Re: [LAU] Bpm detection/quantize

On Wed, Feb 11, 2009 at 10:03:15PM +0000, Chris Cannam wrote:

> On Wed, Feb 11, 2009 at 9:01 AM, Frank Barknecht <fbar@email-addr-hidden> wrote:
> > Beat and rhythm detection also is a hot topic for many years in the
> > academic music scene as it's a necessary prerequisite to let a
> > computer play along with human performers, ideally in real time.
>
> I actually find this goal more distasteful than the one Fons is objecting to.
>
> I can understand why people are interested in automatic accompaniment,
> but mangling human-made music to fit a specific timing map seems like
> a more proper goal to me -- "manufactured" being somehow preferable to
> "simulated". (I think this may be an "uncanny valley" situation -- if
> you haven't met this term before, look it up.)

'Good' automatic accompaniment will require more than
the computer's ability to listen combined with some
condensed programmed knowledge of musical structure
and performance praxis.

By 'good' I mean that the computer should be able to
do it as expected, and without requiring specific
instructions for each particular case.

I suspect it would require 'training' of the same
form that a musician capable of the same would go
through.

Now if such ability is the result of training, can
it be called either 'manufactured' or 'simulated' ?
If yes, should we humans consider ourselves as being
manufactured or simulating ?

Ciao,

-- 
FA
Laboratorio di Acustica ed Elettroacustica
Parma, Italia
O tu, che porte, correndo si ?
E guerra e morte !
_______________________________________________
Linux-audio-user mailing list
Linux-audio-user@email-addr-hidden
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-user