If A.I. took the place of musicians, would you listen to it?

hilde45, you should drop the whole intention angle. It’s misleading. The throbbing of a big twin motor is definitely music to the mechanic’s ears and only a few are immune to the heavy metal thunder -- intent notwithstanding.

Btw, very nice thread you started!

Recently discovered Boris Blank's "Resonance" album and was enchanted with it on a resolving stereo system late at night. It requires a decent system for best effect. It's a bit kitschy, but the luscious quality of the sounds is very charming and will make your system sound very accomplished.

Blank apparently works with a huge library of "samples," and given that technique AI could probably generate similar music in the here and now and probably already is doing so not withstanding that many listeners would be referring to this music as "artificial" from the get-go.

My files were downloaded from Quobuz, so it's available from them in .wav for streaming.

I say, "Let it do its thing." Let's see what happens.

Sounds of nature can definitely be called music. As for the who the composer is, there is no composer, the music created itself. In other words, there was no creation - it always existed.

Human composers don't really create anything either, they simply bring out what was already there.

hilde45, you should drop the whole intention angle. It’s misleading. The throbbing of a big twin motor is definitely music to the mechanic’s ears and only a few are immune to the heavy metal thunder -- intent notwithstanding.

Btw, very nice thread you started!

Thanks. I'll think about it.

Let me see if I am getting your point: In music, intention doesn't matter. Don't look for it. Music is whatever sounds like music to someone. Under this description, nature can make music, engines can make music, and Beethoven can make music. There is no more "intention" in a Beethoven piece than in a waterfall, so none should be looked for -- or used to separate "sounds" (however pleasing" from "music."

Am I getting that right?

Yeah, that's about right, but it's not a yes/no proposition.  The intent of the artist can add to a listener's appreciation of the art work and it can also be completely irrelevant.  Can a person enjoy the music of Charlie Parker without knowing anything about the chords and scales he's using?  Can you enjoy Max Roach or Sonny Rollins without understanding the Civil Rights Movement?  Can you listen to Bach and not be a monotheist? 

A freight train is rolling on the tracks and the engineer in accordance with Federal train regulations sounds the train horn as he approaches a road crossing.  As Warren Zevon put it, "listen to the train whistle whine".  In and of itself it's music and the train whistle has inspired people to create even more music.  It's a wonderment!