Listen to Darwintunes: random music evolving its way to beauty


#1

[Read the post]


#2

I don’t know about “evolve…” Husbandry by committee? Pantheonic design? Polytheistic spree?


#3

That’s an unusual definition of sex. It’s not possible that was just slipped in there to drive views?


#4

Instead of the harsh mother nature, the selection is done by a committee. Otherwise it’s evolving about as well as evolving in general goes.

It’s combining traits from the “parents”, which is what sex is for. Doesn’t matter much if the traits are encoded in genes, or in arrays of variables.


#5

I’m curious as to how much music-knowledge is embodied in the system - how the algorithm inserts itself into the output. Could it equally evolve some long, slow ambient piece, if the committee had selected for things like that? Or are short notes part of the algorithm?


#6

I kind of like generation zero, actually. It’s a lot more interesting than a lot of electronic dance music I hear…


#7

This reminds me a bit of Evolectronica from several years ago.

The downside to that was that while there were several loops evolving in parallel, you couldn’t have “speciation” events where the evolution of a single loop diverged along two separate tracks.


#8

No wonder it reminds me of Evolectronica–it’s the same guy’s work.


#9

The earlier generations definitely sound more interesting, in a Schönbergian kind of way. As it evolves, it falls more and more into the usual harmonic and rhythmic patterns our generation is attuned to.


#10

I’m just checking that out - there’s some interesting stuff there, too, despite the lack of speciation.


#11

music, the oldest and most widespread form of culture

Nope. Any shared idea is culture, so there’s no way that’s true. Animals have culture.


#12

Even yoghurt has culture.


#13

I wonder what it would take to kick it into another key without destroying the coherence of the current achievement? Would human shepherding inevitably lead to I/IV(ii)/V in 32 bar segments, or something more like Richard Strauss who takes modulation wherever the hell he wants?


#14

A million monkeys at a million Casio keyboards, with a million editors.


#15

Glad to see DarwinTunes getting some publicity! I found it last year and discovered that I could somewhat influence the resulting child loops…enough control to breed 30-70 consecutive child loops that, when stitched together in chronological order, produce a rather cohesive, flowing “DarwinTrack”, as opposed to a semi-random series of drastically different children. Many times, I can even intentionally draw the track to a close by slowly reducing the complexity of the loops or “distilling” one of the sounds until it is all that remains at the end! I’d really like to see some other people making D’Tracks too, so far there’s only 2-3 of us… Enjoy!


#16

I’d have to ask @uncoolbob but I would venture a guess that changing global parameters (time signature, scale, tempo, etc) would require resetting the instance back to default. I’d like to see more instances running, each with different global params and sample sets.


#17

:smiley:


#18

Ah. OK. I would not have thought that a scale (in particular, one of the 7 note diatonic ones) would have been set as a global (or initial) parameter but that the notes were being picked by the listeners who perhaps would have had a bias towards one of those scales, given a near-enough overall harmony. Weeding out the discordances, as it were… If any of the 12 notes were always available then it would be perfectly possible to modulate between different keys whilst still remaining tonal.


#19

Thought. Are there some studies of correlation between EEG signals from a brain and subjective enjoying of the music? (I bet there are. Pop music is too big thing money-wise that neuromarketing techniques are guaranteed to be used there.)

If there are signals that could be used, could they be employed for the music evolution?


#20

Yeah, that’s what I’m talking about. It’s actually pretty great as an experimental piece.