Can AI (Artificial Intelligence) even compete?

[Bombadil]

Yeah. I get that. Maybe The Matrix was right when it said peak human civilization was 1999.

[zerocrossing]

First off, let's address something that is said a lot about AI, in that it is just some stupid remix machine that's profoundly different than what humans do. This is 100% wrong. What AI is doing is actually very close to what humans are doing. If you think that you are creating totally new art from nothing, you are delusional. Humans try different combinations of things based on their "training," present them, observe reactions, iterate, etc.

The difference is intent. I wake up each morning having to pee. Then I am hungry, or horny, or both. There's no prompt to evoke me. That's biology. My kernel has a single primary instruction: get your genetic information to the next generation before your biology has degraded to the point where it no longer works. Everything every animal does is based on this, including you. If you think, "well, I'm not ever going to have children," that's just you overriding that instruction, which is fine, but does not really change anything. You are still in some way part of a community and humans are social animals that are a success because of their ability to create communities. AI has none of that. Could some algorithm make it mimic that? Probably, but why? To waste electricity? Who will pay for that electricity? AI is already losing money because of this. Turns out, human based computing is very energy efficient. This is why when your Waymo gets confused, there's someone in the Philippines who will remotely take over.

I think the OP's observation about popular vs. fine art is irrelevant. My theory is that fine art is a memetic mutation engine that is part of the cultural evolution process. Those mutations either are successful in the culture, or die. If they are successful, they become part of culture, and in this case, part of pop music. If you dial the "heat" up on your AI model (lowering the probability factor), it will produce things that are more akin to fine art. There's a funny moment in the Shell Game podcast, when the guy has his agentic "coworkers" have a launch party, and it is just a Slack channel of boring boilerplate corporate speak, like, "it's amazing how we came together and through hard work and determination, we produced an amazing product." He turned up the heat on the model, and at some point, the Slack channel became abstract poetry.

As for how this impacts the business of making music... it is broken, and it has been broken for a very long time. Maybe it was always broken. I started trying to be part of it in the early 80s, and was mostly unsuccessful, but what was fascinating to me was how many other unsuccessful artists I came across during my journey. You can write me off as being biased to myself, but I'm pretty into good pop music, though my tastes are somewhat more esoteric (hot) than the mean. How is it that, in all my time in the business, has not a single person I've come across ended up becoming a successful pop artist? It's because the industry anoints a small number of artists at any given time, and all the marketing and distribution resources go to those artists and nothing to the rest. In fact, it's less than nothing, because we're all basically paying for the privilege to make music. Instruments, lessons, time, transportation, are all paid out to an industry that gives us nothing. I did have a 3 year stint as a successful artist, though, in the game industry. I was making music for Meta, and everyone was very happy with my product. This was not fine art, in any way, but it provided a good salary. I thought it would be a spring board to more work, but what I am finding is that nearly all available jobs for game music is to help train AI. Even the main producer on the client side, who was really into my work, has been let go. It's a really bad time in the game industry.

So... what is AI doing to the music industry? It's making a horrible system a little more horrible. This is the way, and has always been the way. Does it affect what we do? Only if we let it. I predict that all the people using prompts to generate music will grow tired of it faster than they got bored with their pet rocks. Especially when they have to start charging enough money to make it profitable. It can't scale. Look at it this way. If I sit down to write a song, I'm self contained. I'm not meaningfully competing for resources in a way that's different from someone who's managing a team of business people, or someone hanging out playing video games. Now, imagine there's thousands of people who are all hitting a data center with prompts to generate music. The more energy that's being used, the scarcer that resource, the more expensive that music will be to generate, not to mention that those prompts are also making my grandma's energy bills more expensive, and she does like to keep her home warm. (JK, she's DEAD) So now you have people trying to heat and light their homes competing with people trying to generate music (and other stuff), and that's not really tenable. I can sit in the dark and play my acoustic guitar, but if you can't pay your energy bill, you'll be sh!t out of luck for making a song.

It's also not fulfilling. It might make you happy that your prompt that took you 20 seconds to write got you the next Drake song, but that happiness is empty and fleeting. When I post a song, I get discouraged that almost no one bothers to take the time to listen to it, but I do feel fulfilled by the process of writing and producing it. So much so that I do it again and again, even if I never bother to release the results. AI can never feel that, and people who use it will never feel that.

Lastly, (if you made it this far, congratulations! You're a sucker for punishment! ) I am excited about some aspects of AI as a tool to use to make my music. In this song:



I used a synthetic voice that is created by using neural networks. (Synthesizer V) I physically can't hit the notes that I wrote for that song, and have no funds to hire someone to sing it for me. I could just not record it, but it occurred to me that using the synthetic voice is in no way inherently different from using Kontakt instruments for the horn parts. What I'd like to see is a version of Kontakt that could help take out the tedium of dealing with manually putting in articulation cues. Kind of like ReSing lets you sing in a part that is then replaced by a saxophone, or something. I think this is profoundly different than using generative AI to create a song from a prompt, as it's more like a tool that allows me to express my creativity in a more fluid and natural way.

[t3toooo]

I post two Videos which I think give me peace about this Topic for a good while and want to add that for me AI specially music is often very generic and easily spotted because it CAN'T compose in the future but only arrange things from the PAST!

[zerocrossing]

I post two Videos which I think give me peace about this Topic for a good while and want to add that for me AI specially music is often very generic and easily spotted because it CAN'T compose in the future but only arrange things from the PAST!

This is false. All music, comes from "the past." Show me some music that can't be traced back to something that came before. You can't. If I type in, "give me a dance tune with a hip hop vibe that's influenced by the music of John Williams and polka music," it's going to give me something "new," in the same way that a human would take different influences and create something "new." What you do see in AI is a sort of "going to the mean" type of composition, which can be boring, but have you heard most of pop music?

[t3toooo]

I post two Videos which I think give me peace about this Topic for a good while and want to add that for me AI specially music is often very generic and easily spotted because it CAN'T compose in the future but only arrange things from the PAST!

This is false. All music, comes from "the past." Show me some music that can't be traced back to something that came before. You can't. If I type in, "give me a dance tune with a hip hop vibe that's influenced by the music of John Williams and polka music," it's going to give me something "new," in the same way that a human would take different influences and create something "new." What you do see in AI is a sort of "going to the mean" type of composition, which can be boring, but have you heard most of pop music?

You wrote the word "influenced", that's actually a nice thing, isn't it?
How can AI be influenced?
Whatsoever. The main important points are actually very good explained in the Videos, which you didn't even watch. Nothing to add to the waste of time bothering about something you buy with your hard earned Money but cannot hold the copyright because the Copyright owner is the Company that created it?
And you paid and helped it with your energy and time creating a "prompt" thinking somebody will recognise you as an Artist? LOL

Of course do AI as you want. Myself I have a much better, I should say clearer idea where to use AI and where not.

[Zeisner]

This means that prompt "artists" are actually only distributors and Suno/Warner can revoke their commercial rights (License to distribute and sell) at any given moment. All they have to do is wait until a song gets popular enough.

[zerocrossing]

I post two Videos which I think give me peace about this Topic for a good while and want to add that for me AI specially music is often very generic and easily spotted because it CAN'T compose in the future but only arrange things from the PAST!

This is false. All music, comes from "the past." Show me some music that can't be traced back to something that came before. You can't. If I type in, "give me a dance tune with a hip hop vibe that's influenced by the music of John Williams and polka music," it's going to give me something "new," in the same way that a human would take different influences and create something "new." What you do see in AI is a sort of "going to the mean" type of composition, which can be boring, but have you heard most of pop music?

You wrote the word "influenced", that's actually a nice thing, isn't it?
How can AI be influenced?

Well, it's called "trained." What it basically means is that they take a neural network, which includes LLMs, and give it a target output, and then the neural network goes about trying to match the target. There's a great recording about an early neural network trying to mimic a toddler talking. At first, the neural network is just producing garbage noise, but in a pretty short amount of time, especially relative to how fast a human learns to speak, it nails it, though in a lo-fi 80s kind of way, but you can absolutely understand it. It just keeps iterating and "learning" what works and what doesn't work. Just like a human learns to speak.

Now, you do something similar, but with a ton of processing power, and a ton of recordings of the same words. You are indexing each word with a code, and eventually the neural network learns what a word sounds like, even if there's a fair amount of variation to it. Now, expand that. Have the model go over tons of text, images, music, etc. Anything that can be turned into data. If you feed it all the rock and roll music ever recorded and tell it it's something called "rock and roll," it will be able to recognize the scope of patterns that we call "rock and roll." Moreover, it will be able to produce it, in a very similar way to how humans learn and make music. The model will now understand that there's a statistically likely chord progression, melodies, beats, etc. You can do loosen up the target to let less statistically possible things come through. That's what we do when we're being creative. It's really exactly what we do, with the one difference in that we're doing the judgment as to whether or not something works. That becomes the person doing the prompts and picking the versions it likes. This is further training the model on what humans consider good, or bad.

Whatsoever. The main important points are actually very good explained in the Videos, which you didn't even watch.

I don't need to watch that nincompoop. I've seen him before and I've forgotten more about music and production than he knows. Typical hipster influencer who gets a tiny bit of knowledge and puts on wacky tats and whatnot and all the kids lap it up. Lame.

Nothing to add to the waste of time bothering about something you buy with your hard earned Money but cannot hold the copyright because the Copyright owner is the Company that created it?
And you paid and helped it with your energy and time creating a "prompt" thinking somebody will recognise you as an Artist? LOL

I think we're butting into the language barrier, as I don't know what you're going on about, but maybe I agree that someone using an AI prompt to create music is absolutely no more an artist than a person listening to and buying music.

Of course do AI as you want. Myself I have a much better, I should say clearer idea where to use AI and where not.

I'm not sure why you think I'm supporting using AI to "make music," other than maybe it's a language misinterpretation. What I am saying is that there are some tedious tasks that could be better done with AI, that still put the full artistic control to the artist. For instance, iZotope has an "AI" mastering plugin. I've tried it, and frankly the results are not bad, and you can take the settings that the AI comes up with and adjust them to taste. It's really not much different than starting with a preset. Same with using something like ReSing to turn a male voice into a female voice, or a saxophone. You are still choosing the notes, doing the performance. Is it different than a vocoder in any meaningful way? Other than sophistication.

But really, it's meaningless. Everyone can do what they want. If a prompt is all you can muster and that makes you happy, have at it. How is it really any different than the banal music that most people make anyway? I suspect that fad will pass, as investors are subsidizing the cost of computing and when they need to start charging to make a profit, people will become less interested in parting with their money to do something that's not very fulfilling.

[DCrown]

First, it's not a competition.

Second, no.

Music was since the existence of Bach a competition, in how many competitions had Bach, Mozart, especially Liszt, Sigmismond Thalberg, Charles Valentine Alkan, Theloniuos Monk and many more to prove their talent?! Public competitions or duels! Today music is just a mass product and AI will just make it even more a mass product.
AI is the present and future. But who cares, it is just about a mass product!

[jancivil]

I post two Videos which I think give me peace about this Topic for a good while and want to add that for me AI specially music is often very generic and easily spotted because it CAN'T compose in the future but only arrange things from the PAST!

This is false. All music, comes from "the past." Show me some music that can't be traced back to something that came before. You can't. If I type in, "give me a dance tune with a hip hop vibe that's influenced by the music of John Williams and polka music,"

You set a goalpost that's convenient for the argument you want to make, very specifically. Your argument's premise is simply reiterated in the proof. This is known as begging the question.

"You can't" because your confidence in the premise is unshakable. The clause "that can't be traced" is doing an awful lot of work, but we might note that this 'traced' could suit your premise in any/every case; IE: one may well argue that using 12 tone equal temperament is clearly traceable in everything that uses it, ad infin...

I'm going for reductio ad absurdum, as so far the argument's proofs aren't more than the circular argument; while at the same time we'll either accept that you you know all music and where all of its derivations came from or we won't. Absurd because there were zero examples; instead there's 'have you met pop music'.

What previous music did I take from in order to make this?


specifically

Who was Varese copying with Deserts, 1954? I could point to Density 21.5 having a probably direct influence from Debussy Syrinx, but the harmonic language is Varese.

[VariKusBrainZ]

AI can copy and transpose but it cant inject feeling

[Lunarkittn]

If one makes generic pointless music that's designed to totally fit in with all the other disposable trash, one might be in trouble moving forward.

This is what I'd like to say to all the teary eyed critics on AI music, but it seems a bit harsh to say it so bluntly. Someone posted mixbusTV videos, and those are exactly the videos I'm talking about.

1. The whole AI discussion contains too much unnecessary
alarmism and too much excitement!

It's not quite what I'm trying to get at. What I mean to say, is that if you are alarmed by AI music development taking away something from what you are doing in a meaningful way, I'm a bit at odds with your conception of music. In addition I find it hard to sympathize, since I suspect that what you are producing in that case, might not have been something of great value to begin with.

2. Popular music – that is, all rock, pop, and electronic music,
starting with the Beatles – is rubbish anyway, so nobody
needs to worry about it.

Whether it is rubbish or not is a subjective matter. What I said is that it is not an expression of high culture.

3. AI is capable of reproducing such trashy music. But it cannot
create truly genuine, soulful music itself.

What I was trying to say is that AI cannot create human artifacts and only mimics some of those qualities if you want to even call it that.

4. As a true, self-playing musician, one doesn't need to fear AI.
Because AI can't generate true expression in music.

I can see, how even though you performed a piece yourself an AI rendition might be something one might fear. What I'm trying to get at is that it's a bit silly to cry about AI instead of questioning ones own motives or approaches.

Do these four points adequately outline your opinion? I think so.

You might think so, but I think you are oversimplifying what I'm saying.

The ‘boot’ being, in this case, AI. It can be nothing else than a boot erasing a human endeavor.

I think you are giving AI way too much credit.

Lastly, (if you made it this far, congratulations! You're a sucker for punishment! )

I did.

[zerocrossing]

I post two Videos which I think give me peace about this Topic for a good while and want to add that for me AI specially music is often very generic and easily spotted because it CAN'T compose in the future but only arrange things from the PAST!

This is false. All music, comes from "the past." Show me some music that can't be traced back to something that came before. You can't. If I type in, "give me a dance tune with a hip hop vibe that's influenced by the music of John Williams and polka music,"

You set a goalpost that's convenient for the argument you want to make, very specifically. Your argument's premise is simply reiterated in the proof. This is known as begging the question.

"You can't" because your confidence in the premise is unshakable. The clause "that can't be traced" is doing an awful lot of work, but we might note that this 'traced' could suit your premise in any/every case; IE: one may well argue that using 12 tone equal temperament is clearly traceable in everything that uses it, ad infin...

I'm going for reductio ad absurdum, as so far the argument's proofs aren't more than the circular argument; while at the same time we'll either accept that you you know all music and where all of its derivations came from or we won't. Absurd because there were zero examples; instead there's 'have you met pop music'.

What previous music did I take from in order to make this?


specifically

Who was Varese copying with Deserts, 1954? I could point to Density 21.5 having a probably direct influence from Debussy Syrinx, but the harmonic language is Varese.

I'm sorry, I'm the designated blowhard in this thread, and I'm not going to listen to your track because it will be a waste of my time, though I generally like your music, even though you are not a unique snowflake, at least on a high level. I've been around the block enough to know that you can't show me anything new, even if I can't specifically point to an artist. Sorry. After 4′33″, the rule book was burned. RIP.

[zerocrossing]

What previous music did I take from in order to make this?

OK, I'm feeling particularly cranky, so here you go.

[zerocrossing]

AI can copy and transpose but it cant inject feeling

What does "inject feeling" mean. If it can copy feeling, isn't that expressing feeling?

[enroe]

Let's see, Lunarkittn, if I understood you:

2. Popular music – that is, all rock, pop, and electronic music,
starting with the Beatles – is rubbish anyway, so nobody
needs to worry about it.

Whether it is rubbish or not is a subjective matter. What I said is that it is not an expression of high culture.

Mmmmh, so for you it's like this: all rock and pop music,
electronic music, ambient, etc. - starting with the Beatles - is
not necessarily "trash", but only "does not demonstrate a high
level of cultural expression".

1. The whole AI discussion contains too much unnecessary
alarmism and too much excitement!

It's not quite what I'm trying to get at. What I mean to say, is that if you are alarmed by AI music development taking away something from what you are doing in a meaningful way, I'm a bit at odds with your conception of music. In addition I find it hard to sympathize, since I suspect that what you are producing in that case, might not have been something of great value to begin with.

Anyone who pursues this music of "low cultural expression"
or composes similar music themselves is not making a
relevant contribution to culture anyway. Therefore, AI poses no
danger in this regard.

3. AI is capable of reproducing such trashy music. But it cannot
create truly genuine, soulful music itself.

What I was trying to say is that AI cannot create human artifacts and only mimics some of those qualities if you want to even call it that.

4. As a true, self-playing musician, one doesn't need to fear AI.
Because AI can't generate true expression in music.

I can see, how even though you performed a piece yourself an AI rendition might be something one might fear. What I'm trying to get at is that it's a bit silly to cry about AI instead of questioning ones own motives or approaches.

So one should look within oneself: There is nothing there that could
be considered culturally valuable or interesting, that is "of high
cultural expression".

So, one should rather look at oneself and see if one could
contribute something "relevant" to the culture.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I think I understood you very well. But I'm a little shocked.

You're evaluating people's original artistic expression and
dividing it into "important + valuable" and "less relevant +
not worth noting." That is, you're dividing art into "bad"
and "good."

While one can certainly do so according to personal taste, such
a distinction is of little use as a basis for objective discourse. In
art itself, such a distinction is even highly problematic — indeed,
absurd.

Because art in general, and music in particular, CANNOT be
evaluated. What, then, is Beuys' Fat Chair? Or Malevich's Black
Square?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Overall, you are completely wrong in two respects, or rather, you
are even deceiving yourself:

1. In the AI ​​discussion, you are escaping the real issue by
arbitrarily dividing music into "bad and not worth considering"
and "culturally valuable".

2. And you completely suppress and negate the idea that in the
future it will be easy for AI to compose music in the style of
Bach, Beethoven, Debussy and others, so that even experts
would be amazed (see my point 4 from the first post).