The thing that bothers me most about all this is the stifling effect it will have on creativity, and even the market. We will end only hearing the sounds, or reading the writing styles, of decades past. New talent and ideas will be suppressed as all the money goes to “the sure thing.”
The new Beatles song is not rubbish, but it's not very good. I have heard all kinds of talk about the possibilities for good offered by AI. Call me a dinosaur. I'm against it. When Hal 9000 or Commander Data is put in charge of me I'm going to resist.
This is an awful idea. It is hard enough for creative people to compete today to be heard or seen. What a loss to us all to never hear their voices or see their work. I still like the Beatles and Ella Fitzgerald, but this AI revolution would have killed their creative voices before they could ever have drawn a breath.
But there is money to be made, and it is show "business"...
Add reason #28476 to the list of reasons why I am content to be closer to the end than the beginning of my life.
Audio and visual recordings, art work, written work created during life... yes, of course. Perpetual fake manipulated life is wildly creepy.
IDK if I saw it in a movie or IRL, but extra creepy is the idea of people wanting to have AI create a simulation of a dead loved one's voice able to have a responsive conversation.
I vote for humans being human. That means at some point we are dead. To work around that is just another step away from reality. No thanks.
"Jagger may be enthusiastic about AI now, but he’s still alive and has complete control over the band. That’ll change when he’s gone, and AI creators get the final say."
Perhaps, but how will we know what he's thinking once he's not here?
Now and Then is as real as any Beatles song. The Fab Four weren't always together in the studio. For example, only John and Paul were present the day they recorded The Ballad of John and Yoko. Further, they were always into using the latest technology to mix their music. I think the AI version of Johnny Cash singing Blank Space is awful, but the voices and instrumental parts on Now and Then are really the Beatles, not a synthetic creation.
It's difficult enough for new artists to emerge and have their original material produced. Now they have to compete with a computer's regurgitation of a dead artist's material. It's no wonder the younger generations are in despair about their future.
My skin starts to crawl whenever managerial types start to drone on about “creating value”, as opposed to making good things, including good music.
If AI is the future, I may opt out of pop culture altogether. I’d rather play music with friends than consume recycled mush engineered to maximize sales.
The most disturbing to me of these projects in recent memory was the release of Harper Lee's "sequel" to (or rough original draft of, or alternate version of) "To Kill a Mockingbird" while she was still alive, but following her own stroke and the death of her sister (and lifelong protector). This was a "discovered manuscript" -- discovered by business associates who stood to gain handsomely from its publication -- that Lee had repeatedly, in her pre-stroke life, refused to publish, having spent decades insisting she'd never publish again.
There remains, following Lee's death, a great deal of lingering doubt about whether "Go Set a Watchman" is an attempted sequel pieced together by other people. Health department officials in Alabama even felt pressured to launch an investigation into elder abuse of the celebrated writer (who had limited vision, was largely deaf, and lived in assisted care). While they ultimately concluded Lee hadn't been forced or manipulated into agreeing to publish the book, people who had known her (and her sister) for many years remained skeptical, some even expressing doubt about whether "statements" attributed to the writer and issued via email to journalists and publications had actually been made by Lee. The controversy was not helped by the fact that a guard was placed on duty at the assisted-living home (whether to prevent unmonitored or unwanted contact with Ms. Lee remains unclear).
Lots of people were horrified with the depiction of the much-beloved Atticus Finch character as a racist in "Watchman" (which may well have been Lee's first draft of "Mockingbird"). Personally, I've never read "Watchman," and never will, as I continue to feel so deeply uncomfortable with the circumstances of its alleged "discovery" -- including Lee's purported 90-degree turnaround and out-of-long-established-character enthusiasm for its publication at a particularly vulnerable time in her life.
I don't so much mind James Bond books continuing to be written by the company (Ian Fleming Publications Ltd.) as everyone knows Fleming himself is not still writing these novels. I DO mind the company reissuing Fleming's original books with edits designed to bring them in line with contemporary sensitivities (i.e., removing racial references and terms/attitudes that might be considered "offensive" by modern readers). I similarly object strongly to Penguin's edits and censorship of Roald Dahl's wonderful children's books last year (Google for the specifics if you're not already familiar with the story). It's bad enough for greedy content pushers to animate dead artists like meat puppets to sell us new work that the original artists didn't create and may well have objected to -- it's absolutely unacceptable, in my view, to revise the work those artists DID create. And it's equally unacceptable in my view to take away work that artists released into the public domain during their lives (and that millions have enjoyed and loved), like the four Seuss books (stripped without notice from his estate's publishing catalog, and also immediately removed from eBay and Amazon).
We are in true cultural stagnation and decline. How will any new artists get a chance to shine when we continue to put out new material from long dead ones? Who will get a chance to be the next Jimi Hendrix when corporations keep putting out "new" music under his name?
Just like it seems every movie and TV show is some sort of sequel or reboot these days, the music industry will soon be nothing but remixes and duets of from artists of a more creative and artistic era.
No. Just No. Somebody fire-bomb these cretinous arseholes asap. Imagine lobotomised reworks of "We All Stand Together" in one human ear and "Mull of Kintyre" in the other... Forever.
The thing that bothers me most about all this is the stifling effect it will have on creativity, and even the market. We will end only hearing the sounds, or reading the writing styles, of decades past. New talent and ideas will be suppressed as all the money goes to “the sure thing.”
The new Beatles song is not rubbish, but it's not very good. I have heard all kinds of talk about the possibilities for good offered by AI. Call me a dinosaur. I'm against it. When Hal 9000 or Commander Data is put in charge of me I'm going to resist.
Johnny Cash cover of Blank Spaces is a banger though
I guess then all radio can be classic radio
I agree with George, the song is rubbish.
V (have no idea) and Bing Crosby. Why? We already had Bing and Bowie sing "The Little Drummer Boy" when they were actually alive.
This is an awful idea. It is hard enough for creative people to compete today to be heard or seen. What a loss to us all to never hear their voices or see their work. I still like the Beatles and Ella Fitzgerald, but this AI revolution would have killed their creative voices before they could ever have drawn a breath.
But there is money to be made, and it is show "business"...
Add reason #28476 to the list of reasons why I am content to be closer to the end than the beginning of my life.
Audio and visual recordings, art work, written work created during life... yes, of course. Perpetual fake manipulated life is wildly creepy.
IDK if I saw it in a movie or IRL, but extra creepy is the idea of people wanting to have AI create a simulation of a dead loved one's voice able to have a responsive conversation.
I vote for humans being human. That means at some point we are dead. To work around that is just another step away from reality. No thanks.
'or they can be reimagined by others after they die'
excellent point. I am not interested in someone else's interpretation of an artist. Isn't imitation as the greatest form of flattery valid anymore
No one reads anymore except for the people that read The Free Press, so I expect they won't touch the written word.
"Jagger may be enthusiastic about AI now, but he’s still alive and has complete control over the band. That’ll change when he’s gone, and AI creators get the final say."
Perhaps, but how will we know what he's thinking once he's not here?
Now and Then is as real as any Beatles song. The Fab Four weren't always together in the studio. For example, only John and Paul were present the day they recorded The Ballad of John and Yoko. Further, they were always into using the latest technology to mix their music. I think the AI version of Johnny Cash singing Blank Space is awful, but the voices and instrumental parts on Now and Then are really the Beatles, not a synthetic creation.
It's difficult enough for new artists to emerge and have their original material produced. Now they have to compete with a computer's regurgitation of a dead artist's material. It's no wonder the younger generations are in despair about their future.
I don’t know about what kids think anymore…my teenage daughter in the late 90’s was a Grateful Dead fan (no pun intended)
Groupie and followed them from here to Timbuktu 🤨
My skin starts to crawl whenever managerial types start to drone on about “creating value”, as opposed to making good things, including good music.
If AI is the future, I may opt out of pop culture altogether. I’d rather play music with friends than consume recycled mush engineered to maximize sales.
The most disturbing to me of these projects in recent memory was the release of Harper Lee's "sequel" to (or rough original draft of, or alternate version of) "To Kill a Mockingbird" while she was still alive, but following her own stroke and the death of her sister (and lifelong protector). This was a "discovered manuscript" -- discovered by business associates who stood to gain handsomely from its publication -- that Lee had repeatedly, in her pre-stroke life, refused to publish, having spent decades insisting she'd never publish again.
There remains, following Lee's death, a great deal of lingering doubt about whether "Go Set a Watchman" is an attempted sequel pieced together by other people. Health department officials in Alabama even felt pressured to launch an investigation into elder abuse of the celebrated writer (who had limited vision, was largely deaf, and lived in assisted care). While they ultimately concluded Lee hadn't been forced or manipulated into agreeing to publish the book, people who had known her (and her sister) for many years remained skeptical, some even expressing doubt about whether "statements" attributed to the writer and issued via email to journalists and publications had actually been made by Lee. The controversy was not helped by the fact that a guard was placed on duty at the assisted-living home (whether to prevent unmonitored or unwanted contact with Ms. Lee remains unclear).
Lots of people were horrified with the depiction of the much-beloved Atticus Finch character as a racist in "Watchman" (which may well have been Lee's first draft of "Mockingbird"). Personally, I've never read "Watchman," and never will, as I continue to feel so deeply uncomfortable with the circumstances of its alleged "discovery" -- including Lee's purported 90-degree turnaround and out-of-long-established-character enthusiasm for its publication at a particularly vulnerable time in her life.
I don't so much mind James Bond books continuing to be written by the company (Ian Fleming Publications Ltd.) as everyone knows Fleming himself is not still writing these novels. I DO mind the company reissuing Fleming's original books with edits designed to bring them in line with contemporary sensitivities (i.e., removing racial references and terms/attitudes that might be considered "offensive" by modern readers). I similarly object strongly to Penguin's edits and censorship of Roald Dahl's wonderful children's books last year (Google for the specifics if you're not already familiar with the story). It's bad enough for greedy content pushers to animate dead artists like meat puppets to sell us new work that the original artists didn't create and may well have objected to -- it's absolutely unacceptable, in my view, to revise the work those artists DID create. And it's equally unacceptable in my view to take away work that artists released into the public domain during their lives (and that millions have enjoyed and loved), like the four Seuss books (stripped without notice from his estate's publishing catalog, and also immediately removed from eBay and Amazon).
We are in true cultural stagnation and decline. How will any new artists get a chance to shine when we continue to put out new material from long dead ones? Who will get a chance to be the next Jimi Hendrix when corporations keep putting out "new" music under his name?
Just like it seems every movie and TV show is some sort of sequel or reboot these days, the music industry will soon be nothing but remixes and duets of from artists of a more creative and artistic era.
No. Just No. Somebody fire-bomb these cretinous arseholes asap. Imagine lobotomised reworks of "We All Stand Together" in one human ear and "Mull of Kintyre" in the other... Forever.
No,tah, I'll take the Boot.