Web edition: June 18, 2012
Print edition: July 28, 2012; Vol.182 #2 (p. 12)
Musicians, take note: An artistic mind isn’t required to create appealing music. Starting with short sound sequences more grating than Muzak, scientists created pleasing tunes simply by letting them evolve through a Pandora-like process of voting thumbs up or thumbs down on each sequence.
Inspired in part by long-running experiments probing the evolution of bacteria, computational biologist Bob MacCallum and colleagues decided to see if pleasant music could evolve from a cacophonous mess when human listeners acted as the force of natural selection. The researchers started with a loop of simple audio wave forms and let it randomly evolve to generate a starter population with variation on which selection could act. Then more than 6,000 people listened to the audio loops and rated how much they liked the sounds on a five-point scale. The audio loops rated more favorably were allowed to mutate or combine with others to make a next-generation clip; the bad ones died off.
By 500 generations, the pieces developed into pleasant little ditties with chord structure and rhythm, MacCallum and his colleagues report online June 18 in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
Now the researchers are running experiments with stricter, more realistic sources of variation. They also want to scale the project, called DarwinTunes, up to millions of users. “We may see a leap to a new plateau,” says MacCallum, who spends most of his time investigating mosquito genomics at Imperial College London. “Done properly, we reckon the quality of the music would be pretty much comparable to current man-made electronic and dance music, but a lot more democratic.”
Citations
R.M. MacCallum et al. Evolution of music by public choice. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. doi:10.1073/pnas.1203182109 [Go to]
Suggested Reading
B. Bower. Feelings, universal musical feelings. Science News, Vol. 175, April 11, 2009, p. 14. Available online:
[Go to]
J. Rehmeyer. The Geometry of Music. Science News Online. [Go to]
Learn more about DarwinTunes: [Go to]
Listen to the sound clips at various stages of evolution: [Go to]
Please alert Science News to any inappropriate posts by clicking the REPORT SPAM link within the post. Comments will be reviewed before posting.
In a different milieu, popular urban music could be seen as a closed-source version of a similar evolutionary sequence.
Kudos to MacCallum et al for successfully transplanting this kind of development into a computer-assisted, high-participation environment.
This is a wonderful illustration of how progressively fewer jobs now require individual humans to perform them. That is great in principle -- and really should lead to a better life for all -- but our current economic system is not equipped to deal with a large-scale, endemic mismatch between prospective workers and available work. At some point we will need to stop stigmatizing those who are not gainfully employed.
1) What exactly do you mean by "more grating than Musak" oh grand cultural leader?
2) "Pleasing tones"?
3) "music" (in the very way you seem to use the term it) IS "pleasant music"
4) "pleasant music" again……… what do you mean? barry white perhaps?
5) "human listeners" - okay this one is almost bearable but come on, really? How did you select this arian race of supreme ears to best represent humanity?
6) Darwin…………………………….. nice :)
7) How many more than 6,000? Perhaps 20,000? Which "People"? I don't mean to imply that those with more traditional music experience would be better suited (really), I simply wish to know how the selection process was organised.
Please see below my updated GSCE science coursework in below bold: (very important to me at the time)
"Hello *Science* Teacher (fit as…),
I axe some 5 fellas bout rocks n sand and they said it was moosik….. so its musikz…….**
* = 'fit!' "
Teachers Notes:
What you are forgetting here, Theodore, (even if only in your choice of words) is that "Music" is NOT an *objective, physical thing*. It is an opinion, a *judgement*, and an honour *bestowed* upon those sounds favoured by the human ear and brian. We are discussing various sound waves *meeting with the ear drum*. Let us not *forget that.*
You need to acknowledge that, by repeating your experiment, you may have completely different effects (according to the test subjects).
8) And now the results:
"By 500 generations, the pieces developed into pleasant little ditties with chord structure and rhythm, MacCallum and his colleagues report online June 18 in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences."
So it took the subjects 500 repeats to get to what our generation would commonly call pop music? Surely with some current producers/songwriters we could get down to 250? perhaps with some more experimental musicians we would never achieve what you personally were looking for.
All you have proved is that people can generally do what you want them to with adequate time and guidance.
9) The last paragraph reads like you are trying to sell me shoddy car………
“Done properly, we reckon [sic] the quality of the music would be pretty much [sic] comparable to current man-made electronic and dance music, but a lot more democratic.”
You mean that if we learn how to perform music we can actually perform music?
MY GOD!!!!!!"
10) Final Judgement:
I believe this is an interesting project being tackled in the wrong fashion. This could be an amazing improvisation with users worldwide composing as they live they're day to day lives. Instead, you seem to want to know how long it takes a random set of people to compose something you consider to be listenable? Surely this could depend on how much petrol you had left, when your girlfriend last shouted at you or how long it had been since you last smoked. I know my mood definitely effects my choice of sound. A lot of my questions would be answered, I'm sure, if this article had of been a 10,000 word essay and if you write further on this please let me know.
I know my entire answer seems a little harsh but that is greatly due to my personal character traits and not a truthful reflection on your project. I do see hope for something useful here but you are lacking direction. What you are actually studying here is the effectiveness of a specifically created computer sampler in replicating recognisable and familiar electronic popular music.
I hope this helps and much as it offends,
John Cage
You must register with Science News to add a comment. To log-in click here. To register as a new user, follow this link.