[dbeardsl]

> and that's entirely the point of music

That's very reductive. Music, like writing or painting, is a medium, not a thing with intrinsic purpose. It can be a means of communication, sharing human experience, conveying emotion, evoking feelings, expressing a story, ...

[gnarlouse]

I'm not saying AI music is inherently good. I'm saying good music is good music.

My take is literalist, not reductive: Music (and any art product) is configuration. The media involved are the physical laws of nature that present the configuration.

> It can be a means of communication, sharing human experience, ...

1. You're construing the journey with the result. The act of creating is not typically the result product itself.

2. Any perceived relationship to the artist via product is virtual and parasocial (respectfully stated). You have no relationship with Bach or Shakespeare or Michelangelo--you have an appreciation for their accumulated works. You may have a fascination for their stories and life through literary works. You have no relationship with your favorite artist, you have their works in your media library.

[krige]

To many, the relationship between what was written in the sheet and how it was played by a live performer, day I say virtuoso, is the imporant thing. The human component is the important component.

This is entirely separate from pop, which is the junk food of music - cheap, filling, bad for your health.

[jatora]

I would argue that the human element in music is not an important contributor towards the enjoyment of music for exactly 100% of people.

Humans just biologically enjoy rhythmic sounds. We don't care who makes it, we don't care how it is performed live. Those things are just hijacking emotional memory in heightened moments, but that is completely separate from the general natural enjoyment of music.

AI music simply drives the same point home that listening to random music does when you are without a care for lyrics or artists (often, and everyone).

Your point is asinine. You love a hell of a lot of music besides what you attach to live performance. Everyone does. You do not care about the human component.

Unless you want to lie and claim you're some musical purist, this argument is shallow thinking and nothing more.

[gnarlouse]

Exactly. Gorillaz was literally the cartoon characters in my mind for the entirety of my childhood, before I knew who Damon Albarn was.

[krige]

I would counter-argue that you're accusing the other party of exactly the shallow thinking you're guilty of - even worse, you cannot concieve of a thing, so you confidently state thing does not exist and the other party is at best a liar. One only has to have a cursory knowledge of performances on, say, pianos, to know that who and how plays an established piece was always a big deal.

[jatora]

You are missing the point entirely. As I already said: live performances are a completely separate type of enjoyment than music enjoyment. It is dishonest to ignore all of the music you enjoy that has nothing to do with performance, and to cherry pick the less than 1% of music you have likes that also overlaps with what you have seen performed live. Please, this only takes a couple seconds of actual critical thought.