I feel your pain regarding AI, but I am assured that it was the wave that was coming and is now here to stay, if anything only eventually to be displaced by something even more advanced. CMS just hosted a series of webinars on AI in music and, while the focus of the one I attended was on AI and composition and not performing as such, it was gratifying to know there’s intellectual property laws governing the use of AI and that, in fact, AI can be a powerful creative resource. Performers, of course, have traditionally felt threatened by mechanized sound (the pianola, recorded sound, computer-generated sound, etc.) but the truth remains that audiences have always attended public performances just as they have always enjoyed acoustic instruments or experimented with musical instruments and techniques of the Renaissance and baroque eras. Besides, nothing has ever replaced the immediacy of interacting with another live performer, so that compositions making use AI, same as those written for interaction between live performers and computer-generated sound resources, end up being something in themselves. It is true that, as is well known, the tape deck put an end to a lot of ballet studio piano just as electronically sampled sound undid what used to be the studio or pit string section, for instance, but musicians adapted, they sought out work in cognate areas (even of performing), they retrained where necessary, and so on. And, as they retrained, they found it possible to re-enter the field better equipped to work with the tools and resources of today. Nowadays, a pianist sometimes cannot be hired to work in an academic setting without achieving a bottom line of computer literacy! For me, the advent of AI will probably not affect any of the structures currently in place for performing musicians but prove a valuable resource waiting to be pressed into service. After all, it’s really the nut behind the wheel that’s making the difference! I honestly feel that our response to AI should be one of openness and resiliency, not resistance.
Dear Kathy,
I feel your pain regarding AI, but I am assured that it was the wave that was coming and is now here to stay, if anything only eventually to be displaced by something even more advanced. CMS just hosted a series of webinars on AI in music and, while the focus of the one I attended was on AI and composition and not performing as such, it was gratifying to know there’s intellectual property laws governing the use of AI and that, in fact, AI can be a powerful creative resource. Performers, of course, have traditionally felt threatened by mechanized sound (the pianola, recorded sound, computer-generated sound, etc.) but the truth remains that audiences have always attended public performances just as they have always enjoyed acoustic instruments or experimented with musical instruments and techniques of the Renaissance and baroque eras. Besides, nothing has ever replaced the immediacy of interacting with another live performer, so that compositions making use AI, same as those written for interaction between live performers and computer-generated sound resources, end up being something in themselves. It is true that, as is well known, the tape deck put an end to a lot of ballet studio piano just as electronically sampled sound undid what used to be the studio or pit string section, for instance, but musicians adapted, they sought out work in cognate areas (even of performing), they retrained where necessary, and so on. And, as they retrained, they found it possible to re-enter the field better equipped to work with the tools and resources of today. Nowadays, a pianist sometimes cannot be hired to work in an academic setting without achieving a bottom line of computer literacy! For me, the advent of AI will probably not affect any of the structures currently in place for performing musicians but prove a valuable resource waiting to be pressed into service. After all, it’s really the nut behind the wheel that’s making the difference! I honestly feel that our response to AI should be one of openness and resiliency, not resistance.