In 10 years computers will be able to use a combination of artificial intelligence and massed data from the Internet to generate music better than human musicians.
One can see how this conversation might drive one straight up a wall.
"Better" in what sense? In the sense that recorded music is more definitive and consistent than live performance? Or that synthesized tones are more accurately pitched and timed than the sounds from a Stradivarius? Or does he mean better in the sense that it is more satisfying to win a chess game against a 3200-rated computer than against the merely 2851-rated Garry Kasparov? Or better to watch a dolphin race another dolphin than to watch a slow, human swimmer like Michael Phelps race against other slow, human swimmers?
Humans prefer other humans. Though we like all kinds of things, for most people the sight and sound of other humans has a special, extra level of fascination. So I seriously doubt that AIs will ever successfully compete with human musicians, except as occasional fads, in selected genres and niches (they make pretty good ambient music), or in disguise. The problem is not that any specific musical feat is impossible for a machine (humans are themselves machines, after all). Rather, the problem is that humans control the metagame: Sooner or later, subtly or overtly, we will change the rules arbitrarily so that only humans can be fully human in our eyes.
Indeed, it's all we can do to prevent ourselves from redefining other humans (except those who are our own close relatives) as undesirable aliens -- if you doubt this, just talk to a member of a local minority group.
In such an environment I don't think AIs stand a chance in hell except as part of a cyborg team in which humans front for them. And, in music, we will call those humans "professional musicians"!
Britney Spears is a musician. I know it hurts to have to admit that, but it's true.
Moreover, when Britney is performing songs that are written by AIs (and how can we tell that this hasn't already happened?) she will still be a musician. If you think that singers are passive conduits of a composer's will, I invite you to visit an opera set and voice that opinion. (You can ask either the singers or the composer; it doesn't matter. Though if you ask the singers you had better carry earplugs, lest you risk being sonicated to death.)
I was actually thinking about Britney Spears at one point, in the context of my post. She strikes me as a prime example of one path that pop music will take in a world where, say, ABBA tunes can be written by a AI box that sits on my desk. One thing that boxes can't do so well is to perform a piece in which the musicians have simulated sex in the middle of the performance. Another is to simulate a complete nervous breakdown in the middle of a set. I've never seen Britney perform, either live or on video, but my understanding is that much of the drama of her act derives from anticipation of one of these events.
Of course, Britney Spears is only one facet of music (one that I frankly know little about). Another is jazz, which I tend to regard as another generation's solution to the artistic problem of abundant mass-produced music: Make each performance a unique, live, semi-improvised expression of the artist's technique, taste, and composing skills.
I came across that musician some time ago. She complains that listeners today are overly fixated on accuracy. A generation that grows up on the internet might not be as concerned with authenticity as you might think. Or they might find other qualities more important once the visuals become 'good enough'. The recording industry will probably drive this & i doubt they get most of their cash from live performances.
Anyway synthetic intelligence is the future, whether it's ten or a thousand years. Human arts might end up being the least important part of this.
btw i've been doing some algorithm work & I assure you improvisation is not difficult at all.
One can see how this conversation might drive one straight up a wall.
"Better" in what sense? In the sense that recorded music is more definitive and consistent than live performance? Or that synthesized tones are more accurately pitched and timed than the sounds from a Stradivarius? Or does he mean better in the sense that it is more satisfying to win a chess game against a 3200-rated computer than against the merely 2851-rated Garry Kasparov? Or better to watch a dolphin race another dolphin than to watch a slow, human swimmer like Michael Phelps race against other slow, human swimmers?
Humans prefer other humans. Though we like all kinds of things, for most people the sight and sound of other humans has a special, extra level of fascination. So I seriously doubt that AIs will ever successfully compete with human musicians, except as occasional fads, in selected genres and niches (they make pretty good ambient music), or in disguise. The problem is not that any specific musical feat is impossible for a machine (humans are themselves machines, after all). Rather, the problem is that humans control the metagame: Sooner or later, subtly or overtly, we will change the rules arbitrarily so that only humans can be fully human in our eyes.
Indeed, it's all we can do to prevent ourselves from redefining other humans (except those who are our own close relatives) as undesirable aliens -- if you doubt this, just talk to a member of a local minority group.
In such an environment I don't think AIs stand a chance in hell except as part of a cyborg team in which humans front for them. And, in music, we will call those humans "professional musicians"!