EMUSIC-L Digest Volume 60, Issue 05 This issue's topics: Being Born With It (Re: keyboard teacher) (5 messages) comp vs. teach cybernetics (mea culpa) keyboard teacher (30 messages) o god where will it end (5 messages) philosophy/cakewalk (was o god...) (2 messages) PIANO TEACHERS again ...... Your EMUSIC-L Digest moderator is Joe McMahon . You may subscribe to EMUSIC-L by sending mail to listserv@american.edu with the line "SUB EMUSIC-L your name" as the text. The EMUSIC-L archive is a service of SunSite (sunsite.unc.edu) at the University of North Carolina. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Date: Fri, 28 Jan 1994 13:59:18 +0000 From: Nick Rothwell Subject: Being Born With It (Re: keyboard teacher) >I just cannot agree with the "either you were born with it or >you weren't". Sure some are more inclined and learn faster. But to say that >you can't get it because you weren't born with it, so explore your limits with >a computer teacher, (which is how i interpreted the above) is like saying >that you were born of lower intelligence and, sorry, that's where you'll stay, >IMHO. OK folks, what's the concensus? Could every human being in the world become a creative musician given the right training? Or is it a talent that some people "are born with" and some not? I'm not sure about this one, but in any case don't have much problem with the latter view; OK, so if I'm a musician which many other people cannot be, well, I'm hopeless at painting... Nick Rothwell | cassiel@cassiel.demon.co.uk CASSIEL Contemporary Music/Dance | cassiel@cix.compulink.co.uk ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 28 Jan 1994 11:06:13 -0500 From: William Matthews Subject: Re: Being Born With It (Re: keyboard teacher) All together, now, face Tokyo and bow deeply ;-). Re: this nature vs. nurture issue for music, Dr. Suzuki sez: "talent education for all." With the explicit qualifier that of course only some children will become professional musicians while most will not, but that learning to do music well up to the limits of one's abilities has innumerable enjoyable and healthy consequences. Rather than worrying about how high the hurdles will get at the end of the course, anybody can revel in jumping now. Our midi tools do free us from the necessity for perfecting small motor skills that was heretofore a big problem for your average klutz. So now we can focus on perfecting our cognitive and critical listening skills. Hip-hop is the first of many unpredictable creative waves that are a direct consequence of this technology; music breaking out in places it hasn't before, far from conservatories, etc. Bill Matthews wmatthew@abacus.bates.edu ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 28 Jan 1994 11:17:04 -0600 From: Arne Claassen ISE Subject: Re: Being Born With It (Re: keyboard teacher) > >I just cannot agree with the "either you were born with it or > >you weren't". Sure some are more inclined and learn faster. But to say that > >you can't get it because you weren't born with it, so explore your limits with > >a computer teacher, (which is how i interpreted the above) is like saying > >that you were born of lower intelligence and, sorry, that's where you'll stay, > >IMHO. > > OK folks, what's the concensus? Could every human being in the world become > a creative musician given the right training? Or is it a talent that some > people "are born with" and some not? > > I'm not sure about this one, but in any case don't have much problem with > the latter view; OK, so if I'm a musician which many other people cannot > be, well, I'm hopeless at painting... > > > Nick Rothwell | cassiel@cassiel.demon.co.uk > CASSIEL Contemporary Music/Dance | cassiel@cix.compulink.co.uk I think i will take my first assertion back or at least modify it. I'll admit that people seem to have a skill in one thing or another and seem to be able to learn a lot quicker. But i would still say that if you have the desire, you can still get pretty good with enough training and practice. Practice, especially. Even things you don't have the "natural" skill for will develop if you keep at it. You might not become a musical genius, but if the bulk of contemporary music is to be used as a scale of creativity, i'm pretty sure that anyone can reach that level of skill. (Whether the bulk of contemporary music should be used as a scale is another story :) -- Arne F. Claassen |"In cows we trust | EPS Classic * D4 | E pluribus Moo" | Mac Centris 650 | | ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 28 Jan 1994 09:58:06 PST From: Peter Uchytil Subject: Re: Being Born With It (Re: keyboard teacher) > I think i will take my first assertion back or at least modify it. I'll > admit that people seem to have a skill in one thing or another and seem > to be able to learn a lot quicker. But i would still say that if you have > the desire, you can still get pretty good with enough training and practice. > Practice, especially. Even things you don't have the "natural" skill for > will develop if you keep at it. > > -- > Arne F. Claassen |"In cows we trust | EPS Classic * D4 > | E pluribus Moo" | Mac Centris 650 > | | > I haven't been following this too closely, so sorry if someone has said this before, but this is one of my pet-peeves. I go around with people on the "talent" issue all the time. I contend that true "talent" is relatively rare and that most people that get labeled "naturally talented" are actually the product of years of practice. I don't know how many pop stars I've heard of that are called "talented", and have "natural ability", but you learn more and they started learning music at the age of 5. Well, I've been around music all my life, too, but I never was forced to practice. It hasn't been until just a few years ago I decided to get serious about guitar. I can only barely play because I don't practice that much. Some guitar magazine a while back published Steve Vai's (I think Vai's, maybe Satrianai's) 8-hour practice schedule. Well, gee, if I could practice for 8 hours a day I guess I would be pretty good after 2-3 years! I think a lot of "talent" is actually determination and focus. If you want something, you can get it. You have to decide how hard you are going to work, though. For some people things come harder than others. I accept that as fact. For me all playing is extremely difficult. On piano I can play one hand no problem (well, for simple sight reading), but put right and left together and I'm helpless. It seems I have to play guitar scales and chord shapes thousands of times before I start to feel them. What it comes down to is it's easier for people to call hard work and determination "talent" and that gives them a way out. "Oh, I can't do that, I don't have that kind of talent." What they don't have is that kind of determination and focus. Just my opinions. I'm sure many people don't feel this way. That's what keep life interesting :-) Pete -- Peter Uchytil * peter@kentrox.com * ADC Kentrox - Portland,OR ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- "Every truly great accomplishment is at first impossible" -fortune cookie ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 31 Jan 1994 17:35:15 GMT From: Stephen David Beck Subject: Re: Being Born With It (Re: keyboard teacher) Nick Rothwell said: > OK folks, what's the concensus? Could every human being in the > world become a creative musician given the right training? Or is it > a talent that somepeople "are born with" and some not? > > I'm not sure about this one, but in any case don't have much > problem with the latter view; OK, so if I'm a musician which many > other people cannot be, well, I'm hopeless at painting... Arne F. Claassen said: > I'll admit that people seem to have a skill in one thing or another > and seem to be able to learn a lot quicker. But i would still say > that if you have the desire, you can still get pretty good with > enough training and practice. I find many of my students suffer from great myth #1 of composing music, especially e-music: That the act of composing is one of divine or semi-devine inspiration, requiring only the fullest bursts of creativity to complete. When in reality, the inspiration behind most great works is limited to a few notes, motives, or rhythms, and that everything else is derived from these initial seeds. Composing is hard work, learning to compose is even harder work. You're both right. Some people are naturally better at composing than others. But there are just as many who work very hard at composing and do very well at it. To paraphrase Tom Hanks in the movie "A League of Their Own": "Composing is hard. It's supposed to be hard. If it wasn't hard, everybody'd do it." -Stephen David Beck -Electro-Acoustic Music Studios -Louisiana State University ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 28 Jan 1994 18:48:05 -0700 From: Joseph Daniel Swafford <29587@EF.GC.MARICOPA.EDU> Subject: comp vs. teach I'm just figuring out how to use the EF so bear with me. I work in a local music store here in Pheonix, AZ that sells E-Music software and also has a great teaching program. In regards to teachers vs. computers, I have one fairly simple oppinion. We must not forget that music is an art [not unlike painting, sculpting, poetry writing, etc.]. It's very hard for me (being a musician for 22 yrs.) to even concieve of the possibility that an art involving feeling and emotion can be learned from something with absolutely no understanding of either. I personaly have seen the difference between computer-aided learning and full-on human teaching and I must say that when a customer asks my opinion on this very matter, I have never been able to "sell" them a computer program with a straight face. Just speaking from experience, Joe. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 27 Jan 1994 22:30:10 EST From: ronin Subject: cybernetics (mea culpa) i'm sorry... i mean it, i'm really, really sorry. i just had this thoght, and want to get it out here and then i'll let this whole damn thing drop, i promise... besides, i've got a flame war on DAWs i want to initiate... anyway, since john actually brought up the notion of feedback in a behavioral system without my prompting, i feel safe in taking this tack. the confusion that has occurred between behaviorism and control theory is precisely one of 'perception'. it is the very essence of the distinctions between paradigms. put quite simply and schematically, it is this: a behaviorist observes that the temperature controls the thermostat. this is not meant to be aphoristic or humorous. in so far as we can discuss truth without recourse to tautological arguments, the behaviorist viewpoint must even be admitted to be true. but examine it in that manner... as a viewpoint. oh, and 'free will' and comfort or lack thereof with the concept is another straw man. don't bring it up, and neither will i. -----------< Cognitive Dissonance is a 20th Century Art Form >----------- Eric Harnden (Ronin) Voice:202-885-2748 The American University Physics Dept. 4400 Mass. Ave. NW, Washington, DC, 20016-8058 ---------------------< Join the Cognitive Dissidents >------------------- ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 19 Jan 1994 10:45:09 -0600 From: Arne Claassen ISE Subject: keyboard teacher Since i still belong to those who program music, rather than play (at least for the most part), i feel that i'm missing out on a whole other spectrum of making music. Piano lesson are the best answer, but they consume time on specific schedule and money. Practicing from books is ok, but i've been doing it and it hasn't gotten me very far. What i want is some kind of piano playing teacher using my Macintosh midi rig. Mircale piano is one answer yes, but that's $400 and you end up with a cheesy keyboard. Is there any software out there i can purchase that would take advantage of the midi controller i already have? -- Arne F. Claassen |"In cows we trust | EPS Classic * D4 | E pluribus Moo" | Mac Centris 650 | | ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 19 Jan 1994 13:47:36 EST From: Keith Maynard - CCC Subject: Re: keyboard teacher Arne, Pianoworks by Temporal Acuity Products costs ~95.00. There are two levels: 1 and 2. I have not used them but I plan to buy them. Harmony and ear-training exercises are also included. I like the fact that you get to use your own keyboard so you don't pay for something you already own. Keith ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 22 Jan 1994 22:17:17 +0000 From: Nick Rothwell Subject: Re: keyboard teacher >Piano lesson are the best answer, but they consume time on specific schedule >and money. But then, compare the money for lessons against that which you've spent on the gear in the first place. I studied piano for about five years, including all the ear tests, sight-reading, composition and harmony, and so on (I told my teacher that I was not interested in learning to regurgitate set pieces). Very very useful. >What i want is some kind of piano playing teacher using my Macintosh midi rig. I'd suggest using a Real Human Being. Really. Nick Rothwell | cassiel@cassiel.demon.co.uk CASSIEL Contemporary Music/Dance | cassiel@cix.compulink.co.uk ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 22 Jan 1994 20:27:21 -0600 From: Arne Claassen ISE Subject: Re: keyboard teacher > >Piano lesson are the best answer, but they consume time on specific schedule > >and money. > > But then, compare the money for lessons against that which you've spent on > the gear in the first place. I studied piano for about five years, > including all the ear tests, sight-reading, composition and harmony, and so > on (I told my teacher that I was not interested in learning to regurgitate > set pieces). Very very useful. > > >What i want is some kind of piano playing teacher using my Macintosh midi rig. > > I'd suggest using a Real Human Being. Really. Hm, considering to get lesson set one and two, i'm looking at close to $200 anyway. How much in terms of real human being lessons would that get me? I guess that really depends on my location and the teacher. Then again, i think most of the reason for wanting a non-human teacher is that it'll work on my schedule (late at night and on spontaneous inception). On the other hand, if i want to play well, maybe the discipline of going to learn on a set schedule and regularily is something i need. Still pondering the possibilities... -- Arne F. Claassen |"In cows we trust | EPS Classic * D4 | E pluribus Moo" | Mac Centris 650 | | ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 24 Jan 1994 18:06:51 +0000 From: Nick Rothwell Subject: Re: keyboard teacher >Hm, considering to get lesson set one and two, i'm looking at close to $200 >anyway. How much in terms of real human being lessons would that get me? Dunno; $10 a lesson? Just dig out a phone book, and don't be afraid to ask questions about exactly what you'll be taught (I mean, you presumably have priorities there, right?). >On the other hand, if i >want to play well, maybe the discipline of going to learn on a set schedule >and regularily is something i need. I ... TINK-so. Nick Rothwell | cassiel@cassiel.demon.co.uk CASSIEL Contemporary Music/Dance | cassiel@cix.compulink.co.uk ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 25 Jan 1994 13:54:22 -0500 From: Carmen Shenk-Mullett Subject: Re: keyboard teacher Arne, I'm no help when it comes to software, but I do know about learning piano. I took lessons for a long time (8 long yrs) and it is time consuming, and tedious but I can pretty much play what ever I want to (well, not quite everything). Lessons usually go for around $10 a session. If you have a College near by, call someone in the music department and ask for a recomendation. A person as aposed to a computer program aught to give you skills beyond just hitting the right key at the right time... like playing with feeling and expression... the kinds of things that have made so-so keyboardists into great musicians. Now that I have bought some cool synth equipment, all I have to worry about is figuring out how to run everything. -Carmen -artist extraordinare...well...kinda... ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 25 Jan 1994 13:55:04 -0600 From: Arne Claassen ISE Subject: Re: keyboard teacher Ok, i've been convinced. I'll try the rell thing. Can't be a technoid in everything, i guess, especially, if it supposed to have human touch. Thanks for everyones advice. A -- Arne F. Claassen |"In cows we trust | EPS Classic * D4 | E pluribus Moo" | Mac Centris 650 | | ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 25 Jan 1994 15:20:34 EST From: Keith Maynard - CCC Subject: Re: keyboard teacher I really do favour the machine teaching for introductory information. Now mind you there are certain things that I think need to be explained by a teacher even prior to introductory musical materia. I am thinking of things like seating, finger location and shapes, where should you strike, etc. I think those things are crucial to enjoying playing and sounding good. I experienced that in taking classical guitar lessons. The teacher had to check a lot of these infra-structural things before we even thought about playing a note. That's worth a few human lessons... Now comes some drudge work, scales, note-values, learning simple passages etc, these things I think can be learned from a machine. I think it may save the sanity of many music teachers if they are open to allowing people to perform repetitive tasks with the aid of the machine. Now we know how to play some intermediate pieces and if we are so inclined I think we can hook up with a teacher once more for teaching of nuances of music. Those are things like feeling and expression. We have to remember that most of us are adults, we don't have the luxury of a flexible schedule for practice etc, the machine can tolerate that so we could make whatever progress we can whenever we can. I think that's better than nothing. Keith Maynard ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 25 Jan 1994 14:55:00 PST From: "Rossi, John" Subject: Re: keyboard teacher > A person as aposed to a computer program aught to give you > skills beyond just hitting the right key at the right time... like playing > with feeling and expression... the kinds of things that have made so-so > keyboardists into great musicians. I really don't want to start a flame war here ;-)... but, actually feeling and expression are a function of hitting the right key at the right velocity at the right time. Contrary to popular and undereducated opinion, feel can be taught by a machine. Also, I still contend that a properly programmed machine can teach all aspects of musicianship (except, possibly how to manually control an instrument [e.g., how to blow in a flute to get sound, or how to set a patch on a synth]) better than a human who is subject to all the faults of the human condition. For example, the typical music teacher (instructor and professor fit here also) reinforces correct behavior an a, more or less, capricious schedule. Similarly, because the human instructor frequently is unable to analyze for the actual problem in a technical performance, they are unable to administer the correct reinforcers or punishers at the correct time. John ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 25 Jan 1994 19:08:03 -0500 From: "Joseph D. McMahon" Subject: Re: keyboard teacher > Why? Correct technique will evolve with necessity as long as it is > correctly reinforced. Also, I'm not really sold on the concept of > 'absolutely perfect technique'. For example, if you can play a piece so > that it sounds corrrect, why should it matter how you finger it? I'll agree in that technique need not be perfect - after all, no one's is. However, there are valuable lessons which a teacher can teach you that do not necessarily relate to "did the notes come out right". > > Working out a few infra-structural things is worth a few human lessons? > Yep. Especially if they prevent the formation of playing habits or posture which can be physically damaging. Tendinitis and carpal tunnel syndrome being two of the things that improper keyboard technique will lead to. These can be lingering and quite painful. --- Joe M. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 25 Jan 1994 20:28:50 -0500 From: William Matthews Subject: Re: keyboard teacher Maestro Rossi writes: > > I really don't want to start a flame war here ;-)... not! > but, actually feeling > and expression are a function of hitting the right key at the right velocity > at the right time. reductionist, but okay so far. Then, however: > Contrary to popular and undereducated opinion, feel can > be taught by a machine. footnote on that, please? > Also, I still contend > that a properly programmed > machine can teach all aspects of musicianship (except, possibly how to > manually control an instrument [e.g., how to blow in a flute to get sound, > or how to set a patch on a synth]) better than a human who is subject to all > the faults of the human condition. (pause here for contemplation on the faults of the machine condition) > For > example, the typical music teacher > (instructor and professor fit here also) reinforces correct behavior an a, > more or less, capricious schedule. but most good music lessons include a lot of instruction in HOW to practice, and there are indeed serious productivity gains to be made if one learns the good ways. Not to mention the avoidance of tendinitis, etc., already referred to on this thread. > Similarly, because the human instructor > frequently is unable to analyze for the actual problem in a technical > performance, they are unable to administer the correct reinforcers or > punishers at the correct time. > And the same can certainly be said of any machine teacher to date. Plus, Skinner rides again, after all these years! Flames or smoke? You make the call. Bill Matthews wmatthew@abacus.bates.edu (Yep: a perfessor, wouldn't you know it!) ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 25 Jan 1994 23:24:45 -0400 From: "Nicholas P. Traenkner" Subject: Re: keyboard teacher One of the interesting issues being explored currently is the incredible learning resources available through the Internet. In a way, this very list is a resource of education. The question on computer vs live instructor is interesting in that it makes me wonder that since the net is growing in both size and technical innovation, what oppurtunities are there for students wishing to both find an instructor and study under them, to interact with the instructor over the net? There are indeed certain aspects of the teacher/student relationship that cannot be expressed by a piece of software. Perhaps this is technically misguided, but if the playing of a piece can be recorded to a file, the file sent to the instructor, the instructor crtique the file, and then communicaton initiated between student and instructor on the critique, the computer can be used not to teach the student, but as a medium between instructor and student, giving the student the advantage of a range of instructors impossible in local areas where there are perhaps ten to twenty instructors, none of which the student feels have the individual insight on his/her needs. Just a thought... Nick Traenkner engxt343@ksuvxa.kent.edu I'm not affiliated with AT&T, or that little MCI girl :) ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 26 Jan 1994 09:54:58 -0500 From: Mark G Simon Subject: Re: keyboard teacher > > I really don't want to start a flame war here ;-)... but, actually feeling oh, of course you do. C'mon, admit it. > and expression are a function of hitting the right key at the right velocity > at the right time. Contrary to popular and undereducated opinion, feel can > be taught by a machine. Also, I still contend that a properly programmed > machine can teach all aspects of musicianship (except, possibly how to > manually control an instrument [e.g., how to blow in a flute to get sound, > or how to set a patch on a synth]) better than a human who is subject to all > the faults of the human condition. For example, the typical music teacher > (instructor and professor fit here also) reinforces correct behavior an a, > more or less, capricious schedule. Similarly, because the human instructor > frequently is unable to analyze for the actual problem in a technical > performance, they are unable to administer the correct reinforcers or > punishers at the correct time. It really amuses me to read all the expressions of naive faith in power of technology to cure all ills that come across on this list. Granted that there are some virtuosi out there that sound like they were taught by a machine, but really a computer can't be anything more than a poor substitute for a good human teacher. The computer can only think like a computer, and you can only think like a human. The computer can divide every beat up into 480 ticks, can you? The computer can distinguish between 128 gradations of attack, can you? It may be useful to discover that Richard Goode produces such a profound effect in his performance of Opus 111 because he delays the 32nd notes by 3 ticks (I'm not being sarcastic here, I really think there is some insight to be gained by knowing this) but can you consciously delay your 32nd notes by 3 ticks? The only way you can get the same effect is to listen to Richard Goode play and try to imitate what he does. If you took lessons from him he might tell you what went on in his mind that made him decide to delay those 32nd notes by 3 ticks, and then you'd really have some insight. On the other hand, as a music teacher who is frequently driven to distraction by beginning students who can't count I often wish that my students could spend some of their time practicing with a computer (and some of them I'd be glad if they spent any time at all practicing in any fashion whatsoever). I actually wave my arms like a conductor during lessons and then when the student wants to jump ahead I can say, "aha, you can't go on to the next measure yet. See, my arm hasn't come down yet". And I nail them like that every time they play out of rhythm, and they learn to stay in rhythm. Unfortunately I can only do this once a week. When they're at home practicing they're free to lapse into their usual bad habits. Now a computer could function as my surrogate while they were at home practicing. Supposing the music to be studied could be scanned into the computer and then converted into a MIDI file, and the instruction program were designed to honk at the student or cause a cartoon figure to fall off a tightrope and get squashed every time the student played out of rhythm, for example, then the student could make a lot more progress in between lessons. My point: use the computer as a supplement, not as a substitute for lessons with a teacher. Mark Simon mgs2@cornell.edu ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 26 Jan 1994 10:50:04 GMT-0500 From: JASON VANTOMME Subject: Re: keyboard teacher John Rossi writes: >I really don't want to start a flame war here ;-)... but, actually feeling >and expression are a function of hitting the right key at the right velocity >at the right time. Contrary to popular and undereducated opinion, feel can >be taught by a machine. Also, I still contend that a properly programmed >machine can teach all aspects of musicianship (except, possibly how to >manually control an instrument [e.g., how to blow in a flute to get sound, >or how to set a patch on a synth]) better than a human who is subject to all >the faults of the human condition. I know you didn't want to start a flame war, but I really have to speak up on this one. John points out (with certain conviction) that "feeling and expression are a function of hitting the right key at the right time." First of all, (and this is petty), singers don't have "keys" and neither do trombonists...or any string player... so perhaps a better choice would have been "hitting the right {PITCH} at the right time." John then notes that (in a rather condescending tone...) "contrary to popular and undereducated opinion, feel can be taught by machine." While this may be true with measures like local expressive timing features such as rubato (and even more global ones such as accelerando) as well as dynamic features such as crescendo, one can hardly assert that these two alone are what make up the term "feel". Expression has much to do with musical structure, anticipation, harmonic tension and release (assuming there is harmony...), etc., etc. My point is that there are many factors that determine what could/would define a musical and expressive performance - few of which (if any) have been implemented by commercial piano tutoring systems. An added and more fundamental problem with this notion of teaching "expressiveness" lies in what is the correct interpretation of a work...was Horowitz right or is Kissin right? But I digress... John then notes that "...a properly programmed machine can teach all aspects of musicianship (except, possibly how to manually control an instrument [e.g., how to blow in a flute to get sound, or how to set a patch on a synth])" I agree to a point. Unfortunately, a major problem lies in what we *should* program - this is related to what I just wrote about interpretation--and believe me, this issue and all its constituents are many moons away from being solved. (Incidentally, your comment comparing blowing a flute and setting a synth patch is unfortunately lopsided - it's like comparing building a skyscraper with building a outhouse (in that order).) John also writes: >For example, the typical music teacher >(instructor and professor fit here also) reinforces correct behavior an a, >more or less, capricious schedule. Similarly, because the human instructor >frequently is unable to analyze for the actual problem in a technical >performance, they are unable to administer the correct reinforcers or >punishers at the correct time. I hardly think that my flute professor reinforced "correct behavior" in an arbitrary manner! On the contrary, she had the luck to be a human ;-) and thus had experienced some of the same learning difficulties that I was encountering - both technically and musically. You must remember (since you mentioned professor also) that at some point the problems of technical ability switch from being a paramount problem to something that is taken for granted like walking. What then becomes the problem is a question of musicality - there have been many great technicians, but even fewer outstanding musicians. Many professional musicians will even tell you that the best musician they've encountered was not necessarily the best technically. Humans are more than Skinner subjects ... "reinforcers or punishers at the correct time" ... ;-) Jason Vantomme. PS - Thanks to Bill Matthews for some words of wisdom... --------------- Jason D. Vantomme Music Technology Area Faculty of Music, McGill University Montreal, PQ Canada email: vantomme@music.mcgill.ca --------------- ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 26 Jan 1994 11:11:31 -0500 From: Biff Padiduwitz Subject: Re: keyboard teacher A machine that teaches "feel" would either have to be connected in a feedback loop with some pretty sophisticated psychophysiological measures from the student, OR would simply reinforce successive approximations of "touch" as they approached conformity with someone else's pre-recorded style. Neither seems as good as a human being possibly even playing along in response to the student's feel. Bill Scott WScott@acs.wooster.edu ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 26 Jan 1994 11:40:34 -0600 From: Arne Claassen ISE Subject: Re: keyboard teacher > they were at home practicing. Supposing the music to be studied could be > scanned into the computer and then converted into a MIDI file, and the > instruction program were designed to honk at the student or cause a > cartoon figure to fall off a tightrope and get squashed every time the > student played out of rhythm, for example, then the student could make a > lot more progress in between lessons. Now don't make the getting out of rythmn too entertaining, they'll get out of rythmn just to see the guy get squashed. Let them watch Ren&STimpy or whatever and everytime they get out of rythmn, the picture goes. Hmn, a bit too silly, but hey... -- Arne F. Claassen |"In cows we trust | EPS Classic * D4 | E pluribus Moo" | Mac Centris 650 | | ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 26 Jan 1994 13:39:23 -0500 From: "Joseph D. McMahon" Subject: Re: keyboard teacher (fwd) John sent this to me by accident instead of to the list; I'm forwarding it at his request. > A machine that teaches "feel" would either have to be connected in > a feedback loop with some pretty sophisticated psychophysiological > measures from the student, OR would simply reinforce successive > approximations of "touch" as they approached conformity with > someone else's pre-recorded style. Neither seems as good as a > human being possibly even playing along in response to the student's > feel. Both of these things would be true if we were talking about rats or truly naive humans. Even I am willing to give some credit for previous human experience. One would have to expect that a certain musical esthetic is present in the person to be musically educated. Within the framework of the positive esthetic experience one would guess that certain phrasings or articulations would be more reinforcing than others because they match the format of the preexisting esthetic. Actually, this is the only way I can think of to describe differences in musical styles, in general. So, while the 'technical' aspects of the playing would be almost completely learned through successive approximations, much of the 'performance' would be controlled through 'real-time' reinforcement by way of comparison with the positive esthetic model. For example, by the time somebody would be playing in a band, one would expect a certain amount of technical competence in rote knowledge of the key and basic timing (which would presumably have been learned through successive approximation). As soon as the 'performance' with the band starts, the performance comes under control of the new 'band-playing' stimulus configuration. Individual phrasing and articulation would be automatic, in that correct 'possible' responses would have been previously learned. If it were the first time the player played with accompaniment, one would expect a lot of phrasing and articulation errors to occur. As a player learns to play with accompaniment, fewer errors occur and more phrasing variance can be introduced. After many years of playing with accompaniment, the player will play 'automatically', adding the correct timing, phrasing and articulation based entirely on what is going on around him. At that point, there are two thing controlling his behavior (1) the external stimulus configuration represented by the accompaniment and (2) the internal controls and modulations emitted as a result of prior experience with the positive esthetic experience. Some of this has something to do with rule governed behavior which is probably unique to humans. That is to say, humans can verbalize on what is a good esthetic experience and set goals for meeting that esthetic. > Bill Scott John ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 26 Jan 1994 13:56:32 EST From: Joe Welfeld Subject: Re: keyboard teacher I am just starting to play around with Midi in a studio that a friend and I are building in the basement, we have a tascam 1/2 in. eight track, along with a soundcraft mixer, and the associated effects, decent mikes ...., we also have a MAC IIc running performer, the drum machine is a Korg S3. We are just getting started with Midi and was wondering if (remember I am a novice) any one could enlighten me on the subject of sync clocks, I have been reading but I still would like some first hand knowledge. The first attempt at recording some midi drum tracks along with bass and rhythem guitar tracks didn`t work due to "the quantization used ? We did lay down a sympte time code on track eight, and could sync things up but the drums were noticably off the beat. The questions are: what is, and when do, you use Midi time code, vs sympte, vs external clocking ?,Im not 100% sure what I am asking here, but thought this would start off a good discussion. (this is my first posting to this list) -Joe ================================================================== Joe Welfeld L L L L L L L L Data Switch Corporation L L L L Shelton, CT. L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L Email:jwelfeld@dasw.com ================================================================== ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 26 Jan 1994 11:15:00 PST From: "Rossi, John" Subject: Re: keyboard teacher > It really amuses me to read all the expressions of naive faith in power > of technology to cure all ills that come across on this list. Glad to see that you are amused. What I am advocating here is relatively old technology (circa 1938). What is new about it is that modern computing devices allow us to apply the technology in a meaningful way to problems like musical technicianship. Skinner showed us how the learning system can be programmed. Modern computer technology gives us the analytical capability necessary to make Skinners learning system work for musical applications. > The computer can divide > every beat up into 480 ticks, can you? The computer can distinguish > between 128 gradations of attack, can you? I'm not sure. Looking at my playing along with a sequence, it appears that I am between 5 and 10 clicks behind the beat most of the time. Time perception has nothing to do with this, anyway. Just as in the fact that in English everything can be pronounced with some relatively small number of phonemes (35?), in Chinese there are nearly an infinite number of phoneme combinations some of which use frequency modulation as basis for meaning. Just because you don't normally do something doesn't mean that it is impossible. That I am consistently within 10 tics of a 480 tick clock suggests that I am reliable and that I can get close, and I don't practice all that much. As for attack, a rat in a Skinner box can differentially respond on a lever at up to about 200 levels of force (with a lot of training). I would guess that a human should be capable of 128. After all, there isn't a lot of difference between a key on a keyboard and a bar in an operant chamber. > but can you consciously delay your 32nd notes by 3 ticks? Not consciously, perhaps, but most human behavior is 'automatic' (i.e., under control of the particular stimulus configuration in effect at the time) anyway. For example, when you apply the brakes to a moving automobile, do you consciously think about how much pressure you are putting on the pedal? It wouldn't surprise me if the average driver could differentially respond with thousands of different braking patterns depending on the stimulus configuration which signals the need for braking. > The only way you can get the same effect is to listen to Richard Goode > play and try to imitate what he does. This is a statement of fact which is really only speculation. The same way that a rat can be trained a long and complex behavioral chain, a musician can be taught to play anything and in any style. > If you took lessons from him he > might tell you what went on in his mind that made him decide to delay > those 32nd notes by 3 ticks, and then you'd really have some insight. As I said in the original post, I doubt that he would even know what was on his mind or that the delay was, indeed, a conscious act. More than likely, the delay would have emerged because of the way the feedback from the delay reinforced its occurrence. Possibly due to some positive attribute of the delay at the esthetic level. I doubt very seriously that accomplished musicians actually consciously do these sorts of things. For example, while soloing, I don't think about what I am playing. I kinda keep a mental listing of the 'good notes', but I don't really think about my phrasing or articulation. As above, that is behavior which occurs automatically. It changes only when the accompaniment signals a change. > On the other hand, as a music teacher who is frequently driven to > distraction Ah, a teacher, no wonder the confusion ;-). > I actually wave my arms like a conductor during > lessons Does it pleasure you to do this? A Toscannini complex. perhaps? > and then when the student wants to jump ahead I can say, "aha, > you can't go on to the next measure yet. See, my arm hasn't come down > yet". Why not just shock the poor bastard with a cattle prod? Punishment is the least effective way of controlling automatic chain behavior. In a successful chain, each link must be reinforced by its predecessor. > And I nail them like that every time they play out of rhythm, and > they learn to stay in rhythm. Again, why not try that cattle prod? > Unfortunately I can only do this once a > week. Do I detect a hint of Sadism here? > Supposing the music to be studied could be > scanned into the computer and then converted into a MIDI file, and the > instruction program were designed to honk at the student or cause a > cartoon figure to fall off a tightrope and get squashed every time the > student played out of rhythm, for example, then the student could make a > lot more progress in between lessons. More so than the lesson itself which would become unnecessary. > My point: use the computer as a supplement, not as a substitute for > lessons with a teacher. My point is that a teacher is a poor substitute for a computer. > Mark Simon John ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 26 Jan 1994 14:26:42 -0500 From: Alper Kerman Subject: Re: keyboard teacher Okay folks, here we go!...I can't believe I'm getting into this, but I couldn't resist! I've been reading your postings for a while on this topic, and to me it seems as the issue is really been discussed from mostly technical point of view (like the proper way to position your hand and fingers, or timing of notes, bad and good habits, etc.) IMHO, one should look at this (learning from a teacher vs computer) from also another perspective. First of, you either have it, or you don't! It doesn't matter how many lesson you take, if you don't have the musical creativity from inside you will at best sound like somebody else (by copying). Musical creativity comes from within!...Now, at this point, everyone is wondering what the heck I'm talking about, right? Well, I'm going to tie it in! You see, if one is blessed with musical talent, then for that person a human teacher would be most preferred. And the reason for that is, because the musically talented student will absorb all the good stuff (like the teachers style, musical expression, etc.) as well as technical aspects. The "good stuff" then will promote, and enhance the musical creativity in this student. On the other hand, the same student would receive only technical aspects from computer learning at best. It's always different for everyone. Some people are not born with it, but love to be able to learn and play. Then for those, I think the computer based learning system would be sufficient, but I'm not saying that these people should totally ignore taking lesson from a teacher either! Because, its always better to have one to one correspondence with a human teacher than with a computer, as communication thru speech is much more quicker and understandable. No matter how good the musical software is, sometimes you may find yourself re-inventing the wheel, if you know what I mean!...On the other hand, for example, someone who wants to just be able to get by for writing compositions, but not for performing professionaly computer learning is the way to go. So, the bottom line is, that it depends on what you wanna do and how good you wanna get!... Anyway, I didn't get into the technical aspects of learning how to play, because enough people have already talked about it. So, that`s it!...That's my few cents worth!.... Take care folks, The Young Turk ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 26 Jan 1994 14:36:30 -0500 From: Mark G Simon Subject: Re: keyboard teacher > Glad to see that you are amused. What I am advocating here is relatively > old technology (circa 1938). What is new about it is that modern computing I'm sure this "better-living-through-science" mentality is at least that old. > Just because you don't normally do something doesn't mean that it is > impossible. That I am consistently within 10 tics of a 480 tick clock > suggests that I am reliable and that I can get close, and I don't practice > all that much. As for attack, a rat in a Skinner box can differentially > respond on a lever at up to about 200 levels of force (with a lot of > training). I would guess that a human should be capable of 128. After all, > there isn't a lot of difference between a key on a keyboard and a bar in an > operant chamber. Okay, John I'm going to write a piece for you in which the basic rhythmic unit is the 1920th note (480 to the beat) and the dynamics are written in numerals from 0 to 127 instead of pp, p, mf, f, ff. I want you to play it and by golly if you make one blessed mistake I'm gonna poke you with an electric cattle prod. > > but can you consciously delay your 32nd notes by 3 ticks? > > Not consciously, perhaps, but most human behavior is 'automatic' (i.e., > under control of the particular stimulus configuration in effect at the > time) anyway. For example, when you apply the brakes to a moving > automobile, do you consciously think about how much pressure you are putting > on the pedal? It wouldn't surprise me if the average driver could > differentially respond with thousands of different braking patterns > depending on the stimulus configuration which signals the need for braking. Which is why you have to develop a feel for playing as opposed to analysing event list data. You're arguing against yourself here. > > I actually wave my arms like a conductor during > > lessons > > Does it pleasure you to do this? A Toscannini complex. perhaps? Hey, you do what works, and this does make them aware of the fact that there is an underlying pulse that goes on no matter what. > > Why not just shock the poor bastard with a cattle prod? Punishment is the > least effective way of controlling automatic chain behavior. In a > successful chain, each link must be reinforced by its predecessor. I make it a point never to get angry at my students, especially the young ones. It's always "okay let's try it again and see if you can hold that half note all the way to the third beat" and then "Yes that's exactly it" when they do. I think most of them appreciate that I get involved in their playing. I'm teaching clarinet students, by the way, and they're going to need to learn to follow a conductor anyway. > Again, why not try that cattle prod? I only use a cattle prod on techno-nerds who prefer computers to people. Mark Simon mgs2@cornell.edu ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 26 Jan 1994 11:50:00 PST From: "Rossi, John" Subject: Re: keyboard teacher > Yep. Especially if they prevent the formation of playing habits or posture > which can be physically damaging. Tendinitis and carpal tunnel syndrome > being two of the things that improper keyboard technique will lead to. > These can be lingering and quite painful. Ok, you've got me there. That's the first reason I would accept for using a human teacher. However, I can imagine a muscular stress detector which could be used as feedback for this kind of thing. However, I would agree that might be stretching the point. > --- Joe M. John ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 26 Jan 1994 14:46:12 -0600 From: Arne Claassen ISE Subject: Re: keyboard teacher > Well, I'm going to tie it in! You see, if one is blessed with > musical talent, then for that person a human teacher would be > most preferred. And the reason for that is, because the > musically talented student will absorb all the good stuff > (like the teachers style, musical expression, etc.) as well > as technical aspects. The "good stuff" then will promote, and > enhance the musical creativity in this student. On the other > hand, the same student would receive only technical aspects > from computer learning at best. It's always different for > everyone. Some people are not born with it, but love to be > able to learn and play. Then for those, I think the computer > based learning system would be sufficient, but I'm not > saying that these people should totally ignore taking lesson > from a teacher either! Because, its always better to have > one to one correspondence with a human teacher than with > a computer, as communication thru speech is much more > quicker and understandable. No matter how good the musical > software is, sometimes you may find yourself re-inventing > the wheel, if you know what I mean!...On the other hand, > for example, someone who wants to just be able to get by for > writing compositions, but not for performing professionaly > computer learning is the way to go. While the hwole human vs. computer discussion kind of left me cold, this one is different. I just cannot agree with the "either you were born with it or you weren't". Sure some are more inclined and learn faster. But to say that you can't get it because you weren't born with it, so explore your limits with a computer teacher, (which is how i interpreted the above) is like saying that you were born of lower intelligence and, sorry, that's where you'll stay, IMHO. Now on the computer vs. real. I go with the, "If a teacher can be replaced, then he should be", to quote Arthur C. Clarke. I.e. i think that a human should be able to give you something in terms of learning to play that a computer can't otherwise use the computer. Now whether this is true may just depend on the person. If the student doesn't go along well with the teacher, he may be better off with a computer than to try to adjsut to the teacher. Oh well, so i did get involved... -- Arne F. Claassen |"In cows we trust | EPS Classic * D4 | E pluribus Moo" | Mac Centris 650 | | ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 26 Jan 1994 16:16:00 PST From: "Rossi, John" Subject: Re: keyboard teacher > I only use a cattle prod on techno-nerds who prefer computers to people. It does not take a techno-nerd to prefer computers to people for some applications (e.g., teaching music). For example, I do not consider myself a techno-nerd and I would prefer to see all teachers replaced by something competent, like computers. If there is one place where it is undisputable that computers are superior to humans, it's in teaching. Don't even try to argue this point, there is no data to the contrary. > Mark Simon John ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 26 Jan 1994 19:48:08 -0500 From: "Joseph D. McMahon" Subject: Re: keyboard teacher Rossi, John writes: > It does not take a techno-nerd to prefer computers to people for some > applications (e.g., teaching music). For example, I do not consider myself > a techno-nerd and I would prefer to see all teachers replaced by something > competent, like computers. If there is one place where it is undisputable > that computers are superior to humans, it's in teaching. Don't even try to > argue this point, there is no data to the contrary. Sorry, John, I will, but with the disclaimer that this all is opinion: Based on my personal experience, I find that a human instructor will be more likely to spot and help you correct subtle things which require senses beyond what *current* computer-based trainers available for personal use have. Current computer-based systems are essentialy deaf and blind, but have a limited but sensitive sense of touch. A computer can, if you will, "feel" whether the keys went down on the beat, and can "feel" if they went down fast and hard enough. It cannot, however, detect you developing a bad fingering habit which will not carry over well into more difficult music. It cannot see you holding your wrists at an angle which will eventually cause you an injury. It can't see you using your fingers instead of your arm to produce higher velocity, thereby tiring yourself much faster. It can't see you holding your hand in a highly flexed or "pancaked" position, which will affect your flexibility and speed, respectively. It can't hear whether your fortes and pianos are correct for the piece. It can sense the velocity and the pressure, but it can't hear how this is interacting with your particular keyboard and patch to advise you as to what might be a more tasteful way to play it. To sum, computers as currently available to the home user can teach technique, and the degree to which you will be able to play what the program expects will depend on your committment, the amount of practice you put in, and the amount of natural skill. However, a *good* human instructor will be able to gauge what kind of tools you bring to the lessons and adjust them accordingly. The human instructor will be able to work with you in choosing music to work on which you will want to play. If you'd rather play Bartok than Bach, a good teacher will work with you to do that, and will also encourage you to try other things as well. The computer instructor as currently available will take you from point A to point B; you'd better like the trip, because that's the one you'll take. A good human teacher learns from the student who the student is, what the student's goals are, and works with the student to meet them. A computer teacher is still at this point incapable of learning such things. Also, a computer instructor will not be able to see that you're frustrated or upset and know when to tell you to take a break or to talk it over with you. Intangibles are what you get from a human instructor. Whether or not you need or value them is a matter of personal taste. This is a matter of taste and therefore not really arguable. I think that squeezes it into a three-line nutshell. If we have speculation as to how the intangibles could be conveyed better by the computer, or how the computer could be used as an adjunct to teaching, I think we'd have something further to discuss. Otherwise, we've done this. --- Joe M. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 27 Jan 1994 09:14:34 -0500 From: Mark G Simon Subject: Re: keyboard teacher > > I only use a cattle prod on techno-nerds who prefer computers to people. > > It does not take a techno-nerd to prefer computers to people for some > applications (e.g., teaching music). For example, I do not consider myself > a techno-nerd and I would prefer to see all teachers replaced by something > competent, like computers. If there is one place where it is undisputable > that computers are superior to humans, it's in teaching. Don't even try to > argue this point, there is no data to the contrary. > > > Mark Simon > > John You obviously have a giant chip on your shoulders about teachers. Perhaps you went to a Catholic school and were taught by nuns? I advise counseling. Since you are unwilling to listen to opposing arguments I will offer no more. Am I correct in assuming you are working on some sort of computer teaching program? I would advise you to develop a healthy sense of skepticism towards your work, to harbor in the back of your mind some doubts about the perfection of your machines. Only thus will you maintain the objectivity necessary to catch the flaws that will inevitably crop up. Lots of luck. Mark Simon mgs2@cornell.edu ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 27 Jan 1994 13:19:12 -0500 From: Alper Kerman Subject: Re: keyboard teacher > While the hwole human vs. computer discussion kind of left me cold, this one > is different. I just cannot agree with the "either you were born with it or > you weren't". Sure some are more inclined and learn faster. But to say that > you can't get it because you weren't born with it, so explore your limits with > a computer teacher, (which is how i interpreted the above) is like saying > that you were born of lower intelligence and, sorry, that's where you'll stay, > IMHO. I new someone out there was going to react to my posting in this fashion! First of all, I'm not so sure if we are not talking about the same thing. But anyway, I think there is definately a misunderstanding, either you didn't understand the point I was trying to get across, or initially I didn't do a good job of delivering my point to you. Anyway, it really doesn't matter! What matters is that we should try to understand each other without getting into a flame war! ;^) So, First of all, I said "you either have it or you don't!" meaning, that some people either have a natural ability or inclination for certain things in life, or they do not! And later in my post I said "some people are not born with it" meaning, that some people are less fortunate and that they don't have the necessary natural ability or inclination for that area. But by no means did I say or meant that people with "lower intelligence" (your words) just sit back and relax and not improve on any areas of their capabilities. Whether one would except this or not people are born with different abilities. Thus some people excel in certain areas better than others, which is not necessarily mean that others are of "lower inteligence", or are incapable of coming close to matching the performance of those with naturall abilities or inclinations. My point was (which might be a minute one for some), that people with natural abilities for learning music would subconsciously (if you will) make a better use of a "human teacher" than those with no natural abilities. And SOMETIME this is the reason why some music students excel faster and better than others. This is quite true for almost in every arena of life. Sorry!...I'm not the creator, but that's the way it is at least on our planet. Also, I completely agree with Mark S. and Joe M. for their presentation of the importance of technical aspects on learning how to play keyboards from a "human teacher". For the reasons they've stated and the reasons I've included above, the "human teacher" would always be my choice over TODAY'S "super-software" driven computer teacher. In conclusion, (my quote is) `With the limited sophistication of today's computers and software, a "human teacher" CAN NOT be replaced, thus SHOULD NOT BE!, at least not as of yet!... A "computer teacher" should only be used as a tool to assist technical development in a music student' > If the student doesn't go along well with the teacher, he > may be better off with a computer than to try to adjsut to > the teacher. The solution, that I would recomend to that would be to get another teacher! ;^) Take care, The Young Turk +------------------------------------------------+ | Alper A. Kerman | | Computer Scientist | | National Institute of Standards and Technology | | Gaithersburg, Maryland | | kerman@apm2.ncsl.nist.gov | | kerman@osi.ncsl.nist.gov | +------------------------------------------------+ ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 27 Jan 1994 15:05:00 PST From: "Rossi, John" Subject: Re: keyboard teacher -- > You obviously have a giant chip on your shoulders about teachers. Perhaps > you went to a Catholic school and were taught by nuns? I advise counseling. Correct. I did go to Catholic School and I did have nuns. The chip on my sholde is not because of the nuns, however. The real reason that I feel that as many as 85% of all UNION teachers are woefully inadequate is not a topic of discussion for this list. > Since you are unwilling to listen to opposing arguments I will offer no > more. Whether you (or Joe) beleive it, there really aren't any. > Am I correct in assuming you are working on some sort of computer > teaching program? No, I'm just your average neurotoxicologist working on ways to save you from the chemistry of the evil empire. > I would advise you to develop a healthy sense of > skepticism towards your work, to harbor in the back of your mind some > doubts about the perfection of your machines. Nope, I pretty myuch an empiricist. I am, however, skeptical about other people's work. Ask me about AIDS sometime. > Only thus will you maintain > the objectivity necessary to catch the flaws that will inevitably crop > up. Lots of luck. I f you are really seriuous about the realities of teaching I suggest you read B.F. Skinner's wonderful 1968 book "The Technology of Teaching" (New York:: Appelton-Century-Crofts). If you can read and comprehend this book you will understand what I have been saying in these past posts. Of course, if you are a union man, you will be horrified by what you read there and you may not ever sleep again. > Mark Simon John ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 28 Jan 1994 13:44:17 -0500 From: Mark G Simon Subject: Re: keyboard teacher > > > Since you are unwilling to listen to opposing arguments I will offer no > > more. > > Whether you (or Joe) believe it, there really aren't any. Oh, I think some of the other rebuttals I've read in the past day have been quite to the point. I will add one more observation: In the history of music there have been many many great musicians. All of them have had human teachers. As of yet there are no great musicians who have studied with computers. If you wish to maintain that computers are superior teachers, the burden of proof is up to you. > > > I would advise you to develop a healthy sense of > > skepticism towards your work, to harbor in the back of your mind some > > doubts about the perfection of your machines. > > Nope, I pretty myuch an empiricist. I am, however, skeptical about other > people's work. Ask me about AIDS sometime. Tsk. Such arrogance will win few converts to your point of view. Mark Simon mgs2@cornell.edu ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 31 Jan 1994 22:09:16 GMT From: Herschel A Gelman Subject: Re: keyboard teacher In article <2D471765@NAVY.AAMRL.WPAFB.AF.MIL> JROSSI@NAVY.AAMRL.WPAFB.AF.MIL (Rossi, John) writes: >competent, like computers. If there is one place where it is undisputable >that computers are superior to humans, it's in teaching. Don't even try to >argue this point, there is no data to the contrary. Are you really making a wide, sweeping generalization and saying that computers are better than humans in ALL teaching? Artificial Intelligence hasn't yet (as far as I've seen) progressed to the point of general-subject natural language interpretation. So how could a computer perform the job of an english teacher? A program could not understand a student's ideas on the symbolism of a story without having as-yet-unreached language processing as well as an immense amount of "world knowledge" in order to understand the student's point. Anything significantly beyond an Eliza level of understanding is not yet possible. As far as I've seen. But hey, if you can provide info to show that this is possible, by all means do so. In other fields (a Mathematica file to teach some math concept, for example) I can see your point. But in others, I can't. Where music lies is, I suppose, arguable, and dependant on what type of music is being taught. ("Well, to make an MTV hit, get something repetitive and become a good dancer...") ObEMusic: Can anyone enlighten me about the MPEG music format? Is there a Mac player for songs in this format around? -- ---------------- Herschel Gelman ----------- hagst3+@pitt.edu ----------------- ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 26 Jan 1994 19:51:49 EST From: ronin Subject: o god where will it end 1) sorry, but behaviorism is only a statistical model, not a causal theory. it is not the stimulus that controls the subject but the subject that controls the perception of the stimulus, emitting behaviors in the feedforward portion of the control loop which minimize the perception of error from feedback. this is not necessarily a 'conscious' process, but it certainly purposive. the black box is only a box, not a living thing. 2) please provide references for the assertion that computers are in all cases and without exception 'better' teachers than human agents. i haven't heard of a study aimed at demonstrating the opposite position (that humans are necessarily better teachers than computers), so the statement to the effect that no data can be presented which proves it is a straw man. 3) oblig.em.cont: rant on performance paradigms in the making. be patient. -----------< Cognitive Dissonance is a 20th Century Art Form >----------- Eric Harnden (Ronin) or The American University Physics Dept. 4400 Mass. Ave. NW, Washington, DC, 20016-8058 (202) 885-2748 (with Voice Mail) ---------------------< Join the Cognitive Dissidents >------------------- ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 27 Jan 1994 10:56:07 -0500 From: Biff Padiduwitz Subject: Re: o god where will it end >From: ronin : >1) sorry, but behaviorism is only a statistical model, not a causal > theory. it is not the stimulus that controls the subject but the > subject that controls the perception of the stimulus, emitting > behaviors in the feedforward portion of the control loop which > minimize the perception of error from feedback. this is not > necessarily a 'conscious' process, but it certainly purposive. > the black box is only a box, not a living thing. Good description of the operation of a motor-control system in operation (Ever read Powers' "Behavior: the control of perception"?) , but not a description of a *learning* system. I don't want to seem to be taking Dr. Rossi's point of view, but I believe his assertion has to do with learning/conditioning. >3) oblig.em.cont: rant on performance paradigms in the making. be patient. > looking forward to it. >-----------< Cognitive Dissonance is a 20th Century Art Form >----------- only six more years of this signature? ;) Bill Scott WScott@acs.wooster.edu ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 27 Jan 1994 15:19:00 PST From: "Rossi, John" Subject: Re: o god where will it end > 1) sorry, but behaviorism is only a statistical model, not a causal > theory. You are correct, radical behaviorism is not a theory it is an observation of reality. > it is not the stimulus that controls the subject but the > subject that controls the perception of the stimulus, emitting > behaviors in the feedforward portion of the control loop which > minimize the perception of error from feedback. Perception (in the true sense) has nothing to do with this. You don't need to hypothesize another layer of hypothetical constructs (e.g., perception, recognition, motivation, etc) in order to make valid predictions of wha will happen in a behavioral sequence. All you need to no is the antecedent conditions and a history of the contingencies of reinforcement. The problem is that people want to feel like they are in control. Skinner has pointed out that they are, it is just that the control people exert over their environments is not the kind of free will type of control most people envision. > 2) please provide references for the assertion that computers are > in all cases and without exception 'better' teachers than human > agents. There, of course, is no such reference. On must generalize for the places where it has been tried (see Skinner, B.B., The Technologty of Teaching, 1968, Appleton-Century-Crofts, for an overview). The problem with teaching machines has always been the technology. Would you agree that if a computer as sophisticated as Star Trek's 'Data' were available, it would not be capable of nearly perfect teaching. The prtoblem with teaching by humans, especially in the performing arts, is the inability for the teacher to distance itself from its own conceptions. > 3) oblig.em.cont: rant on performance paradigms in the making. be patient. What? > Eric Harnden (Ronin) John ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 27 Jan 1994 20:18:27 EST From: ronin Subject: Re: o god where will it end yes, in fact powers is what was referring to. learning is the resetting of reference levels in the presence of extreme error. that's what cognitive dissonance is all about. beliefs (goals) will change before behavior. this is called reorganization. -----------< Cognitive Dissonance is a 20th Century Art Form >----------- Eric Harnden (Ronin) or The American University Physics Dept. 4400 Mass. Ave. NW, Washington, DC, 20016-8058 (202) 885-2748 (with Voice Mail) ---------------------< Join the Cognitive Dissidents >------------------- ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 28 Jan 1994 11:26:37 -0500 From: "Joseph D. McMahon" Subject: Re: o god where will it end I don't think the discussion is serving any useful purpose as far as electronic music is concerned. Let's drop it, or go to private mail. --- Joe M. (Listowner hat on) ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 27 Jan 1994 21:56:29 EST From: ronin Subject: philosophy/cakewalk (was o god...) 1) science observes only observables, not 'reality'. to state otherwise is either to exhibit epistemological naivete or to declare the discussion out of the bounds of the positivist tradition, which i am not sure skinner would appreciate. students of radical behaviorism often claim more for it than its best-known practitioners, forgetting that to declare that cognition is unecessary to explain statistically significant behavioral data is not the same as saying that it doesn't exist. 2) OBLigatory EMusic CONtent: for the lack of which in my previous posting i apologize; so, cakewalk doesn't have the nifty 'humanize' function, at least not the version i'm using. and i always quantize everything, cuz frankly my timing still sucks. so on the theory that harder notes would have been struck faster (i'm working on drum parts), i took all the notes above a certain velocity value and shifted them a little early, and took all the notes below a lower value a lagged them a little. sorta worked, too, although i need to diddle around with the parameters a bit more before i'll feel it's 'natural'. got any little tidbits like that? is there a better way to achieve 'feel'? i've also examined the cakewalk file format and am just about ready to write an offline routine to 'humanize' the tracks. anyone here tried that, or anything like it? -----------< Cognitive Dissonance is a 20th Century Art Form >----------- Eric Harnden (Ronin) Voice:202-885-2748 The American University Physics Dept. 4400 Mass. Ave. NW, Washington, DC, 20016-8058 ---------------------< Join the Cognitive Dissidents >------------------- ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 28 Jan 1994 09:40:56 -0500 From: Biff Padiduwitz Subject: Re: philosophy/cakewalk (was o god...) >got any little tidbits like that? -Here's one. Delay the chord (or note) that follows an arpeggio. This almost always happens in "reality". Any more? Bill Scott WScott@acs.wooster.edu ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 26 Jan 1994 11:45:40 GMT From: Philip Jones Subject: PIANO TEACHERS again ...... I think that it would be more appropriate if this listserver was renamed piano tutor talk as this seems to constitute 90% of the mail. Any chance of a chnage of subject, it is getting VERY tedious. Phil Jones (pj02@ee.ic.ac.uk) ------------------------------ End of the EMUSIC-L Digest ******************************