I'll be delivering a class/seminar for Friends Of CC Music on The History of A.I., tentatively on Feb. 21 2026. I'm sharing a draft of (some of) the classes/seminars concluding statements here early as both food for thought and commentary.

Music & “A.I.” (Advanced Idiots)
*Concluding Thoughts Draft*

While much of the same can be stated for the arts in the greater general, musically speaking, the term "A.I." is near, if not completely, synonymous with the term "synthesizer". As such, I've been yet to see an argument, be it for or against "A.I." in the musical sphere, that's been anything other than a rehash of past arguments about “synthesizers” in the same sphere .

The first serious modern advent of "analogue (acoustic) synthesizers" driven by "biological A.I." player systems was in fact the orchestra. The various acoustic instrument sections of the orchestra acting in capacities of oscillators and oscillator wave shape selections. People often forget that THE INSTRUMENTALIST DOES NOT EXIST IN A "CREATIVE" ROLL IN THE ORCHESTRA. In fact, the roll of the instrumentalist was and continues to be simply to act in the capacity of “automa”, where they are ready to both receive and interpret procedural instruction AND execute said instruction with a high degree of technical efficiency and accuracy. Achieving "First Chair" in the orchestra being synonymous with being labeled "The most effective biological A.I." at the given roll placement. Subsequently the "Conductor" of the orchestra serving simply as the "player" or "orchestrator" of the acoustical synthesis and biological A.I. driven system. All be it in arguably an esoteric fashion, I feel the film Bill & Ted's Excellent Adventure spoke well to this via it's scene of unleashing historical figures of the past into a later 20th century shopping mall, where among other happenings, Beethoven is introduced to both musical synthesis and sequencing technologies of the later 1980s. Understandably, freed from the constraints of needing extremely high budget concert halls coupled to high cost individual acoustic instruments, and even more high cost biological human ("A.I.") players of the instruments, Beethoven proceeds to joyously lose his mind and go creatively wild.
youtube.com/watch?v=H2DeBG7pAX…

To put some of the film’s more “esoteric” (hidden) message into a more “exoteric” (publicly understood) context, it’s perhaps worth noting that while the 20th century musical technologies of the 80s not only freed Beethoven of his regular high cost finance constraints while also placing him into more direct and efficient rolls of both control and creativity, it also served as what would have been for his time (and effectively proved to be) a huge monetary economics job disrupter, if not full on destroyer. It disrupted/destroyed the need for the design and construction of the large acoustically adapted concert hall, the need for the large multitude of instruments, as well as the needs for not only the players paired to those instruments, but also the time and finance needed to train those players to be technically efficient in reading music, understanding conductor instruction, and executing play instructions on the instruments to high degrees of technical efficiency. However, in order to both gain and take effective use of his liberation, Beethoven himself was required to hold certain degrees of technical knowledge, understanding, and actionable creative prowess that the technology, by itself, did not and could not give him. Toward such ends, the technology proved NOT to be a threat to the sufficiently knowledgeable and creative, but it did prove as an existential threat explicitly to the sufficiently ignorant AND non-creative.

For those musical artist that feel at threat by “A.I.”, I would propose a simple scientific proof of sorts to relieve them of their concerns. Simply get together with a “band” comprised of two or more flexible musicians (meaning they aren’t bound to any set particular style or genre) that they find of respectable merit, insert any given “A.I.” system that will act as a final musician in the ensemble that is to receive no human control or instruction beyond when to begin, and finally, without any pre-writing or rehearsal, simply give a “1, 2, 3, GO!” and proceed to punk rock jazz free improv on the spot. I assure, the weakest link in the chain will be the “A.I.”; quickly, if not immediately, tripping all over itself and everyone else and revealing itself as little more than an “Advanced Idiot” at best. The reasoning for this is, just as in Beethoven’s time, in contrast to when Bill & Ted led to his introduction to the 20th century synthesizer, the “A.I.” not only lacked “soul” (a seemingly key component to the creative arts according to Erik B and Rakim), but by it’s nature, was only ever capable of replacing the rolls of the sufficiently ignorant and non-creative. It is towards such ends that I would argue that “A.I.” fears speak more towards the very real threat that truly meaningful synthesis technologies have always posed towards the sufficiently ignorant and non-creative. Further, that such threats are applicable to not only “producers” of content, but also to the consumer audiences of “A.I.” content. In essence, “A.I.” fears, notably when taken at large scale, may be just as misplaced as the Beethoven of Bill & Ted would have found fears against the musical technologies that liberated him and perhaps, in reality, speak more towards unacknowledged and systemic issues in regards to standing ignorances, relatable lacks of meaningful education systems, and finally, both related and subsequent lacks in publicly understood technologies and accessible tools that enable liberated agency and creativity.

#Music #AI #AdvancedIdiots #FriendsOfCCMusic #Arts #Technology #Synthesizers #Synthesis #MachineIntelligence #Automation #Creativity #Disruption #Economics #BlocSonicRecords #ChurchOfSpace