5 ms·
His other web site he mentions here: http://tones.wolfram.com/ http://tones.wolfram.com/ is just pathetic. I wrote a jazz improvization machine 18 years ago
by mojuba 17y ago
His other web site he mentions here:
http://tones.wolfram.com/ http://tones.wolfram.com/
is just pathetic.
I wrote a jazz improvization machine 18 years ago which played more sensible music some jazz fans even kind of liked, but it was as useless as this "new kind of" crap.
Music is an abstract language we, humans, speak to express ourselves. You can't touch hearts and souls by generating random sequences within a given scale.
I hope Alpha turns out to be more useful, but good Lord, this man's narcissism case should be included in psychology textbooks.
- endtime 17y ago>Music is an abstract language we, humans, speak to express ourselves. You can't touch hearts and souls by generating random sequences within a given scale. What if you randomly generated something that was identical to a famous piece of music? Is there a reason why that couldn't happen? And, if not, recognize that it doesn't actually depend on the prior human creation of the piece...so I don't see why, in theory, you couldn't randomly generate (or grow via GA or whatever) a good piece of music.
- mojuba 17y agoMusic is not just notes. With the exception of some of the modern genres (dance/electronica mostly) music is performed by people and truly good music has nuances not seen in the scores. There are performances of Bach that I'd turn off after 20 seconds, and there are those I keep in my music collection for years, if not decades. Performaces differ dramatically. Or take Pink Floyd's Wish You Were Here - was it the scores, or rather Gilmour's unique articulation on the guitar that made us listen to this album? How about John Coltrane's emotional outbursts on the sax? Nina Simone's cosmic-deep vocals? Music is a far more subtle art, not yet understood from the point of view of Cognitive Science. What random notes are you talking about?
- crescendo 17y agoIf you keep generating random series of tones, eventually you will end up with Pink Floyd's Wish You Were Here or any other piece ever recorded.
- mojuba 17y agoThat's probably a very clever way of producing music, but I don't want to wait billions of years until an awesome performance of Mozart's concerto No.17 emerges from your machine. I want it now, please. Thank you.
- endtime 17y agoRight, but with good heuristics it wouldn't take billions of years to generate a good piece of music. Anyway, there's a difference between something being impossible and something requiring a large amount of time.
- mojuba 17y agoHeuristics - you mean, you know how we perceive music? Can you explain what makes a piece of music good? Same for performance - why are some performances of the same piece of music better than others?
- endtime 17y agoIf I could explain what made a piece of music could I could write a direct algorithm. The kind of heuristic I mean is something that would rule out the vast majority of dissonant crap that has no chance of sounding good.
- mojuba 17y agoA lot of what was believed to be "dissonant crap" some 50 years ago is now part of jazz and avantgarde. Many jazz fans value Thelonious Monk's music, for example, more than any popular harmonious crap. Obviously you are not familiar with music. Good luck in exploring it before you try to formalize it.
- endtime 17y agoI think you are still missing the point. Would you not agree that in the entire space of all possible sequences of noise, the vast majority could never be considered music?