This article is based on this Dutch article of Martijn Benders
The Question of Whether Touching a String Can Be Considered an Act of Artificial Intelligence
The Dutch are all too quick to assume that a Schlager is a ‘lebensliet.’ However, this is far from the case. Strictly speaking, the Schlager is not a lament about personal sorrow but rather dance music—albeit often with a deeply literary character. The word literally means ‘hit number,’ with the beat playing a central role.
This is worlds apart from the ‘life songs’ that the Dutch inexplicably adore. When I collaborated with Dieter, who often shared stories about his struggle with his own sensuality during adolescence, I seized the opportunity to immerse myself in the best lyricism the world had to offer. This culminated in a wonderful solo album of Schlagers, written by someone whose name conjures images of small barrels.
The question of whether touching a string can be considered an act of artificial intelligence might initially appear paradoxical. After all, the string vibrates due to a deliberate action by a human being. Yet, when we examine the structure and mechanisms underlying this process, a fascinating interplay of regularity, algorithmic logic, and human intuition emerges. Touching a string and tuning an instrument embody essential elements we also find in the realm of artificial intelligence.
The String as a Prestructured System
A string cannot be meaningfully played in any random state. It must be tightened, tuned, and adjusted to a specific frequency to produce harmonious sounds. These frequencies adhere to mathematically definable patterns dictated by the laws of physics and acoustics. A standard example is the tuning of the note A to 440 hertz, a convention that can be understood as an algorithm. Every tone stemming from a tuned string results from a process based on predefined patterns.
This shows that tuning a string is not only an intuitive act but also an algorithmic one. The musician follows fixed rules that cannot be altered if harmonious tones are to be produced. These rules can be viewed as an intelligent system dictating which actions are effective. In this sense, intelligence is not merely added by the musician but is already embedded within the string.
The Embedded Intelligence of the String
When examined closely, the string itself is akin to a ‘database’ of physical possibilities. It possesses preprogrammed resonance modes that favor specific frequencies depending on its tension, length, and material. A musician using a string implicitly leverages a set of physical algorithms. They do not create sound from nothing but operate within a framework dictated by the string.
This framework can be interpreted as an early form of artificial intelligence. Why? Because the predefined structure of the string’s frequency patterns generates suggestions for action: the musician can either produce harmonious sounds, or the system ‘fails,’ creating dissonant vibrations. The string thus ‘responds’ with success or failure, much like modern algorithmic systems that react to input and produce consequences.
The Musician’s Role in the Intelligent System
The musician is, of course, not merely a passive participant in this system. They interact with the string, choosing positions, plucking techniques, and volume. Yet, they remain bound to the physical laws that can rightly be considered a foundational algorithm. Just as contemporary AI systems operate within specific rules (such as machine learning models requiring training data), the musician cannot entirely redefine the string.
What emerges is a reciprocal relationship: the human adds personal ideas to the existing algorithm—the mathematical and physical principles of string vibration. This creates a hybrid creative process that combines intuition with a type of mechanical logic. The string thus becomes an intelligent intermediary that initiates the artistic process.
This perspective is particularly relevant in light of current debates about artificial intelligence in music. Many musicians fear that AI composition systems or AI-generated sounds might replace human creativity. They often fail to recognize that the fundamentals of musicianship have always been shaped by predefined algorithms and systems. Complaints about the dominance of algorithmic processes in music are not a new phenomenon—they date back to the invention of the first string instruments.
In fact, it could be said that every string instrumentalist has long interacted with a prototypical form of artificial intelligence—although analog, not digital. When we tighten a string and tune it to the correct note, we follow the dictates of physics; we embrace these dictates and transform them into artistic ideas. Here, the boundary between natural and artificial intelligence becomes blurred: the two merge seamlessly in the act of music-making.
When we break down musical performance into action and reaction, the musician works in constant interaction with the system of instrument, string, and resonator. Every touch, every adjustment of tension, every vibrato is an input, producing an output in the form of sound. This process closely mirrors the functioning of modern algorithms, which analyze inputs and, based on specific rules, generate outputs.
Historically, this process predates our contemporary understanding of artificial intelligence. One could argue that complaints about the mechanical or unnatural aspects of music-making began as soon as string instruments became popular, and people realized that the mechanics of the instrument significantly influenced the sound. The current debates about generative AI in music are, therefore, merely a modern continuation of a very old conversation.