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
... Show more...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
Jarasy
in reply to Alien (A23P) • • •Starts out correct but somehow goes off into the wrong analogue. Or maybe just wants to deal with that common mistake, which is fine.
The AI is not the analogue of the performer. It is simply another instrumental tool just as the synthesizer or the saxophone is an instrument in the hands of the musician. Whether the synthesizer is analog or digital it can be controlled by a computer which may or may not include neural net analog processing.
The human input may or may not be real time. The human input may be extensive or minor. To the extent that the electronics are removed from human perfomance input we may find ourselves less interested, less emotionally moved.
But maybe not. So who cares? What's the desired experience?
Alistair likes this.
Alistair
in reply to Alien (A23P) • •I doubt that AI will equal the creative capabilities of truly great human composers for quite some time, if ever. For now the artificial idiot will continue to hum along in the background.
Jarasy
in reply to Alien (A23P) • • •Alistair likes this.
Alien (A23P)
in reply to Alien (A23P) • •@Alistair & @Jarasy
Concur that the conductor can have an extremely marked influence on the performance. From volume dynamics, tempo/cadence, and more. However, much like many DJs of today that will do seemingly a gazillion movements around the decks for every single movement that actually does something, bands that have employed heavy DAT or otherwise pre-recorded backing tracks, and similar, also concur that there are times where a conductor can largely simply be acting more as a stage play thespian then doing anything musically meaningful.
... Show more...Further, it was more strictly in the sense of "traditional"/"straight forward" orchestra, where the players are just following their given sheet music and looking toward the conductor, whom quite possibly could also be the writer of the material, for instruct on things like speed of play, dynamics, and such. I'll attempt to m
@Alistair & @Jarasy
Concur that the conductor can have an extremely marked influence on the performance. From volume dynamics, tempo/cadence, and more. However, much like many DJs of today that will do seemingly a gazillion movements around the decks for every single movement that actually does something, bands that have employed heavy DAT or otherwise pre-recorded backing tracks, and similar, also concur that there are times where a conductor can largely simply be acting more as a stage play thespian then doing anything musically meaningful.
Further, it was more strictly in the sense of "traditional"/"straight forward" orchestra, where the players are just following their given sheet music and looking toward the conductor, whom quite possibly could also be the writer of the material, for instruct on things like speed of play, dynamics, and such. I'll attempt to make this more clear for the final delivery.
Of the organ, I am assuredly of a long line of others before me that argue such not only as being the direct precursor to the modern day synthesizer, but to itself be a synthesizer. At that, In most particular, to have employed additive synthesis.
Organ aside however, the various instrumental sections of the orchestra, as stated, did provide the conductor with something akin to saw/filtered saw (or even more modern "super saw"), sine, square, as well as various mixed and/or more complex oscillator wave selections. Modern day "modulator" sections of synthesizers could be evoked by the conductor via various instruct to the players on how to "attack" or otherwise approach their play of the instrument.
Of final note, while capable of being a superb "mimic" of sorts (the sci-fi story/film "The Thing" comes to mind), for sure, looks towards being truly "creative" elude A.I.. I like to often provide Mickey Mouse's brooms in Disney's "The Sorcerers Apprentice" (of the film "Fantasia") as an analogy.... The brooms get the water and they dump the water, following their instructed set goal without care. Simple fact is, if nothing else, the nature of discreet (absolute) values by which CPU/GPU instructional natures are rooted prevent stepping outside this. One might argue that things like "Neural Organoid" processes might change this, but for the purposes at hand, I view such arguments as irrelevant and in no need of being at all entertained given when people hear the term "A.I." or words "Artificial Intelligence", they're in reference to CPU, GPU, or similar rooted discreet binary calculative chip processes coupled to statistical set probability theory.
*the term "NPU" also seemingly a now in vogue term which can throw people off as it's sort of a term that lacks concrete definition, but is typically binary calculation rooted.*
Thanks for the thoughts and comments.