can computer kick human ass in music as in chess?
my pet goat
can a computer be programmed to produce music more perfectly than any
human?
i guess it can electronically.
but how about physically? can a computerized robot play as perfectly
or better than a human?
i'll bet robot conducting would be easier than robot playing.
Samuel Vriezen
> but how about physically? can a computerized robot play as perfectly
> or better than a human?
You don't even need a computer. Machines have been excellent musicians
even before the invention of the pianola.
> i'll bet robot conducting would be easier than robot playing.
I think a robot conductor is going to have a big problem keeping the
orchestra under control.
--
samuel
concerten.free.fr
http://composers21.com/compdocs/vriezens.htm
Dr.Matt
Samuel Vriezen <sqv.do.not.spam@xs4all> wrote:
>my pet goat wrote:
>
>> but how about physically? can a computerized robot play as perfectly
>> or better than a human?
>
>You don't even need a computer. Machines have been excellent musicians
>even before the invention of the pianola.
>
>> i'll bet robot conducting would be easier than robot playing.
>
>I think a robot conductor is going to have a big problem keeping the
>orchestra under control.
>
Depends on the orchestra. We do coordinated locks on databases all
the time, so having a central timeserver issuing timecodes to multiple
devices while operating an output-mixer is straightforward.
--
Matthew H. Fields http://personal.www.umich.edu/~fields
Music: Splendor in Sound
A genuine countertenor voice silences all arguments. --Salman Rushdie
Brights have a naturalistic world-view. http://www.the-brights.net/
fs
"my pet goat" <hornbear...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:d19fe2cd.04082...@posting.google.com...
In certain things, yes. For example, a computer/robot could play complex
scales faster and more accurately than any human ever could. But music is
generally not considered a competition, so I would not say the computer
would "kick human ass." Besides, the small rhythmic, volume, and pitch
"flaws" in the performance is how the human performer communicates emotion.
Ryan Tanaka
are only useful for games like chess that have limited outcomes and
possible moves.
Ryan
John Rowland
news:8db67b6f.04082...@posting.google.com...
>
> All forms of computer programs operate under
> finite algorhythms which are only useful for games
> like chess that have limited outcomes and
> possible moves.
But our brains are computers...
--
John Rowland - Spamtrapped
Transport Plans for the London Area, updated 2001
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Acropolis/7069/tpftla.html
A man's vehicle is a symbol of his manhood.
That's why my vehicle's the Piccadilly Line -
It's the size of a county and it comes every two and a half minutes
Gareth Williams
> "Ryan Tanaka" <yid...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:8db67b6f.04082...@posting.google.com...
>>
>> All forms of computer programs operate under finite algorhythms which
>> are only useful for games like chess that have limited outcomes and
>> possible moves.
>
> But our brains are computers...
Arguably, but if they are, they're far more adaptable than "robotic"
computers. They are also self-learning across at least five senses - six
if you include introspection or self-awareness.
The human brain can handle far more bits of information simultaneously
than even the largest supercomputers. The theoretical processing power of
a single human brain is around 100 trillion floating point operations per
second (100 Teraflops). The fastest computer in the world can only manage
a theoretical maximum of around 35 Teraflops.
Even assuming that one could develop a computer with the intuition,
imagination and "free will" sufficient to compose and perform idiomatic
music of any quality, the costs would be huge. Without a supercomputer to
hand you could concoct an array of standard Pentiums, but you'd fill a
large concert hall with the tens of thousands of PCs required, the power
bills would be astronomic and the only fans you'd find in the audience
would be of the cooling variety.
--
Regards, Gareth Williams
Ron Hardin
> In certain things, yes. For example, a computer/robot could play complex
> scales faster and more accurately than any human ever could. But music is
There's a built-in limit to speed because pitch becomes indefinite as the
note becomes shorter.
--
Ron Hardin
rhha...@mindspring.com
On the internet, nobody knows you're a jerk.
Samuel Vriezen
> "my pet goat" <hornbear...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:d19fe2cd.04082...@posting.google.com...
>
>>deep blue kicked human ass in chess.
>>
>>can a computer be programmed to produce music more perfectly than any
>>human?
>>
>>i guess it can electronically.
>>
>>but how about physically? can a computerized robot play as perfectly
>>or better than a human?
>>
>>i'll bet robot conducting would be easier than robot playing.
>
>
> In certain things, yes. For example, a computer/robot could play complex
> scales faster and more accurately than any human ever could. But music is
> generally not considered a competition,
Except bravoura virtuoso competitions. One may of course question what
those have to do with music.
> so I would not say the computer
> would "kick human ass." Besides, the small rhythmic, volume, and pitch
> "flaws" in the performance is how the human performer communicates emotion.
What makes you think a robot could not be programmed to have 'flaws'
like those?
Samuel Vriezen
> "Ryan Tanaka" <yid...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:8db67b6f.04082...@posting.google.com...
>
>>All forms of computer programs operate under
>>finite algorhythms which are only useful for games
>>like chess that have limited outcomes and
>>possible moves.
>
>
> But our brains are computers...
>
In fact, the entire universe is a computer. Atoms are data, the laws of
physics are the program manipulating it. And God was an expert
programmer. Therefore, probably the manna from heaven was rich in grease
and caffeine.
Owain Sutton
> John Rowland wrote:
>
>> "Ryan Tanaka" <yid...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:8db67b6f.04082...@posting.google.com...
>>
>>> All forms of computer programs operate under
>>> finite algorhythms which are only useful for games
>>> like chess that have limited outcomes and
>>> possible moves.
>>
>>
>>
>> But our brains are computers...
>>
>
> In fact, the entire universe is a computer. Atoms are data, the laws of
> physics are the program manipulating ...
And quantum mechanics was contributed by Microsoft?
Samuel Vriezen
No, Microsoft is a side-effect of quantum mechanics.
Gareth Williams
>> And quantum mechanics was contributed by Microsoft?
>
> No, Microsoft is a side-effect of quantum mechanics.
In that its products exhibit unpredictable fluctuations in behaviour and
the precise inner workings of its software are largely unknown?
--
Regards, Gareth Williams
fs
"Ron Hardin" <rhha...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:412738...@mindspring.com...
> fs wrote:
> > In certain things, yes. For example, a computer/robot could play
complex
> > scales faster and more accurately than any human ever could. But music
is
>
> There's a built-in limit to speed because pitch becomes indefinite as the
> note becomes shorter.
That is true, but human technique would give out far before that limit is
reached, especially in the upper registers.
fs
"Samuel Vriezen" <sqv.do.not.spam@xs4all> wrote in message
news:41274568$0$65124$e4fe...@news.xs4all.nl...
> fs wrote:
> > "my pet goat" <hornbear...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:d19fe2cd.04082...@posting.google.com...
> >
> >>deep blue kicked human ass in chess.
> >>
> >>can a computer be programmed to produce music more perfectly than any
> >>human?
> >>
> >>i guess it can electronically.
> >>
> >>but how about physically? can a computerized robot play as perfectly
> >>or better than a human?
> >>
> >>i'll bet robot conducting would be easier than robot playing.
> >
> >
> > In certain things, yes. For example, a computer/robot could play
complex
> > scales faster and more accurately than any human ever could. But music
is
> > generally not considered a competition,
>
> Except bravoura virtuoso competitions. One may of course question what
> those have to do with music.
>
Exactly. There is a big difference in Chess, because it is primarily a
competition (GM draws aside :-)
> > so I would not say the computer
> > would "kick human ass." Besides, the small rhythmic, volume, and pitch
> > "flaws" in the performance is how the human performer communicates
emotion.
>
> What makes you think a robot could not be programmed to have 'flaws'
> like those?
>
A digital recording of a human is in effect "programming" a hi-fi to make
the music with the exact same flaws, but I would not give the hi-fi credit
for it and say that it "kicked the human's ass" because it can do it louder,
or whatever. If you are suggesting that those flaws can be analyzed and
algorithmically produced by AI to be "better" than the emotive performance
of an accomplished musician, we will have to disagree. Anyway, since there
is no quantitative way to measure the aesthetic of a performance or
composition, this obvious cross-post troll thread can not be proven one way
or another.
Samuel Vriezen
>>>so I would not say the computer
>>>would "kick human ass." Besides, the small rhythmic, volume, and pitch
>>>"flaws" in the performance is how the human performer communicates
>
> emotion.
>
>>What makes you think a robot could not be programmed to have 'flaws'
>>like those?
>>
>
>
> A digital recording of a human is in effect "programming" a hi-fi to make
> the music with the exact same flaws, but I would not give the hi-fi credit
> for it and say that it "kicked the human's ass" because it can do it louder,
> or whatever. If you are suggesting that those flaws can be analyzed and
> algorithmically produced by AI to be "better" than the emotive performance
> of an accomplished musician, we will have to disagree.
I can't imagine what 'better' than a great human musician would be like,
but I would settle for stunning performances by AI. (Prof. Manfred
Clynes claims his SuperConductor software can do just that).
Jerry Kohl
Nein, das heißt "Qualmenmechanik".
--
Jerry Kohl <jerom...@comcast.net>
"Légpárnás hajóm tele van angolnákkal."
Ryan Tanaka
> "Ryan Tanaka" <yid...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:8db67b6f.04082...@posting.google.com...
> >
> > All forms of computer programs operate under
> > finite algorhythms which are only useful for games
> > like chess that have limited outcomes and
> > possible moves.
>
> But our brains are computers...
But better!
I've been reading some articles on the "quantum computer" thing that
people have been working to develop lately. It expands the
limitations of the computer considerably, but at the same time I heard
that it'll make programming a real pain in the butt. Kind of
interesting how it works out like that...
Ryan
Nightingale
Ryan Tanaka wrote:
Perhaps they will write their own programs.
--
The better the voyce is, the meeter it is to honour and
serve God there-with: and the voyce of man is chiefely
to be imployed to that ende.
Omnis spiritus laudet Dominum.
-William Byrd
Dr.Matt
Things of that sort generally make *compiling* a pain, not programming.
But there may be more efficient languages for it than the usual.
Back when parallel processing was first on the horizon, I did an undergrad
research project compiling a Fortran-like dialect into data-flow-style
parallelism, which turned out to be surprisingly straightforward, and
could even be used to model highly-parallel hardware implementations
of the same algorithms.
Wlodzimierz Holsztynski
> [...] the small rhythmic, volume, and pitch
> "flaws" in the performance is how the human
> performer communicates emotion.
Computers can do it too.
Wlod
fs
"Wlodzimierz Holsztynski" <senn...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:3ac80463.0408...@posting.google.com...
Computers can communicate their emotions??? (Sorry old buddy - I never
thought of how you felt about having your case half open all this time.)
Dr.Matt
>
>"Wlodzimierz Holsztynski" <senn...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:3ac80463.0408...@posting.google.com...
>> "fs" <a@b.c> wrote in message
>news:<WrAVc.4193$LV1...@nwrddc02.gnilink.net>...
>> > [...] the small rhythmic, volume, and pitch
>> > "flaws" in the performance is how the human
>> > performer communicates emotion.
>>
>> Computers can do it too.
>>
>> Wlod
>
>Computers can communicate their emotions???
Mine just communicated to me that somebody felt such a sense of surprise
that they needed to write THREE question marks in a row.
>(Sorry old buddy - I never
>thought of how you felt about having your case half open all this time.)
The self-preservation circuit isn't there yet.
--
Matthew H. Fields http://personal.www.umich.edu/~fields
Music: Splendor in Sound
To be great, do things better and better. Don't wait for talent: no such thing.
Peter H. Granzeau
Holsztynski) wrote:
If programmed to do it. The same way every time.
Or, if programmed to use a randomizer, at random, with no
understanding of why it is being done that way.
Music is intended to be played by human beings for other human beings.
Samuel Vriezen
> On 23 Aug 2004 16:31:23 -0700, senn...@yahoo.com (Wlodzimierz
> Holsztynski) wrote:
>
>
>>"fs" <a@b.c> wrote in message news:<WrAVc.4193$LV1...@nwrddc02.gnilink.net>...
>>
>>>[...] the small rhythmic, volume, and pitch
>>>"flaws" in the performance is how the human
>>>performer communicates emotion.
>>
>>Computers can do it too.
>
>
> If programmed to do it. The same way every time.
>
> Or, if programmed to use a randomizer, at random, with no
> understanding of why it is being done that way.
Do you understand everything you do?
> Music is intended to be played by human beings for other human beings.
But computers are programmed by humans! And anyway, what if I program a
computer to create aesthetic sounds meant to be listened to by humans -
it's not music?
Zoot
listened to by humans -
> it's not music?
just like any other instrument at one end you have a person and at
the other you have music. i guess that even works for radios.
Dr.Matt
The person and the music are at different ends?
What about the discovery of a musical experience by a listener....
Nightingale
Imaginary Landscapes No. 4, John Cage.
Zoot
> Zoot wrote:
> > Samuel Vriezen <sqv.do.not.spam@xs4all> wrote in message
> > what if I program a computer to create aesthetic sounds meant to be
> > listened to by humans -
> >
> >>it's not music?
> >
> >
> > just like any other instrument at one end you have a person and at
> > the other you have music. i guess that even works for radios.
>
> Imaginary Landscapes No. 4, John Cage.
don't know it. is there music?
Herb Levy
the "To," "Cc," and "Newsgroups" headers for details. ]]
In article <4700fe11.04091...@posting.google.com>, Zoot
<aba...@ns-design.com> wrote:
Yes. I'm pretty sure that it's published by Peters. The notation is
very straight forward. If I recall correctly, it's notated in march
time in C major, with 2 parts each for 12 radios (each radio played by
two performers, one controlling the volume of the radio, the other
controlling the tuning).
There is, of course, also a sheet of instructions for how to interpret
the score, which is basically to divide the scale of the volume and
tuning knobs of the radio into fifths and tune according to where the
various noteheads are on the staff. I may be missing some of the fine
points. I've heard it performed several times and it's always worked as
an effective collage piece.
Peter T. Daniels
Why would it take two performers per instrument? Even the giant console
radios of the 30s could have their two knobs worked by one person
simultaneously.
--
Peter T. Daniels gram...@att.net
Zoot
that's what cage wanted. i wonder if zappa was thinking of this when
he refereed to a six foot high pile of transistor radios. each one
tuned to a different station. billy the mountain.