[HN Gopher] I became the world's most prolific DJ, using code
___________________________________________________________________
I became the world's most prolific DJ, using code
Author : redcodenl
Score : 268 points
Date : 2022-03-24 13:17 UTC (9 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.royvanrijn.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.royvanrijn.com)
| lhorie wrote:
| Something that doesn't seem to have been discussed from the legal
| angle is this: if one can make any copyright claim about these
| datasets qualifying as "prior art", doesn't that then open itself
| up for trolls to claim that the datasets infringe on existing
| prior art? It's not like I can draw a pikachu, release it to
| public domain and make a slam dunk legal claim that all other
| pikachus are henceforth kosher.
|
| I think Adam Neely makes a more relevant point in his videos
| about Dark Horse and Levitating: it doesn't really matter what
| any actual infringement claim is because you can typically find
| relevant prior art from legitimate works of music if you dig deep
| enough, even without going through the exercise of autogenerating
| note sequences.
|
| As I understand, the legal arguments focus on whether there is a
| clear and traceable connection between the creative process for a
| song and the alleged infringed work, and whether there is clear
| intent to omit credit where it is due. I.e. the argument already
| starts from the assumption that similarities and inspirations
| from existing works of art can and do exist.
| andybak wrote:
| Is there still a value in this as a Reductio ad absurdum? A
| short cut that makes it less neccessary to slog through a prior
| art battle in each and every case?
| imwillofficial wrote:
| This guy is nowhere near the "World's most prolific DJ"
|
| I've never heard of Him, and I run in those circles.
|
| Interesting reading though.
| badcc wrote:
| I think you missed the joke!
| hilarious1212 wrote:
| Saying something absurd isn't automatically a joke that I am
| expected to get. This is humor on the same level as typing
| the N word in all caps or just lying. It's not funny, it's
| not clever.
| jer0me wrote:
| lol what
|
| Edit: pro*lif*ic (adj) marked by
| abundant inventiveness or productivity
|
| It's just a fun title for his article about
| programmatically creating millions of remixes, thus
| becoming a very prolific DJ. That's the entire joke. It
| doesn't seem equivalent to "typing the N word in all caps."
| I'm sorry that your sense of humor is simply too refined to
| understand us uneducated peasants' jokes.
|
| Also you really just made a throwaway to insult someone's
| article?
| wartijn_ wrote:
| I think it's just a troll comment, given that it's a new
| account with the text "hilarious" in it.
| horsawlarway wrote:
| Outside of the joke - I'd say your own definition of
| prolific undermines you pretty hard there.
|
| While I respect the author for the goal here, I would say
| he was neither abundantly inventive nor productive.
|
| His inventiveness boiled down to taking an existing
| concept, and saving some disk space using an already
| known algorithm. To boot - his method of saving that
| space rendered the original intent (preventing copywrite
| of melodies) useless, and was already considered by the
| original group.
|
| His productivity was a single morning's work, creating a
| single album, which is just random noise and will never
| be meaningfully listened to even a single time.
|
| I'm not going to begrudge him the usage in the title, and
| I think it's a fun weekend project, but I also think it's
| pretty clearly clickbait (which is fine!).
| tecleandor wrote:
| I mean... That's very productive!
|
| "Productivity is the efficiency of production of goods or
| services expressed by some measure."
|
| An whole album with millions of melodies in just one
| morning is quite efficient :). Meaningful or deep, maybe
| not. But productive... yes!
| hilarious1212 wrote:
| zer0-c00l wrote:
| bro you have no place to talk to tell people to "go back
| to Reddit" after posting that comment. "like typing the N
| word in all caps" what on earth are you even talking
| about?
| [deleted]
| hilarious1212 wrote:
| Cthulhu_ wrote:
| OzzyB wrote:
| I think prolific in this case is more the "Super Whizkid DJ
| Creates 100,000 Tracks in a Week" sense -- not in the sense
| that you may or may not have heard of them...
| imwillofficial wrote:
| Yeah, I would not call 100,000 tracks of garbage noise
| produced and never played for people a prolific DJ. A DJ is a
| performer by definition.
|
| No knock on his accomplishments
| vmception wrote:
| yeah, he's not, by any definition, the first line of the
| article says that is an alternate clickbait as a joke which
| maybe allows it to comply with HN posting guidelines, but given
| that the poster's username has the NL acronym in it which
| probably means Netherlands, and the Dutch-like name of the
| author of the article, (and actual prolific DJ scene in that
| country), its probably the same person, so its unknown if that
| actually makes it fit HN posting guidelines to me
|
| Its amusing, it got me to click though and I was pleased by
| what I read
| jjulius wrote:
| I, too, "run in those circles" and I got the joke. :)
| dmitriid wrote:
| Spider Robinson explored this in his 1983 story, _Melancholy
| Elephants_ :
|
| http://www.spiderrobinson.com/melancholyelephants.html
|
| --- start quote ---
|
| There are eighty-eight notes. One hundred and seventy-six, if
| your ear is good enough to pick out quarter tones. Add in rests
| and so forth, different time signatures. Pick a figure for
| maximum number of notes a melody can contain. I do not know the
| figure for the maximum possible number of melodies--too many
| variables--but I am sure it is quite high.
|
| " _I am certain that is not infinity._
|
| "For one thing, a great many of those possible arrays of eighty-
| eight notes will not be perceived as music, as melody, by the
| human ear. Perhaps more than half. They will not be hummable,
| whistleable, listenable--some will be actively unpleasant to
| hear. Another large fraction will be so similar to each other as
| to be effectively identical: if you change three notes of the
| Moonlight Sonata, you have not created something new.
|
| I do not know the figure for the maximum number of discretely
| appreciable melodies, and again I'm certain it is quite high, and
| again I am certain that it is not infinity
|
| --- end quote ---
|
| Do read it It's scary and prescient.
| GLGirty wrote:
| Author has discovered a new method of torture. I tried to listen
| to the 2 minute sample, and rage quit after 30 seconds.
| dr_dshiv wrote:
| This. How about an algorithm to predict aesthetic appeal?
| snek_case wrote:
| A lot of people seem to miss the distinction between DJ (someone
| who mixes/remixes music) and composer/producer.
| [deleted]
| cwkoss wrote:
| We should pass a law to cap the maximum earnings from a single
| work of art to destroy the incentive for lawyers to strangle
| culture with predatory lawsuits.
|
| Ex. Once a work of song makes $10M it should just go into the
| public domain. Want to make more? Keep writing more songs.
| eweise wrote:
| I'm surprised to learn that copyright doesn't take into account
| the length of notes, which to me is part of what makes melodies
| unique.
| whiddershins wrote:
| It does, this description of what can be copyrighted is
| confused.
| jerf wrote:
| It sounds like you're assuming that they actually have any
| copyright on this. They don't. It's not identical but see:
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30702117 for some similar
| issue.
|
| And in general, you must be "creative" to have a copyright. You
| might have a "copyright" on the resulting file, but no court
| would ever dream of extending that to a claim of copyright on
| every melody. There is no way that the author was "creative" in
| any sort of proportion to the amount of material being
| putatively claimed. Normally one would expect for this to then
| start a big HN chain arguing the precise definition of
| "creativity per unit output" that is the threshold, but in
| addition to the fact you have to get a _court_ to agree to your
| definition, bear in mind that this is quite literally
| _exponentially_ little creative effort per output. The author
| has put in so little effort per output that they haven 't even
| listened to their own "work" once, I'm sure! This is not the
| normal definition of a "creative work". The usual arguments
| will be based around a polynomial at most, and frankly usually
| _linear_ amount of output per "creative input". Especially in
| light of the fact that the lifespan of a given "creative human
| being" isn't even "linear" so much as "constant".
|
| Given that this is only a very small amount of effort from
| being able to claim all combinations of notes ever, it's clear
| this is not a copyrightable work, excepting perhaps the literal
| output of the work but no more than that.
|
| (It's also not _that_ much more work to order these things in
| entropy order, by analyzing songs and deriving some probability
| for note lengths and intervals, making it so that one could
| just start generating melodies and actually hit almost every
| useful melody in an even "smaller" work. Also not
| copyrightable.)
|
| So, basically, don't learn anything about copyright from this
| article.
| wincy wrote:
| I mean, the game No Man's Sky procedurally generates 18
| quintillion planets but they hold a copyright on all of those
| planets, don't they? They certainly haven't explored all of
| the planets.
| jerf wrote:
| Imagine you load the No Man's Sky source code, and you
| break it all down, and you load the assets in. You
| certainly have a copyright on all the assets.
|
| You don't generally end up with a copyright on all possible
| combinations. You may still _de facto_ "own" the copyright
| if all possible combinations encompass parts of your own
| creation. For instance, I've been playing XCom 2 lately. It
| has a character creator. Firaxis can't claim to own all the
| possible combinations of characters it can create, but they
| own a substantial portion of the parts. I don't think they
| could claim they own eyes of a particular color or
| particular shades of skin, but all the clothing,
| accessories, tattoos, guns, etc. all _individually_ have
| copyright, so it 's still not like I personally can just
| crank up the character creator and claim a copyright on
| some particular one and start using it for whatever
| commercial purposes I desire.
|
| No Man's Sky, from the looks of it, is in the same boat.
| They don't necessarily get "a copyright" on everything
| their algorithms can possibly generate, but at the same
| time, if someone produces an exact match of any of the 18
| quintillion planets they must be using plenty of
| copyrighted assets along the way. So in practice there may
| not be a big difference.
|
| Where the difference comes in is when the pieces get to be
| so fine that they are not themselves copyrightable. To put
| it in a visual context, the original favicon format was
| 16x16. Even at full 24-bit color, that's only 2^32 possibly
| favicons. It's trivial to enumerate them. But you can't
| copyright a single pixel, and you can't simply claim a
| copyright on all combinations. The former is a bare fact,
| and the latter had no creativity ("enumerate all
| possibilities" is not creative, it's a homework assignment
| in Comp Sci 201). You can't copyright a single note, it's a
| bare fact. You can't copyright all enumerated combinations
| of them. You can copyright the program used to generate
| them, but that doesn't give you rights to the output.
|
| So, they do and they don't. And the sense in which they do
| doesn't match the sense in which trying to copyright all
| possible melodies does.
|
| In the event that you have something like
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8fZBUsn5RYg , kkrieger, a
| super-procedurally-generated game that doesn't have any
| clear textures or geometry in its code, I think you could
| claim a copyright on what _gets manifested_ , but not on
| _every conceivable thing the algorithm could generate_.
| What gets manifested will be a much more reasonable amount
| of protection relative to the effort, merely polynomial at
| most, rather than exponential. Exponential is, you know,
| _really big_.
| balls187 wrote:
| I'm assuming you mean the US, right?
|
| I was doing legal research on this, and funny enough there
| is an article that discusses this very issue:
| http://mttlr.org/2016/11/no-mans-skynet-copyright-in-
| procedu...
| munk-a wrote:
| IANAL but I'm pretty sure generating something, even
| something creative, isn't enough for protection if it isn't
| novel and distinct. I'd assume none of their planets would
| be protected since there are 18 quintillion of them and
| most of them have never actually been rendered - but the
| process to generate planets of that style might be
| protectable.
| thebricksta wrote:
| It's a fun concept, and maybe will be useful in some weird edge
| case of a lawsuit, but no. Most recent music infringement
| lawsuits seem to argue that some combination of the sound
| design, groove, rhythms, chord progressions, melody or reduced
| melody, structure, and lyrics wind up giving a song the same
| "feel" as a prior song, and that's the basis of the copyright
| infringement. Then pseudoscientific experts come in and pick
| and choose common musical elements that both the songs share to
| attempt to justify the claim, oftentimes wrongfully taking
| credit for inventing genre-wide defining musical elements. Adam
| Neely did a good job touching on this in his recent analysis of
| the Dua Lipa Levitating lawsuit [1].
|
| An AI generated song machine would have to nail a lot more
| elements than just the melody notes to properly stop music
| copyright cases. In my view, a more interesting project that
| might be more effective in defusing lawsuits would be to try to
| catalog all of the musical tropes that define genres, then
| attempting to detect how common they are in that genre. In an
| ideal world, maybe this would be able to drive a metric of how
| similar specific two songs are vs. picking any two songs in
| that genre at random.
|
| [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HnA1QmZvSNs
| woolion wrote:
| >Adam Neely did a good job touching on this in his recent
| analysis of the Dua Lipa Levitating lawsuit [1]
|
| He most certainly did not. Of all the different takes out
| there, his is very weak.
|
| >Most recent music infringement lawsuits seem to argue that
| some combination of...
|
| There is a very good reason: as he mentions, the chords
| diversity use in pop songwriting is typically so poor that
| based only on that, the amount of things considered
| plagiarism would thus be ridiculous. If the similarities
| affect almost all dimensions (style, arrangement, rhythm,
| melody, ...) to the point of being "essentially the same",
| then it's exactly what people would want the law to exist
| for.
| thebricksta wrote:
| > He most certainly did not. Of all the different takes out
| there, his is very weak.
|
| I think Adam Neely did a good job explaining what
| infringement lawsuits mean in the context of popular music
| production. Whether or not you agree with the strength of
| his case on this particular lawsuit, well that's not quite
| the point I was trying to make here. Still, what do you
| consider to be a strong take on this case?
| ovi256 wrote:
| This may be a consequence of copyright law being developed in
| Europe. The European musical tradition is mostly concerned with
| harmony, and less with rhythm. A musical culture focusing on
| harmony would be most of the African traditions.
| gnulinux wrote:
| Just a nitpick but blanket statements like this are highly
| misleading. "European" musical traditions are not concerned
| with rhythm any less than "African" traditions. European
| musical theory historically focused on harmony more so than
| rhythm which has the side-effect of vernacular developing
| more a robust vocabulary for harmony.
|
| The reason this distinction matters is because I think its
| important to understand that not only European musical
| traditions will have equivalent rhythmic complexity but also
| other musical traditions will have equivalent harmonic
| complexity. Just because we don't have a great model of other
| musical traditions' harmony, does not mean they lack harmony.
| And vice versa. E.g. during Baroque era although temporal
| information was rarely denoted on paper (any more than 3
| time, 4 time, tempo etc) musicians performing these pieces
| had to express a certain understanding of rhythm. Pieces were
| never played like MIDI, they always had rhythmic nuances.
| dotancohen wrote:
| And this seems to be completely lost today. Go listen to
| the Furtwrangler recordings, then listen to any modern
| arrangement. The modern arrangements are so precise, as if
| a computer is reading the scores. But the 1940s recordings
| are so full of life and vigor, it sounds like a different
| piece. And it is so much fun to listen to, even if the
| recording quality is atrocious by today's standards.
|
| Karajan might have been the last of the conductors that I
| enjoy like listening to. His fifth changes pace but it
| feels so natural. The slow parts are drawn out were they
| need to be, but the fast parts just grab you and drag you
| along. There was no notation for that, it took
| interpretation. And he could get all the instruments to
| open the piece together. Even Berenbaum couldn't get his
| players to open the piece properly, at least not those that
| I could find on Youtube.
|
| Thought there is one young guy on Youtube who does a
| terrific job conducting, I should go find that.
| QuercusMax wrote:
| I think you meant to say that African traditions focus on
| rhythm, not harmony?
| munk-a wrote:
| This is especially relevant when it comes to timbre a musical
| quality that's extremely difficult to even record in staff
| and bar notation.
| kube-system wrote:
| Copyright _does_ take into account the entire work.
|
| However, people will sometimes claim that a portion of their
| work is stolen.
|
| The idea here is to give someone a citation of it existing
| elsewhere as a defense to the above. Although this is a very
| experimental endeavor and some suspect it won't be taken very
| seriously in an actual court, because the context in which it
| was created may undermine some of the creative requirements for
| qualification under copyright law.
| swamp40 wrote:
| What about the silence between notes? Copyrighted or no? Their
| Jingle Bells sounds horrible with no silent spaces.
| wodenokoto wrote:
| Wasn't there an article on the front page last week about how
| computer generated art wasn't copyrightable?
| nwsm wrote:
| The TED talk was great, though he could have used more compelling
| examples than George Harrison and Sam Smith. Also great was
| Damien's Twitter response to the author on using the de Brujin
| approach-
|
| > We had initially considered a "de Bruijn" sequence. But if we
| were to use a single file, that would have down sides:
|
| > If someone infringes our work, it would only be a tiny
| percentage (0.0000000001%?) of the "work" -- so someone would
| argue "fair use"
|
| > Same idea with others incorporating ATM works in theirs ("tiny
| percentage")
|
| > So our technical/legal design is "One MIDI file per melody" --
| which I think is a legal feature, not a bug.
| GrazeMor wrote:
| This only works for western music
| kleer001 wrote:
| It should work for declaring melodies in any system of music
| that has notation.
|
| Now, you're correct if you're saying that not all music has
| melodies. Or that things like Indian ragas would be difficult
| to run through exhaustive permutation. But, as far as I know
| all music in the world has native notation or can be notated
| and reproduced.
| GrazeMor wrote:
| He was clearly relying on being able to distill a melody to x
| beats per bar which is very western.
| almet wrote:
| This is a mathematical approach to music, and lacks (from my
| point of view) what is the mere essence of music : choice.
|
| I understand why they want to take back the copyright on music,
| _but_ they do so in such a geeky way that it seems completely
| useless to me.
|
| Ultimately, musicians will pick good / cool melodies from this
| dataset, in the same way they do when in front of an instrument.
|
| I might be missing the point ?
| marssaxman wrote:
| The point is that applying copyright law to music leads to
| absurd outcomes. It is a bad idea, and ought to be abolished.
| throwaway675309 wrote:
| Does the same apply to other mediums? What if I generate all
| possible 64x64 images? (Extend that to every resolution in
| theory)
| Kye wrote:
| What do you imagine would change if musicians couldn't
| protect their work?
|
| As a musician, I think what would happen is the companies
| that abuse copyright now would keep abusing musicians, except
| now they can just take any song they like without
| compensating the person who made it.
| ARandumGuy wrote:
| Broadly speaking, there are 3 main copyrights that apply to
| a given piece of music: the recording, the overall
| composition, and the melody. The first two are pretty
| uncontroversial [1]. You can't distribute my recording
| without my permission, and you can't make money off of a
| cover version without compensating me.
|
| The melody copyright is where things get really hazy. It's
| hard to determine when a melody infringes on another
| melody. What if the notes are the same, but the timing is
| different? What if the notes aren't exactly the same, but
| are pretty similar? What if the main melodic ideas are
| really common in a given genre or style? How do you
| determine if there was actual copying, or if two musicians
| just came up with the same idea independently? What if the
| melody just isn't an important part of the style of a given
| work? What if the melody is almost the same, but used in a
| completely different musical context?
|
| There isn't an objective set of criteria that can determine
| if a melody infringes on another melody, without being too
| narrow or too broad. And since there's no good criteria,
| the only way to litigate this is to have better lawyers
| then the other guy, which rarely works out well for
| independent artists.
|
| [1] At least, uncontroversial at a high level. The details
| get messy really quickly.
| Kye wrote:
| There is definitely a sizable and vocal contingent of
| people who want all copyright on music abolished and only
| consider performance a valid way to make a living as a
| musician. When they don't specify, like above, that's
| generally the meaning. I've been chastised for selling
| albums enough to know it's not isolated enough to ignore.
| msla wrote:
| Can chord progressions be copyrighted?
|
| https://www.buzzfeed.com/reggieugwu/what-the-law-says-
| about-...
|
| > Copyrighted elements of a musical composition can
| include melody, chord progression, rhythm, and lyrics --
| anything that reflects a "minimal spark" of creativity
| and originality.
|
| https://ask.audio/articles/5-common-beliefs-about-song-
| copyr...
|
| > Song Titles and Chord Progressions are not copyright
| protected
|
| > This is true.
|
| [snip]
|
| > Ditto for chord progressions. There must be hundreds of
| songs that were hits in the '50s and early '60s that
| followed the familiar "ice cream changes" progression of
| I-vi-IV-V7. Thin "In The Still Of The Night" (another
| song that shares its title with others), "Donna",
| "Silhouettes", "This Boy" just for starters. Also the
| chords from the "Pachelbel Canon in D" have been used
| numerous times. Think "A Whiter Shade Of Pale."
|
| Does lack of enforcement make something legal?
|
| https://moviecultists.com/can-chord-progressions-be-
| copyrigh...
|
| > "If a single chord progression were elaborate enough
| and unconventional enough, it could be protected."
|
| How many possible chord progressions are there?
| svantana wrote:
| Of course, any digitally representable artform can be
| enumerated this way. What's special is that melodies have low
| enough entropy that it's actually practical to create them all,
| which isn't the case with (say) movies or novels. And that low
| entropy is also why spurious similarities occur, as when huge
| pop stars are accused of plagiarising some band with 200
| soundcloud followers.
| [deleted]
| viccuad wrote:
| I found that the TED talk linked on the article explains the
| issue colourfully, in case you haven't watched it.
| helsinki wrote:
| Cool - now scrape the web for new songs that match one of yours
| and sue them ;)
| newguy999 wrote:
| davedx wrote:
| Kinda interesting project but very clickbait title. What does
| this have to do with DJing?
| temptemptemp111 wrote:
| [deleted]
| mellosouls wrote:
| Previous discussions on the underlying project fwiw:
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22301091
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22440944
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22413526
| fatlat wrote:
| benabus wrote:
| But if you can't copyright something that was created via
| automation (https://www.ipwatchdog.com/2022/02/23/thaler-loses-
| ai-author...), does this even matter?
| Cthulhu_ wrote:
| Good luck proving that these songs were not created via
| automation in court - or that the claimant did not create the
| melody via automation for that matter. Wouldn't most electronic
| music fall under that definition?
| kube-system wrote:
| You're missing the point of what the court is saying.
|
| The court is saying "the [typewriter] didn't write the book,
| you wrote the book using a [typewriter]"
|
| Replace [typewriter] with any technology.
| horsawlarway wrote:
| You absolutely can copywrite works created via automation, you
| just still have to list a human as the author.
|
| Which makes a lot of sense to me - Someone had to set up the
| automation with the intent to create a copy writable work, and
| copywrite often has built in expirations based on a window of
| time after the death of the author. Hard to make that sane if
| you're listing a computer program as the author - when does it
| die?
| nwsm wrote:
| I certainly agree that the author of an automation deserves
| credit/copyright for its output.
|
| But imagine I build something that spits out as many binary
| sequences as possible. Do I then have a copyright to all the
| "works" that can be interpreted from it in various data
| formats I may have accidentally met?
|
| This question is about intention, not authorship.
| roywiggins wrote:
| Even if you assign the copyright to a human and not a
| machine, you need a minimal amount of creativity to qualify
| for copyright, eg phone books can't be copyrighted. A "phone
| book" of every melody of a certain length is probably(?) not
| copyrightable either.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feist_Publications%2C_Inc.%2C_.
| ...
| viccuad wrote:
| The linked TED talk on the article explains it nicely. A
| phone book is created with a finite set (numbers,letters,
| words in English), but that finite set can be used to
| produce an infinite set. You can always produce a new
| result by appending to previous result.
|
| In contrast, a musical melody is created by a finite set,
| and is bracketed by a duration. You can't keep adding more
| notes to a composition without extending its duration.
| Doing so makes it non melodic. If you do it enough, it
| becomes noise (white noise, pink noise..)
| horsawlarway wrote:
| No real disagreement from me - I'm just saying that there's
| absolutely nothing preventing you from using automation to
| create copywrite-able works.
|
| People keep throwing that article around, and there seems
| to be a profound misunderstanding about what was determined
| there - automation is _fine_. Listing a machine as the
| author is not.
| lbotos wrote:
| You are missing the crux of that argument:
|
| "Thaler listed Creativity Machine as the author of the work"
|
| You cannot claim that the AI was the creator.
| cycomanic wrote:
| I suspect the "appealing" melodies amongst this are likely a
| small subset of the the total set.
|
| The whole story reminded me of this axis of awesome (OZ comedy
| group) song (well worth watching):
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5pidokakU4I&list=RD5pidokakU...
| 29athrowaway wrote:
| Clickbait.
| erikschoster wrote:
| Other projects in a similar spirit:
|
| Tom Johnson's Chord Catalog which organizes the 8,178 chords
| possible in a single octave of the piano:
| https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Chord_Catalogue
|
| James Whitehead's All Possible CDs:
| http://www.jliat.com/APCDS/index.html
|
| > This "thought" experiment although based on real "physical"
| objects can be treated as a simple mathematical object and so
| allows us to explore some of the consequences of this object or
| objects. The important feature is that any finite series is
| fixed, so greater sized disks, blue ray, whatever, is not
| significant to the idea, that is in a finite universe there are a
| finite number of finite objects. The size of the bit strings set
| real limits on the number of possible objects; web pages
| typically use 24 bits to encode colors, 8 bits for red, 8 for
| blue, and 8 for green that gives 256 x 256 x 256 or 16,777,216
| possible colors, and no more.
|
| > In Deleuzean terms, you could call this, all possible CDs, the
| "virtual plane", thought experiment, in the case of 2 to the
| power 6265728000 of all possible audio on CD, a virtual set of
| possibilities or a virtual plane, and the actual physical CDs in
| the world are actualizations of these virtualalities. Actual
| objects, physical CDs, being intensities on this virtual plane.
| Actual CDs are not mere copies of there virtual counterparts,
| they are not re presentations of the virtual, for they have many
| more properties, many physical properties, color, size, shape
| etc., just as in the Deleuzean Virtual and Real planes, the real
| is not a copy of the virtual, but an intensity.
|
| > Using this as a model we can "experience" actualities that are
| physically unlikely for humans if not in practice impossible, for
| 2 to the power 6265728000, is approximately 10 to the power
| 2000000000. There are only 10 to the power 118 particles in the
| universe so a full and total actualization of the virtuality of
| CDs seems impossible.
| PaulDavisThe1st wrote:
| Related: https://ianring.com/musictheory/scales/
|
| All possible scales with 12TET and octave equivalence.
| wpietri wrote:
| Oh, neat! The Chord Catalogue is even available on streaming
| services. Here it is on Pandora:
| https://www.pandora.com/artist/tom-johnson/the-chord-catalog...
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2022-03-24 23:00 UTC)