I mean, that exists now already, but very much on the fringes. Use whatever you've got to at least glean perspective and then decide for yourself whether to use, abuse, or refuse it.Īnd, as the pendulum swings, this will usher in an anti-fi movement of noble savages who either explicitly or tacitly reject overly-perfected music. When does it stop? At what point are we even needed - I'm sure in five years time every DAW will have some sort of 'automix' function that may, in some ways, be superior.īut we can still remain the 'man' part of Kurzweil's singular 'man/machine'. There's been a collective groan from those who take a puritanical position on AI or machine learning tools. Especially because I didn't always have the luxury of working in a fully-appointed pro room, anything that would 'wonderbra' my work, I was going to use. I never shied away from using my Aphex Dominator. Whatever you can get your hands on to give you an edge is invaluable. On the other, I have always viewed recording / mixing as a bar brawl. And that was what, seven years ago? Even if we just use Moore's Law as a benchmark, the technology's capability has increased eight-fold since. When LANDR first dropped, I tried feeding a client's mix into it while we were still working (and discussing mastering) and, once they heard it, were giddy with how good it sounded. On the one hand, it frustrates me to no end that with my own experience and gear, a piece of software can do a better job than I can - even with all the king's horses and all the king's men. It's ironic that Ray Kurzweil, who has certainly introduced some noteworthy music technology, himself wrote " The Singularity Is Near" - detailing the ways we have already begun the metamorphosis of man and machine into one being. I wrestle with this on both a professional and philosophical level.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |