Glossing over the question contradicting itself, the music from numerous cultures and time periods was launched into space in 1977. Despite industry claims of its obsolescence when the CD appeared even the Golden Records format lives on ;)

 

Foster or Steve Faoki.....wait....they could be the same.

 

you might just be old, honestly, and i do not mean that as an insult. people have been saying that the youngins have been ruining everything since the dawn of time, even if the youngins in question are adults. besides, there are so many creative independent artists out there. the idea that the art of music is dead seems laughable if you put any effort whatsoever into expanding your horizons or keeping up with local or online scenes. i know things you dont understand can be scary or seem stupid, but so did elvis and the beatles when they started out and look what people think of them now

 

We are mimicking ourselves with technology. A technology that can synthetically replace us one day in many areas, including the creative arts. So for me it's becoming more and more difficult to see it as a living art form and not a dead art form. Computers do not live or possess an actual soul, yet they can spit out endless Beatles songs while we're still fussing over what key we want to write in or why this damn guitar won't stay in tune today.

 

oh, nevermind, i read some of the other posts, this guy is insane. okay, basically you are pearl clutching cuz of the fact youre too stubborn to try to relate to and enjoy new things. you assume old things are automatically better then new things because youre familiar with them, and moreover that untalanted/stupid and or "degenerate" artists are ruining things while believing all art worth something was made by a dead european dude. you either need to find a way to change this mindset or become a bitter, pretentious recluse because everyone else is enjoying all the wonderful music you can find by going on bandcamp once.
just because this sort of conservatism is common when it comes to art, doesnt mean you need to repeat it. either spend the rest of your life clutching a classical record like a stuffed animal or accept that things change and find something *new*. to turn up your nose to creative expression is cowardice, pure and simple

 

There used to be a time when I would get really bent out of shape at ignorance such as this. However some comfort does come in knowing the fact that this too shall come to pass and will all end up in the "old-fart" bin as well. All it will take is the passing of a little time... It is lucky that there are not as many who share this myopic view of the current state of the arts. It is however a sad thing that the music "industry" (along with the rest of the arts) is now thought of as an industry and not as a creative and social outlet where anyone with real talent can succeed at making a living doing what they like to do. These days it's all about hype and how much ca$h that some megalomaniacal record company executive assholes sitting at the top of the pyramid can skim off the top of the $ales of some artists' hard work.

 

Technology in music has always been disruptive, AI is just another disruption.
Artists will find ways to use technology to further human expression in their art.
AI will thin the herd, allowing those passionate enough and talented enough to thrive.

AI will disrupt stock video libraries, music sfx libraries, and background type music services.
AI will never replace human emotional expression in any art because...

Art is a lie that makes us realize truth, at least the truth that is given us to understand. The artist must know the manner whereby to convince others of the truthfulness of his lies.” - Pablo Picasso

So, we as humans can and will never really get into AI music as there is nothing for us to learn about ourselves in that musical creation. We read stories and watch movies for the same reason... to learn and communicate about ourselves, our past, our futures, our pain, our lessons, our love, our failures, and our successes with each other as social creatures. It's why there is such a push to humanize AI and robots looks and speech... as we can not accept them as part of our social construct. We as a species know they are just a tool, like a hammer or car and not part of us, and there will always be a separation as we are carbon based and they are silicone based.

We as a species have been driven and compelled over thousands of years to express ourselves and our shared experiences through our arts, silicon based tools do not have that desire naturally.

 

Last edited: Apr 6, 2024

Lol - whut?

 

C'mon, kid. A complete strike two. Don't make me crush you, child.

 

There is no publicly known technology today demonstrating true understanding, let alone understanding of its own responses and how it reasons, nor proficiency in deriving meaning from context.
Relying mainly on pattern recognition, they lack deep relational connections of different concepts, ultimately making them poor at most creative tasks that aren't an exercise in mimicry, or defined by a strict ruleset.
These deficits are not trivial hurdles either, making the idea that the 'art of music' is dead (at all, or worse, before the span of a human lifetime) on account of current AI is speculation based in fear and ignorance.

 

Who does need musical AI? Somebody who wants to automate the composition and music making in whole. Are they muasicians? No. They are buisnessmen.

Tools were more or less accessible in the past. Not to the same extent as today but... Everyone can sing (and sing poorly). Voice is the first tool of music.

There was an insane amount of ugly or mediocre music in the past. Only great music survived. The problem of the modern 'music overflow' is the sound recording and the internet. Music isn't performed, it is recorded or bounced from DAWs. The insane amount of shit or just mediocre music is preserved. It can be accessed by anyone at any time from anywhere.

And yes, these are tools too...

For now it's harder to separate good music from bad one. In the past the time (and listeners) made this job naturally. But who or what could make it today? How can somebody say "This song is bad, it must be erased permanently and forgotten"? Who does have a right to say that? Is this judgement correct? Many questions arise.

 

So what are you saying is the primary cause of this stagnancy- the cookie-cutter nature music due to sounds getting streamlined as tech improves, or the western 12 tone scale being overused and tired, or modern day people caring only about profits/clout instead of artistic integrity? Because those are all completely different things. And OK sure I kinda see your point theoretically about the 12-tone scale, but how could anyone have deduced that highly uncommon stance when all you said initally was a negative blanket statement of basically 'who else who is qualified to say so KNOWS that music is dead, like i do" in the same default tired tone that countless jaded boomer artists take on as their ego grapples with their loss of cultural relevance? also if your immediate reaction to anyone implying you are being closed minded is to wholeheartedly refute and belittle them/call them racist (despite them not ever mentioning race) maybe that's something to consider, lest you go ahead and prove their point...

and you act as if rhythm and timbre are not equally important elements the creative possibilities for which have completely blown up in modern times.... it's easier than ever to sound unique because of having every possibility available to us- laying down John Coltrane's Giant Steps chord changes in reverse over some crazy odd-meter glitch hop beat is literally only a few inputs away but its having that sense of cohesiveness and genuine intention shine through as quality that's the challenge.

either way Ableton just came out with microtonal tuning in V12 so go crazy with it, unless DAWs are also on your sh*tlist...

 

i'd be curious what your reply would be besides tripling down on the stubborn yet ambiguous take on the 12-tone scale because everything he said sounded pretty poignant to me and your reactionary and childish yet condescending reply just backed it up

 

This looooooooong title alone is a cheek.

 

It's what it is and nothing can be done about it. Democracy and having the right to express for everyone is the final and inevitable goal. Democracy in art, unlike democracy in society, does not benefit art. We have all touched this fact in the flesh since the birth of the Internet. The internet and universal access has greatly degraded the world of music. Many cultures do not have the ability to produce high quality art, but they produce it just because they have access to musical instruments and pollute the world of art.

 

There is no art anywhere to be found, except in your very own, personal mind. Art has no intrinsic value, except if a human attributes it. A few people are a bit gloomy here. Don't worry, the world starts and ends with you. If a half-full glass is the problem, then throw that thing away.

 

Congrats on losing testosterone I guess? Eh, it's not really that important. Actually allows you to see things more clearly.
Just as I, you're making an assumption on what kind of music I listen to.
Let me instead explain what goes into "old-fart" bin. It's simple - popular music. Everything that was once fashionable inevitably goes out of fashion. Then maybe a different version of it will become fashionable again, only to return to that "old-fart" bin after a brief moment of cultural relevance.
Luckily for me, I only listened to fashionable or culturally relevant music when I was a mindless teenager. Ever since then my music taste marched on with time and progress and stayed away from what "people" listen to.
So yeah, I'm immune to the phenomena I'm describing :D In fact, this is what allowed me to see it for what it is.
Music thrives. Music listeners who prefer to clinge to their youth - don't.

 

Well said

 

LOL if only you knew.
I'm sure @No Avenger, who gave me a warning for posting that Adam Neely's video, would appreciate the irony.

Dude, if you really believe what you're saying, you need professional help. It's like saying that language is dead because all the words have been used and there's no mo room for unique sentences left. That's not even the point! The point is intrinsic, as I said initially, it's to get in contact with yourself, it's to express yourself. It's not an academic field.
Dead serious, such outlook is a sign of a personality disorder, either a schizoid or borderline, or even something worse. You're making yourself clinically unhappy.

 

Last edited by a moderator: Apr 13, 2024