I think he's right. Our forum is a good example of how people prefer to talk about making music and buying gear rather than actually making it.
Enjoy the benefits of a premium membership!
Upgrade Account
-
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 free Log in
Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.
"People Don't Like Making Music"
- Thread starter Bunk McNulty
- Start date
That would be cool, but he’s talking about the uncool use of AI.
Same as my amp, but yes, point take and it’s a good one.
AI is very busy, putting strings of notes into patterns, calling them ‘melodies’, and copyrighting them - with no care for whether they are pleasing not. The sole criterion is that the newly created melody is unique enough. AI has generated, and its owners have filed for copyright, of millions of new melodies. The odds on you creating a new, unique melody that can be copyrighted are dwindling by the hour.CEO of health insurance company says people don't enjoy affordable healthcare.
Might want to be careful...Just kidding
But does AI enjoy making music? Maybe we'll find out soon.
I do agree with the author. People are less inclined today to do anything that requires dedication. It’s become too easy to sink into the “entertain me” mindset.
Acoustic instruments. AI can't pick up a pair of drumsticks, or thump on a double-bass.
This person’s “job” is to make money. No doubt, he would sell his mother down the river to make that happen. His concept of “music” is transactional, and wholly unrelated to any kind of social activity that humans do.
I will be interested to see just how Copyright laws will be enforced. Or not, since we seem inclined to cast off our rules fabrics for the moment. AI, by its nature, is derivative. The programmers can dance around that aspect; but, it is what it is.
IMHO, AI would be more useful as an instructional device. But, the dollar signs dancing in the eyes of folks like the author will force the issue. Ultimately, the choice lies in the minds of the audiences; the problem being that, as we all know, force feeding junk can impair the choice making.
Time will tell.
I'll offer another analogy:
You can have a realistic-looking virtual fireplace that even produces heat. And yet people continue to USE ACTUAL FIREPLACES with ACTUAL FIREWOOD. Some even continue to CHOP THEIR OWN FIREWOOD, USING REAL AXES.
Guilty as charged.
It's true that most people don't like making music.
Musicians, however, are pretty much defined as people driven to make music. Even if it's just for exposure. Or, no pay.
You know who doesn't enjoy the majority of the time they're doing their "thing"? Software developers. That's what the money is for.
JazznFunk
Supporting Member
I think the author of the original article is certainly misguided, but on one level, he has something of a point. It's more an issue of instant gratification than enjoyment of making music. People expect to pick up an instrument or generate tracks in a DAW, plug in, and be able to make something easily simply because all of the tools are there. Music is, has been, and always will be about the human element, creating something that is hopefully unique on some level.
Using AI to make synthetic songs isn't creating music. It's rearranging bits of data which have been fed through its algorithms and it puts out averages of 'styles' and 'melodies' which fit the criteria of being 'music.' That's not enjoyable at all, because no one is discovering anything. Maybe it's the 'sound of surprise' that intrigues people who generate 'songs' via AI.... like 'hey, look at what the computer cooked up!'. A curiosity. A novelty. But not music. Not human. When you consider the time it takes to understand performance, tracking, mixing, mastering, etc., AI is not capable of doing all of those things in a truly human way.
I also think there's a small thread beginning to run thru this discussion which seems to equate only performing live as being a 'legit' or 'dedicated musician.' Some people prefer to create in the studio - live and otherwise - and gig less frequently. Some people only like to play live and aren't keen on being in the studio. There's a continuum in all of that which is free to shift and doesn't make one more or less 'legit' than the other. I used to play hundreds of gigs a year and only spent time in the studio when I wasn't on the road. Now, I maybe gig a dozen times a year at most and create in the studio primarily, tracking, mixing, and mastering. I love it all, and it all takes time and dedication to do it well. AI doesn't have ears to hear what it's making - we do. Let's all keep the bigger picture in mind - music is human.
Using AI to make synthetic songs isn't creating music. It's rearranging bits of data which have been fed through its algorithms and it puts out averages of 'styles' and 'melodies' which fit the criteria of being 'music.' That's not enjoyable at all, because no one is discovering anything. Maybe it's the 'sound of surprise' that intrigues people who generate 'songs' via AI.... like 'hey, look at what the computer cooked up!'. A curiosity. A novelty. But not music. Not human. When you consider the time it takes to understand performance, tracking, mixing, mastering, etc., AI is not capable of doing all of those things in a truly human way.
I also think there's a small thread beginning to run thru this discussion which seems to equate only performing live as being a 'legit' or 'dedicated musician.' Some people prefer to create in the studio - live and otherwise - and gig less frequently. Some people only like to play live and aren't keen on being in the studio. There's a continuum in all of that which is free to shift and doesn't make one more or less 'legit' than the other. I used to play hundreds of gigs a year and only spent time in the studio when I wasn't on the road. Now, I maybe gig a dozen times a year at most and create in the studio primarily, tracking, mixing, and mastering. I love it all, and it all takes time and dedication to do it well. AI doesn't have ears to hear what it's making - we do. Let's all keep the bigger picture in mind - music is human.
Last edited:
To be fair, I use a wood burning stove to heat my house and typically get 12-18hr burns out of each load.
You can't do that with your silly fake gas "fireplace" that people think makes them "rustic".
One of the reasons why I enjoy playing bass so much is precisely BECAUSE it is challenging and often difficult. I like getting good at something hard, and I like the work that is involved.
Comic book artist here. I’ve been following the AI issue for years. It’s bad.
Creativity is facing an existential crisis, with its primary predator being the worship of technology and “Progress”
There are many reasons why this technology is bad for humankind, and for the world in general. I won’t preach about it. People use any rhetoric imaginable to defend our addiction to novelty and insulation from pain.
The next time you see a little bird in your yard, consider this: what if we could just replace that bird with a robot? All of the benefits of birds, but none of the drawbacks. The perversity and absurdity should be evident….
Creativity is facing an existential crisis, with its primary predator being the worship of technology and “Progress”
There are many reasons why this technology is bad for humankind, and for the world in general. I won’t preach about it. People use any rhetoric imaginable to defend our addiction to novelty and insulation from pain.
The next time you see a little bird in your yard, consider this: what if we could just replace that bird with a robot? All of the benefits of birds, but none of the drawbacks. The perversity and absurdity should be evident….
Realistically, this is the only way out of this stuff. These people will take everything you have without thinking twice.CEO of health insurance company says people don't enjoy affordable healthcare.
Might want to be careful...
But does AI enjoy making music? Maybe we'll find out soon.
I understand what he's saying though, I think you may have taken it a bit out of context. I don't think he's saying it's not enjoyable to play music, be creative, etc. I think he's saying what actually goes into creating the final product of what gets played on the radio is painstaking and it mostly is. Plus these days even if you put in those painstaking hours to write and record a song that would've been a hit in say the 50s to 00s, nobody will hardly care anyways. The effort: reward just isn't there most the time.
So the only purpose of writing and/or playing nmusic is to make a hit on the radio? I call BS. Not only BS, but some of the very worst most damaging BS there is. No children will be allowed to play basketball at the local park unless they are clearly on track for the NBA. No one will be allowed to cook breakfast unless they're graduated from the Culinary Institute. No musicians permitted unless they can get a hit on the readio. Amateur watercolorists? Stamp 'em out!
All creation is reserved for about 100 geniuses and the rest will be done by AI. The only purpose for the rest of humanity is to consume as fast as possible and reproduce to create new little well-trained consumers.
