If AI replaces musicians, does the entire plugin industry die with them?

[andi75]

Edit: Rereading this, I noticed it sounds too negative towards AI. I think AI can help compensate weaknesses. If I am not able to make a good mix, it's fine if AI is helping out. If I don't have a good idea for a melody or a sound, AI can help to make the first step. It will be part of our workflow and support the creative process, but I don't see it replace what we have and do, including the plugins we use.

That is exactly what you should not do. You get good at mixing by mixing a lot of tracks. You get good at writing melodies by writing a lot of melodies. If you turn to AI whenever things get difficult you will never grow your skill level.

Whenever you are bad at something, don't you ask someone for help? Before AI was a thing, the only chance for help at mixing was sending it to someone to do it for you. If now AI is doing it, how is this a bad thing? If it is not completely black box, I can see how AI changed EQ frequencies and compressor settings, and if it sounds better, learn from it, which will help my skill level a lot. Not AI is evil, but how we use it.

The only help for mixing is/was to find someone to do it for you? Omg, really?
Have you ever thought of learning to mix? Solutions are sometimes easy, if one is not lazy and has a will to progress.
Mixes today sound better ??? lol
Overpolished, Overcompressed, Overautotuned and using limiter just to achieve -5 to -4 Lufs and kill every dynamic of a track.
Anyway it is always about the song, not mix quality. A lot of musicians named their favourite albums with acceptable sound quality and lots of great songs. Maybe google to know what an album was. It is about songs:
originality, creativity, vibe, arrangement, lyrics etc.

Ok, I understand that this could be misunderstood. Of course there is always a chance to learn hard to get better in something. But not everyone, who has really good musical ideas, also has the skill or the time to learn mixing and mastering. And why would they? It's ok if someone is not perfect in each discipline required to make music, and asks other people for help, or, even uses AI to compensate weaknesses.

[mixyguy2]

To be clear, I do think there's a big difference in using AI to mix/master vs creating the songs themselves. Then you are basically at a "tool" level.

[jrwaltb]

Yes! It is a TOOL, just as a butter knife is a tool.

It SHOULD be. But it is fast becoming much more, unfortunately. A lot of people with little to no musical talent are already using AI to create music for them and signing their name to it and kidding themselves that they are "artists"...deep down they know otherwise, though they might not admit it, even to themselves.

Its happening everywhere in all industries, AI is ending the knowledge economy. Right now just create value for your employer, if AI can help use it.

[rod_zero]

The AI tools are really a great competitor to the whole music software industry.

I could bet a great majority of plugin buyers are people who want to make music and think that the next plugin they buy is what will finally help them make their next hit. And so they chase the latest and greatest plugins.

Generative AI tools just give them the serotonin shot easier and higher: a song finished without much effort. Why would they keep buying plugins?

So, yeah the market is going to get quite rough, it was already quite bloated and in a race to the bottom (with the constant sales).

Some companies as plugin alliance that rely on rehashing the N emulation for nth time are going to see their sales crash. The companies that survive will be those that are really used by musicians and studios.

Some DAW are also going to be hit hard by all the sales lost.

[Chicken Drummy]

I think a big issue with the topic of AI in music is that people are talking about two different things. I myself seem to be guilty of that as well so I want to clarify some things about my stance here.

I am fine with AI being used as a tool, such as a plugin which uses AI to help de-ess a recording or perhaps using AI to convert my humming vocal into a cello or sax. That's cool as hell.

My issue is with these stupid AI song creation apps. Am I threatened by them? No, not in the sense that it can make music better than I can. And if it can, so what? I don't claim to be an amazing musician or producer.

However I will admit that I am threatened by AI music due to what I already see happening with photographs, videos and even a well written post or comment in a forum thread: constant accusations of it being generated by AI.

That kind of thing is already prevalent. It's a dystopian Philip K. Dick nightmare. It's 1984 in 2026. When people can't trust their eyes and ears, things are bound to get messy and eventually dangerous. And the overuse of LLMs for everything, from inaccurate Google search results to writing up one's high school class papers instead of looking up the info, is already making people lazier and dumber.

But I digress, this is a music forum. Lol

So no, IvyBirds, I'm not threatened by AI because my music sucks. And I do think AI as a music tool in certain instances can be pretty neat.

But unlike a lot of my fellow humans, I'm seeing the negative effects already happening all around us due to overexposure to AI and it will only get worse.

But hey, some plugins which use AI are fun! Hooray.

[Mike777]

Really the heart of the question is will we continue to make music with DAWs and plugins without AI doing it for us? Or slug through the production process in our DAW's?

Say you write a song on piano or guitar and sing vocals yourself. You're not a great performer or singer. But the song isn't half bad. You recorded it on tape. A good song but a mediocre performance.

You a few choices. Attempt to produce a quality version yourself, or pay someone to produce it. DIY will need a DAW, plugins, pitch correction on your own vocal, etc. Paying someone to make it a full song with a pro singer will not be cheap.

Or. Submit your guitar+vocal tape to AI and get quick professional quality results.

A guy on yt did just that with a 30 year old tape demo he made on only guitar and his singing (badly). He wrote the lyrics. He had SUNO produce it. I was shocked by not only the quality of production but also the arrangement and the very pro quality AI singer. I had goose bumps. AI produced what I would call is a near masterpiece of song craft from his old demo tape.

Those old songs you wrote and recorded and have that you never finished or polished in a DAW? But some are really good and each would need hours of work in a DAW. I have several. I'm tempted to use AI to produce my original compositions.

However I just started writing a new piano quartet jazz composition after a long while of not writing any music, and found how much I'm enjoying the creative process. My new jazz piece will use no AI and so I'm painstakingly tweaking every note and mix detail on my own in my DAW. It's very rewarding.

[jamcat]

I think a big issue with the topic of AI in music is that people are talking about two different things. I myself seem to be guilty of that as well so I want to clarify some things about my stance here.

I am fine with AI being used as a tool, such as a plugin which uses AI to help de-ess a recording or perhaps using AI to convert my humming vocal into a cello or sax. That's cool as hell.

My issue is with these stupid AI song creation apps.

I was thinking the same thing. AI has many uses, and there are many different tools that employ it. But people are talking about all of them as if they're all the same. AI can be used for writing, performing, mixing, mastering, modeling, or any combination right up to and including all of the above. You can have as little or as much input and control as you want.

I see it as a tool that can help an independent musician get closer to their vision and produce a higher quality product. That is mostly how I talk about it.

But I am also blown away by some of the stuff I've heard that came straight out of Suno, and I am fascinated by it, simply as a proof of concept. Same for some of the AI generated video out there. Have you seen ?

AI was always just some theoretical sci-fi future, but that future is here, now. It will prove to be the most disruptive technology humanity has ever seen. And I think that scares a lot of people. It leaves everyone wondering what their place is in a world integrated with AI. Just wait until they start putting it in autonomous robots.

[vurt]

robots is fine, it's the synthoids you gotta worry about.

[jancivil]

An A.I. prompt user is not a musician. Just someone who likes to lie to himself.

[...] consider that prompting AI is really no different than prompting session musicians. The 24 bars between John and Paul in "A Day in The Life" came from George Martin bringing in an orchestra and giving them a prompt to play from their lowest note to their highest note in an E chord. No one wrote out the music for those 24 bars, and they really had no idea how it was going to sound. It was an experiment. If it was made today, it may have been AI that was given a prompt, and the result would have been just as unpredictable. But George Martin's role would have been the same.

You have one specific example (no one has any idea how it would sound, where except for the final prescription 'part of an E major triad' at the same moment as conducted no precision is called for) supposed to represent prompting session musicians per se.

1) specific vs general. Basic logic fail.
EG: it should not be difficult to read that back to yourself and note 'no one would know how it sounds' and have a thought, is this how session musicians operate in general?
2) when a session musician is "prompted" rather than being specifically directed, they are calling on a storehouse of information and knowledge from experience. They know what to play and create the part. "AI" doesn't experience. "AI" doesn't create. "AI" has no feel, it has to be directed if there is any expectation of the push or pull in a groove, but it has no idea why, back to it doesn't experience; it has nothing to draw on from life, it has no opinion. ad infin...

EDIT: I forgot to note the even more egregious failure there.
"George Martin's role would have been the same". Having the idea in the first place? What is this so-called AI's role, actually? Is this supposed as a sample library and the person with the idea, rather than be bothered with a string orchestra in a room has the LLM controlling 60 parts as an abstraction? You didn't even say so I'm doing your work for you now. I have to suppose you're as in the dark about why an orchestra in an apt environment is even a thing as you are about what a studio musician's value is. Or what an idea even TF is.

Then you say AI learns in exactly the way a human does. And here's a subject you clearly know nothing about. All of this is evidence of a failure to check your supposition or engage in any research

You have no idea what you're doing.

[DCrown]

To be clear, I do think there's a big difference in using AI to mix/master vs creating the songs themselves. Then you are basically at a "tool" level.

Well, I know times are changing, back in the day a mixing engineer added his talent to a mix, sometimes he would make new decisions, sometimes new decisions set a new standard, sometimes he gave a mix a completely different vibe. The mix of engineer XY left his unique fingerprint.
I demoed Sonible plugins, I was often surprised about plugin's decisions, completely worthless to me. Sonible, Izotope AI plugins etc. also lack character.
But yes, times are changing, use whatever you want, sometimes learning and experimenting can even be fulfilling and joy and AI might prevent from progressing.



In one sentence: it is a huge difference!

[Tiles]

Just as a small note, you might be aware that one of the most popular mixing and mastering tools, iZotope Ozone, also uses AI now. Even so, you can still master in a completely traditional way and adjust the result in any direction you like. That is usually a good idea, since what the assistant spits out is not so great to say the least. This is quite different from services like LANDR or Bandlab, where your influence on the result is very limited.

My main point is that AI does not automatically mean no influence on the outcome. It is not either or, dependant of the solution. And you can still learn a lot. In the end your ears have to decide if the result fits, even when you have absolutely no clue about mixing and mastering.

[DCrown]

Even if it might sound strange, Izotope, Sonible and other ai plugins lack character, they never serve a sound in a good way imo no matter if you could do your own decisions with the plugin and ignore ai decisions.
It is like being faced with a human with a static, lifeless robotic voice, who never smiles, never shows any emotions, never takes any risk, never inspires.

[Tiles]

I have to agree. At least when it comes to the newer versions of Izotope. It's too much of everything. I am still stuck with Ozone 10 for that reason. This version was the last one without AI.

[mixyguy2]

Well, I know times are changing, back in the day a mixing engineer added his talent to a mix, sometimes he would make new decisions, sometimes new decisions set a new standard, sometimes he gave a mix a completely different vibe. The mix of engineer XY left his unique fingerprint.
I demoed Sonible plugins, I was often surprised about plugin's decisions, completely worthless to me. Sonible, Izotope AI plugins etc. also lack character.
But yes, times are changing, use whatever you want, sometimes learning and experimenting can even be fulfilling and joy and AI might prevent from progressing.

For the record, I do acknowledge the value of a skilled producer/engineer. They have been so important to so many great artists and songs. Sadly, I think their days are to a large extent numbered...it's just a question of time. I hope I'm wrong.

[jancivil]

If you don't have a good idea for a melody or a sound you might want to do something you're good at instead. I realize you're trying to be super fair but you're defending some real bullshit. LLM doesn't do ideas, so you've replaced your own agency with a determined average generic result ariived at in a super hurry.

AI is only going to corrupt the entirety of creative tasks it's expected to perform. It's going to cannibalize itself and degrade beyond recognition, it's not built to know better at this point.

now, machine learning that has a quicker picture of a sonograph (and can work dynamically) than one might is a different whole thing.