The Rolling Stones just put out “Foreign Tongues” – it’s their best record since “Tattoo You”…which was released when I was an infant lol.
My immediate thought when I heard Mick’s first line was: “This is definitely AI.”
The casual listener would probably agree, groan about an octogenarian rooster strutting across a stage, and just go on with their day.
You should know dear reader, that I am not a casual listener of anything – let alone the Stones.
Thanks for reading!
Eric
Eric Boggs
CEO @ RevBoss
PS - as a friendly reminder, you’re receiving this email because you filled out a form on revboss.com or because we interacted on LinkedIn at some point.
This RevBoss email is brought to you by RevBoss — the relationship-first demand generation partner for B2B software and services.
Please allow me to introduce myself…
The Rolling Stones are my favorite band – some longtime readers may find this to be a surprising revelation considering my vocal fandom for the Dead, Steely Dan, Sumac, Diarrhea Planet, Socks ‘N Chacos, et al over the years.
The Stones from 1968 to 1973 (Plus “Some Girls” in 1978, natch) set the high water mark for rock and roll music.
And if ever there was a highly index-able and AI-ifiable artist, it’d be the Stones. There is an enormous back catalog of content and – though I’m sure Mick and Keith would argue otherwise – they definitely have a signature sound, unlike bands like The Beatles or The Beach Boys whose sound changed dramatically over the years.
Combine that with a set of core members that are in their 80s…and you get a pretty reasonable case for a “this is AI” first impression…
The watermark…
Claude announced yesterday that new models will embed invisible watermarks in the text that it generates. I’ll spare you a sloppy effort trying to explain it myself – you can read about it here in the Claude docs…or read a pretty good reddit thread here.
No idea if this will be iron clad or what. And honestly no idea if normals like you and me will be able to run the process required to reveal the watermark…or if Claude will give it away for free.
Also not sure how much this matters in the immediate term. A lot of people are too lazy to put forth even the most basic effort to dress up their slop.
My college roommate is an English professor at a large public university – he hides prompts in the assignment pdfs. He says it’s been equal parts disappointing and entertaining to watch his students defend the inclusion of a Rodney Dangerfield reference in a term paper about Faulkner.
Plus — we’ve always love slop. Just take a quick look at popular culture: instagram “influencer” clout chasers, automated kids content on YouTube, all of the Kardashians, 80s childrens cartoons created to sell action figures, etc.
I know, it's only rock 'n' roll slop, but I like it…I guess.
Obviously, I think that the Stones record is real – this promo performance a few weeks before the record was released more confirms that Mick and Ronnie can still rip. (Keef absolutely still does too.)
Thing is, they definitely used all kinds of AI tricks to support the production process! Original drummer Charlie Watts is posthumously included in the record by way of some archival recordings.
And the music video for “In The Stars” uses AI to deepfake the early 70s versions of Mick, Keith, and Ronnie and it’s really fun! Mick talked about the video in an interview with Conan – everything is real…except their faces. He even made a point to highlight that it isn’t perfect – there is a clip in the video where Ronnie’s face weirdly morphs into Jeff Beck’s face.
Brief aside – the studio perfection is honestly my only criticism of the music – the best version of the Stones sound like the song is about to fall apart (see: everything on Exile On Mainstreet), not like a lab-created blues rock specimen – see: Rough And Twisted.
Bringing this all to my broader point:
I had the audacity to presume that Mick, Keef, and Ronnie would release AI music.
Shame on me I guess…but you can’t blame me.
Everything else in the world seems to have a lazy, scammy, shitty AI sheen to it…and often much more than just a sheen.
So if my first reaction to new music by the masters that gave us “Shine A Light” and “Loving Cup” was “meh – probably AI” then just imagine how a casual non-fan reacts to whatever it is you’re putting out into the world.
It begs the question:
How do we operate in a world in which every piece of new content, art, performance, etc. gets a subconscious asterisk affixed to it by the consumer?
I’m not totally sure, but I have a few working guidelines:
Show Your Work – you can do this in a lot of ways: undeniable mastery, effort, detail, etc. You need to prove that you had an original thought and show your receipts. The Stones have shown their work over 60+ years, they don’t need to fake it.
Taste – hard to quantify this, but you know it when you see it…and you know it if you have it. I run a company that (among other things) uses AI-modeling to create content on behalf of our clients. The content is actually pretty easy, the hard part is everything underneath it – the angle, the strategy, the goal, the impact. And it’s really, really hard.
Respect for the Audience – you can’t spend a lazy 10 minutes creating something that’ll take an hour to read. I’ve had this newsletter idea rolling around in my head for a few weeks and spent way too much time working on it. You may like this a lot…or you may have stopped reading after the phrase “Diarrhea Planet” – and of course I used Claude for shaping, editing, etc. — but you can’t deny the effort and the thinking, which I think are a baseline requirement for anyone looking to have audience, let alone create something worthwhile.
Respect for Yourself – the means are just as important as the ends, something, something Descartes.
May the good Lord shine a light on you, warm like the evening sun.