I feel sorry for the music industry

[FinalGod]

I don't think, people understood my point. Let me try to simplify it (and don't jump on the simplification now)

You mentioned Urs Heckmann as an example of genuine creative software development, and I certainly respect his work and the achievements of developers like him.
But let's take a closer look at that example.
Did Urs Heckmann invent the mathematical foundations of oscillators, Fourier analysis, or subtractive synthesis?
Of course not. And that doesn't diminish his achievements in the slightest.
Many of the mathematical and technical foundations used in modern synthesizers were established long before software synthesizers even existed.
Just adding the dates here to give you an idea of how old some of the scientific and mathematical foundations behind your oscillator example actually are.
Joseph Fourier (1768–1830),
Heinrich Hertz (1857–1894),
Edwin Howard Armstrong (1890–1954),
Hermann von Helmholtz (1821–1894),
Harry Nyquist, Hendrik Wade Bode, and Robert Moog all contributed, in different ways, to the scientific and technological foundations that modern audio developers can build upon.

Developers use existing mathematical knowledge, combine established concepts, modify algorithms, experiment with different approaches, and create something new from them.
That's how a great deal of innovation works.
So why should an AI-assisted developer not be allowed to make use of the same established mathematical knowledge?
And more importantly, why do you keep assuming that the AI itself has to be the creative part of the development process?

It doesn't.
There is still a human being behind the software.
That person can have an original idea, define the requirements, experiment with different concepts, evaluate the results, and decide what works and what doesn't.
The AI can act as the programming department, implementing those ideas, suggesting technical approaches, generating variations, and even assisting with testing.
For example, I could ask an AI to implement ten different mathematical variations of an oscillator, listen to the results, select the most interesting one, and then develop it further.
The creative direction still comes from me. The AI simply allows me to explore those ideas much faster than I could by implementing every variation manually.
And if the result is a genuinely interesting instrument, why should it matter whether I wrote every line of code myself?
As for the growing number of generic plugins and synthesizer clones, we already had plenty of those long before the current AI boom.
AI may make it easier to produce even more of them, but it certainly didn't invent the concept of copying existing products or flooding a market with similar alternatives.
And here's another important point: Nobody is forced to buy any of these products.
That's called freedom of choice.
If you prefer software developed entirely by traditional programming teams, that's perfectly fine. You can continue buying and supporting those developers.
Other customers may prefer an AI-assisted product because it offers different features, a better workflow, a lower price, or simply does something they find useful.

Ultimately, the market will decide which products people actually want to use.
And I think we should stop treating AI-assisted software as if it somehow appeared out of nowhere without any human involvement.

Behind every AI-assisted software product, there is still at least one human being making decisions about what to build, what to change, what to keep, and what to release.
The quality, originality, reliability, and usefulness of the final product should be what matters.

Using AI doesn't automatically make a developer less creative, just as writing every line of code manually doesn't automatically make a product innovative.

If AI-assisted development with agents, source code access, and proper testing is perfectly acceptable to you, then aren't we essentially agreeing that the problem is not AI itself, but poor development practices and inadequate quality control?

 

[MisterE]

That was not the point of this thread. Why is everybody only reading, what they want to read, rather than what is actually said?
To your point regarding code stability. Since AI slob never touches or outputs code, you can't correct code. you can prompt and hope AI finds aanother puzzle piece that works better, but that's about it.

But vibe coding is not necessarily AI slob. You can install a number of agents that work on codebits and output the code, combining it on repositries like Github. That is a code-based approach, where at any time a real person can access the code. That is not AI slob and not part of this thread. I don't know what the MorningDAW creators use, but if it's this agents-based codebase approach, it can be a stable software.

Probably people simply know too little about that topic and therefore mix so many things up?

I don't claim to be the world's foremost authority on AI's incursion into the music industry, unlike yourself. For someone who wants people to not mix up your main points, you sure do a lot of meandering in your posts. And the more opinions you throw out, the more likely it is you'll encounter resistance.

 

[John Vere]

Im not too concerned about any of what is happening.
The tools we have for recording haven’t really changed much for a long time. Daw’s are only a tiny bit better than they were 10 -15? years ago. They have to spend a lot of time fixing bugs and if they add a new feature they add a new bunch of bugs.
People obsess over plugins with some people hoarding over 1,000?? I guess they hate everything that they record and feel like they need more plugins to make it sound better?
So you can actually ignore all this and use something simple and enjoy our hobby. Yes it is now obviously a hobby and only a few people can call it an occupation.
I do still make enough money each year to pay for my hobby. Acoustic music has become my main source as the days of the bars and dances have all but disappeared.
I also have been making money recently recording in my humble home studio. No AI was needed.
I find that the majority of performing musicians are still playing, not getting paid much, but they don’t really care. They are like me, addicted to playing music, and it’s certainly a lot more fun when there’s an audience.
Nobody is really interested in putting recordings on line anymore. They are like trend is CD’s and vinyl again. They will make more money selling 4 CD’s than having an album on Spotify for 3 years!
AI is totally out of the question for the actual real music scene. I especially enjoy seeing very young people getting up at open mic and playing their songs.
I personally think AI will mostly only have an impact on people who are NOT musicians. It can’t replace real musicians unless it figures out how to smoke weed and drink beer.

 

[MisterE]

Im not too concerned about any of what is happening.
The tools we have for recording haven’t really changed much for a long time. Daw’s are only a tiny bit better than they were 10 -15? years ago. They have to spend a lot of time fixing bugs and if they add a new feature they add a new bunch of bugs.
People obsess over plugins with some people hoarding over 1,000?? I guess they hate everything that they record and feel like they need more plugins to make it sound better?
So you can actually ignore all this and use something simple and enjoy our hobby. Yes it is now obviously a hobby and only a few people can call it an occupation.
I do still make enough money each year to pay for my hobby. Acoustic music has become my main source as the days of the bars and dances have all but disappeared.
I also have been making money recently recording in my humble home studio. No AI was needed.
I find that the majority of performing musicians are still playing, not getting paid much, but they don’t really care. They are like me, addicted to playing music, and it’s certainly a lot more fun when there’s an audience.
Nobody is really interested in putting recordings on line anymore. They are like trend is CD’s and vinyl again. They will make more money selling 4 CD’s than having an album on Spotify for 3 years!
AI is totally out of the question for the actual real music scene. I especially enjoy seeing very young people getting up at open mic and playing their songs.
I personally think AI will mostly only have an impact on people who are NOT musicians. It can’t replace real musicians unless it figures out how to smoke weed and drink beer.

The fact that the owners and developers for now established DAWs like Cubase and FSP have to expend so much effort to update their programs under the constant threat of breaking something by adding something else, by having to change all appearance cues to match every nook and cranny of their programs if they change the look and feel of one area, and have to constantly be on guard for outdated or revised VSTs becoming unsupportable is what opens me, someone who couldn't be more opposed to the corporate takeover of every aspect of life, open to AI-created DAWs that get to start from scratch.

I'm hardly suggesting using AI to streamline coding is the answer, the next big thing, or a definite improvement on how business has been conducted in the past. Just saying I'm open to it if I don't have to dance around longstanding bugs and strange look and feels in different parts of a DAW program and can support communicative individuals as opposed to non-communicative executives who won't engage.

 

[Ken Morgan]

As 'interesting' as all this may be, none of it addresses the nitty gritty of the people on the bandstands grinding it out, playing covers and trying to squeeze in an original every couple of songs during each set. The people who attend live shows don't give a rat's ass about AI vs brand name vs vibe driven DAWs, they care about good songs performed with authentic enthusiasm, plenty of alcoholic beverages, an agreeable ambience, lots of shopping opportunities for dancing and/or other adult activities, all at a price they can afford.

Almost all venue owners will tell you: live entertainment is there to help sell the booze. Until musicians and booking agents fully grasp this, all other talk is moot

 

[Jens]

A few years ago AI was characterized as "stealing" on a massive scale. But if it's not done by large companies but by a few individuals (or tiny companies) using the big tech tools then it gets a cute name like "vibe coding".

The "vibe coders" replicating DAWs and/or plugins essentially let the tools run on their locally installed DAWs/plugins and extract the parts they are interested in. Add a generic GUI template and the AI does the heavy lifting of extracting and merging.

A translator translating a book in another language doesn't become the author of that book and the author also gets paid. Any academic publication has to quote its sources. Movies/News channels/sites pay for the songs/videos/images/agencies they use. (Etc.)

That doesn't mean that AI can't be used in a "fair" manner. Basically everything public without copyright restrictions or reverse engineering prohibitions. Github, frameworks, libraries etc. are essentially meant to be used by anyone (even though some restrictions/rights are still in effect).

This is a big topic and I'm not an expert. So this is just my vague take on AI and vibe coding.

 

[FinalGod]

A few years ago AI was characterized as "stealing" on a massive scale. But if it's not done by large companies but by a few individuals (or tiny companies) using the big tech tools then it gets a cute name like "vibe coding".

The "vibe coders" replicating DAWs and/or plugins essentially let the tools run on their locally installed DAWs/plugins and extract the parts they are interested in. Add a generic GUI template and the AI does the heavy lifting of extracting and merging.

A translator translating a book in another language doesn't become the author of that book and the author also gets paid. Any academic publication has to quote its sources. Movies/News channels/sites pay for the songs/videos/images/agencies they use. (Etc.)

That doesn't mean that AI can't be used in a "fair" manner. Basically everything public without copyright restrictions or reverse engineering prohibitions. Github, frameworks, libraries etc. are essentially meant to be used by anyone (even though some restrictions/rights are still in effect).

This is a big topic and I'm not an expert. So this is just my vague take on AI and vibe coding.

Reverse engineering is nothing new, and it certainly isn't something invented by AI.
Human developers have been doing reverse engineering for decades. Tools such as x64dbg have existed for years and are widely used for software analysis, debugging, and reverse engineering, including in the cracking scene.

So I have to ask: Why does every discussion about these practices suddenly point the finger at AI, as if this were something unique to AI-assisted development?
What I would really like to see in this thread are some actual facts and evidence instead of repeated assumptions.
Since the beginning of this discussion, we have heard claims about large numbers of AI-generated plugin clones, copied software, and supposedly inferior implementations.
But where are the concrete examples?
Can someone name a specific AI-developed plugin that has demonstrably copied protected code from another commercial product?
Can someone provide a source showing that the developers actually used AI to extract code from an existing DAW or plugin, as suggested above?
And can someone provide evidence for the claim that AI can only write software by copying code from other programs?
These are very different things, and I think we should stop treating them as if they were interchangeable.
Reverse engineering is not automatically copyright infringement. Implementing a similar feature is not automatically copying source code. And using AI to write software does not automatically mean that existing software was reverse-engineered in the process.
For example, if I ask an AI coding agent to develop a synthesizer oscillator based on established mathematical principles, why would it need to extract code from an existing commercial synthesizer?
The mathematical foundations are already well documented. A developer, whether working manually or with AI assistance, can use those foundations to create an independent implementation.
And if someone actually copies protected source code from another developer, that is a potential copyright issue regardless of whether a human or an AI was involved.
The original developer would then have a legitimate reason to investigate and potentially take legal action.
But that requires evidence of actual copying, not simply the assumption that AI must have copied something because AI was used.
I also find it somewhat ironic that academic publications and the importance of citing sources were mentioned above, while the central claims about how AI-assisted developers supposedly work are presented without any supporting sources.

We have been discussing this topic for quite some time now, yet I still haven't seen a single concrete, verifiable example supporting the claim that AI-assisted development is flooding the market with copied plugins.

I'm not claiming that copyright violations or poorly developed AI-generated software don't exist. Of course they can.
But if we want to have an objective discussion, we need to distinguish between what is technically possible, what we personally suspect, and what has actually been demonstrated.
Otherwise, this becomes just another discussion where broad claims are repeated until people start treating them as established facts.
And I think we can do better than that.

And there's another interesting question about the business model behind these supposedly AI-generated plugin clones.
If the process really is as simple as described here — letting an AI agent examine an existing plugin, extract the interesting parts, add a generic GUI, and produce a working copy — why would anyone need to buy these clones in the first place?
Couldn't potential customers simply use the same AI tools to generate their own versions for free, apart from the cost of running those tools?
Of course, people may still prefer to pay for a finished product rather than spend time developing, testing, and maintaining one themselves.
But then we're back to something I've been saying throughout this discussion: The actual value of software lies in its functionality, reliability, usability, maintenance, and support, not simply in how many lines of code someone typed manually.
And if creating a reliable, commercially viable plugin requires substantial additional work, then perhaps the process isn't quite as trivial as it's being portrayed.

 

[Davey]

I'm hardly suggesting using AI to streamline coding is the answer,

Actually, that is something AI is really, really good at. Analysing, refactoring and finding bugs by inspecting the code. It's like having a pair of impartial eyes looking over your shoulder. Another tool in the toolkit.

 

[MisterE]

Actually, that is something AI is really, really good at. Analysing, refactoring and finding bugs by inspecting the code. It's like having a pair of impartial eyes looking over your shoulder. Another tool in the toolkit.

True that, though so far we haven't seen any overall startling improvements in the quality of music being produced due to the emergence of software tools which analyze, refactor, and find bugs. The K-pop top ten remains just as alien to many of us born last century. So two things can be true: AI is really, really good at catching programmers' mistakes, and so far musicians aren't any more revved up about AI code inspection than they were say two years ago before the two vowels started popping up everywhere.

 

[Craig Anderton]

Can someone name a specific AI-developed plugin that has demonstrably copied protected code from another commercial product?

No, but I've seen YouTube videos where people said that's what they did. I can't confirm whether they did or not.

 

[FinalGod]

No, but I've seen YouTube videos where people said that's what they did. I can't confirm whether they did or not.

I've also seen YouTube videos claiming that the Earth is flat, that someone has discovered the secret to unlimited free energy, and that AI is secretly controlled by aliens from Mars.

Unfortunately, none of them provided convincing evidence either.

Just kidding, Craig!

Just to clarify one thing: I'm not claiming that copying existing software using AI is impossible. Of course it can happen, just as it has happened with traditional software development for decades.
The important question is whether the extracted code is actually protected by copyright and whether its use constitutes copyright infringement.
What I'm questioning is the claim that this is happening on a massive scale and that AI-assisted development essentially consists of copying existing products.
That's a pretty significant claim, and I think it's reasonable to ask for some actual evidence before treating it as an established fact.
And if someone really did copy protected source code, violate the original developer's rights, and then openly admitted and demonstrated it on YouTube, that would certainly be helpful evidence for the copyright holder. They might even have made the legal proceedings considerably easier for them.

 

[John Vere]

Actually the title of this topic is not about the topic. The music industry also makes money from hardware and instruments. Guitar strings and keyboard stands.
The title might have been I feel sorry for Software developers. They are actually a very tiny part of the industry. If they all disappear very few musicians would even notice.

 

[MisterE]

so far musicians aren't any more revved up about AI code inspection than they were say two years ago before the two vowels started popping up everywhere.

(replying to my own post, lol) Actually some are stoked about having a means to create or even dictate their own plugins, not to mention their own DAWs. Which isn't to say another human could detect or care about self-made software, any more than they'd care if you made your own guitar from scratch.

 

[Vocalpoint]

So I have to ask: Why does every discussion about these practices suddenly point the finger at AI, as if this were something unique to AI-assisted development?
The actual value of software lies in its functionality, reliability, usability, maintenance, and support, not simply in how many lines of code someone typed manually.

Your bolded line above - is only relevant - until the thresholds of your statement - are breached.

With these vibe coding a**h**es running rampant everywhere now - in the not too distant future - a user will not NEED to "purchase" anything to get "value" - it will simply appear - and for free.

Once this level of "value" is attained (minus support of course) - why would anyone need to purchase Studio Pro again?

This is exactly the endgame of the thread title that hits home for me.

VP

 

[Ken Morgan]

Again...the 'music industry' is such a wide scope that one element cannot in itself decimate all the others. Yes, AI will impact the recording side of it, but it will not touch the on stage side of it until live performers are tasked with reproducing live what AI generated recordings produced.

AI will not touch classical music...will not impact actual "three chords and the truth" music in any meaningful way...same with down to earth rock n roll (seriously doubt Blackberry Smoke will feature a song with AI influence)...

Consider: how many actual performers use DAW? Of them, how many are computer savvy enough or have a desire to delve into the world of AI as anything but a novelty? Of that group, how many are up to performing live what the AI assisted (or entirely generated opus) in a live setting? Of that, how many will receive some sort of compensation, be it recognition, financial reward, pats on the back from others on forums, whatever?

If anything, I see the AI this, vibe coding that, etc, as things that will further isolate musicians. Not that long ago, musicians thrived on getting together with other musicians, now not so much. People (self included) tend to stay home instead of drifting from jam session to jam session, studio to studio, to meet and tap into each other's knowledge. Nowadays, people tend to stay home and work alone, opting to interact on websites under anonymous handles, watching videos instead of swapping licks, rarely interacting in real time with real people, getting real time feedback. All in all, the music now and of the future will suffer.

Just my opinion.

 

[Craig Anderton]

With these vibe coding a**h**es running rampant everywhere now - in the not too distant future - a user will not NEED to "purchase" anything to get "value" - it will simply appear - and for free.

Like what happened to streaming services with AI slop music.

Once this level of "value" is attained (minus support of course) - why would anyone need to purchase Studio Pro again?

Again, I think it's a question of morality. If "new" plug-ins are being made from either copying or reverse-engineering existing plug-ins, then that practice eliminates the incentive for companies to make new plug-ins...so there won't be anything left for people to copy. We need to support the people who advance the state of the art, or it won't advance.

However, if people use "vibe coding" to create new designs that aren't copies, that's great. I think it's one step deeper than somiething like FX Chains. For example, I put together a tape emulator FX Chain using existing Studio Pro plug-ins. Of course, I didn't design the individual plug-ins. But what I did with them was original and different from other tape emulator plug-ins.

 

[SwitchBack]

Your bolded line above - is only relevant - until the thresholds of your statement - are breached.

With these vibe coding a**h**es running rampant everywhere now - in the not too distant future - a user will not NEED to "purchase" anything to get "value" - it will simply appear - and for free.

Once this level of "value" is attained (minus support of course) - why would anyone need to purchase Studio Pro again?

This is exactly the endgame of the thread title that hits home for me.

VP

That's a somber future you're painting, but I can do you one better: Why would anyone need Studio Pro (or any other DAW for that matter) full stop? AI will quickly learn how it's done and it is a very patient listener too, so when you can verbalise you wishes then AI will comply.

After the Second Industrial Revolution (late 19th century) which mainly affected manual labor jobs we're now entering the Intellectual Revolution which will mainly affect all desk jobs. And yes, mixing and mastering is a desk job too. The Second Industrial Revolution ended in war which, cynically, took care of the labor surplus. I don't dare to think where the Intellectual Revolution will lead us.

But we'll always have GTA6. (Dang, it must be the dark days before Christmas )

 

[Gray Wolf]

I'll add my $0.02.

My view is that some (of course not all) software companies have gotten complacent, spoon feeding products to customers and intentionally holding things back so they can profit from it later. The rise of AI changes all of that. Now anyone can make tools for themselves that do exactly what they want without begging for features or paying hundreds of dollars a year. Some companies have literally taken their user bases for granted, but that's all coming to an end.

Vibe coding is a pretty loud wake up call to the industry. If some don't pay attention and do better, it will be to their detriment. It's a new world.

To most doing it, it doesn't matter if other people like something that was vibe coded like Musio Studio from the owner of Cinesamples. Of course, this next comment won't apply to him, but some other people doing it in some cases are just trying to get complacent and greedy companies out of their pockets.

I did this one below for myself and anyone can use it. It has every feature Camtasia nickels and dimes users for, and much more. I'm currently grandfathered into a $65 a year subscription for Camtasia which is one reason I kept it, because the actual cost for new users for what I have is $180 a year.

Call it 'AI slop' or whatever else you want, but it works better than Camtasia in some easily demonstrable ways, so I'll be ending my subscription with them. Total cost to get Techsmith out of my pockets indefinitely? Less than $40.

ezcam-releases/README.md at main · StudioOneScripts/ezcam-releases

Contribute to StudioOneScripts/ezcam-releases development by creating an account on GitHub.

github.com

 

[Craig Anderton]

If anything, I see the AI this, vibe coding that, etc, as things that will further isolate musicians.

If you want a ray of hope, check out my latest Substack post.

 

[Ken Morgan]

If you want a ray of hope, check out my latest Substack post.

Well said..and I like that idea - a lot. Investigating if there are any participating places within reasonable driving distance.

Thanks amigo