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."

8 of 261 comments (clear)

  1. roll over, beethoven, by notgm · · Score: 5, Funny

    tell Tchaikovsky the news.

    1. Re:roll over, beethoven, by wealthychef · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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
  2. It's a shame, but I'm ok with it by iPhr0stByt3 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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?

    1. Re:It's a shame, but I'm ok with it by jason.sweet · · Score: 5, Insightful

      a true artist doesn't need compensation

      Not until his mom kicks him out the basement and he has to pay for his own room and board.

    2. Re:It's a shame, but I'm ok with it by theheadlessrabbit · · Score: 5, Informative

      It'll totally be worth it if it gets rid of the Nickleback derivatives.

      Since all Nickleback songs sound the same, does Nickleback count as a Nickleback derivative that will also have to be gotten rid of? That would be something all music fans can hope for.

      Oh, and as a Canadian, I'd like to apologize to the rest of the world for Nickleback. We're not happy about them either. Sorry.

      --
      -I only code in BASIC.-
  3. A Novelty At Best by eldavojohn · · Score: 5, Insightful
    I'm betting these models have parameters selected by the researchers. For instance, the Rachmaninoff plays Rachmaninoff sample would probably be coded to parametize the delay between notes in order to capture the similar pacings he put in other recordings. The loudness parameterized to implement similar crescendos, sforzandos, decrescendos, etc. How would Rachmaninoff play a rallentando? No matter, just take all recordings of him playing it, statistically analyze the appropriate parameters and apply it to the synthesized notes in the piece. Those synthesized notes have come a long way in the same manner. They used to sound like pure wavelengths produced by an oscillator. Because they were. But analyze the beginning and end of piano notes struck at various force and held for various durations and you can synthesize it by analyzing the statistical aberations in the wavelengths.

    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.
  4. Jimi Hendrix + Lady Gaga? by flabbergast · · Score: 5, Funny
    "Ever wonder how Jimi Hendrix would cover Lady Gaga?"

    I think I speak for everyone when I say no, no I haven't.

  5. But the artists... by LighterShadeOfBlack · · Score: 5, Funny

    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.