3 ms·
> This is cynical. Just because it doesn't subscribe to the utopic "computers will create the best music ever" fantasy? > computers hasn't killed chess Becau
by tgv 5y ago
> This is cynical.
Just because it doesn't subscribe to the utopic "computers will create the best music ever" fantasy?
> computers hasn't killed chess
Because there's very little monetary value in seeing computers play chess. That's not the case in music: the entire infrastructure, from tools to conservatoires, comes from selling music. If that chain crumbles, music will be dead.
- PaulDavisThe1st 5y agoThe infrastructure isn't about the music, though. It's about people, whether they are pop stars, ferociously good classical virtuosi, temperamental maestros, introverted but sympathetic innovators, or even just amateur bands/ensembles that enjoy the social aspects of making music. That's where the big money is, not elevator music generated by computers.
- tgv 5y agoThe big money is where mass audiences are. Music's infrastructure is for a large part dependent on it. It encompasses everything from instrument manufacturers to piano teachers to concert organizers to masterclasses. If --as assumed the post I responded to-- software starts producing better music than people, or does so cheaper, or gets more clicks, etc., the infrastructure will disappear. It'll take a few decades, but that can kill off teaching and affordable instruments, taking everything except amateur music for the wealthy with it.