I gave every train in New York an instrument
trainjazz.com
trainjazz.com
I would love to see a Japanese version someday. Tokyo’s train network is one of the most complex in the world, and I imagine the music it would make would be extraordinary. Thank you for creating something so thoughtful.
But then, jazz is sometimes spoken of as expressing the rhythms, sounds, and emotions of the modern city.
I also liked that it didn't explicitly say how it decides when to play a note.
All the subway routes are normalized to 15 seconds long from beginning to end. The app then plays all 15 second routes together, playing the instrument assigned to the route when there's a train there.
Neat commentary on the instruments that were assigned to the route when you mouse over it.
What do the technical details look like behind this to get the data?
Each line in that view represents a subway line's route. Each note/dot along each of those lines is a train that is currently at that stage of progression through the route (based on geo location from the MTA).
They assigned a different instrument to each subway line.
If you turn on the map portion of the UI, you can see where the stations are. This is why there’s a dearth of notes over the east river (no stations on the water), other than the one stop at Roosevelt Island, for the F or the M, depending on the time of day.
It literally sounds as if something is going on, to the point where I'm even questioning if there is systemic patterns in the darn trains!
It's weirdly easy to listen to.
(the mute control in the lower right is always enabled)
A good example is Terry Davis's "elephant with blue eyes". I think his animation system didn't have any easing.
Another fun one is Another World, a whole game made with a custom vector graphics and animation system.
And, more recently, Flash, based on the same principles.
Reminds me of SnakeJazz
The idea is novel/fun/cool, but the notes ARE random as far as we can tell. So if you're against AI music, you just like the idea but don't care about the music or... something else I can't imagine.
I think we can all come up with a bunch of original "hey, if we turn this random pattern of X into music, it would be interesting". But I don't see the point of actually doing it since the result is obviously going to be random uninteresting notes. If I convert my keypresses on my keyboard over the past year or whether my dog licks itself or barks or runs into music, it would still be random crap. The idea of the article is the only thing that made me go "huh" for a few moments. Clicking around and seeing the execution and hearing the music was definitely "meh".
Enlighten me, please.
Yeah, it's better than a lot of people, but it doesn't deliver the "just as good" part. On top of that you get that now anyone can promp a song and have a deluge of grey, tasteless elevator music.
This was actually preferable to genuine pop music, because it didn't demand much of my attention, and was closer to silence, which would have been perfection. But it wasn't communicating anything. Communicating is an imposition, and a risk.
Most art in stores is just filling space on a wall to bring things together visually. I don't know that anyone cares about it communicating anything other than "the space looks less empty and more appealing for the customer". I don't think the average store owner is thinking any harder than that on it. I guess my point being we're mostly subjected to it based on the perspective we will like it and its cheap.
I think my point is, that the expectation of the people placing the thing for us to view/listen to and our own can be mismatched. I've always viewed the shitty pop in department stores as an imposition on my ears and I've never spared a thought for most wall art in a random cafe, but I imagine the owners are hoping to get something out of it from us. Whether thats satisfaction or manipulating us to spend idk.
That's how I feel with most art - "yeah, it's cool, but can I look at something else now?". The time someone spent on creating it seems disproportionate to the time I'd interact with it. Maybe since lots of people will interact with it, it makes sense to do it, but maybe I just don't get art at all.
I see some sculptures that seem really basic, like putting some stones in some metal cage or something equally easy to design or, at least, explain/communicate. And all I'm thinking is "they paid some people to move a few tons of stone and weld some metal rods together... for this?!". My feeling is similar here - the idea is neat(ish) but someone went to all the trouble to actually implement it? The implementation gives us this random music we can play in our browsers but people mention they care more about the concept than the music. So why go to all the trouble to make the final polished version of your idea? Why not just say "imagine if we mapped the trains' locations via gps at specific times to different instruments"?
Yeah, I probably don't get art as others do. I just don't see a difference between "imagine a 100-ton stone handing from a rod" and "look at this actual 100-ton stone hanging from a rod".
I don't know, I have some sympathy. Conceptual art is kind of meh. Travel is pointless, everywhere is the same, you can read about places and stay home, everything is unnecessary. Except I'm probably wrong.
For traveling it's very similar. I've seen some monuments in pictures first and in real life later. When I see them IRL, it's just... meh. Maybe I've been desensitized to giant structures or to how much detailed a sculpture can be, but even if I realize I have been, the "damage" is done. I can't be in awe of something someone 300 years would find awesome. I can just think "Why did I waste X hours to see this in person?".
That's why I don't really travel anymore. I can get so much information about architecture or statues or nature from photos and videos that seeing the real thing would almost surely be a disappointment. Both the pictures and videos and the real things involve sight and maybe hearing. It's not like I'm reading about a recipe but not being able to taste the real thing.
There is no consensus on getting an art piece. The great thing I find about art is that it’s different for everyone. Music is art and yet everyone “gets” their preferred genre, instruments, bands, etc.
I don't think you don't get art at all. It is just that you don't get art in full. I should note, that no one gets what art really is, if you want to learn how tricky the question is, you should probably ask some trained person about it, like a philosopher of art. They can talk about it for dozens of hours without stopping to breathe.
But there is one property of art that is undeniable: when the art becomes understandable, when you can write rules for distinguishing a good art from a bad one, the art stops being art. It becomes a commodity instead, no one really interested in it anymore.
Lately art is got this rule, so now art is trying to not follow any rules at all. Except the rule of not following rules. It is pretty funny to watch the artists, the lengths they are ready to go just to follow the rule of not following rules.
But there is something else, if you just break rules it doesn't mean that you are creating art. I think there is one more necessary (but not sufficient) property of art: it should stick into memory. Your stones in a metal cage have this property, you remember them, you ask questions about them. It is not sufficient to claim that they are art, but I think it is close enough.
> The implementation gives us this random music we can play in our browsers but people mention they care more about the concept than the music.
Yeah, the music is not very exciting by itself, what is exciting it was created by trains. And HN attracts the people who are not going to be content with this knowledge without knowing exactly how trains could do it.
> So why go to all the trouble to make the final polished version of your idea?
Because the act of creation is fun maybe? And there are people who understands it and can see a piece of art and feel what the artist felt in the act of the creation? It is not so fun to create if you are not going to share your creation with others. I don't know why.
> Yeah, I probably don't get art as others do. I just don't see a difference between "imagine a 100-ton stone handing from a rod" and "look at this actual 100-ton stone hanging from a rod".
Well, there is a difference. To hang 100-ton stone from a rod one needs to overcome a lot of hurdles. They will need money and some bureaucratic approval, because the stone could fall and kill someone. When I imagine a 100-ton stone hanging from a rod I feel nothing. But when I see it, I can't stop laughing. Someone had gone through a lot of troubles to hang the stone, and to do that they managed to convince others that it is very important to hang the stone.
This is tangential to the discussion, but I've always wondered why "philosophy of art" it's not "psychology of art" instead. Philosophy generally deals with things science can't deal with (yet) like ethics, metaphysics, qualia. And art is just about how humans (and probably other intelligent animals) perceive something meant to evoke emotions and thought. It's something science can deal with now, whether it's a "hard" science like neuroscience or a "softer" one like psychology and sociology. From Wikipedia I get:
> Philosophers debate whether aesthetic properties have objective existence or depend on the subjective experiences of observers
So in this case it's actually a type of philosophy, but it seems so useless to talk about something like this. Obviously what's aesthetically pleasing to some will not to aesthetically pleasing to someone else. And anything at all can be aesthetically pleasing. I'm sure many people find a piece of cow shit aesthetically pleasing. Many people dislike flowers and paintings. Things that are aesthetically pleasing to almost everyone are aesthetically pleasing because they share something that can be explained by studying our brains (like whether symmetry is generally perceived as prettier than asymmetry). Do any philosophers really think an aesthetic property, if it somehow has any objective existence, is any different than anything else that we treat as abstract but would have objective existence if we philosophized about it long enough (like mathematical structures or language)?
It's like some was bored enough to create this field when the interesting philosophies were already taken. And it's similar to those "philosophies" that talk about honor or duty and similar things that are so far removed from reality and can't possibly be connected to any ground truth about the world and need to be talked about in sociology circles, instead. Like, we don't have and can't possibly have a "philosophy" of HN comments. We can discuss so many interesting aspects of the comments here, but none of that would be philosophy, it would be closer to science.
> I think there is one more necessary (but not sufficient) property of art: it should stick into memory. Your stones in a metal cage have this property, you remember them, you ask questions about them. It is not sufficient to claim that they are art, but I think it is close enough.
I remember then because they were in a public park and I thought:
> The city and the government subsidizes this useless stuff instead of fixing the sidewalks. The amount of work to make these statues could've gone into something actually useful.
If that art was made by people with their own money and put in a private place and I somehow managed to see them, I'd just think "welp, those people don't know what to do with their money, but who cares". And I'd forget about them pretty quickly. So maybe the point of the useless sculptures was to annoy me that the government spends public money inadequately. I doubt that was the intention of the artists and they somehow tricked the government into letting them put the statues in a public place because the government subsidizes shitty (IMO) artists all the time and most of those artists actually think their art is good.
And just to clarify, the sculptures are really, really shitty. Literally a badly welded wire care with some crushed rocks above a bigger rock that was barely chiseled, if at all. Something a 5 year old could do if they had the strength to move the rocks or were allowed to use welding equipment. You have Michelangelo's David where you can admire the Michelangelo's skills, the time and care he took to sculpt it... and then you have a bunch of rocks in a cage. It's like comparing the Mona Lisa to a piece of paper someone took a shit on (which I'm sure has been put up in galleries at some point).
> When I imagine a 100-ton stone hanging from a rod I feel nothing. But when I see it, I can't stop laughing. Someone had gone through a lot of troubles to hang the stone, and to do that they managed to convince others that it is very important to hang the stone.
Definitely, although I'd be annoyed at the wasted resources, especially if they're public money.
> It is pretty funny to watch the artists, the lengths they are ready to go just to follow the rule of not following rules.
Like some kinds of fashion where you try to be unique and express your individualism but you end up looking the same as everyone else.
Yes, but it doesn't mean that:
> it seems so useless to talk about something like this.
What it means, that things become very complex to the point when sciences still can't take over the discourse and philosophy needs to fill the gap. All people are capable of understanding the idea of art. All people appreciate some kind or art. All societies, not just European or just developed countries, develop the idea of art. Some scientists argue that animals also have it, for example Frans de Waal believed that chimpanzee have some sort of art. It seems like an innate feature of Homo Sapience, but what is it? Why the ability to appreciate art was evolved in a first place? How it makes species more fit to select for their genes?
It just happens so biologists have not much to say about the topic. Anthropologists can describe a lot of kinds of arts from different cultures, but they are also can't answer the question. Psychologists tried to define art, but their answers do not look sufficient for me. To be frank, I've read just one psychological book[1] on the topic, and probably not the most influential, but I like the idea that art is based on the contradiction between form and content (and a kind of a cognitive dissonance triggered by it, though the idea of cognitive dissonance was after Vygotsky). I mean everywhere I look, at any piece of art, I see the contradiction. I'm not sure that it is contradiction between form and content in all cases, but some kind of a mismatch surfaces every single time. I'm not sure that this is a sufficient to have mismatch between form and content to become art.
But in any case, what I'm trying to say, sciences try to answer the question "what is art", it just happens that people are not content with the existing answers, and different scientific approaches to the question do not add up into a theory of art.
> So maybe the point of the useless sculptures was to annoy me that the government spends public money inadequately. I doubt that was the intention of the artists
I doubt it also, but the thing is: the artists did exactly that. Then you spend time thinking about it, and moreover you tell me about rocks in a cage. The sculpture touched you, it triggered your emotions and thoughts. This is the goal of a modern artist. Their goal not to annoy, but to trigger emotions. I laugh at such things, you become angry, we are both influenced by art.
> Like some kinds of fashion where you try to be unique and express your individualism but you end up looking the same as everyone else.
Yeah! When you try to look cool and not like others you are also become an artist, and if you end up looking the same as everyone, you are failed.
You remember the caged rocks, so they are not like the others, the artist succeeded. This argument doesn't feel right for me really, at least when we are talking about your reaction: you are annoyed at how public money are spent, not about some traits of the sculpture. But modern art use this argument, and I think it is not just plain non-sense, I just cant get my finger on the grain on truth there. I cant refine the argument and draw a line around it that will play the role of limits of applicability for the argument.
You see, the art should make people stop and think. You stopped and thought about the rocks. I'd guess... I cannot know obviously, but still I'd dare to guess, that you missed the opportunity to reflect on your feelings triggered by those caged rocks? Why you was annoyed? Maybe because people spend resources inefficiently, as you say, but maybe the inefficiency is just your rationalization hiding the real cause of annoyance? I dug into similar annoyance in myself, and I've found that I was annoyed because people do not share my understanding of art. I had some theories that people are mistaken because they do not try to think what is art and what is just plain crap, they just follow fashion. And for some reason it annoyed me a lot. What is this reason, I'm not sure, I think it has something to do with a social status or something like. Like, society I belong to ignores my opinion and goes into a direction I do not approve. It kinda make me a less important member of the society? I can't explain it clearly, because I do not understand it myself. But it is a very interesting observation, and I guess those rocks might become your opportunity to make this observation or maybe some to learn something else about yourself. Though I may be gravely mistaken of course. I can't just look into your head and explore your feelings and their causes, these things can be done only by you.
> You have Michelangelo's David where you can admire the Michelangelo's skills, the time and care he took to sculpt it...
Well... With Michelangelo I'm an example of what you said about the subjectivity of art. I don't see the point of drawing things on a canvas or shape rocks into a form of a muscular guy. I kinda can see the appeal of paintings before the photography was invented, but now they are useless.
[1] https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9F%D1%81%D0%B8%D1%85%D0%BE...
I don't think that the book was translated from Russian, I can't find no link to English description, and the Russian article in wikipedia I believe is not good, and the firefox's translation of it into English even worse. But I decided to add the link, because it would be strange to talk about an anonymous book.
1/2
First I'd like to say I enjoy communicating with you even if it seems like I'd disagreeing or being obtuse or combative. It's much easier to write about what I disagree with than what I agree with, besides "I agree" or "I get it" so the disagreeing portion is naturally longer.
> What it means, that things become very complex to the point when sciences still can't take over the discourse and philosophy needs to fill the gap.
> ...
> But in any case, what I'm trying to say, sciences try to answer the question "what is art", it just happens that people are not content with the existing answers, and different scientific approaches to the question do not add up into a theory of art.
I understand now, thanks. Although it appears we're much, much closer to solving this than ethics (especially meta-ethics), metaphysics and the hard problem of consciousness. It's solvable even if it's not solved. Are the other 3 examples even solvable? Who knows. We may never get a scientific answer for meta-ethics. Even if we "solve" physics, the underlying questions like "but why are these equations the way they are" or "is there anything besides our universe" or "are we in a simulation" may never have a satisfying answer from science. Even if we map the brain and understand it like we understand a Hello World! program, we may never have a satisfactory answer to what qualia are. There are many other examples of topics likely-unsolvable by science that are studied by philosophers. OTOH, there are many things that will likely take decades with or without AI until they get solved - lots of questions in biology (incl. neuroscience and psychology), in physics and in math. But we don't say "philosophy of $unanswered_problem" for many such problems that are almost surely going to be solved this century. Anyway, that was a question I turned into a small rant as I often see "philosophy of $relatively_easy_problem", not just "art" and get very confused about why it's still in the philosophical realm.
> I like the idea that art is based on the contradiction between form and content (and a kind of a cognitive dissonance triggered by it
Maybe "art" isn't 1 thing but many things. Take music as it's one type of "art" I consume the most. Maybe some of it is "entertainment" or "a way to focus", not "art". But I feel very different things when listening to soft rock or trance or glitchy electronic music ("IDM" which a lot of people dislike as a term) or rap or techno or metal or whatever. I imagine most people who listen to different genres do so for different reasons. They do so when they're in a different mood or when they want to get into a different mood. Some tracks I can listen carefully to 100s of times. Others I play as background noise and rarely focus on them. A lot of them can serve both purposes. Yada yada, you hopefully get the point I'm trying to make.
> The sculpture touched you, it triggered your emotions and thoughts. This is the goal of a modern artist. Their goal not to annoy, but to trigger emotions. I laugh at such things, you become angry, we are both influenced by art.
I get that, too. But a lot people might elicit laughter or anger from us that we'd have a hard time categorizing as art. Maybe someone broke a bench. A case of simple vandalism? You may laugh at the person who felt it necessary to destroy property, I might get angry about it. 30 Wordpress addons bought and turned into malware? Same reaction (although I laugh about this, too). We might witness someone kill someone else over a few bucks. Those were most likely not intended as art. So are they art if you laugh but I get annoyed?
The philosophers might argue further. I say it doesn't matter - "art" is ill-defined to begin with and we could never hope to say whether something is art definitively. Even a chair is not well-defined as I could sit on a rock and call it a chair, you may disagree. Yet we don't have "philosophy of chairs". We discuss the broad idea if what kind of definitions we can have and what properties they have in metaphysics and in other fields related to semantics. I haven't read much about this as it's obvious that there's no universal or definitive "chair" we can agree on. But I at least understand such broad fields, such as those that deal with what a definition is, what properties does it have an so on. But no with specific ones like "art" or "chair".
> You remember the caged rocks, so they are not like the others, the artist succeeded.
I literally saw them 2 days ago. There were other BS "art" installations/sculptures but the dumbest one IMHO were the rocks. I guess if someone had deliberately lumped several hundred people's shit in the middle of the park, I would remember that more. Future artists - people don't put a pile of shit in the middle of the park. A note with "imagine a ton of shit here" would be funnier.
> The sculpture touched you, it triggered your emotions and thoughts. This is the goal of a modern artist. Their goal not to annoy, but to trigger emotions. I laugh at such things, you become angry, we are both influenced by art.
If that's the goal, then it's relatively easy to achieve it, isn't it? What wouldn't trigger emotions if it was big enough? If I saw (rolls a mental dice) a blue Santa with GPUs for ears, wearing Geordi's VISOR sitting in a bathtub made of scrap electronics, I'd get annoyed. You might smirk like "wtf...?!" and so on.
> You see, the art should make people stop and think. You stopped and thought about the rocks. I'd guess... I cannot know obviously, but still I'd dare to guess, that you missed the opportunity to reflect on your feelings triggered by those caged rocks? Why you was annoyed? Maybe because people spend resources inefficiently, as you say, but maybe the inefficiency is just your rationalization hiding the real cause of annoyance?
I didn't even stop as there was nothing to look at. If I stopped, it was to see if there was something I've missed, but there wasn't - poorly made metal cage with random stones inside. But apart from being annoyed at how public resources are spent, I got annoyed at other things, too:
* at the priorities people have in general, how they're seemingly blissfully unaware of anything that's not in their field of vision,
* at the fact that some pretentious fuck graduated with this as one of their biggest achievements (compared to people who actually try to advance science (hard or soft) or math or try to become better teachers or movie directors or nurses,
* at how some other pretentious fuck is going to pretend they admire this,
* at all the obvious things missing in the park or around it (yes, the "public resources" annoyance, but more concrete) - the poor state of the sidewalks, the lack of public toilets (or the state the existing ones are in), how poorly parking is handled, how no one helps the homeless people or animals and so on. Even if you live in the best city in the world, I bet there are similar things you get annoyed at. My city is far from the best one.
And so on, and so on. But I get annoyed at these things whenever I see someone sick or poor on the street, whenever I see some idiot that parks their car and takes up the whole sidewalk, whenever I can't even safely walk on the sidewalk even if there are no cars because it's so uneven and hasn't been maintained for decades (imagine an old person or someone with a disibility or someone with a stroller trying to walk there) and because the municipality decides "we'll have a themed fest/gathering/show" that costs a few thousand $currency just to set up the lighting. So the stones in a cage weren't that special in that regard. Maybe I get annoyed too much, but I think most people get annoyed too little. They shrug off most things and sheepishly say "well, things are shitty, but whatchagonnado?". And they vote for the same people who did nothing during their previous term.
> I dug into similar annoyance in myself, and I've found that I was annoyed because people do not share my understanding of art. I had some theories that people are mistaken because they do not try to think what is art and what is just plain crap, they just follow fashion. And for some reason it annoyed me a lot. What is this reason, I'm not sure, I think it has something to do with a social status or something like. Like, society I belong to ignores my opinion and goes into a direction I do not approve. It kinda make me a less important member of the society? I can't explain it clearly, because I do not understand it myself. But it is a very interesting observation, and I guess those rocks might become your opportunity to make this observation or maybe some to learn something else about yourself. Though I may be gravely mistaken of course. I can't just look into your head and explore your feelings and their causes, these things can be done only by you.
I thought a few minutes about whether that could be it for me, but I doubt it. I don't mind people listening to generic radio top 20 pop music. I just feel a bit sorry for them as they've never really explored other genres, but I don't mind their tastes. I don't mind people reading or watching cheesy romantic stuff even though it's the farthest from what I like. I may get annoyed at someone intensely staring at a black square in a gallery but not because they genuinely like it - it's because they got the scarf and the glass of wine and they're trying to pretend to like it. I love it when someone goes to something I don't care about, like a toaster exhibit or a museum of 19th century bottle caps or something. Or if they genuinely like art I don't care for. I have a friend who could talk to you for hours about random painters from the past. Is he pretentious? Maybe a bit. But mostly he likes the styles, he likes reading about them, about the history of that art. I get that, I like it and respect it even though I couldn't care less about Monet or Manet or whatever myself.
> > You have Michelangelo's David where you can admire the Michelangelo's skills, the time and care he took to sculpt it...
> Well... With Michelangelo I'm an example of what you said about the subjectivity of art. I don't see the point of drawing things on a canvas or shape rocks into a form of a muscular guy. I kinda can see the appeal of paintings before the photography was invented, but now they are useless.
Definitely, realism is boring to me, too. I meant to compare the skill, the attention to detail and the time spent making David, not whether we can make better 3D models than David in seconds in whatever software. And even if the stones in a cage were to compare to David wrt skill and time spent, it would still be worse than dealing with infrastructure or poverty or animals or whatever. The counterargument is "we'll never fully deal with these" which is a valid one (it's been used against lots of things I support, such as space exploration or animal welfare) - we can't spend all our time on a few issues and neglect everything else. But art with public money on public property is a giant "FUCK YOU" when we haven't dealt with these things even in the slightest.
But maybe the stones in a cage and the train sonification sparked up this conversation and that's enough; they did what they were supposed to do. Probably not, but who knows.
Edit: That art is forced down on us like poetry and prose was in school. I always thought we could grasp the social issues better by just talking about them or seeing pictures of bad things instead of reading fiction or poetry. Maybe that's part of my dislike towards art I'm forced to interact with? I think Frank from Raymond (I watched it a loong time ago) said something like "Poetry? Get to the point!" which resonated with me.
I don't think most artists make most art with the expectation that people are going to spend hours obsessing over it, if they did they'd be disappointed. Most art has approximately no one pay any attention or care about it, so the creation of art has to be driven by something else. Maybe the artist just wants the thing to exist for themselves, for example.
Of course music can be worse than random: it can be annoying.
I get a downvote, huh? Look, I like Ornette Coleman. I like Nurse With Wound and Merzbow and avant-garde noise. I do not like 21st century pop. If I have to have music played to me against my will, I would way prefer it to be random notes than if it presented a slimy modern personality, or used a tone of voice to sing at me with, or conveyed vapid little bad ideas in its lyrics.
It's not because AI-generated music inherently sucks. It's generally C-grade professional music. It's just not novel or especially interesting, and the low barrier to entry means there's a ton of slop in the space.
A lot of people have always wanted to make music, never made it past the barrier of "music is hard," and therefore have no clue as to what makes truly good music. And now that they have AI, they think they can just skip all the boring parts and make great songs.
And while they can skip a lot of steps in the creative process — those skipped steps also help musicians develop their artistic taste and judgment.
And just because these AI "creators" can't tell the difference, they assume others can't either. And then they get mad when critics recognize their uninspired, derivative slop for what it is.
That's not limited to music, either. You see it in coding, graphic design, writing, and pretty much any other LLM-assisted content generation. Maybe it'll change one day as models get better. Maybe not.
This project is original, stylish, technically clever, aesthetically pleasing, and well-crafted. There's a level of polish and intention behind it, and people here recognize that.
I imagine for some genres it would be easy to recognize it as slop, but not as easily for others. It's intuitive techno would be easier to make than trance, which would in turn be easier to make than nu metal.
Can you share some AI music, if you've kept track of it, that's the hardest for you to recognize as unimaginative slop? I'm genuinely interested in how it would sound to me.
I don't think anyone will listen to this for the pleasure of listening to music.
AI crap can be much more listenable-as-music but nobody likes the process or the product.
There are variations as trains run fast or slow or not at all. Even those events are results of causes.
It might not be repeatable or predictable but it is not random.
Also, an artist made this. I can appreciate the design and flair of another human. AI is soulless. And there was a nothing to celebrate. No one to clap on the back and say “good job”. No one to identify with and say “people are really neat.”
> The underlying driver… the trains locations are on a schedule.
> There are variations as trains run fast or slow or not at all. Even those events are results of causes.
> It might not be repeatable or predictable but it is not random.
It's not truly random in a philosophical sense, but it's unpredictable so it's random for us.
A coin toss is never truly random as it's just a piece of metal obeying the laws of physics as it flies through the air. As another example, let's say I make music out of SHA512 of fragments of this thread. Each would be technically predictable and reproducible, yet it would be completely random to us.
Without going deep into whether there's something "truly random" at all, we should acknowledge that the train schedule and all the causes for delays are completely opaque to us when we hear the music, thus making it random to us. Maybe it's different than calling rand() in a programming language. Maybe there are some regularities hidden into the noise. But for all intents and purposes it's random.
You can divide this art into several parts - the concept, the execution, and the actual output, i.e. the random (for us) music and the pretty UI. The concept may be novel, but it's not really wow-worthy. The execution is good, but that's technical. The random music and the UI are OK, but they're not that interesting by themselves, either, at least to me.
What I'm struggling with is why I can't appreciate this as others apparently do. Maybe combining the concept, the execution and the output (or however you want to slice the whole thing) is more than the sum of its parts. But to me the concept is enough. It's kinda funny, in a sense that it would hold my attention for a few seconds. The execution and the output are standard - what you'd expect from the concept. It's almost as if I asked a sufficiently advanced AI "make a page with sounds from different trains based on their schedule" or something similar.
I have only positive feelings for whoever made this, but if they'd made a 1000000-piece puzzle or just stacked 100000 rocks on top of each other, I'd still have the same feelings - "good jobs; glad you were able to take the time to do something you enjoy". And that's it. It's just executing an idea that itself is worth of a quick "hmm" and nothing more.
I suppose that holds if you expand the scope of the machine to a railway network and you change the timbre of the individual sounds.
Bolero is an amazing piece of music. Ravel’s brain was suffering from a degenerative disease at the time. We would not have Bolero without his disease. That fact to me turns the piece of music into a meditation on what his mind may have been like. What it might have been to be Ravel.
where there are floods and evictions and other things unrelated to sound being sonified.
So sonification isn't a new idea. Maybe sonifications of trains is, though, as I didn't find anything like that in that dataset.
Someone should do a sonification of all the links in the sonification site somehow for the ultimate meta sonification art.
I sent my friend an AI generated album and he loved it, until I mentioned it was AI generated, and then he went a bit pale.
AI generated music isn't out there as some experiment by some artists, trying to make sense of something, make a statement, or just for the sheer enjoyment of creating something. It's there because of money. I know, there are exceptions, and I'm fine with those.
The AI music I'm against is the type that's made by the likes of Spotify, because they don't want to pay artists. It's music that only exists because Spotify would like to make more money. That motivation, to me, corrupts the product. AI music isn't created for the sake of creating music, it's created as a means towards a goal, money. I don't think that the management at Spotify particularly cares about music, it's just a means on the path to money. If they could be more profitable selling something else they would.
You can argue that a lot of bands solely exists because a record labels wanted to create a profit generating device, or that some artists are artificially created and wouldn't survive without auto-tune and a media machine pushing their music. I think that's bad as well, but often many of these artists do have some level of talent and actually do care about music.