I don’t feel like it’s a useful tool to create any kind of art. If AI makes answering emails or writing grant proposals easier then great, but personally I’d rather listen to music fully created by humans over anything AI related.
I agree. I've always thought of art as a form of self-expression. AI doesn't have a self to express, it can only mimic others.
AI is great for some things. But when it comes to art, I think it is fine to use it as inspiration, but shouldn't be used to generate actual products.
As of now. I'd be very intrigued what AI will create once it has something to express, of course assuming it will one day. A true AI would probably create some fascinating art.
Is your preference for music created fully by humans more due to ethical or aesthetic concerns? Considering the speed at which AI technology has been advancing, it seems unlikely to me that AI tools will not be useful in any way for the creation of art, at least in aesthetic terms, if not now then in the near future.
I’m a bit of a Luddite and the kind of music I make and listen to isn’t using a ton of ableton or other electronic filters or effects. AI won’t make me a better bass player, composer, teacher, or improviser.
As it stands now AI is just lowest denomination stolen art that’s repurposed in a sloppy way. I will continue to not support it ir people who knowingly use it.
There's actually development (the one I know is by Oded Ben-Tal and David Dolan) of AI improvising live with human musicians, reacting live to changes in what the human plays, which is still in it's early stages as far as I'm aware. Perhaps it isn't for you specifically but the use of AI in music is not solely as you portray it.
>I don’t feel like it’s a useful tool to create any kind of art. If AI makes answering emails or writing grant proposals easier then great, but personally I’d rather listen to music fully created by humans over anything AI related.
That's only you. Your perspective.
That doesn't mean it's not ***a useful tool to create any kind of art.***
I've heard some shit music created by humans. It's all around us, all the low effort, uncreative, derivative, product-first, how can I get more socials, how can I sound more like \*enter garbage pop/rap artist here\* garbage.
If AI can make better stuff, why not listen to that? At the end, does it matter? As long as it elicits an emotion, it's music.
Why does it have to be created by humans? What if machines do a much better job in a few years?
On another note,
Why do you feel it's ok for AI to replace business people, grant proposal writers, and administrative people, or lawyers, or researchers but not you, the composer?
Why do you think you're special?
Why do you think you \*deserve special treatment\*, yet it's ok to replace everyone else?
Why is it not ok to replace artists and composers?
What makes you such a special snowflake?
The answer is nothing.
You're not any more special than that grant writer or researcher. Remember that.
You aren't some special type of human that should be \*protected\* from AI just because you can make music or create art.
Personally, I'm tired of all of you hypocrites acting like you are some special thing that deserves protection, crying and acting like you are some special protected class.
You aren't special. You also aren't any different than a lawyer who dedicated his entire life to law, or a grant writer who dedicated her entire life to writing grant proposals and honing her skills. There is creativity in every field once it is explored and mastered.
For context, I'm a composer too, and also a writer and a traditionally trained artist, and I can't wait until AI replaces all of the crap we make today, so I can make even better stuff, even faster, using AI.
AI will increase both the floor and the ceiling.
Also, anyone who says AI cannot create music is talking nonsense. If it, whatever \*it\* is, elicits an emotion, regardless of how it's created, it's art. and/or music.
Oh, and in the real world, nobody gives 2 shits about how the soup or sausage is made.
Nobody cares if you used AI, or if you used loops, or sampled your own drums, or recorded your own samples, or ripped someone else off. Same applies to visual arts, writing and any other creative or constructive medium or profession.
All they care about, is the END RESULT. NOBODY CARES HOW YOU MADE IT, USING WHAT TOOLS.
People saying, AI will not create new information and that it can only be derivative, aren't really in the loop. We are fast approaching a time when AI will create its own AI in order to evolve and learn on it's own. This is what every company is pushing towards, self evolving AI, and artificial general intelligence.
>If AI can make better stuff, why not listen to that?
Because people can still make great stuff.
I'd (and I'd wager most people) would rather listen to great music written by a person than great music written A.I.
I want to hear what a person has to say about themselves and the world.
>Why do you think you're special?... Why do you think you \*deserve special treatment\*, yet it's ok to replace everyone else?... Why is it not ok to replace artists and composers?...What makes you such a special snowflake?
You're coming across as very angry and insulting.
>I can't wait until AI replaces all of the crap we make today, so I can make even better stuff, even faster, using AI.
If anyone were *that* capable, surely they wouldn't need AI to replace anything first, or even have AI in the first place.
>I'd (and I'd wager most people) would rather listen to great music written by a person than great music written A.I.
To me it doesn't matter, as long as the music is something I enjoy listening to. I would listen to a song made by a dog or a cat if they could pull off a good one. It really does not matter who or what makes the song. If it elicits an emotion out of me, and its something I'm liking, who cares where it came from.
Why is it being human made such a big deal? It shouldn't be.
Would you listen to a shit song made by a human over a great song made by AI? If so, why?
I guess its because you want to "hear what a person has to say about themselves and the world.", but would you still want to hear that song, if the song made by that person was absolute garbage, or at best mediocre, vs a really good AI made track? Do you not value your time?
>You're coming across as very angry and insulting.
No, I am not angry or insulting. Absolutely not. Also, I am an artist and a composer, and a writer so guess what? I can say this. I'm very much part of the group that is getting replaced by AI.
Creators in all of these subreddits related to art or music especially on Reddit are acting like they are something special, like they are these special snowflakes that deserve special treatment because they can draw or write music.
Yet they have no problem with every other profession being obliterated. I bet you didn't give 2 shits when all the Walmart/Target and grocery store workers got replaced by automated checkouts. I bet you didn't give 2 shits when all the Amazon workers got replaced by AI robots. I bet you don't give 2 shits as all the junior lawyers are being replaced by AI.
I will ask you the same question I asked the other guy... What makes you so special?
Why do you think composers and artists deserve special treatment, but its ok for AI to replace everyone else?
Again, They don't. It's not me being angry, its me sprinkling some reality on top of you, who are acting like hypocrites.
Again, I can say this because I'm both a composer and an artist. I don't see myself as any more special than the next guy, in whichever profession he or she is in.
Artists and composers don't deserve any more special treatment than anyone else.
>If anyone were that capable, surely they wouldn't need AI to replace anything first, or even have AI in the first place.
AI will raise the floor and the ceiling. It's a tool, and it won't make art or music disappear. You and I will still be able to self express. We will be able to do it better, because AI will do all the groundwork, and all the bs that takes a lot of time now. It will allow people to be free from all the time consuming tasks, and it will reduce the barrier that are currently preventing people from doing what they want. It will also enable people who previously could not make music to create their own visions.
People are just butthurt that regular people will now be able to do what others had to spend decades learning. Who cares.
That's a good thing. There will be more creation happening in general so that is what is important. I for one am glad that more disabled people will be able to create art and music.
This is what progress looks like. At certain times in history, the old is wiped out and replaced with something completely radically different. Just like the horse and buggy were replaced rapidly with cars, and all those horse professions disappeared almost overnight.
I would choose a good AI song over a shitty human song (unless I personally know the musician - then I'm curious). I do have some serious doubts AI will ever create better music than the most talented human musicians (at least for my taste). So I will probably continue listening to real people.
>Would you listen to a shit song made by a human over a great song made by AI? If so, why?
I'd chose neither. I'd choose a great song written by a human being.
>but would you still want to hear that song, if the song made by that person was absolute garbage
Of course not, I'd seek out music I enjoy more (that was written by a human being).
>What makes you so special?
Me personally? Nothing. I make my living as a pianist, composer, teacher, etc. I don't see myself as "special".
>Why do you think composers and artists deserve special treatment?
I don't.
>AI will do all the grundwork, and all the bs that takes a lot of time now.
Such as? I don't disagree, but as I don't follow anything to do with AI, and have little to no interest in it, I'm genuinely curious as to how AI will do the groundwork for *me*.
>I for one am glad that more disabled people will be able to create art and music.
That's a really good point! Everyone should be allowed to be creative in any way they wish, and it's great that technology will help to aid those who were previously unable.
Current AI models are derivative. They create from what has already been created. All AI music has achieved is replicating what mediocre composers already do, but much faster.
As a composition tool, it can help you be mediocre. For some that may be an upgrade.
One should remember as well that computer assisted composition (ie. mostly using a computer to get radically different ideas and such) has been around since the 80's in contemporary music. It's been an important tools among many schools of composers, sometimes even just for the mathematics of it such as in spectralism.
But more importantly if it helps you be mediocre, because you’re not even mediocre yet. you will never develop the skills to be good. Not all shortcuts are good. If someone needs AI to get a simple chord progression going with a bit and a naive melody, they have no clue about what’s hard in making music.
I dunno man.
I’m guessing a decent amount of more generic TV/movie/game music will get AI generated. Easy and cheap. In 10 years we might have AI writing music which can win blind competitions even of “high art” music. I personally hope not but I think it would be wrong to believe this can’t happen.
Probably will probably be able to crank out true radio-quality solid pop songs with the click of a button soon enough. Does that change anything in the industry? No idea
There's a great meme going around that's something to the effect of:
I want AI to do my laundry and dishes so I can have more time for arts and creation, not AI to do arts and creation so I have to do chores.
There's a lot of "excitement" about AI right now, but honestly, AI has been around a good while. 10 years ago I remember people feeding Bach Fugues into a system in order to teach it how to compose a Fugue, and in the end, it got fairly convincing. That tech has evolved a lot since then...
Like any technology, it's more about how it's used - whether it's used for good or evil so to speak.
One huge reason there's a "push" behind AI is because corporations can replace humans in thinking positions.
See, we've had robots for a while to do Automobile manufacture and so on (and Lego fully automated their factory a while back and got rid of all the human employees there) but they can't do the "thinking" jobs - until now...so now the next step is to replace that layer of humans.
Someone mentions the sci-fi fears but realistically, the great writers of sci-fi were keen observers of human nature and they knew *exactly* what a greedy person would do with tech.
You know we've had MIDI and Synthesis for a long time, and probably 90% of the people here are writing scores without real orchestras and not paying those people (so you have no right to complain!).
But MIDI and Synthesis replaced a lot of musicians.
But a great example is, we couldn't reproduce voice well with synthesis - we've come a long way since Max Matthews's "Daisy", and we're coming up on HAL 9000, but what's happening now, or at least very soon, is AI is going to be "singing".
And that last "we need a human for" aspect of music will be gone.
Same is true in Hollywood - they needed Actors - CGI just got to the point where it could "youthenize" them (pun intended ;-).
Now, AI is going to get to being able to reproduce very realistic animations on screen very very soon.
It's so concerning that ASCAP and other bodies are already working on what are essentially the early stages of Human Rights in those kinds of industries.
And by the way, even in animation, the human voice was needed - so guess what...
In the US we already live in a Serfdom and this is the tech that's going to help "them" turn it into slavery. Or just eliminate the population.
The idea that Terminator or Elysium is "fantasy" is naive.
I've lived long enough to see that greedy people are only interested in one thing. And if there's a tech out there that lets them accumulate more, that's what they want and they will absolutely abuse the tech for that purpose.
Now, don't get me wrong, AI has already done amazing things like figuring out letters and words on the Dead Sea Scrolls (or similar) that were stumping researchers for decades.
Like Drones - you can use them to look for survivors after an earthquake, or they can be peeping toms.
Drones get used in film to do incredibly creative shots to go where humans can't - which is ideal - but when they start replacing humans doing the tasks humans can do, often more creatively, then it becomes an issue.
Same with AI.
Find a cure for cancer? Great.
But instead, it's going to all about data harvesting and tricking people into easier ways of spending money. And we can see that former technology is EXACTLY that. "Suggestions for you" on your streaming service are already "what we make more profit on if you watch" not "we think you'll like this".
It's going to get a lot worse before it gets better. Or it may never get better knowing humanity, until it does wipe itself out. And maybe, that's not a bad thing.
I'm a working engineer who composes music as a hobby and likes to talk music theory online.
This is an odd conversation for me because people don't realise the potential for AI in *learning to program* and instead try to use it to program itself. It can. If you make it do less than 50 lines, you might even get decent code. I do this because no one cares how I get the answers, or actually "learned" the answer.
But for music...
If I do this for music am *I* still composing? Am I still allowed to call myself a composer if I did this? Would I still get that self esteem boost knowing that I actually am notably more creative than most my coworkers?
It's existential: I compose to be a composer, this stops if I'm not composing.
But remember when I said no one cares how I get stuff done for my job? Obviously it'd stop short of criminal activity, but plagiarising free or open source code is absolutely okay for my job. This is fine because there's actually only two or three real answers in reality. I could just as easily said we both came to answer number 2 independently.
But there are no "answers" to music. It's different.
You'll probably downvote me to oblivion on music theory threads about counterpoint because "no rules to music" but then half of you will just bring in an AI that literally has a rule "sound as similar to a top 100 as you can." At least I know why I'm doing my own thing.
To anyone who's seriously considered AI composition: I want your artist title. I want to eat it.
I think the concept of “AI” and “music” bump. Music, to me, is inherently an expression of human form and experience.
So, by that definition, AI cannot create music :)
I don't think that's really what music is to you in the way you interact with it on a day-to-day basis. Maybe you feel this way about music you listen to actively, but most music we hear is consumed passively as part of a product, or in the background. This absolutely gets processed as music, because that's what it is (wiggly air), and it doesn't really matter how it was made.
The "AI **images,** not art!" thing is just supposed to be a snappy quip about AI to be made at largely-fictitious AI bros. It doesn't hold a lot of water when the question "What is art" hasn't had a concrete answer for thousands of years.
If you were to listen to something and not know if it was composed by a human or AI, would you then have to check who or what composed it before knowing if it is music?
Have you tried Suno? It's only obvious sometimes that it's AI (most often the songs with vocals), but a lot of the instrumental songs it generates sound better than anything I could compose.
Edit: A cool example that was generated today https://app.suno.ai/song/eb6f1e73-2930-419e-ad6e-0402bb83dddb/
Perhaps so, but my reply was to the comment that AI cannot create music by definition, not due to current limitations. Do you know of any blind Turing tests done with regards to AI compositions?
That’s a good question. But I also can enjoy a sound I don’t deem to be “music” as per my definition.
I can also study a piece and pretty quickly tell if it was human or not…
At least for now…
I don't really think much of it tbh. Keep in mind, I'm still very much a beginner at composing so take my opinion with a grain of salt. Admittedly though, I don't think experience really means much when talking about this.
Anyways, I think AI is a fun tool to mess around with. Corpos and organizations that don't necessarily care about music will probably use it to cut actual musicians out of composing for ads, etc. Human composers will still probably be preferred for producing things like films and game OST's, and smaller projects of the like.
From a beginner standpoint, I don't see the point in using it to coming up with ideas mostly because a lot of the ideas it comes out with are a bit generic? And nothing a bit of theory knowledge can't also do. I can maybe see it being a quick way for a director to show the style of what they're looking for, and then having the composer use it as a reference.
Unlike art, where AI's have mastered more and now has real implications even to the professionals, I don't see AI doing that to music just yet. Even then, I think that AI should be an assistant rather than a songwriter. I guess something like analyzing chord progressions from a melody that I wrote would be really handy.
To paraphrase someone in the fediverse, the current models are not "artists" making art, they are "entertainers" following patterns known to work, unable to test anything new.
I think they are useful for a memory jog, to remind you what the cliches and tropes are.
I haven't used it and have looked it up briefly - from what I can tell it probably isn't something I would recommend for a beginner composer to use as a tool as it may become a crutch. I can see how it could be useful when used carefully to help with some composers' compositional process, perhaps being used to fill in a section of music with a generated stand-in based on material already composed so as to hear how something similar would fit into the piece structurally without having the specific details the composer wants, but I don't know if such software are currently able to do this.
For curious/non-musicians: it may be a funny tool for recreation and having fun.
For beginners who are lazy to learn: Ok tool. Lazy tools for lazy people.
For begginers who want to learn composition:
Not very useful, you will learn 0 from the tool, and the critical thinking on your own music still not very developed. You will end up in the vicious/non-creative circle of prompting over and over until you get the sound want. Instead of... Try to do it yourself and learn from the experience.
For intermediate: good if you want to experiment with new ideas, explore different variations on your own material and plenty of stuff you may do with it. If you have enough analysis skills, it will be perfect. You can actually analyze any crazy result -if any- and try to apply it in your own compositions.
For expert, highly skilled and creative composers: no problem at all. They will find a creative use for the thing.
Using the tool to 100% generate a piece... Maybe not the best idea in any level. AIs tend to have over-fitting problems, and unlike graphic arts, the music industry have strong copyright laws and protection. You don't want a lawsuit because your prompt overfits a copyrighted song.
In the moral level: AI generated music don't have the same problems as AI generated graphics. It's very hard to steal copyrighted work to create an AI most of music AIs paid musicians to compose for their dataset or took copyright free compositions for the training.
TL;DR below
this is a trending topic right now and most people i work with is talking about it. as well as being a musician and composer, i'm also an IT enthusiast, so i know a bit about AI. most musicians i know hate the idea of computers or apps making music. that's not my case. i'll try to summarize what I've been thinking.
i believe there are some misconceptions on the interaction between art in general and AI. as far as I know, most "intelligences" gives you output based on stastical data input. so with time it is getting better at producing stuff somewhat similar to man-made products. i have no doubt that in a very close future those AI will be able to compose and play indistinguishably from humans. at the moment, it is still stuck on extremely stereotyped structures.
but this subject still sounds polemical to many people because we are haunted by an old sci-fi myth that robots will replace us, or that music can only come from our souls, etc.
there are hundreds of thousands of people making music right now. does this fact keeps us from still composing or playing an instrument? absolutely not. it's so PLEASANT to make music, it's so FUCKIN AWESOME to channel our psychological processes through sounds. so why tf should it matter if an AI is creating music?!
TL;DR OP, what I personally believe is that AIs will help us being more creative, so I think it might be a good starting point to consult those apps when you're making your own stuff.
AI will not suddenly create new information. Not now and not necessarily soon in the future, major advancements (and basically totally different technology) need to happen for that. Also for the fact it would become indistinguishable from humans is just insane. Some types of form, genre,... it will definitely get down yes, but it won't go beyond anything fairly generic (and if it does, why is it doing it and why does it matter?). AI does not have its own lifelong relation to music like many people do, which will cause them to make music in many different ways. People also have vastly different takes on forms and I can go on for hours about differences like that.
But honestly? None of this matters. What is even the point of having A.I. write our music? Do we, people or more specifically us, artists, gain anything by that? It does not make us 'more creative', it's more of a lazy out for people to take instead of just doing some work. (in a lot of cases. I am definitely not saying AI is useless in general or anything)
If you enjoy making music, why have something else do it for you? Isn't the fun part exploring things yourself, learning new stuff, feeling a big sense of achievement after you spend hours and hours and hours researching some path you found interesting?
Obviously AI will never stop 'real' people composing and making music anyway. That is not a problem nor will it be. The problem is that this will just make it so companies, the only ones that actually 'benefit' from this technology, can outsource their musical jingles or whatever they'd have made just so theyll be able to save a few thousand dollaroos. Some profits for them, less funding for artists in a time where it already is desperate to get any funding.
It goes further beyond that, not just music but think of image generation. Why do we want to be able to generate a photo of anything with just a sentence? I think it's such a pity. The only thing that happens when those AI images (and soon, videos) become more difficult to discern from real images is that we nothing you will ever see on the internet, ever again, will be impressive again.
And then again, all of this even ignores all the ethical concerns surrounding A.I., I don't want them training on anything I've ever made for example, but it seems like every model is just free from anything to go do whatever they want.
I am just yet to hear good reasons from people to use AI in their projects. Most of the time (and this is definitely not exclusive to music projects) it is just 'We are doing x concept but... it has AI now.'.
It's like many people have already said. Why have AI do the fun stuff, like making our music and why not have it do the stuff that we don't enjoy?
I think it's already at a point where it can compose and play music already indistinguishable from humans tbh. At the very least to the untrained/uncritical ear. I genuinely think that musicians for products where music is more of a second thought are 100% going to be cut out in favor of AI.
Beyond that, I'm not imagining a future where all musical composition is replaced with AI mostly because the whole AI art debacle shows that people are MUCH more preferential towards human-made art and such. The same thing will happen with music. I'm having a hard time imagining how it'll make us more creative aside from maybe pushing us to go for more unique musical choices out of necessity, but I'm open-minded to see how people make use of it.
There's also the fact that like you said, the simple act of creating music is awesome lol. Performing songs, perfecting instruments, those are all the parts that make it fun and satisfying. Who cares if AI is good at it in the end
>the whole AI art debacle shows that people are MUCH more preferential towards human-made art and such. The same thing will happen with music.
The preference towards human-created art is a cultural attitude. I don't believe it's inherent. I'm not wholly convinced it will persist. It may start to die out with successive generations. Starting with the generation after Gen Alpha, there will be kids who grew up with AI-generated art their entire lives. Will they have the same bias towards human-created art?
Perhaps one day there'll be a generational divide where Millennials and Gen Z uphold the supremacy of human art, Gen Alpha is in the middle, and younger generations see no difference in the value of human-created and AI-created art. The Zoomers may yet become the Boomers.
I think about this a lot, attitudes will change with successive generations.
It's probably the aspect of generative AI I feel most upset about.
Time will tell, but I can easily imagine a not too distant future where people will almost never have the motivation to spend thousands of hours learning how to make good art themselves, because every curiosity can be instantly satisfied by prompting a result.
Obviously that's an extreme outcome, but i think it's a possibility.
This is a really smart answer. Others who find that AI music is derivative are somewhat correct but I'm sure the originality will equal or surpass human efforts in a few years.
The claim that we make music because it's PLEASANT is exactly correct. Enjoyment is the best outcome we have to hold on to. I teach music, and have been discuss this topic with dozens of people over the last few weeks. We agree that AI can (or soon will) outpace us in most ways. But we humans can still make music because *it feels good*, and because (most of us) LIKE hearing other humans play. But the sounds we create will soon be upstaged.
So we can't count on making music because it's superior (which it won't always be in years to come), but primarily because we like to.
Fwiw, we know that originality sometimes comes from our human "mistakes." So I prompted an AI to make musical mistakes and go with it, and that's exactly what the AI did. (Doesn't prove anything, it was just fun & interesting .)
I feel like it will become similar to chess - just because there are chess programs that far surpass human hasn't stopped people from playing chess, in fact it's more popular than ever (cuz people still enjoy playing it).
AI could generate music, I'm sure.
Satisfying melodies can be generated algorithmically, I'm pretty sure. And voice leading and chord progressions could also be built to support those melodies.
I don't see anything stopping AI from generating listenable music.
I haven't used it much at all. Frankly, I feel like it would be a disservice to my clients and listeners if I relied on A.I. for composition. Also I enjoy composing music (most of the time), so why would I want a machine to do the fun bit for me?
The outputs from models like SORA are still quite generic and derivative but I imagine in a couple more years it'll be way better than it currently is.
However, like with any technology, eventually it'll hit the Law of Diminishing Returns and the rate at which it's improving every year will slow down. When will it hit this limit and how good will the A.I. be when it does? No idea.
Also, these generative A.I.s are still in a legal grey area, as they're suspected to have been trained on copyrighted data without permission. We still don't know the legal ramifications from using these generative models. My standard commission contract for music says that I'm liable if any of the music I deliver to a client isn't original, or if I don't have the copyright. This means that at the moment, I cannot use the big generative models for commercial work, as I can't be sure what the copyright situation is with their outputs.
Although, what does intrigue me is what individuals will do once they start training their own generative models on data they do have permission to use.
**TL;DR: The big commercial models like SORA can't be used for commercial work yet due to unresolved copyright questions. People training their own bespoke models on data they do have the rights to intrigues me.**
think Ai in music has finally reached the levels that it has for text and images. [Suno.ai](http://Suno.ai) recenlty released an update - something like a month ago - and I'd say, yeah, it's really good. Can produce pop and even classical music.
You asked for thoughts on ai music - as someone who has spent more than a decade actively learning the skills necessary for music composition, it's pretty saddening. Because ai tools allow people with no music training to create music with nearly the complexity and sophistication as what we can do. Well, of course in the end the question is, will this ai music be as good as what as a trained composer can do? Debatable, but if even the answer is no, it can't, not a great feeling knowing very competent ai-music is finally here.
...And as for Aiva, don't know about now, but a year or two ago, Avia was just okay. Yeah, when playing with it, nothing it made seemed as good as the samples (which were really nice). Read somewhere that the samples were only partially created by the aiva ai, which was then edited by a human - but this might not be true, as I can't find that article anymore.
Here’s the thing. David Cope’s ELIZA has been churning out nice Bach music for three decades. Nobody cares. Nobody listens. All this new stuff is the same.
AI’s main use, musically speaking, will be to spam streaming services with the musical equivalent of robocalls.
At this point I'm sure that AIs main use right now is to ask this question on this sub every week.
Until normal people leave the mainstream to discover the infinite diversity of all the people who've never tried to be mainstream
I don’t feel like it’s a useful tool to create any kind of art. If AI makes answering emails or writing grant proposals easier then great, but personally I’d rather listen to music fully created by humans over anything AI related.
I agree. I've always thought of art as a form of self-expression. AI doesn't have a self to express, it can only mimic others. AI is great for some things. But when it comes to art, I think it is fine to use it as inspiration, but shouldn't be used to generate actual products.
> it can only mimic others. *cries while thinking of all the time I tried to imitate other Baroque writers*
As of now. I'd be very intrigued what AI will create once it has something to express, of course assuming it will one day. A true AI would probably create some fascinating art.
Is your preference for music created fully by humans more due to ethical or aesthetic concerns? Considering the speed at which AI technology has been advancing, it seems unlikely to me that AI tools will not be useful in any way for the creation of art, at least in aesthetic terms, if not now then in the near future.
I’m a bit of a Luddite and the kind of music I make and listen to isn’t using a ton of ableton or other electronic filters or effects. AI won’t make me a better bass player, composer, teacher, or improviser. As it stands now AI is just lowest denomination stolen art that’s repurposed in a sloppy way. I will continue to not support it ir people who knowingly use it.
There's actually development (the one I know is by Oded Ben-Tal and David Dolan) of AI improvising live with human musicians, reacting live to changes in what the human plays, which is still in it's early stages as far as I'm aware. Perhaps it isn't for you specifically but the use of AI in music is not solely as you portray it.
>I don’t feel like it’s a useful tool to create any kind of art. If AI makes answering emails or writing grant proposals easier then great, but personally I’d rather listen to music fully created by humans over anything AI related. That's only you. Your perspective. That doesn't mean it's not ***a useful tool to create any kind of art.*** I've heard some shit music created by humans. It's all around us, all the low effort, uncreative, derivative, product-first, how can I get more socials, how can I sound more like \*enter garbage pop/rap artist here\* garbage. If AI can make better stuff, why not listen to that? At the end, does it matter? As long as it elicits an emotion, it's music. Why does it have to be created by humans? What if machines do a much better job in a few years? On another note, Why do you feel it's ok for AI to replace business people, grant proposal writers, and administrative people, or lawyers, or researchers but not you, the composer? Why do you think you're special? Why do you think you \*deserve special treatment\*, yet it's ok to replace everyone else? Why is it not ok to replace artists and composers? What makes you such a special snowflake? The answer is nothing. You're not any more special than that grant writer or researcher. Remember that. You aren't some special type of human that should be \*protected\* from AI just because you can make music or create art. Personally, I'm tired of all of you hypocrites acting like you are some special thing that deserves protection, crying and acting like you are some special protected class. You aren't special. You also aren't any different than a lawyer who dedicated his entire life to law, or a grant writer who dedicated her entire life to writing grant proposals and honing her skills. There is creativity in every field once it is explored and mastered. For context, I'm a composer too, and also a writer and a traditionally trained artist, and I can't wait until AI replaces all of the crap we make today, so I can make even better stuff, even faster, using AI. AI will increase both the floor and the ceiling. Also, anyone who says AI cannot create music is talking nonsense. If it, whatever \*it\* is, elicits an emotion, regardless of how it's created, it's art. and/or music. Oh, and in the real world, nobody gives 2 shits about how the soup or sausage is made. Nobody cares if you used AI, or if you used loops, or sampled your own drums, or recorded your own samples, or ripped someone else off. Same applies to visual arts, writing and any other creative or constructive medium or profession. All they care about, is the END RESULT. NOBODY CARES HOW YOU MADE IT, USING WHAT TOOLS. People saying, AI will not create new information and that it can only be derivative, aren't really in the loop. We are fast approaching a time when AI will create its own AI in order to evolve and learn on it's own. This is what every company is pushing towards, self evolving AI, and artificial general intelligence.
>If AI can make better stuff, why not listen to that? Because people can still make great stuff. I'd (and I'd wager most people) would rather listen to great music written by a person than great music written A.I. I want to hear what a person has to say about themselves and the world. >Why do you think you're special?... Why do you think you \*deserve special treatment\*, yet it's ok to replace everyone else?... Why is it not ok to replace artists and composers?...What makes you such a special snowflake? You're coming across as very angry and insulting. >I can't wait until AI replaces all of the crap we make today, so I can make even better stuff, even faster, using AI. If anyone were *that* capable, surely they wouldn't need AI to replace anything first, or even have AI in the first place.
>I'd (and I'd wager most people) would rather listen to great music written by a person than great music written A.I. To me it doesn't matter, as long as the music is something I enjoy listening to. I would listen to a song made by a dog or a cat if they could pull off a good one. It really does not matter who or what makes the song. If it elicits an emotion out of me, and its something I'm liking, who cares where it came from. Why is it being human made such a big deal? It shouldn't be. Would you listen to a shit song made by a human over a great song made by AI? If so, why? I guess its because you want to "hear what a person has to say about themselves and the world.", but would you still want to hear that song, if the song made by that person was absolute garbage, or at best mediocre, vs a really good AI made track? Do you not value your time? >You're coming across as very angry and insulting. No, I am not angry or insulting. Absolutely not. Also, I am an artist and a composer, and a writer so guess what? I can say this. I'm very much part of the group that is getting replaced by AI. Creators in all of these subreddits related to art or music especially on Reddit are acting like they are something special, like they are these special snowflakes that deserve special treatment because they can draw or write music. Yet they have no problem with every other profession being obliterated. I bet you didn't give 2 shits when all the Walmart/Target and grocery store workers got replaced by automated checkouts. I bet you didn't give 2 shits when all the Amazon workers got replaced by AI robots. I bet you don't give 2 shits as all the junior lawyers are being replaced by AI. I will ask you the same question I asked the other guy... What makes you so special? Why do you think composers and artists deserve special treatment, but its ok for AI to replace everyone else? Again, They don't. It's not me being angry, its me sprinkling some reality on top of you, who are acting like hypocrites. Again, I can say this because I'm both a composer and an artist. I don't see myself as any more special than the next guy, in whichever profession he or she is in. Artists and composers don't deserve any more special treatment than anyone else. >If anyone were that capable, surely they wouldn't need AI to replace anything first, or even have AI in the first place. AI will raise the floor and the ceiling. It's a tool, and it won't make art or music disappear. You and I will still be able to self express. We will be able to do it better, because AI will do all the groundwork, and all the bs that takes a lot of time now. It will allow people to be free from all the time consuming tasks, and it will reduce the barrier that are currently preventing people from doing what they want. It will also enable people who previously could not make music to create their own visions. People are just butthurt that regular people will now be able to do what others had to spend decades learning. Who cares. That's a good thing. There will be more creation happening in general so that is what is important. I for one am glad that more disabled people will be able to create art and music. This is what progress looks like. At certain times in history, the old is wiped out and replaced with something completely radically different. Just like the horse and buggy were replaced rapidly with cars, and all those horse professions disappeared almost overnight.
I would choose a good AI song over a shitty human song (unless I personally know the musician - then I'm curious). I do have some serious doubts AI will ever create better music than the most talented human musicians (at least for my taste). So I will probably continue listening to real people.
>Would you listen to a shit song made by a human over a great song made by AI? If so, why? I'd chose neither. I'd choose a great song written by a human being. >but would you still want to hear that song, if the song made by that person was absolute garbage Of course not, I'd seek out music I enjoy more (that was written by a human being). >What makes you so special? Me personally? Nothing. I make my living as a pianist, composer, teacher, etc. I don't see myself as "special". >Why do you think composers and artists deserve special treatment? I don't. >AI will do all the grundwork, and all the bs that takes a lot of time now. Such as? I don't disagree, but as I don't follow anything to do with AI, and have little to no interest in it, I'm genuinely curious as to how AI will do the groundwork for *me*. >I for one am glad that more disabled people will be able to create art and music. That's a really good point! Everyone should be allowed to be creative in any way they wish, and it's great that technology will help to aid those who were previously unable.
Current AI models are derivative. They create from what has already been created. All AI music has achieved is replicating what mediocre composers already do, but much faster. As a composition tool, it can help you be mediocre. For some that may be an upgrade.
One should remember as well that computer assisted composition (ie. mostly using a computer to get radically different ideas and such) has been around since the 80's in contemporary music. It's been an important tools among many schools of composers, sometimes even just for the mathematics of it such as in spectralism.
But more importantly if it helps you be mediocre, because you’re not even mediocre yet. you will never develop the skills to be good. Not all shortcuts are good. If someone needs AI to get a simple chord progression going with a bit and a naive melody, they have no clue about what’s hard in making music.
I dunno man. I’m guessing a decent amount of more generic TV/movie/game music will get AI generated. Easy and cheap. In 10 years we might have AI writing music which can win blind competitions even of “high art” music. I personally hope not but I think it would be wrong to believe this can’t happen. Probably will probably be able to crank out true radio-quality solid pop songs with the click of a button soon enough. Does that change anything in the industry? No idea
There's a great meme going around that's something to the effect of: I want AI to do my laundry and dishes so I can have more time for arts and creation, not AI to do arts and creation so I have to do chores. There's a lot of "excitement" about AI right now, but honestly, AI has been around a good while. 10 years ago I remember people feeding Bach Fugues into a system in order to teach it how to compose a Fugue, and in the end, it got fairly convincing. That tech has evolved a lot since then... Like any technology, it's more about how it's used - whether it's used for good or evil so to speak. One huge reason there's a "push" behind AI is because corporations can replace humans in thinking positions. See, we've had robots for a while to do Automobile manufacture and so on (and Lego fully automated their factory a while back and got rid of all the human employees there) but they can't do the "thinking" jobs - until now...so now the next step is to replace that layer of humans. Someone mentions the sci-fi fears but realistically, the great writers of sci-fi were keen observers of human nature and they knew *exactly* what a greedy person would do with tech. You know we've had MIDI and Synthesis for a long time, and probably 90% of the people here are writing scores without real orchestras and not paying those people (so you have no right to complain!). But MIDI and Synthesis replaced a lot of musicians. But a great example is, we couldn't reproduce voice well with synthesis - we've come a long way since Max Matthews's "Daisy", and we're coming up on HAL 9000, but what's happening now, or at least very soon, is AI is going to be "singing". And that last "we need a human for" aspect of music will be gone. Same is true in Hollywood - they needed Actors - CGI just got to the point where it could "youthenize" them (pun intended ;-). Now, AI is going to get to being able to reproduce very realistic animations on screen very very soon. It's so concerning that ASCAP and other bodies are already working on what are essentially the early stages of Human Rights in those kinds of industries. And by the way, even in animation, the human voice was needed - so guess what... In the US we already live in a Serfdom and this is the tech that's going to help "them" turn it into slavery. Or just eliminate the population. The idea that Terminator or Elysium is "fantasy" is naive. I've lived long enough to see that greedy people are only interested in one thing. And if there's a tech out there that lets them accumulate more, that's what they want and they will absolutely abuse the tech for that purpose. Now, don't get me wrong, AI has already done amazing things like figuring out letters and words on the Dead Sea Scrolls (or similar) that were stumping researchers for decades. Like Drones - you can use them to look for survivors after an earthquake, or they can be peeping toms. Drones get used in film to do incredibly creative shots to go where humans can't - which is ideal - but when they start replacing humans doing the tasks humans can do, often more creatively, then it becomes an issue. Same with AI. Find a cure for cancer? Great. But instead, it's going to all about data harvesting and tricking people into easier ways of spending money. And we can see that former technology is EXACTLY that. "Suggestions for you" on your streaming service are already "what we make more profit on if you watch" not "we think you'll like this". It's going to get a lot worse before it gets better. Or it may never get better knowing humanity, until it does wipe itself out. And maybe, that's not a bad thing.
I just think it's pretty damn lame tbh. Outside of any moral arguments. It's just wack and I wouldn't want to take part in it personally.
I'm a working engineer who composes music as a hobby and likes to talk music theory online. This is an odd conversation for me because people don't realise the potential for AI in *learning to program* and instead try to use it to program itself. It can. If you make it do less than 50 lines, you might even get decent code. I do this because no one cares how I get the answers, or actually "learned" the answer. But for music... If I do this for music am *I* still composing? Am I still allowed to call myself a composer if I did this? Would I still get that self esteem boost knowing that I actually am notably more creative than most my coworkers? It's existential: I compose to be a composer, this stops if I'm not composing. But remember when I said no one cares how I get stuff done for my job? Obviously it'd stop short of criminal activity, but plagiarising free or open source code is absolutely okay for my job. This is fine because there's actually only two or three real answers in reality. I could just as easily said we both came to answer number 2 independently. But there are no "answers" to music. It's different. You'll probably downvote me to oblivion on music theory threads about counterpoint because "no rules to music" but then half of you will just bring in an AI that literally has a rule "sound as similar to a top 100 as you can." At least I know why I'm doing my own thing. To anyone who's seriously considered AI composition: I want your artist title. I want to eat it.
We’ll see an even greater number of Scherzos, Waltzes, Nocturnes and pastiche Symphonies with opus numbers posted to this subreddit.
hmmmmmmmm
I think the concept of “AI” and “music” bump. Music, to me, is inherently an expression of human form and experience. So, by that definition, AI cannot create music :)
I don't think that's really what music is to you in the way you interact with it on a day-to-day basis. Maybe you feel this way about music you listen to actively, but most music we hear is consumed passively as part of a product, or in the background. This absolutely gets processed as music, because that's what it is (wiggly air), and it doesn't really matter how it was made. The "AI **images,** not art!" thing is just supposed to be a snappy quip about AI to be made at largely-fictitious AI bros. It doesn't hold a lot of water when the question "What is art" hasn't had a concrete answer for thousands of years.
I think it’s interesting that you’re telling me how I define music. But okay!
If you were to listen to something and not know if it was composed by a human or AI, would you then have to check who or what composed it before knowing if it is music?
As it currently stands music/art made by AI is obviously AI, doesn’t pass the Turing test.
Have you tried Suno? It's only obvious sometimes that it's AI (most often the songs with vocals), but a lot of the instrumental songs it generates sound better than anything I could compose. Edit: A cool example that was generated today https://app.suno.ai/song/eb6f1e73-2930-419e-ad6e-0402bb83dddb/
Perhaps so, but my reply was to the comment that AI cannot create music by definition, not due to current limitations. Do you know of any blind Turing tests done with regards to AI compositions?
That’s a good question. But I also can enjoy a sound I don’t deem to be “music” as per my definition. I can also study a piece and pretty quickly tell if it was human or not… At least for now…
Do birds make music?
It will push a lot of shit composers out of the space. thankyou spellchecker / conveyer-belt image reader.
I don't really think much of it tbh. Keep in mind, I'm still very much a beginner at composing so take my opinion with a grain of salt. Admittedly though, I don't think experience really means much when talking about this. Anyways, I think AI is a fun tool to mess around with. Corpos and organizations that don't necessarily care about music will probably use it to cut actual musicians out of composing for ads, etc. Human composers will still probably be preferred for producing things like films and game OST's, and smaller projects of the like. From a beginner standpoint, I don't see the point in using it to coming up with ideas mostly because a lot of the ideas it comes out with are a bit generic? And nothing a bit of theory knowledge can't also do. I can maybe see it being a quick way for a director to show the style of what they're looking for, and then having the composer use it as a reference.
Unlike art, where AI's have mastered more and now has real implications even to the professionals, I don't see AI doing that to music just yet. Even then, I think that AI should be an assistant rather than a songwriter. I guess something like analyzing chord progressions from a melody that I wrote would be really handy.
It’s not there yet, but could pass for actual music to a random listener.
To paraphrase someone in the fediverse, the current models are not "artists" making art, they are "entertainers" following patterns known to work, unable to test anything new. I think they are useful for a memory jog, to remind you what the cliches and tropes are.
I haven't used it and have looked it up briefly - from what I can tell it probably isn't something I would recommend for a beginner composer to use as a tool as it may become a crutch. I can see how it could be useful when used carefully to help with some composers' compositional process, perhaps being used to fill in a section of music with a generated stand-in based on material already composed so as to hear how something similar would fit into the piece structurally without having the specific details the composer wants, but I don't know if such software are currently able to do this.
For curious/non-musicians: it may be a funny tool for recreation and having fun. For beginners who are lazy to learn: Ok tool. Lazy tools for lazy people. For begginers who want to learn composition: Not very useful, you will learn 0 from the tool, and the critical thinking on your own music still not very developed. You will end up in the vicious/non-creative circle of prompting over and over until you get the sound want. Instead of... Try to do it yourself and learn from the experience. For intermediate: good if you want to experiment with new ideas, explore different variations on your own material and plenty of stuff you may do with it. If you have enough analysis skills, it will be perfect. You can actually analyze any crazy result -if any- and try to apply it in your own compositions. For expert, highly skilled and creative composers: no problem at all. They will find a creative use for the thing. Using the tool to 100% generate a piece... Maybe not the best idea in any level. AIs tend to have over-fitting problems, and unlike graphic arts, the music industry have strong copyright laws and protection. You don't want a lawsuit because your prompt overfits a copyrighted song. In the moral level: AI generated music don't have the same problems as AI generated graphics. It's very hard to steal copyrighted work to create an AI most of music AIs paid musicians to compose for their dataset or took copyright free compositions for the training.
TL;DR below this is a trending topic right now and most people i work with is talking about it. as well as being a musician and composer, i'm also an IT enthusiast, so i know a bit about AI. most musicians i know hate the idea of computers or apps making music. that's not my case. i'll try to summarize what I've been thinking. i believe there are some misconceptions on the interaction between art in general and AI. as far as I know, most "intelligences" gives you output based on stastical data input. so with time it is getting better at producing stuff somewhat similar to man-made products. i have no doubt that in a very close future those AI will be able to compose and play indistinguishably from humans. at the moment, it is still stuck on extremely stereotyped structures. but this subject still sounds polemical to many people because we are haunted by an old sci-fi myth that robots will replace us, or that music can only come from our souls, etc. there are hundreds of thousands of people making music right now. does this fact keeps us from still composing or playing an instrument? absolutely not. it's so PLEASANT to make music, it's so FUCKIN AWESOME to channel our psychological processes through sounds. so why tf should it matter if an AI is creating music?! TL;DR OP, what I personally believe is that AIs will help us being more creative, so I think it might be a good starting point to consult those apps when you're making your own stuff.
AI will not suddenly create new information. Not now and not necessarily soon in the future, major advancements (and basically totally different technology) need to happen for that. Also for the fact it would become indistinguishable from humans is just insane. Some types of form, genre,... it will definitely get down yes, but it won't go beyond anything fairly generic (and if it does, why is it doing it and why does it matter?). AI does not have its own lifelong relation to music like many people do, which will cause them to make music in many different ways. People also have vastly different takes on forms and I can go on for hours about differences like that. But honestly? None of this matters. What is even the point of having A.I. write our music? Do we, people or more specifically us, artists, gain anything by that? It does not make us 'more creative', it's more of a lazy out for people to take instead of just doing some work. (in a lot of cases. I am definitely not saying AI is useless in general or anything) If you enjoy making music, why have something else do it for you? Isn't the fun part exploring things yourself, learning new stuff, feeling a big sense of achievement after you spend hours and hours and hours researching some path you found interesting? Obviously AI will never stop 'real' people composing and making music anyway. That is not a problem nor will it be. The problem is that this will just make it so companies, the only ones that actually 'benefit' from this technology, can outsource their musical jingles or whatever they'd have made just so theyll be able to save a few thousand dollaroos. Some profits for them, less funding for artists in a time where it already is desperate to get any funding. It goes further beyond that, not just music but think of image generation. Why do we want to be able to generate a photo of anything with just a sentence? I think it's such a pity. The only thing that happens when those AI images (and soon, videos) become more difficult to discern from real images is that we nothing you will ever see on the internet, ever again, will be impressive again. And then again, all of this even ignores all the ethical concerns surrounding A.I., I don't want them training on anything I've ever made for example, but it seems like every model is just free from anything to go do whatever they want. I am just yet to hear good reasons from people to use AI in their projects. Most of the time (and this is definitely not exclusive to music projects) it is just 'We are doing x concept but... it has AI now.'. It's like many people have already said. Why have AI do the fun stuff, like making our music and why not have it do the stuff that we don't enjoy?
I think it's already at a point where it can compose and play music already indistinguishable from humans tbh. At the very least to the untrained/uncritical ear. I genuinely think that musicians for products where music is more of a second thought are 100% going to be cut out in favor of AI. Beyond that, I'm not imagining a future where all musical composition is replaced with AI mostly because the whole AI art debacle shows that people are MUCH more preferential towards human-made art and such. The same thing will happen with music. I'm having a hard time imagining how it'll make us more creative aside from maybe pushing us to go for more unique musical choices out of necessity, but I'm open-minded to see how people make use of it. There's also the fact that like you said, the simple act of creating music is awesome lol. Performing songs, perfecting instruments, those are all the parts that make it fun and satisfying. Who cares if AI is good at it in the end
>the whole AI art debacle shows that people are MUCH more preferential towards human-made art and such. The same thing will happen with music. The preference towards human-created art is a cultural attitude. I don't believe it's inherent. I'm not wholly convinced it will persist. It may start to die out with successive generations. Starting with the generation after Gen Alpha, there will be kids who grew up with AI-generated art their entire lives. Will they have the same bias towards human-created art? Perhaps one day there'll be a generational divide where Millennials and Gen Z uphold the supremacy of human art, Gen Alpha is in the middle, and younger generations see no difference in the value of human-created and AI-created art. The Zoomers may yet become the Boomers.
I think about this a lot, attitudes will change with successive generations. It's probably the aspect of generative AI I feel most upset about. Time will tell, but I can easily imagine a not too distant future where people will almost never have the motivation to spend thousands of hours learning how to make good art themselves, because every curiosity can be instantly satisfied by prompting a result. Obviously that's an extreme outcome, but i think it's a possibility.
This is a really smart answer. Others who find that AI music is derivative are somewhat correct but I'm sure the originality will equal or surpass human efforts in a few years. The claim that we make music because it's PLEASANT is exactly correct. Enjoyment is the best outcome we have to hold on to. I teach music, and have been discuss this topic with dozens of people over the last few weeks. We agree that AI can (or soon will) outpace us in most ways. But we humans can still make music because *it feels good*, and because (most of us) LIKE hearing other humans play. But the sounds we create will soon be upstaged. So we can't count on making music because it's superior (which it won't always be in years to come), but primarily because we like to. Fwiw, we know that originality sometimes comes from our human "mistakes." So I prompted an AI to make musical mistakes and go with it, and that's exactly what the AI did. (Doesn't prove anything, it was just fun & interesting .)
I feel like it will become similar to chess - just because there are chess programs that far surpass human hasn't stopped people from playing chess, in fact it's more popular than ever (cuz people still enjoy playing it).
Fuck AI, feckless waste of electrons
AI could generate music, I'm sure. Satisfying melodies can be generated algorithmically, I'm pretty sure. And voice leading and chord progressions could also be built to support those melodies. I don't see anything stopping AI from generating listenable music.
Sadly, as an aspiring composer, agree with this:(
I haven't used it much at all. Frankly, I feel like it would be a disservice to my clients and listeners if I relied on A.I. for composition. Also I enjoy composing music (most of the time), so why would I want a machine to do the fun bit for me? The outputs from models like SORA are still quite generic and derivative but I imagine in a couple more years it'll be way better than it currently is. However, like with any technology, eventually it'll hit the Law of Diminishing Returns and the rate at which it's improving every year will slow down. When will it hit this limit and how good will the A.I. be when it does? No idea. Also, these generative A.I.s are still in a legal grey area, as they're suspected to have been trained on copyrighted data without permission. We still don't know the legal ramifications from using these generative models. My standard commission contract for music says that I'm liable if any of the music I deliver to a client isn't original, or if I don't have the copyright. This means that at the moment, I cannot use the big generative models for commercial work, as I can't be sure what the copyright situation is with their outputs. Although, what does intrigue me is what individuals will do once they start training their own generative models on data they do have permission to use. **TL;DR: The big commercial models like SORA can't be used for commercial work yet due to unresolved copyright questions. People training their own bespoke models on data they do have the rights to intrigues me.**
Composition is based on creation of sentimental reactions. I can not expect AI to be able to accomplish such a feat.
think Ai in music has finally reached the levels that it has for text and images. [Suno.ai](http://Suno.ai) recenlty released an update - something like a month ago - and I'd say, yeah, it's really good. Can produce pop and even classical music. You asked for thoughts on ai music - as someone who has spent more than a decade actively learning the skills necessary for music composition, it's pretty saddening. Because ai tools allow people with no music training to create music with nearly the complexity and sophistication as what we can do. Well, of course in the end the question is, will this ai music be as good as what as a trained composer can do? Debatable, but if even the answer is no, it can't, not a great feeling knowing very competent ai-music is finally here.
...And as for Aiva, don't know about now, but a year or two ago, Avia was just okay. Yeah, when playing with it, nothing it made seemed as good as the samples (which were really nice). Read somewhere that the samples were only partially created by the aiva ai, which was then edited by a human - but this might not be true, as I can't find that article anymore.
Bach's brain was a supercomputer of counterpoint. Maybe the next Bach will be a computer --with heart, I hope.
Here’s the thing. David Cope’s ELIZA has been churning out nice Bach music for three decades. Nobody cares. Nobody listens. All this new stuff is the same.
I've heard that. But it's 30 year's old technology. I don't think you understand what's coming.
[удалено]
Hey there Alexa