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

[VitaminD]

You're missing a key aspect -- live performance. That's big. Jazz clubs, bars with rock or country bands, concerts, church services, etc. There is still and likely will continue to be an aspect of live performance that will also have a large portion of non-AI song writing and musicianship. As such, interesting tools will likely still be out there. Probably just in smaller number.

That said, a piano is a piano. A drum kit is a drum kit. These tools are established and matured for a long time. There will still be demand for them.

What is happening here is just like in the job market. The jobs that AI can easily take over will be. The music genres that AI can easily take over will be.

Ambient, Techno, Bubblegum Kawaii 8-bit nintendopop are all heavily reliant on digital pathways with minimally complex patterns (in general). I'm pretty sure even today an AI model could generate hundreds of believable tracks in these type of genres and no one would bat an eye. They're all largely derivative anyways so that is easy work for AI which only does derivative work.

However, Do you really think AI is going to generate something rare like Louis Armstrong and Ella Fitzgerald's Summertime out of the blue? Hah! AI doesn't understand creativity. It just follows patterns to crank out derivative without any understanding of what is enjoyable or not to a human. Because it isn't human. It has no inspiration. It has no life story or idiosyncrasies. No likes or dislikes. It didn't spend it's early 20s with it's mentor in Chicago, honing it's chops in cutting contests. AI doesn't have a history of difficult life experiences and trauma that it uses as a source for it's artwork. Music isn't an outlet for AI. Because AI doesn't feel. All these things formulate what drives a musician, musically.

AI just takes work that people, who can feel and have lived, created and generate cold calculations off of them.

With that in mind, certain genres will indeed be more affected than others. Music isn't in danger. Just specific genres are. And likely, already recorded songs (by human performers) will likely get more lauded over time. Pre-AI.

[wagtunes]

The main of the music industry has been dead for ~20 years now. Most of what is left since then are fading legacy artists and the modern music factory, narrowly pumping out cheap pop songs in genre costume of this or that pop, rock, country, independent, whatever. AI is making producing that product much easier now. On the flip-side, I don't see creatively driven people being attracted to having music generated to replace the creative process. But like it or not, the creative music that we all love from the past was driven by a thriving music industry in which creative people could take the time to be creative and earn a living at doing it. There is much less means to earn an income at it, since the masses tend to eat whatever is being served by industry. So I think that scenario will only tilt more, at a faster rate, with AI making it easier to pump out manufactured pop songs.

Hobbyists of the gens in which the music industry was alive kicking - those people most affected by music and the culture of it - will continue on hobbying. But over time I think that creative music is losing ground of significance in people's lives, which can only be accelerated by AI generated music.

At the same time, music as a means for influence likely isn't going anywhere anytime soon, whether it be for adverts, tv shows, or political rallies. So it may be that what is on the horizon is the death of music as a creative endeavor and means for human connection, being wholly replaced by music as a commodity for influence.

And it's mostly musicians who care about interesting specifics of sounds of gear. No musicians, no need for interesting tools.

Not to be grim.

And we were heading in this direction long before AI. The music industry, for most of us, is dead. We do what we do because we love making music.

We certainly don't expect to make a living at it.

Not anymore.

[Grizzellda]

Playing live has always been important. Record companies want the bands they are backing to get out on the road. It could even be more important nowadays.

[BONES]

I think that is less true than it used to be. Touring is good marketing but I don't think it is as effective today as it was 20-30 years ago. Big artists tour these days because they can make a shit-tonne of money from it.

Just watched it and thought it was excellent.

Bunnies gotta stick together, eh?

On the flip-side, I don't see creatively driven people being attracted to having music generated to replace the creative process.

The thing with that is that it remains a creative process. If you want a specific result, you are the one who has to craft the prompt to deliver it. It's a different process but don't kid yourself that it is any less creative because that is simply not the case.

people most affected by music and the culture of it - will continue on hobbying. But over time I think that creative music is losing ground of significance in people's lives

I think this is broadly true, although I wonder if it's not a reflection of the current state of the industry. When the industry was in better shape, they could afford to promote all kinds of music, to appeal to a much broader audience. These days their focus is much narrower but we still see the same levels of insane fandom around big artists like Taylor Swift, Adele and Beyonce, so it seems that the focus is narrow today, which means more people are left out than was the case in the past and they probably drift away from any interest in music.

You're missing a key aspect -- live performance... There is still and likely will continue to be an aspect of live performance that will also have a large portion of non-AI song writing and musicianship.

Much as classical music survives. But there is no reason why any kind of music cannot benefit from AI, be it for writing lyrics or providing inspiration/ideas or something else.

Ambient, Techno, Bubblegum Kawaii 8-bit nintendopop are all heavily reliant on digital pathways with minimally complex patterns (in general). I'm pretty sure even today an AI model could generate hundreds of believable tracks in these type of genres and no one would bat an eye. They're all largely derivative anyways so that is easy work for AI which only does derivative work.

The same is generally true of every genre, which is why AI is equally good at replicating Country, Rock, Pop, Jazz, R&B, Hip-Hop and other popular genres as those you've listed.

However, Do you really think AI is going to generate something rare like Louis Armstrong and Ella Fitzgerald's Summertime out of the blue?

Given that that particular song is an aria from Gorge Gershwin's Porgy & Bess, written in 1934, Id' suggest there's nothing original or special about Louis Armstrong's version. I'm not even sure it's the most successful or widely known version.

AI doesn't understand creativity.

Neither does your DAW but that doesn't stop any of us from using it to make music, does it? It's the same with AI - it's a tool you can use to express your own creativity. It's nothing more than a different process towards exactly the same creative ends.

It just follows patterns to crank out derivative without any understanding of what is enjoyable or not to a human.

That's not how it works. It does what you tell it to do. If it's not "cranking out" good music, it's because you're skills aren't up to getting good results from it. Same as any instrument, you have to put in the effort to see the results.

Because it isn't human. It has no inspiration. It has no life story or idiosyncrasies. No likes or dislikes.

That's still your job, what you bring to the process, exactly as you do with a piano or a guitar or anything else.

It didn't spend it's early 20s with it's mentor in Chicago, honing it's chops in cutting contests. AI doesn't have a history of difficult life experiences and trauma that it uses as a source for it's artwork.

Neither do I and even if I did, that's not what I'd be writing songs about. But the thing is, your average decent music AI will have trained on material that expresses all of those things, so when you ask it to produce any of those emotions or relate any of those experiences in song, it will know what you're after and, if you're good with you prompts, it will give you want you're looking for.

Music isn't an outlet for AI. Because AI doesn't feel.

That's not the reason, the reason is that AI has no volition. It can only do what you tell it to do.

All these things formulate what drives a musician, musically.

Maybe that's true for you but it is definitely not for me. Whilst I definitely consider vocals in important part of the music we make, the lyrical content itself is of no consequence to me. And if you've ever paid attention to the lyrics of a New Order song, you'd know it's not just me.

AI just takes work that people, who can feel and have lived, created and generate cold calculations off of them.

Many used to say exactly the same about synthesisers. Quite vehemently at times.

And likely, already recorded songs (by human performers) will likely get more lauded over time. Pre-AI.

Why? If AI can do an equally good job, and even now it absolutely can, why do you think anyone will care? If you enjoy good music, why would it matter where it came from?

[Bunny_boy]

I like latin and Spanish music a very lot.
But that hip hop-like performance and his weak voice neither is special nor good imo.

I think that is a good basis to partially agree to disagree .

[DCrown]

to compare synths to AI?
Did Jean Michel Jarre ask a synth to play a melody or chords, did Stevie Wonder etc?
Or did they create and play something by themselves?!
Who is the creator of AI full productions?
Are the creators the AI software developers?
Are the creators the buyers of AI software?
Or is the creator AI?
In future written, composed , arranged and performed by AI? AI the new superstar?

[lukeio]

I think we are looking at a shift similar to when photography was invented. It didn't kill painting, it just changed the medium. AI will likely become just another tool in the chain, not a total replacement.

[Zeisner]

Bad Bunny makes all the AI slop sound like masterpieces. Holy crap is that bad, not just the superbowl show. Wow. I'm astonished. He belongs in the list of the worst ten vocal performers I've ever heard. He reminds me of those talent shows where they let people with zero talent and skill (and very obvious mental development delay) have their turns as well for the audience to laugh...

[Cuauhtli]

Now we're seeing all sorts of new plugin/app developers. I've already received spam about AI platforms that'll make whatever plugin and app you want. It's going to be a flood soon....

[Cuauhtli]

Bad Bunny makes all the AI slop sound like masterpieces. Holy crap is that bad, not just the superbowl show. Wow. I'm astonished. He belongs in the list of the worst ten vocal performers I've ever heard. He reminds me of those talent shows where they let people with zero talent and skill (and very obvious mental development delay) have their turns as well for the audience to laugh...

Never even heard of him until trump started bitching.

And who in the hell watches the super bowl halftime shows? Or the super bowl for that matter... J/K obviously but I gave up on the nfl a long time ago...

[Zeisner]

I like to think that getting Bad Bunny was a move to troll Trump. But I'm afraid there are really a lot of people out there who dig this...

[VitaminD]

You're missing a key aspect -- live performance... There is still and likely will continue to be an aspect of live performance that will also have a large portion of non-AI song writing and musicianship.

Much as classical music survives. But there is no reason why any kind of music cannot benefit from AI, be it for writing lyrics or providing inspiration/ideas or something else.

The context of the discussion wasn't AI helpers but AI generating the entire song.

Ambient, Techno, Bubblegum Kawaii 8-bit nintendopop are all heavily reliant on digital pathways with minimally complex patterns (in general). I'm pretty sure even today an AI model could generate hundreds of believable tracks in these type of genres and no one would bat an eye. They're all largely derivative anyways so that is easy work for AI which only does derivative work.

The same is generally true of every genre, which is why AI is equally good at replicating Country, Rock, Pop, Jazz, R&B, Hip-Hop and other popular genres as those you've listed.

But it does so in a formulaic manner. The nuanced point I was making, and indicated in my original post, was some genres are more formulaic than others. And even within a highly formulaic genre, there will always be creative tracks outside of the scope of the typical formula. AI isn't going to make those on it's own and know they're interesting without a human to tell it so.

However, Do you really think AI is going to generate something rare like Louis Armstrong and Ella Fitzgerald's Summertime out of the blue?

Given that that particular song is an aria from Gorge Gershwin's Porgy & Bess, written in 1934, Id' suggest there's nothing original or special about Louis Armstrong's version. I'm not even sure it's the most successful or widely known version.

It's in the top 10 lists for best jazz I've seen online. So it seems to be rather known..

AI doesn't understand creativity.

Neither does your DAW but that doesn't stop any of us from using it to make music, does it? It's the same with AI - it's a tool you can use to express your own creativity. It's nothing more than a different process towards exactly the same creative ends.

It just follows patterns to crank out derivative without any understanding of what is enjoyable or not to a human.

That's not how it works. It does what you tell it to do. If it's not "cranking out" good music, it's because you're skills aren't up to getting good results from it. Same as any instrument, you have to put in the effort to see the results.

yes but even though the AI takes text from prompt (usually) and then generates output from known tracks within it's dataset that align broadly with the text, it's not coming from a basis of what it likes or evoking a personality on it's music output. Remember, the context was AI generating and releasing music on it's own.

Because it isn't human. It has no inspiration. It has no life story or idiosyncrasies. No likes or dislikes.

That's still your job, what you bring to the process, exactly as you do with a piano or a guitar or anything else.

But this is outside of the context of the discussion of AI doing all the work.

It didn't spend it's early 20s with it's mentor in Chicago, honing it's chops in cutting contests. AI doesn't have a history of difficult life experiences and trauma that it uses as a source for it's artwork.

Neither do I and even if I did, that's not what I'd be writing songs about. But the thing is, your average decent music AI will have trained on material that expresses all of those things, so when you ask it to produce any of those emotions or relate any of those experiences in song, it will know what you're after and, if you're good with you prompts, it will give you want you're looking for.

But you have a life history. Maybe your parent's didn't love you, or you had a traumatic event, or you have a mental illness and those aspects can generate ideas and emotions that then get directed into what kind of music you create and how it sounds.

The AI doesn't know this beyond broad quantifiers. It's no where even close to nuanced as a human life picking up bits and elements it likes and also generating NEW bits and elements outside of the body of work a human has heard. Again, AI isn't intelligent or creative. It's not alive. No soul. It just takes prompts and creates an output from a dataset.

Music isn't an outlet for AI. Because AI doesn't feel.

That's not the reason, the reason is that AI has no volition. It can only do what you tell it to do.

All these things formulate what drives a musician, musically.

Maybe that's true for you but it is definitely not for me. Whilst I definitely consider vocals in important part of the music we make, the lyrical content itself is of no consequence to me. And if you've ever paid attention to the lyrics of a New Order song, you'd know it's not just me.

AI just takes work that people, who can feel and have lived, created and generate cold calculations off of them.

Many used to say exactly the same about synthesisers. Quite vehemently at times.

Typing through all these quotes is massively tiresome and really unnecessary. You could have easily just rounded up a paragraph and then commented on it in your own paragraph..

Synthesizers do still generate cold calculations. It's the humans that input the warmth. But that's my point about AI. Even with the prompt it isn't going to get the detail of a human's own artwork. It's just going to base it's entire output on whatever output it has in it's dataset. AI has no creative mind to generate entirely new things. The best it can do is approximate based on a dataset. But with specific genres that are more derivative, it will be easy to fit in these AI derived songs in with the human derived ones.

And likely, already recorded songs (by human performers) will likely get more lauded over time. Pre-AI.

Why? If AI can do an equally good job, and even now it absolutely can, why do you think anyone will care? If you enjoy good music, why would it matter where it came from?

AI can't do an equally 'good' job though. Unless you value cookie cutter derivatives.

[guitarzan]

to compare synths to AI?
Did Jean Michel Jarre ask a synth to play a melody or chords, did Stevie Wonder etc?
Or did they create and play something by themselves?!
Who is the creator of AI full productions?
Are the creators the AI software developers?
Are the creators the buyers of AI software?
Or is the creator AI?
In future written, composed , arranged and performed by AI? AI the new superstar?

Late KVR member Tim Conrardy used to have an Atari ST midi site that listed the old software that Jan Hammer used to generate some of his arpeggios and runs.

AI doesn’t have to generate the whole song, it can be used to spark ideas to jam over… arpeggios, chord progressions, bass lines, drum patterns… stuff you would never think of yourself.

Like I keep saying, all the generative tools that have been around sparking creativity for decades all have expanded AI possibilities by giving the musician MORE control over the outcome — and many of the AI versions that already exist still just put out regular old MIDI files that can be used in every old DAW to play every old VSTi and vintage outboard MIDI hardware rig, so AI could be a boon to the plugin industry if it isn’t rejected outright.

Instead of rejecting AI, the industry should be scrambling to develop the killer apps that utilizes AI in a way that musicians can appreciate, either by outputting MIDI or perhaps designed to help build user specified AI sample libraries, etc

Now I wonder what ever happened to Tim Conrardy’s ATARI MIDI site, all those rare hard to find apps, using STEem for MIDI, etc.

[mi-os]

It's not "just a tool" if it can produce a finished product. Compare a food processor to a replicator.

[guitarzan]

So ignore the replicators but utilize and encourage the development of the tools rather than discarding the technology entirely.