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.
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?
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.
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.
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'
All they do is digital signal processing, not artificial intelligence.
I once had a signature.