Some modular performers like Keith Fullerton Whitman have a very dynamic approach to patching. I've seen shows where he was aggressively re-patching throughout the performance and hot-swapping connections on the fly. I'm talking several patches in a minute. It wasn't subtle, either. It was a nice contrast to many performers who tend to design their system as a fixed structure and then play from there.

The LLM isn’t seeing something that’s not there, but deliberately making up _something_ so that it can return a response.

What do we really think we're missing out on by not using X?

To your second point, surely they’ve considered the hit to their relationship with their customers before selling for $1/car. Surely the trust between them and their buyers is worth far, far more than that.

Even assuming maximum greed, is every car manufacturer really so short-sighted as to break that trust for so small of a return?

It would be cheaper to do nothing if that were true.

There was a recent row over the revelation that Chaotic Good, a music marketing company, was astroturfing on behalf of the bands Geese and Sombr.

I had a meeting last week with a well-known record producer who tells me labels are increasingly leaning into astroturfing.

Just two days ago a colleague told me about his bandmate whose day job is managing five Instagram accounts to astroturf for Mk.Gee. According to her, "Mk.Gee is not allowed to know about it", with the implication that he would reject it if he did.

Attributing it's hit status to the perfect intervals is ignoring all of the other choices (and supporting infrastructure) that go into making a hit. It's like saying that the Dodge Charger was a successful car because the windshield wipers are of a certain make.

Side note: It may very well be a sampled trumpet.

If you have an alternative reason to learn music and to start learning through acoustic phenomena then let's hear it.

Most people don't get into molecular gastronomy if they don't intend to cook a meal. And I'm going to go out on a limb and say that 99% of aspiring cooks shouldn't learn cooking via that discipline without first starting with something more practical and immediate.

The point is to make music. And the most practical way to do so is to teach instrument technique, intervals, scales, chords, and melody. Not low-level acoustic phenomena.

To make an (imperfect) programming analogy, you are proposing to teach low-level computation when most students would benefit from some Python, if/else statements, and functions. Not memory allocation and assembly. They're useful someday, but less useful when your first goal is to simply write a program.

I am approaching 40 and in two weeks I will begin clowning lessons with a Cirque du Soleil clown. I am thrilled.

So why clown as a discipline? Something deeply misunderstood and that probably lowers my social status with people who don’t understand it? Something with zero career utility? Because to me it represents extreme vulnerability.

I’m a pretty dignified person. A lot of poise. Goofy, but restrained. If I can debase myself in front of an audience in order to win a laugh then I believe I can do anything.

If I can (figuratively) hang my ass out for all to see then I can move with confidence. If I can blow past my natural inclination to save face, or have the answers. If I can discard the emotional hangups that make me feel embarrassed then I can be the person who I (and I suspect a great number of us) want to be deep down.

I want to (constructively) tear down everything inside of me that restrains me and discover who I can really be.

Make a point or leave it be, rather than making vague innuendo about how we should disapprove of them.

There’s always room for hedonic escalation and lifestyle creep, but if all of my needs are covered I’m largely satisfied.

As the saying goes: “He who is not satisfied with that which he has will not be satisfied with that which he hopes to have.”

It ain’t perfect - and we’ll work to improve it - but it’s way better than the way it used to be for so many people. Civilization aint all bad.

Horizontal (left-to-right) sequencer displays like a piano roll or step sequencer are far more compact to display and easier to read. For drums parts, it's one dimensional until you add a second layer, and then the parts stack vertically, nicely on top of each other.

It's all to say that I don't really see much advantage in this petri nets paradigm. Even the trigger conditions and probabilities have already been incorporated into a large number of DAWs and hardware sequencers. This feels a little like someone who has discovered fire independently from the rest of civilization, but in this day and age I don't think that counts for much when all they had to do was observe the design paradigms that already exist.

In the end, the proof is in the pudding: How good is the music made with the tool? Does the technique allow us to more easily do something that was previously difficult or tedious? In this case, I'm not yet seeing it.

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49205590

Points: 2

# Comments: 0