Random generation tools make me sad...

[Michael L]

Such a romantic

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

No sense of humour!
Show respect to a member of Gen R, the random generation.

[crimsonwarlock]

But it's completely different.

No, it's not. The fact that you want it to be different doesn't mean it is actually different for other people.

One is learning new things from people that have skills like you, probably at the same level.

That is just your assumption. There is no way to prove that is actually the case. At least not always, and thus not a given.

The other is literally just clicking a button and hoping for a reward, with not much learning more skills development.

Again, your assumption. I learn a lot from generated stuff. The machine often generates stuff that is hard for me to play (and I try) or to harmonize to. Even more so than working with other musicians who are not that skilled at all and won't push my own musical development (been there as well).

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.

Explain to me the existence of (famous) bands where only one person writes all the music, and the other (extremely skilled) musicians are there just to perform it. From your perspective, that would lack the same kind of inspiration/cooperation as working with generators.

Bottom line: you want something to be true that isn't.

[ROTMetro]

I will reach for something like Scaler, or Phrasebox

These aren't so random though. They give reproducibility. You learn how to optimize them over time, you learn chord combinations or ARP patterns that work, how to get the tools to reproducibly give you what you think sounds good. I see these as tools that lead you to better production. They aren't designed to get you to depend on the clicking but bridge a gap AND get you to no needing them (or in Phrasebox's case just play complexity at speed that even the best couldn't).

think about Jazz, that is often not 'planned' but a random sequence of experienced patterns or just straight improvised within a key.

This is kind of the skill I was thinking about when I posted. My dad can accompany anything on piano. Jazz, rock, whatever. I never took the time to build that skill. I can get there over time in a DAW, but I can't just jam reasonably. Simply because I never took the time to play 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.

All the musicians I like seem to have followed that same path of being self taught. Which again comes back to are we learning or are we scratching an itch, because generative is more scratching an itch than growing. As I dig deeper into people I admires backgrounds, they all worked at it incredibly hard. I don't think the average internet poster is in that same place, we aren't making that kind of sacrifice for our music. But I just came across some people I really admires old demos and they are kinda trash. We totally could be those people, if we put in the work they did.

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.

You should do this if you feel it. Doing this has helped me a ton. That desire to post something decent (still not there but trying) has helped me push through and learn in the process.

[koalaboy]

I don't think the average internet poster is in that same place, we aren't making that kind of sacrifice for our music.

I don't think there is an 'average' internet poster. That's the point.

I'm not making that level of sacrifice because I have a fairly intense non-music career and family needs which means I can't afford to. Others, especially on the dedicated forums, are professional musicians/composers/producers and absolutely make that sacrifice because it's their job...

... and all in-between. Some are new and wanting to learn, some are just enjoying, some are constantly learning and looking to grow.

I don't think it's right to try to group people though. Let everyone choose how they make music, help guide them if they ask, collaborate when you or others want to, but at the end of the day everyone has a different journey

The important thing is to respect everyone else and be true to what you want to do. Sounds cliche, but that's what it is. Life is rarely consistent. In fact, at times it's... fairly.. random

[ROTMetro]

But it's completely different.

No, it's not. The fact that you want it to be different doesn't mean it is actually different for other people.

But it is. One is just scratching an itch that MIGHT end in some growth.

One is learning new things from people that have skills like you, probably at the same level.

That is just your assumption. There is no way to prove that is actually the case. At least not always, and thus not a given.

I mean there's a reason bands practice. Sports players practice. Normally with other people, who pass on knowledge or who by interacting learn from each other. Could generative stuff be of some benefit sure, maybe. But does it come at a cost? Long term, does using it leave you lagging from where you could have been? Goes it challenge you the same as playing with others would? We tend to grow a lot through challenge.

The other is literally just clicking a button and hoping for a reward, with not much learning more skills development.

Again, your assumption. I learn a lot from generated stuff. The machine often generates stuff that is hard for me to play (and I try) or to harmonize to. Even more so than working with other musicians who are not that skilled at all and won't push my own musical development (been there as well).

You could learn the same from others music, and you could pick the sound, quality, and style you studied, versus hoping you get random generated output worth learning something from.

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.

Explain to me the existence of (famous) bands where only one person writes all the music, and the other (extremely skilled) musicians are there just to perform it. From your perspective, that would lack the same kind of inspiration/cooperation as working with generators.

Sports teams often improve dramatically across the entire team when new star players are brought in. Even if one person is the main creative they will receive feedback from the others.

Bottom line: you want something to be true that isn't.

Hard disagree. Someone clicking a button hoping for output to learn from will have less skills then someone that methodically and intentionally grows their skills. They are more 'consumption' (give me something I enjoy now) than production.

[whyterabbyt]

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.

Nope. And you werent appointed arbiter of that quality.

[ROTMetro]

I don't think the average internet poster is in that same place, we aren't making that kind of sacrifice for our music.

I don't think there is an 'average' internet poster. That's the point

I'm not making that level of sacrifice because I have a fairly intense non-music career and family needs which means I can't afford to. Others, especially on the dedicated forums, are professional musicians/composers/producers and absolutely make that sacrifice because it's their job...

... and all in-between. Some are new and wanting to learn, some are just enjoying, some are constantly learning and looking to grow.

Sorry, that is what I was encompassing by saying 'average' internet poster. The average person has other lives, other commitments.

I don't think it's right to try to group people though. Let everyone choose how they make music, help guide them if they ask, collaborate when you or others want to, but at the end of the day everyone has a different journey

The important thing is to respect everyone else and be true to what you want to do. Sounds cliche, but that's what it is. Life is rarely consistent. In fact, at times it's... fairly.. random

I'm not grouping people. I'm simply saying that generative tools functionally are worse, that while they make people FEEL they are better they are just making music creation time into consumption the doesn't lead to as much growth.

I think people think I am attacking people when I'm being critical of tools/processes. I think it's fair to ask 'does this work, does it work well, does it help me improve, and would it be better to do it a different way'. Sure some people have those keyboards with auto-accompaniment so they can just play along. But I don't think people stop to wonder is that all that some of these new tools are, and are they slowing me from getting where I want to get in my music creation.

[koalaboy]

I think people think I am attacking people when I'm being critical of tools/processes. I think it's fair to ask 'does this work, does it work well, does it help me improve, and would it be better to do it a different way'. Sure some people have those keyboards with auto-accompaniment so they can just play along. But I don't think people stop to wonder is that all that some of these new tools are, and are they slowing me from getting where I want to get in my music creation.

Tools are created for convenience. Most people like convenience - often because they can't afford to sacrifice any more time.

Tools are just that. A choice. The only reason they stop me getting where I want to be, is because they're not good enough and don't do exactly what I want

I will honestly use whatever is available to see how it 'feels' and then go from there. I'd rather have the choice, than be limited. I know some people crave the limitation.

Context is also important. I'm unlikely to use a random generator for something orchestral, although I may use a random LFO to add some nuance to velocity or similar... so I use the tools where I see they may work. If they don't work, then I move on or try something else.

I write code for a living, and I use AI in some aspects. Not generally to write code, as my brain doesn't work that way, but it's great to explain things or summarise information. It's a tool.
If it replaces me, then I'll carry on doing what I do somewhere else, as I do it for myself.

Whatever helps someone move along is fine. Heck, if drugs help you write music, all power to you. They're a tool (they just will kill you far quicker). Could you maybe learn or progress (if you have a goal) quicker in a different way ? Maybe, but then you're already following someone else's ideas as to how to do things, which may be all you want, but maybe you want to learn on your own terms.

This isn't new though: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aleatoric_music

I wonder what John Cage would respond.

[crimsonwarlock]

But it's completely different.

No, it's not. The fact that you want it to be different doesn't mean it is actually different for other people.

But it is. One is just scratching an itch that MIGHT end in some growth.

You seem to have a problem with distinguishing between your perception and factual reality. You are arguing that we should take your perception as fact. It is not.

You can have your own opinions, but that won't negate other people's experiences. To put it another way, what you try to discuss here is highly subjective and not based on facts.

So, I'm not saying you are wrong in how you see it (i.e., your perception). But you are wrong in thinking everyone else should see it that way.

[Gamma-UT]

I'm not grouping people. I'm simply saying that generative tools functionally are worse, that while they make people FEEL they are better they are just making music creation time into consumption the doesn't lead to as much growth.

I think people think I am attacking people when I'm being critical of tools/processes. I think it's fair to ask 'does this work, does it work well, does it help me improve, and would it be better to do it a different way'.

The fact that you believe it's a static entity says more about your process than the tools.

Your problem is that you are making big assumptions about how people use these tools: that everyone just takes the output and treats it as one and done. That doesn't happen even for things people write themselves. Though there are inevitably some things that sound good enough straight out of improvisation, most songs of any quality go through an iterative process. So that randomly generated motif or chord sequence in any realistic situation that delivers a quality result is going to get knocked about quite a lot – if the composer has a process that tries out different options and modifications.

Collaboration just forces the iterative process a bit more: "I'm not sure about that D on the bass upbeat..."

[ROTMetro]

I write code for a living, and I use AI in some aspects. Not generally to write code, as my brain doesn't work that way, but it's great to explain things or summarise information. It's a tool.
If it replaces me, then I'll carry on doing what I do somewhere else, as I do it for myself.

AI for existing devs is a multiplier for sure. But is leaning on AI making new programmers/devs better?

[koalaboy]

I write code for a living, and I use AI in some aspects. Not generally to write code, as my brain doesn't work that way, but it's great to explain things or summarise information. It's a tool.
If it replaces me, then I'll carry on doing what I do somewhere else, as I do it for myself.

AI for existing devs is a multiplier for sure. But is leaning on AI making new programmers/devs better?

It depends how they use it. If they let it write all the code for them, it's no different to them copying from Stack Overflow and other ways they used to.

However, if they treat it as a mentor, that they can ask for explanations and to describe suggestions to proceed, it can be very useful as a much quicker alternative to waiting for a Senior Engineer.

As with everything, you can take shortcuts if you don't care about learning, but that's on you and your end goal. Many engineers just want to either make big money, or move through to management or something else... for them, perhaps they see it as a boost in the short term. For those that actually enjoy the craft and want to improve, it's another learning tool / assistant.

[ROTMetro]

You seem to have a problem with distinguishing between your perception and factual reality. You are arguing that we should take your perception as fact. It is not.

You can have your own opinions, but that won't negate other people's experiences. To put it another way, what you try to discuss here is highly subjective and not based on facts.

So, I'm not saying you are wrong in how you see it (i.e., your perception). But you are wrong in thinking everyone else should see it that way.

I don't have any problems. I mean I came here to see people's thinking? That I'm going to challenge back on responses isn't really a valid argument on your part.

Objectively a tool that sometimes randomly gives you something useful without the background of how it got there is worse than learning how to get to a solution as far a skills development goes. Studying random output is going to be a less optimal solution that studying music your choose, that you like, that motivates you. I don't see how that position is in violation of 'factual reality'.

Like I have said as entertainment/inspiration when you don't have other ways, I get it. But it's consumption, it's not skill building, it's not in itself improving anything and in fact most likely slowing peoples improvement potential.

I'm not judging using it, I'm not gatekeeping anyone. I'm saying it bums me out that we are going to end up with shallower musical talent because of those tools. I don't get how that's denying 'factual reality'.

[ROTMetro]

It depends how they use it. If they let it write all the code for them, it's no different to them copying from Stack Overflow and other ways they used to.

However, if they treat it as a mentor, that they can ask for explanations and to describe suggestions to proceed, it can be very useful as a much quicker alternative to waiting for a Senior Engineer.

As with everything, you can take shortcuts if you don't care about learning, but that's on you and your end goal. Many engineers just want to either make big money, or move through to management or something else... for them, perhaps they see it as a boost in the short term. For those that actually enjoy the craft and want to improve, it's another learning tool / assistant.

Exactly. These music tools as presented currently are just a shortcut, they aren't a mentor, they don't explain what they do. The grab from someone else's work (cutting and pasting from stack overflow, or generatively using someone elses understanding of music theory, or worse a dataset trained on others works that just gives you the most average response). They don't have any of that good upside, just shortcuts, that to get something good out of you 'iterate' by clicking next, next, next.

[koalaboy]

Exactly. These music tools as presented currently are just a shortcut, they aren't a mentor, they don't explain what they do. The grab from someone else's work (cutting and pasting from stack overflow, or generatively using someone elses understanding of music theory, or worse a dataset trained on others works that just gives you the most average response). They don't have any of that good upside, just shortcuts, that to get something good out of you 'iterate' by clicking next, next, next.

But they can also form a 'starter for 10', some inspiration, something to clear a mental block and move you along.

Everyone uses shortcuts - just some people don't realise they're doing so or justify it in another way.

To put it another way: Why does it matter to you directly ? Is it fear that they may 'beat' you to some goal, or get fame more easily when it took you 'hard work', or something else ?

If the answer is "It doesn't", then why worry ?