Why is no one here talking about AI Music?

[MisterB]

I remember a big scare that synthesizers were going to take away the jobs of musicians. I think this whole AI thing will even itself out. The good bits will stay, and the bad bits will just die a death.

 

I personally use it in two contexts, one of which is invaluable to me, and I retain all creativity over my work. The other is kind of a helper, but so flawed as to be pretty much useless on its own.

 

The first way is as my virtual vocalist (Dreamtonics Synthesizer-V).  Without it, I simply wouldn't be writing vocal songs at all. I feed it the lyrics, the music, and guide it dynamically. It makes it sounds like a real voice. I love this technology and think its one of the most significant new technologies for music producers this century.

 

The other is ChatGPT as a kickstart for lyrics. It doesn't understand rhyming schemes (even though it claims to, and can actually explain them... it just can't use them properly), and seems fixated on a certain selection of words which it tries to include in your song, no matter what you want it to be about (symphony for example!). The whole rhyming scheme thing surprises me a bit. I mean, its a pretty literal thing, and I thought computers liked literal. Anyway, if you want a song in AABB form, you're good to go, and lately, its done okay with AABBCC, but anything else, and it has no idea what you're asking for.  I like some of the structural ideas it puts forward, but they definitely need work to be usable. I wouldn't call myself a lyricist in any form, and really its a means to make my music have meaning.  I enjoy working with lyricists on other projects, and I have managed a handful of my own vocal songs without the help of ChatGPT. I like using it as a starting point, but I'm not naive enough to think that it will be my end product without significant work on my part. 

 

I think the idea of AI songs flooding media channels will be shortlived. Songwriters who have real influence won't put up with it and independents will find another outlet for their work, if the majors (Spotify etc) don't backtrack on the extensive use of AI produced songs to fill out public playlists. However, I don't think the little guy is making a significant living from this revenue source anyway. How many of use on this forum are making their living from music created in the last, say 10 years, from media plays/sales alone? Bet it ain't many, if any.

 

 

 

[VoiceEx]

9 hours ago, GregB said:

I MUCH prefer reading (where you can skim and speed-read) to watching, which is the ultimate SLOooooW linear experience especially when the video is not Chapterised.   
I can ansorb that transcription in 10mins, retain overall context, AND jump back (or text search) for something I know I 'heard').  Whereas the video HAS to be watched from start to finish (NINETY minutes!!), and woe betide you if you want to jump back to somewhere!
I always prefer information to 'content'  
Greg 

 

You're absolutely right and that is a fantastically efficient way to maximize what you take in, what you leave out, and all without wasting any time. I like it 👍

 

But you know.. I find that there is also a fun middle ground that blends efficiency with entertainment. You see, while I could be done with it all in 10min or so, I would be wasting an opportunity to make content. Reaction, commentary, entertainment, monetary, shorts, just to name a few.

 

And, no, this doesn't mean that I intend to cover his content. But I am saying,  If we talkin' in terms of efficiency, it depends on the objective. Though I will say, uploading such a lengthy video without adding time stamps is just bad manners, if you ask me 😅👍

[MisterB]

If your income from songwriting/composing is in the media industry, here's a great video that Guy Michelmore just put out. His focus is on writing for TV/film, but it covers a lot that is relevant to songwriters too.

 

There are some great insights here, in particular with regard to liability resulting from non-ownership of AI generated music. From a songwriting perspective, he also asks ChatGPT about the advantages of using human storytellers as opposed to AI story tellers, and I think it ChatGPT ironically maybe, hits the nail on the head. I think there's lots of great information to be had from watching this video start to finish.

 

 

[GregB]

On 7/13/2024 at 3:51 AM, MisterB said:

If your income from songwriting/composing is in the media industry ... relevant to songwriters too.

 

All true.

 

But keep in mind that 'acceptable' and even 'good sounding' music (via SUNO, UDIO, etc.) has only been around for 6 months.  We're right at the bottom of the J-curve.  

Businesses commissioned composers for music because that was the only option ...  either that or paying for use of existing stuff.

 

Filmmaking has been fast moving away from the big studios and big budgets.  And, BTW, not all big-budget compositions were great! 

 

Sub $10-million productions have to, and will, definitely chase the cheap music option.  Good enough is good enough.  Music for stirring action, horror, love scenes, open-vista views, futuristic cities ... it's all do-able now and will only improve along with better tools to modify, extend, shorten etc. to exactly fit the scene duration.

 

I'm neither an apologist for AI, nor an avid supporter.  Just being realistic. 

 

Greg

[MisterB]

14 hours ago, GregB said:

Sub $10-million productions have to, and will, definitely chase the cheap music option.  Good enough is good enough.  Music for stirring action, horror, love scenes, open-vista views, futuristic cities ... it's all do-able now and will only improve along with better tools to modify, extend, shorten etc. to exactly fit the scene duration.

 

This option has been available for years - Royalty Free Music Libraries. They haven't really did put much of a dent in anything but the bottom end.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[GregB]

Technology is always changing.  "Better" is subjective, but faster is indisputable.  What was pathetic/laughable just two years ago is now truly amazing.  But there's no need to panic or be afraid ... and there's no point.  It is what it is.  Just be aware.  This applies to books, screenwriting, images, design, music, video, etc, etc..  And most of us over-estimate the taste, judgement and threshold-acceptance of the everyday consumer.

 

Greg B

 

 

The full July 22 Guardian article: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/article/2024/jul/22/artificial-intelligence-panic-time-change

 

 

A short while ago, a screenwriter friend from Los Angeles called me. “I have three years left,” he said. “Maybe five if I’m lucky.” He had been allowed to test a screenplay AI still in development. He described a miniseries: main characters, plot and atmosphere – and a few minutes later, there they were, all the episodes, written and ready for filming. Then he asked the AI for improvement suggestions on its own series, and to his astonishment, they were great – smart, targeted, witty and creative. The AI completely overhauled the ending of one episode, and with those changes the whole thing was really good. He paused for a moment, then repeated that he had three years left before he would have to find a new job.

 

In 2020, I participated in an experiment that I gave a lecture on the following year, later published as a booklet titled My Algorithm and I. In it, I describe my failed collaboration with a large language model at a time when these AIs were not yet publicly available. If you want to understand AI better and analyse our current situation, please do not read my book. It has been so overtaken by technical development in the past three years that today it is so outdated it’s as though it came from a different period in world history, like a text about the first railways or a biplane airshow.

 

 

[VSThost]

Who knows maybe AI may come up with better stuff than these Auto Tune junk bands.

[john]

On 7/23/2024 at 8:14 AM, VSThost said:

Who knows maybe AI may come up with better stuff than these Auto Tune junk bands.

 

I've heard some, and they are. Then again, I've heard others and they were just awful. The worst.

 

The trend is that they are making big strides and often the weak link is now the human giving them instruction.

 

It has to be said that if songwriters want to keep AI generated songs as sub par, we need to stop them learning from being allowed to analyse the best. However, I think that particular horse has already bolted.

[GregB]

@MisterB ... your comments are on point as always and I sympathise with them all ... to a degree. But not 100%.

 

 

On 7/15/2024 at 8:41 AM, MisterB said:

Royalty Free Music Libraries

• To compare with AI-generation ... Libraries are fine up to the point that such music is set in stone ... duration, tempo, meter, key, arrangement, dynamics, etc. etc.
• AI is already providing ultimate and fluid control of everything. And for $50/month? ... at worst?

 

On 7/7/2024 at 3:57 AM, MisterB said:

I remember a big scare that synthesizers were going to take away the jobs of musicians.

• How many pop artists in the studio hire string or brass sections?  Such sounds and textures are more easily and cheaply provided by MIDI-triggered sample libraries.  Even the most expensive library is cheaper than hiring a small string section. 
• I could never have imagined, let alone created, my own home-studio albums and single without synths and samples.

 

Greg

[GregB]

74% of IT pros see AI making their skills obsolete

full story at https://www.cio.com/article/3487728/74-of-it-pros-see-ai-making-their-skills-obsolete.html

 

My take on this (having spent 40 years in IT and still keeping abreast of developments), is that IT people are the most aware of what the technology can do now and into the future.   In terms if IT, AI can already code 95% of any stated requirement ... it helps to have a human expert only to collate/link/test/manage the disparate parts.  AI can already design/code/construct a website from a visual example.  Behind closed doors I imagine they are using AI to build the next generation of AI.

 

Personally, I've already used AI to a) create an interactive form on my website, b) process/convert large data files, c) generate still images for my music videos.  For me, this has just been idle experimenting.  Imagine what can be done if there is a financial imperative.

 

But "music has the power to change our emotions".  True but, from my perspective, all music is still just data.  There's millions of existing works that can be analysed to be re-jigged and spat out by the ton in response to prompts.  This has has been done for images and is, on the fast upswing, being done with video.   

 

So who will gain from music AI? The usual corporate suspects ... the labels, distributors and streamers.

 

BUT ... rather than hide or head for the hills, I urge you to investigate, test, and use.  You will find ways it can augment or speed your own productions. 

 

What's the worst that can happen?  You can still enjoy creating music.  You can still play/sing live.  Perhaps there will be fewer careers in music, but that has been true of almost every human endeavour with advancements in technology.  Why should musicians or writers be more protected than anyone else?

 

The guys with spears must have been really p*ssed when their food was snatched by the new guys with bows and arrows.   So, the quicker you take up the bow and arrow, the rounder your belly ... 

... that is until all the animals have been wiped out!

 

Greg (your guaranteed "Little Ray of Sunshine")  

 

 

 

 

 

[john]

On 8/23/2024 at 8:50 AM, GregB said:

74% of IT pros see AI making their skills obsolete

full story at https://www.cio.com/article/3487728/74-of-it-pros-see-ai-making-their-skills-obsolete.html

 

My take on this (having spent 40 years in IT and still keeping abreast of developments), is that IT people are the most aware of what the technology can do now and into the future.   In terms if IT, AI can already code 95% of any stated requirement ... it helps to have a human expert only to collate/link/test/manage the disparate parts.  AI can already design/code/construct a website from a visual example.  Behind closed doors I imagine they are using AI to build the next generation of AI.

 

Personally, I've already used AI to a) create an interactive form on my website, b) process/convert large data files, c) generate still images for my music videos.  For me, this has just been idle experimenting.  Imagine what can be done if there is a financial imperative.

 

But "music has the power to change our emotions".  True but, from my perspective, all music is still just data.  There's millions of existing works that can be analysed to be re-jigged and spat out by the ton in response to prompts.  This has has been done for images and is, on the fast upswing, being done with video.   

 

So who will gain from music AI? The usual corporate suspects ... the labels, distributors and streamers.

 

BUT ... rather than hide or head for the hills, I urge you to investigate, test, and use.  You will find ways it can augment or speed your own productions. 

 

What's the worst that can happen?  You can still enjoy creating music.  You can still play/sing live.  Perhaps there will be fewer careers in music, but that has been true of almost every human endeavour with advancements in technology.  Why should musicians or writers be more protected than anyone else?

 

The guys with spears must have been really p*ssed when their food was snatched by the new guys with bows and arrows.   So, the quicker you take up the bow and arrow, the rounder your belly ... 

... that is until all the animals have been wiped out!

 

Greg (your guaranteed "Little Ray of Sunshine")  

 

 

 

 

 

 

I largely agree. Those who will remain will be those who learn to incorporate AI into their skill set. By that I mean those who learn AI prompt engineering to augment what they do. I mean that for both IT and music.

 

Mostly I see AI being able to increase the volume of work generated to enable coders and creators to still remain profitable.

 

We’ve lived in a marketplace where fresh food has existed alongside synthetic foods for a long time. Some food stuffs, are still dominated by fresh. The choice of fresh remains for the rich, while synthetics are more prevalent feeding the poor.

 

I can see music being similar. Having an original Van Gogh will still be exceptionally pricey. The law of supply and demand, just as prints are available now. Just as “Van Gogh like” originals are available now and they do not dent the price of the original market.

 

IT does not really have that equivalence. Perhaps there will be a market for code written by the odd specific individual, but there isn’t really a huge differential yet.

 

Music I can see, while certain commodity marketplaces where names are not attached to the consumption (like music libraries for film and tv), still has the Van Gogh quotient. Owning or even listening to a Jimi Hendrix original will still have the pull that a “AI composed and performed Jimi Hendrix like” just doesn’t have that pull.

 

The challenge for new artists is overcoming the “why you are relevant and in-demand” factor.

[David in WV]

I predict that if there be a White Knight coming to rescue musical artists from the enemy of generative AI, the sword the knight wields will be the copyrights of the artists, labels and publishers protected by the big kid on the legal block - the U.S. Copyright Office enforcing U.S. copyright law.  Under current U.S. copyright law, there is no copyright protection for an "idea" and no protection for any work not authored by a human being.  In my opinion, a person's "prompt" to a generative AI program is just an "idea" not protected by copyright, and the Copyright Office is already taking the position that lyrics and/or music generated by an AI algorithm is not a work of authorship by a human being and thus, not protected by copyright.  Also in my opinion, a musical work having no or severely limited copyright protection is essentially a musical work with little or no commercial value, and labels and publishers are not going to be interested in replacing human-made musical works having commercial value with AI-created works having little or no commercial value.  But again, this just my prediction. 

 

P.S.  Labels, publishers and even some major artists are already suing generative AI companies for the AI company's non-fair-use infringement of the copyrights in the published recordings of songs the AI company used to "teach" their generative AI's algorithm. 

Edited August 24 by David in WV

[john]

49 minutes ago, David in WV said:

I predict that if there be a White Knight coming to rescue musical artists from the enemy of generative AI, the sword the knight wields will be the copyrights of the artists, labels and publishers protected by the big kid on the legal block - the U.S. Copyright Office enforcing U.S. copyright law.  Under current U.S. copyright law, there is no copyright protection for an "idea" and no protection for any work not authored by a human being.  In my opinion, a person's "prompt" to a generative AI program is just an "idea" not protected by copyright, and the Copyright Office is already taking the position that lyrics and/or music generated by an AI algorithm is not a work of authorship by a human being and thus, not protected by copyright.  Also in my opinion, a musical work having no or severely limited copyright protection is essentially a musical work with little or no commercial value, and labels and publishers are not going to be interested in replacing human-made musical works having commercial value with AI-created works having little or no commercial value.  But again, this just my prediction. 

 

P.S.  Labels, publishers and even some major artists are already suing generative AI companies for the AI company's non-fair-use infringement of the copyrights in the published recordings of songs the AI company used to "teach" their generative AI's algorithm. 

 

Bang on the money.

 

Another related ongoing issue, I believe, is the division over some labels trying to cash in on artist likeness, where those labels were looking to use AI written and performed pieces for promotional purposes, to make it easier to stay in the public eye.

[GregB]

17 hours ago, john said:

Owning or even listening to a Jimi Hendrix original will still have the pull that a “AI composed and performed Jimi Hendrix like” just doesn’t have that pull.

 

Definitely ... BUT ... only because Hendrix had a certain "?", broke lots of barriers, and made a splash because he was unique at THAT point in time.  There have been plenty of other virtuoso writers/players who have failed to break the big time ... and THEY are at the top of their game.  If THEY can't make it then what chance the folk like me way down the food chain.

 

You're also forgetting that 99% of consumers don't give toss.  They're HAPPY with 'sounds like' so they can tap a foot and listen to 128K MP3s through crappy speakers/earbuds in noisy environments.

 

17 hours ago, john said:

     ... labels and publishers are not going to be interested in replacing human-made musical works having commercial value with AI-created works having little or no commercial value

 

With AI, labels and publishers have zero outlay, but any crappy AI "hit" will rake in the writer and mechanical royalties for them.

We could argue our different perspectives forever ... and I certainly hope time proves you right. 
I am (as you may be able to deduce) far less positive.   

[john]

14 minutes ago, GregB said:

There have been plenty of other virtuoso writers/players who have failed to break the big time ... and THEY are at the top of their game.  If THEY can't make it then what chance the folk like me way down the food chain.

 

If only talent and ability were the only things that dictate breaking the big time. It should also be highlighted that many songwriters and musicians have different desired outcomes that cover a broad range of measures of success.

 

There are plenty of mediocre artists that have “made it”. That’s because there are many factors from songwriter/artist development, management, music marketing and promotion, the teams and team management involved and the ability to see and catch waves, and be good at timing surges to catch those waves.

 

19 minutes ago, GregB said:

You're also forgetting that 99% of consumers don't give toss.  They're HAPPY with 'sounds like' so they can tap a foot and listen to 128K MP3s through crappy speakers/earbuds in noisy environments.

 

I think the exact figure will vary with genre for a start. 99% is plucked from the air. I think for a long time issues around copyright and ownership, and the ownership of likeness rights will curtail a lot of people’s fears. Much of this will be like any tech revolution in music. There are those who will be happy with AI generated music for much of their consumption. I can imagine a lot of the EDM market might suffer like this, but only after copyright issues are in the rear view mirror. Just now we see a lot of fun style software catching hold but legal systems will hold a lot in check. 

 

Other markets are heavily reliant on a real person. The truth is, a lot of listeners have diverse listening habits. They still plan to go to see artists at bars, though that comes in and out of focus. They still want to go and see shows featuring real people. Bars and clubs have had a market for recorded music and live music, for decades. I don’t see AI overly changing that in the short term.

 

Just like the food markets cater for the best fresh produce, degrading down until 100% factory farmed and synthetic foods. Our buying power largely determines what we consume. While there are fast food burger companies churning out cheap burgers full of fat, salt and sugar, there are also craft burger companies churning out gourmet burgers with only the best of ingredients. People view entertainment in much the same way. We like a diversity of entertainment. Sometimes cheap and easily consumed and easily forgotten fills the entertainment diet, but in the same day we might attend a concert that cost hundreds of dollars. True we attend them less but they cost more. The car industry works this way as do many others.

 

I can see some segments will die with AI. This is where music is little more than a commodity, such as the current market place for incidental and other music for film and TV. Currently the in thing is libraries of pre-cleared music. When generative AI gets past copyright police, the library musi industry will be toast. That is precisely because the listener largely doesn’t care who wrote or performed a lot of that music. Only featured songs or artists will buck that trend.

 

41 minutes ago, GregB said:

With AI, labels and publishers have zero outlay, but any crappy AI "hit" will rake in the writer and mechanical royalties for them.

 

Ah, but without true ownership as we currently understand it, they open up a very very large can of worms that ultimately cuts the labels and publishers out the loop too.

 

This will come down, in the end, to where governments earn money, and ultimately where what they feel threatened by. Thos all creative industries, but almost all industries will be affected by this.

 

If AI does all the earning, who pays taxes? If AI does all the work, where do you earn money to live on and pay taxes?

 

While AI will change things, it can help as much as it can destroy. So beyond generative AI where there are current legal cases against the AI companies, and into AI being used to maximise output, I would be rich if I earned a cent every time an artist said they ram out of time marketing and promoting their releases. Enter AI. All of a sudden we can all compete.

 

AI also eases production flows making it much easier to hit content deadlines necessary in such scenarios. Enter AI.

 

So, I can easily see AI enabling a shit load that many feel is beyond their reach.

 

I can understand many aspects of fear. A lot has been done to stoke it up.

 

You mentioned IT. Let’s take software for a second. An industry where cutbacks have for years seen attrition through natural loses paint a familiar scene of people who leave not being replaced and their duties being shared amongst people already there. OOOver a short period of time, individual engineers found themselves responsible for 4 to 5 time the amount of things than a decade before. Company actuaries realised it was cheaper to pay settlements than properly develop and test software.Engineers in many companies are pressure to release with more known faults, less test cycles on programs developed using rapid development paradigms based on evolving solutions rather than up front designed elegant solutions. They pressured to do beta releases knowing the design is immature and the test benches inadequate and in some cases completely missing. 

 

Instead AI offers the same number of engineers the chance of doing their job properly, and properly testing them before release. Ai offers improved design flow, broader and deeper test benches to produce higher quality product with a shorter time to market, yielding potentially far higher profitability.

 

If no one is working, where do taxes come from? How does government function?

 

Historically, long term, government will choose the trending technology. They did that with the internet and music once before.

 

I don’t see the same doom and gloom because I rely upon known paradigms like greed to win the day.

 

I could write a lot more, but it’s very late and I am shattered. Maybe more tomorrow!

[GregB]

1 hour ago, john said:

99% is plucked from the air.

 

You noticed! 😄

 

1 hour ago, john said:

There are those who will be happy with AI generated music for much of their consumption. I can imagine a lot of the EDM market might suffer like this

 

Hmmm.  "a lot of the EDM market" ... plucked from the air??? 

 

1 hour ago, john said:

If AI does all the earning, who pays taxes?

 

Good question. All the big tech companies avoid tax already!  

Trouble is, the cat is well and truly out of the bag and the government is too slow/ineffectual to reverse trends.

 

 

I think we both know the arguments ... the only difference is that you favour an optimistic outcome. I hope you're right.

 

On the plus side for me ... I'll be dead soon.  

[john]

15 hours ago, GregB said:

Hmmm.  "a lot of the EDM market" ... plucked from the air??? 

 

Logical guess. There are EDM stars, but unlike pop, rock, hip hop, or country, is a lot less image focused. Image of the stars is one of the few things that remains theirs, though who knows, maybe  EDM is ready and prepared to go into the land of Disney, where who dons the outfit commands the audience?

 

15 hours ago, GregB said:

On the plus side for me ... I'll be dead soon.  

 

It’s that sunny-side up perspective that we know you for Greg!

[john]

I thought this would be a nice addition to this topic: