As a consumer of music, I do not care one bit about the process used to produce music I love. Not one bit. Autotune? DGAF. Electronic music? DGAF.
Oh you didnt really play that instrument? DGAF.
Is it good or does it suck? That's all that matters. Every single person in this thread can produce a masterpiece if they were in a circumstance to invest the time it takes to get there. Now the nerds invented a machine that cut that time from eons to seconds and the only people mad about it are the ones who used it as a social status play.
It does not matter to 99.999% of the world if musicians use this as part of their workflow. Honestly. The sooner you realize this the sooner you will be free. You are only competing with like-minded people, which is to say, the other artists in your bubble. And comparatively speaking, its statistically insignificant in the grand scheme of things.
Continue doing what you love in the way you love doing it. And if you really love it, then you wouldnt worry about the fact that by next year anyone in the world will be able to produce something of similar quality in 1/10000th of the time. It wouldnt matter. You love what you do, so the way others get there is irrelevant to you.
Every single person in this thread can produce a masterpiece if they were in a circumstance to invest the time it takes to get there.
This is a pretty bold assumption. Many musicians and artists spent their entire lives very diligently dedicated to their art and produced nothing of any lasting interest.
The problem I have with tools like this is that they absolutely flood the conversation with so much uninspired but technically competent content that they make it even harder for the stuff that truly is inspired to rise above the noise floor. I think this casual and dismissive attitude to artist concerns about these tools is the result of treating art as interchangeable "content" for too long.
Some people glimpse something in art that goes beyond the product, and recognise that the economic incentives we live under do not care one way or the other about it, as your comment exemplifies.
Creating art often requires access to material resources, and recognising that a future with AI "art" will mean less and less funding for human art doesn't mean that people are worried about loss of social prestige or loss of financial reward. It is the recognition that at some point certain forms of art will be closed to artists because the economic mechanisms for producing them will disappear. Maybe you don't view this as a bad thing. It seems you do not care at all. But please try to be less cynical about other people and their motivations. Try and actually understand people and their concerns in good faith, and not spill your half-cooked, cynical caricatures as if they were self-evident fact.
Oh you didnt really play that instrument? DGAF.
Is it good or does it suck? That's all that matters. Every single person in this thread can produce a masterpiece if they were in a circumstance to invest the time it takes to get there. Now the nerds invented a machine that cut that time from eons to seconds and the only people mad about it are the ones who used it as a social status play.
It does not matter to 99.999% of the world if musicians use this as part of their workflow. Honestly. The sooner you realize this the sooner you will be free. You are only competing with like-minded people, which is to say, the other artists in your bubble. And comparatively speaking, its statistically insignificant in the grand scheme of things.
Continue doing what you love in the way you love doing it. And if you really love it, then you wouldnt worry about the fact that by next year anyone in the world will be able to produce something of similar quality in 1/10000th of the time. It wouldnt matter. You love what you do, so the way others get there is irrelevant to you.
I'd buy that song.