> How many "DJs" today could even find t

A lot of them. The barriers to entry have been lowered, which also means there are way more DJs around. And some of them will start to expand their horizon.

I don't know, but I would not be surprised if the total amount of people who can mix without sync increased. Though the percentage of DJs who need sync is probably higher.

I started DJing with 'rona and now somestimes mix vinyl. And I also hosted open deck nights with CDJs where a lot of beginners did not use sync, unless they where only a few month into the game.

I don't think it's a negative.

I’ve always said that the more divergent the input is from the resulting output, then the less personal expression you have. For me, in order of moving away from meaningful control in generative models, it goes: “text → code,” “text → picture,” and, at the very bottom, “text → music.”

For me personally, music composition begins and ends with the motif - the melody itself. It’s the part I enjoy the most, and it’s also the part I have the most individual control over since I can sing.

Everybody makes music differently, but if you lack the ability to play an instrument and you also can’t whistle or sing, it’s hard for me to imagine how you’d have any meaningful control over the melody.

How would a non‑musician express an actual melody that they came up with (beyond simple things like instrumentation and general “feelings”) in text? RED RED RED BLUE. (Sorry couldn't resist a Mission Hill reference here.)

With all that out of the way, there's still lots of room for using AI in music. I’ve used it to take some of my existing songs, mostly pianistic in nature, and swap out instrumentation and arrangements just to play around with different soundscapes. It's like BIAB on steroids.

Agree to some extent. At some point though we jump the thin line between creative expression and… magic?

Like if at some point I can just say “Generate a song similar to Smooth Criminal, different enough to not trigger copyright claims” and it just works, and everyone loves it… well is that creative thinking?

> AI might become just another power tool for creative expression

It is NOT a digital tool to create art. Yes, people used to be snobbish about digital art. Some still are. This doesn't say anything about generative AI because that isn't a tool.

The closest equivalent is hiring someone on fiverr to create music for you and claiming you created the music because you wrote the "prompt".

There is nothing creative about using generative AI. Is is a form of management. The difference is that instead of extracting labor directly your are extracting dead labor from the million of artists whose work was stolen to train the AI.

I think the parent comment was saying that the problem is not quantity, but quality.

Warping my mind back into a hobby-enthusiast music producer mindset:

an MCP that generates presets for a limited pipeline with many sweet spots sounds... interesting?

To me, the idea of being able to have, say, a chain of a simple VA synth + delay + compressor and a very simple step sequencer, combined with prompting and a genAI model that spits out patches, sounds very endearing and interesting.

Much more interesting than Gemini or Suno for example.

Depends on the training and input space of course.

I deliberately described a limited setup, the controls of which could be described in less than a kilobyte.

Many dance music synth patterns could be described by simple means (tracker/step sequencer, looping, a few knobs).

That's what makes a lot of music interesting.

I can easily imagine a producer creating very individual and interesting output by unleashing the right models.

I think, just like with human producers, constraints liberate.

An AI controlling a very limited synthesis chain is more interesting than a very complex synthesis chain controlled by a human with no musical "vibe".

Can I ask what the specific markers / qualifiers are for you to consider (let's call them) 'classical' generative and algorithmic techniques fair game in creative composition, but LLM agent based techniques not so?

To me, it seems like the "do it for me" aspect is similar, just at different levels of abstraction.

> What we are discussing here is the musical equivalent of a dishwasher.

A dishwasher that may have been taught about Markov chains ...

It'd broadly sad how folks so broadly slight and disregard novelty, are so quick to judge assume & discredit.

I have such respect for those who can do the good work of comments like your, trying to pry the closed mind open just a little more. This is such an essential outlook basis that needs to be taught, reinforced: a sense of exploring potential progress rather than sinking merely to conserving or out grouping or denying.

It's really cool that the human agency loop is improving. Ableton & DAWs should be so much better with expanded more language native interfacing!

The main unconsidered criticism that used to come from old-school musos was that 'you press a button and the synthesizer/drum machine/whatever does it all for you'... Only now is that perhaps coming to be true.

There's a difference between technology/technique that adds a new sonic palette to the canon, and one that takes away the necessity to have any direct input in the process of production. I guess we'll find out which this is if there's a wave of novel AI assisted genres that emerge, or not, as may be the case.

Well in "traditional" music production every individual component of a song has the creative intent of the artist in it. With AI you have no idea if there is any intent or if its just something an LLM spat out.

If all you care about is the raw sound file created and you don't care about the connection you might feel with the artist behind it then maybe intent isn't relevant to you.