This is somewhat old news, but I wanted to make a few observations on the reports that computer music pioneer Paul Lansky has ended that facet of his career and turned exclusively to "writing for real people".

Lansky is one of those composer's composers; that is, he is not nearly so well-known among the general listening public as he is among those who create computer-based music themselves.  Well, at least the general listening public don't necessarily know they're listening to him, as his most widely heard piece was embedded in the song "Idioteque" on Radiohead's Kid A (the Lansky piece itself borrows a theme from Wagner's "Tristan und Isolde", but I digress).

The change in approach and aesthetic by Lansky was reported in the New York Times in August of 2008, by Daniel J. Wakin.  The changes are Lansky's right as an artist, of course (and I'm fairly sure he'd agree that the integrity of his artistic vision is not dependent on the exact choice of medium), but the way the story was reported by Wakin serves to create many subtle and not so subtle 'digs' at composers who continue to find computer-based music to be vibrant and viable.

Lansky had a hand in developing the Cmix variant of the various Music-N computer music languages. (See en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MUSIC-N for more info).  The uses of algorithmic composition available to any computer music language could use some dispelling of misinformation.

When a composer for acoustic instruments composes, he applies his own sense of aesthetics in terms of pitch choice, rhythmic and harmonic elements, etc.  Basically, he has some criteria, whether formalized or not, that he uses to develop the piece. He may go purely by "feel", until he arrives at something he finds satisfactory, or he may apply strict rules to it (traditional cadences, the twelve-tone or serial approach, etc.), or anywhere in between.

Composing with algorithmic techniques is no different.  With algorithmic composition, a set of rules is created that dictate either strictly or loosely the initial parameters of the composition.  But, and this is key, the composer still must apply his own sense of aesthetics in terms of pitch choice, rhythmic and harmonic elements, etc.   The algorithm may create the first rendition of the work, but the composer must still decide if it is any good.  The common misconception that computer-aided composition can only create sterile, lifeless pieces of music must be eradicated.

This inherent misconception that computer-assisted music composition is necessarily completely devoid of humanity is implicit throughout Wakin's article, with the additional implication that Lansky is to be applauded not for making a personal artistic choice, but for returning to the realm of the humans and forsaking the machines.

One quote requires particular mention:

"His [Lansky's] conversion, in a sense, is a relinquishing of the need to control, the rejection of what he called an antisocial bent. What drives many creators of computer music is the desire to have total mastery over how a piece of music sounds."

The broad assertion that many computer musicians only create such music out of the "need for control" is ludicrous.

In my experience most composers drawn to computer music are interested in creating music that is simply not possible to perform, whether because of its complexity or intricacy, or because of the desire not to mimic existing sounds but to create entirely new sounds.  Many of the more interesting techniques (granular synthesis, non-linear synthesis, phase vocoding, etc.) are simply not possible outside of the digital realm.  Of course one must strive for a high degree of mastery over the sound, as it would not come into being otherwise.  This is far beyond the mere leaving to the performer such choices as vibrato, dynamics, phrasing.

I have nothing but respect for Lansky for responding to his Muse, and for going where She needs for both of them to go.  But, to imply that all computer-based music is nothing more than a versificator (
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Versificator ) in fancy dress betrays a complete ignorance on Wakim's part of the nature of this still vibrant and evolving art form.