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

I analyzed chord progressions in 680k songs

cantgetmuchhigher.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–160 of 160 posts

Re: I analyzed chord progressions in 680k songs

#151

Post by randomNumber7 »

huimang wrote: post #64

Using absolute chord analysis instead of relative chords (i.e. roman numeral analysis) doesn't make sense. As others have noted, the original dataset is flawed because the structure of a song is critical, you cannot omit repeating chords. Programmers/analysts should take more care to understand music theory or the underlying field at hand, before compiling datasets or doing analysis. "Most common chord" is mildly int…

Why is there currently so much low quality low IQ content on hn that gets up voted?

Re: I analyzed chord progressions in 680k songs

#152

Post by Tainnor »

airstrike wrote: post #101
uoaei wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The parallels between your critique of music analysis, and linguists' critique of LLMs, bear remarkable similarities. "Language/thought is more than sequences of tokens" will still be true no matter how much data we throw at the problem to smooth the rough edges.

Except music theory has a math component to it so it's arguably somewhat quantifiable and falsifiable in a way that linguistics never will be.

There is a lot of mathematics that can be used to analyse language. Phonetics is basically acoustics, phonology has things like optimality theory, for morphology you can use finite state machines, syntax uses formal grammars, statistics obviously plays a big role in certain areas, etc.

Both in the case of music and linguistics, there are people who argue (probably not wholly without merit) that looking at the mathematics too much is missing the point.

Re: I analyzed chord progressions in 680k songs

#153

Post by uoaei »

airstrike wrote: post #146
uoaei wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you had more to say on the topic at hand, you would have said it by now. I'm not interested in trying to educate someone so comfortable in promulgating assertions informed by nothing but amateur-level vibes. We could list the logical fallacies you're displaying in the spirit of "debate and reasoning" but I have no faith this would go anywhere productive. Report me instead of complaining about guidelines if retalia…

But it would be terribly wasteful to further entertain someone on the subject of music and artificial intelligence, when it is so evident they must first overcome their oblivious impertinence and emotional incompetence in order for such debate to be even moderately enjoyable to anyone else less arrogant and unhappy. You assume my choice to not continue the conversation is because I have nothing to say, when in fact I…

Oh good, you know big words. Next on the list is to learn the relevant big words for the things for which you claim competence. I'll wait.

PS: it's funny that your best comeback is just to imitate the critique I levied against you. You could demonstrate your "debate and reasoning" ability by crafting an actual argument, but you don't. I'm convinced that was not a cognizant choice but an act of desperation to save what's left of your ego. I've dealt with your type enough to know what you are, and after all this you will be forced to acknowledge the same... unless your ego really is strong enough to overcome your capacity for "reasoning".

Re: I analyzed chord progressions in 680k songs

#154

Post by uoaei »

Tainnor wrote: post #152
airstrike wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Except music theory has a math component to it so it's arguably somewhat quantifiable and falsifiable in a way that linguistics never will be.

There is a lot of mathematics that can be used to analyse language. Phonetics is basically acoustics, phonology has things like optimality theory, for morphology you can use finite state machines, syntax uses formal grammars, statistics obviously plays a big role in certain areas, etc. Both in the case of music and linguistics, there are people who argue (probably not wholly without merit) that looking at the mathema…

A refusal to acknowledge such integral parts of these systems as semantics renders that line of argument wholly irrelevant. No good faith discussion cannot be conducted without participants who already understand the meaning behind symbols.

Re: I analyzed chord progressions in 680k songs

#155

Post by Tainnor »

uoaei wrote: post #154
Tainnor wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is a lot of mathematics that can be used to analyse language. Phonetics is basically acoustics, phonology has things like optimality theory, for morphology you can use finite state machines, syntax uses formal grammars, statistics obviously plays a big role in certain areas, etc. Both in the case of music and linguistics, there are people who argue (probably not wholly without merit) that looking at the mathema…

A refusal to acknowledge such integral parts of these systems as semantics renders that line of argument wholly irrelevant. No good faith discussion cannot be conducted without participants who already understand the meaning behind symbols.

I'm afraid I don't understand your reply.

Re: I analyzed chord progressions in 680k songs

#156

Post by zarathustreal »

epiccoleman wrote: post #128
zarathustreal wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Jeeze this song is hard to listen to.. it almost feels like intentional syncopation on the guitar part but I can’t imagine they would have left it in intentionally after hearing how grating it is against the drum groove

Man. Different strokes, I guess. One of my favorite songs. That's ok though, really just meant to get the chord progression across.

Oh I love the melody and harmony, it’s the guitar rhythm that kills me. It’s to the point that it feels random and as a fellow musician I cringe to even say that about someone’s playing because I know how intentional music is, especially the kind meant to sound like it’s not

Re: I analyzed chord progressions in 680k songs

#157

Post by epiccoleman »

zarathustreal wrote: post #156
epiccoleman wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Man. Different strokes, I guess. One of my favorite songs. That's ok though, really just meant to get the chord progression across.

Oh I love the melody and harmony, it’s the guitar rhythm that kills me. It’s to the point that it feels random and as a fellow musician I cringe to even say that about someone’s playing because I know how intentional music is, especially the kind meant to sound like it’s not

You mean the chord work that comes in behind the main melody? I can definitely hear what you mean, it does feel almost random at points.

Re: I analyzed chord progressions in 680k songs

#158

Post by circlefavshape »

grep_name wrote: post #142
circlefavshape wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> before recorded music literally everyone was a musician in one way or another ... playing an instrument was just a basic life skill that everyone had back then You're just making this up. Playing an instrument is a complex skill that requires a lot of work and an expensive piece of equipment. Music has been a profession since at least Mesopotamian times

> Playing an instrument is a complex skill that requires a lot of work and an expensive piece of equipment Or it's something you just, you know, do? I listen to and play a lot of tunes from the Appalachians and you really do get the sense that just about everyone played something back in the day. They developed complex and extremely localized traditions that did not require formal music education to pass down. Some o…

There's a big difference between the statement I was responding to

> Before recorded music literally everyone was a musician in one way or another

... and your statement

> participation in casual musicianship in everyday contexts has declined significantly

I agree with the latter, but not the former. I'm not denying the existence of folk traditions, just pointing out that music-as-a-profession is very old - and even within folk traditions (e.g. my own (Irish)) there is, and probably always has been, some proportion of people getting paid

Re: I analyzed chord progressions in 680k songs

#159

Post by uoaei »

Tainnor wrote: post #155
uoaei wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A refusal to acknowledge such integral parts of these systems as semantics renders that line of argument wholly irrelevant. No good faith discussion cannot be conducted without participants who already understand the meaning behind symbols.

I'm afraid I don't understand your reply.

It doesn't matter at all what "mathematics" you use to "analyze" music because the purpose of these modes of communication goes beyond the arbitrary sounds chosen -- what does matter is what is being represented by those sounds.

Statistics is for the analysis of systems in equilibrium. Language by definition is a non-equilibrium system.

Re: I analyzed chord progressions in 680k songs

#160

Post by Jabbles »

huimang wrote: post #64

Using absolute chord analysis instead of relative chords (i.e. roman numeral analysis) doesn't make sense. As others have noted, the original dataset is flawed because the structure of a song is critical, you cannot omit repeating chords. Programmers/analysts should take more care to understand music theory or the underlying field at hand, before compiling datasets or doing analysis. "Most common chord" is mildly int…

Unfortunately this work is now cited by Wikipedia, so expect the confusion to spread.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chord_(music)#Usage_and_trends

Post reply on HN