4 ms·

> The creation of the synthesizer didn't kill the guitar That's a bad argument. First of all, it probably did replace guitar parts. Computers with plugins cert

by tgv 4y ago

> The creation of the synthesizer didn't kill the guitar That's a bad argument. First of all, it probably did replace guitar parts. Computers with plugins certainly did. Second, the argument was rather that it would replace musicians. And it did that too. Modern samplers replace entire orchestras. Not that it's a bad thing per se (after all, who can afford even a small string section?), but it did happen. Third, this doesn't take the same role in drawing a synthesizer takes in music production. > I love that humanity has developed so many new highly advanced tools which allow greater artistic expression by a broader range of people. In der Beschränkung zeigt sich erst der Meister (It is in working within limits that the master reveals himself).

wilsonnb3 4y ago
It sounds to me like you are approaching this from a capitalist perspective. The invention of the synth and samplers has definitely replaced the jobs of many instrumentalists. Despite that, people still learn how to play the guitar, the violin, the trumpet, etc. However, it also decoupled the roles of musician and instrumentalist so that a wider range of people can express themselves musically without dedicating a majority of their life to learning to play one or more instruments. AI art tools are going to do the same thing - the roles of 'artist' and 'painter/draw-er/whatever' were previously tightly coupled but you no longer have to have the raw technical skills. As it was with music, this is probably a net benefit to society since it allows so many more people to express themselves artistically. It will cost some people jobs, though. It will also deter some people from learning to draw/paint but there will still be plenty of people who do it anyways.
- tgv 4y ago
  Where does capitalism vs. any other world view fit in this disscussion? 1. Does capitalism somehow obstruct people expressing themselves musically? Does nationalized ownership of production means or being ruled by clergy stimulate it somehow? 2. Is there a world-view that enables (advanced) musical expression without studying? 3. Is it artistic expression if you bang out a few random words on a keyboard and something is generated in return? 4. What makes you think that this (the topic still being AI generated art) has already happened in music? AFAIK, those tools are pretty limited, and barely accessible. If it did, what makes you think that it benefitted society? 5. How does many more people expressing themselves artistically benefit society? 5b. 5, if it doesn't require any effort?
  - fisf 4y ago
    Well, let me put it like this: Ableton (and other DAWs) along with virtual instruments did certainly open up music production, in a way that answers 1.) And 2.). I do not own an organ, but I can get a pretty good VST alternative. People have been producing electronic music without a lot of formal musical training for decades now.

by tgv 4y ago

wilsonnb3 4y ago

It sounds to me like you are approaching this from a capitalist perspective. The invention of the synth and samplers has definitely replaced the jobs of many instrumentalists. Despite that, people still learn how to play the guitar, the violin, the trumpet, etc. However, it also decoupled the roles of musician and instrumentalist so that a wider range of people can express themselves musically without dedicating a majority of their life to learning to play one or more instruments. AI art tools are going to do the same thing - the roles of 'artist' and 'painter/draw-er/whatever' were previously tightly coupled but you no longer have to have the raw technical skills. As it was with music, this is probably a net benefit to society since it allows so many more people to express themselves artistically. It will cost some people jobs, though. It will also deter some people from learning to draw/paint but there will still be plenty of people who do it anyways.

tgv 4y ago
Where does capitalism vs. any other world view fit in this disscussion? 1. Does capitalism somehow obstruct people expressing themselves musically? Does nationalized ownership of production means or being ruled by clergy stimulate it somehow? 2. Is there a world-view that enables (advanced) musical expression without studying? 3. Is it artistic expression if you bang out a few random words on a keyboard and something is generated in return? 4. What makes you think that this (the topic still being AI generated art) has already happened in music? AFAIK, those tools are pretty limited, and barely accessible. If it did, what makes you think that it benefitted society? 5. How does many more people expressing themselves artistically benefit society? 5b. 5, if it doesn't require any effort?
- fisf 4y ago
  Well, let me put it like this: Ableton (and other DAWs) along with virtual instruments did certainly open up music production, in a way that answers 1.) And 2.). I do not own an organ, but I can get a pretty good VST alternative. People have been producing electronic music without a lot of formal musical training for decades now.