Want to be a MUSIC/SOUND pro in 2025? THINK TWICE

NeuM · May 30

@offbrands said:

@NeuM said:

@Robin2 said:

@NeuM said:

@offbrands said:

@wim said:

@Robin2 said:
Of course the worst flaws of AI exist because it’s been created by human beings, how could it be anything else?

Humm ... more and more AI is being used in AI development. As the human element fades could it not diverge from that "imperfection"? Could it not all spin away from us? Or, if we're imperfect by nature, would that mean it would become less and less like us? Or is success defined as perfectly recreating those imperfections? In that case, it certainly could succeed.

Those are mostly a flippant thoughts, but ... I confess this has got me thinking.

On the imperfections route AI perhaps is seemingly following

Chatbots overly confident in stating wrong opinions/facts on forums while barely providing sourcing ✅

Has a side hobby of creating art by using stealing someone else’s copyright✅

Then proceeds to also promote their cheaper services than the other guy ✅

All the while being horrible for the environment ✅

Maybe this is the real Turing test 🤷🏻‍♂️

Machine learning systems don't independently "feed" themselves with sounds, images and information. They rely on people, who are all flawed and have individual preferences and biases, to train them.

And I still don't see any validity to this "horrible for the environment" claim. If anything, these systems reduce pollution by leapfrogging real-world human activity which would be required to gather the equivalent amount of information and productivity.

I just stumbled into this article via Google News. Talks about AI systems being fed with their own output as it happens.

https://www.theregister.com/2025/05/27/opinion_column_ai_model_collapse/

Link to UNEP article on the environmental impacts of AI.

https://www.unep.org/news-and-stories/story/ai-has-environmental-problem-heres-what-world-can-do-about

Did a little research.

The UNEP Emissions Gap Report 2024 (UNEP Emissions Gap Report 2024) notes that global emissions, including China's, are not on track to meet the Paris Agreement's 1.5°C target, with projections suggesting a temperature rise of 2.6-3.1°C if current policies persist. Additionally, reports of illegal trade in ODS, such as HCFC-22 seizures in 2023, indicate enforcement issues, with actions like fines and confiscations documented (China Ozone Profile).

…

The two largest polluting countries on earth are China and India. And believe you me that neither of them will give up their best attempts to gain preeminence in AI to satisfy UNEP recommendations. Just looking at the issue with a sense of reality with regard to what’s at stake.

Okay… the original links were cause you said you questioned that validity of how bad it is for the environment and then when provided with sources you’ve done a little research and pointed at India and China and are like hey look they aren’t gonna stop and that you’re just looking at the issue with a sense of reality.

It’s whataboutism while alluding to what exactly?

I don't know if you're from the US or not, but the two largest polluting countries (China and India) don't follow the recommendation of this UN group. That should mean something to you.

wim · May 30

@offbrands said:
I’m only responding because I thought maybe you actually would answer my questions without whataboutism and maybe they’ll be a human forward understanding with some empathetic reasoning for humans and creatives not being put to poverty … it’s deeply concerning how you’re unwilling to show a shred of empathy.

Hoping not to step in the middle of a disagreement between two others, but this comment intrigued me regarding my own feelings.

I have empathy, but I'm also fatalistic about this. It is going to happen. It's unstoppable.

I just can't bring myself to expend mental or emotional energy against something when I don't believe it will accomplish anything. It seems to help people feel like they're doing something, so more power to them, and to you. Sincerely.

But I simply can't relate to that.

I can despise something while accepting I can't make it go away. I can have empathy toward those who it will hurt. But I'm at the acceptance stage, so my mental and emotional energy feels best directed at how to adapt to the new reality and maybe think of ways to help others. Fat chance of that but at least that's better to me than wasting energy on rueing the inevitable.

That'll probably come off sounding like a criticism of people not of my same mind. I honestly don't mean it that way. It's just my personal outlook that your comment helped me better understand.

NeuM · May 30

@offbrands said:

@NeuM said:

@offbrands said:

@NeuM said:

@offbrands said:

@wim said:

@Robin2 said:
Of course the worst flaws of AI exist because it’s been created by human beings, how could it be anything else?

Humm ... more and more AI is being used in AI development. As the human element fades could it not diverge from that "imperfection"? Could it not all spin away from us? Or, if we're imperfect by nature, would that mean it would become less and less like us? Or is success defined as perfectly recreating those imperfections? In that case, it certainly could succeed.

Those are mostly a flippant thoughts, but ... I confess this has got me thinking.

On the imperfections route AI perhaps is seemingly following

Chatbots overly confident in stating wrong opinions/facts on forums while barely providing sourcing ✅

Has a side hobby of creating art by using stealing someone else’s copyright✅

Then proceeds to also promote their cheaper services than the other guy ✅

All the while being horrible for the environment ✅

Maybe this is the real Turing test 🤷🏻‍♂️

Machine learning systems don't independently "feed" themselves with sounds, images and information. They rely on people, who are all flawed and have individual preferences and biases, to train them.

And I still don't see any validity to this "horrible for the environment" claim. If anything, these systems reduce pollution by leapfrogging real-world human activity which would be required to gather the equivalent amount of information and result in an identical amount of productivity.

There is no basis of fact here while seemingly dismissing the future for human activity and potential discoveries in favor of an AI because it’s more productive?

You’re inherently just boiling down the human experience of living, working, existing to a 1v1 of humans against ai where productivity is the only metric.

Often it seems like you do this, as if your vested interest is to defend the interests of the AI, and only AI.

For example, movie (or TV productions) which involve hundreds or thousands of individuals, transportation, energy, waste production, etc. are essentially being eliminated now that generative video exists.

Yeah… this isn’t a good thing. This is a bad thing. All of these things help economic growth in the pursuit of lifting creatives out of poverty into prosperity.

You often have real Mr. Smith takes, not sure why, doesn’t seem like it’s in the spirit of debate or even devils advocate.

Why is that? Why do you seem to minimally question yet accept what you’re told about AI from these companies?

Why is the metric of the lived experience boiled down to productivity being the only form of progress?

Simplifying things a bit for the sake of discussion, you can have full employment, little reduction in pollution and energy consumption or you can have less employment, less human activity and reduced energy consumption. You cannot have human activity and not have pollution. Both are permanently linked.

I’ll take the future where things can be managed and I have no illusion that the entire planet is going to die if there are more computer servers and fewer Hollywood productions.

If it’s worst for the environment because humans can have employment and prosper in a capitalism based society …thats still a better thing for humans.

Nobody here except you compared the environmental impact of human beings exsisting vs. AI. You brought that comparison. I merely mentioned that AI is bad for the environment because there is no need for generative AI.

Generative AI is being used by corporate entities for taking jobs from creatives while continuing the trend of the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer.

Again, I feel like you just take the side of AI. Like you want to believe these biased C-Suite suits & CEOs and we need to believe them.

I’m only responding because I thought maybe you actually would answer my questions without whataboutism and maybe they’ll be a human forward understanding with some empathetic reasoning for humans and creatives not being put to poverty … it’s deeply concerning how you’re unwilling to show a shred of empathy.

Assuming you’re even like not a paid entity for those techs or have some deeply vested interest in having that one side and only that one side. Just so off.

-There's "no need for generative AI"? That's false. There is massive demand for these services. They cannot keep up with demand.

-Everyone will "get richer" because generative/A.I. services will continue to trend toward no cost to the user and it will provide more computing power than a person today can even imagine. Its utility is clearly demonstrated by the levels of investment we're seeing today. Hundreds of billions of dollars from companies and governments (2025 estimate: $600-750 billion globally).

-People will be lifted up due to their increased access to these services. Poorer countries benefit from large investments in technology (see: iPhones and "smartphones" in general, satellites, pharmaceuticals, gene therapy, etc.).

-I don't work for and I am not a stealth representative for any of the companies in question. And personal attacks are just bad form. Let's be civil to each other, please.

offbrands · May 30

@NeuM said:

@offbrands said:

@NeuM said:

@Robin2 said:

@NeuM said:

@offbrands said:

@wim said:

@Robin2 said:
Of course the worst flaws of AI exist because it’s been created by human beings, how could it be anything else?

Humm ... more and more AI is being used in AI development. As the human element fades could it not diverge from that "imperfection"? Could it not all spin away from us? Or, if we're imperfect by nature, would that mean it would become less and less like us? Or is success defined as perfectly recreating those imperfections? In that case, it certainly could succeed.

Those are mostly a flippant thoughts, but ... I confess this has got me thinking.

On the imperfections route AI perhaps is seemingly following

Chatbots overly confident in stating wrong opinions/facts on forums while barely providing sourcing ✅

Has a side hobby of creating art by using stealing someone else’s copyright✅

Then proceeds to also promote their cheaper services than the other guy ✅

All the while being horrible for the environment ✅

Maybe this is the real Turing test 🤷🏻‍♂️

Machine learning systems don't independently "feed" themselves with sounds, images and information. They rely on people, who are all flawed and have individual preferences and biases, to train them.

And I still don't see any validity to this "horrible for the environment" claim. If anything, these systems reduce pollution by leapfrogging real-world human activity which would be required to gather the equivalent amount of information and productivity.

I just stumbled into this article via Google News. Talks about AI systems being fed with their own output as it happens.

https://www.theregister.com/2025/05/27/opinion_column_ai_model_collapse/

Link to UNEP article on the environmental impacts of AI.

https://www.unep.org/news-and-stories/story/ai-has-environmental-problem-heres-what-world-can-do-about

Did a little research.

The UNEP Emissions Gap Report 2024 (UNEP Emissions Gap Report 2024) notes that global emissions, including China's, are not on track to meet the Paris Agreement's 1.5°C target, with projections suggesting a temperature rise of 2.6-3.1°C if current policies persist. Additionally, reports of illegal trade in ODS, such as HCFC-22 seizures in 2023, indicate enforcement issues, with actions like fines and confiscations documented (China Ozone Profile).

…

The two largest polluting countries on earth are China and India. And believe you me that neither of them will give up their best attempts to gain preeminence in AI to satisfy UNEP recommendations. Just looking at the issue with a sense of reality with regard to what’s at stake.

Okay… the original links were cause you said you questioned that validity of how bad it is for the environment and then when provided with sources you’ve done a little research and pointed at India and China and are like hey look they aren’t gonna stop and that you’re just looking at the issue with a sense of reality.

It’s whataboutism while alluding to what exactly?

I don't know if you're from the US or not, but the two largest polluting countries (China and India) don't follow the recommendation of this UN group. That should mean something to you.

Still no clear indication into what you're alluding to - that's fine, it's your right to be cagey about what you mean.
Doesn't change the whataboutism.

There's "no need for generative AI"? That's false. There is massive demand for these services. They cannot keep up with demand.

Demand and human need are different things. Who can't keep up with the demand of what?

My statement of no need for it is because it's awful and stolen from actual humans.

Doesn't it bother you that companies use their crawlers to scour the internet to feed their LLM's to provide generative AI by way of copyright theft of human intellectual property without attribution? Like shouldn't that fundamentally bother any creative?

-Everyone will "get richer" because generative/A.I. services will continue to trend toward no cost to the user and it will provide more computing power than a person today can even imagine. Its utility is clearly demonstrated by the levels of investment we're seeing today. Hundreds of billions of dollars from companies and governments (2025 estimate: $600-750 billion globally).

When in human history has everyone gotten richer because of technology? Out of poverty in some degree, sure, but have and have not's need one defining trait to differentiate the two, and it's evident that rich get richer, poor get poorer.

What does more compute help with in this idea?

Also - OpenAI, the apparent current leader, has yet to come up with an affordable model that will fix their current burn rate. Granted, that's how Silicon valley rolls, but it's a house of cards... imo.

Investment by governments and companies into anything doesn't inherently prove utility. I mean, remember Theranos? She had a who's who of people, companies, and govt entities launder her bs. Your willingness to accept this at face value is disconcerting to me.

Source for the 2025 global estimate?

People will be lifted up due to their increased access to these services.

To AI services.. how will access to AI, generative AI, and the like, help lift people out of property while simultaneously taking jobs from a ton of people?

Poorer countries benefit from large investments in technology (see: iPhones and "smartphones" in general, satellites, pharmaceuticals, gene therapy, etc.).

What large investments from which companies are you citing? The world is becoming more authoritarian and nationalized, so who is helping these countries?

These things your mentioning sound great but break em down, what does giving someone in poverty a smartphone accomplish ? It accomplishes another user of a platform. It wasn't to lift them out of poverty, it was for these companis own gain of market share. Not seeing how it's lifting them out of poverty. Plenty of people in poverty have a smartphone.

-I don't work for and I am not a stealth representative for any of the companies in question. And personal attacks are just bad form. Let's be civil to each other, please.

I am being civil it was legitimately a question after a couple years of bewilderment at your posts. I don't see any responses of yours based in any kind of empathy really when it comes to this subject. If that's offended you, I apologize.

To be clear, It wasn't meant to be uncivilized, but really this 'personal attacks' you mention is just another way of flipping stuff around and not really addressing the core of my questions within your responses. That's fine. All good. No bad blood here.

offbrands · May 30

@wim said:

@offbrands said:
I’m only responding because I thought maybe you actually would answer my questions without whataboutism and maybe they’ll be a human forward understanding with some empathetic reasoning for humans and creatives not being put to poverty … it’s deeply concerning how you’re unwilling to show a shred of empathy.

Hoping not to step in the middle of a disagreement between two others, but this comment intrigued me regarding my own feelings.

You aren't - it's an open forum as you well know, bring the thoughts I say!

I have empathy, but I'm also fatalistic about this. It is going to happen. It's unstoppable.

I tend to agree with this.

I just can't bring myself to expend mental or emotional energy against something when I don't believe it will accomplish anything. It seems to help people feel like they're doing something, so more power to them, and to you. Sincerely.

You're probably right, I was making a rather complicated dish today and felt why not throw some thoughts out, but yeah, emotionally probably not worth the effort.

But I simply can't relate to that.

I can despise something while accepting I can't make it go away. I can have empathy toward those who it will hurt. But I'm at the acceptance stage, so my mental and emotional energy feels best directed at how to adapt to the new reality and maybe think of ways to help others. Fat chance of that but at least that's better to me than wasting energy on rueing the inevitable.

I understand this thought process, and I empathize with you and it fully.
Diagnosed ADHD (11 yearsish? but obviously I have been my whole life) and I have this weird justice sensitivity. It's an issue. But your mentatlity is one I often envy. Truthfully my comments here are just in the spirit of getting some real questions asked. I like to pull threads more than in my younger years when I was more actively against my own emotional peace for lack of a better word.

That'll probably come off sounding like a criticism of people not of my same mind. I honestly don't mean it that way. It's just my personal outlook that your comment helped me better understand.

I totally understand, I really appreciate the comment - I hope my scrambled replies make sense here

wim · May 30

@offbrands said:
I totally understand, I really appreciate the comment - I hope my scrambled replies make sense here

Thanks for your understanding. But I also hope that I've not discouraged you from standing on your beliefs. Nothing good, and everything bad is also inevitable without poets and revolutionaries making a stand.

offbrands · May 30

@wim said:

@offbrands said:
I totally understand, I really appreciate the comment - I hope my scrambled replies make sense here

Thanks for your understanding. But I also hope that I've not discouraged you from standing on your beliefs. Nothing good, and everything bad is also inevitable without poets and revolutionaries making a stand.

Absolutely and no I’m not discouraged! I just like to try and get more empathetic thoughts into the world. That’s all I can do so I shall try it. I really appreciate this response and your last one. They’ll stay with me a while. 🙏🏽

Robin2 · May 30

@NeuM said:

@Robin2 said:

@NeuM said:

@offbrands said:

@wim said:

@Robin2 said:
Of course the worst flaws of AI exist because it’s been created by human beings, how could it be anything else?

Humm ... more and more AI is being used in AI development. As the human element fades could it not diverge from that "imperfection"? Could it not all spin away from us? Or, if we're imperfect by nature, would that mean it would become less and less like us? Or is success defined as perfectly recreating those imperfections? In that case, it certainly could succeed.

Those are mostly a flippant thoughts, but ... I confess this has got me thinking.

On the imperfections route AI perhaps is seemingly following

Chatbots overly confident in stating wrong opinions/facts on forums while barely providing sourcing ✅

Has a side hobby of creating art by using stealing someone else’s copyright✅

Then proceeds to also promote their cheaper services than the other guy ✅

All the while being horrible for the environment ✅

Maybe this is the real Turing test 🤷🏻‍♂️

Machine learning systems don't independently "feed" themselves with sounds, images and information. They rely on people, who are all flawed and have individual preferences and biases, to train them.

And I still don't see any validity to this "horrible for the environment" claim. If anything, these systems reduce pollution by leapfrogging real-world human activity which would be required to gather the equivalent amount of information and productivity.

I just stumbled into this article via Google News. Talks about AI systems being fed with their own output as it happens.

https://www.theregister.com/2025/05/27/opinion_column_ai_model_collapse/

Link to UNEP article on the environmental impacts of AI.

https://www.unep.org/news-and-stories/story/ai-has-environmental-problem-heres-what-world-can-do-about

Did a little research.

The UNEP Emissions Gap Report 2024 (UNEP Emissions Gap Report 2024) notes that global emissions, including China's, are not on track to meet the Paris Agreement's 1.5°C target, with projections suggesting a temperature rise of 2.6-3.1°C if current policies persist. Additionally, reports of illegal trade in ODS, such as HCFC-22 seizures in 2023, indicate enforcement issues, with actions like fines and confiscations documented (China Ozone Profile).

…

The two largest polluting countries on earth are China and India. And believe you me that neither of them will give up their best attempts to gain preeminence in AI to satisfy UNEP recommendations. Just looking at the issue with a sense of reality with regard to what’s at stake.

When the shit hits the fan regarding climate change (going on the scientific consensus), such finger pointing and ‘those others aren’t going to do it so why should we’ attitude, such fatalistic submission to the ‘inevitable’ will seem so facile. We will all desperately wish we could go back in time and all see if it can be avoided (and maybe it can’t but better to try than not, isn’t it?).

But, then again, some people got lots and lots of money to make, so fuck it, clearly my priorities are all wrong!

wim · May 30

Not that anyone has crossed any lines but ...

I think veering off toward climate change will be a pretty hard exit from the topic at hand (impact of AI on music careers). If that discussion is going to expand, I'd like to suggest starting a discussion in the Other category, before the flagged posts start rolling in. It could be a great conversation and anyone is free to go as political as they like over there.

How 'bout it eh? Give your friendly moderators a break from having to ... er ... moderate?

🙏🏼✌🏼😎

Krupa · May 30

I was wondering when someone would start crying about politics 🙄

Simon · May 30

My friend listed an oil painting of The Titanic on eBay.

eBay asked her if she wanted it to generate an Ai description. She clicked "yes". This is what is came up with:

"Delve into the sombre elegance of the Titanic with this original oil painting from the 1950s. The artwork offers a nostalgic glimpse into a bygone era, capturing the essence of the iconic ship in rich, vibrant hues that bring the tragedy and grandeur of the Titanic to life. Ideal for collectors and history enthusiasts alike, this piece stands as a testament to the enduring legacy of one of the most infamous maritime events. While the originating region remains a mystery, the painting's authentic charm is undeniable, making it a striking addition to any collection or décor."

I was pretty impressed, considering it didn't have much data about the painting to work with.

Simon · May 30

A leading AI CEO is warning the tech could cause mass unemployment:

https://edition.cnn.com/2025/05/29/tech/ai-anthropic-ceo-dario-amodei-unemployment

Gavinski · May 30

This is an interesting Reddit thread on this topic. Read the comments, though, not just the title, or you'll get the wrong end of the stick:

https://www.reddit.com/r/Layoffs/comments/1kwkmmg/article_why_ai_hasnt_taken_your_job_and_any/

Michael_R_Grant · May 30

@Simon said:
My friend listed an oil painting of The Titanic on eBay.

eBay asked her if she wanted it to generate an Ai description. She clicked "yes". This is what is came up with:

"Delve into the sombre elegance of the Titanic with this original oil painting from the 1950s. The artwork offers a nostalgic glimpse into a bygone era, capturing the essence of the iconic ship in rich, vibrant hues that bring the tragedy and grandeur of the Titanic to life. Ideal for collectors and history enthusiasts alike, this piece stands as a testament to the enduring legacy of one of the most infamous maritime events. While the originating region remains a mystery, the painting's authentic charm is undeniable, making it a striking addition to any collection or décor."

I was pretty impressed, considering it didn't have much data about the painting to work with.

It has data from loads of listings of other oil paintings of The Titanic, and is consolidating those listings into this 'new' one.

sevenape · May 30

I won't buy any art that has had the tAInt

NeuM · May 30

@Simon said:
A leading AI CEO is warning the tech could cause mass unemployment:

https://edition.cnn.com/2025/05/29/tech/ai-anthropic-ceo-dario-amodei-unemployment

Considering the huge lawsuits already brought against this company, I can see why he’s attempting to draw attention away from those outstanding cases:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropic

Darkstring · May 30

I’ll start worrying the day that AI comes up with truly novel stories by itself, or when it can create full games beyond simple tech demos or narrow scope applications. I doubt the next Skrillex or Bob Dylan will come from AI.

Simon · May 30

@Michael_R_Grant said:

@Simon said:
My friend listed an oil painting of The Titanic on eBay.

eBay asked her if she wanted it to generate an Ai description. She clicked "yes". This is what is came up with:

"Delve into the sombre elegance of the Titanic with this original oil painting from the 1950s. The artwork offers a nostalgic glimpse into a bygone era, capturing the essence of the iconic ship in rich, vibrant hues that bring the tragedy and grandeur of the Titanic to life. Ideal for collectors and history enthusiasts alike, this piece stands as a testament to the enduring legacy of one of the most infamous maritime events. While the originating region remains a mystery, the painting's authentic charm is undeniable, making it a striking addition to any collection or décor."

I was pretty impressed, considering it didn't have much data about the painting to work with.

It has data from loads of listings of other oil paintings of The Titanic, and is consolidating those listings into this 'new' one.

Yeah, I kinda guessed that. I didn't think Ai "looked" at the painting, was moved and waxed lyrical. I'm still impressed though (I'm probably easy to impress as I don't know anything about Ai)

offbrands · May 30

@NeuM said:

@Simon said:
A leading AI CEO is warning the tech could cause mass unemployment:

https://edition.cnn.com/2025/05/29/tech/ai-anthropic-ceo-dario-amodei-unemployment

Considering the huge lawsuits already brought against this company, I can see why he’s attempting to draw attention away from those outstanding cases:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropic

.

offbrands · May 30

Happy Friday to everyone!!

(even you @NeuM 😉🙏🏽)

AudioGus · May 30

@Darkstring said:
I’ll start worrying the day that AI comes up with truly novel stories by itself, or when it can create full games beyond simple tech demos or narrow scope applications. I doubt the next Skrillex or Bob Dylan will come from AI.

I was using it at a company for the past four years and found panicking humans caused way more damage and distress because of it than the AI tools ever did. If people came together and worked effectively to leverage them I believe something great could have been made. It brings out the worst out in a lot of people, particularly if they lack self awareness. Megalomaniacs get worse, conspiracy nuts get more crazy, lazy fatalistic people get even more so, the beret wearing elitists get more snotty etc. It divides people.

As for solo acts I don't see genuine singer songwriter types getting far with it (unless they are just vapid tick tock crooners which I guess can be successful) but I could totally see a Skrillex type using this stuff effectively.

NeuM · May 30

@offbrands said:
Happy Friday to everyone!!

(even you @NeuM 😉🙏🏽)

Everyone is free to voice their opinions and I respect that. And I don't endorse launching into personal attacks on others for having a difference in opinion. Believe it or not.

offbrands · May 30

@NeuM said:

@offbrands said:
Happy Friday to everyone!!

(even you @NeuM 😉🙏🏽)

Everyone is free to voice their opinions and I respect that. And I don't endorse launching into personal attacks on others for having a difference in opinion. Believe it or not.

There were no personal attacks.
Questions aren’t personal attacks

😉🤘🏽

FizzyLizzy27 · May 30

Could the flood of AI in music automation circle back to live performances being a more sought after experience? Even if just tapping kick snare patterns, seeing someone do that while tapping their foot feels a lot more human than generative beats would.

NeuM · May 30

@FizzyLizzy27 said:
Could the flood of AI in music automation circle back to live performances being a more sought after experience? Even if just tapping kick snare patterns, seeing someone do that while tapping their foot feels a lot more human than generative beats would.

That's what I've said also. A live performance is a magical thing involving give and take with the audience. Recorded music is a completely different thing.

Kewe_Esse · May 30

@FizzyLizzy27 said:
Could the flood of AI in music automation circle back to live performances being a more sought after experience? Even if just tapping kick snare patterns, seeing someone do that while tapping their foot feels a lot more human than generative beats would.

I expect so. If somehow the price of draught beer came down… that would help things along nicely.

Dav · May 30

I think there always will be a market for live musicians no matter how good AI gets, and it’s getting good. I’m a full time live acoustic musician/singer. That special connection and interaction with a real-time performer and the audience just can’t be faked. Still, I wouldn’t be surprised if someday people will pay $150 to go hear robots playing in an orchestra. I won’t be one of them, $150 is a lot of money to a full time musician.

NeuM · May 30

@Dav said:
I think there always will be a market for live musicians no matter how good AI gets, and it’s getting good. I’m a full time live acoustic musician/singer. That special connection and interaction with a real-time performer and the audience just can’t be faked. Still, I wouldn’t be surprised if someday people will pay $150 to go hear robots playing in an orchestra. I won’t be one of them, $150 is a lot of money to a full time musician.

You’re right about live performances. Interestingly enough, people are also willing to pay for an unusual live experience with fake performers.

See: Hatsune Miku (a generated anime singer that has toured extensively).

See also ABBA as virtual performers, the virtual Elvis, "hologram" Tupac Shakur and others. I think the market keeps finding new ways to best exploit what tech is available now.

Come to think of it, I recall a fake Beatles cover band that was quite popular when I was growing up, but they were real people.

AudioGus · May 30

@Dav said:
I think there always will be a market for live musicians no matter how good AI gets, and it’s getting good. I’m a full time live acoustic musician/singer. That special connection and interaction with a real-time performer and the audience just can’t be faked.

Absolutely! I actually wish I had invested more time on my playing skills over the years than digital production.

wim · May 30

@AudioGus said:

@Dav said:
I think there always will be a market for live musicians no matter how good AI gets, and it’s getting good. I’m a full time live acoustic musician/singer. That special connection and interaction with a real-time performer and the audience just can’t be faked.

Absolutely! I actually wish I had invested more time on my playing skills over the years than digital production.

I'm seeing more locations offering live music to attract customers. Even a local out of the way coffee and pastry shop has recently begun offering live music two days a week. These are places that didn't have music pre Covid, so it's more than just recovering from lockdown. I hope it's a trend.

You know what I could really go for? Some place that has an artist doing live painting sessions. I would find that even more relaxing and entertaining than music I think.

I'm seriously feeling an increasingly strong attraction back to authentic live performance interaction. I feel like I'm not alone in that. I hope so.

Loopy Pro: Create music, your way.

Want to be a MUSIC/SOUND pro in 2025? THINK TWICE

Comments