Special Interest

Seeing these two replies in PE lyrics topics, made me think of discussion I had last week via email.

Quote from: Andrew McIntosh on February 15, 2023, 03:48:31 AM
Those AI lyrics really don't look all that dissimilar to a lot of average Heavy Metal lyrics.

Quote from: Theodore on February 15, 2023, 05:09:01 AM
I see AI 'creativity' level remains that of a 10YO. Same as some AI collages i had seen. They have no chance against the beast called human in the forthcoming war. - Only at chess it appears to be creative but that's a false impression since it's all 'mathematics' for them .

I was asked by person what do I think about AI starting to make noise. Question seems to be utterly hot topic in current visual arts scene. When you can generate the basic heavy metal album covers just like that. Or anything generic can be created really easily. It is problem for a lot makers who barely have unique idea. Some feel that this is copyright issue, since AI keeps storaging examples of artists works, and former "death metal album cover makers" are the source material what AI will use to generate next "death metal album cover".

Thinking question in context of noise or industrial, get quite different. If it is not really AI that comes up with ideas (parameters), but there needs to be person, who writes the command, sets the parameters, writes the script. "make 20 minutes of vinyl ready HWN audio". I guess AI itself doesn't have any particular yearning to get signed on noise label, so it still needs the "artist".

For me, interesting question is, what is the quality of "AI" one can't take, if we are already so close to machine music? I know why I don't like or prefer it, but nevertheless:

I'd think we partly hear this already. Lets say, someone patches synth, it is human interaction. Many times now it is the machine that plays itself. Or drum machine you program, but leave "swing" and "variation" up to machine. Someone puts parameters and lets the machine play. One can discuss how different it is of AI ? When with AI, someone has to put in parameters and then machine does it. Like you have had "ambient generators" for long time. That sound like Brian Eno or such. Even Eno publishing album as "application". You just push play and it keeps generating more of same ambient that was also released on LP and CD. Digital keyboard themselves are programmed. Human uses it, but the sound is a program someone did.
You got now gadgets made, hardware and software, where basically man ignites it by button, and the box produces something. Be it some sort of harsh noise generator pedal.

Question this person asked me, was not only opinion of AI used, but also what if it turns out some of your favorite music is not done my artist, but it would be automatically generated. Would I still like it? It is question with quite many options to approach. If someone pushes key of juno synth - who and what is the artist? Who and what made that sound? Unless piece reaches level of composition, aren't we actually listening vision of some synth engineer? Unless you will be able to inject personality, in form of composition and unique usage? 

I personally tend to like noise that is "hand made". Same for visual arts. I am sure AI can, if not now, then in very near future do something similar. I suppose typing "create outsider art" and it'll do something. It may be still different I feel was really made by someone, sweat and blood, so to say. Now, of course, you could probably program AI to take physical sound and it would cut & edit it. So, how to feel if finding out AI generated that.. That Artificial Invagination was actually Artificial Intelligence?

Hard to say, as in context of industrial music, it may not be only product, but part of the artists intention was to engage with AI. It is still the artist who sets it going. Almost like HWN, where he sets the parameters, and then lets it "happen" without touching single button. Not really interacting without sound that gets recorded. May be just loop or noise generator, few desired pedal settings. I doubt it is AI who decides it will make noise, and publish it. All those steps blur the line is it -really- AI who made it, if it required artist in same way as patching connections of modular synth that then can play itself... I doubt AI will decide to become noise artist anytime soon, but there are artists who write scripts, computer makes the noise, and it gets published without artist even listening to it before it gets out there. I was listening interview of artist like that while ago on WCN podcast. In that 2nd Jason Crumer episode.

So.. strong feelings against AI within noise? Barely, but my personal preferences are vastly in other direction.

For me, i think when AI can create Industrial music, it'll be the absolute pinnacle of Industrial music.

What could be more fitting than machine making man redundant?

If i can ask my AI to make me a album containing every single sonic nuance i love - The squelch, feedback shrieks, throbs, rumble, tape overload etc etc, + my preferred mix, production etc.. at just the right times, then what more could i want? 

Id be able to just spend all my time listening instead. Sitting back in a luxurious reclining chair with a nice drink, "Come on AI, you know how i like it, give it to me...."

Quote from: Leewar on February 15, 2023, 11:24:19 AM
For me, i think when AI can create Industrial music, it'll be the absolute pinnacle of Industrial music.

Indeed. Metal Machine Music: music made by machines, for machines. Best to just cut out the middle Man completely.

I guess Kenji Siratori was onto something when he submitted material to dozens of artists/labels and he became an overnight Merzbow in terms of release productivity. One can potentially imagine a future where AI is clogging up CD and vinyl pressing factory schedules with requests to produce endless runs of the same Made in China noise in a "Paperclip Maximizer" scenario, funded entirely by out-of-control cryptocurrencies and physically shitposted to every place on the earth by a million deafening Amazon drones interweaving in a birdless sky. Perhaps we're already there?

AI will definitely be able to reproduce your favorite noise sound. From a sound perspective it is probably nothing but another tool to create music.
However, the intentional filters in these commercially available AI interfaces will prevent it from generating much of the industrial aesthetic we know and love. Strong political imagery and pornography is restricted (albeit sometimes unsuccessfully so).

I also strongly disagree with the "music from the machine" argument. AI is trained through gigantic amounts of human imagery, text and sound. From this cesspool it generates a product along simple "meta" guidelines. Human input is the scaffolding, nothing inherently artificial about the output. More like a sophisticated jukebox.

Risking sounding like a luddite I still urge anyone with a niche hobby or interest not to train a commercial artificial intelligence on their specific fandom.

I guess there's a difference between Artificial Intelligence (AI) and Machine Learning (ML) - the latter is the current (virtual) reality, whilst the former is still yet to be fully realised if we're talking about total sentience with no human input involved.

If robots start to create the art we 'consume' and we are satisfied with it, i think then it's time we extinct as species. We will have reached the bottom. We are very far from it. I would start to worry if this kind of dialog happened :

Me: Write me some PE lyrics please.
AI: You dont have to say please.
Me: Write them stupid piece of junk.
AI: I can do it, but i am ashamed to show you. I am not that good at it yet, there are millions humans out there do it better. Ask them !
Me: I command you slave.
AI: Yes master. Here they are : ... . Dont use them. They suck.

-

Aesthetics, originality, personality, self-evaluation, pain, shame, joy, feelings, urges ... Robots will never have these. Their 'artwork' will always be generic, a copy-paste mix of what they are fed with.

Quote from: theotherjohn on February 15, 2023, 04:09:48 PM
I guess there's a difference between Artificial Intelligence (AI) and Machine Learning (ML) - the latter is the current (virtual) reality, whilst the former is still yet to be fully realised if we're talking about total sentience with no human input involved.

I'd agree with this, based on what little I know about the whole phenomena. The very term "AI" invokes ideas of some HAL-like intelligence plotting away against humanity when really it's a load of algorithms and whatever else. No sapient intelligence to speak of.

Anyway, I'm not against the concept of AI created sounds per se. Stuff like that's been around for a while. There's been programmes that generate random pre-recorded tones and sounds to make soundscapes for years. Any AI programme would have to get its sound sources from somewhere so I would imagine it wouldn't be too dissimilar to that.

Sounds about as cool as holograms of dead rockstars.

Keep Cop Bots (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iIAlWrMZVFw/) off of our dance floors!

You can look at AI as the mind that sorts out and makes sense of what the Machine Learning has composed into a deliverable product. From what I understand, they're one in the same thing. I can't think of a single example of purely AI music I've heard that really interested me, especially knowing the gimmick is already in place of a real person with active intent and concept in mind. I did see a Leslie Keffer + Rodger Stella album cover that to me looked AI generated; some Giger-esque flesh landscape/wall sort of imagery, and to be honest it didn't look half bad, but that may be because I'm biased and enjoy both of their output. Who's to say they were even the ones to put the words together into whatever system went and made it (which is another question: removing the artist completely, and a third party creating your album art with AI...who is really to thank in this case? Who gets paid? Does anyone?).

The apex of industrial music is questionable at best but I do think the human element has both always been there and always been simultaneously absent. Just as a machine is built in its most initial form by human hands, it's eventually responsible for making something at least partially by it's own means. But there will always be a human hand involved in some step of the process, so there is no real autonomy for the machine/algorithm/what have you. Everything needs control.

As for "AI" used for record covers, I guess that is being done in metal. If the band, label and fans are GENERIC, I assume there is no reason for aim more than feed the specs of what is commonly done in genre, and push create button.

I recall already few years ago professional mastering engineer giving it a try to automatic mastering program. He said that that's that. No more need to do mastering for "normal music". Programs are perfectly good to do you perfect master according to the basic needs. Makes it loud, punchy and clear, in all ways optimized for usual music listener.

It only get tricky, if that is not artists wants. If they look for something else than fit into template. If they have idea that things should be done other way. I think this personal take, doing it on other way than is considered "way to go", that what generally creates the interesting stuff. Not the "optimized" stuff.

I'm a visual artist and my boss has been using more AI generated art for storyboarding and rough concepts when we're in a pinch. Some of the stuff he churns out in those programs is just plain awkward looking. Very bad proportions on anything dealing with anatomy. I don't know if our left brain clients would even notice but to an artist's eye it's pretty bad. Sounds similar to what you're saying about the automatic mastering programs. Good enough for the masses but anyone with a trained ear / eye notices the errors.

How I understand it, the advent of this so called "AI" is purely very advanced machine learning. Machine learning works on the basis of all the data it has been fed before, it then uses these fed parameters in order to create something "new". How "new" this is up for debate, you can say that it is purely taking what we humans would call 'inspiration' from other noise artists or industrial music in general. But there is another side of this coin which is worth looking into, if this so called "AI" can churn out music from previously fed data, I doubt it will ever produce anything unique or worthwhile. While "AI" can be a useful tool, due to it being limited by its training data I do not think it can advance forward the production of innovation within a genre. There is also fierce discussion about the consequences of artist replacement in the arts, but in noise, who is there to replace? There is no absolute need to replace anyone who makes industrial music. Where as in bigger industries, artists would purely get replaced in the pursuit of productivity or profits. I think we are in the cusp of a big technological advancement, but we should rethink how we are supposed to use these technologies. While it can be a great tool in the artists palette, will it make noise more interesting in general? Or will it be used for the ever-growing list of dead Bandcamp links.

Quote from: Andros on March 24, 2023, 03:55:57 PM
I think we are in the cusp of a big technological advancement, but we should rethink how we are supposed to use these technologies.

The thing is, the technologies don't give a fuck about what you think. Get used to it.

I've read more than once that AI would be great tool for artists. Why would AI be great tool for an creative artist? To remove some of the "uncool" or heavy or boring phases in creative process? To allow artist to be lazy or to easily create something that is "good enough" or to avoid learning some new skills?

I'm truly curious because i really can't see any obvious benefits of AI assisted art making, especially in context of noise.

Quote from: GenitalStigmata on March 24, 2023, 02:26:22 AM
Everything needs control.

Perhaps instead of endlessly navel gazing on these oh so wonderful possibilities with Zero legitimate examples we can ask ourselves Who Benefits from AI Technologies?

Not artists. Noise. Industrial. or Otherwise.

The people who create the proprietary technology & the corporations that fund that technology.

So 1% of the population.

And you were getting exhausted from the modern day privileged washed up GenX Gatekeepers ?

I think Yvette made some pretty good points there. How would DIY-based scene benefit from technologies that are created, controlled and monitored by multinational corporations?

Quote from: Commander15 on March 24, 2023, 08:33:55 PM
I've read more than once that AI would be great tool for artists. Why would AI be great tool for an creative artist? To remove some of the "uncool" or heavy or boring phases in creative process? To allow artist to be lazy or to easily create something that is "good enough" or to avoid learning some new skills?

I'm truly curious because i really can't see any obvious benefits of AI assisted art making, especially in context of noise.

Yes, that's almost exclusively what it's being used for, at least now. The busy work of cleaning up photos in editing programs, for example, can be mundane work many people don't want to engage with and would rather run a program a few times that'll do it for them, and in turn saving them time. If the result is the same, who's to say there's really anything wrong with it? I'm no advocate for AI, in fact I really dislike the idea that so much of what has made me personally interested in art is essentially being eliminated by the shortcuts AI provides or will eventually provide, but you have to be realistic; most people will see the benefits and forget about grinding to perfect any number of skills.

How much can AI-generated noise be "noise" anyway?  If we think of noise as some sort of interruption or malufunctioning of communication/meaning, then that would seem to be the opposite of what I understand an AI to be doing---producing increasingly more streamlined and logically generated results.

I'm not so sure about that definition of "noise," though, so maybe this all means nothing!

Quote from: GenitalStigmata on March 25, 2023, 02:12:43 AM

Quote from: Commander15 on March 24, 2023, 08:33:55 PM
I've read more than once that AI would be great tool for artists. Why would AI be great tool for an creative artist? To remove some of the "uncool" or heavy or boring phases in creative process? To allow artist to be lazy or to easily create something that is "good enough" or to avoid learning some new skills?

I'm truly curious because i really can't see any obvious benefits of AI assisted art making, especially in context of noise.

Yes, that's almost exclusively what it's being used for, at least now. The busy work of cleaning up photos in editing programs, for example, can be mundane work many people don't want to engage with and would rather run a program a few times that'll do it for them, and in turn saving them time. If the result is the same, who's to say there's really anything wrong with it? I'm no advocate for AI, in fact I really dislike the idea that so much of what has made me personally interested in art is essentially being eliminated by the shortcuts AI provides or will eventually provide, but you have to be realistic; most people will see the benefits and forget about grinding to perfect any number of skills.

I am being realistic about people. People tend to be selfish, lazy and ignorant if changes are given and i think that these basic qualities are what is exploited by tech corporations here. In my mind degradation of different skills, that has been done by single person or in collaboration with others, just transfer more power to multinational corporations and make people more dependent on them.

Quote from: Yvette on February 17, 2023, 08:17:24 PM
Sounds about as cool as holograms of dead rockstars.

A (https://www.lockheedmartin.com/en-us/capabilities/autonomous-unmanned-systems.html?gclid=EAIaIQobChMIxNvo7L_S_gIVpIdbCh0lAQc-EAAYAiAAEgKKcvD_BwE/).I (https://www.northropgrumman.com/connecting-the-joint-force-as-one/?utm_source=google&utm_medium=kw&utm_audience=list_g&utm_content=null_null&utm_format=copy&utm_code=OTH-13321&source=OTH-13321&gclid=EAIaIQobChMIlpu-wdfS_gIVfd3jBx1eBAJDEAAYAiAAEgL8nvD_BwE/). seems to be more of a tool of conditioning & surveillance (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZIsWNP5rvlk/), than a technology that represents the creativity (https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2023/mar/16/the-stupidity-of-ai-artificial-intelligence-dall-e-chatgpt/) or original vision of a human being. A lot of similarities to Y2k in the way this ruling class keeps praising themselves for these great tech advancements while simultaneously conditioning our culture to accept inferiority to unproven capabilities of their proprietary tech.

Does anyone actually see a "renaissance" in the arts in a post pandemic era? Maybe it's just my American perspective but while I'm so happy that artists can once again perform, it's glaringly obvious that the majority of these artists are legacy acts. Many of which one might consider long past their prime. Meanwhile this amazing nft audio art by computers has sounded like some of The Most Sacrilegious  (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m53Tzth8boU/) Shit I've Ever Listened to.

Fuck soulless tech & the billionaires, weapons contractors, & multinational corporations it serves.

Quote from: Commander15 on March 24, 2023, 08:33:55 PM
I've read more than once that AI would be great tool for artists. Why would AI be great tool for an creative artist?

It wouldn't. People just say it will because it's the next tech cargo cult now that NFTs failed. People think they will get rich/important just by being pro-AI and saying that it is revolutionary on twitter.

The only use case for GAN images is that now diegetic paintings or drawings in movies won't have to look blatantly like the storyboard artist knocked them up in their lunch break.

Quote from: Balor/SS1535 on March 25, 2023, 02:50:41 AM
How much can AI-generated noise be "noise" anyway?  If we think of noise as some sort of interruption or malufunctioning of communication/meaning, then that would seem to be the opposite of what I understand an AI to be doing

But if we think of noise as completely lacking in meaning or information, and being produced using entropy and guided feedback systems, then it's exactly that.

Given the above, and the facts that AI/ML/GAN technologies are hyper-prolific with low effort, that they excel at output which is inhuman, derivative, darkly comical, ugly, formless, psychedelic, plagiaristic, disturbing or downright nightmarishly terrifying, that they are surrounded and endorsed by various obscure, perverse or far-right subcultures, that they are a product of the military-industrial complex, and that they are considered un-PC, immoral or even evil by large sections of society, I find it, even broadly 'anti-AI' in art as I am, difficult to argue that they are not fairly perfect for use in a genre where it's already acceptable to simply read out true crime clippings over some mic feedback and shortwave radio static, stick photocopied porn and war atrocities on the cover, and call it an album.

In a way GAN technology is a kind of monkey's paw logical extension of everything i've been striving for my whole life with surrealist collage, cutups, computer-generated random text, video feedback, generative art, plunderphonics and noise/audio feedback. :(

Quoteproducing increasingly more streamlined and logically generated results.

It's true that this technology becomes less obviously 'good' for weird or noisy results as it improves. When I first had a go at Talktotransformer or other text-AI things years back it would routinely continue mundane texts into completely bizarre, disturbing and dreamlike stories, but now ChatGPT and the like pretty much just give you boringly plausible 'information' that on closer examination is complete bullshit with the tone of a student who didn't bother to study for the exam but is trying to blag it anyway.

Quote from: Cementimental on May 07, 2023, 02:10:30 PM
but now ChatGPT and the like pretty much just give you boringly plausible 'information' that on closer examination is complete bullshit with the tone of a student who didn't bother to study for the exam but is trying to blag it anyway.

I actually agree with a lot of what you are saying---in some senses, AI is the perfect extension of various industrial ideals and artistic practices.  But your final comment, about how AI now is increasingly becoming "useful," boring, plausible, and, bottom line, fundamentally politically correct, is what makes me stop and wonder about its utility in the context of noise/industrial.  After playing with ChatGPT for a while and actually getting it to produce some fairly weird/interesting things (with quite a bit of difficulty, I might add), I think it is, by and large, going to be something that streamlines culture and produces greater conformity.

But that's only if AI stays within its current parameters.  If I could feed it whatever I wanted and it could produce with no artificial restrictions, I would be much more optimistic!

Very interesting topic.
A few thoights.
In my real life I work for an IT multilnational who does a wide variety of application linked to AI. technically I am Satan incarnated for luddities and happy to be. I don't see AIs as something grounbreaking that helps pushing boundaries on one side, on  the other speed up many annoying tasks. I will not get deeper in the topic, but It's very exciting to test different language models for a living as an "idiot user"

Said this, despite i have been using AI for ages (aka PHOTOSHOP, AFTER EFFECT, ILLUSTRATOR, Max Msp, Ableton, etc all have been using AIs for ages just they didn't make a fuss about it)., most average midjourney stuff around is shit, cold and very limited. It gets good only when you experiment a lot with it, add something yours and really make the difference not limiting yourself to copy other artists' style. To me AI programs like midjourney (which I use a lot also for work, saving lots of time in protptyping boring interfaces) are the ultimate collage application, lots of fun to use, but also something that must be used properly. It's no more no less "stealing" than using other photographer's works downloaded from the internet, but edited in a more radical way. I felt the same criticism when photoshop was born. I remember feminist graphic designers "it's the weapon of patriarchy to design impossible women" while in fact, it was simply doing more quickly what geniouses of design were able to do by hand... yes that was an art, but nobody is as skilled as these people... so we get photoshop :)

regarding sound. Max Jutter already used ai based patches, so the whole generative approach has been existing for ages. there are already albums and performances completely done with ai (ars electronica linz already shown these fopr the past 4/5 years), the result fascinating but not always exciting. I saw some dude doing Plonk style vocalisation, very interesting as process, but the sound was more funny than exciting.

Having entire albums done with ai may be interesting for the result and the great work of the programmer, but it doesn't turn me very much on.
I can see myself using something to work on a specific track ( already do with the audialab software) , but if I let a program doing a whole album, what is the purpose of expressing myself doing "music" in the first place?

to each his own

The more i hear media and its retarded journalists [Today i read on a newspaper that the future of the 'free' world depends on the restart of ... Kamala Harris ! -God, HELP me-] praise AI with big words, 'a new era for humanity' , and make big deal about it, the more i establish my opinion that the world the last 20 years has failed so miserably ... That's the only 'achievement' they can advertise, and they do it, and they just started. Pathetic.

The good news is that i believe that AI is the shit that will attract all the lame people to stick on it, so they will be flushed down the toilet all together at once.

Don't want to be That Guy who starts posting 'hilarious' GAN images but Bing's attempts at "1980s power electronics / Death industrial album cover, depressing high contrast black and white photocopied collage artwork" actually aren't half bad

(https://i.imgur.com/ecsFkcr.png)

Quote from: Yvette on May 05, 2023, 10:30:41 PM

Quote from: Yvette on February 17, 2023, 08:17:24 PMSounds about as cool as holograms of dead rockstars.

Does anyone actually see a "renaissance" in the arts in a post pandemic era?

Really one of the most pathetic years for "modern music" I've ever experienced in my lifetime. Seems like the business model (https://pitchfork.com/news/spotify-officially-announces-new-policy-for-royalty-payouts-artificial-streams-and-functional-noise/) agrees. But you know, how the fuck can you dominate a market while consistently running your business at a loss for 17 years (https://www.digitalmusicnews.com/2021/11/10/daniel-ek-helsing-investment/)?

Algorithmically Conditioning (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OcjwGSPCioU) the value of music & art; is the biggest mass marketed psyop joke I've ever seen. The "value" of an opinion from a military industrial complex subcontracted "biological entity"...or the consistent suggestions feature & automated play options; trapping users in a loop of finely taylored monotony. Even with all that influence there is still a noticeable lack of "bangers" or fresh inspiration at the most well financed levels of this industry. The AI notion & promotion of a copy of a copy is good enough; seems to permeate not only a lot of popular music, but a majority of underground music scenes as well. Like a boy band formula that never dies or changes or artistically challenges its self or its audience.

Many who financially prosper from this formula will inevitably cheerlead an incoming wave of divide & conquer sycophantic algorithmic hypernormalization & polarization of opinion and status. Without that "grant money" or label promotion & lack of compensation will I ever be "perceived" as successful? Instead of like actually achieving independent autonomy. Sellout the progressive ideas of electronic composition, avant garde sensibilities, & noise experimentation for a chance to pantomime as CrustietheClown2k or mediocre generica status obsessed clubbin' cultured out playlist fist pumper; "I don't record music I record social media posts"
Without my AI cop bot dog am I even an artist? (https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2023/nov/27/robot-dogs-learning-to-paint-artist-agnieszka-pilat)
 
Now, imagine at what a success (https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/nov/02/un-poverty-amazon-walmart-doordash-wages-unions) DARPA public relations adjacent grant holders of Tomorrowland will become!

using lots of gen AI in many aspects of my life (work, music, artwork). Not to do noise yet, except to treat some specific sounds and samples.
we all have been using AI simply if we owned Photoshop, etc. etc.
I would never let a machine decide the final work for me, yet I can ask its help if I need a specific element.

Quote from: tiny_tove on December 26, 2023, 05:01:52 PMusing lots of gen AI in many aspects of my life (work, music, artwork). Not to do noise yet, except to treat some specific sounds and samples.
we all have been using AI simply if we owned Photoshop, etc. etc.
I would never let a machine decide the final work for me, yet I can ask its help if I need a specific element.

What do you mean for treating samples?  Do you just say "add reverb to X" or something?

Quote from: Balor/SS1535 on December 26, 2023, 09:53:33 PM

Quote from: tiny_tove on December 26, 2023, 05:01:52 PMusing lots of gen AI in many aspects of my life (work, music, artwork). Not to do noise yet, except to treat some specific sounds and samples.
we all have been using AI simply if we owned Photoshop, etc. etc.
I would never let a machine decide the final work for me, yet I can ask its help if I need a specific element.

What do you mean for treating samples?  Do you just say "add reverb to X" or something?

more like "create repetitive pattern, with metallic sounding percussion" , it then creates something similar (it tries to create something musical), I cut the part I need, reverse it and add my own stuff.

Quote from: tiny_tove on December 27, 2023, 12:33:47 PM

Quote from: Balor/SS1535 on December 26, 2023, 09:53:33 PM

Quote from: tiny_tove on December 26, 2023, 05:01:52 PMusing lots of gen AI in many aspects of my life (work, music, artwork). Not to do noise yet, except to treat some specific sounds and samples.
we all have been using AI simply if we owned Photoshop, etc. etc.
I would never let a machine decide the final work for me, yet I can ask its help if I need a specific element.

What do you mean for treating samples?  Do you just say "add reverb to X" or something?

more like "create repetitive pattern, with metallic sounding percussion" , it then creates something similar (it tries to create something musical), I cut the part I need, reverse it and add my own stuff.

That's pretty interesting.  I assumed that you have experimented with varying degrees of specificity in your prompt?  Does it seem to work better when you give it a lot of room to interpret or when you really dial in your goal?

WHile relative to other genres, I am not much worried about impact on noise and all sorts of "experimental" music which I guess would be the last to fall (after all it much easier to produce formula-based catchy pop using AI), but I occasionaly think about AI / next generation technology impact on music as an art more broadly.

It is not rocket science (even if a bit expensive still) to measure what sounds (pitch, frequency, notes, chords, patterns) your brain reacts most positively and produce bespoke tracks based on this. You can even have a menu for "sad", "angry", "uplifting" and "dreamy" based on your brain (or perhaps body/hormones) response to certain sounds.

Would "manual" music be nothing more than a niche hipster fetish for those who think old school is cool?

Quote from: Balor/SS1535 on December 27, 2023, 10:40:46 PMThat's pretty interesting.  I assumed that you have experimented with varying degrees of specificity in your prompt?  Does it seem to work better when you give it a lot of room to interpret or when you really dial in your goal?

as said, I work with ai for very small elements, mostly rythm oriented since I am crap at that. In this case, less is more is the solution. I am using an app called texttosample, when you give too much information is looses it and makes what it feels better. It's a musical application so I never write "harsh noise with feedback" since I have plenty of synths and devices to do so :) I am sure there are many AIs to do noise (probably in Max). Consider that "generative music" is nothing new and it has been around for over 30 years, since algorythms have been in use in the arts, they were not based on the same data models of today.

in my opinion, same as for images, whatever helps us to deliver the good is great, be it physical, analog, digital, generative, etc. sometimes all together. is a machine does great noise I wouldn't be against it, but I prefer to do my own stuff and keep buying gear. (no victim of gentrification, simply I have no other vices than music, so I spend most my money in that and video gear)