Now, that's one example of what human vocal cords (with various degrees computer augmentation) are capable of. While the things discussed in the article may be interesting... the reference to vocal cords seems somewhat misplaced?
[edit: I should perhaps clarify/highlight that the above video does not feature drum machines etc -- "only" sampling, looping and "warping". Easier to follow, is this video I like to call "I was hip-hop before ducks":
Well, not quite no other effects, according to an article on his new setup:
"Helping him drive it are three iPads, two of which control the Beardytron and one that uses apps for extra noises. He also has keyboards, Native Instruments Guitar Rig, and Rob Papen’s delay as part of the setup."
[edit2: Although according to his TED talk, it only reuses noises he puts in, so I guess it's an open question if he's moved to include "external" samples or not...
Somehow, digging in deeper on this subject led me to another video (which I just shared - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7195652) of a player piano emulating human speech by reproducing the part of the spectral fingerprint within it's range. Eerie
I found this article very difficult to read, and while it talks a lot about procedural music, I don't think that any of the people it covers are making any except the "Birthday Song Crew", who are clearly geniuses.
It did, however, introduce me to http://yaxu.org/tidal/ which is going to force me to finally learn Haskell.
I had trouble reading this too. I mean, all the words made sense, but it didn't feel like it was making any specific points? It sounds like a dictation of a stream of thoughts loosely related to experimental electronic music.
I love music and experimentation but I find those pieces portrayed there quite devoid of emotional content.
I like the idea of procedural music being created automatically, but I believe that the end result still need to inspire and transport the listener. I have no doubts that we will be able to make some pretty convincing stuff in the future, and it probably won't be a lot worse than what's already playing in the charts.
Genetic algorithms could eventually produce music that triggered a emotional response in humans. Your "fitness test" would need to be having real people listen to procedurally generated scores and rating the emotional impact (if any) of each sample. Perhaps a task for mechanical turk?
In the end though, I think we seek out music or art that puts us in the mindset or emotional state of the artist. Forging a connection of shared experience.
If the music tugged at all the right heartstrings, but you knew it wasn't made by a human, could you feel that depth of connection?
For those talking about the lack of emotional content, I found that this video -- for Holly Herndon's "Movement" -- helped some of this work make more sense. Of course, Herndon's music isn't really "automatically generated" and features a lot of human vocal samples.
About just as interesting as automatically generated novels. A machine has no intention. It doesn't "want" to turn itself on or off and play some music.
They're still configuring the software that generates the music, aren't they? If a musician chooses a chord progression (for example) and then hands it off to an algorithm (maybe one they designed), isn't that enough to count as composition? In all of these cases, there is a lot of human thought and choice involved, it just doesn't happen to look like it does when someone plays an acoustic instrument or writes a score.
Edit: I should say, I do think that a lot of electronic music should be considered craft rather than art. But not all of it.
Automatically generated novels aren't interesting (currently) because computers are still extremely bad at common sense knowledge and natural language processing (and that's not likely to change until we get at least human level AI.) However music generation is entirely possible and some attempts have been very successful so far.
Does it have intention? Is there any way to distinguish a sound file with intention from one without? Are the bits the wrong color?
Intention doesn't make a damn difference. Birds don't chose the notes in their songs, but they still sound beautiful. You can have a computer pick notes at random, and as long as someone listening finds beauty in it, it's good music.
I don't think that any of the music in this article was procedurally generated, but composed. You're probably just confirming the opinion that you expected to have.
[+] [-] e12e|12 years ago|reply
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qPBM69nThkM
Now, that's one example of what human vocal cords (with various degrees computer augmentation) are capable of. While the things discussed in the article may be interesting... the reference to vocal cords seems somewhat misplaced?
[edit: I should perhaps clarify/highlight that the above video does not feature drum machines etc -- "only" sampling, looping and "warping". Easier to follow, is this video I like to call "I was hip-hop before ducks":
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=39n4wow8fWE ]
[+] [-] e12e|12 years ago|reply
"Helping him drive it are three iPads, two of which control the Beardytron and one that uses apps for extra noises. He also has keyboards, Native Instruments Guitar Rig, and Rob Papen’s delay as part of the setup."
http://www.djtechtools.com/2012/12/12/the-beardytron-5000-mk...
[edit2: Although according to his TED talk, it only reuses noises he puts in, so I guess it's an open question if he's moved to include "external" samples or not...
http://www.ted.com/talks/beardyman_the_polyphonic_me.html ]
[edit: apparently that article wasn't submitted to hn, as I'm guessing it's a good fit, now it is:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7195664 ]
[+] [-] hmsimha|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] pessimizer|12 years ago|reply
It did, however, introduce me to http://yaxu.org/tidal/ which is going to force me to finally learn Haskell.
[+] [-] lifeformed|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] yaxu|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] illicium|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Gigablah|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Renaud|12 years ago|reply
I like the idea of procedural music being created automatically, but I believe that the end result still need to inspire and transport the listener. I have no doubts that we will be able to make some pretty convincing stuff in the future, and it probably won't be a lot worse than what's already playing in the charts.
[+] [-] aethr|12 years ago|reply
In the end though, I think we seek out music or art that puts us in the mindset or emotional state of the artist. Forging a connection of shared experience.
If the music tugged at all the right heartstrings, but you knew it wasn't made by a human, could you feel that depth of connection?
[+] [-] unknown|12 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] dcre|12 years ago|reply
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kanNN4RPrOf (NSFW, in most workplaces -- two dancers in underwear.)
[+] [-] smallerize|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] bsaul|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dcre|12 years ago|reply
Edit: I should say, I do think that a lot of electronic music should be considered craft rather than art. But not all of it.
[+] [-] Houshalter|12 years ago|reply
Does it have intention? Is there any way to distinguish a sound file with intention from one without? Are the bits the wrong color?
[+] [-] normloman|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] pessimizer|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] bliti|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] shangxiao|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] faceface1286|12 years ago|reply