Ai generating piano music

[lostinidlewonder]

It's becoming more powerful, this has got to be the most impressive example I've seen so far. Sounds like an improvisation by someone who knows their theory quite well. Could certainly see it as a useful tool to cut and paste the good ideas and fill in the gaps.

https://openai.com/blog/musenet/



Google also seems to have done an amazing job too, so good that they decided not to release it just yet because it would destroy the jobs of a number of people working in the music industry. Text instructions to music production, quite interesting.

https://google-research.github.io/seanet/musiclm/examples/

[ted]

Thanks for posting these links. I wouldn't listen to them again but they are certainly accomplished.  Coincidentally, I had a discussion with my son, a software developer, about AI and music the other day. He is very pessimistic, asserting that all conventional instruments will become obsolete because nobody will buy them or play them and professional musicians, composers and teachers will all be redundant. There are a number of reasons why I consider this trip to the musical cemetery, so to speak, far from imminent or even likely. The most important is the fact of the uniqueness of individual human consciousness, soul, psyche or whatever term is used to describe it.  I have a compulsion to be involved consciously in the combined acts of creating my own music, playing it and listening to it in combination, however solipsistic, inept or improper it might sound to other minds. A computer can create, play and listen, and it might or might not be considered aware of what it is doing; the jury is still a very long way from a verdict on that one. However, even if it can imitate me it cannot actually be me. This in the same way that Beethoven, Chopin, Waller, Gershwin and the whole panoply of dozens of others, however much I admire their music, cannot be me, cannot feel as I do here and now.

My son's response was that I am merely a fortunate anachronism, lucky in that I shall probably be dead before the musical cataclysm occurs. I couldn't help drawing a parallel with the bitter argument between Marsalis and Jarrett, which also seems to me something of a frog and mouse battle, rather like applying the Turing test to my lawnmower.   

[ranjit]

Well, people typically want a face attached to the music, which is why I'm not totally sure if this is going to happen. But it's possible that AI can flesh out orchestration so well someday that professional orchestrators and so on may be completely unnecessary. Also, you can always pass off AI-generated music as your own, which could possibly happen. Although, come to think of it, popular music is anyway formulaic enough that the way to produce it has been out for a very long time, and still people are attracted to new music by actual musicians despite the apparent lack of innovation, so I don't see why that would necessarily change.

[lostinidlewonder]

Thanks for posting these links. I wouldn't listen to them again but they are certainly accomplished.  Coincidentally, I had a discussion with my son, a software developer, about AI and music the other day. He is very pessimistic, asserting that all conventional instruments will become obsolete because nobody will buy them or play them and professional musicians, composers and teachers will all be redundant. There are a number of reasons why I consider this trip to the musical cemetery, so to speak, far from imminent or even likely. The most important is the fact of the uniqueness of individual human consciousness, soul, psyche or whatever term is used to describe it.  I have a compulsion to be involved consciously in the combined acts of creating my own music, playing it and listening to it in combination, however solipsistic, inept or improper it might sound to other minds. A computer can create, play and listen, and it might or might not be considered aware of what it is doing; the jury is still a very long way from a verdict on that one. However, even if it can imitate me it cannot actually be me. This in the same way that Beethoven, Chopin, Waller, Gershwin and the whole panoply of dozens of others, however much I admire their music, cannot be me, cannot feel as I do here and now.

My son's response was that I am merely a fortunate anachronism, lucky in that I shall probably be dead before the musical cataclysm occurs. I couldn't help drawing a parallel with the bitter argument between Marsalis and Jarrett, which also seems to me something of a frog and mouse battle, rather like applying the Turing test to my lawnmower.   

Yes you have a point that the "humanity" in music is probably impossible to capture. After all these AI require to analyse a lot of human works to be able to function. Could the AI ever create a new genre of music or determine what humans might find interesting? The "we didn't know we would like it" aspect is difficult to artificially conclude, it seems to be more of an emergence of creation from nothingness rather than a calculated one. I also think AI is unlikely to write a novel or lyrics which have a real impact on listeners as a professional human would create, maybe in years to come it could happen but it doesn't look even remotely close at the moment. At the moment it seems the AI can improvise piano works quite well but then to actually construct a masterful work like Beethoven, well that seems far away.

The teaching side of things I can see becoming threatened. Self learning programs out there are becoming stronger and stronger, an experienced team of teachers can train AI and create teaching engines to guide self learning processes to such an effective degree that most beginner teachers simply will be unnecessary. It will be good in one sense that the learning field will be equalised and not only those who can afford lessons with a human teacher will have the advantage.

Well, people typically want a face attached to the music, which is why I'm not totally sure if this is going to happen. But it's possible that AI can flesh out orchestration so well someday that professional orchestrators and so on may be completely unnecessary. Also, you can always pass off AI-generated music as your own, which could possibly happen. Although, come to think of it, popular music is anyway formulaic enough that the way to produce it has been out for a very long time, and still people are attracted to new music by actual musicians despite the apparent lack of innovation, so I don't see why that would necessarily change.

Yes "popular" music or like background music you might hear along with a video, product advert, in app music etc etc all are quite formulaic 

I also wonder if AI eventually will be able to play the same piece of music in different ways, like if it could play in the style of a certain concert pianist or come up with its own way to interpret a piece.

I certainly see AI being used as a tool to create music, a human/ai collaboration will produce very interesting results that I am quite certain of.

[thorn]

Given the global mental health crisis and the well documented benefits of creative pursuits on wellbeing, I'd personally rather AI be trained to do all the various nonsense we get bogged down with and leave art to real people. Like wouldn't it be great if we never had to fill out another form in our entire lives? Or write a cover letter/resume?

But unfortunately that's not going to happen. I think the compromise is that we have to agree on some code of ethics for this technology, and fortunately the field of Digital Humanities is growing these days.

The teaching side of things I can see becoming threatened. Self learning programs out there are becoming stronger and stronger, an experienced team of teachers can train AI and create teaching engines to guide self learning processes to such an effective degree that most beginner teachers simply will be unnecessary. It will be good in one sense that the learning field will be equalised and not only those who can afford lessons with a human teacher will have the advantage.

Having completed most of my teacher training online under lockdown I read a lot about the point raised above. We are already in an age where teachers rely on technology for their work, and those who are not digitally literate are struggling. I can 100% envisage a time when the teaching profession will involve creating self-learning programs as opposed to leading face-to-face classes. However, I think that however far we get with AI, self-learning programs will always need a teacher's input. For example, you get a consultation with a teacher to ensure you're on the right program, or you get a teacher's email address if you get stuck on the program. I also can't see AI ever assessing written work. Multiple choice stuff is already marked by a computer, but say the exam is essay-based, or performance-based, then this will always need to be marked by a human (unless it's something with rigid rules like harmonising a Bach chorale or writing a serialist piece).

As for economic equality, I'm a cynic on this point. One of the other forums I am on closed down recently and is being replaced by some kind of online music teacher training platform. Many ex-forumites have their suspicions that this platform will use everyone's forum input over the years, and of course they're charging people to access it. As someone who hasn't had a piano teacher for years, due to financial reasons, my idea of 'economic equality' is being able to ask questions on forums/lurk and read what others have said about pieces I'm working on etc etc. If digital learning platforms are going to replace this source of knowledge, and charge for the pleasure, then they're not levelling the field at all.

[lostinidlewonder]

... wouldn't it be great if we never had to fill out another form in our entire lives? Or write a cover letter/resume?

chat.openai.com

Does a real good job with language. You can write something and ask it to improve it.

However, I think that however far we get with AI, self-learning programs will always need a teacher's input.

Yes an amount of training however will allow it to then automate a number of processes thus make some teaching quite obsolete.

As for economic equality, I'm a cynic on this point. One of the other forums I am on closed down recently and is being replaced by some kind of online music teacher training platform. Many ex-forumites have their suspicions that this platform will use everyone's forum input over the years, and of course they're charging people to access it. As someone who hasn't had a piano teacher for years, due to financial reasons, my idea of 'economic equality' is being able to ask questions on forums/lurk and read what others have said about pieces I'm working on etc etc. If digital learning platforms are going to replace this source of knowledge, and charge for the pleasure, then they're not levelling the field at all.

I mean comparing FREE education to paid is not the comparison to make. Free education comes of course with the duty to filter and choose what you think is helpful, that can take up a lot of time and often there can be situations where one cannot effectively judge what advice to take and thus must experiement with multiple advices to come to conclusions, something that again takes up time with no guarantee that it will be resolved. The equality I'm talking about is having a paid tutor who you pay regular amounts to for education vs an AI type teaching engine which you would pay a small fraction of the cost.

[thorn]

Remote degrees were created based on the same principle- a cheaper more flexible option to allow more people to continue with/return to education. But, in my country at least, this was spoiled by institutional greed- they now cost the exact same as traditional degrees and have done for a few years. It happened so subtly that I can't even pinpoint when it started/when it reached the same price. It was before the pandemic, at least. I see the same happening with AI teaching engines. They'll start off cheaper than human teachers. They'll stay that way until they've sent most human teachers out of business. Then they'll become more expensive.

[ranjit]

There are YouTube videos which often teach really step by step. There are lecture videos which are better than those taught by professors at your own university. Yet, those forms of teaching aren't going away. I conjecture that it has a monkey-see-monkey-do aspect to it  (mirror neurons) and it's hardwired into the human brain to learn better in the presence of a teacher.

[quantum]

Given the global mental health crisis and the well documented benefits of creative pursuits on wellbeing, I'd personally rather AI be trained to do all the various nonsense we get bogged down with and leave art to real people. Like wouldn't it be great if we never had to fill out another form in our entire lives? Or write a cover letter/resume?

That might be a potentially good application for AI. 

I'd like to see how AI handles meetings about meetings, discussing future plans for more meetings, on the topic of meetings.   Let the AI handle all the nonsensical inefficient "communication" and let humans get on with accomplishing real work and creative endeavours.  Naturally, before we do any of that we need to have a meeting 

[quantum]

There are YouTube videos which often teach really step by step. There are lecture videos which are better than those taught by professors at your own university. Yet, those forms of teaching aren't going away. I conjecture that it has a monkey-see-monkey-do aspect to it  (mirror neurons) and it's hardwired into the human brain to learn better in the presence of a teacher.

Much agreed. 

IMO, part of the reason for this may people put stuff out on Youtube because they are passionate about the topic.  They are not driven by an externally defined curriculum, or course directors, or the need to squish a set amount of material within the time frame of a school term, or any other administrative lunacy that is present in an academic institution.  In many cases a Youtube creator is making videos to share a passion with others, being creative and being curious. 

I have come across many fabulous channels that discuss topics of music theory, composition, performance, analysis, etc. that rival or in many cases exceed the quality of delivery of a traditional post secondary institution. 

Traditional in person teaching has a definite place in the education workflow, but I think the emerging digital tools for supplemental and supportive instruction should serve as incentive for traditional institutions to question and reevaluate their practices, and how they choose to deliver education. 

[lostinidlewonder]

Remote degrees were created based on the same principle- a cheaper more flexible option to allow more people to continue with/return to education. But, in my country at least, this was spoiled by institutional greed- they now cost the exact same as traditional degrees and have done for a few years. It happened so subtly that I can't even pinpoint when it started/when it reached the same price. It was before the pandemic, at least. I see the same happening with AI teaching engines. They'll start off cheaper than human teachers. They'll stay that way until they've sent most human teachers out of business. Then they'll become more expensive.

Perhaps, though if they get more expensive then people simply will go to real teachers I reckon. It's the low price that will make it more ubiquitous imo. There's more money to be made through sales by volume I think, so keeping the price down is a good idea. Also with vr/ar era on the rise we might be in for a surprise with the blurring of the line between a physical teacher and an artificial one.

[lostinidlewonder]

There are YouTube videos which often teach really step by step. There are lecture videos which are better than those taught by professors at your own university. Yet, those forms of teaching aren't going away. I conjecture that it has a monkey-see-monkey-do aspect to it  (mirror neurons) and it's hardwired into the human brain to learn better in the presence of a teacher.

Sure I think learning with another human is the best, though it probably won't be the only "best" option in years to come and learning through other technological mediums will be in many cases a superior and cheaper option. The fact that a human teacher costs more money to hire is an important factor to consider. The information age helped educate alot of people who otherwise wouldn't have learned what they did. The progress in AI, VR/AR is going to be the next leap forward into a new age and with it comes ways to learn that we never thought possible just like what the internet brought us.

[ranjit]

What I actually see potentially revolutionizing teaching is a powerful AI-based gamified learning model. Just like Google can give better recommendations than your "best friend" because it knows so much about you and can interpolate patterns from billions of past occurrences, it's possible AI could give better suggestions of pieces that will keep you engaged and create a game-like addicting environment.

[quantum]

Sure I think learning with another human is the best, though it probably won't be the only "best" option in years to come and learning through other technological mediums will be in many cases a superior and cheaper option. The fact that a human teacher costs more money to hire is an important factor to consider. The information age helped educate alot of people who otherwise wouldn't have learned what they did. The progress in AI, VR/AR is going to be the next leap forward into a new age and with it comes ways to learn that we never thought possible just like what the internet brought us.

The topic being studied is likely also a factor.  Music performance instruction can often benefit from having the teacher at the student's side.  There are subtleties such as refining the playing mechanism, and learning the association between keyboard touch and tone production that are better experienced with the teacher and student present in the same room.  Also, studies that require the student develop sensory awareness and tap into the feedback loop of detecting a sensation to producing a self-correction or adjustment, for example ensemble and collaborative music making. 

On the other hand, studies that tend to benefit from bringing in and synthesizing a diverse sample of sources, media, and in person experiences tend to pose challenges to traditional instruction methods, such as the lecture hall.  A straight lecture can be logistically simpler for the lecturer, but can leave the students disconnected and unengaged with the subject matter.  While a lecture that is media rich and attempts to bring in diversified sources to support the topic, can seem disjointed as sometimes the amount of time spent inefficiently flipping back and forth between sources can eat up a good portion of the lecture; to the students perspective the flow is broken and it is more difficult to follow line of thought.  IMO this is where digital learning tools can greatly improve the learning experience. 

[quantum]

What I actually see potentially revolutionizing teaching is a powerful AI-based gamified learning model. Just like Google can give better recommendations than your "best friend" because it knows so much about you and can interpolate patterns from billions of past occurrences, it's possible AI could give better suggestions of pieces that will keep you engaged and create a game-like addicting environment.

Jumping off your idea, I think another application for AI is sight reading training.  Every person has their own sight reading strengths and challenges, unique to the individual.  The AI could dynamically present the student with sheet music excerpts that directly address aspects of the current state of the student's sight reading abilities.  The AI could adapt and call to attention any inefficiencies in a student's reading methodology. 

Prima vista sight reading is also another area where AI could excel.  It can be a challenge to constantly search for new material which one has not heard or seen before.  The AI could generate idiomatic music samples so the student has a constant stream of new music to practice sight reading. 

[lelle]

An AI can never replace a few important impetuses (is that a word?) and benefits of a human pursuing music - pursuing something creative for your own fulfillment and inner peace, and sharing that creative process with other human beings, face to face.

It certainly looks like it has the potential to kill a number of jobs. But I can also see how it might give rise to services specifically marketed as being "authentically human" haha - there will be a demand, perhaps smaller than for cheap, mass produced AI music overall, but still a demand for real music made by real humans. Kind of like the resurgence of vinyl record sales - people like holding a big, physical item and have a little ritual for putting on their favorite album, rather than just stream it online.