About 30 years ago in a creative 2-week fit I wrote a mini-symphony. I’ve always envisioned expanding it into a full-length orchestral piece but don’t have the skills to do so.

I would love to use a music model that could help me do that.

I’m imagining feeding it my score and then iterating with it to create the final piece I’ve had stuck in my head all this time.

https://projectsam.com/libraries/the-free-orchestra play around with something like this, and you'll be surprised with what you can come up with. Modern DAW's have given me a ton of freedom to create all types of music.

Nobody needs this thing indeed. Nice to have, but out of 100 producers I know only 1 employing end-to-end AI in his process. People love to mold and generally touch what they creatively pursue. Even most of the elevator music (so called vapourwave) was and is being done by humans.

Odd how you refer to vaporwave as elevator music. The original artists of the genre very lovingly remixed classic city pop from the 80s and 90s, and overlayed their own music on top.

I think you might be referring to "Muzak", a particular brand of background music that would sell to businesses to play in stores and elevators.

You're thinking of muzak. Vaporwave was a pastiche and explored/deconstructed that sound intentionally as a form of artistic expression.

Yesterday ChatGPT saved me a good hour in figuring out my taxes, so with that saved time I decided to play some piano.

In my experience, today's AI is more than thrilled to do your extra busy work, one just needs to learn how to ask.

Good use but I do hope you don't hear back from the IRS if it hallucinated.

Agree, but many more people listen to music than create it. And people that enjoy creating art will still do it regardless.

A better example of the problem imo is the robot advertised to watch your kids so you can work.

I'd like it if people who create art could also survive without spending most of their time in a menial job.

Your example is good though, "why raise my children when a robot can do it for me, so I can survive using my energy for someone else".

> And people that enjoy creating art will still do it regardless.

Some people will, but for me, I could never justify spending time and money to learn something an AI could do better than me. I'd constantly feel like I'm wasting my time.

That seems silly. I spend time and money to get better at guitar even though there are countless pro (and amateur) musicians who can do it better than me.

Yeah, but you don't have access to those people all the time. If I have a free tool on my laptop that can do everything better than me at my command, it feels silly to spend the time to master the instrument.

People still calligraph even though we have printer. People will actively spend money in a hobby they like. It's totally fair that you personally might not want to do it anymore if AI can, but I think parent was saying other people will continue to do it if they enjoy it. There are tons of people who create copy right free music anyways. Talking about those type of people. :)

I agree, but there's probably a lot of people who would love calligraphy who never even try it out, because it seems useless.

You will be able to once you change your success indicator from profit to the simple joy of learning and making

I don't even care about profit. My success indicator is "making something I couldn't make before". Since AI can do it, I can't justify learning an instrument, even if I might enjoy the process a bit.

I think this sentiment is actually incredibly sad and more or less the crux of the matter.

AI is a tool intended on increasing efficiency. The way you describe the act of making art/crafting things seems to come through the lens of efficiency, where you're wasting your time in the struggle of improvement.

The time spent struggling is not time wasted. The struggle is the single most important aspect of learning and improving. Its how lessons learned reach the deep subconscious as if you're walking or writing with a pen. No good musician, painter, sculptor, systems engineer, etc became that way without that deep struggle. If someone says they never struggled, be wary of them.

If we round off every corner in the name of efficiency and the bottom line, all we're left with is toil. We don't benefit from that toil, the people who push for greater and greater efficiency do. No matter how efficient we get, the excesses produced by the efficiencies will be guarded. Food thrown away, excess milk dumped in the dirt, crops burned, profits stowed away.

The AI can only exist via previous struggle. The music produced by AI will only ever be a shadow of Human struggle. It will never truly exceed that struggle. A series of vectors in memory on a graphics card can't know the feeling of a beat as it resounds in ones chest, or the resolution of a chord as the bridge turns around. It can't know the sympathetic emotions of a story told in lyrics. It can't know the nostalgia evoked by a shadow in a painting, or the familiarity of an expression in a face.

Only we as humans can create this, and its sad and disgusting to see these tools used to degrade the human experience for an ounce of profit by people who refuse to allow themselves to understand the struggle of creating art.

I appreciate the in-depth response, and I agree for the most part; the issue is, I can choose to struggle on something more practical. I'd get less fulfillment, but in today's economy, it's a far safer option, and I'd still learn and grow.

> many more people listen to music than create it

Exactly why we ask what’s the point of the tool then?

Like I get it, “helps experienced creators become even better yadda yadda” but I’m directly refuting the argument re: target market

Where do I find these people who want to create music for me for pennies?

Perhaps your issue is you devalue music so far that you believe its worth pennies while whatever you're making seems to be worth the money.