A.I. - Time To Throw In The Towel???

[@williammonk1020]

Something every composer should have on their radar if they're thinking about AI: the way language models are currently trained involves a lot of finetuning with curated datasets in order for the models to behave in a particular way. Those datasets are then 'owned' by someone or some organisation. That's important because better quality data = better quality performance, so that training data is extremely valuable (and expensive). Also, if you have very specific data, you can tune the model to your preferences to respond in any particular manner, with any specific information etc. It seems realistic that the same sort of thing will happen with music, whereby the big players in every area (labels, DAWs, virtual library developers, producers etc.) will invest heavily into producing the highest quality models or models specifically tuned to their style. If you're a film composer, at some point inevitably, you will want (and eventually need) to have your own curated data which can be fed into a model to produce AI generated material that is adapted to your style. How this is used would vary but you could even imagine film producers 'renting out' your model to test concepts in advance, just to give one example (there are many fun/scary possibilities). I mean, if your works are out there in public (even if they aren't in the public domain), those can and are being used for pretraining, but that is not high quality training data. So yeah, 'turn this tune into a hans zimmer piece' is not going to give you the results you want just because the model's base training has heard his scores.

[@LoveMeBack]

Because of Computer music tons of studios closed down. Now there are more studios then ever and hardware is loved again. Even tape. We will be fine.

[@PDJMDS]

I agree. Been saying that AI will bring back the live music culture. People will want to see music played, by people, in a room or field with other people.

[@ZakRoams]

totally agree. I think we are already at the beginning of this due to social media.

[@agentmith]

AI differs from previous advancements in that it removes the foundational creative necessity from the artist. Granted, someone could dial something in aesthetically, but that’s like doing touch ups on a painting versus a blank canvas and a paintbrush+palette.

[@mranchovydrumbass]

The foundational creative necessity of the artist comes from the artists life experiences and lies deep inside an artists soul which could never be replaced by AI

[@Edbrad]

It’s also because the way the creative AI develop is completely in reverse to other technology. Look at how CGI developed. There was total control, but it wasn’t very good. AI gets better much faster at making a good result BEFORE it gets good at given you control. Image AI’s for example. It can give you a great result, but it still needs improvement in giving you: 1. Exactly what you asked for specifically, & 2. How MUCH specific detail you can prompt it for. If you can give it up to 5 details and it always gets the right, there’s always room for more details. And there’s always a need to change it microscopically afterwards easily. 3. Being able to consistently take objects, people, characters and anything “form” you can think of and carry it over into another image.

[@LeeBlaske]

You make an important point. Just because music professionals survived previous technological innovations doesn't mean they'll survive this one. AI is very different.

[@mranchovydrumbass]

Lol, why has my reply been taken down ? was that AI or Christian ?

[@danvorosmarty9854]

It doesn't differ as much as you'd think though at first glance. The kind of results you can get by giving generic prompts are... generic results. To get anything of actual use or value, You have to use the tool in much more complex and indeed creative ways. I have a question/challenge that touches on this idea: What is the actual specific functional difference between prompting an AI tool to say generate an image, and Beethoven writing a symphony? I would suggest that there's much less of a difference than we think... Because think about it this way. Beethoven learned a special language (musical notation), which was then given to an orchestra (a tool outside of himself) which essentially "automatically" translated his instructions into music that people then listened to. In other words, in this metaphor musical notation = prompt syntax/engineering, and the orchestra = the AI tool. Who actually "makes" the music in this case? Beethoven? Or the people who play the instruments in the orchestra? Are they not behaving as an "automated" kind of machine to translate the composer's instructions into tangible art? If we apply the same thinking most people apply to generative AI currently, then we'd have to conclude that the orchestra is doing the creative part of producing the symphony, NOT Beethoven. My point is though that of course we all agree Beethoven is the creative force/element in the equation, NOT the tools he used to produce the tangible result and NOT the specialized language he utilized to translate his vision into reality. Just saying, Beethoven literally couldn't DIRECTLY produce (most of) his art because it required an orchestra by definition. "All" he actually was doing was writing down symbols on paper. So again, can someone tell me how that's technically/functionally/fundamentally different than the act of using AI tools to create art? (I know "common sense" tells us it's different but I'm questioning that notion because it seems extremely difficult to actually come up with real reasons why it's different. As far as I can tell it's not actually different other than that it's people playing the instruments in the orchestra... Yet still, they're meant to act as automatons and play what the sheet music tells them to.)

[@nicolwilson9320]

I will always be here to play and make music with fellow musicians, There is nothing better !!

[@stevesm2010]

I love your idea for the CPUless studio! I volunteer in a local school running an after school club (for electronics construction) and I'm constantly amazed at the breadth of the kids musical tastes. Much more varied than when I was that age 45 years ago LOL

[@mk1st]

A friend of mine worked in various LA studios back in the 80s. He kept some of his gear and just sold a n 8 track multitrack machine for big bucks. The buyer drove 10 hours to pick it up.

[@jakobymaster]

The scariest moment for me was, when messing around with some of the generators that are still in beta right now, i had to admit to myself that it was good and i liked the music. And it was no pop or anything "4 by 4", it was contemporary classical, emulations of morricone, japanese classical etc.. Scary scary stuff

[@juno6]

Try Choirs! you´ll be 🤯

[@ABC-bm7kl]

It ‘creates’ modern orchestral, chamber, and small ensemble “art” music extremely well. I have also been making songs for my friends and have woken up on several occasions with these songs running through my mind. Udio in particular is impressive. If you have not yet tried it, write some lyrics and generate a Broadway show-tune. It is preposterously well versed in that idiom.

[@tonus6559]

I’ve been there with the Udio show tunes. I am really struggling to believe that it can come up with these chord sequences and melodies based of text alone. I can imagine it having multiple pre-imagined examples of show tune chord progressions (templates) and then having stems that can be pitch and time shifted… But being a composer and having virtual instruments I can’t believe that all of that stuff is modelled and mixed and produced so quickly without having access to some kind of stems? Of source material? Is anyone with me on this? I’ve heard the best virtual guitar instruments in Kontakt and they are nowhere near what I’ve heard in Udio.

[@ABC-bm7kl]

@@tonus6559 agreed! The sounds in Udio, except for the unintended? “artifacts” and intentional vinyl or tape noise that it adds, are remarkably good. I’m a composer also and have, no exaggeration, almost ALL the sample libraries. The ‘live’ feeling of the performances in Udio is uncanny. And the idea that the sounds are being generated from modeling is hard to imagine considering that other “modeled’ libraries don’t sound anywhere near as real. Wild times!

[@Edbrad]

@@tonus6559it’s hard to believe but it’s hard to believe it can with LLM’s like chatGPT, OpenAI’s Sora is hard to believe. When I see realistic images generated by Midjourney for example it’s really hard for my brain to NOT thing they’re not actual living people

[@mu6ix.musics]

Such a refreshing video! Amidst all the recent doom and gloom, Christian consistently manages to bring a positive perspective. I especially appreciated how the announcement of the new library was saved for the end. This decision reflects Crow Hill's confidence in their products, unlike other companies that often push their libraries down our throats from the very start. Great job, Christian!

[@jaixiviii]

I asked AI the very same questions and it replied: "Anything you can do, I can do better!".

[@thepanicroommastering2062]

Thanks for sharing your thoughts Christian ✨✌️

[@zillasaurus]

I love this take. I could listen to you pontificate all day. And I agree with everything so far. Good stuff - much respect from across the pond.

[@davidbaker231]

I see a man staring annihilation in the face, doing his damnedest to react in some way other than succumbing utterly to his fate. Noble. Admirable. In the end, futile.

[@qbass00]

This is spot on, and it mirrors exactly the same conversation those of us who work in the creative industry have been having about graphic design / illustration.

[@Zaccyonline]

❤❤❤ Many of my favourite personal production moments are the result of happy accidents, or deliberately going against conventional wisdom. I am comforted to know I have a superpower against Ai, possessing something it can never have; being HUMAN. ❤❤❤

[@sub40hz]

Work with AI. The new kind of “Collab Bro” 😊

[@synaesmedia]

What I was expecting and hoping for from AI was that we'd get instrument plugins trained by skilled musicians, that could then interpret the midi score in a more expressive way. In other words I could write a sax part in my DAW and have it sound like a human playing it, because the neural net had learned enough about how human musicians would approach a line like that. That still seems to be the way that human musicians and composers could get the most creative value from AI. More than from AI trying to chuck out entire pieces in very generic styles.

[@cathbadmusic8489]

Exactly my view on the phenomenon, too. Let AI do the repetitive donkey work and leave the messy creativity to the humans: a much more promising team.

[@BartvanderHorst]

That will happen very soon. And I forsee this will become realtime, in the near future you will be able to sing something and been orchestrated immediately.

[@acdms]

Christian, it's always nice to listen to you.

[@brunobonaventure2984]

I was kinda of expecting you'd go this way, Christian. Very positive (wishful?) thinking. But... I don't see AI tools for the kind of game music work you talked about out there yet. The higher end stuff is, for the regular person, a musician-replacement tool, not a serious musical tool for the music craftsman. So from that perspective it seems it will be "too late" again. I totally agree with the homogenization. "Homogenized music" is basically what media/movie composers do (and are expected to do, BTW). "Make my film work and don't attract too much attention to yourself" is the modus operandi and it has good reason to be like that. It is a great way to make a living. I love it! But... AI excels at this type of musical output. You read of beautiful analogies with the music technology evolutions of the past. But... There was a time when whale oil was used for illumination. And then whale hunters were no longer needed. Poor guy who was born to hunt whales. No matter how positive their thinking might have been at the time, they had to move on. Is this what will happen to us? Is there any way to avoid it? I was hoping you'd explore this a bit. Maybe you will in a future video in a couple of years, when the smoke has cleared. We'll see if AI was underestimated or not. All in all, my take is that the musician who is a true innovator will make it (for 15 minutes, just before being copied by AI).

[@GrantTregellas]

For the last 20 years we've seen the rise in music tech. Started simply with making life easier (no cutting tape), moved onto the basic audio manipulation and then onto every type of plugin/sample library/amp sim/softsynth etc. And now the next thing, AI basically removing the need to even have a human involved in much of the process. We all accepted it as just "moving foward". But its now close to breaking point. A split is going to happen. Your "CPU-less" studio is a perfect example of this. One path will continue in the ultra-perfect digitally created direction and another will go back to an totally analog approach. It has to happen. If we continue on the current path we will just eventually remove the need for humans. There will have to be "Human Only" streaming services. "Human Only" record labels etc. The masses who dont care/know the difference will just keep eating up the music fed to them. And a smaller group of people who understand and appreciate music written and performed by real people will support that.

[@SineEyed]

This notion of yours assumes some kind of discernable, substantive difference between human made music and ai made music. You also assume that music makers i.e. those who know enough to make that discernment, will always default their preference to human made music. Why do you find ai music so unlikable? And what makes you think it will always be unlikable by those with a refined taste or whatever?..

[@AndyGrayedout]

My take on tech (and I started my journey long before computers were in studios ) is learn it understand it , and make it work for you -:) great vid Mate

[@Thegregcoulson]

I like your work and outlook. You make the world a more comfortable place. Thanks

[@AllanGildea]

Thought provoking and insightful commentary, Christian. Thank you.

[@BoogieBear]

More food for thought, thanks Christian 🙏

[@uniqornzmusic1020]

I've just found your channel. I love it! These are definitely the types of conversations we need to be having right now in my opinion and delivered in such a hilarious fashion. I've subscribed Cheers Crow Hill!

[@deveyous6614]

We still play chess long after the computer did it better. I have no doubt humans will still be making music long after AI starts smashing out hits.

[@antsteep]

Love that description of Rupert

[@sosimple3585]

I don't. Going so easy on him his wrong.

[@LeeBlaske]

Interesting video, Christian. I get a little uneasy when I hear anyone predicting that there will be a return to this or that (virtuosic live music, recording without computers, etc.). It immediately makes me remember the rallying cry of the generation that raised me: "The big bands will be back!!" Of course, big bands have never completely gone away, but it doesn't look like they'll be front and center as the main form of pop music again anytime soon. No matter what field people are in, there always seems to be a longing for the old days. But in most cases, we seldom return to the old days. We move on to totally different things that we can't even contemplate now. I personally think, however, that careers in producing recorded music are going to get increasingly difficult, no matter which way things go. Right now, there are supposedly 100,000+ tracks being added to streaming services every day, and that number is increasing. AI is going to boost that number tremendously. Plus, all of the great stuff from yesteryear NEVER goes away. There's simply way, way, WAY too much music out there. The laws of supply and demand are in force. When there's too much of something, it's hard to sell it for a premium price. I see nothing on the horizon that could potentially reduce the supply, outside of a thermonuclear war. Plus, the fact remains that there are tons and tons of content creators out there who just want something pretty good to lay under there production, without paying much at all. AI will satisfy that need, and AI's "pretty good" will continue to get better and better. Not everything needs ground-breaking, amazing music. Not all listeners are even going to appreciate ground-breaking music. Decades ago, avant-garde orchestral composers pushed the envelope too far and lost connection with a lot of their audience. For much of the industry, content producers have often done initial edits with temp music (often, music that they couldn't afford to get). Clients regularly fall in love with temp music. The imitative capabilities of AI are perfect for satisfying such a client. It's mind boggling to think of all of the varieties of music that have been created to date. I do wonder if we will get to the point where it will be difficult to create something "new" that truly knocks people's socks off. Prior to the age of recorded music, it was probably much easier to really impress an audience. Most people (especially outside of major cities) would seldom see a big orchestra concert. People probably did spend more time entertaining each other (lots of pianos and pump organs in homes, and various other instruments). But back then, people most likely didn't spend as much time in a day listening to music. It wasn't underscore to everything. The rarity of music probably made it more valuable to those folks. Is it possible that we've reached and passed an era of "peak music"? An era where people really listened attentively and thoughtfully? I think it's quite possible that in the future, music may be less important to people and occupy less of their time. Scrolling through stuff on your phone has certainly stolen a lot of time young people used to spend attentively listening to record albums. Being able to access any video at any time steals more potential dedicated music listening time. And, how much time might people soon be devoting to escaping into virtual reality? Thinking about what's going to happen might be pointless. Doris Day probably hit the nail on the head. "Que Sera, Sera."

[@FerdiSchwarz]

This is a great take.

[@owendouglas2879]

I agree with all your points except ‘music may be less important to people and occupy less of their time’. No matter how saturated the industry becomes, I think humans will always have an active desire for musical stimulation. It’s something that’s deeply woven into our existence, and the appreciation of music is biologically ingrained into us. It will just make it a lot more difficult for musicians unfortunately, however I hold out hope that this could spark a wave of musical innovation that we probably cannot even fully comprehend yet.

[@topologyrob]

Lots of people still play chess and Go. Lots of people run races, even though we've had bikes for quite a while. As for avant-garde orchestral composers needing to please an audience, that's just mob rule.

[@LeeBlaske]

@@owendouglas2879 There will certainly still be music, but I do believe we're already in an era where there's less focused attention to music for most people than there was decades ago. And again, before recorded music, most people outside of musicians had far less music in their day on a pure time basis. Only so many hours in every day. If you're doing other things besides attentive listening to music (or even doing other things while listening to music), that's less time invested in music.

[@LeeBlaske]

@@topologyrob Maybe, but people's interest in bowling is WAY down. ;) I've also read that Generation Z has lost a lot of interest in sports.

[@aaronnewberry]

I always love your perspective, thank you for sharing ❤

[@GhostNoteAudio]

The way I see it, I compare generative AI to the popularization of the camera, and how that must've felt to a portrait painter at the time. You made your living by capturing the faces of royals and other wealthy individuals, a process that would takes dozens of hours. Suddenly, there was a black box, with a single button, that could perfectly capture any subject you placed in front of it, without any work necessary. What did the portrait painter do then? They had two options; --- 1; pivot to a new subject area, paint for the sake of making art, not just to replicate faces to hang on a wall. Embrace the artistry and craftmanship that goes into making a painting, and market that as the source of value you offer your customer. --- 2; become a photographer :)

[@bontempo1271]

Henson gets it, very well said, nice encompassing talk on the subject

[@NorfolkTraveller]

Something's going to happen... something wonderful 🌳

[@DMTCYMATICSDreamMusicTemple]

Ok HAL

[@GingerDrums]

I really think the outlook is actually more counterintuitive. It is both more hopeful and more pessimistic. It won't be long before AI can create better fitting, more innovative and surprising music than people can. And I mean any one. It's like arythmatic - nobody can compute numbers as fast or as accurately as a computer, and the same thing is happening but with tokens - units of relevance. This will apply across every industry, and this will create a totally different economy. Late capitalism will shade into something far more radical and we will see something new and exciting emerge. Make sure you are registered to vote and let's get more involved in politics to steer this things as best we can. (Edit: spelling)

[@michaelfaeth]

I say to keep using your organic intelligence to create music and enjoy the process. "Like Prince, Cobain, Lennon, Hendrix, worth more than some high tech trick."

[@BartvanderHorst]

Well we just have to wait for the first wordltophit entirely made by A.I.

[@kiunthmo]

I'm an AI Scientist. If you want to get really creative with AI you can learn roughly how these systems work and break them. Similar idea to circuit bending can be done but with AI model tampering. It'll make totally unique sample, unlike anything a synth or instrument can create

[@RobHawksbyll]

Do you have any idea where I can learn to do this?

[@whywontyouletmebeanonymous6244]

@@RobHawksbyll i wouldnt trust what someone calling themselves 'AI Scientist' is saying, when what they say is also completely wrong. However for learning, check out huggingface, and search for how to set up your own LLM, etc. there is a *ton* of free information, and you can even get help from stuff like chatgpt to set it all up.

[@ginsugraphics1601]

Yes, sounds great. Where does one do this from?

[@kiunthmo]

@@ginsugraphics1601 For now you need ML abilities; theory, python, etc. I'm trying a script now to mess with amen breaks and i'll see if i can get something somewhat listenable

[@kiunthmo]

@@RobHawksbyll i wrote a long answer to this, i think it got deleted because i sent a link too, annoying. i'll try something and reply later

[@paoloramacciotti3532]

Hi Christian. Very interesting speech, with many engaging thoughts. From my standpoint, one of the reasons at the base of the current concern about AI in music is the standing confusion between Generative AI and General AI. For the time being, it is possible to get from transformative algorithms only countless versions of intellectually unaware imitation and crossover, obtained from databases of recorded examples. Right now, generative AI is hardly capable of grasping underlying compositional structures, because it works isolating chunks of sonic data on the musical surface, which is not where the real compositional magic happens, being the acoustic result just the effect and not the cause, in the music-writing process. Thus, there is still a territory temporarily unattained by generative music AI, strictly reserved for composers, that is people who know at deep level how musical languages work. True music creation stems from having absorbed grammatical and syntactic rules, finding a personal and meaningful way to change and infringe them where needed. What so-called expert systems are yet unable to grasp, from a set of acoustic samples, is that when a human composer chooses to change inherited musical norms he is performing a culturally meaningful act, that conveys a vision or interpretation of the world (a symbolic awareness of how an existential experience relates to a specific point in time, and place in space). At present, it doesn't yet exist a musical AI capable of thinking in a self-reflective manner, like a human composer or generally a human being. Hard to know when and how this is going to change, in the next or coming future, but that will be the turning point when the exclusive prerogatives of human music makers will possibly be put into question. In the current context, only musicians used to compound repetitive ideas, replicating simple existing patterns (let us say, low-tier self-appointed social network-based wannabe composers) will be actually endangered by generative AI. For the rest of those capable of managing the intellectual complexity of good composition, there will be abundant time and opportunity for transforming music AI in a useful everyday assistant, who/which will gradually learn bits of technical skill from the practice of his/its human user. When this condition will come, we will better think to music AI assistants like pupils in a Renaissance painting workshop, filling fabrics and backgrounds with colours all the day, in order to relieve their Master from the most menial and less artistically significant part of work.

[@RufusJacson]

Prints and posters have been around for decades but people still paint and people still buy paintings. Even if the music world is saturated with AI music, even great music, it will not stop musicians making and playing music.

[@Gedagnors]

Yes, but now it is a hobby. Expensive and difficult hobby with no result like movie company paying you royalties.

[@GustinJohnson]

@@Gedagnors It was always this way. Patronage was how the pros got paid in ye olden times.

[@benwinter2420]

Your 5 minutes of fame as a busker will be reward enough

[@RufusJacson]

@@Gedagnors I understand that view point but that's not how I see it. Mine isn't a hobby, it's an artistic enquiry; a way to describe and make sense of the world in a way that feeds my soul; a way to evaluate and describe my experiences of the inner and outer world; it's philosophy; therapy; political and social commentary; a communication and conversation (hopefully) with those parts in others; an experiencing of 'the human condition' (whatever that is). It is lastly a commodity and with or without that commercialisation, it is all those things, and more, regardless. I've been making music since I was nine years old and interested in it as a 'thing' since I was six, there was no commercialisation until I was about 19. If it is only and primarily a paycheck (and I'm *not* suggesting this is what it is for you) then it's being done for the wrong reasons. It will continue to exist, it will continue as a human endeavour. The X-factor machine has already created soulless music and commercialised the art form for those who want a 'Big Mac'. That was really the essence of my previous comment.

[@CybreSmee]

I think the misconception though is it will be musicians/producers using AI to make music, it won't. It will be end users. You will have an app that creates your favourite music for you, and the film agents will do the same. Some ppl will hold on to the old-school way of playing music manually, but it will become prohibitively expensive and fringe.

[@LeeBlaske]

Great point. It's like desktop publishing, some years back. Desktop publishing put the ability to make great looking print into the hands of many more people who had never done type setting. It wasn't just something that ended up being used by the people who had been dealing with setting lead type, inking platens, and inhaling a lot of carbon tetrachloride fumes while cleaning everything up.

[@Edbrad]

But they won’t be able to get the most out of it. It won’t produce great stuff if you don’t have someone with a good creative ear on the other end. Maybe you aren’t aware of this but most people aren’t very creative. There’s such a thing as good AI and bad AI imagery. The best stuff is made by artists and film makers.

[@CybreSmee]

@@Edbrad Why do you need 'the most'? It just needs to be good. I love Psytrance, its by no measure musically 'good', but I like it. This is precisely why musicians will become extinct, they believe they are the gatekeepers to "real" music. It happened to recording studios, it'll be musos next. Already kinda happening, gawd look at Eurovision for some ear pain.

[@Evilgrapez]

​@@CybreSmee Maybe I'm misunderstanding, but why do you consider psytrance not musically "good?" What's the metric for that?

[@gavinmccabe2908]

I think you're probably right. Non musical people are already doing this and it cuts costs majorly. There seems to be so many hip hop 'producers' out there now that basically buy whatever new software comes out and put things together like a jigsaw, without any real thought or reflection. I wonder, however, if this becomes more and more prevalent, will we reach a peak moment where people just get tired listening to this kind of machine generated music and there is a burn out, or as Christian says will it just take people who are actually musically inclined to take the reigns again and use the tech to create something new.

[@shmk1]

What freaked me out about some of the ai generations I have done is the tempo would shift and change slightly like a live band. It was freaky.

[@maxbrodie1267]

Expertly put Christian x

[@sandwich-breath]

Some people naturally fear change, while other early adopters embrace whatever new technology is invented. This conversation has been ongoing since the invention of the printing press, automobile, television, and cell phone. I was initially resistant to DAWs coming from the analog world of tape and desks. I realized the purist folly of my thinking and have never looked back. The same can be said for AI and everything that comes after. Creativity is our blessing and the gift that distinguishes us from other species and computers... and is our greatest strength.

[@HEAVENLYTABLETS]

It's one thing operating & embracing new technology throughout centuries. It's another converging/ intermingling with new technology to become a new whole. (Transhumanism)

[@Mattened]

@@HEAVENLYTABLETS Exactly.

[@zariisofficial]

@@HEAVENLYTABLETS 100% and the amount of job losses coming is gonna be monumental, i actually have several friends who have lost their jobs to AI (not in the creative industries), it's coming.

[@WillyJunior]

​@@zariisofficialwhich industries, just out of interest?

[@zariisofficial]

@@WillyJunior housing association.

[@oggeeboggee]

When will we say: „enough is enough”? When will we rise and take back what is ours? History shows us that it’s necessary “from time to time”.

[@2fioreto]

There are things larger than we, like waves in the Great Sea. Given the current narrative, and the ease with which it combs through the populace, we would be wise to question what sort of deltas they lead us towards. Cheers, and wishing the best 🤘🏼

[@Edbrad]

Ok …but what do you even think that means? What are you imagining when you say that?

[@samueljbooth9124]

And it will also take over our art work on the cover , sad to say the digital version of our albums. Remember when we got excited to get a record or cd . Look at the art work before we hit play or dropped the stylus

[@russcontact]

To comment on one point. You mentioned how people thought midi would replace musicians. It did! Just not the way you’re seeing. With midi one person can control/program machines to play on command, reducing how many humans are needed to perform that work. Today it’s common to see artists perform entire concerts alone, before you needed someone to actually play all those instruments. In that way it eliminated a lot of musicians and that’s still growing today. AI will certainly impact music creation, but over the long run I think you see everything become more personalized. Think like elevator music but customized to how you’re interacting/reacting to it. It wouldn’t just play something based on the Beatles catalog, it would also tweak the music to what it thinks you want to hear. Not sure how I feel about it yet but that’s the direction it’s going. Buckle up!

[@Yarbro45]

Interesting thoughts. Thank you for sharing. Appreciate your insights from the music industry.

[@PlatonsArm]

The loop was arguably invented in the 1970s in New York by hiphop-DJs.

[@BILLY-px3hw]

Watch out the artists are getting emotional and fearful, arm yourself with and acoustic instrument and fight, write, and innovate. AI should be afraid not us, I personally have been scared about the future of music but the emotional releases I am having musically have been very satisfying. There is literally an army of real musicians and artists who are contemplating an uncertain future, they are frightened and angry. I believe that a Renaissance is upon us, this is going to be historic. We really need it, the stagnation was killing us all anyway

[@MrMick560]

I think we will rebel and go back to basics, everything artificial will be out !

[@NeilVanceNeilVance]

Excellent man, you just about covered everything!

[@samueljbooth9124]

To create as in so much words from my understanding what you say . The beauty of non-perfection of being human.

[@janneckchristiansen2778]

We humans will always be interested in human accomplishments above anything else.

[@markkens9]

So much of human composition hangs on the physical interaction with the chosen instrument that an AI can't entwine with note generation or training (yet), that I only see AI music for the middle term as a desert of sound. We haven't begun to digest natural plug-ins let alone sounds beyond imagination.

[@mattfwilkey]

Perhaps we can work to realise a royalty model where composers get paid if their composition is part of a dataset used to train AI and that AI then creates a piece. Something like PRS or MCPS for AI datasets.

[@robertjones9598]

Interesting comments about trance, considering BT did Phobos with Spitfire 😂

[@templatemusic]

1:18 wait what are you saying here? That you predicted music subscriptions in 2022? 10 years after that was already a thing?

[@nunoandradebluesdrive]

Its not just imitation. A tool is something replace dangerous or tedious labour.., like remove noise from a track or bleed on drum tracks, not creative work that can be copyrighted. Its not a resume, or a presentation letter, we're talking about full poetry or lyrics. it's far dangerous than we would want. Music industry is tough enough as is, after Napster and digital distribution play rates. AI will - and in fact is already- copy and better yet generate those human imperfections.

[@danielsanichiban]

I think the decades of industrializing art, progressively pushing that to it's limits, has put everyone on edge. As you say, it's just another new thing. Use it, don't use it, whatever. Enjoy yourself. If there's one thing AI can do for us as it removes what little value is left in the recording industry, it's what actually matters and where the real value is.

[@DensDigitalDen]

Great video and an interesting topic! I think you've raised some really good points about the potential impact of AI on our future. AI's impact is a double-edged sword, but I'm optimistic. Automation can displace, but also create new opportunities. Ethical development is key to a positive future. Let's embrace the change and ensure we steer it responsibly. Thanks for sharing!

[@mokosound]

Thanks for quoting, honoured. For now it seems AI becomes especially good in nostalgia. Maybe that will kick some of us out of our recycling habit and go explore new grounds. Fin de siècle may finally be over? As for the disruption of AI, we already know our technology can extinguish us. Let's hope we are smart and brave enough to manage it.

[@JacksonTaylorandTheSinners]

I’m embracing AI to help men produce high end demos to my songs quickly. That I can give to my band to learn and then add their own flavor. Then to make even higher end demos with the band. Then when we’re a machine. Goin into a studio with vintage real gear and tape and knocking out the best performances we can. There’s a place for AI. I will use it to make recording traditionally to tape, affordable.

[@ukbleed]

Wow that’s so crazy that you predicted music streaming all the way back in 2022/2023 you must be psychic

[@shawnpcampbell]

Thanks Christian for yet another amazing video! Like alot of composer and artists in general, Ive been worried about this topic and Ive heard a great many opinions on the topic. Youve covered alot of what my fellow classmates and my mentors have been discussing over time. General consensus so far is that human made music is definitely going to be around for a long time still...but the previous barrier for entry skillwise is going to have to rise. People (especially in videogames like myself) are going to have to learn to adapt and raise the bar in our virtuosity in order to compete. Not the worst thing in my mind but for some people they might be panicking right now with the pace at which this tech is advancing. I think above all though...its SUPER important that right now us musicians and artists band together to speak with one voice at the negotiating table. I feel we fumbled the ball when the record companies disparaged and underestimated entities like Apple or Spotify and let THEM dictate how much artists should be paid. We have a chance again to make our voices heard this time and push back against letting non artists dictate how our art is valued or paid for. Lets make this different...not just for us but for the artists that follow after us yeah?

[@LeeBlaske]

Sadly, I don't see any scenario where music creators will be speaking with one voice at any negotiating table. There is very little organization in the community. And, the only way pressure can be applied in such a situation is to actually DENY the use of music. The music producing community is too large, diverse and deployed worldwide. If a certain group of producers tried to play hardball and deny the use of their music, others who weren't part of that group would simply see it as their big chance to get some traction. There was a reason the music community didn't join in during the big SAG/AFTRA and Writers' Union strike not that long ago. I think people realized it would have been futile. If push came to shove, there was already tons of music in licensing libraries that would keep content creators going for years.

[@shawnpcampbell]

@@LeeBlaske Im not disagreeing with you...but SAG/AFTRA wouldnt be an organization today unless SOMEONE started it. The Screen Actors Guild started in the 30's amidst the depression with two people. Just two. Thats all it took and now it counts its members in the hundreds of thousands. Someone has to start it. You? Me? Someone else? Why not here? Why not now? There are already some loose organizations for video game composers and songwriters trying to do exactly that. Now is not the time to give up. Now is the time to communicate, organize and make sure we DO have a voice. Start small with your local community and musicians and see just how quickly it can grow!

[@LeeBlaske]

@@shawnpcampbell SAG/AFTRA and the AF of M came about in the grand old days of big studios where all of the work being done was highly observable and easy to monitor. When the work being done can essentially be done by anyone in the world, anywhere in the world on a laptop or even an iPad, there's no way to observe the work being done, and no way to keep a lid on things (EVERY session could be a "dark date"). In order to have any impact, an organization would need to have the clout to bring everything to a standstill if members decided to strike. I don't see any possibility for that.

[@kuhliloach8842]

Very interesting thoughts about humans becoming more inspired in the absence of distraction. You just reminded me of Koala Sampler which seems to be the new beast of all music tools ever made.

[@anatomicallymodernhuman5175]

Man. I have to get back to Edinbugh soon. So beautiful.

[@lit3work]

Mark Hollis’ eponymous album did exactly that Christian- removed the CPU from the process. Don’t suffer for it either.

[@karllindberg]

The problem with the Machine Learning models is that they recreate the "sound" of writers and artists - they even can blend these very "sounds" but alas someone is the owner proper to that distinct "sound" and style that is being used by the ML model. That is a serious issue that needs to be addressed! When ML is trained on contemporary copyrighted music (same as images) and the copyright holders don't get paid, then it is a big issue. There is a big difference between plagiarism (i.e. what todays Ai's/ML's generate) and inspiration from an artist. The day an Ai/ML comes up with its own unique "sound" and style - that will be the day we can give it up.

[@ivanklass1]

Super Christian, any respectful writer should see A.I as like "A poker player that bluff with confidence by having constant ace cards on his sleeve for the purpose to gain max. profits sum of money." It has nothing to do with human creation of original copyright and observing human rights. Best to Oscar and wishing you well. IK

[@MattnUska]

10:13 spot on. If you don’t write music that sounds like a human made it then everyone will assume it was created by AI. We have to work on our musical skills again. I let my skills slack for a long time and I’m working on getting it back. Musical skill is not like riding a bike. If you don’t continue to work on your skills you will lose it.

[@A.I.MADETHIS-ie8bi]

I just made that same Bee-Gee's / loop argument last week only instead of loops mine was "Imagine if you had to invent the words you use every time you wanted to communicate?" Older tech, but the same concept!

[@TheHorse_yes]

There's this brilliant mash-up titled "Stayin' Alive In The Wall (Pink Floyd + Bee Gees Mashup)" by Wax Audio, it's here on KZbin. That was made 13 years ago, so I'd assume it too has been put together with meticulous, manual editing work. Bill McClintock (YT channel) is another brilliant mash-up maestro. I'd like to see and hear more of these absolutely surreal mash-ups in the future, AI could bring us into whole new levels in terms of where you could push the creative envelope. Imagination is the limit, and AI is a great "method enhancer" for that.

[@mickmack9333]

One thing which no one really looks at: we have been seen an Inflation of good quality music which is yet a bit on the average side. This is without AI music generating processors. Up to today, if you had a average good song you still had to promote your music. In this way there was already a limitation for music to make its way to the listeners. AI just creates even more of the music of the kind we already have enough of right now. Maybe we will get more less or not talented musicians who spit out more of this average music.

[@hungrysparrow]

The problem is that AI is not just replacing grunt work. It is making highly skilled work redundant overnight. Illustration and concept art has been hit hard by the recent developments for example. This is a skillset that requires a commitment of years, even decades to master. What's evil is that the AI replacing these jobs was illegally trained on the artists work.

[@catsandsound]

AI will exceed humans in every area other than art it's a reflection of what it is to be human.

[@ollied2025]

thats a nice garden and lake. where are you?

[@timhartnell2472]

You talked about AI being taught the rules of music… I’m not afraid of that. But the intuitive bending of those rules is what makes a performance. Lets make sure no body tells AI how to do that.

[@zoommpro]

'And while you could create 'intelligence you can't create inventiveness'. Yep! And that is the kernel of the entire subject.

[@WillyJunior]

If you're genuinely interested in this topic, I would learn how to prompt one of the AI music services and try to get it to be inventive. You will be very, very surprised.

[@zoommpro]

@@WillyJunior Don't confuse inventiveness with chance or happenstance. AI is no more inventive than a roll of the dice. Unless, of course, you are claiming AI to be sentient?

[@Superdelphinus]

I think AI is way more profound than sampling, personally. It’s capable of completely dismantling the creative industries. It’s really going to challenge the thing around how good art can only created by humans because we have souls (allegedly).

[@beatowner]

I would love AI software that can help with conforms! Yes, some conform work requires (and benefits) from creativity. But sometimes just a few trims here and there are needed, and with 40 or more tracks, it’s often just a pain.

[@theogeeexperience]

You said it right. AI is not dissimilar to the steam engine or MIDI. Embrace it or get left behind. Remember Kodak, NOKIA, Block Buster?

[@soulbill]

‘“… what we’re really scared of is that we will need to work a bit harder.” - yes, THIS! We’ve automated so much already and want to get credit and receive payment for it, even if we are just holding down some notes and letting the pre-programmed samples and patterns do their thing. AI will surely replace that and the lowest common denominator music. We must rise above our tendencies, keep learning, and compose music as humans for humans. I’m a bit afraid as well, but I’m an optimistic realist and think we can rise above what is here and on the way. Maybe AI will provide us with competition we can rise above?

[@MartinJG100]

3:58 and don't forget the lawyers. Oh yes, the legal eagles will be pedaling their wares as the second oldest profession.

[@nigelcarren]

In terms of creative output, no AI will ever be able to compete with a broken heart! ❤️

[@juno6]

Don`t underestimate AI with the information you have today.

[@bhavearth]

as long we are in control of AI I guess we are all good for creativity, the day it's the other way then that's the end of our creative acts...

[@chad0x]

If you took MDMA and listened to 4 to the floor bangers or vocal trance/anthmes, i think you'd change your mind.

[@thejameslestraungeorchestr1492]

A.I will never ever, ever ! replicate the romance of pushing buttons and twiddling knobs. Unless it finds away to 3D print itself just like Bournemouth the super computer did.

[@toslinked]

amen!

[@BinaryDood]

Most of these were false equivalencies. Ai can actually generate the whole thing... In less time of the consumption of it. It might promote live performance, but as it gets better and normalizes, there's bo reason to assume it'll last. And also all the other things it affects, which is mostly everything. Music won't be isolated from those. It's a whole different beast, it is not JUST another technology revolution.

[@suite6creative]

I don't know christian ... I think it might be wishful thinking ... yeah, technology has always threatened to a degree ... but prompting ?? ... i truly don't know ... I am not as postive as you ... I do know however, that unique is going to become a huge sarch light for an audience totally submerged in templated and formulaic ... for those who seek it, but how long until the AI models clone that ... but then again, when eddie van halen came out with something original, everyone cloned that as well ... same with reznor ... who knows ... it can be disparaging honestly ... kinda lost in what to think ... it is warming to hear your words ... from day one I have truly respected you and your passion for excellence ... and your love for artistic origin ... my 2 ¢

[@ggeessttaalltt]

In the case of AI, the “grunt work” is the entire production of the end result. I’ve messed around quite a bit with it and my perception isn’t that it will increase artistic possibility, but more that it’ll increase expectations of volume of work, meanwhile decreasing its value, and the work itself will be less interesting and involved. Prompting honestly isn’t fun, and while models are capable of producing surprisingly high quality output, I’ve yet to be actually moved by a piece of AI art. I view it as a significantly different kind of advancement compared to something like midi or digital recording and playback. I want to have an optimistic outlook on the technology, but I think we live in an environment where there are too many intellectual, economic, and creative pitfalls for this tech to actually be of benefit to society and art, as opposed to capital. I have no qualms with AI based tools, but the pipeline itself is going to do more harm than good in the hands of large corporations imo. My biggest question is though, why is volume something that is being prioritized within art anyways? It’s not like it’s a physical resource where exponential production truly benefits anyone. I don’t really grasp why streaming services or record labels would think it’s a fantastic idea to grow their catalogs with AI filler, especially when they already have talented artists crawling over each other for deals and placements. The vast majority of streaming numbers go to old music, and if anything I think AI will exacerbate their issue of “all new music released has to compete with all music that ever has been released.” I think people have this expectation that the consumer will love infinite, custom generated content on demand, but I don’t actually think it’ll play out that way.

[@martinheath5947]

Hi AI, Create a piece of filmic action music in the style of Christian Henson. Arrange in the style of George Martin. Mix and master in the style of Chris Lord Alge. Are we there yet?

[@Harrysound]

I guess all those vampires that bought all those back catalogues will be able to do whatever they want with AI and those artists. I’m not going to fight AI, I’m going to use it where it helps but I personally my own music will be melodically at least, all me. If we can just get it to render your perfectly played lead guitar line into the perfectly organic sounding violin complete with beautiful life like transitions at the click of a button then bring it on….

[@edgenovese]

I just saw a piece of "art" sold for 400,000 in NY. Hummm who's creative genius did this replace in 3 minutes or less. Car design, architecture ect. I understand that a top tier AI platform is generating 800,000 song per day, 6,000,000 per week. If you think your work is lost in the haystack now, you ain't seen nothing yet. The dumbing down of the listener means they don't care about your art. They'll buy a knock off all day. Fake Nikes sell by the millions. "It's close enough" is our biggest threat. AI is a two edged sword. It's hard to compete with a cheaper cloned version of yourself, and then who is yourself?

[@lucaswyatt]

Wah

[@alexchristodoulou]

To be fair to humanity, our civilization always tried to remove the constraints of the human nature from our lives. We fly with planes to places we wouldn’t be able to walk to. Maybe AI will allow things with music that are impossible now, eg. compose music on the fly based on the personality of the listener, the environment and the activity. Imagine playing games with music that is unique to the player and the moment. Humans are restricted by their cognitive bandwidth, AI will overcome this and we’ll see music getting to a level not possible before.

[@housekeys59]

There is a financial and a philosophical side to this. As AI can, presumably, only get better at what it does it seems likely that it will be able to match or outdo human composers in existing genres. For those supplying a music product to end users, that has to be good news because, assuming copyright is not an issue, there is no-one to pay for new material. Conversely of course that is bad news for human music creators who face being stripped of their livelihood. And, philosophically, is it a good thing to deny artists the gratification of making music for people to enjoy? Isn't art necessarily a transaction between creator and beholder? It feels like an unnecessary and unwanted intrusion into something which should always be human.

[@johntabacco]

I have to embrace A.I. or I will end up in dinosaur land. As a composer, I can take advantage of A.I.'s seemingly "cobbled ideas" (not for long though) and put a "human" element to it. It's music nonetheless and if it sounds good to you - who cares?

[@jorvten360]

Would be interesting to hear your thoughts after you realize no one hires your service cause AI is more efficient, cheaper than any human. It’s happening to wedesigners right now, you have no idea what’s coming for the music industry.

[@just1stone689]

The camera does steal our souls...have you seen Instagram?

[@PieterLaroy]

I enjoyed your interesting opinions once again! I agree that we need to embrace this technology for its potential. However, there are some points I don’t fully agree with. Firstly, I disagree with the notion that AI systems cannot be ‘creative’. In fact, they operate in a way that’s quite similar to us. Just as we combine influences from our environment to create something new, AI systems use the data they are trained on to generate new combinations. Therefore, AI can support us in exploring unknown territory by combining statistical possibilities with our human inventiveness. Secondly, regarding larger systems, I believe there is more at play than just simple statistics. These systems often exhibit behaviors that we cannot fully explain. They learn in ways that are not entirely understood, which goes beyond mere statistical analysis. While I’m not suggesting that this equates to consciousness or human emotions, it is certainly more complex than just statistics. For the rest, I couldn’t agree more 🙂.

[@vinnypwilson6625]

AI will replace human Mediocrity when it comes to art. We will be forced to create only transcending works. So, there is hope for humanity. No more repetitive looping music.

[@EvgeniyPetukhovMusic]

I know bands that were once seen using AI in music videos. Many of their fans now believe that all subsequent music is also written with AI, and because of that they stopped listening to them. I understand them perfectly well - why listen to generated music if there is no human soul behind it? We can marvel at what AI can produce, but in fact its use is like tarnishing a reputation that can never be restored.

[@Biffinnbridge]

There’s a book or a tour in you Christian!