2 ms·
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 onl
by 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 agoI 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.