4 ms·
This isn't interesting because it generates the best algorithmic music, it's interesting because he trained it on data, and didn't implicitly encode (very much)
by habitue 11y ago
This isn't interesting because it generates the best algorithmic music, it's interesting because he trained it on data, and didn't implicitly encode (very much) music theory into it. In other words, the fact that it sounds musical at all is due to the power of the neural network, and not to a carefully human-curated set of music theoretical constraints, onto which an RNG selects the remaining free variables. It's learning music from reading music and it's generating music based on a model constructed from the data itself.
- TheOtherHobbes 11y agoBut that's not actually true. It's a note sequence mash-up machine, not a music theory machine. That's the point I'm making. You'd get similar-sounding results by taking semi-random snippets of the source data and splicing them together with a tiny bit of glue logic. The NN is more or less doing that anyway, but by more roundabout means. It's a long way from there to being able to say that it has a non-trivial model of classical theory.