Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

The Interrogator as Critic: The Turing Test and the Evaluation of Generative Music Systems

The Interrogator as Critic: The Turing Test and the Evaluation of Generative Music Systems Christopher Ariza Department of Music Towson University 8000 York Road Towson, Maryland 21252 USA ariza@flexatone.net The Interrogator as Critic: The Turing Test and the Evaluation of Generative Music Systems systems. Yet, since only the output of the system is tested (that is, system and interface design are ignored), any generative technique can be employed. These tests may be associated with the broader historical context of human-versus-machine tests, as demonstrated in the American folk-tale of John Henry versus the steam hammer (Nelson 2006) or the more recent competition of Garry Kasparov versus Deep Blue (Hsu 2002). Some tests attempt to avoid measures of subjective quality by measuring perceived conformity to known musical artifacts. These musical artifacts are often used to create the music being tested: they are the source of important generative parameters, data, or models. The design goals of a system provide context for these types of tests. Pearce, Meredith, and Wiggins (2002, p. 120) define four motivations for the development of generative music systems: (1) composer-designed tools for personal use, (2) tools designed for general compositional use, (3) “theories of a musical style . . . implemented as computer programs,” and (4) “cognitive theories of the processes http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Computer Music Journal MIT Press

The Interrogator as Critic: The Turing Test and the Evaluation of Generative Music Systems

Computer Music Journal , Volume 33 (2) – Jun 1, 2009

Loading next page...
 
/lp/mit-press/the-interrogator-as-critic-the-turing-test-and-the-evaluation-of-zNmwfmKzXa

References

References for this paper are not available at this time. We will be adding them shortly, thank you for your patience.

Publisher
MIT Press
Copyright
© 2009 Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
Subject
Automated Composition
ISSN
0148-9267
eISSN
1531-5169
DOI
10.1162/comj.2009.33.2.48
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

Christopher Ariza Department of Music Towson University 8000 York Road Towson, Maryland 21252 USA ariza@flexatone.net The Interrogator as Critic: The Turing Test and the Evaluation of Generative Music Systems systems. Yet, since only the output of the system is tested (that is, system and interface design are ignored), any generative technique can be employed. These tests may be associated with the broader historical context of human-versus-machine tests, as demonstrated in the American folk-tale of John Henry versus the steam hammer (Nelson 2006) or the more recent competition of Garry Kasparov versus Deep Blue (Hsu 2002). Some tests attempt to avoid measures of subjective quality by measuring perceived conformity to known musical artifacts. These musical artifacts are often used to create the music being tested: they are the source of important generative parameters, data, or models. The design goals of a system provide context for these types of tests. Pearce, Meredith, and Wiggins (2002, p. 120) define four motivations for the development of generative music systems: (1) composer-designed tools for personal use, (2) tools designed for general compositional use, (3) “theories of a musical style . . . implemented as computer programs,” and (4) “cognitive theories of the processes

Journal

Computer Music JournalMIT Press

Published: Jun 1, 2009

There are no references for this article.