Rolling Stone: Ever since Kurt Cobain’s death in 1994, Nirvana fans have hypothesized about the music he would have made had he lived. But other than “You Know You’re Right,” the scabrous, throat-shredding meditation on confusion that Nirvana recorded a few months before his suicide, and a few comments he told confidants about potentially collaborating with R.E.M.’s Michael Stipe or going completely solo, he mainly left behind question marks.
8 comments:
I think that this is fascinating. It is incredible that artificial intelligence can replicate a person's songwriting. However, I feel like something feels a bit wrong about this. I think that songwriting is so poignant because of the way it feels so deeply human, and to have a computer try to replicate this is very strange to me. I also wonder what Kurt Kobain would have thought of this and having his work essentially recreated by a computer. I think about how certain Star Wars actors have stated that they don't want to be computer-generated in the movies after their death. It feels to me that there are a lot of implications of recreating people and their work after their death especially in such a scarily accurate way. Even though the article states that the recreation of these sounds has many human hands involved it still feels wrong to me and I'm not really sure why. However, I am glad that this is being used to raise awareness about mental illness in the music industry as it really needs to be addressed.
When I saw this on the news quiz feed, I kind of chuckled because I assumed there had to be a better and cheaper way to measure a long distance through your phone in 2021, but alas there is not and with good reason. Firstly, the most accurate way to measure a long distance is with a laser and a typical phone does not have a laser inside. Secondly, it is impossible to measure an accurate distance with your phone camera as the perspective would throw it off. Perhaps there could be some sort of app where you could guess the distance but it would not be as accurate as the laser method. Also, this tool is something that is very obscurely used outside of the construction world so not many people would need this therefore having this built into a consumer product would not make sense. Although I wish there was an easier and more reliable way to measure a long distance, a laser is definitely the best option we have today.
Tfw you copy-paste the wrong thing
I think that having music that is fully made from an AI is probably not the best idea but I could definitely see this as a very useful tool for musicians that want help coming up with new riffs for their songs or lyrics for a song. This AI could definitely take previous music that you have created and then suggest what drum beat you might want or what the bassit should play. It could help artists fill in the gaps for what is missing in their songs. I think overall the song actually seemed like it could have been a Nirvana song, but overall Nirvana had some fairly simple songs. They had few solos, and if they did they were not complicated, and almost everything was very repetitive. It does not take much for even a beginner musician to figure out the pattern of Nirvana songs (but that does not take away from the genius that actually is their songs and the brilliance of their lyrics). I would like to see this bot take on a band that has more complicated riffs and just more parts of the song overall, like say Megadeth, or a full orchestra and then see what it spits out.
I definitely do not like the idea of using AI to write songs for artists and replicate their sound. I think using technology to remaster music and allow future generations to enjoy it is great however creating new music for the artist should be with an artist's consent. If the artist is Drake and wants their lyrics to be written for them and just perform music or if an overworked musician wants inspiration then I think it is great technology however writing music for someone who cannot consent to it is really dirty in my eyes. I think our society is moving towards this idea that an artist or entertainer owes content and the audience is entitled to what they want, no longer respecting an artist's choice or free will. This song was created because Nirvana fans thought Kurt Cobain died too soon and they are entitled to more Nirvana music, that leaves no respect to the artist, their talent, or their work. Kurt Cobain does not owe anyone music and to make music in his name using his sound is almost like plagiarizing and in my opinion is super immoral. I think if an artist’s consents sure maybe do it but if they are literally dead it is a terrible thing to do.
I have to agree with the other commentors in that the idea of and AI writing music in place of popular artists just rubs me the wrong way. I think the technology is fascinating and the fact that this project has gotten so far is a great advancement in tech, however it is not in my mind a benefit to music. One of the things that made music by artist like Kurt Cobain and the others in the 27 club so inspirational and so easy for hundreds of people to connect to was the fact that it was written from the artist own life experience. I don't think that we would ever be able to get that from an AI or any other computer generated song program. The program may come up with amazing guitar riffs and relatable lyrics, but they would never be able to have the same passion behind them as the songs written but the artists themselves. I agree that the artists could have definitely benefited from a group like Over the Bridge to help them in struggling with their mental illness. But I do not think that these new songs are the best way to bring about awareness, and in fact I think it might be undermining the actual work and emotion that the artists put into their music when they were alive.
Right off the bat, this seems incredibly wrong and definitely misleading to label it a true nirvana song. As we progress into a tech-heavy world, many jobs and tasks in life can easily be overcome by tech. This is to make our human lives easier, but there are definitely boundaries to take into consideration. Art, however, is the one thing that AI or any technology should be able to take over. Robots though they can program algorithms and generate replicas of paintings or music, defeats what art truly is: expression. There is no human to human connection if AI is doing this, and for Kurt Cobain, I think it is simply insulting that a piece of AI-produced music is branded as a "new" Nirvana song. I am glad to hear that other comments are agreeing with this opinion, and hope that this public opinion will shut down any influence for more AI music to be produced.
This reminds me of an article that was posted on here a couple weeks ago that was about AI creating visual art that was indistinguishable from human art. Don’t get me wrong it is definitely interesting and very impressive that people were able to create something that has the capability to create music that sounds like Nirvana would have written it, but it just feels wrong. Just like my opinion on the other article, I think art is so deeply personal and human that it is something we shouldn’t let AI take over. It is how we can communicate and connect with others. It feels especially off to replicate someone’s art who is no longer here. I guess it does accomplish their goal to bring attention to the topic of mental health issues because I’m reading about it, although at the same time I feel like I’m so focused on the issue of AI music that the message is overlooked.
I have been interested in AI's relevance to art and entertainment for a while now, and have followed various projects to track its overall progress. I have seen AI-generated music scores, screen writing, and even digital paintings, but I had not seen lyrics yet. I do think there is an ethical question here in a similar vein to deepfake videos- as this technology progresses, how can we ensure the authenticity of any given piece? Further, if we continue to generate new music for late artists, will there still be room for new artists, some of which who were inspired by the sound of previous generations, to enter the music scene? It reminds me of a similar dilemma with CGI de-aging, where studios are pushing to work with older talent who can get a CGI treatment instead of casting younger performers in the first the place. I think, as Akshatha mentioned, that accrediting music to a late artist is fairly disrespectful. We should celebrate their life and their work instead of trying to create pale imitations.
Post a Comment