3 ms·

I would bet heavily against that any such generated music to become popular (except maybe as bad filler music for video games music etc). The truth is that cla

by lelag 4y ago

I would bet heavily against that any such generated music to become popular (except maybe as bad filler music for video games music etc). The truth is that classical music fan are very very picky about what they like. Computers have been "better" musician than human for a long time: a midi file is always played "perfectly". Yet it's sounds horrible, mechanised to our ears. The controlled imperfection of a real human musician is what makes the music beautiful. I don't see any computer composing anything worth listening to in the foreseeable future (and I'm bullish on generative ai).

crtasm 4y ago
Can't speak for generated compositions but midi data is played however your software is programmed to do so, which could include adding imperfections.
- lelag 4y ago
  What I'm saying: take a classical score as is and input it perfectly as a midi file and you are guaranteed to have a terrible output. Yet on paper, it's perfectly rendered as the composer wrote it. This is why the act of playing music by a human is called a "performance", an "interpretation" in some languages. The musician is not just playing a score exactly as it is written, the musician gives a part of his/her into the act and make the music his/her own to make art.
  - EricE 4y ago
    And you don't think AI can't be programmed to "interpret" too? You haven't been paying attention much, in the last few weeks in particular https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yX9J4RIsvOA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yX9J4RIsvOA
  - crtasm 4y ago
    So the performers are following some learned patterns of what they need to do with the written score to make it sound not-terrible to you. I disagree that's only possible for a human to achieve.
    - reikonomusha 4y ago
      I don't have a stake in whether AI could or could not interpret a score, but it's still more than "learned patterns". Some performers imbue an interpretation depending on: - the instrument - the room or hall - their personal experiences - their personal philosophy of music (e.g., Gould and his anti-hedonistic philosophy) - cultural norms and explicit respect paid thereof (e.g., in the interpretation of a Chopin mazurka) - available recording technology and expertise - available audio engineering technology and expertise - what emotion they want to invoke or evoke to contextualize the music - their patience - their willingness to experiment - etc. It is not at all farfetched that a performer is taking most of these into account, directly or indirectly, to render a live or recorded performance. It's not as if there's just this tradition of unwritten rules about interpreting a score that music students learn from their teachers, rather, it's that an interpretation is an amalgamation of experience, context, and on-the-spot reactive decision-making. For an AI to successfully achieve this, they'll need the same variety of inputs and contexts to learn from.
rswail 4y ago
That sounds more like there's a listening "uncanny valley" that the new AI is resolving for images that needs to be solved for audio.

by lelag 4y ago

crtasm 4y ago

Can't speak for generated compositions but midi data is played however your software is programmed to do so, which could include adding imperfections.

lelag 4y ago
What I'm saying: take a classical score as is and input it perfectly as a midi file and you are guaranteed to have a terrible output. Yet on paper, it's perfectly rendered as the composer wrote it. This is why the act of playing music by a human is called a "performance", an "interpretation" in some languages. The musician is not just playing a score exactly as it is written, the musician gives a part of his/her into the act and make the music his/her own to make art.
- EricE 4y ago
  And you don't think AI can't be programmed to "interpret" too? You haven't been paying attention much, in the last few weeks in particular https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yX9J4RIsvOA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yX9J4RIsvOA
- crtasm 4y ago
  So the performers are following some learned patterns of what they need to do with the written score to make it sound not-terrible to you. I disagree that's only possible for a human to achieve.
  - reikonomusha 4y ago
    I don't have a stake in whether AI could or could not interpret a score, but it's still more than "learned patterns". Some performers imbue an interpretation depending on: - the instrument - the room or hall - their personal experiences - their personal philosophy of music (e.g., Gould and his anti-hedonistic philosophy) - cultural norms and explicit respect paid thereof (e.g., in the interpretation of a Chopin mazurka) - available recording technology and expertise - available audio engineering technology and expertise - what emotion they want to invoke or evoke to contextualize the music - their patience - their willingness to experiment - etc. It is not at all farfetched that a performer is taking most of these into account, directly or indirectly, to render a live or recorded performance. It's not as if there's just this tradition of unwritten rules about interpreting a score that music students learn from their teachers, rather, it's that an interpretation is an amalgamation of experience, context, and on-the-spot reactive decision-making. For an AI to successfully achieve this, they'll need the same variety of inputs and contexts to learn from.

rswail 4y ago

That sounds more like there's a listening "uncanny valley" that the new AI is resolving for images that needs to be solved for audio.