4 ms·

Why would anyone want to listen to it then? what would be the point? The acoustic equivalent of a screensaver?

bowsamic 4y ago
Many people are so starved of any kind of creative education that they see art in purely a utilitarian point of view. It doesn't matter to them if a human made it, the outcome is the same. To them, yeah pretty much all art is like a screensaver
- BurningFrog 4y ago
  If utilitarian means "I enjoy listening to it", I proudly am one.
  - bowsamic 4y ago
    Well naturally if your relation to art is that shallow then to you it is a genuine risk that it might be replaced by an AI version.
    - BurningFrog 4y ago
      I don't think we'll end up agreeing, but I'm curious what "deeper" ways to enjoy music than listening to it you favor?
      - bowsamic 4y ago
        Relating to it as a creative process. Connecting directly with the artist, mind to mind, through the art. Being liberated from my current perspective. Story telling. Revolutionary mental states. New synergistic paradigms. All the actual reasons why people have been making art for many 1000s of years. Or, just keep your pacifier, baby ;)
        BurningFrog 4y ago
        Thanks. I've chosen to think of art in terms of products I consume, and less as admiration of artists, though of course I do some of the latter too.
        bowsamic 4y ago
        You should not admire artists, but I'm sad for you that art is just a product for you, and not a source of your own expression. Some people naturally gravitate to a subservient, non-creative position.
Aidevah 4y ago
>Why would anyone want to listen to it then? what would be the point? The acoustic equivalent of a screensaver? Isn't that exactly how music is consumed nowadays by most people? They put something when driving, cooking, doing homework, etc. It's used mainly for mood/focus and they're not exactly paying close attention to it the same way one would to a audiobook of, say, an abstract algebra textbook. Especially considering how cheap and easy it is to steam music nowadays. I suspect focused, attentive listening only makes up a small minority of the total streams.
- MavisBacon 4y ago
  >I suspect focused, attentive listening only makes up a small minority of the total streams The inverse is likely true with the classical audience. Just like with jazz, although there will be a portion of users seeking “vibey jazz” sort of playlists to use in the background while working, the majority of jazz fans consume jazz as albums and are still concerned with things like personnel and liner notes, perhaps even who mastered this recording. Classical fans are similar except I would say even more picky IME (worked in a jazz and classical CD store/venue for a number of years)
  - caddemon 4y ago
    I wouldn't call myself a classical music fan, but if we're looking at Spotify stream numbers I wouldn't be surprised if a big chunk of classical is background noise too. Whenever I'm trying to get work done in a noisy environment I go for classical playlists - unless I'm doing something mindless like cleaning I find it very hard to focus with most music. Might just be that lyrics (especially in English) distract me, but classical is an easy go to for studying time IMO.
  - microtherion 4y ago
    It might be useful, in both cases, to distinguish "fans" and "consumers" of those styles. Yes, the people who most consciously identify as fans of the styles are picky, but I'd be willing to bet that the vast majority of classical play counts by volume are consumed for muzakish purposes. Mozart for babies, Vivaldi for malls, etc. The same may be true for Jazz, though in that genre there may be a bit more of a separation between jazzy background mood music and jazz as consumed by fans. There are some overlaps ("The Girl from Ipanema", "Take Five", etc), but they may not be quite as central to the canon as their classical counterparts.
csw-001 4y ago
> Why would anyone want to listen to it then? what would be the point? The acoustic equivalent of a screensaver? I would think they would want to listen to it for the same reason they listen to human generated music. Is your thought here that AI generated art is not art? Is it the nature of the creator that determines the listeners enjoyment? If the music generated by a computer is indistinguishable from human made music, how can this be possible? Moreover, at what point would the computer generation be sufficient to shift it from art to “screensaver”? Would it be one simulated member of an otherwise human orchestra? Would it take 50%. If you can’t draw a line, doesn’t that further indicate it’s irrelevant?
- easyThrowaway 4y ago
  It's way less complicated than that. Music and art in general belong to the social context that produced them. A lot of our appreciation doesn't really come from the technical prowess of the artist or the music theory behind that, but from the cultural hooks we can find in it. If you want a quick example of what I'm saying, look online for Music for Installations by Brian Eno. It's a "almost-generative-but-not-really" music album made for audiovisual installations. It's... kinda nice but it's 6 hours long and literally gets boring after less than 30 minutes. I can't imagine listening to something even more abstracted from a human composer for more than 20 minutes. I mean, I'm pretty sure you can generate something even quite pleasant with AIs. Most people will just listen for 15 min, say "uh, cool", and go back to regular music.
  - bowsamic 4y ago
    Brian Eno was 100% right about ambient music, but he was just wrong about what form it would take. Basically, his music is so unintrusive to the point of being sleep-inducing for many, thus at least a little more intensity is needed. What really became the ambient music was 24/7 lofi hiphop streams. That kind of music is still very abstracted from a human composer, it just happens to have slightly different sonic qualities and sociocultural context than Eno, so it appeals to a wider audience. EDIT: Should note that Eno's music is still very influential for a lot of people doing work. He composed Neroli after a lot of people doing intellectual work asked him for a new piece geared specifically towards it. Also, Discreet Music was historically used on many maternity wards. In general it is not as if he failed in the popular sphere, Eno is an extremely popular musician
oriolid 4y ago
> The acoustic equivalent of a screensaver? It already exists, and is known as elevator music or muzak. I can certainly see the value in generating endless copyright-free background music, because so many human effort has been put into composing it already.
- easyThrowaway 4y ago
  Sure, but the OP point was specifically about Classic Music, not incidental soundscapes.
  - oriolid 4y ago
    I know, I wasn't the one who brought up the "acoustic equivalent of a screensaver".
    - easyThrowaway 4y ago
      Alright, but why would I actually spend time to actively listen to it? Op was specifically talking about Classic music being replaced by AI in listening events, not about staying on hold on a phone calls or waiting on a parking spot.
      - oriolid 4y ago
        You wouldn't actively listening, and that's why generated muzak would be okay. "The acoustic equivalent of a screensaver", as someone in the thread called it. The idea that classical performances would be replace human composers in concert context is quite ridiculous. Maybe as a novelty, once, but that's all.
echelon 4y ago
> Why would anyone want to listen to it then? what would be the point? The acoustic equivalent of a screensaver? The same reason anyone does anything. Because they like it.

Many people are so starved of any kind of creative education that they see art in purely a utilitarian point of view. It doesn't matter to them if a human made it, the outcome is the same. To them, yeah pretty much all art is like a screensaver

BurningFrog 4y ago
If utilitarian means "I enjoy listening to it", I proudly am one.
- bowsamic 4y ago
  Well naturally if your relation to art is that shallow then to you it is a genuine risk that it might be replaced by an AI version.
  - BurningFrog 4y ago
    I don't think we'll end up agreeing, but I'm curious what "deeper" ways to enjoy music than listening to it you favor?
    - bowsamic 4y ago
      Relating to it as a creative process. Connecting directly with the artist, mind to mind, through the art. Being liberated from my current perspective. Story telling. Revolutionary mental states. New synergistic paradigms. All the actual reasons why people have been making art for many 1000s of years. Or, just keep your pacifier, baby ;)
      - BurningFrog 4y ago
        Thanks. I've chosen to think of art in terms of products I consume, and less as admiration of artists, though of course I do some of the latter too.
        bowsamic 4y ago
        You should not admire artists, but I'm sad for you that art is just a product for you, and not a source of your own expression. Some people naturally gravitate to a subservient, non-creative position.

Aidevah 4y ago

>Why would anyone want to listen to it then? what would be the point? The acoustic equivalent of a screensaver? Isn't that exactly how music is consumed nowadays by most people? They put something when driving, cooking, doing homework, etc. It's used mainly for mood/focus and they're not exactly paying close attention to it the same way one would to a audiobook of, say, an abstract algebra textbook. Especially considering how cheap and easy it is to steam music nowadays. I suspect focused, attentive listening only makes up a small minority of the total streams.

MavisBacon 4y ago
>I suspect focused, attentive listening only makes up a small minority of the total streams The inverse is likely true with the classical audience. Just like with jazz, although there will be a portion of users seeking “vibey jazz” sort of playlists to use in the background while working, the majority of jazz fans consume jazz as albums and are still concerned with things like personnel and liner notes, perhaps even who mastered this recording. Classical fans are similar except I would say even more picky IME (worked in a jazz and classical CD store/venue for a number of years)
- caddemon 4y ago
  I wouldn't call myself a classical music fan, but if we're looking at Spotify stream numbers I wouldn't be surprised if a big chunk of classical is background noise too. Whenever I'm trying to get work done in a noisy environment I go for classical playlists - unless I'm doing something mindless like cleaning I find it very hard to focus with most music. Might just be that lyrics (especially in English) distract me, but classical is an easy go to for studying time IMO.
- microtherion 4y ago
  It might be useful, in both cases, to distinguish "fans" and "consumers" of those styles. Yes, the people who most consciously identify as fans of the styles are picky, but I'd be willing to bet that the vast majority of classical play counts by volume are consumed for muzakish purposes. Mozart for babies, Vivaldi for malls, etc. The same may be true for Jazz, though in that genre there may be a bit more of a separation between jazzy background mood music and jazz as consumed by fans. There are some overlaps ("The Girl from Ipanema", "Take Five", etc), but they may not be quite as central to the canon as their classical counterparts.

csw-001 4y ago

> Why would anyone want to listen to it then? what would be the point? The acoustic equivalent of a screensaver? I would think they would want to listen to it for the same reason they listen to human generated music. Is your thought here that AI generated art is not art? Is it the nature of the creator that determines the listeners enjoyment? If the music generated by a computer is indistinguishable from human made music, how can this be possible? Moreover, at what point would the computer generation be sufficient to shift it from art to “screensaver”? Would it be one simulated member of an otherwise human orchestra? Would it take 50%. If you can’t draw a line, doesn’t that further indicate it’s irrelevant?

easyThrowaway 4y ago
It's way less complicated than that. Music and art in general belong to the social context that produced them. A lot of our appreciation doesn't really come from the technical prowess of the artist or the music theory behind that, but from the cultural hooks we can find in it. If you want a quick example of what I'm saying, look online for Music for Installations by Brian Eno. It's a "almost-generative-but-not-really" music album made for audiovisual installations. It's... kinda nice but it's 6 hours long and literally gets boring after less than 30 minutes. I can't imagine listening to something even more abstracted from a human composer for more than 20 minutes. I mean, I'm pretty sure you can generate something even quite pleasant with AIs. Most people will just listen for 15 min, say "uh, cool", and go back to regular music.
- bowsamic 4y ago
  Brian Eno was 100% right about ambient music, but he was just wrong about what form it would take. Basically, his music is so unintrusive to the point of being sleep-inducing for many, thus at least a little more intensity is needed. What really became the ambient music was 24/7 lofi hiphop streams. That kind of music is still very abstracted from a human composer, it just happens to have slightly different sonic qualities and sociocultural context than Eno, so it appeals to a wider audience. EDIT: Should note that Eno's music is still very influential for a lot of people doing work. He composed Neroli after a lot of people doing intellectual work asked him for a new piece geared specifically towards it. Also, Discreet Music was historically used on many maternity wards. In general it is not as if he failed in the popular sphere, Eno is an extremely popular musician

oriolid 4y ago

> The acoustic equivalent of a screensaver? It already exists, and is known as elevator music or muzak. I can certainly see the value in generating endless copyright-free background music, because so many human effort has been put into composing it already.

easyThrowaway 4y ago
Sure, but the OP point was specifically about Classic Music, not incidental soundscapes.
- oriolid 4y ago
  I know, I wasn't the one who brought up the "acoustic equivalent of a screensaver".
  - easyThrowaway 4y ago
    Alright, but why would I actually spend time to actively listen to it? Op was specifically talking about Classic music being replaced by AI in listening events, not about staying on hold on a phone calls or waiting on a parking spot.
    - oriolid 4y ago
      You wouldn't actively listening, and that's why generated muzak would be okay. "The acoustic equivalent of a screensaver", as someone in the thread called it. The idea that classical performances would be replace human composers in concert context is quite ridiculous. Maybe as a novelty, once, but that's all.

echelon 4y ago

> Why would anyone want to listen to it then? what would be the point? The acoustic equivalent of a screensaver? The same reason anyone does anything. Because they like it.