The creation of music by AI brings to mind a quote from David Bowie:
“Music itself is going to become like running water or electricity. So take advantage of these last few years, because this will never happen again. Get ready for a lot of touring, because that's the only unique experience left.”
While Bowie had different reasoning for making that statement, it's interesting to think that with AI-generated music, his idea of "music like water or electricity" might finally come true.
> his idea of "music like water or electricity" might finally come true
That was already the case with Spotify & Co. where music has become an anonymous commodity. People order by mood or playlist and rarely care about who composed, produced or played the music, even if the meta data are available. From the user's perspective, AI makes mostly the selection process more precise. I don't think people will care much whether the music itself was a human-made recording or just AI generated.
But making music is still fun (I speak from experience, see e.g. http://rochus-keller.ch/?p=1317); people just won't care, unless you have a big name; all this was already the case before AI generated music became good enough. So by the end of the day, AI is just another act in a rationalization and anonymization process which started a long time ago.
Just try to do so. The music is CC licensed, which explicitly allows you to remix, tweak, and build upon the original work, which includes creating derivative works like nightcore versions. Send me a link of the result ;-)
Musicians are actually a lot poorer than they should be, the label system is a complete scam and syphons off almost all the value created before the artist sees any for close to no benefit.
If labels offer so little benefit, why have they not become obsolete? Nowadays artists can self-publish with minimal cost, so why haven't we been seeing independent artists that are massively popular?
>If labels offer so little benefit, why have they not become obsolete?
Because artists are preyed upon early in their career into signing contracts that encompass the most profitable years of their lives and often the output of those years forever for small loans and promises of success.
The way these label deals are structured, if VCs in the tech world did the same it would be like having the investor of your very first failed company idea still taking money from you for startup attempt four that actually was successful and owning a chunk of that by default.
Of course I don't think musicians are blameless, they signed the deals and often regret it or go to huge expense of time and money (e.g Taylor Swift) to pull their work back into their own ownership.
> why have they not become obsolete? Nowadays artists can self-publish with minimal cost
You cannot self publish to Spotify without giving money to the major labels via arms of the majors like DistroKid. Spotify has no "Upload" button.
> so why haven't we been seeing independent artists that are massively popular?
There are: Frank Ocean, Tyler The Creator, Macklemore, Chance the Rapper, etc.
But if you're independent you're swimming against the tide because major labels own and scoop cream at all levels, from LiveNation to DistroKid to being signed on the label itself.
But that's not the same as "you need a label because you can't self-publish on Spotify". You can if you have $20, so that's not a reason why we don't see more successful self-published artists.
He effectively predicted all the paradigm shifts that the internet entailed.
I've thought about his interviews many times as it was a very optimistic view compared to the alternatives -- one being the internet as a generalized tiktok (or what is called brainrot) and the other being the internet being totally subsumed by existing media corporations.
While these exist to a large extent, they have not been able to stop the change in relationship between artist and audience, the meaning of "critique", the status symbol of culture, etc.
It has also been argued that he anticipated cryptocurrencies and NFTs with his Bowie bonds. Similarly, even if you strongly dislike the current state of this tech, they complete the puzzle of this positive worldview.
I think the same is happening with video games. Especially with Xbox game pass or whatever it's called. I've done it to myself with roms. Everything available so none of it valuable to me.
I'm a musician and honestly I often feel that the music boat already left in many ways before the generation Bowie grew up in. The best musical experiences I've ever had have been in quiet houses playing music with people I care deeply about, playing for dancers or impromptu public meetings with other musicians. I think that ever since the first wax cylinder was pressed those experiences have become harder and harder to find as most people forgo learning instruments in favour of the record player. Sitting at a party with a David Bowie record on already didn't feel like a musical experience for me in many ways, this is just another step in that evolutionary chain.
In my opinion the referenced music fragment of that video is fairly "unmemorable", it is "just" a sequence of harmonized textures. And that is precisely what AIs (LLMs) are good at.
(I listened for ≈7 min from the reference point.)
(I am talking about the music, not the live performance itself.)
Actually from what I've heard from musicians is that digital made living just from music really hard. First it was piracy and now it is streaming, the days where an average whole band could live off playing and creating music are gone.
AI will be the nail to the coffin where it'll almost completely becomes a hobby.
The anouncement of the "death of the band" is premature.I dont believ this for a second, nothing can replace live music played by humans, as the experience and the very real positive benifits of an audience comming together can not be digitised, in spite of the many attempts to package high tech
simulated environments. There are hundreds of thousands of full time touring musical groups world wide, and millions of music festivals every year.
Just because the bar is high, very high, to become a working musician, and has been forever, does not give credence to the notion that some nameless randoms get to make the call because there tube vid got 3 views.
> nothing can replace live music played by humans, as the experience and the very real positive benifits of an audience comming together can not be digitised
I wish it were true but I'm also very aware of how many people I see in audiences today are scrolling instagram while the band plays.
> There are hundreds of thousands of full time touring musical groups world wide, and millions of music festivals every year.
Those figures seem very high, do you have a source for these? Or even how you worked it out as a guesstimate?
8 billion people, maybe 9 billion...200000 bands that gives one band for every 42500 people.....
23 bands in a city of a million
was a pure guess, but low
right
all bands tour at one point or another, unless they are "housebands"
million + festivals is from my definition of "festive",a million, is a low estimate, again
That sounds like a comment about streaming and artists getting basically nothing from it ?
I think music AI in live music would actually be interesting - theoretically it can react to crowds better than any human could. A group music editing session with the AI weaving it to music - sounds like a fun art project.
> theoretically it can react to crowds better than any human could
That's one area I'd expect AI to do poorly. Performance is a two-way dialog between performers and the crowd, with facial expressions and body movements from both the stage and the audience in communication. I'd expect any AI that's not attached to a humanoid robot to be less exciting to a crowd.
However, I am very excited about AI in some of the other contexts you mentioned, like as a music-writing or editing partner.
Imagine a club where the people dancing are wearing, for example, heart rate monitors amongst other things. In that scenario they already weren't looking at the DJ and the AI would have a steady stream of information to work with.
We've had that for years in the DAW and autotune and snapping to grid.
The result's pretty boring and interchangeable, and that's largely what AI music is trained on. Accuracy is not novel here. Ever since the 80s it's been increasingly possible to augment musical skill or lack of, with technology.
I don't think we're very close to correcting for sloppy intentionality. Only to correcting 'mistakes', or alternately adding them in the belief that doing stuff wrong is where the magic is.
I know I've seen a video where somebody takes part of a Led Zeppelin song and snaps all the notes to a grid. What started off wonderful became sterile and boring.
You can snap while still maintaining arbitrary levels and styles of swing. I suspect the video was intentionally framing the correction software as soulless (of course it is, but the limit of its expression is the human technician using it).
Is there any big difference between using that and instead doing playback lip syncing and fake playing the guitar, like already happens sometimes at concerts?
It has been the case for at least 15 years with the rise of Spotify/Deezer and we could even argue that it started with the first mp3 players with pirated music libraries.
Bad in the sense that it is at it's core a denial that there exists something such as good, and even something such as bad — in almost every sense of the word, whether it be aesthetically or morally.
The human race, according to religion, fell once, and in falling gained knowledge of good and of bad. Now we have fallen a second time, and not even that remains to us.
One of the core contentions of the Christian faith, is that there is something more abhorrent than doing something bad, and that is the denial that it is possible to do something bad. Yet, this is about the only article of faith for our modern insanity.
The musicians of the 19th century were free to produce anything they liked. They were free to write a "Missa Solemnis" where the very silence is breathtaking, where one does not merely hear that God has died, but where one feels His rebirth. And what have they done? Have they produced in their liberty anything grander or more beautiful than the scrawling of the deaf composer? Have they summoned sounds more jubilant than those conjured by the consumptive Romantic, the limping Dresden Kapellmeister? We know that they have produced only a few forgetful tunes.
Whether cultural libertinism be better than cultural rigidity may be discussed, but that the cultural libertinism of the 20st century amounted to less than the cultural rigidity of earlier century will be difficult to deny.
People will remember Bowie for his words longer than they will remember him for his music because his music is as hollow and unmeaning, by design. He believed the world is an unmeaning wilderness, or at least that he was the most meaningful thing in it, at least in the sense that the only meaning of it derived from himself. But an egoist in a mere unmeaning wilderness is not impressive.
In Bowie's theology, life is something much more grey, narrow, and trivial than many separate aspects of it. The parts seem greater than the whole. If his cosmos is the real cosmos, it is not much of a cosmos. The thing has shrunk.
Bowie could not make any music that was joyful because he could not understand joy. The modern philosopher has told Bowie again and again that he was in the right place, and he had still felt depressed even in acquiescence. But those that came before him had heard that they were in the WRONG place, and their souls sang for joy, like a bird in spring.
If you stay hung up on an intellectual interpretation of what Bowie's doing, firstly you're right where he wants you, he'll play with you like a toy and in so doing, he'll have a grand time, he loved that even at times when his life was faltering.
Secondly, you overlook the glee with which he collaborated with people to jointly express their humanity, and who inspired him to do this. You can read the lyrics and parse them all you like, but what does it FEEL like when you've soaked up the whole song and are at that moment of…
"Ain't there one damn song that can make me…"
That's not even getting into my personal faves like Station to Station, Scary Monsters, where he's venting some really personal stuff and turning it into sound-as-art and also hellacious good funk, with the most gifted companions you could wish for.
Bowie liked to record vocals in one take, just fling himself into expressing and run with whatever he had in the tank that day, and it communicates like mad. He's maybe the canonical example of the opposite to AI music. In bringing that to fruition, I'm certain he understood countless joys. You gotta express many other things than just joy to have hit records, but then Beethoven excelled at that as well.
I've doubtless taken more trouble than I needed to, rebutting what could have been a GPT-extruded troll of an argument, but it was fun :)
> I've doubtless taken more trouble than I needed to, rebutting what could have been a GPT-extruded troll of an argument, but it was fun :)
Yet failed to address even one of my contentions, which if I had to summarise them for you again are:
- Music of the 20th century falls short of music of the 19th century, and it's not particularly close.
- Having no boundaries and standards does not make for better art.
- Bowie's music cannot convey meaning or wonder because he did not believe there is any meaningful or wonderful in the universe other than him, even if he held this view "humbly".
- Bowie could not write joyful music because his world view made it impossible for him to have joy.
(quoted) The last Stoics, like Marcus Aurelius, were exactly the people who did believe in the Inner Light. Their dignity, their weariness, their sad external care for others, their incurable internal care for themselves, were all due to the Inner Light, and existed only by that dismal illumination. Notice that Marcus Aurelius insists, as such introspective moralists always do, upon small things done or undone; it is because he has not hate or love enough to make a moral revolution. He gets up early in the morning, just as our own aristocrats living the Simple Life get up early in the morning; because such altruism is much easier than stopping the games of the amphitheatre or giving the English people back their land. Marcus Aurelius is the most intolerable of human types. He is an unselfish egoist. An unselfish egoist is a man who has pride without the excuse of passion. Of all conceivable forms of enlightenment the worst is what these people call the Inner Light. Of all horrible religions the most horrible is the worship of the god within. Any one who knows any body knows how it would work; any one who knows any one from the Higher Thought Centre knows how it does work. That Jones shall worship the god within him turns out ultimately to mean that Jones shall worship Jones. Let Jones worship the sun or moon, anything rather than the Inner Light; let Jones worship cats or crocodiles, if he can find any in his street, but not the god within. Christianity came into the world firstly in order to assert with violence that a man had not only to look inwards, but to look outwards, to behold with astonishment and enthusiasm a divine company and a divine captain. The only fun of being a Christian was that a man was not left alone with the Inner Light, but definitely recognized an outer light, fair as the sun, clear as the moon, terrible as an army with banners.
I can't tell if that's "yes because …" or "no actually I mean …"; but in either case it is droll to witness someone disregarding a human artist the way many disregard AI.
Bowie disregarded everything but himself. It's not difficult to disregard this outlook on the world, because it is not even an outlook on the world, it's more akin to a denial of the world.
"The man who destroys himself creates the universe. To the humble man, and to the humble man alone, the sun is really a sun; to the humble man, and to the humble man alone, the sea is really a sea. When he looks at all the faces in the street, he does not only realize that men are alive, he realizes with a dramatic pleasure that they are not dead."
Yet, Bowie could not ever quite make a convincing case that he believed other people are not dead, or at least that their existence was anything more significant than their non-existence because for him, all significance came from him and him alone.
Well, then he gave up cocaine and had lots of happy years of further creativity. I think you're mistaking the Thin White Duke for the guy who survived portraying the Thin White Duke. I guess he's throwing darts in haters' eyes, too :)
> When Danse macabre was first performed on 24 January 1875, it was not well received and caused widespread feelings of anxiety. The 21st century scholar, Roger Nichols, mentions adverse reaction to "the deformed Dies irae plainsong", the "horrible screeching from solo violin", the use of a xylophone, and "the hypnotic repetitions", in which Nichols hears a pre-echo of Ravel's Boléro.
Have you seen that classical accordian player? To coin a phrase, he breathes new life into some classic pieces.
I'm loathe to link because I'm on mobile and this will be hasty, but: https://youtu.be/9SE222v1eyM at least most people will have heard a movement in this.
Probably the only virtuoso of a non-standard instrument I know, readily.
Your contention would have been more believable if Bowie actually believed the star man he sang about was real. He did not. He did not believe that there was a starman waiting in the sky who told us not to blow it 'Cause he knows it's all worthwhile. Bowie did not believe it's all worthwhile.
(quoted) Once in the world’s history men did believe that the stars were dancing to the tune of their temples, and they danced as men have never danced since. With this old pagan eudaemonism the sage of the Rubaiyat has quite as little to do as he has with any Christian variety. He is no more a Bacchanal than he is a saint. Dionysus and his church was grounded on a serious joie-de-vivre like that of Walt Whitman. Dionysus made wine, not a medicine, but a sacrament. Jesus Christ also made wine, not a medicine, but a sacrament. But Omar Khayyam makes it, not a sacrament, but a medicine. He feasts because life is not joyful; he revels because he is not glad. “Drink,” he says, “for you know not whence you come nor why. Drink, for you know not when you go nor where. Drink, because the stars are cruel and the world as idle as a humming-top. Drink, because there is nothing worth trusting, nothing worth fighting for. Drink, because all things are lapsed in a base equality and an evil peace.” So he stands offering us the cup in his hand. And at the high altar of Christianity stands another figure, in whose hand also is the cup of the vine. “Drink” he says “for the whole world is as red as this wine, with the crimson of the love and wrath of God. Drink, for the trumpets are blowing for battle and this is the stirrup-cup. Drink, for this my blood of the new testament that is shed for you. Drink, for I know of whence you come and why. Drink, for I know of when you go and where.”
“Music itself is going to become like running water or electricity. So take advantage of these last few years, because this will never happen again. Get ready for a lot of touring, because that's the only unique experience left.”
While Bowie had different reasoning for making that statement, it's interesting to think that with AI-generated music, his idea of "music like water or electricity" might finally come true.