-
what would you say if you'd listened to this out of the blue, without any explanation to form your judgement?
Originally Posted by ragman1
aptly named "Time To Stop"
-
10-24-2024 08:13 AM
-
Well, it passes as music and it passes as jazz. It's just about reasonable. But there's a big gap at the start and it only lasts 2.50 mins so I'd say it had been created by a machine, now we're alert to those things. Originally Posted by Grigoris
Besides, googling Ted Shilling Wood brings up nothing and nobody so, again, I'd have to say it was machine-made.
What's your point? I agree it qualifies as a jazz guitar solo, although not very precise. So I assume you're saying AI can generate acceptable music. But we know that. That's what all the fuss is about because it's going to undercut a lot of human players who want to make a career in music.
But I'll tell you one thing, Ted Shilling Wood won't be selling any tickets to his next show :-)
-
Ignoring the ridicule of an "advanced brain" concept, the comparison above is completely pointless. The only relevant observation to make is that animal brains are countless generations ahead of computers (and it's a "miracle" to see how far we've come in computer science in the space of only a few generations). Originally Posted by DawgBone
FWIW, implementation wise computing hardware is somewhat closer to the cerebellum or even insect central nervous systems rather than to the cerebrum (i.e. the "everyday brain").
"Soul" is an illusion, a meta-concept and ditto phenomenon. A more neutral term would be personality, and even insects have that. Computing systems are on the brink of getting them too if they don't already ("that damn Windows doesn't *want* to boot again").Can a machine be soulful? I think not. It can only impersonate soul.
It shouldn't be hard to draw up a list of properties that will give an adequate qualitative description of "jazz guitar playing", or of (almost?) any other instrument, and to generate some playing that just about everyone will recognise as such. And that sounds close enough that less informed listeners will not realise that it's not a human player. Originally Posted by ragman1
-
Your innocence is heartwarming. Originally Posted by DawgBone
-
If a real band was in the studio recording that Ten Shilling Wood track 'Memories', the producer would stop it at bar 3 of the A section and point out there is something badly wrong. The actual intro, bland as it is, would need attention as well. Bizarre.
-
I have been repeatedly amazed by how smart chatgpt seems.
I understand that the technology is based on a kind of pattern matching, or something, at an extremely high level. And, I've seen it get simple things wrong. I understand it's not intelligent, as that term usually references.
But, when it works it can be astonishing.
Compared to some things I've seen it do, jazz soloing doesn't seem that difficult.
-
"Disco" destroyed the music market in the 1970's. The powers that be used computers to figure out that all people want is a dance beat, bass, and vocals. AI is the latest development from the computer world. The majority of the public has no taste and won't notice the difference. Look at what they listen to now. Some guy in a backwards baseball cap with his pants hanging down to his knees doing bad rhyming, maybe using two fingers on an electronic keyboard. It's not music. AI can never produce genius.
-
I consider AI a massive fraud. If there were such a thing, job one would be to immediately rid and relieve the whole world of all e-mail spam, all robo-phone messages, all computer viruses... that would be real useful AI.
-
I wouldn't go "Wow, who is this guy?" and seek out more of it, but this is a lot better than all of the the AI-generated "jazz" I heard the last time this topic arose in the forum. Just a few years ago, every AI-generated jazz piece sounded like what my sister calls "bad dream music." I am impressed with the progress. I think it is possible that AI may come up with actually engaging music in the future and Tal_175's prediction about music's place in society may indeed come to pass. Even if that happens, I'll still be more interested in the humans who can play jazz IRL. No human can outrun a car, but I don't hate cars for that, and I haven't lost interest in human athletic competitions because cars are faster than humans. So if AI generates some interesting music, great. I'm still more likely to go see someone like JK or Forman or Matteo live than to want to pay to see an AI generate music on the fly in some sort of "concert", even if the music is "good." Like Jeff, I get primary gratification out of playing, and the fact that someone (or maybe, someday, something) else plays better doesn't alter my relationship with music. But that may not be the case for casual listeners, maybe not even now. Originally Posted by Grigoris
-
Good point, but to link back to what I said earlier (on here, probably): it has been said that CDs too can kill live performance. Maybe not so much in genres where every performance is supposed to be different, but in classical music there are definitely musicians who have a troubled relationship with the fact that recordings can be made so perfect nowadays with the digital editing. And not just studio recordings: I have a few live recordings where takes from different evenings and sometimes even different venues are used (if you listen real closely with headphones you can hear subtle differences in the hall acoustics when they took a solo recording at a different venue than the segment you heard before). Fortunately for them, there's a substantial part of the classical concert goers who go for reasons other than to enjoy the music or support the artists because they want to support them... Originally Posted by starjasmine
But why would you go to an AI concert? Who would you be admiring because they manage to make it all come together into music rather than a sequence of sounds? Would it be like that talk I saw at my very first scientific conference (fittingly called "From Animals to Animats"...) where some professor walks up the stage, introduces himself and then starts a video of him giving his talk comfortably seated at his desk
(FWIW: I've come to prefer live recordings of the music I like to listen to. There's simply almost always more going on in terms of inspiration etc.)
-
My immediate reaction to "Memories" (well, within 25 seconds) was "incoherent." And the more I listened, the more it sounded like a collection of jazz-guitar gestures, deployed without any overall shaping imagination. For example, the 8-second stretch of deedle-deedles at 1:15 doesn't seem to come from or go anywhere in particular. I didn't get a sense of direction, let alone underlying structure (though I guess there's some kind of harmonic center).
My wife has been seeing ChatGPT-generated writing from her students for a couple years now, and as bad as it was, it was generally grammatical and (at the paragraph level) coherent. (It was, of course, banal and operating at roughly middle-school level rhetorically and intellectually.) Recent AI systems have gotten a lot "better," though they still lack the personal feel an experienced teacher can detect. The AI that produced "Memories" strikes me as not up to what the linguistic side of AI has managed to achieve.
-
So an AI guitarist has no physical limitations. They should do something more imaginative with it. How 'bout a Holdsworth solo with 'classic jazz' tone for EG.
I thought it was kinda funny when AI decided to repeat that 4 note phrase a whole bunch around 1:15. He's obviously been listening to Martino and giving it go to see if he gets more likes.
-
Heh, I suppose you mean the personal & individual knowledge of each pupil's strength and weaknesses which can really make the prose from an AI generator stand out like a, ahem, healthy tooth? Originally Posted by RLetson
-
It's really early in the tech cycle. Whatever the mocking or praise.. wait 5 years and see where AI generated jazz is then.
-
In five years the AI scam bubble will be gone just like the crypto snowball system scam ... Originally Posted by Spook410
Tech Bros are probably already hatching the next big thing.
-
I suspect in five years we'll be listening to a lot of music played by real live human beings in combination with AI (maybe playing in the style of real dead human beings) and we won't always be told. I'm pretty sure my ears won"t be able to tell the difference any more than they can tell the difference between a real guitar and a sampled guitar now. This is why I think AI is going to be great for live music. It's going to drive people to want to see as well as hear musicians.
-
I don't agree. Computers have dominated games like Chess for at least 20 years but it hasn't seemed to affect that activity which is arguably more popular than ever. Originally Posted by Tal_175
Maybe art is different but I also question whether AI can ever do what you are claiming without being truly intelligent.
-
Chess is a competitive game. When you play chess against a human, the goal is to beat them and win the game, the goal is not to find the mathematically correct moves. There have been faster vehicles than humans for a long time, that doesn't change the track and field sports because the thrill comes from the fact that it is a competition among the human participants. Originally Posted by charlieparker
If one day computers can write much superior movie scripts than human writers, would anyone ever hire a human writer? Would anyone ever trust a human writer that they didn't "cheat"? Most writers are avid readers long before they write professionally. Their favorite novels kindle and shape their artistic inspirations. If the favorite novels of the next generation are written by computers and no human can come close to the level of creativity and command of language of computers, how would that affect their relationship to writing as an art form?
Will computers ever become truly more intelligent than humans? If you have a naturalistic understanding of the human mind than you have to accept the possibility. For example some people involved in the neural networks believe that it is very likely that one day a massively powerful AI engine can make more progress in a research field every second than 100 brilliant researches in 100 years. Computers will be able to synthesize humongous amount information coming from disparate fields in a way that no human can and find connections and new insights that we are completely blind to and they will do that at an extremely fast rate.Last edited by Tal_175; 10-28-2024 at 05:41 PM.
-
Last Sunday I played in a quintet at a regional street jazz festival. There were a dozen stages throughout the city center, mostly outdoors. Each stage had 50 or 60 seats. All was on ground level, no elevated stages.
Everyone seemed to be having fun, musicians and audiences alike. Lots of interaction. People talking, looking one another in the eye while interacting, playing or talking. Seeing old friends, making new ones. It reminded me that jazz is a social music.
And it struck me that without that spontaneous intra-human interaction, this wouldn’t have been much fun. The fun seems to come from participating with others, listening and playing; the process of live musicking among and with others matters most.
Seeing music only or merely as a product to be consumed, or as a display of expertise, or letting it drift into competition, is perhaps the destiny of an already highly individualized existence. But AI didn't do that to us; we did it to ourselves and AI is our product.
-
The thing is, those are dedicated computers designed and programmed to excel at a particular game. I remember an old quote I read in the early nineties that observed quite accurately that "the ability to come up with a brilliant chess move when the house is burning down is not a sign of high intelligence". Originally Posted by charlieparker
As to "that activity" being more popular than ever: you know how tempting and addictive it can be to try to beat the machine you actually know can't be beat? Las Vegas and its legion of one-armed bandits thrive on that...
Remember the movie Wargames? Learning the concept of no-win scenarios from playing all possible games of tic-tac-toe and then extrapolating that to mutually-assured destruction is a kind of introspective intelligence I'm not expecting (nor hoping) to see any time soon in AI...
-
We sometimes forget this. It's a privilige to play with other musicians. Originally Posted by JazzPadd
-
I don't think this music is AI. But anyways, a lot of today's music sounds to me like something between real music and AI
. It is all programmed in sequencers and DAWs, recorded piece by piece, instrument by instrument, digitized, corrected and quantized, autotuned, played by plugins etc etc... And then you listen to it even more digitized, compressed and processed through Spotify or YouTube..
-
LLMs are not brains
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
Somehow that made me think of the Mantovani orchestra, remember them? From what I'm told they were responsible for a good part of the music you heard in elavators, restaurants etc. and they perfected the (difficult) art of playing with a real-life echo & chorus effect by playing every part just ever so slightly out of sync. (Or that was the story the director of one of my first amateur orchestras told us when we played like that - sounding very much like an amateur orchestra of course.) Originally Posted by Alter
-
The Ten Shilling Wood stuff is scary. I disagree with people saying it sounds AI, to me it sounds quite human...just not very good. But not fake, if that makes sense. Actually, sounds a lot like a rudimentary soloist playing along with Band in a Box.
This is definitely the kind of thing that could be on in the background at a cafe or something and nobody would ever think twice about it.
Given the leaps AI has made to get to this point, it's very scary indeed.
Reply With Quote
Simple Cross Rhythms
Today, 12:57 PM in Improvisation