PG Music Home Forums General Discussion Off-Topic Does all this music stuff I own actually produce better music?

MarioD and Mark Hayes,

I don’t think you fully understand the hypothetical scenario I constructed as it has 2 criteria. Criteria 1 deals with technical capability and Criteria 2 deals with the value as seen by society for what is produced by that technical capability. In my hypothetical I intentionally set the bar very high on both so that today’s technology is not sufficient thereby forcing us to think about the future and where all of this might go. I know, this is philosophical but philosophy is not unimportant.

Regarding Criteria 1: I don’t doubt that BiaB is powerful (as a novice in music, more powerful than I fully appreciate at this time). But generating chords and a melody doesn’t reach the bar. Where are the lyrics? Where are the vocals? Today’s “Alexa” (or current technology) is not capable of producing them via voice command only but we can assume some future version will.

Regarding Criteria 2: OK, you generated some chords and even a melody, I get that. Now how many Streaming Services are willing to pay you $200 per play? Or even $20 per play? How many news outlets want to interview you about your masterpiece? How many retailers are clamoring for your endorsement because of your work? Again, perhaps one day but not today.

Someone raised The Beach Boys, their producers and The Wrecking as an example. That team met Criteria 1. They produced complete, masterful songs including lyrics, vocals and vocal harmonies. Likewise they met Criteria 2 of having society value them as evidenced by filled stadiums, record deals, TV appearances, etc. They were a smash live and in the studio.

What interests me about this discussion is that it’s likely we all come down somewhere slightly different on the spectrum whether we realize it or not; it’s not Boolean or black/white. I suspect there are very few of us that come down “hard-left” (100% human artistic creativity and 0% tech) or “hard-right” (100% tech and 0% human artistic creativity). The debate over creativity vs technology is not new. Bob Dylan “electrifying and plugging-in” vs remaining “acoustic” could be one past example. So one question is where are we on the spectrum? [Not the autistic spectrum, that's a whole nother topic]

Another point of interest for me here is the “conflict” between two very basic human needs; the need to be creative vs the need to build tools. As a race we are tool builders and find joy and expression in creating. In fact, isn’t it true that building tools can be creative?

So was Joe Novice musically creative? Do we even care if he was creative? He certainly didn’t pay his musical dues, he just bought technology and spoke.

This is why I asked “Is this scenario good, bad, fair, unfair, neutral, enviable, distasteful, inevitable?”

I wouldn’t be surprised if there are entire books written on this subject.