4 ms·

While I mostly agree with you, we know that music is defined by the listener. Who are we to discern what is or isn't music? Do you have the same opinion of text

While I mostly agree with you, we know that music is defined by the listener. Who are we to discern what is or isn't music? Do you have the same opinion of text or code generated by or with the assistance of AI?

mdp2021 2y ago
The poster presents criticism against an architectural model. > Who are we to discern what is or isn't music? Hopefully, people with good judgement, potentially capable of evaluating products. The poster is clearly meaning "good music". > Do you have the same opinion of text or code generated by or with the assistance of There you go: the same way we note that some NN generated text is missing crucial qualities (e.g. intelligence), or that some NN generated images are missing crucial qualities (e.g. direction), you can surely admit the possibility that some NN generated sound may be missing relevant crucial qualities to the vetting of a good critic.
- ganoushoreilly 2y ago
  What is Good music though? That's the whole point. Plenty of people listen to stuff I would consider weird and non music, but to them it is.
  - mdp2021 2y ago
    Well if they call it "good music" because "they like it", that does not form a theory of music; whereas if they call it "good music" because they recognize it as an expression of good artistic form, and they are of promising judgement, than their theory could be translated into a generative architecture.
    - ganoushoreilly 2y ago
      It's up to the listener to apply whatever semantics they need to as justification. There is no purity test for music. The theory is just that theory.
      - mdp2021 2y ago
        > The theory is just that theory. Well no, Feyerabend let himself be called an "anarchist" but clearly there is a "more scientific" and "less scientific" - they cannot give you a lecturing appointment at the LSE or elsewhere to just shrug. > the listener ... as justification As justification to what? A producer makes products for different markets: people may sell bars of sugar with appetizers and synthetic flavours, that does not make the product remotely similar to healthy food.
        ganoushoreilly 2y ago
        Dismissing certain musical forms as lacking artistic validity because they don’t adhere to a predefined theory ignores the cultural, emotional, and contextual factors that shape artistic expression. Just as culinary traditions differ across regions and personal tastes vary, music exists in diverse forms that may not conform to classical or academic frameworks but still hold meaning and value for listeners. While food has measurable nutritional values and health impacts even the implied sugary items like candy, still provide some nutritional value, even if overwhelmed by the non nutritional ingredients.
      - anigbrowl 2y ago
        You keep arguing about validity but you're missing the point of how music is made. I'm not talking about 'only humans can be music because they alive', it's that music is fundamentally combinatorial, even if you're combining recordings of construction equipment to make industrial noise music. If you're generating the entire thing at once rather than stems or note data, you just have an elevator music generator which inexorably tends toward the lowest common denominator.
        ganoushoreilly 2y ago
        "you just have an elevator music generator" No one argued that one isn't of higher or lower quality. They're both music, as is evident by your choice of words. Processed foods are foods, not great for you, but they're still foods.
anigbrowl 2y ago
I think LLMs are great for summary or pastiche text. They do OK with poetry, but obviously this is a pastiche of existing poetry by necessity, since it can't be rooted in human experience (unless you want poems about being a computer, but that's not what most people have in mind. I think they're great for code, although within rather tight limitations in my experience. The problem with LLMs for music (as currently implemented, not inherently) is people keep training them on complete tracks. They're very obviously being trained by people who are not musicians.

mdp2021 2y ago

The poster presents criticism against an architectural model. > Who are we to discern what is or isn't music? Hopefully, people with good judgement, potentially capable of evaluating products. The poster is clearly meaning "good music". > Do you have the same opinion of text or code generated by or with the assistance of There you go: the same way we note that some NN generated text is missing crucial qualities (e.g. intelligence), or that some NN generated images are missing crucial qualities (e.g. direction), you can surely admit the possibility that some NN generated sound may be missing relevant crucial qualities to the vetting of a good critic.

ganoushoreilly 2y ago
What is Good music though? That's the whole point. Plenty of people listen to stuff I would consider weird and non music, but to them it is.
- mdp2021 2y ago
  Well if they call it "good music" because "they like it", that does not form a theory of music; whereas if they call it "good music" because they recognize it as an expression of good artistic form, and they are of promising judgement, than their theory could be translated into a generative architecture.
  - ganoushoreilly 2y ago
    It's up to the listener to apply whatever semantics they need to as justification. There is no purity test for music. The theory is just that theory.
    - mdp2021 2y ago
      > The theory is just that theory. Well no, Feyerabend let himself be called an "anarchist" but clearly there is a "more scientific" and "less scientific" - they cannot give you a lecturing appointment at the LSE or elsewhere to just shrug. > the listener ... as justification As justification to what? A producer makes products for different markets: people may sell bars of sugar with appetizers and synthetic flavours, that does not make the product remotely similar to healthy food.
      - ganoushoreilly 2y ago
        Dismissing certain musical forms as lacking artistic validity because they don’t adhere to a predefined theory ignores the cultural, emotional, and contextual factors that shape artistic expression. Just as culinary traditions differ across regions and personal tastes vary, music exists in diverse forms that may not conform to classical or academic frameworks but still hold meaning and value for listeners. While food has measurable nutritional values and health impacts even the implied sugary items like candy, still provide some nutritional value, even if overwhelmed by the non nutritional ingredients.
    - anigbrowl 2y ago
      You keep arguing about validity but you're missing the point of how music is made. I'm not talking about 'only humans can be music because they alive', it's that music is fundamentally combinatorial, even if you're combining recordings of construction equipment to make industrial noise music. If you're generating the entire thing at once rather than stems or note data, you just have an elevator music generator which inexorably tends toward the lowest common denominator.
      - ganoushoreilly 2y ago
        "you just have an elevator music generator" No one argued that one isn't of higher or lower quality. They're both music, as is evident by your choice of words. Processed foods are foods, not great for you, but they're still foods.

anigbrowl 2y ago

I think LLMs are great for summary or pastiche text. They do OK with poetry, but obviously this is a pastiche of existing poetry by necessity, since it can't be rooted in human experience (unless you want poems about being a computer, but that's not what most people have in mind. I think they're great for code, although within rather tight limitations in my experience. The problem with LLMs for music (as currently implemented, not inherently) is people keep training them on complete tracks. They're very obviously being trained by people who are not musicians.