Comment Re:Interesting (Score 1) 137
Exactly, in a great performance there are several types of unquantizable (as of yet) thought processes,
'Singing' - the act of making a melody soar, weep, scream, yell, a quasi vocalization of a pitch sequence into speech like curves at times.
'Balancing' - creating a commentary between musical streams so that a conversational melodicism can be intelligible. (One of the goals of the great living American composer, Elliott Carter).
'Staging' - the art of pulling back, either temporally or dynamics wise - setting the stage for a new section that may or may not expose continuities between the pre-existing sections.
Etc... a great performer creates his or her own types of musical thought processes and these might not even be nameable or describable by the performer.
The belief that these can be simulated as an abstraction is delusional at this point. One would have to believe the composer could 'understand' music interprative nuances; be able to do its own Turing test, before one can say, this automated process replicates a symbolic language of temporal musical expression.
The great emotional AI researcher, (and coiner of the term 'cyborg') Manfred Clynes has written a system that attempts to find a musical footprint behind a composer's musical style. SuperConductor
is his musical realization system. I've used it and it is spookily brilliant. But it simulates a hyper-performer, a composer/performer that is virtually expressive, not one particular human.
'Singing' - the act of making a melody soar, weep, scream, yell, a quasi vocalization of a pitch sequence into speech like curves at times.
'Balancing' - creating a commentary between musical streams so that a conversational melodicism can be intelligible. (One of the goals of the great living American composer, Elliott Carter).
'Staging' - the art of pulling back, either temporally or dynamics wise - setting the stage for a new section that may or may not expose continuities between the pre-existing sections.
Etc... a great performer creates his or her own types of musical thought processes and these might not even be nameable or describable by the performer.
The belief that these can be simulated as an abstraction is delusional at this point. One would have to believe the composer could 'understand' music interprative nuances; be able to do its own Turing test, before one can say, this automated process replicates a symbolic language of temporal musical expression.
The great emotional AI researcher, (and coiner of the term 'cyborg') Manfred Clynes has written a system that attempts to find a musical footprint behind a composer's musical style. SuperConductor
is his musical realization system. I've used it and it is spookily brilliant. But it simulates a hyper-performer, a composer/performer that is virtually expressive, not one particular human.
