WTF!: World’s Most Advanced Music AI Runs On Ancient Power Mac 7500

WTF!: World’s Most Advanced Music AI Runs On Ancient Power Mac 7500

Music Professor David Cope with Emily Howell, a music AI that runs on a Power Mac 7500. Photo courtesy of Catherine Karnow.

The world’s most advanced music AI runs on a rickety old Power Mac 7500.

Called Emily Howell by its creator, music professor David Cope, the program just released “her” first album, From Darkness, Light, in January.

WTF!: World’s Most Advanced Music AI Runs On Ancient Power Mac 7500

Some say Cope's Emily Howell program passes the Turing test: its compositions are indistinguishable from human music. Photo courtesy of Catherine Karnow.

Some say Emily Howell passes a version of the Turing Test: listeners cannot tell the music was composed by software. In a fantastic report on Cope and his work, writer Ryan Blitstein says:

At one Santa Cruz concert, the program notes neglected to mention that Emily Howell wasn’t a human being, and a chemistry professor and music aficionado in the audience described the performance of a Howell composition as one of the most moving experiences of his musical life. Six months later, when the same professor attended a lecture of Cope’s on Emily Howell and heard the same concert played from a recording, Cope remembers him saying, “You know, that’s pretty music, but I could tell absolutely, immediately that it was computer-composed. There’s no heart or soul or depth to the piece.”

Asked whether the software runs on a Power MAc 7500 (a machine that dates from the Gil Amelio era. It was discontinued April 1, 1996), Cope says:

“Yep. I tend to stay with what works rather than spend my time constantly upgrading.”

Cope, an emeritus professor at University of California at Santa Cruz, has faced fierce criticism that his program destroys notions of human creativity, to which he has a great response:

DON'T MISS
California Woman Uses Remote Control Software To Track Stolen MacBook

“I can understand why it’s an issue if you’ve got an extremely romanticized view of what art is,” he says. “But Bach peed, and he shat, and he had a lot of kids. We’re all just people.”

Listen for yourself:

About the author

Leander Kahney

is the editor and publisher of Cult of Mac, and author of three books about technology culture: Inside Steve’s Brain, the New York Times bestseller about Steve Jobs; Cult of Mac; and Cult of iPod. Leander has written for Wired, MacWeek, Scientific American, and The Guardian in London. Follow Leander on Twitter @lkahney and Facebook.

(sorry, you need Javascript to see this e-mail address)| Read more posts by .

Posted in Hardware, Macintosh, Music, News, Top stories, Vintage Tech |

  • Joseph

    Was it composed by software? Or was it composed by David Cope via software he developed? I’d say the latter.

  • Jonathan

    If people truly believe that the software “destroys notions of human creativity,” then it is the notion of creativity that is at fault, not the program.

  • Scott

    Computers are incapable of generating truly random numbers, I’m not sure how they can create art– more than likely they are simply re-arranging stuff that’s been inputted until it matches some pre-defined algorithm of what good music is.

  • Casper

    Not only does that sound like it was written by a computer, it sounds like it was written by a Powermac 7500. It’s just a very basic progression, arpeggiated in a baroque style. Most notably absent from the composition is a distinct melody.

  • http://www.capalbo.nl Michael

    When humans are creative what else do they do but re-arrange stuff they have seen or heard before until it matches waht they think is good music? Could Bach ever have composed without first having heard lot of other music before? Could Van Gogh ever have painted without having seen lots of other paintings first?

    Check out the books (e.g. Dimensions of Ctreativity) or articles (Demystifying insight) by Margret Boden for an interesting discussion on this and the ‘can computers be creative’ issue!

  • Scott

    @Michael “…until it matches what they think is good music” this is the key to why computers are different that people. For a human artist, they are able to evolve this idea of what good music is. For a computer, it’s merely creating variations until it matches pre-determined parameters of what good is, but this is the definition of the programmer’s idea of good, not the computer’s. In a way this kind of music can be seen as a new type of instrument with the programmer as the musician (not the computer).

    Thanks for the references though, I’ll take a look.

  • rosignol

    ‘Rickety’?

    A computer that’s still working 14 years after the model was discontinued must be pretty damn solid.