If you were trying to build an artificial intelligence (AI) model that could make great music, the work of legendary producer Quincy Jones, who died last week aged 91, would be the ultimate dataset.
He was taught by Ray Charles, composed for Count Basie and played trumpet for Elvis Presley.
He arranged and conducted Frank Sinatra’s big band. He produced Michael Jackson’s Off The Wall, Thriller and Bad. He composed the soundtracks for more than 30 movies, including The Color Purple and The Italian Job. Jones’ Soul Bossa Nova is the theme tune in your head when you think of Austin Powers. Spanning every imaginable contemporary genre, Jones’ catalog is history.
Illustration: Louise Ting
Yet, even if you ingested all those years of incredible work, you would still not have a Quincy Jones or anything like him.
As I reflect on his life and consider how he worked, I find myself more reassured than ever that attempts to replace the hard and beautiful creative process with AI would forever fall hopelessly short.
Some people think it can be done. That, by feeding hour after hour of great music into an Nvidia-powered data center, you would eventually conjure a machine capable of creating new, original work worth paying attention to. Suno, valued at US$500 million, is one such company. It is “building a future where anyone can make great music,” it said. “No instrument needed, just imagination.”
What they are describing is a shortcut — something Jones, throughout his career, had little time for. He was extremely meticulous in deciding who to work with. In his later years, he railed against the lack of mastery some modern artists were able to get away with, thanks to technology filling in the gaps.
An important part of the creative process, he once remarked, was forcing the artists he worked with to prioritize only their best work. This was helped by the technological limitations of the time.
In interviews about the making of Thriller, Jones described an agonized Jackson whittling down dozens of songs to just nine so they could fit onto a vinyl record.
A brutal exercise, but one which left the album, the best-selling of all time, without a single second of filler. (It is something we might long for today. It is the limitlessness of streaming sites like Spotify that enabled Taylor Swift to put out a two-hour-long album that was “conspicuously wanting for an editor,” one review said.)
With AI, it feels like there would soon be even fewer limitations and less need than ever for real talent or difficult decisions, but it is a mirage.
One of my favorite pieces of writing on AI this past year came from sci-fi author Ted Chiang, whose New Yorker essay “Why AI Isn’t Going To Make Art” said that art, in its many forms, “is something that results from making a lot of choices.”
Chiang used the example of a writer deciding what words to write: a 10,000-word story is, in simple terms, 10,000 choices, each swayed by the author’s unique perspective, lived experience, mood, sobriety, pressure and so on. When you hand that job to AI, those choices belong to the machine. They become a synthesis of choices already made by others and therefore would never truly surprise us or move us forward.
Also embedded in an artist’s work are the choices of countless others. The choice, for instance, of a Welsh slave owner to, Jones believed, rape a woman he enslaved, who would then birth Jones’ father.
Or the choice of many hotel and restaurant owners to deny Jones and his bandmates a bed or a meal on account of their skin color (on one occasion forcing them to spend the night in a funeral parlor). Or, indeed, the choice of Jones himself to father seven children with five women.
What all this amounts to cannot be measured. It certainly cannot be written in software code, and you cannot tell me that these choices were not deeply present in Jones’ work, or behind his drive to do so much of it. There is no question we have more to gain from art made by flawed human beings than by sterile software.
Backers of this technology say it can only get better and more convincing. I say it would never be good enough.
By its nature, AI is only capable of remixing past work into forms that might sound good enough to fool our eyes and ears, but it would always fall short of fooling our minds. In that sense, perhaps our greatest defense against AI in the arts is good taste.
It was who Jones was as a person, not just a musician, that meant he was able to apply his genius across genres and cultures, making his work so compelling.
With Jackson’s Thriller, he blended the genres of rock, R&B and pop in a way that forced MTV to give up the racist policies that kept black artists off its station. With The Fresh Prince of Bel Air, Jones sold TV executives on the value of a story of a young, working-class black teenager confronting his new life in a confusing upper-class world.
None of this work could have been done by AI. None of it. Not the idea generation, composition, performing, scriptwriting or editing.
Proponents of AI music would say mixing two or more genres in a “new” composition is absolutely possible. On its face, it is: You can tell Suno to create a “rock song with Latin influences,” for instance, and it would do it in seconds, vocals and all, but who wants to hear it? It comes from nowhere, from no one and means nothing.
Those who say AI can be used for “easier” tasks in music — say, like a jingle — could well be depriving future great artists of a way to support themselves as they are starting out.
If you want to see Jones at his very best, and be as confident about the future as I am, I would suggest watching The Greatest Night in Pop, a documentary released in January by Netflix.
It pieces together behind-the-scenes footage of the making of the 1985 charity single, We Are The World, which Jones produced. It was his influence that helped bring a diversity of artists to a studio to work through the night.
Like a masterful schoolteacher, Jones corralled a choir of egos, reined in the mischievous Stevie Wonder, and put a shy and uncomfortable Bob Dylan at ease. “I know you know,” said Dylan when Jones reassured him his vocal was up to par.
How did Jones “know”? Experience, talent, technical brilliance, hard work — yes, but above all, humanity, and everything that goes with it — a trait no AI would ever possess.
Dave Lee is Bloomberg Opinion’s US technology columnist. He was previously a correspondent for the Financial Times and BBC News. This column does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the editorial board or Bloomberg LP and its owners.
Trying to force a partnership between Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC) and Intel Corp would be a wildly complex ordeal. Already, the reported request from the Trump administration for TSMC to take a controlling stake in Intel’s US factories is facing valid questions about feasibility from all sides. Washington would likely not support a foreign company operating Intel’s domestic factories, Reuters reported — just look at how that is going over in the steel sector. Meanwhile, many in Taiwan are concerned about the company being forced to transfer its bleeding-edge tech capabilities and give up its strategic advantage. This is especially
US President Donald Trump last week announced plans to impose reciprocal tariffs on eight countries. As Taiwan, a key hub for semiconductor manufacturing, is among them, the policy would significantly affect the country. In response, Minister of Economic Affairs J.W. Kuo (郭智輝) dispatched two officials to the US for negotiations, and Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co’s (TSMC) board of directors convened its first-ever meeting in the US. Those developments highlight how the US’ unstable trade policies are posing a growing threat to Taiwan. Can the US truly gain an advantage in chip manufacturing by reversing trade liberalization? Is it realistic to
The US Department of State has removed the phrase “we do not support Taiwan independence” in its updated Taiwan-US relations fact sheet, which instead iterates that “we expect cross-strait differences to be resolved by peaceful means, free from coercion, in a manner acceptable to the people on both sides of the Strait.” This shows a tougher stance rejecting China’s false claims of sovereignty over Taiwan. Since switching formal diplomatic recognition from the Republic of China to the People’s Republic of China in 1979, the US government has continually indicated that it “does not support Taiwan independence.” The phrase was removed in 2022
US President Donald Trump, US Secretary of State Marco Rubio and US Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth have each given their thoughts on Russia’s war with Ukraine. There are a few proponents of US skepticism in Taiwan taking advantage of developments to write articles claiming that the US would arbitrarily abandon Ukraine. The reality is that when one understands Trump’s negotiating habits, one sees that he brings up all variables of a situation prior to discussion, using broad negotiations to take charge. As for his ultimate goals and the aces up his sleeve, he wants to keep things vague for
RSS