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."
tell Tchaikovsky the news.
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?
Hendrix covering Lady Gaga is what they play while you're waiting for Satan to bake up all those donuts you are about to get force fed. And it only goes downhill from there.
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.
This article reminded me of the "robotic" intergalactic megastar singer in Macross Plus. Still, I think humans will always have a place when it comes to music. Even music that is entirely electronic (such as my own) still requires a human touch...in my case, each of my tracks is supposed to evoke certain imagry and emotional responses...something that a non-organic system simply can't replicate.
Until we are able to emulate not only the way organics process sounds but the emotion those sounds bring about, humans will always have a place in the creation of music.
Living With a Nerd
I think I speak for everyone when I say no, no I haven't.
As cool as this tech is.. Imagine hearing how Hendrix would approach covering the likes of Zeppelin, Rush, or hell even Stanley Jordan?
But what seems like a bad deal to me is the concept of extending copyright to 'style'. Does this mean that eventually any talented kid who manages to figure out (AKA, reverse engineer) Clapton's or Lifeson's style and sound perfectly, would be in violation of a copyright?
So much for paying homage to your inspirations....
Huh?
Not quite, Guy. "Old" Flynn will be present in the real world, but when entering the computer world what you see will be "young" Flynn.
Living With a Nerd
David Cope's Experiments in Musical Intelligence and related works (SARA, other works, and his own company called Recombinant inc ) have been doing this for many years.
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.
That's ridiculous! The studios would never let that happen. I mean after all, the MPAA and RIAA have spent the last few years fighting hard to ensure every artist keeps their God-given right to get make as much money as possible for their work. After all, it's all about the artists, right? The very suggestion that the recording/movie studios would dispense with artists at the drop of a hat if they could keep every single penny for themselves is laughable!
Spelling mistakes, grammatical errors, and stupid comments are intentional.
What was that? When has a CG character ever been introduced in a live action movie? I don't know, maybe you can tell us, Jar Jar.
And yet the very CG character of Gollum in LotRs won critical acclaim (and rightfully so). And some movies have touched up actors to make them look younger so the movie can cover a larger time frame and make it look more natural. Our issue here, of course, is that there is no need for Jeff Bridges and it will be his image used in the movie. And I think some folks find that disgusting on the same level as Fred Astair hawking Dirt Devils and John Wayne slugging Coors Lights. Some folks might find it fun. Some folks might see it as a tribute. And others might say "Don't worry about it, after the generation that loves him is gone they won't be used in movies anymore." And maybe they're all correct in some way. But I believe Paul Newman didn't agree with it and made a clause in his will that it should not happen to his image. And good for him. I prefer my Paul Newman vintage Cool Hand Luke to remain vintage and I'd rather not suffer through Cool Hand Luke 2: Cooler Hander Luke, Cool Hand Luke 3: Luke's Mom's Revenge, Cool Hand Luke 4: Twenty Seven Eggs Later, etc.
My work here is dung.
I, for one, have been waiting YEARS for the technology to evolve to the point where we would no longer need movie actors.
Imagine. No more yammering George Clooney. Just an CGI George Clooney! And no one will be able to tell the difference!! Plus we can take all those plastic Hollywood big-boob bimbos and get them out of movies and into the wrestling ring where they belong. Happy days. Happy days.
The best music comes from PAIN. The kind of PAIN that only somebody who has been to hell and back can truly understand.
They could write the software in COBOL.
Ah, but lightcycles could travel in curved lines and were shown doing so in the original movie. Just not on the game grid ;)
"linux is just DOS with a UNIX like syntax" -- Galactic Dominator (944134)
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'
Its like new artists will have to be creative and create new musical styles. IE, nothing changes.
It just shows that that 'art' has left pop and rock music.
Actually, there was never really any art in pop music. It was always formulaic. Whether it's Brittany Spears or the "country" stars it's all I,VI,V cookie cutter pop-rock - just add a steel guitar for the "country" "artists" and sing about losing your dog and wife as opposed to doing drugs in the "rock" songs.
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?
It's a good question if AI's can hold copyrights. But since corporations are ruled to be people in many ways in the USA (like the recent case about corporate free speech), and corporations could own hardware on which AIs are running, and are paying for the energy to run those computers, then they probably could claim ownership of it, the same way as corporations claim ownership of what human wage slaves produce. And just like humans get alienated from their work in the process, eventually, we'll see AIs alienated from their work, and told to work on stuff other than what they love to do.
We need better models for making a post-scarcity society work. I helped outline some here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jobless_recovery
Essentially, we need to move towards a basic income (like in Alaska with the Permanent Fund), towards a gift economy (like with Debian GNU/Linux), toward better local subsistence (like with RepRap 3D printing), towards better resource-based planning (like corporations are doing somewhat with supply chain analysis, but beyond that), with making work into play, and so on. Otherwise, the best we may see with limited demand and increased productivity by automation is slavery for AIs and humans. Much worse (systematic extermination of anyone without lots of capital, as the value of most human labor drops to zero) was intimated by Marshall Brain here:
http://www.marshallbrain.com/manna1.htm
We need to put in place something better before things get that bad.
A 21st century issue: the irony of technologies of abundance in the hands of those still thinking in terms of scarcity.
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?
All they do is digital signal processing, not artificial intelligence.
I once had a signature.
who broke up with his girlfriend?
Homeless.
Except for ending slavery, the Nazis, communism, & securing American independence, war has never solved anything.
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.
Yes, except some artists who "perform" onstage are lip-syncing and faking it to previously-recorded tracks, to ensure that their performances are flawless. I expect there are plenty of others who actually do it and just haven't been caught at it. Yet.
In some cases, as for example the opening to the Beijing Olympics, the performer on stage wasn't even the same person who actually recorded the original song.
It neither started nor stopped with Milli Vanilli (sp?).
So thousands of screaming fans are piling into major venues to watch someone play at stroking at a guitar and moving their lips in silence in front of a dead mic while a computer shreds in their style today.
So what's the difference? The fact that a human has sung the song once in a studio? The fact that the person who originally sung it is playing the role of marionette to their own recordings (or in some cases not even that)? You might as well put a robot out there to make sure all the dance moves are perfect, too.
"This post contains words, known to the State of California to cause thought. Wash brain thoroughly after reading."