@droplet @BEAT16 @Crinklebumps

when we say that we can say "no" and that we are on time, who? us adults? musicians? We are not the majority and much less have the power to change this. And this happens because of consumption, without consumption there is no IA. Why do they think that many companies release "Auto everything" plugins? Because there is a mass that demands it. Because autotune is so famous? because more and more companies are releasing other versions of Autotune? the answer is clear. And you can't go against it. And you can see it in everything, not only in music. The vast majority of human beings choose AI.
The new generation sees AI as we saw a synthesizer in the 80's, and our grandparents saw a synthesizer in the 80's as we see AI now. Do you get the point?
To be more graphic, my grandmother used to say that the Beatles sounded like latan and that they didn't sing, they screamed, we now say the same thing to many musicians who use autotune. And in the future (imagining) the autotune generation will say that those who press a button and a sung voice comes out, will say that they at least used autotune.

 

It can't.

 

We = We musicians here and we don't need a majority, you sit alone at your PC at home and can make your own music with
the means that are already invented. You can also use this or that, you are free at home in the selection of your plugins.

You always talk about everyone - but people are different and you can say no I don't use autotune. I still want to be creative
and thank you I don't use the AI product. You don't buy everything that the others buy. So you can very well say no.

The manufacturers or creative minds invent something that can be
made money, then they advertise and try to find people who buy it.

You generalize me too often, the world is not only gray and black. My grandparents thought the Beatles were OK.
There is also not the Autotune generation, you could also say the DAW generation that makes music on the laptop or PC.

There are actually artists who can really sing who don't need autotune. The mainstream and the
fashion are artificially procuring conditions to sell even more products. You are suggested buy me.

 

Very complex topic.
For me the worst thing by far about AI is that only really big companies can afford it. You need crazy amount of resources: data, computer power.

 

Of course, we could start a global company ourselves! AudioSexPro v1 GmbH but in reality we
have our shares in R2R and V.R.. The big players or also called BigTech will also bring smaller
affordable products to the market. Let's see if R2R will make some Christmas presents for us then.

 

Last edited: Sep 9, 2022

It's not about whether you can do something against it or not, it's about whether you just want a fast result and use it or enjoy being creative and don't use it (or at least way less).

But I think the next step could be the replacement of other musicians in (jam) sessions. You start with a guitar and the AI is recognizing the tempo, beat and style and can add drums, bass, keys, etc in real time. I'm pretty sure one day this will come.

 

Yes, but as much as we here , all AS and the whole sister site say, no, I better not use AI because I don't want AI to replace the human being. Most people in general, musicians and non-musicians, and especially "non-musicians", will bet on IA.
Take a group of ten people who can't sing and offer them a free singing course or autotune, I assure you that most of them will choose autotune.
Take another group of people and offer them a free songwriting course or a program that creates music for them and they will choose the program (AI).

The point is that human beings always choose the easy way, to simplify things, and this is what AI does, it simplifies things. But why does this make it debatable here and now. Because we come from another generation, formed in different ways, we know that it is not the same to sing learning singing to sing with autotune, or composing, or playing the guitar, a piano, whatever.

It is not that I generalize, it is my hypothesis of what I see, there will be things in which I am wrong and things in which I am not.

 

Isn't just easier and cheaper to simply STEAL a riff? progressions are free anyway. Steal a bit of melody and a few words. mix it to a drum machine and a bass arp and you're done what's the big deal? AI makes muzak.

 

Of course. What I am saying is that here is spoken and other publications related to IA. That we can stop this. And my point of view is that you can't stop IA. Because it will always be comfortable for us in something, in music, in work, in whatever. I as a musician might say, mmmm, I better not use a program that is auto eq (hypothetically speaking, sometimes I use it for something fast). But those who want something fast and don't want to compromise will use it. In fact this point was touched quickly on the sister site, when some complained about a vst that auto compressed or limited, and I think it was Oly who said that, a composer was more interested in composing than spending hours on EQ or compressing, when the important thing is the composition. And so everyone uses the AI for what they need it for. So, here it is said, we can frankly say "no" to AI, and for me that will not happen.
I go back to what I said before, I am not talking about what I want or what I would like, I am talking about what I see about how IA is advancing thanks to people's demand.

 

I believe that unconsciously we always "steal" some idea from someone else. Whether it's a riff, a part of the melody, etc.
If I speak for myself, yes, I prefer to "steal" ideas unconsciously rather than having an AI do it for me.

 

Your sentence structure is really terrific. So All !!!

Yes, you're right, but then you should also ask the group of people who can do something, i.e. real musicians, whether they would buy the AI. Exactly the people who can do little are the customers of tomorrow, the target group of AI products. One should rather ensure that the young people in school have more opportunities to deal with music, so young people musically better promotes.

Who learns an instrument and also deals with bars and notes, will probably not need an AI.
People with little education and intelligence will become the customers of AI. Who will do the thinking for them.

I agree with you, but programming AI is very labor intensive. And I would like to see people who don't need AI - but make great
singers, great rhythms and beautiful songs. I think without professional training - even online courses or distance learning,
we have only idiots. The idiots then operate the AI and the AI makes them (or the programmer who feeds the AI) masters.

But in reality, they remain idiots. As you have already said correctly, people are lazy and comfortable. But
without an architect and skilled worker, the self-built skyscraper collapses. I want to say that knowledge
transfer and learning should be the focus. Because the AI does not make us better valuable people.

The calculator takes the thinking from you. But without a calculator, you have to do the math yourself, and once you've learned,
you'll get the hang of it. So without smartphone and AI and other technical helpers it looks bad for the coming generations.
If the power fails, they are in the stone age. Man good that there are books where you can read how something works.

 

What if one day we just prefer AI music over human music? Maybe it will be way better than what we can do - I don't mean more precise and harmonically perfect: there's no reason I can imagine that it can't learn how to incorporate human imperfections into the equation - I mean that it's just better. Why would we want to listen to something inferior just because it's made by human beings? It's important not to make an assumption that AI won't be able to create 'feel' or emotion in music, I see no reason that it won't be able to.

Also in the engineering stage, riding the faders etc., it might be better than us. AI musician says to an AI engineer 'Let's try Dark Side of the Moon' and everything changes to the exact instruments, tones and feel instantly with a new composition.

Even John Lennon agreed when he sang 'All we are saying is give PC a chance...'

 

I think that talking about AI and talking about technology is the same thing. For example, there are many people who, in order not to walk 5 blocks to a place, take their car. The more technology makes our lives easier, the more lazy we become.
I think we have a big difference between what we would like and what would happen. Because our grandparents taught our parents not to be lazy and our parents taught us the same and in turn we taught our children, but the result will be what you choose.

Now here's an interesting point you and @Crinklebumps make about idiots doing idiotic things. Or we could also say, people who think they sing and don't sing, make music, but it's BS , or think they make art and it's not art. This is totally subjective to the observer. Tomorrow we can have 10 robots playing an orchestra. That for us will sound "cold" "soulless" "nothing creative", etc. But for the new generation (and forgive me for focusing on the new generation) it will sound good. Because they don't have the musical foundations that we have.
But beware, I am not talking about better or worse. seeing this in third person and not with my musical tastes. That is to say, I can say that a person who never learned to sing in his life, is not a good singer, or that he is not even a singer or does not contribute to the culture. But reality says otherwise, reality tells us that thanks to the IA these people are seen by a great mass as singers, good musicians and composers.

A reference of what I say

 

Not yet, but in two decade or less, who knows. these AIS only need large databases on music theory, cognitive sciences, artificial intelligence, machine learning, human-computer interaction, real-time systems, multimedia, programming languages, and signal processing.

At most, we will become AI reviewers/arrangers/orchestrators. My brother, for example, a radiologist, said that the hospital where he works acquired a machine that analyzes the medical images and produces the report, and the radiologist is responsible for reviewing them. Obviously, there are some errors, but the machine, which doesn't make stupid and gross errors, impress by hitting the simplest cases, and, even in the most complex cases, it impresses with the speed and amount of data they can be processed, helping immensely in the preparation of the final report that will be signed by the radiologist.

So, just like Hans Zimmer's clones don't need to win an Oscar (but they are there, taking up valuable space), AIs just need to occupy the largest number of places in the music industry production chain and reduce the number of functions held by humans.

Am I going to win a best original song Oscar any time soon thanks to new AI instruments? Probably not. But even in the early stages, these tech-y layman's composition tools work. They're easy enough that I'm not spending all day on 30 seconds of sound, and I don't need to understand a lick of music theory. Yet, these tools can do a passable enough job to wash away any regrets I have that I can't get Vagabon to soundtrack my next Ernie short. Bands like that will likely always get called before the bots for projects of substance, but things for the weekend auteurs will only get better from here. (Nathan Mattise)

https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2018...rack-for-my-home-movie-they-can-help-you-too/

 

Last edited: Sep 10, 2022

But this is a big lie, which it is also then later to expose also fraud or self-deception.
Theoretically, under the song should say." This song was created under the AI XY v1 by the company XY ".

That means that people who have learned what and invested a lot of time, so worked hard, would be equal to the AI moron.
Do you want that? And where does that lead us? For lack of time and cost savings, everyone will then use AI, because
he gets an advantage with it and that will also bring the AI forward, so that the old real artists will slowly but
surely disappear, an artist or an orchestra to pay costs too much money, the AI is faster and cheaper.

But the profits of the AI go to large tech companies and earlier the money went directly to the artist.

How samples and presets changed the music world:
You see today dear Ryck, that a user uses orchestra libraries at home on his DAW, but as a
listener you don't know, is this now a real orchestra or a library of Kontakt. Anyone can play
instruments at home today using samples and presets, which was not possible in the past.

You can also be a conductor yourself and create songs using midi files and copy & paste, which were previously
only possible for musicians in an orchestra. The question is what does this mean for the music creators?

 

AI Art Wins Art Competition:

Jason Allen, an american game designer that generate art using Midjourney, a tool that uses verbal descriptions to paint a picture, says after he made the image, he touched it up with photoshop.



The judges, Cal Duran and Dagny McKinley, said afterwards to the Chieftain that they were “not aware Allen’s artwork was crafted with AI, but that wouldn’t have changed their judgement.” The judges told the local paper that they were more concerned with “how the art tells a story, how it invokes spirit” and they think that piece did that. “Even as this controversy is coming out, it’s still invoking that, it’s still causing an uproar. That in itself is kind of remarkable.” (...) Critics say that the problem is the shock. But, once artists get over that they’ll be able to adjust.❞

https://beincrypto.com/ai-art-wins-art-competition-invokes-metaverse-social-media-melts-down/

Jason Allen:

❝Denial is the first step in the grieving process, perhaps (and I am deliberately saying PERHAPS) artists should go through the healing process to reach their acceptance of A.I.," writes Allen. "Because it is not going away and is only going to become more powerful. I think the backlash is par for the course for any major advancement in technology as it pertains to art. Such was the case with the camera, threatening portrait artists in the past, where the guy 'didn't have to do anything except press a button.' Of course, we know that is ridiculous now, but it takes time to accept new eras of art advances. (...) The ethics isn’t in the technology, it’s in the people. This isn’t going to stop. Art is dead, dude. It’s over. AI won. Humans lost.❞

https://www.pcgamer.com/ai-artist-who-won-competition-says-art-world-is-in-denial-about-the-tech/

The way I see it, it started with the promise of having a symphony orchestra available at home. In the end, we will have musicians of all categories selling their work for twenty cents or being hired as AI reviewers to be able to compete with what is produced by these big techs. I see a cloudy, uncertain future ahead, which is at odds with all this heightened optimism...

 

Agree

This is ambiguous. Because to say that the human being lost and the AI won, the AI should be an independent "being" not created by the human being. If the human being created the AI, it cannot be said that the human being lost. That is to say, if I need a program that recognizes the chords I play, and I create it from the AI, and I manage to make that program . Can I say that the AI won? No, I won for having created it. So at this point who wins is the human being, of course, not everyone.

The future is uncertain but we can build on the past. IA has been around for a long time, but in a different form. For example, when synthesizers appeared, it "replaced" the labor of many musicians. You no longer needed a real drum set, nor to know how to play drums. Nor a bass, guitar, etc. This was and is part of AI, created by man.
Have we ever seen on the cassette tapes "drums created with a Korg synthesizer"? I never saw that.
Some time ago I am doing an orchestral symphonic song, and I have never used a library with so much detail. I have not found any kontakt library that can match the detail of French Horns or other instruments. Some come closer than others. But after watching several videos of the London Symphony Orchestra, you can see the big difference. What I mean by this.
That when we quickly use some instrument without really knowing the real one, we think it sounds the same. And that's what most people do, because there is no deep cultural base to say "I don't prefer to use a real instrument". That on the one hand and on the other hand as BEAT16 said, the costs. It's not the same to pay an orchestra, than a kontakt library.
So, where can the future go based on the past .... (let me wipe my tears.) To oblivion if we stay with what for us is "music", and "forward" if we try to fit in the "AI".

By the way, this is beautiful

 

Sometimes the world is also for crying. But it's nice that some people still think about it here. We live far apart but thanks to the Internet we can even exchange in real time. Our sanctuary would be the electricity.

Most styles and styles are already developed and invented. They are pressed on a record or on a
CD ROM as well as MP3 and today modern as video on YouTube even sometimes available for free.

I call this the music before the "computer / Internet" and the music after the "computer / Internet".
The time before there was electricity could be called the pre-era of music. Or perhaps as a non-electricity music age.
So Ryck now the look into the crystal ball, how does the future look or sound.
I think there is nothing new - but I am rather the pessimist ...!

We have already invented and copied everything from swing to rock to rap. The last (r)evolution was techno.
If people have enough money in their pockets at all, they will be able to buy very more complex devices than today.
Developers predict more complexity. How many companies will be founded or go bankrupt is written in the stars.

Either one warms up the old time again for example the retro 80ziger pop or the 70ziger modern rehashed.
Or the 90ziger 2 bars faster. Or the very old songs modern mixed, where you can also put the voice new on it.

 

We are pessimists, and I include myself, because we are tied to our tastes, what we think is good and bad, or what is music or not music (I think). Because now if we have new genres of music or style, but surely neither you like it nor me, and in a coffee chat between comrades we would say that this is BS.

"The music is all invented". If you listen to classical music artists such as Beethoven, Mozart, etc., you would say that music is all made up. You will realize that many chord progressions have been and are used in many songs. A reference of this is "Moonlight Sonata" where it starts with a minor chord, and the bass makes a descent until it reaches the 7th and resposes there. This has been done by many bands "Still loving you" ( intro) " We can work it out" and many more songs. I mean, this was already invented, here they just "modernized" it. And I think this will also happen in the future, music is going to modernize. And someone said why there, I don't know if it was you. That music, chords, melody, etc. are becoming more and more sympathetic. That's very true, but it's part of the future and the new genres that will come. That surely for you, for me, and for many, it will be BS and not music. But well, for sure if we were born again in this generation with a totally "clean" mind we would like all this music and we would be IA lovers. ( I say, maybe I'm talking nonsense haha)

 

I like to compare music taste with shopping in a supermarket. First of all, you can't eat everything you buy, but you know
there's this and that, some products you ate and they didn't taste good, you don't buy that again. That's how rap and
hip-hop is for me. From the food I get downright sick. Surely there is still the or other band I have not yet eaten.

Great what you are talking about, I didn't even notice. I only knew that some synthpop musicians stole from Mozart. It's just
catchy sequences that repeat themselves. But the art is, and that is still very difficult today, to make a good arrangement,
only a few can do that. Whether you can learn that, I don't think, you have to have a talent for it, but maybe the AI can.

Techno music - Comes from technology / engineered or machine - but is supposed to be a soulless
music, so an electric guitar and a human voice singing breathes some soul into the soulless song.

I can see that but many musicians do just what they can and talents are there rather the exception. So where should
the quality come from, ah I got it, the AI programmer asks Jean Michelle Jarre and Abba if they can control something.

Most hip hoppers sing their revenge songs and it's more about the lyrics than the music, it's always
the same beat anyway. Everything sounds the same (bad). Many want to go on the Internet because
of the self-expression. Some want to be famous and collect likes, does the AI help there?