its crazy how f***ing trash modern pop music is - possibly due to AI

[dr froyd]

sometimes i'm forcibly exposed to contemporary pop music, e.g. when im at the gym, and i'm honestly shocked by how bad it is. I'm pretty sure i'm not a music snob, i have nothing against pop music. But - there's a striking aspect of it nowadays which i think is quite new; namely that i can clearly hear that these songs are some sort of uninspired mashups of previous pop songs. It sounds like a sort of algorithmically generated warmed-up-soup - a beat from this song, a melody from that, a chord progression from a third one, etc.

which is exactly the result you would expect if they were at least partly generated by algorithms. We know that the pop-music industry started to rely on machine-learning a while back. It wouldn't surprise me if, at this point, they have a GPT-type generative algos where they can type in "catchy pop song with beat like x and mood like y, but with bongo drums" into a computer, get a track, and make Taylor Swift sing over it. We know that producers, as opposed to artists themselves, gained progressively more control over the entire "creative" process over the last years, and it is highly likely that they have stepped up their game to use AI tools.

 

[Cognisant]

The whole music industry model doesn't work anymore, consider: when was the last time you bought a song?

When was the last time ANYONE bought a song?

Sure there's hipsters who collect vinyl (which the music industry DESPERATELY wants to become fashionable) but in reality the overwhelming majority of people listen to music various streaming services, predominantly YouTube or Spotify.

These silicon valley services don't give a damn about the old record companies, they'll happily let artists independently upload their music, it's just more content for the feed.

So these record companies remix the music they have under perpetual license, relying on having enough music that they can recycle it slowly enough that young people (who are the primary consumers of music) don't realize what's happening.

If the music sounds forgettable and generic, that's because it's supposed to be, you're not supposed to be paying attention, just consume more product and get excited for the next thing.

 

[Drvladivostok]

Music has two components which makes it entertaining, a predictability to keep people tuning in to the theme, and an unpredictability between them all to make the listener guessing.

With the mass capitalization of the music industry being available to basically everyone, it has been a race to appease the lowest common denominator to keep the lower end of the curve to keep tuning in 24/7, thus lowering the complexity of tune and mainaining a simple lyrical theme so everyone can jam along.

Music (and art in general) isn't something you see in awe once a week and light your melancholic side with an ember of humanity's few beautiful quality, it has been as ubiquitous as the food you eat. You're not suppose to pay attention and respect the piece, you're suppose to buy the second album on Itunes. All this while the internet is destroying your attention span.

 

[ZenRaiden]

We know that producers, as opposed to artists themselves, gained progressively more control over the entire "creative" process over the last years, and it is highly likely that they have stepped up their game to use AI tools.

You can be artist. Or make money.
If the goal is to make money, then you need starter pack benjamin fusion.
If someone gives you some green juicy juicy it means they will direct it towards more juicy juicy. This means you can forget feelings, rythm or work. It becomes hard grit and more is better. Quality is not what drives music anymore.
Its the monero it makes.
Its not just music. Its whole capitalism down to technology.
You can develop some serious tech in 20 years.
Or be like Elon Musk, promise a cybertruck and make millions and then tell people its not done.

Or you can be like the guys who made tesla cars, that Elon bought and made his own brand. Do you know who they are? No one does. They are just two engineers who started it.

 

[dr froyd]

maximization of profit has of course always been the modus operandi of music labels ever since pop music was invented

but, their business model has varied

for example the reason pop music was actually pretty good back in the 70s was that the labels themselves, and the producers, didn't claim to know what's hip and cool - because they largely didn't. Their goal was to just sign good artists and leave them to it.

as the industry progressed through the decades the labels themselves started to be more involved in the active creation of the artists - analyzing the market and seeing what sells and so on.

now we're at a point where artists practically don't do shit. For example someone like Taylor Swift doesn't actually write her own music - the music is written by producers conveyor-belt style, and the artist just performs it.

i looked at an analysis of Tayloe Swift's music in particular - amazingly she has used the same chord progression in about 90% of all her music. That is a staggering low amount of variation and creativity.

but what ive observed the last 1-2 years is a whole new level; they don't just reuse old musical ideas like chord progressions, but straight up reuse components of songs - same instruments, same notes, with some microscopic variations.

and i mean, this is the future. Machine-learning algoes (if im right they are using them) cannot actually create anything new, they just create combinations of stuff in their training data. Eventually they will start training on stuff produced by other algoes, until everything converges to just 1 song. We'll all be stuck with some miserable Taylor Swift track.

 

[ZenRaiden]

as the industry progressed through the decades the labels themselves started to be more involved in the active creation of the artists - analyzing the market and seeing what sells and so on.

I am a creative person, but even I cannot control my creativity.
Control freaks like that are bane of art.

now we're at a point where artists practically don't do shit. For example someone like Taylor Swift doesn't actually write her own music - the music is written by producers conveyor-belt style, and the artist just performs it.

Even Da Vinci and all renaissance artist were fueled by church so they had to cater to church iconographic style.
But it is true, that if they were not left to do their own work they would have never created the art they did.
I think we are all creative. Its natural ability of human mind, it takes time and connection inside to develop. Flexing creative muscle.
That said if artists are controlled they get less time to flex that muscle.
Needless to say putting artists in a box is a sure fire way to kill creativity.
Art cannot have too many constraints. A lot of creative art is result of life already having constraints and what motivates art is expressing will against those constraints.
To put artists into another box of constraints of production is horrible and dehumanizing. No wonder so many left field artists of past were so much better than mainstream.

i looked at an analysis of Tayloe Swift's music in particular - amazingly she has used the same chord progression in about 90% of all her music. That is a staggering low amount of variation and creativity.

From once seeing her I know she is sexy as hell, but Id not listen to her art.
I like you are fairly open minded so I indulge in trashy or obscure or even mainstream crappy music just for sake of experience, but I guess I can only torture my self so much. I love various bands, for whatever reason.

I feel though as I am alienated from music. Or it feels alienating honestly. Especially mainstream music. Something about modern pop just feels crappy.

but what ive observed the last 1-2 years is a whole new level; they don't just reuse old musical ideas like chord progressions, but straight up reuse components of songs - same instruments, same notes, with some microscopic variations.

So that is why everything feels like it was made by the same company.
The generic company of Hollywood, the generic company of pop, the generic company of intel, the generic company of china, the generic company of perfume etc.

1 song.

The ultimate, heaven, where there is one perfect song on repeat, one joke on repeat, one person we love, one chocolate bar that tastes perfect, one burger that is perfect, one perfect sun set, and one perfect cloud we can sit on. Sounds about right, what a machine would like. Until people start jumping out the windows.
I certainly agree with your point. Even though I am the guy who can listen to a single song on repeat for 3 weeks its sure crappy.
I cannot distingues one artist from another sometimes.

 

[scorpiomover]

maximization of profit has of course always been the modus operandi of music labels ever since pop music was invented

but, their business model has varied

for example the reason pop music was actually pretty good back in the 70s was that the labels themselves, and the producers, didn't claim to know what's hip and cool - because they largely didn't. Their goal was to just sign good artists and leave them to it.

The early Beatles songs were incredibly formulaic and simplistic. Their managers and record producers would dictate nearly everything, including their haircuts. But it was judged by the intuition and pragamtism of a human person with feelings and intuitions.

They also didn't have the technology to do more than manual splicing. Editing existing pieces was a real b**ch. It was cheaper to send scouts out, looking for the new big sound that the public would take to.

as the industry progressed through the decades the labels themselves started to be more involved in the active creation of the artists - analyzing the market and seeing what sells and so on.

Computers came into play in the 1970s and 1980s. Supermarkets could track what you spent, and work out what you'd be likely to buy the next time. In the 1980s, such databases were so common, some companies started selling their marketing databases to other companies. So by the 1990s, music companies could have their databases analysed to see which types of songs made a lot more money.

So the input of managers and producers was now worked out by a calculating machine.

now we're at a point where artists practically don't do shit. For example someone like Taylor Swift doesn't actually write her own music - the music is written by producers conveyor-belt style, and the artist just performs it.

Now we are at the stage where songs can be digitally stored and spliced and edited by software. You can program your songs to do whatever you want. So the human intuitive and feelings aspects of the job can be almost entirely eliminated.

i looked at an analysis of Tayloe Swift's music in particular - amazingly she has used the same chord progression in about 90% of all her music. That is a staggering low amount of variation and creativity.

She tapped into a very loyal market. On INTJf, there used to be a middle-aged Republican male poster who was obsessed with Taylor Swift for years. So once she found that market, she could keep it forever by playing the same types of songs over and over.

but what ive observed the last 1-2 years is a whole new level; they don't just reuse old musical ideas like chord progressions, but straight up reuse components of songs - same instruments, same notes, with some microscopic variations.

That's the sort of thing that is easy to do with a large database of music and some good audio editing software.

and i mean, this is the future. Machine-learning algoes (if im right they are using them) cannot actually create anything new, they just create combinations of stuff in their training data. Eventually they will start training on stuff produced by other algoes, until everything converges to just 1 song. We'll all be stuck with some miserable Taylor Swift track.

This is part of the problem with AIs like GPT. They're getting their info from the internet. The more that people use GPT, the more answers on the internet that were generated by GPT that are like the existing answers on the internet, and the less original answers there are on the internet. So they'll converge as well.

 

[scorpiomover]

sometimes i'm forcibly exposed to contemporary pop music, e.g. when im at the gym, and i'm honestly shocked by how bad it is. I'm pretty sure i'm not a music snob, i have nothing against pop music. But - there's a striking aspect of it nowadays which i think is quite new; namely that i can clearly hear that these songs are some sort of uninspired mashups of previous pop songs. It sounds like a sort of algorithmically generated warmed-up-soup - a beat from this song, a melody from that, a chord progression from a third one, etc.

I meant to mention: I've seen the same trend in films, and the same trend in TV series. I even described a film to someone else the other day, as a mash-up of 2 films. The plots are usually mash-ups, e.g. Edge of Tomorrow = "Groundhog Day + Independence Day".

Even the casting is usually formulaic: all the sci-fi and fantasy series all have a woman hero, who is incredibly objectively beautiful, slim, an expert in all forms of fighting, can't remember her past, but has a destiny that will determine the future of the world/galaxy, that she refuses to accept, but keeps following anyway.

Her love interest is usually an Alpha white male who is very tall and an expert in fighting, who is completely devoted to her needs, and has no other love interest, even though lots of women find him incredibly attractive.

90% of the roles are identical, even in terms of gender and ethnicity.