Resurrecting Performers Via Computer Performance

putko writes "The NYT has an article entitled 'Play It Again, Vladimir (via Computer)' that discusses efforts to transform old recordings into new, computer played performances (reg. required), by determining how the previous performer made the sounds and redoing it. Further efforts attempt to distill the 'style' of a performer and play other scores with the same style. As can be expected, musicologists argue over whether or not the new musical artifact is really 'a performance'. Philip K. Dick would be proud."

Comments

How about no...

[Anonymous Coward]

Ask a piano player if a digital piano is a passable substitute. Yes it's pretty damn good... but still not the same...

And the Point is???

[schestowitz]

Sinatra singing Oops I did it Again?

There are some innovations which are novel, but aren't quite built to be of use.

Tester

[Mattygfunk1]

Yeah but can it do hardcore gangster rap?

__
Funny Adult Videos

Re:Tester

[VirtuaKnight]

>Yeah but can it do hardcore gangster rap?

int main()
{
for(int i=0;i10;i++)
switch(rand()%3)
{
case 0:
printf("Blew that sucka away with my nine.\n");
case 1:
printf("Slapped my ho' 'cause she didn't pay up.\n");
case 2:
printf("G-G-G-G-G-G-G-UNIT!!!\n");
}
}

Interesting

[treff89]

This displays the power of modern computing. To be able to "replicate" a song by replicating human thought processes shows that, finally, there is a balance between fast systems, and complex software available to utilise them. After all, what use is a 10Ghz 512-bit 3Ghz FSB 1GB video RAM 10GB RAM machine - when you're running Word? Complex simulation programs are the way of the future.

See Also

[stuffman64]

See more information about it here, from (*ahem*) an older Slashdot article...

Not really.

[aussersterne]

The humanity is in the variability (think of them as "mistakes" in a flawless performance) not in the perfection. And a perfect imitation of a specific instance of humanity is still not human, because the mistakes are out of context. This is the same reason that random computer-generated mistakes, even perfectly random ones, still don't sound human.

When a human performs, the performance is subtly affected by the things that affect humans: the weather outside and whether it's gloomy or not; the fact that it's the holiday season; the fact that a leader has been assassinated or the performer's daughter has been ill; the musty mugginess of the air in the auditorium... these subtle types of phenomenological data affect human performances in ways that the audience and performer can share as a kind of unconscious communication, at least so long as they are from the same culture.

A computer that reproduces a previous performance, even if it does so perfectly, does so out of context. It is making all the wrong mistakes for the current situation, so it's playing just doesn't ring true. Until computers can feel gloomy because of gloomy weather, or can be thrilled because the millenium dawns at midnight, five minutes from now, they won't be able to produce performances that truly move us in the same way that human performances do, because that element of unconscious situational communication and solidarity in shared experience is missing.

Disklavier

[rookworm]

I am a musician, and I have heard these things in person. For performances recorded directly on a Disklavier, the recording is indistinguishable from the original to my ears (and to every other musiciain I have talked to about this). If the technique in the article is indeed accurate, then this could mean great things. However, as the article mentioned, it is much more difficult to determine when the notes stop sounding, and pedalling, than the attacks. There is the interesting question of copyright: for ancient recordings ressurrected, who owns what? and is it possible to just tweak a few notes and then do what you want with the thing? (remember, the piece, and the recording are P.D.)