Replace "Transforming" with "Disrupting" and the story feels more real. Frankly, I love music. That is why I'd prefer if Google did not mingle in this bussiness. Creatives already have a hard time making any sort of living from their talent, and AI generated "elevator music" will not make that situation any better.
Earning money by making music is a power law, that is, only a few people will make a lot of money while many will earn almost nothing. This is partially due to the required skills. If a system could lower the barrier to entry, then you could also make an argument that a music AI makes it a more level playing field.
That is true, but does it make sense to lower the barrier of entry if in return, the world becomes a fiefdom where Google is part of a tech feudal-lord conglomerate and you have to be subservient to their wishes?
Besides, the reason why the power law distribution here is exceptionally skewed is precisely BECAUSE of technology like the internet. If you read about the history of music, in the past before technology, all musicians made less but at least there were places for local musicians to play in a strong community such as in local pubs and such.
TECHNOLOGY created the problem of the extreme power law and now it's disguising itself as a solution. But like the devil, a company like Google does not offer anyhting for free.
Looking at EDM, the sheer amount of bedroom musicians capable of producing that poped up since the 90s is part of the reason why it has become so hard to make any money from your art. There is simply too much music out there to actually be able to find the gems you like. Lowering the barrier for entry will only worsen this effect.
Very real and pertinent example. Being big in EDM now is 100% about being a constant networker. You have to go to every party, know every person and have a massively professional social media presence and a conisistent flashy image to have any success. This will be accelerated in AI, actually turning being a musician into a ridiculously demanding amalgamation of many many different jobs... or just a game of having enough money to know people already and have employ a PR army.
> If a system could lower the barrier to entry, then you could also make an argument that a music AI makes it a more level playing field.
The barrier of entry is a business one, not a talent or skill one. Every country in the world has virtuoso musicians who don't earn money. Many/most of the hugely successful musicians released music that could be recreated pretty convincingly by amateurs with a few years of experience (vocals are probably the only exception as we strongly associate them with individuals).
No. Smaller creators of art gain their markets through uniqueness not through how easy it is to create. If music is a commodity that does not require a personality or skillset to produce, then the individuality of artists becomes irrelevant. Whoever has the means of production to pump out as much as possible as quickly as possible and as cheaply as possible while investing in as much advertising as possible with as many connections as possible, will be the only people that matter. Allowing AI to take over labour for us means that the people who make money from these products are only the people who own the servers. Under capitalism, the capitalists own the means of production and hoard most of the fruits of the labouring class, who are only able to make money by selling themselves. In moving straight from capitalism to an age of AI technofuedilism, we remove even labour and skill as a means of making money for the masses. The only means of making money is owning a server farm. This means wealth continuously flows into the hands of a few tech companies. Even smaller capitalists will be paying their dues to the server owners that control the entire economy. No small man will have a place in any industry.
