I guess you think any old collection of sounds is true music then agihammertheif. Good for you.

SafeAsMilk wrote:

Even then it's only piano music.

This has got to be one of the most ignorant statements regarding music that I've ever seen on this forum. Can we get a dunsapy over here?

Many people will call any old tripe satisfying music; you are not alone. Me? Ignorant of music? That's a good one.

Keep It Real wrote:

SafeAsMilk wrote:

Even then it's only piano music.

This has got to be one of the most ignorant statements regarding music that I've ever seen on this forum. Can we get a dunsapy over here?

Many people will call any old tripe satisfying music; you are not alone. Me? Ignorant of music? That's a good one.

If you think that music is unsatisfying because it is played on the piano, then yes, you are incredibly, mind-numbingly ignorant about music, and practically every great composer between now and the classical era is laughing at your opinion.

Some piano music is satisfying and even beautiful and fantastic IMO. I never said otherwise. Emily Howell isn't that however from what I've heard. Piano music is simple from a technical standpoint compared to much however - I'd be really impressed if a computer program could layer percussion textures, compress reverb and compose them, design synth patched that fit well etc etc etc. A long way to go to impress me is all I said.

Keep It Real wrote:Some piano music is satisfying and even beautiful and fantastic IMO. I never said otherwise.

Your response to me pointing out the ignorance of your statement regarding piano music was immediately followed with a butthurt, childish snipe at my musical tastes, about which you obviously know nothing. This is made doubly ridiculous by the fact that, if you had the faintest clue of the point that I or the video was making, you'd realize that my musical tastes are completely irrelevant.

That you find piano music "any old tripe" or "(un)satisfying" is the only sensible conclusion one could draw from your posts as they were made unless you were having some difficulty navigating the English language.

Emily Howell isn't that however from what I've heard. Piano music is simple from a technical standpoint compared to much however

So complexity = good/satisfying? That's a very trite view of music, especially given the complexity that is available from a piano.

- I'd be really impressed if a computer program could layer percussion textures, compress reverb and compose them, design synth patched that fit well etc etc etc. A long way to go to impress me is all I said.

That's nice and I'm sure it makes you feel really, really good about yourself that you aren't impressed, and we're all really proud of you, really. But that's completely irrelevant to the point that was made in the video, as well as the one that I have pointed out repeatedly. If you're still having trouble grasping this concept, re-watch the video or re-read my posts, it can't possibly be made any clearer.

Keep It Real wrote:
I guess you think any old collection of sounds is true music then agihammertheif. Good for you.

I hope that whoever "liked" my post clicked on the spoiler.

Keep It Real wrote:Well, they said people couldn't tell the difference between the bot's track and human composers but I'm guessing they cherry picked the human composers who closely resembled the bot's style. I'd like to hear the whole thing I guess but still an abstract bashy piano composition with no discernible melodic themes is not that impressive as far as music go's. If you think it was as good as Chopin then that's up to you. Even then it's only piano music.

I don't think there's any reason why it couldn't do something more melodic and complex. Here's some music made in 2011 from computer generated melodies from an app you can get on your phone:



Given that this sort of technology is only a few years old, do you really not think that they'll be able to do something pretty damn fucking impressive in 20 year's time?

Agi Hammerthief wrote:

Keep It Real wrote:
I guess you think any old collection of sounds is true music then agihammertheif. Good for you.

I hope that whoever "liked" my post clicked on the spoiler.

Ah, you got me there; didn't see it. It was definitely a bit weird to take issue with one of your comments IMO.

You kids and your "music". Buncha noise, that's what it is. Hasn't been a decent band since Benny Goodman. Don't even bring up that Sinatra punk.

laklak wrote:You kids and your "music". Buncha noise, that's what it is. Hasn't been a decent band since Benny Goodman. Don't even bring up that Sinatra punk.

I'm reminiscing really -haven't written a note for years. The fire dies at 30 as Eminem said. "it fades" as my step father said (once a classical record producer for Nimbus recordings). My old dear has only ever married musicians. One retains an academic awareness of music however, and can be tickled still from time to time.

Is there anything here that wasn't said in [i}The Adding Machine[/i] in 1923 or Player Piano in 1952?

Anyway, there are some faulty premises to this stuff, namely, that businesses exist to produce and be efficient and make money. They don't. They exist to facilitate chimpanzee games. If businesses existed to produce, they'd have gotten rid of middle managers by now.

I believe so. The notion that getting replaced by robot is not necessarily bad.

I think it is. people need stuff to do. I'm looking into the far future now. The idea that we have nothing to contribute is surely depressing.

What do you mean by "people need stuff to do" and what do you mean by "nothing to contribute"? Work is energy over time. Show your working out that, for example, what I just typed did not require work and contributed nothing ;)

edit: As apparent from OP, people instead of driving cars whole day could play with kids, talk to elderly, go for walk, read book and basically anything they wanted. How is that bad?

Reminds me of Banks' Culture novels. I'd be down with that kind of life.

minininja wrote:

lpetrich wrote:I think that that business owner would feel very exploited and oppressed by that. Exploited and oppressed by having to support failures and losers who don't have the decency to build their own business empires, robots and all.

So it's a serious problem.

But, as the economy gets more and more unbalanced, you ultimately have to question whether the concept of ownership as a reason to be deserving of further wealth continues to be valid.

That sounds Communist!

Frase paints two scenarios of the future: One where the profits from all those robots go to a few rich owners, and one where they go to everyone.

If this sounds a bit like communism, that's because it is! Frase prefers the term "fully-automated luxury communism."

http://www.cbc.ca/radio/the180/bring-on ... -1.3975259