I now realize I didn’t address your original question in my earlier post.
I haven’t tried any of the generative AI tools that generate music so I can’t know for sure if it’s a matter of how they are being promoted or their underlying training dataset / fine-tuning, etc… But these tools are statical prediction machines. They will generate an output based on their dataset and how they were trained. They don’t truly “understand” the difference between an overly processed modern song and one with warmth and feeling.
So, yes. You are right. People say that the music generated by these tools sounds like real music made by humans probably because the model was trained on mostly mainstream/modern music and maybe the fine-tuning encourage it to generate similar music.
But, I really believe that a model trained on a specific genre or type of performance will generate music very similar to it and it would be very difficult for us to distinguish them.
I guess this really depends. Although not related to AI, I had a song ruined for me after watching an interview with the songwriter and hearing him saying that the lyrics were random and didn’t mean anything. So, in this particular case, ‘how it got there’ made all the difference to me.
You are entitled to define art as you wish. Most fine art critics and museums would disagree with you. The category of Readymades in modern art is over a century old (although many people refuse to accept it as such). I have a framed fossil and artificial skull that I regard as art.
For me, art is something that stimulates an individual’s thoughts, emotions or beliefs through the senses (either from the ‘creator’ or the observer’s perspective).
Whilst this is very broad, it negates the need to draw an impossible line on what is and isn’t art, as well as removing the point of trying to designate what is ‘good’ or ‘bad’ art (as this is constantly changing).
You’re simply left with what is popular or not.
You tell me what you think is not art, but I’d be more interested in a definition of what you think art is.
Well, this is the dark AI corner of the forum, (which may well at some point join the unmentionable Trinity of Religion, Politics and foul language ), but philosophy is fun, and if you can get the fundamentals sorted out, I find life much easier to navigate
Art involves an act of creation. There is agency in that act of creation. I’ll also apply a level of intent to that creation. That the intent strives to be pleasing to the senses or to invoke thought.
Again, as I said, a tree growing in the wild is not art, but a picture/painting of it is. Something created from that tree might be art, even if that tree remains alive, such as with bonsai. Functional things can also be art, but I would say not all functional things are art. A log that has had a flat spot hacked into it for seating is not art in itself. But a log that has had a flat spot hacked into it for seating AND some carvings depicting a successful hunt would be.
To bring it back to AI, I’ll use an analogy that I think fits. I already said that a machine cannot create art until we’re ready to label it fully sentient so it has complete agency. You could liken prompting an AI to commissioning an artist to make art. Commissioning the art does not mean that the person doing the commissioning is the creator of that art. The artist who did the work created it. So prompting an AI to make a song about AI art doesn’t make the prompter an artist. And since the AI cannot create art because it’s not sentient and does not have agency, then it is not art.
The line is fuzzy, sure. Nothing in this world has clear divisions. There are ways to use AI to create art in that the heavy lifting of the act still belongs to the person operating the software. But this gets into the territory of why gen AI needs stronger guardrails on it. Flooding streaming services with material that barely has a human’s touch is already taking away exposure and income from actual people. Unwillingly. When their material was used to train the AI in the first place. That’s some really rotten stuff right there. Not as rotten as gen AI making kiddie porn, but we’re already there and finally people are taking notice.
How absolutely soul-sucking would life be to lose your job to AI and then for AI to then have your art overshadowed or buried by AI generated material? We’re marching that direction.
What are the guard rails here? Where do you draw the line in the sand? Should players disclose stems from various sites (we don’t know how these are created)? Loops and built in samples in a DAW? Drum beats from a pedal? Autotune as previously mentioned? Using AI to strip out layers in a song for repurposing? There hasn’t been a human, end to end, in all forms of music for sometime now. It just comes off as more religious purity to me.
That’s what you say, but others may differ. Why must an act be involved?
Agency is a slippery term, psychologically speaking. And you are no doubt familiar with the use of the term in relation to AI these days. Some kinds of agency are accepted without question, but others are not?
Experiments over the last 30 years have cast doubt on the cause-effect concept of intent to perform action, and the action itself. It appears that the body can physiologically prepare to do something well before there is a conscious knowledge of this, and the post-hoc explanation for why the act was performed can be somewhat confabulatory. Philosophers recognise that we take an intentional stance towards things which we presuppose to have agency, but that could be all it is - a stance. We don’t actually know.
I think you might be surprised how little artists care about pleasing people, or being thought-provoking. Generally speaking, they are far more interested in the properties of their medium.
I’ve only got as far as your second line, and haven’t even begun to cover all the questions such assertions trigger. Later in your post you admit
But your thesis seems to assume quite the opposite.
Your 2 cents of course. I am not saying don’t use it just tag it as such - as you do.
Most of my plugins are ancient and I doubt they have any ingrained AI and I use a 10 yr old version of EZD.
My concern, which I have to obviously have to state again, are folks using it for financial gain and pretending it has been made by human musicians or clouding that fact. If it is labelled as AI produced “prompt pop” I will then decide if I want to listen or not. Simples.
Actually, Nate, I agree with most of what you say in the first half of your comment, with some minor changes, like it doesn’t have to be pleasing, it can aim to shock/ evoke emotions or just be for its own sake etc. Also, ‘decorations’ are not necessarily art, only if they are intended or perceived to be such.
Here’s where we disagree.
It can.
Having an idea, and setting a process in motion, which brings your vision into existence (often with revising/fine-tuning etc.) has often been at the centre of much art, especially visual art.
For centuries, many of the master painters would get the apprentices in their ateliers to carry out their paintings, in a particular style, sometimes adding touches themselves, sometimes not even bothering.
I remember one Turner prize winner freely admitting they couldn’t draw if their life depended on it. They just had ideas and employed (commissioned?) others to carry them out.
One of the most influential musicians of the 20th century, John Cage’s most famous pieces, 4.33, consists of- absolutely nothing.
Silence.
For as long as the performer wishes it to continue.
Silence, like your rocks and trees, are all around us, but it is only when someone declares it ‘art’, that it becomes that.
I’d be surprised if, out of the millions of people who listened to- and thought about- that piece, there weren’t some who believed it was art. Would you be the one to decide they are mistaken?
The final part of your comment has nothing to do with what is and is not art, but is expressed anxiety about how we live and interact in our society. Worthy of discussion for sure, but has nothing to do with the point I was trying to make.
Hehe, I do believe I’ve mentioned to you before that I do not accept the concept of ‘free will’.
Pre-determinism all the way…
I have been giving a lot of thought to my definition of ‘art’ recently (I have too much time on my hands perhaps) and I’ve come to a similar conclusion - of course anyone can define it however they choose - but for me the primary requirement is the intention. Taking something and framing it as ‘art’ and inviting others to look at it as such. I actually don’t consider the creation to be that relevant.
That said - I’m not a fan of AI music right now, but I do see that it can be considered art if it’s put out there with intention.
Artists aiming for the Hot 100 will try to sound like whatever is in the Hot 100 at that moment. If Generative AI songs reach the Hot 100, then I am afraid that’s exactly what they will try to sound like, unfortunately.
It has taken me a while to get round to posting the different versions, as I had to figure out how to get it out of Suno. Anyway I have posted my versions and The AI version in my learning log with a short description of how the process went.
, but I hope it helps 
), but philosophy is fun, and if you can get the fundamentals sorted out, I find life much easier to navigate 