Thanks, I have used Audacity in the past and perhaps there is something in that now, but it would probably be slow work to do it manually.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
AI music getting much better
- Thread starter Nimos
- Start date
Nimos
Well-Known Member
I see it as an argument because you are dead certain that some people just ain't artists if they don't live up to whatever requirements you have or seem to think should apply.
The way I understand what you are saying is if I said "Toyota doesn't make cars!! Anyone who thinks so is an idiot. Only mechanics can decide what a real car is. And if any of them say that any car made by Toyota is a car, then they are not real mechanics!!"
That is how I understand what you are saying, and to me, that is absurd if that is the case.
But who decides what is performative?
And how do we do that, if we can't even define it?
No, its because you claim person A is an artist, but person B isn't. You give some extremely vague rules for how this is determined which I still don't understand how you decide who lives up to this or not, except that "We just need to know it when we encounter it". Isn't that what people do, when some like Damien Hirst stuff and others don't? Except that if the people don't agree with the "chosen" ones, then they are fools or wrong at least.
Nimos
Well-Known Member
I use audacity myself, but only for the absolute basic stuff. And would have no clue how to do what you talk aboutThanks, I have used Audacity in the past and perhaps there is something in that now, but it would probably be slow work to do it manually.
I linked a video in the thread below (link) with some guys using an AI audio tool (Top video), which seems like a professional one, maybe you can do it using AI if you know what you are doing. At least in the video, they can do all kinds of crazy things, and it is a funny video seeing some professionals working with it. I think they mention what the name of the program is somewhere in the beginning, so maybe check that out.
Link:
Music Creation with AI
Last edited:
And I disagree.
That was the natural order of things. It's painful absolutely, devastating even, but a normal aspect of personhood and life.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
It does worry me. But perhaps AI will be a tool like so many other new inventions that will allow a sort of music that we have never heard before or it could be the end of human musicians. I hope that the latter is not the case.
PureX
Veteran Member
You can argue, or you can learn. It’s up to you.
That’s a truism not just about art, but about a lot of things.
Nimos
Well-Known Member
It won't be the end for musicians, music is still unique even if AI gets much better doesn't mean that it will create nr 1 hits each time. But there will be an extreme flood of music, people are already now filling Spotify and all the other platforms with AI-generated music.
Spotify has removed 7% of songs created with AI-generated music service Boomy from its website, equating to “tens of thousands,” after Universal Music Group flagged Boomy for allegedly using bots to boost its streaming numbers, according to a Financial Times
If 7% equals tens of thousands of songs, it doesn't require a mathematician to figure out how many AI-generated songs are on it.
And as expected the moment people can scam they do it with bots etc. I think the biggest problem is that musicians might drown in all these numbers, there are now potentially millions of people pretending to be musicians by using AI. And I think it has already been demonstrated that for the most part, ordinary people can't tell the difference and honestly, I don't know if they even care, I mean if they like the song, why would they?
This is an interesting video, you don't have to watch it all, but here the person is interviewing a musician about it and he at least doesn't seem too worried given his arguments:
PureX
Veteran Member
They are not artists if they don't engage in the activity of creating works of art. There really isn't anything to argue about here.
A lot of people have no idea what art is. But nearly all of them think they do. They think entertainment is art. They think fine craftsmanship is art. They think pretty decorations are art. They think anything that is done well is art. They think anything that is clever is art. They think anything made in a certain medium is art. And when I try to explain to them why these are not art, but can all be used by artists to make real art, they get angry. They don't understand and they don't want to hear that they don't know something even though there is no reason why they would have known it,
And I can't do anything about this. People are stubborn and egotistical. And there are powerful forces in our society with an interest in keeping people ignorant.
If it's man made, and not practically functional, you're in the right neighborhood.
I have been defining it. But for some reason you're not listening. I heard a professor once say that, "art is a round trip ticket through another human beings life experience". And that pretty much sums it up.
There's nothing extremely vague about it. I have no problem understanding art or recognizing it when I see it. But I also have a lifetime of studying it, doing it, commiserating with other artists about it, and being of the general nature that is drawn to it.
Not everyone understands science, or philosophy, or religion, or sociology. And no one understands them all. But there are people that do understand the particulars of their own field of interest far better than those who just dabble in it or read a book on it. That's just the way it is. We can learn from those people or we can resent them. It's up to us.
PureX
Veteran Member
I predict that as AI floods our world with endless empty mimicry and blatant lies and confusion, people will long for authenticity and honesty. The exploiters will try to mimick these traits using AI but eventually people will learn to see through it. Or they'll simply stop trusting anything not being presented to them directly from other humans.
We are already seeing this happening in music. Where what is becoming more and more popular is the very diaristic, and personal revelations of individual human "artists". And of course the exploiters are mimicking this for profit, but people are getting wise to that, too. Or I think they will get wise to it, eventually, (Maybe when Taylor Swift hits the two billion dollar mark.)
We are already seeing this happening in music. Where what is becoming more and more popular is the very diaristic, and personal revelations of individual human "artists". And of course the exploiters are mimicking this for profit, but people are getting wise to that, too. Or I think they will get wise to it, eventually, (Maybe when Taylor Swift hits the two billion dollar mark.)
Nimos
Well-Known Member
The issue is I partly agree with you. I hate people ("artists") who do things just because they want to do something weird and go for this shock effect. Everyone, in my opinion, can do that, if they have no self-respect. Just do something extremely weird and play it off as if it has some greater meaning.
Where we differ is, that I don't see a clear indication of what allows me to say that what they are doing isn't art and therefore they are not artists. Besides my personal opinion that I don't like stuff like that. But it is obvious that others do find what they do interesting because in many cases these are considered famous artists.
And it is the same with that guy painting with paint buckets or that sketch from Damien, I can't really respect it. Im just not impressed by someone poking holes in a bucket and letting it swing over a canvas or a sketch that clearly took less than a minute to make and even looks like ****. And it is not because I don't like sketches, some of my favourite ones are sketches by Leonardo Da Vinci, they are absolutely insane.
We definitely agree that we don't consider everything to be art or at least to be treated with the attention it gets.
But again, lots of art installations are created using computers etc. Sure there is human involvement, but that is also the case when the person pokes holes in a bucket or gets the idea to do it.
You haven't defined it because you have expressed what is required for it to be art, and then I give you examples of things that fall within these requirements, yet you don't think those are art. Or you haven't explained how you determined whether a given form of expression is valid or not.
Again, I agree with you that certain art is bad, but if that is how the person wants to "express their experience" who am I to say that they are wrong?
Not to be disrespectful, but I doubt you have a lifetime of study behind you if you didn't know that Mona Lisa was made by Leonardo Da Vinci. It is one of the most famous pieces of art ever created.
But it is beyond the point, again it is more about you claiming that you can spot what is art and what isn't, and clearly, I or anyone that disagrees with you cannot. You have a lot of self-confidence, I'll give you that, but you will have a very difficult time convincing me that is the case, in fact, anyone would have, unless they can provide a valid argument for it.
Nimos
Well-Known Member
No one disagrees that people will try to scam on this, it happens in all aspects of life, and people cheat with companies, their CVs, etc. Even famous musicians are "constantly" getting accused of stealing from each other or that they have copied something. Whether they did or not is a different story, but at least some people believe they did, and that they should be sued for it. So it isn't unique to AI stuff, people steal and cheat, doesn't matter what it is.
Isn’t Taylor Swift AI generated?
I hope it can get better than that.
PureX
Veteran Member
Programming a computer to "create" something is no different then poking holes on a bucket of paint and swinging it around. It's all design via process. What matters are the decisions being made to create the result, not the mechanisms employed. Because it's those decisions that we 'read' back through to get into the eyes, mind, and heart of the person that made them. When AI takes those decision away from a human, there can be no art. Because there us no human to read back into.
PureX
Veteran Member
But AI is going to make the lies for more effective because they will be much harder to recognize. And what's worse, a lot of people just won't care. If the lie is pleasing to them, they'll disregard the dishonesty even if it's pointed out. We are already seeing this in spades with phony news and phony politics.
Nimos
Well-Known Member
But that is not 100% true, it depends on how you look at it.
If we go with someone making music, then according to that guy in the video I linked above, it is very common that you just go buy these instruments or melodies or whatever they are called and then you throw them into the music program you use and mix it together until it sounds good. Then you take a singer and autotune the hell out of their voice. I think he has a valid point, that the difference from how a lot of musicians do it now, to just an AI providing you with these is fairly small.
With the song I created above, sure the AI provided the music and lyrics, but I decided what the music should be. And let's assume that I was more serious about music, then I could have written my own lyrics which could have been extremely relevant for my life. Whether it is a human with autotune or an AI singing it, is there really a huge difference, for me as the writer of the lyrics?
Even today a lot of songs are not written by those performing them, so how much deeper meaning is there really in them, yet the singer obviously takes the majority of the credits for it, because no one cares or knows the names of the writers behind it.
Im not saying this applies to all musicians, but it does for a lot of them and I think it is a valid point that the difference might not be as huge as one would like it to be.
So the AI didn't take away my choice of what the sound should be, it just provided me with options, so rather than me going and buying all the sounds, the AI did it.
I think one has to look at the whole process.
Completely agree, AI is going to enhance all these things for sure, it will be much easier to scam and do bad things, absolutely no doubt about it. That is one of the downsides of AI.
PureX
Veteran Member
But right there is a key point. "Whatever sounds good" to that person is not art. Whatever sounds good to me is not art, either. Art involves far more then that, and it doesn't even have to "sound good". It's can sound really bad and still be art. Because art is not the result. It's what the result is documenting: it's the source.
What a lot of musicians are doing now, or ever, is not art.
But writing a memoir is not doing art. Telling me about yourself does not enable me to experience the world through your eyes, mind and heart. In fact, you would be more likely to achieve that end with fiction then with your own story. I've witnessed a lot of really great works of art that told me nothing about the artist.
I saw an interview recently with one of those 'invisible' songwriters, and found it very interesting. The interviewer began listing off all the very famous performers that she had written and co-written songs for and with and the list was long and impressive. Yet while he was naming all these names, the songwriter was clearly and visibly feeling very uncomfortable. Later, she explained that saw her own life as "an act of service". That she really loved being a "creative enabler" for others, and that she found a great sense of purpose and satisfaction in doing that. To take or be given the credit diminished that sense of purpose and accomplishment for her. Imagine that! An artist without an ego!
What becomes so difficult with conversations like this is that there is no single sharp line that one crosses from being a musician or craftsmen or writer or performer into being an artist. It's a bit like the temperature of water going from tepid to warm to hot to boiling. We know boiling when we see it but it's difficult to see the progression that gets one there. And then to complicate matters even more there is good art and bad art. And plenty of bad art in the world. Yet it is still art, more or less. It's just not good art. It's weak, and confused, and/or just lazy.
But that's not "AI". AI is doing the choosing for you. That's the whole point of it. Your accepting AI is a choice, but it's only one among the many that you didn't actually make, yourself. And it's your making those choices that the rest of us need to "see" who you are within the result.
Last edited:
It generates. I've played around more with AI art than music, but same-same.
related:
Many Japanese people object to a recent i-pad commercial that squashes instruments to make an i-pad.
I cannot read this thread, however I have gotten the link by google searching:
In it many Japanese actually use English to make their objections known. (I became aware of it watching Romanian TVee channel.)
Here is the video that I am talking about:
I say its related, because I empathize with musicians and crafters. There is something wonderful about the meditation and strength that comes from precision, from practice, from the pursuit of expression. When we sense that something can be beautiful and seek to find that and show it then there is something about it which might be lost if it became simply automated.
Many Japanese people object to a recent i-pad commercial that squashes instruments to make an i-pad.
I cannot read this thread, however I have gotten the link by google searching:
Code:
https://twitter.com/AngelicaOung/status/1788241764383678900Here is the video that I am talking about:
I say its related, because I empathize with musicians and crafters. There is something wonderful about the meditation and strength that comes from precision, from practice, from the pursuit of expression. When we sense that something can be beautiful and seek to find that and show it then there is something about it which might be lost if it became simply automated.
PureX
Veteran Member
Sadly, though, there is a significant number of humans that are oblivious to this creative side of the human experience. For them, life is about power, and control, and accumulation. And the creative pursuits you speak of are just viewed as amusements for children and silly adults.
These people will see AI as a completely legitimate means of generating such useless and silly "art" and especially so if it's used to bilk those foolish adults out of their money, or cheat them of their power. Because that's what really matters to them, in life. That is the criteria by which they will evaluate AI.
I used to be like that. I think I was young, and I was skeptical about the good will of people, too. Most fine art seemed pointless except as a decoration. What seemed silliest to me were the huge misshaped geometric objects outside of shipping malls and doctors offices, and they had plaques on them that gave them a title. "Hunks of junk" I thought. Another silly thing was the money artists got for abstract art -- another thing I knew nothing about, but I had no interest in finding out why people valued it. I just chucked it as silly.
Technology though, that seemed relevant. I wanted to help people, and I saw technology as a means. I was, however, dismissive of art, suspicious of music, suspicious of psychologists, of various creative and studious professions which seemed to me pointless.
Many people see the practice of Law in that way. They only see that it is complicated and uses stuffy old language that can't be read by humans. They don't see the spirit in it and the love in it. They avoid it. They are suspicious of congress, of politicians, of proposed bills, even of voting. All of it seems to them pointless and like a scam. But its not a scam.