I will caveat my first comment by also noting that I am well versed in computer music history, and read many many papers in CMJ[1] and elsewhere about generative and automatic composition tools such as Emily Howell[2]. I do NOT have a problem with generative, algorithmic and automatic composition in this sense, as an extension of the creative intentions of the human composer, in the right context. See also Autechre[3] for what can be done with Markov chains and good taste. What we are discussing here is the musical equivalent of a dishwasher.
[1] http://www.computermusicjournal.org/
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Cope#Emily_Howell
Addendum: I would highly recommend the Margaret Boden book referenced in the wiki on David Cope/Emily Howell, which is an absolutely fascinating read and was incredibly far-sighted in its enquiries on this topic.
Can I ask what the specific markers / qualifiers are for you to consider (let's call them) 'classical' generative and algorithmic techniques fair game in creative composition, but LLM agent based techniques not so?
To me, it seems like the "do it for me" aspect is similar, just at different levels of abstraction.
Firstly, they all came to the use of those techniques after having been through years of work the 'hard way', often being able to play to a conservatoire standard, and had a very extensive grounding in the tradition that came with that. Then they owned* or designed the thing they were asking to 'do it for me' and could modify it at their discretion, effectively making it an integral element of the composition. The prior training was crucial in getting anything good out of any of it IMO (high level reflection based on canon knowledge and deeply considered personal sensibility, etc.)
* I suppose in the early days, running on an mainframe would belie the definition of ownership per se, as it required access and was limited to that specific machine/institution, but then we are talking about a time where personal computing wasn't available.
Thanks for your well considered response. I disagree with the notion that extensive classical training is required in order to make beautiful, noteworthy music. There are innumerable counterproofs of this in every era of music. I also disagree that fully and deeply owning/designing one's tools is required - though I understand that we are more specifically talking about generative tools, I personally argue there's not enough meaningful distinction. One chooses to exercise intent, whether the tool is acoustic or digital, general or hyper-focused. And fully understanding the workings of every tool is a fool's errand in this modern age.
Whether these then extend to AI and LLMs I still can't fully say. There is, obviously, some kind of qualitative leap here. I'm not fully settled.
But I guess I lean more towards - it is a tool, let people use it to make their own beauty.
I didn't specify that the training had to be a classical, conservatory, background. It was only mentioned with regard to the background many of the original computer musicians came from, and which is understandable considering the era and situation of computing back then. Autechre are a good counter-example of that, which I have noted above. Two hip hop heads from the north of England, who have made some of the best contributions to electronic/computer music in recent decades. As you point out, there are loads more, not worth making a list here. Though I will still assert that I am yet to hear any good music come from someone who has anything less than a developed knowledge and passion (obsession?) for their area of interest, be that classical repertoire or drum and bass.
I wonder how one is supposed to exercise intent when the tool in question is specifically designed with the purpose of removing your ability to have direct influence on the result it produces. At best we get curation/collage, which in itself is no big change from the way things have been for decades (sample packs, premade loops, and going back further, sample CDs, for instance), but what goes away is the human touch.
The main difference is tweakability: With classical generative and algorithmic composition, the human can change parameters in real time and more closely guide the shape of the piece.
This as well. Most 'classical' algorithmic music had an element of expressiveness allowed to the composer in the moment.
> What we are discussing here is the musical equivalent of a dishwasher.
A dishwasher that may have been taught about Markov chains ...
It'd broadly sad how folks so broadly slight and disregard novelty, are so quick to judge assume & discredit.
I have such respect for those who can do the good work of comments like your, trying to pry the closed mind open just a little more. This is such an essential outlook basis that needs to be taught, reinforced: a sense of exploring potential progress rather than sinking merely to conserving or out grouping or denying.
It's really cool that the human agency loop is improving. Ableton & DAWs should be so much better with expanded more language native interfacing!