I think the term “AI” is used as a catch all for a plethora of wildly different technologies. In terms of music, the tech used to strip John’s voice from the tape, I consider ‘gods mixing desk’ in effect. It’s just restoring what’s already there, and I think that’s fine.
Yes, it's more accurately "machine learning / analysis", in my experiments it seems to just seek instrument by frequency with sometimes imperfect results. AI is bandied about too much I think. It's a tool, really, tool-assisted mix analysis.
As for using AI to create new music, I feel that’s a bit of a misnomer that we should look to make plain from the start. Art is an inherently human thing. AI can’t create, it doesn’t have awareness, consciousness. It’s just a facsimile.
Whether that’ll be enough to save us from the masses conflating the two and leading us down that path, I’m not sure.
Yeah agreed. I hope but do believe human endeavour really shines above all else. If a machine managed to hit the emotional spot with no context beyond that, wouldn't it feel a bit disconnected? I'd listen to it like, cause I dunno.
Part of what you see in the Beatles story is the warmness towards their characters, them as people, living breathing artists (which is the most important thing to me - they were NOT god-given talents, they were talented scruffy lads who worked like mad to get a highly competent sound and honed it and off they went - it was 98% perspiration, and I'm only knocking it 1% lower as the genius is so staggering and that replaces it)
Just to be really cliché there's a bit in Orwell's Nineteen Eighty-Four where Winston hears a "prole" woman doing her washing and singing an AI-generated song, and that's written like the first time he finds it beautiful - her hanging her washing, belting it out, making it human. To me, that seems a nuanced and realistic observation.
You'll get yer nerds who jizz at the pure tech side but music is a holy form of communication. For as long as humans need to communicate in this way - which is always - music will be driven by humanity.
I mean I've seen a lot of the same arguments about electronic music, EDM, trance, drum machines or whathaveyou. Or look at Dylan going electric. When it all comes down to it these are stylistic choices done for artistic effect. The end result, whatever the instrument, even if it's not directly the artist's full intent, should speak for itself, and represent the human choice of it. If someone made a song where they did nothing but press a button and everything else was done for them, I'd see that as artistic choice - indeed, to be generous I would wonder the part of luck, for them to get that composition in that moment. And if no human was involved, would we remain interested past novelty?
I find Aphex Twin's music supremely human. Easily as much, as, say, Creedence. Because of the craft, and the intent. These AI tools will reach that sphere. With the Beatles' use they already have. I won't even say I dislike autotune - I hate the lazy, poorly-done autotune a lot of tracks reach for seemingly out of habit or formula. (I'm much more arsed by the loudness war, and what I'm mixing at the moment is a direct opposite to this. I'll straight up point to it when it's out.)
It'll get overused like autotune or whatever but of course but the absolute best - that is to say, successful in terms of conveying feeling / intent - music will as ever speak for itself and transcend a fad.
