[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: GG:has the electronic future arrived?
While rereading our old messages on archive I came upon a particularly
thought-provoking one from Bradley (quoted below).
Regarding computer improvisation, I wonder if any of our fellow
f-minorians have heard of the music software "Band-In-A-Box". One of its
capabilities is to "improvise" according to a preset sequence of chord
changes. The user can enter an arbitrary chord sequence, and can even
choose the style (among dozens of them) of improvisation. I was swept off
my feet when I heard it produce a stream of slick guitar licks a la Pat
Metheny!
And this software is pretty affordable at around 100USD. I suspect
there's some "neural net" working behind the scenes, with each
improvisation "style" being a set of pre-trained net nodes. But just on
the face of it, it's really amazing! (Note: and I'm not talking about
state-of-the-art technologies either, as it's available over a year ago.)
Regards,
Clifford
On Fri, 25 Feb 2000 15:27:24 -0500, "Bradley Lehman" <bpl@umich.edu>
wrote:
|
|(Yesterday's NYTimes article is now reproduced on
|http://www.superconductor.com )
|
|About SuperConductor's "performance" I wrote yesterday:
|
|>Mozart's Piano Concerto K453, 3rd Movement. Also not too bad, though again
|>the large paragraphs don't breathe. I miss playfulness and whimsy. But
|the
|>biggest oversight is a fundamental element of musical grammar. The program
|>clobbers the resolution note of every appoggiatura (and this movement has
|>hundreds of them at the ends of phrases) rather than resolving quietly.
|>This error is as musically serious and obtrusive as using the word "the" at
|>the end of a sentence, or putTING acCENTS on the wrong syllaBLE. You'd
|>think that given all the trouble they've gone to in this program,
|especially
|>with regard to dynamics, they'd teach it how to recognize this.
|
|
|Thinking some more about this and listening to a good performance of the
|Mozart concerto K453 (a live recording with Robert Levin at the piano),
|another severely lacking element occurred to me. It can be described very
|simply: SuperConductor doesn't improvise.
|
|Even in the most severely detailed and thoroughly notated classical pieces,
|in which one is "not supposed to" improvise any new notes, there is still an
|element of improvisation at play all the time. Every performance is
|different as the performer reacts to the instrument, the room, any listeners
|present, her personal feelings at the moment, and what she had for lunch.
|Tempos, accents, phrasing, articulation, and many other elements are subject
|to change according to the needs of the moment. (If the listeners aren't
|paying attention, make subtle changes to coax their attention back....)
|
|This principle should be familiar to anyone who has ever had a music lesson.
|The teacher or coach suggests, "Try it again and pay attention to X," or
|"Give it more Z." The student mentally focuses on X, or adjusts the Z
|parameter in the brain, and plays the piece differently. If the student is
|especially responsive and skilled, the piece comes out sounding *very*
|different at only a small suggestion. The score didn't change, but the
|music certainly did.
|
|Musicians who no longer take lessons have trained themselves to give
|themselves such suggestions to get the type of performance they want at any
|given moment. For example, at a recording session a musician plays the same
|piece several times with different emphases, and then later chooses the take
|that was most successful musically (reacting this time as a listener, not as
|a player). At a live performance the musician chooses emphases depending on
|what that particular situation seems to need, and depending on an
|imaginative assessment of what the listeners are receiving. Recall GG's
|flight from concerts to recordings: he was weary of trying to project the
|music with "party tricks" so it sounds convincing at multiple points in the
|room. That's a very real problem for musicians, actors, a public speaker,
|anyone on a live stage.
|
|Preparation for a performance is a matter of preparing a whole range of
|parameters that can be tweaked as needed at the moment, responding to what's
|going on. Sometimes it's playing all the same notes but in a different
|manner; sometimes it's playing some different notes. It's *not* going to a
|practice room, getting something absolutely perfect "as the composer
|intended it", and reproducing exactly the same thing in performance. An
|overrehearsed performance is rarely an interesting performance.
|
|The brinkmanship of not knowing exactly how it's going to come out is part
|of the joy of playing music. Every time it's different. If the composition
|is rich enough, it's still interesting after hundreds of performances. If
|it's going very well, the audience is swept up in the sense of adventure and
|helps to *cause* some of the on-edge improvisation.
|
|One attempts to simulate this in recordings. Even though it will sound
|exactly the same on replay, there has to be enough human irrationality built
|into the performance to make it feel fresh and repeatably rich-textured. If
|one merely gets all the notes right in an objective manner, the result
|sounds antiseptic and doesn't stand up well to repeated listening. The same
|result happens if one over-edits a recording...it doesn't feel real anymore.
|It might as well be a machine playing. (The reason we keep listening to GG
|recordings is that he was a master at providing a rich texture and a sense
|of fresh adventure: there's something to hear and pay attention to every
|time.)
|
|In a piece such as this Mozart concerto, where the performer *is* supposed
|to improvise new notes as well as playing the written notes, SuperConductor
|has no imagination. It just goes through reproducing everything it sees
|according to its recipe. Such a performance doesn't repay close listening;
|it only superficially sounds OK. The program also does not recognize that
|the exact same notes at different points in a composition have different
|purposes (for example, the way the aria of the Goldberg Variations sounds
|different at the beginning and end of a performance). A human performer,
|having lived and aged through the course of the performance, does play
|identical notes differently in repeats. The audience has lived and aged,
|too, and needs something different the second time.
|
|It's the irrationality that makes good performances breathe like living
|things. It's a carefully controlled willingness to let tiny random things
|happen in the moment, the spark of creativity. The good musician has a
|whole range of "correct" interpretive parameters to choose from as needed,
|not just one. It's a fantastic experience when a performer allows herself
|to discover new things about a composition *during* a performance, as it
|unfolds: a sensitive listener can sometimes sense when this is happening.
|
|Computers don't have imagination or feelings, they don't sense meaning, and
|they don't learn from experience. That's why computer programs will never
|be able to give performances that sound like live musicians, at least until
|they are able to adapt from moment to moment to the situation. Somebody has
|to build an artificial flexibility and randomness deeply into the program,
|allowing them to simulate human irrationality and adaptability. Then they
|will sound perhaps as good as boring uninspired musicians.
|
|It's still not what the composers intended, unless the composers were
|writing explicitly for mechanical reproduction. (There *does* exist good
|music of such a type, for example Conlon Nancarrow's studies for player
|piano. Nancarrow makes mechanical precision a virtue rather than a
|liability. Let the machine play polyphonic rhythms of 3 against 7 against
|11 while accelerating at a rate of 2% per minute. That's what machines are
|good at.)
|
|Bradley Lehman, http://www-personal.umich.edu/~bpl
|Dayton VA