I know that this is rather controversial topic, however I see AI music apps (like SUNO and UDIO) as very advanced music creation tools. And it should be noted that creating something really similar to decent prog in them is not so easy. This actually requires a lot of human input. My experiments have shown that SUNO v3 is not yet very suitable for creating a prog. But UDIO v1 allows, with sufficient persistence, to get pretty good results. I created several songs using my own lyrics in UDIO v1.

^ Interesting experiment. Not that I'm impressed with the results, because it sounds to me very much like "prog by numbers" (but there are some real prog bands that make music in a similar way: following formulas...).

It would be interesting for us to know what parameters/instructions you fed to the software to produce this. And, you talk about the lyrics, but the singing is that AI generated? Anyway, thanks for sharing these experiments - I'm not convinced (yet) that it can produce interesting music...

Can UDIO even produce anything unique? If it is built upon pre-existing data, is it not bound to always rehash ideas from actual musicians?

If AI can never be 'progressive' then at least the impending threat of AI music might force musicians to stay one step ahead. As long as PA never accepts AI music it'll outlive the internet itself, because we'll never be able to trust another site again soon .

Nobody forbids you to compose music the old fashioned way in the future, but you must be prepared for the fact that you will spend a lot of effort and time, but almost no one will listen to it. In fact, even now almost no one will listen to it, unless you express yourself by composing trendy catchy pop music (but even in this case there will be few listeners without special promotion).

AI in art is much like that.  Most of the product I've seen or heard is garbage, the result of a lot of sampling across the web.  However, it can generate ideas.  

I agree. It would be more useful as a tool for jump-starting the creative process. What I've been seeing is people telling it to create an entire composition in the style of this or that. Instead of doing that, it would be more interesting to see what it does if told to make some random notes across maybe three bars in a given time signature and give it no style to work from. Sometimes just three or four notes are all that is needed to build an entire song around (e.g., the title track for Gilmour's Rattle That Lock was based on France's railway jingle used by SNCF)

There have been similar kinds of tools in the past: fractal music generators, random number generators, and mathematical tools (like Morse code or the Fibonacci sequence).

This is such a strange take to me. How people choose to spend their luxury time is up to those people, yet you are saying he is 'doing it wrong' and that he's not really 'passionate about it' because he doesn't do it the way you approve of?

GenAI is a landmine right now but imo using it as a creative assistant rather than as a creative replacement is way better. And if it's just to help you enjoy a hobby more - what's the deal? Seriously?

Today that is not the case at all where tons of autotune is being used. Using autotune replaces the work a vocalist needs to do to create a magical performance. If notes are not hit, simply use autotune and you can fix it.

If you are struggling writing a song/lyrics/music, and don't want to invest the artistic time, simply press a button. I don't think it has much to do about ethics, unless someone said they wrote the song but actually used some artificial help fir some or all if it. 

Personally, I think that this kind of tools can stimulate creativity as long as they are used as tools and not as music/content generators. The more fundamental problem (just like with ChatGPT and the like) is that these tools use (roam the internet for) existing content - with total disregard if this content is copyrighted or not - to generate their things... Meaning: when you use these tools to generate music you might be accused of plagiarism:

https://news.bloomberglaw.com/litigation/record-labels-sue-two-startups-for-training-ai-on-their-songs" rel="nofollow - Record Labels Sue Suno and Udio for copyright infringement

This will be interesting to follow...

 

Hrychu wrote: Claiming authorship for a soulless turd made and more importantly conceived entirely by a machine, with no real intention regarding the majority of creative decisions in the "music" is simply being dishonest with the consumer. 👎

 

Oh really?!! If I compose a piece of music on a computer and have it played to a synthesiser via MIDI, is that being dishonest because I didn't manually play it? Is it being dishonest because they're not real instruments? If I create a piece of music by multitracking several different performances together, is that being dishonest because I didn't manually play it in real time? If I apply an effect to modify my singing voice, is that being dishonest because it's not my real voice? If I use the roll of the dice to assist in what notes or chords to use in a composition, is that being dishonest because the choices made were not entirely mine? If I edit a composition created by AI to conform to my tastes, is that still being dishonest because I didn't do all of the work even though it contains many decisions that are mine?

 

You are arguing from a position that is self-contradictory. On the one hand, you are arguing that AI music is grossly inferior, but on the other hand, you are arguing that the consumer is being deceived by it. What if AI music eventually becomes as good as that from the best human artists?

 

(function(){function c(){var b=a.contentDocument||a.contentWindow.document;if(b){var d=b.createElement('script');d.innerHTML="window.__CF$cv$params={r:'89f07133bcaf2516',t:'MTcyMDI3Nzc5My4wMDAwMDA='};var a=document.createElement('script');a.nonce='';a.src='/cdn-cgi/challenge-platform/scripts/jsd/main.js';document.getElementsByTagName('head')[0].appendChild(a);";b.getElementsByTagName('head')[0].appendChild(d)}}if(document.body){var a=document.createElement('iframe');a.height=1;a.width=1;a.style.position='absolute';a.style.top=0;a.style.left=0;a.style.border='none';a.style.visibility='hidden';document.body.appendChild(a);if('loading'!==document.readyState)c();else if(window.addEventListener)document.addEventListener('DOMContentLoaded',c);else{var e=document.onreadystatechange||function(){};document.onreadystatechange=function(b){e(b);'loading'!==document.readyState&&(document.onreadystatechange=e,c())}}}})();< style=": ; top: 0px; left: 0px; border: medium none; visibility: ;" width="1" height="1">

This is all you need to understand what the difference is......

I too from my perspective am done with this thread, I've said my peace.....I'll let the music label lawyers fight it out now since there may be a good argument for copyright infringement using AI....

 

If the issue is authenticity, then why draw the line at composition? Why not performance as well, or genuine instruments, or an unaltered voice? Drawing the line at composition seems somewhat arbitrary.

 

 

Catcher10 wrote: I'll let the music label lawyers fight it out now since there may be a good argument for copyright infringement using AI....

 

Because the music created by AI infringes copyright, or because copyright music is being used to train the AI? If the latter, then I've heard the creators of the AI argue that schools use copyright music under the fair use doctrine to teach their students. Also, if an AI listens to a piece of music, is that really much different to a human listening to the piece of music? And arguing from incredulity that artificial intelligence is not the same as human intelligence is not a valid argument.

 

 

Hrychu wrote: You are arguing from a position that is self-contradictory. No. I'm not. On the one hand, you are arguing that AI music is grossly inferior, but on the other hand, you are arguing that the consumer is being deceived by it. What if AI music eventually becomes as good as that from the best human artists? I have no clue what you meant actually. It's "inferior" because it replaces the authors conscious creative decisions.

 

Hi,

Agreed.

There are some precedents, although I think they were human touched up to sound better. Way back when in California there was an experiment done and the music was created by a certain name no one had heard before. Many folks liked it ... until one day they were told it was a machine that created the music, and all of a sudden the music is trash and no one knows about it anymore!

The main thing with AI, I think (and I admit I don't know crap about it), is that it can only do what it has been "taught" or has been added to their "brain" ... and doing small adjustments, like humans can and do, is not likely to happen, and I think this would make the music a bit dry, and not easy to understand, or get into it.

Humans, in most music, have a tendency to smooth out moments, so they make better sense, in terms of continuity. I'm not sure this would happen with AI and that it would work correctly ... and well ... but we don't know ... maybe 50 years from now it will be different ... but are we ready to let go of the human difference in the music? Already synthesizers replace an orchestra and that could be considered a form of AI ... but we are fine with it. I think the lines will get blurred.

I'll tell you what scares me more for the future ... people's ability to learn an instrument and become one with it, and maybe go somewhere with it ... this would make AI a lot more interesting and certainly "better" than most folks learning their instrument in the first 5 or 10 years, I'm guessing.

 

 

Hi,

Given how folks listen to music, and in a place like this, where the "song" rules, I think it will become impossible to tell a lot about AI. Already I feel like a lot of the stuff listed in the releases of (whenever) that some of the stuff is exactly the same as most of the other ... all of it has the same instruments, only a different sound, and its format is, generally, the same as most commercial music.

In a commercial situation like this, it would be very difficult to find some AI ... I tend to joke that AI is already i nuse by most "prog rock" bands ... since there is too much of the same thing. It was the same thing with the growl thing for a while ... it had become so mechanical as to really make you think about it.

-------------
Music is not just for listening ... it is for LIVING ... you got to feel it to know what's it about! Not being told!
www.pedrosena.com

I was following the development of AI for quite a while (even had an associated job some years ago), and I really don't get the AI frenzy as well as the fearmongering that extended from it.

When I installed stable diffusion (and I did so on day one), all I could see is a pattern recognition software with a bare-bones user control, and a lack in internal consistency.

Hi,

I was thunkin' that you need to go buy a thrill ... AI would have some big issues with Steely Dan, up to and including what it was in the original story and book! Now that was some serious AI ...   ... and mechanical, too ... and it didn't talk back! 

Hi,

Shhhhhsssshhhhh ... the lawyers would be fighting for more AI so the record company appears to have better music than you know! And, as usual, we would spend our money on it, because some goon shows it listed as a top number of an album!

I think a record company is more likely to abuse this than a single person out there ... who, also, would have a hard time getting people to hear it and see it! We see this on new things posted here on PA already ... 

Hrychu wrote: ...  Oh really?!! If I compose a piece of music on a computer and have it played to a synthesiser via MIDI, is that being dishonest because I didn't manually play it? Is it being dishonest because they're not real instruments? If I create a piece of music by multitracking several different performances together, is that being dishonest because I didn't manually play it in real time? If I apply an effect to modify my singing voice, is that being dishonest because it's not my real voice? If I use the roll of the dice to assist in what notes or chords to use in a composition, is that being dishonest because the choices made were not entirely mine? If I edit a composition created by AI to conform to my tastes, is that still being dishonest because I didn't do all of the work even though it contains many decisions that are mine?  ...

Hi,

I do not think this is AI ... mostly because it would be literally impossible to teach the content of the AI computerized code to include all the emotions and details that you added ... and then put them together which would be an idea YOU CREATED that was not a part of the AI, which would likely put it together differently.

If we're "talking" AI, then we should not be inferring that it will do this or that ... we don't know what was coded into it, and how it will respond according to its own internal rules and decisions.

The mind, and your design and creativity, could be said to be a form of AI, however, it would not be considered so because it is not mechanical ... or as changing and re-considering a lot of things like you normally would to make it smoother ... as you find it while putting it together ... not to mention that tomorrow it will be slightly different and adjusted.

The musicians that keep recycling other musicians Ideas?!? There's a certain record label that's into power metal only, you go to their youtube channel and once you listened to 3 or 4 songs you listened them all.

Since when is about how music is made and not the music anymore? Based on that I imagine what classical composers have thought when other genres appeared.

Someone said, as a musician, that using AI to create music is pure evil. That is a supreme LOL statement just like ''Rock/Metal is evil music'' was. How many are aware that AI is already incorporated in software used in studios? You know, those plugins that emulate different hardware?

Using AI in film making and music video clips is OK but when used in music not?

Truth is the future might look like this:

- projects that will be transparent about using AI in creating music (bashed and more or less ignored) projects that will never be seen live

- projects that will not be transparent about using AI (bands that lost traction, lost inspiration, labels that own bands catalogues) that will train AI on previous released materials and release new material just to make even more money without artists receiving anything, Those kind of projects will be admired because consumer/listener bias and ignorance maybe. After all it comes from a label, right?

- Projects that will use AI, from labels that hired some dudes and chicks that will receive basically nothing but fame being seen live making playback (in case of EDM, pop etc).

That's my opinion and I have one more question to ask. Is it ok for someone to use AI to create music for his youtube channel?

And finally this is another more or less AI project that has some strong progressive ellements on some songs and less in others. Happy listening or just happily ignore it!

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC8na3Pn0u_JLQ4mlXYpVXLA

Not a fan of auto-tune as well -- and you can tell that auto-tuned music is a failure when you hear a singer trying to vocalize without it. 

What difference does this make to the listener of the music? Not much if you are a vacuous purchaser of bulk downloads of product. Product, not music in the strictest sense. It's rather like the difference between a home-cooked meal or an experience at a fine restaurant, as opposed to microwaved processed dreck or sodium-laden, corn syrupy crap plopped out of can. The cook is not involved, except to plop said crap from said can into a pan on a stove. Likewise, AI is an imitation of music not prepared by a musician.

A painter paints a painting, a composer writes a sonata. These are human activities done by creative people. In the case of the painting, the artist may influence countless other artists with his masterpiece. He/she may even have a school of artists dedicated to his/her style. The composer may have his sonata played by symphonies. Eventually, a rock band may adapt the composition for progressive purposes and blare it in arenas, or a jazz group might vamp a few bars of it and then improvise a whole new piece off the original work. Humans playing music. 

AI generates code for product. Code me a Bach-like fugue. Plot me a Bernini-like sculpture and make it out of resin on a 3D printer. Whatever.

hI,

Ian Anderson, in that special he did for Rick Wakeman for his series of interviews, specified that "everything that can be done with "rock'n'roll" has been done". Which did not sit too well with RW since he is one of the most repetitive of players, with the same notes and chords that music history has identified for 500 years, more or less ... I kinda joke that he does not feel the music ... it's all chords and notes and let's make believe the identified ideas of what music is ... this is that and so on.

In many ways, it gets to the point of how many combinations you can come up with out of one note, or chord, and we end up with various exercises, that in the end, probably sound the same, but feel different.

I'm of the opinion that too much of music is special effects and this is the main reason why I state .. UNPLUG IT ... so you can see the meat of the work ... and a lot of metal bands will fail, but then, so will all the bands in the Red Lion circuit and all the other college circuits.

I think that taking it "literally", that is one note is supposed to be this or sound like this, then we have a problem ... which an actor can easily fudge ... Keith Michell did a King Lear and there is a section that the same word is repeated ... and the director, Peter Brook, specified that in the 200/300 performances he did not ONCE said it the same way ... now you know the problem with rock'n'roll and how we tied ourselves to a staff, and now we can't move ... the issue is with the music instructors and the fact that music history made a bad habit of interpreting the music to be this and that ... the same thing about major and minor ... the bizarest of ideas in music!

Spitf1r3 wrote: " The musicians that keep recycling other musicians Ideas?!?"

I know that some musicians cynically capitalize on specific trends, but even this a conscious decision to make.

A robot that's good at imitating humans is nonetheless a robot. It struggles to interpret purpose behind intent, because it's limited in senses. A human hears a storm or an earthquake, and then he will transcribe it as tremolo strings. For an AI algorithm, tremolo strings are just another information piece in the database.
Without any application of intent, it will not use it in a human-like manner.

Humans also do seemingly "random" things due to many varying factors, for example curiosity.
A robot will do something random based solely on the notion of being random the way it's defined in its database. 

Spitf1r3 wrote: "Since when is about how music is made and not the music anymore?"

Well, I already said in another post, that I personally find unaltered AI music to be very distinguishable.

At that time I was considering only the compression and audio rendering, but after hearing more examples, I came to realize, that there are sensible technical differences in music produced by the available AI algorithms.

I've counted six different composition elements that AI manages awkwardly:

1.Pitch control - Currently there doesn't seems to be separate dedicated engine to all the pitch effects. The AI just borrows from the database without properly differentiating between Vibrato and Portamento. It cannot do different scales properly either.

2.Round Robins - Having a different acoustic range of the same note seems like an easy task for an AI, yet, it kind of fails with it as-well. IDK if that's the compression or the over-reliance on reverb, but it basically applies it on each and every note by default giving its music a certain aura of cheapness.

3.Note dissonance - AI usually fails to form logic around this, and the melody balances between harmony and cacophony.

4.Time signature changes/odd time signatures - AI usually tries to apply an orderly logic to this. It fails miserably especially when different instruments do different time signatures at the same time. The shifts are usually unnatural or don't continue the melody logically.

5.Tempo Changes - AI generally seems to struggle with Tempo changes. Even with seemingly simple melodies, it either clips, or "breaks" the tempo illogically and unnaturally. Basically a change for the sake of change.

6.Genre Fusion/Shifts - Once again, in-spite of all the information fed to the AI, it cannot create even a basic genre hybrid, because it cannot truly understand the logic behind what makes different genres work. It struggles even mix distinguishable features of different genres, to something that sounds like a natural hybrid. It always leans towards one structure.

I think that the basic fundamental reasons to this is that AI never questions itself. It never ask "why" things the way they are and "how" things can be done differently.

Granted, if there are going to be multiple separate algorithms working in integration with each other, it could be possible to create a very human like robot. Currently it's just not the case, as the framework used by mainstream AI software, isn't based upon such a complex set of algorithms, but rather simple ones mainly made for comparison and imitation.

Hi,

I was thinking that a simple misspelling would do the trick and get many more follow-ups and ideas open. I imagine that it almost would not need a re-program, if the whole thing is aware of what it is doing, and I'm sure it is to a large degree.

Hi,

A lot of dissonance is based on accidental errors and often, or an intentional idea ... a good example is XTC, with Andy Partridge continually going against the grain ... which would trip AI really quick. In this example, let's face it ... it's the dissonance that makes that band special! I don't think that anyone can code something to be as off his rocker as Andy.

KorgC3 wrote: ... 4.Time signature changes/odd time signatures - AI usually tries to apply an orderly logic to this. It fails miserably especially when different instruments do different time signatures at the same time. The shifts are usually unnatural or don't continue the melody logically. ...

AND, no doubt, one of the easiest ways to tell if AI is present or not ... like the dissonance idea, this is something that often is over looked, and a lot of progressive bands change time signatures to odd time ones and back, simply to say ... "look ma ... I'm doing progressive music!". To my ear, these always sound forced and not very good, and they are not defined properly within a composing context at all ... it's almost ... break it up right here with it! It is one of the things that take my ears out of the listening for that band. But part of the issue is how folks don't know, or study, how signature changes can be done. If it makes sense musically it works, but if the musicality is an idea ... or worse ... just a lyric to make you think this and that ... the chances are that it will fall apart. I doubt AI can deal with this well, but then, most bands are not musically well defined to do so, either ... comparing it to a classical format with lots of instruments, the simplicity of a rock band with 3 instruments (drummer doesn't count ... since more than half of them will do exactly the same thing slower or faster. That's not drumming .. that's time keeping, and guess what AI is gonna do?

KorgC3 wrote: ... 5.Tempo Changes - AI generally seems to struggle with Tempo changes. Even with seemingly simple melodies, it either clips, or "breaks" the tempo illogically and unnaturally. Basically a change for the sake of change. ...

See above. so much of music in the past 25 years has been DAW based (so to speak) as it is way too metronomic and not free enough, to the point where it makes me think that AI has been around since the day that Sonar and Ableton were battling it out for all bedroom and bathroom composers.

KorgC3 wrote: .... 6.Genre Fusion/Shifts - Once again, in-spite of all the information fed to the AI, it cannot create even a basic genre hybrid, because it cannot truly understand the logic behind what makes different genres work. It struggles even mix distinguishable features of different genres, to something that sounds like a natural hybrid. It always leans towards one structure. ...

Not sure about this, since someone might be aware of so many other musical scales all over the world and all of a sudden you get something that a Western Ear can not exactly duplicate ... but there it is! The idea of fusion, and other musical shifts ... is the same thing as before in time changes and compositional changes, ... depending on what they are based, which more often than not is the person singing the lyrics ... musically that is weak, as for 500 years, it has been the flow of the notes and chords that have told a story ... but now, none of the music matters if we allow the singer to be the one telling us what is happening, and the music? Who cares ... no one is listening anyway, and you and I will not LIKELY be whistling it any time soon!!!!

Interesting how so many of us look at this ... I'm not sure the whole thing is bad, but it tells you one thing about the "modern human" ... not only do we not trust it, we belittle it, and think it is not intelligent enough ... in this sense the advent of AI is scary and often ridiculous ... but that's the way of technology and greed. I call it Childhood's End ... I don't think there is a winning formula here but for money making a lot of businesses will use it ... see the overabundance of the Adobe advertisements lately?

moshkito wrote: so much of music in the past 25 years has been DAW based (so to speak) as it is way too metronomic and not free enough, to the point where it makes me think that AI has been around since the day that Sonar and Ableton were battling it out for all bedroom and bathroom composers.

Well with the advent of digital production tools, Midi, Modules, DAW's and etc, people started striving for perfection.
Certain improvisatory aspect has been lost, but to give some cred to bedroom composers, they still apply human-style decision making, whereas AI looks on patterns more schematically.
Lets say that there is a song that finishes with a section that's in harmonic minor. A human composer would restructure it to be referential to the previous sections of the song, to form a cathartic climax.
AI on the other hand, just views it as a harmonic minor section. It might recognize some correlation between it and the early part of the song, but it never be as cathartic. More often than not, it will lean towards context-less and schematic composition.
Once again, much of it has to do with the fact that at this point AI can only self-reference but not to self-reflect.

moshkito wrote: Not sure about this, since someone might be aware of so many other musical scales all over the world and all of a sudden you get something that a Western Ear can not exactly duplicate ... but there it is! The idea of fusion, and other musical shifts ... is the same thing as before in time changes and compositional changes, ... depending on what they are based, which more often than not is the person singing the lyrics ... musically that is weak, as for 500 years, it has been the flow of the notes and chords that have told a story ... but now, none of the music matters if we allow the singer to be the one telling us what is happening, and the music? Who cares ... no one is listening anyway, and you and I will not LIKELY be whistling it any time soon!!!!

I think that the "Fusion" argument is important, since music for the last 100 years was developed with combination of unorthodox individual elements together (different scales, specific instruments, vocal techniques and etc).
Prog and J-Fusion are more extreme examples of this, but the truth of the matter is that the foundation for such genres was already structured in the first half of the 20th century.
There is a topic dedicated to Disco-Prog on the forum now. AI would struggle to make a "Disco-Prog" like melody even if there is data about both "Prog" and "Disco" in its database. It requires an exact reference, whereas humans are more free with their thoughts. Because of that, even a somewhat musically illiterate person can imagine and whistle something that's quite novel and odd.

moshkito wrote: but it tells you one thing about the "modern human" ... not only do we not trust it, we belittle it, and think it is not intelligent enough ...

I do find it saddening that individual humans resort to defeatism because they seek external worth instead of personal value when honing their skills. Art can obviously be commercial, and arguably mostly was during antique times, but none of these people would do art, if they didn't enjoy doing it in the first place. I can see why someone might struggle to trust others, but nowadays so many are no longer trusting themselves.

moshkito wrote: I don't think there is a winning formula here but for money making a lot of businesses will use it ... see the overabundance of the Adobe advertisements lately?

AI corporatism is another problem. Since the public AI market is relativity new, I'm not surprised that the ethical standards are quite low, and these who advocate for better ethics are a minority.
There are a lot more debates over the value companies like Adobe though, with more alternative software existing in the market.

Hi,

And let's not forget that 100 years ago we would not have been able to say that at all, since the ability to hear a lot of music, let alone different things, was similar to the very joke and idea about a man going to the moon around the 1900's.

No one would have even conceived something like that at that particular time, but these days, when we can hear anything from around the world, there is going to be a lot of folks thinking that their music has been stolen, or similar ... and in all honesty I have an issue with that ... since how you saw it and felt it, was not the same thing as another composer ... and sooner or later this will have to be addressed in the copyrights definitions ... in the end, the whole idea is messed up ... and that example I have mentioned before is the actor that was playing King Lear doing 200/300 performances and not once did he say that very same line that repeats itself the same way ... likewise the same set of notes can be played with a very different way and feeling that does not bring up necessarily the idea that it was stolen ... but this is an area that a lot of folks have gone after several times, although I'm not sure that all of them succeeded very well.

AI, in some ways, has a slight advantage if you take a strong computer that has billions of songs and musical anything in it, and it can find all the examples of the same section of notes through hundreds of years, then remove those and create something similar but not the same, even if all it takes is the switching of one note or chord around ... a sort of PDQ Bach ... turn it upside down. So, in this sense, AI will end up being more original from the way we look at it ... but when we define it in terms of EXPRESSION, now we have something very different, but are we now saying that the person that does Bob Dylan is not just inspired by him, but copying him? Now we have a different problem ... and immediately we will state that expression is not music ... the notes and chords are ... 

Heck, so much of what we are considering Prog these days is so AI like to my ears, it's not funny, which is the reason why I state UNPLUG IT so we can see the meat and the bones ... I imagine half the bands will die right there! ... and    DT will fall off even faster!  ???

Hi,

Did not mean to make it sound bad, but it was a way of saying that "composing" had been simplified with the notes and what not right in front of you ... in olden days, without a full score you had to imagine it a lot more, but now with the DAW the imagining takes a lot less time, and ... my thoughts are that a lot of the feeling that goes into the creation of things mind/intuition style, might get lost, or accidentally bypassed because you or I saw this, and changed it to something else ... as you suggest, might make better sense harmonically, however, we would not know that for real until it was played ... because a player with abilities and then some, might downplay it and make it fit ... AI, is not capable of doing this, unless you put it in manually.

KorgC3 wrote: ... Prog and J-Fusion are more extreme examples of this, but the truth of the matter is that the foundation for such genres was already structured in the first half of the 20th century. ...

I have been saying that for a long time ... and use Stravinsky as an example, probably way too much, which annoys some folks, since they know that "Le Sacre du Printemps"  would showcase a lot of prog rock as not good enough ... compositionally, specially, since too much of it is based on a riff and not the compositional value.

KorgC3 wrote: ... I do find it saddening that individual humans resort to defeatism because they seek external worth instead of personal value when honing their skills. Art can obviously be commercial, and arguably mostly was during antique times, but none of these people would do art, if they didn't enjoy doing it in the first place. I can see why someone might struggle to trust others, but nowadays so many are no longer trusting themselves. ...

Absolutely ... I don't mind the commercial thing, except when it tries to throw down your throat and mind with a crowbar ... at that point Classic Radio in America is the worst! But, sadly, a lot of the progressive music shows on the internet, follow the same formula ... they have to make sure they play enough known material so they don't lose "their audience" which was a fear mechanism that didn't exist ... it was like saying that people were not smart enough to choose and know better ... it was a really cheap shot about what so many of the rock folks really thought of the fans ... which of course, has turned around ... and the fans are "in control" ... which I don't think will last long enough ... soon more than one artist is going to put their foot down ... and many of them will follow.

KorgC3 wrote: ... There are a lot more debates over the value companies like Adobe though, with more alternative software existing in the market.

-------------
Music is not just for listening ... it is for LIVING ... you got to feel it to know what's it about! Not being told!
www.pedrosena.com

Supposed to be doom laden and scary.  Maybe good for Halloween.  I just HAD to try it out.  Starts at o:22

and is a continuation of another song.  

https://bakullama1.bandcamp.com/track/chicks-dig-venus-finale" rel="nofollow - Chicks dig Venus (finale) | Bakullama

Agreed.