Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!rutgers!njin!princeton!phoenix!eliot
From: eliot@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Eliot Handelman)
Newsgroups: comp.music
Subject: Re: Music by Kohonen's NN
Keywords: neural nets, music
Message-ID: <14650@phoenix.Princeton.EDU>
Date: 18 Mar 90 06:15:45 GMT
References: <1990Mar6.200147.21195@cec1.wustl.edu> <76@nrl-cmf.UUCP> <2940@uwm.edu>
Reply-To: eliot@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Eliot Handelman)
Organization: Princeton University, NJ
Lines: 19

In article <2940@uwm.edu> markh@csd4.csd.uwm.edu (Mark William Hopkins) writes:
;In article <76@nrl-cmf.UUCP> tedwards@cmsun.UUCP (Thomas Edwards) writes:
;>
;>The exact algorithm is not expected to be published exactly because there is
;>much commercial interest in his technique....
;>...had the typical computer generated lack of overall theme, and there were
;>some times when I just couldn't help thinking "That was the wrong note for
;>this song."  However, it did seem to create often wonderfully powerful
;>repetitons of strong note sequences.
; ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

;Sounds to me like the net encoded music using something analogous to
;"Wickelphones".  If you look for combinations in limited contexts (such as
;all 3 note sequences), you can abstract out the explicit time ordering
;while still preserving much of the identity of the music.

It's amazing that these dumb transformations are able to arouse any interest
at all. What I'm interested in knowing is what possible commercial value
could there be in a dumb transformation?