Will Music be destroyed by AI ?

[Glammerocity]

On 8/11/2023 at 7:48 PM, VoiceEx said:

 

That being said, while my opinion still remains the same, respectfully, you do make a very good point about how too many gigs can damage people's hearing.

 

Again, I encourage anybody to get an ear test. Know what you're listening with. I've been detecting a slight bit of hissy tinnitus in the mornng recently, which goes away after an hour or so. It's made me more careful about how often I use my headphones. The doctor gave me a web resource and I later found a Reddit thread of sound engineers all discussing their own tinittus. It's an occupational hazard.

 

On 8/22/2023 at 12:17 PM, john said:

 

Why thank you

 

In the 80s synth music and particular samplers were popular and there was chat about musicians being replaced. It's true to a degree. They were. But it spawned entirely new genres. It brought about big changes, but it didn't do half as much damage as the drive for free music based on misinformation during the online music piracy peak and the rise of streaming companies like Spotify that pay artists a tiny royalty.

 

As you say, the tech had pros and cons but so did downloading. Research showed those who downloaded most also spent most on official product (teeshirts etc). As a Limewire user I found I'd download something I'd heard about to check out, in much the same way I heard things on the radio. If I Iiked it enough I might buy the album, if not I'd delete it. A few I kept in a mixtape-type folder, which was no different to my mind than cassettes full of copied material I didn't pay for all those decades ago. I've posted Courtney Love's Salon article before on how it was record companies, not fans, ripping off artists in that Napster era. Is Spotify any worse? How much worse can making nothing from a best-selling album be? I've known people who suffered the same fate pre-downloading.

 

My biggest pro consideration with downloading was the death of filler. I think artists often ripped off fans as well with sub-standard material. Record companies packaged a bunch of songs on an album and used singles to promote it. Even my top fave albums have a track or two I never play. I know the band spent very little time, effort or money on them, because they also knew they weren't their best songs.

 

And how about them royalties? I downloaded a lot of stuff I already owned on vinyl, bought years ago but lost, swapped or gave away. Didn't I already pay them for their artistic integrity and intellectual property when I bought the vinyl album? So why should we have to pay so much to replace it with a file whose production costs were minimal and distribution costs amounted to one upload to a website? A digital album of MP3s still works out close to the cost of an old vinyl album - currently, the first Rickie Lee Jones album is £8.99 for digital download, while the CD is £2.21 +£1.26 P&P. If I buy the CD then rip the songs, am I ripping her off, considering I bought the vinyl as a fan all those years ago?

Edited August 25, 2023 by Glammerocity

[john]

5 hours ago, Glammerocity said:

I think artists often ripped off fans as well with sub-standard material.

 

Very true, but for some artists that was more a limit of their vision and their ambition. That is true for pretty well every product type. Some people are innovators, some followers. Some are in tune, some out of touch. Some work hard some lazy and some it comes to easy. I guess I'm saying for some, they just aren't very good. Sub-standard material is built into some genres. Punk is always a mix. Songs can be poor quality, with simple chords, a simple melody, and poor musicianship, and yet be entirely perfect and utterly suitable for purpose. So much is subjective. Still, we can often meet in consensus... that we know sub-standard, low-effort music when we hear it.

[VoiceEx]

3 hours ago, E Nash said:

Whatever I've heard the machine , It sounded like Barbie in a plastic tunnel 

Mason a pro said there advanced on AI and real close on sounding real 

some bs of that effect 

 

Expecting flawless human mimicry from the AI's we have today, is like expecting full speech from an infant. Than again, keep in mind that this is exactly what it is: An "infant". The AI we have now will not be the same as the AI we will have 5 years from now. Let alone, 10 or 50 years from now. AI will continue to improve far beyond its current capabilities.

 

Though on the bright side, I don't know the future, but I do think that human songwriters will not be replaced, even if technology advances to the point where that would indeed be possible. I think that as long as there are humans, if we don't somehow end up becoming machines ourselves, there will be a demand for music and products that are aimed at humans, by humans.

Edited September 1, 2023 by VoiceEx

[VoiceEx]

23 hours ago, E Nash said:

Talk to someone crazier then you

 

You do realize that so far I am the only person in this entire thread that keeps complaining that AI is not good enough yet. Had I specified what I believe is the full extent of this technology, i'd probably give a few crazies a run for their money 😅👍

 

Though you know, jokes aside, perhaps you should consider how you could use AI. As the free-advertisement-drone above me suggested, there are benefits to it. You know, because doom-posting can only go so far 👍

Edited September 2, 2023 by VoiceEx

[john]

22 minutes ago, VoiceEx said:

As the free-advertisement-drone above me suggested

*now disappointed*

 

on a bright note the spam post involved used AI to write the ad.

 

I don’t think I delivered a verdict other than they have majorly improved. I did a lot of coding for a number of AI technology in the 90s and periodically ever since just from interest. I did a lot with neural networks and played with hybrid technologies (the combination of different learning tech, using tech where it is best suited. My favorite tech was genetic algorithms written with C++ or C#. I was pretty interested in adaptive interfaces… that is, so many programs offer so many options that the interface becomes highly crowded, and function is obscured by option overwhelm. Also, with my background in music technology, at the time, I was interested in using learning algorithms for tasks beyond recording engineers and music producers of the day, and for me that was removing noise and unwanted signal elements from audio, for example using learning algorithms to remove unwanted room artefacts. If you don’t have a spectacular sounding space, the aim was to clean an instrument recording as if they had been recorded in an Anechoic chamber, so that the entire environment of the audio space would be added by effects units… giving producers the ability to recover recordings ruined by poor environment.

 

AI has a lot of potential… to get good results from a lot of AI still needs significant input and control from humans. This is true for audio processing and for music marketing. My experimentations with lyric writing (purely for evaluation) were disappointing and I haven’t done anything with AI composition or video. AI images took a lot of attempts to get something half decent using several programs.

 

AI is a work in progress. Always. How we manage the use of AI is still critical to anything approaching success. Give it some time and we will largely still see tools to be used by talented people in imaginative ways.

 

You have to remember, by far the majority of actors in this space are in product development. There looking for tools to be used by people, skilled and unskilled, because people buy.

 

A lot of the “push button song” brigade is a harder sell. It’s going to a fad until their main customer base gets bored. Pretty soon they will get bored with it, despite evolutions that introduce more believable versions. That only holds the attention of non musicians for a while. It might be around a while but I really, really don’t see it dominating for long.

 

I predict that one of the biggest evolution is in the realm of video and video animation… as a visual tool for music creators. The video industry stands to lose more ground than music. That said… AI is going to shake everything up.

[VoiceEx]

9 hours ago, E Nash said:

Well it was a good rant . I'm going to write them and sing them , So end of robots on my end 

But who knows in the future 

Can't we go back to jokes , Life's a joke 

 

Actually making a song about AI is a pretty good idea. I'd give it a listen 👍

 

As for jokes. Man I can joke around all day on any topic but it would derail the thread. Though hey if you just wanna chill and shoot hoops for fun you're welcome to send me a PM 🤙

[VoiceEx]

9 hours ago, john said:

*now disappointed*

 

From what? I thought that joke was rather harmless and tamed. Or, at least compared to what I thought about saying originally 😅

 

9 hours ago, john said:

on a bright note the spam post involved used AI to write the ad.

 

Oh I know. Hence the joke!

 

9 hours ago, john said:

AI has a lot of potential… to get good results from a lot of AI still needs significant input and control from humans. This is true for audio processing and for music marketing. My experimentations with lyric writing (purely for evaluation) were disappointing and I haven’t done anything with AI composition or video. AI images took a lot of attempts to get something half decent using several programs.

 

I agree it has heaps of potential. I've worked with AI before I got into music production. Its been around for a long time. Though I think that generating images is actually the lesser evil. It takes so much time and additional applications to work on videos, that I tend to believe that this particular area is still too early in its development to make it really worth while.

 

I mean, sure, much it is upto personal preferences, and you can produce "presentable results" with enough dedication and if you go at it 24/7. But who really has that kinda time? Not me, i'll tell ya that. At this moment in time I still prefer to work on videos without AI, or with minimal AI involvement for very specific things.

 

9 hours ago, john said:

Give it some time and we will largely still see tools to be used by talented people in imaginative ways.

 

Oh man I can't wait until this hand held tinker toy becomes what i'd like it to become! 😅 Music production is not the only thing i'm into. Having a better, more reliable and flexible AI that doesn't lie and doesn't need my constant input and supervision would go a long way!

 

9 hours ago, john said:

You have to remember, by far the majority of actors in this space are in product development. There looking for tools to be used by people, skilled and unskilled, because people buy.

 

Yeah noble intentions no doubt 😅

 

9 hours ago, john said:

A lot of the “push button song” brigade is a harder sell. It’s going to a fad until their main customer base gets bored. Pretty soon they will get bored with it, despite evolutions that introduce more believable versions. That only holds the attention of non musicians for a while. It might be around a while but I really, really don’t see it dominating for long.

 

You're right. I think that hypothetically it might have been possible for AI to dominate if we lived in a sort of cyberpunk world. You know, where virtual reality, augmented reality, and interfacing with computers and technology on a deeper level was the norm. But we don't live in such a world, and we probably won't. Not in our lifetime anyway.

 

9 hours ago, john said:

I predict that one of the biggest evolution is in the realm of video and video animation… as a visual tool for music creators. The video industry stands to lose more ground than music. That said… AI is going to shake everything up.

 

OMG yes absolutely! This is going to sound 'awful' because this is a music forum and all that, but for me those specific future evolutions are 100 times more exciting than anything that AI might throw into the music scene.

[john]

3 hours ago, VoiceEx said:

From what? I thought that joke was rather harmless and tamed. Or, at least compared to what I thought about saying originally 😅

I removed their spam link

[Bridget Murphy]

AI has the potential to enhance music creation and accessibility but not destroy it.

[Bridget Murphy]

On 8/8/2023 at 8:04 AM, john said:

I have a bodhran. It can be a great acoustic instrument. Awesome for festivals. A couple of guitars, and a bodhran can do wonders. My friends and I took some instruments along to Glastonbury a long time ago. We played around campfires mostly, but the most memorable was climbing Glastonbury Tor about 11pm for a jam session. I took my guitar, bodhran and didgeridoo with me and had a great party!

 

AI could never replace that kind of experience. AI’s impact would largely be restricted to recorded music. The fact that it lacks any human component is a major limitation. Sure, novelty might drive it to the top of the charts for a while. I don’t think it will last. Like any fad. I think it will always be present now, but by degrees not a dominant feature once the fad passes.

I hope to hear you play the bodhran sometime.

[Bridget Murphy]

On 8/10/2023 at 10:12 PM, E Nash said:

Stay on topic alright , Go write songs , Stop worrying about Robots and the major artist world you'll never be in . That is not robots 

Thats writers that work 24/7 crafting their lyrics , A111111111111111111111 Session players , A Killer producer . Probably don't spend alot time on forums , they work 24/7. They write song after song after song after song after song after song. I highly doubt they have a for sale sign on a mobile home worrying about robots . Maybe people worrying about robots have 0 talent in the first place , so they need all that . Just a guess . I guess you could marry one , I'm sure thats the future . give me the small town country girl version Model 17895 . Hello master welcome home , Here's a beer dinner and you guess what else .Thank you Barbie Lyn , that'll be all . A anti no complaining softwhere is downlodable in each female model. $19.99. All programed from the bible when men were king . 

 

 

Rock on!

[MikeRobinson]

Simply remember that "there is no 'I' in 'AI.'"  We have no idea how to make a computer "intelligent."

 

This marketing-driven term refers to a class of computer algorithms which are designed to be self-adaptive and self-tuning.  They make heavy use of pattern-matching, and they seek to find useful patterns in [great masses of ...] data which might not be readily apparent to more-conventional approaches.  And, in that limited respect, they are a very exciting development with great potential value.

 

But the "Achilles Heel" of computer programming is definitely true for these: "Garbage In = Garbage Out."  The algorithms can produce nonsense and they can even be intentionally "gamed."  The outputs produced are entirely dependent on the data that is fed in – but it is not always possible to determine what the ultimate effect of "the data" will actually be. (Every [gigantic ...] tranche of "data" is also very much "a mixed bag.")  The models might produce something that is very useful, or they might produce something that is worthless.

 

(P.S.: "I'm a Geek.")

Edited November 6, 2023 by MikeRobinson

[Bridget Murphy]

On 8/8/2023 at 8:04 AM, john said:

I have a bodhran. It can be a great acoustic instrument. Awesome for festivals. A couple of guitars, and a bodhran can do wonders. My friends and I took some instruments along to Glastonbury a long time ago. We played around campfires mostly, but the most memorable was climbing Glastonbury Tor about 11pm for a jam session. I took my guitar, bodhran and didgeridoo with me and had a great party!

 

AI could never replace that kind of experience. AI’s impact would largely be restricted to recorded music. The fact that it lacks any human component is a major limitation. Sure, novelty might drive it to the top of the charts for a while. I don’t think it will last. Like any fad. I think it will always be present now, but by degrees not a dominant feature once the fad passes.

I am very interested in A.I. generated music, however I do believe that A.I. cannot fully replace music, at least for now.

[Bridget Murphy]

On 11/6/2023 at 11:29 AM, MikeRobinson said:

Simply remember that "there is no 'I' in 'AI.'"  We have no idea how to make a computer "intelligent."

 

This marketing-driven term refers to a class of computer algorithms which are designed to be self-adaptive and self-tuning.  They make heavy use of pattern-matching, and they seek to find useful patterns in [great masses of ...] data which might not be readily apparent to more-conventional approaches.  And, in that limited respect, they are a very exciting development with great potential value.

 

But the "Achilles Heel" of computer programming is definitely true for these: "Garbage In = Garbage Out."  The algorithms can produce nonsense and they can even be intentionally "gamed."  The outputs produced are entirely dependent on the data that is fed in – but it is not always possible to determine what the ultimate effect of "the data" will actually be. (Every [gigantic ...] tranche of "data" is also very much "a mixed bag.")  The models might produce something that is very useful, or they might produce something that is worthless.

 

(P.S.: "I'm a Geek.")

This one holds true, see AI is just as good as the data and model it is trained on.

[AnthonyGiarrusso]

I think A.I. Generated music will peak in the 2030's, but I think it will just be a fad. In the future people will think that A.I. generated music is for squares and old people.

[Bridget Murphy]

Do you use AI to help you in composing music?