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

[Zeisner]

Terminators are on the same page as flying cars and Moon colonies. It's not going to happen, there are too many unresolved physical and technical issues.

[Zeisner]

And this 100% AI song reached #1 on the Billboard Country charts:

I already heard that and it's meh at best. Nobody will spend a single cent on that. Ever. People let slop like this play in the background with their free Spotify accounts and forget it right after the tracks finished - if they even paid enough attention.

[wagtunes]

And this 100% AI song reached #1 on the Billboard Country charts:

I already heard that and it's meh at best. Nobody will spend a single cent on that. Ever. People let slop like this play in the background with their free Spotify accounts and forget it right after the tracks finished - if they even paid enough attention.

Shows you how little you know about Spotify and the charts. If the song is #1, since there are no record sales today, it got there because of streams. Streams pay. Then there's Youtube plays.

Trust me. This song has made plenty of money.

[jamcat]

And this 100% AI song reached #1 on the Billboard Country charts:

I already heard that and it's meh at best. Nobody will spend a single cent on that. Ever. People let slop like this play in the background with their free Spotify accounts and forget it right after the tracks finished - if they even paid enough attention.

Dude, you lost the argument.

[Zeisner]

https://www.wired.com/story/ai-bots-streaming-music/

The music has been made by AIs, the listeners are AIs, even the platforms themselves are AI-based:

https://www.techspot.com/news/111318-sp ... hs-ai.html

A perfect example of fake economy.

[jamcat]

You're just flailing now. You asked for an example of a hummable catchy melody. I provided two. Your best argument now is "I don't really like those songs."

[Zeisner]

Dude, you lost the argument.

Dude. Only AI listens to AI music. Read the comment I posted a few moments before. It's all fake economy.

It was already fake economy back in the 80s when labels started to buy their own releases to push them in the charts, hoping to make it after they faked it. Sometimes it worked, sometimes it didn't. But there was still the human factor back then, at the end of the day you needed human customers. Now it's all an AI loop, you don't need any human listeners anymore. And it shows.

[jamcat]

I'm beginning to think you may be AI.

[Zeisner]

You're just flailing now. You asked for an example of a hummable catchy melody. I provided two. Your best argument now is "I don't really like those songs."

Your examples suck. If you consider that catchy you have not a bad taste - you have no taste at all. No human will spend a single cent on that. But that isn't the goal anyway, you only need AIs to listen.

[Tubeman]

And this 100% AI song reached #1 on the Billboard Country charts:

It's not an international chart though? Only in the USA and even there I guess it's only certain parts of the USA. The USA population is like ~4% of the world population.

[jamcat]

OK, guys.

So now the criteria to prove that AI can write a competent catchy song is that it has to be #1 on an international chart, and Zeisner has to admit to personally buying a copy of it.

The irony of course is that the thrash metal example "Fawkes" sounds infinitely more "human" than any of the techno MIDI shit that Zeisner surely would count as "taste."

[BONES]

Well not that honest - if you don´t care, why are you discussing it.

Because the very thought of it excites me.

Oh, I see obviously we have different views on what making music means. Using mainly midi-files is not creating music by yourself, it is just using something someone else has created.

So is playing a song written by anyone else so anyone who plays in a symphony orchestra is obviously a talentless bum, right?

And there is always a high probability other producers might use the exact same midi file, where is the originality, where is the creativity ?

That's not what we were talking about, we were talking about what you need to make music. There is no originality any more, anything worth doing has already been done a hundred times. Finding creative ways to use a MIDI file is more than enough creativity for me and, I imagine, most other people. Was there no creativity in Switched on Bach? Or Flying Lizards' version of Money? Or the haunting version of Mad World that Michael Andrews and Gary Jules did for Donnie Darko?

whereas blindness is not absurd, I could list 20 more examples that ai is ruining present and future

You know, I'm sure if that was true you'd give us at least a few examples. You haven't, so I assume you have none. Zero. Zilch. Bupkis. Sweet f**k-all, Your Honour.

Let's have a huge crisis where everything that was good before, will get destroyed, too.

If that's what it takes to fix what's broken, then maybe it is a price worth paying?

Why not talking about ways to stop this AI madness.

Because it's not any form of "madness" I am familiar with. It's a tool, like anything, it's what you do with it that matters so, as always, it comes down to people. At root, it's always people who are the problem.

We talked about the end of the era of human beings

We are all finite, what does it matter if we are the last? I honestly don't see a problem if human being become extinct. It's ultimately what happens to every species. If it happens at the hands of AI, I'd call that hubris, wouldn't you?

I agree, AI isn't going to be the end of musicians. However, it might significantly affect whether and how musicians make money and what sort of talents are prioritized.

As occurred when synths became popular, when Punk rolled around and crushed everything that had gone before and when DAWs took the power away from big record companies and studios. Change is inevitable, you can embrace it or get left behind.

I already heard that and it's meh at best.

Of course it is, it's Country, it's all "meh", at best.

Your best argument now is "I don't really like those songs."

Like you couldn't see that coming a mile off. That's precisely why I haven't bothered posting any of the stuff we've been doing. It's genre music, if it's not your genre, you're not going to like and you're not going to have the context to make any meaningful assessment of its worth.

If you consider that catchy you have not a bad taste - you have no taste at all.

Ok, then, why don't you post us an example of a catchy melody, so we can provide you with a more acceptable example? Throughout this entire discussion you have not once put your money where your mouth is. You're a waste of f**king space.

It's not an international chart though? Only in the USA and even there I guess it's only certain parts of the USA. The USA population is like ~4% of the world population.

But it's probably around 25% of the global music market. If you can't break the US market, you're never going to reach the really big time. That's just a fact.

[Zeisner]

I'm beginning to think you may be AI.

I would have to be a extremely advanced AI from the future, just because of all the artifacts I can hear in AI generated music...

I'm still open to examples. But they must be good. As good as music created by skilled humans. I'm not going to lower the bar to make AI fans happy. Nope, not going to happen.

[jamcat]

You didn't actually watch this video, did you?

[Zeisner]

So now the criteria to prove that AI can write a competent catchy song is that it has to be #1 on an international chart

Nope, because:

https://www.wired.com/story/ai-bots-streaming-music/

And that is just one example. But a good one. Charts don't prove anything. It's like claiming that Trump must be a good president just because he got the most votes. That's stupid. Are you stupid?

The irony of course is that the thrash metal example "Fawkes" sounds infinitely more "human" than any of the techno MIDI shit that Zeisner surely would count as "taste."

Plenty of projection here...