Ai music

[paulpablo]

So what is the difference between recombining and rehashing when it comes to music.

What's the difference between your DNA and your son's DNA?

Also, questions should have question-marks.

Why are you such an argumentative old cunt on every single thread

[Thumpalumpacus]

What's the difference between your DNA and your son's DNA?

Also, questions should have question-marks.

Why are you such an argumentative old cunt on every single thread

Why can't you answer a simple question without resorting to insult?

Now, go fuck off until you've learnt how to use a goddamned search-engine to look up a couple of simple definitions. It's a really simple point. You should be able to grasp it. Emphasis on "should".

[Rev. Rye]

 three chords in two keys (which will cover a surprising number of songs),

For the record, I once did some research into how true this is as part of a larger quest to figure out the most useful pitch to tune my guitar to. One thing that helped me out was Hooktheory. They did this little infographic after taking their 30,000 song library, normalizing them all to C major, and counting the chord degrees used. (Click to get a better look)



 

Just the I, IV, V, and V7 chords* are enough to cover 49%, almost half of music.**

* Given that Boru's Irish and most Irish music is in the keys of D or G, I suspect he had something like D, G, and A(7), and G, C, and D(7) in mind.
** And after simplifying out the different variations on major and minor keys and the slash keys, it's closer to 56.6%; add in the vi chord (Bm or Em in the above keys, Am in the graph), and we're at 65.32%, just shy of two thirds of all music. Add in the ii chord (Em, Am, or Dm) and we're at 69.6%. And the above infographic only covers about 80.91% of total chord appearances.

[paulpablo]

Anyone, person or computer, can put together pabulum. Art requires creativity, not rehash.

I used ai instead of a search engine to look into the statements you made
1. The Misunderstanding of "Rehash" in Art
The claim that art cannot be "rehash" ignores the fact that most art is built upon what came before.
Artistic Lineage: Significant works often re-contextualize or iterate on existing themes. For example, Michelangelo's David was not the first sculpture of that subject; it was a "rehash" of a biblical figure already famously depicted by Donatello and Verrocchio.
Imitation as Training: In traditional art education, copying masterworks is a standard method to build the "vocabulary" necessary for future original expression.
Post-Modernism: Many modern movements, like Pop Art or Found Object art (e.g., Duchamp's Fountain), deliberately use "rehashed" or pre-existing materials to create new meaning.
2. The Narrow Definition of Creativity
The statement assumes creativity is a spontaneous act ex nihilo (out of nothing), whereas many philosophers and artists define it as a novel reconfiguration of familiar elements.
Combinatorial Creativity: As Albert Einstein and others have noted, "The secret to creativity is knowing how to hide your sources".
Technical Skill vs. Idea: Some argue that even if the "rehash" lacks novelty, the technical mastery or "skill and virtuosity" involved can still qualify a work as art.
3. The Utility of "Pabulum"
"Pabulum" refers to bland, unstimulating material, but the line between pabulum and art is often subjective.
Audience Resonance: What one person considers "pabulum" (intellectual pap) might provide profound "food for thought" or emotional connection to another.
Artistic Intent: If a creator (human or computer-guided) intends for a "bland" work to evoke a specific feeling—such as boredom or domestic simplicity (e.g., the concept of Wabi Sabi)—it can be considered an intentional artistic choice rather than a lack of creativity.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Anyone, person or computer, can put together pabulum. Art requires creativity, not rehash.

I used ai instead of a search engine to look into the statements you made
1. The Misunderstanding of "Rehash" in Art
The claim that art cannot be "rehash" ignores the fact that most art is built upon what came before.
Artistic Lineage: Significant works often re-contextualize or iterate on existing themes. For example, Michelangelo's David was not the first sculpture of that subject; it was a "rehash" of a biblical figure already famously depicted by Donatello and Verrocchio.
Imitation as Training: In traditional art education, copying masterworks is a standard method to build the "vocabulary" necessary for future original expression.
Post-Modernism: Many modern movements, like Pop Art or Found Object art (e.g., Duchamp's Fountain), deliberately use "rehashed" or pre-existing materials to create new meaning.
2. The Narrow Definition of Creativity
The statement assumes creativity is a spontaneous act ex nihilo (out of nothing), whereas many philosophers and artists define it as a novel reconfiguration of familiar elements.
Combinatorial Creativity: As Albert Einstein and others have noted, "The secret to creativity is knowing how to hide your sources".
Technical Skill vs. Idea: Some argue that even if the "rehash" lacks novelty, the technical mastery or "skill and virtuosity" involved can still qualify a work as art.
3. The Utility of "Pabulum"
"Pabulum" refers to bland, unstimulating material, but the line between pabulum and art is often subjective.
Audience Resonance: What one person considers "pabulum" (intellectual pap) might provide profound "food for thought" or emotional connection to another.
Artistic Intent: If a creator (human or computer-guided) intends for a "bland" work to evoke a specific feeling—such as boredom or domestic simplicity (e.g., the concept of Wabi Sabi)—it can be considered an intentional artistic choice rather than a lack of creativity.

Right, and none of that takes into account my natural usage of the language and the process of creativity. Appealing to AI in order to justify your reliance upon AI instead of your own thinking is kinda the point.

For instance, you use the AI understanding of "vocabulary". By this logic, there's no such thing as a new book written in English, because they use the same vocabulary. But creation need not be ab nihilo in every aspect. It may use building blocks in ways that weren't envisaged. Language evolves. This is precisely why I brought up DNA.

There are other aspects of this rebuttal you have copy-pasted that are equally sloppy. But hey, if you'd rather outsource your "creativity", have at it. It's not my loss. The fact that you confuse bricks with buildings says nothing about me. Keep telling your computer to write your songs. Let me know when it can read an audience and create a communal moment.

[awty]

I used ai instead of a search engine to look into the statements you made

---

1. The Misunderstanding of "Rehash" in Art
The claim that art cannot be "rehash" ignores the fact that most art is built upon what came before.
Artistic Lineage: Significant works often re-contextualize or iterate on existing themes. For example, Michelangelo's David was not the first sculpture of that subject; it was a "rehash" of a biblical figure already famously depicted by Donatello and Verrocchio.
Imitation as Training: In traditional art education, copying masterworks is a standard method to build the "vocabulary" necessary for future original expression.
Post-Modernism: Many modern movements, like Pop Art or Found Object art (e.g., Duchamp's Fountain), deliberately use "rehashed" or pre-existing materials to create new meaning.
2. The Narrow Definition of Creativity
The statement assumes creativity is a spontaneous act ex nihilo (out of nothing), whereas many philosophers and artists define it as a novel reconfiguration of familiar elements.
Combinatorial Creativity: As Albert Einstein and others have noted, "The secret to creativity is knowing how to hide your sources".
Technical Skill vs. Idea: Some argue that even if the "rehash" lacks novelty, the technical mastery or "skill and virtuosity" involved can still qualify a work as art.
3. The Utility of "Pabulum"
"Pabulum" refers to bland, unstimulating material, but the line between pabulum and art is often subjective.
Audience Resonance: What one person considers "pabulum" (intellectual pap) might provide profound "food for thought" or emotional connection to another.
Artistic Intent: If a creator (human or computer-guided) intends for a "bland" work to evoke a specific feeling—such as boredom or domestic simplicity (e.g., the concept of Wabi Sabi)—it can be considered an intentional artistic choice rather than a lack of creativity.

---

Right, and none of that takes into account my natural usage of the language and the process of creativity. Appealing to AI in order to justify your reliance upon AI instead of your own thinking is kinda the point.

For instance, you use the AI understanding of "vocabulary". By this logic, there's no such thing as a new book written in English, because they use the same vocabulary. But creation need not be ab nihilo in every aspect. It may use building blocks in ways that weren't envisaged. Language evolves. This is precisely why I brought up DNA.

There are other aspects of this rebuttal you have copy-pasted that are equally sloppy. But hey, if you'd rather outsource your "creativity", have at it. It's not my loss. The fact that you confuse bricks with buildings says nothing about me. Keep telling your computer to write your songs. Let me know when it can read an audience and create a communal moment.

Bold mine...

Sounds like using the Bible to prove what's in the Bible.

[Belacqua]

1. The Misunderstanding of "Rehash" in Art
The claim that art cannot be "rehash" ignores the fact that most art is built upon what came before.
Artistic Lineage: Significant works often re-contextualize or iterate on existing themes. For example, Michelangelo's David was not the first sculpture of that subject; it was a "rehash" of a biblical figure already famously depicted by Donatello and Verrocchio.
Imitation as Training: In traditional art education, copying masterworks is a standard method to build the "vocabulary" necessary for future original expression.
Post-Modernism: Many modern movements, like Pop Art or Found Object art (e.g., Duchamp's Fountain), deliberately use "rehashed" or pre-existing materials to create new meaning.

This part seems correct to me. "Rehash" is a judgmental word, so its use presupposes that the imitated elements are used without creativity. If, on the other hand, a work puts together elements from previous works in a way we like, then we would use a different word. 

Michelangelo's David is not only using a theme that was common in Renaissance Florence, but is intentionally imitating Ancient Greek sculpture. Michelangelo knew exactly what he was doing -- showing the people of his time that he could do it as well as an ancient Greek, and better than Donatello. It's true that an expert can tell you exactly what he has done that the Greeks didn't do, and how (depending on your taste) his David is better than a classical Apollo. But it's fair to say that something like 95% of his David comes from previous sculpture -- "rehash" if you want to be critical -- and this was both intentional and not something to be looked down on. 

Botticelli's Primavera is a combination of elements from Greek and Roman poetry. No single element of it is original. But few people today would call it a rehash.

And use of the word "vocabulary" is entirely appropriate. Botticelli mastered the vocabulary of Neoplatonic Christian symbolism.

Any genre has its own vocabulary, and artists in that genre master the vocabulary in order to make creative use of it. This is why people who have little experience of a given genre will say that it all sounds the same. Baroque music, for example, has traditional ways of ending a phrase, of resolving dissonances, etc., that Bach knew well. The fact that he used them does nothing to lessen the greatness of his work. In fact his ability to use these vocabulary elements in powerful and satisfying ways is a part of his greatness. 

Contemporary rock music is even more about re-combinations of vocabulary elements than Baroque music was. 

2. The Narrow Definition of Creativity
The statement assumes creativity is a spontaneous act ex nihilo (out of nothing), whereas many philosophers and artists define it as a novel reconfiguration of familiar elements.
Combinatorial Creativity: As Albert Einstein and others have noted, "The secret to creativity is knowing how to hide your sources".
Technical Skill vs. Idea: Some argue that even if the "rehash" lacks novelty, the technical mastery or "skill and virtuosity" involved can still qualify a work as art.

There's nothing wrong with this. No creative work is 100% original. If it were, no one would know what to make of it. 

In genre fiction, like detective novels, part of the pleasure is in seeing how the familiar elements are recombined. More original books will certainly be less popular, because they contain things that aren't familiar. Anything by Nabokov, for example, is full of original observation and multi-layered humor that constantly surprises. But I doubt that the entirety of Nabokov's work has sold as many copies as one Stephen King potboiler. 

It's also instructive to compare modern American assumptions about creativity with other cultures. Neither China nor Japan have traditionally valued creativity explicitly. Both are focussed on doing things extremely well, not on doing something new. The benefit for China, of course, is that having an extremely long history means an artist can go back any number of centuries to find what he wants to do, and then do this thing that no one else is currently doing, while claiming that he is only reviving something ancient. There will almost always be something creative in the result, but that is not what he explicitly aims for. 

3. The Utility of "Pabulum"
"Pabulum" refers to bland, unstimulating material, but the line between pabulum and art is often subjective.
Audience Resonance: What one person considers "pabulum" (intellectual pap) might provide profound "food for thought" or emotional connection to another.
Artistic Intent: If a creator (human or computer-guided) intends for a "bland" work to evoke a specific feeling—such as boredom or domestic simplicity (e.g., the concept of Wabi Sabi)—it can be considered an intentional artistic choice rather than a lack of creativity.

Here I very much disagree with the definition of Wabi Sabi. It's far more than "domestic simplicity." But everything else is just fine. 

"Pabulum," like "rehash" contains judgment. But judgments may vary. The white boy stadium guitar bands that many Americans find invigorating seem bland to me, since beyond their use of "power chords" the ideas they express in their lyrics tend to be the most cliched and banal expressions of pseudo-rebelliousness. Stroking white men to feel like tough guys while they consume bands with contracts to giant media conglomerates. 

I think that a great deal of popular art, music, and fiction could easily be made by AI these days, or we'll get there soon. One thing AI can do is recreate the fake rebelliousness that appeals so much to consumers of mass produced goods. 

But, as with the example of Nabokov, I believe there will always be a human element that will be very difficult for AIs to pull off convincingly. Certainly a lot of human authors have tried to imitate him with little success. An artist like Hieronymous Bosch can now be imitated, but the world needed a wildly creative and entirely unpredictable human to come first, in order to create the model that's copied.

[Thumpalumpacus]

This part seems correct to me. "Rehash" is a judgmental word, so its use presupposes that the imitated elements are used without creativity. If, on the other hand, a work puts together elements from previous works in a way we like, then we would use a different word. 

[bolding added]

Yeah, that's what rehash actually means.

It's like you guys are ignoring the point I've made about evolution. Recombinant DNA is not "rehash". It's using the same ingredients, but in a way that produces new outcomes. Cloning and sexual reproduction both use genes. One is a creative process. The other is a copying process.

One creates new life-forms. The other rehashes the parent.

What new art has AI produced?

[Belacqua]

This part seems correct to me. "Rehash" is a judgmental word, so its use presupposes that the imitated elements are used without creativity. If, on the other hand, a work puts together elements from previous works in a way we like, then we would use a different word. 

[bolding added]

Yeah, that's what rehash actually means.

It's like you guys are ignoring the point I've made about evolution. Recombinant DNA is not "rehash". It's using the same ingredients, but in a way that produces new outcomes. Cloning and sexual reproduction both use genes. One is a creative process. The other is a copying process.

One creates new life-forms. The other rehashes the parent.

What new art has AI produced?

No one here is fighting with you.

In talking about AI, it makes sense to wonder about what is different in human creativity. For example, to what extent is ANY work of art original and to what extent is it a recombination of previous elements? 

One weakness we sometimes have when studying history is that the great masterpieces stand out, to the extent that we are unaware of the intellectual milieu that they grew out of. So for example we all know that Shakespeare is wonderful beyond measure, but his example tends to obscure the rest of Elizabethan drama, a lot of which is very much worthwhile. This is not criticize Shakespeare, but to acknowledge that much of what he was doing was to recombine elements that were popular in his time, but in a far superior way. Now that the other plays from his time are so seldom read, he may seem more original than he is. Then we get the question of how much his greatness comes from originality, and how much it comes from extremely high-quality use of the things that other people were doing. 

If you look at what I wrote, I think you will see that I have not said that AI has produced any original work. But I also think that a great deal of popular work is not all that creative. TV cop shows, for example, tend to be repetitions of the same elements with only minimal originality. But this is in large part why they are popular -- people want what's familiar. 

It's an interesting topic. For people in the arts, it's probably an important topic. No one is angry here. Paulpablo has raised interesting questions which we can discuss.

[Thumpalumpacus]

[bolding added]

Yeah, that's what rehash actually means.

It's like you guys are ignoring the point I've made about evolution. Recombinant DNA is not "rehash". It's using the same ingredients, but in a way that produces new outcomes. Cloning and sexual reproduction both use genes. One is a creative process. The other is a copying process.

One creates new life-forms. The other rehashes the parent.

What new art has AI produced?

No one here is fighting with you.

In talking about AI, it makes sense to wonder about what is different in human creativity. For example, to what extent is ANY work of art original and to what extent is it a recombination of previous elements? 

One weakness we sometimes have when studying history is that the great masterpieces stand out, to the extent that we are unaware of the intellectual milieu that they grew out of. So for example we all know that Shakespeare is wonderful beyond measure, but his example tends to obscure the rest of Elizabethan drama, a lot of which is very much worthwhile. This is not criticize Shakespeare, but to acknowledge that much of what he was doing was to recombine elements that were popular in his time, but in a far superior way. Now that the other plays from his time are so seldom read, he may seem more original than he is. Then we get the question of how much his greatness comes from originality, and how much it comes from extremely high-quality use of the things that other people were doing. 

If you look at what I wrote, I think you will see that I have not said that AI has produced any original work. But I also think that a great deal of popular work is not all that creative. TV cop shows, for example, tend to be repetitions of the same elements with only minimal originality. But this is in large part why they are popular -- people want what's familiar. 

It's an interesting topic. For people in the arts, it's probably an important topic. No one is angry here. Paulpablo has raised interesting questions which we can discuss.

Again, I have brought in DNA -- i.e. evolution -- precisely because I don't believe that creation must be ab nihilo, but also because I think there is a big difference between farming broccoli and growing thinking. Having human involvement doesn't mean it's significantly creative. But when your AI is literally vacuuming up human input that is not always creative, that rather derogates any AI creativity even further. "Gosh, I'm copying unimaginative humans" is not a strong argument for creativity -- whether it's AI or the Monkees or Thomas Kinkade or any number of fantasy novelists etc.

I'm not angry. I'm opinionated. Don't worry, you, and he, will presumably live.

Creativity exists inside experience. What does AI experience?