Jetflag
Legendary Member
- Jul 17, 2020
- 4,357 Posts
- 3,782 Thanked
Yes, that is what I’ve said. See: my description of the Hard Problem of Consciousness.
But human art can
And AI’s output is based on that because that’s what its input is.
Producers and labels using gen. AI
- Thread starter ray
- Start date
But human art can
And AI’s output is based on that because that’s what its input is.
Progrez
Legendary Member
- Jun 17, 2022
- 3,660 Posts
- 2,094 Thanked
I wonder why isn't there a digital license on music like there is with Kindle or ebooks purchased from Amazon? You know that Amazon can pull the content from your device whenever they feel like it. You don't really own it Amazon do.
Jetflag
Legendary Member
- Jul 17, 2020
- 4,357 Posts
- 3,782 Thanked
There is, i have it as an artist/ label owner. But there is nothing in said licence(s) that forbid an artist, or label, in using AI for content creation
You’re conflating the tool with the oppressor.
Your critique relies on a reactionary defense of the status quo, a status quo defined by artificial scarcity, state-enforced intellectual property laws, and a cultural aristocracy that decides who gets to call themselves an "artist."
Let me dismantle this:
The Environmental Straw Man You cite energy consumption as a moral failing of AI, yet you post this via a global network of servers, rare-earth mineral mining, and exploited labor chains that uphold the current internet. Industrial capitalism is the engine of waste, not the specific algorithm running on top of it. The path to solving resource scarcity isn't primitivism; it’s hyper-efficiency. We don't save the planet by stopping computation; we save it by optimizing intelligence to solve the energy crisis. Stagnation is death.
The "Ruined Internet" & "Slop" The internet was already ruined by algorithmic ad-tech and corporate homogenization long before LLMs showed up. What you call "slop" is actually the chaotic, beautiful noise of lowered barriers to entry. You are mourning the loss of a curated garden walled off by elites. AI destroys the gatekeeper. It allows the idea to reign supreme over the technical skill required to execute it. That terrifies those whose identity is tied to technical exclusivity rather than conceptual brilliance.
The Dystopian Projection You mention Blade Runner and Cyberpunk, but you miss the point of those genres. The dystopia in those stories doesn't come from the existence of technology; it comes from the centralization of it. "Saying NO" doesn't stop the tech; it just ensures that only the State and Mega-Corps (the Tyrell Corporations of the world) possess it. The anarchist approach isn't to ban the machine; it is to democratize it. We need open weights, local LLMs, and distributed compute. If we "say no," we hand the monopoly on synthetic intelligence to the very powers that actually want to enslave us.
The "Ethics" of Remix Culture You appeal to "morals," but you are really appealing to Copyright, a state-backed monopoly on thought. All culture is derivative, synthetic and remixable , almost like this music. All art is training data for the next artist. AI just accelerates the remix. The "human element" isn't lost; it's evolved. We are moving from being painters to being conductors of intelligence.
Stop clinging to the limitations of the past and calling it virtue. The future is coming whether you like it or not, the only question is whether it belongs to everyone, or just the people you're asking to regulate it.
You are confusing protection with imprisonment.
Your observation about Amazon and Kindle is correct, yet your conclusion is tragically inverted. You have identified the mechanism of Digital Feudalism: a system where users are not owners, but mere tenants renting culture from a corporate landlord who can evict them at a whim.
But then, you seem to imply that we should extend this dystopian model to music to "protect" it from AI? This is the definition of inviting the wolf into the hen house to guard the eggs.
The "License" is the Trap: Advocating for Kindle-style DRM (Digital Rights Management) on music doesn't empower the artist; it empowers the platform. When you demand "digital licenses," you are asking for the infrastructure of censorship and control to be hardened. You are essentially begging for the commodification of every distinct sound wave, enforceable by state violence and corporate kill-switches.
Intellectual Property is renter capitalism: The anarchist critique of AI skepticism is that it is often just a defense of Intellectual Property,a concept designed to create artificial scarcity in a post-scarcity world.
Information wants to be free: Once a song exists, the cost to replicate it is zero. The only reason it costs money is because laws artificially restrict its flow.
The Corporate Moat: Strict IP laws protect Disney, Sony, and Universal. They do not protect the trance artists in his home studio. AI disrupts this monopoly by democratizing the means of production and the means of distribution.
True Ownership vs. Access: You cite Amazon pulling content as a negative (which it is), but the solution is radical openness, not tighter chains.
If you have to ask a server for permission to read a book or listen to a song, you are a serf. AI, running locally on open hardware, represents the only path to breaking this dependency. It allows us to generate, remix, and consume culture without pinging a corporate validation server.
The end of the Gatekeeper: You are mourning the loss of the "purchase," but the purchase was always a lie under capitalism. The only true ownership is the ability to copy, modify, and remix. AI is the ultimate engine of remix culture. It ignores the imaginary fences of copyright and treats human culture as what it actually is: a collective commons belonging to our species, not a portfolio of assets belonging to a holding company.
Stop asking for better shackles. Ask for the bolt cutters.
AI I think does have a useful and ethically sound role to play in music production. Making an entire track with prompts on one end of the scale, but automation, inspiration, and efficiency on the other, as something that can augment creativity. So I think distinctions when talking about AI do have to be made.
Sampling loops is a good example, because that can be done with differing levels of creativity and input. I keep in mind that some of my favorite tracks of all time just lift a sample of some old track directly and just slap it in, and to be honest I never had an issue with that. Of course, there is vision and lots of other effort around the final outcome, so it's not a direct comparison to AI prompting, but it is does 'copy' others work explicitly, and that actually was very beneficial to many music scenes.
An AI workflow I could imagine is a producer singing a melody that exists in their mind, having AI convert that into a digital output, and then asking it with prompts to refine the synth style or even the pattern. You could then place that into your larger track composition. That sounds like a nice use of technology to me. I could also ask it to soften my kick, or give more richness to my low ends...
Sampling loops is a good example, because that can be done with differing levels of creativity and input. I keep in mind that some of my favorite tracks of all time just lift a sample of some old track directly and just slap it in, and to be honest I never had an issue with that. Of course, there is vision and lots of other effort around the final outcome, so it's not a direct comparison to AI prompting, but it is does 'copy' others work explicitly, and that actually was very beneficial to many music scenes.
An AI workflow I could imagine is a producer singing a melody that exists in their mind, having AI convert that into a digital output, and then asking it with prompts to refine the synth style or even the pattern. You could then place that into your larger track composition. That sounds like a nice use of technology to me. I could also ask it to soften my kick, or give more richness to my low ends...
If producer is already having a melody in his mind and is not able to recreate it using a piano roll or a keyboard then I'd really not want this individual to make music at all. In any ways, with any tools.
What AI could bring in an ethically appropriate way is for example when you have a track almost ready but you need, for example some cool tonal background ambiance for the breakdown part, you can type a specific prompt and get something to work with and incorporate in your production, you could still use some splice sample instead but it would be less original coz all the splice stuff is hella overused.
If you're having a writers block you can ask AI generate some full track cuts and use them as an inspiration when writing your own stuff etc.
That how I see it being used in a classy manner.
But we don't expect producers to buy drum kits and lean how to play the different percussive elements. We dont expect them to learn violin for the strings, or to sing the vocals. Using pre-existing, pre-recorded, re-sampled or looped material is ubiquitous and nothing to raise an eye-brow at.
Whistling or humming a melody for AI is just a more efficient process versus using my fingers on a keyboard. If your'e saying its the increased effort that is what gives art its value, then by extension of that logic a track like Airwave - Ladyblue, played by a real drummer, is better than one made with programmed drums. But it isn't, is it? I extract immense value from that track regardless of how the drums are recorded. I'm not saying effort is not important, but it's more complicated than that. What's better, a piano master writing a melody you don't actually connect with, or an untrained bedroom producer landing on a cool hook in 20 minutes that has you nodding? In that instance the effort has a secondary, maybe even insignificant bearing on your experience.
I agree that in a way what matters most is the final outcome and not how it was created. It's just that in modern scene there is a correlation between the amount of short cuts used in production and how generic is the outcome. Whether it's using a template, the most used splice samples, MIDI packs or, now, AI to create certain content. One has to have extraordinary talent and a feeling of taste to use these common methods yet get better/different results with them. Let's face it, the amount of talent across the modern scene is lower than ever. Most of the upcoming producers don't even have enough ambition to be outstanding, they're fine with being average within the scene. Making the very same music everyone else's making.
Jetflag want to move the convo about AI to this thread here (and keep other one just for track sharing) and wanted to respond to what you said...
The loss of income for artists is what worries me the most about all of this. To me it's so clear that the amount of money flowing into the underground and midground is related to the health, quality and output of those scenes. I think it might be the no.1 factor. The Piracy/Streaming/Internet era just sucked like 90% of revenue away, how could that not have a negative effect? Then you look at the emergence of Bandcamp and it sort of correlates to a small resurgence we've had in the last 5 years. Would you agree @oneofthesame?
The loss of income for artists is what worries me the most about all of this. To me it's so clear that the amount of money flowing into the underground and midground is related to the health, quality and output of those scenes. I think it might be the no.1 factor. The Piracy/Streaming/Internet era just sucked like 90% of revenue away, how could that not have a negative effect? Then you look at the emergence of Bandcamp and it sort of correlates to a small resurgence we've had in the last 5 years. Would you agree @oneofthesame?
Jetflag
Legendary Member
- Jul 17, 2020
- 4,357 Posts
- 3,782 Thanked
and just to be clear, í'm not celebrating the fact that AI will force artists to not be financially dependent on their work.
but it is a double edged sword if you ask me, it does have its advantages. And I also think loss of revenue isn't the only thing that drove the scene to pieces. I think the fact that it became to big/ to commercial and in a sense too profitable (for a time) is what actually killed it.
for the "trendsetter artist" (which, lets be honest, is one in a million orso) this isn't a problem. they can do what they want and make money from it whilst the scene is growing around them.
but for the majority of financially dependent artists its a matter of adapt, or go bankrupt, integrity or honesty towards one's own taste or style be damned.
so the way I see it size really matters, which is why i actually quite like the scene being rather small currently and comprising of genuine enthusiasts. that IMO is where quality is born, that is where boundaries are pushed and not for the sake of profit.
you can see this in other niece/startup art communities even throughout history. whenever there is like a small art village or community taking place whether that be kreuzberg, certain streets in Vienna or, dare i say it, Trancefix.nl. magical things happen, if kept relatively small.
SaltAcidFatHeatAcid
Senior Member
- Jul 19, 2022
- 583 Posts
- 815 Thanked
Lol haven't you argued with me against this point in several threads before the Mist example? I agree with your statement wholeheartedly as I've watched artists and labels in the underground scene put their best out to very little support. It's not just the $$ either, it's also relevance and recognition weighed against effort. Outside of TF, I feel like a lot of the darlings here are largely unknown to most of the world.
As to the thread topic, while AI threatens the scene, it's also poised to help it as well. Imagine you are in Ableton and you have a copilot which can help you with some beats, melodies, or even to overcome some technical limitations stifling your creativity. I could see a lot of technical/skill barriers being broken down by the use of AI if it can be paired with professional tools like I am seeing already in my professional career]r. Would be awesome if AI could help people quickly translate sung melodies into working tracks, master effects , LFO, with mastering even. Who knows, what if AI is what helps the scene grow in the end?
I also believe that small/community scenes are the most conducive enivornments to produce amazing creativity, but it needs the revenue component to reach the health/quality we had in the past. Without it, it will never, never get there. And surely that's the benchmark we should hope to return to?
Seattle bore Grunge music, but it was commercial forces that incubated and drove it towards its greatest heights and achievements. Without the labels funneling equipment, talent, distribution and building a market it's not getting there, and thank god it did. And the Trance scene in 90-2004 was packed with genuine enthusiasts, more than there are today. They had incentives, they were recognized, the could afford equipment, the best mastering, vinyl releases... they could make it their careers, even in the underground. More money = more enthusiasts.
@SaltAcidFatHeatAcid. Not 100% sure what you refer too, but I know with The Mist is was discussed if the price point was too high, which I think is a different topic, not contradicting the above imo.
Seattle bore Grunge music, but it was commercial forces that incubated and drove it towards its greatest heights and achievements. Without the labels funneling equipment, talent, distribution and building a market it's not getting there, and thank god it did. And the Trance scene in 90-2004 was packed with genuine enthusiasts, more than there are today. They had incentives, they were recognized, the could afford equipment, the best mastering, vinyl releases... they could make it their careers, even in the underground. More money = more enthusiasts.
@SaltAcidFatHeatAcid. Not 100% sure what you refer too, but I know with The Mist is was discussed if the price point was too high, which I think is a different topic, not contradicting the above imo.
SaltAcidFatHeatAcid
Senior Member
- Jul 19, 2022
- 583 Posts
- 815 Thanked
Nah I am usually pointing out in threads here about the lack of support/recognition/$$ in the UG scene (and mainstream too really), how the trancier parts of scene languish as a result, and am usually contradicted by you and others that the producers aren't in it for the $$. The Mist thread just was evidence that an artist was considering their investment and effort against returns/sales, bolstering my point more directly. Just seems like I've been pushed back on here most of the time when pointing this out. I can think of 5+ threads if I go digging. Not that it matters, glad this discussion is highlighting the point once again. Agree 100% with you on your points above.
Ah I see what your'e saying, and can see what your'e getting at. What I believe is that underground artists specifically are not changing or chasing styles in a significant way to get more money (money which doesn't even exist). In my mind money does not motivate artistic approach in that scene, but does impact producer volume (incentive to start), output volume (time committed) and quality (mastering, hardware, distribution). If there was money today it would influence them positively, but there isn't any.
All the big changes in modern history are about cutting off more and more of the pie (art) from the artists - going digital brought in easy piracy, rise of streaming platforms reduced the payouts even further and also got oppressing algorithms that are only friendly to the major players in the game. AI, given the way it currently affects the scene, is definitely one more step in that direction. More pollution, more oversaturation.
Ironically enough, electronic music artists, who are using machines to make their music, also suffer from (sometimes the very same) machines more and more.
In a big picture, of course it will make it even harder for the talented artists to get their tiny bit of honest and well deserved spotlight and appreciation, some will just fade out as it always happens, especially when life obstacles come in a way. But the irrational urge to create, even if it comes with a sacrifice, is one human quality that, for now at least, will keep artists in the game.
Ironically enough, electronic music artists, who are using machines to make their music, also suffer from (sometimes the very same) machines more and more.
In a big picture, of course it will make it even harder for the talented artists to get their tiny bit of honest and well deserved spotlight and appreciation, some will just fade out as it always happens, especially when life obstacles come in a way. But the irrational urge to create, even if it comes with a sacrifice, is one human quality that, for now at least, will keep artists in the game.
Progrez
Legendary Member
- Jun 17, 2022
- 3,660 Posts
- 2,094 Thanked
Melodies or sounds are sometimes created or discovered by trials and errors and even sometimes out of luck/chance or freakish circumstances (for eg the X-files theme by Mark snow)
What will empower musicians then?
Jetflag
Legendary Member
- Jul 17, 2020
- 4,357 Posts
- 3,782 Thanked
get whére?
top of the pops? "the mainstream"? and if that is what you mean by that, ask yourself.
do you really want to bring it there?
Progrez
Legendary Member
- Jun 17, 2022
- 3,660 Posts
- 2,094 Thanked