This careless interpretation (if you can even call it that) completely misrepresents the meaning of the original work. It represents the idea of using a delicate touch to handle something with the idea of punching it like a child would instead. As another song by them put it:
“Don’t feed the people
But we feed the machines”
I doubt the band themselves have a whole lot of say (or even really care that much) over things like this at this point in their career. I’d say management/record label is likely where the blame should be on thus one.
Sorry if my title didn’t communicate that clearly but I do agree!
Why should I bother watching something you couldn’t be bothered to create?
There is no “AI”. Humans 100% created this.
There is no “AI”.
Correct
Humans 100% created this.
Incorrect
No, this was illustrated by Hugh Syme. He’s been doing album art forever, and this is just his style.
What was the extent of Syme’s efforts on this? Making each detail and movement, or simply typing what he wanted to see into an image generator? I don’t see it fitting what I’ve seen of his historic style
This will shock you, but I wasn’t in the room with him when he made this. But I’m not going to treat artists on a guilty until proven innocent basis.
but I wasn’t in the room with him when he made this.
it’s slop mate. Syme may have prompted it but that’s the end of it being ‘his’ art.
This is not AI, this was illustrated by a human being called Hugh Syme, whose work just looks like this. And it’s looked like this for ages, since well before gen AI. This is crappy ragebait.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hugh_Syme#Controversy_and_criticism
Re: his 2025 Dream Theater album art from that band’s drummer
if this is true, the title should be edited…
Syme is who misunderstood the kid gloves reference then?
Possibly?
TBH, I’ve never really thought about the reference much. But if someone asked me yesterday before I read another comment on this thread explaining it …
I very well may have guessed a kid wearing gloves.
Could just be a different interpretation. Like not all gloves are boxing gloves, yet no one’s mentioning that. Plus they’re brown in the picture, so maybe they’re made out of goat leather anyway.
If it’s not AI I don’t think there’s much valid criticism of an artist not using every phrase literally.
deleted by creator
I don’t understand when someone who is creative in one field uses AI to generate something in another field. Like, how would Rush feel if some visual artist used AI to make crummy knock-off Rush songs with their own art?
In most cases, I expect that moves like this are by the record company/rightsholders/whoever as a cheap cash-grab rather than the artist themselves. Peter Gabriel is a vocal exception to that.
That may be true in this case, I’m thinking more of small content creators on YouTube or elsewhere. No class solidarity.
Oh no is peter pro AI… Damn it I loved him
His recent album I/0 had a bunch of AI videos which is whatever (I found them just kind of disturbing to look at and couldn’t do it more than once). But after listening to the album a number of times (I’ve been a huge Peter Gabriel fan since “Solsbury Hill” came out) I’m inclined to think that album’s music was AI-generated as well. All the songs are just a weird blending of his various styles from earlier albums and they don’t seem to be the logical or normal product of an artist his age.
I don’t think i/o (or o/i) had AI generated music. A number of the songs had been works-in-progress for years since Gabriel had performed early versions of them live in concert prior. In his full moon updates for each song, there is sometimes footage of the performers in the studio with instruments and even an orchestra or choir at times. I remember specifically he cited Brian Eno’s “electric worms” synths for the fifth track. There had also been a substantial time gap since Gabriel put out his previous album, and he notably likes to mix genres, including world music. If any artist would evolve their style atypically for their age, it would be Gabriel.
Well, good to know.
Ahhh yes, the cash grab of putting your songs on YouTube for free.
Is this the first time you’ve heard that uploaders get a portion of ad revenue??
The music is the content, not the image. The image isn’t the thing generating ad revenue. You guys are tripping over a placeholder image, made by the guy that did all their album artwork and played keyboard on some of their songs on top of that.
It was this or a static image of their album cover (both of which are made by the same guy, so it’s not like they are screwing over their album artist either).
We don’t even know to what extent AI was used, if he generated the whole thing or just animated it with it. It might not be AI at all.
And having ad revenue doesn’t make everything on YouTube a cash grab, nor is it a cash grab the moment it includes AI.
It was this or a static image of their album cover
The word “or” here is incorrect. Reuploads of the same song is an apparent method to stimulate views and thus get ad revenue. “Between the Wheels”, for example, has
all uploaded through Rush’s official channel
Two of them appear to be different remasters but fair point, could easily be classified as a cash grab in some measure, although it’s hard to apply that label to free content for me.
The music is the content, not the image
You initially said it was put up for free as a way to excuse it, now that I pointed out they’re making money it’s fine because the image isn’t what people come there for? In that case why use an AI image to begin with?
The music is the content and what is up for free. The image has little to do with the cash grab or ad revenue aspect of it. Free for us doesn’t mean they won’t make a tiny profit. I fail to see how I’m contradicting myself.
Why not use an AI animation. It literally just makes for a better visualizer.
I feel like I say this a lot, probably because, AI is trying to force itself into my space every day. Anyhow, As a graphic designer…
I agree 100% that just because it’s not your expertise doesn’t make it better. I butt up against the need to use music and copy. I don’t write and I can’t compose music. I’m very conscious to not use AI for either. I just had to grab a 6 sec jingle for a podcast intro to accompany my graphics. I had the option to use AI from a stock music website, but I bought it from a human instead. Kind of sickening they even allow AI junk to be mixed in with human created content and make people pay for it.
Regardless how easy it is to do so, their is always something missing. That human touch. I have to explain it more and more and I’m holding to my guns. No AI in the creative spaces, no exceptions.
My biggest take on it, even if someday it does a better job. What are we saying as a society? That we’d rather give up our creativity and do the menial tasks instead? AI should be handing the boring repetitive tasks, not be the one doing the higher level art, that’s just fucked. Where do people think that AI got it’s ideas from, it stole it from us! Everything I put out is a piece of me, to have something gobble that up and regurgitate it is beyond offensive.
I don’t know, I feel like I’m losing. Probably going to switch careers when I move on to my next gig. Before this their was always extremely low respect for what I do. Now I think no one cares they are putting out garbage, they just want to skip quality for quantity.
AI, by its very nature, is incapable of capturing the human condition.
No matter how extensive its datasets, this will never change. This is because the human condition is just that, flawed and twisted and emotional, in all the ways humans are, and all the ways programs fundamentally cannot be.
A computer program’s only goal is to do what it is programmed to do perfectly. An issue arises when it tries to copy, or augment the human condition perfectly.
How can you perfectly augment something that is, by its very nature, unpredictably imperfect?
This is why AI created “art” is so uncanny and soulless; you cannot augment the human condition.
I think there’s also the notion that people won’t invest emotional time for nothing. It has to be part of a larger transaction with a human being. Even if the transaction is extremely lopsided, as in “I love Taylor swift but she doesn’t know I exist”, it still has to have a human recipient.
A good analogy is psychotherapy. 99% of the work is done by the patient, but it just doesn’t work without the other human. The process absolutely requires an ape to meet with another ape for anything to happen. It would work better with an untrained psychologist, than with the best fine tuned “almost-AGI” model. It’s not about performance it’s really existential. The concept of therapy doesn’t do anything for your brain just like the concept of a strawberry doesn’t do anything for your mouth.
Just like the concept of a rock song or a painting doesn’t do anything for your soul.
Why would you use a recipe to bake a cake when the professional baker down the street already bakes so well?
If the professional baker down the street threw human excrement into their cakes 1% of the time I’d make my own. Same reason I don’t use AI. Except it’s a lot higher than 1% with AI.
So they use premium quality flour and you’re using grocery store Pillsbury. Yes, their cake is going to taste better and yes, you’ll probably prefer their cake on occasion, but you also don’t want to drop $40+ on a cake when you can sometimes just get your fix for $5. What’s the harm in letting amateurs create something based upon a recipe when they wouldn’t be able to do so otherwise?
I don’t think Neil would approve of this.
Neil Peart was big into Ayn Rand. He would completely support this.
Only early on, like a lot of young men. He learned and grew like intelligent people do and realized her stories are just stories.
Nope. He stayed die hard Ayn Rand:
Nearly two decades later, in a 2015 Rolling Stone interview, Peart reaffirmed this worldview, calling himself a “bleeding-heart libertarian”
https://www.thetapesarchive.com/the-evolving-mind-of-neil-peart/
moving from Rand’s stark individualism to what he later called “bleeding heart libertarianism.”
Do you know what ‘bleeding heart’ means? From your understanding, what is the difference between bleeding heart libertarianism and rand’s stark individualist libertarianism? This quote means he was not in favor of Rand’s stark individualism and instead favored bleeding heart libertarianism. Why don’t you read it that way? Why do you describe Ayn Rand as a ‘bleeding heart libertarian’?
Bummer!
I don’t feel like the lyrics in later rush reflect that myself. Obviously the anthem era did. Later on a lot of it became more about the human condition
Nah. Pretty sure he held onto that libertarian BS until he died.
Neil Peart stands alone.
Neil is proverbially rolling in his grave (I can’t determine if he was cremated or not)
TIL the origin of “kid gloves”
The origin is one thing, but even a cursory read of lyrics reveals the meaning, which the music video misses
The irony about all this AI bullfuck is that there is nothing even remotely intelligent about it.
Fake intelligence
Nooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
I really hope it was some clueless person at the label and not the choice of Ged and Alex
“Begin the day with an LLM, a companion sycophantic”
:(
Closer to the Heart has been on heavy rotation lately. Message of the song is as poignant as ever.
Ugh, the faces are so creepy.
Ironically, it’s a great visual metaphor for this decision to use AI to generate music videos, since that facial expression looks like someone who only just realized they’ve shit their pants.
Most overrated band. So shitty.
And yeah I know the drummer is “good”.
I’m not sure you know what overrated means.
Acdc, guns n roses, Taylor swift, Metallica, are definitely in that category.
If you mean, has a rabid fan base, that’d be accurate.
