I heard that Persian rugs makers woukd always tie one knott in their rugs wrong on purpose. The idea being only God was allowed to be perfect. There is an inherent beauty in something that has room for improvement. People for example.
Your foresight proved right. And this is why the artists and humanists will save us from AI. Original human creativity is the supply it needs the most to survive. 🤖 🎶
Your foresight proved right. And this is why the artists and humanists will save us from AI. Original human creativity is the supply it needs the most to survive. 🤖 🎶
A deeply imbedded M.O. in Japanese culture is "imperfection". They value craftsmanship, and it is evident in many of their products. In their arts, crafts, and traditional buildings, imperfections are deliberately inserted. At the Meiji Jingu shrine, Tokyo, there is an "angle" at a deliberate 88degrees. Not a "perfect" 90degrees.
One of the residences of ShogunTokugawa Ieyasu had a supporting colum installed upside down.
These 'superstitions' are also reflected in Mr. Vinagreiro's comment about Persian rug makers. To a lesser degree, it manifests in arcane sayings of ours such as "...knock on wood..."
I recently completed a project, and I found the best way to describe it was in a certain poetic style. There was a near constant attempt by AI to "correct" my wording, spelling.
I might become a believer when an AI system becomes deeply troubled by its output, sinks into despair, isolates itself completely, resists attempts to correct it. Attempts suicide.
物の哀れ In Japanese tea bowls. And the tradition of sitting down, samurai even without swords as in old days, for tea together, to experience a moment inside a little room. Ritual as the lead sheet, to be learned to be forgotten. No wrong way, except perhaps being an a-hole to others. mono-no-aware
I was writing about the experimental tradition in American music recently (and will continue to as well)... the willingness to experiment and the willingness to improvise are deeply connected.
No experiments are possible without the willingness to fail and make errors. And the errors point the way to where further exploration is warranted.
A culture that always wants to get it right, to have a perfect product, is in for another kind of failure because of the unwillingness to embrace the experiment.
In America now, in our 250th year, we really need to embrace that experimental and improvisational part of the national character to generate some positive changes.
Human performance, even if technically perfect, can always teeter on the side of failure, and there's something captivating about that risk. Alex Honnold's free climbs, for example. Listening to Thelonious Monk reminds me of a half-drunk man walking a tightrope, but somehow, amazingly, he never falls. Glossy machine perfection cannot replicate that sensation.
I'm not musically educated or into jazz but even comparing the pop music of the 1970s to the pre-programmed stuff of today if I do happen this hear when changing radio station or such,the contrast is huge.
Yes, I sometimes listen to Isaac Brown (27 year old) review music from the 60's and 70's. Yesterday, he was struggling to give a good answer to the prevalence of auto-tune in music today. Many of his older listeners, who went to those live concerts, were having none of his explanations. They trash-talked his view and pointed to the need for some human feeling or soul. The modern idea of 'perfect' is a very big divide from the old days of being 'authentic'.
While i agree wholeheartedly i cant help but point out that ai itself is art, in the sense that its something *we*, humans, have created, and may one day "be appreciated primarily for its beauty or emotional power"(per googles definition of art lol), if its not yet already.
People always hate the new stuff(pretty sure a bunch of people hated jazz when it first came along). *I* hate the new stuff. This hate will be of no use to us. If anything it will help to cement ais place in our history, and our future(much like hatred for trump during bidens administration practically guaranteed he'd be back, with much greater power).
I honestly think we dont have so much to worry about with art and ai. If people like human art, then it will prevail(has it not always?). If anything ai slop will make the real deal more valuable. On the other hand, if people like ai slop, why should they not have what they want simply bc some of us dont like it? Should you have not gotten your jazz bc other people didnt like it?
I think what this is really doing is opening our eyes up to ourselves, and we're not liking what we're seeing. A lot of things are doing that lately. Painful as it is, it is necessary. Humanity is evolving right before our eyes.
Droves of the population have always lacked an appreciation of the "right" art(i remember when married with children came out and people bemoaned the state of our society lol. Ah such simple times!). On top of that, a golden age in american culture has now passed. Ai slop is no different than the other types of slop that have always flooded in when high art recedes.
A smart artist right now would be getting to work, instead of bemoaning ais trivial creations. Much like a smart young person would be learning how to do those things ai/robots cant, instead of bemoaning the loss of job opportunities ai is already causing. Let the people watch married with children if thats what they want. Those people were never your audience anyway.
In fact, if i was a renowned artist and i knew some other highly regarded artists, and we had some money, id start an art school. Bc the younger generations are the only people we need to worry about, as we should, and great teachers and new great artists will soon be in high demand. Ai is no threat to that, its a catalyst.
Once upon a time some pundit mentioned that the saxophone in Gerry Rafferty's "Baker Street" was, and still is to this very day, "eleven cents flat". Out of tune, so to speak, but it MAKES the song, or at least it creates an indelible hook that endures to this day. Janis Joplin, Rod Stewart and Mick Jagger would have all been candidates for auto-tune according to the big-label empty suits, had auto-tune existed back in the 60s and 70s. Rickie Lee Jone's "Chuck E's In Love" would never be the same without her broken meter and," uh, " embellishments at crucial points in the lyrics. And I think it will be a very long time before a machine can come to an "artistic interpretation" in music or theater that comes even close. I think Quentin Tarantino would agree. Except for the next Star Wars trilogy. That's probably already been re-written 3,000 times by an LLM even as we speak. <smiley for the humor-impaired>
Computer music is still human expression. Computers aren't deciding to do this stuff on their own - they're doing it because humans are telling them to do it and prompting them with parameters and instructions on how they want it done.
And, as David Deutsch has written, the most important tool the artist has is the wastepaper basket - deciding what to toss and what's worth keeping. The humans using computers to make music are doing this, too.
If we get to the point where an AI is in the middle of its day job doing some analytics and decides of its own volition that it hears the muse and wants to sing a song about its feelings... well THEN we are in new territory.
Excellent post. This is so important. I was thinking about this the other day when I was considering the difference in public perception about classical music versus jazz, specifically in terms of skill. The skill levels of playing first-rate jazz are widely unappreciated in our culture which is why jazz fans constitute 3% of the population (or maybe it's less now). I might even argue that jazz as a musical form is superior to classical because it’s done in the moment --- in real time as opposed to composed and then performed. But that’s a whole other topic.
And also in lines of this unpublished poem (posted without line breaks): “But now look where we’ve gone. In this sleek online world, there’s no room for mistakes, rough edges or anything less than a kind of imperfect perfection. I miss the wabi-sabi of my youth And so let us celebrate: the beauty of crooked things, the beauty of old things and the beauty of error and redemption.”
When I see my comment down there, it looks like a bot wrote it. :-) So here's a more human comment: I have been thinking a lot about the tragedy that some classic 1970s rock performances (and albums) are being pitch corrected to bring them up to "industry standards." When I listen to older recordings now, I relish the imperfections. Thanks for your prescient thoughts.
This was brilliant, and very prescient. As a poet who started writing under the shade tree of Dylan, Paul Simon, and Jazz, I lost interest long ago in the increasingly plastic and un-human way most popular music was going, even longer before the recent advent of AI. I bought the new AI-produced Beatles single, but once I heard it a few times I lost interest in it. Yet I still like the two singles produced in the 1990s for the Beatles anthology, which were still human endeavors even though based on rough tapes by John.
Well yes you're correct. This is why Horowitz -- and many others -- was/are powerful; every time they play they take it right to the edge and sometimes beyond. FWIW, Suno AI is doing this "human touch" thing, too. Sharing here would be inappropriate, but that human-ness coming from a machine is both creepy and delightful.
You were absolutely right. The same holds true with visual arts. Oftentimes in sketches I've drawn, the "errors" capture something much more "accurate" than a machine to draw.
I agree with you. However, it raises more questions for me. If imperfection is both essential and endearing, then why do people practice their craft? Also, what is the ratio of mistakes to perfect playing that makes a performer brilliant rather than terrible?
Miles Davis answered that question: "It's not the note you play that's the wrong note – it's the note you play afterwards that makes it right or wrong." Jazz musicians who practice their craft can find a way to integrate the mistake into their solo so that it enhances the performance. I've seen this happen many times, and it's also happened many times in my own work as a musician. Your fingers fumble, but your imagination turns it into something wonderful—maybe even better than what you originally planned on playing.
That quote makes me think almost of what Miles Davis is saying like evolution of the solo. The mistake is the random gene alteration and the next note decides if it’s positive and integrated or if it dies. Miles was a genius. There’s also a track with Coltrane playing “The Feeling of Jazz” and there are some pitchy mistakes, but, as you point out, they are part of what makes it great.
Machines cannot compose music, just as they cannot compose prose or poetry. Those activities require consciousness and experience, the subjective realm. AI arranges data by patterns. It thinks nothing, feels nothing. We cannot create creators. Only God can do that.
I heard that Persian rugs makers woukd always tie one knott in their rugs wrong on purpose. The idea being only God was allowed to be perfect. There is an inherent beauty in something that has room for improvement. People for example.
Also, Navajo weavers do this.
Your foresight proved right. And this is why the artists and humanists will save us from AI. Original human creativity is the supply it needs the most to survive. 🤖 🎶
Humanists love AI. Humanitarian, not.
Your foresight proved right. And this is why the artists and humanists will save us from AI. Original human creativity is the supply it needs the most to survive. 🤖 🎶
Mr. G.
A deeply imbedded M.O. in Japanese culture is "imperfection". They value craftsmanship, and it is evident in many of their products. In their arts, crafts, and traditional buildings, imperfections are deliberately inserted. At the Meiji Jingu shrine, Tokyo, there is an "angle" at a deliberate 88degrees. Not a "perfect" 90degrees.
One of the residences of ShogunTokugawa Ieyasu had a supporting colum installed upside down.
These 'superstitions' are also reflected in Mr. Vinagreiro's comment about Persian rug makers. To a lesser degree, it manifests in arcane sayings of ours such as "...knock on wood..."
I recently completed a project, and I found the best way to describe it was in a certain poetic style. There was a near constant attempt by AI to "correct" my wording, spelling.
I might become a believer when an AI system becomes deeply troubled by its output, sinks into despair, isolates itself completely, resists attempts to correct it. Attempts suicide.
物の哀れ In Japanese tea bowls. And the tradition of sitting down, samurai even without swords as in old days, for tea together, to experience a moment inside a little room. Ritual as the lead sheet, to be learned to be forgotten. No wrong way, except perhaps being an a-hole to others. mono-no-aware
Yes, agree.
I was writing about the experimental tradition in American music recently (and will continue to as well)... the willingness to experiment and the willingness to improvise are deeply connected.
No experiments are possible without the willingness to fail and make errors. And the errors point the way to where further exploration is warranted.
A culture that always wants to get it right, to have a perfect product, is in for another kind of failure because of the unwillingness to embrace the experiment.
In America now, in our 250th year, we really need to embrace that experimental and improvisational part of the national character to generate some positive changes.
Human performance, even if technically perfect, can always teeter on the side of failure, and there's something captivating about that risk. Alex Honnold's free climbs, for example. Listening to Thelonious Monk reminds me of a half-drunk man walking a tightrope, but somehow, amazingly, he never falls. Glossy machine perfection cannot replicate that sensation.
I'm not musically educated or into jazz but even comparing the pop music of the 1970s to the pre-programmed stuff of today if I do happen this hear when changing radio station or such,the contrast is huge.
Yes, I sometimes listen to Isaac Brown (27 year old) review music from the 60's and 70's. Yesterday, he was struggling to give a good answer to the prevalence of auto-tune in music today. Many of his older listeners, who went to those live concerts, were having none of his explanations. They trash-talked his view and pointed to the need for some human feeling or soul. The modern idea of 'perfect' is a very big divide from the old days of being 'authentic'.
While i agree wholeheartedly i cant help but point out that ai itself is art, in the sense that its something *we*, humans, have created, and may one day "be appreciated primarily for its beauty or emotional power"(per googles definition of art lol), if its not yet already.
People always hate the new stuff(pretty sure a bunch of people hated jazz when it first came along). *I* hate the new stuff. This hate will be of no use to us. If anything it will help to cement ais place in our history, and our future(much like hatred for trump during bidens administration practically guaranteed he'd be back, with much greater power).
I honestly think we dont have so much to worry about with art and ai. If people like human art, then it will prevail(has it not always?). If anything ai slop will make the real deal more valuable. On the other hand, if people like ai slop, why should they not have what they want simply bc some of us dont like it? Should you have not gotten your jazz bc other people didnt like it?
I think what this is really doing is opening our eyes up to ourselves, and we're not liking what we're seeing. A lot of things are doing that lately. Painful as it is, it is necessary. Humanity is evolving right before our eyes.
Droves of the population have always lacked an appreciation of the "right" art(i remember when married with children came out and people bemoaned the state of our society lol. Ah such simple times!). On top of that, a golden age in american culture has now passed. Ai slop is no different than the other types of slop that have always flooded in when high art recedes.
A smart artist right now would be getting to work, instead of bemoaning ais trivial creations. Much like a smart young person would be learning how to do those things ai/robots cant, instead of bemoaning the loss of job opportunities ai is already causing. Let the people watch married with children if thats what they want. Those people were never your audience anyway.
In fact, if i was a renowned artist and i knew some other highly regarded artists, and we had some money, id start an art school. Bc the younger generations are the only people we need to worry about, as we should, and great teachers and new great artists will soon be in high demand. Ai is no threat to that, its a catalyst.
Once upon a time some pundit mentioned that the saxophone in Gerry Rafferty's "Baker Street" was, and still is to this very day, "eleven cents flat". Out of tune, so to speak, but it MAKES the song, or at least it creates an indelible hook that endures to this day. Janis Joplin, Rod Stewart and Mick Jagger would have all been candidates for auto-tune according to the big-label empty suits, had auto-tune existed back in the 60s and 70s. Rickie Lee Jone's "Chuck E's In Love" would never be the same without her broken meter and," uh, " embellishments at crucial points in the lyrics. And I think it will be a very long time before a machine can come to an "artistic interpretation" in music or theater that comes even close. I think Quentin Tarantino would agree. Except for the next Star Wars trilogy. That's probably already been re-written 3,000 times by an LLM even as we speak. <smiley for the humor-impaired>
The band America!
Computer music is still human expression. Computers aren't deciding to do this stuff on their own - they're doing it because humans are telling them to do it and prompting them with parameters and instructions on how they want it done.
And, as David Deutsch has written, the most important tool the artist has is the wastepaper basket - deciding what to toss and what's worth keeping. The humans using computers to make music are doing this, too.
If we get to the point where an AI is in the middle of its day job doing some analytics and decides of its own volition that it hears the muse and wants to sing a song about its feelings... well THEN we are in new territory.
Excellent post. This is so important. I was thinking about this the other day when I was considering the difference in public perception about classical music versus jazz, specifically in terms of skill. The skill levels of playing first-rate jazz are widely unappreciated in our culture which is why jazz fans constitute 3% of the population (or maybe it's less now). I might even argue that jazz as a musical form is superior to classical because it’s done in the moment --- in real time as opposed to composed and then performed. But that’s a whole other topic.
I tried to capture the same notion of imperfection in this poem, "Standing Like a Tree": https://metapsychosis.com/between-impermanence-and-permanence/
And also in lines of this unpublished poem (posted without line breaks): “But now look where we’ve gone. In this sleek online world, there’s no room for mistakes, rough edges or anything less than a kind of imperfect perfection. I miss the wabi-sabi of my youth And so let us celebrate: the beauty of crooked things, the beauty of old things and the beauty of error and redemption.”
When I see my comment down there, it looks like a bot wrote it. :-) So here's a more human comment: I have been thinking a lot about the tragedy that some classic 1970s rock performances (and albums) are being pitch corrected to bring them up to "industry standards." When I listen to older recordings now, I relish the imperfections. Thanks for your prescient thoughts.
This was brilliant, and very prescient. As a poet who started writing under the shade tree of Dylan, Paul Simon, and Jazz, I lost interest long ago in the increasingly plastic and un-human way most popular music was going, even longer before the recent advent of AI. I bought the new AI-produced Beatles single, but once I heard it a few times I lost interest in it. Yet I still like the two singles produced in the 1990s for the Beatles anthology, which were still human endeavors even though based on rough tapes by John.
Well yes you're correct. This is why Horowitz -- and many others -- was/are powerful; every time they play they take it right to the edge and sometimes beyond. FWIW, Suno AI is doing this "human touch" thing, too. Sharing here would be inappropriate, but that human-ness coming from a machine is both creepy and delightful.
Creepy and delightful? Do tell!
Suno came up with a delightful duel between a fiddler and vibraphonist which, as it intensifies, causes both of them to make mistakes. It’s a hoot.
Wow, thats sounds like more depth than i wouldve expected from an ai(though tbh chatgpt often surprises me in similar ways)
You were absolutely right. The same holds true with visual arts. Oftentimes in sketches I've drawn, the "errors" capture something much more "accurate" than a machine to draw.
I agree with you. However, it raises more questions for me. If imperfection is both essential and endearing, then why do people practice their craft? Also, what is the ratio of mistakes to perfect playing that makes a performer brilliant rather than terrible?
Miles Davis answered that question: "It's not the note you play that's the wrong note – it's the note you play afterwards that makes it right or wrong." Jazz musicians who practice their craft can find a way to integrate the mistake into their solo so that it enhances the performance. I've seen this happen many times, and it's also happened many times in my own work as a musician. Your fingers fumble, but your imagination turns it into something wonderful—maybe even better than what you originally planned on playing.
That quote makes me think almost of what Miles Davis is saying like evolution of the solo. The mistake is the random gene alteration and the next note decides if it’s positive and integrated or if it dies. Miles was a genius. There’s also a track with Coltrane playing “The Feeling of Jazz” and there are some pitchy mistakes, but, as you point out, they are part of what makes it great.
Machines cannot compose music, just as they cannot compose prose or poetry. Those activities require consciousness and experience, the subjective realm. AI arranges data by patterns. It thinks nothing, feels nothing. We cannot create creators. Only God can do that.