Slashdot Mirror
How Artificial Intelligence Is Changing Music
mbone writes "Ever wonder how Jimi Hendrix would cover Lady Gaga? Whether you do or not [I'm guessing not], you may be about to find out. Writing for Wired, Eliot Van Buskirk describes North Carolina's Zenph Sound Innovations, which takes existing recordings of musicians (deceased, for now) and models their 'musical personalities' to create new recordings, apparently to critical acclaim (PDF). The company has raised $10.7 million in funding to pursue their business plan, and hopes to branch out into, among other things, software that would let musicians jam with virtual versions of famous musicians. This work unites music with the very similar trend going on in the movies — Tron 2.0, for example, will clone the young Jeff Bridges. If this goes on, will the major labels and studios actually need musicians and actors? In the future, it could be harder to make money playing guitar with all of the competition from dead or retired artists."
It's too bad if artists can't turn their compositions into money; but at the same time, a true artist doesn't need compensation - he/she does it for the sake of art, no? What do you think?
This will take you only so far, however, and for each artist parametized and 'reproduced' will require as much analysis and attention to detail on the researcher's part than had that researcher picked up their own instrument and created new music. The science will, effectively, become an art. Did it matter that Rachmaninoff's were freakishly large (sometimes looking as long as the keys themselves)? Will you be able to build the physics of those hands into your model and simulation?
In the future, it could be harder to make money playing guitar with all of the competition from dead or retired artists.
Oh, how humorously short sighted a statement that is. And I don't mean that as a Luddite, I mean that as a fan of the evolution of music. How would early David Bowie's growth to late David Bowie be modeled and reproduced? You'll hear guitar in both those songs. Good luck on that parameterization producing anything but garbage!
This will be a novelty and one I look forward to enjoying it as such. But nothing more. No more a replacement for music than grand pianos were replaced by early synthesizers. You might be able to convince me at some point it will suffice (like a live piano performance may employ an electric piano) but I dare say the parameters are far too many and far too complicated.
My work here is dung.
All Vai does is play classical scales really fast.
Jimi wouldn't bother, his music had soul.
Vai doesn't do anything that wasn't done much better well before Jimi's time.
Jimi didn't make versions of Vivaldi ether.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
Letme amend that then : A true artist doesn't need compensation AFTER HIS DEATH. Nobody actually does.
If Jimi Hendrix covering Lady Gaga is not PAIN, then what is?
I don't think that's a correct interpretation of copyright law.
"In the case of works made for hire, the employer and not the employee is considered to be the author." from LOC copyright circular
So if work for hire allows for corporations to create and author copyright materials then why wouldn't a corporation be able to author the copyright of the output of this sort of program?
I'm a musician, but I think this is awesome. Maybe now we can get past our bizarre obsession with entertainers and start focusing on curing cancer, getting nuclear fusion working, etc.
Currently hooked on AMP
I think the whole celebrity-obsession thing is a direct result of society breaking up at a fundamental level. Just think about it: the way humanity evolved, you had at most 200 people in your village, everyone knew everyone, and you basically spent your life together, for better or worse. There was *always* someone in common you could talk about.
Now, you're expected to move half a continent when you hit college, then move again when you find a job, rinse and repeat. What do you talk about with random strangers (now over 90% of all your social interactions)?
A true artist doesn't need compensation AFTER HIS DEATH. Nobody actually does.
Maybe a true artist doesn't, but I certainly need compensation after death. It's called life insurance. I have plenty so if I get hit by a bus my wife and son get a paid off house and a chance at a good life without me providing for them.
Mmmm... So you're making the point. YOU will not receive, nor do you need, compensation after your death.
The issue of life insurance is a red herring. The point was that nobody needs to be paid for their creative work after they die. If someone wants to provide money to his family, friends, etc. after he dies, he buys into the peculiar form of savings plan/gambling that we call "life insurance", or some other form of savings vehicle.
I infer (and admittedly I'm reading a fair amount into it) that another part of the point is that life insurance and financial tools such as trust funds (among other things) are the most appropriate means for someone to transfer money to his heirs, whereas 90+ years of copyright protection is an abuse of the spirit (if not the letter) of the copyright clause of the US Constitution.
I disagree; I think that celebrity-obsession is part of human nature. There are plenty of examples.
We've been obsessed with royalty for millenia. This spreads over many cultures. Prominent religious figures (saints), military figures, government officials and even the occasional author/artist/inventor are further examples. Even artistic celebrity isn't all THAT new: examples readily date back to the renaissance.
Myths, religion, and history have, in the past, served the kind of water-cooler talk points of shared culture that we now find in discussing episodes of or characters from popular programs.