Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Show HN: Ableton Live MCP

github.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 92 posts

Re: Show HN: Ableton Live MCP

#41

Post by jrajav »

windowliker wrote: post #33
jrajav wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can I ask what the specific markers / qualifiers are for you to consider (let's call them) 'classical' generative and algorithmic techniques fair game in creative composition, but LLM agent based techniques not so? To me, it seems like the "do it for me" aspect is similar, just at different levels of abstraction.

Firstly, they all came to the use of those techniques after having been through years of work the 'hard way', often being able to play to a conservatoire standard, and had a very extensive grounding in the tradition that came with that. Then they owned* or designed the thing they were asking to 'do it for me' and could modify it at their discretion, effectively making it an integral element of the composition. The pr…

Thanks for your well considered response. I disagree with the notion that extensive classical training is required in order to make beautiful, noteworthy music. There are innumerable counterproofs of this in every era of music. I also disagree that fully and deeply owning/designing one's tools is required - though I understand that we are more specifically talking about generative tools, I personally argue there's not enough meaningful distinction. One chooses to exercise intent, whether the tool is acoustic or digital, general or hyper-focused. And fully understanding the workings of every tool is a fool's errand in this modern age.

Whether these then extend to AI and LLMs I still can't fully say. There is, obviously, some kind of qualitative leap here. I'm not fully settled.

But I guess I lean more towards - it is a tool, let people use it to make their own beauty.

Re: Show HN: Ableton Live MCP

#42

Post by windowliker »

jrm4 wrote: post #18
windowliker wrote: post #8

For me, the point of making music is making it myself. If want to have something done for me I could just play someone else's record and pretend like I made it.

I get why people make gut statements like this, and to me something does feel different about AI. But I realize I have not seen any criticisms of AI generated music that are meaningfully different from criticisms I've heard of other advances/changes in music technology, whether performance or recording. Sampling, scratching, drum machines, autotune, electric guitars even.

The main unconsidered criticism that used to come from old-school musos was that 'you press a button and the synthesizer/drum machine/whatever does it all for you'... Only now is that perhaps coming to be true.

There's a difference between technology/technique that adds a new sonic palette to the canon, and one that takes away the necessity to have any direct input in the process of production. I guess we'll find out which this is if there's a wave of novel AI assisted genres that emerge, or not, as may be the case.

Re: Show HN: Ableton Live MCP

#43

Post by ollysb »

windowliker wrote: post #8

For me, the point of making music is making it myself. If want to have something done for me I could just play someone else's record and pretend like I made it.

Each genre has a fairly tight envelope within which to operate. Regardless 90% of tracks never make it to the finish line because hobbyists haven't learnt them well enough to groove them out. If with a little help these tracks were all finished then bedroom producers will over time learn what works and be able to explore more.

Re: Show HN: Ableton Live MCP

#44

Post by moritzwarhier »

ollysb wrote: post #43
windowliker wrote: post #8

For me, the point of making music is making it myself. If want to have something done for me I could just play someone else's record and pretend like I made it.

Each genre has a fairly tight envelope within which to operate. Regardless 90% of tracks never make it to the finish line because hobbyists haven't learnt them well enough to groove them out. If with a little help these tracks were all finished then bedroom producers will over time learn what works and be able to explore more.

I think the parent comment was saying that the problem is not quantity, but quality.

Warping my mind back into a hobby-enthusiast music producer mindset:

an MCP that generates presets for a limited pipeline with many sweet spots sounds... interesting?

To me, the idea of being able to have, say, a chain of a simple VA synth + delay + compressor and a very simple step sequencer, combined with prompting and a genAI model that spits out patches, sounds very endearing and interesting.

Much more interesting than Gemini or Suno for example.

Depends on the training and input space of course.

I deliberately described a limited setup, the controls of which could be described in less than a kilobyte.

Many dance music synth patterns could be described by simple means (tracker/step sequencer, looping, a few knobs).

That's what makes a lot of music interesting.

I can easily imagine a producer creating very individual and interesting output by unleashing the right models.

I think, just like with human producers, constraints liberate.

An AI controlling a very limited synthesis chain is more interesting than a very complex synthesis chain controlled by a human with no musical "vibe".

Re: Show HN: Ableton Live MCP

#45

Post by jauntywundrkind »

windowliker wrote: post #22
windowliker wrote: post #8

For me, the point of making music is making it myself. If want to have something done for me I could just play someone else's record and pretend like I made it.

I will caveat my first comment by also noting that I am well versed in computer music history, and read many many papers in CMJ[1] and elsewhere about generative and automatic composition tools such as Emily Howell[2]. I do NOT have a problem with generative, algorithmic and automatic composition in this sense, as an extension of the creative intentions of the human composer, in the right context. See also Autechre[3…

It'd broadly sad how folks so broadly slight and disregard novelty, are so quick to judge assume & discredit.

I have such respect for those who can do the good work of comments like your, trying to pry the closed mind open just a little more. This is such an essential outlook basis that needs to be taught, reinforced: a sense of exploring potential progress rather than sinking merely to conserving or out grouping or denying.

It's really cool that the human agency loop is improving. Ableton & DAWs should be so much better with expanded more language native interfacing!

Re: Show HN: Ableton Live MCP

#46

Post by windowliker »

jrajav wrote: post #41
windowliker wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Firstly, they all came to the use of those techniques after having been through years of work the 'hard way', often being able to play to a conservatoire standard, and had a very extensive grounding in the tradition that came with that. Then they owned* or designed the thing they were asking to 'do it for me' and could modify it at their discretion, effectively making it an integral element of the composition. The pr…

Thanks for your well considered response. I disagree with the notion that extensive classical training is required in order to make beautiful, noteworthy music. There are innumerable counterproofs of this in every era of music. I also disagree that fully and deeply owning/designing one's tools is required - though I understand that we are more specifically talking about generative tools, I personally argue there's no…

I didn't specify that the training had to be a classical, conservatory, background. It was only mentioned with regard to the background many of the original computer musicians came from, and which is understandable considering the era and situation of computing back then. Autechre are a good counter-example of that, which I have noted above. Two hip hop heads from the north of England, who have made some of the best contributions to electronic/computer music in recent decades. As you point out, there are loads more, not worth making a list here. Though I will still assert that I am yet to hear any good music come from someone who has anything less than a developed knowledge and passion (obsession?) for their area of interest, be that classical repertoire or drum and bass.

I wonder how one is supposed to exercise intent when the tool in question is specifically designed with the purpose of removing your ability to have direct influence on the result it produces. At best we get curation/collage, which in itself is no big change from the way things have been for decades (sample packs, premade loops, and going back further, sample CDs, for instance), but what goes away is the human touch.

Re: Show HN: Ableton Live MCP

#48

Post by PotatoPrime »

tkiolp4 wrote: post #23
brandonb wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Previous generations might have said the same thing about Ableton itself, vs playing a physical instrument. In that regard, AI might become just another power tool for creative expression.

Agree to some extent. At some point though we jump the thin line between creative expression and… magic? Like if at some point I can just say “Generate a song similar to Smooth Criminal, different enough to not trigger copyright claims” and it just works, and everyone loves it… well is that creative thinking?

I think there is something to it. First, it would still need to be different enough from Smooth Criminal to avoid listeners just going back to the original. Then, if anyone could just type a simple prompt like that and get a hit, wouldn't we be flooded with 'sounds like' singles, which would turn the audience off of those, and now, you're not making hits...

I think there will always be more to it then just a simple prompt, but having the vision to make a song that sounds pleasing, and unique enough is certainly creative to me.

Of course, there's also a huge demand for generic, inoffensive music (think theme/intro songs, waiting room and elevator music). If we could make that more enjoyable to listen to, would anyone care if that's not creative thinking?

You could make (and many do) the same arguments over covers of songs, even when the covers end up eclipsing the original. Where was the creative thinking in that?

Re: Show HN: Ableton Live MCP

#49

Post by PotatoPrime »

cardanome wrote: post #37
brandonb wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Previous generations might have said the same thing about Ableton itself, vs playing a physical instrument. In that regard, AI might become just another power tool for creative expression.

> AI might become just another power tool for creative expression It is NOT a digital tool to create art. Yes, people used to be snobbish about digital art. Some still are. This doesn't say anything about generative AI because that isn't a tool. The closest equivalent is hiring someone on fiverr to create music for you and claiming you created the music because you wrote the "prompt". There is nothing creative about…

I don't disagree if its building the whole song, but given that this is tooling within the DAW, if an artist went in and said 'give me 5 alternative reverb sounds on this track', is that not using AI as a tool? Yes, the AI is creating the sound profile, but is that any different then using presets, or samples?

I used to play around for days just making sounds on my synth. The process of creating them was often just turning random knobs and dials. If the AI is turning those for me, thats not a tool?

Post reply on HN