easyThrowaway

29 ms·

361.
by 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,
362.
by easyThrowaway 4y ago
Why would anyone want to listen to it then? what would be the point? The acoustic equivalent of a screensaver?
363.
by easyThrowaway 4y ago
I mean, it's useful if you need to quickly express something to a fellow musician, like, "just give me a I-IV-V Gm four bars loop". Everything goes quickly out of the window once you get into the production side of things, of
364.
by easyThrowaway 4y ago
Switch "creators" with "musicians" and "AI" with "streaming" and I we feel like we went back to early 2000. Same arguments. Adapting what Steve Albini said at the time: If you're an artist, negot
365.
by easyThrowaway 4y ago
Hope I can get better rates from this compared than those offered by Spotify to my musician friends. How much are we talking about? 0.00001¢ per licensed generated image?
366.
by easyThrowaway 4y ago
They won't. They own the hardware, the distribution channels and the datacenters. For comparison, despite making professional music is even easier (a copy of Ableton Live Lite and a few hours of studio recording for the vocals makes fo
367.
by easyThrowaway 4y ago
Because the main objective of commercial AI generative projects is the "Uberization" of the Arts. Massively dumping on prices, becoming gatekeepers on the creation process, ultimately forcing themselves between clients and the art
368.
by easyThrowaway 4y ago
I don't see how that is any different than living even in the worst dictatorship, unless you're a nihilist or a situationist poet. Like, it would be a "nothing is ever knowable, nothing is real" kind of reality. I mean,