Film music books
- This topic has 77 replies, 9 voices, and was last updated 5 days, 8 hours ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Thanks for the cover! The interesting thing is, I get regularly shown ads with lots of “programs” telling me how to automatically generate income by producing all kinds of A.I. content (such as books or videos etc.)… I wonder if this is the result of one of such programs. “Inside the mind, methods and moments that defIIned a Maestro”… I mean, of course, typos happen… but on a COVER?
And as you noticed, that is the “problem” with A.I. (and I work on daily basis with A.I.): it doesn’t actually know anything. It tells lots of stuff that is true intermingled with a spicy dose of stuff that isn’t true. Good luck figuring out which is which if you are not in the know.I know the A.I. has told me that Jerry Fielding composed the main theme for STREETS OF SAN FRANCISCO and all kinds of other nonsense that isn’t true, so why would it not write in a book that Hans Zimmer composed OPPENHEIMER and TENET and lots of other mistakes. I wonder what Hans Zimmer himself would have to say about this?
But it’s certainly curiosity item. As far as I can tell, the book has already been withdrawn everyhwere? I cannot find it officially anymore.
Well, it’s a fun “gizmo” that Jon can pull out at parties for laughs and giggles! Certainly a unique item if it’s now also withdrawn. As long as the economic loss isn’t huge, it’s a story to tell.
And as you noticed, that is the “problem” with A.I. (and I work on daily basis with A.I.): it doesn’t actually know anything. It tells lots of stuff that is true intermingled with a spicy dose of stuff that isn’t true. Good luck figuring out which is which if you are not in the know.
Another huge problem is that especially generative AI basically steals (legally it is not “stealing” but not allowed usage but well) from real artist to generate its stuff. They just used everything without permission to do so. It is really a problem that “anyone can create without design skills and not even able to hold a pencil…
Since you understand German watch these vidoes if you don’t know them already:
Yes, I’m aware of the problem. It’s basically new (and “new” in terms of “in recent years”, which in terms of governing is legally, socially, morally, etc. is “five minutes ago”).
On the one hand it’s true that A.I. just “absorbs” anything if can, on the other hand, that’s actually what artists do as well, absorb all kinds of novels, symphonies, pictures, etc. that have been done, and then creating producing something new. So it’s really not as simple as it looks.
Obviously, a red elephant jogging on the beach is not real, but just 10 years ago, everybody would have known it’s animated. CGI imagery is nothing new, except now anyone can type into a prompt the type of image they want to have generated.
The thing with A.I. is: A.I. doesn’t know anything, but it can absorb everything. And in absorbing it can recognize patterns. So let’s say it’s seen a million pictures of unicorns (obviously, all of these were done by “artists” in some way), millions of pictures of a bank, and millions of pictures of cats, and it knows lots of concepts, and now you prompt it now to create a cat that’s just done a Bank robbery and rides away on a Unicorn… so it can mash these things together… I just did this:
The funny thing is, I had quite an argument with the Azure Image generator about this. It did not want to do the image, because “it cannot depict felonies”. I argued with it, WTF, I just want a cartoony image of a cat escaping on a unicorn with sacks on money in its paws from a bank, but the A.I. refused. However, I tricked it to provide such an image nevertheless.
However, the problem is clearly that it will be increasingly difficult to rely on visual and audio-visual media as “evidence” for anything… since anything can be faked. Funny elephants on the beach are at least something that’s not deceiving anyone, of course, we’re at the beginning of a new era. And I mean that, this is basically just “starting”. We’re at the dawn of an age were photorealistic audio-visual imagery can be created of anything by anyone, which will obviously severely impact the trustworthiness of such imagery. The source will become more important than the image.
On the one hand it’s true that A.I. just “absorbs” anything if can, on the other hand, that’s actually what artists do as well, absorb all kinds of novels, symphonies, pictures, etc. that have been done, and then creating producing something new. So it’s really not as simple as it looks.
Yes, that is a favorite argument of “AI fans”. But this isn’t true at all. AI absorbs at a scale that is by no means comparable what any artist does. An artist gets inspired by his favorite artists and at best results in its own style because it is both pointless and hard to “do the same”. AI is not creative. At least not yet.
AI should solve or help with tasks that are boring or cumbersome, in short are no fun to do. We don’t really need AI for creative work, for things that actually are fun to do (no, creative work is also not always fun of course).
However, the problem is clearly that it will be increasingly difficult to rely on visual and audio-visual media as “evidence” for anything… since anything can be faked.
As with any technique there are those who use for the worse.
Yes. And I agree that A.I. is not in the “truest” sense creative. Creativity suggests “original ideas” and “imagination”. A.I. has neither, A.I. has no original “ideas”, A.I. has no imagination. Which is why, unlike some, I am not worried that A.I. is anywhere near replacing creative artistry. A.I. simply cannot do that, and is far from it. A.I. can do the pedestrian stuff. Need an image of a bunny on a beach for a presentation? Prompt A.I. and get it done. Not great art, but it gets the pedestrian part out of the way. What A.I. lacks in ideas and imagination it compensates for with tremendous data absorption and recognition of patterns. It “knows” what a bunny is and it knows what a beach is, so it can put the two together, and voila. It won’t be great art, but often you don’t need great art but just an image to illustrate a point.
By the way, I am no more an “A.I.” fan than I am a fan of word processors or electric juicers or carports. “A.I.” is simply a tool which, and like any great tool, it enables shortcuts. There used to be a time when people had to copy books by hand, then came book printing, then came typewriters, now we had excellent wordprocessors and print on demand. That’s what good tools do: provide shortcuts.
I regularly use A.I. indeed to help with tasks that are boring and cumbersome, in a way that enables me to use shortcuts I could previously not do. I get a long contract with 60 pages of project description? I feed it into an A.I. agent and ask it to answer the five questions I have that are relevant for me about it and reference the sections. Bang, time saver. I need an outline for a presentation? I feed it into the A.I., tell it the points I want, and bang, I have an outline. Not one I will take 1:1, but one that I can use as a starting point, which is still an enormous time saver. So A.I. saves a lot of time for a lot of things.
But while A.I. opens up quite a fascinating new landscape, A.I. has, as I said, zero imagination and not an ounce of truely creative skills. In some ways it is not really “artificial intelligence” so much as it is “simulated intelligence”. A.I. seems intelligent because it can calculate well.
Yes. And I agree that A.I. is not in the “truest” sense creative. Creativity suggests “original ideas” and “imagination”. A.I. has neither, A.I. has no original “ideas”, A.I. has no imagination. Which is why, unlike some, I am not worried that A.I. is anywhere near replacing creative artistry.
On the other hand much of so called creative work by humans could have easily been created by AI. The term “creativity” is used too inflationally.
I estimate about 90% of creative work is based on knowledge and experience which can easily be reproduced by AI. The remaining 10% are based on errors and misunderstandings, that get included into the process instead of being compensated.
By the way, in that creativity discussion I love that conversation from I, Robot:
Yeah, very good dialog. “Can you?” Nailed that. 🙂
(I saw the movie when it came out; maybe I should revisit it one of these days. I remember there were some things I really liked about it — like the robot design and basic setup and concept of the film — but I also do remember that it was back in the day quite puzzling to see a movie that was both called and based on Isaac Asimov’s “I, Robot” just to tell exactly the type of story (robots as a menace turning against the creator) that Asimov explicitly tried to get away from in his book and stories. Nevertheless, the movie retained several Asimov ideas and concepts.)
The interesting thing is, of course we all knew lots of robots from science fiction stories… take, for example, C3PO. I always wondered how a machine that can communicate in millions of forms of communication, including Bocce, cannot do some simple task, like impersonating a deity, because it goes against its programming. It’s amazing that many of these age old sci-fi tropes of computers doing this or that and conversing fluently in English suddenly cannot do a simple task because it goes against their “programming”, but now that I work more extensively with A.I., I find that it reacts exactly like all these old robots and computers predicted they would react.
Which is why, unlike some, I am not worried that A.I. is anywhere near replacing creative artistry.
Yes, theoretichally but practically I am worried. Maybe for the hobbyist it does not matter. But if you talk about professional environments people already loose commisssion because AI is cheaper and faster. Some of these areas like illustrations for children books are already underpaid. Many people deciding don’t care about design and such and have no understanding. If it only looks “nice”… A common term you hear in that environemt is that “you do it for fun” anyway… People who use random stock material you see around every corner most likely use some AI generation.
By the way, I am no more an “A.I.” fan than I am a fan of word processors or electric juicers or carports.
I was not directly addressing you, just in case.
On the other hand much of so called creative work by humans could have easily been created by AI. The term “creativity” is used too inflationally.
“Creativity” is used to inflationary in some context, especially on Hollywood film PR interviews…
I estimate about 90% of creative work is based on knowledge and experience which can easily be reproduced by AI. The remaining 10% are based on errors and misunderstandings, that get included into the process instead of being compensated.
That human factor is what it makes creative. If AI does everything no one will ever bother to learn certain things to it it himself anymore. And soon no one will know how to do things anymore, too. Nick’s AI image above is nice as first sight but it is bland and without any personality, too.
Of course there is a lot of bad or “cheaply” done art out there but art is always to some part in the eye of the beholder.
Adobe is already advertising to use AI to create your own soundtrack for your movie. Of course music is very mathematically and even more easily generated than other forms of art…
I still think AI here is used for things we don’t need AI for in the first place.
I am very pragmatic about it; A.I. is here, it’s there to stay, and it’s going to get a lot better. If now everyone can do simple nice A.I. imagery for rudimentary purposes, then yes, artists who do just rudimentary imagery for rudimentary purposes are no longer needed. Lots of jobs are no longer needed. You don’t need lamplighters anymore, because streetlight go on and off by themselves. Automatic speech recognition means you don’t mean scribes anymore. We don’t need switchboard operators anymore. We don’t need clerks in video rental stores anymore, so they had to become film directors. No one needs to plow a field with (animal or human) muscles anymore, we’ve got machines for it.
But every technology also brings new chances. Yes, if everybody can now produce pictures with cats on unicorns, you don’t need simple commercial designers anymore to produce images of cats and unicorns, and it can replace all those artists who produce pictures of cats and unicorns that are, as Malte said, merely “bland and without any personality”. Why wouldn’t it? But the key is: since everybody can now produce bland pictures without personality, you still need actual artists if you want to stay ahead. So the good ones will be in demand, perhaps more than before, no question about it.
As I said, I view things things from a rational perspective: if any technology, in this case A.I., can do something cheaper or faster or better, let the technology do it.
Anything a technology can do where the results are as good or better or faster (sometimes even combination of these things, no one would argue that machines cannot plow better AND faster than any human could) than something that a human can do it, let the technology do it. The technology will do it anyway, so I might as well go with it.
That’s what my personal view comes down to; I don’t complain or lament about something that I see as inevitable (and I do see new technologies replacing old ways as inevitable), I move straight to the next step, which is to integrate the new technology efficiently and let it replace the old wherever that makes sense, leave the old wherever it makes sense, and let it create new opportunities wherever it makes sense.But the key is: since everybody can now produce bland pictures without personality, you still need actual artists if you want to stay ahead. So the good ones will be in demand, perhaps more than before, no question about it.
Maybe but maybe all growing up with such bland images just get used to it and don’t care or miss anything anymore. And for sure don’t want to spend money on anything. Just like “no one” is buying music or films anymore because you can just stream everything.
The technology will do it anyway, so I might as well go with it.
It of course makes sense for someone who can neither draw nor write music or write a straight proper text himself. I am not complaining that technology generally replaces jobs that are not needed. All the jobs you cited where either hard work or rather cumbersome works. I don’t think that creative things are in the same league here… But anyway, AI will not stop here.
But the thinking mistake is that technology does this by itself and it is not invevitable law it does. It does not, it is largely driven by a rather small group of – let me use the poticial fight term – tech oligarchs – primarily in the US as usual, just like with social media – that push all this. (I do understand that the researchers inventing all that stuff just have to try it out of curiosity). I don’t want to mention the environmental issues with all the AI server farms.
I don’t follow the pragmatic way as you do but I am of course fatalist that the “Box of pandora has been opened” especially when I see what amounts of money are pumped into all these AI companies from all sides…
In any case at some point we will to rethink the “work for making a living” principle” if there is no work to make a living left.
Interesting discussion that has ensued from Jon’s A.I. book purchase.
Unfortunately, I’m not in a position to contribute with many details. My relationship to A.I. is like most other people, I think. On the one hand, I’ve found it useful. I’ve used it to create one birthday song and one wedding song that I’ve played for the guests in said birthday/wedding. Also done a few more songs for friends. And I’m on the lookout for that A.I. thing that makes photos come to life, mostly for my parents’ sake. But I’ve not been able to find one that doesn’t require registration, money etc. (beyond a free sample).
On the other hand, I’m well aware of the dangerous implications, especially because I have many creative people in my circle (filmmakers, composers etc.). I would be curious to hear what they think, if they’re reading (Eirik? Mark?).
I’ve used it to create one birthday song and one wedding song that I’ve played for the guests in said birthday/wedding. Also done a few more songs for friends. And I’m on the lookout for that A.I. thing that makes photos come to life, mostly for my parents’ sake.
I do such songs as well, sometimes with friends. Mostly cover versions with new text I write myself (or sometimes with other) but occasionally even original music. (Yes, I dare to make some music every now and then although I have no formal education. And without being a great singer even dare to sing a little. No fear I will not share anything here which legally would not work anyway for the covers ;-)).
There’s a new Kickstarter campaign for an English version of the French book Jerry Goldsmith: An Alchemist in Hollywood (2024), along with its socalled ‘visual companion’ book. Not to be confused with the Jeff Bond book and the whole scandal surrounding that. €40.000 sounds like a lot to get it translated, printed and shipped, but I hope it’s a true estimation. Will you participate in this, Nils?
https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/pulsegames/jerrygoldsmithalchemist/description
Will you participate in this, Nils?
I might. But I’m tempted to wait until it’s out, and we know a little about how the translation is. I bought the English edition of Christian Aguilera’s JERRY GOLDSMITH: A MUSICAL CHAMELEON, but the English translation was so bad I just had to put it down after a few pages. My attention was constantly drawn towards the bad English instead of the actual contents. Lots of weird sentence structures and strange use of words. I often had to read a sentence twice to get the actual meaning. And I daresay most of the blame for that has to go to the translator – not me. 😉 I guess I should have been able to focus more on the contents rather than the language, but I just couldn’t do it. I understand there was another edition of the book with a better translation available a while later, but I haven’t been motivated to re-buy it.
So for this new one, I might wait until there are some excerpts available and we can get a feeling of the translation. I see on the Kickstarter page that the translation is done by a “seasoned translator and veteran English teacher”, so I guess there’s hope. The author, Yves Desrichards, is an unknown name to me, but it’s possible he knows his stuff, of course.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.