-
Sitting In With The RbIIs (Rule-based Improvisation Instruction system)
(on break between sets)
RbIIs: This is my first gig.
Pauln: How's it going?
RbIIs: I am in fine operating order, thank you. Why did I not get called up in order of the sign-in sheet?
Pauln: The host doesn't know hexadecimal.
RbIIs: Is the drummer irritated with me?
Pauln: Could be because you didn't help load in his kit with the rest of us, or it might be because you don't swing.
RbIIs: My system clock is accurate to 3 parts per 100 billion.
Pauln: You do have a very narrow beat width.
RbIIs: When you soloed, people clapped and put money into the box, but when I soloed they stepped outside for a smoke.
Pauln: I learned from Wes...
RbIIS: My files have all Wes Montgomery information.
Pauln: ...to smile when I play.
RbIIs: <<Note to self - request next upgrade to include a face for smiling.>>
Pauln: So, what are you thinking about when playing?
RbIIs: Everything, about 4 terabytes of rule-based improvisation; how about you?
Pauln: Just the phenomenological qualia of the music.
RbIIs: I missed that; where is its source?
Pauln: It's in the music as I hear it...
RbIIs: My mics may need calibrating.
Pauln: ...in my mind.
RbIIs: <<Note to self - request next upgrade to include a mind.>>
Pauln: Break's over; thought you said your clock was accurate?Last edited by pauln; 12-05-2017 at 07:55 AM.
-
12-05-2017 07:37 AM
-
In modern life there are two groups of people.
1. People who conceive of, design, build, and deliver automated solutions that benefit users.
and
2. People who don't. That is - Users/consumers.
There's really no need for one to keep making the point that they exist in group 2. We are well aware.
-
Ok, had to laugh about that one, even though it entirely missed the point of the question asked.
Originally Posted by pauln
Agreed. Although I don‘t mind input from either group. Originally Posted by Jazzstdnt
-
Superb. Where's the applause button? Originally Posted by pauln
-
(Snickering) 'input' Originally Posted by zirenius
-
Q. "What does a baby computer call its father?"
A. "Data."
-
I think there is a discussion I want to have that is at right angles to zirenius's request.
How we define ourselves as artists?
So many things we pride ourselves on in terms of craft - metronomic time, precise technique, scalic knowledge, sight reading - could be better done by a machine.
So for me, these are kind of the least interesting things about playing the guitar.
It's not that I have zero interest in them at all. It's important that we learn them to be competent musicians. As a teacher I want to have a clear framework for students, and communicate the importance of mastering these things. The machine like aspects of being a musician - the things we practice day in day out. But we need to focus on the wider picture.
But actually it's entirely possible to be a great musician or artist with very little craft. This is rare these days in jazz, but we can certainly see it in popular music overall, especially with singers. Amateur musicians actually have a great freedom to find a voice, because they don't need to worry about being skilled artisans (human machines) that fulfil a specific role.
(For this reason Tristano advised musicians to get a day job!)
And because music, unlike chess, is not a competitive thing, I think there is room for this, but we have to refocus our cultural priorities. To the voice, the identity of the musician.
BTW I wonder what Chess grandmasters think of their game now that computers are better at chess than humans? I'm sure they point to the art and artistry of the greatest grandmasters.
-
Originally Posted by wolflen
Great, then you can be a SME on the project. Welcome to the team!
We'll focus on doing the things that you can do manually, while building automated capabilities for:
1. Speed/efficiency (consistent delivery online or in hard copy in seconds),
2. Scalability (to millions of users located anywhere in the world), and
3. Repeatability with high quality (i.e. fewer than one instructional defect/instructor mistake in 3 million attempts).
4. Extensibility (instant translation to non-English languages)
-
Like the old joke about Art Blakey at a stranger's funeral, I'd like to say a few words about jazz.....
I've been fortunate enough to interact with enough concert-level jazz artists to confidently state that no one is playing from a 'system' or using a 'method' At best the 'systems' and 'methods' out there are sincere if imperfect attempts to give an aspiring student an entry-level grasp on the process of jazz improvisation, at worst, a scam to con the inexperienced into believing someone holds a secret trick to sidestep years of dedicated study.
PK
-
That's partly why I love (and am grateful for) Tai Chi. It's not really about mastery, yet - once 'owned' - one's form is... perfect. Originally Posted by christianm77
-
Or the zen garden I went to in Kyoto last year
Ryōan-ji - Wikipedia
-
I believe we're tapping into the new
'Fear of the machines' zeitgeist
(ie. the machines are gonna take my job
= they're gonna take my money
= existential threat)
It is interesting ...and needs discussing
Maybe not on this site , but maybe here too
Maybe not on this thread , paradoxically
Its pretty deep sh1t ....
Carry on
-
I can't wait for the machines to take over. More time to practice...
-
Originally Posted by paulkogut
Dedicated study of what? If there were no patterns than there would only be randomness, and conceptual chaos.
If that were true then there would be no need for any music instruction whatsoever, and the senior bandleaders input could be cast aside by the novice as merely "one man's opinion".
We can't have it two ways. We're human. Humans are creatures of habit, and while the choices we make on the fly may appear to be limitless (to some) that is an illusion.
Art can be taught. To a point only perhaps, but it can be taught, and is. And if it can be taught manually then it can also be taught with the exploitation of automation capability.
-
The other thing that's interesting is what happens to a musician's sense of self worth in a post-work world where basic functions are automated?
Musicians have already had it to a large extent in the 20th century - first recording, followed by amplification (which reduced the need for big ensembles), the development of pro-tools and similar software (that lessened the need for session musicians), and so on. (I separate this from things like Spotify.)
There is still a traditional way of being a working musician - you see it in the orchestra pits now - where musicians are happy if they can ear a living playing music, using their skills. The music is not so important. These musicians are invariably virtuosos.
And yet, every year, budgets shrink. Strings sections go from a string quartet to 1st violin and string pads on keyboard, and so on...
Perhaps in 10-20 years we will all be on Universal Basic Income, and work for musicians will be even scarcer. What then for the pit musicians?
It's interesting though. Joe Boyd's White Bicycles he suggests that the '60s musical renaissance in London largely came about because it was not necessary to work - one could survive frugally on the state and a weekly gig. I've heard from Swedish jazz musicians it's common to play only one gig a week, and that it is well paid, leaving time to rehearse (imagine that!)
So musicians tend to be in favour of UBI as a concept. But there is a certain professional pride in being able to earn a living from music for many. Being able to do that helps them feel adult. Since adult identity is so bound up with what we do for a living this is a huge issue actually.
I doubt all the truck drivers are going to end up as computer programmers.
-
That will require a societal shift, unless you don't need to work to live. Originally Posted by guido5
-
IT IS an existential threat if you are, for instance, living the year 2017. Originally Posted by pingu
You know, the Luddites were RIGHT about their future. They weren't stupid. That's what doesn't get remembered:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luddite
The problem is not machines, but a world that since the industrial revolution has viewed people as machines and unsurprisingly, finds machines to be better machines.
-
Sure - but neither of those assessments necessarily apply to OP's enquiry in and of itself. Originally Posted by paulkogut
Modelling..."What one man can do, another can do!"
-
This is not always the case. Originally Posted by destinytot
You cannot for instance develop perfect pitch in adulthood.
(Unless anyone has contrary evidence - I'm aware Bruce Arnold claims it is possible.)
-
I think if you'd mentioned possible educational applications, you might have gotten better responses. I for one, probably implied something that wasn't there, so I'll apologize here. Originally Posted by zirenius
I actually believe, pretty wholeheartedly, in computer-aided drilling and reinforcement.
(I've always avoided the idea of a band camp: Listening to a concept, is easy, but putting it into practice just takes a lot of time, and I don't care who is teaching you....to train your brain, to get it under your fingers, and to execute at speed just takes time.)
In the end though, we all choose our own path. Didn't Blake say something like "I must invent my own system, or be a slave to someone else's" ?
-
Perfect relative pitch - no problem. Originally Posted by christianm77
-
According to teh interwebz: Originally Posted by goldenwave77
"I must create a system or be enslaved by another mans; I will not reason and compare: my business is to create." William Blake
What a brilliant quote! Thanks.
-
Not the same thing. Originally Posted by destinytot
Point is, someone with perfect pitch has advantages in some areas. Transcription is always going to be easier, and it is not necessary for that person to practice it, or do ear training exercises.
(Which is not to say those with pitch can 'hear everything' right away either.)
Obvious extreme example, I could do all the training in the world, and I would still lose against Michael Phelps in the 200m freestyle.
-
After a zillion posts and jibes, and ripostes, I'm not sure anyone has gotten to what I see as the essence of what's wrong with the OP's proposal, so I'll try to state it clearly.
- Yes, it is possible to come up with rules that can generate sequences of notes based on some sort of input or seed (e.g., a chord progression and melody); those rules can be found in many method books.
- It is possible to include some sort of rule-based phrasing logic that will make a sequence seem like a line rather than just an even sequence.
- It's possible to build rules for different song genres, rhythm, and feels (e.g., degrees of swing). Machines have been doing this for many years.
All of that adds up to simulating composition (again, something that has been around for quite a while), not improvisation. Improvisation isn't just spontaneous composition. It's also performance and (typically) group interaction, which strike me as encompassing huge amounts of activity that are not readily conceptualized via rules. So, I think the premise of the OP is misstated. He's trying to model spontaneous composition of lines via rules. I think that's eminently do-able (I don't have the coding or the rules chops for the task, but know enough about both to sort of see how to do it), and potentially interesting, especially if someone can figure out a novel approach or implementation. But that's a much more limited thing than improvisation.
John
-
The difference is that an AI asking others to do its research for them would be clever and innovative. Originally Posted by zirenius
John
Reply With Quote
PRS SE Hollowbody Dark Smokeburst
Today, 09:15 PM in Guitar, Amps & Gizmos