| > Are you doubting the ability of the model trained on thousands of classical compositions to reproduce a fully structured classical piece that sounds well and has a few leitmotifs? Yes, I am. It turns out to be immensely difficult to do basic compositional tricks, like writing acceptably good classical counterpoint, or harmonising simple chorales. Writing a full scale piece is a whole other level of difficulty. Writing a full scale piece that's going to be played over and over is a level or two beyond that. David Cope's EMI is probably the state of the art: http://artsites.ucsc.edu/faculty/cope/mp3page.htm Listen to the Bach and Chopin. If you know anything about music you can hear that they sound like what they are: randomised cut and paste mash-ups of elaboration techniques and motifs that lack the musical narrative logic that the original composers were so good at. Basically they're competent but mediocre pastiche, glued together out of little bits and pieces, lacking any overall form or drive. Now - you're supposed to learn this stuff at composition school, and getting a computer to do it to this level is certainly an achievement. But it's still some way short of being interesting and memorable music. I don't think pop is any easier. E.g. trance and progressive house sound totally formulaic - until you try to copy them, and realise that getting something good is harder than it sounds. So no - it's in no way a trivial problem. And a naive Markov approach is in no way a good enough answer. |