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”
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.
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
Static image of album art
Static image of 2026 super deluxe album art
AI visualizer 1
AI visualizer 2
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.
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.