Given that [composing, interpreting, improvising, listening] are enjoyable human pursuits, one might reasonably ask, “Why try to duplicate these functions with a computer?”

There are different approaches taken to this question. One (not terribly inspired) approach might be termed that of the technician. Computers seem to entice a certain type of person having a basic fascination with technology itself. This fascination manifests itself in the attitude, “We have the technology. Let’s use it.” With neither a reasoned goal nor creative intuition as a guide, such an attitude—while perhaps admirable for its eagerness—usually results in aimless (and largely fruitless) experimentation. It can occasionally even be destructive when it results in malicious “hacking” or drives nuclear research in the defense department. Fortunately, computer music rarely if ever presents such destructive possibilities (with the possible exception of a rather odious type of sonic pollution).

Another approach is that of basic science, which holds that its goal is not to produce a specific usable product, but rather to contribute to the body of general scientific knowledge upon which applied sciences draw. There are many examples of the success of this approach in the scientific world—demonstrable benefits such as control of infectious disease and improvement of agricultural production. Computer science is still in its infancy, but we can already see the benefits of basic research in artificial intelligence, scientific imaging, etc. Concrete benefits in the even younger and more specialized—but highly ambiguous—field of computer music are more difficult to identify with general agreement. One concrete benefit which would almost certainly evoke no argument, because it does not depend on artistic taste, is the compact disc player.

A third approach, particularly applicable to research in artificial musical intelligence, is one I will call applied psychology. Proponents of this approach are primarily interested in the use of the computer as a tool for programming and exploring models of human cognition and intelligence. They maintain that our theories of human intelligence can be modeled by a computer program and then tested or that, working in the other direction, models of computer programming—or models from other domains, implemented as computer programs—can give us insight to our own cognitive and intellectual processes. The majority of this article will address this third approach: using computers to model human musical behavior.

[…] In the process of expanding our abilities with computers, we are likely to discover the third stage of technology: using it to do things we had not even considered previously. By defining and programming new functions—as opposed to merely imitating functions which humans already perform—one may enhance the composer’s or instrumentalist’s operations in ways previously unheard of, actually expanding the number of abilities at that person’s disposal. This is exciting when you stop to think how much of what is considered musical is based on what humans can physically achieve. When such limitations are overcome, the realm of what is considered musical may be vastly enlarged.