Should I buy a DAW or use AI to make my music?

[BONES]

And if you were old enough, you'd have heard all the same sorts of things being said about the piano when it first appeared. Seriously, people thought the piano would put musicians out of work.

whatever happened to fun? where's the fun in letting a machine do it all?

Where is the fun in doing it all yourself? The fun happens on stage, when you get to perform the songs, and there is at least as much fun in performing a song you wrote yourself as there is in performing a cover. The song is all that matters, where it comes from is of no consequence at all. I wrote a song over Xmas composed wholly of elements from a "kit" I bought for Spire - all the sounds and the sequencer elements all come from the "kit", all I did was lay it out the way I wanted it. Even the drums use preset patterns from Ujam's BM-Eden. I had to write the lyrics and I have to sing them but everything else was done by someone else, for the princely sum of $15.

That said, you try getting the f**king AI to do what you want it to. It's a real skill that takes practice and patience, same as anything.

i get the lyrics thing you're doing, using it as a starting point, but there is some human involvement in choosing the final draft

And there always will be, just as you choose what to listen to on Spotify or what to watch on YouTube. The thing with the side-project is that with AI generated vocals, it's unlikely we could ever do it on stage. It would be weird, unless we a did a Max Headroom kinda thing with a big screen. But that would be way too much work and it wouldn't be interactive at all. Yet. It would be fun to let the AI handle band interviews, though.

even using it to do some bits a la orions note randomiser, all these are just initial starting points though.

For the moment but it will get better. The thing is, there are already a million people making music who aren't me and who make it far harder than it needs to be (or used to be), why should I worry that there will be a few more? At least they aren't stealing gigs from us yet.

the proposal here is becoming a producer, by employing an ai.
it just kinda seems pointless.
unless the object is money/clicks without any effort?

Agreed. Still, it's an interesting topic for discussion in a more general sense.

there is no subsistute for me making sounds and playing music for me. It is like cooking yourself for yourself or cooking for others. The latter AI comes in.

Really? You prefer to listen to your own music than music from others? Because, if faced with a choice, I'd walk away from all my music making endeavours before I'd give up even the lesser half of my substantial music collection.

And - why would I want to listen to music by AI, when I can listen to music from people.

Why wouldn't you? You listen to music that comes from sequencers and arpeggiators, how is this different, really? AIs were made by people, just like the computers, hardware and software we use. It's just an arbitrary distinction you are making.

[jamcat]

And if you were old enough, you'd have heard all the same sorts of things being said about the piano when it first appeared. Seriously, people thought the piano would put musicians out of work.

Which people thought that, and at which point in history did they think that, exactly?

The piano evolved around the early 19th century, from a series of advancements of the pianoforte which was originally invented in 1698. The pianoforte's primary difference from the harpsichord was Cristofori's hammer escapement action mechanism which allowed for a dynamic performance. Harpsichords had been around since the middle ages.

And the "king of instruments," as Mozart said, was the pipe organ, which has been around since the 3rd century, and continued to evolve up to the 19th century, and beyond. If any instrument was going to put musicians out of work it would be the pipe organ, since it could replicate an entire symphonic orchestra with its various ranks.

Now if you were talking about the player piano, you might be on to something, since I believe that was the first instrument ever to play itself.

[BONES]

It's something we learned in high school music class, that musos of the time were worried it might put ensembles out of business. But there is this from Bing's AI search. It's hard to find out exactly where it's from, though, because the passage in the search results doesn't seem to be repeated precisely in the links it provides -

"One of the controversies was about the balance of sound between the piano and other instruments in chamber music. The violin necks were lengthened and the bows were tightened, making them louder than before. The piano had to adapt by increasing its volume and range as well2.

The piano also faced some criticism from some musicians who preferred the harpsichord or clavichord for their expressiveness and subtlety. Some argued that the piano was too loud, too mechanical or too uniform for certain genres or styles"

Does that last part sound at all familiar?

[jamcat]

That sounds like nonsense, though, because the harpsichord and clavichord have fixed dynamics, which makes them less expressive than a pianoforte (which can play from ppp piano to fff forte.) Or perhaps less than fff, since the early criticism from J.S. Bach was quite the opposite. He thought it was too soft.

Pianos got quite a lot louder and more resonant over time. And yet a symphonic orchestra can still play with piano accompaniment. Of course, the modern philharmonic orchestra is considerably larger than a baroque chamber orchestra.

[Michael L]

But there is this from Bing's AI search. It's hard to find out exactly where it's from, though, because the passage in the search results doesn't seem to be repeated precisely in the links it provides.

Yep, it sounds just like the kind of fake excuse one AI program would make for another, to justify both of their existence. Using your search history, it wrote a passage calculated to fool a gullible old Queenslander.

[vurt]

And if you were old enough, you'd have heard all the same sorts of things being said about the piano when it first appeared. Seriously, people thought the piano would put musicians out of work.

whatever happened to fun? where's the fun in letting a machine do it all?

Where is the fun in doing it all yourself? The fun happens on stage, when you get to perform the songs, and there is at least as much fun in performing a song you wrote yourself as there is in performing a cover. The song is all that matters, where it comes from is of no consequence at all. I wrote a song over Xmas composed wholly of elements from a "kit" I bought for Spire - all the sounds and the sequencer elements all come from the "kit", all I did was lay it out the way I wanted it. Even the drums use preset patterns from Ujam's BM-Eden. I had to write the lyrics and I have to sing them but everything else was done by someone else, for the princely sum of $15.

That said, you try getting the f**king AI to do what you want it to. It's a real skill that takes practice and patience, same as anything.

i get the lyrics thing you're doing, using it as a starting point, but there is some human involvement in choosing the final draft

And there always will be, just as you choose what to listen to on Spotify or what to watch on YouTube. The thing with the side-project is that with AI generated vocals, it's unlikely we could ever do it on stage. It would be weird, unless we a did a Max Headroom kinda thing with a big screen. But that would be way too much work and it wouldn't be interactive at all. Yet. It would be fun to let the AI handle band interviews, though.

even using it to do some bits a la orions note randomiser, all these are just initial starting points though.

For the moment but it will get better. The thing is, there are already a million people making music who aren't me and who make it far harder than it needs to be (or used to be), why should I worry that there will be a few more? At least they aren't stealing gigs from us yet.

the proposal here is becoming a producer, by employing an ai.
it just kinda seems pointless.
unless the object is money/clicks without any effort?

Agreed. Still, it's an interesting topic for discussion in a more general sense.

there is no subsistute for me making sounds and playing music for me. It is like cooking yourself for yourself or cooking for others. The latter AI comes in.

Really? You prefer to listen to your own music than music from others? Because, if faced with a choice, I'd walk away from all my music making endeavours before I'd give up even the lesser half of my substantial music collection.

And - why would I want to listen to music by AI, when I can listen to music from people.

Why wouldn't you? You listen to music that comes from sequencers and arpeggiators, how is this different, really? AIs were made by people, just like the computers, hardware and software we use. It's just an arbitrary distinction you are making.

for the more general topic, i do agree with you, it will not be for everybody, but for some it will be a very handy tool
my issue was with "im thinking of becoming a producer, should i use ai?"
i just don't see the point unless it's about looking for an easy money maker, which for many reasons, i doubt it would be
why would i give you money, for something i can do myself?
and sadly, unless you are already a name, getting anywhere is going to be hard.

re performance.
a few years back, i went to an orchestra show. they were doing pieces by virtual unknowns, including one which was part written with ai.
i don't know how much, as it was just performances, no talks or anything between, but it didn't sound out of place in any way.
i do like the idea of humans performing ai written pieces, i think this could result in some good ideas tbh.

so im far from against ai on the whole, just letting it do everything, there's no pleasure imo.

[BONES]

"why would i give you money, for something i can do myself?"
So you haven't bought any music since you first picked up an instrument yourself? Because I still spend way more money buying music than I do buying plugins.

Ultimately, it depends how you choose to interpret the OP's post. I read it as him wondering if any effort he put into learning music production might ultimately be wasted if AI comes in and takes over in the next few years. To me that seems like a reasonable concern.

"i do like the idea of humans performing ai written pieces"
I find that a very strange and arbitrary line to draw. You're happy to use sequencers and arpeggiators to play your music, but you want AI written music to be played by people. I see no difference. I'd love to go and see a Max Headroom like AI performance of AI written music. You have to think that is only a few years away.

[BONES]

Yep, it sounds just like the kind of fake excuse one AI program would make for another, to justify both of their existence. Using your search history, it wrote a passage calculated to fool a gullible old Queenslander.

That's absolute bullshit. Using my search history it would have come up with a conversation about fast cars and young women with big tits and shaved pussies.

[lobanov]

Music written by AI isn't yours. It's written by AI.

Just like any cover version you do. Most people won't care if it's good.

Yes, like any song which was composed by someone else and we just perform.

Nobody says cover is his/her/their own song. And we usually make covers for great and (may be) famous songs we really love (or our auditory does). We choose them from many existing songs. We hardly choose an insignificant or poor song.

The title of this topic is "Should I buy a DAW or use AI to make my music?" OR. To make a cover I must play any instrument or use DAW. And I inevitably make my own version of this song. Why am I needed if AI does it all instead of me? Am I just sort of a gasket between AI and someone else? Which is my role in the process?

And what we, humans, live for?

[zerocrossing]

i just don't see the point unless it's about looking for an easy money maker, which for many reasons...

Well, like having singers come in and do most the singing parts in the West Side Story movie, you can choose the hottest people to look like and you just offload the music creation to an AI, who never asks for royalties. Sounds like something we will see a lot of soon. Think Milli Vanilli, but no human had to write the music. Soon after will follow deep fakes, so we can actually get any hottie from any time period to perform it, so ultimately the music companies who own the AIs get all the money and we can get on with our jobs at Burger King.

[panspOrmia]

Gonna avoid AI as best as I can. It scares me.

We are replacing ourselves.. and it`s gonna get ugly.

Until then, happy beatmaking!

[BONES]

To make a cover I must play any instrument or use DAW.

Or go to a Karaoke bar.

And I inevitably make my own version of this song.

Just as you tell the AI to make a song for you, using very specific instructions. It won't offer 100 other people exactly what it gives you, it will be uniquely yours.

Why am I needed if AI does it all instead of me?

Why do you care if you are needed or not?

Am I just sort of a gasket between AI and someone else? Which is my role in the process?

You're the guy who tells the AI what you want it to do. It's no different to programming a sequencer, really. You can have as much or as little control as you want.

And what we, humans, live for?

That would be the beach, wouldn't it?

[kritikon]

The beach with a chilled bottle of Riesling and a picnic of antipasto. Quite nice to have a bit of relaxing music on the headphones too, but it can be real or AI.

[donkey tugger]

I have no idea about this AI malarky, but could someone in the know instruct our mechanical mates to do a bit of angry antipodean sinthesiser goth? Just for illustrative purposes you understand.

[BONES]

Sadly, they don't currently know what Goth is. The best you can do is ask for "rock" and "dark". What you get, though, is more Smashing Pumpkins than Sisters of Mercy.