I've pondered on this question some. Is there such a thing as an objective talent rating? For example, if you take a group like Dream Theater, and look at the skill of each member of that group vs the skill of each member in the typical heavy-metal band, there is a distinct and obvious difference in skill level. Whether or not you like their style or their music's message, Dream Theater's skill is astounding. And you don't have to like all of their songs to appreciate some of them. But the difference might not be noticeable to someone who hasn't attempted to master a musical instrument. Such a person might just go with the flavor of the day; they won't be able to incorporate the amount of work that went into that flavor into their appreciation of it. (Dream Theater's singer has lost his vocal prowess over the years, which is sad but not unusual.)
In a recent concert (at Carnegie) Lang Lang brought out a melody in Chopin's first Scherzo that was very innovative though subtle. If you have any appreciation at all for Chopin, you would want to hear that rendering. It made a show piece into something both beautiful and astounding. But can a machine be made to tell the difference? The song is so fast and notes so blurred that it's almost noise from a reverse-engineering/transcribing standpoint.
Similarly, Sarah Brightman (in her early years) and Loreena McKennitt have far superior vocal skills to the typical modern pop singer. But if you're never exposed to real vocal skills, or if you've never attempted to sing an pure open vowel on pitch and hold it there for a sustained amount of time, why would you care? You wouldn't even know what to appreciate. So is it the algorithm's job to expose people to artists of higher skill and talent? I would like it to. That's absolutely a feature I want. I want to be exposed to those people. I'd like it to go even beyond that. I want to be exposed to talented composers regardless of performer.
I've pondered on this question some. Is there such a thing as an objective talent rating? For example, if you take a group like Dream Theater, and look at the skill of each member of that group vs the skill of each member in the typical heavy-metal band, there is a distinct and obvious difference in skill level. Whether or not you like their style or their music's message, Dream Theater's skill is astounding. And you don't have to like all of their songs to appreciate some of them. But the difference might not be noticeable to someone who hasn't attempted to master a musical instrument. Such a person might just go with the flavor of the day; they won't be able to incorporate the amount of work that went into that flavor into their appreciation of it. (Dream Theater's singer has lost his vocal prowess over the years, which is sad but not unusual.)
In a recent concert (at Carnegie) Lang Lang brought out a melody in Chopin's first Scherzo that was very innovative though subtle. If you have any appreciation at all for Chopin, you would want to hear that rendering. It made a show piece into something both beautiful and astounding. But can a machine be made to tell the difference? The song is so fast and notes so blurred that it's almost noise from a reverse-engineering/transcribing standpoint.
Similarly, Sarah Brightman (in her early years) and Loreena McKennitt have far superior vocal skills to the typical modern pop singer. But if you're never exposed to real vocal skills, or if you've never attempted to sing an pure open vowel on pitch and hold it there for a sustained amount of time, why would you care? You wouldn't even know what to appreciate. So is it the algorithm's job to expose people to artists of higher skill and talent? I would like it to. That's absolutely a feature I want. I want to be exposed to those people. I'd like it to go even beyond that. I want to be exposed to talented composers regardless of performer.