid of humanity and soul,
Cope states that the question is not whether or not the
computer possesses a soul, but if humans possess one.
“The feelings that we get from listening to music are
something we produce, it’s not there in the notes. It comes
from emotional insight in each of us – the music is just the
trigger” [28].
5. Conclusion
Throughout this paper, we have examined the history of
algorithmic composition and how it fits in with traditional
concepts of music and composition. Several applications of
CAAC in mainstream media have been mentioned, and
their advantages and limitations suggested. The primary
focus of debate remains to be the role of CAAC in the
contexts of composition and artistic creation. It would
appear that most staunch members of the musical
establishment will continue to reject the advances in
CAAC for the foreseeable future. It does, however, appear
that these advances are becoming more sophisticated and
convincing as compositional tools. This author would
suggest that such experimentation and research be
embraced, as it might aid in understanding the root of
complex processes, such as the perception of beauty within
music. However, it would also appear that due caution
should be expressed with the application of such advanced
processes. One must consider that research and popular
culture do not always coincide and that, perhaps, releasing
such softwares on a commercial level could lead to a
musical environment over-saturated with false genius and
soulless beauty.
References
[1] D. Cope, The Algorithmic Composer. Madison,
Wisconsin: A-R Editions, 2000.
[2] L. Weinstein, MozartBalls, Rhombus Media
Production, 2006.
[3] R. Blitstein, “Triumph of the cyber composer.”
Internet: http://www.miller-mccune.com/culture-
society/triumph-of-the-cyborg-composer-8507, Feb. 22,
2010 [Feb. 11, 2011].
[4] D. Jeffcock, Howard Goodall: How Music Works,
Tiger Aspect (IMG), 2006.
[5] “Computer music.” Internet:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_music , Feb. 12,
2011 [Feb. 15, 2011].
[6] C. Roads, The Computer Music Tutorial. Cambridge,
Mass. MIT Press, 1996.
[7] “Pop music automation.” Internet:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pop_music_automation , Nov.
3 2010 [Feb 27, 2011]
[8] N. Collins, “Musical Form and Algorithmic
Composition,” Contemporary Music Review, vol. 28,
no. 1, pp. 103–114, 2009.
[9] F. Hedelin, “Formalising form: An alternative
approach to algorithmic composition,” Organised
Sound, vol. 13, no. 03, pp. 249–257, 2008.
[10] W. B. Hewlett and E. Selfridge-Field, Eds., Melodic
Similarity: Concepts, Procedures, and Applications.
London: The MIT Press, 1998.
[11] H. Taube, Notes from the Metalevel: Introduction to
Algorithmic Music Composition. London: Taylor &
Francis Group, 2004.
[12] A. Saenz, “Music Created by Learning Computer
Getting Better | Singularity Hub.” Internet:
http://singularityhub.com/2009/10/09/music-created-by-
learning-computer-getting-better/. Oct. 9, 2009 [Apr. 10,
2011].
[13] D. Cope, Computer Models of Musical Creativity.
Cambridge, Mass. MIT Press, 2005.
[14] N. Roberts, Brian Eno - Another Green World, BBC
Arena, 2010.
[15] “Algorithmic Composition.” Internet:
http://wn.com/algorithmic_composition , Feb. 23,
2010 [Feb. 23, 2010].
[16] J. Fincher, "Automated composition of musical
scores based on the style of previous works", M.Sc.
thesis, Appalachian State University, Boone, North
Carolina, 2006.
[17] N. Collins, “Algorithmic Composition Methods for of the 4th conference on Creativity & cognition,
Breakbeat Science,” Proceedings of Music Without 2002.
Walls, 2001. [28] T. Adams, “David Cope: ‘You pushed the button and
[18] P. B. Maurer, "Generating a Genre: An Algorithmic out came hundreds and thousands of sonatas’,
Approach to Creating Popular Music," M.A. thesis, Technology, The Observer.” Internet:
New York University, New York, 2009. http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2010/jul/11/david-
[19] C. Lowe & I. Hotchkiss, “YouTube - Rebecca Black cope-computer-composer. Jul. 11, 2010 [Apr. 10, 2011].
- Friday (OFFICIAL VIDEO).” Internet: [29] J. Hsu, “Is the World’s Most Intelligent Music
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CD2LRROpph0. [Apr. Composing Software as Creative as Bach? | Popular
11, 2011]. Science.” Internet:
[20] N. Collins, “Infno: Generating Synth Pop and http://www.popsci.com/technology/article/2010-
Electronic Dance Music On Demand,” in 02/composers-music-making-machine-stirs-controversy-
Proceedings of the International Computer Music about-creative-originality. Feb. 25, 2010. [Apr. 10,
Conference, 2008. 2011].
[21] H. Chan and D. Ventura, “Automatic Composition of [30] D. Cope, Virtual Music: Computer Synthesis of
Themed Mood Pieces,” in Proceedings of the 5th Musical Style. Cambridge, Massachusetts: The MIT
International Joint Workshop on Computational Press, 2001.
Creativity, 2008, pp. 109–115. [31] S. Yee, “Computer aided composition that sounds
[22] D. Zimmerman, "Automatic Composition of like composers of yesterday.” Internet:
http://www.keyofgrey.com/2010/02/computer-aided-
Intention-Based Music for Multimedia Interface," in
composition-that-sounds-like-composers-of-yesterday,
Proceedings of the First International Workshop on
Intelligence of Multimedia Interfaces (IMMI1), 1995. Feb. 26, 2010 [Feb. 18, 2011].
[23] G. Folkestad, D. J. Hargreaves, and B. Lindstrom, [32] C. Watson, “Composer Emily Howell may lack flesh
“Compositional strategies in computer-based music- and blood, but her creator David Cope has given her
making,” British Journal of Music Education, vol. that most human of traits: creativity - Santa Cruz
15, no. 01, pp. 83–97, 1998. Sentinel.” Internet:
http://www.santacruzsentinel.com/ci_14330754. Apr. 2,
[24] A. Pascoe, "Algorithmic Composition," M.Sc. thesis,
University of California, Santa Cruz, 2009. 2010 [Apr. 10 2011].
[25] T. A. Millea and J. P. Wakefield, “Automating the [33] “Computer Models of Musical Creativity - The MIT
Composition of Popular Music: The Search For a Press.” Internet:
Hit,” in Proceedings of Computing and Engineering http://mitpress.mit.edu/catalog/item/?ttype=2&tid=10
Annual Researchers' Conference (CEARC), 2009, pp. 661. [Apr. 10, 2011].
45-50.
[26] B. L. Jacob, "Algorithmic Composition As a Model
of Creativity," Organised Sound, vol.1, iss. 3, 1996.
[27] R. Pepperell, “Computer aided creativity: practical
experience and theoretical concerns,” in Proceedings