AI Songs On The Song Critique Board

[john]

Hi

 

I thought we should have a discussion about AI songs on the critique board. it’s new territory. Dan has posted a couple of songs now. The whole point in critique is for a dialog between the writer and their peers, so that they can learn from the process and the writer can improve their song. However, while Dan did write the lyrics, he did not write the music.
 

I can see the point of posting to the lyrics critique board, because the writer can improve their song. It’s the whole justification for any of the writers. I can see much less of a justification for critiquing the music, the writer isn’t part of the conversation. Do comments about the AI songs get fed back into the process to help improve the songs.

 

I have no problem with the songs being posted in the musicians lounge, or any other aspect of participation in the boards, but this is new ground and should be discussed, don’t you think?

 

Cheers

 

John

[MisterB]

Here are three flip-flopping cents from me...

 

There is lots of ambiguity in forum posts that go further than the use of AI (like royalty free vocal line samples, which were not AI generated). I think its all fine as long as you're upfront about it (as Dan has been).  

 

That said, I think your point about the purpose of critique is valid, and that posting an AI generated song in the songwriting critique section is pointless other than personal self-promotion, which is not what the critique forum is about. 

 

Whatever restrictions you impose need to be policed, and will inevitably (especially over time) be ignored.

 

[Mahesh]

2 hours ago, MisterB said:

That said, I think your point about the purpose of critique is valid, and that posting an AI generated song in the songwriting critique section is pointless other than personal self-promotion, which is not what the critique forum is about. 

 

This is true. I'm not sure how any feedback CAN be incorporated back into the song. Like.. do you prompt the AI differently or something? Nevertheless, I agree that it seems more appropriate for the musician's lounge than in the critique board!

[john]

I suspect it might be a good idea to have an AI focused board where it would be entirely appropriate to talk AI tech, prompt engineering and air the results.... and keep the actual critique boards for the original intent. That way we all members still get what they need and we don't have the possible confusion.

[MisterB]

I've had some time to think on this, and I think that lumping all AI into the same pot is a bad idea, and also separating critique into even finer compartments on a forum that has a small user base is a bit silly. If the forum were really busy, and anyone in any forum could pretty much guarantee a handful of responses within a few days, then things might be different, but people will naturally gravitate towards forums that meet specific needs, and that's likely to alienate a portion of the membership who get shoved into bucket c. Forum posts that go unanswered is a recipe for losing membership since its probably one of the most significant values of the site (not diminishing the great resources available, but that's the truth).

 

That's not to say that it shouldn't be addressed, but the issues are very specific - in the songwriting forum, we're talking about using AI to write a song. That's it. That's the extent of the problem. Services like Udio and Suno. In the lyrics forum it doesn't really apply, because the model of using AI to write lyrics is a different one. Again, I think honesty is important, but if you start out with, say ChatGPT, you still have full macro control of the result. If someone suggested you change the structure a little, you could. If someone suggested that some of the words are too cute, and should be changed, you could. So there is still a point to critique, even if the lyrics were entirely written by AI initially, because you can change things at a macro level after the fact. Then there are much more subtle uses of AI that could be employed here to help massage a lyric that originated organically and then got fed to AI.

 

Services such as Udio write and produce full songs for you. While you can add your own lyrics, and you can choose basic paratemeters, you can't tell it to change measure three of the verse to an Am9 chord, or change the melody so that it goes down in the verse instead of up, or even change that guitar solo to a trumpet solo. In short, you can't change things at a macro level, so the purpose of a critique is largely pointless. So, what about other elements affected by AI? 

 

There's AI mixing, AI mastering... there are AI vocalists. There are even AI composers for certain types of music, that are much more controllable at a macro level than the full song production AI's like Udio (like Orb Producer Suite which has been around for years, and its competition).  

 

I think the best way forward is to step back and look at how much of a problem it really is, and why.  Is this a kneejerk reaction to AI song production that is way better than it deserves to be?  If so, get a thicker skin and used to it. It's here. It's competing with you, and while I hope that the major labels take those developers to the cleaners for using copyrighted material to train their AI models, I doubt its ever going away completely.  Remember when music streaming was just Napster? Music streaming didn't go away, the model just got more ethical. That's already happened to an extent in the world of AI generated imagery, and I think it shows that people would prefer to be ethical in their use of AI art work. It will happen to AI generated music. 

 

Okay, so what is the extent of the problem? Well, technically, as far as using this kind of full production service goes, there is just one person doing this. Is that really a problem? Even on a forum with a relatively small user base, that represents just a small percentage of the people using the forum.

 

So, what about adjacent technologies?  I use AI vocalists in all my productions. I've been known to use AI to write lyrics for me (though I did quickly find the limitations of that, LOL), but lets say you decide to ban all AI from the songwriting forum. Fine, no problem, but then there are adjacent technologies - I don't know Subvibe's approach, but it does seem that they use preformed vocal phrases that they manipulate. Their work is really excellent.  Their production work is excellent and their manipulation of such phrases is really great.  I'm a huge fan of Subvibe, so lets put that aside. It's unlikely to be an AI use case, but its absolutely an adjacent technology. You could argue that all of Toontrack products are AI adjacent. They listen to things, make suggestions, give you preformed MIDI performances (funny story coming up there for another thread related to AI). This is absolutely AI adjacent.  So where do you draw the line? 

 

As I think I said somewhere in this rambling post, I think the size of the forum user base, and the size of the problem should help dictate what you do about it, and at this time, I think that's nothing.  And as for an AI specific forum for discussion about all things AI... well, there's a post, started on May 11, with 58 replies.  On this forum that's pretty significant for a single thread. But in the grand scheme of things, its still pretty small. Don't create spaces that encourage loneliness. The more generic you keep things, the more people are likely to participate in things that they might not initially be interested in because natural inquisitiveness will get the better of them. I've said elsewhere that I think SongStuff has too many compartments in general anyway. With a large user base, you can do that.  With a small one, it gets lonely. Really fast. And that's something that drives people away. 

[john]

You make some good points, which is exactly why it’s worth discussing things when we break new ground. Better that way than us all marching blindly forwards or making assumptions.

 

I will mention one counter point, and that is, AI is a trending topic. It’s not going to go away, and personally I’m alright about that.

 

If we want to attract more people interested in AI, then having a dedicated board can help. Maybe not something for right now, but something to bear in mind at some point going forwards.

[David in WV]

On 8/21/2024 at 5:39 AM, john said:

I can see the point of posting to the lyrics critique board, because the writer can improve their song. It’s the whole justification for any of the writers. I can see much less of a justification for critiquing the music, the writer isn’t part of the conversation. Do comments about the AI songs get fed back into the process to help improve the songs.

 

I have no problem with the songs being posted in the musicians lounge, or any other aspect of participation in the boards, but this is new ground and should be discussed, don’t you think?

 

Cheers

 

John

 

I just wanted to point out, FWIW, that songs posted in the critique forum by a member who only did the lyrics with the music being done by human composers who are not also members of Songstuff, is likewise a post of a song for critique where the writer of the music is not really part of the song critique conversation.  Personally, I wouldn't waste my time giving feedback regarding the music of any song posted for critique where the music was done by AI or by a non-member of Songstuff, and I would very much be in favor a guideline for the song critique forum that the poster disclose his/her contribution to the song, disclose the contributions of other Songstuff members, and if AI and/or non-members also made contributions, to disclose that too.  Though such a guideline would most often be enforceable only by the honor system, I thinks it's a fair, appropriate, and worthwhile guideline to have for the critique forum.

Edited August 25 by David in WV

[john]

2 hours ago, David in WV said:

 

I just wanted to point out, FWIW, that songs posted in the critique forum by a member who only did the lyrics with the music being done by human composers who are not also members of Songstuff, is likewise a post of a song for critique where the writer of the music is not really part of the song critique conversation.  Personally, I wouldn't waste my time giving feedback regarding the music of any song posted for critique where the music was done by AI or by a non-member of Songstuff, and I would very much be in favor a guideline for the song critique forum that the poster disclose his/her contribution to the song, disclose the contributions of other Songstuff members, and if AI and/or non-members also made contributions, to disclose that too.  Though such a guideline would most often be enforceable only by the honor system, I thinks it's a fair, appropriate, and worthwhile guideline to have for the critique forum.

 

Hey David,

 

A very fair point. We had discussed this very issue in another topic, considered having a separate board but decided that while that might be appropriate later if there is demand, declaring seems to be a fairer way to go. Like you, while I would be happy critiquing the lyrics I don't see any great value in offering critique to a writer that is not a part of the conversation.

 

That aside, I understand the frustration that might be felt by lyricists who have no writing partner, however writing with AI and shopping the song around is a bad idea. It's such a minefield. For a start who owns the AI component? You have to look at the terms and conditions of the AI. That might depend on the version of the AI you use. In general, I think they are better off using the time to find a writing partner.

 

Currently, my understanding is that the AI component of the song is not able to be copyrighted. I think you mentioned before that ideas are not copyrightable on their own and that is the human's role in interacting with the AI. If they ever get that sorted out, then doing as Dan suggested, you are potentially trying to pitch a song where the artist is expected to re-write the music.... but copyright has already been established on the song as a whole. As I say a minefield. A lot of uncertainty and it just isn't needed.

 

I will draft some new guidelines for those boards affected. As ever, any feedback on guidelines is very welcome.

 

Cheers

 

John

[David in WV]

22 hours ago, john said:

That aside, I understand the frustration that might be felt by lyricists who have no writing partner, however writing with AI and shopping the song around is a bad idea. It's such a minefield. For a start who owns the AI component? You have to look at the terms and conditions of the AI. That might depend on the version of the AI you use. In general, I think they are better off using the time to find a writing partner.

I agree.  And, I think the lyricist's agreement with the music collaborator should be in writing (always a good idea) and expressly prohibit the use of generative AI in the music's composition (a good idea in today's AI world).  Otherwise, the lyrist would still not be justified in being confident that the song with their lyrics that they shop/publish/distribute has music that is also fully protected by copyright.  In other words,  don't trust that music collaborator won't in turn rely on AI for the music without disclosing that to the lyricist, and make not using AI a contractual promise.  A minefield indeed.

 

 

[MisterB]

I don't see why all parties need to be SongStuff members. If one is, that should be enough.  If you have a song that was co-written by all the members of a band, do you require that all band members be members of Songstuff? That's a bit ridiculous, don't you think?

 

One part of the writing collaboration can influence the other, regardless of whether both are Songstuff members. Creating barriers will just turn people away from the whole forum, and I don't really think that Songstuff can afford to do that.

[David in WV]

6 hours ago, MisterB said:

I don't see why all parties need to be SongStuff members. If one is, that should be enough.  If you have a song that was co-written by all the members of a band, do you require that all band members be members of Songstuff? That's a bit ridiculous, don't you think?

 

One part of the writing collaboration can influence the other, regardless of whether both are Songstuff members. Creating barriers will just turn people away from the whole forum, and I don't really think that Songstuff can afford to do that.

 

Um . . . no one said anything about requiring that all collaborators be members to post a song for critique, and I think it's kind of weird that you seem to have taken my post in that way.  I just expressed that I'd be in favor of a guideline that the poster disclose who their collaborators are - be they a member, a nonmember, or AI - so that I won't waste my time offering feedback about a contribution to the song made by a collaborator who isn't here as a member or isn't human to be part of the song's critique conversation.  And no, I don't think that's at all ridiculous.  

[MisterB]

11 hours ago, David in WV said:

Um . . . no one said anything about requiring that all collaborators be members to post a song for critique, and I think it's kind of weird that you seem to have taken my post in that way.

 

I actually didn't quote anyone so its kind of weird that you think I was talking about you.

 

But there was an implication between yours and (to a lesser extent) John's posts that suggest there is no value to critiquing a song where part of the writing team is not a member of SongStuff. There's nothing inherently wrong with having that opinion. Mine is just a counter to it and I stated one of the reasons why in that post.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[VoiceEx]

Giving Skynet a seat at the table forum wise may not bode well at this point in time. Just my opinion of course. That being said, in theory, a person can generate an infinite amount of songs/lyrics, at a moment's notice. I feel like there should be a guideline that covers that possibility 👍

[Peggy]

3 hours ago, VoiceEx said:

in theory, a person can generate an infinite amount of songs/lyrics, at a moment's notice. I feel like there should be a guideline that covers that possibility 👍

This is what I think many in the industry, business and creatives are trying to work through, including Songstuff. 

[john]

On 8/30/2024 at 12:29 PM, MisterB said:

 

I actually didn't quote anyone so its kind of weird that you think I was talking about you.

 

But there was an implication between yours and (to a lesser extent) John's posts that suggest there is no value to critiquing a song where part of the writing team is not a member of SongStuff. There's nothing inherently wrong with having that opinion. Mine is just a counter to it and I stated one of the reasons why in that post.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Hey MisterB

 

For me it’s not to do with being a member of Songstuff, although to be a part of the conversation that is true, but nonetheless, a non-member could still be presented feedback by a member. This would be the case for a band member, not the writer, but acting with consent of the writer.

 

Critique is not simply an opinion offered. It is a conversation. Usually between a creator or member of the creative team and someone offering critique. The purpose to effect change, possibly within the work if it is not published, and possibly within the writer(s) and even the critiquer.

 

In the case of another band member, or a writer that is not a member, they at least can be given out. Feedback and the conversation relayed, such that has an effect on the writer. The band member who is also a member of our community could act as a go-between. Not recommended, but still possible.

 

AI doesn’t work that way. Conversations have a finite memory allocation, that is pretty small. If our member who posted the song with AI music relays back our comments as a new conversation it would be meaningless. Our skill base is not about crafting AI prompts. So if the AI itself cannot learn from our feedback it is at least of questionable benefit for the lyricist. Many lyricists who post to our boards have very little music vocabulary. Their skills lie in crafting lyrics. They may not even understand music feedback enough to feed it to an AI engine.

 

I’m not making judgements about anybody, simply saying this is very questionable as a benefit. The lyricist in this explanation still gets to fully explore and get feedback on their lyrics.

 

One last point. The AI component is currently not able to be registered for copyright. There is so much up in the air regarding ownership of generated content, that might mean legal issues with posting such content on our forum or anywhere else.

 

Talking about all this should be necessary on any music forum.

 

Cheers

 

John

[VoiceEx]

10 hours ago, Peggy said:

This is what I think many in the industry, business and creatives are trying to work through, including Songstuff. 

 

Oh I meant forum wise, not industry wise.

 

For example, if every person that uses AI exclusively would be given free reign to generate as many songs/lyrics as they want per-day (i.e to post for critique), that could in theory turn into a spam-like cycle of generated "attempts" that people may not be too keen with.

 

However, if I were to offer a possible solution, I believe that certain limitations could be set in place in order to reduce the probability of this scenario happening. Like, for example, limiting the amount of generated content a user would be allowed to post per-day (for critique). Knowing that there's a limit to something will also change peoples approach and give AI artists the opportunity to evaluate what they generated, prior to posting it.

 

And, no, its not an unreasonable/unfair suggestion. We are living in a time where a single person can generate thousands of songs/lyrics per day. Would you be willing to go over every single generated attempt and all of its variations?

 

I wouldn't lol.

[MisterB]

On 8/31/2024 at 10:56 PM, john said:

 

Hey MisterB

 

 

I don't think we disagree a whole lot  in your response. 

 

Your up in arms about the legality of copyrighting AI generated music though... if it can't be registered for copyright, no one owns it, and services like Udio generally have a clause in their T&C that states that they do not claim any ownership. That means that no one can sue you for using it without their permission. I mean, sure, you don't own it, and can't claim writers share of royalties, but no one else can either.

 

The question then becomes - is generative AI wholly something that already exists? Well, it might be, and it might not. In much the same way as when we, as humans, write a song. You can copy existing themes and musical intent, intentionally or unintentionally, so claiming that writing something as a human gives you much more protection against copyright infringement than generative AI isn't really the excuse you think it is.

 

A decade ago, I did a diploma in media composition. One of the assignments was to write some segments for a game show. I did my assignment (I was pretty chuffed with it tbh), and submitted it. Turned out to be almost note for note the same as the UK version of Who Wants to be a Millionaire - tempo, melody (such that it was), and chord progression were almost identical - it was just an assignment, and my tutor believed me when I said I had no idea, but there is no question that if I had been sued over use of this in the real world, I would have been found liable. Now, even though I was born and spent the first thirty years of my life in the UK, I had never watched the UK version of Who Wants to be a Millionaire... heck, I didn't even own a TV between the time it started airing and the time I emigrated to Canada. I was quite a hermit, who lived on my own, and I had literally never heard the music before. Yet, there it was. Clear as day.

 

If you're worried about it, you might be in the wrong business. There are legal cases, some even surprising, over what constitutes a copyrightable song element, but this is not something that you should spend your life worrying about, otherwise, you'll never release anything.

 

 

 

 

 

[john]

2 hours ago, MisterB said:

 

I don't think we disagree a whole lot  in your response. 

 

Your up in arms about the legality of copyrighting AI generated music though... if it can't be registered for copyright, no one owns it, and services like Udio generally have a clause in their T&C that states that they do not claim any ownership. That means that no one can sue you for using it without their permission. I mean, sure, you don't own it, and can't claim writers share of royalties, but no one else can either.

 

The question then becomes - is generative AI wholly something that already exists? Well, it might be, and it might not. In much the same way as when we, as humans, write a song. You can copy existing themes and musical intent, intentionally or unintentionally, so claiming that writing something as a human gives you much more protection against copyright infringement than generative AI isn't really the excuse you think it is.

 

A decade ago, I did a diploma in media composition. One of the assignments was to write some segments for a game show. I did my assignment (I was pretty chuffed with it tbh), and submitted it. Turned out to be almost note for note the same as the UK version of Who Wants to be a Millionaire - tempo, melody (such that it was), and chord progression were almost identical - it was just an assignment, and my tutor believed me when I said I had no idea, but there is no question that if I had been sued over use of this in the real world, I would have been found liable. Now, even though I was born and spent the first thirty years of my life in the UK, I had never watched the UK version of Who Wants to be a Millionaire... heck, I didn't even own a TV between the time it started airing and the time I emigrated to Canada. I was quite a hermit, who lived on my own, and I had literally never heard the music before. Yet, there it was. Clear as day.

 

If you're worried about it, you might be in the wrong business. There are legal cases, some even surprising, over what constitutes a copyrightable song element, but this is not something that you should spend your life worrying about, otherwise, you'll never release anything.

 

 

 

 

 

 

I don’t think I’m up in arms about it at all. The way you are talking here is as if this is a resolved case with case laws in place, but it isn’t remotely legally resolved, in pretty well any jurisdiction. I’ve been running this forum, in this industry for 24 years (gulp)… I think if I was losing sleep over this it would be pretty unusual. I do however, as mentioned, think that such things are worthy of discussion, from the perspective of the writer, prospective collaborators, prospective artists, publishers and labels, and secondary publishers like website.

 

Obviously it’s we are still allowing posts, so I’m not that worried.

 

I think it is worthy of discussion, to see how people feel, particularly while the various areas of legal ramifications are explored and settled. Unlike most members of this forum I have a distinct interest as the site hosting conversations and other content and sub-licensed content, where I have to judge legal implications at levels beyond the average site user. Gaining perspectives and asking questions is for me an interesting exploration of a subject, or subjects, that affects us all, PLUS it is a direct way for members to be in direct conversation about important subjects with all staff about features and policies and their other fellow members in a way that can affect the future of our community… one of the many benefits of most forums versus big social media platforms.

[Peggy]

On 8/31/2024 at 11:09 AM, Peggy said:

This is what I think many in the industry, business and creatives are trying to work through, including Songstuff. 

 

YouTube is developing tools to detect AI-generated voices and faces in videos

 

https://www.musicbusinessworldwide.com/youtube-is-developing-tools-to-detect-ai-generated-voices-and-faces-in-videos/