By Grant Collinsworth 12 NOV 2024
What can AI tell us about music consensus?
Can it form an opinion? I currently say; "Hell no!" So; I decided to run a google search this morning; asking Google: 'Why does today's music suck?' When I did the query; I did so, realizing that my question was totally loaded...with subjective bias.
I didnt expect much of a response from the search (save for a link or two of other bloggers, who shared similar bias... )
How wrong I was! Apparently, the glaring elephant in this room was nailed down and stuffed into a comprehensive burrito of inputs from other internet bloggers and experts.:
The AI response
Many people believe a significant portion of modern music "sucks" because of factors like the accessibility of music production technology, the emphasis on commercially viable trends over artistic expression, lack of musical diversity within mainstream genres, and the dominance of formulaic songwriting that prioritizes catchy hooks over depth and originality, leading to a perceived lack of quality control and artistic merit across a large portion of the music landscape. Key reasons why some might think music quality has declined:
Easy music creation:
Digital recording software and readily available online beats make it simple for anyone to produce music, potentially lowering the overall quality bar.
Commercial pressure:
Music industry trends prioritize catchy, radio-friendly songs that often lack complexity or artistic depth, leading to a homogenization of sound across genres.
Focus on trends:
Artists may prioritize following popular trends over developing their unique style, leading to repetitive sounds and themes.
Lack of musical diversity:
Many mainstream genres rely heavily on similar instrumentation and production techniques, leading to a perceived lack of variety.
"Manufactured" artists:
Reality TV talent shows and the focus on image over musical ability can create artists who prioritize marketability over genuine artistic expression.
Algorithm-driven playlists:
Streaming platforms may prioritize songs that fit specific algorithms, promoting repetitive music that is designed to keep listeners engaged rather than offering diverse artistic experiences.
Important considerations:
Subjective taste:
What one person considers "bad" music can be loved by another due to personal preference and musical taste.
Quality exists across genres:
While criticism towards mainstream music is common, there are still high-quality artists creating diverse and innovative music across various genres.
Exploring beyond mainstream:
Actively seeking out new artists and genres beyond the most popular can help discover music that aligns more closely with your personal taste.
But wait! Theres more! So, I went ahead and did a new query asking: "Why does so much of the music out there sound so good?" And this is what the AI returned:
Music often sounds good because it leverages natural patterns and harmonies that our brains are wired to find pleasing, including consonant chords, predictable rhythms, and melodic structures, which trigger dopamine release and positive emotional responses; essentially, composers often utilize musical elements that align with our innate sense of what sounds harmonious and emotionally satisfying.
Key points about why music sounds good:
Harmonic relationships:
Notes that are harmonically related (like those within a scale) create pleasing sounds when played together, while dissonant combinations can sound harsh.
Pattern recognition:
Our brains enjoy identifying patterns in music, like repeating melodies or rhythmic sequences, which can be very satisfying.
Emotional connection:
Music can evoke strong emotions by manipulating dynamics, tempo, and melody, allowing listeners to connect with the music on a personal level.
Production techniques:
Modern recording and mixing technologies allow musicians to craft a highly polished sound that enhances the perceived quality of music.
What can we take away from the AI response here? The power of AI isnt necessarily about miraculous solutioning. Its about miraculous gathering of 'feel-good' consensus. Remember; AI didnt 'make up' these responses. It merely collected data points; explored and compiled the relevant content, and then presented it in a very concise package.
Dont blame or attribute the AI for thinking that the music sucked... or that the music didnt suck. Blame the real-world trend of consensus (...the real source of the data). Simply put; we have people who love the music out there and we have people who hate it. AI will never agree with any assertion, either way. But, it will never package and deliver confrontational results. AI wants to be the good guy. (Translation: Google wants to be the good guy)
So basically, AI will tell (whoever does the asking); the most efficient response, that aligns itself with the question. If that question happens to be 'loaded'...is it any wonder then; why users might not feel like they are getting the absolute truth, online?
Hey AI; Which is worse; Being in the hands of marketers or being in the hands of scientists?
Generally, AI in the hands of marketers could be considered "worse" than AI in the hands of scientists because marketers have a stronger incentive to use AI for manipulation and persuasion, potentially harming consumers with misleading or overly targeted campaigns, while scientists are primarily focused on research and discovery, with ethical considerations often built into their work.
Comments