How the Music Machine Makes Myths Real: AI, Holograms, and Ashley Eternal

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This is an interesting and contemporary argument that I feel draws a bit too heavily on accepted mores and slightly outdated scholarship (with respect to the hyper-real and the "divinity" of human creativity, specifically). The intentions outlined in the abstract don't entirely match the latter half of the article, or at least don't do so clearly.

This is a fascinating area of research, but this article doesn't entirely bring its many disparate threads together in a convincing way. There are assumptions made that sources or provided logic don't entirely support (see A below). At least one reference is outdated and supports the exact opposite of what is claimed (see B). The conclusion does not clearly articulate against the stated aims of the abstract, and relies on speculations made long before the AI phenomenon at the heart of the paper (e.g. Baudrillard, whose name is misspelt in one place). Some arguments feel rushed and therefore unsupported (e.g. the fear of death inspired by Tupac's hologram), while others are laboured. Finally, the conclusion rests on the notion of the "divine" in human creativity which is not defined or even articulated until the final stages of the paper (see C).

(A) examples of weak logic

 

This is a very long bow to draw:

Of particular note is the hype used to advertise such concerts, which promote them as fun” and magical” (Grow, 2019); the underlying implication is that these  events are a modern version of The Cult of Dionysus, the god who returns from the dead and stimulates his followers with Bacchanalian revelries (Čop, 2024).

Clearer logical links between paras/points required, e.g.:

Critics and fans have noted yet another factor at play here; the constant recycling of performances from established stars has the effect of silencing the voices of new generations of musicians and singers.               

Kenny Forbes describes the phenomenon of  Death Benefits” in the entertainment world:      the death of a celebrity encourages audiences to develop a pseudo-attachment to them (Hearsum and Inglis, 2010, p. 240), which initiates forms of media and social mourning that inevitably lead to a spike in sales through the economics of the death-effect benefit (Ekelund, Ressler, and Watson, 2000, p.157)” (2021). In            Dead Music in Live Music Culture” (2015), Felicity Cull explains how we bring dead music back to life in two ways: by listening to digital recordings of artists who have died, and by listening to live artists performing music that is recognizably from the past.        

Cull questions as to how relevant the concept of mortal death can be in a music culture that is based around digital recordings.

I find the conclusion here improbable, as red-flagged by the use of "probably":

 

This confusion has led to widespread distrust in perception: people no longer want what they know to be real, they want the appearance of what is real. In one example, Billy  Gibbons, guitarist/vocalist/songwriter for the band ZZTop, is seen on video singing and playing in the street in Helsinki, Finland (Keys, 2017). People walk past the famous artist, ignoring him. They presumably assume that a rock star would not be playing for donations  on a street corner.17 Similar videos on YouTube show world-famous violin virtuoso Joshua  Bell playing in subway stations, and being similarly ignored: Joshua Bell is one of the world s great virtuosos, and one of the biggest names in classical music. Bell played for  43 minutes and Out of 1,097 people that passed by Bell, 27 gave money, and only seven actually stopped and listened for any length of time’” (Macdonald, 2022).

(B)

This citation is clearly irrelevant (since this prediction is one of many that has proven false) and underlines the proposition that human-equivalent AI is imminent :

Thirteen years ago, Inafuku et al., in an article entitled       Downloading Consciousness,” predicted that                it is likely that most supercomputers will be able to run an accurate simulation of the human mind within the next few years” (2011).

(C)

The final lines of this paper asks the reader to agree with an argument (and several propositions) that is not supported by the paper itself:

 

“an AI composing indistinguishably from a human composer usurps one of our most cherished species concepts, that humans in their highest levels of creativity are animated by a divine spark.”

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The file I read missed lots of punctuation marks (such as apostrophes and quote marks). Probably just a formatting error, and easily fixed. Minor typos apart from that.

Author Response

Changes made in response to reviewers’ suggestions.

 

1. Abstract revised to remove reference to musicals and to add a reference to “Rachel, Jack and Ashley Too.”
2. First paragraph of Introduction revised to add thesis statement about analysis of “Rachel, Jack and Ashley Too.”
3. Removed section on songs based on ancient myths from introduction as not relevant.
4. Removed section on cults from the introduction as not relevant.
5. Added an introductory paragraph to section 3. “The Four Foundational Myths of Modern Music” to tie this section more closely to the previous introduction to “Rachel, Jack and Ashley Too.”
6. Added introductory sentence to section 3.2 “Artistic Visions Appear in Dreams…” to tie it more closely to the preceding section.
7. Removed quoted passage from Marvell’s “The Garden” and references to Nabokov in section 3.3 “The Separation Mind and Body.”
8. Revised structure of paragraphs 2 & 3 in section 3.4 “Uploading Consciousness into a Machine” for continuity.
9. Removed paragraph describing Billy Gibbons and Joshua Bell performing unrecognized as not relevant.
10. Added an introductory sentence to the concluding paragraph in section 4 “When Myth Becomes Reality in Technology and Music to explain ambiguity between competing claims in the previous paragraph.
11. Added a sentence to paragraph 2 in section 5 “Myth + Reality = Hyperreality” to emphasize that although Baudrillard was writing 40 years ago, his observations are still relevant today.
12. In the same section, moved a description of Paris Riots to a footnote, as it was a digression from the main point.
13. Added a sentence to the last paragraph of section 6 “Holograms” to emphasize that there is a difference of opinion as to the audience reception of hologrpahic performers.
14. Added a sentence to the first paragraph of section 8 “Conclusion” to introduce the discussion of how the earlier sections contributed to the development of the main thesis of the paper.
15. Added two sentences to the last paragraph of the conclusion in response to reviewer number 1’s query about spirituality, noting that the historic philosophical discussion of the mind/body separation referred often to the supernatural/spiritual, but modern discussions of the topic are on a more psychological level.
16. Removed items in the Notes and References sections referring to removed paragraphs, and added some missing links to online sources.
17. Corrected some typos and punctuation mistakes.*

 

* there are some formatting and punctuation irregularities that I can’t fix. They were introduced when I copied my original manuscript into the template. Specifically, the line spacing is different in some paragraphs, and there is an extra space between the last letter of some words and following apostrophes.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The topic of AI and myth making in music is compelling and interesting, however, in this article's current form, your discussion reads like a literature review. The number and variety of references suggest that this is a much broader dissertation that has been reduced in scale. It would be better as a journal article to focus on a deeper critical analysis of "Rachel, Jack and Ashley Too" (+ Baudrillard reading) and sacrifice some of the survey material on the topics of media cults and use of myths and stories. Many of your examples reveal the breadth of your reading but don’t necessarily develop the argument you eventually get to in the closing sections. Please be assured that these closing sections are compelling and offer good scholarly insight.

Your Abstract and Introduction need the most revision: your abstract does not even mention "Rachel, Jack and Ashley Too" and its centrality to the discussion; and you also reference musicals that are never discussed in your article. This might simply be a case of the article shifting in focus as you wrote it.

Similarly, your introduction on myths and cults in the media is quite rhetorically separate from your eventual argument. I would trust that your reader understands much of this background information and establish the topic of Ashley Eternal with the Baudrillard critical material from the outset - also a good spot to establish the literary precedence of Pygmalion + links to the creation of popstars, etc.  Note that you don’t mention of the Black Mirror episode until line 154, and within the context of the introduction, it seems at first like just another example. The section from line 176 to 191 also demands more critical analysis. As a reader, I wanted more at this point.

The “Myth of Pygmalion” section has lots of potential – like your references to Frankenstein – but again, these read like a literature review. Additionally, the inclusion of large extracts of poetry/song without detailed analysis forces the reader to do the job of making those critical associations to “Ashley Too” and the commodification of the music industry. 

Section 3.2 introduces important theoretical material for your argument, but like Section 3.3, there's too much listing of secondary evidence at the expense of focused critical discussion. The numerous examples from Coleridge to Nabokov are not irrelevant to your wider topic but they do detract from your main argument. i.e. come back to Ashley Too when you’re talking about the separation of mind and body.

Section 3.4 is where your argument begins to come into its own. It's an engaging discussion about AI but you’re still reliant on surveying the wider evidence.

Sections 4 and 5 + your conclusion are the real strengths of the article, though I would like to see Baudrillard used as a critical approach from the introduction. The late mention of Barthes could also be useful as a critical starting point – establish that theory of the artist, work and audience from the beginning. This (like Pygmalion) sets up Ashley Too quite neatly. (Could Pygmalion even features in your title?)

Two very minor points: From a musicological perspective, calling Joshua Bell a virtuoso (twice; ll.598 & 600) rather misses the point of your example - at least without semantic explanation. Bell's performances can be described in part as virtuosic, but the term virtuoso rather buys into the “rock star” mentality. E.g. media/audience-driven hype. Useful for your discussion but not reflective of classical music fame in the 21st century. Bell is famous, but classical music famous; they rarely command that level of name/face recognition outside of the concert hall, and that’s why those subway experiments never work. Also, if you heard him in the subway, you'd probably assume he was a professional and that might make you less inclined to give him money. 

Also, it’s interesting that you skirt over the Gorillaz when they are a fantastic comparison for Ashley Too. Musicians who foresaw the use of artificial simulacra in music and control it. They actively manipulate the divides between creativity/character/artist/live performance. E.g. Stuart Pot/2-D is not Damon Albarn – even though it's clearly his voice and he wrote the music - even when Damon Albarn is physically on stage singing/playing 2-D’s parts in a live Gorillaz concert.

Author Response

Changes made in response to reviewers’ suggestions.

 

1. Abstract revised to remove reference to musicals and to add a reference to “Rachel, Jack and Ashley Too.”
2. First paragraph of Introduction revised to add thesis statement about analysis of “Rachel, Jack and Ashley Too.”
3. Removed section on songs based on ancient myths from introduction as not relevant.
4. Removed section on cults from the introduction as not relevant.
5. Added an introductory paragraph to section 3. “The Four Foundational Myths of Modern Music” to tie this section more closely to the previous introduction to “Rachel, Jack and Ashley Too.”
6. Added introductory sentence to section 3.2 “Artistic Visions Appear in Dreams…” to tie it more closely to the preceding section.
7. Removed quoted passage from Marvell’s “The Garden” and references to Nabokov in section 3.3 “The Separation Mind and Body.”
8. Revised structure of paragraphs 2 & 3 in section 3.4 “Uploading Consciousness into a Machine” for continuity.
9. Removed paragraph describing Billy Gibbons and Joshua Bell performing unrecognized as not relevant.
10. Added an introductory sentence to the concluding paragraph in section 4 “When Myth Becomes Reality in Technology and Music to explain ambiguity between competing claims in the previous paragraph.
11. Added a sentence to paragraph 2 in section 5 “Myth + Reality = Hyperreality” to emphasize that although Baudrillard was writing 40 years ago, his observations are still relevant today.
12. In the same section, moved a description of Paris Riots to a footnote, as it was a digression from the main point.
13. Added a sentence to the last paragraph of section 6 “Holograms” to emphasize that there is a difference of opinion as to the audience reception of hologrpahic performers.
14. Added a sentence to the first paragraph of section 8 “Conclusion” to introduce the discussion of how the earlier sections contributed to the development of the main thesis of the paper.
15. Added two sentences to the last paragraph of the conclusion in response to reviewer number 1’s query about spirituality, noting that the historic philosophical discussion of the mind/body separation referred often to the supernatural/spiritual, but modern discussions of the topic are on a more psychological level.
16. Removed items in the Notes and References sections referring to removed paragraphs, and added some missing links to online sources.
17. Corrected some typos and punctuation mistakes.*

 

* there are some formatting and punctuation irregularities that I can’t fix. They were introduced when I copied my original manuscript into the template. Specifically, the line spacing is different in some paragraphs, and there is an extra space between the last letter of some words and following apostrophes.