5 ms·

Would a computer endlessly churning out music on par with Beethoven, Chopin, and the Beatles make us happier as humans?

by SubiculumCode 9y ago

jeffehobbs 9y ago
Some of us, yes, some of us, no?
- SubiculumCode 9y ago
  Shall I refine the question then? Would Beethoven, Chopin, or the Beatles be happy if a computer churned out equivalent masterpieces?
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
  - rexreed 9y ago
    Define equivalent? I'm sure they had competition in their day.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
  - itsgreene 9y ago
    The best answer I've heard to this and your previous question was at a QandA with Dr. Daniel J. Levitin. His answer was to a question "Is there any music that can make everyone upset or unhappy?" His answer was that in all his research the only music that can make someone upset or unhappy, was music the listener didn't like. It's 100 percent listener preference. The same was true for music a person did like. Unfortunately, the only way we could find out if Beethoven, Chopin, or the Beatles like the music is to ask them. I'm sure we'll find both support and disdain from the music community on AI generated music. Time will tell if there is a major preference on either side. Dr. Levitin has some really interesting research on music, but also has some great easier to read books for those of us without a neuroscience degree. My favorite is called this is your brain on music. The world in 6 songs was also a great read. http://daniellevitin.com/publicpage/ http://daniellevitin.com/publicpage/
    - dwringer 9y ago
      I wonder how relevant this perspective is to the discussion going on at [1]. Particularly, I am curious how people interpret the notion that a deep learning system could predict a person's musical preferences by their facial features. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15219906 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15219906
      - jradd 9y ago
        Also, there are patents available for deterministic models based off of neurophysiological response data obtained from various sensors (primarily heart/pulse, galvanic capacitance of the skin, body temperature). One model mentioned in the patent uses Nigel Osborne's INRM (Innate Neuro-physiological Response to Music) paradigm to make predictions.
        deleted 9y ago
        [deleted]
        dwringer 9y ago
        "Also?" I was only bringing the subject up for discussion - I think it would be ridiculous to suggest that facial features could actually predict a person's musical tastes. These tastes change in some people from day to day or even minute to minute. People also subjectively evaluate music very differently, even when it's music they enjoy listening to. As for those patents, I would caution against interpreting them to mean a person's musical preferences can be inferred or exploited in this way. Merely evoking a physical response is not the same as satisfying a person's preference or desire. Particularly, a physical response can happen in the absence of a person's consent to receive the stimulus, and in rape trials this is legally recognized to exclude evidence of such a physical response from being used by the defense.
  - tw1010 9y ago
    That's not refining the question, that's completely redefining it.
  - visarga 9y ago
    We don't need to churn out more of it, we can't raise to the level of the current supply of music. What we need is more power to appreciate genres of music, not more music. Have you tried researching classical music on YT? I have done that intensely, for about 7 years, and I can tell you that I didn't get to listen to more than 1%. There are thousands of composers with hundreds of thousands of pieces and millions of interpretations. If we create computer music it will be done to expand the space of creativity, as usual. Classical music is particularly daring in breaking its molds and expanding to new forms. My favorite imagination game is to pretend I am listening a contemporary piece together with Mozart, Bach, or Beethoven and watching their reactions. So I am doing in my head a simulation of the old masters, like AI is doing, except that I am trying to listen from their perspective instead of trying to create more music in their style.
    - brooklyn_ashey 9y ago
      i don't get this at all. we need music that is about who we are now, and what new sounds we can make and imply and expect and imagine. technology has changed that just like the modern violin bow did for romantic era violinists, computers did for Varese, Antheil, and Percy Grainger, autotune did for Cher, hammond b3 did for jazz, trains did for Honnegger, race riots and loopers did for Strve Reich and on and on... we are at a different launch pad with ML, one that might allow us to shift the focus of our musical labor and practice, one that might allow more diversity in just who gets to make music (hopefully more people who would not otherwise afford to, for one)and more openness in what is called music, in what we consider to be legit instruments. why can't we use all sounds more accessibly like instruments? Why can't we hear how children might hear (usually because they have not yet learned technique) -perhaps our whole concept of what sound and music actually means could change... but first we have to wear ourselves out with all the Bach/Taylor Swift/Ligeti hybrids until we see how shallow that feels to be trapped in that space. Then, a new concept will emerge. I think it's machine learning that might actually get us there- to the end of justified by labor where the real art is. I think we should face the fear we seem to have that we might not actually have ideas--- that's where the art is. Not in a Miles Davis/Mozart hybrid.
      - 9y ago
fancyPantsZero 9y ago
It depends on what you mean by "on par". If you mean "endlessly churning out songs that sound pretty much like Beethoven, Chopin, or the Beatles", then probably not. Humans do that too. If you mean "endlessly creating new, innovative, and enjoyable material, like Beethoven, Chopin, and the Beatles did", then I think it's a very interesting proposition and lots of people would be happy to have that. I am skeptical it can be done with ML though.
- brooklyn_ashey 9y ago
  I think it would be a huge step forward for music or any artform, just like photography was for visual art. after the camera, we could relax on the technique of copying things as we see them and move on to ideas. perhaps ML could help human music finally get real about ideas. It could be wonderful to be free of the labor so we could really focus on the other aspects of music this kind of development could illuminate by making the formulaic nature understandable by everyone, driving a new interest in a frontier in music we were not free to explore while chained to techniques that are just techniques and not actual mysical ideas. I think music might more emphasize connection between people and a given moment between those very specific people. It might bring the former audience on par with the composer and as a composer, i'd like to see that in my lifetime!
tw1010 9y ago
Not everything needs to be created for happiness maximization. It'd just be really really cool.
stevehiehn 9y ago
Maybe its not going to be about completely copying artists. Just attributes from them. What if training the models becomes the art form itself and datasets are the building blocks you use to compose with. Imagine 'composing' models by selecting the training sets. Example: train with the rhythm style of James Brown & the tonalharmony of 50% Bach & 50% Miles Davis.
crumbles 9y ago
Focusing on happiness, what if the computer were just endlessly working on making humans happy? Would that be any better? You might end up with this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Isrd7E5nzIQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Isrd7E5nzIQ Or perhaps something much, much worse like electronic crack. You could argue that we've already achieved that: http://nypost.com/2016/08/27/its-digital-heroin-how-screens-turn-kids-into-psychotic-junkies/ http://nypost.com/2016/08/27/its-digital-heroin-how-screens-...
- visarga 9y ago
  Humans are flexible and adaptable. We can take any good fortune and make it ours while feeling entitled about it. In one generation or two, the new normal will be old. I think my parent's generation has seen a more dramatic raise in their conditions of life than I ever will (going from countryside to the city, in the period around 1970's). My grandma's never had a water closet in their life and raised water by the bucket from the well, and yet lived well above 80 years old, yet I now use a Japanese washlet - spoiled rotten, that's what I am by her standards. I don't even have to wipe my own damn ass.
peterburkimsher 9y ago
I'm a simple man. Four chords are enough to make me happy. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5pidokakU4I https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5pidokakU4I You can experiment with different progressions at this CodePen: https://codepen.io/jakealbaugh/full/qNrZyw https://codepen.io/jakealbaugh/full/qNrZyw Maybe it's not Beethoven or Chopin, but if it's good enough to compare with modern pop songs, then there should be a market for it.
visarga 9y ago
Depends on the level of creativity and if it can break out of the learned styles and create something different.
- AstralStorm 9y ago
  Different is easy. Different and generally pleasing (making sense) is a much harder proposition. ML models have problems handling even medium level structure much less something long term.

Would a computer endlessly churning out music on par with Beethoven, Chopin, and the Beatles make us happier as humans?

jeffehobbs 9y ago

Some of us, yes, some of us, no?

SubiculumCode 9y ago
Shall I refine the question then? Would Beethoven, Chopin, or the Beatles be happy if a computer churned out equivalent masterpieces?
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- rexreed 9y ago
  Define equivalent? I'm sure they had competition in their day.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- itsgreene 9y ago
  The best answer I've heard to this and your previous question was at a QandA with Dr. Daniel J. Levitin. His answer was to a question "Is there any music that can make everyone upset or unhappy?" His answer was that in all his research the only music that can make someone upset or unhappy, was music the listener didn't like. It's 100 percent listener preference. The same was true for music a person did like. Unfortunately, the only way we could find out if Beethoven, Chopin, or the Beatles like the music is to ask them. I'm sure we'll find both support and disdain from the music community on AI generated music. Time will tell if there is a major preference on either side. Dr. Levitin has some really interesting research on music, but also has some great easier to read books for those of us without a neuroscience degree. My favorite is called this is your brain on music. The world in 6 songs was also a great read. http://daniellevitin.com/publicpage/ http://daniellevitin.com/publicpage/
  - dwringer 9y ago
    I wonder how relevant this perspective is to the discussion going on at [1]. Particularly, I am curious how people interpret the notion that a deep learning system could predict a person's musical preferences by their facial features. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15219906 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15219906
    - jradd 9y ago
      Also, there are patents available for deterministic models based off of neurophysiological response data obtained from various sensors (primarily heart/pulse, galvanic capacitance of the skin, body temperature). One model mentioned in the patent uses Nigel Osborne's INRM (Innate Neuro-physiological Response to Music) paradigm to make predictions.
      - deleted 9y ago
        [deleted]
      - dwringer 9y ago
        "Also?" I was only bringing the subject up for discussion - I think it would be ridiculous to suggest that facial features could actually predict a person's musical tastes. These tastes change in some people from day to day or even minute to minute. People also subjectively evaluate music very differently, even when it's music they enjoy listening to. As for those patents, I would caution against interpreting them to mean a person's musical preferences can be inferred or exploited in this way. Merely evoking a physical response is not the same as satisfying a person's preference or desire. Particularly, a physical response can happen in the absence of a person's consent to receive the stimulus, and in rape trials this is legally recognized to exclude evidence of such a physical response from being used by the defense.
- tw1010 9y ago
  That's not refining the question, that's completely redefining it.
- visarga 9y ago
  We don't need to churn out more of it, we can't raise to the level of the current supply of music. What we need is more power to appreciate genres of music, not more music. Have you tried researching classical music on YT? I have done that intensely, for about 7 years, and I can tell you that I didn't get to listen to more than 1%. There are thousands of composers with hundreds of thousands of pieces and millions of interpretations. If we create computer music it will be done to expand the space of creativity, as usual. Classical music is particularly daring in breaking its molds and expanding to new forms. My favorite imagination game is to pretend I am listening a contemporary piece together with Mozart, Bach, or Beethoven and watching their reactions. So I am doing in my head a simulation of the old masters, like AI is doing, except that I am trying to listen from their perspective instead of trying to create more music in their style.
  - brooklyn_ashey 9y ago
    i don't get this at all. we need music that is about who we are now, and what new sounds we can make and imply and expect and imagine. technology has changed that just like the modern violin bow did for romantic era violinists, computers did for Varese, Antheil, and Percy Grainger, autotune did for Cher, hammond b3 did for jazz, trains did for Honnegger, race riots and loopers did for Strve Reich and on and on... we are at a different launch pad with ML, one that might allow us to shift the focus of our musical labor and practice, one that might allow more diversity in just who gets to make music (hopefully more people who would not otherwise afford to, for one)and more openness in what is called music, in what we consider to be legit instruments. why can't we use all sounds more accessibly like instruments? Why can't we hear how children might hear (usually because they have not yet learned technique) -perhaps our whole concept of what sound and music actually means could change... but first we have to wear ourselves out with all the Bach/Taylor Swift/Ligeti hybrids until we see how shallow that feels to be trapped in that space. Then, a new concept will emerge. I think it's machine learning that might actually get us there- to the end of justified by labor where the real art is. I think we should face the fear we seem to have that we might not actually have ideas--- that's where the art is. Not in a Miles Davis/Mozart hybrid.
    - 9y ago

fancyPantsZero 9y ago

It depends on what you mean by "on par". If you mean "endlessly churning out songs that sound pretty much like Beethoven, Chopin, or the Beatles", then probably not. Humans do that too. If you mean "endlessly creating new, innovative, and enjoyable material, like Beethoven, Chopin, and the Beatles did", then I think it's a very interesting proposition and lots of people would be happy to have that. I am skeptical it can be done with ML though.

brooklyn_ashey 9y ago
I think it would be a huge step forward for music or any artform, just like photography was for visual art. after the camera, we could relax on the technique of copying things as we see them and move on to ideas. perhaps ML could help human music finally get real about ideas. It could be wonderful to be free of the labor so we could really focus on the other aspects of music this kind of development could illuminate by making the formulaic nature understandable by everyone, driving a new interest in a frontier in music we were not free to explore while chained to techniques that are just techniques and not actual mysical ideas. I think music might more emphasize connection between people and a given moment between those very specific people. It might bring the former audience on par with the composer and as a composer, i'd like to see that in my lifetime!

tw1010 9y ago

Not everything needs to be created for happiness maximization. It'd just be really really cool.

stevehiehn 9y ago

Maybe its not going to be about completely copying artists. Just attributes from them. What if training the models becomes the art form itself and datasets are the building blocks you use to compose with. Imagine 'composing' models by selecting the training sets. Example: train with the rhythm style of James Brown & the tonalharmony of 50% Bach & 50% Miles Davis.

crumbles 9y ago

Focusing on happiness, what if the computer were just endlessly working on making humans happy? Would that be any better? You might end up with this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Isrd7E5nzIQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Isrd7E5nzIQ Or perhaps something much, much worse like electronic crack. You could argue that we've already achieved that: http://nypost.com/2016/08/27/its-digital-heroin-how-screens-turn-kids-into-psychotic-junkies/ http://nypost.com/2016/08/27/its-digital-heroin-how-screens-...

visarga 9y ago
Humans are flexible and adaptable. We can take any good fortune and make it ours while feeling entitled about it. In one generation or two, the new normal will be old. I think my parent's generation has seen a more dramatic raise in their conditions of life than I ever will (going from countryside to the city, in the period around 1970's). My grandma's never had a water closet in their life and raised water by the bucket from the well, and yet lived well above 80 years old, yet I now use a Japanese washlet - spoiled rotten, that's what I am by her standards. I don't even have to wipe my own damn ass.

peterburkimsher 9y ago

I'm a simple man. Four chords are enough to make me happy. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5pidokakU4I https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5pidokakU4I You can experiment with different progressions at this CodePen: https://codepen.io/jakealbaugh/full/qNrZyw https://codepen.io/jakealbaugh/full/qNrZyw Maybe it's not Beethoven or Chopin, but if it's good enough to compare with modern pop songs, then there should be a market for it.

visarga 9y ago

Depends on the level of creativity and if it can break out of the learned styles and create something different.

AstralStorm 9y ago
Different is easy. Different and generally pleasing (making sense) is a much harder proposition. ML models have problems handling even medium level structure much less something long term.