Hmmm, I personally think that computers will never be able to create music as well as humans, no matter how advanced they get.

This madplayer definitely sounds interesting, but something tells me the "music" it creates sounds really robotic. Limitations aside, it's still a little worriesome, as it has the possibility to take away jobs from composers. :(

IMO there are some things than can never be done better by more and better technology. e-books, for instance... yeah, they might be handy, but I like the feel of a solid book in my hand. Same goes for music... yeah, maybe devices like this madplayer will become more advanced, but they will never be able to replace real composers.

Maaaaybe computers can compose electronica on the fly with some degree of realism, but I find it very hard to believe that they can do more organic styles.

</ramble>

Mine just arrived in the mail today. A guy was selling 'em on ebay for about $60 new, so I grabbed one. Looks like it'll be good for doing ambient music tracks for games. I definitely oughta get my $60 worth out of it.

I downloaded all of the updates. From the tone on the forums, the site might be disappearing soon, so I'm glad I got those.

For the guy who asked where it talked about rights to the music, it's in the manual near the tech specs. It's pretty clear that any music you generate is yours. The only thing they don't want is for you to stream music directly from the player into a streaming application. Doesn't seem like much of a limitation, as you can just save the music out as a WAV and then you own it.

Quote:

Original post by Rain 7 Why can't all music be made by talented musicians?

The main reason why I'd like to develop methods for automatically generating music is so that I could interactively score the music to the action in the game, similar to a film composer. Of course, you still need a talented musician, but in this case a musician/programmer who can write the program in the first place. That's an application that has to have a level of automation in order for it to work.

Quote:

Original post by Rain 7 Yes, because you are eliminating many of the steps... (sigh) Art is about sacrifice. Any artist worth their weight realizes the depth and difficulty of creating something out of nothing. As every artists method is potentially different, the means to get to the point of creation is essentially the same on a universal level. Have you ever seen a computer sacrifice itself for anything?

You are extolling the benefit of art for art's sake. It's not really a logical argument, not that I expect you mind that. It's a typical protectionist agenda, with the aim being to keep the value high by making the task artificially difficult. Is it not possible to instead raise the quality bar across the board, instead of making things appear better through scarcity?

If I want good music, I personally don't care about how much sacrifice went into making it. Nor would I accept the need for sacrifice as a good reason for there being less good music available. Again, I present the example of the blacksmith. I can understand they might want to protect their craft from the onset of production lines and so on, but people do not need that craft most of the time. The world in general does not rue their passing. They have just been replaced by new craftsmen more suited to the modern era. (eg. Graphic designers, computer game programmers...)

Quote:

Why can't all music be made by talented musicians?

Because it drives the cost of music up? Because procedurally-generated music has some advantages in a dynamic setting (eg. games) that a static composition will lack? Because it might be interesting to see what an algorithm can create? Because there aren't enough talented musicians in the world?

I don't want to deny people that which they want or need, just to make myself look better as a musician.

Quote:

So are you implying that because not all music by humans is good, we should turn it over to machines to the work? If so, I violently disagree with you.

I am not sure where I said anything which would at all imply that.

Quote:

In creating a world that is more convenient, we are potentially displacing creative possibilities. A world that is more convenient is not necessarily a better world and I would be just as happy living in a cave as I would be in a house with all the usual modern ammenities. I loathe the modern world.

I think this is the crux of the argument though - you have an opinion which suits you but doesn't suit the vast majority of people. I have some sympathy for it - I am not much of a conformist myself - but realistically speaking, we live in a world of consensus (to a lesser or greater degree) and you have to accept that people don't want the sort of life that you do.

Quote:

Anyways, there are pros and cons to anything but I believe the human ultimately is what governs the intent to create something and therefore that is the only case in which a creation of some sort can be constituted as true art.

Arguably that's true, but I think the point here is that people using such tools do not care about art, and I do not blame them.

Quote:

You are extolling the benefit of art for art's sake. It's not really a logical argument, not that I expect you mind that. It's a typical protectionist agenda, with the aim being to keep the value high by making the task artificially difficult. Is it not possible to instead raise the quality bar across the board, instead of making things appear better through scarcity? If I want good music, I personally don't care about how much sacrifice went into making it. Nor would I accept the need for sacrifice as a good reason for there being less good music available. Again, I present the example of the blacksmith. I can understand they might want to protect their craft from the onset of production lines and so on, but people do not need that craft most of the time. The world in general does not rue their passing. They have just been replaced by new craftsmen more suited to the modern era. (eg. Graphic designers, computer game programmers...)

Its logical for me to defend something that is as old as humanity and has constantly evolved from one generation/ medium to the next for the fear that it is being neglected. It is said that dogs are man's best friend and that will surely be overturned by computers before long (heh) but its in my honest belief that art is mankind's truest and most faithful companion and that is why I defend it. Why would I say that? Because, It has helped mankind to stay in touch with himself and what he feels since his inception. So, ART is US. Why would we want to neglect a part of ourselves? From a logical perspective this is indeed irrelevant to a certain degree but its still incredibly important to those who wish to be sentimental bastards and to bask in the knowledge that we are each our own God and any invention in our mind is capable, which opens up the door to unlimited possibility in the realization of self and all that human beings are.
(Nevermind that I refer to art as a living entity! :) lol)

Okay, just as an exercise; name one piece of GOOD music that wasn't toiled over, sweat upon, bled upon...and I will reconsider some of my previous thoughts. I have a feeling this may be more difficult than it sounds.

Your excuse that the quality of something can be overlooked because the 'blacksmith's passing' was inevitable and "the world in general does not rue them" is not a very good argument. I would be hardpressed to find one good thing that has come about because of conventional "wisdom" and popular thought except for vaccines and increases in healthy living, but when it comes to the general quality of things, popular thought knows not and therefore cares not in inquiring about its preservation. Why isn't the mind of the individual regarded? Because in this day age its not good business.

As for my protectionist agenda, perhaps you are right. But I ask, why shouldn't I defend myself? I feel threatened.

Quote:

Because it drives the cost of music up? Because procedurally-generated music has some advantages in a dynamic setting (eg. games) that a static composition will lack? Because it might be interesting to see what an algorithm can create? Because there aren't enough talented musicians in the world? I don't want to deny people that which they want or need, just to make myself look better as a musician.

I was being rhetorical. But to answer your question, not so. The musicians are not what drive the cost of music up and never have been the catalyst for this in the first place. You can attribute that wonderful quality to the music industry and the entertainment business in general who defile art and make quantity more important that quality. It is they who ultimately "wiped out the blacksmith" and replaced him with a machine that craps out new horseshoes faster than ever, ONLY 19.95! Big freaking deal.

There are plenty of amazing musicians in this world. Its probably the most competitive industry imaginable.

Why does someone NEED a piece of metal (Madplayer) to make atmospheric tunes music for them when thousands of good composers exist?...because time and more importantly EFFORT, is money. (ergghhh) We can blame our impending laziness upon the crutch of convenience.

Quote:

I am not sure where I said anything which would at all imply that.

You have stated that there are not enough GOOD musicians in the world. So I therefore implied that that meant it was okay to bypass the creation of human music for the purposes of the Madplayer. (That is the object of discussion is it not?)

Quote:

I think this is the crux of the argument though - you have an opinion which suits you but doesn't suit the vast majority of people. I have some sympathy for it - I am not much of a conformist myself - but realistically speaking, we live in a world of consensus (to a lesser or greater degree) and you have to accept that people don't want the sort of life that you do.

That is very true and something I WILL NOT Accept as much as lament.

Quote:

Arguably that's true, but I think the point here is that people using such tools do not care about art, and I do not blame them.

Well then that is where you and I greatly differ. Stupidly put, I lament the blacksmith, and you do not. ;)

Quote:

Original post by Rain 7 Well then that is where you and I greatly differ. Stupidly put, I lament the blacksmith, and you do not. ;)

Me too. I also lament the phrenologist, the inquisitor, and the man who sold rose petals to ward off bubonic plague.


P.S. :)

Dunno, I think technology replacing composers is pretty different than technology replacing blacksmiths. I see the benefit in the latter, but not the former.

I'm too tired to elaborate, so feel free to hotly agree/disagree. ;)

Quote:

Original post by johnhattan Quote: Original post by Rain 7 Well then that is where you and I greatly differ. Stupidly put, I lament the blacksmith, and you do not. ;) Me too. I also lament the phrenologist, the inquisitor, and the man who sold rose petals to ward off bubonic plague. P.S. :)

Thank you, my friend. :)

Hi,

I think I find myself on both sides of the arguement here, as well as disagreeing with both sides.

I don't lament the loss of the man on the street selling rose petals to cure bubonic plauge, nor does anyone else--in their right mind that is--, but to some degree I do mourn over the loss of the blackswith, though not in the way you might think.

The blackswith wasn't some vauge entity in china, or india, or even another state. No. He was a person that lived in the community. He went to church with everyone else, he bought his grociries where the whole town bought their grociries. When you paid him for your shoes you wern't paying some rich L.A. based shoe designer with a bad haircut and a pink limo. You were paying a freind, a neighbour, a fellow man, a commoner. You were strenghthening the community, reinforcing it, not syphoning away it's commerce and individuality. And the blacksmith isn't the only one. The grocier, the barber, the baker, the whole town, was self relient. You didn't go to one store the size of a football field with big neon lights. That is what we have lost with the production lines, and unless something drastic and unpleasent happens thats not going to change.

But we have a chance to replace that.

With the rise of big business, large corperations, has come something positive too. You're using it right now.

It's called the net.

Sure it would have been invented eventually anyway, winding it's way out of the iconic dusty garage into the world. What big business has done is bring it to the the world in a space of time that would seem impossible to achive any other way. Yes we have lost a lot to achive it, the community, the real home town, but we've gained a chance to do much more. Some might look at the automation of the world as a bad thing, but on the overall it isn't. What it has done is make it so no one has to spend their lives doing something a machine can do just as well (I am NOT applying that to music). It has given humanity a chance to do great things, goals no one ever imagined possible. But back to the net.

With this tool a wonderful possibility has arisen, the reformation of the community. With the net we have constructed places where people can come together, speak their minds freely, just like this very fourm. Places where people are connected by their interests and passions, not by where they are born. With the net we have a chance of not only rebuilding the community in a way that is even better than it was before, we have a chance to build a world where individuality is not a hindrace anymore, where your ethnicty, your local culture, doesn't have to dictate what you become.

But a change is happening now.

There was a time--70s-80s--when big and little worked together. Look at how many companys started with a idea and a garage, only to become multi-millionares. Apple, Microsoft, the list goes on and on. But there's a problem now. We are hitting a point where parts of technology are slowing down. I don't just mean our chip speeds haven't increased in almost 2 to 3 years, I mean the new ideas are slowing. The big companys are stagnating, the "tried and true" methodology is decending on almost everthing. Just look at games for example: Halo 2, GTA:SA, Resident Evil 4, Doom 3, Half Life 2,God of War... These are some of the best games made in the past couple of year, heck, maybe in the history of games. So why am I complaining? Let me point out a core concept in all these games. I'll sum it up in one word.

Kill.

Any arguments? Anywhere I'm wrong? I not some fanatic screaming from the rooftops that all violent games should be abolished, in fact one of my favorite games of all time, Perfect Dark, is all about popping people in the head. The point is that these games are playing on a concept that hasen't changed in years. Oh, another thing about these games.

There's only one original IP in the lot(God of War).

But I digress.

It is time for the little guy to take over again, the mod teams to come together and make more than another WWI total conversion. It's time for the little developer to take hold. We might be focused on what game has the best graphics and the biggest guns, but deep down there is a need in all gamers hearts to see something they haven't seen before. If it's raw, if it's old shcool, it doesn't matter. I want to play GTA, I want to play halo. I want to reveal in production values and knockout graphics. But I also want something new and, to be brutally honest, the big guys aren't giving it to me.

But the little guys need help.

What devices like the madplayer do is give the little guy a way to express his ideas, his dreams, without hiring a team to do it. If I'm gonna use a madplayer song in my game I'm not just gonna make it and slap it on, I'm gonna mess with it until it's right. Yeah it's not as good. Yeah, if I could play an instrument and compose I would much rather go that route. But I can't, and I don't want to spend ten years at my game just so I can have human composed music. The madplayer, and all things like it give me a low risk, low time investment, way to experiment with my ideas. That's the power of tech. While some might view automated music as a hindrace to creativity, I don't. It is a tool. If my experiment, my idea, works then yes, I would hire a composer. If it doesn't I haven't wasted the creativity of me or somebody else.

That's my garbled view.

Bye,
Tim