this is SCARY as a composer…because people who we will work for might not be able to see the difference between AI and human…this is a fear becoming more valid by the month
What is scary to me is not that AI might surpass human music in quality or soul, but that it will be just passable enough and so easy to produce that it will be all that the majority of people hear.
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
The popular music is so bad quality that it does not matter if many listen to AI classic. Creative minds will alway stay with true human music from the past.
This is exactly the thing. Normal people do not hear these fine nuances, they literally are completely unaware of what we are discussing here. It will be cheap and easy.
I was 6-0, and it came down to a few things: 1. AI doesn’t understand cadences or ends of phrases. Especially in the film and pop rounds the AI felt a real lack of musical direction and definitive « end points. » The Baroque AI also had a lot of weird out of place chords. 2. Certain notes. In the romantic AI the violin hits a B naturaly against a Bb in the orchestra melody that was super jarring and felt like something that a real composer wouldn’t do. 3. Recording artefacts: In the contemporary human recording, there was a slight echo from the hall they recorded in that the AI recording didn’t have. There were other things too (Violin tone quality, etc.) that tipped me off but the big thing is that while the AI can really closely emulate the sound of an orchestra, they don’t yet have the knowledge of how composers actually write music, structure chord progressions, etc. To make it sound truly human.
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!
Violinist/composer/arranger/sound engineer here, I guessed 6/6 correctly watching this video for the first time. #1 was easy; A had the expected structured baroque sound, while B did "innovative" (and sometimes aimless) things that no baroque composer would have ever thought of. It was immediately noticeable at 1:00, and the solo violin didn't sound quite right afterwards (little things like the shifts, micro-timing, etc.). #2 was even easier; while the quality of A wasn't good, everything was in place. B sounded choppy from the first note (2:32, particularly in the trill), with unnatural timing issues and sloppiness in the solo line throughout, combined with aimlessness (2:44) and jarring key changes (2:48). #3 was harder but became evident when comparing the two. A had a timing/direction issue at 4:04, unusual double-stops at 4:07 (they didn't resonate right), and an impossible harmonic at 4:21 (we can do that on an A, but not on a Bb). Beautifully done though, particularly the passionate singing line at 4:14! Hearing B it was instantly, yes this is human; again, everything perfectly in place. #4 was very easy-there was no structure in A, with a mishmash of random noises tossed into the soundscape. B, even though chaotic, was obviously real instruments on a real stage, playing real notes in real places. #5 was hard, but I got it right. A was aimless and nondescript, with weird tuning issues and harmonic tones/noise tainting the sound. These are not issues you'd see with professional musicians, or with sample libraries, but rather with AI convolving sounds from scratch. B sounded synthesized, but it had musical direction, and consistent defined staging of the instruments. #6 my initial impression was that A was fake due to the strong noise and seemingly broken bass line (10:35), but the clear and natural fiddle playing at 10:50 gave me reason to question that impression. As soon as B started playing, I knew it was the fake one-aimless from the get-go, overlapping violin sounds smeared randomly on the sound stage with varying numbers of voices, weird meter issue at 11:07. So... I knew AI could write music (people have been tinkering with various forms of that for years), I knew it could "hallucinate" photos from scratch based on prompts (either text or imagery), and I knew it could generate/imitate speech, but I had no idea that it had gotten to the point of inventing music at the post-production audio stage with this level of quality! As someone who uses and understands how synthesizers and samplers/sample libraries work, I am impressed with the superior quality of everything AI generated here-it far surpasses anything even the best of those can do. Which makes me wonder what AI could do if we stopped asking it to do 100% of the work, but gave it the musical notes to play, put it into instrumental boxes (i.e. gave it structure, made each instance play a single instrument into a real, reverb engine instead of hallucinating a song from scratch as a complete audio recording from scratch). Could AI harnessed in this way replace sample libraries and take MIDI realizations of musical scores to the next level? I mean, when was the last time any modern composer ever got their sample library to sound as transparent as 1:11, where I was critiquing the lack of baroque style, not the quality of the sound? Even as choppy as 2:32 is, no sample library I know comes close to this level of realism overall. And the beautiful singing, well phrased, violin solo at 4:02? The world's best sample libraries can't even do 20% of this!
I'm an opera singer - my performance repertoire is over 50 arias composed by Mozart, Bellini, Puccini, Rossini, Verdi, Vivaldi and dozens of other composers - I sing in ten languages - and like Ray, I can distinguish between the music composed by robots vs. the music composed by humans - but probably soon, this distinction will no longer exist.
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?
Love your videos, Ray! Especially fun were the faces you made when you couldn't tell between AI and human composers! Your critique of why the sound was either AI/human was spot on. I totally agree about the Bridgerton mixing, as the rhythmic part did drown out the melody! The classical examples really sounded more baroque. And the human contemporary piece was, indeed, kind of cool. P.S. I am lucky to get to see you in Concert July 7, playing my fave Tchaikovsky Violin Concerto...so excited!
The Shubert piece has flawless thematic development beyond anything AI is yet able to achieve. As a composition, the IA piece is correct and satisfying on the short scale, but does not develop overall into a "sum is greater than the parts" cohesive musical statement. The true Turing test here is whether or not the composition thematically converges to strengthen as a musical statement, or more simplistically flows predictably note-to-note without actually going anywhere.
This video hit home because often I questioned my ears. You're scared as a performing artist. I'm scared as a composer. And when a person can't tell the difference, it's not an opportunity for know-it-all internet users to jump in and question our human abilities, it's an opportunity for a conversation on the very nature of art.
Thanks! It seems that AI in music generation still remains inconsistent, with difficulties in the logic of material development (in terms of intonation, rhythm, etc.)
I got all three right in the classical. I recognized the Schubert. In the AI there is something just a little awkward in them. The contemporary. 1st is AI. Flim: ? I should have known. Pop: 2nd track is AI. 5 right 1 couldnt' make up my mind.
In direct battle, the weight-lifter lost the competition with the crane , the chess master lost in front of the supercomputer, now the composer... But don't despair: there still are some blacksmiths, farriers, steam engine mechanics, chess masters, weight-lifters.
Interesting test! I got them all right except for the contemporary music. I don't understand that stuff at all and both sounded equally meaningless to me. I guess "meaning" was what I was listening for, something that sounded like it meant something to the composer. The pop music was the easiest to get right. The first tune started with a rock vibe, then suddenly switched to a Celtic folk vibe that complemented the rock vibe perfectly. I don't believe any AI program could understand the concept of a musical vibe, let alone play with it creatively like that.
When it comes to film music, I knew the first one was AI and the second was human because the second one sounded like a very specific type of film music, whereas the first one sounded like "generic film music". If an AI is told to make film music, it probably just takes inspiration from all sorts of film music that's out there and makes something that sounds sort of like all of them, but the second one sounded too specific to be made on the basis of such a broad genre.
The music composed by AI is the sonoric equivalent of the paintings it creates: somewhat kitschy, overburdened with too many ill-organized details (here - musical motives), eclectic or not exactly in the respective aesthetical traditions at best. The AI rendition of Vermeer's "Girl with a Pearl Earring" comes to mind as a comparison.
This is insane that if they did not break some rules of classical convention that you might not be able to tell the difference as someone who has dedicated their life to the craft... amazing
For the film one, what's missing in the AI track is time for the music to breathe. It adds notes too abruptly after a long note which interupts the music. The second one does not have this issue and it also blends in the other parts better.
Honestly is quite surprising to see how much AI has evolved is just a matter of 2 or 3 years for us won't be able to recognize the differences between AI and humans, for now though, I think there's a little difference, over all in tonal function and rythm, it seems to me that sometimes the AI struggle to comeback to the tonic chord and do some weird things that spoils the progression, as well as when it works with complex melodies, or the melody or the acompaniment, but something gets a little bit out of rythm.
AI can only imitate. Stylistic consistency is the hallmark of great composers so AI could only muddy the waters by mixing in non-stylistic elements - or mixing in a non-stylistic way. Also the longer the excerpt the easier it would be to tell the difference as great human composers are able to integrate small scale elements within large scale form in ways that would make it difficult for AI to analyse in order to imitate.
As an artist, I paint, I compose music. This all makes me very sad, the day an ai can replace a one of a kind like Mozart will be the day we lose the human spirit.😢
3. Romantic Genre: first is AI, I don't have a solid reason. But if I compose, at lease I wouldn't compose the strings pizzicato accompaniment as the first one does. That accompaniment sounds more Eastern European, or Jazz. But for me, to match with western european stlyed melody... that strings pizzicato bothered my listening of the melody in a negative way. Jazz music may have bass line pizzicato like that, but harmony without continue. On the other hand, the horn part in first one is not very human in my ear, but the second one has better winds. 5. Film Music: first one is AI in my mind. If I compose a piece as the styles of the first one, I will add softly rolling timpani and then crecendo a little bit at the end. The melody may not always being on the Violin I.
Well the Schubert one, I felt that if it was human, it was late classical. And Schubert is late classical early romantic. Also the Haydn one I thought if it was real, it had to be early classical. And yes, Haydn is early classical. I thought the Lindsay one had a tinge of Celtic. I don't know her, or any of the artists past the Romantic period that you demonstrated. But as you say, pop music uses a lot of formula and past 1998 is probably all auto-tuned and pitch-corrected, which gives it a robotic sound as well as too perfect. I don't think pitch correction is necessarily confined to vocals, but that's just my own speculation. The George Crumb has an Asian touch to it. Reminds me of Purple Bamboo Melody, which I love! Film music is impossible for me because I don't watch so many films, and you get so distracted by the action and/or dialogue you don't really listen to it anyway. And besides, I think it's all synthetic in one way or another. It's getting to be too convincing, though. You're really good on the violin. I'm impressed!
A better question: - Which do you enjoy more? It would have been great for Ray to answer both. ...and then at the end do a surprise reveal that HE is an AI.
AI can generate 'OK' music, but it can never generate a masterpiece that touches people's heart. You can never teach AI what makes a melody sound beautiful, because human composers don't even know how that works exactly. It is purely based on inspirations and emotions. A great human composer could once create a masterpiece, but there is no guarantee he/she can make one again. A heart-touching melody comes from deep inside one's heart, not from an algorithm. There is simply no such an algorithm.
I was laughing all the time, because you looked so funny, when you didn't know if it was AI or a real person. I had three or four right and knew the last one, because I like Lindsey Stirling music so much, and I love this song Roundtable Rival
The reason why AI is so convincing, is that it builds upon hundreds of thousands of hours of study, hard work and musical evolution. And you never know when and where the ai gets its prompts from
Well I got 6/6 but I knew the Lindsey Stirling song beforehand... Feel like its easy to distinguish human vs. AI if one pays attention to phrasing. In human composition there's usually a resolution to every phrase, then the next phrase starts, but for AI it sounds more like a flow of interesting but unconnected tunes.
Watching this video made me realize how non-artists see AI art😅 Even tough I play in a band, it was really tough telling the difference (aside from the audio quality)
I found this video to be hilarious but good. On the third track it's like I knew the violinist on the first track was AI you could just hear the high pitch that was not normal
The human one sounds like it has more complete phrases and the ai has melodies that don’t quite go anywhere. Idk if that makes sense but that’s how I could tell
Aha! I guessed Baroque #2 correctly (because it sounded a little ai-dumb, musically speaking). I got a perfect-score-not-that-anyone-cares on this video. But I'm 71 and have loved classical music all my life.
I was surprised I got them all right. It's not really that A.I. always sounds worse even. It just sounds not-quite-human somehow. Weird. The last ones for example, I preferred the A.I. one by a lot. I knew it was A.I. in that case because it was TOO cohesive to be real. The entire group of main instruments sounded like one single, polyphonic, magical instrument without discontinuities. That's a beautiful thing actually, but probably boring after a couple of tracks, and also unrealistic--thus a giveaway it must be A.I.
6-0 here AI still feels odd and often plays senseless things, the artifacts in the generated audio also help identifying what's AI (the audio quality and intonation of the violins in the film score was awful lol). We're just still not there.
I think the difficulty in the film music round speaks more to the declining quality of modern television and film music, which tends to act simply as "sonic wallpaper".
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.
I got all of them correct, the way I could tell is that AI doesn't seem to care for the beat. Sometimes it feels like it just randomly switches time signatures, or 2 different parts don't exactly match up.
@@sarahyeoh0111 I think he means the meter (the time signature). That's what I reacted to. It will seem to be in 3/4 and then in 4/4 and then in something where you can't even really be sure what meter it is. (In the music from the periods where this was not commonly done.)
As wierd as that is, good AI will have been effectively pruned and selected from a large pool of humans judges so that, despite its synthetic origins, it would nonetheless deliver a human-biased performance. Think of it as ready-made pizza vs freshly, homely pizza. Chances are that, in a casual context, you'd stop telling the difference between the two.
Early Classical-era DOES sound a bit more Baroque. It's technically "Galant" music - CPE Bach and early Haydn are good examples. Late Beethoven would present a similar problem - too "out there" to represent Classical and also not quite like any Romantic-era music.
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 went 5-0, "guessed" correctly. I don't think I can say my assessment is better than Ray's, but it did came down to "feeling". The 3rd one, the 2nd romantic felt well structured, human touch indeed. And the last one, the 2nd song felt uplifting and a bit more distinguinshable.
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
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.
Got them all. I was applying the same rules I use when either reading or listening to verbal content. AII has weird repetitions. Inconsistent "pronunciations" or throwbacks to something earlier in the content in a way that just doesn't fit - that's why a human editor is needed to polish the content. I had to laugh about your reaction to the Bridgerton theme.. I'm sure I will get lots of negative comments here, but that's the wsy I feel about the whole series - it is artificial and tries too hard to be accurate to/reproduce something it isn't. It's very funny that is reflected in the scoring as well.
It's not that AI in itself is scary or dangerous. It's how people intend to implement it in society. Currently, the governmental regulations surrounding AI aren't well formulated or defined. But since I've been studying and experimenting with AI, I can tell you this. AI is capable of much, much more, as the years go by.
"Does it go to somewhere or not" - this was a good recipe, helping me to get all. For my ears, the important difference is a meaningful composition vs. a senseless composition - more than the "sound" of the audio. To add here: the selection was REALLY GREAT! It allowed the composers to shine, we heard really hidden masterpieces in all genres. Great-great selection, congratulations to your team, Ray!
The most inportant thing to remember about AI is that at any given moment, this is the *worst* AI will ever be. This was instilled in me at a talk I went to like 6 years ago, well before AI started to make its current dramatic progress. The speaker noted how important authenticity and creativity will become in the future. At some point, AI will be good enough to be indistinguishable even to the majority of experts. Thats why we need to value authenticity and live performance in and of itself.
Haha 😂 No, you’re not in trouble. My 9-5 job is to help technology industry (and ultimately people) deploy AI. Recently, I’ve also spend some of my free time thinking about how AI can be explored in really cool ways in practising violin, and in classical music in general. I’m not a professional musician, however, I grew up playing violin +10 years, so I do have a hunch what it is about. We often hear comments on how AI will replace people. I don’t believe in it. Not even though my job is to be an advocate for AI. I truly believe that ultimately it is all about how we as humans are able to harness the capabilities of AI to help us out and create value with AI for ourselves. In other words, to identify in which tasks AI is way better and faster than humans, and vice versa, where humans beat AI 6-0. Optimally, by deploying AI we humans have more opportunities to concentrate on the tasks that we love and cherish, and leave the boring, repetitive work for AI. Unfortunately, AI will not play the scales for us, but I think it can help in amazing ways with practicing violin. AI has no imagination and it doesn’t think but it can provide - with its own strengths - new horizons and boost our imagination to the next level. Would be happy to hear about your potential trials on exploring AI to boost your practicing, in case you already have some. Thanks for the great video 👍
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.
But in some categories both selections were mediocre. You heard about the Renaissance artist Garbagio? And the Greek scholar Mediocrates? Then take into account the BIASED *selection* of the human piece, not showing human brilliance but -- Mediocrates. So then everything sounds comparatively AMAZING! But then compare it to Beethoven and think again. Flawed and brilliant. Thanks for a diverting video!
This would be like judging whether AI could write fiction with samples that are only a couple of paragraphs long. The value of classical music is not something you can assess by listening to a few seconds of it.
On a certain level, we have Ai in our brain, the neurochemicals that show up in flow: so dopamine, norepinephrine, anandamide, endorphins, and serotonin. If you were to try to cocktail the street drug version of that, right, you're trying to blend like heroin and speed and coke and acid and weed- and point is, you can't do it. It turns out the brain can cocktail all of 'em at once, which is why people will prefer flow to almost any experience on Earth. It's our favorite experience. It's the most addictive experience on Earth. Why? 'Cause it cocktails five or six of the largest pleasure drugs the brain can produce. We're all capable of so much more than we know. That is a commonality across the board. And one of the big reasons is we're all hardwired for flow, and flow is a massive amplification of what's possible for ourselves.
I think it is quite easy to understand the difference. Especially in old classical music where music tends to be derived from speech and tends to have a rhethorical speaking quality such ML based systems cannot reproduce. With contemporary music it is harder, as there often you need to get the big picture to understand the design. The systems behind this are good at reproducing the generic aspects of a style, which also explains why it works so well for pop music ...
well u actually saved me a while ago so basically in my French test the writing was about a ceremony that i attend and i met my favorite musician and to describe it and i wasn't ready for that and the first person that popped up in my mind was ray chen and i wrote about u and everything IREALLY HOPE TO GET A GREAT MARK ON THAT TEST! 🙂❤❤❤
It's much harder to tell the difference between AI music and human music when you use bad composers for the examples 🤦♂️ The emergence of AI "music" is also the culling of trash. So many bad composers, whether they be beethoven, corelli, schumann or schönberg, will be revealed to be second rate when AI can replicate their garbage with ease.
“Black Angels” by George Crumb is a phenomenal piece for string quartet- and probably one of the most difficult. Imagine playing dies irae with flageolets while at the same time whistling it in syncopation…
I got every single one. I think Ray just didn't focus on the right attributes. I was focusing mostly on the melody. It seems to me like AI is not good at melody, and it just ends up sounding like the music isn't going anywhere, there's no story. You can hear this a lot in the film music and pop ones, but also the other ones.
what’s scary is AI learns from humans but Mozart or Beethoven did the same every musician learnt from his predecessors. So AI produce this by studying human music. So at the end of the day , If we delete everything classical music data AI used to produce this it won’t be able. But I’m sad of listening this cuz music is soulful and could become literally shallow if we listen AI music without the background, feelings and emotions, moods of an artist while he produce his music. You can ask an AI to produce sad music it would probably make it but that sucks💔💔💔💔
In such a short excerpt AI does sound as a normal composition. Hovewer, in the context it wouldn't, the music wouldn't make much sense as a whole piece. This is something only a man could do. Even in these excerpts, baroque and classical excerpts sounded kind of weird.
AI is knowing all the Mozart composition. Thus it is easy to compose something in the same spirit. Like you can paint something the way VanGogh could have done it. But if VanGogh would not have existed, you would not be able to paint something the way he would have done it. The same is true with Mozart. If Mozart would have not existed, then the I.A would not have been able to compose music the Mozart way. The I.A can compose something the way Mozart would have done, like many actual composers, in fact. But creation is not making something equivalent to what already exist. Creation means making something that noone made before. The Day an I.A will create a master symphonie coming from nowhere. A completely new piece that is not a "In the manner of" i will be very surprised. Talking about intelligence, every composersat every time were intelligent. But they had their history, their sensibility, their own experience, their own culture, their own conception of music. This is the reason why they created so many different musics. A german composer do not compose as a french, an italien, a Russian or a spanish one. An I.A. has no history, no life, no sensitivity. It can only imitate the human creation.
I think the dead giveaway is what I'd call a lack of any sort of narrative arc in the AI excerpts -- something I have consistently sensed certainly in any sort of classical imitations. The first avant garde selection was too obvious to my ears, especially with some odd sound manipulation inexplicably thrown in. As for the contemporary soundtrack or pop music, well, the narrative arc is so fragmented and really ad hoc -- which is why it can become harder to detect. To put it more bluntly: simplistic music is easier to imitate, and who would really care anyway? I still managed to get all six right. AI doesn't "get" the intuitive logic involved in musical creation (at least insofar as some kind of *depth* is involved) which is more process than product. The metaphysical assumption is that the human brain is a machine -- but this is a metaphor that leads to a creative dead end. But, once again, if the music that passes for "good" is already creatively DOA, of course AI can "imitate" that.
Don't let the robots win! 😆Practice and share your music with others on Tonic: tonicmusic.app/join-in
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 ❤❤❤
🎉
this is SCARY as a composer…because people who we will work for might not be able to see the difference between AI and human…this is a fear becoming more valid by the month
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
What is scary to me is not that AI might surpass human music in quality or soul, but that it will be just passable enough and so easy to produce that it will be all that the majority of people hear.
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
The popular music is so bad quality that it does not matter if many listen to AI classic. Creative minds will alway stay with true human music from the past.
This is exactly the thing. Normal people do not hear these fine nuances, they literally are completely unaware of what we are discussing here. It will be cheap and easy.
I was 6-0, and it came down to a few things:
1. AI doesn’t understand cadences or ends of phrases. Especially in the film and pop rounds the AI felt a real lack of musical direction and definitive « end points. » The Baroque AI also had a lot of weird out of place chords.
2. Certain notes. In the romantic AI the violin hits a B naturaly against a Bb in the orchestra melody that was super jarring and felt like something that a real composer wouldn’t do.
3. Recording artefacts: In the contemporary human recording, there was a slight echo from the hall they recorded in that the AI recording didn’t have.
There were other things too (Violin tone quality, etc.) that tipped me off but the big thing is that while the AI can really closely emulate the sound of an orchestra, they don’t yet have the knowledge of how composers actually write music, structure chord progressions, etc. To make it sound truly human.
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!
*But who knows ai is secretly checking this video for information where it lacks?* 😅
AI sucks up whatever is posted on the internet and there's no escape for humans.
oh no
uh oh...
we're screwed
It can check all it wants, it will never have understanding.
@@baldrbraa HA...We (never) expected this also...The fact that classical music is rule based opens a wide window..Wait and see!
Violinist/composer/arranger/sound engineer here, I guessed 6/6 correctly watching this video for the first time.
#1 was easy; A had the expected structured baroque sound, while B did "innovative" (and sometimes aimless) things that no baroque composer would have ever thought of. It was immediately noticeable at 1:00, and the solo violin didn't sound quite right afterwards (little things like the shifts, micro-timing, etc.).
#2 was even easier; while the quality of A wasn't good, everything was in place. B sounded choppy from the first note (2:32, particularly in the trill), with unnatural timing issues and sloppiness in the solo line throughout, combined with aimlessness (2:44) and jarring key changes (2:48).
#3 was harder but became evident when comparing the two. A had a timing/direction issue at 4:04, unusual double-stops at 4:07 (they didn't resonate right), and an impossible harmonic at 4:21 (we can do that on an A, but not on a Bb). Beautifully done though, particularly the passionate singing line at 4:14! Hearing B it was instantly, yes this is human; again, everything perfectly in place.
#4 was very easy-there was no structure in A, with a mishmash of random noises tossed into the soundscape. B, even though chaotic, was obviously real instruments on a real stage, playing real notes in real places.
#5 was hard, but I got it right. A was aimless and nondescript, with weird tuning issues and harmonic tones/noise tainting the sound. These are not issues you'd see with professional musicians, or with sample libraries, but rather with AI convolving sounds from scratch. B sounded synthesized, but it had musical direction, and consistent defined staging of the instruments.
#6 my initial impression was that A was fake due to the strong noise and seemingly broken bass line (10:35), but the clear and natural fiddle playing at 10:50 gave me reason to question that impression. As soon as B started playing, I knew it was the fake one-aimless from the get-go, overlapping violin sounds smeared randomly on the sound stage with varying numbers of voices, weird meter issue at 11:07.
So... I knew AI could write music (people have been tinkering with various forms of that for years), I knew it could "hallucinate" photos from scratch based on prompts (either text or imagery), and I knew it could generate/imitate speech, but I had no idea that it had gotten to the point of inventing music at the post-production audio stage with this level of quality! As someone who uses and understands how synthesizers and samplers/sample libraries work, I am impressed with the superior quality of everything AI generated here-it far surpasses anything even the best of those can do. Which makes me wonder what AI could do if we stopped asking it to do 100% of the work, but gave it the musical notes to play, put it into instrumental boxes (i.e. gave it structure, made each instance play a single instrument into a real, reverb engine instead of hallucinating a song from scratch as a complete audio recording from scratch).
Could AI harnessed in this way replace sample libraries and take MIDI realizations of musical scores to the next level? I mean, when was the last time any modern composer ever got their sample library to sound as transparent as 1:11, where I was critiquing the lack of baroque style, not the quality of the sound? Even as choppy as 2:32 is, no sample library I know comes close to this level of realism overall. And the beautiful singing, well phrased, violin solo at 4:02? The world's best sample libraries can't even do 20% of this!
I'm an opera singer - my performance repertoire is over 50 arias composed by Mozart, Bellini, Puccini, Rossini, Verdi, Vivaldi and dozens of other composers - I sing in ten languages - and like Ray, I can distinguish between the music composed by robots vs. the music composed by humans - but probably soon, this distinction will no longer exist.
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?
I got most of these right! But it’s ridiculous how good the AI is. Please let us know which AI you were using for this demonstration.
Love your videos, Ray! Especially fun were the faces you made when you couldn't tell between AI and human composers! Your critique of why the sound was either AI/human was spot on. I totally agree about the Bridgerton mixing, as the rhythmic part did drown out the melody! The classical examples really sounded more baroque. And the human contemporary piece was, indeed, kind of cool. P.S. I am lucky to get to see you in Concert July 7, playing my fave Tchaikovsky Violin Concerto...so excited!
I’m going to your concert in 6/29! Always thank you for making these videos and doing concerts❤
What was the A.I. Used to make these tracks?
The Shubert piece has flawless thematic development beyond anything AI is yet able to achieve. As a composition, the IA piece is correct and satisfying on the short scale, but does not develop overall into a "sum is greater than the parts" cohesive musical statement. The true Turing test here is whether or not the composition thematically converges to strengthen as a musical statement, or more simplistically flows predictably note-to-note without actually going anywhere.
Okay, but that AI romantic era piece was kinda fire... any chance of sharing where to find the tracks??
You are so funny, keep these videos coming please. Thank you.
This video hit home because often I questioned my ears. You're scared as a performing artist. I'm scared as a composer.
And when a person can't tell the difference, it's not an opportunity for know-it-all internet users to jump in and question our human abilities, it's an opportunity for a conversation on the very nature of art.
Thanks! It seems that AI in music generation still remains inconsistent, with difficulties in the logic of material development (in terms of intonation, rhythm, etc.)
Romantic one - I straight away knew it was Schubert because of its sytle.
I got all three right in the classical. I recognized the Schubert. In the AI there is something just a little awkward in them. The contemporary. 1st is AI. Flim: ? I should have known. Pop: 2nd track is AI. 5 right 1 couldnt' make up my mind.
In direct battle, the weight-lifter lost the competition with the crane , the chess master lost in front of the supercomputer, now the composer...
But don't despair: there still are some blacksmiths, farriers, steam engine mechanics, chess masters, weight-lifters.
Interesting test! I got them all right except for the contemporary music. I don't understand that stuff at all and both sounded equally meaningless to me. I guess "meaning" was what I was listening for, something that sounded like it meant something to the composer. The pop music was the easiest to get right. The first tune started with a rock vibe, then suddenly switched to a Celtic folk vibe that complemented the rock vibe perfectly. I don't believe any AI program could understand the concept of a musical vibe, let alone play with it creatively like that.
When it comes to film music, I knew the first one was AI and the second was human because the second one sounded like a very specific type of film music, whereas the first one sounded like "generic film music". If an AI is told to make film music, it probably just takes inspiration from all sorts of film music that's out there and makes something that sounds sort of like all of them, but the second one sounded too specific to be made on the basis of such a broad genre.
oh gosh , i need to practice on tonic more often
I'm an amateur composer, and I only missed the contemporary one lol, that sounded like pretty authentic contemporary music to me!
The music composed by AI is the sonoric equivalent of the paintings it creates: somewhat kitschy, overburdened with too many ill-organized details (here - musical motives), eclectic or not exactly in the respective aesthetical traditions at best. The AI rendition of Vermeer's "Girl with a Pearl Earring" comes to mind as a comparison.
Bro my head whipped so hard when I heard Lindsey
This is insane that if they did not break some rules of classical convention that you might not be able to tell the difference as someone who has dedicated their life to the craft... amazing
For the film one, what's missing in the AI track is time for the music to breathe. It adds notes too abruptly after a long note which interupts the music. The second one does not have this issue and it also blends in the other parts better.
Honestly is quite surprising to see how much AI has evolved is just a matter of 2 or 3 years for us won't be able to recognize the differences between AI and humans, for now though, I think there's a little difference, over all in tonal function and rythm, it seems to me that sometimes the AI struggle to comeback to the tonic chord and do some weird things that spoils the progression, as well as when it works with complex melodies, or the melody or the acompaniment, but something gets a little bit out of rythm.
AI can only imitate. Stylistic consistency is the hallmark of great composers so AI could only muddy the waters by mixing in non-stylistic elements - or mixing in a non-stylistic way. Also the longer the excerpt the easier it would be to tell the difference as great human composers are able to integrate small scale elements within large scale form in ways that would make it difficult for AI to analyse in order to imitate.
As an artist, I paint, I compose music. This all makes me very sad, the day an ai can replace a one of a kind like Mozart will be the day we lose the human spirit.😢
Most humans can't do Mozart anyway because they lack a certain field of study.
3. Romantic Genre: first is AI, I don't have a solid reason. But if I compose, at lease I wouldn't compose the strings pizzicato accompaniment as the first one does. That accompaniment sounds more Eastern European, or Jazz. But for me, to match with western european stlyed melody... that strings pizzicato bothered my listening of the melody in a negative way. Jazz music may have bass line pizzicato like that, but harmony without continue. On the other hand, the horn part in first one is not very human in my ear, but the second one has better winds. 5. Film Music: first one is AI in my mind. If I compose a piece as the styles of the first one, I will add softly rolling timpani and then crecendo a little bit at the end. The melody may not always being on the Violin I.
Not worried a single bit.
10:08 "NOOOOOO!" - love it
Well the Schubert one, I felt that if it was human, it was late classical. And Schubert is late classical early romantic. Also the Haydn one I thought if it was real, it had to be early classical. And yes, Haydn is early classical. I thought the Lindsay one had a tinge of Celtic. I don't know her, or any of the artists past the Romantic period that you demonstrated. But as you say, pop music uses a lot of formula and past 1998 is probably all auto-tuned and pitch-corrected, which gives it a robotic sound as well as too perfect. I don't think pitch correction is necessarily confined to vocals, but that's just my own speculation.
The George Crumb has an Asian touch to it. Reminds me of Purple Bamboo Melody, which I love!
Film music is impossible for me because I don't watch so many films, and you get so distracted by the action and/or dialogue you don't really listen to it anyway. And besides, I think it's all synthetic in one way or another.
It's getting to be too convincing, though.
You're really good on the violin. I'm impressed!
A better question:
- Which do you enjoy more?
It would have been great for Ray to answer both.
...and then at the end do a surprise reveal that HE is an AI.
It doesn't disappoint. It's an unexpected topic, and I'm intrigued.👍🏻👍🏻✨
maybe try playing a classical music in vinyl , that static hiss sound wont lie .
The third one was really hard , and both seemed quite convincingly human but I did guess right.
i got everything right except for barock, should probably listen to some more of it
i literally said 'this is baroque' for the classical one just as you did i'm so smart
I wasnt even aware AI could mimic music!
Also isnt Ray super cute when he stares off into space to think😭🩷 is it just me vjsbakgjxnskfgk
At least for now, repeating motifs and strong candences give away the human recordings. The AI recordings don't have a clear form or direction.
Humans and AI can both produce music that talk to your brain but only humans can make music that talk to your heart
I wish you to go to Utah and perform in I love hearing violin concert and I want to play with you but I’m to young to play with you
AI can generate 'OK' music, but it can never generate a masterpiece that touches people's heart.
You can never teach AI what makes a melody sound beautiful, because human composers don't even know how that works exactly.
It is purely based on inspirations and emotions.
A great human composer could once create a masterpiece, but there is no guarantee he/she can make one again.
A heart-touching melody comes from deep inside one's heart, not from an algorithm.
There is simply no such an algorithm.
I was laughing all the time, because you looked so funny, when you didn't know if it was AI or a real person. I had three or four right and knew the last one, because I like Lindsey Stirling music so much, and I love this song Roundtable Rival
Could you make a video about improving your sight reading, please!!!
Please attempt Roman Kim compositions
The reason why AI is so convincing, is that it builds upon hundreds of thousands of hours of study, hard work and musical evolution. And you never know when and where the ai gets its prompts from
Well I got 6/6 but I knew the Lindsey Stirling song beforehand...
Feel like its easy to distinguish human vs. AI if one pays attention to phrasing. In human composition there's usually a resolution to every phrase, then the next phrase starts, but for AI it sounds more like a flow of interesting but unconnected tunes.
Juts waiting Ray Chen coming to BRAZIL 🇧🇷
Play one of the four nights concertos pour violon, every one will love it.
I didn’t think the AI played with much feeling and emotion, still hasn’t quite got there yet.
Watching this video made me realize how non-artists see AI art😅 Even tough I play in a band, it was really tough telling the difference (aside from the audio quality)
At the first seconds of the 1st movie soundtrack sounded like Hungarian dance no 3.
I found this video to be hilarious but good. On the third track it's like I knew the violinist on the first track was AI you could just hear the high pitch that was not normal
The human one sounds like it has more complete phrases and the ai has melodies that don’t quite go anywhere. Idk if that makes sense but that’s how I could tell
Noooo Ray! You messed up my one hundred oercent score by changing my mind on round 4!!!!
Aha! I guessed Baroque #2 correctly (because it sounded a little ai-dumb, musically speaking). I got a perfect-score-not-that-anyone-cares on this video. But I'm 71 and have loved classical music all my life.
Liked & subscribed.
I was surprised I got them all right. It's not really that A.I. always sounds worse even. It just sounds not-quite-human somehow. Weird. The last ones for example, I preferred the A.I. one by a lot. I knew it was A.I. in that case because it was TOO cohesive to be real. The entire group of main instruments sounded like one single, polyphonic, magical instrument without discontinuities. That's a beautiful thing actually, but probably boring after a couple of tracks, and also unrealistic--thus a giveaway it must be A.I.
Yes!!!! Nailed them!
this is just a nightmare
Do anyone know where I can listen to the full 1. romantic track?
We are in trouble 😮
Die anyone else yell „Bridgerton!!!“ at their phone when it came to film scores?
They all sounded pretty good to me except the modern classical first piece generated by AI.
Never forget AI without original influences would not be.
AI sounded better than human.
6-0 here
AI still feels odd and often plays senseless things, the artifacts in the generated audio also help identifying what's AI (the audio quality and intonation of the violins in the film score was awful lol). We're just still not there.
The 3rd one I guessed right just because the double stops were too perfect and the 2nd one had a mistake.
So basically, all AI compositions were better except for the romantic part. Bcs there is really a handful of actual proper composers.
Where did he take music composed by AI?
Is there somewhere I can find that last ai song?
there was a wrong note in the first. def obvious the first was himan... on the first one...
The only guess that I was confident was the one from Schubert. Though I didn’t recognize the piece, it’s simply too good to be true 😢
Yeah
I think the difficulty in the film music round speaks more to the declining quality of modern television and film music, which tends to act simply as "sonic wallpaper".
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.
@@federicoaschieri I refused to marry a princess. lol
@@RichardWagner-hi4zn That's great. Indeed you should marry a girl that you love, independently of her social status 👍🏻
@@federicoaschieri Well, that's a recipe for disaster as well.
I got all of them correct, the way I could tell is that AI doesn't seem to care for the beat. Sometimes it feels like it just randomly switches time signatures, or 2 different parts don't exactly match up.
This is so right.
Same. I got the same score and noticed this too.
Exactly
You mean the rhythmic pulse?
@@sarahyeoh0111 I think he means the meter (the time signature). That's what I reacted to. It will seem to be in 3/4 and then in 4/4 and then in something where you can't even really be sure what meter it is. (In the music from the periods where this was not commonly done.)
I don't want AI generated music .... I want humans to play more music. Music is about connecting to each other i don't want to connect to a machine.
You d never even know
As wierd as that is, good AI will have been effectively pruned and selected from a large pool of humans judges so that, despite its synthetic origins, it would nonetheless deliver a human-biased performance. Think of it as ready-made pizza vs freshly, homely pizza. Chances are that, in a casual context, you'd stop telling the difference between the two.
Stfu and just listen to good music no matter the source. Just enjoy it and stop bitching about it.
Early Classical-era DOES sound a bit more Baroque. It's technically "Galant" music - CPE Bach and early Haydn are good examples.
Late Beethoven would present a similar problem - too "out there" to represent Classical and also not quite like any Romantic-era music.
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 went 5-0, "guessed" correctly. I don't think I can say my assessment is better than Ray's, but it did came down to "feeling". The 3rd one, the 2nd romantic felt well structured, human touch indeed. And the last one, the 2nd song felt uplifting and a bit more distinguinshable.
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 ☺️
Got them all. I was applying the same rules I use when either reading or listening to verbal content. AII has weird repetitions. Inconsistent "pronunciations" or throwbacks to something earlier in the content in a way that just doesn't fit - that's why a human editor is needed to polish the content.
I had to laugh about your reaction to the Bridgerton theme.. I'm sure I will get lots of negative comments here, but that's the wsy I feel about the whole series - it is artificial and tries too hard to be accurate to/reproduce something it isn't. It's very funny that is reflected in the scoring as well.
It's not that AI in itself is scary or dangerous. It's how people intend to implement it in society. Currently, the governmental regulations surrounding AI aren't well formulated or defined. But since I've been studying and experimenting with AI, I can tell you this. AI is capable of much, much more, as the years go by.
"Does it go to somewhere or not" - this was a good recipe, helping me to get all. For my ears, the important difference is a meaningful composition vs. a senseless composition - more than the "sound" of the audio.
To add here: the selection was REALLY GREAT! It allowed the composers to shine, we heard really hidden masterpieces in all genres. Great-great selection, congratulations to your team, Ray!
The AI lines meander and felt directionless, while the composers' had a more clear sense of resolution.
How many did you get right? I used the same judgement and got 1/2...where is it going?
The most inportant thing to remember about AI is that at any given moment, this is the *worst* AI will ever be.
This was instilled in me at a talk I went to like 6 years ago, well before AI started to make its current dramatic progress. The speaker noted how important authenticity and creativity will become in the future. At some point, AI will be good enough to be indistinguishable even to the majority of experts. Thats why we need to value authenticity and live performance in and of itself.
Haha 😂 No, you’re not in trouble.
My 9-5 job is to help technology industry (and ultimately people) deploy AI. Recently, I’ve also spend some of my free time thinking about how AI can be explored in really cool ways in practising violin, and in classical music in general. I’m not a professional musician, however, I grew up playing violin +10 years, so I do have a hunch what it is about.
We often hear comments on how AI will replace people. I don’t believe in it. Not even though my job is to be an advocate for AI. I truly believe that ultimately it is all about how we as humans are able to harness the capabilities of AI to help us out and create value with AI for ourselves. In other words, to identify in which tasks AI is way better and faster than humans, and vice versa, where humans beat AI 6-0. Optimally, by deploying AI we humans have more opportunities to concentrate on the tasks that we love and cherish, and leave the boring, repetitive work for AI.
Unfortunately, AI will not play the scales for us, but I think it can help in amazing ways with practicing violin. AI has no imagination and it doesn’t think but it can provide - with its own strengths - new horizons and boost our imagination to the next level. Would be happy to hear about your potential trials on exploring AI to boost your practicing, in case you already have some.
Thanks for the great video 👍
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.
I hope someday you can go to México, you are a big inspiration for the people ! I love your interpretations
But in some categories both selections were mediocre. You heard about the Renaissance artist Garbagio? And the Greek scholar Mediocrates? Then take into account the BIASED *selection* of the human piece, not showing human brilliance but -- Mediocrates. So then everything sounds comparatively AMAZING! But then compare it to Beethoven and think again. Flawed and brilliant. Thanks for a diverting video!
2:19 Sounds extremely baroque to me. I'm somewhat of a professional. I've been baroque for several years now
This would be like judging whether AI could write fiction with samples that are only a couple of paragraphs long. The value of classical music is not something you can assess by listening to a few seconds of it.
On a certain level, we have Ai in our brain, the neurochemicals that show up in flow: so dopamine, norepinephrine, anandamide, endorphins, and serotonin. If you were to try to cocktail the street drug version of that, right, you're trying to blend like heroin and speed and coke and acid and weed- and point is, you can't do it. It turns out the brain can cocktail all of 'em at once, which is why people will prefer flow to almost any experience on Earth. It's our favorite experience. It's the most addictive experience on Earth. Why? 'Cause it cocktails five or six of the largest pleasure drugs the brain can produce. We're all capable of so much more than we know. That is a commonality across the board. And one of the big reasons is we're all hardwired for flow, and flow is a massive amplification of what's possible for ourselves.
I think it is quite easy to understand the difference. Especially in old classical music where music tends to be derived from speech and tends to have a rhethorical speaking quality such ML based systems cannot reproduce. With contemporary music it is harder, as there often you need to get the big picture to understand the design. The systems behind this are good at reproducing the generic aspects of a style, which also explains why it works so well for pop music ...
well u actually saved me a while ago so basically in my French test the writing was about a ceremony that i attend and i met my favorite musician and to describe it and i wasn't ready for that and the first person that popped up in my mind was ray chen and i wrote about u and everything IREALLY HOPE TO GET A GREAT MARK ON THAT TEST! 🙂❤❤❤
J'espère que t'auras une bonne note 🤣
@@Ketsen merci beaucoup 🙏💕
It's much harder to tell the difference between AI music and human music when you use bad composers for the examples 🤦♂️
The emergence of AI "music" is also the culling of trash. So many bad composers, whether they be beethoven, corelli, schumann or schönberg, will be revealed to be second rate when AI can replicate their garbage with ease.
“Black Angels” by George Crumb is a phenomenal piece for string quartet- and probably one of the most difficult. Imagine playing dies irae with flageolets while at the same time whistling it in syncopation…
That's really a great piece - and the God-music movement reminds me of Messiaen somehow.
@@aveyenxharmonically, it is indeed a Messiaen pastiche.
I got every single one. I think Ray just didn't focus on the right attributes.
I was focusing mostly on the melody. It seems to me like AI is not good at melody, and it just ends up sounding like the music isn't going anywhere, there's no story.
You can hear this a lot in the film music and pop ones, but also the other ones.
This is so entertaining. Love the live analysis streams of consciousness.
what’s scary is AI learns from humans but Mozart or Beethoven did the same every musician learnt from his predecessors. So AI produce this by studying human music. So at the end of the day , If we delete everything classical music data AI used to produce this it won’t be able. But I’m sad of listening this cuz music is soulful and could become literally shallow if we listen AI music without the background, feelings and emotions, moods of an artist while he produce his music. You can ask an AI to produce sad music it would probably make it but that sucks💔💔💔💔
In such a short excerpt AI does sound as a normal composition. Hovewer, in the context it wouldn't, the music wouldn't make much sense as a whole piece. This is something only a man could do. Even in these excerpts, baroque and classical excerpts sounded kind of weird.
AI is knowing all the Mozart composition. Thus it is easy to compose something in the same spirit. Like you can paint something the way VanGogh could have done it.
But if VanGogh would not have existed, you would not be able to paint something the way he would have done it.
The same is true with Mozart. If Mozart would have not existed, then the I.A would not have been able to compose music the Mozart way.
The I.A can compose something the way Mozart would have done, like many actual composers, in fact.
But creation is not making something equivalent to what already exist. Creation means making something that noone made before.
The Day an I.A will create a master symphonie coming from nowhere. A completely new piece that is not a "In the manner of"
i will be very surprised.
Talking about intelligence, every composersat every time were intelligent. But they had their history, their sensibility, their own experience, their own culture, their own conception of music. This is the reason why they created so many different musics. A german composer do not compose as a french, an italien, a Russian or a spanish one.
An I.A. has no history, no life, no sensitivity. It can only imitate the human creation.
Where was Mozart? AI is afraid to attempt Mozart.
I think the dead giveaway is what I'd call a lack of any sort of narrative arc in the AI excerpts -- something I have consistently sensed certainly in any sort of classical imitations. The first avant garde selection was too obvious to my ears, especially with some odd sound manipulation inexplicably thrown in. As for the contemporary soundtrack or pop music, well, the narrative arc is so fragmented and really ad hoc -- which is why it can become harder to detect. To put it more bluntly: simplistic music is easier to imitate, and who would really care anyway? I still managed to get all six right.
AI doesn't "get" the intuitive logic involved in musical creation (at least insofar as some kind of *depth* is involved) which is more process than product. The metaphysical assumption is that the human brain is a machine -- but this is a metaphor that leads to a creative dead end. But, once again, if the music that passes for "good" is already creatively DOA, of course AI can "imitate" that.