4 ms·

Something I’ve noticed when programmers try to break down melodic composition to an algorithm is that they don’t grasp how important the beat or the implied bea

Something I’ve noticed when programmers try to break down melodic composition to an algorithm is that they don’t grasp how important the beat or the implied beat is to creating catchy melodic phrases. Good melodies have a question/answer or a phrase/reply relationship with this beat. It’s a conversation. All memorable music has this feature. The kick asks a question and the snare answers. The kick/snare ask a question together and the harmony answers. The harmony asks a question and the melody answers. This is what differentiates sound from music. AI generated music has promise, but their creators have got to get this. If you’re generating a beat, harmony and melody in isolation linked only by tempo and key and then sandwich them together, you’re doing it completely wrong. They are part of one another and can’t be created in isolation or with weak interaction.

ccbccccbbcccbb 4y ago
Slow_Hand 4y ago
Yes. All algorithmic music I've heard (with few exceptions) feels aimless and meandering because their is no intention. It's not trying to say anything. It lacks purpose and a sense of how it fits into the greater composition. It's more like it's stringing together melodies that, while passable, don't have a feeling or target to aim for short of "stay in scale". Melodies that I hear from programs rarely have coherency from one measure to the next, and definitely not from one section to the next. Let alone coherency with it's supporting or complimentary elements.