Any free tool to detect time signature?
There are many sites which detect BPM and key, but not the time signature, I don't care if it is 2/4 or 4/4 or 8/8 (which may sound all the same), but I need to know if it is 3/4 or 4/4. Which is not easy to detect for a fast and complex melody with different note duration. I tried to count peaks on the wave graph, but failed. So, any solution? E.g., I need to find the meter of this tune: http://yun.complife.info/dance.mp3
BPM is 136, if this helps.
Comments
I suspect that it's probably beyond automation ... at least at this time. A musician--or a knowledgeable listener--learns to hear the slight accent that the downbeat gets, and to count off measures to find the next such accent.
This piece is in 4/4.
[a few moments later] ... And 2/4 and 4/4 sound radically different to my ears. I'm not sure I could distinguish between 4/4 and 8/8 but, as far as I recall, I've never seen a piece in 8/8.
In reply to I suspect that it's probably… by TheHutch
Have a look at the Sonata for trumpet and piano by Kent Kennan!
2/4
In reply to 2/4 by rothers
Hunh! to my ears the 1 beat and the 3 beat have noticeably different accents: 1 strong, 2 weak, 3 middle, 4 weak. If 'twere in 2/4, I would expect them to be the same: 1 strong, 2 weak, 1 strong, 2 weak.
Well, I guess it just goes to show that it's possible to have different interpretations and you simply have to mark it as you hear it ... or rather, as you want it played.
In reply to Hunh! to my ears the 1 beat… by TheHutch
Yep could be 4/4, but sounds very polka like to me, they are usually written in 2/4.
In reply to Yep could be 4/4, but sounds… by rothers
That's exactly what I was thinking. And I don't see any reason AI technology couldn't be trained to recognise even that (that it's a polka, which are traditionally written in a particular time signature).
Polka 2/4
Thanks to all. I suspected polka, but was not sure.
Too bad it is not automated yet. Rather strange that AI can write music but cannot detect the meter of an existing one.
In reply to Thanks to all. I suspected… by georgeyright
You could try Moises which thinks it's 4/4 but I'd trust my ear over "AI" any day.
In reply to You could try Moises which… by rothers
Yup. It's a 2/4 polka.
Years ago some college professors programed a mass of Baroque music into a computer. Then programed it to spit out compositions. They sounded very Baroque-like. To which I always felt. "So what".
When I was studying Music Ed, one of the classes was Renaissance music. There were so many rules to follow. It was totally possible to sit down with a piece of staff paper and write 4 part harmony without needing to hear what you were writing. And it usually sounded pretty good. A good exorcise, but again, So What. AI can write "music". So What.
In reply to Yup. It's a 2/4 polka. Years… by bobjp
"A good exorcise"
Were you purging the deus ex machina?
In reply to "A good exorcise" Were you… by underquark
Fumble thumbs.
In reply to Yup. It's a 2/4 polka. Years… by bobjp
You can write "music". So What?
Do you really think there is a principal difference between the neuronetworks in your brain and in computers? The only one is that yours is slower. Well, for now it is also more complex, but that's only a matter of years - not centuries, years - until AI reaches and overcomes the human level of complexity. Have you ever heard about the Technological Singularity?
Did you hear much AI music? It's not "mechanical". It can demonstrate any kind of expression. And you won't be able to distinguish many AI pieces from human-written ones - even now, let alone in the incoming years.
If it sounds good, it's music. Regardless of the creator and his/her/its feelings during the creation, if any.
In reply to You can write "music". So… by georgeyright
In Robert A Heinlein's The Moon Is A Harsh Mistress, the character "Mike" (a self-aware computer) says that something is "on the order of 50 years away". When another character, says that 50 years is not a big deal. Mike protests that he did not say "on the close order of" and explains that "on the order of 50 years" implies that Mike would be very surprised if the event happened in less than 5 years and would not be surprised if it took as long as 500.
Likewise, I think that there is no evidence that the Technological Singularity is imminent. My personal guess--based on no evidence beyond what I've read in the literature--is that it will arrive "on the order of" 200 years: that is, I would be surprised if it were to happen in less than 20 years, but I would not be surprised if it did not happen for 2,000. I'm afraid that your statement that it is "years - not centuries" away is an example of blind enthusiasm.
Because the arguments that there is no fundamental difference between the "neural networks" in a grown brain (I do not limit it to a human brain) and one instantiated in metal and silicone are debatable at best. There is certainly no consensus in that opinion from scientists in the field. For every scientist who says there is no difference, another says there is. There is no reason to suppose that the Singularity could not happen spontaneously (as Heinlein posited Mike did); there is equally no reason to suppose that it cannot happen at all. There simply is no evidence.
And I'm afraid that your bald statement that AI music is "not 'mechanical'" is specious at best.
In reply to In Robert A Heinlein's The… by TheHutch
I do not operate with beliefs. I operate with facts and maths. And math models show that computers will reach human brain complexity within 10-20 years ahead. I would say, 2050 is the last possible ultra-conservative scenario. If our civilization survives the Third World War, of course, but that's another matter.
People who think that electronic brain is worse than biological one cannot be called "scientists". They are biased blind-minded anthroporacists. The information is invariant to its carrier/media/processor. The nature of these processors does not matter, be it chips, neurocells or anything else It's not a hypothesis - it's a fact. The only fundamental difference is that biological brains are very very very very very slow and ineffective (by 7 orders of magnitude - the difference between the speed of electrons in chips and the speed of ions in neurons). Also, the bio brains have all the bugs and flaws of blind mindless evolution (which never had "will" or "intention" to create sentient beings, let alone make them immortal), contrary to the purposeful intelligent design of AI. Bio brains and bodies are the dead end. Future belongs to cyborgs.
Well, I can speak long on this subject, but I don't want to waste my time, you may read all this on transhumanist sites,
It's easy to prove that you won't be able to distinguish AI music from human-written. Ask your friends to send you music which you definitely never heard w/o specifying who or what is the author. (Of course only good AI music will work, not any - for me, it takes 10-20 tries to get something I like from AI at its current level. But far not all human music is good, anyway ;))
In reply to I do not operate with… by georgeyright
Generally people who throw names around are the ones who are being biased and blind. There is no consensus about the nature of mind and whether computers have it or not. No matter what your quasi-religious "transhumanists" might say.
In reply to Generally people who throw… by TheHutch
Look in a mirror. You will see someone very biased and quasi-religious (probably not even quasi) there, whose know;edge is way back in 17th century, Not even in 18th, when it became clear that mind has a material basis in the brain structure, not in supernatural "soul", and that every living being is just a kind of machine.
Nobody said computers already have mind, BTW. But people like you never read or listen to what they are told.
In reply to Look in a mirror. You will… by georgeyright
Bro
In reply to You could try Moises which… by rothers
Where is it there? I see only key and BPM, but not the time signature. Could you provide a screenshot?
Moises allows only 4 uploads/month for free, anyway :(
In reply to Where is it there? I see… by georgeyright
georgeyright,
I write music "so what". I quite agree. I write for myself. I don't really care much if others hear it or like it. I wouldn't be surprised if a computer wrote something "better". You think music is all math and formula. I write for a reason. Why do you think a computer writes music? Do you suppose it has some deep inner need to write? That it gains fulfillment? That it cares about anything. So a human brain is slow and a computer is fast. So what. I'm sorry you have such a negative attitude. You will call it realistic, I know.
It is unfortunate that we have come to rely on recordings and less on live performance. Because for me, recordings verge on impersonal. Kind of like computer music.
In reply to georgeyright, I write music … by bobjp
Current computers have no own will, they just follow the orders. But that doesn't differ much from a professional composer who writes for money ;)
I repeat, your emotions matter only for you. For the objective world, only the result matters. Can emotions help in achieving the result (good music)? Probably yes. Are they necessary for that? Definitely no. All your feelings, intentions, ideas, wishes etc. are just a combination of electric potentials in neurons in your brain. Which has the same nature as the electric potentials in the computer chips. Your limbic system sends a command to write to your neocortex just like the button "Create" sends the same command to AI. There is NO DIFFERENCE for the result. And there is absolutely nothing negative in it. For me, it's great that everything is rational, understandable and can (and will!) be reproduced by computers,
In reply to Current computers have no… by georgeyright
"your emotions matter only for you"
Well... Actually, no. They matter for each other for human beings.
And that's the difference between computer and human.
In reply to Current computers have no… by georgeyright
"everything is rational, understandable and can (and will!) be reproduced by computers,". Hate, murder, selfishness, are rational? I'm sure you will sat that computers will eliminate those things. How? Brainwashing? Reprograming? I wish I had your simple outlook.
In reply to "everything is rational,… by bobjp
No, they are emotions you like so much ;)
But their MECHANISM. their physical and chemical basis is rational. Bad people are bad not because they are possessed by evil spirits but because they have something wrong with their hormones, neurotransmitters or their neuronetwork - just like AI neuronetwork - is trained in a wrong way. Knowing this makes their vices potentially fixable (usually not at the current level of technology but in the future).
But I was not talking about that. I was talking about the fact that emotions (which are, in fact, inherited from animals and are the "lower", not "higher", part of the mind) are not indispensable to create music, or any kind of arts. Because the basis of creation has nothing to do with emotions, it's a purely informational process (processing input data and generating output ones, be it music, poems or stories). Emotions act only as a stimulus to run it, but they are not the only possible stimulus and not even the best one.
The main difference between humans and computers is that CURRENT computers don't have self-awareness, That's why they cannot create by themselves and must follow human orders (prompts). This will change in the future, but even at current levels they can create good music (and sometimes even good poems).
In reply to No, they are emotions you… by georgeyright
Heyyy I wanna see a poem by an AI!
(Btw this is a bit off topic—we’re not discussing this wide of a range of AI 💀)
In reply to Heyyy I wanna see a poem by… by hamsandwichnow
Enjoy (and back to topic): https://suno.com/@timeworntrailblazer
All these songs are completely created by AI (a friend of mine made the prompts). Lyrics by Gemini music by Suno.
When reading several of them, it becomes noticeable that the computer repeats similar words and phrases, but a single poem looks very like it was written by a human, Not Shakespeare, bur still a human.
In reply to Enjoy (and back to topic):… by georgeyright
Sorry but you'll have to come up with something better than pop tunes. It is interesting to me that you go out of your way to put down "emotions". But I forgot. Emotions make us human and human is bad. Soon to be replaced.
In reply to Sorry but you'll have to… by bobjp
> Emotions make us human and human is bad. Soon to be replaced.
Great, you understood it at last ;))
In reply to > Emotions make us human… by georgeyright
No just trying to understand this twisted "logic".
Which is better? Human or Robot. I know your answer. I guess I might as well end it all right now.
In reply to No just trying to understand… by bobjp
My logic is perfect, as usual. Unfortunately, you don't want to use logic at all.
OK, what will you say about this piece? https://buymeacoffee.com/etsenbergy/rivejowima
In reply to My logic is perfect, as… by georgeyright
You think that as long as certain rules and procedures are followed, then the result will be "good music". You think that there is only one kind of logic. I don't like most music. It makes no difference who or what wrote it. There is plenty of "good music" that under my logic, falls short of the mark. Guess what? I get to use my logic.
As for the piece you posted. I don't like it. I don't care who or what wrote it. The list is long, but boils down to a rather dull accompaniment, among other things. Not a very good mixdown. sounds like almost everything is panned center, except for some of the effects.
In reply to You think that as long as… by bobjp
Yes, there is only one kind of logic. By definition. There are many individual TASTES, which have nothing to do with logic. But you said the right words at last: "I don't like most music, It makes no difference who or what wrote it." That was my point. Not "AI cannot write good music", but you don't like most music regardless of the author. I don't like coffee, for example. Regardless of who or what has grown it. It does not mean coffee is bad, and it is not based on logic, it just does not fit my taste. Another person, who learned music and whom I sent "my" AI-created pieces, said that the creators of the AI deserve Nobel Prize. (He is an artist, BTW, and he is now actively using AI for creating images as well.)
I consider the discussion ended,
In reply to Yes, there is only one kind… by georgeyright
I believe you have gravely misunderstood most of what I said. I am not at all interested in saying the right words just to make you "feel" like you have won. You can fool yourself, but you can't fool me. I am not interested in your AI music. Nor AI most anything.
Indeed this discussion is ended because you are under a self-centered illusion that you are right and everyone else is wrong.
Best wishes.
Oh, and by the way, I have a college music ed degree. Over the years I've probably forgotten more about music than you or your friend will ever know.
In reply to I believe you have gravely… by bobjp
I wanted to end at some point of agreement, but your groundless arrogance left me no choice. They say, it's impossible to explain to a blind-born person what colors are. But there are those even worse than just blind - the blind ones who want to stay blind. Who deny the very idea of light and colors. That's your case. So, stay in the blindness of your absolutely irrational, illogical and unreasonable beliefs, I don't care - and actually nobody does. Nor AI, nor its creators, nor millions (which will become billions) of its users, nor the future and the civilization in general. You may believe even in flat Earth - it won't hinder it to be round. Biased obscurants like you could never stop the progress, despite their countless tries. I can only repeat what I've said to someone like you above - look in a mirror. "You are under a self-centered illusion that you are right and everyone else is wrong" - that's YOUR perfect diagnosis.
Now I am definitely over and won't read any answer.
In reply to I wanted to end at some… by georgeyright
OMG! How can a person describe himself so accurately and never even know it. However, I do hope he gets the help he needs; several things he has said sound TOO close to serious sociopathy to be comfortable about.
(Remember, Georgey, you promised you wouldn't read this any further! *LOL*)
In reply to OMG! How can a person… by TheHutch
Yes, He seems incapable of what could be an interesting exchange. When someone stands up to him, he runs away. Everyone is to stupid for him to talk to.
And don't forget, he doesn't know enough to be able to figure out meter.
In reply to Yes, He seems incapable of… by bobjp
Could you (plural) please stop that stupid dog fight?
In reply to Could you (plural) please… by Jojo-Schmitz
Happy to. (backs away with ears drooping and tail between legs)
In reply to Happy to. (backs away with… by bobjp
O these pictures in my head ;-)
In reply to O these pictures in my head … by Jojo-Schmitz
You're welcome. Just another service I provide.