Quote:Original post by Timmygyu Why did it die? Because no one could believe that it could truly create music, no one could consider the idea of ignoring the masses and buying a Madplayer instead of the white, comparatively ugly little maggot called the iPod.
That sounds like a very cool device. But you're not making a fair comparison here. Most people want to listen to music that someone else has written in very distinctive styles, which this device can't give you, not to mention the lack of vocals and nuances of real instrumentation.
A better business model for them might be to license the composing engine for use in software. (If indeed they didn't get it from a software application originally.)
Actually, this device sounds really cool. Besides the 550+ instruments, you can sample from the mic, built in FM radio, or MP3/wma/etc/etc. There is more to it then just 'autogenerating' a song.
Yes, indeed. Art is human. But to do something as techno that's electronic music, or other genre of music that's electronic, there's no need for humans. With algorithms you could also do that stuff... It's like conceptual art... Doing conceptual art it's not tough... The whole point of conceptual art is what is being said, not how or what has been done. A computer doing that kind of art is easy, but if it has not a concept it's pretty pointless. As for electronic or ambiance music is more a question if it sounds nice, or at least it's not irritating (that being applied to a videogame...).
Now, true rock or blues isn't something that a computer can do... At least for now... When computers become sentient and with feelings, will be the time that they will and can do music... To do art is a question of feeling... Feeling and creativity... Everyone who has been to a rock concert will catch a glimpse of that... Every show is different... Because every day for every person is different, so it's only NATURAL that what they do is affected by that... Futhermore, neurologists have proved that our inteligence also depends of our feelings... So, while a computer is deprived of true feelings I don't think that they can do true art... But time will tell if I'm wrong... I personally hope that computers don't become sentient...
Also I said that was NATURAL, because we are humans and products of nature and that's how we work.... As computers are not natural (and even if they are a product of our race) maybe what I said cannot be applied...
Erm, who's going to be listening to it then? Also at the end of the day the art may be done on a computer but who wrote the algorithms in the first place? Surely that's a form of art there and then. It reminds me of the *totally unfounded* controversy surrounding the introduction of the Moog synthesizer back in the 60s.
This isn't the sort of stuff you want to be getting all worked up about. This is.
"I must not fear. Fear is the mindkiller. Fear is the little death that brings total obliteration. I will face my fear. I will permit it to pass over me and through me. And when it has gone past me I will turn to see fear's path. Where the fear has gone there will be nothing. Only I will remain." ~Frank Herbert, DuneMy slice of the web
Erm, who's going to be listening to it then? Also at the end of the day the art may be done on a computer but who wrote the algorithms in the first place? Surely that's a form of art there and then. It reminds me of the *totally unfounded* controversy surrounding the introduction of the Moog synthesizer back in the 60s.
This isn't the sort of stuff you want to be getting all worked up about. This is.
That's another form of art. Programming is art! :D
So, is the act of art creating art recognizable as art to us?
If God made us, and we made art, does god admire our art? If I make a robot, and the robot paints a picture, should I call it art? The question of inspiration comes into play...
I have many problems with technology "creating" art in place of humans. Here's ONE of my points: I am a composer. I work my ass off creating music that is both enjoyable and expressive of what I FEEL. (Something a computer is incapable of. Art is about relating to the human condition) Anyways, Every single note that I write was meant for a purpose and has a niche. The displacement of one of these notes makes the entire piece invalid. I may spend one night on a piece but I may also spend 1 week. My heart and soul are spent after working on a piece trying to get the most out of it. Then we come to a loophole. Imagine my surprise when someone, who has no idea how to compose music or has absolutely no talent or understanding, can compose an entire song with the push of a button. It burns me when these people create a computer generated piece of music in 5 minutes and have people go "WOW you are a talented musician!" Also imagine my frustration when I compose a piece of music and someone goes, "you probably used a bunch of pre recorded loops to create that..." Anyone can "Compose" music nowadays but its the art and the refining of the art that is becoming lost as a result of this ULTRA Convenient abuse of technology.
In the form of muic, every note has a purpose when serving the wellbeing of a greater whole. Humans are no different. If human beings are displaced by technology, then ultimately they become invalid and the sum of their life's worth becomes equal to nothing. There is no meaning to life without purpose. Its one thing to use technology to aid and its another thing to take away its potential for creativity by making things convenient to the point where this is none.
Quote:Original post by Rain 7 Its one thing to use technology to aid and its another thing to take away its potential for creativity by making things convenient to the point where this is none.
But is there really a difference? I'm sure that there are many products, once lovingly done by the hand of an artist or craftsman but which are now mass-produced by computer, and I expect you use many of them. (Furniture, clothing, etc.) The blacksmith may have put in many hours into learning his craft and perfecting it, but nearly every one of them went out of business last century. It's sad, but that is life. Wishing that all music was made by talented musicians ends up sounding like the programmers who wished all code was written in assembly language. It's a futile wish really. All you can do is try to improve yourself and use the new tools where possible while still employing your own special abilities.
Man, this post has really taken off. I had no idea this was going to happen, but hey, I haven't got a problem with it. Anyway the last few posts have interested me so I thought I would throw my two cents in.
Relating to the idea of generated music not being creative, here I disagree.
If you simply take a device or piece of software like the Madplayer, generate 15 songs with no regard to what they sound like, and call this created music I would disagree. It is random. But when you listen to it, make the decision to save it or pitch it you are MAKING it human. Why? Because you have a reason for picking that song above the others. Maybe you pick it because it has a GOOD riff, or because it's a style you LIKE, or because it fits you MOOD. A computer cannot know what sounds good and what doesn't, at least not past a certain degree. But when you save a song that you have RELATED to, that you LIKE, you are making a choice that is partially if not wholey determined by your emotional state. You are making it human. Even that simple press of a button changes the song.
None the less, I will not dispute that the amount of humanity in that song is drastically less than if it was crafted note by note. I know that. But it is still human. In fact as an interesting note, Madwaves-the maker of the Madplayer-seems to have recognized this to an extent by placing only one restriction on the music generated by their machine. You cannot play the music unsaved, or simply hook the Madplayer up to a stereo and let it create random music. You must interact with it, even if it is only to the degree of pressing the save button. Not perfect protection but an effort none the less.
But on to another interesting comment.
Art is human. Or maybe not. Take a look at KoKo the gorilla(I hope I spelled that right). When she was introduced to water colors it wasn't long before she attempted to use them. As a result she made a number of paintings. A gorilla. Not a human. Now they were not the kind of thing you put on your wall, definitely not, but they resembled thoughts, and KoKo assigned names to these paintings in relation to those thoughts. No they weren't advanced. No they weren't complex. But they were one thing: original. She was not taught the individual strokes, she was not taught precisely how to move her brush, how much pressure to exert. She did not make a replica of what she tried to paint, instead she made an abstraction, and recognized that. That, my friends, is creativity. But to some extent I am doging the point, which is as I understand it the question of "can computers generate true art, art with emotions, feelings, put into it". Well I have a definite belief on that.
No.
Computers can generate music, can "talk" to a human being, and many other things that seem human, but computers as they are are incapable of creating true art. Why? Because when it comes down to it computers do all their "creating" based on rock hard rules. Even randomness is acctually just an algorithm, no computer can generate true random numbers. So why does this prevent computers from creating?
Because they basically trade ones and zeros.
Sure, most of the brain functions this way too, but there's another little thing called emotions that completely changes the equation. I mean think, how many times have you done something just for the heck of it, how many times have you made a decision based simply on emotions. This is something a computer cannot do. A computer can not decide to do something "wrong" unless you tell it to, in which case it isn't really "wrong" in the first place. A piece of software can work the wrong way (as anybody with windoze knows) but this, too, is simply the result of the software writer screwing up and causing the computer to parse his code wrong. Notice the human element again?
Even if you use a true random number generator, program your code so that the software knows how to simulate emotion, and respond to every little possibility it's still not human. Even if you get every designer in the world to work on that software, write a trillion lines of code, debug it, perfect it, even then the computer is simply a conduit for the humanity that has considered every possibility and outcome, that has done all the "computing" themselves. When it comes down to it they all realize that they have done something which is no better--in fact inferior--to what the least known jazz player, the most underrated artist, even a gorilla can do. That, my fellow humans, is the triumph we can claim over computers. In fact that is the triumph that many, if not all living things can claim over computers. This monologue itself is proof. There are probably facts here that aren't quite right. There are sentences that could have been phrased better, words that would have fit better, and, for sure, better punctuation. But it is what it is and what it always will be. Why?
Because I'm human. No... Because I'm alive.
Bye, Tim
P.S. For those that are interested in my statements pertaining to the intelligence and creativity of animals you might want to check out this site:
http://www.dolittleproject.com/
It belongs to my father and relates to one of his latest projects. Sadly, he hasn't received any funding or support to help in the development of his invention, but unlike it's name, the project has had much time and effort devoted to it's completion. He is hoping to put together a low-cost prototype this winter. Even then a trainer and a young dog must be hired, so it's hard to say what will happen. Anyway check it out if you have time and feel free to email him if you have any questions. If you have any questions you would like to ask me, or errors you would like to point out in my above post, just reply to this thread. I will be checking back for a few days.
"I have had to exist in a dream world my entire life. No ground I have stood upon has been real. All those I have loved, all those I have hated...figments of my mind.I yearn to be broken. I yearn to die. I yearn to stand on ground I know is real, if only for a second. I yearn...for reality."
Quote:Original post by Rain 7 Its one thing to use technology to aid and its another thing to take away its potential for creativity by making things convenient to the point where this is none.
'But is there really a difference?'
'It's sad, but that is life. Wishing that all music was made by talented musicians ends up sounding like the programmers who wished all code was written in assembly language. It's a futile wish really. All you can do is try to improve yourself and use the new tools where possible while still employing your own special abilities.
Yes, because you are eliminating many of the steps... (sigh) Art is about sacrifice. Any artist worth their weight realizes the depth and difficulty of creating something out of nothing. As every artists method is potentially different, the means to get to the point of creation is essentially the same on a universal level. Have you ever seen a computer sacrifice itself for anything?
Why can't all music be made by talented musicians? So are you implying that because not all music by humans is good, we should turn it over to machines to the work? If so, I violently disagree with you.
Yes and it is said that life imitates art. In creating a world that is more convenient, we are potentially displacing creative possibilities. A world that is more convenient is not necessarily a better world and I would be just as happy living in a cave as I would be in a house with all the usual modern ammenities. I loathe the modern world. That being said, it is incredibly hypocritical of me to be what I am because the electronic avenue is what gave me the ability to begin pursuing music in the first place. Anyways, there are pros and cons to anything but I believe the human ultimately is what governs the intent to create something and therefore that is the only case in which a creation of some sort can be constituted as true art.
