RE: Virtual Concerto


Subject: RE: Virtual Concerto
From: Michael Rempel (Michael@VIDIR.COM)
Date: Wed May 19 2004 - 12:58:27 EDT


I guess what I am saying is that databases CAN be an analytical tool to help
researchers explore what stuff musically hangs together as a first step.

Once organized around a set of 'stuff that hangs together', you can take
each set and deal with it semi-independently, to derive rules and explore
inferences that might explain or codify the relationship. Only then can you
adequately explain what is going on.

Analytic poverty is also my complaint, but databases CAN be a tool to work
through this, and give an intermediate result.

To use an analogy your general approach is the intellectual equivalent of
additive synthesis. I suggested the intellectual equivalent of granular.

Michael

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Eliot Handelman [mailto:eliot@generation.net]
> Sent: Tuesday, May 18, 2004 6:39 PM
> To: cec-conference@concordia.ca
> Subject: Re: Virtual Concerto
>
>
> Michael Rempel wrote:
>
> >I think we may be dancing around the same issue from
> different perspectives.
> >I have answered you below but this is my over all impression.
> >
> >
>
> My impression is that I don't understand what it is you want to talk
> about. You took
> exception to my statement that pilfering and recombining
> databases was not,
> to my mind, what AI in music might be all about. I proposed
> instead the
> formulation
> of conceptualizing models. I haven't asserted that there's some
> particular method
> that could work, and I suggested that imaginative approaches are
> probably what's
> best for the moment. I was reflecting in this my sense of
> the analytic
> poverty of models
> employed to date in any of the music retrieval research I'm
> aware of. In
> the absence
> of powerful methods for guessing at "what is going on the music" it's
> premature to
> speak of the utility of databases. As for values and such, of
> course the
> whole idea
> is to represent human-level conceptualization or listening in
> proxy. I
> suggested that
> here too that imaginative approximations or interpretations, perhaps
> alien but
> provocative, could be more interesting than something that aims for
> general validity. As for composing something "interesting,"
> and weighing that interest somehow, I think Harold Cohen's advice is
> best taken
> here -- model process, not outcome. The process here is the
> composing/listening mind,
> rather than some sort of specifable external results. Or rather, the
> only result I care
> to specify is that the music should have sense of human (or
> posthuman)
> agency.
>
> -- eliot
>
>
>
>



This archive was generated by hypermail 2b27 : Sat Dec 22 2007 - 01:46:01 EST