For decades, artists have had to battle for control of their work. With the rise of artificial intelligence in music, that might become a losing battle.
I hate to be annoying (really) but this has been the case for decades with artists and their work because they function within the music industry or publishing and they don’t have editorial control. They never did. This is nothing to do with A I and is giving credence to something that has all the hall marks of a moral panic.
It is certainly an old issue dressed up in new clothes. But I think there are subtle differences that are crucial. Somebody could repackage and sell your work without your consent since the dawn of the recordings. But the idea that somebody could make, say, a Drake song without Drake is fundamentally different in my eyes. When I consider that along with the fact that you might be able to conjure up scores of "Drake" songs at will, I get concerned. But I hear you. Appreciate the comment.
I have to agree. I’m seeing these alarmist posts everywhere and it honestly just feels clickbaity. Capitalism quickly wrestles control and ownership of anything potentially revenue-producing away from individual creatives. This is not a new problem, and it will never be solved as long as art is tied to commerce.
No - you are quite right - just more stuff to get people foaming at the mouth as if life wasn't complex enough anyway. All these technologies are is assistive - but they just have to keep rehashing 'War of the Worlds' every time. I'm done with it really!
I'm gonna say what I always say about the "dead artists coming back with AI" thing:
Once the novelty wears off (+/- 6 months; by 2023 standards), listeners will only hear the hands of the profiteers who pump out the ghoulish drivel those bits of "content" will be. They, after all, or their flat-rate contractors will be writing the compositions, and they will not stand up to the live artist's original works qualitatively at all.
Remember, music is *made*; manure is "produced". The profiteers will ruin AI as a viable music generator (except for limited use-cases) within a couple years; through either saturation of low-effort low-quality "product", or competitive sabotage of each other's data models. When that goes down, you can still go see Taylor Swift, or Molchat Doma, or Trombone Shorty, or come have a few beers with any of my bands. Those experiences cannot be stolen or duplicated by any wanna-be Turing or Yetnikoff, however hard they try.
Well said, Shaggy.......and, is that a reference to long-ago CBS prez, Walter Yetnikoff?!? Goodness. I haven't heard that name (or Bruce Lundvall, for that matter) in 40 years! Like a wide receiver in crunch time of a tie game, Shaggy, you go deep!
Yep. Walter was one of the least-seen big wheels in the recording business; unlike Ahmet Ertegun and David Geffen, who liked to be out and about fairly often. But that didn't mean he didn't have neutron star-level pull when he wanted to.
Very cool! Finally, someone with whom I can talk '70s label CEOs & Veeps! I had never thought about that public perception, but now that you mention it (and, now that I set the Wayback Machine to that era!), you're so correct! Ahmet and Geffen, both, were certainly as up-front then (and, I'm not seeing it as vanity) as they, deservedly, are now, in the rear-view mirror surveying their respective careers!
Phil Collins released a song called, "A groovy kind of love" in 1988. The first recording was done by a duo called Diane and Annita and covered in 1965 by a British group called The Mindbenders. It was written by Carol Bayer Sager and Toni Wine. This always makes students of classical music chuckle because it's a direct and acknowledged lift from Muzio Clemente. So much so that whenever it gets played, this 1797 piece is always referred to by us as "a groovy kind of love" Clemente liked Haydn and Mozart and did 'arrangements' of their work. Everyone has done it, and in most cases the new spin on an old tune has brought something out. Then there is plagiarism. It is no coincidence that Hotel California, by The Eagles, came out shortly after they supported Jethro Tull, whose song, "We used to know" bears an uncanny resemblance.
But why the panic about AI? I have heard a few of these and frankly, they sound like lift music; glib copies of the Vox Humana. If you are telling me that AI will one day replicate the experience, the emotion, the delivery and the soul of a singer like Ella Fitgerald or Laura Nyro, I have to say that I cannot believe you. It's as crass as photoshopping the head of your least favourite politician on to a nude body.
I feel there perhaps might be some misrepresentation regarding the effects of AI on music.
It's not so much just a fad that will pass, it is primarily that it adds to the volumes of distractions already in our lives forming barriers against discovering and investing in new music (or any other art)...and it all adds up.
I want a reverse "I am not a robot" test for anything that passes my attention because I don't have any interest in algorithm generated content
I hate to be annoying (really) but this has been the case for decades with artists and their work because they function within the music industry or publishing and they don’t have editorial control. They never did. This is nothing to do with A I and is giving credence to something that has all the hall marks of a moral panic.
It is certainly an old issue dressed up in new clothes. But I think there are subtle differences that are crucial. Somebody could repackage and sell your work without your consent since the dawn of the recordings. But the idea that somebody could make, say, a Drake song without Drake is fundamentally different in my eyes. When I consider that along with the fact that you might be able to conjure up scores of "Drake" songs at will, I get concerned. But I hear you. Appreciate the comment.
I have to agree. I’m seeing these alarmist posts everywhere and it honestly just feels clickbaity. Capitalism quickly wrestles control and ownership of anything potentially revenue-producing away from individual creatives. This is not a new problem, and it will never be solved as long as art is tied to commerce.
No - you are quite right - just more stuff to get people foaming at the mouth as if life wasn't complex enough anyway. All these technologies are is assistive - but they just have to keep rehashing 'War of the Worlds' every time. I'm done with it really!
I'm gonna say what I always say about the "dead artists coming back with AI" thing:
Once the novelty wears off (+/- 6 months; by 2023 standards), listeners will only hear the hands of the profiteers who pump out the ghoulish drivel those bits of "content" will be. They, after all, or their flat-rate contractors will be writing the compositions, and they will not stand up to the live artist's original works qualitatively at all.
Remember, music is *made*; manure is "produced". The profiteers will ruin AI as a viable music generator (except for limited use-cases) within a couple years; through either saturation of low-effort low-quality "product", or competitive sabotage of each other's data models. When that goes down, you can still go see Taylor Swift, or Molchat Doma, or Trombone Shorty, or come have a few beers with any of my bands. Those experiences cannot be stolen or duplicated by any wanna-be Turing or Yetnikoff, however hard they try.
Well said, Shaggy.......and, is that a reference to long-ago CBS prez, Walter Yetnikoff?!? Goodness. I haven't heard that name (or Bruce Lundvall, for that matter) in 40 years! Like a wide receiver in crunch time of a tie game, Shaggy, you go deep!
Yep. Walter was one of the least-seen big wheels in the recording business; unlike Ahmet Ertegun and David Geffen, who liked to be out and about fairly often. But that didn't mean he didn't have neutron star-level pull when he wanted to.
Very cool! Finally, someone with whom I can talk '70s label CEOs & Veeps! I had never thought about that public perception, but now that you mention it (and, now that I set the Wayback Machine to that era!), you're so correct! Ahmet and Geffen, both, were certainly as up-front then (and, I'm not seeing it as vanity) as they, deservedly, are now, in the rear-view mirror surveying their respective careers!
Phil Collins released a song called, "A groovy kind of love" in 1988. The first recording was done by a duo called Diane and Annita and covered in 1965 by a British group called The Mindbenders. It was written by Carol Bayer Sager and Toni Wine. This always makes students of classical music chuckle because it's a direct and acknowledged lift from Muzio Clemente. So much so that whenever it gets played, this 1797 piece is always referred to by us as "a groovy kind of love" Clemente liked Haydn and Mozart and did 'arrangements' of their work. Everyone has done it, and in most cases the new spin on an old tune has brought something out. Then there is plagiarism. It is no coincidence that Hotel California, by The Eagles, came out shortly after they supported Jethro Tull, whose song, "We used to know" bears an uncanny resemblance.
But why the panic about AI? I have heard a few of these and frankly, they sound like lift music; glib copies of the Vox Humana. If you are telling me that AI will one day replicate the experience, the emotion, the delivery and the soul of a singer like Ella Fitgerald or Laura Nyro, I have to say that I cannot believe you. It's as crass as photoshopping the head of your least favourite politician on to a nude body.
Thanks for your thoughts.
I feel there perhaps might be some misrepresentation regarding the effects of AI on music.
It's not so much just a fad that will pass, it is primarily that it adds to the volumes of distractions already in our lives forming barriers against discovering and investing in new music (or any other art)...and it all adds up.
I want a reverse "I am not a robot" test for anything that passes my attention because I don't have any interest in algorithm generated content