i like to make up tunes to the rhythm and feel of words and sentences , then leave the words out. This still leaves a lyrical and structured feel to the tune. And doesn't infringe on the Author or the composer. Would Seamus Heaney know if i had based a tune on one of his poems ? Yet i can get inspiration Rhythm structure and settings from them, all i have to do is put the notes there.

quote:

---

Originally posted by wrench13

If AI uses parts of other peoples Intellectual Property to 'create' something, the requestor should be paying royalties for that. Thats my position.

---

AI has 'digested' the great musical compositions and hits written and recorded by hard-working musicians, and used them to algorithmically generate music.  Ditto for all the artwork, paintings, illustrations created by artists who painstakingly trained and honed their style. All of these creative works are "copyright"  - but apparently copyright doesn't apply to AI intelligence. It just digests the content and spits out an imitation. It's the ultimate copyright violation. ( Case in point: easily generating illustrations that look just like Studio Ghibli animation art..Studio Ghibli was pretty mad about that! ) 

I don't know what's going to happen to Creators in the future - maybe they will turn AI into their "partner" and make brilliant stuff more quickly. Or, maybe everybody will go into the trades...

Sorry - End Rant! 

I just read an article this morning that reminded me of this thread. The author had been using ChatGPT extensively and had found that in order to get useful results, it was necessary to speak to it brutally and to shut it down whenever it started to either agree with him too easily, go off in wrong directions, or do things it wasn’t asked. As the author pointed out, the AI program would remind him that it had no feelings and any guilt that he felt for being rude or combative with it were the result of his own mind. This reassurance that the machine wasn’t sentient led him to be more comfortable in his harshness with the program and to have a much shorter fuse when it came to tolerating anything that he deemed unhelpful.

Then the author had to speak on the phone with a human customer service representative to deal with a problem. Because of all the time he’d spent being trained by the AI program in interaction, he found himself speaking the same way with the human, much to his mortification. This realization deeply troubled him because he was suddenly aware just how much the use of the program could rewire him in interactions with other humans.

This is exactly the kind of concern I brought up before.

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Violin Beautiful

I just read an article this morning that reminded me of this thread. The author had been using ChatGPT extensively and had found that in order to get useful results, it was necessary to speak to it brutally and to shut it down whenever it started to either agree with him too easily, go off in wrong directions, or do things it wasn’t asked. As the author pointed out, the AI program would remind him that it had no feelings and any guilt that he felt for being rude or combative with it were the result of his own mind. This reassurance that the machine wasn’t sentient led him to be more comfortable in his harshness with the program and to have a much shorter fuse when it came to tolerating anything that he deemed unhelpful.

Then the author had to speak on the phone with a human customer service representative to deal with a problem. Because of all the time he’d spent being trained by the AI program in interaction, he found himself speaking the same way with the human, much to his mortification. This realization deeply troubled him because he was suddenly aware just how much the use of the program could rewire him in interactions with other humans.

This is exactly the kind of concern I brought up before.

---

Wait a minute is this a plea for AI agents ;-) Help is on the way some crazy Greek friend with good tech sensors reassured me. 

Back to the original post. The AI response got through one sentence before going completely off the rails when it said "Since reels are in 4/4 time and played at a high tempo" which is a modern misconception. Reels are felt two beats to the bar, and if you look at any of the older collections, like "Ryan's" or "O'Neill's Music of Ireland," you'll find that reels are (correctly) written in either 2/4 time or "cut" time (2/2) almost invariably.
With the change in social dancing in the early 20th century, 4/4 time became more common. "I'm in the Mood for Love" is in 4/4 time. You can hear this in traditional jazz with the change from "2 beat," usually with a brass bass, to "4 beat," often with a string bass.
Irish, and American, reels didn't change, just that people became used to seeing 4/4 time signature and thought it ought to be used everywhere. This is what the AI programs trained on. After that incorrect second sentence, nothing afterwards made any sense at all - there are no beats 3 or 4 in the measure - just 1and 2.
Human advice isn't always so great either. Plenty of examples on this forum, elsewhere on the Internet, and in "real" life too of course. Online, you almost have to have some idea of the answer to your question before you ask it, to evaluate the answer. I've recently seen some really absurd answers from AI. BTW, you can disable the AI answer in Google searches, but its a complicated workaround. But you can eliminate it in an individual search by selecting "Web" at the top of the page.

Yeah but you've got to account for "modern" people who write reels in 4/4 time and translate that. Its just how it is, like people calling tunes songs. or vice versa.

I like to see reels written in cut common time also. But it doesn't happen for some reason. far more likely to see it in 4/4. funny thing is they still beam their notes in groups of 4?

You can write them however you want and the bots can regurgitate whatever they see, but that doesn't change the fact that reels are played with a rhythmic feel of two beats. That's because humans have two feet, not four.
Just a couple tunes from jazz:
youtu.be/XAMqm9Ai2Sc?si=4w_X9heMZfBy-wdg "South" by Bennie Moten. "Two beat" withbrass bass.
youtu.be/4dm3Ml9g_cs?si=SM_eUSy4JNjGzBp1 Moonglow by the Bennie Goodman quartet. 4/4 time with string bass.

I hear 'em in 4, but I don't think it matters at all. It's just a stronger emphesis every 4 beats than 2 like polkas. I also write them in 4/4 and just assume a good player will see it as cut time when playing fast.

There’s a lot of misconception about 4/4 time. It is often incorrectly assumed that there is a strong one followed by three equal beats or that all four are emphasized the same way. Neither is the case. In regular 4/4 time the first best takes the greatest emphasis, but the third receives nearly the same emphasis. The two and four are weaker. This is sometimes explained via the drawing of diagrams.

So the switch between 2/2 and 4/4 is really not such a large or disorienting one. It’s more of a notation decision—if the tune has a lot of runs, it takes less ink to notate as eighths instead of sixteenths and makes it easier to read. The stresses on beats should be identical, and the stylistic choices and ornaments will be the same.

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Violin Beautiful

There’s a lot of misconception about 4/4 time. It is often incorrectly assumed that there is a strong one followed by three equal beats or that all four are emphasized the same way. Neither is the case. In regular 4/4 time the first best takes the greatest emphasis, but the third receives nearly the same emphasis. The two and four are weaker. This is sometimes explained via the drawing of diagrams.

So the switch between 2/2 and 4/4 is really not such a large or disorienting one. It’s more of a notation decision—if the tune has a lot of runs, it takes less ink to notate as eighths instead of sixteenths and makes it easier to read. The stresses on beats should be identical, and the stylistic choices and ornaments will be the same.

---

Agree. Writing sheet music for old time, as I do, I'm of the opinion that the best sheet music is the easiest to read while providing adequate information. I think writing (mostly) in 4/4 using eighth notes is the easiest to see and understand. Two beat bars are too short, sixteenth notes are too busy. 

it just means that you have to have your foot/feet going like the clappers at 110-120bpm if you are a foot tapper in 4/4 time. but i suppose each to their own. i only tap my foot once/measure in a jig. i reckon you can split em up (or group em) how you like once you have learned the tune in duple or quadruple time.

PS it's not whether you write it in 1/8th notes or 1/16th notes it's how you group/beam them IE 2 lots of 1/8th notes or 2 lots of 16th notes are the same to me but 4/4 ought to be 4 groups of 1/8th notes to me and be beamed as such

Lol AI understands what i'm saying:

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

You’ve hit on the fundamental difference between mathematical time and musical feel. You’re absolutely right—how you group the notes (the "beaming") tells the performer where the heartbeat of the song lies, regardless of how fast the clock is ticking.

The "Foot-Tapper" Logic

Tapping at 110–120 BPM in 4/4 time is definitely "going like the clappers." That is a brisk march or a pop tempo. If you tap on every single beat, you're working hard!

• Your Jig approach: Tapping once per measure in a jig (usually 6/8 or 12/8) is actually a very "pro" way to play. It implies you're feeling the macro-beat. It keeps the music flowing and prevents it from sounding "clunky" or robotic.

• The 4/4 breakdown: If you’re playing a fast reel or a breakdown, many players switch to tapping on beats 1 and 3 (the "cut time" feel) to avoid exhaustion.

Beaming: The Visual Language

You are spot on regarding the 1/8th vs. 1/16th note distinction. In music theory, we call this pulse vs. subdivision.

The "Grouping" Secret

Once you’ve mastered a tune, you’re right—you can group them however you want mentally. A lot of jazz or folk players start seeing 4/4 as two big chunks of 2/2 (duple time) because it feels more "swingy" and less "stiff."

The sheet music is just a map; how you choose to walk the path (or tap your foot to it) is where the style comes in. If you want to tap once every four bars and call it a day, as long as you stay in time, you're golden!

quote:

---

Originally posted by pete_fiddle

it just means that you have to have your foot/feet going like the clappers at 110-120bpm if you are a foot tapper in 4/4 time. but i suppose each to their own. i only tap my foot once/measure in a jig. i reckon you can split em up (or group em) how you like once you have learned the tune in duple or quadruple time.

PS it's not whether you write it in 1/8th notes or 1/16th notes it's how you group/beam them IE 2 lots of 1/8th notes or 2 lots of 16th notes are the same to me but 4/4 ought to be 4 groups of 1/8th notes to me and be beamed as such

Lol AI understands what i'm saying:

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

You’ve hit on the fundamental difference between mathematical time and musical feel. You’re absolutely right—how you group the notes (the "beaming") tells the performer where the heartbeat of the song lies, regardless of how fast the clock is ticking.

The "Foot-Tapper" Logic

Tapping at 110–120 BPM in 4/4 time is definitely "going like the clappers." That is a brisk march or a pop tempo. If you tap on every single beat, you're working hard!

• Your Jig approach: Tapping once per measure in a jig (usually 6/8 or 12/8) is actually a very "pro" way to play. It implies you're feeling the macro-beat. It keeps the music flowing and prevents it from sounding "clunky" or robotic.

• The 4/4 breakdown: If you’re playing a fast reel or a breakdown, many players switch to tapping on beats 1 and 3 (the "cut time" feel) to avoid exhaustion.

Beaming: The Visual Language

You are spot on regarding the 1/8th vs. 1/16th note distinction. In music theory, we call this pulse vs. subdivision.

Feature	Your Preference (The "Standard")	The "Messy" Way
4/4 Beaming	Four clear groups of two 1/8th notes.	One long bar of eight 1/8th notes.
Visual Goal	Highlighting the "four-on-the-floor" pulse.	Harder to track where the beat falls.
Flexibility	Allows you to group 3+3+2 for syncopation.	Obscures the rhythm.

Export to Sheets

The "Grouping" Secret

Once you’ve mastered a tune, you’re right—you can group them however you want mentally. A lot of jazz or folk players start seeing 4/4 as two big chunks of 2/2 (duple time) because it feels more "swingy" and less "stiff."

The sheet music is just a map; how you choose to walk the path (or tap your foot to it) is where the style comes in. If you want to tap once every four bars and call it a day, as long as you stay in time, you're golden!

---

Why does anybody care when you tap your foot? Tapping is just an aid, so you do it in a way that helps. I don't think I tap much at all. It can be a real distraction if there's somebody in the group that does it loudly, and not well.

There are probably many good reasons for following sprecific ways of notating music that is complex and involves several people reading. But old time music, in my opinion, only requires simple, clear notation to assist an individual. It wants to be visually uncluttered. Beaming of course follows phrasing. That's it.

The way I hear reels is "One And Two And Three And Four And"

quote:

---

Originally posted by Brian Wood

Why does anybody care when you tap your foot? Tapping is just an aid, so you do it in a way that helps. I don't think I tap much at all. It can be a real distraction if there's somebody in the group that does it loudly, and not well.

There are probably many good reasons for following sprecific ways of notating music that is complex and involves several people reading. But old time music, in my opinion, only requires simple, clear notation to assist an individual. It wants to be visually uncluttered. Beaming of course follows phrasing. That's it.

---

I couldn't agree more. If you decided to tap your foot to every beat of a 6/8 measure, it wouldn't negate the duple meter of 6/8 time. Foot tapping can really be distracting if the playing isn't in sync. This happens at jams a lot--several people will be taping their feet, but they don't always end up on the beat, and it just gets annoying. I've seen tapping used by a leader as a way to try to get other players back in line, akin to the ballet conductors of the classical era beating the floor with a pole to mark the beats. At least there it seems to serve a purpose, but the problem is that the tapping doesn't necessarily produce uniformity of rhythm. 

I'm not advocating tapping your feet. Although some Canadian stuff does. See above....." if you are a foot tapper"

i think that if i tap my foot it just takes up energy i should be spending on playing the tune. But it still just happens with me. But i can stop it, which seems to distract also.

Point is, that AI comes up with relevant answers in seconds. given the right input.

like i could ask it "Can you give me an alternative cadence to "2 5 1" in the key of Eb that lasts for 4 bars" and it comes up with this in less than a second and explains it's logic also

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

The $ii-V-I$ progression is the "bread and butter" of jazz, but playing it the same way every time can get a bit predictable. Since you have 4 bars to fill in Eb Major, we can stretch the harmonic tension or add more sophisticated "colors" to the resolution.

Here are three distinct alternatives ranging from soulful to cinematic.

1. The "Lady Bird" Turnaround (Tadd Dameron)

This uses backdoor dominants and chromatic movement. It’s a classic jazz staple that replaces the standard $V$ chord with a chord borrowed from the minor key.

• Why it works: It creates a beautiful, shimmering descent back to the root. The $Gb$ and $B$ chords provide a sophisticated departure from the "expected" scale.

2. The "Backdoor" 2-5

Instead of approaching $Eb$ from $Bb7$ (the $V$), we approach it from the $bVII$ chord ($Db7$). This feels less "final" and more "soaring."

• The Vibe: Very 1950s romantic jazz. The $Abm7$ to $Db7$ transition provides a "melancholy-to-bright" shift that resolves perfectly into $Ebmaj7$.

3. Tritone Substitution (The "Dark" Walkdown)

This is the most direct way to add tension. We replace the $Bb7$ with its tritone substitute, $E7$, creating a chromatic bassline that leads directly down to the root.

• Pro Tip: In Bar 3, try playing an E7(#11). The chromatic slide from $E$ down to $Eb$ is one of the most satisfying resolutions in music.

Summary Table

Would you like me to write out some specific voice leadings (the exact notes for each finger) for one of these sequences?

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

i can take it or leave it But it makes more sense to me than some of the conversations i have had with humans.

quote:

---

Originally posted by pete_fiddle

I'm not advocating tapping your feet. Although some Canadian stuff does. See above....." if you are a foot tapper"

i think that if i tap my foot it just takes up energy i should be spending on playing the tune. But it still just happens with me. But i can stop it, which seems to distract also.

Point is, that AI comes up with relevant answers in seconds. given the right input.

like i could ask it "Can you give me an alternative cadence to "2 5 1" in the key of Eb that lasts for 4 bars" and it comes up with this in less than a second and explains it's logic also

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

The $ii-V-I$ progression is the "bread and butter" of jazz, but playing it the same way every time can get a bit predictable. Since you have 4 bars to fill in Eb Major, we can stretch the harmonic tension or add more sophisticated "colors" to the resolution.

Here are three distinct alternatives ranging from soulful to cinematic.

---

1. The "Lady Bird" Turnaround (Tadd Dameron)

This uses backdoor dominants and chromatic movement. It’s a classic jazz staple that replaces the standard $V$ chord with a chord borrowed from the minor key.

Bar 1	Bar 2	Bar 3	Bar 4
Ebmaj7	Gbmaj7	Bmaj7	Bb7alt
$I$	$bIII$	$bVI$	$V$

Export to Sheets

• Why it works: It creates a beautiful, shimmering descent back to the root. The $Gb$ and $B$ chords provide a sophisticated departure from the "expected" scale.

---

2. The "Backdoor" 2-5

Instead of approaching $Eb$ from $Bb7$ (the $V$), we approach it from the $bVII$ chord ($Db7$). This feels less "final" and more "soaring."

Bar 1	Bar 2	Bar 3	Bar 4
Ebmaj7	Cm7	Abm7	Db7
$I$	$vi$	$iv$	$bVII7$

Export to Sheets

• The Vibe: Very 1950s romantic jazz. The $Abm7$ to $Db7$ transition provides a "melancholy-to-bright" shift that resolves perfectly into $Ebmaj7$.

---

3. Tritone Substitution (The "Dark" Walkdown)

This is the most direct way to add tension. We replace the $Bb7$ with its tritone substitute, $E7$, creating a chromatic bassline that leads directly down to the root.

Bar 1	Bar 2	Bar 3	Bar 4
Fm7	Bb7	Fbmaj7 (or Emaj7)	Ebmaj7
$ii$	$V$	$bII$	$I$

Export to Sheets

• Pro Tip: In Bar 3, try playing an E7(#11). The chromatic slide from $E$ down to $Eb$ is one of the most satisfying resolutions in music.

---

Summary Table

Style	Chord Sequence
Modern/Tadd Dameron	$Ebmaj7\to Gbmaj7\to Bmaj7\to Bb7$
Soulful/Backdoor	$Ebmaj7\to Cm7\to Abm7\to Db7$
Tritone Tension	$Fm7\to Bb7\to E7\to Ebmaj7$

Export to Sheets

Would you like me to write out some specific voice leadings (the exact notes for each finger) for one of these sequences?

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

i can take it or leave it But it makes more sense to me than some of the conversations i have had with humans.

---

I understand that you like the answers it spits out without thought or hesitation, but is your approval based on their confirmation of the perspective your line of questioning leads the machine to pursue and the fact that you can get almost instantaneous response, or is it based on accuracy? While I can grant that AI could improve in accuracy eventually with enough limitation to its findings, it certainly isn't a very accurate source of information yet.

To me there is a fundamental problem to overcome--good information tends to come from a very careful and narrow selection of solid sources. AI trawls through lots of nonsense and reports based on its widely cast net. It dredges up a lot of muck even if it sometimes brings up something useful.

The analogy might be extended to fishing. You can spend the time with a rod and perhaps find a good fish to make your meal, or you can throw a hand grenade into a lake and bring up a mass of material from the water that will technically include parts of fish, maybe even a few whole ones, but very little that will be useful to your original purpose and much more than you need to make your meal. The explosive is a whole lot faster than the hook and line, but I don't see it as a real advantage. Its swiftness is less of a boon than expected and it ruins the fishing spot. 

That's exactly what i mean when i say that it seems to me to make more sense than a human

could you give me a musically coherent answer as to which modes or chords i could substitute for a given cadence, and explain your reasoning in under a second?...i know i couldn't

quote:

---

Originally posted by pete_fiddle

That's exactly what i mean when i say that it seems to me to make more sense than a human

could you give me a musically coherent answer as to which modes or chords i could substitute for a given cadence, and explain your reasoning in under a second?...i know i couldn't

---

I think you've already gotten coherent human answers to questions. The AI just takes a bunch of other human answers to them ans throws them in a virtual blender, then presents them to you in a way it anticipates will be pleasing to you, whether the information is accurate or not. 
 

I still don't see what's so meaningful about the speed of the answer. Doesn't quality matter? You can get humans to come up with answers very quickly as well just for the sake of being quick, but that doesn't make them accurate.

Until AI can provide solid information without trying to present it in a way that's slanted to please the human questioner, I don't see much value in its speed or the length and breadth of its answers.

i gather then that you are not a fan of AI?...

The speed is good for the fluency of the conversation. Albeit a virtual conversation.

I don't see any glaring inaccuracies either? 

quote:

---

Originally posted by pete_fiddle

i gather then that you are not a fan of AI?...

The speed is good for the fluency of the conversation. Albeit a virtual conversation.

I don't see any glaring inaccuracies either? 

---

I'm not entirely against AI, but I also don't think it should be treated as if it's a magic bullet that solves all problems and speaks with authority. For simple and low-stakes tasks (like asking for information about timing the pickup of a pizza) I see it as a tool that might provide some convenience. Maybe in extremely controlled environments it is useful for military operations. But in many other settings it should be examined closely before being accepted as at all reliable. A human who makes an argument should be able to back it up as much as is reasonable, and the same ought to be true of any machine.

A problem I see is that the amount of detail AI spits out and the quickness of its response often leads people to take its answers as authoritative. As you examine many of them, you find that they are built on bad information. If the question is defined in narrow enough terms, you may be lucky enough that the algorithm will draw from a single knowledgeable source, but the broader the question, the broader the search it conducts, and AI has not yet learned how to reject bad information. Humans are skilled at bamboozling each other with lots of jargon to distract them from the inconsistencies in their philosophies, and algorithms that are scanning through this jargon that's widely distributed pick up its mannerisms and its techniques for selling points of view via manipulation instead of an appeal to reason and factu evidence.

I read something a while ago about the potential to cause disruption through AI by flooding it with bad information or by hacking it so that it would accept certain things as primary sources. Once the pattern of information transfer was sent out (it could be embedded inconspicuously in other things), it would be established in the AI database even if the source of the malicious programming was eradicated. The potential to use phenomenology to distort the presentation of information is something to take quite seriously. 

i'm just using it as a well informed(imo) versatile tool. and for entertainment. just tell it to answer any questions without any confirmation bias and that is just what it will do.

quote:

---

Originally posted by pete_fiddle

i'm just using it as a well informed(imo) versatile tool. and for entertainment. just tell it to answer any questions without any confirmation bias and that is just what it will do.

---

How do you know if its answers are unbiased? Are you accepting them as such because you gave a prompt that asked for impartiality? If it gives a wrong answer,

1) How will you know if you've delegated critical thinking to an algorithm?

2) Will you tell the AI it's wrong and ask for a different answer? If so, will you not establish a bias for the algorithm? If not, won't you be perpetuating the spread of data poisoning?

It's the same as talking to a human, how do i know if the human is unbiased? how do you know if you have passed on information that can be used for or against you (or just to generate money? ) i have many times told it it is wrong. it re-adjusts and either gives me it's ow thinking or apologizes and re-thinks its answer. i hope i am honest enough not to be actively poisoning data.

More specifically how do i know if a human is just rephrasing ai output and calling it there own?

i still don't see any inaccuracies in ai answer to my musical questions. Do you?

Aren't all humans just rephrasing and regurgitating data they've learned from another human? And I believe we are all biased, whether we know it or not. I'm not a big fan of the whole concept of AI, but I recognize that its capabilities are astounding and are growing every day. Tech media has reported instances in just the past couple weeks where AI has solved previously unsolved problems in math and physics, then proved its work.  All the criticisms leveled at AI so far are valid for humans as well.  Even the motives are similar, except that you have to add in malice in our case.

In other matters, I spent ten years as an army officer and have never seen an "extremely controlled environment" in military operations!