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

[havran]

Our government has introduced new legislation requiring age verification to access porn sites, which has to be a good thing, right? But Porn Hub's response, apparently, has been to block access to Australians until they can get a verification system in place. The thing is, that system is certain to involve using passports and drivers licenses to verify your age, which I reckon will see a lot of dirty old (and young) men scurrying for cover.

Yeah, we have the same kind of thing going over here, and I don't know if it's at the state or federal level.

There has also been a development in the past week or so where both California (USA) and Brazil now have laws requiring age-verification for something -- maybe just internet access? but the laws must be phrased more broadly than that, and now the Linux distros are in a tizzy because they don't have the funding or people-power to comply with whatever legal demands. Related to that, MidnightBSD (based on BSD, not Linux) immediately decided that they would not allow downloads to California. (Brazil's legal stuff came after that.)

[BONES]

We got age verification for social media last year, where no-one under 16 is allowed to have an account on Facebook, Instagram, X or Tik-Tok (and maybe some others, but not YouTube). Again, it's hard to deny the logic in doing that, given that parents don't seem to care what their kids are exposed to. This new legislation is tougher than that, I believe.

[havran]

Another take: if perhaps AI were to replace musicians sometime soon, what prevents you from writing or singing a song or playing a few notes right now? OK, sure, KVR (like any forum) might be more full of the text-centric.

Also, has "The Sorcerer's Apprentice" been mentioned yet?

[havran]

We got age verification for social media last year, where no-one under 16 is allowed to have an account on Facebook, Instagram, X or Tik-Tok (and maybe some others, but not YouTube). Again, it's hard to deny the logic in doing that, given that parents don't seem to care what their kids are exposed to. This new legislation is tougher than that, I believe.

Was that a conservative move to keep the younger kids from being influenced by peer trends in East Asia and maybe elsewhere?

Aussie kids with nobly pallid faces -- hahaha

I never had kids (born in late 1959), and these days I can't imagine what it must be like to be a parent or a teacher or a kid.

[twal]

The point about taste I see is correct. We already have chord generators, samplers, and drum machines. I am not saying these are the same as AI, but my taste for what I choose to create with the before mentioned tools is how I apply taste. The same can be said with AI, but AI has less limitations (AI is different as a tool than all previous tools, because it removes the path of time, removing the moment element; conversely, if I use a well known hi-hat, I skip the time it would take to create one, ultimately narrowing my field of choice, but the manifestation of sound is more segmented in the moment rather than fluid in the case of AI).

I don't see how this is of any import whatsoever, nor do I think it is true. We are more than 4 months into using AI to make our next album and we're still several months away from completing it. Yes, you can generate something very quickly but generating something worthwhile still takes time and effort and provides plenty of moments, if that's important to you. To be fair. we have had all the songs we need for 6-7 weeks now but we still have a shit-tonne of work ahead of us to get them into a releasable state.

The limitation of not using AI are the choices that catalyze how my music sounds because the process is what determines a sound. For example- if I ask AI to make me a pop beat with a prompt containing X, Y, and W, it will take all data and previously made sounds, as well as use its imagination to create a result that will be Z. If I do everything manually using older tools, the process will take me down a different route based on my individual taste in choices, so the result will be different.

That's only relevant if you accept the first thing the AI spits out. If you have specific goals, be it style or sounds or rhythms or whatever, you can spend a lot of time with Ai getting those things right, trying out all kinds of variations to see what's going to work best for you. To me it has felt little different from doing it any other way, you still have to work at it to get to a result that you're happy with.

If I know every single choice I want to make before exploring the music process itself down to the exact Hi Hat and AI can translate it, then the result will be whatever I input in that moment

No it won't because the AI won't get it right the first time. In fact, if you know exactly what you're after, it probably won't ever get there because it will always put its own spin on whatever you ask from it. It works best if you only have a vague idea of your goal, as you normally would when you're writing a song from scratch or from a single idea. Instead of looking for elements to fill out the idea into a song, you give AI instructions as to what kinds of elements you want and let it have its head. You get the best from it when your prompts are detailed but not specific, if you know what I mean.

removing any imaginative choices during the process

Not at all. The AI's imagination is different from yours but that can be a good thing, in that it takes you down paths you might never find on your own.

so I want to get that straight since it is similar to using loops in this manner).

It doesn't feel like that to me. A loop is a loop, it will always be the same, whereas one of the things I like about the AI output is that it changes through the song - no 4 bar sequence is ever exactly the same. The AI tends to inject a lot more variation that I ever would, which I appreciate.

Now, if I keep running prompts over time until it creates something more of my "own", now the result will be more to what I would create if I didn't have AI, but it would still not match entirely what I would have created. So AI music will lack the human elements of ideas in the moment, tendencies, actuality, the process of inspiration of sounds, and the literal manifestation of the avenue of MY thoughts.

Not even close. You still all of those things, it just does it in a different way. You still make all the final choices, it's more like having a crazy assistant who never quite does exactly what you tell him or her to do but if you keep at them, it will eventually give you something like what you intended. You can get your "inspiration of sounds" by going through 400 Hive presets and 50 Battery kits looking for things that work or you can let the AI find those things for you. It's one of the best aspects of using AI for me - it comes up with great sounds almost every time. As for YOUR thoughts, I think you badly over-rate their value.

Can AI do it's own thing in regards to this? Sure, but the output will always be a translation, never a living breathing output of my personal being. So is what I said right or semi-accurate or am I completely off?

Mostly off. You might find the fact that it's not slaved to your personal quirks and limitations liberating. It might open up a whole new avenue for you to explore and make your own, as it has done for us.

If you hate the song, a scowl might be on your face or an eyebrow raise so it'll update and change gears or colors as one move a kaledoscope. You could use your own emotions to train it and program it.

Or maybe it will take that as a cue to make the song angrier. Your face is never going to be a reliable tool.

Feed it a database of your favorite songs, songs you hate, your favorite parts of of your favorite songs.

You can do that now but it doesn't necessarily take much notice of it. And how is that any different to how AI is trained anyway?

That by itself might be enough to never need any input from you ever. It could make new stuff in line with your taste

If that's all you want, it can do that now. We've got hundreds of songs we're happy to listen to but only a handful we feel are good enough to put on a album with our logo on it.

I just say this, because this is so much to go through. Let me try to say it in this way- I see the actuality of something occurring hinders upon the inspiration of actual physical input. AI can replace a lot of "grunt" work, but the moment of me being inspired to do A which leads to B which leads to C (finding a specific synth, playing a key, ending with a certain melody) comes within a moment that was encapsulated in a bigger theme envisioned before implemented. This cannot be fully replicated with AI IMHO. Yes, I can get results (assuming AI will get to the point where no slop and all beef is produced) similarly, but my specific "stamp" using --previous to AI generated elements-- cannot be fully duplicated I'm venturing to say.

Let's take a Hip Hop producer for instance. It appears if they were prominent with records and sampling, they could have an eye and ear for finding records and going through that process, but using AI to generate similar samples would end up as "different art" because of different path and different inspired elements. Even if it were to be THE SAME in essence (AI samples instead of records), they would still have to use MPC's or the likes of hardware to achieve a similar result; although, that can be duplicated sound-wise but the methodology would not be. Maybe I am wrong. But, our creativity flows outside the scope of artificial generation. If it weren't, I can create equal sounding music via prompts regardless of my methods of creation. Can we replace ourselves with equally "good" , similar stuff, and/or could it be duplicated in its entirety outside of happenstance and the path's meandering route?

[havran]

If AI really does replace a large part of music creation, who is actually going to buy plugins anymore?

The whole plugin ecosystem exists because humans want tools to shape sound, experiment, design, mix and develop their own workflow. If music becomes mostly prompt-based or fully automated, the end user is no longer a producer or sound designer but just a consumer of output.

At that point, what happens to audio plugin developers, DAW companies, sample library creators?

It feels like people talk about “AI replacing musicians” without thinking through the second-order effects. If there are no creators, there’s no real market for creative tools either.

So I’m genuinely curious:
Are any developers already noticing changes in sales, user behavior, or demand because of AI tools? Or is this still mostly theoretical right now? Noise?!

More generally, based on my own experience as a survivor of a few things (imagined and real), my advice for everyone would be to keep making plans and follow through on them, one day after another, just in case they can be accomplished -- despite whatever surmises and projections which might never come to pass.

I.E., don't let the countervailing dark headwinds of some imaginary future make you give up before you even get started.

(completely written and revised by a human hand, with no AI assistance)

[BONES]

Was that a conservative move to keep the younger kids from being influenced by peer trends in East Asia and maybe elsewhere?

No, we have a leftie government in power at the moment. It's all about protecting the precious little snowflakes from their peers posting hurtful things about them.

I never had kids (born in late 1959), and these days I can't imagine what it must be like to be a parent or a teacher or a kid.

I'm a year older than you and the thought has never seriously crossed my mind. Of course, I've never been in a relationship so it's not something I've ever had t think about, even a little bit.

I just say this, because this is so much to go through. Let me try to say it in this way- I see the actuality of something occurring hinders upon the inspiration of actual physical input. AI can replace a lot of "grunt" work, but the moment of me being inspired to do A which leads to B which leads to C (finding a specific synth, playing a key, ending with a certain melody) comes within a moment that was encapsulated in a bigger theme envisioned before implemented.

So what? It's a different process but I've been enjoying what we're doing with AI far more than I can ever remember with any of our previous albums. You're probably too used to working on your own but I work with a partner and most of the ideas that spark a new song come from him, not me. I get to add my ideas, my creativity to it but without his initial spark, there'd be nothing. And I'm fine with that, I really couldn't care less where the ideas come from, as long as I have something to work with, to add my own creative ideas to.

The more ideas you can pack into a song, the more different points of view, the better the outcome is bound to be. AI adds its own ideas to mine and to Craig's and the results are better than anything we've done before. Dickheads can suggest that's not a very high bar to clear but, realistically, we've been more successful within our scene/genre than any of those c**ts have in theirs, so they can suck my f**king cock.

This cannot be fully replicated with AI IMHO.

But the results certainly can and if you're not more interested in the results, why the f**k are you bothering at all?

Yes, I can get results (assuming AI will get to the point where no slop and all beef is produced) similarly, but my specific "stamp" using --previous to AI generated elements-- cannot be fully duplicated I'm venturing to say.

It doesn't try to replicate your results, it gives you it's own take on the thing. That's been the value of it for us.

using AI to generate similar samples would end up as "different art" because of different path and different inspired elements.

Which would be a good thing, wouldn't it? An opportunity to broaden your horizons. That's certainly what it's been doing for us.

Maybe I am wrong. But, our creativity flows outside the scope of artificial generation. If it weren't, I can create equal sounding music via prompts regardless of my methods of creation.

Yeah, as a starting point for you to add your own creativity to. I have this argument with the kids at work all the time. We have branding guidelines - a look, a colour palette, allowed fonts, etc., which give our news it's own distinctive look. There are templates for a lot of things and the kids feel it stifles their creativity, they don't see the opportunities to be creative within the guidelines/templates, which tells me that they really aren't as creative as they think they are.

Creativity is taking what you're given and making something amazing from it, you don't need to start every piece from a blank canvas. As Picasso famously said, "good artists borrow, great artists steal". Just working within a genre means you're re-using all kinds of ideas from those who have gone before you. And if you're not working within a genre, what you're doing is in all likelihood garbage.

Can we replace ourselves with equally "good" , similar stuff, and/or could it be duplicated in its entirety outside of happenstance and the path's meandering route?

Yes, easily.

[havran]

Was that a conservative move to keep the younger kids from being influenced by peer trends in East Asia and maybe elsewhere?

No, we have a leftie government in power at the moment. It's all about protecting the precious little snowflakes from their peers posting hurtful things about them.

Oh yeah, had completely forgotten about the cruelty of youngsters in the prisons we call the educational system.

[maxchristensenaudio]

The music making tools many of us provide were never necessary. They are a luxury and can/should be fun and inspiring to use. AI "artists" might feel really empowered by AI tools but for actual musicians, hearing the result of a prompt isn't as exciting or fulfilling as actually making it yourself.
So I think there will always be demand.

[BONES]

Maybe for you but being a musician means nothing to me, it brings no joy or satisfaction in and of itself, in any way. In fact, I find it boring. I honestly can't see where there can be any satisfaction in strumming a guitar or picking a bass or banging drums in a band, beyond the resulting song that it contributes to. I've been patching and playing synths for 45 years and I still don't think of myself as a musician. I'm happy to let the machines take care of all that drudgery, in the same way that a front man is happy to leave it to the players in his band.

To dismiss AI as not being inspiring just shows you've never spent any time with it. I can't think of anything that has inspired us more than AI. We've both been putting in way more time and effort to knock the songs AI has generated into shape than we've ever worked on stuff we just made up ourselves. We're both more committed to getting it 100% right and make it as good as it can possibly be than we've every been with any stuff that's come about through other means. We're also both way, way more excited about where we're going with it, how it is pushing us to push ourselves out of our comfort zones and try things we'd never have thought to try before. I can't think of any time in the last 40-odd years when I have been more inspired, more excited about the music I/we are working on.

[HAL76]

They will all be assimilated. AI needs their tiny human brains to resonate