Great take on the journalism trade (I used to be one, a television photojournalist). I love cheese, especially cheese made anywhere but the United States. Italian cheese is a great one, but I am also biased. However, I would liken the journalism you describe to "American Cheese," that cheese food that is sold in abundance in U.S. grocery stores: Superficially it looks somewhat palatable, but it has no substance. You could probably say that about a lot of things lately, I suppose.
Ha! Rogue Creamery in Central Point, Oregon, recently won award for best cheese in the world. Full stop. From the European judges of such things. Blue cheese won best years before that. Their cows are given royal spa treatment every time self-milked. Very few dairies do that for Happy Cows. A very humble and amazing company. You can buy their blue cheese powder (difficult) for an amazing popcorn.
The group of us who "Used to be a photojournalist" is pretty good-sized. I came from the newspaper division. NPPA all the way. I hardly know anybody who is still in the business. Was a great career...all over. We had the honor of telling the truth, for the benefit of the public. We didn't work for "attention." So we are obsolete. If only this could work on Substack...at this point, though, I have my doubts about all platforms...As they always said, "Freedom of the press exists for the man who owns one."
Kinda like: "The freedom in a country belongs to the man who owns it."
Hey, the spell "checker" just converted my "freedom" into "Freudian!" See, there is no "freedom" even here, revealed by a Freudian slip...LOL
I can't remember what to organization for television photoj0urnalists was, but I did attend a training on how to do quick quality lighting setups (after not understanding lighting in undergrad), and I joined. Out of the whole station, the photogs got it, all but one of the reporters didn't. I started studying propaganda on my own in undergrad, learned a bit more at that station (and no one listened), and now I am about to reapply to PhD programs to leave the one I am in (Long story, but I have never been in a college program and have failed a class and also be required to retake that and two additional over that I didn't even fail. Strange university.).
I actually met a few people while I was working at that station and one other that decided to leave the industry, either anchors or photogs. The camaraderie between stations and newspaper was great, but the management was frustrating.
Freudian is interesting. Irritating when that happens. You should probably read his double nephew when you have a chance (if you haven't already), the brilliant but egotistical Edward Bernays.
TV shooters were part of NPPA, (National Press Photographers Association) along with the still photographers. I went to a national convention one year where they selected Art Donahue as the national TV news photographer of the year. He was a from a nearby city. Always went the extra mile. He said when he got that award the station was like "So?" And they didn't want to pay overtime. He didn't hang around. The photographers had the lowest status in the newsroom. It was about the pretty faces on-camera; nobody knows who the "cameramen" are. I did go to J-school, so I know who Bernays is. Almost a rhyme with "betrays." The money is now gone from local journalism. The local station, (which to have a 60-percent profit margin!) even had to sell their helicopter. Sad! Us newspapers guys were always the ones up front shooting wide, and getting in your shot, while the TV guys shot from their sticks farther back. Been there! Plus you guys had the walking microphone stands, aka reporters, to put up with. Ha ha ha! (Some of them are good, I will admit.) To all: sorry for the inside baseball talk! And I just realized I said "guys"a lot: it used to be like that, but much less so now. Not that many people are left...my former paper is down to one of us, and the Hartford Courant, oldest paper in the country, went from about 30 photographers to a mere handful, and lost their physical newsroom. Luckily, we have Google, where Truth is Job One. Or maybe, Two. Does sarcasm come through on Substack? Can't make a face here, you'll have to take my words for it. :-(
I was only stationary for the pressers and interviews. I always went in for interesting shots. That's right. Thank you. I did join NPPA. Rarely, did newspaper photogs get in my way, by I looked for the good shots. I once shot a newsroom live shot for the only anchor that appreciated what I did. She now works for a university in Madison doing PR. But this was her love shot. No teleprompter. I had a 45 degree key in front, one over her ear in back as a kicker, and a background light on the station logo. I turned off all the newsroom lights so she would look good. No one else was on that newsroom. News director came back at the end of the sequence and raised his voice and told me never to turn off the house lights again. It was fun, but I to prefer teaching (need to get a PhD first, another form of bureaucracy that I am m fighting through --- I am working at a restaurant at the moment.).
Fascinating investigative follow up about previous new stories. However, I have to argue that new music made by real artists released these days has a longer shelf life solely because there is so much new music released every day that it takes time for it to find an audience. In the past, there were fewer outlets for new music and there was more of a captive audience. By the way, I have a science fiction joke scenario. If Spotify pushes fake AI music, maybe it'll need an AI audience. Seriously, I hope people wake up and rebel against the slop of AI music and demand music made by real people and appreciate real culture.
I've been listening to the Ringo Starr concert on ABC as I catch up on my email, and, as I started reading the part about Joni Mitchell, the ensemble started singing "With a Little Help From My Friends". In addition to the sublime serendipity, it made me feel good listening.
It is beyond me that people would question the efficacy and importance of music therapy.
This has always been true of news/journalism. It's content, but it's incredibly important. I grew up reading the Chicago Tribune. The only things in that paper that stand the test of time are the non-news parts of the paper like commentary articles and comic strips. I'd much rather read Mike Royko, Mary Schmich, Calvin and Hobbes, or the Far Side today than what happened on a random day in 1992. That's why most developed nations subsidize a "just the facts" news organization (BBC, DW, CBC, ABC, F24, NHK, etc.-Reuters is private, but also good and used to be free).
This is a pressing problem in America. A robust news ecosystem and an informed voter are essential to a functioning democracy. Still, how can you expect people to pay for news which is just one and done content when they can access billions of hours of content for free on the internet?
Also, I first encountered Ted when he was on Derek Thompson's podcast discussing how old music was killing new music. Derek had a podcast a week ago about AI and the future of music. I was wondering if anyone had an opinion about it or the guest Mark Henry Phillips.
I listened to that pod. Thompson is disturbingly optimistic about AI for someone as smart as he is and in the journalism profession. Phillips is a journeyman musician who mostly makes music for commercials and soundtracks. He knows he's on the chopping block. He understands that this will be able to do what he does for cheaper, but needs to work. Like a telegraph operator in the early 1900's, he knows he's about to be obsolete.
Thanks very much for that link. "Our lane is depth and context." Wow!
Not, "If it bleeds, it leads."
Pinch me, I must be dreaming.
How is that experiment going? Am wondering how big their audience is, compared to the other stations. How many people actually want this, and vote with their eyeballs? Talk is cheap.
It occurs to me that by doing follow ups, and including context, this station is actually reminding people how to be grownups and citizens in a democracy. We've forgotten how to do this. Does this actually work?
You have to be careful. My former newspaper spent money on focus groups where the readers said they were interested in coverage of "the environment," but their behavior showed they were actually interested in money. Giant pickups, not bicycles.
So far it seems like the world would rather follow Mr. Beast or Jake Paul. People are into "pay to play" and "selling out." Technology is making us more primitive, along with the logos.
I hope Ted is right in his optimism.
Right now, though, it looks like we are shredding all of the good human qualities in favor of the bad ones.
It’s going well. I can’t get into details, but broadly speaking I can say that this strategy has connected with viewers, who now use it in their communication with us. “Please follow through on…” “Can you do a follow through on …” etc. And the station has made it the cornerstone of our marketing. Overall, a positive response.
You know we've strayed from the desired path when a company founded to make it easy to search the web no longer wants you to search. If only someone would remind them of their old slogan, something about not being evil...
"I'm worried that John Cage started all this with his silent music."
To Ted: I'm worried that you don't understand John Cage.
I'm a long-time subscriber to The Honest Broker, and just yesterday I recommended you to Andy Borowitz as an interview subject on his new Substack Live program. So yeah, I'm with you. But this Cagean fail really does worry me. Maybe you were just being facetious, which is a little less worrying.
"But who could have guessed that the whole tech industry would follow his lead—delivering results built on nothing?"
Oh dear.
The interpretation that 4'33" is a nothing, anti-music, is as old as the work itself (1952) and has long been abandoned. Even Hollywood actresses these days understand that the silent piece is very much about something. (See Nicole Kidman takes the Colbert questionnaire; Kidman chose it as the one piece of music she would select as the only one she could ever listen to for the rest of her life; when Colbert asked her to explain her choice to the audience, she declined, suggesting they listen to it themselves to understand; which is exactly the right response.)
Far from being nothing, the silence in the silent piece is the foundation of music. Silence is the sole acoustic element in every music from every person in every time and every place.
Listening to silence is impossible (there isn't any). Which makes listening to anything else possible. Including music.
So Cage's silent piece is the opposite of nothing. Musically, it's everything.
I’d like to think that it’s clear when I am joking. But in case there’s any doubt, let me state categorically: Google did not base its business plan on John Cage’s music. They actually were more into Alban Berg.
Agreed. One recording I listened to some years ago had a lot of birdsong that was clearly audible. I enjoyed that.
Japanese classical music (played on traditional instruments) has just as much to do with space and silence as it does notes that are played. The concept is alien to us Westerners, but if you spend time listening to it (even in the background), it'll start making sense to the mind/brain and body. It's just ...different, but by no means impossible to hear and understand. (I'm not talking about ethnomus jargon; i mean that we Westerners can get it via repeated listening.) And today, there are younger jazz musicians incorporating a *lot* of things from the music of their home countries. We live in a time of unparalleled opportunity to be able to hear and see music from pretty much all of this world's cultures. Why not check it out? It couldn't hurt!
I can't help but think more and more that AI is no threat but rather something to be laughed at (and I'm a fantasy writer). It can't do what I do, I see plenty of people making use of it for a variety of purposes yet still I resist change because I don't need it never have and can't see a time when I will.
I can write fine on my own, and can do my world-building myself. Auto-correct is one thing but beyond that I don't understand the appeal.
As to grass-roots art movements fully onboard with those we need in my view more of them. So good on those theatres and music industry.
To play a little devils advocate here, auto correct is how they got their foot in the door. All this stuff, from auto correct to ai, its all about what it does to your BRAIN, and nothing to do with how anyone FEELS about it. Like advertising, it works whether or not you like the ad. It works bc it gets in your brain and does things you remain oblivious to.
Im not saying auto correct equals ai. I am saying they are steps on the same path. Letting "computers"(i couldnt think of a better word that encompases everything im talking about) do things for you is the first step towards losing the "you" in this equation.
We all draw our lines where we see fit(and many dont draw that line at all). But i think its important to remember that any and all of it has its effects on us, often unseen.
And yes i appreciate the irony of writing this on my phone lol
Non, non I get where you’re coming from, you’ve made a very good argument. I appreciate it, hmm I must admit I don’t have any rebuttal so just going to have to remark upon how well argued your comment is and how it’s given me much to think about. Thanks for that X).
But... we've been using various iterations of AI for about 40 years now. "Generative AI" is being *misused* (a lot!), but it *can* be used for worthwhile purposes. Scientific research is one of them.
I think there's a lot of misinformation out there about AI in general, and generative AI in particular. Perhaps it's time for us all to learn about its good aspects?
I also wonder if we're blaming generative AI for a lot of things that are entirely human creations.
And fwiw, if you run adblock extensions, Google does *not* throw ads and garbage "results" at you. So get out there and install them!
I find it difficult to navigate the pessimism i frequently see here. Yes, the dark aspects of tech are very concerning. But... there are other views of these things that are unlike what is often discussed here, in posts and comments. I think that's where a collaborative effort could be helpful. If commenters can both point and link to *other* kinds of developments (good ones) could those things for the basis of a post or posts? I believe so, but that's not my call. And while i really don't want to blog again, I'm feeling as if maybe i should try it, just to present different takes on issues like generative AI.
To reiterate, it's bad out there, but generative AI is only one part of it. I think we have far more pressing problems ATM.
I think youre talking about thw different aspects(in my head anyway) of these various things, including ai. As strictly TOOLS, they are brilliant. From auto correct to ai, they can and do do wondeful things that benefit us. But theres another aspect, ill call it the lifestyle aspect, that is far more sinister. Auto correct makes people lazy with their brains. No need to learn how to spell words when your device will do it for you. Or read a map? Many people dont even know what i mean when i ask them that. I think the examples with ai are obvious so ill just say, hopefully you get my point here.
Heroin is a great drug… if you get your leg blown off, heroin is the drug you need. It would be a godsend at that time. But using heroin as a lifestyle? I think we can agree that its horrible, and will destroy ones life rather quickly. I see alot of parallels with drugs and online content/tools/etc. People quickly get addicted to these things, and even when their detriment to ones life becomes apparent, people often find they “cant” do without them. Anything that fits into that scenario is a bad thing. Ofc theres 2 sides to every coin, and yes we can sing the praises of these new technologies, much like we could heroin. But its important to look at the results. Perhaps ai saves lives through medical research. Perhaps auto correct saves time. But when these tools become the centerpiece in peoples lives, their negative effects become atrocious. And much like heroin, people cant seem to use these things daily without them taking over their lives.
I love AI in many ways and I'm fine with it invading areas of our lives, but not music. Music saves lives. Music is our connection to the world, to the universe, to ourselves. Music should be from the very essence of humanity, from the heart, from the energy. Music is the closest we’ve ever come to God. In fact, in many ways, I believe music is God. And we’re letting it die. Brings you right back to Nietzsche - "God is dead, and we’ve killed him."
The good thing is that musicians who will put their personality into it will find their fanbase. AI music will get listened to, ok, but it’s hollow. It’s superficial. The person behind it will most likely not be a musician. The song may sound nice, but it’s devoid of humanity. I trust that we will recognise how important that is and stand with the artists who will be affected by this. Maybe not all of us, but enough of us. And we’ll keep real music - indeed, real magic - alive.
Great piece! I've just helped found a 501(c)(3) Film Society (Cognitivefilms.org), and we're partnering with our local library (to start) a series of repertory screenings. We're building our digital presence/home on Substack - and hoping to use it as a central hub to build excitement in the community (and beyond) for movies.
Looks very interesting, although I'd be concerned about the dominance of Kanopy. There's plenty of room for your work + big-tent freebies (free for library patrons, anyway), but it does seem like a small series would be a harder sell. (Although fwiw, I had to get a nonresident card from another library in my state in order to get access to Kanopy.)
Our library has a SWANK license so we can screen a ton of films beyond what’s on Kanopy’s service. That said - our library has a full Kanopy sub - so we’re encouraging people (who largely don’t know about it!) to sign up.
Thank you for your continued work. And for demonstrating the power of revisiting past work. Finally, as a music therapist, thank you for supporting the profession and the practice.
Just to say I love your dedication. And that Bill Evans was an inspiration to stay away from drugs- do you have any British ancestry? The irony was "spot on!"
I wholeheartedly look forward to your future publications.
Great take on the journalism trade (I used to be one, a television photojournalist). I love cheese, especially cheese made anywhere but the United States. Italian cheese is a great one, but I am also biased. However, I would liken the journalism you describe to "American Cheese," that cheese food that is sold in abundance in U.S. grocery stores: Superficially it looks somewhat palatable, but it has no substance. You could probably say that about a lot of things lately, I suppose.
Ha! Rogue Creamery in Central Point, Oregon, recently won award for best cheese in the world. Full stop. From the European judges of such things. Blue cheese won best years before that. Their cows are given royal spa treatment every time self-milked. Very few dairies do that for Happy Cows. A very humble and amazing company. You can buy their blue cheese powder (difficult) for an amazing popcorn.
As a French living in Auvergne, I agree with this comment!
Yeah yeah, america sucks, we get it
Cheese snobbery is sort of entertaining (if pathetic).
....right, because every cheese made in America is unsuitable to a cultivated person's palate.
Only insufferable snobs talk like that; real boors.
The group of us who "Used to be a photojournalist" is pretty good-sized. I came from the newspaper division. NPPA all the way. I hardly know anybody who is still in the business. Was a great career...all over. We had the honor of telling the truth, for the benefit of the public. We didn't work for "attention." So we are obsolete. If only this could work on Substack...at this point, though, I have my doubts about all platforms...As they always said, "Freedom of the press exists for the man who owns one."
Kinda like: "The freedom in a country belongs to the man who owns it."
Hey, the spell "checker" just converted my "freedom" into "Freudian!" See, there is no "freedom" even here, revealed by a Freudian slip...LOL
I can't remember what to organization for television photoj0urnalists was, but I did attend a training on how to do quick quality lighting setups (after not understanding lighting in undergrad), and I joined. Out of the whole station, the photogs got it, all but one of the reporters didn't. I started studying propaganda on my own in undergrad, learned a bit more at that station (and no one listened), and now I am about to reapply to PhD programs to leave the one I am in (Long story, but I have never been in a college program and have failed a class and also be required to retake that and two additional over that I didn't even fail. Strange university.).
I actually met a few people while I was working at that station and one other that decided to leave the industry, either anchors or photogs. The camaraderie between stations and newspaper was great, but the management was frustrating.
Freudian is interesting. Irritating when that happens. You should probably read his double nephew when you have a chance (if you haven't already), the brilliant but egotistical Edward Bernays.
TV shooters were part of NPPA, (National Press Photographers Association) along with the still photographers. I went to a national convention one year where they selected Art Donahue as the national TV news photographer of the year. He was a from a nearby city. Always went the extra mile. He said when he got that award the station was like "So?" And they didn't want to pay overtime. He didn't hang around. The photographers had the lowest status in the newsroom. It was about the pretty faces on-camera; nobody knows who the "cameramen" are. I did go to J-school, so I know who Bernays is. Almost a rhyme with "betrays." The money is now gone from local journalism. The local station, (which to have a 60-percent profit margin!) even had to sell their helicopter. Sad! Us newspapers guys were always the ones up front shooting wide, and getting in your shot, while the TV guys shot from their sticks farther back. Been there! Plus you guys had the walking microphone stands, aka reporters, to put up with. Ha ha ha! (Some of them are good, I will admit.) To all: sorry for the inside baseball talk! And I just realized I said "guys"a lot: it used to be like that, but much less so now. Not that many people are left...my former paper is down to one of us, and the Hartford Courant, oldest paper in the country, went from about 30 photographers to a mere handful, and lost their physical newsroom. Luckily, we have Google, where Truth is Job One. Or maybe, Two. Does sarcasm come through on Substack? Can't make a face here, you'll have to take my words for it. :-(
I was only stationary for the pressers and interviews. I always went in for interesting shots. That's right. Thank you. I did join NPPA. Rarely, did newspaper photogs get in my way, by I looked for the good shots. I once shot a newsroom live shot for the only anchor that appreciated what I did. She now works for a university in Madison doing PR. But this was her love shot. No teleprompter. I had a 45 degree key in front, one over her ear in back as a kicker, and a background light on the station logo. I turned off all the newsroom lights so she would look good. No one else was on that newsroom. News director came back at the end of the sequence and raised his voice and told me never to turn off the house lights again. It was fun, but I to prefer teaching (need to get a PhD first, another form of bureaucracy that I am m fighting through --- I am working at a restaurant at the moment.).
The one time you had different lighting... you get slapped down for it. I can relate...
Most reporters would snap at me, "Perazzetti, this isn't Hollywood. Just shoot it!"
Ah, fun times. Looking back and considering what it has become now, it all makes sense.
Fascinating investigative follow up about previous new stories. However, I have to argue that new music made by real artists released these days has a longer shelf life solely because there is so much new music released every day that it takes time for it to find an audience. In the past, there were fewer outlets for new music and there was more of a captive audience. By the way, I have a science fiction joke scenario. If Spotify pushes fake AI music, maybe it'll need an AI audience. Seriously, I hope people wake up and rebel against the slop of AI music and demand music made by real people and appreciate real culture.
I've been listening to the Ringo Starr concert on ABC as I catch up on my email, and, as I started reading the part about Joni Mitchell, the ensemble started singing "With a Little Help From My Friends". In addition to the sublime serendipity, it made me feel good listening.
It is beyond me that people would question the efficacy and importance of music therapy.
This has always been true of news/journalism. It's content, but it's incredibly important. I grew up reading the Chicago Tribune. The only things in that paper that stand the test of time are the non-news parts of the paper like commentary articles and comic strips. I'd much rather read Mike Royko, Mary Schmich, Calvin and Hobbes, or the Far Side today than what happened on a random day in 1992. That's why most developed nations subsidize a "just the facts" news organization (BBC, DW, CBC, ABC, F24, NHK, etc.-Reuters is private, but also good and used to be free).
This is a pressing problem in America. A robust news ecosystem and an informed voter are essential to a functioning democracy. Still, how can you expect people to pay for news which is just one and done content when they can access billions of hours of content for free on the internet?
Also, I first encountered Ted when he was on Derek Thompson's podcast discussing how old music was killing new music. Derek had a podcast a week ago about AI and the future of music. I was wondering if anyone had an opinion about it or the guest Mark Henry Phillips.
I listened to that pod. Thompson is disturbingly optimistic about AI for someone as smart as he is and in the journalism profession. Phillips is a journeyman musician who mostly makes music for commercials and soundtracks. He knows he's on the chopping block. He understands that this will be able to do what he does for cheaper, but needs to work. Like a telegraph operator in the early 1900's, he knows he's about to be obsolete.
You might be encouraged by this trend. A TV station in Cleveland listened to viewer research and the desires of its own journalists and pointed the newsroom in the direction of returning to cover stories again and again. It's going well. https://www.news5cleveland.com/news/local-news/we-follow-through/we-follow-through-turns-a-criticism-of-tv-news-on-its-head
Thanks very much for that link. "Our lane is depth and context." Wow!
Not, "If it bleeds, it leads."
Pinch me, I must be dreaming.
How is that experiment going? Am wondering how big their audience is, compared to the other stations. How many people actually want this, and vote with their eyeballs? Talk is cheap.
It occurs to me that by doing follow ups, and including context, this station is actually reminding people how to be grownups and citizens in a democracy. We've forgotten how to do this. Does this actually work?
You have to be careful. My former newspaper spent money on focus groups where the readers said they were interested in coverage of "the environment," but their behavior showed they were actually interested in money. Giant pickups, not bicycles.
So far it seems like the world would rather follow Mr. Beast or Jake Paul. People are into "pay to play" and "selling out." Technology is making us more primitive, along with the logos.
I hope Ted is right in his optimism.
Right now, though, it looks like we are shredding all of the good human qualities in favor of the bad ones.
It’s going well. I can’t get into details, but broadly speaking I can say that this strategy has connected with viewers, who now use it in their communication with us. “Please follow through on…” “Can you do a follow through on …” etc. And the station has made it the cornerstone of our marketing. Overall, a positive response.
Thanks. Nice to hear good news! I might pass this idea along it is so good.
You know we've strayed from the desired path when a company founded to make it easy to search the web no longer wants you to search. If only someone would remind them of their old slogan, something about not being evil...
How about some replacement slogans?
"Did you believe our previous slogan?"
"We're Google, you're not."
"All evil, all the time"
"We've got you! And your data."
"Google: we used to be cute!"
"Google won, You nothing"
"OK, Google."
"It's Google, Sir! from now on!"
Google = a whole lot of Zeros!
Google = God
Or a new, simpler, company name? You'll never guess:
G
(Like Dunkin' Donuts = DD.) Charge them a lot for the idea.
We could have a contest. Only rule is to tell the truth about the company.
Face it: we are in a land where the BS is so deep you need a periscope to see out of it.
All great contenders for new slogans. I especially like "Google won, You nothing"
@TEDGIOIA
"I'm worried that John Cage started all this with his silent music."
To Ted: I'm worried that you don't understand John Cage.
I'm a long-time subscriber to The Honest Broker, and just yesterday I recommended you to Andy Borowitz as an interview subject on his new Substack Live program. So yeah, I'm with you. But this Cagean fail really does worry me. Maybe you were just being facetious, which is a little less worrying.
"But who could have guessed that the whole tech industry would follow his lead—delivering results built on nothing?"
Oh dear.
The interpretation that 4'33" is a nothing, anti-music, is as old as the work itself (1952) and has long been abandoned. Even Hollywood actresses these days understand that the silent piece is very much about something. (See Nicole Kidman takes the Colbert questionnaire; Kidman chose it as the one piece of music she would select as the only one she could ever listen to for the rest of her life; when Colbert asked her to explain her choice to the audience, she declined, suggesting they listen to it themselves to understand; which is exactly the right response.)
Far from being nothing, the silence in the silent piece is the foundation of music. Silence is the sole acoustic element in every music from every person in every time and every place.
Listening to silence is impossible (there isn't any). Which makes listening to anything else possible. Including music.
So Cage's silent piece is the opposite of nothing. Musically, it's everything.
I’d like to think that it’s clear when I am joking. But in case there’s any doubt, let me state categorically: Google did not base its business plan on John Cage’s music. They actually were more into Alban Berg.
Or perhaps the Nihilist Spasm Band. (With or without Joe McPhee.)
Because life is short and I don't want to waste my time with crap.
See above. TG was joking.
I was replying - I think - to someone who deleted his comment.
Perhaps. It just seemed futile.
Agreed. One recording I listened to some years ago had a lot of birdsong that was clearly audible. I enjoyed that.
Japanese classical music (played on traditional instruments) has just as much to do with space and silence as it does notes that are played. The concept is alien to us Westerners, but if you spend time listening to it (even in the background), it'll start making sense to the mind/brain and body. It's just ...different, but by no means impossible to hear and understand. (I'm not talking about ethnomus jargon; i mean that we Westerners can get it via repeated listening.) And today, there are younger jazz musicians incorporating a *lot* of things from the music of their home countries. We live in a time of unparalleled opportunity to be able to hear and see music from pretty much all of this world's cultures. Why not check it out? It couldn't hurt!
I can't help but think more and more that AI is no threat but rather something to be laughed at (and I'm a fantasy writer). It can't do what I do, I see plenty of people making use of it for a variety of purposes yet still I resist change because I don't need it never have and can't see a time when I will.
I can write fine on my own, and can do my world-building myself. Auto-correct is one thing but beyond that I don't understand the appeal.
As to grass-roots art movements fully onboard with those we need in my view more of them. So good on those theatres and music industry.
To play a little devils advocate here, auto correct is how they got their foot in the door. All this stuff, from auto correct to ai, its all about what it does to your BRAIN, and nothing to do with how anyone FEELS about it. Like advertising, it works whether or not you like the ad. It works bc it gets in your brain and does things you remain oblivious to.
Im not saying auto correct equals ai. I am saying they are steps on the same path. Letting "computers"(i couldnt think of a better word that encompases everything im talking about) do things for you is the first step towards losing the "you" in this equation.
We all draw our lines where we see fit(and many dont draw that line at all). But i think its important to remember that any and all of it has its effects on us, often unseen.
And yes i appreciate the irony of writing this on my phone lol
Non, non I get where you’re coming from, you’ve made a very good argument. I appreciate it, hmm I must admit I don’t have any rebuttal so just going to have to remark upon how well argued your comment is and how it’s given me much to think about. Thanks for that X).
🙏🏻
But... we've been using various iterations of AI for about 40 years now. "Generative AI" is being *misused* (a lot!), but it *can* be used for worthwhile purposes. Scientific research is one of them.
I think there's a lot of misinformation out there about AI in general, and generative AI in particular. Perhaps it's time for us all to learn about its good aspects?
I also wonder if we're blaming generative AI for a lot of things that are entirely human creations.
And fwiw, if you run adblock extensions, Google does *not* throw ads and garbage "results" at you. So get out there and install them!
I find it difficult to navigate the pessimism i frequently see here. Yes, the dark aspects of tech are very concerning. But... there are other views of these things that are unlike what is often discussed here, in posts and comments. I think that's where a collaborative effort could be helpful. If commenters can both point and link to *other* kinds of developments (good ones) could those things for the basis of a post or posts? I believe so, but that's not my call. And while i really don't want to blog again, I'm feeling as if maybe i should try it, just to present different takes on issues like generative AI.
To reiterate, it's bad out there, but generative AI is only one part of it. I think we have far more pressing problems ATM.
I think youre talking about thw different aspects(in my head anyway) of these various things, including ai. As strictly TOOLS, they are brilliant. From auto correct to ai, they can and do do wondeful things that benefit us. But theres another aspect, ill call it the lifestyle aspect, that is far more sinister. Auto correct makes people lazy with their brains. No need to learn how to spell words when your device will do it for you. Or read a map? Many people dont even know what i mean when i ask them that. I think the examples with ai are obvious so ill just say, hopefully you get my point here.
Heroin is a great drug… if you get your leg blown off, heroin is the drug you need. It would be a godsend at that time. But using heroin as a lifestyle? I think we can agree that its horrible, and will destroy ones life rather quickly. I see alot of parallels with drugs and online content/tools/etc. People quickly get addicted to these things, and even when their detriment to ones life becomes apparent, people often find they “cant” do without them. Anything that fits into that scenario is a bad thing. Ofc theres 2 sides to every coin, and yes we can sing the praises of these new technologies, much like we could heroin. But its important to look at the results. Perhaps ai saves lives through medical research. Perhaps auto correct saves time. But when these tools become the centerpiece in peoples lives, their negative effects become atrocious. And much like heroin, people cant seem to use these things daily without them taking over their lives.
I’ve made it to the pinnacle, having been mentioned by Ted in an article! Be still, my beating heart.
I love AI in many ways and I'm fine with it invading areas of our lives, but not music. Music saves lives. Music is our connection to the world, to the universe, to ourselves. Music should be from the very essence of humanity, from the heart, from the energy. Music is the closest we’ve ever come to God. In fact, in many ways, I believe music is God. And we’re letting it die. Brings you right back to Nietzsche - "God is dead, and we’ve killed him."
The good thing is that musicians who will put their personality into it will find their fanbase. AI music will get listened to, ok, but it’s hollow. It’s superficial. The person behind it will most likely not be a musician. The song may sound nice, but it’s devoid of humanity. I trust that we will recognise how important that is and stand with the artists who will be affected by this. Maybe not all of us, but enough of us. And we’ll keep real music - indeed, real magic - alive.
More writers should revisit their old work. The exercise makes us less glib in our newer efforts. Thanks for encouraging the practice.
Great piece! I've just helped found a 501(c)(3) Film Society (Cognitivefilms.org), and we're partnering with our local library (to start) a series of repertory screenings. We're building our digital presence/home on Substack - and hoping to use it as a central hub to build excitement in the community (and beyond) for movies.
Looks very interesting, although I'd be concerned about the dominance of Kanopy. There's plenty of room for your work + big-tent freebies (free for library patrons, anyway), but it does seem like a small series would be a harder sell. (Although fwiw, I had to get a nonresident card from another library in my state in order to get access to Kanopy.)
Our library has a SWANK license so we can screen a ton of films beyond what’s on Kanopy’s service. That said - our library has a full Kanopy sub - so we’re encouraging people (who largely don’t know about it!) to sign up.
Not enough journalists revisit past stories!
I also wanted to share my own weird AI experience with you, discovering an AI-generated biography about ... myself, available on Amazon and filled with made-up info: https://ministryofpopculture.substack.com/p/your-outie-is-my-own-weird-journey
Thought you were referring to "Weird Al" (Yankovic) for second...why did I make that connection?
Hahahaha, because Weird Al is always relevant?
Thank you for your continued work. And for demonstrating the power of revisiting past work. Finally, as a music therapist, thank you for supporting the profession and the practice.
I like blue cheese.
Just to say I love your dedication. And that Bill Evans was an inspiration to stay away from drugs- do you have any British ancestry? The irony was "spot on!"
I wholeheartedly look forward to your future publications.
Mark