Arguably you could say that about the bulk of music through the ages. There have always been manufactured bands churning out slop that hits the charts and the proportion of music that has “artistic value”, however you might define it, is relatively small.
However some of these - perhaps most famously The Monkees - went on to demand significant creative input to their music.
One is created by a machine which was given verbal prompts, and is essentially an imitation of what it can find. It’s the equivalent of a child asking to be told a story about unicorns.
The second is created by human beings, who made choices about tempo, key, arrangement, style … and then performed the song. The equivalent of the story-teller in the first analogy.
It is still a reinterpreted copy.
Don’t forget that AIs don’t have self determined goals (at the moment) so they need prompting.
Yes, but the fundamental difference is that one was created by a machine, the other by humans.
No need for AI, check out Raphael Mendes from Brazil. He’s nailed Bruce’s early voice, and sings many songs in the style of Iron Maiden from Journey, to Van Halen, Bon Jovi, AC/DC etc. Here’s a Megadeth one done in the style of Bruce (made during the Covid lockdowns):
Incidentally I met Bruce in Nottingham one time - not much time for a chat, but I did get a chance to shake his hand.
Ah yes, Air Raid Siren Maiden.
My level of concern did dropped from mild to CGAF.
How long before AI doesn’t need humans to prompt them? , I believe there’s already real concerns that some are already being developed to do just that.
Cover versions are , surely, just that? Whereas that AI Floyd/Maiden wasn’t a cover of anything just bunging sounds/styles together.
Billy’s probably right and people will always want to make music and long may that continue, I’ll just keep my fingers crossed and encourage youngsters to try for themselves, ( any excuse to look at new guitars 
).
1 Like