Fantastic. I will listen to these later. Itâs 3:21am EST. Time for a nap. Looking forward to listening what she sounds like.
3 Likes
That seems like a basic misunderstanding of what a great deal of jazz is: âstandardsâ based on what at one time were popular songs with lyrics. While thereâs certainly a lot of vocal jazzâand the first major âtalkieâ was The Jazz Singerâmuch instrumental jazz really involves a lead musician playing an instrumental melody in place of a human voice, often phrasing the melody in a way that mimics singing or suggests the lyrics musically even when the words themselves arenât being performed.
I think itâs amazing what some of these truly talented musicians can do in that vein. If you open yourself to the experience and listen to, for instance, what a trumpeter is âsayingâ with his instrument, you can understand the emotion and story of a song without hearing a single spoken or sung word.
No knock on strings, though: I used to take violin lessons and still tinker some with bass (and guitar to a lesser extent). Stringed instruments can really âsingâ with skilled hands, as well.
2 Likes
Sorry for the miscommunication, it is a product of me somewhat continuing a side conversation non-publicly in DMâs and âinstrumental Jazzâ was brought up, and I was making a point about how I like instrumental in many cases and decided I might as well give some examples in this conversation instead of limiting it to the non-public forum, which led to the implication that I thought jazz was only instrumental. 
That was totally my bad.
To be clear, I just donât care much for most of either the instrumental or vocal kinds of it (I donât HATE them either, and I would never purposely choose them over other thingsâŠit just doesnât hit me like it does for others), but I was making the faux-pas of continuing a thought that was not totally continuous here.
Having said that, I did used to do some swing dancing, and there is a lot of that performed to jazz swing music, and Iâve had some enjoyable experiences with jazz swing music. In that context, I appreciated itâit worked well for dancing and made for good memories. But outside of that specific scenario, itâs not music I seek out. 
I totally understand that perspective. I can recognize and appreciate what a musician is expressing, but thereâs a difference between understanding and feeling. For me, itâs like the difference between sympathy and empathy. With sympathy, you recognize and care about what someone is feeling, but with empathy, you actually share that feelingâit hits you on a deeper level, almost as if it were your own. Jazz falls more into the âsympathyâ category for meâI can grasp the skill and the expression, but it doesnât connect to me emotionally the way other genres do. It doesnât evoke the same response for me, and some of the music I like doesnât evoke the same for others.
2 Likes
She does sound uniquely her to me, but that is not the reason I brought her up. When I came to Canada back in 1987 I was surprised to find out what that many popular European artists were fairly unknown in North America, such as Jethro Tull, Chris Rea, Wishbone Ash and Status Quo to name a few.
1 Like
It could be the tech or engineer in me, but have you every seen sounds captured on an oscilloscope or sound measuring device?
Music comes across as a clean sinewave where voice becomes irratic like noise.
Something cleaner and less distractive about instrumentals, although I do like many voiced albums.
I guess that is what drew me to Classical music.
3 Likes
Wow. Just watched the first video. Sounds good and lots of action.
The style reminds me a lot of the group âBondâ
3 Likes
Nice. Yes, seems quite similar!
2 Likes
Finally, some relatively fresh 
!
Here go, kitty. This oneâs about a cat from Des Moines.
Mingus received mixed-to-positive reviews from critics and peaked at number 17 in the US. âThe Dry Cleaner from Des Moinesâ was released as a single to promote the album, but did not chart. -Wiki
2 Likes
Didnât you mean America? Some places are too far north to (customarily) include. 
Foreign record execs searching for something to market in America:
Yves: What do Americans like? 
Jacques: Stuff theyâre familiar with. 
1 Like
Interesting! Kinda suggests voice is the most nuanced instrument. 
2 Likes
Of course you are a known fan of the beauty of chaos.
1 Like
I am not averse to it.
1 Like
Somethingâs never change. (Long form.)
But Iâm sure when theyâre gone they can be simulated.
1 Like
Weâre in trouble Froggy:
AI âartistâ pulls in millions â and may âcreate more interesting work than humans,â co-creator says.
An artificial intelligence design program called Botto has sold computerized works for megabucks and could revolutionize the creative space.
Since its creation in 2021, Botto has created more than 150 works of various disciplines that have cumulatively raked in over $5 million at auction,
1 Like
The people, and the market will decide the winner.
I suspect the âPro-botsâ sentiment will inevitably win over the âanti-botsâ. I donât see how itâs even possible to stop it at this point. Without basically knocking us back to the stone age.
Oh, they could try to pass legislation to force companies to change their model weights again in some way to either not use copyrighted things or pay royalties or something. I personally donât think those arguments are going to fly. In a way, I can look at a picture or read a book, and that affects me and my human algorithm training weights so to speak forever, And I donât have to pay ongoing royalties etc because I looked at or read something That has a copyright even if my future art or writing or books may have a slight weight change related to that material that I consumed, even if the resulting output is not an exact copy of it. However, from an ethical standpoint, I think that AI companies do need to purchase a book in some way if they let the AI âreadâ it. But anything publicly available should pretty much be treated as free game the same way it is for humans consuming something into there. Itâs human algorithm. All the artists complaining about an AI seeing their picture and potentially producing other work, I donât see it as any different than a human seeing their work and potentially producing a different picture. None of the complaining artists magically produced their art out of nowhere either. I can almost guarantee they looked at the works of previous artists classical, contemporary, modern, abstract, realism, forgot training from school or a mentor on certain drawing techniques like perspective , shading, proportion, composition, contours, texture, color theory, etc. From most reasonable perspectives, they almost for sure did the exact same thing as an AI by analyzing other peopleâs work and to some degree incorporated parts of it into their own new creations.
To me, I havenât really heard an argument against AI that doesnât boil down to a cure argument about either being about greed/money or about the natural psychological in-group out-group bias. These have been used to be against nearly every major technological or scientific progress for several hundred years if not millennia, so they donât generally hold a lot of weight to me since history indicates these rationales and arguments are more gut reactions based in familiarity emotions (similar to the list of reasons people often prefer an old UI over a new one even when a new one is demonstrably better as I elaborated on a bit here: One Thing Is Very Clear To Me - #11 by carverofchoice ) and the opposite often wins in the long term, especially as older generations die out and newer ones conclude the various familiarity biases are increasingly less legitimate rationales. This is also one reason why I would somewhat oppose immortality. Could you imagine if the same people continued to govern various groups indefinitely, forever? I think itâs good for humanity that nature has imposed a hard cap term limit for any individual to govern or represent any group. (Thatâs not to say that I wouldnât take advantage of certain kinds of life extension myself if they become available 
But I can certainly appreciate the progress that has come over history from generations having to pass away naturally before certain kinds of new progress can take effect). I think It is normal human nature that often holds back certain kinds of progress until a couple of generations pass and things change over time and given enough time, most of society comes to agree that the pro technological advancement position was actually better and the anti-tech progress stance and fear was mostly not justified to the extent it was initially feared.
The Supreme Court has even addressed this multiple times, that none of their precedentic rulings are immutable And many will change over time and be ruled oppositely as culture and mores change with different generations etc. though, to date they have only reversed their precedence 145 times out of more than 25, 000. 
So change apparently doesnât happen easily, often, or quickly. Of course, so far weâve only had 17 entirely distinct compositions of the ussc with no overlapping set of justices from a prior group. So there hasnât been a huge amount of opportunity comparatively speaking.
Mostly just saying, in the long run, AI art is definitely here to stay. Iâm not saying there will no longer be human art, any more than human graphic design stopped drawing and painting. But Iâm sure cave wall chiselers were protesting brushes and pencils and paper destroying "real art"and taking away their jobs too⊠Until enough time passed and people decided there was no reason to keep doing all art on the traditional cave wall when other things worked better in many ways. I see this as generally similar. 
5 million is chump change compared to the guy who sold a banana duct-taped to a white poster board. That wasnât AI.
No, it wasnât AI art, but it certainly helped make a good case for why maybe itâs better if we start letting AI do art instead of humans.
2 Likes
Good point.
1 Like
