>There has strangely been a long-term dream of computer scientists to replace composition. To "spit out" songs as someone put it. It's usually too scary to ask ourselves "why?" because it usually is a game of validating one's own mind against others' impressions. For some reason, auto-composition seems like some kind of holy grail, but of what?! Saving money buying music? A fantasy of abundance? A kind of "gotcha!" that a pure thought-person has outwitted a silly irl composer? What do you actually get for creating an intelligence that wins a Turing test? You certainly don't get sweaty friends deliriously dancing on drugs at 3 am. You typically just get another social promotion in the direction of aiding greater powers at their control over the world. Is that what it's about? Closing ourselves off from human musical expression in exchange for increased financial standing? Get a job bc you proved you can fool some of them of the time? To validate a work ethic that regards music as frivolous by demonstrating that it can be simulated accurately enough?
To me, music is music, regardless of the creator. If it sounds good, it is good, whether it was composed by a human, a program, or a combination of the two.
If your issue is that this generative music doesn't sound sufficiently good compared to a good human producer/composer, then that's fine. The rest just feels like some kind of weird projection onto my post that I don't understand.
Computer-generated music is not at all considered an interesting goal for financial reasons. I don't even know what you're trying to mean by that. I think it's interesting because:
- It's one of the areas where the best humans still greatly outperform the best programs
- I believe computers do have the potential to one day create excellent, artistic music
I don't align with your view of experiences, passion, cost to an individual, etc. I think Beethoven's music would sound just as good regardless of if he were deaf or not deaf or a mass murderer or anything else. I think art stands on its own, with the backstory just as interesting trivia for those who want to know more about its creator.
To me, music is music, regardless of the creator. If it sounds good, it is good, whether it was composed by a human, a program, or a combination of the two.
If your issue is that this generative music doesn't sound sufficiently good compared to a good human producer/composer, then that's fine. The rest just feels like some kind of weird projection onto my post that I don't understand.
Computer-generated music is not at all considered an interesting goal for financial reasons. I don't even know what you're trying to mean by that. I think it's interesting because:
- It's one of the areas where the best humans still greatly outperform the best programs
- I believe computers do have the potential to one day create excellent, artistic music
I don't align with your view of experiences, passion, cost to an individual, etc. I think Beethoven's music would sound just as good regardless of if he were deaf or not deaf or a mass murderer or anything else. I think art stands on its own, with the backstory just as interesting trivia for those who want to know more about its creator.