4 ms·

This argument always seemed weird to me because it's obviously the case that ‘intent and creativity’ is at best a slim minority of consumer preference. If I wan

This argument always seemed weird to me because it's obviously the case that ‘intent and creativity’ is at best a slim minority of consumer preference. If I want a simple dubstep line with random romantic words meaninglessly peppered in it, or the same 4 chord pop song as every other pop song, or you know, anything popular, that's easy. If I want something that's saying something interesting in the topics I find interesting, or doing something new with the medium that's also well executed and listenable to on repeat, finding that is actually just hard, and it's rarely the stuff with the dollars and overlapping interests to get the high production values. I'm not going to claim AI audio isn't also awash with popular themes and tropes, or that it's a bastion of creativity. I'm also not going to claim that the deepest, really creative ideas aren't expressed in human written works. There are enough people to make truly exceptional songs and prompt many truly mindless AI generations. And there's also nothing wrong with most songs optimizing for personal preferences that are not that; I'm not trying to 'argue against' popular music. But I am going to claim, for me, that it just hasn't been practical to saturate my tastes from public media, and that most of the reason I personally listen to AI music is that I want something that says or does something I think is creative, exploratory, or intellectually interesting that I don't know how to get from anywhere else.

freejazz 1y ago
The poster you are responding to did not make any reference to "consumer preference"
- Veedrac 1y ago
  I was using ‘consumer preference’ here as a proxy for ‘the things that people tend to care about.’ The point I'm highlighting is that it's weird that when AI audio comes up, there's a reliable crowd of people discrediting it for missing a thing that clearly doesn't matter that much to most people in most contexts. It's like, sure you can want things from music that are to your specific taste, but it's like coming into a post about, idk, a folk band and complaining that it's not metal. You're allowed to like your thing, but clearly most music is allowed not to be metal, why is this music specifically bad for not being metal? And in this case the point I'm making is stronger, in that AI audio actually unlocks a lot of ability to listen things that are ‘interesting and creative’ but not widely available because of consumer preference, so it's actually more like showing up to a folk metal fusion band and saying the problem with this band is that it isn't metal.
  - Aldipower 1y ago
    You still totally miss the point of this thread. Making music and creating art for the sake of enjoyment. Consumer preferences are irrelevant here. I am totally fine if you like AI music. And I am sure someone can create art by interweaving AI elements. And keep in mind, the training data for Suno is coming/gets stolen from someone like me who creates real music. Personally I do not enjoy to make music with some proprietary 3rd party tools that can garden wall at every time, like Suno. But that is personal preference.
    - regularjack 1y ago
      Completely agree with this. "The audience comes last" is a phrase that perfectly encapsulates this sentiment (can't recall who said it). Somehow it's assumed that artists make music for the audience, but many make it for themselves, because they enjoy the process. Contrary to other comments in this thread, typing prompts on a keyboard is not the same as picking up a guitar and playing it.
    - Veedrac 1y ago
      I think moritzwarhier's replies are highlighting that I didn't miss the point. Maybe I expressed it badly.
      - freejazz 1y ago
        I think they are highlighting that you did miss the point >Intent is not a lofty concept, it's at the heart of what art is.
  - freejazz 1y ago
    > "the things that people tend to care about" Weird. That's another phrase I don't see in the post. >You're allowed to like your thing Massively generous of you, thanks.
- moritzwarhier 1y ago
  Thanks. Culture is fluid. Music is about exploring the boundaries of what sounds good, often because of feelings. Related to the society in which the music is "consumed". AI music is a commodity and generally uninteresting, like artists who only imitate styles. But just like annoying over-commercialized music that only tries to scratch existing itches and match expectations, it can still work to a degree. Intent is not a lofty concept, it's at the heart of what art is.
flats 1y ago
[dead]
moritzwarhier 1y ago
I was alive to hear the evolution of "dubstep" before it became a cliche (the wobble stuff). AI couldn't invent a new sound. The way you describe music, sure, there will be an AI that is able to provide you with a continuous stream of audiotory stimuli, like the Penfield Mood Organ from "Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?". That's just not what makes art or music interesting to me, and why I also don't listen to auto-curated "mood" playlists on Spotify. > Penfield mood organ - Humans use the mood organ to dial specific emotions so they can experience emotions without actually possessing them. In the beginning of the novel, Rick implores his wife to use her dialing console to prevent a fight. He wants her to thoughtlessly dial emotions like "the desire to watch TV" or "awareness of the manifold possibilities open to [her] in the future" (Dick, 6). When emotions can be easily avoided with the mood organ, humans no longer require personal relationships to overcome feelings of isolation or loneliness.
- Veedrac 1y ago
  I also don't want mood playlists, the majority of the time. I'm saying I use AI generations for exactly the opposite — so that I can explore and listen to things that are more intellectually interesting in the ways I find intellectually interesting, because the human music it's easy to find is common denominator music. The way you describe AI ('continuous stream of auditory stimuli') is the way I'd describe Spotify. Sure, you could use AI to make a faux Spotify, but, like, why would you? The popular stuff already has saturating supply, and it will sound much better than an AI generation.
  - moritzwarhier 1y ago
    I was also having Spotify in mind when writing about algorithmic curation and GenAI in music ;) Regarding this: > I'm saying I use AI generations for exactly the opposite — so that I can explore and listen to things that are more intellectually interesting in the ways I find intellectually interesting I just have not found any AI music that would satisfy this description. But I am very interested in failure modes of GenAI. Especially in Suno, it was cracking me up at times. I'm also sure there will be a space for interesting and/or challenging music generated with neural networks involved. But I don't see any revolution here so far. Care to share examples of AI-assisted music you find interesting? To elaborate, I don't find jarring or curious combinations of cliches interesting. AI could not invent a new style, it seems to me. To repeat this point. And I've never had any problem finding interesting music. Key to me is diving into labels, artists and their philosophy, after I got interested into particular ones (the other way around doesn't work for me). I adore discogs.com for that. Regarding interviews and stuff, there's sadly a huge decline in quality written material about music, I feel. "Lowest-common-denominator music" is exactly what Suno produces, at least in my ears. I could go on and list music I like, but generally avoid that. Wait, I'll do it anyway for a bit... at the moment, I like Punctum - Remote Sensing EP (Caterina Barbieri) and AtomTM vs Pete Namlook - Jet chamber LP just for example I also love so much other music. To me, such music is miles apart from the slop I heard from AI. I heard there's research into generating music in the style of JS Bach as well. How's that going? I'd guess: probably bot too well, because the genius of Bach is not only in complexity, or counterpoint rules. His music is very emotional to me (at least the portions I like). And, like any good music, it has moments of surprise. It's not just a formula, or a "vibe", or a "genre". Could AI create a new Techno, a new Blues, a new Bossa Nova? I doubt it.
moritzwarhier 1y ago
I was alive to hear the evolution of "dubstep" before it became a cliche (the wobble stuff). AI couldn't invent a new sound. The way you describe music, sure, there will be an AI that is able to provide you with a continuous stream of audiotory stimuli, like the Penfield Mood Organ from "Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?". That's just not what makes art or music interesting to me, and why I also don't listen to auto-curated "mood" playlists on Spotify. > Penfield mood organ - Humans use the mood organ to dial specific emotions so they can experience emotions without actually possessing them. In the beginning of the novel, Rick implores his wife to use her dialing console to prevent a fight. He wants her to thoughtlessly dial emotions like "the desire to watch TV" or "awareness of the manifold possibilities open to [her] in the future" (Dick, 6). When emotions can be easily avoided with the mood organ, humans no longer require personal relationships to overcome feelings of isolation or loneliness. That being said, there is a spectrum, sure. I am interested in generative music. I do have scenarios where I listen to music and want it to blend into the background (e.g. soma FM). But even then I love the short moment when a song comes up and I want to note it because it's distinct. I am not interested in being robbed of that. Also: why? Why, why, why? Music is not just a recording packaged as a product. It is a thing humans do. And I say that as a person that enjoys mainly electronic music! There are many talented humans, there is absolutely zero need for AI muzak, other than decreasing the price. Musicians leveraging generative AI for creative purposes might become a thing and I am fine with that in principle, but the thought is a joke to me, as of now. Creating audio from an idea is not the same as letting a machine create an interpolation of stolen ideas to match a prompt.

freejazz 1y ago

The poster you are responding to did not make any reference to "consumer preference"

Veedrac 1y ago
I was using ‘consumer preference’ here as a proxy for ‘the things that people tend to care about.’ The point I'm highlighting is that it's weird that when AI audio comes up, there's a reliable crowd of people discrediting it for missing a thing that clearly doesn't matter that much to most people in most contexts. It's like, sure you can want things from music that are to your specific taste, but it's like coming into a post about, idk, a folk band and complaining that it's not metal. You're allowed to like your thing, but clearly most music is allowed not to be metal, why is this music specifically bad for not being metal? And in this case the point I'm making is stronger, in that AI audio actually unlocks a lot of ability to listen things that are ‘interesting and creative’ but not widely available because of consumer preference, so it's actually more like showing up to a folk metal fusion band and saying the problem with this band is that it isn't metal.
- Aldipower 1y ago
  You still totally miss the point of this thread. Making music and creating art for the sake of enjoyment. Consumer preferences are irrelevant here. I am totally fine if you like AI music. And I am sure someone can create art by interweaving AI elements. And keep in mind, the training data for Suno is coming/gets stolen from someone like me who creates real music. Personally I do not enjoy to make music with some proprietary 3rd party tools that can garden wall at every time, like Suno. But that is personal preference.
  - regularjack 1y ago
    Completely agree with this. "The audience comes last" is a phrase that perfectly encapsulates this sentiment (can't recall who said it). Somehow it's assumed that artists make music for the audience, but many make it for themselves, because they enjoy the process. Contrary to other comments in this thread, typing prompts on a keyboard is not the same as picking up a guitar and playing it.
  - Veedrac 1y ago
    I think moritzwarhier's replies are highlighting that I didn't miss the point. Maybe I expressed it badly.
    - freejazz 1y ago
      I think they are highlighting that you did miss the point >Intent is not a lofty concept, it's at the heart of what art is.
- freejazz 1y ago
  > "the things that people tend to care about" Weird. That's another phrase I don't see in the post. >You're allowed to like your thing Massively generous of you, thanks.
moritzwarhier 1y ago
Thanks. Culture is fluid. Music is about exploring the boundaries of what sounds good, often because of feelings. Related to the society in which the music is "consumed". AI music is a commodity and generally uninteresting, like artists who only imitate styles. But just like annoying over-commercialized music that only tries to scratch existing itches and match expectations, it can still work to a degree. Intent is not a lofty concept, it's at the heart of what art is.

flats 1y ago

[dead]

moritzwarhier 1y ago

Veedrac 1y ago
I also don't want mood playlists, the majority of the time. I'm saying I use AI generations for exactly the opposite — so that I can explore and listen to things that are more intellectually interesting in the ways I find intellectually interesting, because the human music it's easy to find is common denominator music. The way you describe AI ('continuous stream of auditory stimuli') is the way I'd describe Spotify. Sure, you could use AI to make a faux Spotify, but, like, why would you? The popular stuff already has saturating supply, and it will sound much better than an AI generation.
- moritzwarhier 1y ago
  I was also having Spotify in mind when writing about algorithmic curation and GenAI in music ;) Regarding this: > I'm saying I use AI generations for exactly the opposite — so that I can explore and listen to things that are more intellectually interesting in the ways I find intellectually interesting I just have not found any AI music that would satisfy this description. But I am very interested in failure modes of GenAI. Especially in Suno, it was cracking me up at times. I'm also sure there will be a space for interesting and/or challenging music generated with neural networks involved. But I don't see any revolution here so far. Care to share examples of AI-assisted music you find interesting? To elaborate, I don't find jarring or curious combinations of cliches interesting. AI could not invent a new style, it seems to me. To repeat this point. And I've never had any problem finding interesting music. Key to me is diving into labels, artists and their philosophy, after I got interested into particular ones (the other way around doesn't work for me). I adore discogs.com for that. Regarding interviews and stuff, there's sadly a huge decline in quality written material about music, I feel. "Lowest-common-denominator music" is exactly what Suno produces, at least in my ears. I could go on and list music I like, but generally avoid that. Wait, I'll do it anyway for a bit... at the moment, I like Punctum - Remote Sensing EP (Caterina Barbieri) and AtomTM vs Pete Namlook - Jet chamber LP just for example I also love so much other music. To me, such music is miles apart from the slop I heard from AI. I heard there's research into generating music in the style of JS Bach as well. How's that going? I'd guess: probably bot too well, because the genius of Bach is not only in complexity, or counterpoint rules. His music is very emotional to me (at least the portions I like). And, like any good music, it has moments of surprise. It's not just a formula, or a "vibe", or a "genre". Could AI create a new Techno, a new Blues, a new Bossa Nova? I doubt it.

moritzwarhier 1y ago

I was alive to hear the evolution of "dubstep" before it became a cliche (the wobble stuff). AI couldn't invent a new sound. The way you describe music, sure, there will be an AI that is able to provide you with a continuous stream of audiotory stimuli, like the Penfield Mood Organ from "Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?". That's just not what makes art or music interesting to me, and why I also don't listen to auto-curated "mood" playlists on Spotify. > Penfield mood organ - Humans use the mood organ to dial specific emotions so they can experience emotions without actually possessing them. In the beginning of the novel, Rick implores his wife to use her dialing console to prevent a fight. He wants her to thoughtlessly dial emotions like "the desire to watch TV" or "awareness of the manifold possibilities open to [her] in the future" (Dick, 6). When emotions can be easily avoided with the mood organ, humans no longer require personal relationships to overcome feelings of isolation or loneliness. That being said, there is a spectrum, sure. I am interested in generative music. I do have scenarios where I listen to music and want it to blend into the background (e.g. soma FM). But even then I love the short moment when a song comes up and I want to note it because it's distinct. I am not interested in being robbed of that. Also: why? Why, why, why? Music is not just a recording packaged as a product. It is a thing humans do. And I say that as a person that enjoys mainly electronic music! There are many talented humans, there is absolutely zero need for AI muzak, other than decreasing the price. Musicians leveraging generative AI for creative purposes might become a thing and I am fine with that in principle, but the thought is a joke to me, as of now. Creating audio from an idea is not the same as letting a machine create an interpolation of stolen ideas to match a prompt.