3 ms·

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 perfect

by 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.

by lelag 4y ago

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.