If A.I. took the place of musicians, would you listen to it?


A few questions which I'm curious about. If you have a take on this, please share!

Here's the question:

A.I. is increasingly playing a role in music creation. Not just assisting composers, but generating music.

If you found an A.I. generated song to be enjoyable, interesting, etc. would you have any objection to supporting it by listening and paying for the service which provides it?

If more and more music was like this, and there were fewer and fewer jobs for musicians, would that bother you? -- I'm thinking here about the aesthetics of the issue, not the economics or justice of it. 

I'm trying to understand if people just want to have a certain set of sensations from music and they don't care if there are human beings creating it -- or if it's important for you to know that what you're experiencing from music (or art) is coming from human beings.

Thank you for thinking about this.

128x128hilde45

The may or may not be compositions, but they are organized enough to be readily recognized and they do incite an emotional response. 

This is a really intriguing comment. If they may be a composition, who is the composer?

I admire and get beauty out of nature, too, but I don't attribute intention to those patterns, colors, sounds. A sunset, to me, is not saying anything even though it's beautiful. But some hear the "language" or "meaning" of nature (or God/gods) so I would want to remain open minded, here.

hilde45, you should drop the whole intention angle. It’s misleading. The throbbing of a big twin motor is definitely music to the mechanic’s ears and only a few are immune to the heavy metal thunder -- intent notwithstanding.

Btw, very nice thread you started!

Recently discovered Boris Blank's "Resonance" album and was enchanted with it on a resolving stereo system late at night. It requires a decent system for best effect. It's a bit kitschy, but the luscious quality of the sounds is very charming and will make your system sound very accomplished.

Blank apparently works with a huge library of "samples," and given that technique AI could probably generate similar music in the here and now and probably already is doing so not withstanding that many listeners would be referring to this music as "artificial" from the get-go.

My files were downloaded from Quobuz, so it's available from them in .wav for streaming.

I say, "Let it do its thing." Let's see what happens.

Sounds of nature can definitely be called music. As for the who the composer is, there is no composer, the music created itself. In other words, there was no creation - it always existed.

Human composers don't really create anything either, they simply bring out what was already there.

hilde45, you should drop the whole intention angle. It’s misleading. The throbbing of a big twin motor is definitely music to the mechanic’s ears and only a few are immune to the heavy metal thunder -- intent notwithstanding.

Btw, very nice thread you started!

Thanks. I'll think about it.

Let me see if I am getting your point: In music, intention doesn't matter. Don't look for it. Music is whatever sounds like music to someone. Under this description, nature can make music, engines can make music, and Beethoven can make music. There is no more "intention" in a Beethoven piece than in a waterfall, so none should be looked for -- or used to separate "sounds" (however pleasing" from "music."

Am I getting that right?