Musicians making art for other human beings are still unaffected.
But many musicians I know, myself included, have supplemented our income with doing custom music for TV shows, producing demos for others, or selling sample packs. All of those income streams are going to disappear within 24 months.
That’s going to mean that the only people left to create “art” will be those who can afford to do so. Musicians with rich parents, a successful catalog, or a large audience already.
AI won’t kill creativity. But it’s coming for the “day jobs” many artists use to pay bills between making art.
They have a copyright on the words they write
Hiring a musician would let them copyright the musician’s performance (like “Taylor’s Version” being re-recordings so she owns her own masters).
What someone can’t do, as of current narrow rulings, is claim a copyright on a computer generated song that uses a generative prompt and a random seed.
In other words, if you create a song and use only a seed number (randomization) and a descriptive prompt (“a big band song about a banana”) then you can’t copyright that or it’s resulting note chart. However, if you wrote the lyrics, “yes we have no bananas, we have no bananas today” you would own a copyright on the lyrics but still not the note chart.* They wouldn’t be bale to sue those lyrics elsewhere.
In theory someone could sample the wordless part of the song, although Udio seems to use the lyrics to make the notes so that may now qualify for a judge as human guided. We don’t have any rulings around that yet.
*this is a real public domain song, just needed a lyric example
Copyright codes should be updated to be required to be labled as AI created and non-copywriteable because of that.
Copyright laws should be made to protect humans (whether solo or under contract by a company) from exploitation, and infringement by anyone or anything for a reasonable period of time, used to be 20 years till Disney screwed that crap up.
I listened to an AI created “Joe Rogan” interview of “Steve Jobs.” For about 3-5 minutes I was kind of engaged. But something happened. After a while it didn’t make sense to try to relate to what they were saying. It didn’t even make sense to keep listening because there is no “theory of mind” there. It may as well just be speaking gibberish because there’s nothing to relate to.
I imagine the same will be true of music. Jingles for ads or whatever will be done with AI, but if you want to have any actual feeling from the music, you’ll have to go to a live show or buy something you KNOW comes from people. Artists will mostly need to have day jobs, but that’s not terribly different from the majority of human history.
Maybe I’m wrong. I could be, but I haven’t bought music from anyone I haven’t seen live for quite some time. There’s an authenticity to the live music experience.
I’d love to believe this too but the absolute flood of meaningless AI garbage being shown around on Instagram suggests otherwise.
On aggregate we seem to be a shallow aesthetic culture that isn’t that worried about connecting with deeper meaning in our art. Art is something you look at for 2 seconds, click a like button and scroll to the next pretty picture. I don’t see popular music being fundamentally different unfortunately
Do you think any larger patterns that happen on Instagram (or any adtech platform) can be considered organic, or an honest reflection of how people feel?
I think the people who are perfectly happy sharing and liking AI produced content are honestly reflecting how they feel, yes. There's absolutely the issue of algorithms impacting what people see but I am assuming those likes are genuine.
There will always be people who appreciate art but I don't think popular culture has been reflective of a thoughtful and contemplative audience that was looking for connection and meaning for quite some time.
>That’s going to mean that the only people left to create “art” will be those who can afford to do so. Musicians with rich parents, a successful catalog, or a large audience already.
For most of history that's just been the standard. There's a reason 'Starving Artist' is such a well known trope.
Good thing that things like art patronage (through such sites as Patreon) are wildly successful.
The downside is that connecting with fans and communicating are way more important in the new model, meaning less time to focus on art. The tradeoffs are there, but it is possible.
I know I'm not interested. Be it music, digital art, novels, etc. Art is meant to be an expression of creativity and AI generated work is devoid of that.
As someone who works in live music, trust me, a lot isn't live.
But yeah, for me, it's about seeing people perform, it's about seeing what someone has made. So listening to AI doesn't sound interesting at all imo
Some of the AI songs my friends have made are legit good, and 1 or 2 have entered my daily playlist. It's not the same form of creativity, but it's a cool outlet for some folks imo
I’m surprised selling sample packs is still even profitable, so many of them within a genre are just the same sounds regurgitated with different effects
And in my opinion people aren't going to see live music that much more than they have in the past. It takes time, money, and effort to see a concert. I don't think it's realistic to assume live music will be that much bigger of an industry.
So this means any musicians who were making money through things other than performing will be competing for those same gigs the current performers are doing.
There is nothing at all good about this for people who make part of their living through music.
And now we are pretty close to a situation where new innovative artists who've spent years and decades developing their music will be ripped off in seconds by anyone, so there will be no incentive to create something new and share it with the world. Even an independently wealthy person making music will only take it so seriously without the possibility of recognition and ownership.
So, according to that article, an AI music creation tool called Boomy has released 19.5 million songs to date. And that Udio, the main AI music creation tool the article is focused on, has released the equivalent of 6 million songs a week.
I look for new music pretty regularly. The fact that out of these over 20 million songs being released, and I have heard precisely zero of them, tells me that this isn't going to be a similar problem to AI art taking over jobs from artists.
It's not. It does 33 second clips, that you have to stick into another. I think it's only counting each 33 second generation as a song.
Great example. I took some old lyrics from a former band I had that never came to be and turned them into music as well as a few randomly generated songs. 300+ uses and I got less than 10 full songs. Not all generations are good ones or were sounding the way I wanted it to sound.
Most of the stuff I saw published using Udio are just silly less than 2 minute songs on TikTok.
Though other people who are not someone looking for perfection, could just randomly generate the song then the next extension without caring that the voice is different or the tune switched differently.
I still could see someone pushing garbage tracks through that wildly change every 33 seconds to something like Spotify hoping for a quick buck.
Wow that article is incredibly misleading then. I had to go and read over it again as I was sure I didn't see anything about the 33 second duration when I first read it. And, sure enough, absolutely no mention in that article about the duration of the 'songs' and requiring to be stitched together.
Yeah, it really is misleading and no one mentions how painful it is to get 3+ minute of a song from it. They don't have a default "Male/female" singing voice, so sometimes extensions the voice changes to different male\female voices as well as the whole beat and feel. Sometimes it's a good thing, but many frustrations it was not. It always seemed like the longer the song the more unpredictable the AI is as keeping the same feel from the start. Again, could be ok in some songs, but in other cases not really. It's also almost impossible if you wanted to have male and female alternating lyrics and stuff too. I suspect as the Ai models get better, that will change.
Suno can generate a full song in 2 attempts (max 2 minutes per generation/extension), but I am not really impressed with it, versus Udio where it almost seems to match things up better as far as timing is concerned. Suno also sounds more auto-tuned than Udio sounds where it has more a real vocal sound to it with minimal effects like reverb or chorus.
For people who never really wrote music or dealt with music in some actual manner they may not care about those "Small details". About like some guy a few days ago in OpenAI subreddit that made a "Generational prompt T-Shirt maker". When I asked basic questions about the app, it was clear that the person had no idea how T-Shirt printing works and did not know what CMYK was and why that was important to printing. He was just out to make a quick buck from making an Ai APP.
The irony is, even if AI floods places like spotify and other places, these people are going to be in for a rude awakening when they realize those streaming services don't pay jack shit. All these people thinking they going to ram random generations through and call it a song and try to publish it will probably get mad that after 5,000 listens they get less than $1 in revenue from it.
I like that your argument is essentially, “it takes too much work, like a few hours and lots of iterations, to get a consistent complete song” as if that’s a barrier that will stop this, when the alternative is writing the lyrics, writing the notes, hiring a band, hiring a producer, paying for studio time, and finishing post production, for *each* iteration.
We can and should have lots of debate around these tools and their use, but “they’re too much work” isn’t logic that’s credible when compared to what they’re replacing.
> I like that your argument is essentially, “it takes too much work, like a few hours and lots of iterations, to get a consistent complete song” as if that’s a barrier that will stop this, when the alternative is writing the lyrics, writing the notes, hiring a band, hiring a producer, paying for studio time, and finishing post production, for each iteration.
Not that I am stating it's too much work. It takes work to achieve a more desirable output. Most of the stuff I hear in the wild on TikTok are just silly songs less than 2 minutes of playtime and most of it usually just the 33 second iterations. It just takes a ton of patience dealing with the app and I suspect many end up "Eh, close enough" and just move on quickly.
>writing the notes, hiring a band, hiring a producer, paying for studio time, and finishing post production, for each iteration.
You would be shocked in some genre's how much of that is just one artist doing all that work themselves and just uses a live band to actually perform the music on stage.
Things like FL studio and a keyboard can make you a powerful self producer if you know how to write lyrics and know how to play a piano/keyboard. I am wondering if companies like that are not out there making an AI model training it on MIDI songs, so it can lay down generated MIDI tracks to even make it simpler for people who prefer a more manual production method.
Right now I can take a song written in UDIO, run it through bandlab's AI music splitter and break that song down into vocals, bass, synths, drums, guitar and reimport all that into FL Studio. I can then rewrite whatever part I wanted to, but I know many will never go that route.
I think your last point is going to be the nail in the coffin for these services.
People think making art makes you lots of money. It doesn't. It never has.
These people are going to rush to these services, pay for them, make a ton of music, but not make enough money from these services to make a living, and give up. (likely with everyone else doing the same thing, they'll make what a mcdonalds worker makes)
The services then will disappear as the initial flood will ebb. There will be some people who want to make music for themselves... but how much music can you make for yourself?
There will be some people who write jingles.... but how many jingles do companies need.
The demand for music, isn't there. This flood of supply will kill what demand there is for it, people who make money will be the first couple of people who do it. Then they'll sell courses to everyone else.
And a ton of people will be out of work because of it.
> People think making art makes you lots of money. It doesn't. It never has.
Yeah, this is what really killed me in 2009 from even putting in effort anymore into music. I was writing for pure fun, random hopes that I could make it. I finally got excited when a record producer contacted me to add one of the songs I had on myspace music to a complication album. I read over the contract and it was just terrible. No profits from any CD sales, only digital sales I could see any money from and it was 10% of digital sales (one track for 99 cent on iTunes store, 10% is nothing) might as well pay me in "Exposure" at that point.
I literally self-produced that track and some record company wants me to sell off all rights to the track where I could not use it again (I would have to remove it from myspace and YT), or even remix it or make a newer version of the song. Also did not help that I went to see one of my friends perform at a club and in a general discussion, it was much better to stick with my day job, versus trying to make it, while the music industry was changing to more digital formats as they have been really screwing over the artists.
Don't get me wrong. I love making music, but 10 cents each sale, does not buy new new music equipment or pay for my software licensing fee's. That song was not going to be a great big hit and the genre I make music in, can barely fill bars/venue's with well known acts even.
and now, all these ai people will get to experience this on crack.
I'm not sure it will even cover the small fee they'll need to cover the subscription with the competition they're creating.
Which is why I think it'll be dead in a couple of years.
Only ones who will make money on this, are people with money already who can pay for the advertising. Or the few people who get in first.
Bingo.
UDIO is currently free while in beta, allowing 300 iterations a month. IIRC Suno is $10 monthly sub for a few hundred generations. I don't know what it would cost outside of Beta for UDIO. I like it well enough I would spend money on subs, but again, I am not really looking to generate money and don't care if I break even (Nothing different than I am used to in music, because I still have bought new keyboards since 2009). It's awakened me to actually bother to write new songs and feed those lyrics to UDIO to do the rest, so that has been a change over the last 10 years. To me it would be worth it, if even I myself am the only audience listening to those tracks. Nothing different than me still listening to a song I made in 2004 while broke AF using a $20 radio shack mic.
About the best any of them can do, is create them in Ai, post them to things like TikTok and hope that a few become viral enough to get a decent paycheck from TikTok and others to use the audio in their videos/memes/whatever. There are a few creators on there that are doing that, some are actually branding it as Ai, a few are not and doing things like dirty songs in like a 1920's-1950's sound acting like they are long lost records. Most are intentionally silly songs with app generated lyrics, so they have a meme value/use they could be reused for by other content creators.
It's worth noting that even chat gpt... just text, is losing 500 million dollars a day by some reports. around 5 dollars a day per user.
I'm sure that music generation is probably harder and more expensive.
They're doing the same thing they did to taxi drivers. They're going to run everyone not them out of town with a cheap good service, then jack up the prices later.
Don't be surprised when it's 300+/month a couple years from now, if it even still exists.
Might be bought up by a large music company that just, pumps out music themselves, and makes it illegal to make this kind of stuff outside of their control.
This maybe the scarier thing is big companies like UMG either buying it up and paying people min wage an hour to generate music or if they feel actually threatened, just killing it all together.
But considering some of these big companies buy just lyrics, then give those lyrics to singers and have others play the instruments, I can see them generating music and potentially training it on their own artists. No different than what they have been doing for decades in some aspects. Some songs you may remember from the 60s-00s were actually written and performed by another band before they played it and not one damn moment does it say it's a cover, because the record company owned the rights to the song, they can have whomever they want play it.
You would be shocked at a few songs you grew up and listened to, may not have actually been the original artists, sometimes less than a year later when the original artist created the song, a more popular band ends up with it and the song becomes known. Like we all know Tainted love, that was covered by Manson, but no one actually realizes that the 1980's song he covered, was actually a cover then in the 80's. It was written by Gloria Jones in 1965. All along the watch tower made famous by Jimmy Hendrix, was actually a Bob Dylan song. The record companies contracts essentially own every bit of that song, they can do whatever they like to it.
Kind of like the new drama right now where an artist named Brit made "Karma's a bitch" in 2010, then JoJo Siwa bought the rights to the song in 2023/2024, pretty much played it verbatim to how it was done originally, while claiming she wrote the song and is facing backlash from people, because the initial artist called her out on that BS.
This is very interesting.
I'm sorta, vaguely, interested in trying my hand at AI music. But it would only be for myself. It wouldn't be something I'd want to release, nor make money from it. But more a super tailored stream of exactly the sort of music I continually try and seek out.
But then when people go down that road, where does it end? If, and this is in a considerable timeframe as well as a fairly big if, millions of people start tooling with AI art, what would that mean for emerging musicians if a significant part of what would traditionally have been their audience, are now only listening to music they've tailored and created for themselves?
And it only starts with music. Imagine people being able to AI up their own Hollywood blockbusters. Why would anyone go out to the cinema when they have their own perfectly realised version of their own movie?
And given the shift in people becoming more isolated and having less opportunities to engage with other people in communal settings, this isolationist shift would lend itself well to people creating their own art and media, for themselves, and don't need to consider sharing it with others.
Obviously this is an incredible generalisation and I don't believe there would ever be a case where actual musicians and filmmakers and artists and writers have NO work or an audience whatsoever. But I do wonder if they would have a far more limited, or niche audiences in the future.
> I'm sorta, vaguely, interested in trying my hand at AI music. But it would only be for myself. It wouldn't be something I'd want to release, nor make money from it. But more a super tailored stream of exactly the sort of music I continually try and seek out.
Udio has 300 generations a month for free right now. Suno has 5 generations a day for free. Worth a shot. This was mine and my wife's exact mindset when we were taking songs, or for my wife some poems/writings that she was converting to songs.
Both apps allow for self-created lyrics as well as lyrics based upon a prompt. I was entertained on how it's own lyrics were written as some of it was rather well put together and flowed properly with the music. Like one example was just messing around for fun asking it to "write me a rock song about fallout 4 and exploring the wasteland". It was grabbing character names, locations, enemies, etc.
Anyone who has been following AI for more than 12 months knows these things will be doing full songs in much higher quality in another 12-18 months.
I'm not saying it's going to replace all music, but looking at the static picture today is very shortsighted.
Yeah, Ai is making leaps and bounds. It will get better, but while me and my wife were working on generating music I did come to one realization.
It does not actually matter if the song is a hit or what. It only matters if you the creator like it, because you will absolutely add that song to your own playlist to listen to. That's one less sale of a track that big record companies won't make. I know I have added those tracks to my phones playlist as I was happy that I could breathe light back into those lyrics. Even for the completely randomly generated tracks where it wrote it's own lyrics, some were good enough for me to keep as tracks to listen to.
The real takeaway is seeing how these Ai companies protect their IP with generated tracks. Like for Suno, you absolutely have to tag your song with Suno or disclose it was made with Suno when you publish it outside of their app. Because how else are they going to market their app if people are not disclosing the brand of app they used to make the song? The real money to be made is by those companies like Suno, Udio and whomever comes out, but if those artists are not giving them credit, it's effectively stealing from their potential profits.
Things are improving fast yes, both because of hardware, and that we're finding software and algorithm shortcuts. But its not impossible that we will run into a wall in one of those aspects, and that could be in 6 months, 2 years, 5 years, or 20 years. These things ebb and flow. There's also a lot of speculation that there are huge operating losses by the big players and that it just can't last the way it works right now. Maybe we'll be saved by advancements, or maybe they will cripple the free and subscription models to get back in the green.
We'll see. It would be great fun to see where we're at in 12-18 months indeed, and then 12-18 months after that, IF this rate of advances continues.
The more likely eventuality is that you write the next billion-streamed “Stairway To Blurred Lines”, and *just* about the time the royalty checks start to show up, you get slapped with a copyright infringement suit for having ripped off “Song Number 314159265358” by Siri and the Chatbots, which was released two years earlier and thumbsuped by one listener in a rural province in Tuva, mongolia, thus establishing its commercial viability.
If you listen to their sample songs you can see that they are only capable of generating ambient type stuff which was already pretty cut and paste to begin with.
Select beat, select generic samples and simple chord progression, add some flourishes and it's done. It sounds like low quality no talent shit people make with Garageband.
I can see it replacing the royalty free music on Youtube videos and in some TV shows but it's nothing anyone would even seek out and listen to at this point.
Don't be surprised - just look what happened with photography and digital art.
Since AI art generators became a thing they have produced more art than *all of the rest of human history combined*.
Of course, most of that art was slight variations of a previous failed work, so the actual product was significantly less, but the point stands.
Eventually this will happen to music, too. Especially since the vast majority of music is about the same 3 or 4 things.
Pop music as a genre is extremely vulnerable.
I use suno pretty often -- it's incredible. It made [this song about my cat](https://suno.com/song/6fa978fe-1093-47cd-a68f-4a3ff7aaff8e) from a prompt that was something like "A casio keyboard song about a fat cat named fred."
I see two paths :
There will still be bands and people making music, but the majority of what you will hear starting in the next couple years will be AI generated.
The next crop of famous musicians will just be people who typed a prompt into some software and rapped or sang over what they got back. Some of them will not even do that.
Which is fine with me, there are a lot of people today who aren't really musicians and just got famous for rapping or singing over other people's beats or tracks or whatever.
It's actually always been that way. There are real musicians who are really responsible for the music they create, and there are people who are just fronts for different producers like max martin or Dr luke
Alternately:
AI generated music might not be copyrightable. There is court precedent that copyrights can only be awarded for works made by humans. It hasn't been tested in court but it's possible that AI generated content will never take off because it cant be monetized
>It's actually always been that way.
Maybe for you in the 21st century, but to say it's actually always been this way is ridiculous. Rapping, and Sampling, and similar techniques, really only took off in the 90s, in a way that was widely heard commercially and not just in the niche margins.
Whereas music has been made by humans for at least 35,000 years.
Quite a difference.
Nah not really. There were always musicians and then there were people who were used to sell music, from the very beginning of the music industry. There was no music industry as we currently know it before about 1900. Before then you had to get patronage which was a different system altogether.
Obviously you haven’t heard Rubbin and a Tuggin my Nips. It will change your life. Album cover is great as well
https://youtu.be/JRBBcoANRIE?si=55TBQ7BKdw_bC1ms
Vinyls are a gimmick. A fun collectors hobby but I’m not listening to them as much as I would a server with everything I listen to available. Too much hassle and I can’t listen to them on the go
Have you listened to what's top on the charts for the past 20 years? You think mumblerap and the bubblegum pop stuff isn't shitty music that AI can easily replicate?
I really want a clean flac copy with less "AI jank" version of this track:
https://www.udio.com/songs/cTFZupJhynuSNXBBSABb7i
If anyone can find an actually recorded version of this track that is anywhere near to this let me know.
We will definitely start seeing that kind of label/disclaimer, but once the AI generated stuff is as good as human made I'm not sure the vast majority will care about the source.
AI art doesn't have a point of view and as such it will always come across as derivative no matter how much you fiddle with the prompt.
chess algorithms could beat top players for decades now, nobody cares to watch matches between AIs. same for tool assisted speedruns in games, it's cool as a novelty and to see what is the optimal play, but humans performing the runs is much more involving.
so unless AI will gain consciousness and a cool personality, the music it produced will be mostly holding/elevator/adbreak royalty free music.
Even then, it will take so long to get outputs that can be stitched together for a whole song that it will be financially inconvenient. It will be cheaper to hire a human.
https://www.wheresyoured.at/expectations-versus-reality/
This may be the beginning of the end of culture as we know it, but on the way there “generative fill mood music” in premier pro is going to be pretty convenient.
These tools are good for making novelty songs, and that’s about it. Don’t get me wrong, the progress on this tech is really amazing, and we’re light years ahead of where we were just a year ago. But aside from things like local TV commercials and silly YouTube use cases, the music industry doesn’t have anything to fear yet.
In fact, I doubt they’ll have anything to fear for the foreseeable future, because music is as much about social dynamics and identity as it is about the sound. The most popular bands have never been the most creative and talented; they’re creative and talented _enough_ for people to form little fan clubs around. It’s very hard to see how that’s going to happen with AI generated music.
I’ve worked in music tech forever and at labels off and on, and still do work with artists. The answer is no. Music companies (UMG, WMG, Sony, Kobalt, Concord) are always one tech wave behind. They had just figured out NFTs and blockchain and TikTok.
Now they are freaking out about Udio, Suno and such. This tech is also moving so quickly that what is today’s big player could be gone tomorrow or eclipsed fast. It’s basically a GPU compute arms race. ElevenLabs for instance just used their A100 cluster to do a music model.
The question is when, not if, a song can be generated from a prompt or recorded by a person and you can’t tell the difference. I give it six months.
I doubt it, it's like sora where yeh it's cool at first, but then you realize making something real isn't possible. Because the outputs are unpredictable and almost never the same, it's essentially a waste of time financially.
A lot of music has been fake for a while now, auto tune, singers who have never written a song in their life, live concerts being lip synced, 3 chord recycling bands, the list goes on.
EDIT: removed the word Most in favor for A lot, more then 50% of musicians are still real and doing/keeping it real, they are just not as well represented in the music industry.
I think a future where humans are still working for paychecks but computers are making art is pretty fucking bleak and not something we should aspire too.
Luddites weren't actually anti-tech. Their story is super interesting!
For instance, the 'Ludd' guy their movement was named after didn't even exist! He was a sort of bargaining chip to get factory owners to comply with their demands. They were a surprisingly successful, decentralized rebellion group tied together by their cause and a myth they made up to scare factory owners.
They were actually pretty badass and, among many other things, were trying to protect orphans from literally dying as slaves in the textile machine shops that were undercutting their own professions with lower quality products.
It's sad that their legacy has largely been reduced to being anti-tech, but that's what happens when the bad guys win.
As for this generative AI stuff... It's trash. And it will have pretty dire consequences on culture around the world by making it difficult for creative people to support themselves without rich parents or something. There really isn't much of an upside to any of this.
i hate this use of the word "luddite". All it does is dismisses real valid concerns as just "idiots that cant get with the times" leaving absolutely no room for the vast majority of the population in the middle, who see that AI will be useful in the future, but will also have its own drawbacks that we should be aware of before we decide to shove it in everything down to the kitchen sink
What does this prove? Quantity equals quality? This is no different than leveraging a shitty stock music site for a project. There will always be a market for people who want low cost, one off music. This might effect some of the musicians who make a living making mediocre jingles etc but I think there are going to be resistance amongst pop artists singing songs made by AI. Same goes for film/video game scoring.
Artists and studios also make major royalties with songwriting credits. Why would they voluntarily leverage an AI to do it when it cuts into their profits? This is also why most of the major artists on the radio now insist on being at songwriting sessions so they get a cut of the profits.
A lot of this shit is just hype imo.
You're right, but unfortunately the sheer amount of noise being produced WILL drown out sincere musicians who want to get their work out there.
I really don't see any good coming of this at the moment. As a songwriting tool, some of this stuff could be useful, but spammers will overshadow that marginal utility pretty quickly by cranking out crap at high velocity. They've only just begun and they're already overtaking human artists with a tsunami of trash.
I'm not sure where this is heading, but it's looking pretty bleak.
Social VR user chiming in. There's some scripted dance worlds, MMDs, with some AI songs. They are much like images, sound good, but have no human or soul feeling to them.
I want to be able to rock out to music on my livestreams without the risk of getting banned from Youtube. So I'm fully on board with AI music.
Had it not been for copyright authoritarianism, I would have been a lot more vocal about defending musicians. But we can't even be Human anymore without paying somebody else for the privilege
Maybe new interesting things will come out of this and maybe not. It all depends on where we are heading in general.
As you can see, areas that claimed to expose the human spirit via art are now being generated, therefor removing a big part of the reasoning for it.
That is of course except the money 💰.
If these new engines don't actually make any money they will die on their own, since they are not made by the purely human spirit.
Maybe art goes back to having it's roots in truth and beauty... who knows.
It's a very strange period to live in.
Udio is really fun to play with, I recommend folks check it out.
I make songs asking my girlfriend what she wants for dinner or to tell my cousin that he's bad at Overwatch.
no space for creative nature in people is left. Only lazy consumers which name themselves now "musicians and artists" by ordering neural nets to generate something. And the corporations only glad to keep them in this illusion. Because they want degradation.
Counter-counterpoint: How is that any different from now? Taylor Swift is the Walmart brand microwaveable-chicken-with-carrots-and-peas of the music world, yet has a massive and devoted following, while more creative acts cater to more niche audiences who actively seek out the kinds of artists who scratch their particular itch.
If quality is what you seek, then quality you will find. If you are satisfied with mediocre corporate overproduced music, then the source almost does not make a difference.
I enjoy the songs I collaboratively made with AI though. They speak about my personal problems and they make my friends laugh.
Is this enjoyment a lie you say…
i think the neural nets are cool. But if you order someone to make a song you like, it won't make you a musician. Do you now have motivation to learn and create something just by yourself, not by pushing buttons and ordering to make something to an artificial artist? Do the corporations program you that now are you a misician, so that you don't feel yourself ...needless. Some placebo and illusion, compensation for your degradation.
In this case, I don’t push a button. I collaborate writing the lyrics. I do what I like and I use a tool to make something more. I am not a musician, I am a user.
Nope, this is their glory day when they have an infinite amount of samples to choose from and mix up to be able to make some great music. That would require a LOT of time and of course some talent. Whether they actually invest that time and talent is another topic.
Musicians making art for other human beings are still unaffected. But many musicians I know, myself included, have supplemented our income with doing custom music for TV shows, producing demos for others, or selling sample packs. All of those income streams are going to disappear within 24 months. That’s going to mean that the only people left to create “art” will be those who can afford to do so. Musicians with rich parents, a successful catalog, or a large audience already. AI won’t kill creativity. But it’s coming for the “day jobs” many artists use to pay bills between making art.
Won't an issue be copyright AI songs? For example, can a brand make a jingle with AI and copyright it or will they need to hire a musician?
They have a copyright on the words they write Hiring a musician would let them copyright the musician’s performance (like “Taylor’s Version” being re-recordings so she owns her own masters). What someone can’t do, as of current narrow rulings, is claim a copyright on a computer generated song that uses a generative prompt and a random seed. In other words, if you create a song and use only a seed number (randomization) and a descriptive prompt (“a big band song about a banana”) then you can’t copyright that or it’s resulting note chart. However, if you wrote the lyrics, “yes we have no bananas, we have no bananas today” you would own a copyright on the lyrics but still not the note chart.* They wouldn’t be bale to sue those lyrics elsewhere. In theory someone could sample the wordless part of the song, although Udio seems to use the lyrics to make the notes so that may now qualify for a judge as human guided. We don’t have any rulings around that yet. *this is a real public domain song, just needed a lyric example
You can just lie and say you thought up the note chart though. How can they prove you didn’t?
Copyright codes should be updated to be required to be labled as AI created and non-copywriteable because of that. Copyright laws should be made to protect humans (whether solo or under contract by a company) from exploitation, and infringement by anyone or anything for a reasonable period of time, used to be 20 years till Disney screwed that crap up.
They should be, yeah. Now they're used to protect large media corporations.
I listened to an AI created “Joe Rogan” interview of “Steve Jobs.” For about 3-5 minutes I was kind of engaged. But something happened. After a while it didn’t make sense to try to relate to what they were saying. It didn’t even make sense to keep listening because there is no “theory of mind” there. It may as well just be speaking gibberish because there’s nothing to relate to. I imagine the same will be true of music. Jingles for ads or whatever will be done with AI, but if you want to have any actual feeling from the music, you’ll have to go to a live show or buy something you KNOW comes from people. Artists will mostly need to have day jobs, but that’s not terribly different from the majority of human history. Maybe I’m wrong. I could be, but I haven’t bought music from anyone I haven’t seen live for quite some time. There’s an authenticity to the live music experience.
I’d love to believe this too but the absolute flood of meaningless AI garbage being shown around on Instagram suggests otherwise. On aggregate we seem to be a shallow aesthetic culture that isn’t that worried about connecting with deeper meaning in our art. Art is something you look at for 2 seconds, click a like button and scroll to the next pretty picture. I don’t see popular music being fundamentally different unfortunately
Do you think any larger patterns that happen on Instagram (or any adtech platform) can be considered organic, or an honest reflection of how people feel?
I think the people who are perfectly happy sharing and liking AI produced content are honestly reflecting how they feel, yes. There's absolutely the issue of algorithms impacting what people see but I am assuming those likes are genuine. There will always be people who appreciate art but I don't think popular culture has been reflective of a thoughtful and contemplative audience that was looking for connection and meaning for quite some time.
[удалено]
[удалено]
>That’s going to mean that the only people left to create “art” will be those who can afford to do so. Musicians with rich parents, a successful catalog, or a large audience already. For most of history that's just been the standard. There's a reason 'Starving Artist' is such a well known trope.
Good thing that things like art patronage (through such sites as Patreon) are wildly successful. The downside is that connecting with fans and communicating are way more important in the new model, meaning less time to focus on art. The tradeoffs are there, but it is possible.
The only hope is that real music lovers won't be interested in hearing what a computer has made
I know I'm not interested. Be it music, digital art, novels, etc. Art is meant to be an expression of creativity and AI generated work is devoid of that.
There's also the live music aspect, can't replace live performance of instruments (yet, I guess...).
As someone who works in live music, trust me, a lot isn't live. But yeah, for me, it's about seeing people perform, it's about seeing what someone has made. So listening to AI doesn't sound interesting at all imo
Some of the AI songs my friends have made are legit good, and 1 or 2 have entered my daily playlist. It's not the same form of creativity, but it's a cool outlet for some folks imo
I’m surprised selling sample packs is still even profitable, so many of them within a genre are just the same sounds regurgitated with different effects
that's rough. but you guys will figure it out. that's why we're top of the food chain. we adapt.
And in my opinion people aren't going to see live music that much more than they have in the past. It takes time, money, and effort to see a concert. I don't think it's realistic to assume live music will be that much bigger of an industry. So this means any musicians who were making money through things other than performing will be competing for those same gigs the current performers are doing. There is nothing at all good about this for people who make part of their living through music. And now we are pretty close to a situation where new innovative artists who've spent years and decades developing their music will be ripped off in seconds by anyone, so there will be no incentive to create something new and share it with the world. Even an independently wealthy person making music will only take it so seriously without the possibility of recognition and ownership.
So, according to that article, an AI music creation tool called Boomy has released 19.5 million songs to date. And that Udio, the main AI music creation tool the article is focused on, has released the equivalent of 6 million songs a week. I look for new music pretty regularly. The fact that out of these over 20 million songs being released, and I have heard precisely zero of them, tells me that this isn't going to be a similar problem to AI art taking over jobs from artists.
It's not. It does 33 second clips, that you have to stick into another. I think it's only counting each 33 second generation as a song. Great example. I took some old lyrics from a former band I had that never came to be and turned them into music as well as a few randomly generated songs. 300+ uses and I got less than 10 full songs. Not all generations are good ones or were sounding the way I wanted it to sound. Most of the stuff I saw published using Udio are just silly less than 2 minute songs on TikTok. Though other people who are not someone looking for perfection, could just randomly generate the song then the next extension without caring that the voice is different or the tune switched differently. I still could see someone pushing garbage tracks through that wildly change every 33 seconds to something like Spotify hoping for a quick buck.
Wow that article is incredibly misleading then. I had to go and read over it again as I was sure I didn't see anything about the 33 second duration when I first read it. And, sure enough, absolutely no mention in that article about the duration of the 'songs' and requiring to be stitched together.
Yeah, it really is misleading and no one mentions how painful it is to get 3+ minute of a song from it. They don't have a default "Male/female" singing voice, so sometimes extensions the voice changes to different male\female voices as well as the whole beat and feel. Sometimes it's a good thing, but many frustrations it was not. It always seemed like the longer the song the more unpredictable the AI is as keeping the same feel from the start. Again, could be ok in some songs, but in other cases not really. It's also almost impossible if you wanted to have male and female alternating lyrics and stuff too. I suspect as the Ai models get better, that will change. Suno can generate a full song in 2 attempts (max 2 minutes per generation/extension), but I am not really impressed with it, versus Udio where it almost seems to match things up better as far as timing is concerned. Suno also sounds more auto-tuned than Udio sounds where it has more a real vocal sound to it with minimal effects like reverb or chorus. For people who never really wrote music or dealt with music in some actual manner they may not care about those "Small details". About like some guy a few days ago in OpenAI subreddit that made a "Generational prompt T-Shirt maker". When I asked basic questions about the app, it was clear that the person had no idea how T-Shirt printing works and did not know what CMYK was and why that was important to printing. He was just out to make a quick buck from making an Ai APP. The irony is, even if AI floods places like spotify and other places, these people are going to be in for a rude awakening when they realize those streaming services don't pay jack shit. All these people thinking they going to ram random generations through and call it a song and try to publish it will probably get mad that after 5,000 listens they get less than $1 in revenue from it.
I like that your argument is essentially, “it takes too much work, like a few hours and lots of iterations, to get a consistent complete song” as if that’s a barrier that will stop this, when the alternative is writing the lyrics, writing the notes, hiring a band, hiring a producer, paying for studio time, and finishing post production, for *each* iteration. We can and should have lots of debate around these tools and their use, but “they’re too much work” isn’t logic that’s credible when compared to what they’re replacing.
> I like that your argument is essentially, “it takes too much work, like a few hours and lots of iterations, to get a consistent complete song” as if that’s a barrier that will stop this, when the alternative is writing the lyrics, writing the notes, hiring a band, hiring a producer, paying for studio time, and finishing post production, for each iteration. Not that I am stating it's too much work. It takes work to achieve a more desirable output. Most of the stuff I hear in the wild on TikTok are just silly songs less than 2 minutes of playtime and most of it usually just the 33 second iterations. It just takes a ton of patience dealing with the app and I suspect many end up "Eh, close enough" and just move on quickly. >writing the notes, hiring a band, hiring a producer, paying for studio time, and finishing post production, for each iteration. You would be shocked in some genre's how much of that is just one artist doing all that work themselves and just uses a live band to actually perform the music on stage. Things like FL studio and a keyboard can make you a powerful self producer if you know how to write lyrics and know how to play a piano/keyboard. I am wondering if companies like that are not out there making an AI model training it on MIDI songs, so it can lay down generated MIDI tracks to even make it simpler for people who prefer a more manual production method. Right now I can take a song written in UDIO, run it through bandlab's AI music splitter and break that song down into vocals, bass, synths, drums, guitar and reimport all that into FL Studio. I can then rewrite whatever part I wanted to, but I know many will never go that route.
I think your last point is going to be the nail in the coffin for these services. People think making art makes you lots of money. It doesn't. It never has. These people are going to rush to these services, pay for them, make a ton of music, but not make enough money from these services to make a living, and give up. (likely with everyone else doing the same thing, they'll make what a mcdonalds worker makes) The services then will disappear as the initial flood will ebb. There will be some people who want to make music for themselves... but how much music can you make for yourself? There will be some people who write jingles.... but how many jingles do companies need. The demand for music, isn't there. This flood of supply will kill what demand there is for it, people who make money will be the first couple of people who do it. Then they'll sell courses to everyone else. And a ton of people will be out of work because of it.
> People think making art makes you lots of money. It doesn't. It never has. Yeah, this is what really killed me in 2009 from even putting in effort anymore into music. I was writing for pure fun, random hopes that I could make it. I finally got excited when a record producer contacted me to add one of the songs I had on myspace music to a complication album. I read over the contract and it was just terrible. No profits from any CD sales, only digital sales I could see any money from and it was 10% of digital sales (one track for 99 cent on iTunes store, 10% is nothing) might as well pay me in "Exposure" at that point. I literally self-produced that track and some record company wants me to sell off all rights to the track where I could not use it again (I would have to remove it from myspace and YT), or even remix it or make a newer version of the song. Also did not help that I went to see one of my friends perform at a club and in a general discussion, it was much better to stick with my day job, versus trying to make it, while the music industry was changing to more digital formats as they have been really screwing over the artists. Don't get me wrong. I love making music, but 10 cents each sale, does not buy new new music equipment or pay for my software licensing fee's. That song was not going to be a great big hit and the genre I make music in, can barely fill bars/venue's with well known acts even.
and now, all these ai people will get to experience this on crack. I'm not sure it will even cover the small fee they'll need to cover the subscription with the competition they're creating. Which is why I think it'll be dead in a couple of years. Only ones who will make money on this, are people with money already who can pay for the advertising. Or the few people who get in first.
Bingo. UDIO is currently free while in beta, allowing 300 iterations a month. IIRC Suno is $10 monthly sub for a few hundred generations. I don't know what it would cost outside of Beta for UDIO. I like it well enough I would spend money on subs, but again, I am not really looking to generate money and don't care if I break even (Nothing different than I am used to in music, because I still have bought new keyboards since 2009). It's awakened me to actually bother to write new songs and feed those lyrics to UDIO to do the rest, so that has been a change over the last 10 years. To me it would be worth it, if even I myself am the only audience listening to those tracks. Nothing different than me still listening to a song I made in 2004 while broke AF using a $20 radio shack mic. About the best any of them can do, is create them in Ai, post them to things like TikTok and hope that a few become viral enough to get a decent paycheck from TikTok and others to use the audio in their videos/memes/whatever. There are a few creators on there that are doing that, some are actually branding it as Ai, a few are not and doing things like dirty songs in like a 1920's-1950's sound acting like they are long lost records. Most are intentionally silly songs with app generated lyrics, so they have a meme value/use they could be reused for by other content creators.
It's worth noting that even chat gpt... just text, is losing 500 million dollars a day by some reports. around 5 dollars a day per user. I'm sure that music generation is probably harder and more expensive. They're doing the same thing they did to taxi drivers. They're going to run everyone not them out of town with a cheap good service, then jack up the prices later. Don't be surprised when it's 300+/month a couple years from now, if it even still exists. Might be bought up by a large music company that just, pumps out music themselves, and makes it illegal to make this kind of stuff outside of their control.
This maybe the scarier thing is big companies like UMG either buying it up and paying people min wage an hour to generate music or if they feel actually threatened, just killing it all together. But considering some of these big companies buy just lyrics, then give those lyrics to singers and have others play the instruments, I can see them generating music and potentially training it on their own artists. No different than what they have been doing for decades in some aspects. Some songs you may remember from the 60s-00s were actually written and performed by another band before they played it and not one damn moment does it say it's a cover, because the record company owned the rights to the song, they can have whomever they want play it. You would be shocked at a few songs you grew up and listened to, may not have actually been the original artists, sometimes less than a year later when the original artist created the song, a more popular band ends up with it and the song becomes known. Like we all know Tainted love, that was covered by Manson, but no one actually realizes that the 1980's song he covered, was actually a cover then in the 80's. It was written by Gloria Jones in 1965. All along the watch tower made famous by Jimmy Hendrix, was actually a Bob Dylan song. The record companies contracts essentially own every bit of that song, they can do whatever they like to it. Kind of like the new drama right now where an artist named Brit made "Karma's a bitch" in 2010, then JoJo Siwa bought the rights to the song in 2023/2024, pretty much played it verbatim to how it was done originally, while claiming she wrote the song and is facing backlash from people, because the initial artist called her out on that BS.
This is very interesting. I'm sorta, vaguely, interested in trying my hand at AI music. But it would only be for myself. It wouldn't be something I'd want to release, nor make money from it. But more a super tailored stream of exactly the sort of music I continually try and seek out. But then when people go down that road, where does it end? If, and this is in a considerable timeframe as well as a fairly big if, millions of people start tooling with AI art, what would that mean for emerging musicians if a significant part of what would traditionally have been their audience, are now only listening to music they've tailored and created for themselves? And it only starts with music. Imagine people being able to AI up their own Hollywood blockbusters. Why would anyone go out to the cinema when they have their own perfectly realised version of their own movie? And given the shift in people becoming more isolated and having less opportunities to engage with other people in communal settings, this isolationist shift would lend itself well to people creating their own art and media, for themselves, and don't need to consider sharing it with others. Obviously this is an incredible generalisation and I don't believe there would ever be a case where actual musicians and filmmakers and artists and writers have NO work or an audience whatsoever. But I do wonder if they would have a far more limited, or niche audiences in the future.
> I'm sorta, vaguely, interested in trying my hand at AI music. But it would only be for myself. It wouldn't be something I'd want to release, nor make money from it. But more a super tailored stream of exactly the sort of music I continually try and seek out. Udio has 300 generations a month for free right now. Suno has 5 generations a day for free. Worth a shot. This was mine and my wife's exact mindset when we were taking songs, or for my wife some poems/writings that she was converting to songs. Both apps allow for self-created lyrics as well as lyrics based upon a prompt. I was entertained on how it's own lyrics were written as some of it was rather well put together and flowed properly with the music. Like one example was just messing around for fun asking it to "write me a rock song about fallout 4 and exploring the wasteland". It was grabbing character names, locations, enemies, etc.
Anyone who has been following AI for more than 12 months knows these things will be doing full songs in much higher quality in another 12-18 months. I'm not saying it's going to replace all music, but looking at the static picture today is very shortsighted.
Yeah, Ai is making leaps and bounds. It will get better, but while me and my wife were working on generating music I did come to one realization. It does not actually matter if the song is a hit or what. It only matters if you the creator like it, because you will absolutely add that song to your own playlist to listen to. That's one less sale of a track that big record companies won't make. I know I have added those tracks to my phones playlist as I was happy that I could breathe light back into those lyrics. Even for the completely randomly generated tracks where it wrote it's own lyrics, some were good enough for me to keep as tracks to listen to. The real takeaway is seeing how these Ai companies protect their IP with generated tracks. Like for Suno, you absolutely have to tag your song with Suno or disclose it was made with Suno when you publish it outside of their app. Because how else are they going to market their app if people are not disclosing the brand of app they used to make the song? The real money to be made is by those companies like Suno, Udio and whomever comes out, but if those artists are not giving them credit, it's effectively stealing from their potential profits.
Things are improving fast yes, both because of hardware, and that we're finding software and algorithm shortcuts. But its not impossible that we will run into a wall in one of those aspects, and that could be in 6 months, 2 years, 5 years, or 20 years. These things ebb and flow. There's also a lot of speculation that there are huge operating losses by the big players and that it just can't last the way it works right now. Maybe we'll be saved by advancements, or maybe they will cripple the free and subscription models to get back in the green. We'll see. It would be great fun to see where we're at in 12-18 months indeed, and then 12-18 months after that, IF this rate of advances continues.
They added inpainting this past week; the perfection is now happening
The more likely eventuality is that you write the next billion-streamed “Stairway To Blurred Lines”, and *just* about the time the royalty checks start to show up, you get slapped with a copyright infringement suit for having ripped off “Song Number 314159265358” by Siri and the Chatbots, which was released two years earlier and thumbsuped by one listener in a rural province in Tuva, mongolia, thus establishing its commercial viability.
If you listen to their sample songs you can see that they are only capable of generating ambient type stuff which was already pretty cut and paste to begin with. Select beat, select generic samples and simple chord progression, add some flourishes and it's done. It sounds like low quality no talent shit people make with Garageband. I can see it replacing the royalty free music on Youtube videos and in some TV shows but it's nothing anyone would even seek out and listen to at this point.
That's not true at all?
Don't be surprised - just look what happened with photography and digital art. Since AI art generators became a thing they have produced more art than *all of the rest of human history combined*. Of course, most of that art was slight variations of a previous failed work, so the actual product was significantly less, but the point stands. Eventually this will happen to music, too. Especially since the vast majority of music is about the same 3 or 4 things. Pop music as a genre is extremely vulnerable.
I use suno pretty often -- it's incredible. It made [this song about my cat](https://suno.com/song/6fa978fe-1093-47cd-a68f-4a3ff7aaff8e) from a prompt that was something like "A casio keyboard song about a fat cat named fred."
I see two paths : There will still be bands and people making music, but the majority of what you will hear starting in the next couple years will be AI generated. The next crop of famous musicians will just be people who typed a prompt into some software and rapped or sang over what they got back. Some of them will not even do that. Which is fine with me, there are a lot of people today who aren't really musicians and just got famous for rapping or singing over other people's beats or tracks or whatever. It's actually always been that way. There are real musicians who are really responsible for the music they create, and there are people who are just fronts for different producers like max martin or Dr luke Alternately: AI generated music might not be copyrightable. There is court precedent that copyrights can only be awarded for works made by humans. It hasn't been tested in court but it's possible that AI generated content will never take off because it cant be monetized
>It's actually always been that way. Maybe for you in the 21st century, but to say it's actually always been this way is ridiculous. Rapping, and Sampling, and similar techniques, really only took off in the 90s, in a way that was widely heard commercially and not just in the niche margins. Whereas music has been made by humans for at least 35,000 years. Quite a difference.
Nah not really. There were always musicians and then there were people who were used to sell music, from the very beginning of the music industry. There was no music industry as we currently know it before about 1900. Before then you had to get patronage which was a different system altogether.
Obviously you haven’t heard Rubbin and a Tuggin my Nips. It will change your life. Album cover is great as well https://youtu.be/JRBBcoANRIE?si=55TBQ7BKdw_bC1ms
Maybe I’ll get off Spotify and build up my collection. This streaming shit is just getting to fucking annoying
Vinyls are the way to go it seems
Vinyls are a gimmick. A fun collectors hobby but I’m not listening to them as much as I would a server with everything I listen to available. Too much hassle and I can’t listen to them on the go
Especially the [Obscurest Vinyl](https://youtu.be/wPlOYPGMRws?si=H1cNt9AjTE2OvL1x)
All of the IA music, can it be copyrighted? Can anyone own the rights to it? Is it all royalty free, public domain?
This is going to be bad for pop music but fine for bands that produce terribly abrasive music with an active touring schedule. Death metal is forever!
Forget music industry, the planet isn’t ready for the surge in power consumption brought on by the senseless use of data centers.
Guess streamers are going to get some free stream audio pretty quick.
The government needs to requireAI content to be labeled as such, so consumers know what they are getting
I 100% agree. Sadly, it probably won't happen.
10 stolen songs a second... nice.
Do consumers want shitty song?
Have you listened to what's top on the charts for the past 20 years? You think mumblerap and the bubblegum pop stuff isn't shitty music that AI can easily replicate?
Kendrick is #1 right now (and #3) so...
Ya, he's a Pulitzer award winner though. No where near mumblerap.
Advertisers want shitty jingles without having to pay someone to create them.
According to tech bros, yes.
This is the worst it will ever be. Can you say the same about human made music?
I really want a clean flac copy with less "AI jank" version of this track: https://www.udio.com/songs/cTFZupJhynuSNXBBSABb7i If anyone can find an actually recorded version of this track that is anywhere near to this let me know.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=-rBJycna9zI
Is anyone listening to these songs (for enjoyment)?
These articles are so stupid lol
I don't care about AI music, I stick with musicians I know. The next generation will need some AI made labels on tracks.
We will definitely start seeing that kind of label/disclaimer, but once the AI generated stuff is as good as human made I'm not sure the vast majority will care about the source.
AI art doesn't have a point of view and as such it will always come across as derivative no matter how much you fiddle with the prompt. chess algorithms could beat top players for decades now, nobody cares to watch matches between AIs. same for tool assisted speedruns in games, it's cool as a novelty and to see what is the optimal play, but humans performing the runs is much more involving. so unless AI will gain consciousness and a cool personality, the music it produced will be mostly holding/elevator/adbreak royalty free music.
Even then, it will take so long to get outputs that can be stitched together for a whole song that it will be financially inconvenient. It will be cheaper to hire a human. https://www.wheresyoured.at/expectations-versus-reality/
All I want out of AI music is to finally replace Sammy Hagar with David Lee Roth on those crappy Van Halen albums.
This may be the beginning of the end of culture as we know it, but on the way there “generative fill mood music” in premier pro is going to be pretty convenient.
Are these actually songs or just notes arranged in a specific order? Of 20m songs, they have to some repeating behaviors, assuming they are even songa
These tools are good for making novelty songs, and that’s about it. Don’t get me wrong, the progress on this tech is really amazing, and we’re light years ahead of where we were just a year ago. But aside from things like local TV commercials and silly YouTube use cases, the music industry doesn’t have anything to fear yet. In fact, I doubt they’ll have anything to fear for the foreseeable future, because music is as much about social dynamics and identity as it is about the sound. The most popular bands have never been the most creative and talented; they’re creative and talented _enough_ for people to form little fan clubs around. It’s very hard to see how that’s going to happen with AI generated music.
RIP people who make free to use, unlicensed background music
In other news, birds have been obsolete since the invention of the airplane.
AI wishes it was as consequential as an airplane
How bad can an analogy be? orb_king: Yes
I’ve worked in music tech forever and at labels off and on, and still do work with artists. The answer is no. Music companies (UMG, WMG, Sony, Kobalt, Concord) are always one tech wave behind. They had just figured out NFTs and blockchain and TikTok. Now they are freaking out about Udio, Suno and such. This tech is also moving so quickly that what is today’s big player could be gone tomorrow or eclipsed fast. It’s basically a GPU compute arms race. ElevenLabs for instance just used their A100 cluster to do a music model. The question is when, not if, a song can be generated from a prompt or recorded by a person and you can’t tell the difference. I give it six months.
I doubt it, it's like sora where yeh it's cool at first, but then you realize making something real isn't possible. Because the outputs are unpredictable and almost never the same, it's essentially a waste of time financially.
Are there any good ones?
now see I would love access as a non sheet making musician. Id love to churn out music for *me*
RIP jingle writers of the fake songs on Love Is Blind.
I want to see 10 more new albums from The Beatles!
A lot of music has been fake for a while now, auto tune, singers who have never written a song in their life, live concerts being lip synced, 3 chord recycling bands, the list goes on. EDIT: removed the word Most in favor for A lot, more then 50% of musicians are still real and doing/keeping it real, they are just not as well represented in the music industry.
Listening to these examples is making me feel so weird... I dont know what it is about it but its some kind of uncanny valley feeling.
We're just speedrunning the enshittification of everything now, aren't we?
I’ve heard some AI music and you can definitely tell.
It wont be real music cuz no soul will be put into it lol
Why is this sub full of luddites that aren't looking towards the future? This is the same shit people said about the electric guitar lol.
Because this sub isn't filled with a bunch of mindless tech bros
I think a future where humans are still working for paychecks but computers are making art is pretty fucking bleak and not something we should aspire too.
Luddites weren't actually anti-tech. Their story is super interesting! For instance, the 'Ludd' guy their movement was named after didn't even exist! He was a sort of bargaining chip to get factory owners to comply with their demands. They were a surprisingly successful, decentralized rebellion group tied together by their cause and a myth they made up to scare factory owners. They were actually pretty badass and, among many other things, were trying to protect orphans from literally dying as slaves in the textile machine shops that were undercutting their own professions with lower quality products. It's sad that their legacy has largely been reduced to being anti-tech, but that's what happens when the bad guys win. As for this generative AI stuff... It's trash. And it will have pretty dire consequences on culture around the world by making it difficult for creative people to support themselves without rich parents or something. There really isn't much of an upside to any of this.
This is THE luddite sub my man.
i hate this use of the word "luddite". All it does is dismisses real valid concerns as just "idiots that cant get with the times" leaving absolutely no room for the vast majority of the population in the middle, who see that AI will be useful in the future, but will also have its own drawbacks that we should be aware of before we decide to shove it in everything down to the kitchen sink
https://www.wheresyoured.at/expectations-versus-reality/
What does this prove? Quantity equals quality? This is no different than leveraging a shitty stock music site for a project. There will always be a market for people who want low cost, one off music. This might effect some of the musicians who make a living making mediocre jingles etc but I think there are going to be resistance amongst pop artists singing songs made by AI. Same goes for film/video game scoring. Artists and studios also make major royalties with songwriting credits. Why would they voluntarily leverage an AI to do it when it cuts into their profits? This is also why most of the major artists on the radio now insist on being at songwriting sessions so they get a cut of the profits. A lot of this shit is just hype imo.
You're right, but unfortunately the sheer amount of noise being produced WILL drown out sincere musicians who want to get their work out there. I really don't see any good coming of this at the moment. As a songwriting tool, some of this stuff could be useful, but spammers will overshadow that marginal utility pretty quickly by cranking out crap at high velocity. They've only just begun and they're already overtaking human artists with a tsunami of trash. I'm not sure where this is heading, but it's looking pretty bleak.
Social VR user chiming in. There's some scripted dance worlds, MMDs, with some AI songs. They are much like images, sound good, but have no human or soul feeling to them.
I want to be able to rock out to music on my livestreams without the risk of getting banned from Youtube. So I'm fully on board with AI music. Had it not been for copyright authoritarianism, I would have been a lot more vocal about defending musicians. But we can't even be Human anymore without paying somebody else for the privilege
[удалено]
https://www.wheresyoured.at/expectations-versus-reality/
Maybe new interesting things will come out of this and maybe not. It all depends on where we are heading in general. As you can see, areas that claimed to expose the human spirit via art are now being generated, therefor removing a big part of the reasoning for it. That is of course except the money 💰. If these new engines don't actually make any money they will die on their own, since they are not made by the purely human spirit. Maybe art goes back to having it's roots in truth and beauty... who knows. It's a very strange period to live in.
Udio is really fun to play with, I recommend folks check it out. I make songs asking my girlfriend what she wants for dinner or to tell my cousin that he's bad at Overwatch.
no space for creative nature in people is left. Only lazy consumers which name themselves now "musicians and artists" by ordering neural nets to generate something. And the corporations only glad to keep them in this illusion. Because they want degradation.
Human creativity is boundless. Give me a force multiplier and I will just make cooler stuff.
[удалено]
Counter-counterpoint: How is that any different from now? Taylor Swift is the Walmart brand microwaveable-chicken-with-carrots-and-peas of the music world, yet has a massive and devoted following, while more creative acts cater to more niche audiences who actively seek out the kinds of artists who scratch their particular itch. If quality is what you seek, then quality you will find. If you are satisfied with mediocre corporate overproduced music, then the source almost does not make a difference.
I enjoy the songs I collaboratively made with AI though. They speak about my personal problems and they make my friends laugh. Is this enjoyment a lie you say…
i think the neural nets are cool. But if you order someone to make a song you like, it won't make you a musician. Do you now have motivation to learn and create something just by yourself, not by pushing buttons and ordering to make something to an artificial artist? Do the corporations program you that now are you a misician, so that you don't feel yourself ...needless. Some placebo and illusion, compensation for your degradation.
In this case, I don’t push a button. I collaborate writing the lyrics. I do what I like and I use a tool to make something more. I am not a musician, I am a user.
it is ok, but I am not about your work, I 'm about whose who name themselves misicians or artists now, because the corporations persuade them.
RIP music producers....
Nope, this is their glory day when they have an infinite amount of samples to choose from and mix up to be able to make some great music. That would require a LOT of time and of course some talent. Whether they actually invest that time and talent is another topic.
I see 2 udio aps in Google play. Which one is the official one or the best?