What do I make of such speculations now, a quarter-century later? I am not quite sure.
In the spring of 1995, I came across the book "Computers and Musical Style" by David Cope, a
professor of music at the University of California at Santa Cruz, and in its pages I noticed a mazurka
supposedly in the style of Chopin, written by Cope's computer program EMI (short for "Experiments in
Musical Intelligence"). This intrigued me because, having revered Chopin my entire life, I felt certain
that no one could pull the wool over my eyes in this department. So I went straight to my piano and sight-read
through the EMI mazurka several times, with mounting confusion and surprise.
Though I felt there were a few little glitches here and there, I was impressed, for the piece seemed to
"express" something. Had I been told it had been written by a human, I would have had no doubts
about its expressiveness. It sounded slightly nostalgic, had a bit of Polish feeling in it, and it did not
seem in any way plagiarized. It was new, it was unmistakably "Chopin-like" in spirit, and it did not
feel emotionally empty.
The more I grappled with this, the more disturbed I became -- but also fascinated. There was a
counterintuitive paradox here, something that obviously had caught me enormously off guard, and it was not my
style to merely deny it and denounce EMI as "trivial" or "nonmusical". To do so would have
been cowardly and dishonest. I was going to face this paradox straight on; I was going to grapple with this
strange program that was threatening to upset the apple cart that held many of my oldest and most deeply
cherished beliefs about the sacredness of music, about music being the ultimate inner sanctum of the human
spirit, the last thing that would tumble in AI's headlong rush towards thought, insight, and creativity.
Had I only read about EMI's architecture and not heard any of its output, I would have paid little or no
attention to it. Although Cope has put in far more work on EMI than most AI researchers ever do on any one
project, its basic principles simply did not sound radically new to me, or even all that promising. What made
all the difference in the world for me was carefully listening to EMI's compositions.
Over the next few months, I lectured about EMI in many places around the United States and Canada, and what
I found truly surprising was that hardly anyone in my audiences seemed upset at Cope's coup in the modeling of
artistic creativity; hardly anyone seemed threatened or worried at all.
The deepest underlying principle behind EMI is what Cope terms "recombinant music" -- the
identification of recurrent structures of various sorts in a composer's output, and the reusing of those
structures in new arrangements, so as to construct a new piece "in the same style". One can thus
imagine feeding in Beethoven's nine symphonies, and EMI coming out with Beethoven's Tenth.
EMI's central modus operandi, given a set of input pieces, is:
(1) chop up; (2) reassemble.
There are, of course, significant principles constraining what can be tacked onto what, and these principles
are formulated so as to guarantee coherence. I summarize these two principles as follows:
(1) Make the local flow-pattern of each voice similar to that in source pieces;
(2) Make the global positioning of fragments similar to that in source pieces.
These could be likened to two types of constraints that a jigsaw-puzzle solver naturally exploits when putting
together a jigsaw puzzle:
(1) The shape of each piece meshes tightly with those of neighboring pieces;
(2) The stuff shown on each piece makes sense in the context of the picture.
The former of these constraints might be characterized as "syntactic meshing", or meshing based
solely on "form", while the latter could be characterized as "semantic meshing", or
meshing based solely on "content".
Lack of space unfortunately prevents me from describing here the many types of intricate mechanisms by
which EMI picks up stylistic characteristics and carries out the many-leveled "recombination" that
Cope has programmed.
In my lectures on EMI, I nearly always let my audience hear a handful of small two-voice pieces for the
audience. The listeners are forewarned that there is at least one piece by Bach in the group, and at least one
by EMI in the style of Bach, and they should try to figure out which ones are by whom (or by what). After the
pieces have been performed, I ask the audience to vote. Usually, most of the audience picks the genuine Bach
as genuine, but usually it is only about a 2/3 majority, with roughly 1/3 getting it wrong. And it is not by
any means always the less sophisticated audience members who make the wrong classification.
EMI is evolving -- it is a moving target. Cope began work on his program in 1981, and in all these years he
has not let up on it. EMI's early pieces are, like any fledgling composer's, pretty amateurish affairs, but
its later output sounds increasingly impressive, and Cope has grown more and more ambitious over time.
Style, of course, is a multi-layered phenomenon. There are shallow and deep aspects of style. It is quite
possible that someone could be capable of capturing many of the shallower trademarks of a composer and yet
miss the bull's-eye as far as essence is concerned.And so, how much are we being fooled when, on hearing a
piece of music, we respond to some gestures that in the past we have come to associate with composer X, and
then exclaim to ourselves, "This piece sounds like X"? Can we even distinguish clearly between
responses at a shallow level and a deep level? Indeed, what is the difference, in music, between
"shallow" levels and "deep" levels of style, between "syntax" and
"semantics", between "musical form" and "musical content"? Is there really any
such difference at all?
In my lectures, I usually have a second musical interlude, this time involving mazurkas -- one by Chopin
and one by EMI. One time, when I gave this lecture at the world-famous Eastman School of Music in Rochester,
New York, nearly all the composition and music-theory faculty was fooled by the EMI mazurka, taking it for
genuine Chopin (and the genuine Chopin piece, by contrast, for a computer-manufactured ditty).
One stunning lesson from my Rochester lecture (and indeed, from all of the times I've lectured on EMI) is
that people with deep musical gifts and decades of training can, on occasion, mistake an EMI product for
"the genuine article". And remember -- we are just embarking, we humans, on the pathway toward the
realization of the dream of "preprogrammed mass-produced mail-order twenty-dollar desk-model music
boxes" -- those boxes on whose "sterile circuitry" I heaped so much scorn, back when I wrote
Where will we have gotten in twenty more years of hard work? In fifty? What will be the state of the art in
2084? Who, if anyone, will still be able to tell "the right stuff" from rubbish? Who will know, who
will care, who will loudly protest that the last (though tiniest) circle at the center of the style-target has
still not been reached (and may never be reached)? What will such nitpicky details matter, when new Bach and
Chopin masterpieces applauded by all come gushing out of silicon circuitry at a rate faster than H2O pours
over the edge of Niagara? Will that wondrous new golden age of music not be "truly a thing of
Consider "Prokofiev's tenth sonata", as Cope calls it. In the liner notes to EMI's first compact
disk, called "Bach by Design", Cope wrote, "This computer-composed Prokofiev sonata was
completed in 1989. Its composition was inspired by Prokofiev's own attempt to compose his tenth piano sonata,
an attempt thwarted by his death. As such it represents another of the many potential uses of programs such as
EMI (i.e., the completion of unfinished works)." To me, this remark comes close to blasphemy.
What worries me about computer simulations is not the idea that we ourselves might be machines; I have long
been convinced of the truth of that. What troubles me is the notion that things that touch me at my deepest
core -- pieces of music most of all, which I have always taken as direct soul-to-soul messages -- might be
effectively produced by mechanisms thousands if not millions of times simpler than the intricate biological
machinery that gives rise to a human soul. This prospect, rendered most vivid and perhaps even near-seeming by
the development of EMI, worries me enormously, and in my more gloomy moods, I have articulated three causes
(1) Chopin (for example) is a lot shallower than I had ever thought.
(2) Music is a lot shallower than I had ever thought.
(3) The human soul/mind is a lot shallower than I had ever thought.
Let me briefly comment on these. Pertaining to (1), since I have been moved to the core for my entire life by
pieces by Chopin, if it turns out that EMI can churn out piece after piece that "speaks like Chopin"
to me, then I would be thereby forced to retrospectively reassess all the meaning that I have been convinced
of having detected in Chopin's music, because I could no longer have faith that it could only have come from a
deep human source. I would have to accept the fact that Frédéric Chopin might have been merely a
tremendously fluent artisan rather than the deeply feeling artist whose heart and soul I'd been sure I knew
ever since I was a child.
That loss would be an inconceivable source of grief to me. In a sense, the loss just described would not be
worse than the loss
incurred by (2), since Chopin has always symbolized the power of music as a whole, to me. Nonetheless, I
suppose that having to toss all great composers out the window is somehow a bit more troubling than having to
toss just one of them out.
The loss described in (3), of course, would be the ultimate affront to human dignity. It would be the
realization that all of the "computing power" that resides in a human brain's 100 billion neurons
and its roughly ten quadrillion synaptic connections can be bypassed with a handful of state-of-the-art chips,
and that all that is needed to produce the most powerful artistic outbursts of all time (and many more of
equal power, if not greater) is a nanoscopic fraction thereof -- and that it can all be accomplished, thank
you very much, by an entity that knows nothing of knowing, seeing, hearing, tasting, living, dying,
struggling, suffering, aging, yearning, singing, dancing, fighting, kissing, hoping, fearing, winning, losing,
crying, laughing, loving, longing, or caring.
Although Kala Pierson and many others may hail its coming as "truly a thing of beauty", the day
when music is finally and irrevocably reduced to syntactic pattern and pattern alone will be, to my
old-fashioned way of looking at things, a very dark day indeed.
Douglas Hofstadter is, inter alia, director of the Center for Research on Concepts and Cognition,
Indiana University, Bloomington. His books include the Pulitzer winning Goedel, Escher, Bach, Metamagical
Themas, Le Ton beau de Marot, translation of Pushkin's novel in verse Eugene Onegin and The
Mind's I (with Daniel C.Dennett).
1. Editor's Note: Please see pp 676-677 of Godel, Escher, Bach
Thank you to all those who have taken the trouble to read the article and share their thoughts. Out of the arguments made here, there are two that perhaps need answering. So here they go.
1. The first part of the article compares outcomes (relative percentages of population of the religions concerned) irrespective of the process that led to those outcomes - whether immigration, relatively faster population growth or conversions. This was for two reasons. One, to put the figure of 2.3 per cent in "numerical perspective", as the article itself explained. The second reason was that outcomes are ultimately what the crux of debate is about. The rest of the article in any case dealt with process - or conversions in this case, from both a contemporary and historical perspective.
2. Some commenters have tried to cast doubts on the reliability of Census 2001. Those who do this should bear in mind that Census 2001 was conducted by a BJP government. Considering the extreme importance that BJP gives to this issue, it would be reasonable to expect that IF it had perceived a problem with the methodology that was distorting the numbers, it would have fixed it. As the article mentioned, BJP or BJP-supported governments have been in power for 10 of the last 40 years, or about a quarter of the time, and the only reasonable conclusion one can arrive at is that any misreporting of numbers, real or perceived, would be marginal and hence, not of importance.
To all other arguments made, my answer is the following: Please read the article again, with particular focus on the quotations of Vivekananda and Monier Williams, and the history of the missionary efforts in Bengal and their outcome.
We at Outlookindia.com welcome feedback and your comments, including scathing criticism
1. Scathing, passionate, even angry critiques are welcome, but please do not indulge in abuse and invective. Our Primary concern is to keep the debate civil. We urge our users to try and express their disagreements without being disagreeable. Personal attacks are not welcome. No ad hominem please.
2. Please do not post the same message again and again in the same or different threads
3. Please keep your responses confined to the subject matter of the article you are responding to. Please note that our comments section is not a general free-for-all but for feedback to articles/blogs posted on the site
4. Our endeavour is to keep these forums unmoderated and unexpurgated. But if any of the above three conditions are violated, we reserve the right to delete any comment that we deem objectionable and also to withdraw posting privileges from the abuser. Please also note that hate-speech is punishable by law and in extreme circumstances, we may be forced to take legal action by tracing the IP addresses of the poster.
5. If someone is being abusive or personal, or generally being a troll or a flame-baiter, please do not descend to their level. The best response to such posters is to ignore them and send us a message at Mail AT outlookindia DOT com with the subject header COMPLAINT
6. Please do not copy and paste copyrighted material. If you do think that an article elsewhere has relevance to the point you wish to make, please only quote what is considered fair-use and provide a link to the article under question.
7. There is no particular outlookindia.com line on any subject. The views expressed in our opinion section are those of the author concerned and not that of all of outlookindia.com or all its authors.
8. Please also note that you are solely responsible for the comments posted by you on the site. The comments could be deleted or edited entirely at our discretion if we find them objectionable. However, the mere fact of their existence on our site does not mean that we necessarily approve of their contents. In short, the onus of responsibility for the comments remains solely with the authors thereof. Outlookindia.com or any of its group publications, may, however, retains the right to publish any of these comments, with or without editing, in any medium whatsoever. It is therefore in your own interest to be careful before posting.
9.Outlookindia.com is not responsible in any manner whatsoever for how any search engine -- such as Google, Bing etc -- caches or displays these comments. Please note that you are solely responsible for posting these comments and it is a privilege being granted to our registered users which can be withdrawn in case of abuse. To reiterate:
a. Comments once posted can only be deleted at the discretion of outlookindia.com
b. The comments reflect the views of the authors and not of outlookindia.com
c. outlookindia.com is not responsible in any manner whatsoever for the way search engines cache or display these comments
d. Please therefore take due caution before you post any comments as your words could potentially be used against you
10. We have an online thread for our comments policy:
You are welcome to post your suggestions here or in case you have a specific issue, to directly email us at Mail AT outlookindia DOT com with the subject header COMPLAINT