I’m a big fan of you, I use tonic too, can you follow me my tenth birthdays tomorrow pls thx if u do

Ray, could you make a video where you teach us how to play czardas like a pro? I’m currently working on it

Yeah

I am in tonic already ❤❤❤

🎉

Sad but true 😢

ai is g

Orr you can work faster by using ai and just making corrections

@@VictorIbelles yes but... That's actually editing, not composing 😐

If youre scared of AI, then you must not be that good of a composer

I would say the major thing AI does not have is a multilayered idea within the music. Each peace of art has several layers which you can discover during your journey. But AI has only one layer. That’s it.

Yeah... The thing is, most of listeners don't understand any of that, either. I can only assume that this new tool will find its place in the ecosystem kind of the way synthesizers did, as another possibility to do things.

I, too, got 6/6 right, and mostly for similar reasons, even though (or maybe: because) I intentionally ignored the sound and only assessed the compositions. However, to nitpick, I both agree and respectfully disagree with your second point. I agree because this was also the exact point where I realized this was the AI one. I disagree however because first of all, it's rather a c flat over b flat than a "b natural" over "b flat", and this suspended none over a a dominant chord is actually omnipresent in most romantic composers' music. The reason, in my opinion, that it feels "out of place" here is that it does not occur in a "natural" or "organic" context: It's an element that would usually mark a point of high tension - but melodically, harmonically, and dynamically the tension is already decreasing/being released when this minor none suspension occurs: We have already been in the dominant for one entire bar (no harmonic progression), the melody reached its apex in the previous bar and reaches this suspension from above rather than below, and the dynamic goes back. However, to circle back to your main point, I, too felt that the AI compositions clearly lacked what I would call "musical dramaturgy". It's as if, when tasked with writing something in the style of, say, Shakespeare, it would produce a series of sentences that, on their own, sounded completely Shakespearian, but, together, did not actually tell a Shakespearian story.

Yes, I have noticed similar things... It is even more evident when you feed it with an audio source that the AI can use as a starting point for generating the music. AI is very lacking especially in harmonic progressions: Its music always conveys something static as if it were assembling material that is aesthetically related but without a clear destination to head towards.

the only thing I got from your comment is that it's PhD level people like yourself who can even tell a difference anymore. I've been playing piano for 40 years, I can't tell. Ask my T Swift listening wife and she'd just say, it's easy listening classical good for reading!

It’s a shame since there’s some truly moving film music. Both of them just weren’t it.

Film music is declining by choice, not because of some crisis. Sadly film directors now reject the idea that film music should be significant enough to stand alone as an independent voice. They think this creates a double narrative, treating viewers as naive and disturbing them. Of course I don’t agree, and I refused to write music for films.

AI sucks up whatever is posted on the internet and there's no escape for humans.

oh no

uh oh... we're screwed

This is the danger of modern music and consumerism. We've made human produced "art" so mechanical and soulless that people aren't trained to seek out authentic art

@@sivad1025 And it is like with performing music. Did anyone hear of anybody who booked a whole professional big band or choir-and-orchestra (incl. conductor) for, say, a wedding? --- Mostly, they book a one-person-plus-midi-keyboard-band. On booking platforms, those people write that they are willing to pay 500 EUR maximum. --- And of course you don't hear of any of those who only play already recorded music at their parties. Then, if AI music of a certain quality will be so low cost and produced in no time, who will care about human composers, studio engineers, musicians, instrument makers etc? --- Already, most people are happy with a low quality sound from recordings and electronic devices. A mobile phone is enough for them, they will never know how a really good, or even: excellent, hi-fi sounds like! That's so shockingly dumb: someone walking down the streets while listening to music from a squeaking device while good bass speakers would be vital for that genre!

@birgits.3702 Totally agree! I'm so glad you said that though. I hope to get married this year and I've been playing with the idea of investing in an orchestra accompaniment. My church occasionally has their orchestra accompany mass. For Mother's Day, they played Mozart's Coronation mass. We just need to be deliberate in supporting real music

Exactly. AI only makes new things based on pre-existing genres, or if you ask it to make a new genre, it makes something thats a mashup of existing genres and weird sounds. It takes humans for a true musical shift, like from baroque to classical to romantic to contemporary to jazz to rock and pop.

@@meks039 Sadly, you grossly underestimate the enemy. Those things it can't do now, it soon will. It's really advancing at that rapid of a rate. I'm not sure what the solution is, but complacency is not the answer.

very true

@@neilcam I don't think @meks039 is complacent. The central aspect is that all currently 'celebrated' LDM-based generative output has very crucial and extensive human input constratining and driving its output. Until AI actually understands the input and it understands its own process and its output, it is hugely limited AND reliant on considerable human input. Then there is a problem that is far, far outside AI - and it comes from sphere of information theory. But that would be another huge discussion and it would not sound like the tabloid headlines about AI... The linguistic aspects of LLMs like ChatGPT may seem totally unrelated to generative music and visuals, but they all share the same central issue. They are still mindless parrots generating data based on probabilistic chains. Many at the epicentre of LLMs lucidly wrote about how, to stay in just linguistic sphere, an LLM-based system is a huge step back compared to something like the decades-ago trialled Eliza model. There is a vast difference between understanding input/output and just generation based on probability chains trained on vast amount of data.

@@amethyst_darkeusually ai just copy other composer and what make is sure that they don’t just use less know classical piece by bach or haendel,they did both hundred of pieces

This is so right.

Same. I got the same score and noticed this too.

Exactly

You mean the rhythmic pulse?

Agreed, the AI generated music will play the right notes in their own independent bits, but it doesn't feel like there is a 'purpose'/'idea' to it, which makes sense... since there isn't, it's just a generative algorithm. Just like pretty much all AI generated stuff, it seriously needs an editor. Also I think pop music could be the hardest one by far. The tracks are generic enough already

Ah, but there are 6 rounds ^^

Yeah, Ray seemed to be more focused on the technical aspect of the playing, whereas I thought most of these were pretty obvious from the composition side. The AI tracks can never put together a cohesive melody.

@@Tweeteketje I think the commenter meant the 0 as the one they did not guess right. Definitely the human touch! I guess they pass as not AI for the time being.

@@Zareh_Abrahamian yes, so it should be 6-0 ☺️

Unfortunately doesn’t matter if we can distinguish. Can the audience distinguish?

@@halohack789 Pretty soon, the AI will be so brilliant that audiences will have no interest in the music composed by humans

It will. AI has no attitude, stance, viewpoint, personal history, passion, soul. Competently generating some snippets of music in a given style and genre is not equivalent or surpassing a human composing a C Minor Mass. The Illiac Suite is from the 1950s. It was rudimentary AI with astonishing end result. We are now 70-ish years later. Has music died? Has it been overtaken by computers since then? A lot of the panic and utter nonsense surrounding current AI misses the fundamental, central aspect of it.

Please share w/ us your brilliant accomplishments and achievements in life - so we can all appreciate your brilliance - if you have no impressive achievements ... let that be a reminder to you that you're not very bright ... Then maybe you'll refrain from presenting yourself as an expert on a topic when your awareness is adolescent - at best.

@@WhirledPublishing Meaning?... how does this relate to a specific aspect of AI development? Apart from it being a logical fallacy (see ad hominem). Plus... how is this a response to a discussion on how AI cannot take over human creativity for quite some years?

That's really a great piece - and the God-music movement reminds me of Messiaen somehow.

​@@aveyenxharmonically, it is indeed a Messiaen pastiche.

That's what I was thinking (must be Galant-style). They pulled from too early in the Classical era. Should have done something more mid-era.

Where things break down is... e.g. J.S.Bach. A large data model based on essentially age-old Markov chains does not step outside its fundamental constraints. Easy example again, ChatGPT never produced an original text that argued in new ways a certain point. It, per definitionem, can't. Move that into the sphere of music... the limitations are obvious. But clueless tabloids and then investors going for hyped BS about AI fundamentals they don't understand completely take over.

I'd say 80-90% of jobs are repetitive and even now there are not enough jobs for everybody... And in pop music they already chose "perfection" over emotion by tuning every single vocal, all the voices sound the same... Where there is more money to gain, they will... AI isn't bad as well as money isn't but humanity with it's greed and stupidity can't handle it in a decent way 😅 I know I sound cringy but it's like a one way road to a dead end... How can economy grow to infintiy while taking away more and more jobs from an ever growing population? Maybe we should ask AI how to rework our system because the lack of greed and any emotion would lead to a more logic solution... 🤔 (Sorry for the rant 😅)

The problem is not so much where AI is at now the problem is how rapidly is developing and all the dangerous implications that brings, a good number of people seem to be playing fast and loose with AI not really thinking of the ramifications it can bring in the future. I also find this sentence you wrote quite puzzling: "Unfortunately, AI will not play the scales for us," . How is that unfortunate ?, why would you want AI to play scales for you?.

@@ericbernardi8116 Thanks for your comments 👍 I fully get what you mean. I also think that if we only try to glue AI into our current society and assume that everything else around will stay the same, the outcome will not be very good. I would hope that AI will be disruptive enough to force us to think also more profound, positive systemic changes needed in the society. Easier said than done though 😊

@@southside8551Thanks for your comments. I agree that power always comes with responsibility and it’s vital to consider the ethical aspects of AI. This type of work is taking place in various corners of the globe as we speak. My comment about AI playing scales for us was meant more as a joke; back then I did not enjoy playing scales too much, although naturally necessary 😊

@@heliharrikari It's not purely ethical , there are a myriad of unknowns when it comes to the development of AI and the possibility and dangers of becoming actually sentient. Glad I asked about the scales rather than just assume, it's difficult to infer context on comments sometimes.

2/3 for me the AI ones lack coherence, direction, like a vague impression of the styles

J'espère que t'auras une bonne note 🤣

@@Ketsen merci beaucoup 🙏💕

I think there would. I personally had to ignore the sound because when I noticed distortion and mp3 artifacts in the recordings, those made me think for a moment it's the fake. Then when thinking about the quality of the writing, like the 'noodling around' Ray mentioned, it became very obvious which ones were created by AI when the phrases would lead to nowhere.

@@seveera That's exactly the part I am talking about, because the "noodling around" might be fixed with musicians who can elevate those loose phrases or at least lead them somewhere. And I know that is not always possible, I had one piece by an amateur human composer that simply ... could not be fixed/unnoodled so to speak.

@@blauespony1013 but I think the musicians could only fix the noodling or phrases that lead to nowhere by ignoring the integrity of the composition, then I don't think that's a fair thing to do in a comparison of what composers are able to do vs AI. It would be like having a 3 year old scribble on note paper and then have musicians just play whatever. Then going like "oh wow the 3 year old composed that??" would be really unfair I think 😸

@@seveera Not what I meant. They should not change the score. But interpretation of a piece can change so much (just listen to a piece as midi score vs. the same piece played by actual musicians).

@@blauespony1013 Oh I totally get that, but the aimless noodling around to me has nothing to do with interpretation. That would be a melody written in the score, and an interpretation in my opinion should not change that, that's kinda what I meant by integrity of the composition. Like I get some accents or if looking at the baroque example a turn could be interpreted differently, but you still wouldn't change the progression of a melody that's actually written down in a score

Nowadays even youtube comments are AI it seems.

Indeed. And remember that we're comparing music by highly successful humans. If you take the music from an average composer, could you tell the difference to best AI even today? I predict that future human composers will have trouble getting good enough to win against AI because you cannot get paid until you're better than AI and the bar is constantly raising.

@@MikkoRantalainen Lol, I wanted AI to work so I can study and do art, not the opposite. Having to create something to do the things that we enjoy to do shows how ridiculous commercialisation of art has become.

@@pierfrancescopeperoni I don't think everything is lost but it will be probably hard to make living with composing music in the future. We still have professional chess players, too, even when the best software chess programs can easily beat top players even when executed on smartphone level hardware.