This is actually the definition of competition. You are just being drowned by AI music so no one can discover your music. Steam had the same issue years ago with asset flips drowning out the discoverability of actual titles and they implemented many curating tools to help resolve the issue. Acting like AI music isn't having a similar effort on genuine musicians is just playing dumb.
as a musician, the internet has made it that there already is a shit ton of competition. AI will make it worse sure, but it was already a 'problem' and never going to be solved.
The thing is, you aren't entitled to distribution.
Most musicians who make it these days work really hard at doing live shows, or growing a following on tiktok.
once they have an audience - who cares about competition?
The hardest pill to swallow as a musician is that despite everyone who ever listened to you telling you you're great, despite being in a band and playing shows, despite maybe even selling some merch...if you are not in the top 1%, you probably will never even get chance to play a show that might put you on someone meaningful's radar.
I hear you and feel you on this being a hard (hardest) pill to swallow, and I think I have a helpful phrase. It helped me quite a bit so I hope it helps you:
'For the love of the game.'
When you don't make any money and no one comes to your shows; when the booking emails go unanswered and the likes on soundcloud remain <10, just remember why you picked up the instrument in the first place. For the love of the game.
As a non-musician, but being into music to an unreasonable degree, I always thought that the best artists are those where I feel that, even if no one bought their records and there were just five people at their concert, they'd still be doing the exact same thing and with the same passion. Audiences notice.
> The thing is, you aren't entitled to distribution.
That applies to people spamming AI slop too.
People are right to complain about spammers.
Platforms are right to try to stop spam, even though everyone knows that spam is a problem that is never going be solved.
> Most musicians who make it these days work really hard at doing live shows, or growing a following on tiktok.
Live shows, by their nature, have almost zero reach. A performance for 40 people takes place once in a single location at a specific time and then it's over. You're either there when it happens or you missed it. A song on youtube or bandcamp can be heard by millions quickly over a few weeks or gradually over years. Social media was a massive boon for musicians.
Sadly, it will get substantially harder to grow a following on tiktok or any other social media platform if those platforms are flooded with AI generated garbage. Real artists will be harder to find. Anyone doing anything new will be drowned out by AI regurgitating everything old. When creative people can't succeed, the creativity they'd inspire in others is lost and everything stagnates.
All of the "discoverability" algorithms are specifically and fundamentally about sifting through the millions to find the few that are preferred. That is their many-billion-dollar industry purpose. Spotify does a fantastic job with this, for me.
> will often just opt for whatever is popular.
Are you suggesting that people consume media they don't like? I'm not familiar with anyone that does this. I personally skip if I don't like a song even a little.
You're not wrong, but the need to please the user is still paramount, otherwise they'll just do something else. This is why TikTok is eating everyone's lunch.
I don't agree with this and to answer the question you originally asked me, I do think users are consuming things they don't actually enjoy. The goal isn't to please the user, the goal is to not bore the user. If you talk to people I'm sure you'll find a lot of the music they listened to isn't "enjoyed" so much as it is inoffensive background noise.
It's not surprising that some people are mindless consumers, but it's not useful to assume the majority is, especially of paying customers, and competition exists.
You're assuming it's not useful because it doesn't bode well for your argument. What makes you think assuming the majority aren't mindless consumers is useful?
I see this a lot, actually. People put things on in the background, for instance, and don't really care if they like it or not (as long as they don't hate it). They just want noise. Or people just scrolling through their feeds without genuinely liking much in them.
In the old days, this was also how the majority of television was watched. People watched TV out of habit, and frequently watched things they didn't like because choices were limited and often there was nothing they actually like on. Thus all the complaints in the day about how "there's nothing on TV".
People are willing to sacrifice quite a lot of real enjoyment for convenience.
No - human learning is still something special in this world.
It is a gift of time and effort, from both the student and teacher. The ability to be inspired by other works and draw from them, not merely imitate them.
You can ask any human musician to make music that is either inspired or outright copied from another artist. They have a moral compass to do so in a way that is not infringing on the works of others.
A music AI model will ingest what is thrown at it, and generate whatever you ask of it. It is a tool, and if it is ingesting human works to be formed into something else, proper attributions and royalties to the sources need to be made.
Sure it's almost entirely things like background music in shops and cafes where nobody is actually paying real attention to the music? I find it hard to believe anybody is actively listening to that kind of stuff (apart from perhaps checking our some of the more notorious cases for novelty value).
