Beautiful article, Michael. It also feels fitting and timely as we approach the fourth, which now holds more meaning because I’ve learned my friend’s personal story through your special eulogy for her brother.
I’m ready to believe in the human to human music making scene. May there be stories and meaningful engagement to balance all the elevator mu-sick.
Despite being a musician, myself, I have never quite been concerned with AI music taking away my future income (whatever that may amount to). Sure, AI might one day be able to write credible lyrics (yes, the flowery language and even some metaphors are there, but they take you nowhere), and that vague, comb-filtered sound, that perfect A440 delivery may give way to something truly indistinguishable from perfectly-produced music, but like you specified, the changes will affect mass-produced music. People who like organized background noise, playlists, and vibes will be the target audience, but there will always be people who love music because of the connection it forges between them and the artists making it. The day that an artificial intelligence can make a person feel truly seen and cared for (not artificially, the way some people get attached to their AI assistants) is the day an AI has earned the right to be seen as an artist.
I agree that the glass half full mentality is an easy way to sink into gloom. Once sunk it becomes comfortable and easy to procrastinate and avoid the work of making art. I’m going to try to keep seeing the glass as half full. I write essays and post my music on Bandcamp and Substack (both free) in the belief that making art is important, and the making money (or not) and all the other stuff is just consequence.
No true artist that mattered ever set out to “create content” to market for money. They did it because they were compelled to. I believe artists will continue to be compelled no matter the landscape. Rock On!
"…. that art isn’t about the final product at all, but rather the struggle to create it." No, it it's not so. It's both, except that for the past 15 years we tend to honor and hype the struggle way too much.
I mean that the story behind the artist has become more relevant than the music this artist puts out. Not so much for the listener (though it could influence the listening experience), but certainly for the people who write about it.
I've seen it happen hundreds of times.
The struggle is certainly important and we can recognize it, but by magnifying it we create a distortion in the field: almost all biopics suffer from it, just as music journalism has since the past 15 years.
I'm unclear on how the Tim & Janice story, moving to be sure, relates to AI. Did she use AI to finish the record? Did I miss something in the piece?
"that art isn’t about the final product at all, but rather the struggle to create it."
This is definitely true, but this is also what AI is made to subvert. You don't have to spend years working on your technique or your process when you can just prompt another output instantly. There's very little struggle or creative process there when you're just typing something in and getting what you want back.
Saying AI will make music more human is like saying we can make food taste more natural by putting more lab created ingredients into it. It's a pretty wild take especially since a lot of the music AI generators have been trained on has had a lot of human elements squashed out of it already.
I am in total disagreement with you. AI does not and never will know what we want more than we do and art is about the creation of something that was made by someone, not by something. Defenders of "art creation" by AI are usually people who do not have the talent or are just too lazy to take the time to learn to create it themselves. Those same people will always say that people like me are wrong because they will not accept any thought process that conflicts with their own and that is probably due to their lack of creative thinking.
Music without studio trickery, performed by humans. Ai was never and will never be needed. Besides, it's dull, fake, soulless. Just like everything ai makes, whether it's text, sounds, picture, it's garbage.
Beautiful article, Michael. It also feels fitting and timely as we approach the fourth, which now holds more meaning because I’ve learned my friend’s personal story through your special eulogy for her brother.
I’m ready to believe in the human to human music making scene. May there be stories and meaningful engagement to balance all the elevator mu-sick.
Despite being a musician, myself, I have never quite been concerned with AI music taking away my future income (whatever that may amount to). Sure, AI might one day be able to write credible lyrics (yes, the flowery language and even some metaphors are there, but they take you nowhere), and that vague, comb-filtered sound, that perfect A440 delivery may give way to something truly indistinguishable from perfectly-produced music, but like you specified, the changes will affect mass-produced music. People who like organized background noise, playlists, and vibes will be the target audience, but there will always be people who love music because of the connection it forges between them and the artists making it. The day that an artificial intelligence can make a person feel truly seen and cared for (not artificially, the way some people get attached to their AI assistants) is the day an AI has earned the right to be seen as an artist.
Another beautifully written piece.
I agree that the glass half full mentality is an easy way to sink into gloom. Once sunk it becomes comfortable and easy to procrastinate and avoid the work of making art. I’m going to try to keep seeing the glass as half full. I write essays and post my music on Bandcamp and Substack (both free) in the belief that making art is important, and the making money (or not) and all the other stuff is just consequence.
No true artist that mattered ever set out to “create content” to market for money. They did it because they were compelled to. I believe artists will continue to be compelled no matter the landscape. Rock On!
I haven't read the article, but I will, out of respect, and to see if it'll make me change my mind.
But, I will say in response to 'ai will make music more human': no, it won't. Human music cannot possibly be made more human by a machine.
I'll comment again after I read.
I haven’t read your comment, but I disagree with it entirely.
Just joking, hope the article changes your mind. The point of the article is that AI will refocus society back on the human element of music.
"…. that art isn’t about the final product at all, but rather the struggle to create it." No, it it's not so. It's both, except that for the past 15 years we tend to honor and hype the struggle way too much.
How do you mean?
I mean that the story behind the artist has become more relevant than the music this artist puts out. Not so much for the listener (though it could influence the listening experience), but certainly for the people who write about it.
I've seen it happen hundreds of times.
The struggle is certainly important and we can recognize it, but by magnifying it we create a distortion in the field: almost all biopics suffer from it, just as music journalism has since the past 15 years.
I'm unclear on how the Tim & Janice story, moving to be sure, relates to AI. Did she use AI to finish the record? Did I miss something in the piece?
"that art isn’t about the final product at all, but rather the struggle to create it."
This is definitely true, but this is also what AI is made to subvert. You don't have to spend years working on your technique or your process when you can just prompt another output instantly. There's very little struggle or creative process there when you're just typing something in and getting what you want back.
Saying AI will make music more human is like saying we can make food taste more natural by putting more lab created ingredients into it. It's a pretty wild take especially since a lot of the music AI generators have been trained on has had a lot of human elements squashed out of it already.
Hey I agree with a lot of what you’re saying, I think you may have misunderstood the angle of the article.
I read it a couple times to make sure I wasn't missing anything, but it's possible something slipped by. What was the angle you were aiming for?
Total AI vibes here, though. 😀
Yeah that is my belief, the food example is
I am in total disagreement with you. AI does not and never will know what we want more than we do and art is about the creation of something that was made by someone, not by something. Defenders of "art creation" by AI are usually people who do not have the talent or are just too lazy to take the time to learn to create it themselves. Those same people will always say that people like me are wrong because they will not accept any thought process that conflicts with their own and that is probably due to their lack of creative thinking.
Music without studio trickery, performed by humans. Ai was never and will never be needed. Besides, it's dull, fake, soulless. Just like everything ai makes, whether it's text, sounds, picture, it's garbage.
Show me one au-generated output that has value.
Thank you for sharing that. We need more human stories. Keep 'em coming.