The legendary producer Joe Meek once said “If it sounds good, it is good.” (It might have actually been Duke Ellington, but we already digress…)
Most musicians will agree that good sounds are, well, good – no matter how you get them.
Which leads us to an interesting twist.
The other day, YouTube served a video that stopped me in my tracks. It imagined how “Led Zeppelin II” would have sounded if it were recorded in the 1950’s. The “group” behind this? The Led Zeppelins.
At a first listen or two, I thought it was utterly brilliant – and really admired its cleverness and musicianship.
The algorithm quickly caught on, as it does, and started serving similar remakes from The Deep Purples and The Black Sabbaths, among others. These “bands” all had the same faces, but with different hair and clothes.
Old guy that I am, it took me a minute to catch on that this music was almost-certainly created by AI, not by a bunch of guys playing instruments in a studio.
In a subsequent chat with other music-geek pals, they were able to use AI to quickly, and convincingly, create similar similar re-imaginings, like a country “I Am the Walrus,” or a big-band “Walk on the Wild Side” with a vocal astonishingly like Frank Sinatra.
It all took about 2 minutes.
So this raises a few questions, like “Is it really music?” and “Is this legal?” and “Are we doomed?”
Not being a lawyer, I’m gonna skip the legal one and offer two early, just-one-guy’s-opinion takes on the other two. This is all changing quickly, so these opinions may evolve, too, but for now I’d say:
(1) It really is music. When tools are invented, they get used. Once upon a time, some folks thought the electric guitar was a disgrace, but times changed. It’s fair to wonder what it means when no musicians are involved in making “music,” but it is happening. It indeed sounds good (and will only get better). So … is it good?
(2) AI will surely affect musicians’ livelihoods, likely in ways we can’t fully imagine yet. So, where does that leave us?
Speaking only for myself, I live in a subculture of actively-gigging musicians who get paid to play, but aren’t pros. For folks like us, we do it as much for love as anything else. AI can never replace the joy of playing with, and for, other people – so in that respect AI is no threat. In fact, it’ll likely turn out to be a great teaching tool.
I do wonder, though, how actual professionals will adjust. Being artists, they’ll find ways to adapt successfully, but it’ll be an interesting set of adjustments.
What’s your take? Please let us know. (Just be kind, there are no wrong answers.)
-Al Cattabiani
Photo: Fair Use screen grab from YouTube, for editorial analysis and commentary
AI, for lack of a better word, sucks. Not for how it may actually help human kind in terms of medical and scientific breakthroughs and advancements.
But, rather, through how it is already eroding, and even nullifying, the precious human gift of creativity.
Let’s all Rock On. From the soul.
“From the soul,” indeed, John. Thanks.
A) it all sounds the same
B) what algorithm thought this country and western was “rock ‘n’ roll”?
Interesting.
I’m not sure of what will be considered “kind”, but my personal initial thoughts are
1) the tune is fun and interesting
2) It’s nothing that couldn’t be easily assembled by any number of songwriters if instructed to do a country-ized Zep song.
3) It has notes and instrumentation so I suppose, although simplistic, technically, it’s “music”.
4) The “definition” for what is called “music” in colloquial language has been stretched beyond belief
5) Would something like this generate a ton of new “genres”?
6) My feeling is that Genres’ exponential multiplication without set definitions has to be full of duplication and ambiguity – rendering most of them meaningless.
oops – my own Organic Intelligence (what there is of it) has steered me down a new set of rabbit holes, so I’ll bug out~
Kindly ( I hope) yours,
Thanks, Gary. The speed of the AI was one of the breathtaking things, at least for me. It took about 2 minutes to go from nothing to a finished track. For sure, human songwriters and players are currently more nuanced and complex, but AI is “maturing” quickly. I don’t pretend to know where this is going, but it is indeed a new world…
I agree with Joe Walsh’s assessment of AI as it relates to rock and roll: “When AI learns how to destroy a hotel room, I’ll pay attention to it.”
Though couched within a joke, Walsh’s comment signifies a larger point. If folks are easily entertained by musical sounds generated by super-computers gobbling and regurgitating pre-existing content, that’s their business. But I prefer art that’s created by living and breathing human beings, and so far nothing I’ve seen from AI has given me goosebumps.
Well put, John. In the “goosebumps” department, it’s also hard to imagine AI making a creative leap like, say, from “Please Please Me” to “Tomorrow Never Knows.” But, then again, you do never know…
If you want Led Zeppelin to sound like a 50’s band, just ask real musicians to arrange and play the songs. Don’t dehumanize art.
Well done and very relevant article!
Wishing you Happy Holidays and a Joyous New Year filled with Happiness, Success and Prosperity!
Definitely different! Have only listened to the first two and definitely out there!! Musically it’s probably right rockabilly wise. Led Zeppelin purists are howling with rage!!!
Now we have to ask the obvious (and obnoxious) question:
Did AI or AL write this piece?
In any case, thanks for the thought provoke!
We’d prefer not to comment on authorship 🙂
A friend sent me the Led Zeppelins and while I found it amusing it was obvious to me it was AI. It was just too perfect. It sounded….soul-less. Not sure where all of this is going, but it will certainly be interesting.