Piano Forum

Topic: Computers are overtaking human abilities - where does pianism go from here?  (Read 8245 times)

Offline debussy symbolism

  • PS Silver Member
  • Sr. Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 1853
The basic parameters of music are encoded in any MIDI.

All the notes are there, they have only to be manipulated into an imaginative interpretation.

Basically, with technology, it should become easy to have the exact timings and dynamics you want.

It's basically true that from a mechnical standpoint, computers understand music!

Okay...

We have gone over this. You can't efficiently impose an "interpetation" on a MIDI file, simply because it is contradictory to the premise of the MIDI.

Technology can aid is only a some aspects of music.

Computers don't understand music. Reading it is no tunderstanding it.

Offline leonidas

  • PS Silver Member
  • Sr. Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 381
Music is organised time and pitch, computers can computer these parameters.

What is the premise of MIDI to you?
Ist thou hairy?  Nevermore - quoth the shaven-haven.

Offline gyzzzmo

  • PS Silver Member
  • Sr. Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 2209
read my first reply leonas, computers cant do this.
Timing is a matter of personal interpretation, not a choise between an '0' and a '1'
1+1=11

Offline gyzzzmo

  • PS Silver Member
  • Sr. Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 2209
Excellent analogy. ;D :)

Don't take me wrong, I do also have a passion for the speed as well. However there are somethings that MIDIs just can't do and that is better a performance, except for the minor details. Speed of course is extremely important, but it need not be the dominating factor in music, a concept that Opus(Leonidas here) doesn't seem to get.

Yes, sometimes i actually think about what i type  ;D
1+1=11

Offline leonidas

  • PS Silver Member
  • Sr. Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 381
Computers will, with increasing technology, learn what musical relations are pleasing to the human ear, but never get to the level of our own imaginations, true.

It would be like the monkeys typewriter shakespeare dealio.

Timing, however subtle, is digitizable also.

Sure, it needs a natural human input to tell it what sounds good, but it can do more than our bodies can/
Ist thou hairy?  Nevermore - quoth the shaven-haven.

Offline gyzzzmo

  • PS Silver Member
  • Sr. Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 2209
Computers will, with increasing technology, learn what musical relations are pleasing to the human ear, but never get to the level of our own imaginations, true.

It would be like the monkeys typewriter shakespeare dealio.

Timing, however subtle, is digitizable also.

Sure, it needs a natural human input to tell it what sounds good, but it can do more than our bodies can/

Sight..... Cars CAN drive 220 yes......
1+1=11

Offline leonidas

  • PS Silver Member
  • Sr. Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 381
Yes, and it feels much better driving that fast, from a musical perspective.
Ist thou hairy?  Nevermore - quoth the shaven-haven.

Offline debussy symbolism

  • PS Silver Member
  • Sr. Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 1853
Yes, and it feels much better driving that fast, from a musical perspective.

You know, if you set a MIDI to 100 times the speed, it will all seem like a blur? If computers do all the work for you, you basically have done nothing and will soon lose the pleasure in anything. In this respect computers wronged man, because should humans lose control of all computers, that is, should all power go out, all satelites shut down, humans would be helpless. Why is that? It is because man is so dependant on the machine, that he cannot do any work for himself. Same thing with music. Should computers take care of performing, a horrid sight I am sure, then music would simply lose its essense.

Offline leonidas

  • PS Silver Member
  • Sr. Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 381
Humans are naturally physically inferior to other animals, it is the brain development that sets us apart.

With our brains, we have created things to overcome our shortcomings, it is believed that humans will not really physically advance in the future, we may waste away physically and become mental beings, much like krang.

The fun in music, is music, do not forget that, this whole topic is about musical possibilities.
Ist thou hairy?  Nevermore - quoth the shaven-haven.

Offline gyzzzmo

  • PS Silver Member
  • Sr. Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 2209
Brains, limited (as you think) they are, still decide what we like or not, not the computer.
1+1=11

Offline debussy symbolism

  • PS Silver Member
  • Sr. Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 1853
Humans are naturally physically inferior to other animals, it is the brain development that sets us apart.

With our brains, we have created things to overcome our shortcomings, it is believed that humans will not really physically advance in the future, we may waste away physically and become mental beings, much like krang.

The fun in music, is music, do not forget that, this whole topic is about musical possibilities.

What does that have to do with anything. Of course humans differ to other species.

That is absurd. First of all, what do you mean by "physical"? Do you mean the muscular composition and "girth" of the body, or do you mean the brain also. First of all, the brain will always keep on advancing as we use it all the time. Our physical status will not decrease because again we use it all the time. Yes, if a person spends all his time in a car, or spends all his time sitting in front of a TV, then naturally his physical status is going to dibilitate, and the following generations as well. And ironically, this is due to the technology that was supposed to help us. This proves that although technology can be used for some things, it can only destroy us if we rely too much on it.

Offline gyzzzmo

  • PS Silver Member
  • Sr. Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 2209
What does that have to do with anything. Of course humans differ to other species.

That is absurd. First of all, what do you mean by "physical"? Do you mean the muscular composition and "girth" of the body, or do you mean the brain also. First of all, the brain will always keep on advancing as we use it all the time. Our physical status will not decrease because again we use it all the time. Yes, if a person spends all his time in a car, or spends all his time sitting in front of a TV, then naturally his physical status is going to dibilitate, and the following generations as well. And ironically, this is due to the technology that was supposed to help us. This proves that although technology can be used for some things, it can only destroy us if we rely too much on it.
I just ignored all the nonsense  ;D
1+1=11

Offline debussy symbolism

  • PS Silver Member
  • Sr. Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 1853
Wait do you mean my nonsense or his?

Offline gyzzzmo

  • PS Silver Member
  • Sr. Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 2209
Dont you worry, you make sense. I was referring to leonidas  ::)
1+1=11

Offline leonidas

  • PS Silver Member
  • Sr. Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 381
Brains, limited (as you think) they are, still decide what we like or not, not the computer.

I think our bodies are more limited than our brains.

We can imagine flying, and yet we just can't flap our arms fast enough to get off the ground.

The computer doesn't decide how the music goes, it just allows for the perfect execution of an imagined performance, something no pianist(or at least very few) can truly achieve.
Ist thou hairy?  Nevermore - quoth the shaven-haven.

Offline gyzzzmo

  • PS Silver Member
  • Sr. Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 2209
As you said yourself, there are pianists who can play in perfection. No need for midi stuff, especially not since the pianists have so much extra compared to a midi (why are there fans?...)
1+1=11

Offline counterpoint

  • PS Silver Member
  • Sr. Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 2003
I think our bodies are more limited than our brains.

That's the crucial point: you think, that the body is the problem, and I think, the brain (and the ears, of course) is the problem. If the "brain" or let's say the conciousness works perfectly, the body will work perfectly too. Of course, you can make a midi from a score, but how does that sound? Really awful. Then beginn to patch this midi-file with velocity changes, duration changes, tempo changes etc. It gets more and more complicated and at the end, your real playing on the piano will sound much better than the elaborated midi file.
If it doesn't work - try something different!

Offline leahcim

  • PS Silver Member
  • Sr. Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 1372
Basically, with technology, it should become easy to have the exact timings and dynamics you want.

It's a human thing.

Computers don't do anything that people don't make them do.

If they ever "think" or do anything more mundane, they'll need an algorithm to do that. These algorithms are coded by people. If the computer looks cleverer than what some people is, it's because the people that wrote the software were cleverer than what they was :D

Computers don't act. CGI is done by people using software [also written by people] on computers [invented and built by people]

Computers don't compose music or play chess. No, not even those ones. It's an algorithm written by a programmer or three.

Quote
It's basically true that from a mechnical standpoint, computers understand music!

This is just meaningless bollocks. You may as well have said from a turkey standpoint bananas understand tomato sauce!

Offline gyzzzmo

  • PS Silver Member
  • Sr. Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 2209
Music isnt mechanically approachable.
1+1=11

Offline debussy symbolism

  • PS Silver Member
  • Sr. Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 1853
The outer facets of music are mechanically approachable, however the essense of the music and musical semantics aren't approachable by machine.

Offline gyzzzmo

  • PS Silver Member
  • Sr. Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 2209
You can say things so correctly :) But thats what i ment yes ;)
1+1=11

Offline term

  • PS Silver Member
  • Sr. Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 493
Of course, you can make a midi from a score, but how does that sound? Really awful. Then beginn to patch this midi-file with velocity changes, duration changes, tempo changes etc. It gets more and more complicated and at the end, your real playing on the piano will sound much better than the elaborated midi file.
Today you are right. But don't forget:
a) Computers are 50 years +- old but have in that time taken over the world, and their complexity still grows exponentially.
b) As already mentioned, it is already possible to manipulate the velocity of each note with a simple midi file - it's just too much work.

Imagine someone really sits down and puts some work into a program which has a number of tools - similar to graphics programs - to manipulate greater areas of a piece, in a more complex way, etc...we're already closer. Some other guy makes another program, and soon we have an industry, and imagine programs which scan the score and automatically create an internal representation of the music, so you can start working on it with highly complex tools. Now add enough time and what you have is a near perfect fake-performance with unparalleled clarity and evenness, beautiful (calculated) rubatos and ritardandos, soft scales, etc....

Because every aspect of tone production and resonance and all the physical aspects of hearing are sufficiently researched, it is possible with enough effort to simulate the sound of the most fantastic grand on a computer. I'm sure it has been done very well by professional programs, just don't know how good. My point is, there can be no doubt that it is not only possible for computers to simulate our reality, but that we're not even far from it. Even if, for this task (i.e. creating a performance and interpretation), a human behind the computer is still needed, you'll find enough who will do it.

There are of course, let me put it like this, powerful people who are not interested in such a technology. There are others who are and want to make money out of it. The question is imo not whether there is the possibility, but when it comes.
Quote
Computers don't do anything that people don't make them do.
Computers today don't have AI integrated, but don't be too sure that AI (and therefore mathematics and algorithms used to create it) cannot have a tremendous complexity. What makes people think computers can't reach the level of humans or even surpass them? What is emotion? Where do you draw the line, if computers can emulate every aspect of reality so close to perfection that there is actually no difference in perception? Imo, difficult questions, easy to say we are humans, we cannot be simulated, we are unique, we have emotions...reality will become more difficult. Keep in mind how long computers exist. Today the case is clear, ask people in 200 years again about the complexity of AI.
Underlying is the question, whether mathematics can describe (better: approximate) art, or anything else.
It can.
"Wise men talk because they have something to say; fools talk because they have to say something." - Plato
"The only truth lies in learning to free ourselves from insane passion for the truth" - Eco

Offline leonidas

  • PS Silver Member
  • Sr. Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 381
Agree.  8)

Ist thou hairy?  Nevermore - quoth the shaven-haven.

Offline gyzzzmo

  • PS Silver Member
  • Sr. Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 2209
Maybe they can, somewhere in the far future. But it would need a complete new type of computer wich works like our brains. So no more '1' or '0' decisions(lineair) but multidirectional. With pure countingpower current computers cant manage decisions like we make when performing.
1+1=11

Offline counterpoint

  • PS Silver Member
  • Sr. Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 2003
So no more '1' or '0' decisions(lineair) but multidirectional.

Software technology is since long far ahead from this 1 or 0 logic. But that doesn't solve the problem. The exact point in time of every single note and the exact velocity and pedalling has to be decided by someone (by a real person of course!). You could do that, I suppose, you will need 1 year for 1 Chopin Prelude to make it "perfect". A pianist like Horowitz sitting at the piano will need perhaps 2 days or two weeks. So what is the advantage of the computer-work?
If it doesn't work - try something different!

Offline term

  • PS Silver Member
  • Sr. Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 493
Maybe they can, somewhere in the far future. But it would need a complete new type of computer wich works like our brains. So no more '1' or '0' decisions(lineair) but multidirectional.
Why do you think computers need that? I think it's quite difficult to tell what is needed to approximate brain functions. The zeros and ones actually say quite nothing about what a computer could do imo.
And on the other hand, one could argue that 0 and 1 represent human reality very good. You absolutely can break the complex reality of any human down to a sequence of decisions, to do or not to do something at a given moment.
Combined with a huge number of other sequences, but different beginnings, you have a literally inifinitely complex interaction. Social life and societies emerge.
I mean we're all humans, but there is something that makes every one of us different. What it is is actually not researched. The parameters in which we work are approx. the same for every single human, but the conditions at the beginning of any given life define the individual.
And so on. These are theories (i believe in them), but you know, the most important thing is the following: It doesn't matter whether they are true, it's only important how far you go with them. As i said, it's enough to approximate humans, just get close enough and any difference will not matter anymore.

Further reading:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artificial_intelligence
i guess i'm half offtopic, so enough for now^^
"Wise men talk because they have something to say; fools talk because they have to say something." - Plato
"The only truth lies in learning to free ourselves from insane passion for the truth" - Eco

Offline ted

  • PS Silver Member
  • Sr. Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 3986
I have been too busy with actual music to post lately, but this topic is too interesting to pass up.

Quote
Computers don't do anything that people don't make them do


This is one of those tantalising statements which appears both true and false depending on how you look at it. It is obviously true in the pragmatic sense that human beings have made computers, and therefore, in a sense, we can say that human beings have produced everything which computers produce.

The false aspect is more intriguing, and very excitingly so. Suppose I write code to produce abstract art or compose music ( I have actually done both, albeit in a most elementary fashion, so I am acutely aware of the results). Now suppose I listen to and look at the products. Suppose further that they move me and strike me with an equal or greater intensity and sense of awareness of originality as their equivalent human produced specimens which I hear on CD and radio, or observe in an art gallery. What does this mean ? How are we to explain such an effect ? Beyond a critical mass of complexity - and it doesn't have to be stupendously high -  code will produce epiphenomena completely unforeseen by the programmer. What or who produces these ideas ? The computer ? The code ? The programmer (even though he probably hadn't the faintest idea they might occur) ?

I think we are at the beginning of one of most exciting eras of understanding of our own thought processes, including those of artistic creation and response. The only regret I have is that I probably shan't be here to see the best of it. The words and labels historically used to describe these processes will become archaic and meaningless.  I do not see it, as many are inclined to, as degrading to the human spirit - not at all. It will rather be a symbiosis of computer and brain to form a sort of "gaia" of global intelligence.

Last night, as it happened, my son, who is into a second degree in mathematics, phoned me to ask whether I thought a particular identity was true. I fiddled with it for a while but as the algebra was very hefty, I put it aside. Then I remembered MATLAB and its symbolic toolbox. This splendid contraption actually performs symbolic algebra and integration as a calculator performs arithmetic. What would happen if I instructed it to form both sides of various identities and try subtracting one from the other ? To cut a long story short, after a few seconds it produced a zero - proof !

To me, as an older person, this is amazing, because ordinary household software has quietly and stealthily made inroads on the domain, not just of numeric calculation, which is wonderful enough, but on creative, heuristic symbolic manipulation.

That is a digression, but it illustrates the necessity of questioning whether any mental process at all is exclusively human, at least in the functional sense. 

To return to pianism, as others have said, manual instruments such as the piano will be with us for a long time. Their immediacy of contact and yogic transporting power is too good to be without - yet. However, I think leonidas is quite right in that the first areas to be influenced by computing power will be the purely sound generating and interpretive. Indeed, if my memory serves me correctly, was it not Gould who said he thought the best version of a Bach piece he had ever heard was through a synthesizer ? I recall a radio discussion with Menuhin, and most of the musical establishment being horrified at the remark. But it is no more than a factual expression of subjective response.

I conjecture that very soon it will no longer seem anachronistic to speak of the "personality", even "genius" of an algorithm in the same way we speak of human composers. Exactly why this is repulsive to so many musicians has always been a complete mystery to me. Why does it matter ?

I think the improvisational aspects will remain for much longer exclusively human, because improvisation, unlike composition and even less like performance, combines physical, yogic involvement with acute awareness of personal consciousness and response. A computer doesn't need to actually possess conscious response in order to produce valid conscious response in human beings. That's essentially what I think is the whole trick.
"Mistakes are the portals of discovery." - James Joyce

Offline pianogeek_cz

  • PS Silver Member
  • Sr. Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 448
I just think the technology can be great for people to realise their dream interpretations without having to slave over working on technique all their life, when it is most likely that they may never achieve what they want.

Well, you do miss the point here - the pianistic/musicianship meaning of "realise". You don't just want to somehow come up with a sound file that is built from your ideas about how you want a score to sound. You want (or, as it seems, specifically -you- don't...) to get as close as possible to this image by means of yourself and your instrument only.

Obviously, the question is why. The answer is, because there's musicianship and there's IT. The essence of musicianship, as far as I can tell, doesn't lie in tinkering with MIDI...
Be'ein Tachbulot Yipol Am Veteshua Berov Yoetz (Without cunning a nation shall fall,  Salvation Come By Many Good Counsels)

Offline leahcim

  • PS Silver Member
  • Sr. Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 1372
Suppose I write code to produce abstract art or compose music ( I have actually done both, albeit in a most elementary fashion, so I am acutely aware of the results). Now suppose I listen to and look at the products. Suppose further that they move me and strike me with an equal or greater intensity and sense of awareness of originality as their equivalent human produced specimens which I hear on CD and radio, or observe in an art gallery. What does this mean ?

Well, to me, it means one of 2 things, either you look in awe at your pen, pencil or typewriter after /it/ writes your name, or perhaps more mundanely that you, using a computer, produced some art / music which moved you :)

Quote
I think we are at the beginning of one of most exciting eras of understanding of our own thought processes

Really? You think the algorithm you developed is like our own thought processes? [If you don't then I fail to see the relevance - because that bunch that create Eliza and robots and so on have done nothing of significance w.r.t understanding human thought for the decades they've been talking about 'artificial intelligence'. They aren't even close to understanding a whelk's ponderings]

If you do rate your algorithm, I think that would be pretty groundbreaking and I would write the paper and get it peer reviewed ASAP [not that you'd have any peers, you'd lead the field] :)

Quote
Then I remembered MATLAB and its symbolic toolbox. This splendid contraption actually performs symbolic algebra and integration as a calculator performs arithmetic. What would happen if I instructed it to form both sides of various identities and try subtracting one from the other ? To cut a long story short, after a few seconds it produced a zero - proof !

To me, as an older person, this is amazing, because ordinary household software has quietly and stealthily made inroads on the domain, not just of numeric calculation, which is wonderful enough, but on creative, heuristic symbolic manipulation.

That is a digression, but it illustrates the necessity of questioning whether any mental process at all is exclusively human, at least in the functional sense. 

Well yes, I see software that makes me go "Wow", but this shows nothing more than being amazed at what a programmer / team of programmers have made the computer do. This is just what I said, it's easy to be wowed by what the computer has done and forget how it works.

Perhaps this is partly because, in everyday speech, we talk of a computer doing something rather than the factual, but more long-winded, reality that the computer is just running a set of compiled instructions written by a programmer.

I doubt very much the skillset a programmer writing MatLab is likely to have will be someone who thinks he is making the computer do anything particularly special with regard to human abilities and thoughts.

Quote
I conjecture that very soon it will no longer seem anachronistic to speak of the "personality", even "genius" of an algorithm in the same way we speak of human composers. Exactly why this is repulsive to so many musicians has always been a complete mystery to me. Why does it matter ?

I conjecture that no one is even close to this.

An analogy, Hawking can say "We need a GUT" and we can all nod and he can say "Here's a list of things that a GUT will need to have / satisfy" thus he shows that, even if he doesn't know the GUT, he's got a clue as to what a GUT is should it hit him in the head. I'd say for this thinking computer, we're not even at that stage, not even close.

You can say "We need an algorithm to do <some supposed human creative thing>" and for all the nodding, no one has much clue at all what that algorithm should do, should look like or what kind of machine would be required for it to be implemented successfully. Whether it's from people looking at the brain and deciding the computer should look like it, or people looking at computers and asking for our specs [e.g stuff like 'what's the resolution of the human eye' on TV forums to decide whether you need a 1080p TV set or 'how much ram have we got?' and other nonsense]

It's just, like films about black holes and time travel, a feature of science fiction - HAL and Knight ride, Orac and so on.

Penrose seemed to think that our brains may utilise QM and, as such, Quantum computing is the <cue spooky music> one you can say, without requiring any details of how it will all work, that could manage this. But it's not close.

That said, you can get wine tasters to ooh and ahh over vinegar and art experts to coo over the output of elephants and chimps. So you could probably get a ZX81 into the Royal Academy or Julliard without that much difficultly...but from where we're sat, watching from the hidden camera's perspective, we'll know better :)

Offline leahcim

  • PS Silver Member
  • Sr. Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 1372
Today you are right. But don't forget:
a) Computers are 50 years +- old but have in that time taken over the world, and their complexity still grows exponentially.

Nonsense. They aren't more complex at all.  They certainly haven't taken over the world in any meaningful sense. Of course we rely on them and in that sense that are widely deployed and utilised, but, in the West most of us rely on knives, teaspoons and supermarkets too, so it's just a mundane fact. Unless you think the teaspoon's dominant position in our lives may lead to them composing a new opera?

Quote
Imagine someone really sits down and puts some work into a program which has a number of tools - similar to graphics programs - to manipulate greater areas of a piece, in a more complex way, etc...we're already closer. Some other guy makes another program, and soon we have an industry

We already have a huge industry of people writing programs, you don't have to imagine it.

Writing a program to replicate a piano [or at least, given the typical way we have of processing audio, a recording of a piano] and writing software to play a score, is no more significant than someone sitting down at a piano, learning the piece and playing it.

The computer is just a tool and if they amaze you with something they do, it's a human that did it.

There's none of the magic stated / suggested by some of these posts. e.g To get to some stage where someone might suggest their program demonstrated the computer was interpreting or creatively playing chopin, requires more than hand-waving about computers being 50+ years old and the fact that processors tend to get faster and memory capacity increases.

You need to state what the algorithm is. That's the only way you're ever going to get the computer industry to create your dream. In short, you don't need a computer to do the great things some think computers do. cf Turing et al.

For e.g in computer graphics, the increased processing power has just meant algorithms that are decades old can now be run in real time in modern games - fast processors give you quicker computer graphics, not better computer graphics. Of course, there are folk researching and inventing better algorithms in computers graphics today as well, but not because they have more RAM in their PC.

Offline prongated

  • PS Silver Member
  • Sr. Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 817
b) As already mentioned, it is already possible to manipulate the velocity of each note with a simple midi file - it's just too much work.

...in retrospect, to master technical 'perfection' takes tens of thousands of hours and perhaps more [as a study of professional musicians has shown]...

And obviously technical perfection obviously entails far more than speed at which notes are played. Mastery of tone, rhythm, dynamic control as shaped by understanding of the music...

...it'll admittedly be interesting. You can create many performance profiles/individual styles. Different deviations from music, different approaches to rubato, different realisation of phrase/structure...

...but in the end, there's just something different about a human being playing the piano, even though many have been likened to robots. I just can't see computers simulating these impulses and instincts - sparks of creativity - making performances exciting.

Offline term

  • PS Silver Member
  • Sr. Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 493
Nonsense. They aren't more complex at all.  They certainly haven't taken over the world in any meaningful sense.
???
They have. Computers have made travel into space possible. Without them it's impossible.
Millions - more than a billion, probably 2 - of people work at computers daily. The rest of the world wants enough wealth to come to that point too. Computers(in a broader sense, but still) increased efficiency of every singe machine, any device existing. As soon as you're dealing with chips, you're dealing with computers. But even in a more narrow sense - the home pc, computers have taken over the world. With them came the internet, which is the second most important invention/development in the 20th/21st century. blah bla, you get the point.
All that happened in a couple of years.
And btw, of course there are other important things for humans as well, but our large scale development in research, daily life and the financial market is fully determined by computers, in the sense that it is software on computers and their functioning that actually keeps *society* going. The fact that we live how we live is because there are computers - whether you appreciate them or not. Not supermarkets, although they do play an important role in distributing food to large urban areas, nor teaspoons.
The difference is, they don't offer such possibilites. And: people don't need teaspoons to survive, they are a cultural phenomenon. You don't need the supermarkets, you need the food.
But you need the computer.

Quote
Writing a program to replicate a piano [or at least, given the typical way we have of processing audio, a recording of a piano] and writing software to play a score, is no more significant than someone sitting down at a piano, learning the piece and playing it.

The computer is just a tool and if they amaze you with something they do, it's a human that did it..
But it's the computer which transforms it.
The creator is meaningless if the doer doesn't transform what is given to him. Complex mathematical equations and patterns are not just there because they have to exist, but to have a purpose. And so, not only are we amazed by humans who create the algorithms, but by the computer which gives them a purpose and transforms a meaningless and unnessecary equation on a piece of paper into a whole universe of diverse and nonlinear interactions - determined by an underlying pattern. Creator and doer depend on each other and cannot be anything else than equally important, because you can't have one without the other.

So no surprise that there are similarities between humans and computers, such as that both are created (difficult statement, but hope you get the point  ::) ), both work within the parameters of their existence and both have a mathematically describable physical representation (i.e. 0 and 1 on points of physical memory and a number of electronic signals in the brain), but seem to be more than that in the sense that a computer works with zeros and ones, but look whats coming out of your monitor, and in the same way you are more than a bunch of electronic signals, aren't you?
And you see people's reactions, they see that despite a human being behind it what computers can do and it is foreseeable that there's a thin line between a robot and a human, and surely people will be extremely irritated when a generation of computers with such ai comes out, that it can interact with humans in such a way that a human starts to have emotions with a computer, in the same way people have emotional relations with a dog or a turtle oO Such thing as "absolute" doesn't exist, if just something pseudo-meaningful comes out of the computer it's sufficient for humans.
It's not so far off to expect that with a sufficiently complex algorithm, computers can approximate human (behaviour, speech, actions, etc), just like mathematics and science in general approximates universal reality. I'm not looking far into the future, or speculating, just keep the eyes open a little bit and look what they're doing today in AI and computer technology research and you see where it's going.

If you break a computer down to the smallest part, 0 and 1, this represents a decision - free will. Since that is undescribable for mathematics, patterns are created to approximate it. My belief is that the same applies to human reality, and therefore computers are a small scale model for the evolution of humans and ultimately the universe.

Quote
but not because they have more RAM in their PC.
As i said, algorithms lose their purpose if not tested (and transformed) by a computer, and without a computer quite a number of algorithms would not have come into existence (for whatever reasons - calculations needed to determine the aglorithm, testing, the mere fact that they are only for the computer).

I know not quite ontopic, but was necessary to make 2 points: Computers can approximate humans and can therefore play music. Will do one day, for reasons stated above.
Computers are not humans. But it definately is part of the subject to think about where to draw the line, when differences, through approximation, become so small that you cannot tell one from the other. Then what exactly is creativity, emotions - playing the piano?
Imo, merely a thought, an idea.
"Wise men talk because they have something to say; fools talk because they have to say something." - Plato
"The only truth lies in learning to free ourselves from insane passion for the truth" - Eco

Offline debussy symbolism

  • PS Silver Member
  • Sr. Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 1853
But you need the computer.


I safely can say this, and with confidence, that no you do not. :)

In fact, quite the opposite. Sure, computers help out with our lives, no denying of that, but a complete dependance on them is just as detrimental to our health should all computers become obsolete. If for instance all of our Earth machine satelites become destroyed, and all computers do shut down, what then?

Man "back then" was self-sufficient. He could survive without the computer. Nowadays, should all computers fail, we would be in trouble with no means of communication, power, and computing power. Period.

This means that an extremely heavy dependance on computers is detrimental, just as not using them is also detrimental.

Offline thalberg

  • PS Silver Member
  • Sr. Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 1949
Yes debussy.  And the Chinese just tested a missile that shot a sattelite out of orbit.  If someone shot all our satellites out of orbit, we'd be ruined.

A few years ago, a simple power outage disabled the whole eastern part of the US.

It's frightening how easy it would be to ruin and defeat the whole free world through non-military means.

Offline term

  • PS Silver Member
  • Sr. Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 493
I safely can say this, and with confidence, that no you do not. :)
The dependence already exists in totality.
Your daily life is not really of importance here, what you see or with what you work, even if you need to work much with computers and daily. Computers lay the foundations for our daily life, they make it possible. Everything we do goes from there, it's the frame for everything. That is total dependence.
"Wise men talk because they have something to say; fools talk because they have to say something." - Plato
"The only truth lies in learning to free ourselves from insane passion for the truth" - Eco

Offline debussy symbolism

  • PS Silver Member
  • Sr. Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 1853
The dependence already exists in totality.
Your daily life is not really of importance here, what you see or with what you work, even if you need to work much with computers and daily. Computers lay the foundations for our daily life, they make it possible. Everything we do goes from there, it's the frame for everything. That is total dependence.

What I meant was that any kind of dependance on computers isn't necessary for citizens. Sure, it does provide help to look something up on the internet, but do we really depend on it? Computers make things easier, and only that.

Offline term

  • PS Silver Member
  • Sr. Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 493
Sure, it does provide help to look something up on the internet, but do we really depend on it?
Well noooo. You're right. ;D
"Wise men talk because they have something to say; fools talk because they have to say something." - Plato
"The only truth lies in learning to free ourselves from insane passion for the truth" - Eco

Offline pianogeek_cz

  • PS Silver Member
  • Sr. Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 448
On a side note, if the computers had gone out, I'd take it as an opportunity to sit at the piano, undisturbed by anything and anyone, and devote the time to music. ;)
Be'ein Tachbulot Yipol Am Veteshua Berov Yoetz (Without cunning a nation shall fall,  Salvation Come By Many Good Counsels)

Offline ted

  • PS Silver Member
  • Sr. Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 3986
Leahcim:
 
Yes, on reflection I think your points are valid. My analogy with MATLAB is inappropriate and misleading in relation to music. I am inclined to get carried away with these things. Further, my own subjective reaction to sound is so peculiar that I must be very careful about extrapolating it to the subjective sound experience of other people.

Not that my reactions to algorithmic music are invalid, far from it, but they may well be valid just for me, as you rightly suggest.

A very good response to my post.
"Mistakes are the portals of discovery." - James Joyce

Offline sharon_f

  • PS Silver Member
  • Sr. Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 852
Silly, boring, pointless, self-serving and ultimately useless thread. Sorry.
There are two means of refuge from the misery of life - music and cats.
Albert Schweitzer

Offline viking

  • PS Silver Member
  • Sr. Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 567
I haven't read a single post in this thread, but Leonidas, your simply wrong. 

Offline leonidas

  • PS Silver Member
  • Sr. Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 381
How can I be wrong when I feel so right?
Ist thou hairy?  Nevermore - quoth the shaven-haven.

Offline tengstrand

  • PS Silver Member
  • Jr. Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 77
One of my favourite recordings is Gilels playing Bach-Busonis Chaconne live: when he reaches the climax (one of them) you can hear his excitement and he starts hitting LOTS of wrong notes...and I love every chord: you can HEAR him burning on the inside with every messed-up chord. I wonder how to preproduce that?

Computers are nothing compared to the human brain: listening to a computer in a concert hall would be just as exciting as sleeping with a robot woman (or man, if you prefer). We often love performers just as much for their fragility and mistakes as we do for some technical superiority.

Offline leonidas

  • PS Silver Member
  • Sr. Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 381
Of course computers can be programmed to hit the added wrong notes too.

Music isn't about the performer, it's about the music, and whatever produces the best musical result should be applauded.

Human error isn't a part of music, although it can be enjoyed, as part of a spiritual experience.
Ist thou hairy?  Nevermore - quoth the shaven-haven.

Offline tengstrand

  • PS Silver Member
  • Jr. Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 77
Then come back to me when you have produced something on your computer even close to Gilels performance with his wrong notes.

Offline term

  • PS Silver Member
  • Sr. Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 493
Quote
you can hear his excitement and he starts hitting LOTS of wrong notes...and I love every chord: you can HEAR him burning on the inside with every messed-up chord. I wonder how to preproduce that?
That's a good point.
I often had similar experiences.
People love perfection. Generally, i also prefer the right notes. But sometimes, errors and irregularities add more than the most beautifully played right notes.
"Wise men talk because they have something to say; fools talk because they have to say something." - Plato
"The only truth lies in learning to free ourselves from insane passion for the truth" - Eco

Offline leonidas

  • PS Silver Member
  • Sr. Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 381
Then come back to me when you have produced something on your computer even close to Gilels performance with his wrong notes.

Basically, if it was recorded, then it can be digitally processed.

Then a computer could, presumably, recreate the performance, taking into note the only real musical impact Gilels has that evening - pressing keys at certain times with a certain velocity of attack, and the pedalling.

The piano is the most mechanical of instruments, which is why it is so much easier to do this than with the much more complex subtleties of tone production in violin playing etc.
Ist thou hairy?  Nevermore - quoth the shaven-haven.

Offline viking

  • PS Silver Member
  • Sr. Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 567
Wrong again.  GOD WHEN WILL YOU LEARN.  A piano is not about just "hitting" the right notes as fast as possible.  There are literally millions of variables.  Think about the soft pedal, and the multitude of possibilities.  Think about the room temperature.  Think about what different pianos sound like, as there are hundreds of parts to be adjusted in the mechanism of a single key.  Think about the pianist's mental and physical alertness.  And then consider that one can produce sound in a number of ways, by using energy from their fingers, forearms, elbows, shoulders, back, bum, balls, or however they have been taught (rightly or wrongly).  What I am most concerned about is that your posts focus on trying to downplay the importance of musicality, from the liking of Huangci's utterly lifeless rendition of the Prokofiev 2nd, to this. If you fail to understand the thousands of variables one encounters while playing the piano, you don't deserve to be posting.  What is your musical education?  What life experiences have led you to have this sadly disturbing lack of musical appreciation? 

Offline lostinidlewonder

  • PS Silver Member
  • Sr. Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 7498
Piano performance is not about perfect playing. There is much more to it than that. An audience wants to see a person on stage, they are interested to hear what they have to say, they are interested to see the personal life experience the performer had with their music. Modern concerts are much different to the "olden days" where you might simply walk on stage, bow, play, bow and walk off.

I can tell you if a computer if playing the piano or a human, it is very easily. But this is not to say that computers are better than humans simply since they hit all the right notes with even energy. Chopin even said one cannot hear the subtle differences in the volumes of notes when they are played fast. So if we try to perfect in a realm that the human ear cannot even experience we are just wasting time.

Experienced listeners of music can hear emotion in playing, they can relate the sound they hear to an emotion or life experience. The inexperienced listen to accuracy of notes and perfect ideas of volume control and tempo and find all the enjoyment there, very barren imo.
"The biggest risk in life is to take no risk at all."
www.pianovision.com

Offline leonidas

  • PS Silver Member
  • Sr. Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 381
GOD WHEN WILL YOU LEARN. 

You don't have to address me and god, and it's a shame the rest of your post doesn't show me the same reverence, but the only thing I can get from you is an innate lack of musicality.

I simply GET music more than you do.
Ist thou hairy?  Nevermore - quoth the shaven-haven.
For more information about this topic, click search below!
 

Logo light pianostreet.com - the website for classical pianists, piano teachers, students and piano music enthusiasts.

Subscribe for unlimited access

Sign up

Follow us

Piano Street Digicert