Fuck the music industry, but fuck AI made music even more. The goddamn robot is supposed to take my factory job and leave me with the time to write songs not the other way around
How do you feel about other tech-based tools making an artists life easier, like sequencers, VSTs, DAWs, and the like? I see it as maybe another tool to use.
With all of the tools you described the entire creative process is still done by a human musician. Sequencers have to be programmed. VSTs are just instruments and they DAWs have simply replaced expensive studio equipment so poors like me can produce a decent sounding track.
I don't want to see generated images or AI coded video games either.
Beethoven and all the classical composers and musicians are spinning in their graves. Music should be made by humans with instruments, not boxes with electricity in them! /s
At the end of the day it's another tool that makes the process easier. Not only does the user have significant artistic control but it is a great way to lower the bar for people to work on something they feel a responsibility for- which is a great way to encourage more traditional musical skills.
I get that you don't need to be a professional instrument player to make good music...or be a professional composer...but if everything that takes effort, knowledge, experience and practice is done for you, what are you really contributing? Curation, maybe?
This is great for people who make indie games to focus on gameplay and structure. You can make a full soundtrack and background images in a 2 minutes for free. But you can't say it is going to help foster the creativity that great composers valued, because you will eventually see e.g. music at the top level, as styles you can remix with some characteristics, but won't be aware of how they are built and can be rebuilt to create something truly new.
This will limit creativity, because we will associate novelty with a high-level remix/fusion in a preset number of dimensions instead of the much higher possibilities coming from complexity underneath.
...it's like I'm talking about low-level programming languages vs high-level ones :)
Given that music boxes are very very old it is plausible that beethoven could have made a remark sharing his opinion on this exact issue. I don't mean to agree/disagree with your point, I just find that kind of interesting.
You're getting downvoted but you are right. Stuff like this is a super cool example of exactly the type of thing you are talking about imo.
There's a lot of AI generated art that sucks. But that does not imply that in skilled hands an artist can't use those tools in creative/interesting ways.
Technicalities probably, but much like computery things in general these tools don't make all things easier necessarily. If pure making and playing of music is the goal, then just pickup an instrument. Record it with a nice preamp and microphone in an appropriate space. These tools allow many more and different options however. Of course I can approximate an orchestra good enough for low budget projects if not tv shows, without needing to hire an actual orchestra. And apply convolution reverb of the sistene chapel, or my bathroom. No complaints about the massive world of possibilities at our finger tips. But if I could hire a local school orchestra, the recording gear, and have an afternoon on such a project , it would be alot more fun than scrolling for hours for the right picollo flute sample, wrestling with licences (including cost) , upgrade hassles, and other tech headaches of this digital age. Back to my banjo. Saying all that I prefer when the tools mature into instruments and methods in their own right. e.g mpc sampling and performance, ableton live magic , and more. Plus its not all mutually exclusive. Do whats right for the art at the given time.
Yes and no. Promotion is a whole other beast now, not like in the day. But almost everything else - yes! And it’s great. My friend gave me what would have been $100,000 piece of gear in 1985 - because he had two of them.
I was surprised it took them this long. But this just means that labels want to own AI songmaking, this is not good for creators or listeners either. Rick Beato was talking about this today:
RIAA is evil. AI is good for us plebs while it's still legal for us to own and operate our own local open source LLMs away from the corpos, in the same way the internet is a net good because it's free and open and gives us power to practice communism (information sharing, hacking (classic meaning) and open source).
All regulation will be aimed squarely at destroying that, concentrating power in the hands of the few away from just any old proletariat tom dick and harry.
Corpos will pay any fees and fines as a cost of doing business and acquire all licenses and reach private agreements with publishers out of reach for the common man or small business, all the while passing the cost of all this onto the consumer eventually just to invest in tech that will make the line go up for a few more quarters.
IP law does not benefit you and you will never truly benefit from it.
Don't simp for corpos.
P.S.: Imagine the next LLM, 10-20 years from now is truly groundbreaking and useful, it's a new tool, and without that tool, you're no longer competitive for work, and all of said tool is owned by 1-2 multinational predatory conglomerates jacking up prices, because you have no choice but to pay up to live. It's cyberpunk, just boring and without the implants, price-gouging a necessity just as they do now with housing or insulin.
We need to preserve the power to do this freely, fairly, without profit and without licensing works.
They're usually always propping up their whole operation on a series of open source wooden carts they picked up off the Internet. Those carts are the foundation that makes everything work.
As we saw a couple months ago, a core part of how Internet security works had a giant hole in it, and it was all because one dude had some kind of mental breakdown and handed off development to an attacker.
Even by your analogy, yes I'd rather have a wooden cart compared to carrying things in my hands.
That said your analogy doesn't apply to tech. "It just doesn't okay" isn't a very satisfying answer from a logic standpoint, but as the other user pointed out almost all corporate software is built upon, or massively, and I mean massively relies upon the efforts of Open Source software.
I can't really think of any other industry like this or an analogy for this, but that is how it works. Example: GNU/Linux is FOSS, and is the go-to for server software for businesses, and it's starting to creep into end user products too, from Dell laptops to Raspberry Pi to the Steam Deck (if you're familiar with that - Proton is also open source).
Is RIAA wanting full control over the AU tech or do they want AI to be banned from music completely? Their stance will dictate who I support between two massive evils
I think it's pretty clear they want to own it, not ban it.
First, they will use the rights of artists to gather popular and lawmaker support in their war against AI-content, then big labels will integrate it to turn around and screw creators over. It's a classic.
Its honestly sad how many people I see on Lemmy cheering on corporate IP law because GRRM is pissed off at not getting a few million more royalties by being included in a training set.
