> Why would anyone want to listen to it then? what would be the point? The acoustic equivalent of a screensaver?
I would think they would want to listen to it for the same reason they listen to human generated music.
Is your thought here that AI generated art is not art? Is it the nature of the creator that determines the listeners enjoyment? If the music generated by a computer is indistinguishable from human made music, how can this be possible? Moreover, at what point would the computer generation be sufficient to shift it from art to “screensaver”? Would it be one simulated member of an otherwise human orchestra? Would it take 50%. If you can’t draw a line, doesn’t that further indicate it’s irrelevant?
It's way less complicated than that. Music and art in general belong to the social context that produced them. A lot of our appreciation doesn't really come from the technical prowess of the artist or the music theory behind that, but from the cultural hooks we can find in it.
If you want a quick example of what I'm saying, look online for Music for Installations by Brian Eno. It's a "almost-generative-but-not-really" music album made for audiovisual installations. It's... kinda nice but it's 6 hours long and literally gets boring after less than 30 minutes.
I can't imagine listening to something even more abstracted from a human composer for more than 20 minutes. I mean, I'm pretty sure you can generate something even quite pleasant with AIs. Most people will just listen for 15 min, say "uh, cool", and go back to regular music.
Brian Eno was 100% right about ambient music, but he was just wrong about what form it would take. Basically, his music is so unintrusive to the point of being sleep-inducing for many, thus at least a little more intensity is needed. What really became the ambient music was 24/7 lofi hiphop streams. That kind of music is still very abstracted from a human composer, it just happens to have slightly different sonic qualities and sociocultural context than Eno, so it appeals to a wider audience.
EDIT: Should note that Eno's music is still very influential for a lot of people doing work. He composed Neroli after a lot of people doing intellectual work asked him for a new piece geared specifically towards it. Also, Discreet Music was historically used on many maternity wards. In general it is not as if he failed in the popular sphere, Eno is an extremely popular musician
Totally agree with this, but I think it's very likely we'll see AI-written pop hits. They've basically been churned out factory style for years anyway.
And if that does happen, expect a far more exciting backlash movement, like alternative rock in the 90s was to garbage excesses of the 80s.
I would think they would want to listen to it for the same reason they listen to human generated music.
Is your thought here that AI generated art is not art? Is it the nature of the creator that determines the listeners enjoyment? If the music generated by a computer is indistinguishable from human made music, how can this be possible? Moreover, at what point would the computer generation be sufficient to shift it from art to “screensaver”? Would it be one simulated member of an otherwise human orchestra? Would it take 50%. If you can’t draw a line, doesn’t that further indicate it’s irrelevant?