People and machines neither hear nor make the same music. Machines measure and generate exact amplitudes, frequencies, time durations, and spectra. However, people hear and create music with subjective qualities such as rhythmic pulses, prettiness, illusions of the ear, imitations of sounds, models of nonmusical reality, freely rendered mathematical relationships, familiarity, archetypal symbols, and the stimulation of senses other than the auditory. We agree with Minsky's remark, . .. music should make more sense once seen through listeners' minds (Minsky 1981). A reconciliation between machine and human purposes seems in order, to assure the promise of growing intimacy between machines and people. It is insufficient that a computer-music composer should think only in terms of the mean rate of vibrato of the oboelike sound in the next six seconds, without addressing the basic appeals of music. Leon Kirchner wrote: One of the naive assumptions, in the construction of computer music, for instance, is that if one programs the parameters (duration, density, pitch, etc., etc.) music should result (Ramey n.d.). It is insufficient for composition and synthesis software to permit specification of only the notes and not of the musical impression to be made on the listener. It is difficult to coax the irresistible object, music, from the immovable force that technically, rather than humanly, programmed computers represent. Nevertheless, composers persevere in an effort to program computers to make music the way they do. Laurie Spiegel reports on using the Groove program by Max Mathews and F. R. Moore, ... I wrote complex algorithms (in Fortran) to process the data from these devices [keyboard, knobs, pad, etc.] and derive from it much more complex music than I actually played. .... incorporating a set of rules for melodic evolution (Spiegel 1980). Writing about his composition program PHRASE, Hiller writes, Aesthetic Appeal in Computer Music