3 ms·

like Songsmith is going to change how music is made. [...] the best music comes not from formula but from the human mind. http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4

like Songsmith is going to change how music is made. [...] the best music comes not from formula but from the human mind. http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=456490 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=456490 'If you tried, if any Mind tried, could you impersonate my style?' the Chelgrian asked. 'Could you write a piece - a symphony, say - that would appear, to the critical appraiser, to be by me, and which, when I heard it, I'd imagine being proud to have written?' The avatar frowned as it walked. It clasped its hands behind its back. It took a few more steps. 'Yes, I imagine that would be possible.' [...] 'So what,' the Chelgrian asked, 'is the point of me or anybody else writing a symphony, or anything else?' [...] 'Ziller, are you concerned that Minds - AIs, if you like - can create, or even just appear to create, original works of art?'

unalone 18y ago
You can analyze an existing progression. You cannot predict the possible future progression. You could analyze Please Please Me and determine how to generate similar Beatlesy sounds. You couldn't predict Help. If you had Help, you could make Help sounds but you couldn't figure out that Rubber Soul was on its way. The sonic style changed constantly and evolved incredibly. Or imagine trying to copy Frank Zappa. You might replicate a single song, but it wouldn't be possible to predict the next songs in a given album. He evolved and shifted too rapidly to follow.
- Tichy 18y ago
  Why shouldn't an AI be able to listen to ALL songs that are uploaded to YouTube at any given time and from that synthesize something new? Real musician presumably don't do anything different - at least they don't start from scratch, they build on existing music and styles.
  - unalone 18y ago
    A lot of cutting-edge music doesn't come from the field of music. John Cage's work was influenced by literature. Brian Eno created ambient music by listening to music in places he went. An AI couldn't discover breaking-ground things like that. Not through synthesis. The idea is that truly great music isn't music that takes an existing style and moves it. Great music is the music that creates something that isn't already there.
    - gravitycop 18y ago
      Great music is the music that creates something that isn't already there. Why would a human, but not an AI, be able to do that? John Cage's work was influenced by literature. AI's cannot read literature?
      - unalone 18y ago
        Why would a human, but not an AI, be able to do that? Because AI operates according to structures that have been designed by human hands. The human mind is incomprehensibly more complex than any AI. So you could make AI that does innovate, but its innovations would still be far more predictable and routine than any that a human mind could come up with. AI's cannot read literature? John Cage would read Finnegans Wake, draw lines up and down pages, and derive poems from words formed by what his line would hit. A computer would never think to do that on its own. There's a fine line between genius and insanity, it is said - and computers can't be insane.
        bd 18y ago
        Because AI operates according to structures that have been designed by human hands. The human mind is incomprehensibly more complex than any AI. So you could make AI that does innovate, but its innovations would still be far more predictable and routine than any that a human mind could come up with. Not necessarily. Using evolutionary approach, AI can come up with innovations on par (and possibly even beyond) to what humans could do: http://www.genetic-programming.com/humancompetitive.html http://www.genetic-programming.com/humancompetitive.html
        likpok 18y ago
        The biggest issue with this contention is that no one knows how far AI can go. Furthermore, I posit that there are people who will never accept what AI does, viewing it as always lesser to human development. Someone (I don't remember who) quipped, "What is AI? Whatever a computer can't do".
  - bad_user 18y ago
    Because "computers are useless. They can only give you answers" ;)
    - unalone 18y ago
      I love that quote. Who said it?
      - freakball 18y ago
        Computers are useless. They can only give you answers. Pablo Picasso Spanish Cubist painter (1881 - 1973)
- gravitycop 18y ago
  It isn't possible for anyone who hasn't heard a particular Beatles or Zappa (rock, not classical) song before, to recognize it as a Beatles or Zappa song?
  - unalone 18y ago
    When I heard latter-day Beatles I didn't recognize it. Two years ago, all I knew by them were the oldies. I'd hear Let It Be or Across The Universe or Eleanor Rigby, and I'd ask what band it was playing. I think I had that revelation something like 10 times, and finally, after Why Don't We Do It In The Road?, I took the time to listen to their entire discography. Zappa you can't tell. In the last 3 months I've listened to all 60 of his albums because he never repeats himself, not even song to song. Even on Freak Out!, his debut, you can't guess from the first song just how incredible the third song will be, or that from there it will move to doo wop or kid's songs. He does it all. If you've heard that album, you can't tell what Absolutely Free or We're Only In It For The Money will do. After that he does a postmodern doo wop album and moves on to jazz fusion and movie tracks, returning to pop rock just in time to release an album consisting of only guitar solos. With Zappa, if he's not singing you can't tell it's him writing the songs. He's the single most diverse composer I've ever heard. I've just made an impromptu collection of Zappa songs - http://omegaseye.com/Zappa.zip http://omegaseye.com/Zappa.zip. His rock songs never sound the same, his pop doesn't sound like anything else. The closest he ever gets to generic is Fountain of Love, which has a surprising guitar line, a very complex choral arrangement, and quotes from Stravinsky's Rite of Spring at the end. I could give you more songs from any of these albums, or show you other albums of his, and unless I told you you would be unable to guess it was Zappa.

unalone 18y ago

You can analyze an existing progression. You cannot predict the possible future progression. You could analyze Please Please Me and determine how to generate similar Beatlesy sounds. You couldn't predict Help. If you had Help, you could make Help sounds but you couldn't figure out that Rubber Soul was on its way. The sonic style changed constantly and evolved incredibly. Or imagine trying to copy Frank Zappa. You might replicate a single song, but it wouldn't be possible to predict the next songs in a given album. He evolved and shifted too rapidly to follow.

Tichy 18y ago
Why shouldn't an AI be able to listen to ALL songs that are uploaded to YouTube at any given time and from that synthesize something new? Real musician presumably don't do anything different - at least they don't start from scratch, they build on existing music and styles.
- unalone 18y ago
  A lot of cutting-edge music doesn't come from the field of music. John Cage's work was influenced by literature. Brian Eno created ambient music by listening to music in places he went. An AI couldn't discover breaking-ground things like that. Not through synthesis. The idea is that truly great music isn't music that takes an existing style and moves it. Great music is the music that creates something that isn't already there.
  - gravitycop 18y ago
    Great music is the music that creates something that isn't already there. Why would a human, but not an AI, be able to do that? John Cage's work was influenced by literature. AI's cannot read literature?
    - unalone 18y ago
      Why would a human, but not an AI, be able to do that? Because AI operates according to structures that have been designed by human hands. The human mind is incomprehensibly more complex than any AI. So you could make AI that does innovate, but its innovations would still be far more predictable and routine than any that a human mind could come up with. AI's cannot read literature? John Cage would read Finnegans Wake, draw lines up and down pages, and derive poems from words formed by what his line would hit. A computer would never think to do that on its own. There's a fine line between genius and insanity, it is said - and computers can't be insane.
      - bd 18y ago
        Because AI operates according to structures that have been designed by human hands. The human mind is incomprehensibly more complex than any AI. So you could make AI that does innovate, but its innovations would still be far more predictable and routine than any that a human mind could come up with. Not necessarily. Using evolutionary approach, AI can come up with innovations on par (and possibly even beyond) to what humans could do: http://www.genetic-programming.com/humancompetitive.html http://www.genetic-programming.com/humancompetitive.html
        likpok 18y ago
        The biggest issue with this contention is that no one knows how far AI can go. Furthermore, I posit that there are people who will never accept what AI does, viewing it as always lesser to human development. Someone (I don't remember who) quipped, "What is AI? Whatever a computer can't do".
- bad_user 18y ago
  Because "computers are useless. They can only give you answers" ;)
  - unalone 18y ago
    I love that quote. Who said it?
    - freakball 18y ago
      Computers are useless. They can only give you answers. Pablo Picasso Spanish Cubist painter (1881 - 1973)
gravitycop 18y ago
It isn't possible for anyone who hasn't heard a particular Beatles or Zappa (rock, not classical) song before, to recognize it as a Beatles or Zappa song?
- unalone 18y ago
  When I heard latter-day Beatles I didn't recognize it. Two years ago, all I knew by them were the oldies. I'd hear Let It Be or Across The Universe or Eleanor Rigby, and I'd ask what band it was playing. I think I had that revelation something like 10 times, and finally, after Why Don't We Do It In The Road?, I took the time to listen to their entire discography. Zappa you can't tell. In the last 3 months I've listened to all 60 of his albums because he never repeats himself, not even song to song. Even on Freak Out!, his debut, you can't guess from the first song just how incredible the third song will be, or that from there it will move to doo wop or kid's songs. He does it all. If you've heard that album, you can't tell what Absolutely Free or We're Only In It For The Money will do. After that he does a postmodern doo wop album and moves on to jazz fusion and movie tracks, returning to pop rock just in time to release an album consisting of only guitar solos. With Zappa, if he's not singing you can't tell it's him writing the songs. He's the single most diverse composer I've ever heard. I've just made an impromptu collection of Zappa songs - http://omegaseye.com/Zappa.zip http://omegaseye.com/Zappa.zip. His rock songs never sound the same, his pop doesn't sound like anything else. The closest he ever gets to generic is Fountain of Love, which has a surprising guitar line, a very complex choral arrangement, and quotes from Stravinsky's Rite of Spring at the end. I could give you more songs from any of these albums, or show you other albums of his, and unless I told you you would be unable to guess it was Zappa.