By popular demand, STAIR TRIPPIN' is now available as a single on all popular music services 🤣 Spotify, Apple Music, Amazon, Pandora, TikTok and more. BUY or LISTEN now 👇👇 Spotify distrokid.com/hyperfollow/sasquatch3x/stair-trippin Apple Music music.apple.com/us/album/stair-trippin-single/1731752247 Amazon Music amzn.to/3TgL8iM Or search for STAIR TRIPPIN' on your favorite music app
every time I check in on AI music, there has been a near exponential increase in complexity and clarity with only months of time passing. Its just crazy.
"what can you do in 30 seconds"? It takes 30 seconds to eat a dog turd out of the yard, but It takes an hour to prepare lasagne. Whoever wants the dog turd raise your six-fingered hand!
So do you take a boat when you travel overseas? Sure a plane can get you there in 6 hours, but a boat can take 23 days. 🙄 If it's longer it must be better is your logic 🤣 I mean, why are you responding to me instantly on RUclips? Why not write a letter and send it through the mail so it takes 8 days to arrive. THAT MUST BE BETTER CAUSE IT TOOK LONGER 🤡
@@BenoniStudio You really had to reach to produce that straw man about my point. It's actually the other way around. My point was not at all that because something takes longer that proves it is better. My point was music made by humans just is better because humans intrinsically understand what moves other humans, and computers do not. And since the goal of producing music is to produce what impacts people, the goal of producing music is not simply to do something that takes 30 seconds, that it DOESN"T matter if human created music takes longer, and that how long something takes should not be the metric of why we do it.
@@Super_Luminal_360 You're they guy who said eating dog poop is the same as making a song 😮💨 Want to see a straw-man, look in the mirror. And humans do not "intrinsically" understand what effects or affects other humans. Humans understand what effects and affects THEM, personally. That's why someone can write an amazingly emotional song that is technically hard and difficult to play, a song that requires tons of skill....and it can get zero plays. VS. Gucci Flip Flops which uses a basic beat anyone can buy for $15 and nonsense lyrics....and gets over 14 MILLION views on RUclips alone. One song is emotional, the other is nonsense. People chose the nonsense song. Your point is now moot. Try another argument. Then you said "And since the goal of producing music is to produce what impacts people..." So....you are literally arguing that artists should bend to the will of what other people want and basically produce a product that will sell. You are arguing against what you said earlier 🤣 The second you change anything about your music because it will sell is when it becomes a product and ceases being art. So whats the difference between using AI to make a music like product or using an accountant to make a music like product? And then you're missing the whole part about most "artists". Most don't want to create art, they want to be liked and praised. Which is why music is 90% image, 10% music today. What drives the vast majority of "artists" is not some unrelenting desire to be creative, its to be liked and make money or be a desirable mate to many people. Art, emotion, music, etc... are not even part of the equation. So i reject your entire theory. No one suffers for their art. Spare me the "emotional" plea about humans.
Benoni, my reply to your recent comment keeps disappearing. I posted it three times but it is gone again. Did you restrict or delete my comments on your recent comment?
@@BenoniStudio I dont know why I cant post my response here. There is not profanity or anything similar. Probably some stupid Ai algorithm ironically that is preventing the post for a flawed reason. I sent you an email with my response since the machine wont let me post it here. Not that you are obligated to respond if you dont want to, I am just letting you know I sent it.
Stair Trippin' is now an official release 🤣 distrokid.com/hyperfollow/sasquatch3x/stair-trippin you can stream it on Spotify or buy it on iTunes (it could be a few days before you see it in stores) I also added a second verse.
Look at this "AI Safety Act" talk, as if the whole industry isn't about to be dismantled by copyright owners. Every AI model is a derivative work based on millions of stolen copyrighted works.
All music created by humans is also a derivative work...whats the difference? We all use the same 12 notes. Can I sue you for using the same notes as me? Every band is "inspired" by a previous band and copies what worked for them with a couple twists. Learning from someone else is not stealing. What has been stolen? Who does not have their music catalogue? Give specific examples.
@@BenoniStudio The difference is, AIs don't create. They sample and remix. There is no actual thought behind it, there is no original content. (Which is why there's also no copyrighting AI-generated content, at least in the US.) And since the AIs' creators have been pretty blunt -- shameless, even -- about stealing work from every corner of the internet, their legal footing is shaky at best. Nearly the entire industry is only profitable as long as that stealing is allowed to continue, as the sheer amount of training data makes licensing prohibitively expensive. and especially once AIs start dipping more and more into music and movies (two fields with by far the most litigious organizations representing them), they won't be.
@@notmyname687 thats literally the same argument Hollywood made about VHS, and the same argument the music monopolies made about mp3 players. 🤣 AI is going no where. You are making a lot of assertions that you will have to define. What is 'creating' exactly? Define it. You'll have to because the law relies on accepted definitions. Is making a song using loops you purchased "creating"? What about using MIDI files, or a virtual instrument? Which is "creating" and which is not "creating"? Define those. You keep saying the word "stealing"...I don't think you know what it means. Who does not have access to their music because AI scanned it? That's like saying you stole a song because you heard it when a car passed by with their windows down. I know thats what the awful monopoly garbage music industry wants as the definition, but its not the definition. Your third problem is that "copyright" is not a real thing. It does not exist in nature. You can't see, touch, or sense copyright in any way. Which means it's entirely made-up and can mean whatever someone wants it to mean. For example, Edison thought he had the right to charge people who used the camera he invented. Even though they paid for the camera, Edison would still charge them a fee every time they showed a movie that was filmed using the camera. So do you think we should go back to that? Do you think you should have to pay the Edison estate every time you take a picture with your iPhone? Why not? You didn't invent the technology, and it took you no thought to hit that 'record' button. You are stealing his work by not paying a fee! And AI's do create. They create the same exact way that humans do, with the building blocks we are fed. For example, you commented in the English language. Why? Because that's what you were fed. You didn't comment in Swahili or Arabic for a reason...that data set wasn't fed into your brain and therefore you can't replicate it. But just because you were trained on "stolen" data from the humans who created the English language, doesn't mean that you DIDN'T create your sentences. You chose words based on your interpretation of what other people have told you or things you have read using a structure that was fed into you during the years your brain was being trained by what we call "school" This is literally no different than how AI is trained...its just a whole lot faster. Now if you want to talk about humans being fairly compensated for the information they have created and that these AI companies are going to make Zillions? off of, that's a different conversation. But no one really cares about that or they would never skip an ad on RUclips or view a summary on Google instead of going to the actual website where ads are shown or a subscription could be purchased. I mean google built its billions on the backs of people who create content, webpages, videos, etc... Google does not create anything, it SAMPLES and RELAYS the data. Google makes more money than anyone who actually creates things. Google is exempt from most copyright claims. Do you really think AI will be any different. Because I'm telling you right now that it won't. EVERY SINGLE Major Tech company is heavily invested in AI. But we can just take 4: Microsoft, Google, Apple, Amazon. All of them are creating AIs and investing billions in AI. You say AI should be afraid of the music and movie business...well according to the Motion Picture Association, the entire movie industry made about 101B in 2019 and the Music industry made about 31B in 2022, so lets say combined, 150 Billion dollar industries (im being generous) Now let's compare that to the value of JUST Apple....which is 2.82 TRILLION. Or we could use only Microsoft....which is worth 3 TRILLION! My point is, the movie and music business are not just "small potatoes" they are TINY POTATOES when compared to the behemoth's that are the Tech giants. So...if a 150B industry wants to sue companies who are worth 10 Trillion (and thats just the big 4) who do you think is going to win? And who do you think will be able to influence the lawmakers more? btw, the video game industry is bigger than the movie industry. so using that as an example of a big entertainment industry is outdated.
@@BenoniStudio I don't have to define "creating" for copyright purposes -- SCOTUS has already done so. There is a minimum threshold of originality required for a work to even qualify as a creative work, and thus qualify for copyright protection, and it has already been decided that only a human can have and apply it. (See the monkey selfie case, for one. And try registering a copyright in a work while disclosing that it was AI-generated.) The biggest difference between VHS, MP3, and AI is that VHS and MP3 don't literally *require* industrial-scale copyright infringement. AI does, until the companies making them either license copyrighted works or avoid them altogether. Licensing would cost enough to give even Big Tech pause, and avoidance basically means rebuilding their models, due to how AI models are trained in the first place. It also means relying on public-domain works, which excludes nearly everything produced in the past century, so for its intended purposes, that's almost a non-starter. I use the word "stealing" because that's what it is. We're not talking about someone making a copy of a song. We're talking about generating unauthorized derivative works on a commercial scale (almost exclusively for profit, although even giving it away wouldn't save them). Listeners don't matter, as they're not expected to even know. It's the _"authors"_ that were never authorized to generate derivative works. Stealing isn't ok just because you have enough money to settle a lawsuit. And yes, they'd have to settle, because (1) the MPA and RIAA wouldn't even think about just letting go, and (2) facts and law are both on the copyright holders' side. Google doesn't get in trouble for its search engine partly because of how it uses the works. It isn't providing an alternative to them; it points users to them. It provides a service authors _want_ so much that they will actually pay people to trick it into including their stuff. If it were just caching pages and showing them when you search, or even more if it created its own version of the pages and distributed that, it'd have been sued into oblivion by now. It also provides a low-hassle way for content owners to request their content be removed, which protects it from a lot of flak. I would hope it realizes the implications of training on copyrighted data, as for one thing, an AI literally _can't_ just arbitrarily remove a work reported as unauthorized, due to how they work. it'd have to rebuild its model. As for Microsoft, Apple, and Amazon, all it'd take is one big lawsuit to jolt them all into taking a hard look at where their training data comes from. Trillion-dollar companies aren't too big to sue -- on the contrary, they're too big _not_ to sue, because whether they lose or settle, the payout will be effing massive. As for the "copyright doesn't exist in nature" cope, that doesn't matter. Trillion-dollar corporations don't exist in nature, either, nor does AI. The battle will be in a bunch of courts of law, not some clearing in the woods.
@@notmyname687 Counting the number of strawmen and red-herrings in your response is stunning and dizzying. If you think AI is going away, you are free to believe that. But I will bet you any amount of money that AI will be larger at the end of 2024 than it was at the beginning.
In the past you would of heard, "took me awhile to learn how to drive a horse and buggy, i'll stick with that, the car is just a fad" Im trying to warn you guys, AI is coming, no matter what. Please learn about AI and music before you get left behind. Its only getting better. I want all the subscribers to this channel to keep being able to make money with music. Talk to the folks in the 80's who thought MIDI was non-sense... Talk to the large studios from the 90's who thought digital music was non-sense, everybody will always want to record with a giant SSL to tape. Digital music sounds to clinical..... they are all gone. Even the greats record and mix on a macbook now. The future is AI generated whether you want it to be or not. Look at what people are already doing with Apple VR and it came out like 2 days ago. You can keep mixing by hand for a hobby, but you need to get in front of AI so you can keep making money. There use to be tons of guys making money mixing and mastering, running small studios and getting lots of jobs through RUclips, facebook, and insta. They are almost ALL gone. AI can master much faster, and it requires zero humans. Just upload your song and 30 seconds later you get an email with your mastered song. These are realities. At least consider it.
@@BenoniStudio Totally, if you are not willing to learn your a zombie (not meaning that to you Bville-E) cause life is always about learning and getting better, never stop wanting to learn, life is movement, we got to keep up with it otherwise it means depression or something, I know it for facts. Just like music, music is sound, sound is movement of the air molecules, everything is movement.
You are already using AI, if you want it or not, It's youtube algorythms, it's in your Daw, maybe your OS, in plugins, It's already everywhere, It's like tempo sync, Dj arguing about "bad" dj's using tempo sync but they use it without knowing it cause they use fx, loop and everything with the temp sync without activating it.
@@BenoniStudio They're millions of people on this blue marble that still us horse & buggy and still live everyday lives just like us....I didn't spend years of learning, researching & trying different methods to just go forward pushing a button...I write songs, create music and craft music....and there is nothing better that I enjoy seeing than other people enjoy my creations.
By popular demand, STAIR TRIPPIN' is now available as a single on all popular music services 🤣 Spotify, Apple Music, Amazon, Pandora, TikTok and more. BUY or LISTEN now 👇👇
Spotify distrokid.com/hyperfollow/sasquatch3x/stair-trippin
Apple Music music.apple.com/us/album/stair-trippin-single/1731752247
Amazon Music amzn.to/3TgL8iM
Or search for STAIR TRIPPIN' on your favorite music app
Also stolen lunes is referring to Monday just so you know when you were saying you don't know what that means that means stolen Mondays
Monday? Never heard that usage before. The more you know 🌈
Stair trippin lol
every time I check in on AI music, there has been a near exponential increase in complexity and clarity with only months of time passing. Its just crazy.
Which ai ya use?
"what can you do in 30 seconds"?
It takes 30 seconds to eat a dog turd out of the yard, but It takes an hour to prepare lasagne.
Whoever wants the dog turd raise your six-fingered hand!
So do you take a boat when you travel overseas? Sure a plane can get you there in 6 hours, but a boat can take 23 days. 🙄 If it's longer it must be better is your logic 🤣 I mean, why are you responding to me instantly on RUclips? Why not write a letter and send it through the mail so it takes 8 days to arrive. THAT MUST BE BETTER CAUSE IT TOOK LONGER 🤡
@@BenoniStudio
You really had to reach to produce that straw man about my point.
It's actually the other way around. My point was not at all that because something takes longer that proves it is better. My point was music made by humans just is better because humans intrinsically understand what moves other humans, and computers do not. And since the goal of producing music is to produce what impacts people, the goal of producing music is not simply to do something that takes 30 seconds, that it DOESN"T matter if human created music takes longer, and that how long something takes should not be the metric of why we do it.
@@Super_Luminal_360 You're they guy who said eating dog poop is the same as making a song 😮💨 Want to see a straw-man, look in the mirror.
And humans do not "intrinsically" understand what effects or affects other humans. Humans understand what effects and affects THEM, personally. That's why someone can write an amazingly emotional song that is technically hard and difficult to play, a song that requires tons of skill....and it can get zero plays. VS. Gucci Flip Flops which uses a basic beat anyone can buy for $15 and nonsense lyrics....and gets over 14 MILLION views on RUclips alone.
One song is emotional, the other is nonsense. People chose the nonsense song. Your point is now moot. Try another argument.
Then you said "And since the goal of producing music is to produce what impacts people..."
So....you are literally arguing that artists should bend to the will of what other people want and basically produce a product that will sell. You are arguing against what you said earlier 🤣 The second you change anything about your music because it will sell is when it becomes a product and ceases being art. So whats the difference between using AI to make a music like product or using an accountant to make a music like product?
And then you're missing the whole part about most "artists". Most don't want to create art, they want to be liked and praised. Which is why music is 90% image, 10% music today. What drives the vast majority of "artists" is not some unrelenting desire to be creative, its to be liked and make money or be a desirable mate to many people. Art, emotion, music, etc... are not even part of the equation. So i reject your entire theory. No one suffers for their art. Spare me the "emotional" plea about humans.
Stair trippin - Grammy song of the year 😂
it was too good. i had to check if AI copied a real song before i included it 🤣
Benoni, my reply to your recent comment keeps disappearing. I posted it three times but it is gone again. Did you restrict or delete my comments on your recent comment?
nope.
@@BenoniStudio
I dont know why I cant post my response here. There is not profanity or anything similar. Probably some stupid Ai algorithm ironically that is preventing the post for a flawed reason. I sent you an email with my response since the machine wont let me post it here.
Not that you are obligated to respond if you dont want to, I am just letting you know I sent it.
To clarify in the email I sent you I said the phrase "2 F's" but in the original response I tried to post here several times I said "rat's ass"
the biden song would blow up if released.
if you guys want it released i can release it on Spotify, TikTok, Apple Music, and Amazon. But I'll have to create a new artist name and label first.
Stair Trippin' is now an official release 🤣 distrokid.com/hyperfollow/sasquatch3x/stair-trippin you can stream it on Spotify or buy it on iTunes (it could be a few days before you see it in stores) I also added a second verse.
Look at this "AI Safety Act" talk, as if the whole industry isn't about to be dismantled by copyright owners. Every AI model is a derivative work based on millions of stolen copyrighted works.
All music created by humans is also a derivative work...whats the difference? We all use the same 12 notes. Can I sue you for using the same notes as me? Every band is "inspired" by a previous band and copies what worked for them with a couple twists. Learning from someone else is not stealing. What has been stolen? Who does not have their music catalogue? Give specific examples.
@@BenoniStudio The difference is, AIs don't create. They sample and remix. There is no actual thought behind it, there is no original content. (Which is why there's also no copyrighting AI-generated content, at least in the US.) And since the AIs' creators have been pretty blunt -- shameless, even -- about stealing work from every corner of the internet, their legal footing is shaky at best.
Nearly the entire industry is only profitable as long as that stealing is allowed to continue, as the sheer amount of training data makes licensing prohibitively expensive. and especially once AIs start dipping more and more into music and movies (two fields with by far the most litigious organizations representing them), they won't be.
@@notmyname687 thats literally the same argument Hollywood made about VHS, and the same argument the music monopolies made about mp3 players. 🤣 AI is going no where.
You are making a lot of assertions that you will have to define. What is 'creating' exactly? Define it. You'll have to because the law relies on accepted definitions. Is making a song using loops you purchased "creating"? What about using MIDI files, or a virtual instrument? Which is "creating" and which is not "creating"? Define those.
You keep saying the word "stealing"...I don't think you know what it means. Who does not have access to their music because AI scanned it? That's like saying you stole a song because you heard it when a car passed by with their windows down. I know thats what the awful monopoly garbage music industry wants as the definition, but its not the definition.
Your third problem is that "copyright" is not a real thing. It does not exist in nature. You can't see, touch, or sense copyright in any way. Which means it's entirely made-up and can mean whatever someone wants it to mean. For example, Edison thought he had the right to charge people who used the camera he invented. Even though they paid for the camera, Edison would still charge them a fee every time they showed a movie that was filmed using the camera. So do you think we should go back to that? Do you think you should have to pay the Edison estate every time you take a picture with your iPhone? Why not? You didn't invent the technology, and it took you no thought to hit that 'record' button. You are stealing his work by not paying a fee!
And AI's do create. They create the same exact way that humans do, with the building blocks we are fed. For example, you commented in the English language. Why? Because that's what you were fed. You didn't comment in Swahili or Arabic for a reason...that data set wasn't fed into your brain and therefore you can't replicate it. But just because you were trained on "stolen" data from the humans who created the English language, doesn't mean that you DIDN'T create your sentences. You chose words based on your interpretation of what other people have told you or things you have read using a structure that was fed into you during the years your brain was being trained by what we call "school"
This is literally no different than how AI is trained...its just a whole lot faster.
Now if you want to talk about humans being fairly compensated for the information they have created and that these AI companies are going to make Zillions? off of, that's a different conversation. But no one really cares about that or they would never skip an ad on RUclips or view a summary on Google instead of going to the actual website where ads are shown or a subscription could be purchased.
I mean google built its billions on the backs of people who create content, webpages, videos, etc... Google does not create anything, it SAMPLES and RELAYS the data. Google makes more money than anyone who actually creates things. Google is exempt from most copyright claims. Do you really think AI will be any different. Because I'm telling you right now that it won't.
EVERY SINGLE Major Tech company is heavily invested in AI. But we can just take 4: Microsoft, Google, Apple, Amazon.
All of them are creating AIs and investing billions in AI.
You say AI should be afraid of the music and movie business...well according to the Motion Picture Association, the entire movie industry made about 101B in 2019 and the Music industry made about 31B in 2022, so lets say combined, 150 Billion dollar industries (im being generous)
Now let's compare that to the value of JUST Apple....which is 2.82 TRILLION.
Or we could use only Microsoft....which is worth 3 TRILLION!
My point is, the movie and music business are not just "small potatoes" they are TINY POTATOES when compared to the behemoth's that are the Tech giants. So...if a 150B industry wants to sue companies who are worth 10 Trillion (and thats just the big 4) who do you think is going to win? And who do you think will be able to influence the lawmakers more?
btw, the video game industry is bigger than the movie industry. so using that as an example of a big entertainment industry is outdated.
@@BenoniStudio I don't have to define "creating" for copyright purposes -- SCOTUS has already done so. There is a minimum threshold of originality required for a work to even qualify as a creative work, and thus qualify for copyright protection, and it has already been decided that only a human can have and apply it. (See the monkey selfie case, for one. And try registering a copyright in a work while disclosing that it was AI-generated.)
The biggest difference between VHS, MP3, and AI is that VHS and MP3 don't literally *require* industrial-scale copyright infringement. AI does, until the companies making them either license copyrighted works or avoid them altogether. Licensing would cost enough to give even Big Tech pause, and avoidance basically means rebuilding their models, due to how AI models are trained in the first place. It also means relying on public-domain works, which excludes nearly everything produced in the past century, so for its intended purposes, that's almost a non-starter.
I use the word "stealing" because that's what it is. We're not talking about someone making a copy of a song. We're talking about generating unauthorized derivative works on a commercial scale (almost exclusively for profit, although even giving it away wouldn't save them). Listeners don't matter, as they're not expected to even know. It's the _"authors"_ that were never authorized to generate derivative works.
Stealing isn't ok just because you have enough money to settle a lawsuit. And yes, they'd have to settle, because (1) the MPA and RIAA wouldn't even think about just letting go, and (2) facts and law are both on the copyright holders' side.
Google doesn't get in trouble for its search engine partly because of how it uses the works. It isn't providing an alternative to them; it points users to them. It provides a service authors _want_ so much that they will actually pay people to trick it into including their stuff. If it were just caching pages and showing them when you search, or even more if it created its own version of the pages and distributed that, it'd have been sued into oblivion by now. It also provides a low-hassle way for content owners to request their content be removed, which protects it from a lot of flak.
I would hope it realizes the implications of training on copyrighted data, as for one thing, an AI literally _can't_ just arbitrarily remove a work reported as unauthorized, due to how they work. it'd have to rebuild its model.
As for Microsoft, Apple, and Amazon, all it'd take is one big lawsuit to jolt them all into taking a hard look at where their training data comes from. Trillion-dollar companies aren't too big to sue -- on the contrary, they're too big _not_ to sue, because whether they lose or settle, the payout will be effing massive.
As for the "copyright doesn't exist in nature" cope, that doesn't matter. Trillion-dollar corporations don't exist in nature, either, nor does AI. The battle will be in a bunch of courts of law, not some clearing in the woods.
@@notmyname687 Counting the number of strawmen and red-herrings in your response is stunning and dizzying. If you think AI is going away, you are free to believe that. But I will bet you any amount of money that AI will be larger at the end of 2024 than it was at the beginning.
The mix of the metal AI is better than the most average flow or metal release, by far
yeah, its really good. to get a mix that dense to sound clear is hard work, and AI did it in 30 seconds.
Naw.....I'm not w/this..it took me a while to learn how to mix ..I'd rather use my skill
In the past you would of heard, "took me awhile to learn how to drive a horse and buggy, i'll stick with that, the car is just a fad" Im trying to warn you guys, AI is coming, no matter what. Please learn about AI and music before you get left behind. Its only getting better. I want all the subscribers to this channel to keep being able to make money with music. Talk to the folks in the 80's who thought MIDI was non-sense...
Talk to the large studios from the 90's who thought digital music was non-sense, everybody will always want to record with a giant SSL to tape. Digital music sounds to clinical..... they are all gone. Even the greats record and mix on a macbook now.
The future is AI generated whether you want it to be or not. Look at what people are already doing with Apple VR and it came out like 2 days ago.
You can keep mixing by hand for a hobby, but you need to get in front of AI so you can keep making money.
There use to be tons of guys making money mixing and mastering, running small studios and getting lots of jobs through RUclips, facebook, and insta. They are almost ALL gone. AI can master much faster, and it requires zero humans. Just upload your song and 30 seconds later you get an email with your mastered song.
These are realities. At least consider it.
@@BenoniStudio Totally, if you are not willing to learn your a zombie (not meaning that to you Bville-E) cause life is always about learning and getting better, never stop wanting to learn, life is movement, we got to keep up with it otherwise it means depression or something, I know it for facts. Just like music, music is sound, sound is movement of the air molecules, everything is movement.
You are already using AI, if you want it or not, It's youtube algorythms, it's in your Daw, maybe your OS, in plugins, It's already everywhere, It's like tempo sync, Dj arguing about "bad" dj's using tempo sync but they use it without knowing it cause they use fx, loop and everything with the temp sync without activating it.
@@DarkTrapStudio I don't recall saying anything about using A.I. in my response if you're speaking in reference to my reply.
@@BenoniStudio They're millions of people on this blue marble that still us horse & buggy and still live everyday lives just like us....I didn't spend years of learning, researching & trying different methods to just go forward pushing a button...I write songs, create music and craft music....and there is nothing better that I enjoy seeing than other people enjoy my creations.
Yeah the talentless not has another tool. This take absolutely zero skill to do!
you seem to be under the assumption that skill has something to do with being a popular music artist.