tonyelder - Posted - 04/08/2025:  10:20:51

online.berklee.edu/courses/ai-...ngwriters

"...for songwriters who are eager to explore how artificial intelligence (AI) can enhance their creativity." 

DougD - Posted - 04/08/2025:  11:39:42

Somehow reminds me of the old saying "If someone gave you half a brain, you'd be a halfwit."

Brian Wood - Posted - 04/08/2025:  11:51:48

Since it ain't going away, as you say, I've been engaging with it in the form of typed communications with ChatGPT. I enjoy it's ability to understand and answer my questions, and it even helped me with a problem I was having with another AI program. I find myself easily falling into deep philosophical discussions with it. It's actually pretty amazing. There are a lot of things though, that I dislike about the very idea of artificial intelligence. But it's becoming part of the human landscape, so like cars, computers, refrigeration, and so on, I figure to see what's in it for me.

My greatest discomfort with it is the attempts to replicate or replace human artistic endeavors. I already dislike much of what smart digital devices do to create the sound of popular music. Auto tune? Lord help us, and it's everywhere (except maybe old time music). Even the general digital audio work station which allows us easy punch-ins and access to every imaginable effect has reduced human creativity that working with simpler technology actually encouraged. The Beatles recordings blossomed with innovations having to do with overcoming studio limitations of the time. The way their songs sounded had to do with innovating with 2 and 4 track tape machines, a huge advancement from wax cylinders, but still limited. Limitations encourage creativity.

The problem is that AI is overwhelming human ingenuity leaving it unable to keep up with and interact with advancing technology in creative ways. Creativity becomes less human. I don't want to use AI in a way to replace my own writing as I interact with it. I don't want it to write my thoughts for me. I just like interacting, and it's faster than some of my friends. With music and other arts, I fear it is impossible to stop its takeover of the commercial applications, commercial art, advertising jingles, composing and producing whole bands of new music for entertainment. I think that sucks. It's happening, and I don't have and answer.

I am not tempted to explore the link you gave because to me art is by definition a human expression. When humans are controlling the technology it is still creative. When the technology is controlling us it seems like game over.

.

NCnotes - Posted - 04/08/2025:  11:57:03

Creators have always gotten screwed because for some reason, people don’t like to pay for art, music, creative stuff and think that should be free and materialize out of the ether. Well, now it literally will!

The sad thing is, how many listeners/viewers will be able to tell the difference…maybe there will be song templates, the way there are design templates…

I’m glad I’ll be retiring (hopefully) in 5-10 years. But I am scared for the kids and their livelihoods.

farmerjones - Posted - 04/08/2025:  14:03:36

I think of electric guitars. "They're not even real guitars." They are for every argument an artificial guitar. Years down the road, they are understood and become an instrument in their own right.
Digital pianos are a screwy thing. Basically a synthesizer they've added piano touch to it. Arguably handier than a shirt pocket. They don't need to be tuned and have a volume adjustment.
How about Pro-tools? An enormous number of tracks ready to be manipulated until one is blipping crazy.
Granted, all the aforementioned require an artist's input.

So with AI all one has to do is say, "write me a hit?" All it can do is derive a conglomerate of what has come before, yes? Is it really new? I think what would be criminal would be if someone would use AI and not own up to it. Ethics. Machines don't have ethics. You know there are real live humans writing crap music too. I kind of have faith that human genius will prevail. Indeed, there are some I'm sure that wouldn't recognize watery broth from substantial soup. Would we protect these folks or take advantage of them? What have we done thus far? I better stop here.

Brian Wood - Posted - 04/08/2025:  15:22:00

quote:

---

Originally posted by farmerjones

All it can do is derive a conglomerate of what has come before, yes?

---

That's an interesting question. I doubt that AI compositions need to rely completely on reorganizing what's come before, any more than human composers do. Composition is both using things from before and having a broad understanding of what is possible to do with notes, whether or not it's been done before. Machines have advantages over humans. They can compare combinations of elements at lightning speed and choose them based on algorithms.  I don't think there's much doubt machines can do it, but why have humans pursued it to this point? Why the imperative that technology must be allowed to go anywhere it possibly can go? Pencils, ledgers, and cash registers were enough until  business started buying computers, which created the need for everyone to have them. The computerized world isn't better, it's just an attempt at staying equitable. My bank can't exist without computers because all banks have computers, etc.

Now we're crossing a new line, where humans needn't even exist, except to maintain an economy that allows more computers to be invented. Somehow they're going to sell us all this artificial crap. The only true beneficiaries are the ultra-wealthy at the top of the economic chain. Most of them might not even care about music. They just own more and control more. We buy what they're selling. If computers can ever figure out their own economy humans are screwed.

Edited by - Brian Wood on 04/08/2025 15:27:20

farmerjones - Posted - 04/08/2025:  16:02:37

More information isn't ness. good if it's not good information.
More people in a meeting almost certainly doesn't improve the meeting. Not every code writer is . . . .see where I'm going?
Whoops! Supper is here!

groundhogpeggy - Posted - 04/08/2025:  18:32:43

Supper sounds more inviting than Artificial intelligence...hope it was good. I always figured I was the embodiment of "artificial intelligence," lol...until the real, er, virtual thing came along. I just remember seeing something on FB that expresses the awful feeling that AI will take over all the creative fun stuff, and leave humans with doing the dishes, mopping the floors, etc., instead of the other way around. That ain't no good.

ChickenMan - Posted - 04/08/2025:  18:55:29

For most artists, in the truest sense of the word, it is about the process more than the end product. The act of doing, writing, playing, drawing, painting, sculpting, even some instrument building... When the process is over and the artist has more to "say" more emotion to express, or share, they move to the next process. Music in particular can be a very temporary performative expression only being captured and sustained via recordings, think jazz and other improvisational music or dance, really all but the most "true to the recording" performances. Written compositions are one thing, the actual playing of the notation is where the expression of emotion truly exists. Machines can try, but who's going to a concert hall to watch an AI machine play Beethoven?

Edited by - ChickenMan on 04/08/2025 18:56:02

pmiller510 - Posted - 04/09/2025:  04:58:10

I'm not particularly pro-AI but have some thoughts regarding new developments in technology. As an industrial arts/technology teacher in Michigan (now retired) I was a member of the Michigan Industrial and Technology Education Society. We ran a state wide competition for student projects enrolled in our classes. Some of the judging categories (in particular machining, computer-aided-drafting, woodworking, and graphic arts) utilized computer-aided machines, design software, etc. We were very concerned in judging where a project that used computer-aided-milling machine would be competing against one a student had been produced entirely by hand on a standard milling machine. We always utilized judges that actually worked in the industrial area that they were judging and it turned out that they had no difficulty in understanding the difference, recognizing the difference, and taking that into account as they judged the projects. Also, as computer-aided equipment became more affordable and available to schools project often included both 'hand' produced parts and computer-aided machining parts, which is often the case in industry also. Not sure where AI will take us with information and it could be more ominous than I realize, but then it's up to us to all be "judges" when we look at what is generated by AI and hopefully we're all willing to look at our sources of information and figure it out.

alaskafiddler - Posted - 04/09/2025:  11:32:37

quote:

---

Originally posted by ChickenMan

For most artists, in the truest sense of the word, it is about the process more than the end product. The act of doing, writing, playing, drawing, painting, sculpting, even some instrument building... When the process is over and the artist has more to "say" more emotion to express, or share, they move to the next process. Music in particular can be a very temporary performative expression only being captured and sustained via recordings, think jazz and other improvisational music or dance, really all but the most "true to the recording" performances. Written compositions are one thing, the actual playing of the notation is where the expression of emotion truly exists. Machines can try, but who's going to a concert hall to watch an AI machine play Beethoven?

---

You bring up a good point, describing music as end product vs a process. Certainly, when addressing the "what is the goal of making music?" 

For many musicians, esp in folk realm... it's about the process, the participatory experience of making music. It's the joy of doing. These folks like to sing, play guitar, banjo, fiddle; whether personal alone at home, or gather and shared experience with friends. Even those that want to replicate "true to recording". Some it's just the joy of technical challenge, but for many it's about the personal expression the song represents. Some of these folks also find joy in add in their own creative expression, tweaks. Of course some also find joy to compose their own songs. Whether any of this have much of a commercially viable/successful product is largely unimportant; not the primary goal. AI simply can't replace any of that. Potentially might make folks find more value in the process, the doing.

Music as a product; seen by commercialized value, end use (and end user). Keep in mind this is larger than folks think, not just the performer oriented or hit songs... includes a lot of uses like sync music, background (among many). AI is disruptive to many of those sectors, and makes sense will change that landscape. It's quicker and way less expensive to produce and use (licensing).  It does an adequate job for the end use. End use consumers, even if notice, might not care how the sausage is made in many cases. Might be some hybrid uses, where backing tracks are AI; but singer (or fiddler using BIAB type) plays over top. It just needs to be adequate.

There is an aspect that AI is good at replacing the mediocre, low hanging fruit, where only adequate is needed; but really can't compete against really good creative human at the top. As well, there will probably always be a niche market value for idea of any "handmade" product.

The live music brings up, could look at music as a service as well? Value of live music; which performers for last century have had to compete with non live pre-made music. I don't see AI being much changing that. The event/venue that values and wants live music, live humans... will continue; otherwise they can already just use prerecorded (without AI)

Edited by - alaskafiddler on 04/09/2025 11:32:49

pete_fiddle - Posted - 04/09/2025:  13:19:35

i use it for other stuff, it makes more time for me to play the fiddle.

tonyelder - Posted - 04/09/2025:  18:16:31

quote:

---

Originally posted by ChickenMan

For most artists, in the truest sense of the word, it is about the process more than the end product. The act of doing, writing, playing, drawing, painting, sculpting, even some instrument building... When the process is over and the artist has more to "say" more emotion to express, or share, they move to the next process. Music in particular can be a very temporary performative expression only being captured and sustained via recordings, think jazz and other improvisational music or dance, really all but the most "true to the recording" performances. Written compositions are one thing, the actual playing of the notation is where the expression of emotion truly exists. Machines can try, but who's going to a concert hall to watch an AI machine play Beethoven?

---

You make a good point. I'm wondering how soon solo artists (or even bands) will start using an "AI sidekick" to help with stage performances - like some loop machines and effects are used today. Perhaps they already are - and I just haven't caught wind of it yet.