The #AIart debate is very frustrating. The rabid pro side needs to be less smug and could take time to actually appreciate the value of art and the rabid anti side could take a few moments to actually learn about what they are raging against because. Both come off as ignorant. It’s also weird how much this mirrors the synthesizer or sampling debates, which I am old enough to remember. It’s probably a good thing most people weren’t on a computer network then.
Conversation
Notices
-
Louis (extentofthejam@mastodon.social)'s status on Saturday, 16-Dec-2023 01:54:18 JST Louis -
Foone🏳️⚧️ (foone@digipres.club)'s status on Saturday, 16-Dec-2023 01:54:17 JST Foone🏳️⚧️ @ExtentOfTheJam yeah. It's kinda sad we killed sampling "to protect the artists!" and then ended up in a world where we screwed the artists anyway with Spotify and YouTube uploads.
So music ended up free and the artists unpaid anyway, but at least that music can't do interesting things with samples! -
Louis (extentofthejam@mastodon.social)'s status on Saturday, 16-Dec-2023 01:54:18 JST Louis Before synthesizers, you couldn’t just dial a bunch of notes in a sequencer and expect them to be played. You’d have to manually play them. That alongside keyboards and other devices which could fill in for multiple parts did cost musician jobs. Sampling was widely considered nothing more than stealing for the whole of the 80s and a lot of the 90s, largely due to people using it in the laziest and least interesting way possible.
-
Louis (extentofthejam@mastodon.social)'s status on Saturday, 16-Dec-2023 01:54:18 JST Louis Not to get too off topic, but it’s interesting also how anti-sampling regulation killed the most interesting uses of sampling in which many many different loops were overlaid and chipped or scratched (think Public Enemy). In the 90s I remember hits where the entire hook was stolen because a label can always spend the money to clear a single sample, but not like a dozen samples.
-