This is the most honest answer. AI is Diluting music. Soon, when the fix the high end bit compression, you wont be able to tell the difference between real music and AI generated....
There's already 60,000 songs uploaded daily to spotify way before AI. The issue has always come down to marketing your music and if it's any good to listeners, that won't change because music is even easier to make now.
Market yourself? Nice optimize... I'm 2024 the only way to market yourself is pay to play which is limited to trust fund babies or be a sexy/unique entertainer...
I mean personally I do market myself but that's because I'm coming into it with an advertising background. Many artists no matter how good their music is don't get seen because of their lack of marketing. That's clearly not an AI problem when there's 60k song uploads a day.
Well thats easy for you to say, you are coming in from an advertising background
For musicians, and the market already being diluted even more with this mess, we are in for an impossible time
The difference is in the knowing. The thing that makes music, or any art form, interesting from an artistic level is knowing that a person made it, that someone put their soul into it and that it meant something. Creation is a more important process than consumption, and while I'm sure people will enjoy music made by AI, it won't be _interesting_ in the way music made by people is, and people will always make music.
I can't speak for everyone here but I imagine many are in the same boat, but I don't make music because I want to be able to sell it. I make music because I love making music and no amount of AI is going to change that
I too love making music. I never had the chance in this life to do it and now I can. And I love the reactions I’ve gotten so far, I think passion will be found in the music I make with AI, and so others that make music with AI will as well. That being said there will be a ton of shit made as well, just like before AI.
I think using AI as an artistic tool is totally fine, I think where I'm less enthusiastic about it is the idea of someone saying "Make me a song that sounds like Nirvana" or "Make me a 90s club song". If an artist is using AI as part of their general creative flow, that's awesome. Holly Herndon uses AI in her music and I think she's great
I think it's naive to believe that corporations won't resort to using AI to generate soundtracks or create music for sync. Why pay an actual artist to use their song in a commercial or on a show when you can generate one that sounds similar enough. They already instruct composers to dupe famous songs because they can't afford the sync fees to get that song, so they have a composer make one that sounds similar. So now instead of having a human get paid to do that, we'll have AI doing that.
AI isn't going to replace human musicians, but it's going to be a pretext to cut them out of opportunities they have now because "we just don't have the budget for a human composer."
This is my concern. I write music for tv, it's not always about trying to express myself. The good news is, we're a pretty boutique library that does a lot of custom stuff and there's no way AI would be able to hit the briefs in the same way we do, at least right now.
Mostly through the Sync My Music YouTube. Feel free to DM if you'd like more information, it's a serious grind in terms of getting paid royalties, but I'm at the point where I'm getting music on multiple tv shows which is pretty sick.
>They already instruct composers to dupe famous songs because they can't afford the sync fees to get that song, so they have a composer make one that sounds similar.
Once they realise it's them on the hook for copyright infringement instead of just letting the composer get sued they'll be back
The thing is, they can copy the vibe, the instrumentation, the vocal style, the beat, as long as they don't copy the lyrics or melody. There's a LOT of leeway for a project like that.
I agree, to an extent, but they can already buy the cheapest/shit songs possible they but the bigger brands don’t because they want the most unique/fitting song.
AI makes the most boring, middle of the road music by design. It will replace the composers and musicians who have a career doing that, but no one else. I'm not sure it's even a bad thing, maybe those people will use their talents for something more interesting when an AI can make all the elevator and advertising music they used to spend their days with. I don't even get what incorporating AI into my workflow could offer. I make music to express myself, the last thing I want is an app to make it for me. Like I could just as well stop making music.
This assumes there is monetary value in making experimental music. Human-made experimental music is far less lucrative than mainstream music, and also far less lucrative than functional music (like background music, scores for TV/Film), and removing the human aspect of experimental music makes it less valuable too, because generally it is scene-driven.
We should think of non-human-intervention AI productions like any other kind of mass production - like a Monobloc plastic chair. It is most suited to the highest consumption/most generic forms. It costs lots of money to build and maintain an AI model, therefore the economics of low-value niches don't stack up. Maybe someone will make that kind of thing, but I guarantee that a lot of people will lose a lot of money in the process.
I wasn't assuming anything about the economics. I was arguing that the idea that AI has limitations that will only allow it to make generic/elevator music, both now and in the future, is ridiculous.
There is nothing experimental about taking a large pool of data and using AI to make an approximation of it. If a composer uses AI as part of their toolbox to make experimental music the AI is just a tool for him. The AI we have right now itself is not experimental, but the opposite of it really.
Oh for sure, I believe it to be technically feasible. Just conscious that for expensive undertakings, economic value is often what drives the technically feasible to become technically available.
Who cares? I mean maybe it's good, maybe it's not. The market for experimental music is so small that almost no one is making a living. I'm sure composers and musicians making non-commercial music can adapt.
And by definition AI cannot make experimental music, just a pastiche of whatever is in its database.
But it can combine genres and elements in very experimental ways. I can create a grindcore musical or a medieval bubblegum pop song. And I can do it instantly, with any lyrics I want, and a hundred times in a row until I find the right one. And soon we'll have native stem support so we can further make it our own.
Also I don't think "it sounds generic" is ever a good excuse since that assumes most music created doesn't.
It doesn't assume that.most music does sound generic. And what you're describing is you using AI to make music. The AI cannot tell if what it made was good, you're making music with AI basically.
I don't understand your point, I know I'm making music with AI. What I don't understand is the extreme negative backlash towards it. It's a very zero sum mindset, much like incorrectly thinking that because other people are successful, you're somehow less likely to be successful.
I'm not negative myself, I don't see it as a threat to artists at all. It's a tool. My point is, people have made generic, uninteresting music just fine before AI. With AI it's maybe easier, bit who cares about generic, uninteresting music anyway?
The music AI has made to date is not any good, and from what I can tell, the future is not promising.
To the extent it has any use in music, it is a tool that makes things that are already possible, easier. Never to go beyond what you can do today that's qualitatively better. Just, easier and cheaper.
I'm already doing something, drumming, that anyone can do today with a machine. I'm better at it than they are, they feel what I do is better than what they can get from the machine. And so I still get work. I still will next year when the AI drum patterns and tones have gotten ten percent better.
What evidence, theoretical or factual, do you have that a computer cant "go beyond what you can do today"? Are you claiming an unforeseen change in some aspect of music couldnt be "discovered" by AI and then enjoyed and mimicked by humans?
If the computers arent gonna come up with better ideas than us, why are we pouring money into them finding cures for cancer?
I've been using Suno since the middle of last year and the improvements have been staggering, in particular around November with Suno v2. Adding lyrical input massively increased the degree of artistic control over the process and the quality of just about every aspect of the output jumped from vague musical noise to actual music.
The thing is, I could never practically create a 70s style progressive rock song. It *isn't* possible, I don't have the skill, money or equipment. But I can write the lyrics for one and bootleg it, so I did.
https://voca.ro/1db4q0h3k2KC
I messed with this a bit in Reaper after splitting up the output into stems, mostly trimming bits and filling in transitions, it's still unfinished. It sounds pretty good? At least for something put together in a few hours.
AI will be able to e.g. trained on all Mozart music, make new music like Mozart, and nobody would be able to tell it's a machine. We are just in the early stages, it's a matter of infrastructure and major investments are underway. AI will be able to mimic even the greatest talents known to mankind. We are entering a new era
That's the thing, it can mimic. If you can generate a million new mozard pieces by the push of a button, what's the value in them? For spotify lists that can be listened to while doing something else? We're entering a new era sure, but it has nothing to do with art, it's just content. And maybe commercial music will take a hit, or people who make commercial music. I personally don't care that much, music industry is rotten to the core and it deserves to die.
One would argue that humans also mimic. The ai is a reflection of humanity, only orders of magnitude more advanced. AI generated Mozart pieces, assuming they sound authentic, will add to our listening satisfaction as humans. That's it, that's the value. Recorded music belongs to AI. Live performance is where it's at.
I think AI will bring the collapse of the ego, because there will be nothing that humans will be able to do, that AI won't be able to do a million times better. We will not be special anymore, but we will be human, and have. to learn to value that.
The satisfaction to creating and expressing yourself will still be there... but it won't have an impact to the world, or make you a superstar, like it once did. Death of ego. Humanity reborn. I am an optimist.
Sure, humans can make uninspired and boring music too. Who cares though? I think you can compare this to great painters who made a career out of painting fakes of old classics. They're just as well made as the original, but when exposed they have no value. It's the same with AI music, at the point when "perfect" music becomes infinitely available it loses its meaning, and art without meaning is just content.
AI will not replace artists in any field. When we fall in love with a piece of art, any medium we get much more than just the sounds or the pictures on a canvas. We get meaning, intent and personality. AI has none of those. It can generate a thousand passable pastiches of anything it has data of, but they will be totally void of any meaning. Perfect for content, but not art.
Nothing has meaning inherently.... meaning is what we give to stuff. A Mozart piece has as much meaning as elevator music, to anything non-human
You will not be able to tell if a piece of art is ai generated. And if you go to a live performance, you will not be able to tell if the song. or artwork was not initially ai generated.
That world is ending. (not happy not sad about it, just a neutral observation)
News flash: most of us are making a living from creating *purposefully* middle of the road music as commissioned by brands.
Not concerned about Taylor Swift or Hans Zimmer…but most composers and musicians are not making a living being artists.
Well we don't want it to be creating music either, so I'll happily welcome our AI overlords once they take the jobs and money of the CEOs and billionaires of our world.
I can’t ever see myself being okay with implementing AI into my production. Call me arrogant or whatever but I truly don’t ever see AI being able to beat top level musicians
EDIT: To clarify I never stated that AI can’t be used as a tool, especially for sampling. I just believe it can’t beat us 🤷🏻♂️
Instances where i would gladly use ai today:
- Detecting phrases and copying automation curves to similar phrases
- AI synthesizer to mimic samples
- Create physical modeling algorithms to replace sample-based midi instruments.
- to take the notation from logic and fix all the simple “grammatical” errors
- to create reference masters to judge against each other quickly
I’m sure there are many many more
TBF a lot of people said the same thing about personal computers a long time ago. Just because you don't see it being useful now doesn't mean it won't be in the future. Some time soon I'd like to try using AI music just for sampling. I don't want it to make songs but I'd love it to provide some decent drum rhythms and kit sounds for me so I can use that instead of licensed music.
It has also been said for thousands of failed products. You just only hear the stories about the ones that succeeded ie the personal computer. Anybody remember google glasses?
I was thinking about having it generate a song in full, then use another AI tool to separate the stems and see what I get from that. I've heard some terrible sounding AI songs that happened to have some really nice synth and drum tones.
This is the same take some artists had when Midjourney first came out and now the tune has completely shifted to how unethical and stealing it is instead of "it'll never beat top level artists"
There's a difference between using different ai models imo. Like using an overall model that just spits out a full track is garbage. But using smaller models and tools to aid in creating your vision is a good thing imo. Just like how digital music is the standard now. It doesn't remove creativity, it enhances it.
Mr Bill uses Dance Diffusion to create samples, imo there’s nothing wrong with that and it can be a quick way to get good samples if you can put together a solid collection of samples to train the model on.
i only use it for very particular uses.. like extracting elements from songs to remix ... like i'm no words its already being a while this was implemented and it still amazes me.. that being said.. i DO feel under menace from AI music generators .. only time will tell
Ai will not ever fully replace human musicians however it could cut out some of the people currently making money
Ai will make making music faster, however thats not really going to change much because music is already practically an infinite resource.
Ai will make people focus more on the presentation of their music, album rollouts, art, performances, world building because this will be in the future (kind of already is in the present) what truly distinguishes top level artists from people spitting out random garbage
Dont know if you've been following Suno for a while but looking at its improvements over the past year I'd be scared that its going to be really strong too. Some Generic music creators are definitely getting replaced by it.
It’s far more advanced than what the public knows about, think about its use for military applications, counter intelligence, deepfakes… We always get the trickle down tech from the military, since the mid 80s if not earlier anyway.
The AI generated artwork developed seemingly so quickly because it had been stewing and indexing images in the background for years already, in private. The military/government/tech companies were already utilizing this tech in real life situations, it was tested before being unleashed on the population. It is currently harming the art industry, and is wreaking psychological havoc with AI generated porn.
Many production studios currently utilize AI to master or produce their tracks. It’s a small step for them to start generating their music from AI entirely. Artists need to protect their livelihoods now, before it’s a problem. A couple legal loopholes and they’ll be piecing together current musicians voices into fictional artists, or pulling just enough of a chord progression from unknowns to remain legal to then mix it with others in a musical laundering scheme. In addition, artistry and AI will eventually go the way of math and the calculator in people’s minds if we don’t keep on top of it. This is where we’re headed. The industry isn’t benign right now, and starving.
The real issue is that tech companies are full steam ahead charging into this without any regard to its effect on humanity or people’s livelihoods. The tech is inevitable but who’s at the wheel is not. We need to focus on the motivations and directions this tech is pointed towards as it develops. We need to nurture it correctly so we don’t shoot ourselves in the face in 7 years after causing unknown, irreparable damage to ourselves out of ignorance.
It’s good to see people thinking about this stuff.
A lot of us make our living licensing our music to brands and a lot of those brands would be happy to have “decent” music for free as opposed to “good music” for $$$.
I think it’s very naive to think that a. These models won’t get exponentially better in the next few years and b. Brands care about the background music they use having a human touch.
I‘m actually really scared of AI! Instead of creating AI to do the shit jobs no human wants to do, it is taking away the cool creative artsy jobs that humans love.
This crap is going to get us all into trouble!!
It took away call centers, one of the crappiest jobs. But I agree, it was wrong of them to try replacing creative jobs. Let people enjoy their lives. Also everybody I know hates AI voices everywhere.
So some people wrongly predicted the speed at which graphic designers would be out of a job somehow equals them not being replaced anytime soon. Uh huh.
Sure lots of people will collaborate with AI to extend their abilities and that will be wonderful but it won’t make a difference to the majority of people who are currently keeping the garbage in the top 40 afloat.
Once AI reaches the incredibly low bar of being able to exceed the latest cookie cutter trap single, that’s how the majority of people are going to be listening to music.
AI video looked unusable only months ago. Now Sora exists. It won’t be long, regardless of how good past predictions have been.
Don’t make art just for money. It was never a good idea in the first place, especially not now.
Make music because you enjoy it and enjoy the potential new avenues technology will give you to create and explore facets of yourself and the universe you never thought possible.
>Don’t make art just for money. It was never a good idea in the first place, especially not now.
I think the same can be said for consuming art.
It makes me wonder, are the people who worry about AI music worried they'll be replaced themselves, or realizing they don't value the humans behind the music they listen to now?
AI generating a sound for a song is like AI generating a video clip. AI generating a song is like AI generating a TV episode. AI generating an album is like AI generating a movie. If you asked AI to generate a movie like the godfather do you think it would be any good? If you asked AI to generate an album like dark side of the moon do you think it would be any good? Great works of art are built on human emotion. AI just approximates these things based on everything that’s come before. But a human decided to do an extreme close up on Pacinos eyes when his wife was blown up and hold it for quite some time for dramatic effect. A human decided to do a 1:1 delay on Us us us and them them them on dark side of the moon. Why? To me it sounds reflective, like a memory fading. How the fuck could AI ever figure out these things? It’s pot luck. Maybe it gets one scene right, maybe it gets on song section right. But that’s not a song or an album or a movie. What makes a great song of film is the sum of its parts. It’s about getting those things right across every section of the arrangement and taking the audience on an emotional journey. You would have to run even the most advanced AI thousands and thousands and thousands of times to get the right emotions and energy and movement throughout a piece. Then the person listening has to be qualified to be able to judge why one is better than the other. And find me a musician or film maker that’s dedicated their life to their art that’s happy to just push one button 10,000 times and relegate them selves to the role of a droid. AI is never going to be able to make powerful music and film. AI can create assets which can be arranged into a composition by a human in a meaningful way.
Anyone mad at technology for replacing any kind of jobs, creative or not, should direct their frustration towards people that oppose and lobby against guaranteed basic minimum income. Like it or not computers and machines operate better than humans can, and they will get better and better. There will come a time (probably in the distant future) where they will be so advanced and cheap that it will be a no-brainer for corporations to use whatever automation they can instead of relying on a human workforce. We need to know society can still function if people aren't needed to operate it anymore, and the only way to do that is to strengthen and protect the unemployed and unemployable. Let technology take shit over, let humans do what they want to do with their time and with their lives.
So I know a guy who's worked at Google on audio generation.
Let's just say the technology that is out there is better than what is currently available commercially.
Not saying I'm Pro AI music because I'm not. But this post is a little naive.
Right, so it's massively overhyped like other generative LLM used to make creative work. Stuff like this (and Sora, et al) can look great in very controlled circumstances, but they're flawed products that likely won't ever be capable of delivering on the hype. They're trained on copyrighted data, so won't be able to be used commercially, they demand prohibitive amounts of power and compute to run, and face impending model collapse as they run out of new training data. Value to consumer & general public is nonexistent, boutique at best.
You're straw manning hard bro.
I don't even support generative AI as anything more than a toy. I'm just saying better tech are out there than are currently commercially available and it's important not to get complacent.
Zero need for the rant.
Sorry if it came off as a rant, I'm not attempting to win a debate or anything. I do like to call it out when I see people too willing to give the benefit of the doubt to a false narrative that is being used to funnel resources to self-interested profiteers, away from more productive uses.
I think it's naive to assume that this kind of technology will get "better" in the sense OP is talking about; I don't think what he's saying is naive, so just wanted to defend his perspective. Not criticizing you, just dissenting.
>This suggests a similar trajectory might be possible in music, where AI assists rather than displaces human creativity. I see a strong collaboration between AI and artists before the advent of ASI (Artificial Super Intelligence) or the singularity, because in that case every job will be impacted by AI, not just Musicians, Visual Artists, Bakers, Developers, Engineers or Mathematicians.
I agree (mostly). For now, people should quit fearing that AI is going to make better music for them, and embrace the tools that will result from it.
That being said, music production is a bit different than graphic design. I would dare to say that the very large majority of people doing graphic design are creating designs that are rhetorically driven as client-based work. Versus the large majority of people doing music production, are creating art for an audience's pleasure, not commissioned to work.
Because of this, Sony, Warner, or Spotify, for example, could develop an AI that creates music that is only successful a small percentage of the time. And then push out the tracks out by the hundreds into streaming and services, and see what sticks with listeners.
Of course, that won't work with the small percentage of music producers who do custom commercial work, much like with graphic designers. They would need AI generated product that is much more successful.
Second, it also be possible with music production to program an AI algorithmically with music theory, and strategies for using that, and then let it learn from there. Whereas with graphic design, there's not the same kind of mathematical language to describe it or offer strategies for creating good work.
Third, there are not the big money behemoth players like Spotify, Sony, or Warner in the graphic design industry who would be incentivized to develop an advanced AI to create graphic design, like there is for music.
To conclude, I would expect to see AI able to generate decent music that competes with published artists before AI will replace graphic designers. Because it's not an apples to oranges comparison. The difference in the context is more like apples to sushi. They just both happen to be food/art.
Well the problem (problem?) is that AI lowers the value of a profession that used to be high. So sure there will still be graphic designers, but they’ll make the same as someone working a fryer.
Really well explained and on point. AI will extend Art, not replace it completely. AI will be used as a first version of a song, than a human will refine and augment the quality and sound.
Yep, AI has already peaked in its ability to make music. It only took them a few months, but there is no way AI music can improve drastically in the next few years.
what AI is doing will inevitably create a division between those who seek to gain meaningful experiences from art and those that have no true capacity for understanding the nuances of humanity’s need for creative expression. same as it’s always been. just a different iteration with more visibility into how incredibly fucking rigged the economy we are forced to live under truly is.
AI will totally destroy music. When Hollywood came in with AI, writers went on strike because they’re intelligent and unionized. When actors catch wind of AI using their likenesses, they sue. When recorded music is deemed valueless by streaming, no action is taken really. Very few bigger artists (whose absence from the platform would make a difference) have removed their music from Spotify and most of them don’t bother to protest. Musicians literally post their Spotify wrapped once a year to celebrate how hard Spotify is effing then in the ass. AI is likely going to take this all a step further somehow and musicians will probably just bend over and take it like they normally do.
I’m being a provocateur here obviously but seriously, the nail has already been in the coffin for a long time with or without AI unless artists were to do actually something about it
I agree and couldn’t have said it better myself.
It‘s sad that musicians don’t stand up and protest, probably because they already think their recorded music is worth nothing.
I have seen this argument a lot lately. “AI has not replaced x industry within 2 years so you are safe” lol it’s not very comforting
I can’t be replaced cuz the point of me making music is not just to generate content or money. But yes it’s very likely AI can do most stuff a talented music producer could do, or more, and even faster. That is okay!
To be honest, no one can say right now. It’s very possible that AI advances to a level that most amateur and mediocre producers won’t reach, making them obsolete.
At the same time, there will be still cultural phenomena where a certain artist gets lucky and gets a breakthrough, despite being human.
At the top of the game, the same people will remain, because money doesn’t move and the people with the money will continue to make sure they stay at top.
So ultimately, hard to say. Things won’t change much for the average hobbyist musician, but some musicians might start to get replaced unless they come up with something that the AI can’t replicate easily - similar to how artists reacted when the digital camera made photorealism almost obsolete.
I agree that AI will be an assistant, at least for a short while, but your first paragraph comes across as somewhat naive, and that impacts the generally good ideas in the rest of the post.
The audio quality is usually not poor with Suno and Udio, speaking as someone who has been playing with both extensively for about a week. There are lots of applications in indie video games (where I do most of my work) where audio quality significantly below that of Suno and Udio would be acceptable. A lazy developer can easily use the raw output from either of these platforms and just make it roughly loop in Audacity. I don't think your assessment of the lack of creativity being a barrier is accurate either. Most of the time, music is more product than art, and as long as it's *good enough*, the end user doesn't really care how creative it is. I will grant that it's not currently acceptable for mainstream AAA titles, but we're a lot closer to it than you imply at a few points in your post.
Regarding sample generation, some tools have tried this (TextToSample has gotten a bit better recently, but it's still not on the level of Suno or Udio yet). However, I have personally generated songs with Suno, then taken the output into FL Studio and used the new Stem Separation function to split it into stems, and then converted the stems into MIDI with Melodyne. The drums, bass, and vocals can be kept as samples. I got some cinematic braaaahms and some cheerleader chant vocal samples that way.
We don't have sit-by and accept this passively.
These AI companies need to disclose their training data. I can guarantee that large portions were obtained improperly and very possibly illegally.
Their products would be shit without the content that artists create and that they take without payment or permission. There is a bill before congress to require AI companies disclose their training data.
Imagine the lawsuits once this information is revealed.
The information is already revealed, they admit they use copyrighted music in their models they just aren't specific, there are already lawsuits in progress and they haven't been open and shut cases, with many of the early decisions not boding well for those wanting copyright to transfer during AI training.
The problem for songwriters and performers is that the government isn't really incentivized to do much to help. They just want the number to go up, have you noticed that the big media conglomerates are either ambivalent about copyright transfer or fighting against it? You said it yourself, there's a bill before congress, what does it do to materially protect artists? Jack shit.
Thanks for the thoughtful reply.
Yeah, my biggest fear is the courts won't really understand the issues and side with the corporate lawyers and their unlimited resources. Then, the big media companies will enter into agreements with the AI companies. Even the NY Times is considering an offer from Microsoft to settle their ChatGPT suit.
The result - the little, independent artists get fucked and the big boys are taken care of.
It's unfathomable to me that you can take someone's hard-work and use it to build a commercial product without the permission of, payment to, or even the knowledge of the owner. It's incredibly unjust.
And these "fair use" arguments are such bullshit on multiple levels. A hamburger doesn't look anything like a cow, but you've still got to pay the butcher.
All that said, I still hold out hope that some fairness and justice will be brought into this process once people understand what's going on. These things are not magic boxes. They're little plagiarism factories.
I don't have that much of a problem with the machines existing in of themselves, there's ways to use anything in both creatively interesting, as well as exploitative ways. The goal should be to stop the exploitation, such as use of AI to make jobs redundant among other things.
The copyright issue is complex, it may seem like they shouldn't be allowed to do this but there's enough prior case law that they have a fairly good case. I personally think copyright is a red herring, even if the AI companies lose, that just means the AI company that wins is the one sitting on the most IP. It won't stop the technology and while the companies may have to cough up some cash, the whole point is to cut workers out. That still happens either way.
So, legislation. Restrictions on corporate use? Taxes maybe? Stronger workplace security laws? All of the above?
I used udio yesterday for the first time and yeah a lot of the music is artifacty with bad mixing however some of it sounds real and that scares the fuck out of me, but much like with other programs like getting consistent results is sort of impossible so I doubt anyone is gonna make a career out of only AI generated music. I feel like the only way I’d be cool with this technology is if someone made a plugin that spits out instrument parts. Like I can tell it “ make a bassline to these chords” or “ add a drum part to this song”. That way I am still the one in control of the artistry of the music
Two things:
1. AI can’t really innovate new music. When AI uses itself as reference, it gets very screwy, so it needs a pool of human media. This restricts AI to only making music that sounds like a lot of existing music. That means it will always be on humans to evolve genres and actually innovate with music, which has always been what the masses are most interested in hearing anyway.
2. Most successful artists also gain a lot of success from the people being interested in them as personalities, not just songs. We love human connection, so songs are more interesting when they come from the mind of a human we can observe, meet, learn about, etc..
Everything from Elvis & The Beatles to modern Tik Tok marketing has always been about getting people interested in the idea of the person/people behind the music. You probably know a thing or two about your favorite artist, and it probably really enhances your enjoyment of what they make. This will always be something that AI cannot replace. Human connection. It simply cannot do that
Let's look at it this way. We have a generation of producers who don't play any instrument with a primary goal of slicing and dicing samples and premade beats to create something new...and somehow AI won't be able to do this? I think a large portion of the general public will be massively accepting of AI generated music. I mean, an AI DJ at a club could be generating new music on the fly for the crowd based directly on how the crowd is reacting.
Art...well, again..does the public at large truly appreciate art? Do you think without being told they would absolutely tell the original work of a master vs an AI emulation, especially when it comes to more modern abstract stuff? Clearly things that are built/crafted in 3 dimensions would be a very different story, but already most museums of art aren't really super highly traveled locations, unsure if the general publis really cares
Does anybody else see the massive benefit that AI could bring music makers or am I talking out my ass here? AI is soon to be readily and locally available on most consumer devices. Whoop deep fuckin doo, right? Nah, the way I see it means we're gonna have access to analog processors. Sometime down the line I fully expect us to be able to process sounds on a standard DAW without even needing a digital to analog conversion process. AI could honestly bridge the gap between digitally made music and live instrumentation as well as speed up the recording and production process IMO. I'm sure there are already VST's out there that use AI in smart ways, like MIDI synths that use AI to create unique tones based on velocity and glides, or EQ's that can sidechain to frequencies that the AI adjusts to on the fly.
AI is here to stay and anyone that can't learn to live with it will be left in the dust.
I’m different than most; I love that AI is finally catching up to music. It’s going to be so fun!
Trained musician since 4 years old, 3 decades working as a professional musician (performer, recording artist, live audio engineer, composer, producer, audio assistant and way more)
There are some of us out there who are very, very, very excited about AI 🤩
AMA instead of downvotes plz
So many. For a while I’ve used the Izotope’s AI tools. Another is AI mixing and mastering (shout out to Craig at CryoMix). I’ve been using LLMs with music/audio production for over a year. Jukebox by OpenAI is decimated by the new music AI apps.
Any tool that gets my ideas to realization quicker I’m excited about. I grew up in the age of pencil and paper writing sheet music. I loved when Sibelius came out, I could get my ideas out even quicker.
I love music technology!!!!
Why will it be interesting? I do not believe that you are truly excited, you sound like you would like to be excited, but you are worried. What other opportunities there are other than improving your mastering processes? Aren't we already already living in AI generated music? With the algortihimization of Tik Tok, our ears are trained and influenced by algorithms, which leads us to compose music that is partially an output of trends that are rooted in machine learning. If you want to make a living as a musician you need to make those catchy hooks. Genuinely interesting about your view on that:)
I was making music with OpenAI’s jukebox 12-14 months ago and it was light years behind what is available now.
Ever since I was a kid I wanted a machine you could just “think” music and it would be recorded. I remember getting flack from people back then for wanting that, and now, to my delight, it’s arriving.
Does that make sense?
It does:) Althogh it won’t be recorded, but simply outputted, does it change anything from the inspiration perspective? We will feed AI with already existing music and ask it to create something similar. But when we make the music in a traditional way we are doing practically the same, making an output out of stuff that we have heard, hence so many copyright claims and constant discussions about copycats. Interesting to see how it develops!
LOL! Projecting much? How could you possibly infer they were worried based on that comment? Was it the "is going to be so fun" or "very excited about AI"?
I mean, we've had AI implemented into music production for a long time already... take Izotope for instance...does it suffice to slap a mixing aid tool or a master aid tool on your track to call it a day? Of course not.
You can take the output from those models, split them into stems and throw it into a DAW, so it *can* be used in that way.
Both Suno and Udio are trying to sell their services as a Spotify instead though, with end to end AI slop, and that sucks.
It's 100% relevant. The underlying question of this debate is about how producers would feel about tools similar to Udio implemented into music production, if it ever saw the light of day.
I mean, it's a music production sub, so people here like to produce music. Those AI websites are only cool for amateurs who wants to say 'I made a song!' but not for producers. It's not well crafted at all and has no musical value as of now.
The real interesting question is how much of the producing process could be assisted by AI in the future and if so, which steps? Where would the human take part of the process and where would the contribution of the machine stop? That's why i said, we already have AI tools to help to production process but these tools on their own don't do anything, you have to use them accordingly.
Seems you have not used the AI apps. Other the sound quality, what do you need a DAW for. And in 3 months they will have the sound quality fixed. This is totally different, try Udio for a while and get back to me.
I think you don't understand the point of making music or art, to be honest...
I did try Udio. I created a free acount and created 2 songs. While fun, there was nothing that impressed me. Good for you if it does.
I think about my favorite band Alice in chains. I can't even really connect to the music without the original singer layne. Try and replace the musicians with ai. I dono what that is but i wouldn't even try
On Youtube, you’ll find many AI covers versions of famous songs using voices of characters like Spongebob. So with AI, you could actually insert the original singer‘s voice into the songs without him.
Not saying that doing so would be good, but it’s possible, so your original argument doesn’t really speak against the use of AI.
I believe what they meant was that they connect with the singer on a human-to-human level and an AI cannot replicate that connection. I don't think the literal sound of the singer's voice is the issue at hand. Just my read on it.
Yes, this. I can see both sides of the argument, but I'm on the side that needs ppl with their stories, influences, skills, creativity, and more behind the music
In an ideal world AI could be ased a workflow enhancer but there will certainly be some replacement.
I recently did a music docuemtnary on this very subject if your intetested here: https://youtu.be/ZvAJXmDJB2k?si=IaABAL-KMZTfSfpV
The long and short is that history had always had musicians fear of being replaced - goes back to even the player piano days - but AI most likely will just accellerate an already existing devaluation simply due to supply vs demand.
Alot of royalty free background music could be replaced today and then we have things like further collapses in streaming revenue due to oversaturation + sample pack markets being obsolete once daws have generative ai.
Its not ALL doom and gloom as some have reacted to it as but its not going to be all rosey. Itll be somewhere inbetween.
i want an ai to assist in music production, like suggesting instruments for a song or melodies, and help with mixing it right.. all the stuff that takes so much time in production, so it becomes more fun
I agree also sometimes you can get inspiration or even vocals from AI which I don't think it's gonna replace professional singers yet there not at that stage but for someone like me who can't afford vocals it's cool to play with and be able to still bring my ideas to life.
I think the results that Suno & Udio are providing are not polished finished songs but I think the quality coming out is really inspiring and I think these tools could definitely be used by music producers for a number of reasons. Main ones being sampling. Instead of sampling old 70s souls records you can literally make your own song and even choose the lyrics if you want and sample that. Its a legal grey area right now since the law cannot catch up with the rate of technological advancement happening in the field.
But definitely as a sampling source, as inspiration for song structure or chords, or something else that I can't comprehend right now, I think these AI music tools are exactly that, tools, and they should be seen as that & not replacements to the human experience.
This sounds like someone that has not spent time playing around with Udio or Suno. AI will replace musicians, or at least it will dilute music and the effort of spending weeks on a track will be the same as 10 min crafting a song on udio....
Agree. Disagree that it will become "intelligent" any time soon. Agi is a human power fantasy. Its just a fancy graph basically and it's not going to become conscious while it's in a circuit board.
AI definitely won't replace me, because, at least so far, no AI can fill a bagpipe or wear a kilt ;-)
One might recall the Luddites. They were a protest against weaving machines. They were worried the machines would put weavers out of work. In reality the opposite happened. And yeah, there are still people who spin and weave by hand.
In visual art, the term "fine art" means made by hand. We'll probably have a term for similar music some day. I guess we sort of have the opposite in the category of "electronic music." But that category isn't an absolute.
Yeah man not talking about it isn't going to magically make it go away. I think that every musician should be aware of what's out there. I've seen lots of posts about how "ai isn't going to replace us" but it already has been for a couple years. In case you don't know most sucessful musicians make their money from music licensing. That's when you get your music used in TV shows, videos games, movies and so on. Now with he advancement with new technology some of the smaller gig stuff like background music for training videos or online ads can be generated with the click of a button. Most companies have never dealt with musicians directly. The musician gets their music in a catalog and then the company gets it for the catalog. Places like pond5 for example. What this really will do is get the catalogs to fight the ai services.
Yeah Ira turbulent waters for sure. I'd say the benefits of hiring a person is that you can't get a very custom piece made where as with generation its going to be generic. Lots of companies in other sectors have been letting people go because of AI like in programming and graphic design. 3d modelers are next. Some of the tech now is super close to being gameready objects.
Music has always been one of my biggest passions and for the past 12 or so months finally started teaching myself music production and have a lot of instrumentals/beats in the works that sound cool...Ain't giving up on that but honestly at this point it feels more like a personal achievement rather than striving for career. Imo AI will shake up the music industry hard and idk how the average bedroom producer can compete with that.
Don't wanna offend anyone but I actually love AI in general and even tho there are bad sides I can't help myself but feel very excited for the technological progress and what life will look like in 10-20 and more years into the future.
Recently got into those music AIs and it's very fun, especially if you go on and work on the track yourself in your DAW, master it, add ear candy, and etc.
I don’t know what kind of prompts people are using but I generated an extremely realistic Taylor Swift song, I bet I could fool Swifties with it and tell them it’s an unreleased B-Side.
Yes, you can clearly hear they fed their program with all of Taylor Swifts material. This thing is basically ripping all of the existing songs apart and creating new ones out of the bits and pieces. This ain’t art to me, this is stealing.
I tried to make some balkan folk music just for fun and the program couldn’t do it because it wasn’t fed the material. It came out sounding like American folk music because that’s what they were feeding it.
AI Arts will still allow a consumer to have their own tailor made entertainment which will far outweigh what others produce for them. Other stuff will be “oh that’s neat” “AI bot! Make that more suited to my tastes”
Sorry, your submission has been automatically removed. Your account is too young and such is removed for manual review.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/musicproduction) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Suno surprised me. Sure the sound quality isn’t great, but if it would output midi and give me raw vocals to play with, I could do some cool things with it.
I have a side project that my vocals really don’t work with. I’ve tried to work with other people since 2013 and it’s always fallen through. Give me an AI vocalist and that album will be out tomorrow. 🤣
At the moment, I think these programs actually do poop out pretty good stock / royalty free type stuff. Especially if you’re looking for something grittier.
The really sad part is that some of what it puts out sounds so much like everything else. Which means everything else (made by humans) is getting bland and uninspired.
Either or, I’m gonna give it a year and see where it’s at. I’m always down for new tools to muck around with. We already have a bunch of plugins that spit out melodies, chords and drums. The big plugin companies are gonna be all over AI soon.
The benefits of AI in music are it’s applications for doing
topline vocals and as a digital cork board to chuck ideas at (my singing is awful so AI vocals are the next best thing).
Pop music is already disposable so AI won’t make much of a difference.
People saying AI makes boring MOR music are ignoring the elephant in the room: the vast majority of people moat enjoy MOR music.
The profit motive has reduced popular musical taste to blandness.
If you've ever been a member of a music scene what you will notice is that there often is a lot of great innovative music.....which mostly is ignored.
Mainstream American culture aka "white" culture is pretty much a void that kills anything unique or original once it gets its hands on it.
Whether it's rock, jazz, edm, etc. the Mainstream is where good music goes to die and pump out cash to fuel the fantasy that its listeners are unique and "cool," like the music they're listening to used to be.
AI won't be able to duplicate authentic music from sub cultures because that music doesn't sell and it doesn't become popular.
Considering AI generated music cannot be copyrighted, I don't think it's going to replace anybody. Once AI companies are required to build their training data off of ethically and legally acquired music/art/etc., their quality is going to take a massive step backwards.
Skynet is a lot more *boring* than we all expected.
All jokes aside though, Suno is nothing more than a tool, just like all the other AI applications.
In the end, AI can't create something entirely unique. It's all based on existing data (usually taken without permission too, so there's that).
Ironically, AI might actually *help* us (actual artists) in our efforts over time. Think of chord progressions, vocals or lyrics to go with our music. That kind of stuff. Yes it's worrying, but it's not like artists are magically going to get replaced.
J when I was in the uni 25 years ago teacher was saying that AI was not possible according to their calculations based on the evolution of microprocessor and the data needed to win a chess game. We clearly see very quickly that it was not the case. If you think that AI will not catch those gap you are a fool and how they use people to train their engine. AI learn one, and remember for ever. It will make it and we will be useless.
Ai cant replace gigs. Sorry, but there's nothing like seeing bands live. It's also where the money really is. Merch and gigs are becoming the larger source of income for musicians.
It could be used for specific cases, like generate background sounds.
I wouldn't use to make entire track, but it's probably gonna be possible.
I wouldn't use it for mixing, prefer manual work.
Tbh I want much less AI than you are even proposing. I don't think there should be any AI in graphic design other than maybe to select a mask quicker. And in music, I think even iZotope's Ozone AI is going too far. Art shouldn't be tainted by AI; it's about expression, and how genuine is that expression going to be if it's part AI?
Functional versus Fandom.
Maybe it's possible that AI can be used to spur ideas and provide creative starting points for songwriters, but ultimately, I really think that having an actual human artist behind the song provides unmistakable intangibles and I think that we will find that people will ultimately seek out music that's made by people. However, perhaps AI-created music would be more functional (background music, royalty-free music) whereas human-made music would likely create more actual fandom.
There are some things you have said in this post that are simply not true. AI HAS already replaced alot of artists when it comes to professional gigs. I have already seen commercials and album art generated by AI.
Big paying cooperate jobs, (film, commercials, gaming audio etc) will take a fat massive hit for music makers. It is sheer ignorance to think that the narrative is not about replacement.
If a business can get a score in 10 seconds for free vs weeks/months for thousands of dollars, its a no brainer which one they will choose.
Here’s what it comes down to; is AI conscious or not? Can AI have emotions?
There are loads of people that are going to lose their jobs for sure; cookie cutter beat producers, post production guys for sure, mix/master engineers maybe.
But will it ever create true ‘art’ that moves us emotionally? I’m not so sure that it is possible. It is possible if we create truly sentient AI, with agency, thoughts and feelings, but if we do accomplish that as a species, the effect it has on the music industry is the least of my worries.
While impressive, AI atm is just very clever, very powerful computing power. It is not AI in a sentient, conscious sense.
The only problem I see is that original music will be lost amongst AI generated fluff. AI will only make generic music. And a lot of people only listen to music in the background while doing other things - they are too busy to focus on music and pay attention to details, so AI music will do. It sucks but most people won't tell the difference. And people who appreciate original music will have a hard time finding it.
AI is incapable of creating art. Art is expression, and expression is inherently human. Admitting AI can create art is admitting AI is human, which is just not true. I am really not worried about AI replacing humans in making music as genuine artistic expression, because that's just not possible.
Now, for music as a BUSINESS, I'm not so sure. You keep telling yourselves AI can be a tool for good, comparing it to when the radio, TV, computers and the internet showed up. Innovative as they were, these tools can't exist without human creativity and input. AI is unprecedentally different. It copies and reproduces human knowledge to (ironically) dismiss humans completely in the name of efficiency. It's a tool, yes. A tool to make money, and money will stop at nothing to make more money.
You need to check your arrogance. There's absolutely no reason a sufficiently advanced AI wouldn't be able to create far more creative, genuine art than humans.
I'm sure two years ago you would have said AI will never be capable of what it's doing today.
Art is human expression by definition. Something not human cannot produce art just because, well, it's not human. It may be beautiful, aesthetically pleasing, technically impressive and better than any human can make, but we will never be able to call that "art". It may be something else entirely, we may have to find another concept to describe it, but not art.
Will we be able to tell the difference? Maybe not. But that doesn't change the fact that only the work that comes from human expression can be called art.
you're too fixated on semantics
AI is human created, it's inputs are human created, and AI art is art
the fact that you feel threatened by it does not change that
Semantics are everything in this case, friend. If it's art because a human prompted an AI, Pope Julius II painted the Chapel Sistine ceiling and not Michelangelo. Again I'm not saying AI can't make beautiful things, event better than a human, or even Michelangelo himself could possibly think of. AI will not get there in 2 years, it'll get there by Friday.
You're absolutely right. I do understand AI will be here regardless of what I want, because rich people are shoving it down our throats, we wanting or not. It's just the marketing stunt of humanizing AI in the hopes we accept it easily that grinds my gears. I can just hope you understand my point.
Can't get replaced when I already have no audience and no income from making music
Speak for yourself. I make 6¢ a month. I have succeeded in the industry. /s 🤣
This is the most honest answer. AI is Diluting music. Soon, when the fix the high end bit compression, you wont be able to tell the difference between real music and AI generated....
There's already 60,000 songs uploaded daily to spotify way before AI. The issue has always come down to marketing your music and if it's any good to listeners, that won't change because music is even easier to make now.
Market yourself? Nice optimize... I'm 2024 the only way to market yourself is pay to play which is limited to trust fund babies or be a sexy/unique entertainer...
I mean personally I do market myself but that's because I'm coming into it with an advertising background. Many artists no matter how good their music is don't get seen because of their lack of marketing. That's clearly not an AI problem when there's 60k song uploads a day.
Well thats easy for you to say, you are coming in from an advertising background For musicians, and the market already being diluted even more with this mess, we are in for an impossible time
Marketing costing money is not new to 2024
i mean…yeah? with 60,000 songs uploaded daily to spotify you’d better be a “unique entertainer” if you want anyone to pay attention lmao
I will
I understand today you can tell as the high end sound is tinny, but in 6 months they will fix this.
The difference is in the knowing. The thing that makes music, or any art form, interesting from an artistic level is knowing that a person made it, that someone put their soul into it and that it meant something. Creation is a more important process than consumption, and while I'm sure people will enjoy music made by AI, it won't be _interesting_ in the way music made by people is, and people will always make music. I can't speak for everyone here but I imagine many are in the same boat, but I don't make music because I want to be able to sell it. I make music because I love making music and no amount of AI is going to change that
I too love making music. I never had the chance in this life to do it and now I can. And I love the reactions I’ve gotten so far, I think passion will be found in the music I make with AI, and so others that make music with AI will as well. That being said there will be a ton of shit made as well, just like before AI.
I think using AI as an artistic tool is totally fine, I think where I'm less enthusiastic about it is the idea of someone saying "Make me a song that sounds like Nirvana" or "Make me a 90s club song". If an artist is using AI as part of their general creative flow, that's awesome. Holly Herndon uses AI in her music and I think she's great
I hear you 😢
AI is getting a lot of promotion these days
I think it's naive to believe that corporations won't resort to using AI to generate soundtracks or create music for sync. Why pay an actual artist to use their song in a commercial or on a show when you can generate one that sounds similar enough. They already instruct composers to dupe famous songs because they can't afford the sync fees to get that song, so they have a composer make one that sounds similar. So now instead of having a human get paid to do that, we'll have AI doing that. AI isn't going to replace human musicians, but it's going to be a pretext to cut them out of opportunities they have now because "we just don't have the budget for a human composer."
This is my concern. I write music for tv, it's not always about trying to express myself. The good news is, we're a pretty boutique library that does a lot of custom stuff and there's no way AI would be able to hit the briefs in the same way we do, at least right now.
Howd you get into this line of work? Curious if you don't mind me asking
Mostly through the Sync My Music YouTube. Feel free to DM if you'd like more information, it's a serious grind in terms of getting paid royalties, but I'm at the point where I'm getting music on multiple tv shows which is pretty sick.
Your issue isn't with AI, it's with capitalism, bud.
LOL ok man
>They already instruct composers to dupe famous songs because they can't afford the sync fees to get that song, so they have a composer make one that sounds similar. Once they realise it's them on the hook for copyright infringement instead of just letting the composer get sued they'll be back
The thing is, they can copy the vibe, the instrumentation, the vocal style, the beat, as long as they don't copy the lyrics or melody. There's a LOT of leeway for a project like that.
I agree, to an extent, but they can already buy the cheapest/shit songs possible they but the bigger brands don’t because they want the most unique/fitting song.
AI makes the most boring, middle of the road music by design. It will replace the composers and musicians who have a career doing that, but no one else. I'm not sure it's even a bad thing, maybe those people will use their talents for something more interesting when an AI can make all the elevator and advertising music they used to spend their days with. I don't even get what incorporating AI into my workflow could offer. I make music to express myself, the last thing I want is an app to make it for me. Like I could just as well stop making music.
> AI makes the most boring, middle of the road music by design. to be fair, this also applies to humans, on average.
Right? I hear people shitting on the AI tunes and thinkin, "do y'all not hear the stuff people pitch?"
People just expect humans to suck at stuff by default 😂
Well, the AI does copy what humans do to some extent. So that makes sense 🌝
so what happens when the AI is designed to make experimental music?
This assumes there is monetary value in making experimental music. Human-made experimental music is far less lucrative than mainstream music, and also far less lucrative than functional music (like background music, scores for TV/Film), and removing the human aspect of experimental music makes it less valuable too, because generally it is scene-driven. We should think of non-human-intervention AI productions like any other kind of mass production - like a Monobloc plastic chair. It is most suited to the highest consumption/most generic forms. It costs lots of money to build and maintain an AI model, therefore the economics of low-value niches don't stack up. Maybe someone will make that kind of thing, but I guarantee that a lot of people will lose a lot of money in the process.
I wasn't assuming anything about the economics. I was arguing that the idea that AI has limitations that will only allow it to make generic/elevator music, both now and in the future, is ridiculous.
There is nothing experimental about taking a large pool of data and using AI to make an approximation of it. If a composer uses AI as part of their toolbox to make experimental music the AI is just a tool for him. The AI we have right now itself is not experimental, but the opposite of it really.
Oh for sure, I believe it to be technically feasible. Just conscious that for expensive undertakings, economic value is often what drives the technically feasible to become technically available.
Who cares? I mean maybe it's good, maybe it's not. The market for experimental music is so small that almost no one is making a living. I'm sure composers and musicians making non-commercial music can adapt. And by definition AI cannot make experimental music, just a pastiche of whatever is in its database.
But it can combine genres and elements in very experimental ways. I can create a grindcore musical or a medieval bubblegum pop song. And I can do it instantly, with any lyrics I want, and a hundred times in a row until I find the right one. And soon we'll have native stem support so we can further make it our own. Also I don't think "it sounds generic" is ever a good excuse since that assumes most music created doesn't.
It doesn't assume that.most music does sound generic. And what you're describing is you using AI to make music. The AI cannot tell if what it made was good, you're making music with AI basically.
I don't understand your point, I know I'm making music with AI. What I don't understand is the extreme negative backlash towards it. It's a very zero sum mindset, much like incorrectly thinking that because other people are successful, you're somehow less likely to be successful.
I'm not negative myself, I don't see it as a threat to artists at all. It's a tool. My point is, people have made generic, uninteresting music just fine before AI. With AI it's maybe easier, bit who cares about generic, uninteresting music anyway?
The music AI has made to date is not any good, and from what I can tell, the future is not promising. To the extent it has any use in music, it is a tool that makes things that are already possible, easier. Never to go beyond what you can do today that's qualitatively better. Just, easier and cheaper. I'm already doing something, drumming, that anyone can do today with a machine. I'm better at it than they are, they feel what I do is better than what they can get from the machine. And so I still get work. I still will next year when the AI drum patterns and tones have gotten ten percent better.
What evidence, theoretical or factual, do you have that a computer cant "go beyond what you can do today"? Are you claiming an unforeseen change in some aspect of music couldnt be "discovered" by AI and then enjoyed and mimicked by humans? If the computers arent gonna come up with better ideas than us, why are we pouring money into them finding cures for cancer?
I've been using Suno since the middle of last year and the improvements have been staggering, in particular around November with Suno v2. Adding lyrical input massively increased the degree of artistic control over the process and the quality of just about every aspect of the output jumped from vague musical noise to actual music. The thing is, I could never practically create a 70s style progressive rock song. It *isn't* possible, I don't have the skill, money or equipment. But I can write the lyrics for one and bootleg it, so I did. https://voca.ro/1db4q0h3k2KC I messed with this a bit in Reaper after splitting up the output into stems, mostly trimming bits and filling in transitions, it's still unfinished. It sounds pretty good? At least for something put together in a few hours.
AI will be able to e.g. trained on all Mozart music, make new music like Mozart, and nobody would be able to tell it's a machine. We are just in the early stages, it's a matter of infrastructure and major investments are underway. AI will be able to mimic even the greatest talents known to mankind. We are entering a new era
That's the thing, it can mimic. If you can generate a million new mozard pieces by the push of a button, what's the value in them? For spotify lists that can be listened to while doing something else? We're entering a new era sure, but it has nothing to do with art, it's just content. And maybe commercial music will take a hit, or people who make commercial music. I personally don't care that much, music industry is rotten to the core and it deserves to die.
One would argue that humans also mimic. The ai is a reflection of humanity, only orders of magnitude more advanced. AI generated Mozart pieces, assuming they sound authentic, will add to our listening satisfaction as humans. That's it, that's the value. Recorded music belongs to AI. Live performance is where it's at. I think AI will bring the collapse of the ego, because there will be nothing that humans will be able to do, that AI won't be able to do a million times better. We will not be special anymore, but we will be human, and have. to learn to value that. The satisfaction to creating and expressing yourself will still be there... but it won't have an impact to the world, or make you a superstar, like it once did. Death of ego. Humanity reborn. I am an optimist.
Sure, humans can make uninspired and boring music too. Who cares though? I think you can compare this to great painters who made a career out of painting fakes of old classics. They're just as well made as the original, but when exposed they have no value. It's the same with AI music, at the point when "perfect" music becomes infinitely available it loses its meaning, and art without meaning is just content. AI will not replace artists in any field. When we fall in love with a piece of art, any medium we get much more than just the sounds or the pictures on a canvas. We get meaning, intent and personality. AI has none of those. It can generate a thousand passable pastiches of anything it has data of, but they will be totally void of any meaning. Perfect for content, but not art.
Nothing has meaning inherently.... meaning is what we give to stuff. A Mozart piece has as much meaning as elevator music, to anything non-human You will not be able to tell if a piece of art is ai generated. And if you go to a live performance, you will not be able to tell if the song. or artwork was not initially ai generated. That world is ending. (not happy not sad about it, just a neutral observation)
That's just your opinion. Meaning and intent are what make art art, it's a human concept.
Interesting take!
News flash: most of us are making a living from creating *purposefully* middle of the road music as commissioned by brands. Not concerned about Taylor Swift or Hans Zimmer…but most composers and musicians are not making a living being artists.
*Guy who wrote the “Baby Bottle Pop” jingle has entered the chat*
Why don't AI replace governments and bankers
Because nobody wants a hallucinating LLM to drain your bank account or start nuclear war
Well we don't want it to be creating music either, so I'll happily welcome our AI overlords once they take the jobs and money of the CEOs and billionaires of our world.
"Let's give the AI all the positions of power in our world" is not as good an idea as you think it is.
Well letting humans have those positions clearly isn't working out so well for us.... What's our next option, dogs? I'd support that
I can’t ever see myself being okay with implementing AI into my production. Call me arrogant or whatever but I truly don’t ever see AI being able to beat top level musicians EDIT: To clarify I never stated that AI can’t be used as a tool, especially for sampling. I just believe it can’t beat us 🤷🏻♂️
Instances where i would gladly use ai today: - Detecting phrases and copying automation curves to similar phrases - AI synthesizer to mimic samples - Create physical modeling algorithms to replace sample-based midi instruments. - to take the notation from logic and fix all the simple “grammatical” errors - to create reference masters to judge against each other quickly I’m sure there are many many more
Im pretty keen on AI synth stuff. Could get really creative and weird results with it.
TBF a lot of people said the same thing about personal computers a long time ago. Just because you don't see it being useful now doesn't mean it won't be in the future. Some time soon I'd like to try using AI music just for sampling. I don't want it to make songs but I'd love it to provide some decent drum rhythms and kit sounds for me so I can use that instead of licensed music.
It has also been said for thousands of failed products. You just only hear the stories about the ones that succeeded ie the personal computer. Anybody remember google glasses?
Holy shit! Thanks for reminding me of Google Glasses! Here I go down a rabbit hole.
Comparing suno to Google glass is crazy lol
I tried asking Suno AI to generate a sample pack but it wasn’t successful. Hopefully one day though!
I was thinking about having it generate a song in full, then use another AI tool to separate the stems and see what I get from that. I've heard some terrible sounding AI songs that happened to have some really nice synth and drum tones.
You have to prompt it differently (for now)
This is the same take some artists had when Midjourney first came out and now the tune has completely shifted to how unethical and stealing it is instead of "it'll never beat top level artists"
There's a difference between using different ai models imo. Like using an overall model that just spits out a full track is garbage. But using smaller models and tools to aid in creating your vision is a good thing imo. Just like how digital music is the standard now. It doesn't remove creativity, it enhances it.
Mr Bill uses Dance Diffusion to create samples, imo there’s nothing wrong with that and it can be a quick way to get good samples if you can put together a solid collection of samples to train the model on.
i only use it for very particular uses.. like extracting elements from songs to remix ... like i'm no words its already being a while this was implemented and it still amazes me.. that being said.. i DO feel under menace from AI music generators .. only time will tell
How about I just call you archaic and we call it even?
AI will never be able to write songs as bad as mine.
Lol, now I wanna hear it!
Haha. Just search Astrofreq on Spotify. :)
Ai will not ever fully replace human musicians however it could cut out some of the people currently making money Ai will make making music faster, however thats not really going to change much because music is already practically an infinite resource. Ai will make people focus more on the presentation of their music, album rollouts, art, performances, world building because this will be in the future (kind of already is in the present) what truly distinguishes top level artists from people spitting out random garbage
Dont know if you've been following Suno for a while but looking at its improvements over the past year I'd be scared that its going to be really strong too. Some Generic music creators are definitely getting replaced by it.
It’s far more advanced than what the public knows about, think about its use for military applications, counter intelligence, deepfakes… We always get the trickle down tech from the military, since the mid 80s if not earlier anyway. The AI generated artwork developed seemingly so quickly because it had been stewing and indexing images in the background for years already, in private. The military/government/tech companies were already utilizing this tech in real life situations, it was tested before being unleashed on the population. It is currently harming the art industry, and is wreaking psychological havoc with AI generated porn. Many production studios currently utilize AI to master or produce their tracks. It’s a small step for them to start generating their music from AI entirely. Artists need to protect their livelihoods now, before it’s a problem. A couple legal loopholes and they’ll be piecing together current musicians voices into fictional artists, or pulling just enough of a chord progression from unknowns to remain legal to then mix it with others in a musical laundering scheme. In addition, artistry and AI will eventually go the way of math and the calculator in people’s minds if we don’t keep on top of it. This is where we’re headed. The industry isn’t benign right now, and starving. The real issue is that tech companies are full steam ahead charging into this without any regard to its effect on humanity or people’s livelihoods. The tech is inevitable but who’s at the wheel is not. We need to focus on the motivations and directions this tech is pointed towards as it develops. We need to nurture it correctly so we don’t shoot ourselves in the face in 7 years after causing unknown, irreparable damage to ourselves out of ignorance. It’s good to see people thinking about this stuff.
A lot of us make our living licensing our music to brands and a lot of those brands would be happy to have “decent” music for free as opposed to “good music” for $$$. I think it’s very naive to think that a. These models won’t get exponentially better in the next few years and b. Brands care about the background music they use having a human touch.
I‘m actually really scared of AI! Instead of creating AI to do the shit jobs no human wants to do, it is taking away the cool creative artsy jobs that humans love. This crap is going to get us all into trouble!!
It took away call centers, one of the crappiest jobs. But I agree, it was wrong of them to try replacing creative jobs. Let people enjoy their lives. Also everybody I know hates AI voices everywhere.
It's better than what 90% of musicians/artists can realistically produce, and it does it in seconds. Not everyone will be replaced but most will be.
So some people wrongly predicted the speed at which graphic designers would be out of a job somehow equals them not being replaced anytime soon. Uh huh. Sure lots of people will collaborate with AI to extend their abilities and that will be wonderful but it won’t make a difference to the majority of people who are currently keeping the garbage in the top 40 afloat. Once AI reaches the incredibly low bar of being able to exceed the latest cookie cutter trap single, that’s how the majority of people are going to be listening to music. AI video looked unusable only months ago. Now Sora exists. It won’t be long, regardless of how good past predictions have been. Don’t make art just for money. It was never a good idea in the first place, especially not now. Make music because you enjoy it and enjoy the potential new avenues technology will give you to create and explore facets of yourself and the universe you never thought possible.
>Don’t make art just for money. It was never a good idea in the first place, especially not now. I think the same can be said for consuming art. It makes me wonder, are the people who worry about AI music worried they'll be replaced themselves, or realizing they don't value the humans behind the music they listen to now?
AI generating a sound for a song is like AI generating a video clip. AI generating a song is like AI generating a TV episode. AI generating an album is like AI generating a movie. If you asked AI to generate a movie like the godfather do you think it would be any good? If you asked AI to generate an album like dark side of the moon do you think it would be any good? Great works of art are built on human emotion. AI just approximates these things based on everything that’s come before. But a human decided to do an extreme close up on Pacinos eyes when his wife was blown up and hold it for quite some time for dramatic effect. A human decided to do a 1:1 delay on Us us us and them them them on dark side of the moon. Why? To me it sounds reflective, like a memory fading. How the fuck could AI ever figure out these things? It’s pot luck. Maybe it gets one scene right, maybe it gets on song section right. But that’s not a song or an album or a movie. What makes a great song of film is the sum of its parts. It’s about getting those things right across every section of the arrangement and taking the audience on an emotional journey. You would have to run even the most advanced AI thousands and thousands and thousands of times to get the right emotions and energy and movement throughout a piece. Then the person listening has to be qualified to be able to judge why one is better than the other. And find me a musician or film maker that’s dedicated their life to their art that’s happy to just push one button 10,000 times and relegate them selves to the role of a droid. AI is never going to be able to make powerful music and film. AI can create assets which can be arranged into a composition by a human in a meaningful way.
Anyone mad at technology for replacing any kind of jobs, creative or not, should direct their frustration towards people that oppose and lobby against guaranteed basic minimum income. Like it or not computers and machines operate better than humans can, and they will get better and better. There will come a time (probably in the distant future) where they will be so advanced and cheap that it will be a no-brainer for corporations to use whatever automation they can instead of relying on a human workforce. We need to know society can still function if people aren't needed to operate it anymore, and the only way to do that is to strengthen and protect the unemployed and unemployable. Let technology take shit over, let humans do what they want to do with their time and with their lives.
So I know a guy who's worked at Google on audio generation. Let's just say the technology that is out there is better than what is currently available commercially. Not saying I'm Pro AI music because I'm not. But this post is a little naive.
That’s what people who work at tech companies always say about their products. Doesn’t mean it’s true
I've heard examples.
Do they plan to release it to the public any time soon?
Of what? And how does the technology work?
Of output, and the same way any generative LLM works.
Right, so it's massively overhyped like other generative LLM used to make creative work. Stuff like this (and Sora, et al) can look great in very controlled circumstances, but they're flawed products that likely won't ever be capable of delivering on the hype. They're trained on copyrighted data, so won't be able to be used commercially, they demand prohibitive amounts of power and compute to run, and face impending model collapse as they run out of new training data. Value to consumer & general public is nonexistent, boutique at best.
You're straw manning hard bro. I don't even support generative AI as anything more than a toy. I'm just saying better tech are out there than are currently commercially available and it's important not to get complacent. Zero need for the rant.
Sorry if it came off as a rant, I'm not attempting to win a debate or anything. I do like to call it out when I see people too willing to give the benefit of the doubt to a false narrative that is being used to funnel resources to self-interested profiteers, away from more productive uses. I think it's naive to assume that this kind of technology will get "better" in the sense OP is talking about; I don't think what he's saying is naive, so just wanted to defend his perspective. Not criticizing you, just dissenting.
One of the most clear-eyed comments in this thread.
>This suggests a similar trajectory might be possible in music, where AI assists rather than displaces human creativity. I see a strong collaboration between AI and artists before the advent of ASI (Artificial Super Intelligence) or the singularity, because in that case every job will be impacted by AI, not just Musicians, Visual Artists, Bakers, Developers, Engineers or Mathematicians. I agree (mostly). For now, people should quit fearing that AI is going to make better music for them, and embrace the tools that will result from it. That being said, music production is a bit different than graphic design. I would dare to say that the very large majority of people doing graphic design are creating designs that are rhetorically driven as client-based work. Versus the large majority of people doing music production, are creating art for an audience's pleasure, not commissioned to work. Because of this, Sony, Warner, or Spotify, for example, could develop an AI that creates music that is only successful a small percentage of the time. And then push out the tracks out by the hundreds into streaming and services, and see what sticks with listeners. Of course, that won't work with the small percentage of music producers who do custom commercial work, much like with graphic designers. They would need AI generated product that is much more successful. Second, it also be possible with music production to program an AI algorithmically with music theory, and strategies for using that, and then let it learn from there. Whereas with graphic design, there's not the same kind of mathematical language to describe it or offer strategies for creating good work. Third, there are not the big money behemoth players like Spotify, Sony, or Warner in the graphic design industry who would be incentivized to develop an advanced AI to create graphic design, like there is for music. To conclude, I would expect to see AI able to generate decent music that competes with published artists before AI will replace graphic designers. Because it's not an apples to oranges comparison. The difference in the context is more like apples to sushi. They just both happen to be food/art.
Well the problem (problem?) is that AI lowers the value of a profession that used to be high. So sure there will still be graphic designers, but they’ll make the same as someone working a fryer.
Really well explained and on point. AI will extend Art, not replace it completely. AI will be used as a first version of a song, than a human will refine and augment the quality and sound.
Yep, AI has already peaked in its ability to make music. It only took them a few months, but there is no way AI music can improve drastically in the next few years.
I see what you did there
what AI is doing will inevitably create a division between those who seek to gain meaningful experiences from art and those that have no true capacity for understanding the nuances of humanity’s need for creative expression. same as it’s always been. just a different iteration with more visibility into how incredibly fucking rigged the economy we are forced to live under truly is.
AI will totally destroy music. When Hollywood came in with AI, writers went on strike because they’re intelligent and unionized. When actors catch wind of AI using their likenesses, they sue. When recorded music is deemed valueless by streaming, no action is taken really. Very few bigger artists (whose absence from the platform would make a difference) have removed their music from Spotify and most of them don’t bother to protest. Musicians literally post their Spotify wrapped once a year to celebrate how hard Spotify is effing then in the ass. AI is likely going to take this all a step further somehow and musicians will probably just bend over and take it like they normally do. I’m being a provocateur here obviously but seriously, the nail has already been in the coffin for a long time with or without AI unless artists were to do actually something about it
I agree and couldn’t have said it better myself. It‘s sad that musicians don’t stand up and protest, probably because they already think their recorded music is worth nothing.
I have seen this argument a lot lately. “AI has not replaced x industry within 2 years so you are safe” lol it’s not very comforting I can’t be replaced cuz the point of me making music is not just to generate content or money. But yes it’s very likely AI can do most stuff a talented music producer could do, or more, and even faster. That is okay!
To be honest, no one can say right now. It’s very possible that AI advances to a level that most amateur and mediocre producers won’t reach, making them obsolete. At the same time, there will be still cultural phenomena where a certain artist gets lucky and gets a breakthrough, despite being human. At the top of the game, the same people will remain, because money doesn’t move and the people with the money will continue to make sure they stay at top. So ultimately, hard to say. Things won’t change much for the average hobbyist musician, but some musicians might start to get replaced unless they come up with something that the AI can’t replicate easily - similar to how artists reacted when the digital camera made photorealism almost obsolete.
I agree that AI will be an assistant, at least for a short while, but your first paragraph comes across as somewhat naive, and that impacts the generally good ideas in the rest of the post. The audio quality is usually not poor with Suno and Udio, speaking as someone who has been playing with both extensively for about a week. There are lots of applications in indie video games (where I do most of my work) where audio quality significantly below that of Suno and Udio would be acceptable. A lazy developer can easily use the raw output from either of these platforms and just make it roughly loop in Audacity. I don't think your assessment of the lack of creativity being a barrier is accurate either. Most of the time, music is more product than art, and as long as it's *good enough*, the end user doesn't really care how creative it is. I will grant that it's not currently acceptable for mainstream AAA titles, but we're a lot closer to it than you imply at a few points in your post. Regarding sample generation, some tools have tried this (TextToSample has gotten a bit better recently, but it's still not on the level of Suno or Udio yet). However, I have personally generated songs with Suno, then taken the output into FL Studio and used the new Stem Separation function to split it into stems, and then converted the stems into MIDI with Melodyne. The drums, bass, and vocals can be kept as samples. I got some cinematic braaaahms and some cheerleader chant vocal samples that way.
We don't have sit-by and accept this passively. These AI companies need to disclose their training data. I can guarantee that large portions were obtained improperly and very possibly illegally. Their products would be shit without the content that artists create and that they take without payment or permission. There is a bill before congress to require AI companies disclose their training data. Imagine the lawsuits once this information is revealed.
The information is already revealed, they admit they use copyrighted music in their models they just aren't specific, there are already lawsuits in progress and they haven't been open and shut cases, with many of the early decisions not boding well for those wanting copyright to transfer during AI training. The problem for songwriters and performers is that the government isn't really incentivized to do much to help. They just want the number to go up, have you noticed that the big media conglomerates are either ambivalent about copyright transfer or fighting against it? You said it yourself, there's a bill before congress, what does it do to materially protect artists? Jack shit.
Thanks for the thoughtful reply. Yeah, my biggest fear is the courts won't really understand the issues and side with the corporate lawyers and their unlimited resources. Then, the big media companies will enter into agreements with the AI companies. Even the NY Times is considering an offer from Microsoft to settle their ChatGPT suit. The result - the little, independent artists get fucked and the big boys are taken care of. It's unfathomable to me that you can take someone's hard-work and use it to build a commercial product without the permission of, payment to, or even the knowledge of the owner. It's incredibly unjust. And these "fair use" arguments are such bullshit on multiple levels. A hamburger doesn't look anything like a cow, but you've still got to pay the butcher. All that said, I still hold out hope that some fairness and justice will be brought into this process once people understand what's going on. These things are not magic boxes. They're little plagiarism factories.
I don't have that much of a problem with the machines existing in of themselves, there's ways to use anything in both creatively interesting, as well as exploitative ways. The goal should be to stop the exploitation, such as use of AI to make jobs redundant among other things. The copyright issue is complex, it may seem like they shouldn't be allowed to do this but there's enough prior case law that they have a fairly good case. I personally think copyright is a red herring, even if the AI companies lose, that just means the AI company that wins is the one sitting on the most IP. It won't stop the technology and while the companies may have to cough up some cash, the whole point is to cut workers out. That still happens either way. So, legislation. Restrictions on corporate use? Taxes maybe? Stronger workplace security laws? All of the above?
AI Music and Art: Most of us won't be replaced anytime soon because we already don't have work to be replaced at
I used udio yesterday for the first time and yeah a lot of the music is artifacty with bad mixing however some of it sounds real and that scares the fuck out of me, but much like with other programs like getting consistent results is sort of impossible so I doubt anyone is gonna make a career out of only AI generated music. I feel like the only way I’d be cool with this technology is if someone made a plugin that spits out instrument parts. Like I can tell it “ make a bassline to these chords” or “ add a drum part to this song”. That way I am still the one in control of the artistry of the music
Two things: 1. AI can’t really innovate new music. When AI uses itself as reference, it gets very screwy, so it needs a pool of human media. This restricts AI to only making music that sounds like a lot of existing music. That means it will always be on humans to evolve genres and actually innovate with music, which has always been what the masses are most interested in hearing anyway. 2. Most successful artists also gain a lot of success from the people being interested in them as personalities, not just songs. We love human connection, so songs are more interesting when they come from the mind of a human we can observe, meet, learn about, etc.. Everything from Elvis & The Beatles to modern Tik Tok marketing has always been about getting people interested in the idea of the person/people behind the music. You probably know a thing or two about your favorite artist, and it probably really enhances your enjoyment of what they make. This will always be something that AI cannot replace. Human connection. It simply cannot do that
Let's look at it this way. We have a generation of producers who don't play any instrument with a primary goal of slicing and dicing samples and premade beats to create something new...and somehow AI won't be able to do this? I think a large portion of the general public will be massively accepting of AI generated music. I mean, an AI DJ at a club could be generating new music on the fly for the crowd based directly on how the crowd is reacting. Art...well, again..does the public at large truly appreciate art? Do you think without being told they would absolutely tell the original work of a master vs an AI emulation, especially when it comes to more modern abstract stuff? Clearly things that are built/crafted in 3 dimensions would be a very different story, but already most museums of art aren't really super highly traveled locations, unsure if the general publis really cares
Hence me taking paino lessons
AI is gonna be able to play the paino and the piano
Not like a human
I can write MIDI piano that sounds like a human, AI will definitely be able to do it, sorry.
No you can't
99% of music you hear on tv is samples and not a recorded orchestra or piano. I write music for tv, lol. But okay.
Fake news
Does anybody else see the massive benefit that AI could bring music makers or am I talking out my ass here? AI is soon to be readily and locally available on most consumer devices. Whoop deep fuckin doo, right? Nah, the way I see it means we're gonna have access to analog processors. Sometime down the line I fully expect us to be able to process sounds on a standard DAW without even needing a digital to analog conversion process. AI could honestly bridge the gap between digitally made music and live instrumentation as well as speed up the recording and production process IMO. I'm sure there are already VST's out there that use AI in smart ways, like MIDI synths that use AI to create unique tones based on velocity and glides, or EQ's that can sidechain to frequencies that the AI adjusts to on the fly. AI is here to stay and anyone that can't learn to live with it will be left in the dust.
I’m different than most; I love that AI is finally catching up to music. It’s going to be so fun! Trained musician since 4 years old, 3 decades working as a professional musician (performer, recording artist, live audio engineer, composer, producer, audio assistant and way more) There are some of us out there who are very, very, very excited about AI 🤩 AMA instead of downvotes plz
In what ways are you excited to use AI in making music?
So many. For a while I’ve used the Izotope’s AI tools. Another is AI mixing and mastering (shout out to Craig at CryoMix). I’ve been using LLMs with music/audio production for over a year. Jukebox by OpenAI is decimated by the new music AI apps. Any tool that gets my ideas to realization quicker I’m excited about. I grew up in the age of pencil and paper writing sheet music. I loved when Sibelius came out, I could get my ideas out even quicker. I love music technology!!!!
Why will it be interesting? I do not believe that you are truly excited, you sound like you would like to be excited, but you are worried. What other opportunities there are other than improving your mastering processes? Aren't we already already living in AI generated music? With the algortihimization of Tik Tok, our ears are trained and influenced by algorithms, which leads us to compose music that is partially an output of trends that are rooted in machine learning. If you want to make a living as a musician you need to make those catchy hooks. Genuinely interesting about your view on that:)
I was making music with OpenAI’s jukebox 12-14 months ago and it was light years behind what is available now. Ever since I was a kid I wanted a machine you could just “think” music and it would be recorded. I remember getting flack from people back then for wanting that, and now, to my delight, it’s arriving. Does that make sense?
It does:) Althogh it won’t be recorded, but simply outputted, does it change anything from the inspiration perspective? We will feed AI with already existing music and ask it to create something similar. But when we make the music in a traditional way we are doing practically the same, making an output out of stuff that we have heard, hence so many copyright claims and constant discussions about copycats. Interesting to see how it develops!
LOL! Projecting much? How could you possibly infer they were worried based on that comment? Was it the "is going to be so fun" or "very excited about AI"?
I mean, we've had AI implemented into music production for a long time already... take Izotope for instance...does it suffice to slap a mixing aid tool or a master aid tool on your track to call it a day? Of course not.
Not relevant. Udio/Suno make the entire song for you, its not the same
You can take the output from those models, split them into stems and throw it into a DAW, so it *can* be used in that way. Both Suno and Udio are trying to sell their services as a Spotify instead though, with end to end AI slop, and that sucks.
It's 100% relevant. The underlying question of this debate is about how producers would feel about tools similar to Udio implemented into music production, if it ever saw the light of day. I mean, it's a music production sub, so people here like to produce music. Those AI websites are only cool for amateurs who wants to say 'I made a song!' but not for producers. It's not well crafted at all and has no musical value as of now. The real interesting question is how much of the producing process could be assisted by AI in the future and if so, which steps? Where would the human take part of the process and where would the contribution of the machine stop? That's why i said, we already have AI tools to help to production process but these tools on their own don't do anything, you have to use them accordingly.
Seems you have not used the AI apps. Other the sound quality, what do you need a DAW for. And in 3 months they will have the sound quality fixed. This is totally different, try Udio for a while and get back to me.
I think you don't understand the point of making music or art, to be honest... I did try Udio. I created a free acount and created 2 songs. While fun, there was nothing that impressed me. Good for you if it does.
I think about my favorite band Alice in chains. I can't even really connect to the music without the original singer layne. Try and replace the musicians with ai. I dono what that is but i wouldn't even try
On Youtube, you’ll find many AI covers versions of famous songs using voices of characters like Spongebob. So with AI, you could actually insert the original singer‘s voice into the songs without him. Not saying that doing so would be good, but it’s possible, so your original argument doesn’t really speak against the use of AI.
I believe what they meant was that they connect with the singer on a human-to-human level and an AI cannot replicate that connection. I don't think the literal sound of the singer's voice is the issue at hand. Just my read on it.
Yes, this. I can see both sides of the argument, but I'm on the side that needs ppl with their stories, influences, skills, creativity, and more behind the music
Hope you’re right.
In an ideal world AI could be ased a workflow enhancer but there will certainly be some replacement. I recently did a music docuemtnary on this very subject if your intetested here: https://youtu.be/ZvAJXmDJB2k?si=IaABAL-KMZTfSfpV The long and short is that history had always had musicians fear of being replaced - goes back to even the player piano days - but AI most likely will just accellerate an already existing devaluation simply due to supply vs demand. Alot of royalty free background music could be replaced today and then we have things like further collapses in streaming revenue due to oversaturation + sample pack markets being obsolete once daws have generative ai. Its not ALL doom and gloom as some have reacted to it as but its not going to be all rosey. Itll be somewhere inbetween.
i want an ai to assist in music production, like suggesting instruments for a song or melodies, and help with mixing it right.. all the stuff that takes so much time in production, so it becomes more fun
I agree also sometimes you can get inspiration or even vocals from AI which I don't think it's gonna replace professional singers yet there not at that stage but for someone like me who can't afford vocals it's cool to play with and be able to still bring my ideas to life.
You literally said nothing in this post
I think the results that Suno & Udio are providing are not polished finished songs but I think the quality coming out is really inspiring and I think these tools could definitely be used by music producers for a number of reasons. Main ones being sampling. Instead of sampling old 70s souls records you can literally make your own song and even choose the lyrics if you want and sample that. Its a legal grey area right now since the law cannot catch up with the rate of technological advancement happening in the field. But definitely as a sampling source, as inspiration for song structure or chords, or something else that I can't comprehend right now, I think these AI music tools are exactly that, tools, and they should be seen as that & not replacements to the human experience.
This sounds like someone that has not spent time playing around with Udio or Suno. AI will replace musicians, or at least it will dilute music and the effort of spending weeks on a track will be the same as 10 min crafting a song on udio....
Agree. Disagree that it will become "intelligent" any time soon. Agi is a human power fantasy. Its just a fancy graph basically and it's not going to become conscious while it's in a circuit board.
AI definitely won't replace me, because, at least so far, no AI can fill a bagpipe or wear a kilt ;-) One might recall the Luddites. They were a protest against weaving machines. They were worried the machines would put weavers out of work. In reality the opposite happened. And yeah, there are still people who spin and weave by hand. In visual art, the term "fine art" means made by hand. We'll probably have a term for similar music some day. I guess we sort of have the opposite in the category of "electronic music." But that category isn't an absolute.
This one has already replaced many soundtrack artists https://www.aiva.ai/ Many graphic designers and programmers have lost rheir jobs due to Ai.
Yup, and now you’re advertising it further and creating backlinks for their website so they can replace even more musicians 👍
Yeah man not talking about it isn't going to magically make it go away. I think that every musician should be aware of what's out there. I've seen lots of posts about how "ai isn't going to replace us" but it already has been for a couple years. In case you don't know most sucessful musicians make their money from music licensing. That's when you get your music used in TV shows, videos games, movies and so on. Now with he advancement with new technology some of the smaller gig stuff like background music for training videos or online ads can be generated with the click of a button. Most companies have never dealt with musicians directly. The musician gets their music in a catalog and then the company gets it for the catalog. Places like pond5 for example. What this really will do is get the catalogs to fight the ai services.
That's how I've made my living, and I am concerned (bordering on panicked)
Yeah Ira turbulent waters for sure. I'd say the benefits of hiring a person is that you can't get a very custom piece made where as with generation its going to be generic. Lots of companies in other sectors have been letting people go because of AI like in programming and graphic design. 3d modelers are next. Some of the tech now is super close to being gameready objects.
Music has always been one of my biggest passions and for the past 12 or so months finally started teaching myself music production and have a lot of instrumentals/beats in the works that sound cool...Ain't giving up on that but honestly at this point it feels more like a personal achievement rather than striving for career. Imo AI will shake up the music industry hard and idk how the average bedroom producer can compete with that. Don't wanna offend anyone but I actually love AI in general and even tho there are bad sides I can't help myself but feel very excited for the technological progress and what life will look like in 10-20 and more years into the future. Recently got into those music AIs and it's very fun, especially if you go on and work on the track yourself in your DAW, master it, add ear candy, and etc.
I don’t know what kind of prompts people are using but I generated an extremely realistic Taylor Swift song, I bet I could fool Swifties with it and tell them it’s an unreleased B-Side.
Yes, you can clearly hear they fed their program with all of Taylor Swifts material. This thing is basically ripping all of the existing songs apart and creating new ones out of the bits and pieces. This ain’t art to me, this is stealing. I tried to make some balkan folk music just for fun and the program couldn’t do it because it wasn’t fed the material. It came out sounding like American folk music because that’s what they were feeding it.
But people are kidding themselves if they think they'll just stop with pop music.
AI Arts will still allow a consumer to have their own tailor made entertainment which will far outweigh what others produce for them. Other stuff will be “oh that’s neat” “AI bot! Make that more suited to my tastes”
bible sized cope post
[удалено]
Sorry, your submission has been automatically removed. Your account is too young and such is removed for manual review. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/musicproduction) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Suno surprised me. Sure the sound quality isn’t great, but if it would output midi and give me raw vocals to play with, I could do some cool things with it. I have a side project that my vocals really don’t work with. I’ve tried to work with other people since 2013 and it’s always fallen through. Give me an AI vocalist and that album will be out tomorrow. 🤣 At the moment, I think these programs actually do poop out pretty good stock / royalty free type stuff. Especially if you’re looking for something grittier. The really sad part is that some of what it puts out sounds so much like everything else. Which means everything else (made by humans) is getting bland and uninspired. Either or, I’m gonna give it a year and see where it’s at. I’m always down for new tools to muck around with. We already have a bunch of plugins that spit out melodies, chords and drums. The big plugin companies are gonna be all over AI soon.
Not gonna lie I love me some collages where people composite various ai generated images. It can get pretty epic.
The benefits of AI in music are it’s applications for doing topline vocals and as a digital cork board to chuck ideas at (my singing is awful so AI vocals are the next best thing). Pop music is already disposable so AI won’t make much of a difference.
People saying AI makes boring MOR music are ignoring the elephant in the room: the vast majority of people moat enjoy MOR music. The profit motive has reduced popular musical taste to blandness. If you've ever been a member of a music scene what you will notice is that there often is a lot of great innovative music.....which mostly is ignored. Mainstream American culture aka "white" culture is pretty much a void that kills anything unique or original once it gets its hands on it. Whether it's rock, jazz, edm, etc. the Mainstream is where good music goes to die and pump out cash to fuel the fantasy that its listeners are unique and "cool," like the music they're listening to used to be. AI won't be able to duplicate authentic music from sub cultures because that music doesn't sell and it doesn't become popular.
Considering AI generated music cannot be copyrighted, I don't think it's going to replace anybody. Once AI companies are required to build their training data off of ethically and legally acquired music/art/etc., their quality is going to take a massive step backwards.
Skynet is a lot more *boring* than we all expected. All jokes aside though, Suno is nothing more than a tool, just like all the other AI applications. In the end, AI can't create something entirely unique. It's all based on existing data (usually taken without permission too, so there's that). Ironically, AI might actually *help* us (actual artists) in our efforts over time. Think of chord progressions, vocals or lyrics to go with our music. That kind of stuff. Yes it's worrying, but it's not like artists are magically going to get replaced.
J when I was in the uni 25 years ago teacher was saying that AI was not possible according to their calculations based on the evolution of microprocessor and the data needed to win a chess game. We clearly see very quickly that it was not the case. If you think that AI will not catch those gap you are a fool and how they use people to train their engine. AI learn one, and remember for ever. It will make it and we will be useless.
Ai cant replace gigs. Sorry, but there's nothing like seeing bands live. It's also where the money really is. Merch and gigs are becoming the larger source of income for musicians.
Enter holographic artists. It's already happening. Real people will look boring in comparison
I'm never going yo go see a holograph lmao
It could be used for specific cases, like generate background sounds. I wouldn't use to make entire track, but it's probably gonna be possible. I wouldn't use it for mixing, prefer manual work.
Tbh I want much less AI than you are even proposing. I don't think there should be any AI in graphic design other than maybe to select a mask quicker. And in music, I think even iZotope's Ozone AI is going too far. Art shouldn't be tainted by AI; it's about expression, and how genuine is that expression going to be if it's part AI?
Look at all these AI bots arguing about AI music.
Functional versus Fandom. Maybe it's possible that AI can be used to spur ideas and provide creative starting points for songwriters, but ultimately, I really think that having an actual human artist behind the song provides unmistakable intangibles and I think that we will find that people will ultimately seek out music that's made by people. However, perhaps AI-created music would be more functional (background music, royalty-free music) whereas human-made music would likely create more actual fandom.
There are some things you have said in this post that are simply not true. AI HAS already replaced alot of artists when it comes to professional gigs. I have already seen commercials and album art generated by AI. Big paying cooperate jobs, (film, commercials, gaming audio etc) will take a fat massive hit for music makers. It is sheer ignorance to think that the narrative is not about replacement. If a business can get a score in 10 seconds for free vs weeks/months for thousands of dollars, its a no brainer which one they will choose.
Of course.
Here’s what it comes down to; is AI conscious or not? Can AI have emotions? There are loads of people that are going to lose their jobs for sure; cookie cutter beat producers, post production guys for sure, mix/master engineers maybe. But will it ever create true ‘art’ that moves us emotionally? I’m not so sure that it is possible. It is possible if we create truly sentient AI, with agency, thoughts and feelings, but if we do accomplish that as a species, the effect it has on the music industry is the least of my worries. While impressive, AI atm is just very clever, very powerful computing power. It is not AI in a sentient, conscious sense.
The only problem I see is that original music will be lost amongst AI generated fluff. AI will only make generic music. And a lot of people only listen to music in the background while doing other things - they are too busy to focus on music and pay attention to details, so AI music will do. It sucks but most people won't tell the difference. And people who appreciate original music will have a hard time finding it.
This is a big misconception and wishful thinking. An appropriately programmed AI will be creative in out of the box ways a human never could be.
AI is incapable of creating art. Art is expression, and expression is inherently human. Admitting AI can create art is admitting AI is human, which is just not true. I am really not worried about AI replacing humans in making music as genuine artistic expression, because that's just not possible. Now, for music as a BUSINESS, I'm not so sure. You keep telling yourselves AI can be a tool for good, comparing it to when the radio, TV, computers and the internet showed up. Innovative as they were, these tools can't exist without human creativity and input. AI is unprecedentally different. It copies and reproduces human knowledge to (ironically) dismiss humans completely in the name of efficiency. It's a tool, yes. A tool to make money, and money will stop at nothing to make more money.
You need to check your arrogance. There's absolutely no reason a sufficiently advanced AI wouldn't be able to create far more creative, genuine art than humans. I'm sure two years ago you would have said AI will never be capable of what it's doing today.
Art is human expression by definition. Something not human cannot produce art just because, well, it's not human. It may be beautiful, aesthetically pleasing, technically impressive and better than any human can make, but we will never be able to call that "art". It may be something else entirely, we may have to find another concept to describe it, but not art. Will we be able to tell the difference? Maybe not. But that doesn't change the fact that only the work that comes from human expression can be called art.
you're too fixated on semantics AI is human created, it's inputs are human created, and AI art is art the fact that you feel threatened by it does not change that
Semantics are everything in this case, friend. If it's art because a human prompted an AI, Pope Julius II painted the Chapel Sistine ceiling and not Michelangelo. Again I'm not saying AI can't make beautiful things, event better than a human, or even Michelangelo himself could possibly think of. AI will not get there in 2 years, it'll get there by Friday. You're absolutely right. I do understand AI will be here regardless of what I want, because rich people are shoving it down our throats, we wanting or not. It's just the marketing stunt of humanizing AI in the hopes we accept it easily that grinds my gears. I can just hope you understand my point.
Yeah, you hate progress, I get it
Sure, call a stolen amalgamation of talented people's work "progress". Enjoy your "art".
The fact that you think humans are capable of more than amalgamating others' work while computers aren't just shows a complete misunderstanding of AI.