8 ms·
In Go, and Chess, there are a number of "rules": you should never do this (move the same chess piece twice in the opening), you should do that, ... And then Alp
by 323 4y ago
In Go, and Chess, there are a number of "rules": you should never do this (move the same chess piece twice in the opening), you should do that, ... And then AlphaGo appeared and dismissed all this and did just the right thing for the particular game being played. Know the rules, but if you are an expert you can break the rules.
I wonder if AI will do the same thing in music, it will use the "perfect" tuning suitable for a particular piece of music and dismiss this idea of a universal tuning scale.
- nateburke 4y agoWhat would the AI's reward function be?
- 323 4y agoSong gets into Billboard Top 100? Song view count on YouTube? And for earlier stages you can have human raters or similarity with past successful songs.
- the_third_wave 4y agoFeedback from a neural link which indicates satisfaction in the listener?
- xyzzy4747 4y agoIt won’t get terminated on AWS.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- magicalhippo 4y agoYour post reminded me of a video[1] Adam Neely made where he explored some (to me) weird tunings, starting with one where A = 432Hz. As someone who hasn't taken any musical theory or similar, it was quite interesting to hear. [1]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ghUs-84NAAU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ghUs-84NAAU
- coldtea 4y ago>where he explored some (to me) weird tunings, starting with one where A = 432Hz That's just changing a convention, not a tuning in the sense talked elsewhere in this thread (how we divide notes), but "what our starting frequency is". A=432 and A=440 is just as arbitrary. They just had to pick something so they would all match. The main difference is that 432 is associated with a set of new age, healing, "universe", etc. BS claims in certain "spiritual" circles...
- pdpi 4y agoThe one special thing about A=440 is that it is international law, as defined by the treaty of Versailles (yes, the one that ended World War I)
- 323 4y agoWhat's the penalty if you make an instrument tuned to A=442? Do you get dragged to the Hague International Criminal Court?
- pclmulqdq 4y agoSeveral orchestras use different A's around 440, and nobody is getting prosecuted. 441 and 442 are popular right now, although some go as low as 438. In baroque music, ~430 and 415 are also very common since they are thought to be the historical pitches of "A"
- colomon 4y agoFriends recorded this album --https://alisonperkinsandnicolasbrown.bandcamp.com/album/all-covered-with-moss https://alisonperkinsandnicolasbrown.bandcamp.com/album/all-... -- with A somewhere in the neighborhood of 360Hz.
- coldtea 4y ago360Hz? That's so low, it's more like playing the piece a three semitones lower than an alternate choice for A4. If the piece was in A, it would be more like playing it in F# (while still using A=440). (Of course if you did that, the "sweet-spots of 12TET and its off-notes would be different, than if you played with A=360)
- pdpi 4y agoYou can't realistically have a different guitar or a different saxophone for each and every piece you want to play, and those frets and holes can't be freely moved around. It gets that much worse when you consider "installation" instruments like carillons or pipe organs. AI just literally, fundamentally can't "dismiss the idea of a universal tuning scale", because whatever per-piece optimisations it can come up with still need to be realised by physical instruments at some point. The idea of a good-enough compromise solution that allows you to play a wide variety of pieces on a single instrument is just too damn important.
- 323 4y agoThere is more to music than just physical instruments. In popular commercial music you do literally have a different instrument (synth setup) for each song. But even if we talk about guitars and saxophones, I was speaking about AIs which directly output a sound file, not a music sheet. So they can synthesize a fake saxophone which is tuned in a weird non-physically possible way, as if each note was played by a different physical saxophone that the musician switches to.
- pdpi 4y agoYou specifically brought up Alpha Go dismissing the conventional wisdom on how Go should be played. Many of the things we thought we knew about the game turned out to be wrong and the game as a whole was turned on its head. None of that applies to music. Nobody who studies this stuff seriously is under any sort of illusion that 12-TET is the "right" way to play music. I know a fair few professional musicians, and I've "talked shop" with as many of them as I could, and the deficiencies of 12-TET recurringly come up. There is nothing here to "dismiss". Don't get me wrong: The idea of computationally-optimised tuning sounds really interesting, and the discussion of what we should be optimising for would itself be fascinating to follow. It's just that people are already doing that sort of thing manually today, so there's no big "oh no we're doing it wrong" dismissal of the status quo waiting at the end.
- 323 4y ago
- teolandon 4y agoPeople broke conventional rules with success in both Go and chess before AlphaGo and AlphaZero. In a similar way, people have been using particular tunings for their songs for a long long long time. The idea of a universal tuning scale is relatively new. No need for AI to point us away from it, we already did that ourselves.
- jlarcombe 4y agoYes and it was common for the player to tune (and presumably retune) fixed-intonation instruments like the clavichord... Bach famously had his own tunings that "sounded good". You still see this today with e.g. hurdy gurdy players who are constantly tweaking their tangents by ear.