Generating Music with Data: Application of Deep Learning Models for Symbolic Music Composition
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
1. Avoid using references in the abstract.
2. Provide structure of the paper at the end of introduction.
3. Label the equations with numbers.
4. Also, make sure that all the parameters in all equations have been explained in the text.
5. Discuss the results in more details, for example, why the frequent listeners had lower hit rate than occasional listeners of the classical music.
6. Also, discuss the case where the people with no music experience have higher hit rate than musicians. You can use Discussion section for it (as it is too short).
7. Mention limitations of the proposed work and discuss the future work in conclusion.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
We thank you for the opportunity to review and improve our manuscript.
Please see the attachment with the responses for each suggestion for a better evaluation of the development of the manuscript based on the recommendations sent.
We seek to contemplate all contributions ad thank you for that. If you need more information, we are at your disposal.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
This paper studies how well deep learning models can generate music. The authors generate music using several models, then investigate how many people notice that it is machine-generated, and report the results. As chatGPT is getting more and more attention lately, the topic of this article is quite interesting and timely. Nevertheless, the technical depth of this paper is not really deep, so I cannot recommend it for publication. The current version is more like a survey report, than a research paper. I suggest discussing the characteristics or problems of models used for music generation. Or, the authors may want to discuss how things work differently when performing NLP versus generating music.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
We are grateful for the chance to receive feedback on our manuscript and make improvements accordingly. Please see the attachment for the responses to your comments to provide further clarity and facilitate a more thorough evaluation of the manuscript's development.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Some of my previous concerns have not been clearly addressed, but I believe that this paper has improved a lot compared to the previous one.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Thank you for taking the time to review our manuscript once again. We appreciate the opportunity to receive feedback and make improvements based on your suggestions. Please find attached our response to your previous comment, which we hope will provide further clarity and facilitate a more thorough evaluation of the manuscript's development.
We are committed to addressing the concerns raised by our reviewers, and we appreciate your efforts in providing us with constructive feedback. We hope that our last revised version will meet your expectations and provide valuable contributions to the field.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
