Paulo Ferreira writes:

>Well the first question is: does the computer REALLY composes music?

I case could be made that I am actually writting the music since my
rules, etc are at work.  But so much is determined by random numbers,
that I can't, nor do I want to take credit for the music.  I depend on
the "judgment "creativity" of the user, who approves generated themes,
and optionally makes decisions about form and orchestration, to take the
credit.  By saying "this compotition that me and the computer wrote is
great", they are sticking their neck out to criticism of others like "you
think that's great, I think its terrible, you actually approved that theme
as the primary theme, it should have been the secondary theme...nor do I
like the orchestration that you and the computer came up with for the intro
..."

>Example: If I am in a room with lots all the rules about the chinese
>language, and I can manage to reply to a letter written in chinese, that
>does not mean that I can UNDERSTAND chinese.

I have read his book and I agree whole-heartedly with the above statement..
I think music is may be the only art form that computers could create at
today's level or technology.  For a computer to try to write poetry or a
novel would indeed require a genuine "understanding of language".  For a
computer to paint a picture would require an understanding of special
relations, form, structure.  etc.  But music is different in that there
are recognized rules for harmonizing melodies, harmony in general, form,
like sonata for, rondo, simple binary, ternary, etc that can be employed
to produce music.  We don't understand music like we understand language,
that's why we can't describe it verbally, as many posts on this list
indicate, we can't even agree, verbally, on the fundamental issues
involved.  That makes music special because in the end it does not have
to be understood, it just has to be pleasurable to listen to.

Bill Pirkle