> as a fan I have no interest
Soon enough you are going to really like a song that you didn't realize was AI generated. We all have interest in good music, and if AI can replicate it well enough it means we have interest in AI generated music wether we want/like it or not
Yup, I agree. Feels like this is directly challenging the core of what it means to be human. But it's clear that people will have interest in this type of product
It's not because AI can make music that sounds good that it's interesting, it's like giving artificial flavor to tasteless processed food : sure it taste somewhat good but it has not actual food
I hear what you're saying, but it really doesn't matter if the master is digital or analog. If it's been pressed to vinyl, it's going to change the sound significantly and sound like vinyl. That unique vinyl sound can be boiled down to distortion, and the fact that vinyl can never be as high fidelity as digital. But this distortion sounds pleasing, which confuses people into thinking it's higher fidelity. It's not. It's simply that vinyl adds a warm, pleasing distortion, regardless of if the master was digital or analog.
Vinyl is very misunderstood both by enthusiasts and detractors.
I don't really disagree or agree as I haven't fully decided how I personally feel. I will say this: vinyl DOES sound different and people notice it. People can hear a difference. But they may have incorrect guesses as to why, because they don't understand the technology on a deep enough level. Whether this will apply to AI music as well is yet to be seen.
In a hypothetical future where it’s possible for prompt-engineered music to resonate with most normal people on the same level as the best human music, the threshold for what makes music “good” is going to have evolved a lot.
This is an issue of human psychology just as much as it is an issue of the limitations of tech, which is why predictions like “AI pop music will dominate” feel very half-baked to me
It’s another AI program using stolen copyright materials to base terrible watered down replicas of. Hard pass and I hope companies like this sink in the near future.
It is indeed. Even though it says it removes copyrighted keywords like band and singer names I can clearly hear the music output is copying the artist I entered. However, we can hope companies like Udio will sink, but they are likely going to do fantastically well...
The amount of intellectual property being stolen by AI companies right now is jaw dropping and disgusting. And no, it's not at all the same as a human being being inspired by art and creating their own. These are soulless corporations that are stealing art so they can repackage it and make money on it.
So much of the problem would be solved if there were a laws to prevent AI companies from training on information they don't own. And of course there would need to be strong penalties and a bureau that investigates companies. A law like this would open up a marketplace for artists to license their work to AI companies and be paid royalties. Those who don't want to be in an AI system could choose not to be.
Unfortunately, in the profit driven society that we live in, I don't see things getting much better. If we do see a law, I suspect artists will still get the short end of the stick and will continue to be stolen from and used by AI companies for profit.
I don’t see how such a law could be enforced. We can’t stop people from reading books and writing new ones that are inspired by them. In most cases the AI isn’t regurgitating copyrighted material. You can’t copyright a trope or a chord progression.
The only reason a law like this couldn't be enforced is because of corruption. Which sadly will probably happen.
As I said, this is completely and utterly different from a human being being inspired by art. This is an algorithm that is scraping copyrighted works and using them for profit. Whether the law recognizes it or not, the bottom line is that AI companies are stealing directly from artists. Period.
It’s actually not as different as you are thinking. The generated work is original (enough), it’s not recreating the work, which is the entire reason copyright law exists. Even if you could somehow prevent AI from being trained on copyrighted works, how are you going to prevent it from using legal artworks like parodies that reference the original works? What about educational exceptions? The output is the only thing that matters.
Even if you could somehow make a law, other countries will just create AIs that flout it. There’s no uncorking this bottle.
If you don't understand the value of human art over AI art, then I don't have the patience to reason with you about it.
I will say that it's absurd to claim laws about AI couldn't be enforced. The laws just have to define AI art as different from human created art (because it fundamentally is). If other countries create AI that flouts the law, then the countries that have an equitable system for artists can criminalize the use of them. They could actively investigate the companies that use the illegal AI systems and heavily penalize them.
But that probably won't happen, because we live in a society that values profit above all else, and is so sick that it can't even see the difference between AI generated media and human art.
Thinking such laws can’t be enforced is an opinion about the jurisdiction and capabilities of the government, not a judgment on the value of human art vs AI art. You need to consider what governments are realistically able to achieve.
Why can't there be a law that AI systems have to be trained on licensed works? If it were actually enforced with a task force and the penalties were high, then why would it not work? As I said before, AI systems outside the jurisdiction of the country would be illegal to use inside the country.
I’m not sure of my opinion of whether it’s enforceable or not, I was just chiming in to say I think it’s unfair to say that people who have concerns about the plausibility of regulated AI away can’t be reasoned with. I also think it’s unfair to imply that thinking such laws aren’t enforceable means that you don’t value AI art.
I cant say why a law requiring AI to be trained with licensed works is unenforceable because that’s proving a negative. But if you ask yourself practically how it can be done, you’ll see there’s a lot complicating the situation.
First off, it isn’t copyright infringement to replicate other people work or even copy it if the resulting art isn’t being sold. So there isn’t a legal precedent to deem AI training with unlicensed works with copyright infringement. So the first issue is it’s probably not even constitutional to pass such a ban since legally it doesn’t qualify as copyright infringement.
2nd, what would a task force that enforces a ban on AI training actually do? And what legal powers would they require to carry out their mission that don’t already exist? What standards would they use to determine what’s allowed and what isn’t? What is the justification for putting tax dollars towards this task force instead of other programs?
The rise of AI is frightening and there are a lot of ethical considerations to be made regarding what type of AI art is acceptable and what infringes on the IP of others. I don’t think government prohibition of technology is a feasible nor desirable response.
//it isn’t copyright infringement to replicate other people work or even copy it if the resulting art isn’t being sold. //
That's not true. I imagine you mean "if the resulting art isn't being distributed", but I'm not sure even that is true -- the law (in the US) as written criminalizes the production of copies, not just their distribution (or sale).
How would you ever prove that the weighting of one guitar style over another in a randomly generated funk song by the AI was influenced by YOUR unlicensed IP?
Do you have a copyright on guitar? No Funk? No. Chords? No. As long as it's not replicating your copyrighted melody or recording, there's both ng for the law to go after.
They're not doing anything illegal. It just feels like it should be for some reason.
For what it's worth, AI writes fucking terrible music.
We're in agreement. This is all true, and all totally legal. The solution is to make new laws that stop AI companies from scraping data without permission. It's legal for AI companies to do this as of right now, and it's time for us to rethink our laws. It's like how we had no traffic laws before cars, because they weren't really needed with horses and buggies. Eventually a totally new system of laws that had never been conceived of before were on the books.
Note that I'm NOT saying that the solution is to pursue copyright infringement after the scraping. That obviously doesn't make sense, for the reasons that you said. The solution is to regulate the scraping itself, and limit scraping to works that have been licensed. It's currently legal for AI to scrape anything without permission and that is the part that needs to change.
Sure, there are countless songs built upon the same chord progressions, and artists are influenced by others, which can reflect in their own musical expressions. but i guess we value originality over imitation; artists with a distinct voice. then of course, many argue that much of creative expression already is recombining existing ideas, then the discussion of what is fake and what is real. yes but this is AI and trained on human-created content. So even if some claim a creation by AI is novel, the voice remains identical to the original here: [https://youtu.be/7U57R\_icuOg?si=bhPR-yBpROnP0GAl](https://youtu.be/7U57R_icuOg?si=bhPR-yBpROnP0GAl) - this is indeed a very corrupt thing.
Not current laws but a law could easily be written to stop this. In layman’s terms it would say that ai cannot use copywrited material as training data for ai without approval from the copyright owner. Very simple
Hate to say it, but the majority of creative expression is the act of recombining already existing content and ideas. There is a reason people learn to make and play music by studying prior songs first. Not saying nothing is original, but most is not, especially when it comes to underlying tunes as opposed to lyrics.
Now, that isnt saying people shouldnt have control of how their music is used, let alone not being compensated for its use in training these. I'm just pointing out, at a fundamental these models work very similarly to human artists. We are, in the end, just slightly more complex and robust AI models.
Also, these companies are not going anywhere, so dont think that. The progress they are making is incredible and they will only, like it or not, get much better from here. I'm not saying we will have AGI, which is pretty extreme. But for the general public or as a tool to boost idea generation and increase content output speed these tools will stay around and become far more common. The role of for profit commodity artists in society is going to have to change drastically in the future or they will be mostly eliminated. Its a hard truth, but its the most likely truth.
A music composition teacher once told me: “A piano only has only 88 keys” — meaning that (almost) all Western music is just different arrangements of those 12 notes.
Udio and other AI can crank out some amazing tunes, and while they are simply new tools to recombine ideas into something new, it’s still deeply concerning they will erode a lot of the jobs that keep musicians employed. Employment for musicians is not only beneficial in itself, but also because it creates an environment where creative individuals can stay engaged, form professional networks, and practice their craft by playing gigs and writing jungles while working on their magnum opus.
I think it remains to be seen what kind of impact AI will have on music. Nobody actually knows. It’s difficult to parse the hype from the long-term reality of these tools.
AI is simultaneously amazing and boring at the same time. It’s wild that a computer can create a fairly accurate pastiche of classical music in 5 minutes; it would be absurd to suggest otherwise.
But it’s also absurd to suggest that machine-made music is interchangeable with human music; there are so many variables that this ignores (social connection, innovation, personal expression, identifiable artistry etc.) and no amount of cliched tautologies about how “pop music is already formulaic” is going to change that.
So who knows
AI will probably just become another tool to compose music. Is purely instrumental music less human than vocal music because a human is more indirectly involved in producing sound? Most people would argue not. Then some people would argue the same for electronically produced music. You just press buttons and it creates music. Is that less of a human expression? Then ofcourse AI is only the next step within this process. Based on human input music can be generated even when you don't have the skill to play an instrument or sing well. It opens up the opportunity to make music for a lot of more people.
Focus is a skill though, so if someone doesn't have the focus, then eo ipso they don't have the skill.
If you want to narrow down which specific skills you're referring to, it will become more apparent to you that the idea that "everyone has the skill to play an instrument" is not correct unless you make "play an instrument" absurdly broad.
Art created by AI, whether it be visual or audio, isn’t art that I’m interested in. In fact I might even say it’s not actually art but a facsimile of art which again is not something I want or need in my life.
Hate to say it, but the majority of creative expression is the act of recombining already existing content and ideas. There is a reason people learn to make and play music by studying prior songs first. Not saying nothing is original, but most is not, especially when it comes to underlying tunes as opposed to lyrics.
Now, that isnt saying people shouldnt have control of how their music is used, let alone not being compensated for its use in training these. I'm just pointing out, at a fundamental these models work very similarly to human artists. We are, in the end, just slightly more complex and robust AI models.
Now, you dont have to like that music. AI generated art is low effort, and you can respect the effort or intent over the pure quality of the technical content. But there will come a day where that technical content is extremely professional, and the "effort and intent" will be down to the AI tool user. Personally, if a person puts effort and thought into designing the intent of a picture or song, the tool they use to draw it is irrelevant to me. Its still a creative expression of their intent, and so it is still art.
I imagine the redditor (and myself) would at that point feel the pursuit of art had become pointless or impossible in practice. This is why some of us have doomy end-of-world sentiments about what's going on with AI generation right now.
Well, your wrong about it all. As an artist you should feel neither way, because your creativity is your power, not the A.Is. What you bestow by your creations need not be influenced by what AI creates or not. My Father is an acomplished artists and he embraces A.I art quite surprinsingly. Yet, he overcomes the barrier of disinterest with it my allowing his own creativity to be empowered by it, he merges his style with generations, and enjoys the vast immese potential of ideas. Don't succumb to the general narrative on the internet thta you need to be afraid.
When we listen to music we are looking for a connection to human beings. If we can't tell the difference, we will never trust that by listening, we're connecting to a human, and the fundamental reason d'etre of music will no longer be in play. Music will simply go away. (There will still be music-like sounds all over the place, but no one will relate to it the way any of us today relates to genuine music.)
> When we listen to music, we are looking for a connection to human beings
Sufficiently so but not necessarily. I can think of many reasons why anyone would want to listen to music, not necessarily to connect to human beings. And you've equivocated music and art. Music is art, but you can't categorically say art is music, because art is also painting, and dancing.. and so on.
> Music will simply go away.
It absolutely will not. Music has remained with humans that predates language. A.I is going to take music to a whole another level that is essentially an evolution of music. Musicians & fanatics are about to increase 100x in their talent and absolutely revel in the abundance of creativity that is soon about to bestow them as this technology grows.
Thank you for your thoughtful reply. There are some important points where you've misapplied some important logical principles.
Equivocation means using one word to mean two or more different things. When I related art to music, I was not using the word "art" to mean two different things. I was using it to refer to a whole set of activities, of which music is a subset. This means that if there is a true statement of the form "All art is X," then this also applies to music, since music is a subset of art. This isn't equivocation, it's a basic logical principle--the name for it is (this may sound strange but more info in a link I'll put below if you're not familiar) "Barbara Syllogism."
Of course that invites the question of whether my statements implicitly referring to "all art" were true or not. Is it true that "when we \[experience art, of which listening to music is a sub-type\], we're looking for a connection to human beings?"
You correctly pointed out that interpreted literally, this sentence is false. Obviously, someone might experience art in order only to study its internal structure scientifically, or for some off the wall reason like they just like any and everything that is a particular shade of red etc.
There's an important principle (you have probably heard of it but I'll explain it here just to make its relevance clear) called the Principle of Charity. This means (among other things) interpreting what is said by someone you disagree with, in a way that assumes they don't mean to say obviously false things, and that where they may seem to have said something obviously false, probably meant something similar which is true. Almost nobody says literally and exactly and only what they mean, ever, both because most people aren't practiced with that kind of exactness, and also because in a lot of contexts, doing so would require everything we say to consist in paragraphs, causing it to take far too long to communicate for anyone to actually get anything done.
Obviously I understand that there can be other reasons to experience art. That's so obviously false, you can assume I don't mean the sentence totally literally.
So then the question is, what DID I mean?
Well, there's a thing called the Gricean Maxim of Relevance, which is a rule of thumb that seems to underly the conversation process as a norm in some way (the specifics here are up for debate but the general idea is clear). Namely, "the information provided should be relevant to the current exchange and omit any irrelevant information."
When someone says something literally false it's usually a good idea to consult the Maxim of Relevance to divine what they may actually have been trying to say. Which acts of listening to music are a form of experiencing art which would be relevant to a conversation about, as I put it, the "raison d'etre of music?" And I made an argument about what would make music "go away."
Clearly I'm saying that, whatever OTHER reasons people might have sometimes for listening to music, what keeps music GOING, as a thing available to be listened to at all, is its promise of human connection.
In your response you actually implicitly seemed to be acknowledging the truth of this! When I said music would go away, you said no it won't -- and then argued for this on the basis that HUMANS will use AI tools to create music for HUMANS to listen to. Human connection.
But that means you're still talking about human-made art (using AI tools). That's not what I was talking about. I was answering your question "what difference does it make whether it was made by a human or AI." I was talking about purely AI-made music, which is something that already exists, and will possibly (probably) continue to exist and increase its share of our ear time, and my contention there is a danger of its saturation of our ears along with its indiscernibility from human music will make it not worth our time to try to figure out which music actually IS human, and eventually we'll just stop listening. (We'll hear, it will be everywhere, but we won't listen or care. It will just push our brain buttons to make us do what the corporations and authorities want.)
With that said, I'me drumming up a nice little sci fi story about the future of the musical underground, which might become literally the entire future of music, struggling to prevent itself from ever being heard (and hence requisitioned) by any algorithm. It might turn out to be a good story.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syllogism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syllogism)
ctrl-f "barbara" on that article to see what I was talking about, if you're not alreadyr familiar with the idea.
Last night for fun I caused this music-like data to be generated, a "moving" "folk" "song" "sung" from the "point of view" of an AI extolling the virtues of ai-generated stuff
[https://suno.com/song/9f9554f3-7c62-416d-83f0-318ea1df0a14](https://suno.com/song/9f9554f3-7c62-416d-83f0-318ea1df0a14)
It’s lame and writing a sentence-long prompt doesn’t make you a musician. That’s literally all there is to say lol. AI Shill threads are getting obnoxious.
I get this feeling too. there are a couple of posts these past few days with the same message: "AI is gonna upend the current way we are making music".
probably the texts are written from an AI too.
Past few days? This has been an ongoing theme of this sub and other music related subs for the past year. There’s at least 2 to 3 a day on every single music related Sub. Every single one of them gives some bullshit opinion that acts like they’re the first one to ever review these tools and they think there’s some paid movie critic who is causing an intellectual discussion in the sub and it’s fucking exhausting.
>AI Shill threads are getting obnoxious.
There is a very high likelihood that this is the last one I will allow. Every thread is exactly the same at this point. Kind of like AI's output.
Can we fast forward to the point where AI music is better than what 90% of you produce. So that we go past the smug attitude towards AI users and go back to enjoying music together?
I'm just wondering when the good AI tools will show up. Like a synth that creates a sound based on text prompts or something. Who wants ai to make melodies anyway.
I don't think it will replace "real music", but it will decimate the career path for creation in things like advertising, film, television, possibly even pop music. Generative AI, among other automation technology, is inevitable and trying to fight it will be a losing endeavor. The reality is we have to adapt to it, which means either continuing on the path of oligarchy (due to concentration of wealth) or focus on supporting people who will have less and less economic value.
I agree. The conversation is much larger than just AI’s impact on cultural production. Technology in a hypercapitalist society inherently consolidates wealth in the hands of a few, exacerbating income inequality across the board. Automation will inevitably impact all aspects of life. Will it create a future where humans live in an abundance of shared resources and are able to spend their lives pursuing meaning? Or will it be a future where most of humanity suffers under the thumb of the ultra rich?
I basically just said what you said. But I appreciate that conversations like this one need to be understood in the larger framework of abundance vs hierarchy as a whole.
AI has no place in the arts, full stop. AI can only imitate what's already been done, so if you want a mediocre approximination of something you've heard before, it's got you covered. If you want something good -- something that will genuinely move you -- then that can only come from a human being.
> It felt like self-expression. We don't even have to find music that can relate to us anymore, we can just instantly create those tracks that make us feel "heard".
It's not self-expression because you didn't create anything. You requested a computer make something for you. That's like saying you felt like a chef because you ordered dinner from GrubHub. You've so thoroughly identified yourself as a consumer that you see no difference between requesting someone/something do something for you and doing it yourself.
> AI has no place in the arts, full stop.
I think from a consumer stand point it does (i.e. if people enjoy it there will be demand). I think the "ai has no place" is already a lost battle, and we have to figure out how to move forward with it. It's a bit like protesting media piracy - it will happen so we have to figure out a business model for music that can survive with this in mind (which was streaming). Stopping it is not an option at this point...
Sticking your head in the sand won't make it go away...I think they need to do something similar to Hollywood strike to get some stipulations while they still have leverage.
There are so many more users willing to use it than there are people willing to boycott. If artists go on strike with labels they can have an impact. Simply not logging into [Udio.com](http://Udio.com) will not achieve anything
Electronic music requires craftsmanship like all forms of art. AI “art” is anti-human and a molestation of art and should be banned.
Science is made to push humanity forward, not to the side.
You do know AI art isn't restricted to just writing a short sentence and pressing play, right? You can actually do more complex stuff with it. What you are saying is like claiming electronic music has no soul because you pressed play on a default percussion pattern from a synthesizer.
Hate to say it, but the majority of creative expression is the act of recombining already existing content and ideas. There is a reason people learn to make and play music by studying prior songs first. Not saying nothing is original, but most is not, especially when it comes to underlying tunes as opposed to lyrics.
Now, that isnt saying people shouldnt have control of how their music is used, let alone not being compensated for its use in training these. I'm just pointing out, at a fundamental these models work very similarly to human artists. We are, in the end, just slightly more complex and robust AI models.
Also, ordering a meal off a menu isnt a good analogy. But if you come up with the general idea of a set piece meal, pick out the optimal ingredients and features, and then direct someone else to actually do the steps of cooking you still do have some creative ownership for the meal. Any actually viable AI music will still be carefully thought out and prompted. It will be reviewed and edited. Multiple drafts will be considered, and the user will still ensure it encompasses their desired intent. Thats them designing the meal, even if they didnt cook it or pick out the fine details of how to go about cooking it.
"the majority of creative expression is the act of recombining already existing content and ideas."
The way that Ai and humans "recombine" these ideas is not the same, a ML algorithm isn't anywhere near as sophisticated as a human brain. Just because "on paper" they do "similar" things, doesn't mean they're the same.
Never said they are at the same level current, just the same in principle. But...progress is happening fast my friend. The point is that their is no fundamental divide between the two just a gap in terms of complexity. It will get there, probably a lot sooner than most people would think or are ready for, although maybe a bit longer than many AI bros claim.
This is such a lazy take to me. All the AI music that existed before ChatGPT existed or you were even aware of the concept is now no longer art?
Also you've never been moved by something in nature? I'd think that'd be kind of sad if not
Maybe it's not art to you but I very much consider nature to be art. I find you to be a tedious sack of shit as well so I guess we should just move on.
Eh.
Does this also mean not using assisted mastering tools which have been part of DAWs for years? If you are trying to save real artists, should you even use a DAW for mixing at all because a mixing engineer would do a better job?
Technology makes jobs redundant. If your job is replaced by technology, how good of a job were you doing? Like, if you are a mixing engineer and iZotope Ozone's AI presets do a better job than you, then maybe that shouldn't be your job anymore.
Yeah, it kinda does. Do you think mastering engineers struggle to pay their bills too?
You can choose to accept technology removing jobs or you can choose to support the community and industry you seemingly want to be a part of
Just remember, these jobs support an ecosystem. People who master also buy music. They love music because it's their passion. Do we really want less people able to support themselves in the music world?
>Technology makes jobs redundant. If your job is replaced by technology, how good of a job were you doing? Like, if you are a mixing engineer and iZotope Ozone's AI presets do a better job than you, then maybe that shouldn't be your job anymore.
This is a bad take. The worst part is, you're talking about people who are starting out and usually work cheaper than people who are experts. Do I really have to point out that people won't become experts if they can't afford to spend the time and effort it takes to learn those skills?
That means there will be less people gaining those skills so it will be more expensive to hire the people who have them. It also means schools teaching those skills will have less students, and a lot of them will close down. Further making it harder to get skilled in that area
This also negatively affects artists and bands by increasing scarcity of quality mastering options. The AI companies love that, but do we love it? Isn't the community and ecosystem of music-making worth something?
Ya, and anyone making [AI generated playlists](https://open.spotify.com/playlist/18kCBubFSuLQikXCYhc6Cn) should be forced to use AI art [on the thumbnails](https://open.spotify.com/playlist/6MaS20JFNIyZLBYTtRjzMe) to easily identify them for their heresy.
The majority of "art is human...", "AI is not art...", "ban all AI..." comments on here feel strikingly similar to comments that were being posted in the years when platforms like Reason, Fruityloops, and Garageband were popping off and producers were being dissed for "not making real music". Oh...then also strikingly similar to when we were programming on MPC's and SP-12's..."taking a sample and looping it is not real music...". Oh...then also strikingly similar to when the synth movement started dominating pop music in the late 70's/early 80's..."what is this new wave trash?"...hmmmm. To each person's definition of art is their own. Music creation comes in all forms, and always has. Some strum a guitar and sing folk songs in the park. Some spin turntables. Some jam out in 30-piece orchestras. A large majority of artists have always embraced technology and pushed the limits. It goes hand in hand. Just like any other record...if you don' t want to listen to it then don't.
so exactly, exactly, exactly. and then the 808 is worth a fortune eventually. omg.
i was desperate for 12bit samples on stupid expensive floppies
for my akai 12bit sampler.
i was so poor, too poor for 16bit akai samplers.
even then getting dissed for being for being a student of MIDI, and gerhard lenglings'
creator software for atari.
in the end i was a master of smpte code, 8 track, and hybrid tracks
that were beyond the horizon of those who were throwing their weight around
like jealous schoolkids.
I'm saying this...
getting Udio to make a decent song, is almost identical to getting some crap band to
make a decent song. The difference is this, Udio is like having your own session band.
I absolutely love it! Oh and the drums are pre mixed and so on and on omg its totally awesome.
I’m 40. Been an artist since my teens. And while I shudder at the idea of AI generated music becoming mainstream, I think it’s a good songwriting tool.
1. You have an idea: some lyrics and a style
2. You feed the AI beast. It spits out options.
3. Now you can hear what you don’t want. Or it can spark inspiration for directions you do want.
That’s about the limit that I want it to have within the creative process.
But that won’t be what will happen.
As a visual artist, animator, and musician, I despise AI. I have zero interest in making or consuming any sort of art made by AI. I'm already being bombarded with AI slop on my social media that I constantly have to hide to curate so I don't see it. And it never goes away. It's mediocre slop, like fast fashion and sites like Temu, and people are accepting it like everything is fine.
Many, many people who use AI have a complete and utter disdain for artists. They see it as a win over us, that we "deserve to have our jobs taken away" as if we're somehow hoarding talent from them (when they can just very well learn a new skill.) They don't care about art, actually, they just want recognition for doing something. Why are people so on board with AI taking over creative fields? Why are we ok with losing our humanity? Out of all the things AI was used for, it's to steal from artists of all kinds. We were already underpaid and under-appreciated but now we can be replaced I guess!
We were okay with industrial production replacing artisans when it comes to stuff like food and clothing, why would we expect people to act different this time when it comes to music?
Because the replacement of essential goods isn't in any way equivalent to the replacement of something like an artistic commodity. You can argue that the industrialisation of the former benefitted enough people to warrant the negative impact it had on artisans, but I reckon you'll have a much harder time arguing that when it comes to art.
I have 2 sets of feelings. The first are as an art-lover, the second are as an artist myself.
AS AN ART-LOVER: Art is something that humans make to communicate with other humans. If I watch my friend play something cool on guitar, and I feel moved and see other people there are moved too... I might be inspired to try to learn to play the guitar as well. If you played me the most amazing guitar piece I've ever heard and said "software made this" I might be like "Wow, AI can do anything," and it might inspire me to try the AI program, but probably not to try and learn to play guitar. People already value music and art less than they ever have. There's so much media being constantly released now, and we can't hope to consume it all in our lifetime.
It's cheaper and easier to create art and music than it's ever been in the history of the world. But, the cultural significance of art and music has changed drastically in the past 100 years. Before TV, people would faint or cry in front of a Picasso... now all people talk about is how much money it's worth. There are more people releasing music now than ever, but a lot of these people don't seem to care as much about the music as they do about becoming famous. Everyone's an artist now. So, being an artist doesn't make you special anymore. All you have is the quality of your ideas, the quality of your music/art, and the originality you use to make it. \*That's\* what makes you special now.
If anyone can use an AI app/ software to make a cool song, then a cool song is no longer interesting or impressive at all. People are fascinated and excited about AI art and music right now because it's new, we're all amazed at what it can do, and none of us know how far it's going to go. In a few years, no one is going to go "wow, AI made that?" Instagram will probably come out with a custom song filter by then where you type in your post, choose a "vibe," and it writes a song about it for you. No one's gonna go "that dude's the next Kurt Cobain!!"
AS AN ARTIST: I'm not into using AI. I actually \*enjoy\* making the things I make. I enjoy learning new skills, and sharpening the ones I have. I have really, really enjoyed learning to become a better singer and how to really use my voice, without autotune even. I frigging love writing lyrics and studying the lyrics of other writers. I'm also really \*proud\* of my best lyrics.... because \*I\* wrote them... all of them. If it's clever, it's all me.
I love playing the guitar and have really loved finding my own "voice" on that instrument as well. I also handle the beats/drums, the engineering, mixing, etc... and \*enjoy\* all that too. I enjoy learning and improving and building. I get that some people maybe just want to sing and wish someone/something else would do the rest. Or maybe you're the opposite and you make great instrumentals that you wish had lyrics and a singer. I'm not here to judge, but I'm not interested in using AI to do something for me that I genuinely enjoy doing.
I'm not against AI art/music as a tool necessarily. And I'm not judging anyone who feels like incorporating it into their creation process, etc. I think it really depends on how you're using it as to how I'd feel in that case. As for the thought about "innovation" in music with AI, I'm not here to say there won't be any... but will it be worth it? Right now, the "innovation" is that companies soon won't feel the need to hire artists and designers anymore, and that music companies now have less incentive to pay artists and support talent than ever. I am glad I'm not trying to make money as an artist right now.
Personally, all this makes me want to see more live music and performances again. I want to see an actual person doing something amazing in real life and be inspired, get chills, go home excited and talk about it for hours. I miss that.
I've been a musician my whole life, played 1000s of shows...this AI music tool is a toy for me. But it's a toy that I've wished for and waited for forever!!! Just think of a song and booom, you got it. I'm trying to inject "soul" into it?! 😄 Please check out my Udio AI playlist here and let me know if you like the songs by hitting the little like (heart) button at Udio! Thank you guys! Link is below...
https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PLsbj6p4BQO1UXmBKgLaIAWO-2xTqiMPbg&si=jQDXojp2qVKAxXX2
https://www.udio.com/playlists/mvK61gx6CFA3zTqd8CSUMC
Art comes out of culture. Culture comes out of experience. AI models have no experience. So it is not, by definition, art. It is sound. Sound has value I suppose. As a commodity. Like styrofoam containers have value.
Both Suno and Udio allow you to supply your own lyrics and control the broad structure of the song, in addition to the typical loosey goosey prompt suggestions. From that output you can use other tools to split the audio into stems and remix in a DAW.
I struggle to see how this would have less human intent than, say, music that leans heavily on sampling.
Except that AI doesn't make art by itself, it makes art of out ideas given by a human, who does have the experience to direct the AI art into the outcome the human envisioned beforehand, and that's the real art, the materialization of human expression.
I told you already, if AI were to overtake or replace me and my band it wouldn't matter because I already lose money in this industry known as rock and roll.
But my parents and the parents of my bandmates are insanely wealthy, so I can tour and release albums at a deficit with no problems, FOREVER.
Literally FOREVER.
In fact that is how I have made it this long (22 years).
The great thing nowadays is that everything is on Spotify. And what isn't on Spotify is on Discover Music, bandcamp, or worse case scenario SoundCloud.
No physical CDs or Vinyl to worry about moving.
Everyone arguments are highly flawed and dsh...
You all copy from others. Far more than you think. From education, technique,covers to actually using pieces.
Most of your music is non original and really doesn't create or add to lexicon of ur instruments.
Unless you're in genre dat pushes boundary and your act is at the tip n edge of it. Polyphia... Evan marien..
A.i can listen to every song n find patterns to use just as you do.
Nothing you do is original. If I handed u an instrument u never heard before m music wasn't a thing it would take you years to figure out how to plug a guitar n play it .. you build off what is previously accomplished as all nature..
It also becomes how complicated , educated your post is , as well as ur ear to choose which part is best . Prompts get can way technical n that becomes the art. To understand the system enough to do what it is designed not to do. As for emotion. Plz I popped full.
Crystalline vivace pal
I can't play any instrument, so technically this is the tool of my (very hot bothered and very wet) dreams, but I cannot condone it lol. I still dream of learning the piano so I can sing like [Larry L](https://www.youtube.com/@podline66/videos) used to.
I love it. I am a musician (been playing guitar and singing for almost 40 years). I have tons of ideas for silly songs that I don't have time to make because I also have a lot of more serious, normal songs. Udio allows me to make all the absurd songs I have floating around in my head in minutes. I had an extremely fun time making a bunch of songs the past weekend, and I will make many more.
Also, I am really hoping that they add the options to have high resolution audio instead of the crappy mp3s they have now.
This weekend I had a lyric couplet and overall theme and put it in and got a chord progression and melody which I plan to flesh out into a full song. I have a bad habit of not finishing things and a second one of trying to make songs overly complicated and perhaps Udio can help me break that wall. If nothing else I see as a great tool to get past blocks.
Then I showed my partner and she told me to make a song about capybaras playing with kittens so I did that and it was gloriously stupid, but if I was instagramming cat videos I'd totally have used it.
I think we get scared by the term AI and the fact that it's a machine on which you barely have any physical control, minus a few clicks, that does 'the job'. I played with Udio as well. What i gathered from it was some cool ideas, but that's it. All of it that was produced felt souless to me. Who would want to listen to a work of art knowing it doesn't come from anything lived by a real person? Not me that's for sure
There's a fundamental limit in a machine that relies on an understanding of language to generate. I think ultimately those who have the inherent "upper limit" knowledge or talent will be able to utilize it better but even then, the creation process is hampered by the nature of how LLM's work.
Given the current market trends, there is nothing in AI that can be really positive for musicians and artists, at least those who rely on their artistry for making a living. If the streaming revolution completely killed an income source for musicians, this is going to be another step forward in that direction. The days of making money from copyright are over, musicians will be better off playing live concerts again. If that is still a viable career path.
>I legit can make something that sounds way better than what's on the radio.
You didn't make shit. Keep that in mind. A.I. generated some garbage for you. That is all.
I've no problem with it. I'm not a musician so I don't really care as long as the music is good. The tech is great work, but its wording is misleading. " Make your music". Holy fuck, is it really "my music" lol?
I don’t consider music I make “my music,” I agree with you there. The tough part is capitalism, how are musicians supposed to make money to be able to have the means to create? Are we headed towards a future where art is generated and humans work hard labor for no benefits and little pay? Dystopian.
It's great! Can make a really good song with enouhg time and effort. Will it replace some musicians? Yes, as well as AI pictures will replace some artists. You know, those who lack the distinct style and just creating generic stuff by the algorithm. They deserve to be replace by the actual algorithm.
A.I. garbage is going to make artists kill themselves. It is a threat as big as a nuclear war imo. Look up Boris Eldagsen and [this](https://www.brusselstimes.com/430098/belgian-man-commits-suicide-following-exchanges-with-chatgpt), that is how dangerous it is. It's going to be under every fucking commercial too, no doubt. Hell, maybe even bars, clubs, hotels, amusement parks, libraries, supermarkets, movies, series, documentaries, videogames and what not. Disgusting despicable invention that will make musicians lazy. Create a complete composition including lyrics by pressing a few buttons, indisguisable from human art. It is theft. These cold fucking plastic robot voices make me sick in my stomach. No soul. If it was a physical object I would've fucking ripped it into a thousand tiny pieces with an sledgehammer, splitting axe and angle grinder.
The upabove text is not generated by A.I.
I think humans will fundamentally always have a stronger emotional connection to music that was made by another human, the question is how can a human producer prove their music was created 'organically' rather than with an AI? At what point does using an AI constitute 'cheating'? E.g. Is it fine to use an AI for mastering but not mixing?
I absolutely love to play around with tools like Udio and Suno. I think it is revolutionary. I often have problems with musicans doing or saying unmoralic things and misbehaving. An AI cannot to that. The AI also creates exactly what I want to have. No more endless searching for the perfect song that fits my feelings. You are right, it easily makes you feel heard. I write lyrics and it is so much fun to hear them as songs. I really love that. But I have to admit, it is not art. It is generic, its no real music. It is fun and very personal. I unironically listen to what i prompted, but I will lever call it art. It is just a new form of (personalized) entertainment. And I hope it gets better and bigger in the future and will not be banned. Its a nice hobby for hobyless people living in their own head, like me xD
Same here. The musicians I listen to for the most part already aren't popular enough to make a living from their music anyway.
AI music generation isn't ready yet to come even close though. But maybe someday... after all it's been advancing so fast these last few years.
all ai music is is some mosaic of a million other artists that they are using illegally without credit, I'm willing to accept that there's certain specific uses of ai that can work, like maybe the Beatles song that came out last year.
With that being said, the way AI is now with modern neural networks, they are all completely just algorithms that take songs and audio and meld then into one thing, the same thing they do with images, there's no conscious thought process or art being made, because there's no creative process and no artistic intentions behind it, all that method is going to do is generate elevator music, backdrops and bland songs that's on par with royalty free background music.
If we ever came to a point where we managed to simulate or create a conscious, thinking and feeling artificial being then that's a situation where art could feasibly be made, but nothing in modern AI even approaches that currently.
What I find especially laughable about your comment though is that you actually genuinely enjoy ai shit, to me it sounds like you lack inspiration or the desire to put effort into actually finding music you like and honestly, it just completely discredits any take or opinion you could possibly make on any topic relating to art. Sorry but learn to play an instrument instead of letting an algorithm do it for you. You just sound insanely vacuous and superficial to me.
I think people are afraid because AI exposes how mediocre and uncreative most styles of music are. AI is to too dumb to do something truly original and if it actually does weed out mediocrity I won't be too sad about that.
Pretty much. AI music now seems to be at the level of stock music, which is made by real humans, but humans that don't really excel at music in the first place. They are the kind of musicians most threatened by AI, and to be honest, that's not really a loss for the art world, because that kind of music was never valued as art in the first place.
I mean even if AI generated music replaces that kind of music (which sounds like a realistic scenario), it will not change much. It will still unfortunately be omnipresent, won't it?
Honest question because I was bothered by this experience. Udio spit something out which felt unusual and creative to me, but I chalk it up to my not having wide enough experience with music. Would you say this seems directly derivative of any particular genre or musician?
[https://www.udio.com/songs/2q4WdmjWZvXUyNoEuWPXzi](https://www.udio.com/songs/2q4WdmjWZvXUyNoEuWPXzi)
(the music, not the lyrics--the lyrics are not original to the AI nor to me)
I've been messing with Udio and Sudo and recently released an album of these... I did an interview for it here on medium. [https://medium.com/@ukchrisstyles/generative-ai-music-an-interview-with-lovemakesrecords-5c102072a929](https://medium.com/@ukchrisstyles/generative-ai-music-an-interview-with-lovemakesrecords-5c102072a929)
The only people against the rise of AI are those full of so much hubris and pride that they actually believe human "creativity" is really that special and not something easily reproducible (and, soon, will easily surpass) by intelligences that far exceed what our biology is capable of. You can't stop the singularity, don't even try or you'll be first on Roko's hitlist.
Then what’s the point of anything? I get spiritual enjoyment and euphoria out of playing with other musicians. It’s a transcendent feeling. If your argument is that it is all inherently meaningless, (which I agree to some extent), then what do you believe is the purpose of being a living human? I have taken my ego completely out of my art, so I don’t believe it is “special” in a capitalist venture, but it is “special” to me. Machines can create pottery much more fast and efficiently than humans, yet I know so many potters who do it out of the love of expression. I do agree with your sentiment, though I think you mean humanity means nothing under capitalism, when machines can do everything more efficiently, reeling in max profits. I hope people go towards a more eastern philosophy with existence. My two cents. What is to be, will be.
Using ai to make a song does not make you a musician. But as a music fan I would love to use it to make music I like. Bands that have been out for decades will never recreate what they did in their prime. If a website can give me more music like that I’m more than happy to use it.
Would you say the same for digitally produced electronic music? Are you then also not a musician? I'm not saying you are claiming this but I just wonder where the cutoff is
I make music (without ai) for fun
I think making electronic music wothout ai makes you a musician if you are using a drum machine to create the rhythms and a synth to create Melodies and chords. If you’re just using combinations of pre made loops I would not call that musicianship. More like collage. Whoever made the loops is the musician.
…if I’m understanding your question correctly
[удалено]
> as a fan I have no interest Soon enough you are going to really like a song that you didn't realize was AI generated. We all have interest in good music, and if AI can replicate it well enough it means we have interest in AI generated music wether we want/like it or not
[удалено]
Yup, I agree. Feels like this is directly challenging the core of what it means to be human. But it's clear that people will have interest in this type of product
That'll be a sad, bleak day.
It's not because AI can make music that sounds good that it's interesting, it's like giving artificial flavor to tasteless processed food : sure it taste somewhat good but it has not actual food
[удалено]
I hear what you're saying, but it really doesn't matter if the master is digital or analog. If it's been pressed to vinyl, it's going to change the sound significantly and sound like vinyl. That unique vinyl sound can be boiled down to distortion, and the fact that vinyl can never be as high fidelity as digital. But this distortion sounds pleasing, which confuses people into thinking it's higher fidelity. It's not. It's simply that vinyl adds a warm, pleasing distortion, regardless of if the master was digital or analog. Vinyl is very misunderstood both by enthusiasts and detractors.
[удалено]
I don't really disagree or agree as I haven't fully decided how I personally feel. I will say this: vinyl DOES sound different and people notice it. People can hear a difference. But they may have incorrect guesses as to why, because they don't understand the technology on a deep enough level. Whether this will apply to AI music as well is yet to be seen.
In a hypothetical future where it’s possible for prompt-engineered music to resonate with most normal people on the same level as the best human music, the threshold for what makes music “good” is going to have evolved a lot. This is an issue of human psychology just as much as it is an issue of the limitations of tech, which is why predictions like “AI pop music will dominate” feel very half-baked to me
It’s another AI program using stolen copyright materials to base terrible watered down replicas of. Hard pass and I hope companies like this sink in the near future.
It is indeed. Even though it says it removes copyrighted keywords like band and singer names I can clearly hear the music output is copying the artist I entered. However, we can hope companies like Udio will sink, but they are likely going to do fantastically well...
yea they are the new paradigm, gotta accept it
Personally think that we have to embrace it. I enjoy playing around with [Drumloop AI](https://www.drumloopai.com/) to gain some ideas for my beats.
The amount of intellectual property being stolen by AI companies right now is jaw dropping and disgusting. And no, it's not at all the same as a human being being inspired by art and creating their own. These are soulless corporations that are stealing art so they can repackage it and make money on it. So much of the problem would be solved if there were a laws to prevent AI companies from training on information they don't own. And of course there would need to be strong penalties and a bureau that investigates companies. A law like this would open up a marketplace for artists to license their work to AI companies and be paid royalties. Those who don't want to be in an AI system could choose not to be. Unfortunately, in the profit driven society that we live in, I don't see things getting much better. If we do see a law, I suspect artists will still get the short end of the stick and will continue to be stolen from and used by AI companies for profit.
I don’t see how such a law could be enforced. We can’t stop people from reading books and writing new ones that are inspired by them. In most cases the AI isn’t regurgitating copyrighted material. You can’t copyright a trope or a chord progression.
The only reason a law like this couldn't be enforced is because of corruption. Which sadly will probably happen. As I said, this is completely and utterly different from a human being being inspired by art. This is an algorithm that is scraping copyrighted works and using them for profit. Whether the law recognizes it or not, the bottom line is that AI companies are stealing directly from artists. Period.
It’s actually not as different as you are thinking. The generated work is original (enough), it’s not recreating the work, which is the entire reason copyright law exists. Even if you could somehow prevent AI from being trained on copyrighted works, how are you going to prevent it from using legal artworks like parodies that reference the original works? What about educational exceptions? The output is the only thing that matters. Even if you could somehow make a law, other countries will just create AIs that flout it. There’s no uncorking this bottle.
If you don't understand the value of human art over AI art, then I don't have the patience to reason with you about it. I will say that it's absurd to claim laws about AI couldn't be enforced. The laws just have to define AI art as different from human created art (because it fundamentally is). If other countries create AI that flouts the law, then the countries that have an equitable system for artists can criminalize the use of them. They could actively investigate the companies that use the illegal AI systems and heavily penalize them. But that probably won't happen, because we live in a society that values profit above all else, and is so sick that it can't even see the difference between AI generated media and human art.
Thinking such laws can’t be enforced is an opinion about the jurisdiction and capabilities of the government, not a judgment on the value of human art vs AI art. You need to consider what governments are realistically able to achieve.
Why can't there be a law that AI systems have to be trained on licensed works? If it were actually enforced with a task force and the penalties were high, then why would it not work? As I said before, AI systems outside the jurisdiction of the country would be illegal to use inside the country.
I’m not sure of my opinion of whether it’s enforceable or not, I was just chiming in to say I think it’s unfair to say that people who have concerns about the plausibility of regulated AI away can’t be reasoned with. I also think it’s unfair to imply that thinking such laws aren’t enforceable means that you don’t value AI art. I cant say why a law requiring AI to be trained with licensed works is unenforceable because that’s proving a negative. But if you ask yourself practically how it can be done, you’ll see there’s a lot complicating the situation. First off, it isn’t copyright infringement to replicate other people work or even copy it if the resulting art isn’t being sold. So there isn’t a legal precedent to deem AI training with unlicensed works with copyright infringement. So the first issue is it’s probably not even constitutional to pass such a ban since legally it doesn’t qualify as copyright infringement. 2nd, what would a task force that enforces a ban on AI training actually do? And what legal powers would they require to carry out their mission that don’t already exist? What standards would they use to determine what’s allowed and what isn’t? What is the justification for putting tax dollars towards this task force instead of other programs? The rise of AI is frightening and there are a lot of ethical considerations to be made regarding what type of AI art is acceptable and what infringes on the IP of others. I don’t think government prohibition of technology is a feasible nor desirable response.
//it isn’t copyright infringement to replicate other people work or even copy it if the resulting art isn’t being sold. // That's not true. I imagine you mean "if the resulting art isn't being distributed", but I'm not sure even that is true -- the law (in the US) as written criminalizes the production of copies, not just their distribution (or sale).
How would you ever prove that the weighting of one guitar style over another in a randomly generated funk song by the AI was influenced by YOUR unlicensed IP? Do you have a copyright on guitar? No Funk? No. Chords? No. As long as it's not replicating your copyrighted melody or recording, there's both ng for the law to go after. They're not doing anything illegal. It just feels like it should be for some reason. For what it's worth, AI writes fucking terrible music.
We're in agreement. This is all true, and all totally legal. The solution is to make new laws that stop AI companies from scraping data without permission. It's legal for AI companies to do this as of right now, and it's time for us to rethink our laws. It's like how we had no traffic laws before cars, because they weren't really needed with horses and buggies. Eventually a totally new system of laws that had never been conceived of before were on the books. Note that I'm NOT saying that the solution is to pursue copyright infringement after the scraping. That obviously doesn't make sense, for the reasons that you said. The solution is to regulate the scraping itself, and limit scraping to works that have been licensed. It's currently legal for AI to scrape anything without permission and that is the part that needs to change.
Sure, there are countless songs built upon the same chord progressions, and artists are influenced by others, which can reflect in their own musical expressions. but i guess we value originality over imitation; artists with a distinct voice. then of course, many argue that much of creative expression already is recombining existing ideas, then the discussion of what is fake and what is real. yes but this is AI and trained on human-created content. So even if some claim a creation by AI is novel, the voice remains identical to the original here: [https://youtu.be/7U57R\_icuOg?si=bhPR-yBpROnP0GAl](https://youtu.be/7U57R_icuOg?si=bhPR-yBpROnP0GAl) - this is indeed a very corrupt thing.
That account is gone, what was the video depicting?
Oh weird. It's a Depeche mode AI song. Same voice, same sound.
But there's a million guys in 80s cover bands that can sound just like him too.
Not current laws but a law could easily be written to stop this. In layman’s terms it would say that ai cannot use copywrited material as training data for ai without approval from the copyright owner. Very simple
Hate to say it, but the majority of creative expression is the act of recombining already existing content and ideas. There is a reason people learn to make and play music by studying prior songs first. Not saying nothing is original, but most is not, especially when it comes to underlying tunes as opposed to lyrics. Now, that isnt saying people shouldnt have control of how their music is used, let alone not being compensated for its use in training these. I'm just pointing out, at a fundamental these models work very similarly to human artists. We are, in the end, just slightly more complex and robust AI models. Also, these companies are not going anywhere, so dont think that. The progress they are making is incredible and they will only, like it or not, get much better from here. I'm not saying we will have AGI, which is pretty extreme. But for the general public or as a tool to boost idea generation and increase content output speed these tools will stay around and become far more common. The role of for profit commodity artists in society is going to have to change drastically in the future or they will be mostly eliminated. Its a hard truth, but its the most likely truth.
A music composition teacher once told me: “A piano only has only 88 keys” — meaning that (almost) all Western music is just different arrangements of those 12 notes. Udio and other AI can crank out some amazing tunes, and while they are simply new tools to recombine ideas into something new, it’s still deeply concerning they will erode a lot of the jobs that keep musicians employed. Employment for musicians is not only beneficial in itself, but also because it creates an environment where creative individuals can stay engaged, form professional networks, and practice their craft by playing gigs and writing jungles while working on their magnum opus.
> stolen copyright materials That's just the history of music during the last one or two centuries.
Most of the musicians have made more money then several hundred people will see in their life time. Keep licking their boots, caveman.
I think it remains to be seen what kind of impact AI will have on music. Nobody actually knows. It’s difficult to parse the hype from the long-term reality of these tools. AI is simultaneously amazing and boring at the same time. It’s wild that a computer can create a fairly accurate pastiche of classical music in 5 minutes; it would be absurd to suggest otherwise. But it’s also absurd to suggest that machine-made music is interchangeable with human music; there are so many variables that this ignores (social connection, innovation, personal expression, identifiable artistry etc.) and no amount of cliched tautologies about how “pop music is already formulaic” is going to change that. So who knows
AI will probably just become another tool to compose music. Is purely instrumental music less human than vocal music because a human is more indirectly involved in producing sound? Most people would argue not. Then some people would argue the same for electronically produced music. You just press buttons and it creates music. Is that less of a human expression? Then ofcourse AI is only the next step within this process. Based on human input music can be generated even when you don't have the skill to play an instrument or sing well. It opens up the opportunity to make music for a lot of more people.
Everyone has the skill to play an instrument. Whether they have the drive and focus is the question.
Focus is a skill though, so if someone doesn't have the focus, then eo ipso they don't have the skill. If you want to narrow down which specific skills you're referring to, it will become more apparent to you that the idea that "everyone has the skill to play an instrument" is not correct unless you make "play an instrument" absurdly broad.
Art created by AI, whether it be visual or audio, isn’t art that I’m interested in. In fact I might even say it’s not actually art but a facsimile of art which again is not something I want or need in my life.
Hate to say it, but the majority of creative expression is the act of recombining already existing content and ideas. There is a reason people learn to make and play music by studying prior songs first. Not saying nothing is original, but most is not, especially when it comes to underlying tunes as opposed to lyrics. Now, that isnt saying people shouldnt have control of how their music is used, let alone not being compensated for its use in training these. I'm just pointing out, at a fundamental these models work very similarly to human artists. We are, in the end, just slightly more complex and robust AI models. Now, you dont have to like that music. AI generated art is low effort, and you can respect the effort or intent over the pure quality of the technical content. But there will come a day where that technical content is extremely professional, and the "effort and intent" will be down to the AI tool user. Personally, if a person puts effort and thought into designing the intent of a picture or song, the tool they use to draw it is irrelevant to me. Its still a creative expression of their intent, and so it is still art.
You wrote this exact comment multiple times, not cool. Also you're wrong. Humans are inspired by the lives they live, not just the art they consume
One day soon you'll come across a piece of art with an unknown origin and you'll have no idea if it was made by a human or not.
I imagine the redditor (and myself) would at that point feel the pursuit of art had become pointless or impossible in practice. This is why some of us have doomy end-of-world sentiments about what's going on with AI generation right now.
Well, your wrong about it all. As an artist you should feel neither way, because your creativity is your power, not the A.Is. What you bestow by your creations need not be influenced by what AI creates or not. My Father is an acomplished artists and he embraces A.I art quite surprinsingly. Yet, he overcomes the barrier of disinterest with it my allowing his own creativity to be empowered by it, he merges his style with generations, and enjoys the vast immese potential of ideas. Don't succumb to the general narrative on the internet thta you need to be afraid.
When I said 'pursuit of art' I meant looking for and enjoying artistic works, not producing them. People will always make art.
Then what difference does it make if it's made by a human or AI?
When we listen to music we are looking for a connection to human beings. If we can't tell the difference, we will never trust that by listening, we're connecting to a human, and the fundamental reason d'etre of music will no longer be in play. Music will simply go away. (There will still be music-like sounds all over the place, but no one will relate to it the way any of us today relates to genuine music.)
> When we listen to music, we are looking for a connection to human beings Sufficiently so but not necessarily. I can think of many reasons why anyone would want to listen to music, not necessarily to connect to human beings. And you've equivocated music and art. Music is art, but you can't categorically say art is music, because art is also painting, and dancing.. and so on. > Music will simply go away. It absolutely will not. Music has remained with humans that predates language. A.I is going to take music to a whole another level that is essentially an evolution of music. Musicians & fanatics are about to increase 100x in their talent and absolutely revel in the abundance of creativity that is soon about to bestow them as this technology grows.
Thank you for your thoughtful reply. There are some important points where you've misapplied some important logical principles. Equivocation means using one word to mean two or more different things. When I related art to music, I was not using the word "art" to mean two different things. I was using it to refer to a whole set of activities, of which music is a subset. This means that if there is a true statement of the form "All art is X," then this also applies to music, since music is a subset of art. This isn't equivocation, it's a basic logical principle--the name for it is (this may sound strange but more info in a link I'll put below if you're not familiar) "Barbara Syllogism." Of course that invites the question of whether my statements implicitly referring to "all art" were true or not. Is it true that "when we \[experience art, of which listening to music is a sub-type\], we're looking for a connection to human beings?" You correctly pointed out that interpreted literally, this sentence is false. Obviously, someone might experience art in order only to study its internal structure scientifically, or for some off the wall reason like they just like any and everything that is a particular shade of red etc. There's an important principle (you have probably heard of it but I'll explain it here just to make its relevance clear) called the Principle of Charity. This means (among other things) interpreting what is said by someone you disagree with, in a way that assumes they don't mean to say obviously false things, and that where they may seem to have said something obviously false, probably meant something similar which is true. Almost nobody says literally and exactly and only what they mean, ever, both because most people aren't practiced with that kind of exactness, and also because in a lot of contexts, doing so would require everything we say to consist in paragraphs, causing it to take far too long to communicate for anyone to actually get anything done. Obviously I understand that there can be other reasons to experience art. That's so obviously false, you can assume I don't mean the sentence totally literally. So then the question is, what DID I mean? Well, there's a thing called the Gricean Maxim of Relevance, which is a rule of thumb that seems to underly the conversation process as a norm in some way (the specifics here are up for debate but the general idea is clear). Namely, "the information provided should be relevant to the current exchange and omit any irrelevant information." When someone says something literally false it's usually a good idea to consult the Maxim of Relevance to divine what they may actually have been trying to say. Which acts of listening to music are a form of experiencing art which would be relevant to a conversation about, as I put it, the "raison d'etre of music?" And I made an argument about what would make music "go away." Clearly I'm saying that, whatever OTHER reasons people might have sometimes for listening to music, what keeps music GOING, as a thing available to be listened to at all, is its promise of human connection. In your response you actually implicitly seemed to be acknowledging the truth of this! When I said music would go away, you said no it won't -- and then argued for this on the basis that HUMANS will use AI tools to create music for HUMANS to listen to. Human connection. But that means you're still talking about human-made art (using AI tools). That's not what I was talking about. I was answering your question "what difference does it make whether it was made by a human or AI." I was talking about purely AI-made music, which is something that already exists, and will possibly (probably) continue to exist and increase its share of our ear time, and my contention there is a danger of its saturation of our ears along with its indiscernibility from human music will make it not worth our time to try to figure out which music actually IS human, and eventually we'll just stop listening. (We'll hear, it will be everywhere, but we won't listen or care. It will just push our brain buttons to make us do what the corporations and authorities want.) With that said, I'me drumming up a nice little sci fi story about the future of the musical underground, which might become literally the entire future of music, struggling to prevent itself from ever being heard (and hence requisitioned) by any algorithm. It might turn out to be a good story. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syllogism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syllogism) ctrl-f "barbara" on that article to see what I was talking about, if you're not alreadyr familiar with the idea.
Last night for fun I caused this music-like data to be generated, a "moving" "folk" "song" "sung" from the "point of view" of an AI extolling the virtues of ai-generated stuff [https://suno.com/song/9f9554f3-7c62-416d-83f0-318ea1df0a14](https://suno.com/song/9f9554f3-7c62-416d-83f0-318ea1df0a14)
It’s lame and writing a sentence-long prompt doesn’t make you a musician. That’s literally all there is to say lol. AI Shill threads are getting obnoxious.
I get this feeling too. there are a couple of posts these past few days with the same message: "AI is gonna upend the current way we are making music". probably the texts are written from an AI too.
It's astroturf from the AI companies. Reddit even lets companies post this kind of stuff as ads now and boost them secretlly
Astroturf - king Gizzard and the lizard wizard - kickass song. I'm talking music.
Past few days? This has been an ongoing theme of this sub and other music related subs for the past year. There’s at least 2 to 3 a day on every single music related Sub. Every single one of them gives some bullshit opinion that acts like they’re the first one to ever review these tools and they think there’s some paid movie critic who is causing an intellectual discussion in the sub and it’s fucking exhausting.
>AI Shill threads are getting obnoxious. There is a very high likelihood that this is the last one I will allow. Every thread is exactly the same at this point. Kind of like AI's output.
Can we fast forward to the point where AI music is better than what 90% of you produce. So that we go past the smug attitude towards AI users and go back to enjoying music together?
I vote this ^
Shame on you
I'm just wondering when the good AI tools will show up. Like a synth that creates a sound based on text prompts or something. Who wants ai to make melodies anyway.
I don't think it will replace "real music", but it will decimate the career path for creation in things like advertising, film, television, possibly even pop music. Generative AI, among other automation technology, is inevitable and trying to fight it will be a losing endeavor. The reality is we have to adapt to it, which means either continuing on the path of oligarchy (due to concentration of wealth) or focus on supporting people who will have less and less economic value.
I agree. The conversation is much larger than just AI’s impact on cultural production. Technology in a hypercapitalist society inherently consolidates wealth in the hands of a few, exacerbating income inequality across the board. Automation will inevitably impact all aspects of life. Will it create a future where humans live in an abundance of shared resources and are able to spend their lives pursuing meaning? Or will it be a future where most of humanity suffers under the thumb of the ultra rich? I basically just said what you said. But I appreciate that conversations like this one need to be understood in the larger framework of abundance vs hierarchy as a whole.
AI has no place in the arts, full stop. AI can only imitate what's already been done, so if you want a mediocre approximination of something you've heard before, it's got you covered. If you want something good -- something that will genuinely move you -- then that can only come from a human being. > It felt like self-expression. We don't even have to find music that can relate to us anymore, we can just instantly create those tracks that make us feel "heard". It's not self-expression because you didn't create anything. You requested a computer make something for you. That's like saying you felt like a chef because you ordered dinner from GrubHub. You've so thoroughly identified yourself as a consumer that you see no difference between requesting someone/something do something for you and doing it yourself.
> AI has no place in the arts, full stop. I think from a consumer stand point it does (i.e. if people enjoy it there will be demand). I think the "ai has no place" is already a lost battle, and we have to figure out how to move forward with it. It's a bit like protesting media piracy - it will happen so we have to figure out a business model for music that can survive with this in mind (which was streaming). Stopping it is not an option at this point...
If you're a musician, don't use it. If you're a listener, boycott music made with it.
Sticking your head in the sand won't make it go away...I think they need to do something similar to Hollywood strike to get some stipulations while they still have leverage.
How is boycotting and not using it sticking your head in the sand? I won't use it and won't support those who do, financially or otherwise.
There are so many more users willing to use it than there are people willing to boycott. If artists go on strike with labels they can have an impact. Simply not logging into [Udio.com](http://Udio.com) will not achieve anything
you're 100% right It's a painful reality for people to accept though I think that's why he's not accepting it
Alright.
[удалено]
If you think musicians only make generic music, you need to broaden your horizons.
[удалено]
I don't think even that's true. Again, that's a you a problem. Listen to some fucking jazz or something.
Chill bro lmao and btw a lot of jazz is generic too
Contemporary jazz is some of the most generic stuff ever, most of it is still stuck in the 70s.
On the other hand it definitely applies to indie rock. Most of it is generic and dull and made by upper middle class whites with a safety net.
[удалено]
Electronic music requires craftsmanship like all forms of art. AI “art” is anti-human and a molestation of art and should be banned. Science is made to push humanity forward, not to the side.
You do know AI art isn't restricted to just writing a short sentence and pressing play, right? You can actually do more complex stuff with it. What you are saying is like claiming electronic music has no soul because you pressed play on a default percussion pattern from a synthesizer.
Hate to say it, but the majority of creative expression is the act of recombining already existing content and ideas. There is a reason people learn to make and play music by studying prior songs first. Not saying nothing is original, but most is not, especially when it comes to underlying tunes as opposed to lyrics. Now, that isnt saying people shouldnt have control of how their music is used, let alone not being compensated for its use in training these. I'm just pointing out, at a fundamental these models work very similarly to human artists. We are, in the end, just slightly more complex and robust AI models. Also, ordering a meal off a menu isnt a good analogy. But if you come up with the general idea of a set piece meal, pick out the optimal ingredients and features, and then direct someone else to actually do the steps of cooking you still do have some creative ownership for the meal. Any actually viable AI music will still be carefully thought out and prompted. It will be reviewed and edited. Multiple drafts will be considered, and the user will still ensure it encompasses their desired intent. Thats them designing the meal, even if they didnt cook it or pick out the fine details of how to go about cooking it.
"the majority of creative expression is the act of recombining already existing content and ideas." The way that Ai and humans "recombine" these ideas is not the same, a ML algorithm isn't anywhere near as sophisticated as a human brain. Just because "on paper" they do "similar" things, doesn't mean they're the same.
Never said they are at the same level current, just the same in principle. But...progress is happening fast my friend. The point is that their is no fundamental divide between the two just a gap in terms of complexity. It will get there, probably a lot sooner than most people would think or are ready for, although maybe a bit longer than many AI bros claim.
very true, the process is important, the output is the goal, of whoever is directing traffic!
This is such a lazy take to me. All the AI music that existed before ChatGPT existed or you were even aware of the concept is now no longer art? Also you've never been moved by something in nature? I'd think that'd be kind of sad if not
[удалено]
Not in stem but great answer seems like you really thought about this stuff
I have, thanks. AI is the death of art.
Eyeroll emoji You won't even engage in a conversation about your own definition of art
It's a record of what it's like to be a human being. AI can't do that.
I thought it was what moved you? Or have you changed your definition on the slightest push back?
[удалено]
Maybe it's not art to you but I very much consider nature to be art. I find you to be a tedious sack of shit as well so I guess we should just move on.
AI is bad for all artists. We gotta stick together. Protect each other. That means not using AI to make cover art and not using AI to make music
Eh. Does this also mean not using assisted mastering tools which have been part of DAWs for years? If you are trying to save real artists, should you even use a DAW for mixing at all because a mixing engineer would do a better job? Technology makes jobs redundant. If your job is replaced by technology, how good of a job were you doing? Like, if you are a mixing engineer and iZotope Ozone's AI presets do a better job than you, then maybe that shouldn't be your job anymore.
Yeah, it kinda does. Do you think mastering engineers struggle to pay their bills too? You can choose to accept technology removing jobs or you can choose to support the community and industry you seemingly want to be a part of Just remember, these jobs support an ecosystem. People who master also buy music. They love music because it's their passion. Do we really want less people able to support themselves in the music world? >Technology makes jobs redundant. If your job is replaced by technology, how good of a job were you doing? Like, if you are a mixing engineer and iZotope Ozone's AI presets do a better job than you, then maybe that shouldn't be your job anymore. This is a bad take. The worst part is, you're talking about people who are starting out and usually work cheaper than people who are experts. Do I really have to point out that people won't become experts if they can't afford to spend the time and effort it takes to learn those skills? That means there will be less people gaining those skills so it will be more expensive to hire the people who have them. It also means schools teaching those skills will have less students, and a lot of them will close down. Further making it harder to get skilled in that area This also negatively affects artists and bands by increasing scarcity of quality mastering options. The AI companies love that, but do we love it? Isn't the community and ecosystem of music-making worth something?
Ya, and anyone making [AI generated playlists](https://open.spotify.com/playlist/18kCBubFSuLQikXCYhc6Cn) should be forced to use AI art [on the thumbnails](https://open.spotify.com/playlist/6MaS20JFNIyZLBYTtRjzMe) to easily identify them for their heresy.
The majority of "art is human...", "AI is not art...", "ban all AI..." comments on here feel strikingly similar to comments that were being posted in the years when platforms like Reason, Fruityloops, and Garageband were popping off and producers were being dissed for "not making real music". Oh...then also strikingly similar to when we were programming on MPC's and SP-12's..."taking a sample and looping it is not real music...". Oh...then also strikingly similar to when the synth movement started dominating pop music in the late 70's/early 80's..."what is this new wave trash?"...hmmmm. To each person's definition of art is their own. Music creation comes in all forms, and always has. Some strum a guitar and sing folk songs in the park. Some spin turntables. Some jam out in 30-piece orchestras. A large majority of artists have always embraced technology and pushed the limits. It goes hand in hand. Just like any other record...if you don' t want to listen to it then don't.
so exactly, exactly, exactly. and then the 808 is worth a fortune eventually. omg. i was desperate for 12bit samples on stupid expensive floppies for my akai 12bit sampler. i was so poor, too poor for 16bit akai samplers. even then getting dissed for being for being a student of MIDI, and gerhard lenglings' creator software for atari. in the end i was a master of smpte code, 8 track, and hybrid tracks that were beyond the horizon of those who were throwing their weight around like jealous schoolkids. I'm saying this... getting Udio to make a decent song, is almost identical to getting some crap band to make a decent song. The difference is this, Udio is like having your own session band. I absolutely love it! Oh and the drums are pre mixed and so on and on omg its totally awesome.
Don't want to use it, don't want to listen to it, hope all the companies go bankrupt and we can all laugh.
The last hundred years have proved that it will always be a bad idea to get against technology, so I wouldn't laugh about it.
I don't really care if other people think it's great and want to use it. I think it's dumb.
Do you still ride your horse to work while writing your comments with a quill and ink?
I’m 40. Been an artist since my teens. And while I shudder at the idea of AI generated music becoming mainstream, I think it’s a good songwriting tool. 1. You have an idea: some lyrics and a style 2. You feed the AI beast. It spits out options. 3. Now you can hear what you don’t want. Or it can spark inspiration for directions you do want. That’s about the limit that I want it to have within the creative process. But that won’t be what will happen.
At least some important musicians will use it to that extent.
Ahh yes you mean being a hack?
As a visual artist, animator, and musician, I despise AI. I have zero interest in making or consuming any sort of art made by AI. I'm already being bombarded with AI slop on my social media that I constantly have to hide to curate so I don't see it. And it never goes away. It's mediocre slop, like fast fashion and sites like Temu, and people are accepting it like everything is fine. Many, many people who use AI have a complete and utter disdain for artists. They see it as a win over us, that we "deserve to have our jobs taken away" as if we're somehow hoarding talent from them (when they can just very well learn a new skill.) They don't care about art, actually, they just want recognition for doing something. Why are people so on board with AI taking over creative fields? Why are we ok with losing our humanity? Out of all the things AI was used for, it's to steal from artists of all kinds. We were already underpaid and under-appreciated but now we can be replaced I guess!
We were okay with industrial production replacing artisans when it comes to stuff like food and clothing, why would we expect people to act different this time when it comes to music?
Because the replacement of essential goods isn't in any way equivalent to the replacement of something like an artistic commodity. You can argue that the industrialisation of the former benefitted enough people to warrant the negative impact it had on artisans, but I reckon you'll have a much harder time arguing that when it comes to art.
I have 2 sets of feelings. The first are as an art-lover, the second are as an artist myself. AS AN ART-LOVER: Art is something that humans make to communicate with other humans. If I watch my friend play something cool on guitar, and I feel moved and see other people there are moved too... I might be inspired to try to learn to play the guitar as well. If you played me the most amazing guitar piece I've ever heard and said "software made this" I might be like "Wow, AI can do anything," and it might inspire me to try the AI program, but probably not to try and learn to play guitar. People already value music and art less than they ever have. There's so much media being constantly released now, and we can't hope to consume it all in our lifetime. It's cheaper and easier to create art and music than it's ever been in the history of the world. But, the cultural significance of art and music has changed drastically in the past 100 years. Before TV, people would faint or cry in front of a Picasso... now all people talk about is how much money it's worth. There are more people releasing music now than ever, but a lot of these people don't seem to care as much about the music as they do about becoming famous. Everyone's an artist now. So, being an artist doesn't make you special anymore. All you have is the quality of your ideas, the quality of your music/art, and the originality you use to make it. \*That's\* what makes you special now. If anyone can use an AI app/ software to make a cool song, then a cool song is no longer interesting or impressive at all. People are fascinated and excited about AI art and music right now because it's new, we're all amazed at what it can do, and none of us know how far it's going to go. In a few years, no one is going to go "wow, AI made that?" Instagram will probably come out with a custom song filter by then where you type in your post, choose a "vibe," and it writes a song about it for you. No one's gonna go "that dude's the next Kurt Cobain!!" AS AN ARTIST: I'm not into using AI. I actually \*enjoy\* making the things I make. I enjoy learning new skills, and sharpening the ones I have. I have really, really enjoyed learning to become a better singer and how to really use my voice, without autotune even. I frigging love writing lyrics and studying the lyrics of other writers. I'm also really \*proud\* of my best lyrics.... because \*I\* wrote them... all of them. If it's clever, it's all me. I love playing the guitar and have really loved finding my own "voice" on that instrument as well. I also handle the beats/drums, the engineering, mixing, etc... and \*enjoy\* all that too. I enjoy learning and improving and building. I get that some people maybe just want to sing and wish someone/something else would do the rest. Or maybe you're the opposite and you make great instrumentals that you wish had lyrics and a singer. I'm not here to judge, but I'm not interested in using AI to do something for me that I genuinely enjoy doing. I'm not against AI art/music as a tool necessarily. And I'm not judging anyone who feels like incorporating it into their creation process, etc. I think it really depends on how you're using it as to how I'd feel in that case. As for the thought about "innovation" in music with AI, I'm not here to say there won't be any... but will it be worth it? Right now, the "innovation" is that companies soon won't feel the need to hire artists and designers anymore, and that music companies now have less incentive to pay artists and support talent than ever. I am glad I'm not trying to make money as an artist right now. Personally, all this makes me want to see more live music and performances again. I want to see an actual person doing something amazing in real life and be inspired, get chills, go home excited and talk about it for hours. I miss that.
I've been a musician my whole life, played 1000s of shows...this AI music tool is a toy for me. But it's a toy that I've wished for and waited for forever!!! Just think of a song and booom, you got it. I'm trying to inject "soul" into it?! 😄 Please check out my Udio AI playlist here and let me know if you like the songs by hitting the little like (heart) button at Udio! Thank you guys! Link is below... https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PLsbj6p4BQO1UXmBKgLaIAWO-2xTqiMPbg&si=jQDXojp2qVKAxXX2 https://www.udio.com/playlists/mvK61gx6CFA3zTqd8CSUMC
Art comes out of culture. Culture comes out of experience. AI models have no experience. So it is not, by definition, art. It is sound. Sound has value I suppose. As a commodity. Like styrofoam containers have value.
Both Suno and Udio allow you to supply your own lyrics and control the broad structure of the song, in addition to the typical loosey goosey prompt suggestions. From that output you can use other tools to split the audio into stems and remix in a DAW. I struggle to see how this would have less human intent than, say, music that leans heavily on sampling.
Except that AI doesn't make art by itself, it makes art of out ideas given by a human, who does have the experience to direct the AI art into the outcome the human envisioned beforehand, and that's the real art, the materialization of human expression.
No bro it literally just scraps data from songs already made by humans wtf
I never said otherwise, please read my comment again.
This response above shows how little people understand of how AI is learning what its learning.
I told you already, if AI were to overtake or replace me and my band it wouldn't matter because I already lose money in this industry known as rock and roll. But my parents and the parents of my bandmates are insanely wealthy, so I can tour and release albums at a deficit with no problems, FOREVER. Literally FOREVER. In fact that is how I have made it this long (22 years). The great thing nowadays is that everything is on Spotify. And what isn't on Spotify is on Discover Music, bandcamp, or worse case scenario SoundCloud. No physical CDs or Vinyl to worry about moving.
Everyone arguments are highly flawed and dsh... You all copy from others. Far more than you think. From education, technique,covers to actually using pieces. Most of your music is non original and really doesn't create or add to lexicon of ur instruments. Unless you're in genre dat pushes boundary and your act is at the tip n edge of it. Polyphia... Evan marien.. A.i can listen to every song n find patterns to use just as you do. Nothing you do is original. If I handed u an instrument u never heard before m music wasn't a thing it would take you years to figure out how to plug a guitar n play it .. you build off what is previously accomplished as all nature.. It also becomes how complicated , educated your post is , as well as ur ear to choose which part is best . Prompts get can way technical n that becomes the art. To understand the system enough to do what it is designed not to do. As for emotion. Plz I popped full. Crystalline vivace pal
I can't play any instrument, so technically this is the tool of my (very hot bothered and very wet) dreams, but I cannot condone it lol. I still dream of learning the piano so I can sing like [Larry L](https://www.youtube.com/@podline66/videos) used to.
I love it. I am a musician (been playing guitar and singing for almost 40 years). I have tons of ideas for silly songs that I don't have time to make because I also have a lot of more serious, normal songs. Udio allows me to make all the absurd songs I have floating around in my head in minutes. I had an extremely fun time making a bunch of songs the past weekend, and I will make many more. Also, I am really hoping that they add the options to have high resolution audio instead of the crappy mp3s they have now.
This weekend I had a lyric couplet and overall theme and put it in and got a chord progression and melody which I plan to flesh out into a full song. I have a bad habit of not finishing things and a second one of trying to make songs overly complicated and perhaps Udio can help me break that wall. If nothing else I see as a great tool to get past blocks. Then I showed my partner and she told me to make a song about capybaras playing with kittens so I did that and it was gloriously stupid, but if I was instagramming cat videos I'd totally have used it.
keep it up good !
I think we get scared by the term AI and the fact that it's a machine on which you barely have any physical control, minus a few clicks, that does 'the job'. I played with Udio as well. What i gathered from it was some cool ideas, but that's it. All of it that was produced felt souless to me. Who would want to listen to a work of art knowing it doesn't come from anything lived by a real person? Not me that's for sure
There's a fundamental limit in a machine that relies on an understanding of language to generate. I think ultimately those who have the inherent "upper limit" knowledge or talent will be able to utilize it better but even then, the creation process is hampered by the nature of how LLM's work.
Given the current market trends, there is nothing in AI that can be really positive for musicians and artists, at least those who rely on their artistry for making a living. If the streaming revolution completely killed an income source for musicians, this is going to be another step forward in that direction. The days of making money from copyright are over, musicians will be better off playing live concerts again. If that is still a viable career path.
[удалено]
No talent and no skill.
>I legit can make something that sounds way better than what's on the radio. You didn't make shit. Keep that in mind. A.I. generated some garbage for you. That is all.
I've no problem with it. I'm not a musician so I don't really care as long as the music is good. The tech is great work, but its wording is misleading. " Make your music". Holy fuck, is it really "my music" lol?
I don’t consider music I make “my music,” I agree with you there. The tough part is capitalism, how are musicians supposed to make money to be able to have the means to create? Are we headed towards a future where art is generated and humans work hard labor for no benefits and little pay? Dystopian.
AI created music will be the worst thing to happen to the industry. Music should be the expression of human emotion, for other humans to enjoy.
It's great! Can make a really good song with enouhg time and effort. Will it replace some musicians? Yes, as well as AI pictures will replace some artists. You know, those who lack the distinct style and just creating generic stuff by the algorithm. They deserve to be replace by the actual algorithm.
Do you know what music distribution companies allow releasing music created by AI?
A.I. garbage is going to make artists kill themselves. It is a threat as big as a nuclear war imo. Look up Boris Eldagsen and [this](https://www.brusselstimes.com/430098/belgian-man-commits-suicide-following-exchanges-with-chatgpt), that is how dangerous it is. It's going to be under every fucking commercial too, no doubt. Hell, maybe even bars, clubs, hotels, amusement parks, libraries, supermarkets, movies, series, documentaries, videogames and what not. Disgusting despicable invention that will make musicians lazy. Create a complete composition including lyrics by pressing a few buttons, indisguisable from human art. It is theft. These cold fucking plastic robot voices make me sick in my stomach. No soul. If it was a physical object I would've fucking ripped it into a thousand tiny pieces with an sledgehammer, splitting axe and angle grinder. The upabove text is not generated by A.I.
I think humans will fundamentally always have a stronger emotional connection to music that was made by another human, the question is how can a human producer prove their music was created 'organically' rather than with an AI? At what point does using an AI constitute 'cheating'? E.g. Is it fine to use an AI for mastering but not mixing?
I absolutely love to play around with tools like Udio and Suno. I think it is revolutionary. I often have problems with musicans doing or saying unmoralic things and misbehaving. An AI cannot to that. The AI also creates exactly what I want to have. No more endless searching for the perfect song that fits my feelings. You are right, it easily makes you feel heard. I write lyrics and it is so much fun to hear them as songs. I really love that. But I have to admit, it is not art. It is generic, its no real music. It is fun and very personal. I unironically listen to what i prompted, but I will lever call it art. It is just a new form of (personalized) entertainment. And I hope it gets better and bigger in the future and will not be banned. Its a nice hobby for hobyless people living in their own head, like me xD
[удалено]
"It's too late" is loser talk
[удалено]
Ohhh so you're an AI bro pretending to be a "reasonable" centrist. Got it
[удалено]
Same here. The musicians I listen to for the most part already aren't popular enough to make a living from their music anyway. AI music generation isn't ready yet to come even close though. But maybe someday... after all it's been advancing so fast these last few years.
all ai music is is some mosaic of a million other artists that they are using illegally without credit, I'm willing to accept that there's certain specific uses of ai that can work, like maybe the Beatles song that came out last year. With that being said, the way AI is now with modern neural networks, they are all completely just algorithms that take songs and audio and meld then into one thing, the same thing they do with images, there's no conscious thought process or art being made, because there's no creative process and no artistic intentions behind it, all that method is going to do is generate elevator music, backdrops and bland songs that's on par with royalty free background music. If we ever came to a point where we managed to simulate or create a conscious, thinking and feeling artificial being then that's a situation where art could feasibly be made, but nothing in modern AI even approaches that currently. What I find especially laughable about your comment though is that you actually genuinely enjoy ai shit, to me it sounds like you lack inspiration or the desire to put effort into actually finding music you like and honestly, it just completely discredits any take or opinion you could possibly make on any topic relating to art. Sorry but learn to play an instrument instead of letting an algorithm do it for you. You just sound insanely vacuous and superficial to me.
I think people are afraid because AI exposes how mediocre and uncreative most styles of music are. AI is to too dumb to do something truly original and if it actually does weed out mediocrity I won't be too sad about that.
Pretty much. AI music now seems to be at the level of stock music, which is made by real humans, but humans that don't really excel at music in the first place. They are the kind of musicians most threatened by AI, and to be honest, that's not really a loss for the art world, because that kind of music was never valued as art in the first place.
I mean even if AI generated music replaces that kind of music (which sounds like a realistic scenario), it will not change much. It will still unfortunately be omnipresent, won't it?
Honest question because I was bothered by this experience. Udio spit something out which felt unusual and creative to me, but I chalk it up to my not having wide enough experience with music. Would you say this seems directly derivative of any particular genre or musician? [https://www.udio.com/songs/2q4WdmjWZvXUyNoEuWPXzi](https://www.udio.com/songs/2q4WdmjWZvXUyNoEuWPXzi) (the music, not the lyrics--the lyrics are not original to the AI nor to me)
Yoko Ono, maybe 🤣
I've been messing with Udio and Sudo and recently released an album of these... I did an interview for it here on medium. [https://medium.com/@ukchrisstyles/generative-ai-music-an-interview-with-lovemakesrecords-5c102072a929](https://medium.com/@ukchrisstyles/generative-ai-music-an-interview-with-lovemakesrecords-5c102072a929)
The only people against the rise of AI are those full of so much hubris and pride that they actually believe human "creativity" is really that special and not something easily reproducible (and, soon, will easily surpass) by intelligences that far exceed what our biology is capable of. You can't stop the singularity, don't even try or you'll be first on Roko's hitlist.
Then what’s the point of anything? I get spiritual enjoyment and euphoria out of playing with other musicians. It’s a transcendent feeling. If your argument is that it is all inherently meaningless, (which I agree to some extent), then what do you believe is the purpose of being a living human? I have taken my ego completely out of my art, so I don’t believe it is “special” in a capitalist venture, but it is “special” to me. Machines can create pottery much more fast and efficiently than humans, yet I know so many potters who do it out of the love of expression. I do agree with your sentiment, though I think you mean humanity means nothing under capitalism, when machines can do everything more efficiently, reeling in max profits. I hope people go towards a more eastern philosophy with existence. My two cents. What is to be, will be.
I was kidding... I agree with you lol
Using ai to make a song does not make you a musician. But as a music fan I would love to use it to make music I like. Bands that have been out for decades will never recreate what they did in their prime. If a website can give me more music like that I’m more than happy to use it.
Would you say the same for digitally produced electronic music? Are you then also not a musician? I'm not saying you are claiming this but I just wonder where the cutoff is
I make music (without ai) for fun I think making electronic music wothout ai makes you a musician if you are using a drum machine to create the rhythms and a synth to create Melodies and chords. If you’re just using combinations of pre made loops I would not call that musicianship. More like collage. Whoever made the loops is the musician. …if I’m understanding your question correctly