• TalkBass has been independent since 1998. Add your voice.
    Create a free account to reply to discussions, view embedded media, and browse with fewer display ads.
    Join freeLog in
    Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.

AI in music

It depends on who owns and controls it and to what extent and purpose.
This in itself will determine whether it becomes a useful tool of musical progression or a fetter upon the scene and people.

Would Frank Zappa have used it if he were alive today?
 
Idk man, it's giving a machine gun to a monkey, kinda. Anyone thinks theyre musicians in their head, "they just havent learned the instrument yet".
AI gives people the tools to "create" music, or should I say generate, at the click of a button.
Then again, people have been saying stuff like that since the 80s so..

My main problem with it is that AI does not yet "make" anything, what it does is compile. When AI creates an image, it draws on existing images, and puts em together to form a "new" image.
In that way it does not create or invent anything.

The greatest artists of all time, wether it be painters, musicians or whatever, all had their personal style or invented a new way of doing it. That is what made them great. AI is per now incapable of that, although it might be able to in the future. But AFAIK not yet. so it becomes a self replicating thing. It will cater to the same algorithm over and over until the only music being made is generic and all but identical (sound familiar?).

But yeah, IDK man. It could go many ways. AI in general has become both the question and the answer to alot of things of our time.

I still think things like art are uniquely human, and might always be. But AI definitely can and does produce beautiful stuff, and will only get better at it.
 
Is this a good point to interject with this?

View attachment 7213957
Indeed
See Samuel Butler’s Erewhon, chapters XXIII to XXV
.
EA02902A-1A66-48E4-8B28-A19ACB70B8D7.jpeg
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Jeff Scott
AI "art" exacerbates another problem- marginal utility. Humor me and I'll explain. If you have one John Singer Sergeant painting, it's worth a lot. If you have 10, They are all worth a lot, and maybe a couple are worth an awful lot. If you have 99 trillion John Singer Sergeant paintings, and a billion more made every hour, they become worthless. Substitute this for Abbey Road or Songs in the Key of Life or whatever you want.

If everyone on earth were a billionaire, money would immediately be worthless. As these technologies, "democratize creativity", or in reality democratize theft, we become awash in a sea of noise, of rubbish, of Slop. Any new Prince or Scorsese that might arise from this stuff will be drowned out by robo-bro country or other nonsense. Hordes of fake artists/musicians will clog up exposure on social media, and a nagging paranoia will appear anytime something appealing is seen or heard. Is this person talented? We can't know anymore.

I can see a slingshot effect happening, as the world becomes fake, and real paint, real guitars, and real connection regains value after people starved of connection want something real. True talent and creativity are durable, but the commercial industries for creativity are going to suffer immensely I am afraid.

I don't know that much can be done about it.
 
I've been asking Google Search AI questions and I love it.

No harm in doing that, but be aware that AI is still learning and still gets a lot of fairly simple things incorrect.

This is a little off topic, but here’s an AI issue.

An example I stumbled on about six weeks ago; I was trying to find out if the neck pickup of a Fender Jazz bass was closer to, or further from, the 12th fret than the pickup of a ‘54-‘56 P bass. As part of that answer, I received actual measurements from pickup to 12th fret for both;

AI Overview
The distance of the neck pickup on a Fender Jazz Bass from the 12th fret is approximately 10 3/4 inches, while the distance for the P-Bass (1954-1956 model) neck pickup from the 12th fret is about 11 3/4 inches.

That looks like a detailed answer to the question I asked and normally I would have no reason to doubt the info, but here on TB, owners of original & reissue ‘54-‘56 P basses have measured 12th fret to pickup pole pieces at 10 7/16 inches.

I just re-asked the question before this post & received slightly different incorrect info. AI still gets the length from 12th fret to pickup pole pieces wrong, but includes other info that kinda’ explains why;
it “thinks” a ‘54-‘56 pickup has “a midpoint between the two P pickups”.

From the answer, it seems fairly obvious AI “thinks” a ‘54-‘56 P Bass has a split coil / two-piece pickup.

AI Overview
The distance between the pickup pole pieces of a 1954-1956 Precision Bass and the 12th fret is roughly 10 3/4 inches (27 cm) for the A string pole piece, and about 11 3/4 inches for the midpoint between the two P pickups.

Minor, but who knows how many other minor errors are scattered through millions of topics and how many humans are reading AI data as always correct?

Back to AI & music in general…
 
  • Like
Reactions: MrWolf14
Because some drum machines come with humanizing settings, that add articulations the user didn't include that are based off of a computerized analysis of people's playing. Does that meet the level of AI music? Do you think Band In A Box is AI music? What level of human input is enough for it to not be AI music?

That's not what I think of when I think 'drum machine'. I think of my little 15+ year old Boss DR-3 standalone unit with preprogrammed patterns/sequences. That's a nuance and moving of the bar that you didn't include in your original reply.

'Band in a Box' is not a drum machine, but that definitely approaches more of an 'AI' environment than a simple drum machine, set up by a human with preprogrammed beats and parameters, to service an idea that a human came up with themselves, versus the computer creating something out of thin air FOR THEM. I've never used Band In A Box. I've always used Bass In My Hands.

Overall, it's still intent that usually draws the line. When I sit down to transcribe a score in MuseScore and, when done, the program generates an MP3 for me with my melody and chords that I created first on a sheet of paper and then transferred to the computer, is that AI? No. AI didn't create the music. I did. The program itself sequenced an audio file from stock sounds and interpretations built into the software, but it didn't create anything. I'll often use that file, pull it into my DAW, and work on other parts with real instruments. Compare that with some people using AI to say 'create a song for me in this style, with this kind of bass sound/tone, using these lyrics'. The computer is doing 90% of the work or more in the end... or 100%! To me, that's AI music.

The argument for/against AI has always been how it's used, the intent behind it, and the transparency of the person using it to create or manipulate. That's why we all have to be careful and mindful, and open to nuance in our discussions about it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Swamp_Ronin
My feeling about it is “Who cares?”

AI is here and ppl are gonna use it. Like any previous technology, it’s gonna eliminate the low hanging fruit… if any of the musicians and artists around have been phoning it in, they’re gonna be outta the game.

We’ve been living with a real signal-to-noise problem and the more low-effort stuff gets eliminated, the better for those of us who actually work at this.

It’s a tough world out there. We all need to decide for ourselves whether music is a hobby or a profession. If it’s a hobby, you got nothing to worry about. If it’s a profession for you, then you better start acting like it.
Make sure you get back to us when you’ve been eliminated.
 
My feeling about it is “Who cares?”

AI is here and ppl are gonna use it. Like any previous technology, it’s gonna eliminate the low hanging fruit… if any of the musicians and artists around have been phoning it in, they’re gonna be outta the game.

We’ve been living with a real signal-to-noise problem and the more low-effort stuff gets eliminated, the better for those of us who actually work at this.

It’s a tough world out there. We all need to decide for ourselves whether music is a hobby or a profession. If it’s a hobby, you got nothing to worry about. If it’s a profession for you, then you better start acting like it.

'If any of the musicians and artists around have been phoning it in, they're gonna be outta the game.'

AI is the definition of a way to 'phone it in' creatively, using it to give you the ultimate head start when 'creating' something, so the intent behind that statement is curious. It's the ultimate low-effort way to 'create' something.

Do you mean that AI will suddenly make musicians who already couldn't write or play go away completely, thus implying that music created with (or with the assistance of) AI will suddenly out the 'fakes'?

I work daily with professional voice talent, many of whom we have all heard on commercials and other settings nationwide/worldwide, and the discussions I've had with them about AI are frightening, so much so that many of them are now including tags in their email and marketing materials as '100% Genuine Human Voice' or something like that. As an experiment, one of them fed a certain AI generator with enough source material of their own work that, in the end, it was able to spit out recordings which were almost indistinguishable from their regular work. Someone could, in theory, steal their 'voice' and create their own work with their 'likeness' and never pay them a cent. The consequences for musicians could be equally devastating.

If an artist suddenly has a huge creative output that seems uncharacteristic, I guess one could assume that AI is contributing to their newfound spurt of inspiration or skill in their recorded work, making us question their authenticity?

I think as long as an artist is focused on authenticity first and foremost and doesn't use AI to help 'create' anything in the first place, that will be the more ultimate arbiter of what's real vs. what's jive. I think we should care deeply - especially when some people are using AI to 'create' and get paid for something that didn't come from their head or heart to begin with, while others are truly creating organically.

My concern with AI has less to do with art than it does with we as a society giving up too much control to 'AI' for the sake of convenience. At a certain point, there's no going back. Life is imitating art at this point, as there are plenty of examples where movies and other artistic commentary have warned about AI becoming too 'smart' and integrated in society. The thing I'm worried about getting eliminated isn't 'low hanging fruit' in an artistic sense. I'm worried about us losing ourselves as humans.

"We have only bits and pieces of information but what we know for certain is that at some point in the early twenty-first century all of mankind was united in celebration. We marveled at our own magnificence as we gave birth to AI." - The Matrix
 
Last edited:
'If any of the musicians and artists around have been phoning it in, they're gonna be outta the game.'

AI is the definition of a way to 'phone it in' creatively, using it to give you the ultimate head start when 'creating' something, so the intent behind that statement is curious. It's the ultimate low-effort way to 'create' something.

Do you mean that AI will suddenly make musicians who already couldn't write or play go away completely, thus implying that music created with (or with the assistance of) AI will suddenly out the 'fakes'?

If an artist suddenly has a huge creative output that seems uncharacteristic, I guess one could assume that AI is contributing to their newfound lack of inspiration or skill in their recorded work?

I think as long as an artist is focused on authenticity first and foremost and doesn't use AI to help 'create' anything in the first place, that will be the more ultimate arbiter of what's real vs. what's jive. I think we should care deeply - especially when some people are using AI to 'create' and get paid for something that didn't come from their head or heart to begin with.
I like that.
 
Like so many other things, we're going to see a bifurcation in human life.

There's this stuff that I call "processed sound entertainment product". Bro-mumble-country, disco, Muzak, etc., are already there. AI will just make it easier to produce this stuff. Heck, way back in the 70s we joked that most disco was extruded from a giant machine somewhere in California. I remember one band I was on, we had 15 minutes left at the end of a studio session - the drummer wrote, and we performed, an entire disco tune in that 15 minutes.

Then there is actual MUSIC. People will continue to create what I call "hand made music" as long as there are humans. RIGHT THIS WEEKEND, somewhere in the US, you can find at least a dozen groups of people sitting down with acoustic instruments to play bluegrass music, another dozen (or more) with electric instruments ragging away on 12 bar blues, several hundred groups of old guys collecting $50 each to play "classic rock" for half a dozen folks drinking beer. What these people are doing has NOTHING to do with the corpo-pop being excreted from the speakers at the mall or the boutique or the Clear Channel radio station.

Wonder Bread, or a whole wheat loaf fresh from your own oven?

The analogy I make is that I can get in a Honda Accord early in the morning, travel 400 miles before dinner, in climate-controlled comfort, comfy seats, listening to the radio, and arrive only lightly fatigued, for a fuel expenditure of $40 or less - and yet there are people who still RIDE HORSES.

The biggest change in music and music-like processed sound products is going to be the further erosion and probable near-extinction of the professional performing musician as a going concern. (Except, of course, for a tiny number of megamegamega stars.) But that was an historical anomaly all along, ,anyway.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Swamp_Ronin
The biggest change in music and music-like processed sound products is going to be the further erosion and probable near-extinction of the professional performing musician as a going concern. (Except, of course, for a tiny number of megamegamega stars.) But that was an historical anomaly all along, ,anyway.

This. A buddy of mine posted a funny (but truthful) video the other day where he got a $100 bill from 1990 for his gig pay the other night. He researched current inflation rates and that $100 today would have been worth $250 back then. So every year that gig pay stays the same (or decreases), we all make less and less as musicians, exponentially. We already see old gigs getting replaced by DJs, and then it'll be DJs or streams playing music 'created' by AI generators, played during 'Jazz Hour' while people sip $25 cocktails.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Swamp_Ronin
@turf3 @JazznFunk

Y’all get it.

I think the idea that a guitarist/novelist/comic book artist/voice actor making over $100k+ a year may have been just a 20th century blip in history. A window where the creative industry existed before SkyNet.

The wonderbread analogy is spot on. It has always been, and will always be, a struggle to sell rustic bread on horseback, but that’s what we gotta do.

On the horseback vs car thing- this is a good analogy. Of course it takes a colossal network of vast (and finite) resources to create and maintain, and fuel a car. And one has to be in near perpetual debt/servitude to own and operate a car. And parking - on and on. Cars are supposed to make us more free, but they make us much less free if we take time to consider it. Even moreso for Ai technology- the demand on resources is extensive, but I won’t go into that here.

“Ai won’t replace me! I’ve got SOUL!” Is a coping mechanism. It doesn’t have soul yet, but it will in a few months, and dumb consumers can’t tell the difference anyway. Universal records/Marvel/rockstar games don’t care either and your phone is gonna quit ringing. (I hope I’m wrong here)

What I always steer back to is squirrels. We could replace them with little robotic solar powered squirrels. A lot of money to be made there. If you are a person that thinks that’s a good idea, then you’re beyond my reach.
 
On the horseback vs car thing- this is a good analogy. Of course it takes a colossal network of vast (and finite) resources to create and maintain, and fuel a car. And one has to be in near perpetual debt/servitude to own and operate a car. And parking - on and on. Cars are supposed to make us more free, but they make us much less free if we take time to consider it. Even moreso for Ai technology- the demand on resources is extensive, but I won’t go into that here.

I'll go 50/50 on that. Where I am, public transit is non existent. The charging infrastructure for anything electric is also woeful. So, a car definitely makes you more 'free' depending on where you live and what your resources are (or aren't). I remember when COVID hit, our family in NYC was trying to get out ASAP because my sister in law was pregnant and didn't want to give birth and possibly get sick and die in the city. They had no car and literally couldn't get out easily. Public transit works too, until it doesn't and you're trapped with no autonomy to leave. Then, a car is FREEDOM. Both of our cars are paid off and, outside of the paltry property taxes we pay for them each year (under $500 total), the cost of ownership is well worth it to have them.... and a necessity for us to get where we need to go in our area. I also do a lot of my own maintenance and save time and $ doing it. YMMV (pun intended). There is no free ride when it comes to resource usage - especially electric cars powered by electricity created by burning coal or natural gas. But I digress...

The resources AI uses to accomplish its synthetic 'brilliance' are insane.... hundreds of acres are being dedicated just to server farms so college kids can cheat and ask ChatGPT questions.... and did you see the thing about how much the resource usage goes up when people say 'please' or 'thank you' to the AI overlords and it responds? Crazy. Everyone's back and forth about hybrids and electric vehicles, but they're ignoring the huge environmental impact of AI for sure.
 
Last edited:
I'll go 50/50 on that. Where I am, public transit is non existent. The charging infrastructure for anything electric is also woeful. So, a car definitely makes you more 'free' depending on where you live and what your resources are (or aren't). I remember when COVID hit, our family in NYC was trying to get out ASAP because my sister in law was pregnant and didn't want to give birth and possibly get sick and die in the city. They had no car and literally couldn't get out easily. Public transit works too, until it doesn't and you're trapped with no autonomy to leave. Then, a car is FREEDOM. Both of our cars are paid off and, outside of the paltry property taxes we pay for them each year (under $500 total), the cost of ownership is well worth it to have them.... and a necessity for us to get where we need to go in our area. I also do a lot of my own maintenance and save time and $ doing it. YMMV (pun intended). There is no free ride when it comes to resource usage - especially electric cars powered by electricity created by burning coal or natural gas. But I digress...

The resources AI uses to accomplish its synthetic 'brilliance' are insane.... hundreds of acres are being dedicated just to server farms so college kids can cheat and ask ChatGPT questions.... and did you see the thing about how much the resource usage goes up when people say 'please' or 'thank you' to the AI overlords and it responds? Crazy. Everyone's back and forth about hybrids and electric vehicles, but they're ignoring the huge environmental impact of AI for sure.
Same with Crypto, a lot of people are unaware how much energy is used on crypto mining.