I also liked that it didn't explicitly say how it decides when to play a note.
All the subway routes are normalized to 15 seconds long from beginning to end. The app then plays all 15 second routes together, playing the instrument assigned to the route when there's a train there.
Neat commentary on the instruments that were assigned to the route when you mouse over it.
Very neat. This is an example of digital art that I’d love to see exist in physical form somehow. I suppose it could get rather noisy at a museum but I love the intersection of mass transit & music.
It's interesting that a lot people like this but dislike AI-generated music. The music itself here is completely random to us, yet I can't see how AI-generated music can be worse than random.
The idea is novel/fun/cool, but the notes ARE random as far as we can tell. So if you're against AI music, you just like the idea but don't care about the music or... something else I can't imagine.
I think we can all come up with a bunch of original "hey, if we turn this random pattern of X into music, it would be interesting". But I don't see the point of actually doing it since the result is obviously going to be random uninteresting notes. If I convert my keypresses on my keyboard over the past year or whether my dog licks itself or barks or runs into music, it would still be random crap. The idea of the article is the only thing that made me go "huh" for a few moments. Clicking around and seeing the execution and hearing the music was definitely "meh".
The music all by itself is not particularly enjoyable here. What's great is the concept, execution, and the way data from an unlikely source is directly audible in the music. What defines art will always be fuzzy, but this particular work is a good example of art I can appreciate: presenting known things in an unusual way, playing with perception to create new connections between remote concepts, and sometimes providing a stepping stone to, as you say, enlightenment.
I've had a hard time appreciating art so far, especially the ones that focus primarily on the concept, like this one. I get that it's novel and interesting, but I can't see myself spending more than a few minutes on it. Therefore, the value for me is negligible even though I can appreciate its novelty.
That's how I feel with most art - "yeah, it's cool, but can I look at something else now?". The time someone spent on creating it seems disproportionate to the time I'd interact with it. Maybe since lots of people will interact with it, it makes sense to do it, but maybe I just don't get art at all.
I see some sculptures that seem really basic, like putting some stones in some metal cage or something equally easy to design or, at least, explain/communicate. And all I'm thinking is "they paid some people to move a few tons of stone and weld some metal rods together... for this?!". My feeling is similar here - the idea is neat(ish) but someone went to all the trouble to actually implement it? The implementation gives us this random music we can play in our browsers but people mention they care more about the concept than the music. So why go to all the trouble to make the final polished version of your idea? Why not just say "imagine if we mapped the trains' locations via gps at specific times to different instruments"?
Yeah, I probably don't get art as others do. I just don't see a difference between "imagine a 100-ton stone handing from a rod" and "look at this actual 100-ton stone hanging from a rod".
I don't know, I have some sympathy. Conceptual art is kind of meh. Travel is pointless, everywhere is the same, you can read about places and stay home, everything is unnecessary. Except I'm probably wrong.
I get than seeing someone is different than it being explained to you, but not by much. "Picture 4 big stones with a metal mesh covering parts of them so... blah blah.". I can picture it if you explain it in detail. You can even make a drawing in a couple of minutes and I'll get it. Why go to the trouble of hiring people to move the actual stones and so on?
For traveling it's very similar. I've seen some monuments in pictures first and in real life later. When I see them IRL, it's just... meh. Maybe I've been desensitized to giant structures or to how much detailed a sculpture can be, but even if I realize I have been, the "damage" is done. I can't be in awe of something someone 300 years would find awesome. I can just think "Why did I waste X hours to see this in person?".
That's why I don't really travel anymore. I can get so much information about architecture or statues or nature from photos and videos that seeing the real thing would almost surely be a disappointment. Both the pictures and videos and the real things involve sight and maybe hearing. It's not like I'm reading about a recipe but not being able to taste the real thing.
I think it has to be with expectations. Out of random music we don't expect much, so any result that is nice is good enough. For AI we are promised it's "just as good" but we get generic, soulless music that bring nothing new to the table.
Yeah, it's better than a lot of people, but it doesn't deliver the "just as good" part. On top of that you get that now anyone can promp a song and have a deluge of grey, tasteless elevator music.
So it has to do with our expectations (what we're promised) and with the fact anyone can make it? I get both points but neither seems to be about the music itself.
My exposure to AI music so far has been when I went to the local Japanese takeout to get udon. They had a big Midjourney-looking generated picture of Mount Fuji on the wall, with a cherry tree in front, and falling cherry blossom. It was full of completely unrewarding details that it was pointless to focus on, and the music they were playing was similar: endless soft love songs where each one was almost, but not quite, different from the one before, with lyrics about depending on someone and liking hugs.
This was actually preferable to genuine pop music, because it didn't demand much of my attention, and was closer to silence, which would have been perfection. But it wasn't communicating anything. Communicating is an imposition, and a risk.
I can understand how generic AI slop or even random notes can be better than shitty pop music. If you don't expect it to rival your favorite artists, you won't be disappointed. If you've led to believe you'll listen to a masterpiece and it turns out to be slop or random notes, you'd be disappointed.
Right, but being annoyed by things is subtle, like a dripping sink or a fly in the room. It isn't doing any harm ... unless you really work on arguing for how the plumbing is slowly corroding or the fly is spreading disease ... but it's annoying because it's present, and you didn't plan on it being present. Why is the AI music here, growing in places unbidden, like fungus? That feeling of being exploited, and unable to stop it, can make an intrinsically inoffensive thing into an annoyance.
I get that. I just haven't really been exposed to AI music unless I wanted to be exposed to it, so it doesn't annoy me. I've read about how Spotify and similar services are full of AI music and how it's hard to sift through the slop, but I haven't used such services and mostly rely on (hopefully) human recommendations for what to listen to, so I've only found AI music when I've specifically searched for it. Kind of like if I wanted to study flies and went out of my way to find flies but if flies never came to my home unexpected or uninvited.
Why do you think people dislike AI-generated content?
It's not because AI-generated music inherently sucks. It's generally C-grade professional music. It's just not novel or especially interesting, and the low barrier to entry means there's a ton of slop in the space.
A lot of people have always wanted to make music, never made it past the barrier of "music is hard," and therefore have no clue as to what makes truly good music. And now that they have AI, they think they can just skip all the boring parts and make great songs.
And while they can skip a lot of steps in the creative process — those skipped steps also help musicians develop their artistic taste and judgment.
And just because these AI "creators" can't tell the difference, they assume others can't either. And then they get mad when critics recognize their uninspired, derivative slop for what it is.
That's not limited to music, either. You see it in coding, graphic design, writing, and pretty much any other LLM-assisted content generation. Maybe it'll change one day as models get better. Maybe not.
This project is original, stylish, technically clever, aesthetically pleasing, and well-crafted. There's a level of polish and intention behind it, and people here recognize that.
Unlike other commenters than seem to place more importance on concept, expectations and whether anyone can make it, yours is the only comment that says AI music is recognizable as uninspired, derivative slop.
I imagine for some genres it would be easy to recognize it as slop, but not as easily for others. It's intuitive techno would be easier to make than trance, which would in turn be easier to make than nu metal.
Can you share some AI music, if you've kept track of it, that's the hardest for you to recognize as unimaginative slop? I'm genuinely interested in how it would sound to me.
What is "pure music"? Who listens to music with no ideas about it?
Of course music can be worse than random: it can be annoying.
I get a downvote, huh? Look, I like Ornette Coleman. I like Nurse With Wound and Merzbow and avant-garde noise. I do not like 21st century pop. If I have to have music played to me against my will, I would way prefer it to be random notes than if it presented a slimy modern personality, or used a tone of voice to sing at me with, or conveyed vapid little bad ideas in its lyrics.
The sound doesn't work for me, but I love the description of the G. It does have a cult following: and just like a cult you're tricked into loving it despite its many flaws, like the one hour wait at night or sprinting to the middle of the platform.
If I could offer one usability suggestion: darken the text displayed at the bottom when a specific route is selected. Currently it's much too light for the white background. I couldn't tell you the exact contrast ratio but I'm certain it doesn't meet accessibility guidelines.
I love jazz but it's kind of funny how much this actually sounds like a really experimental jazz recording.
But then, jazz is sometimes spoken of as expressing the rhythms, sounds, and emotions of the modern city.
Interesting and amazing presentation.
I also liked that it didn't explicitly say how it decides when to play a note.
All the subway routes are normalized to 15 seconds long from beginning to end. The app then plays all 15 second routes together, playing the instrument assigned to the route when there's a train there.
Neat commentary on the instruments that were assigned to the route when you mouse over it.
The trombones (A, C, and E) are kind of farty. This is not how I remember "Take the A train". Too much realism.
How is the bar-to-map transition done? With what framework or calculated manually
Very neat. This is an example of digital art that I’d love to see exist in physical form somehow. I suppose it could get rather noisy at a museum but I love the intersection of mass transit & music.
It's interesting that a lot people like this but dislike AI-generated music. The music itself here is completely random to us, yet I can't see how AI-generated music can be worse than random.
The idea is novel/fun/cool, but the notes ARE random as far as we can tell. So if you're against AI music, you just like the idea but don't care about the music or... something else I can't imagine.
I think we can all come up with a bunch of original "hey, if we turn this random pattern of X into music, it would be interesting". But I don't see the point of actually doing it since the result is obviously going to be random uninteresting notes. If I convert my keypresses on my keyboard over the past year or whether my dog licks itself or barks or runs into music, it would still be random crap. The idea of the article is the only thing that made me go "huh" for a few moments. Clicking around and seeing the execution and hearing the music was definitely "meh".
Enlighten me, please.
The music all by itself is not particularly enjoyable here. What's great is the concept, execution, and the way data from an unlikely source is directly audible in the music. What defines art will always be fuzzy, but this particular work is a good example of art I can appreciate: presenting known things in an unusual way, playing with perception to create new connections between remote concepts, and sometimes providing a stepping stone to, as you say, enlightenment.
I've had a hard time appreciating art so far, especially the ones that focus primarily on the concept, like this one. I get that it's novel and interesting, but I can't see myself spending more than a few minutes on it. Therefore, the value for me is negligible even though I can appreciate its novelty.
That's how I feel with most art - "yeah, it's cool, but can I look at something else now?". The time someone spent on creating it seems disproportionate to the time I'd interact with it. Maybe since lots of people will interact with it, it makes sense to do it, but maybe I just don't get art at all.
I see some sculptures that seem really basic, like putting some stones in some metal cage or something equally easy to design or, at least, explain/communicate. And all I'm thinking is "they paid some people to move a few tons of stone and weld some metal rods together... for this?!". My feeling is similar here - the idea is neat(ish) but someone went to all the trouble to actually implement it? The implementation gives us this random music we can play in our browsers but people mention they care more about the concept than the music. So why go to all the trouble to make the final polished version of your idea? Why not just say "imagine if we mapped the trains' locations via gps at specific times to different instruments"?
Yeah, I probably don't get art as others do. I just don't see a difference between "imagine a 100-ton stone handing from a rod" and "look at this actual 100-ton stone hanging from a rod".
Imagine if I explained the difference. See now?
I don't know, I have some sympathy. Conceptual art is kind of meh. Travel is pointless, everywhere is the same, you can read about places and stay home, everything is unnecessary. Except I'm probably wrong.
I get than seeing someone is different than it being explained to you, but not by much. "Picture 4 big stones with a metal mesh covering parts of them so... blah blah.". I can picture it if you explain it in detail. You can even make a drawing in a couple of minutes and I'll get it. Why go to the trouble of hiring people to move the actual stones and so on?
For traveling it's very similar. I've seen some monuments in pictures first and in real life later. When I see them IRL, it's just... meh. Maybe I've been desensitized to giant structures or to how much detailed a sculpture can be, but even if I realize I have been, the "damage" is done. I can't be in awe of something someone 300 years would find awesome. I can just think "Why did I waste X hours to see this in person?".
That's why I don't really travel anymore. I can get so much information about architecture or statues or nature from photos and videos that seeing the real thing would almost surely be a disappointment. Both the pictures and videos and the real things involve sight and maybe hearing. It's not like I'm reading about a recipe but not being able to taste the real thing.
Truly random music doesn't suffer from someone trying too hard and making it lame.
I think it has to be with expectations. Out of random music we don't expect much, so any result that is nice is good enough. For AI we are promised it's "just as good" but we get generic, soulless music that bring nothing new to the table.
Yeah, it's better than a lot of people, but it doesn't deliver the "just as good" part. On top of that you get that now anyone can promp a song and have a deluge of grey, tasteless elevator music.
So it has to do with our expectations (what we're promised) and with the fact anyone can make it? I get both points but neither seems to be about the music itself.
My exposure to AI music so far has been when I went to the local Japanese takeout to get udon. They had a big Midjourney-looking generated picture of Mount Fuji on the wall, with a cherry tree in front, and falling cherry blossom. It was full of completely unrewarding details that it was pointless to focus on, and the music they were playing was similar: endless soft love songs where each one was almost, but not quite, different from the one before, with lyrics about depending on someone and liking hugs.
This was actually preferable to genuine pop music, because it didn't demand much of my attention, and was closer to silence, which would have been perfection. But it wasn't communicating anything. Communicating is an imposition, and a risk.
I can understand how generic AI slop or even random notes can be better than shitty pop music. If you don't expect it to rival your favorite artists, you won't be disappointed. If you've led to believe you'll listen to a masterpiece and it turns out to be slop or random notes, you'd be disappointed.
Right, but being annoyed by things is subtle, like a dripping sink or a fly in the room. It isn't doing any harm ... unless you really work on arguing for how the plumbing is slowly corroding or the fly is spreading disease ... but it's annoying because it's present, and you didn't plan on it being present. Why is the AI music here, growing in places unbidden, like fungus? That feeling of being exploited, and unable to stop it, can make an intrinsically inoffensive thing into an annoyance.
I get that. I just haven't really been exposed to AI music unless I wanted to be exposed to it, so it doesn't annoy me. I've read about how Spotify and similar services are full of AI music and how it's hard to sift through the slop, but I haven't used such services and mostly rely on (hopefully) human recommendations for what to listen to, so I've only found AI music when I've specifically searched for it. Kind of like if I wanted to study flies and went out of my way to find flies but if flies never came to my home unexpected or uninvited.
Why do you think people dislike AI-generated content?
It's not because AI-generated music inherently sucks. It's generally C-grade professional music. It's just not novel or especially interesting, and the low barrier to entry means there's a ton of slop in the space.
A lot of people have always wanted to make music, never made it past the barrier of "music is hard," and therefore have no clue as to what makes truly good music. And now that they have AI, they think they can just skip all the boring parts and make great songs.
And while they can skip a lot of steps in the creative process — those skipped steps also help musicians develop their artistic taste and judgment.
And just because these AI "creators" can't tell the difference, they assume others can't either. And then they get mad when critics recognize their uninspired, derivative slop for what it is.
That's not limited to music, either. You see it in coding, graphic design, writing, and pretty much any other LLM-assisted content generation. Maybe it'll change one day as models get better. Maybe not.
This project is original, stylish, technically clever, aesthetically pleasing, and well-crafted. There's a level of polish and intention behind it, and people here recognize that.
Unlike other commenters than seem to place more importance on concept, expectations and whether anyone can make it, yours is the only comment that says AI music is recognizable as uninspired, derivative slop.
I imagine for some genres it would be easy to recognize it as slop, but not as easily for others. It's intuitive techno would be easier to make than trance, which would in turn be easier to make than nu metal.
Can you share some AI music, if you've kept track of it, that's the hardest for you to recognize as unimaginative slop? I'm genuinely interested in how it would sound to me.
A thing can be nifty and clever and thus interesting and elicit positive feelings... about the process.
I don't think anyone will listen to this for the pleasure of listening to music.
AI crap can be much more listenable-as-music but nobody likes the process or the product.
A lot has to do with the story. Nobody would likely listen to this as pure music.
What is "pure music"? Who listens to music with no ideas about it?
Of course music can be worse than random: it can be annoying.
I get a downvote, huh? Look, I like Ornette Coleman. I like Nurse With Wound and Merzbow and avant-garde noise. I do not like 21st century pop. If I have to have music played to me against my will, I would way prefer it to be random notes than if it presented a slimy modern personality, or used a tone of voice to sing at me with, or conveyed vapid little bad ideas in its lyrics.
Love it
classic, crowdsource it to other cities !!
The sound doesn't work for me, but I love the description of the G. It does have a cult following: and just like a cult you're tricked into loving it despite its many flaws, like the one hour wait at night or sprinting to the middle of the platform.
The MTA knows the nights you want to take it, and ensures it doesn't go past Bedford-Nostrand on precisely those nights.
So cool!
If I could offer one usability suggestion: darken the text displayed at the bottom when a specific route is selected. Currently it's much too light for the white background. I couldn't tell you the exact contrast ratio but I'm certain it doesn't meet accessibility guidelines.
lovely