In 1986, electronic music pioneer Laurie Spiegel created Music Mouse, a way for those with a Mac, Atari, or Amiga computer to dabble in algorithmic music creation. Music Mouse is deceptively simple: Notes are arranged on an XY grid, and you play it by moving a mouse around. Back in 1986, the computer mouse was still a relatively novel device. While it can trace its origins back to the late ’60s, it wasn’t until the Macintosh 128K in 1984 that it started seeing widespread adoption.
Technology
Legendary composer Laurie Spiegel on the difference between algorithmic music and ‘AI’
By then Spiegel, was already an accomplished composer. Her 1980 album The Expanding Universe is generally considered among the greatest ambient records of all time. And her composition “Harmony of the Worlds” is currently tearing through interstellar space as part of the Voyager Golden Record, launched in 1977. But she is also a technical wizard who joined Bell Labs in 1973 and was instrumental in early digital synthesis experiments and worked on an early computer graphics system called Vampire.
Spiegel was deeply drawn to algorithmic music composition and this new tool, the home computer. So, she created what she calls an “intelligent instrument” that enables the creation of complex melodies and harmonies with minimal music-theory knowledge. Music Mouse restricts you to particular scales, and then you explore them simply by pushing a mouse around.
Spiegel gives the user some control, of course. You can choose if notes move in parallel or contrary to each other, there are options to play notes back as chords or arpeggios, and there is even a simple pattern generator.
Despite being available for purchase until 2021, Spiegel never updated it to work on anything more current than Mac OS 9. Now, 40 years after its debut, it’s getting reborn for modern machines with help from Eventide.
While it would have been easy for Eventide and Spiegel to overload the 2026 version of Music Mouse with countless modern amenities and new features, they kept things restrained for version 1.0. The core feature set is the same, though the sound engine is more robust and includes patches based on Spiegel’s own Yamaha DX7. There are also some enhanced MIDI features, including the ability to feed data from Music Mouse into your DAW or an external synthesizer.
Laurie Spiegel answered some questions for us about the history of Music Mouse, algorithmic composition, AI, and why she thinks the computer is a “folk instrument.”
What were the origins of Music Mouse? Was there something specific that inspired its creation?
When the first Macs came out, the use of a mouse as an input device, as an XY controller, was altogether new. Previous computers had just alphanumeric keyboard input or maybe custom controllers. The most obvious thing I immediately wanted to do was to be able to push sound around with that mouse. So, as soon as the first C compilers came out, I coded up a way to do that. Pretty soon, though, I wanted the sound quantized into scales, then to add more voices to fill out the harmony. Then I wanted to have controls for timbre, tempo, and everything else I eventually added.
How did you connect with Eventide for this new version?
I first met Tony and Richard of Eventide all the way back in the early 1970s. They are longtime good friends. I’d been involved in various music tech projects at Eventide over the years. Tony knew that I really missed Music Mouse and that I still get a fair number of requests for the 1980s versions from people who keep vintage computers from that era just to be able to run Music Mouse or other obsolete software. He decided it was a musical instrument worth reviving. I had been wanting to revive it, but hadn’t been able to find the time to even just keep up with the way development tech keeps changing. My main thing is really composing music, and I have an active enough career doing that to not have enough time to do coding as well. I am extremely grateful to Eventide for resuscitating Music Mouse. I hope a lot of people will get a lot of music out of this new version.
Did you feel compelled to make any big changes to it after 40 years?
We decided to keep 1.0 of this new version of Music Mouse functionally the same as the 1980s original. The exceptions are adding a higher-quality internal synthesizer and providing ways to sync it with other software, to record or notate its MIDI output. We have a growing list of features to add in 2.0.
“It’s pretty easy by now to use computers to generate music-like material that is not actually the expression of an individual human being.”
Are there any current innovations in music tech that excite you?
That’s a hard question, because I am not all that excited about music tech right now. It’s music itself that holds my interest — composition, form, structure. I love counterpoint and the various contrapuntal forms. I studied them extensively when I was younger. Of course, harmonic progression is something I’m also very interested in, and in algorithmic assistance for composing it.
That various kinds of structures within music can now be more easily dealt with in computer software by now has both pros and cons. The pros include how much more deeply we have to understand how music works, how it is structured, and how it affects us, in order to represent it as a process description in software. That means learning, research, and self-discovery. The cons include that it’s pretty easy by now to use computers to generate music-like material that is not actually the expression of an individual human being. Music is a fundamental human experience. There is no human society that doesn’t have it. But it is something that comes from within human beings, as personal expression, as communication, as a sort of form of documentation of what we are feeling, and as a means of sharing it.
You’ve been credited as saying that the computer is a new kind of folk instrument. Can you explain what you mean by that? How does something like Music Mouse fit into that model?
Now that everyone with a computer or even just a phone has the ability to record and edit and play back and digitally process and transform sound, and particularly ever since sampling became a common musical technique, people have been doing remixes, collages, sonic montages… doing all kinds of stuff to audio they get from others or find online. This is very like what we used to call “the folk process,” in which music is repurposed, re-orchestrated, given new lyrics or otherwise modified as it goes from person to person and is adapted to fit what is meaningful in successive groups of people.
Music Mouse will help people create musical materials that can be used in a potentially infinite number of ways. It is a personal, often home-based instrument played by an individual, like a guitar.
You refer to Music Mouse as an “intelligent instrument”; it automates a certain amount of creation. What is the appeal of letting a computer take the wheel to a degree, as an artist?
Music Mouse is not a generative algorithm or an “AI.” It’s a musical instrument that a person can play. It is, to some degree, what we used to call an “expert system,” as it has some musical expertise built in. But that is meant to be supportive for the real live human being who is playing it, not to replace them. It makes the playing of notes easier in order to let the player’s focus be on the level of phrasing or form. I have coded up generative algorithms for music. Music Mouse is not one of them. It’s an instrument that an individual can play, and it’s under their control. It enables a different perspective that’s from above the level of the individual note.
Do you see a connection between modern generative AI and algorithmic composition tools?
Of course. Algorithms can be used to generate music. I have written and used some. Music Mouse is not generative, though. It does nothing on its own. It’s a musical instrument played by a person.
What is currently called “AI” is different from previous generations of artificial intelligence. I expect there will doubtless be further evolution. In the early years of my use of computer logic in composing, AI was more of a rule-based practice. We would try to figure out how the mind was making a specific kind of decision, code up a simulation to test our hypothesis, and then refine our understanding in light of the result. After that, there was a period of AI taking more of a brute-force approach. Computer chess, for example, would involve generating all possible moves possible in a given situation, then eliminating those that would be less beneficial. Then neural nets were brought in for a next generation of AI. I look forward to getting beyond the imitative homogenizing LLM approach and seeing whatever comes next.
There are many ways of designing an algorithm that either generates music or else helps a human being to do that, making some of the decisions during the person’s creative process to leave them free to focus on other aspects. By taking over some of the decision-making, they can free a creative mind to focus on different perspectives. People just starting to learn music too often bog down and give up at the level of simply playing the notes, just figuring out where to put their fingers. We can make musical instruments now that let people use a bit of automation on those low levels to let them express themselves on a larger level, for example, to make gestures in texture-space rather than thinking ahead just one note at a time.
“Music Mouse is not a generative algorithm or an ‘AI.’ It’s a musical instrument that a person can play.”
What do you think separates algorithmically generated music from something created by generative AI?
Artificial intelligence refers to a specific subset of ways to use algorithms. An algorithm is just a description of a process, a sequence of steps to be taken. A generative algorithm can make decisions involved in the production of information, and, of course, music is a kind of information. You can think of AI as trying to simulate human intelligence. It might have a purpose, such as taking over some of our cognitive workload. In contrast, the purpose of generative algorithms is to create stuff. In music, that purpose is to create an experience.
Music Mouse is not a generative algorithmic program. It’s more of a small expert system in that it has built into it information and methods that can help its player get beyond the level of just finding notes, to the level of finding personal expression.
Suno’s CEO Mikey Shulman has said that, “Increasingly taste is the only thing that matters in art and skill is going to matter a lot less.” In an age where music can be easily created using algorithms, plug-ins, and text prompts on cheap laptops and smartphones, do you see the role of composer being one primarily of curation?
I can see where he’s coming from, but, no, I don’t think so. The range and kinds of skills used in the creative arts will continue to evolve and expand. But the history of creative techniques shows them to be largely cumulative versus sequential. The keyboard synthesizer has not replaced the piano, which has not replaced the harpsichord or the organ. We have them all, that whole lineage, all still in use. Each musical instrument or artistic technique implies its own unique artistic realm. Each is defined by its specific limitations, which guide us as we use them. It is true that skills and traditional techniques will be an option rather than a prerequisite to creating music and art, but people will still do them. Just as LPs and chemical film have made comebacks recently, I expect to see traditional musical skills do the same. We have had computers and synthesizers for decades, yet there are still little children captivated by instruments made out of wood or painting or drawing, and I have yet to use any music editing software that gives me the fluidity and freedom of a pencil on staff paper. There will just be more kinds of complementary ways of making music.
More importantly, we humans have imaginations and emotions. There are internal experiences going on inside of us that we feel driven to express, to communicate, to share. It doesn’t matter what machines can generate on their own. We will always have those internal subjective experiences, emotion, and imagination, and people will experience them intensely enough to feel driven to create them external to their own selves in order to communicate and share them. You can’t replace human self-expression or the need for it by simulating their results. Artistic creation comes from a fundamental human drive, the need for self-expression. Artistic creativity is an essential method of processing the intensity of being alive.
You told New Music USA in 2014 that, in regard to electronic music, “There is no single creator… the concept of a finite fixed-form piece with an identifiable creator that is property and a medium of exchange or the embodiment of economic value really disappears.” Does this idea shape your views on ownership of art?
Those assumptions, which we inherited from the European classical model of music, are already much less prominent in our musical landscape. Improvisation, “process pieces,” the ease with which we can do transformations of audio files are all over the place. Folk music, and a lot of what we heard online here and there, might be audio that no longer has any known originator. We don’t know, and people don’t really care, who first created a swatch of sound. We are experiencing whatever has been done with it — different orchestrations, durations, signal processing. The huge proliferation of plug-ins and guitar effects pedals let anyone transform a sound beyond recognition. This is composition on a different level than on the level of the individual note, similarly to Music Mouse.
Another very important aspect of “folk music” is that it is typically played at home, with or for friends or family, or alone. This is very different from formal concert settings and programming we in the US inherited from Europe. For me, the most important musical experience is just about always at home, where we live. To quote what Pete Seeger said in his write-up of Music Mouse in Sing Out, that “she [meaning me] foresees a day when computer pieces will be like folksongs, anonymous common property to be altered by each new user. She would like to get music out of the concert hall and back into the living room.”
Music Mouse is available for macOS and Windows 11 for $29.
Follow topics and authors from this story to see more like this in your personalized homepage feed and to receive email updates.
Technology
The Iranian women Trump ‘saved’ from execution are simultaneously real and AI-manipulated
Only the night before, he had posted on Truth Social about the imminent executions of these women, quoting a screenshot that included a collage of eight glamorously backlit, soft-focus portraits. The photos of the women were immediately accused of being AI-generated. “Trump is begging Iranian leaders to not execute 8 AI-generated women. This is the funniest thing I’ve ever seen,” said one viral X post.
On top of that, almost immediately after Trump’s announcement, Mizan, an Iranian state news agency, called the president a liar. “Last night, Donald Trump, citing a completely false news story, called on Iran to overturn the death sentences of eight women.” Mizan said that some of the women had already been released and others were facing prison time but not execution, and furthermore said that Tehran had made no concessions — presumably, the status of the women has not changed.
The X account for the Iranian embassy in South Africa, perhaps the most relentless shitposter among Iran’s state-affiliated accounts, was quick to pile on by generating its own set of eight women:
The collage that Trump posted is, at the very least, AI-modified, Mahsa Alimardani, the associate director of the Technology Threats & Opportunities program at WITNESS, told The Verge. But the women themselves are real. The woman in the top right corner of the collage is Bita Hemmati, whose photograph appeared in several news stories in various right-leaning news outlets last week. Hemmati is confirmed to have received a death sentence issued by Branch 26 of the Tehran Revolutionary Court for “operational action for the hostile government of the United States and hostile groups.”
Alimardani named six of the women (Bita Hemmati, Mahboubeh Shabani, Venus Hossein-Nejad, Golnaz Naraghi, Diana Taherabadi, Ghazal Ghalandri), and said that the identities of the final two (said to be Panah Movahedi and Ensieh Nejati) were still unverified. The six verified women participated in protests against the government in January. Aside from Hemmati, none of the other women are reported to have received death sentences.
It’s not surprising that Trump has a careless disregard for the truth; it’s not surprising, either, for the Iranian regime to fudge the details to suit its own narrative, or to make light of real political prisoners in order to dunk on the United States.
The additional wrinkle is that the account mocking Trump for coming to the rescue of “8 AI-generated women” is the very same one that landed South Korean president Lee Jae-myung in hot water when he quoted a misleading labeled video posted by that account. Israeli officials have accused the account of being “well-known for spreading disinformation.” The case of the sketchy Lee Jae-myung quote-post is a story of mingled truth and misinformation, where the post got facts very wrong, but the video — of Israeli Defense Forces soldiers shoving a limp body off a rooftop in Gaza — was real, documenting an event that possibly implicates Israeli forces in a violation of international law.
The case of the eight Iranian protesters also features that same mingling of fact and fiction into a fuzzy distortion that fuels an endless disputation of real human rights violations. Their lives have been reduced to glossy pixels and quote-dunks, the stuff of propaganda and parody. While known liars fight with each other on the internet about who these women are and what will happen to them, they — verifiably six of them, at least — remain real people who exist beyond the Iranian internet blackout.
NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!
You probably didn’t expect a travel booking platform to send you into a security spiral. Yet here we are.
Booking.com confirmed that hackers may have accessed customer data, including names, email addresses, phone numbers and booking details. That is enough information to make scam messages look real.
If you’ve booked a hotel or rental through the platform, this is worth your attention.
Sign up for my FREE CyberGuy Report
- Get my best tech tips, urgent security alerts and exclusive deals delivered straight to your inbox.
- For simple, real-world ways to spot scams early and stay protected, visit CyberGuy.com – trusted by millions who watch CyberGuy on TV daily.
- Plus, you’ll get instant access to my Ultimate Scam Survival Guide free when you join.
SMART TRAVEL SAFETY TIPS BEFORE YOUR NEXT TRIP
Booking.com says hackers may have accessed customer names, emails, phone numbers and reservation details. The breach could make phishing messages look far more convincing. (KairosDee/Getty Images)
What happened in the Booking.com data breach
The company sent email notifications to affected customers after detecting “suspicious activity involving unauthorized third parties” accessing guest booking information. That’s the corporate way of saying someone got in who shouldn’t have been there.
One user shared the full notification on Reddit, where dozens of others said they received the same message. That suggests this was not an isolated case. The notice warned that anything customers “may have shared with the accommodation” could also have been exposed, meaning the breach went beyond basic account data.
What data was exposed in the Booking.com breach
Booking.com confirmed that financial information was not accessed. Physical home addresses were also not part of the breach, according to the company. So no, someone doesn’t have your credit card number or home address from this incident.
What they do potentially have: your name, email address, phone number and the details of your reservation. That’s enough to craft a convincing phishing message, which some hackers may already be doing.
“At Booking.com, we are dedicated to the security and data protection of our guests,” a Booking.com spokesperson said in a statement to CyberGuy. “We recently noticed some suspicious activity involving unauthorized third parties being able to access some of our guests’ booking information, which may include booking details, names, email addresses and phone numbers and anything that travelers may have shared with the accommodation.”
“Financial information was not accessed from Booking.com’s systems, nor were guests’ physical addresses,” the spokesperson continued. “Upon discovering the activity, we took action to contain the issue. We have updated the PIN number for these reservations and informed our guests.”
APPLE NOW LETS YOU ADD YOUR PASSPORT TO YOUR PHONE’S WALLET
A Booking.com breach exposed personal and reservation data that scammers can use to craft realistic fraud attempts. (Annette Riedl/picture alliance)
How scammers are using stolen booking data
A user who posted the notification on Reddit said that two weeks before receiving it, they got a phishing message on WhatsApp that included their real booking details and personal information. That timing matters. It suggests hackers may have already been using the data before many customers were notified.
It is not clear whether that earlier phishing attempt is directly tied to this specific breach, but it shows how detailed booking information can be used in targeted scams.
That is what makes this breach more dangerous than it first appears. When scammers know where you are staying and when, they can create messages that feel legitimate. A fake alert about a problem with your reservation or a request to confirm payment details suddenly looks real.
How past incidents highlight potential risks
This breach did not happen in a vacuum. In 2024, hackers infected computers at multiple hotels with a type of consumer-grade spyware known as stalkerware. In one documented case, a hotel employee was logged into their Booking.com admin portal when the software captured a screenshot of the screen, exposing visible customer data.
That detail points to a broader issue. In some cases, vulnerabilities may exist not just within a platform, but across the hotels and systems connected to it. The current breach may follow a similar pattern, though the company has not confirmed how the unauthorized access occurred.
To put the scale in context, Booking.com says 6.8 billion bookings have been made through the platform since 2010. Even a small percentage of affected users represents a large number of people.
NEW FBI WARNING REVEALS PHISHING ATTACKS HITTING PRIVATE CHATS
A Booking.com breach exposed personal and reservation data that scammers can use to craft realistic fraud attempts. Security experts warn travelers to verify any message about their stay. (martin-dm/Getty Images)
Ways to stay safe after the Booking.com breach
You don’t have to swear off travel apps to protect yourself. A few targeted steps go a long way.
1) Check for an official notification
Check your email for a message from Booking.com. If you received one, take it seriously rather than filing it away. The company says it has updated PINs for affected reservations, but your account itself may still need attention.
2) Update your password now
Change your Booking.com password, especially if you reuse it anywhere else. Credential stuffing attacks are common after breaches, and reused passwords make it easy for hackers to break into other accounts. A password manager can help you create and store strong, unique passwords so you are not relying on the same one across multiple sites. Check out the best expert-reviewed password managers of 2026 at Cyberguy.com.
3) Turn on two-factor authentication
Enable two-factor authentication (2FA) if you haven’t already. It adds a step, but it also blocks access even if someone has your password.
4) Consider identity theft protection
Even though financial data was not accessed, exposed personal details can still be used in scams or identity theft attempts. An identity protection service can monitor your information, alert you to suspicious activity and provide support if your identity is compromised. See my tips and best picks on Best Identity Theft Protection at Cyberguy.com.
5) Watch for highly targeted phishing messages
Be skeptical of any message that references your booking details, whether it arrives by email, text or WhatsApp. Legitimate companies rarely ask you to click a link and re-enter payment information. Hackers with your booking data can write convincing fakes that look urgent.
6) Verify bookings through official channels
If you get a message about your reservation, do not click the link. Open the Booking.com app or type the website address manually. You can also contact the hotel directly using the number listed on its official website.
7) Add a safety net in case you click something malicious
If you accidentally click a suspicious link, strong antivirus software can help detect malicious websites or downloads before they cause damage. Look for tools that offer real-time protection and phishing detection, not just basic virus scans. Get my picks for the best 2026 antivirus protection winners for your Windows, Mac, Android & iOS devices at Cyberguy.com.
8) Limit how your personal data is exposed online
Data brokers collect and sell personal details like your phone number and email address. That makes it easier for scammers to connect stolen booking data to a real person. Removing your information from these sites with a data removal service can reduce how often you are targeted. Check out my top picks for data removal services and get a free scan to find out if your personal information is already out on the web by visiting Cyberguy.com.
9) Report anything suspicious quickly
If you receive a phishing attempt that includes your real reservation details, contact Booking.com directly and report the message to your phone carrier or email provider. Reporting helps shut down scams faster.
Kurt’s key takeaways
Data breaches at major travel platforms are uncomfortable precisely because travel feels personal. Your itinerary, your accommodation and your plans are wrapped up in those booking details, and now someone else may have a copy. The good news is that financial information and home addresses were not part of this breach. The bad news is that the stolen data is detailed enough to be weaponized in targeted phishing attacks, and there’s evidence that it already has been. Booking.com updated its customers, reset PINs for affected reservations and publicly confirmed the incident. That’s more transparency than many companies offer. But the fact that users were receiving phishing messages on WhatsApp two weeks before the formal notification went out is worth sitting with. You can’t control whether the platform you use gets breached. You can control whether you’re an easy target once your data is out there.
How much responsibility should companies like Booking.com take when your personal data fuels scams? Let us know by writing to us at Cyberguy.com.
CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP
Sign up for my FREE CyberGuy Report
- Get my best tech tips, urgent security alerts and exclusive deals delivered straight to your inbox.
- For simple, real-world ways to spot scams early and stay protected, visit CyberGuy.com – trusted by millions who watch CyberGuy on TV daily.
- Plus, you’ll get instant access to my Ultimate Scam Survival Guide free when you join.
Copyright 2026 CyberGuy.com. All rights reserved.
I’ve recommended several OLED gaming monitors to readers over the years, and I’ve finally taken my own advice to buy one. Alienware’s new 27-inch 1440p QD-OLED has all the features that I want and a low $350 price that was too tempting to ignore.
The AW2726DM model has five things that make it stand out for the price: a 1440p QD-OLED screen with lush contrast, a fast 240Hz refresh rate, a semi-glossy screen coating to enhance details, a low-profile design without flashy RGB LEDs, and a great warranty (three years with coverage for burn-in).
I’ve been using Alienware’s new monitor for a couple days, and I’ve already spent hours with it playing Marathon. It was my first opportunity to see Bungie’s new first-person extraction shooter in its full HDR glory, and I can never go back. Switching on HDR wasn’t automatic, though it already looked so much better than my IPS panel without being activated.
Enabling it transformed how Marathon looked for the better, but made everything else about the OS look pretty washed-out. It’s a Windows issue, not an Alienware issue. It’s easy to enable HDR every time I launch a game and disable it afterward with the Windows + Alt + B keyboard shortcut, but unfortunately triggers HDR for all connected displays. This includes my IPS monitor that imbues everything with a terrible gray hue when HDR is on. So, using the system settings is the best way to adjust HDR for just the QD-OLED.
I landed on this QD-OLED after having spent a ton of time researching pricier models. The unanimous takeaway from reviewers was that LG’s Tandem RGB WOLED panels are some of the brightest out there, but also tend to exhibit lousy gray uniformity in dark scenes. QD-OLED monitors, on the other hand, offer slightly better contrast than WOLED and don’t suffer from those same uniformity issues. However, blacks sometimes appear as dark purple in bright rooms on QD-OLED panels, meaning they’re ideal for rooms that don’t have a bunch of light bouncing around.
There’s no perfect choice, and honestly I got tired of doing research, so I jumped in with the cheapest OLED. I’m glad that I did. Shopping for an OLED gaming monitor can be hard, but it can also be this easy. AOC makes a model that’s discounted to $339.99 at the time of publishing, and its specs are comparable.
As expected, the AW2726DM isn’t a cutting-edge monitor. Its QD-OLED panel isn’t as fast or as bright as some other pricier options, and it doesn’t have USB ports for connecting accessories. Considering its low price, it’s easy for me to overlook those omissions. I’d have a much harder time accepting them in a pricier display.
The fact that I mostly use my computer for text-based work at The Verge is what prevented me from upgrading to an OLED monitor. My 1440p IPS monitor is bright, it’s good at showing text clearly, and it has a fast refresh rate for gaming. Alienware’s QD-OLED is less bright, and some might be bothered by how text looks (I have to really squint to see the slight fringing from this QD-OLED’s subpixel layout). But I have a life outside of work, which includes playing a lot of PC games. That’s the slice of myself I bought this monitor for, and I’m so happy I did.
Photography by Cameron Faulkner / The Verge
-
New York1 hour agoMamdani Considers Delaying Pension-Fund Payments to Ease Budget Gap
-
Detroit, MI2 hours agoThings to do in Metro Detroit, April 24 and beyond
-
San Francisco, CA2 hours agoCA to open 3 new state parks and expand others, including in Bay Area: Here’s where
-
Dallas, TX2 hours agoWild vs. Stars Game 3: Key takeaways as Dallas takes series lead on Wyatt Johnston’s 2OT winner
-
Miami, FL2 hours agoMiami-Dade deputies detain elderly father who they say shot and killed his son after a domestic dispute
-
Boston, MA2 hours agoBoston has one of the best public markets in the country, says USA TODAY
-
Denver, CO2 hours agoRed flag fatigue? Colorado sees near-record number of critical fire days
-
Seattle, WA3 hours agoFOLLOWUP: West Seattle pickleball players band together to save court access