Trevor Wylie

I know this post is a few years old, but given it's still a relevant talking point I'm going to offer some pushback and challenge a few of the assertations made within.

And since the OP's post is obviously AI-generated I'm going to be a little extra hard on them in some areas where deserved.

First, whether or not something is "revolutionary" is entirely subjective. And even today I find it a much bigger claim than the evidence behind it can support. And here's why:

AI generation models cannot create music in a vacuum, nor can they create anything outside the parameters of the music files and information which has been provided in their data sets. They're statistical models which are trained on enormous collections of existing human-created music (almost all of which was illegally obtained for said models). They take the information from these provided sources and learn patterns, melodies, harmonies, rhythmic ideas, and production results (this distinction will be important soon), and they generate patterns based off of them.

Therefore, I find this quote to be both overly vague and somewhat misleading: There are various AI software options available to film composers. For example, AIVA (Artificial Intelligence Virtual Artist) is a platform that uses deep learning algorithms to create original compositions based on the composer's specifications. It allows the composer to select the style, tempo, and instrumentation they want to use, and AIVA will generate a unique piece of music that fits those criteria. Another example is Amper Music, which uses AI to generate music for video content, including films, commercials, and social media posts. The software allows the user to select a mood and style, and Amper will create a custom piece of music that fits those criteria.

What do you mean by "original compositions," exactly?

Do you mean "original" as in it's not a direct copy of pre-existing work? Because if so it should be noted in the original post, for the sake of intellectual honesty and human integrity, that this is the limitation of the word's usage.

However, since the original post is obviously AI-generated as well, I'm not putting much stock in the idea that this is what the OP meant.

If the intent was to suggest that it's "original" in an everyday artistic sense, the argument falls flat.

Why?

Because AI cannot recreate human experience, knowledge, or skillful use of artistic creativity. It can't create personal experiences, emotions, dramatic intent, cultural influence, symbolic meanings, thematic consistency, or anything a human composer can create.

If you ask a human composer to create a theme for a grieving father in a film, that composer will make countless intentional decisions directly inspired by the visuals, the director's language during spotting sessions, and their own experience watching the footage before the music exists in order to feel out the heart and soul of the scene.

An AI cannot do any of this. Nor will it ever because it's not biological. It has no heart, no brain, no nervous system, and no conscience. All of these things are required for biological beings to generate emotional responses to external stimuli, and thus generate both a memory of the event, and therefore live the moment.

AI will never be able to make this kind of scene-specific or thematic music because it's not capable of understanding all of the human aspects and decisions which go into interpreting a moment in time, like the grieving father example, and create something uniquely specific for that moment. All it can do is create something which its training data helps it get a "close enough" result for based on the keywords of the typed prompt.

This is never how film music should work, nor should we devalue the artistic expertise or experience of film composers by saying such pattern-based and derivative works from AI could ever measure up to what a real film composer is capable of.

"Another example is Amper Music, which uses AI to generate music for video content, including films, commercials, and social media posts. The software allows the user to select a mood and style, and Amper will create a custom piece of music that fits those criteria."

This quote is more defensible, but its practical application is highly dubious and borders on the unethical. If you use AI to generate music for video content you're robbing real human beings of their jobs, and you're missing out on the most important part about music being music: the human side.

Why anyone would want to use AI to generate pattern-based derivative audio files which sound like music rather than hiring a human composer who can understand the intent of both the original creator of the video, as well as the content of the video, is beyond me.

If money is the primary barrier, offer a composer name credits and royalties on the grounds of the work succeeding. Many composers, especially those who are still just hitting their stride and starting to look into breaking into the industry themselves, will happily accept that offer.

As AI technology continues to advance, it's likely that we'll see even more sophisticated tools for film composers in the future. For example, there could be AI software that can learn from existing film scores to create new and unique compositions. This would allow composers to experiment with different musical styles and techniques while still maintaining a unique sound.

I refer you to my previous statements. Nothing about the AI generated content is artistically original. It's all derivative, pattern-based, and nothing a human being couldn't outdo.

The entire "Generating Music Ideas" section of the original post is reiterating the same things stated previously. And at the risk of sounding a bit irritated at the repetition, I have to ask why this is its own section when it's literally copy-paste to the information you posted in the previous section which I broke down already. No new ideas have been introduced in this section. It's more of the same. "Use this AI platform to generate original work!" I've already debunked the idea that it's original.

Again, I know the OP's post is AI-generated. And heavy repetition is a hallmark of AI-generated written material. But come on. It's getting to be a bit much now.

Next.

"Another way AI is changing the creation of film scores is by assisting with the recording process. The use of AI-powered virtual instruments allows composers to create music without the need for live instrumentalists. One example of such software is Garritan Personal Orchestra, which includes a variety of virtual instruments that sound incredibly realistic."

Now you're straight up lying.

The Garritan Personal Orchestra is not AI-powered. Nor are most VST's on the market.

In fact even today, three years after the OP's post went up, you can count on one hand the number of orchestral focused software that's AI-powered.

All VST libraries which are not powered by AI rely entirely on the human composer to understand the instruments, articulations, note range, and natural limitations of each instrument provided before they can best be put to use in a musical score.

Again, the OP's post is AI-generated. But it was on the OP to fact-check the provided information. And they didn't do that. So I'm going to call it out.

Next.

AI can also enhance the sound quality of recordings. One example of such AI-powered software is the Perception Plugin by iZotope, which uses machine learning algorithms to analyze audio recordings and automatically remove unwanted background noise and imperfections. This can save composers and sound engineers a significant amount of time in post-production and ensure that the final film score has a clean and professional sound.

Again, you're either lying or ignorant to the fact that the Perception plugin is not made by iZotope. It's made by MeterPlugins. And it's not AI-powered.

It relies on human-programmed algorithmic loudness-matching and latency compensation which are all based on industry standard practices and techniques for achieving that result. And it has numerous parameters which are all still adjustable by the composer/engineer to dial it in just right for the music it's being used on.

AI-powered plugins are trying to replicate results without understanding the principles, practices, and techniques used to accomplish them.

Next.

AI is also improving collaboration between composers and filmmakers. AI software can analyze a film's script and generate musical ideas that match the tone and mood of the story. This allows composers to collaborate with filmmakers early in the creative process, ensuring that the music enhances the storytelling. For example, AIVA (Artificial Intelligence Virtual Artist) is an AI-powered music composer that uses machine learning algorithms to generate original music. The software can analyze a film's script and generate musical ideas that match the mood and tone of the story.

Again, a lie. And a complete misrepresentation of what the "collaborative" process involves between a composer and a director or filmmaker of any sort.

When a composer meets with a filmmaker, director, producer, or whoever is going to tell them about the score that's to be made they have what's called a Spotting Session, sometimes multiple. The director, producers, and composer sit down and watch bits of film together, and they exchange and share notes about what's happening, what kind of mood they're feeling even without music, or with a temp track, and the composer is given their marching orders on how to approach composing for the scene in question.

AI is not required for this process. Nor does the presence of AI actually speed anything up because more often than not the filmmakers have pre-selected temp tracks for the composer to use as references for the direction of the music anyway.

And even if we take the suggestion from the OP at face value, you have to ask why would a composer want an AI to analyze the film script and generate ideas rather than simply speaking to the filmmaker directly to receive their ideas? The filmmaker is going to be the one signing our paycheck. And it's their vision which we're supposed to be helping realize through music. AI is not the filmmaker, nor does it actually understand the vision of the filmmaker no matter how detailed the prompt might be.

AI cannot replace the filmmaker or properly analyze and understand the script because the script is not the film. It's just the written direction points and dialogue on paper. When translated to film things take on a whole different meaning which AI is not equipped to understand or properly interpret.

For instance, the AI-driven music platform Overture is designed to facilitate collaboration between composers and filmmakers. The software allows composers to upload their compositions and share them with the filmmaking team for feedback. The AI engine can then analyze the feedback and make suggestions on how to improve the composition. This helps to ensure that the music enhances the storytelling and is aligned with the vision of the filmmakers.

Again, pointless.

A composer doesn't need AI-generated "feedback." They need human feedback. The director and producers are all human, and they all have human insight into whether or not the music the composer has created is working or not. And they have ways of getting those ideas and insights across. It's called speaking. Nearly all meetings between a composer and directors/producers are either in person or via Zoom, Skype, or other video chat software. Being able to speak to each other and get that human to human connection is far more valuable than AI-generated "feedback," which has the propensity to re-interpret the "feedback" and twist it into something the directors/producers never intended.

Next.

Moreover, AI is also helping to democratize the process of creating film scores. With AI-powered music creation tools, even those with limited musical knowledge or experience can compose original music for their projects. For example, the AI-driven platform Jukedeck allows users to create original music by simply selecting the desired mood and genre. The software then generates a unique musical composition that can be used in films, commercials, or other creative projects. This not only saves time and money but also opens up new opportunities for aspiring filmmakers and composers who may not have had access to traditional music production resources.

This is where I'm going to push back the hardest because this is where the outrageous lies and ignorance of pro-AI arguments are really on display.

Music is not a democracy. It's a craft.

And like any craft it requires knowledge, skill, and experience to excel and become an expert worth being paid for one's services. That's where composers come in. And it's why nobody who lacks knowledge, skill, or experience in music will ever be able to call themselves a composer.

Sitting at your computer and typing a prompt into an AI generator, and then sitting back twiddling your thumbs while the generator itself does all the analyzing and cobbling together of ideas based on its training data, does not make one a composer. You haven't thought of, considered the merits of, or emotionally connected with a single note. You sat there and waited for a program to spit out a result you cannot realize on your own because you are not a craftsman of music. You're not a composer.

Craftsmen cost money because they are experts in their field. Therefore, the money argument is null and void. For literally more than 100 years students without a budget, indie film companies, and large film companies all have found ways to hire composers to compose for their films, games, tv shows, etc. When they need an expert, they will find ways to acquire the services of an expert.

AI is a fun but otherwise non-innovative and purely derivative tool for putting together pattern-based audio clips which mimic the music it was trained on.

AI will never make someone a film composer.

----------------------------

At this point I think it's clear that AI, while it can be fun, is not revolutionizing anything no matter how many times someone who's arguing for its use repeats the idea that it allows you to do what a composer does.

I lost track of how many times the original post repeated the easily debunked lie that AI will make it easy to compose original piece of music. But a lie, no matter how many times it's repeated, will always be a lie.

AI is not creating new composers, breaking new ground, or revolutionizing the film composition landscape or industry. It's just a gimmick that lets those who are either lazy, or lack the patience to acquire the skills real composers have worked their lives for, to spit out pattern-based derivative audio files mimicking real music of the past.

AI will never lead the way.

Humans will. Forever and always.