Fake Gregorian Chant YouTube Channels Produced by AI
Paul Rose produces SING THE HOURS which each day posts Morning and Evening Prayer from the LITURGY OF THE HOURS. It is one of the choices on my website.
Paul is currently producing a series which he calls OFFICE HOURS to describe how he does this, all the technology behind it. He does this just by going on line and talking to some of his regular listeners. He does this in very disorganized fashion.
He and some of his listeners have concern about the AI generated "Gregorian Chant" channels that in the last two years have been taking over the real market for Gregorian Chant on YouTube. Listening to whole two hours would be quite a chore, however I hope you have enough interest in AI to do the 30 to 40 minutes that I have marked in Red below. It is captioned!
00:00 Welcome, my lords, to Isengard.
Brief Discussion of His Reluctance to talk about AI
It's too early in the development
Analogy to the early criticisms of the printing press.
Risks looking silly when viewed in the future
01:30 Obligatory Beverage Tasting - A Sparkling Water Taste Test
10:21 Soda Stream Product Placement (not an official sponsor)
11:01 Bubble ASMR
12:32 Too many bubbles
13:50 San Pellegrino in a plastic bottle is like Mass with bad music
Part 2: California Pilgrimage
14:53 California Pilgrimage
16:16 Do you want to schedule a group, staff, or business pilgrimage? Reach out to Charlie.
17:18 Pilgrimage Route
24:20 Stays and Liturgies on the Pilgrimage (some are open to the public!)
40:56 Why go on this pilgrimage?
Presents his case for singing the Hours
Vatican II Decree on Liturgy
83. Christ Jesus, high priest of the new and eternal covenant, taking human nature, introduced into this earthly exile that hymn which is sung throughout all ages in the halls of heaven. He joins the entire community of mankind to Himself, associating it with His own singing of this canticle of divine praise
Part 3: Chant Bot or Not?
51:16 Why AI Bot Music is not real liturgy
52:07 What do you think? Are these chant channels real chant or bot made?
55:05 Brief intermission on the new canticle translations
YOU CAN SKIPE THIS
PAUL IS A STRICT LITURGICAL INTERPRETER
HE ALSO ASSUMES THAT WHEN THE NEW BREVIARY COMES OUT
WE WILL INSTANTALY CHANGE TO IT LIKE WHEN THE MISSAL
CAME OUT. I WOULD SUSPECT THAT THE CURRENT BREVIARIES WILL
CONTINUE TO BE USED IN PERSONAL RECITATION
1:01:23 Back to it: Bot or Not?
1:02:40 Everything that's wrong with this AI chant
1:13:37 Check out these bot channels
1:16:58 Watch Paul make AI Slop
1:24:02 AI voice replication is so problematic (the commodification of the human person)
1:25:24 What should we listen to then? Floriani, Neums and Tunes, Sing the Hours
I FOUND THE ABOVE 25 MINUTES AN EXCELLENT TUTORIAL ON HOW ALL THESE AI GENERATED "GREGORIAN " CHANNELS ARE PRODUCING SOMETHING THAT HAS ALMOST NONE OF THE CHARACTERISTICS OF GREGORIAN CHANT EXCEPT FOR A LATIN TEXT WHICH IS RENDERED IN VERY GOOD LATIN
THESE CHANNELS ARE GETTING FAR MORE TRAFFIC THAN REAL GREGORIAN CHANT CHANNELS AND THEY ARE DECEIVING VIEWERS THAT THERE ARE REAL PEOPLE SINGING THEM AND PRAYING FOR THEM
YOU CAN SKIP THE PART BELOW
1:25:51 Another Channel: Bot or Not?
1:32:33 One way to check if it's AI
1:33:35 Another Channel: Bot or Not?
1:36:11 AI is incapable of praying real Catholic prayer
1:37:05 The Collect Prayer from Mass
1:38:12 AI is blinding us
1:39:13 Another Channel: Bot or Not?
1:44:35 Effects of Baptism. You can't baptize AI.
1:47:15 Can you bless AI?
1:49:25 Support real Catholic musicians
1:50:15 Scandal: The State of Music in the American Catholic Church
I listened to some of it, but not all of it. I was not very good at discerning what was real and what was AI. Of course I'm no chant expert. I do understand why AI is not real prayer. It reminds me of those Buddhist prayer wheels that they put in a stream of water so there is constant prayer. The problem is that there is no one praying. There has to be people in order for there to be prayer. AI is different too, from those MIDI file soundtracks. No one thinks those are real music, they're just so people can get an idea of how a tune might sound. The sound quality is pretty bad. AI isn't so bad from a sound perspective, but I don't think musicians have to worry about being replaced. Yet. Paul mentions the coming new translation of the hours. I don't know why they're doing that. Any clergy that I've heard talk about it say they hate it. They dont want a new translation. I imagine most of them are going to continue using the old one in private. The problem will be is if they're going to pray in community. Also nobody likes the new translation of the Benediction hymns. The Latin is still the same, but not the English, which is what we're using, since that's what is in the missalettes.
I think they are going to have problems in getting the priests to adopt the new breviary. Unlike the missal, most priests do the office in private, so no one is going to know that they are not using the new breviary.
I suspect that many dispensations will be issued, e.g. allowing older priests etc. to continue to use the old translation.
The bishops might also issue permission to use the old breviary especially the psalms in parallel with the new one. For example, if a parish already has a booklet with a musical setting for the old office, you can continue to use it, but if you are creating one from scratch you have to use the new one.
Paul is preparing to use the new translation by phasing it in. That is when he redoes an Hour, he is using the new settings of psalms and canticles. It is legal to use them now since they are approved whether or not they become required once they are available remains to be seen. As Paul says in an early video each year about 70% of what he does remains the same. It really takes a lot of time to completely do or redo an Hour with both its audio and video.
Paul does the audio with a clicker in hand. Any time he does not like a verse or phrase he hits the clicker and immediately redoes it. Then at the end goes back and edits out the verse and phrases that he rejected. He sometimes makes the chant sound richer by singing verses with himself. And he uses sometimes uses a drone (a recording of a cord of his own voice to keep him on pitch). Any person or choir that chants for a long time without accompaniment tends to lose pitch.
I am finding the whole behind the scenes explanation of the technology of audio-visual recording very fascinating. In comparison to much of what is done on YouTube, Paul puts out a consistently high-quality audio-visual presentation.
Therefore, the contrast with AI production is very striking. An audio-visual presentation of a psalm which might take Paul at least an hour perhaps three hours to do can be done by AI in a minute or two. Not only one version but about a dozen options that you can choose from.
All of these involve sounds and visuals designed to be attractive. And they are attractive; these sites get far more views that legitimate Gregorian chants sites. However, none of it except for the Latin text has anything to do with real Gregorian chant. None of it is done by real singers. None of it is found in monasteries or houses of worship. So people will not longer be able to know what real Gregorian chant is like, or how it is sung.
I would think if they go to the actual web sites of the monasteries and convents of the religious orders which do Gregorian chant, people could be assured of getting the legit material.
Katherine - “ it reminds me of those Buddhist prayer wheels that they put in a stream of water so there is constant prayer. The problem is that there is no one praying.” Catholics light candles and the rising smoke is supposed to represent constant prayer even when there are no people there. Seems to me to be a lot like a Buddhist prayer wheel. Except that candles eventually burn out but the water doesn’t run out.
The idea behind the candles is that there was a prayer, when they were lit. Maybe that's the same with the prayer wheels too. AI? I don't know, it just seems like the goal with that is to eliminate the human element. I remember that my mom used to say she would light a candle for me if I had something that was stressing me or if I wasn't feeling well. It was comforting. I do the same sometimes for my kids.
This guy is strikes me as tiresome and self-involved, like most people who get on YouTube to school the rest of us, but he seems to have genuine concerns about human worship vs machine-generated "content."
Seems like these are some of the big questions he's churning up, questions I am not qualified to offer opinions about and will not try to answer:
--Worship lies in the hearts of humans. Chant, prayer, hymn singing, and whatever else comes out of human vocal chords are only a reflection of that worship, no?
--Even if not produced worshipfully, AI chant cannot exist without being "fed" chant originally produced as a result of human worship. So can we say that AI chant is the reverberation of that original worship? (Like candles and prayer wheels?)
--AI chant may not be an accurate representation of what chant is "supposed" to sound like. Does that disqualify it as worship if it puts the listener in a prayerful state of mind?
There's also the concern that AI can put musicians out of business if it gets too good (or good enough). That's something that the institutional wing of the Church will have to wrestle with.
Reminds me of AI Jesus-in-a-box in Switzerland that I posted about some months back. IMO, AI-generated entities in chatboxes and holograms generally send the message: You aren't worth an encounter with a real person, so talk to this fake instead.
I suppose people could use AI chant for background music and relaxation without really caring about its authenticity. But that would be different from someone actually trying to pray with it.
I listened to some of it, but not all of it. I was not very good at discerning what was real and what was AI. Of course I'm no chant expert. I do understand why AI is not real prayer. It reminds me of those Buddhist prayer wheels that they put in a stream of water so there is constant prayer. The problem is that there is no one praying. There has to be people in order for there to be prayer.
ReplyDeleteAI is different too, from those MIDI file soundtracks. No one thinks those are real music, they're just so people can get an idea of how a tune might sound. The sound quality is pretty bad. AI isn't so bad from a sound perspective, but I don't think musicians have to worry about being replaced. Yet.
Paul mentions the coming new translation of the hours. I don't know why they're doing that. Any clergy that I've heard talk about it say they hate it. They dont want a new translation. I imagine most of them are going to continue using the old one in private. The problem will be is if they're going to pray in community.
Also nobody likes the new translation of the Benediction hymns. The Latin is still the same, but not the English, which is what we're using, since that's what is in the missalettes.
I think they are going to have problems in getting the priests to adopt the new breviary. Unlike the missal, most priests do the office in private, so no one is going to know that they are not using the new breviary.
DeleteI suspect that many dispensations will be issued, e.g. allowing older priests etc. to continue to use the old translation.
The bishops might also issue permission to use the old breviary especially the psalms in parallel with the new one. For example, if a parish already has a booklet with a musical setting for the old office, you can continue to use it, but if you are creating one from scratch you have to use the new one.
Paul is preparing to use the new translation by phasing it in. That is when he redoes an Hour, he is using the new settings of psalms and canticles. It is legal to use them now since they are approved whether or not they become required once they are available remains to be seen. As Paul says in an early video each year about 70% of what he does remains the same. It really takes a lot of time to completely do or redo an Hour with both its audio and video.
Paul does the audio with a clicker in hand. Any time he does not like a verse or phrase he hits the clicker and immediately redoes it. Then at the end goes back and edits out the verse and phrases that he rejected. He sometimes makes the chant sound richer by singing verses with himself. And he uses sometimes uses a drone (a recording of a cord of his own voice to keep him on pitch). Any person or choir that chants for a long time without accompaniment tends to lose pitch.
I am finding the whole behind the scenes explanation of the technology of audio-visual recording very fascinating. In comparison to much of what is done on YouTube, Paul puts out a consistently high-quality audio-visual presentation.
DeleteTherefore, the contrast with AI production is very striking. An audio-visual presentation of a psalm which might take Paul at least an hour perhaps three hours to do can be done by AI in a minute or two. Not only one version but about a dozen options that you can choose from.
All of these involve sounds and visuals designed to be attractive. And they are attractive; these sites get far more views that legitimate Gregorian chants sites. However, none of it except for the Latin text has anything to do with real Gregorian chant. None of it is done by real singers. None of it is found in monasteries or houses of worship. So people will not longer be able to know what real Gregorian chant is like, or how it is sung.
I would think if they go to the actual web sites of the monasteries and convents of the religious orders which do Gregorian chant, people could be assured of getting the legit material.
DeleteKatherine - “ it reminds me of those Buddhist prayer wheels that they put in a stream of water so there is constant prayer. The problem is that there is no one praying.” Catholics light candles and the rising smoke is supposed to represent constant prayer even when there are no people there. Seems to me to be a lot like a Buddhist prayer wheel. Except that candles eventually burn out but the water doesn’t run out.
DeleteThe idea behind the candles is that there was a prayer, when they were lit. Maybe that's the same with the prayer wheels too.
DeleteAI? I don't know, it just seems like the goal with that is to eliminate the human element.
I remember that my mom used to say she would light a candle for me if I had something that was stressing me or if I wasn't feeling well. It was comforting. I do the same sometimes for my kids.
This guy is strikes me as tiresome and self-involved, like most people who get on YouTube to school the rest of us, but he seems to have genuine concerns about human worship vs machine-generated "content."
ReplyDeleteSeems like these are some of the big questions he's churning up, questions I am not qualified to offer opinions about and will not try to answer:
--Worship lies in the hearts of humans. Chant, prayer, hymn singing, and whatever else comes out of human vocal chords are only a reflection of that worship, no?
--Even if not produced worshipfully, AI chant cannot exist without being "fed" chant originally produced as a result of human worship. So can we say that AI chant is the reverberation of that original worship? (Like candles and prayer wheels?)
--AI chant may not be an accurate representation of what chant is "supposed" to sound like. Does that disqualify it as worship if it puts the listener in a prayerful state of mind?
There's also the concern that AI can put musicians out of business if it gets too good (or good enough). That's something that the institutional wing of the Church will have to wrestle with.
Reminds me of AI Jesus-in-a-box in Switzerland that I posted about some months back. IMO, AI-generated entities in chatboxes and holograms generally send the message: You aren't worth an encounter with a real person, so talk to this fake instead.
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2024/nov/21/deus-in-machina-swiss-church-installs-ai-powered-jesus
I suppose people could use AI chant for background music and relaxation without really caring about its authenticity. But that would be different from someone actually trying to pray with it.
ReplyDelete