2 ms·
> That is not a water bottle, it's a domesticated puddle. Many (most?) people don't care about the artists behind songs (even less so about their culture). The
by aniviacat 1y ago
> That is not a water bottle, it's a domesticated puddle.
Many (most?) people don't care about the artists behind songs (even less so about their culture). They care about the "organised sound" being enjoyable to hear. And to them, AI music is just as valuable as manual music.
Gangam style didn't become popular because people cared about PSY. It didn't become popular because of its thoughtful lyrics and insightful message. It became popular because it sounds good.
- squigz 1y ago> Many (most?) people don't care about the artists behind songs This seems an absurd take to me when you consider the popularity of, say, Taylor Swift, or various rappers.
- aniviacat 1y agoIf 60% of people don't care about the artist's image/culture/story, and 40% do, then 100% of artists are gonna try to make their image/culture/story look good. Hence, I don't consider the popularity of such artists to be a counter-argument to my statement. However, my statement is based solely on anecdotal evidence, so I won't claim to have solid pro-arguments either; hence why I put a question mark after the "most".
- otabdeveloper4 1y ago> They care about the "organised sound" being enjoyable to hear. "Enjoyable to hear" is a problem that has been solved since the paleolithic. Musical scales and modes have always been a thing, making sounds that are nice and harmonic is a straightforward mathematical problem.
- anentropic 1y ago> It became popular because it sounds good. That's a pre-requisite for becoming popular, but not why it became popular. Just because many people don't know or understand anything about music doesn't mean music doesn't exist.