Random generation tools make me sad...

[Michael L]

That you think the two are the same is wild.

Only people with good taste can make a silk purse from a sow's ear.

[ROTMetro]

But does that process helps you grow as a musician or deepen your personal aesthetic? Many of the tools are designed to be consumptive not creative, making you a consumer not a creator. You’re not expanding your instincts or building intuition. It can be fun, I engage in it, or grab a loop from loopcloud to jam to to start practicing with (though I can go back to compilation/creators I like and grab something new that's from the same person, where generative is just click for next output) but leaning into it seems limiting.

What if you get a great sound, and great rhythm, a great song. You have no way to recreate it. It's not you. It's pieces you stumbled across. And while a lot of music making is doing exactly that, it's doing that based on the skills/knowledge/sounds you like and have built, not some tech companies, so you have more of a chance to stumble on it again. It's just adding clicking a slot machine to your music process. Just consumption with your 'taste' applied after the fact.

[Michael L]

But does that process helps you grow as a musician or deepen your personal aesthetic?

Choosing to use or to not use generative tools is what defines someone as an artist.
That is good, until you propose artistic rules for others to follow!
That is a contradiction.

Personally, I am not sad that random generation tools exist.
Rather, I am happy because choosing to not use them clarifies my artistic taste and identity.
Like that video clarifies I am not Brian Eno.

[ROTMetro]

Choosing to use or to not use generative tools is what defines someone as an artist.
That is good, until you propose artistic rules for others to follow!
That is a contradiction.

Personally, I am not sad that random generation tools exist.
Rather, I am happy because choosing to not use them clarifies my artistic taste and identity.
Like that video clarifies I am not Brian Eno.

I'm sad. I'm sad I'll miss hearing what people would have created if they had expanded their skills. I'm sad music is even more of a commoditized process instead of creative, monkeys clicking a slot machine looking for a reward, with the inputs controlled by tech algos and not people's brains, personal tastes/style/depth developed and flushed out over time.

[ROTMetro]

I love random generation tools. They're inspiration, in the same way randomly listening to other music is.

Sometimes it's just noise, sometimes it clicks and sets me down a path.

But in the past this was done with collaboration with other artists. Or spending hours building up tricks, little bits, unfinished song parts, you could add to a song. Those all had value. They all were intentionally/intelligently added. Clicking a button and just hoping doesn't seem like it takes you anywhere as a musician that you can grow from/recreate in the future.

Even for some effects you have to freeze multiple times because what they do can very so much that from playback to playback of a track they can be good or not really add much. I like how Arturia's effects such as EFX Fragments do interesting things, but are deterministic so I knew each time the track is played, I'll get that good thing it did last time, not hope 'it kind of works'.

koalaboy my bad if this came off as me shaming you/gatekeeping. I apologize for that. It wasn't really meant at what you said directly (it's super tangential to your comment) I just thought you had a good response and wanted to get more of your take.

[xmstkvr]

Using AI for music feels like picking a WP template - clean, functional, but soulless. Even when it spits out something decent, there's no connection, just the urge to click again for something “better.” It skips the messy, human part where meaning actually comes from.

Perfect analogy (WP developer here). There is an even worse scenario when you project this to music. You find a WP template that actually has a soul. But then you realize other people are buying and using it as well. Because... it has a soul among noise... Then you find the whole product isn't special anymore because people have exhausted the soul because everyone is using the same and pretending it's their own. Haha

[Michael L]

I'm sad. I'm sad I'll miss hearing what people would have created if they had expanded their skills.

Such a romantic No, you won't miss hearing it because those "people" would never create it. Those people like technological tools, and do not want to "expand" into musical instruments.

Brian Eno says early in the video: "So now we have a 'tedious loop.' And a lot of music is based on things just like that. And it goes on forever."

Notice: Eno is not sad about the tedious loop. He happily shows the BBC how to go beyond that, having done it forever himself.

BTW, John Cage made randomly generated music (see his Variations) but they were human because the choices by individual performers were random:
https://bridges.monash.edu/articles/per ... t/26075365

Here's the chorus of this post:

Random generation,
Replace improvisation,
The singularity.

[koalaboy]

But in the past this was done with collaboration with other artists. Or spending hours building up tricks, little bits, unfinished song parts, you could add to a song. Those all had value. They all were intentionally/intelligently added. Clicking a button and just hoping doesn't seem like it takes you anywhere as a musician that you can grow from/recreate in the future.

Even for some effects you have to freeze multiple times because what they do can very so much that from playback to playback of a track they can be good or not really add much. I like how Arturia's effects such as EFX Fragments do interesting things, but are deterministic so I knew each time the track is played, I'll get that good thing it did last time, not hope 'it kind of works'.

koalaboy my bad if this came off as me shaming you/gatekeeping. I apologize for that. It wasn't really meant at what you said directly (it's super tangential to your comment) I just thought you had a good response and wanted to get more of your take.

No worries. Everyone has their space, and as you mention it's great to get all of the perspectives. I'll try to give a bit more of mine here, that may help others understand.

I have recently learned I am AuDHD. I'll not dive into that here as it's a whole other discussion, but suffice to say that 'for me', collaboration is often not something that works well. Don't get me wrong, sometimes it does and there have been times in my life when something has clicked and I've collaborated, but mostly that has faded and 'artistic differences' quickly make it untenable.

When making music, I want to make things that 'sound nice' to me. It may be copying something I've heard, or something stuck in my head, or just a happy accident, but often it's very 'transactional' as a way of expressing myself. I can play keys by ear, and often sit there just noodling around being very happy, but sometimes I need more structure to build around that I can't produce because of brain wiring (very hard to explain) and I don't want to just take someone else's work and 'tweak it' as I've had years of "don't copy" drilled into me, so I will reach for something like Scaler, or Phrasebox, or start messing with random chaos in Bitwig, or just full-on modular in VCV... Most times, it's just fun and goes nowhere, but sometimes I'll record some of it down, and arrange it.

Anyone performing a modular 'set' is mostly arranged 'randomness'. Curated, if you like. It's sound that they enjoy... a sequence that goes 'somewhere' or 'nowhere' but is pleasing to them, and that's great as there are often others that also enjoy that. Before the internet, and even still at live events, there are impromptu performances. Heck, think about Jazz, that is often not 'planned' but a random sequence of experienced patterns or just straight improvised within a key.

I know there is more to great sound than 'pure random out', although arguably there are a lot of 'artistic' pieces that are truly random, but because they're from great artists, they're music.

For me, as music is not my 'day job' (yet), it's never about how popular or 'proper' or educated my path is... it's about what makes me happy, that I enjoy making, and like the result. If nobody else likes it I really don't care. If they do, then even better, but it's not made for anyone but myself.
I rarely keep anything I make, although I am looking to try and just put all of my creations up somewhere, so I can be inspired by my own past at some point, but that's what it is.

I do whatever makes me happy. I may not be a skilled artist or performer, but I don't have the goal to be. I just like learning and making things. If I end up being 'good' after all that, then hey - bonus.

Hopefully that helps, someone.

[crimsonwarlock]

But in the past this was done with collaboration with other artists.

When I played in bands during the eighties and nineties, we regularly were "pushing each other's buttons" to see what would come out. We often didn't like it and pushed some more buttons

These days, not having access to other musicians, pushing buttons on random generation tools is a viable alternative.

I don't see why one way of getting inspiration is good, while another way is bad. It is ultimately about getting inspired, isn't it?

[whyterabbyt]

Choosing to use or to not use generative tools is what defines someone as an artist.

Nope.

[Michael L]

Choosing to use or to not use generative tools is what defines someone as an artist.

Nope.

Yup.
Artistry is the quality of the choices you make.

[koalaboy]

Artistry is the quality of the choices you make.

So is it the banana or the duck-tape that makes the quality ?

[Michael L]

Artistry is the quality of the choices you make.

So is it the banana or the duck-tape that makes the quality ?

The wall.

[ROTMetro]

Such a romantic

Look at the tough guy. Grow up. Communicate with, not at, people. Blocked.

[ROTMetro]

But in the past this was done with collaboration with other artists.

When I played in bands during the eighties and nineties, we regularly were "pushing each other's buttons" to see what would come out. We often didn't like it and pushed some more buttons

These days, not having access to other musicians, pushing buttons on random generation tools is a viable alternative.

I don't see why one way of getting inspiration is good, while another way is bad. It is ultimately about getting inspired, isn't it?

But it's completely different. One is learning new things from people that have skills like you, probably at the same level. The other is literally just clicking a button and hoping for a reward, with not much learning more skills development. One can work cooperatively towards a goal, after an hour you have gotten somewhere, or learned about the other person, or something. The other you've... pushed a button over and over.