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

[jancivil]

What I wonder is what will happen when AI don’t have any new fresh food to feed on? Right now, fine it scrapes music out here previously created by artists, bands and musicians but after that, it will feed on its own stuff on and on and on? A photocopy of a photocopy of a photocopy of a photocopy…

I saw it said just yesterday that with eg., Chat GPT six generations of that will result in gibberish.
It was someone in the know, I can't determine from a glance at YT history which vid it was.

[BONES]

Fair enough. I still think we hold very different positions on what the creative process is. I'm of the mind of your buddy, where finishing something isn't necessarily the end goal.

Then you're not being creative, you're just wasting time. The clue is in the word, if you want to be "creative", you need to "create" something, not half-arse it and lose interest before it's done. Like anything else, you get out of it what you put in, which means it generally requires hard work and discipline.

But to me, the creative process is it's own point, the joy of it (and insert many other descriptors here), the part that makes you feel alive in the moment of creating the thing that is coming out, playing with your own hands and internal self and bouncing things back and forth when playing with other people who you have good chemistry with. I can't imagine that process ever being equaled by AI generation.

That's because you put yourself above the music. I don't. The music is the only thing that matters to me. The process doesn't have to be enjoyable, it certainly isn't fun, the satisfaction comes from performing the thing once it's done.

Except certain music genres make money mainly from touring live if even from that. You think those genres are gonna die away? I don't think so. People still want to see/hear good songs and musicianship live.

Not so much these days. The live music scene in Australia is a tiny shadow of what it once was. I doubt that it is even 10% of what it was 40 years ago.

What I wonder is what will happen when AI don’t have any new fresh food to feed on? Right now, fine it scrapes music out here previously created by artists, bands and musicians but after that, it will feed on its own stuff on and on and on? A photocopy of a photocopy of a photocopy of a photocopy….

It doesn't feed on anything. It gets trained and then it can do its thing, much like you and I. It's not sampling other music, it's creating songs from scratch. That's what it does.

The thought has crossed my mind also on whether it can F-up like a real human? That is, I remember many times where one member of the band made a glorious accident that took the production into an unexpected direction that went far above the original.

That happens all the time, when it doesn't quite get what you were asking of it in your prompt. Lots and lots of happy accidents.

There's also the question of synergy. Which can happen only when everyone suddenly plays better than they knew they could. The sum far exceeding the total of its parts.

That also happens from time to time, when it absolutely nails it or even exceeds your expectations.

Back when I started this electric music life around eleven-twelve years old, I was continuously warned to learn my instruments without effects first. Lest I become dependant on them more than playing the instrument.

That is another example of putting yourself before the music.

[BBFG#]

That would still be by conflation though. And I doubt there's any way a synergy could ever happen.
And no, that's not an example of putting yourself before the music, but of playing the instrument before the effect.

[jamcat]

Playing with effects makes you a better guitarist. Playing to delay forces your timing to be tighter. Playing with distortion teaches you to manipulate tone, harmonics, and sustain. Playing with reverb teaches you to let your notes breathe. Playing with flanger teaches you to to keep your low end clean.

[sellyoursoul]

Then you're not being creative, you're just wasting time. The clue is in the word, if you want to be "creative", you need to "create" something, not half-arse it and lose interest before it's done. Like anything else, you get out of it what you put in, which means it generally requires hard work and discipline.

It's called 'playing'. And no, it's not a waste of time. It's one aspect of improvising, i.e, exploring, stumbling onto things, getting inspired, iterating on those found ideas, taking them in other directions, refining them. Along with a lot of practicing, which also isn't a waste of time. And a lot of listening, which also isn't a waste of time.

That's because you put yourself above the music. I don't. The music is the only thing that matters to me. The process doesn't have to be enjoyable, it certainly isn't fun, the satisfaction comes from performing the thing once it's done.

Music is expression of people for people. If you're not inspired and finding anything meaningful in what you're playing, you can't expect to communicate anything inspiring and meaningful to anyone else. Some people enjoy improvising music, some composing music, some writing songs, some performing music or songs as written, and degrees of a cross section through of all of them.

It doesn't feed on anything. It gets trained and then it can do its thing, much like you and I. It's not sampling other music, it's creating songs from scratch. That's what it does.

Yes, it's trained on existing music, made by humans. Data is AI's material. Without that data it has nothing to train on and absolutely nothing to actually do. And no, AI training on music is not the same as what humans do with music. We experience music through the filters of our individual lives, which is where new kinds of music come from. And the trained AI's output requires further direction from humans in order to produce anything relevant to humans. So no, it doesn't create songs from scratch, from beginning to end.

[Neon Breath]

What I wonder is what will happen when AI don’t have any new fresh food to feed on? Right now, fine it scrapes music out here previously created by artists, bands and musicians but after that, it will feed on its own stuff on and on and on? A photocopy of a photocopy of a photocopy of a photocopy….

It doesn't feed on anything. It gets trained and then it can do its thing, much like you and I. It's not sampling other music, it's creating songs from scratch. That's what it does.

False. AI systems are trained on large datasets of existing music. That's how they train, as you say it yourself.

Educate yourself in deep machine learning and more importantly, listen less to these salesmen-tech bros:
https://artiumacademy.com/blogs/the-role-of-ai-in-music

[BONES]

It's called 'playing'.

Yes, it's something we indulge children to do.

And no, it's not a waste of time. It's one aspect of improvising, i.e, exploring, stumbling onto things, getting inspired, iterating on those found ideas, taking them in other directions, refining them. Along with a lot of practicing, which also isn't a waste of time. And a lot of listening, which also isn't a waste of time.

It is a complete waste of time if there is no point to it. It becomes nothing more than a way to fill the hours until you die.

Music is expression of people for people.

It can be but it doesn't have to be. Industrial music, for example, is the exact opposite of that. It seeks to take the human element out of the equation completely.

If you're not inspired and finding anything meaningful in what you're playing, you can't expect to communicate anything inspiring and meaningful to anyone else.

I have no desire to communicate anything to anyone through our music. It's not the right medium for that.

Yes, it's trained on existing music, made by humans. Data is AI's material. Without that data it has nothing to train on and absolutely nothing to actually do.

The same is true of you and I. Imagine that you grew up never having heard any music in your life. None at all, not so much as someone whistling a tune as they walk on by. What kind of music would you make in that situation, compared to whatever it is you do now? We are all the sum-total of our experiences, constantly influenced by all the music around us. Just like AI, only for them we call it "training" because they don't need a lifetime to absorb as much as a human might in 10 lifetimes.

AI training on music is not the same as what humans do with music. We experience music through the filters of our individual lives, which is where new kinds of music come from.

You're talking about music appreciation, which is not necessary for the tools we use to make it. A guitar has no appreciation for music, neither does a piano, or your DAW, but that doesn't stop you from using those things to make music, does it?

And the trained AI's output requires further direction from humans in order to produce anything relevant to humans. So no, it doesn't create songs from scratch, from beginning to end.

It only requires human input because it has been built that way and who knows how long it will be before it no longer does? Next week? Next month? Maybe next year if you're lucky. Like it or not, none of that alters the fact that the music AI creates is as original as 99% of the music humans create, probably moreso.

False. AI systems are trained on large datasets of existing music.

Which is exactly what I said, genius. So what's your point? It's what they train on, not what they use to build the music they create. It's what we all do - you hear a song you really like and you think "I reckon I can do something like that" and off you go. The only difference here is that someone is telling the AI where to go for "inspiration" for it's next creation.

That's my point about this whole thing - AI is just a tool and you use it like any other tool, for the things it can do to enhance your workflow and/or productivity. And just like every other tool, the results are only ever going to be as good as the skills of the person using it and the time and effort they are willing to put into getting the best from it. If you only spend one minute writing a prompt, you'll get nothing but generic rubbish from it but if you take your time, refine your prompt, then iterate and iterate until you get the result you're after. It's not easy but it can be hugely rewarding.

[Grizzellda]

As usual, BONES comes off as a "rugged individualist", yet when presented with the idea of exploring MuLab, he cowers in fear! He is intimidated with the sheer modular complexity of MuLab.

I listened to a couple of tracks on their Iconoclast album...pretty cool, sounds to me like unique electro industrial stuff, dunno. So many music categories!

Hey BONES! If you get here and read this sh*t, do not despise me! I am trying to help you, to be your friend.

You see BONES... MuLab's modular environment could really help you make the sounds that are meaningful to you.

If you cannot see that, well "your just outta line fella"!

[jamcat]

As far as people are concerned about AI being a threat to musicians, or software developers, I think that concern is misplaced.

For musicians, music is just a vehicle. It gives them something to perform. throughout all of musical history, it has always been about the personality and the performer. The Beatles were alright when they started out, but nothing phenomenal. Beatlemania wasn’t really about “I Want to Hold Your Hand.” The songs really didn’t matter; John, Paul, George, and Ringo did.

AI can’t replace that. But it can write a Beatles song. So it can provide the vehicle for them to perform, just like any songwriter can, did, and still does in the industry.

As for software development, programmers could always be hired to code it, and were, and still can be, just as they always have been. But now a lot of that work can also be done by AI instead. But you still need an idea. AI can help turn that idea into viable software, which lowers the barrier to turning good ideas into working software.

So AI is really nothing to fear. It is simply a tool that can help creators achieve their vision faster. And two things are for certain: AI isn’t going away, and it will only continue to get better.

[BONES]

That would still be by conflation though. And I doubt there's any way a synergy could ever happen.
And no, that's not an example of putting yourself before the music, but of playing the instrument before the effect.

You don't even see it, do you? What you said was "Lest I become dependant on them (effects)" as though that would be a bad thing. But it would never be a bad thing if that's what the music needs, only in as much as it might affect your musicianship. Musicianship is all about the player, not about the music. That's why ai don't care about it, it's irrelevant to what we do (which is making music).

As usual, BONES comes off as a "rugged individualist", yet when presented with the idea of exploring MuLab, he cowers in fear! He is intimidated with the sheer modular complexity of MuLab.

Yeah, right. It has nothing to do with being a complete waste of my time, looking into a product of which I have absolutely no need. You may see value in your time but I put a lot of value on mine. I have well over 100 songs in Studio Pro, it would take me hundreds of hours to get those working in any other DAW, 100s of hours I could spend on my favourite driving roads or exploring the hundreds of little bays and inlets within a weekend's sail of home.

You see BONES... MuLab's modular environment could really help you make the sounds that are meaningful to you.

I sincerely doubt that. I already have five times as many tools as I'll ever get around to using. It's all just a distraction from the important stuff.

[jamcat]

Have to agree with BONES on that. People who twiddle with MuLab or Bitwig aren’t musicians; they’re technicians.

Musicians think, “I have these songs, and I need to get them recorded.”

Technicians think, “I have these toys, let’s play with them and see what happens.”

Studio Pro is for the musicians.

[enCiphered]

lmao.. imagine being scared of creativity. The insecurity is loud and blaming tools really wild.

People who reduce music to the DAW they use aren’t musicians.
Real musicians make music with whatever tool is in front of them.
The rest just need a logo to hide behind.

[Trancit]

As far as people are concerned about AI being a threat to musicians, or software developers, I think that concern is misplaced.

For musicians, music is just a vehicle. It gives them something to perform. throughout all of musical history, it has always been about the personality and the performer. The Beatles were alright when they started out, but nothing phenomenal. Beatlemania wasn’t really about “I Want to Hold Your Hand.” The songs really didn’t matter; John, Paul, George, and Ringo did.

AI can’t replace that. ...

This...

The following is meant for "generative AI" and not to specific tools just helping in production processes:

And secondly "AI" is a topic which has splitted the society as much as I have never seen before...
There is a very hardcore base absolutely refusing "AI" (at least "generative") completely and the more "AI" will damage peoples lifes in future (stealing jobs etc...) the more the "anti AI" movement will grow and get stronger and the harder it will get for the industry part settling on such tools...
These people will avoid "AI" in every aspect of their lifes they can influence, i.e. what movies they are watching and which music they are listening to...

And thirdly there are many open problems about "AI" and copyright, respectively the question if machine code should have the same rights like human beings... sooner or later lawmakers have to treat this problem and I guess (and hope) it will not be in favour of "AI" ...not at least because of the fact that most "AI" training is based on stealing existing work...
I can imagine that at some point "AI" developers will be brought to court to justify how their model was trained and if it was based on stealing there could be huge fines bringing these people on their knees...

So imho there will be an unclear and bumpy time in the next years but at the very end I think "AI" won´t win... Oligarchs losing ground every day, more and more people waking up, realizing what has been done to them ... nothing positive for any forcing of such technology onto the people.

[Tiles]

I wouldn’t frame the copyright debate around AI as if the outcome were already clear.
The legal questions are complex, and reducing them to “AI equals theft” doesn’t really reflect how nuanced this issue actually is.
And please don't reduce AI to just the one click solutions. You will for sure not have any copyright issues when you master with Ozone. That's also AI nowadays. You will also not have any copyright issues with SynthesizerV or Ace Studio. They sing what you give them. And even Suno has now a full fledget DAW to offer, called Suno Studio.

[DCrown]

The songs of The Beatles didn't matter?
Well, everyone has the right to have his own view.
Only the songs matter, I didn't care about the members of the group and don't consider any of them an outstanding musician, frankly speaking their haircut looked strange. Paul on bass, well, nice, good enough for his music.
When I started with music The Beatles and Elvis were my main inspiration, the songs were simple with a nice melody you remembered after first listening. So I could play and learn the songs on piano very fast and enjoyed it. Later Muddy Waters on guitar.
I was never a Beatles fan, but I am pretty sure I could immediately play most of their songs on piano and guitar and even remember the lyrics.
It is all about their music and lyrics, I never cared about the skills or personality of The Beatles band members.
Have to add that I experienced The Beatles quite a long time after Beatlemania.
On the other hand the personality can also matter to me, I never liked Hendrix' depressive lyrics and his sex, drugs and RocknRoll image. No doubt he was a nice blues-rock guitarist, but I was glad Prince could replace him with a more positive vibe and more soulful guitar playing