I am listening to part 1 and I am wondering about genres. What if an artist works in genre A and you like genre C. What do you think of an artist taking their original work and using AI to make versions in genre B, C, and D? As far as I know (I know almost nothing about the music industry) nobody does this without AI, so it seems less of an issue of taking work from people in the industry.
This is interesting -- to me, these genre experiments likely wouldn't be better than fan-made ones (labor issue aside -- better for credit etc to go to original artist than some third party), and probably the better (or more interesting) route to me would be to have say a different artist cover the original, think Dolly Parton and Whitney Houston both doing "I will always love you" in their respective styles. You're going to get the nuanced style details the AI version might miss.
More interesting if it happens. I don't think it happens very often. Most artists would be leaving money on the table by waiting for another artist to cover their work.
You talked about disliking using AI as a shortcut to avoid learning to play an instrument, but then reference MGMT's creation of a unique sound with a synthesizer as something special. How do you reconcile these seemingly conflicting ideas? Why does it bother you that an AI artist didn't learn to play a guitar, but you don't care that MGMT didn't learn to play the Peruvian flute?
I feel like talented artists will find ways to make great art with whatever tools are available, and some people will make bad art with the same tools, just like always.
This reminds me of a talk by musician and co-founder of Patreon, Jack Conte where he talks about the history of silent films moving to sound, and the creation of the synthesizer and the backlashes to those new technologies. Worth a watch, imo: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ue9-zkAz59A
There are 10 kinds of people in the world, those that understand binary and those that don't
I am listening to part 1 and I am wondering about genres. What if an artist works in genre A and you like genre C. What do you think of an artist taking their original work and using AI to make versions in genre B, C, and D? As far as I know (I know almost nothing about the music industry) nobody does this without AI, so it seems less of an issue of taking work from people in the industry.
This is interesting -- to me, these genre experiments likely wouldn't be better than fan-made ones (labor issue aside -- better for credit etc to go to original artist than some third party), and probably the better (or more interesting) route to me would be to have say a different artist cover the original, think Dolly Parton and Whitney Houston both doing "I will always love you" in their respective styles. You're going to get the nuanced style details the AI version might miss.
More interesting if it happens. I don't think it happens very often. Most artists would be leaving money on the table by waiting for another artist to cover their work.
You talked about disliking using AI as a shortcut to avoid learning to play an instrument, but then reference MGMT's creation of a unique sound with a synthesizer as something special. How do you reconcile these seemingly conflicting ideas? Why does it bother you that an AI artist didn't learn to play a guitar, but you don't care that MGMT didn't learn to play the Peruvian flute?
I feel like talented artists will find ways to make great art with whatever tools are available, and some people will make bad art with the same tools, just like always.
This reminds me of a talk by musician and co-founder of Patreon, Jack Conte where he talks about the history of silent films moving to sound, and the creation of the synthesizer and the backlashes to those new technologies. Worth a watch, imo: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ue9-zkAz59A