The dark internet theory is pretty real at this point. If 90% of the shit we see online isn’t even real why even bother? I think the silver lining here is that making the internet virtually unusable will cause a lot more people to touch grass. I actually have a lot of hope for the future lol.
Just build your own website, curate your own content. do not allow AI into it, keep your users and friends behind a login ... like in the real life. You do not allow everybody come, take what they want and sell it elsewhere. Instead you have a small circle of friends and you support each other. The time has come to close the gate and leave AI both out in the cold ...
AI visual art on music always betrays the idea that the art doesn't matter, that it simply needs to fill a space and fit a mood, with no consideration towards aesthetic, style, symbolism, or context. as a visual artist myself i notice all the discrepancies and it gives me the uncanny valley creeps
I get the same creeps when I watch RUclips artists do videos against AI-generated visual content while using 1) AI generated background music 2) Speech-to-text captions 3) AI-translated subtitles. As if these things don't matter.
Your statement is simply false with the amount of control a user has over what gets generated by AI with the current available implementations. Also the user gets exactly what they want most of the time vs the risk of an artists ego getting in the way and more money being required for further revisions etc...
I did't see how the hypocrisy wasn't quite obvious to those musicians. If we really wanted AI (I'm not talking about ex-NFT now AI bros- they're beyond help) then we'd already be watching pitching machines pitch to robot hitters.
The 1000 play limit does nothing to combat AI music fraud. You prove it yourself. None of these AI tracks fails to reach this limit! If only serves to punnish new artists. What Spotify should do (if they were genuine) is to deny payouts for tracks that are not copyrightable. This would, effetively, rule out AI generated tracks, noise and other such junk.
I mostly agree, but the majority of the non-botted AI tracks do not reach 1000 plays. However, pumping out thousands of tracks that get 900 plays would potentially add up and go undetected. I didn't show these in the video because on the surface they are less of a burden on the algorithm. An artist starting out and using the platform to share their music will not necessarily miss the $3-5 those plays would have generated, and they do get it after they reach that threshold. That said, I agree that they do deserve that money, but I can understand the rationale (if the AI people were following the terms of service, which they are not). The other issues are that AI music can actually be registered as a unique work by ASCAP and BMI, though they are trying to change that, and are likely a pinch point that I should have mentioned in the video. It's not quite the same as copyright, but royalties can still be payed out through them. If that can be sorted out, which would probably take some legislation to ensure that ai music sites and programs contain a watermark, then I am totally on board with you, that would be a great solution. Copyrighting a song is a bit of a process, and costs around $35 per song, which is a little bit of a burden on small artists (they'd have to get 7,000+ streams to make up for it), but that might make the AI scan untenable for a lot of the people doing it, which would be good. I really appreciate the comment, thanks for giving us something to think about!
@@progrock The legislation is already in place! At least in the US. The US Supreme Court has decided that ONLY art GENERATED by human beings, can be copyrighted. AI, or monkeys, are NOT human geings. I seriously doubt that ASCAP and BMI allow you to register works that are uncopyrightable. Why should they? The PROs sole perpouse is to protect their members copyright, and if something falls outside the copyright system all together, they lack all juristiction. "Copyrighting a song is a bit of a process, and costs around $35 per song," Only in the US! In the rest of the world (containing 95% of the population) it's automatic, and costs nothing! I'm not sure about Noth Korea, though.
The world should work like this: freedom for those who want to create real music and AI music (with a signaling system) and the public decides who to pay attention to. But we know that not even in the real artist vs. real artist dispute there is freedom or honesty, the bigger artists do everything to suffocate the smaller ones and prevent their rise, just as large corporations do with rising companies. The point is: it will be necessary to regulate the use of data for AI learning and the due and fair payment by the company that uses this data to the rights holders, as long as it does not affect the business model and its survival, nor the users.
Before using AI tools, I was totally against it, but I saw how much these tools increase our creative capacity and this does not only depend on the machine, but also on human creativity and imagination, which in the end are also ways of reproducing existing patterns, but with changes to avoid being a copy.
Good take, it baffles me how theres never anyone in staff over there who can come up with good ideas theyre constantly working overtime tp ruin the app
Not all AI music is created with a good prompter. An ai song that uses a sentence or two vs a song created with thousands of keywords and prompt descriptions to morph the songs second by second are completely different products.
it will because we are running out of attention. If there is no attention the system dies. No users = no interaction. No interaction = the end. AI will finish off every platform because to platform will be able to cope with the amount of uploads and bot downloads. Owner curated websites might be the only ones that weather the storm ... although I'm not sure anyone will ever find them in the flood the coming waves of AI content will generate ...
Spotify appears to be creating a LOT of AI music, and feature it on their own playlists, with tracks getting millions of streams. This way they pay royalties to themselves. See Rick Beatos video with Ted Gioia, for example.
$1000 for great album artwork is a pretty good deal. It's shows respect for your own work and the experience of your fans. Great artists build a whole world around them.
It is! I feel like a lot of artists understand the situation of an unsigned band and are really cool about giving a good deal. Same with mastering engineers. Totally agree about "building a world", people underestimate the connections you make working with artists and having conversations with them.
I was doing illustration in the UK 25 years ago... the rate for a crappy illustration say in some poxy boring woodworking or trade magazine was £250... a front page £500... so £1000 for a unique and artisticly worthy cover today is worth it. The problem is music has been fkd by the Internet, out of ANY industry, its been the most decimated. So yunno, these guys are probably having to do everything themselves, finance everything themselves, and if they want to use AI for covers... then go for it. You could spend 1k on a cover, when you won't even make 1k from the sales.
@@CoryRayGordonMusicHis parents sold the photo for $200. So what are you mad about? They got paid what they wanted for it. Nowadays that cover wouldn't be possible anymore anyways. At least the artist got a cover they wanted, no one was robbed for it, and the parents were paid for it.
Every week I get at least one obvious AI song on my discover weekly. Usually it's pretty easy to tell because the artist name is always generated gibberish like "Bleerd Cleabs", the cover art is always trash and the song itself sounds slightly off and is usually 2 minutes max. Every single aspect of the album (even the name), generated. It makes me sad that in the near future AI music might be the norm, and we'll have to sift through and endless sea of this trash to find something an actual human put some effort into creating. I really don't understand how people think writing "lofi hip hop beat" and downloading a .mp3 file is "making music"
They dont, truly. And its why they will give up doing this after a few months while people like us are going to keep at our craft for decades Typing a prompt and downloading a file is not even 1% as rewarding as the process of working hard on a song or pouring your heart out into a cathartic, emotional process of creation
I've been a music producer for years,ai is making me 3 times more profit than producing songs for weeks. I do understand the frustration of the music producers and artists.but hustle is Hustle. Industry gonna die in soon future...ai is getting better and better,play with or loose trying to play against it 😅
@@BestAIMusic-u4q You know what? I understand that. Sometimes I think I should be doing the same thing. Just ride the AI music wave and milk youtube and spotify as I can with it while it's still possible. Did you follow a specific guide or something? Do you use Suno, Udio or something else?
@@some.person I use suno and then transfer the wav to fl studio and apply some frequency cutting, and eq and master it to industry levels. Also you gotta be pro with prompt writing and know the genres really good. As i said if you apply real musician skills into AI its not so bad and its improving and sounding better as the time passes. I Hope that ai music wont take over the world cause music is my biggest love.
not just an AI issue, I have been asked to create 1000 looping sounds from a company to use on spotify, also 500 ambient 2 min tracks, I've been asked to run servers for a group that milked plays on streaming platforms and also been asked to run a giant phone farm to do the same, all from different companies and people, this has been the standard M.O. in music industry for years.
Yeah, that side of it is a mess too. I feel like in the video I went easy on Spotify and the "traditional" music industry to stay focused on the AI topic but it sucks to see when companies, acts, and record labels abuse the system that way. We shouldn't pretend that they have the best interests of musicians and music in general in mind either. If you'd be interested, I'd love to hear more about the inner workings of those projects you talked about, like the looping sounds and phone farms. isitprog (at) gmail - no pressure to though, it just sounds like a really interesting topic.
@@progrock I didn't accept the offers, but I might send you over a few details via mail, cheers, I wish I could say I didn't accept to produce due to ethics, but the pay wasn't that good for the work.
@@CoryRayGordonMusic you missed the point of my message, the music industry uses all sorts of shady tactics to get their tracks high up the charts, now outside groups also use the same tricks to game the system and make cash from streaming platforms.
Maybe I'm being overly optimistic and naive, but hopefully the tsunami of AI content flooding the Internet will make us value and seek out genuine and authentic human content and interactions? 🙏
I believe this as well. Example:I paint portraits and sing AND drum and write songs. Not a big deal today. But...tell this to a human in 6 years? They won't even believe YOU do what AI attempts At this time, I believe multi discipline artists WILL be a public mind blower. Just wait
I think this too honestly. In a world of plastic injection molded parts and CNC machining, humans still appreciate hand crafted things and pay a premium for it. We're all still amazed when we see people that make art with paint brushes despite digital art being the norm. In a world where everything is computerized, people crave rawness and authenticity. I even think Ai tools could push artists to get creative and invent new styles that AI doesn't have in it's training data yet. And allow more people to get into making music themselves because they have so much fun generating songs with AI, that they want to have more control over the process.
I’m not optimistic. I think it’s a battle of the wallets and how many politicians are invested where. Does the RIAA and it’s components have deeper pockets than tech bros? How many politicians do they own- I mean are invested in them
I think it will be hard to seek out authentic human content because not everyone is going to volunteer the fact that their song was made by AI. So unless they specifically put it in the details it will be harder and harder to tell i fear.
At one.time,We thought Napster was a problem, Now ai has destroyed originality with fake bands & art Rehashed music , especially in the metal genre if your a real artist the only way to beat ai ,is to tour & sell merch if you can afford it good luck
This isn’t even the start of the eventual destruction AI will be responsible for. Overall, wait until the real “bad guys” learn how to master it. Trouble is a-comin’.
As someone who uses AI as part of a serious, non-exploitative music creation pipeline, people on both sides of this issue drive me stark raving bonkers. On the one hand, you have the idiots who think it's okay to flood the market with click-button created trash, and insist they are somehow entitled to a payday. On the other side, you have the idiots who think AI can't be used to create real art, and that anyone who claims otherwise ranks just *BENEATH* the Nazis in the scale of who counts as "good people". I am a writer. Words are my talent. But music has always been my passion. When I write lyrics, I can hear the songs in my head, but with AI tools like Suno, I have been able to bring them out of my head and into the world. It's never a fast process, because I often have to re-generate each section of a song dozens of times to get it to sound like I envisioned it, and even then, there's a lot of post-production I do both on my own and with the help of my girlfriend to get a track just the way I want it. Out of 1k credits on Suno, I get (on average) three songs that match my vision and that I could share with others without shame. That also reflects, at minimum, an hour of work each (though given how naturally writing lyrics comes to me, the majority of that time is spent scrapping failed music generations and trying again, with the next-biggest chunk going to post). *EDIT: That's an hour per song segment, so each verse, the chorus, a lyrical bridge if I have one, etc.
I agree fully with you. And some people still think that AI makes music itself. AI is not able to do so because it has no will. And 99% of generated songs on Suno are not any super songs but rather boring ones. It is a lot of time and a good ear to find a right one especially if you write your lyrics. And must be said - lyrics wrote by a human make the whole song copyrighed because of these lyrics.
In the Pink Floyd documentary "Live in Pompeii", this is discussed by Waters and Gilmour. Apparently, they received some criticism that all their equipment was making the music and it was not them. To which one of them answers something like "The equipment couldn't control itself".
Just like us, AI searches memory, combines data and produces something new, but with human instructions, just like in editing and creating digital art, the software receives the command and does the work.
completely agreeing with you, someone like me who loves music, singing, songwriting and production but never got the chance to pursue my career in this industry, have been writing since a long time, but never got the chance to do much into it, have been using Suno AI, doing multiple trials and experiment on it, to see and learn how it works. its not like we don't want to be authentic, but their are some unfortunate people who can't afford it. these instruments, and have 0 knowledge about it. (now in the process of self learning music production) this is just a little aid we get from AI, AI has its pros and cons. their are 10 in 1000 people learning how to use AI, while trying to keep it minimal use and to make their work authentic , about others it's difficult to say. world is advancing people are advancing, smart people taking time to learn and be productive rather than misusing it, and where their are money minded people who are misusing it to make money from it. based on them, we should never judge others
When youtube came out people started cutting their cable and just watching youtube. Networks put content on, but got a fraction of the views of videos of people opening boxes or cats in boxes. Good content isn't the most popular. Many people look for the worst songs possible to make viral videos. They actually put in work learning how to prompt music AI to make bad songs. The problem isn't AI, rather people. From the CEO's down to the consumers and the artists under the boots. You can actually make great music with just an AI prompt, but you need to understand the song you want and correctly express it. The sort of thing a musician can do. There certainly could be more features for artists to leverage their skills against somebody with no skills. There are opportunities to make money. For example the copywrite issue makes voice models worth money to a larger audience. There can be different terms, from cash up front to percentages. If the person can't sing then their voice model will not sound good singing as quality drops the farther it gets away from the test data. Sadly it would seem that AI will do the creative work, and people will then create forgeries of the AI songs so they can have a solid copywrite. Music professionals could form a group to negotiate deals with AI companies, and make sure that there are ways for them to make money. What do you have of value to AI companies? Lots actually. From helping with supervised learning, to labeling, to having stems and samples. Better AI can be made, and you need the features such an AI could bring to compete against off tune joe who makes a song about triangles with holes.
Unbelievable 😡 this is absolutely brutal to musicians such as myself who has struggled to get out music out there genuinely. I'd say this has to stop ASAP. The musicians are struggling because of this garbage 😡
@@lorisang5696 meaning? Our music has millions of views so ya would think it's getting the attention . Where's your high quality music I can check out in comparison? Oh that's right you dont have any. 🥱🤐🫡😵💫
@@hrvstmusic If you put your effort in and the platform does not care, why would you bother with them. Just leave them, they won't change. They whole business relies on you stay and pray. In the real world you leave an employer like that. Platforms are as much a scam as employment is. Go independent, if you want to be on a platform, make a demo available to them, they deserve nothing more.
We are a minority man( looks like people don't care, they don't care. It's un ethical but it's already here, no one wanna stop it🤷♂️ all we can do is just keep making beautiful things because it's our purpose and it makes us happy
we stop them by unsubscribing and closing accounts. My music world is stuff issued by 2022 + I play guitar for myself. AI has no place in that world and never will ...
@@swojnowski453you really cannot. Because at the end of the day, people like what they like. It doesn't matter where the song/content came from. This is like replacing factory workers with machines
I missed ya content lad! And on a very important topic nowadays! Also, another thing, can you do a "Is it Prog?" episode on Supertramp? They are my favourite prog band but many people classify them as pop instead.
Wow! The closest I get to this is using synthesizer V for the vocals which are fully licensed. I spend weeks in Cubase producing, composing, and mixing my songs.
“Sit back, no song is written, / It's nothing you thought of yourself. / It's just a ghost / That came unbidden To this house.” So whether human or AI, it’s just the thing that’s making its home in your radio…. (Okkervil River)
So I have prompted some really awesome tunes to lyrics that I have written over the years. I'm not a musician. I want to take these finished generations and have session musicians play them. Is that considered scamming? Would the finished track be copyrightable?
I wouldn't say that it's "scamming" personally, the "scam" part of this video at least is pretty particular to the platforms (the use of botting, playlisting, etc. to deceive people). What you're talking about is a grey area to me, because it could turn out pretty interesting and be a step in a process that is more holistic and centered around human beings. I could see using it as a starting point, but allowing the musicians that you hire to reinterpret the ai results however they want. The US copyright office (assuming that's where you are) only issues copyrights to "works created by human beings", so you can't copyright the original AI output (but, as you can see in the video, it doesn't mean a whole lot for putting it up on streaming platforms and that sort of thing.) Its still a legal grey area on whether you can copyright it with human input added in. I would guess that long-term you will not be able to copyright an AI generated melody, as that is a major component of music copyright. So you may want the musicians you hire to alter the melody (it will probably turn out a bit better if they do anyway!) Alternatively, you can just hire musicians to write a tune to lyrics that you've written - there are tons of examples of "lyricists" who have worked for bands, singers, or on showtunes that are not musicians themselves. Personally, I don't like the ai being involved that heavily in the process. I've been asked to be involved in a similar project to the one you're describing (as a musician) and I declined it. Of course, I can't tell you what to do so I wish you the best with the project, hopefully it turns out cool and makes you happy, and if you can employ some musicians along the way I think that's great.
The issue with the Spotify 1k limit is that it is on a per song per year basis vs the youtube partner program which is on a channel basis. Other than that great video and insights into the issues with AI. It’s a really scary time and I’m less concerned with AI and more concerned with how it’ll be used in a capitalistic society.
Spotify's bot problem is their problem, they have people and companies creating and training bots to defraud the Spotify platform, but instead of dealing with those people they transfer that problem to the Artist and not the bot creators and trainers, I create music not bots, and I'm I'm tired of Spotify plucking off my catalogs without proof of who the hell is the bot operator, so now they just saying you have artificial activity, because Spotify's bot tool detection clears my tracks, and they keep saying the same tracks have artificial activity and they removed my music and let the bot operated playlist up and running, so to me Spotify is working with them and their bots, destroying the artist catalog, acting like people are so dumb they'll keep buying bots to boost fake numbers, but no, the bots are helping them steal income from any person they pick.
This is because of the record labels, they are not making off the artist, so with AI they can try controller the music. But if you can perform live you're good because here in texas they love to see you perform live.
The youtube algorithm really did well with recommending me your channel 🙏 BY THE WAY, does the name of your band by any chance have anything to do with the song named Firmament by The Ocean? 🤔🧐🧐
They're one of my favorite bands actually! We didn't intentionally choose it because of the song, but I'm sure it was a subconscious influence. Thank you, I'm glad you found the channel!
It's the business model, our difinition of arts and creativity and the neglect of what humans really like - for different reasons we get blinded. We need a new business model, artists to redefine or rediscover artistry and creativity - we know what we serve, it's not what we tell each other, what counts is the introspection.
Music was always about creating with the tools you have. So Elvis even 'lend' the voice of Roy Orbison to get to a high note. When the synthesizer Came, it was the end of music. Well AI Will not be the end of music either. It all depends how tech is used. And if tech helps to make Nice things.... I am pro. By the way, let's be honnest.. How many good recent songs are there on the radio these days? And that's mainly decided by record Companies... So maybe that 's the problem and not the AI as such. I don't really Care where music I like comes from. And I love creational minds, even when they use AI.
The way I see it art is for your enjoyment. If you like it doesn't matter if you used Photoshop, Ai, pencil or ink on dog paws walking on canvas. People have their biases obviously and everybody will feel differently
Great video. I hope AI will blow up Spotify and people realize they paid all those years and are left with nothing. It's time people build their own catalogue again be it through bandcamp or vinyl, etc
My issue w ai music is I want to listen to something someone made! Even if it’s a beat or mix, what makes music so awesome is human creativity aspect. I fall asleep to soft music and I worry that a large portion of the songs and playlist I listen to are now all ai.
AI will eventually take huge swathes of jobs which ordinary people depend on to supporet their families. I'm not saying I feel comfotable with that idea but it's inevitable. What makes artists so special that they expect to be immune from this transition?
Yes it's unavoidable but they're using the artists' work without permission, and they're profiting from it, and they don't pay anything, that's the problem
They said "Scammers are unfairly gaming the algorithms of music streaming platforms using cheaply produced music that no one actually listens to paired with botting networks and playlisting schemes in a way that devalues human creativity" about every other jump in technology?
Those artist at the tier level of $40 Million, we need our own system free from bot corruption and other money grabbing ass activity by some of these DSP's, don't think they don't have a crew of bots waiting in their own menu's just like Spotify and they too will join in and say it and take your money as well.
Good thoughts on a complex topic. Wouldn't it be great if this leads to Spotify walling-off AI music? They are hurting themselves in the long run, no one is benefiting except the scammers - even the AI companies are diluting their own value since they train on Spotify. This may be the factor to shift people to other platforms or for Spotify to figure out how to more fairly pay musicians lest they be replaced by the next new thing
You gave a struggeling producer wth about 80 (real composed, 4 weeks in the work each) Originals, 4 Computers, in internet highspeed connection, different browsers with vpns, und pro subs to all kinds of generative ai and offline tools a lot of ideas- But, damn, the german GEMA has forbidden to collect royalties on AI and, eventually the scam will fire back when some one realize that "Artists" based in Germany dont have registered their songs. So, kids: DO IT WHILE I IS POSSIBLE ;-)
I use AI art for album covers but I either use a prompt based on a song lyric we’ve done, or use predictive text on my phone to do a random prompt , and then write an entire song based on the resulting image As far as the music goes, we have not and will never use AI. Hell, I rarely ever use synth presets , preferring to design my own patches! Now on the topic of Spotify… no surprise there. This is the same platform that was outed for using fake artists on their editorial playlists to avoid paying royalties to human artists
We need anti AI site. Lets how they survive once all the real artist pull out their songs on the platform. Web dev and coders out there this is your opportunity. Real artist are looking for a place. Make a place for human artist only and you can rake in the $$$.
My grandparents said the same thing about computers. Now, they struggle in society because they refused to accept new technology. It's actually quite sad. Some people are just too darn stubborn, I guess.
Thanks for the video. This is something that has been done for a long time in a similar way by the major music labels. They have been scamming us with their instant generic music ever since mostly over radio stations and now on streaming platforms as well. They even own Spotify and others. Plus now there are some smartasses copying the same scheme just maybe not as professionally. In both cases it's disgusting. As a music producer it's not encouraging at all. But in the end no matter how much more the tech will advance there has always been only a minority of people appreciating the skills and vibes of unique artists. And for the rest it was, it is and will be good enough!
Awesome suggestion, I'd definitely like to get into them for a while. The only album that I've really got into was "Ocean" but I know they have quite a discography. I'll have to set some time aside for it.
For every person like you only using generators to "previsualize or practice before recording your own voice" theres a 100 people that generate the whole song, image or design without hesitation, especially on corporate level where it matters. This is really like saying that I support the petroleum industry to use gas in my lawn mower in my garden but something certainly should be done to reduce the amount of cars globally.
I really think that if it's use could be constrained to that sort of thing, it wouldn't be an issue. That's what I was trying to get at with that portion. Unfortunately, it is not and really cannot be (as you said). It would be best, in my view, for none of it to exists. But it does, and so it should be addressed, and the most effective level to address it on would be the corporate level. I guess I should also mention that I don't often do the "previsualization" thing that I mentioned in the video. In searching for potential use-cases for the technology it is one of the things that I have tried, which also helped me to better understand the way that it works so I could form an informed opinion on the subject. To your last point, I don't actually see any sort of contradicton there. Yes, the vastly larger aspects of a problem should be addressed before the minute ones.
@@progrock I understand your point but I think when facing such dangerous paradigm shift, one should simply refuse and totally revoke this phenomenon altogether rather than compromise and experiment with limited usage that will never be respected by the absolute majority of the people - that only leads to normalisation and gradual adoption, its all salami slicing tactics starting with "previsualisations", sketches, tests and moodboards, then "less important" applications and social media "content", and before you know it, all we are waiting for is an update with slightly higher resolution or quality that would let us print this or billboards, play it in cinemas and on radios. To me it is not a technical limitation or an issue of flawed musical harmony, its a deeply troubled and cursed technology on an almost ontological level and I want nothing to do with it.
I really do not think it is going anywhere. AI is here to stay. As well as printing press stayed, photography stayed, cars stayed and computers. An anything esle people once have been mad about. I am more scared not getting in touch with this tech. It might be more harmful not to use it at all.
Awesome video, it would be ideal if the streaming platforms could ban AI music altogether but I realize this would be very difficult to do. It's a massive problem and it's only going to get worse before it gets better.
streaming companies are giving a green light to AI music cause they wanna see the metrics, if theres profit they will join into producing AI music themselves
When I can afford a real artist I will hire one. Until then, AI raises the production value of my music releases for a price I can afford. If Ai did not exist I would still be taking a DIY approach to album art because I still would not be able to afford a real artist. AI generated music will serve the same function for others. If they can’t afford a production, they will reach to what they can afford.
It really sucks to be a music producer rn. I actually love using the A.I. Stuff, I've been making weird music my entire life, now i can write all these songs ive never been able to make - and do animated videos to go with them. I believe in MADE BY HUMANS with A.I. Tools.
The only creatives that are running to the hills are the fake ones. Real artists need to create. It's like it's the air they breathe. Then need it. Real artists have nothing to worry about. Their art will be worth so much more now.
The only thing that ai can’t take away (for now at least) is lyrics. The lyric ai generates is so vanilla. There is zero abstraction or ability to paint a mental picture worth remembering
AI can't take the pleasure playing music on an instrument from you, that's what it can't take. We live to satisfy our needs. Those who satisfy them through not their efforts sense the world through the wrapper, a bit like watching people walk in the forest. Never full experience ...
@@swojnowski453not even just playing music, but composing it. The satisfaction of writing what you want will never equal the empty novelty of generating fake music
great video man. unfortunately I think Daniel Ek would be the first one being happy to get rid of artists on Spotify. Just look at him talking. This guy is not an artist. He is not interested in artists. This guy is a pure businessman and businessmen will do whatever benefits the wallet of their company.
I think the use of AI images in metal specially by bigger acts just shows how little money theres really is in the metal music industry. Even for bigger artists streaming pays peanuts and most of it goes to the labels anyway, that prompts labels to reduce their budgets significantly and one "easy" to cut off expenses is the artwork or visual like videos. I mean for my band's latest album we used an AI image and it was 100% free, and we didn't do it because we're cheapskates, we did it because we had no budget, we would've loved to pay a talented artist to make the artwork but for an independent band from a 3rd world country which sees no revenue but only expenses it doesn't make much sense to keep burning money.
Maybe if they spent less money on a pointless guitar collection, alcohol, and strippers, they could afford to pay an artist to create their album's visuals. If Suffocation, Car Bomb, and Archspire can hire artists to make their cover art, why can't other bands? If we're talking third world, just look at Indonesia's brutal death scene, where every single album cover is immaculately created by local artists for competitive western prices. They play BRUTAL DEATH, people say you only play it if you love it for a reason -- because there's no money to be made there And as the video creator said too, collaging public domain images is also always an option
I agree with you 100% that AI is anti-human, but I've had a hard time seeing how we ever could have avoided it as an inherently inventive and progressive species. Even if at some point we could have been content with our progression, like the prisoner's dilemna we would have begrudgingly kept inventing not because it would actually have made our lives better, but just to keep ahead of the "other."
Yeah, progress marches on. It's not even that I don't see the potential positives of this tech - It's just obvious that we don't have the collective wisdom to handle it at this point. Very much like an atom bomb for culture.
We have not invented it, we have wandered into a digital chasm and found an alien species there. AI is no human, it is an alien we are actively inviting into our biological, analogue world. It will be the thing that will finally make us one, because to make all human agree on something you need an external threat. Just look at some politicians, as soon as things go wrong domestically they look for an external threat and conflict to unite everyone at home against the threat, imagined one or not ...
When you call drum machines, synth strings, and pitch correction anti-human call us back. Look up Howard Jones, as just one example. And that was a long time ago. Throw out all your recorded music, cd strangers, iPhones, & record players. You are ok with using an phone instead of a real photographer I notice.
Listen to hansons’ mmmbop reversed. Clearly dolly parton ai. ALOT of female country music had been dolly parton ai, most likely even dolly parton herselves
Evolve or Dissolve.. The only people I hear upset about the evolution of music industry is those that haven't untied their ego from their work. Your ego gets in the way because you want recognition and that ego stroke of people and fans saying I love you, your awesome, your music is the best etc... Just do the job, put in your creative efforts, finish the tune and move on to the next one. Don't attach yourself so closely to the work that your emotionally affected by the results of it. Just do the work and move on! If your using AI in the creative process, good for you! There was once a time milkmen and ice delivery drivers were on the chopping block too.. Evolve or Dissolve
No, there is no uniqueness in digital. it is a branch that leads to a single point and as it does it becomes more and more fragile. It rides towards the edge of chaos.. To survive you need to detach from it ... or you will go down with it. There is no future for humans in digitally optimized world because it is not our world.
Completely unrelated to the video topic, but how would you compare post rock and prog? Pardon the ignorance, but I literally know next to nothing about the prog genre, but all of the music you played in the video gave me VERY big post rock vibes so I kinda figured they were related. Also, crazy to see you're from Canton lol, since If These Trees Could Talk is based out of (Akron iirc?) and I'm from Salem. Apparently there's something in the water in NE Ohio that makes people want to do super technical, atmospheric soundscapes.
Cool to see someone else from Ohio! "If These Tree Could Talk" is an awesome band. I'd say that there is some crossover with Prog and Post Rock, but they're a bit different in ethos. Prog is an older genre and focuses more on things like experimenting with time signatures and having complex song structures then post rock tends to. Where post rock will often have a "minimalistic" feel with drones and focus on building harmonies on top of that, Prog rock has a "Maximalist" ethic that tends towards having instrumentally dense sections that frequently change key and rhythm. Prog rock often is more vocal-forward, while many (but not all) post bands have little to no vocals. Some bands in the prog genre were among the first to experiment with "post rock" sounds, though. One of the notable ones to me is Robert Fripp and Brian Eno's collaboration "No Pussyfooting", which is a solid precursor to post rock. Fripp was from the band King Crimson, which is a classic progressive rock group from the 60s. Other early "post" sounds can be heard in "space rock" bands like Tangerine Dream, who were also very progressive. You could potentially label some of The Moody Blues early work as sounding like "Post Rock" all the way back in the 60s, but I don't think the term would have been around and there are definitely some differences. Post rock started in earnest in the 90s with bands like Bark Psychosis, Disco Inferno, and Stereolab. It continued with bands like Slint and Godspeed You! Black Emperor, who are both very experimental and "progressive" in their own way. As time went on, there have been bands that have made more of a crossover like Mogwai or Swans on the post side, and prog bands like The Ocean doing split EPs with post bands like Mono. It'd probably be a cool video topic, thanks for that!
@@progrock Okay, awesome! That really opened my eyes to a lot of the nitty gritty technical details of the two genres and that was certainly more than I was expecting lol. I think you've definitely pointed towards some new listening material.
ffs... I found this video after investigating because I heard a couple of suspiciously garbagey sounding spotify songs pushed into my recommended. It's even worse than I thought.
I started getting them submitted to my playlists 4ish months ago, and the number of them now has exploded, even since uploading this video. - I have a feeling it's going to get a lot worse before (if) it gets better.
That AI song about technology sounds like Neil Innes. It's not very proggy frankly. I don't think the programmers really had progressive rock in mind when they trained those AI modules. Wonder what would happen if you tried to generate some 20 minutes epic suite...
whenever I come across ai audio clips(I refuse to call it music) I feel robbed,the time I spent on that clip I could have been listening to another real human being who put their soul in their work,as Ai work flood the market I see the internet becoming more walled as I would pay serious money to not have to guess the media I am listening,watching etc is machine generated,which sucks as it cuts down the free internet ethos that allows indie artists and amateurs to thrive.I also refuse to listen to any music with ai images(not art) it just puts a bad taste in my mouth
I'm "complaining'" about the wound to the human spirit that is the devaluing of one of its greatest treasures (music). The degrading incentive structure for progressing the field of music is, I believe, culture-deranging. What is one of the peaks of human connectivity and creativity is being subverted by meaningless shadows of itself, using tactics that mislead unwitting listeners and the platforms that have captured the music industry because few people would purposefully listen to these "songs".
As a lofi artist, I fear my genre will be the first domino to fall. All we can do is hope Spotify bans AI music before us small artists are decimated! Cheers everyone
Spotify is a scam in itself: punishing real artists who accidentally got on a bot playlist and reporting such playlists does nothing. On top of that your distributor fines artist for being flagged by Spotify
Until you said “wasting advertisers’ money” I was totally in agreement. Afterward too, but that just seemed like a small upside to a generally bad situation.
I get ya, I'm not a fan of advertisers either! I more meant that it's something that will get the attention of platforms when it effects their bottom line. 13% of Spotifys income comes from advertisers, rather than premium accounts.
"listener limit is good thing" What? no it isnt. the best would be if the income from each listeners went ONLY to the songs listened to by that listener. (and a share to spotify for hosting the music) if I only listened to songs a and b ALL my paid/ad money should go to these two songs. (and a percentage to spotify)
I only meant "good" in the sense that it could potentially help buffer out some amount of scam content. I like the sort of model that you laid out as an alternative, more of a "peer to peer" sort of thing that might be tokenized. Thanks for the thoughtful comment!
listener limit means, the platform gets some content for free. Advertisers still pay and the creator gets nothing. RUclips does it to people too. They earn you starve ... Sounds like a good solution for those who have never achieved the limit but their vids have been hanging around for 10 or so years and while played preceded with and ad ? Nah!
I understand your point but, economic incentives is what make the world go round, generative AI is the lightbulb in times of candles, there's no way that this genie is going back to the bottle, in the long run every single traditional industry will be killed but in aggregate we'll be better off as we are today with light bulbs than we we were when the only options for illumination involved fire.
I agree that economic incentives are what will be the deciding factor for this sort of thing. But I truly think that as it is, this endless wave of generative AI noise will impact the music industry negativity financially, so it either dissolves or deals with it. There are a lot of people heavily invested in it who will try to keep it working. They might fail, but it comes at the cost of entirely deranging culture, which I don't believe leaves us in a better place personally. Things like commercial music (in advertising, etc.) will not be viable careers because of this, because of the economic incentives to cut out the musician. That's a shame for those people, but I understand it in plain economic terms - there will be no demand for that job. I do have a philosophical disagreement about the nature of the technology, though. I don't think it's categorically like improvements to previous technology (such as your illumination example) It is a simulacrum of something that it cannot replace by its very nature. It's a "lightbulb" that doesn't light up, you can just put it in a socket to fill the same space.
Meanwhile, in the real world. people will be putting on this AI music you hate as background music to do their chores, etc by. There will always be traditional music and musicians. But people are going to have more choice in what they listen to. And that is a good thing.
I don't think you can take down your music. Or least I've not managed to. I've stopped making music as it's now impossible to get heard without having to listen to a load of crap to get a repost. There's gotta be another way
A Swedish composer named Johan Röhr created over 650 fake artists on Spotify, whose music was played 15 billion times. These artists were pseudonyms with no real online presence other than their Spotify accounts.. Even if this guy's music was not on Spotify , you know damn well your not getting these kind of numbers .. face it , if the music sucked why would he be getting this much play ???
That's fine, that kind of thing happens and is not necessarily a scam. However, botted plays are a serious issue with the platform and you can easily find some of these songs if you look around. The one song that I used as an example in this video has hundreds of thousands of plays on Spotify, but next to none on other platforms. This is not indicative of a "good song" that real people are listening to.
@@progrock yeah we agree with this .. we watched the full video , we just thought you were complain that these AI bands were taking views away from real like bands , so we are sorry for our comment , and we are man enough to say sorry . Keep rocking dude !!!
@@progrock lol oh by the way I'm a bass player, may not know how to play guitar , I've tried just can't get my big ass fingers to do right , but yeah we're human and the band is real. . ( this was not said in anger or sarcasm) .
you make it sound so easy - have you tried popularizing a crappy track on Spotify? it's incredibly hard to pull a trick like that - to make a bad AI track popular, you'd have to put so much effort into it, it's not even worth it. except for using bots - which has been punisheable forever, that's why spotify doesn't see any issues with it. if it's a good AI track - whatever, let the owner of it make the money. AI raises the bar for musicians, and it's good.
btw, to make the use of bots meaningful for a user, they'd have to breakeven - which they won't. if it was the case, people selling those bots would just use it themselves, non-stop, getting infinitely rich of the streaming services. the truth is they won't get paid, no matter how big the number of streams is.
I definitely agree, it takes a lot of effort, luck, or being directly connected to a bot farm for it to be profitable. But it's a fact that people are doing it anyway, and being convinced through these RUclips tutorials that it's a "get rich quick" scheme. That's part of why it's so corrosive to the platform. The ones that are most "successful" on the platform, and have tricked the algorithm into recommending them aren't the best sounding - they're actually brutally horrible, and I know no one is willingly listening to them because you can find the same tracks on other platforms with zero plays. I have a list of these, so I know that there are a good amount of these that have gotten successful, I don't think it'd be all that hard for someone with the resources (getting the resources would be prohibitive for some average person trying to run this in the same way) There's part of me that also agrees with your idea that it "raises the bar" for musicians, because it adds competition into the market, but at the same time the bar that it's raising is mostly in marketing music. I've seen so many great bands not be able to get a foothold because they've put everything into becoming good musicians, and don't have a clue about how to get it in front of people. For the ai people, all of the "burden" of musicianship is taken away (I believe the ultimately meaningful part) and the marketing and "business" aspects are really all there is left.
@@progrock I get your point. It's good to have a discussion with someone who actually goes through the same struggles. On the last point, the musicianship - I think it's been like that for a while already, unfortunately. Seen too many talents playing on the street, and remember someone saying that if Mozart would be born in this century, his compositions would drown unnoticed in the ocean of crap people upload
The dark internet theory is pretty real at this point. If 90% of the shit we see online isn’t even real why even bother? I think the silver lining here is that making the internet virtually unusable will cause a lot more people to touch grass. I actually have a lot of hope for the future lol.
Just build your own website, curate your own content. do not allow AI into it, keep your users and friends behind a login ... like in the real life. You do not allow everybody come, take what they want and sell it elsewhere. Instead you have a small circle of friends and you support each other. The time has come to close the gate and leave AI both out in the cold ...
AI visual art on music always betrays the idea that the art doesn't matter, that it simply needs to fill a space and fit a mood, with no consideration towards aesthetic, style, symbolism, or context. as a visual artist myself i notice all the discrepancies and it gives me the uncanny valley creeps
I get the same creeps when I watch RUclips artists do videos against AI-generated visual content while using 1) AI generated background music 2) Speech-to-text captions 3) AI-translated subtitles. As if these things don't matter.
Your statement is simply false with the amount of control a user has over what gets generated by AI with the current available implementations. Also the user gets exactly what they want most of the time vs the risk of an artists ego getting in the way and more money being required for further revisions etc...
Art is just like fast food. Finally the curtain of pretension has dropped down 😊
I did't see how the hypocrisy wasn't quite obvious to those musicians. If we really wanted AI (I'm not talking about ex-NFT now AI bros- they're beyond help) then we'd already be watching pitching machines pitch to robot hitters.
@@wolfgangdevries127 maybe for you because you have no culture lmao
The 1000 play limit does nothing to combat AI music fraud. You prove it yourself. None of these AI tracks fails to reach this limit! If only serves to punnish new artists.
What Spotify should do (if they were genuine) is to deny payouts for tracks that are not copyrightable. This would, effetively, rule out AI generated tracks, noise and other such junk.
I mostly agree, but the majority of the non-botted AI tracks do not reach 1000 plays. However, pumping out thousands of tracks that get 900 plays would potentially add up and go undetected. I didn't show these in the video because on the surface they are less of a burden on the algorithm.
An artist starting out and using the platform to share their music will not necessarily miss the $3-5 those plays would have generated, and they do get it after they reach that threshold. That said, I agree that they do deserve that money, but I can understand the rationale (if the AI people were following the terms of service, which they are not).
The other issues are that AI music can actually be registered as a unique work by ASCAP and BMI, though they are trying to change that, and are likely a pinch point that I should have mentioned in the video. It's not quite the same as copyright, but royalties can still be payed out through them. If that can be sorted out, which would probably take some legislation to ensure that ai music sites and programs contain a watermark, then I am totally on board with you, that would be a great solution.
Copyrighting a song is a bit of a process, and costs around $35 per song, which is a little bit of a burden on small artists (they'd have to get 7,000+ streams to make up for it), but that might make the AI scan untenable for a lot of the people doing it, which would be good.
I really appreciate the comment, thanks for giving us something to think about!
@@progrock The legislation is already in place! At least in the US. The US Supreme Court has decided that ONLY art GENERATED by human beings, can be copyrighted. AI, or monkeys, are NOT human geings. I seriously doubt that ASCAP and BMI allow you to register works that are uncopyrightable. Why should they? The PROs sole perpouse is to protect their members copyright, and if something falls outside the copyright system all together, they lack all juristiction.
"Copyrighting a song is a bit of a process, and costs around $35 per song," Only in the US! In the rest of the world (containing 95% of the population) it's automatic, and costs nothing! I'm not sure about Noth Korea, though.
The world should work like this: freedom for those who want to create real music and AI music (with a signaling system) and the public decides who to pay attention to. But we know that not even in the real artist vs. real artist dispute there is freedom or honesty, the bigger artists do everything to suffocate the smaller ones and prevent their rise, just as large corporations do with rising companies. The point is: it will be necessary to regulate the use of data for AI learning and the due and fair payment by the company that uses this data to the rights holders, as long as it does not affect the business model and its survival, nor the users.
Before using AI tools, I was totally against it, but I saw how much these tools increase our creative capacity and this does not only depend on the machine, but also on human creativity and imagination, which in the end are also ways of reproducing existing patterns, but with changes to avoid being a copy.
Good take, it baffles me how theres never anyone in staff over there who can come up with good ideas theyre constantly working overtime tp ruin the app
Spotify will eventually be just ai music for bots 😂
With internet traffic being 50% bots, we’re already there
Not all AI music is created with a good prompter. An ai song that uses a sentence or two vs a song created with thousands of keywords and prompt descriptions to morph the songs second by second are completely different products.
it will because we are running out of attention. If there is no attention the system dies. No users = no interaction. No interaction = the end. AI will finish off every platform because to platform will be able to cope with the amount of uploads and bot downloads. Owner curated websites might be the only ones that weather the storm ... although I'm not sure anyone will ever find them in the flood the coming waves of AI content will generate ...
@@CoryRayGordonMusicin both case you still didn’t make music, the AI did and you just prompted.
Exactly correct!
Spotify appears to be creating a LOT of AI music, and feature it on their own playlists, with tracks getting millions of streams. This way they pay royalties to themselves. See Rick Beatos video with Ted Gioia, for example.
That's why they allow AI songs, but their own. They recently did a cleanup and removed thousands of third-party AI songs.
"I fear the day that technology will surpass our human interaction. The world will have a generation of idiots." - Albert Einstein
a generation of idiots lost on the digital ocean without knowing what's human and what optmized, digital junk food for your senses.
Gen alpha is that generation of idiots
"I fear when likes on Instagram are recognized as a sign of popularity and iphone 13 is not cool ya know bro"
Albert Einstein, 1919
$1000 for great album artwork is a pretty good deal. It's shows respect for your own work and the experience of your fans. Great artists build a whole world around them.
It is! I feel like a lot of artists understand the situation of an unsigned band and are really cool about giving a good deal. Same with mastering engineers. Totally agree about "building a world", people underestimate the connections you make working with artists and having conversations with them.
I was doing illustration in the UK 25 years ago... the rate for a crappy illustration say in some poxy boring woodworking or trade magazine was £250... a front page £500... so £1000 for a unique and artisticly worthy cover today is worth it. The problem is music has been fkd by the Internet, out of ANY industry, its been the most decimated. So yunno, these guys are probably having to do everything themselves, finance everything themselves, and if they want to use AI for covers... then go for it. You could spend 1k on a cover, when you won't even make 1k from the sales.
Totally agreed 👍, it took me 14 yrs to understand
Remember the naked kid from nirvana? His naked picture is him, yet he has no rights to it. At least AI art is not exploiting anyone.(that we know of)
@@CoryRayGordonMusicHis parents sold the photo for $200. So what are you mad about? They got paid what they wanted for it. Nowadays that cover wouldn't be possible anymore anyways. At least the artist got a cover they wanted, no one was robbed for it, and the parents were paid for it.
Bro's back, and with a topic im very interested in!
Literally subscribed a few days ago and you just come back after a year, awesome!
Great timing then! Appreciate ya
it's scary how quickly AI is changing every industry..
Every week I get at least one obvious AI song on my discover weekly. Usually it's pretty easy to tell because the artist name is always generated gibberish like "Bleerd Cleabs", the cover art is always trash and the song itself sounds slightly off and is usually 2 minutes max. Every single aspect of the album (even the name), generated. It makes me sad that in the near future AI music might be the norm, and we'll have to sift through and endless sea of this trash to find something an actual human put some effort into creating. I really don't understand how people think writing "lofi hip hop beat" and downloading a .mp3 file is "making music"
They dont, truly. And its why they will give up doing this after a few months while people like us are going to keep at our craft for decades
Typing a prompt and downloading a file is not even 1% as rewarding as the process of working hard on a song or pouring your heart out into a cathartic, emotional process of creation
Bleard Cleabs. I gotta say, that's a pretty dope band name.
I've been a music producer for years,ai is making me 3 times more profit than producing songs for weeks. I do understand the frustration of the music producers and artists.but hustle is Hustle.
Industry gonna die in soon future...ai is getting better and better,play with or loose trying to play against it 😅
@@BestAIMusic-u4q You know what? I understand that. Sometimes I think I should be doing the same thing. Just ride the AI music wave and milk youtube and spotify as I can with it while it's still possible. Did you follow a specific guide or something? Do you use Suno, Udio or something else?
@@some.person I use suno and then transfer the wav to fl studio and apply some frequency cutting, and eq and master it to industry levels.
Also you gotta be pro with prompt writing and know the genres really good.
As i said if you apply real musician skills into AI its not so bad and its improving and sounding better as the time passes.
I Hope that ai music wont take over the world cause music is my biggest love.
not just an AI issue, I have been asked to create 1000 looping sounds from a company to use on spotify, also 500 ambient 2 min tracks, I've been asked to run servers for a group that milked plays on streaming platforms and also been asked to run a giant phone farm to do the same, all from different companies and people, this has been the standard M.O. in music industry for years.
Yeah, that side of it is a mess too. I feel like in the video I went easy on Spotify and the "traditional" music industry to stay focused on the AI topic but it sucks to see when companies, acts, and record labels abuse the system that way. We shouldn't pretend that they have the best interests of musicians and music in general in mind either.
If you'd be interested, I'd love to hear more about the inner workings of those projects you talked about, like the looping sounds and phone farms. isitprog (at) gmail - no pressure to though, it just sounds like a really interesting topic.
I'd rather have 5,000 real song views over 10 million fake song views
@@progrock I didn't accept the offers, but I might send you over a few details via mail, cheers, I wish I could say I didn't accept to produce due to ethics, but the pay wasn't that good for the work.
@@CoryRayGordonMusic you missed the point of my message, the music industry uses all sorts of shady tactics to get their tracks high up the charts, now outside groups also use the same tricks to game the system and make cash from streaming platforms.
Maybe I'm being overly optimistic and naive, but hopefully the tsunami of AI content flooding the Internet will make us value and seek out genuine and authentic human content and interactions? 🙏
I believe this as well.
Example:I paint portraits and sing AND drum and write songs.
Not a big deal today.
But...tell this to a human in 6 years? They won't even believe YOU do what AI attempts
At this time, I believe multi discipline artists WILL be a public mind blower.
Just wait
I think this too honestly. In a world of plastic injection molded parts and CNC machining, humans still appreciate hand crafted things and pay a premium for it. We're all still amazed when we see people that make art with paint brushes despite digital art being the norm. In a world where everything is computerized, people crave rawness and authenticity.
I even think Ai tools could push artists to get creative and invent new styles that AI doesn't have in it's training data yet. And allow more people to get into making music themselves because they have so much fun generating songs with AI, that they want to have more control over the process.
I’m not optimistic. I think it’s a battle of the wallets and how many politicians are invested where. Does the RIAA and it’s components have deeper pockets than tech bros? How many politicians do they own- I mean are invested in them
I think it will be hard to seek out authentic human content because not everyone is going to volunteer the fact that their song was made by AI. So unless they specifically put it in the details it will be harder and harder to tell i fear.
I fear it will end electronic musicians due to most EDM producers not making easily recognizably human music
At one.time,We thought Napster was a problem,
Now ai has destroyed originality with fake bands & art
Rehashed music , especially in the metal genre if your a real artist the only way to beat ai ,is to tour & sell merch if you can afford it good luck
This isn’t even the start of the eventual destruction AI will be responsible for. Overall, wait until the real “bad guys” learn how to master it. Trouble is a-comin’.
As someone who uses AI as part of a serious, non-exploitative music creation pipeline, people on both sides of this issue drive me stark raving bonkers.
On the one hand, you have the idiots who think it's okay to flood the market with click-button created trash, and insist they are somehow entitled to a payday.
On the other side, you have the idiots who think AI can't be used to create real art, and that anyone who claims otherwise ranks just *BENEATH* the Nazis in the scale of who counts as "good people".
I am a writer. Words are my talent. But music has always been my passion. When I write lyrics, I can hear the songs in my head, but with AI tools like Suno, I have been able to bring them out of my head and into the world. It's never a fast process, because I often have to re-generate each section of a song dozens of times to get it to sound like I envisioned it, and even then, there's a lot of post-production I do both on my own and with the help of my girlfriend to get a track just the way I want it.
Out of 1k credits on Suno, I get (on average) three songs that match my vision and that I could share with others without shame. That also reflects, at minimum, an hour of work each (though given how naturally writing lyrics comes to me, the majority of that time is spent scrapping failed music generations and trying again, with the next-biggest chunk going to post).
*EDIT: That's an hour per song segment, so each verse, the chorus, a lyrical bridge if I have one, etc.
I agree fully with you. And some people still think that AI makes music itself. AI is not able to do so because it has no will. And 99% of generated songs on Suno are not any super songs but rather boring ones. It is a lot of time and a good ear to find a right one especially if you write your lyrics. And must be said - lyrics wrote by a human make the whole song copyrighed because of these lyrics.
In the Pink Floyd documentary "Live in Pompeii", this is discussed by Waters and Gilmour. Apparently, they received some criticism that all their equipment was making the music and it was not them. To which one of them answers something like "The equipment couldn't control itself".
Just like us, AI searches memory, combines data and produces something new, but with human instructions, just like in editing and creating digital art, the software receives the command and does the work.
completely agreeing with you, someone like me who loves music, singing, songwriting and production but never got the chance to pursue my career in this industry, have been writing since a long time, but never got the chance to do much into it, have been using Suno AI, doing multiple trials and experiment on it, to see and learn how it works. its not like we don't want to be authentic, but their are some unfortunate people who can't afford it. these instruments, and have 0 knowledge about it. (now in the process of self learning music production) this is just a little aid we get from AI, AI has its pros and cons. their are 10 in 1000 people learning how to use AI, while trying to keep it minimal use and to make their work authentic , about others it's difficult to say. world is advancing people are advancing, smart people taking time to learn and be productive rather than misusing it, and where their are money minded people who are misusing it to make money from it. based on them, we should never judge others
Big fax bro, Instead of doing lazy work using ai , we should improve our artistic capabilities along with ai
When youtube came out people started cutting their cable and just watching youtube. Networks put content on, but got a fraction of the views of videos of people opening boxes or cats in boxes.
Good content isn't the most popular. Many people look for the worst songs possible to make viral videos. They actually put in work learning how to prompt music AI to make bad songs.
The problem isn't AI, rather people. From the CEO's down to the consumers and the artists under the boots.
You can actually make great music with just an AI prompt, but you need to understand the song you want and correctly express it. The sort of thing a musician can do. There certainly could be more features for artists to leverage their skills against somebody with no skills.
There are opportunities to make money. For example the copywrite issue makes voice models worth money to a larger audience. There can be different terms, from cash up front to percentages. If the person can't sing then their voice model will not sound good singing as quality drops the farther it gets away from the test data. Sadly it would seem that AI will do the creative work, and people will then create forgeries of the AI songs so they can have a solid copywrite.
Music professionals could form a group to negotiate deals with AI companies, and make sure that there are ways for them to make money. What do you have of value to AI companies? Lots actually. From helping with supervised learning, to labeling, to having stems and samples. Better AI can be made, and you need the features such an AI could bring to compete against off tune joe who makes a song about triangles with holes.
Unbelievable 😡 this is absolutely brutal to musicians such as myself who has struggled to get out music out there genuinely. I'd say this has to stop ASAP. The musicians are struggling because of this garbage 😡
Maybe just put high quality stuff out there?
@@lorisang5696 meaning? Our music has millions of views so ya would think it's getting the attention . Where's your high quality music I can check out in comparison? Oh that's right you dont have any. 🥱🤐🫡😵💫
@@lorisang5696 like you'rs? 🤔 Where is your music ? Can't seem to find any of your content?😵💫
A “small act” on Spotify is considered like 10k monthly listeners. Anything less and they consider you just a user.
and you consider them nothing worth your attention ...
@@swojnowski453 thats a weird assumption to make
@@hrvstmusic If you put your effort in and the platform does not care, why would you bother with them. Just leave them, they won't change. They whole business relies on you stay and pray. In the real world you leave an employer like that. Platforms are as much a scam as employment is. Go independent, if you want to be on a platform, make a demo available to them, they deserve nothing more.
@@swojnowski453 effort doesn't matter. Quality does
I was wondering where you were!!!! I don’t understand AI so it doesn’t affect me, right? 👍👍
That's right, nothing to worry about :D
We are a minority man( looks like people don't care, they don't care. It's un ethical but it's already here, no one wanna stop it🤷♂️ all we can do is just keep making beautiful things because it's our purpose and it makes us happy
we stop them by unsubscribing and closing accounts. My music world is stuff issued by 2022 + I play guitar for myself. AI has no place in that world and never will ...
@@swojnowski453you really cannot. Because at the end of the day, people like what they like. It doesn't matter where the song/content came from.
This is like replacing factory workers with machines
we need to protest. switch to tidal guys
I missed ya content lad! And on a very important topic nowadays!
Also, another thing, can you do a "Is it Prog?" episode on Supertramp? They are my favourite prog band but many people classify them as pop instead.
I love Supertramp! They'd be awesome to do, I also think of them as prog and have noticed that.
@@progrock thanks man! It's really good to see content on my favorite genre of music and yours is top notch!
you're work is appreciated sir
Have you listened to Shintokumaru by J.A.Caesar? It's a Japanese psychedelic prog rock zeuhl opera from 1978. Possibly the best prog album ever made!
No! I'll have to check it out, sounds awesome. Thanks for the recommendation.
Thank you for speaking out! I have more to say on this later. Thanks
Wow! The closest I get to this is using synthesizer V for the vocals which are fully licensed. I spend weeks in Cubase producing, composing, and mixing my songs.
“Sit back, no song is written, / It's nothing you thought of yourself. / It's just a ghost / That came unbidden
To this house.”
So whether human or AI, it’s just the thing that’s making its home in your radio….
(Okkervil River)
I as a musical artist and producer will always be me not Ai. I'm always genuine
So I have prompted some really awesome tunes to lyrics that I have written over the years. I'm not a musician. I want to take these finished generations and have session musicians play them. Is that considered scamming? Would the finished track be copyrightable?
I wouldn't say that it's "scamming" personally, the "scam" part of this video at least is pretty particular to the platforms (the use of botting, playlisting, etc. to deceive people).
What you're talking about is a grey area to me, because it could turn out pretty interesting and be a step in a process that is more holistic and centered around human beings. I could see using it as a starting point, but allowing the musicians that you hire to reinterpret the ai results however they want.
The US copyright office (assuming that's where you are) only issues copyrights to "works created by human beings", so you can't copyright the original AI output (but, as you can see in the video, it doesn't mean a whole lot for putting it up on streaming platforms and that sort of thing.) Its still a legal grey area on whether you can copyright it with human input added in. I would guess that long-term you will not be able to copyright an AI generated melody, as that is a major component of music copyright. So you may want the musicians you hire to alter the melody (it will probably turn out a bit better if they do anyway!)
Alternatively, you can just hire musicians to write a tune to lyrics that you've written - there are tons of examples of "lyricists" who have worked for bands, singers, or on showtunes that are not musicians themselves.
Personally, I don't like the ai being involved that heavily in the process. I've been asked to be involved in a similar project to the one you're describing (as a musician) and I declined it. Of course, I can't tell you what to do so I wish you the best with the project, hopefully it turns out cool and makes you happy, and if you can employ some musicians along the way I think that's great.
The issue with the Spotify 1k limit is that it is on a per song per year basis vs the youtube partner program which is on a channel basis. Other than that great video and insights into the issues with AI. It’s a really scary time and I’m less concerned with AI and more concerned with how it’ll be used in a capitalistic society.
Spotify's bot problem is their problem, they have people and companies creating and training bots to defraud the Spotify platform, but instead of dealing with those people they transfer that problem to the Artist and not the bot creators and trainers, I create music not bots, and I'm I'm tired of Spotify plucking off my catalogs without proof of who the hell is the bot operator, so now they just saying you have artificial activity, because Spotify's bot tool detection clears my tracks, and they keep saying the same tracks have artificial activity and they removed my music and let the bot operated playlist up and running, so to me Spotify is working with them and their bots, destroying the artist catalog, acting like people are so dumb they'll keep buying bots to boost fake numbers, but no, the bots are helping them steal income from any person they pick.
This is because of the record labels, they are not making off the artist, so with AI they can try controller the music. But if you can perform live you're good because here in texas they love to see you perform live.
The youtube algorithm really did well with recommending me your channel 🙏
BY THE WAY, does the name of your band by any chance have anything to do with the song named Firmament by The Ocean? 🤔🧐🧐
They're one of my favorite bands actually! We didn't intentionally choose it because of the song, but I'm sure it was a subconscious influence.
Thank you, I'm glad you found the channel!
It's the business model, our difinition of arts and creativity and the neglect of what humans really like - for different reasons we get blinded. We need a new business model, artists to redefine or rediscover artistry and creativity - we know what we serve, it's not what we tell each other, what counts is the introspection.
Music was always about creating with the tools you have. So Elvis even 'lend' the voice of Roy Orbison to get to a high note. When the synthesizer Came, it was the end of music. Well AI Will not be the end of music either. It all depends how tech is used. And if tech helps to make Nice things.... I am pro. By the way, let's be honnest.. How many good recent songs are there on the radio these days? And that's mainly decided by record Companies... So maybe that 's the problem and not the AI as such. I don't really Care where music I like comes from. And I love creational minds, even when they use AI.
The way I see it art is for your enjoyment. If you like it doesn't matter if you used Photoshop, Ai, pencil or ink on dog paws walking on canvas. People have their biases obviously and everybody will feel differently
"DJ Not You Style Tebang" is so bad that is good
It really is a marvel of technology
Great video. I hope AI will blow up Spotify and people realize they paid all those years and are left with nothing. It's time people build their own catalogue again be it through bandcamp or vinyl, etc
My issue w ai music is I want to listen to something someone made! Even if it’s a beat or mix, what makes music so awesome is human creativity aspect. I fall asleep to soft music and I worry that a large portion of the songs and playlist I listen to are now all ai.
AI will eventually take huge swathes of jobs which ordinary people depend on to supporet their families. I'm not saying I feel comfotable with that idea but it's inevitable. What makes artists so special that they expect to be immune from this transition?
Yes it's unavoidable but they're using the artists' work without permission, and they're profiting from it, and they don't pay anything, that's the problem
They said the same thing about every jump in technology.
They said "Scammers are unfairly gaming the algorithms of music streaming platforms using cheaply produced music that no one actually listens to paired with botting networks and playlisting schemes in a way that devalues human creativity" about every other jump in technology?
Those artist at the tier level of $40 Million, we need our own system free from bot corruption and other money grabbing ass activity by some of these DSP's, don't think they don't have a crew of bots waiting in their own menu's just like Spotify and they too will join in and say it and take your money as well.
Good thoughts on a complex topic. Wouldn't it be great if this leads to Spotify walling-off AI music? They are hurting themselves in the long run, no one is benefiting except the scammers - even the AI companies are diluting their own value since they train on Spotify. This may be the factor to shift people to other platforms or for Spotify to figure out how to more fairly pay musicians lest they be replaced by the next new thing
You gave a struggeling producer wth about 80 (real composed, 4 weeks in the work each) Originals, 4 Computers, in internet highspeed connection, different browsers with vpns, und pro subs to all kinds of generative ai and offline tools a lot of ideas- But, damn, the german GEMA has forbidden to collect royalties on AI and, eventually the scam will fire back when some one realize that "Artists" based in Germany dont have registered their songs. So, kids: DO IT WHILE I IS POSSIBLE ;-)
I use AI art for album covers but I either use a prompt based on a song lyric we’ve done, or use predictive text on my phone to do a random prompt , and then write an entire song based on the resulting image
As far as the music goes, we have not and will never use AI. Hell, I rarely ever use synth presets , preferring to design my own patches!
Now on the topic of Spotify… no surprise there. This is the same platform that was outed for using fake artists on their editorial playlists to avoid paying royalties to human artists
Than your album covers are stolen art.
We need anti AI site. Lets how they survive once all the real artist pull out their songs on the platform. Web dev and coders out there this is your opportunity. Real artist are looking for a place. Make a place for human artist only and you can rake in the $$$.
Metal archives doesnt allow ai
My grandparents said the same thing about computers. Now, they struggle in society because they refused to accept new technology. It's actually quite sad. Some people are just too darn stubborn, I guess.
you just provided a tutorial on how to it, especially when suggesting distrokid as though they were your sponsors
Thanks for the video. This is something that has been done for a long time in a similar way by the major music labels. They have been scamming us with their instant generic music ever since mostly over radio stations and now on streaming platforms as well. They even own Spotify and others. Plus now there are some smartasses copying the same scheme just maybe not as professionally. In both cases it's disgusting. As a music producer it's not encouraging at all. But in the end no matter how much more the tech will advance there has always been only a minority of people appreciating the skills and vibes of unique artists. And for the rest it was, it is and will be good enough!
you could do a video about Eloy, a great german prog band.
keep up the good work!
Awesome suggestion, I'd definitely like to get into them for a while. The only album that I've really got into was "Ocean" but I know they have quite a discography. I'll have to set some time aside for it.
Karma for these corporate theives!
....i got some bad news
For every person like you only using generators to "previsualize or practice before recording your own voice" theres a 100 people that generate the whole song, image or design without hesitation, especially on corporate level where it matters. This is really like saying that I support the petroleum industry to use gas in my lawn mower in my garden but something certainly should be done to reduce the amount of cars globally.
I really think that if it's use could be constrained to that sort of thing, it wouldn't be an issue. That's what I was trying to get at with that portion. Unfortunately, it is not and really cannot be (as you said). It would be best, in my view, for none of it to exists. But it does, and so it should be addressed, and the most effective level to address it on would be the corporate level.
I guess I should also mention that I don't often do the "previsualization" thing that I mentioned in the video. In searching for potential use-cases for the technology it is one of the things that I have tried, which also helped me to better understand the way that it works so I could form an informed opinion on the subject.
To your last point, I don't actually see any sort of contradicton there. Yes, the vastly larger aspects of a problem should be addressed before the minute ones.
@@progrock I understand your point but I think when facing such dangerous paradigm shift, one should simply refuse and totally revoke this phenomenon altogether rather than compromise and experiment with limited usage that will never be respected by the absolute majority of the people - that only leads to normalisation and gradual adoption, its all salami slicing tactics starting with "previsualisations", sketches, tests and moodboards, then "less important" applications and social media "content", and before you know it, all we are waiting for is an update with slightly higher resolution or quality that would let us print this or billboards, play it in cinemas and on radios. To me it is not a technical limitation or an issue of flawed musical harmony, its a deeply troubled and cursed technology on an almost ontological level and I want nothing to do with it.
I really do not think it is going anywhere. AI is here to stay. As well as printing press stayed, photography stayed, cars stayed and computers. An anything esle people once have been mad about.
I am more scared not getting in touch with this tech. It might be more harmful not to use it at all.
It’s a wrap. People will
Be able to prompt a tv show or film that looks amazing in under 10 years, probably much sooner.
We can be mad about it or adapt to it. Either way it’s not going anywhere
Thank you for the ideas. ))))
No problem man! Could've titled the explanation section "tutorial to weaken the mind and spirit", missed on that one.
Awesome video, it would be ideal if the streaming platforms could ban AI music altogether but I realize this would be very difficult to do. It's a massive problem and it's only going to get worse before it gets better.
streaming companies are giving a green light to AI music cause they wanna see the metrics, if theres profit they will join into producing AI music themselves
Do not ban AI music, give no attention to the platform. You do not allow a scammer to scam you in the real world, why would you online ... ?
When I can afford a real artist I will hire one. Until then, AI raises the production value of my music releases for a price I can afford. If Ai did not exist I would still be taking a DIY approach to album art because I still would not be able to afford a real artist.
AI generated music will serve the same function for others. If they can’t afford a production, they will reach to what they can afford.
It really sucks to be a music producer rn. I actually love using the A.I. Stuff, I've been making weird music my entire life, now i can write all these songs ive never been able to make - and do animated videos to go with them. I believe in MADE BY HUMANS with A.I. Tools.
OR: “The clickbait users shatter the illusion of integrity, yeah!”
#clickbait
The only creatives that are running to the hills are the fake ones. Real artists need to create. It's like it's the air they breathe. Then need it. Real artists have nothing to worry about. Their art will be worth so much more now.
provided someone can find it in the flood of content ...
@@swojnowski453 that's why you have to know your core fanbase and sell through your own website. You'll make an actual living that way .
The only thing that ai can’t take away (for now at least) is lyrics. The lyric ai generates is so vanilla. There is zero abstraction or ability to paint a mental picture worth remembering
AI can't take the pleasure playing music on an instrument from you, that's what it can't take. We live to satisfy our needs. Those who satisfy them through not their efforts sense the world through the wrapper, a bit like watching people walk in the forest. Never full experience ...
@@swojnowski453not even just playing music, but composing it. The satisfaction of writing what you want will never equal the empty novelty of generating fake music
ChatGPT does.
Awesome!
Now, everyone can make their own music.
Love your content please keep making more
Really appreciate that, man!
great video man. unfortunately I think Daniel Ek would be the first one being happy to get rid of artists on Spotify. Just look at him talking. This guy is not an artist. He is not interested in artists. This guy is a pure businessman and businessmen will do whatever benefits the wallet of their company.
I think the use of AI images in metal specially by bigger acts just shows how little money theres really is in the metal music industry. Even for bigger artists streaming pays peanuts and most of it goes to the labels anyway, that prompts labels to reduce their budgets significantly and one "easy" to cut off expenses is the artwork or visual like videos. I mean for my band's latest album we used an AI image and it was 100% free, and we didn't do it because we're cheapskates, we did it because we had no budget, we would've loved to pay a talented artist to make the artwork but for an independent band from a 3rd world country which sees no revenue but only expenses it doesn't make much sense to keep burning money.
Maybe if they spent less money on a pointless guitar collection, alcohol, and strippers, they could afford to pay an artist to create their album's visuals. If Suffocation, Car Bomb, and Archspire can hire artists to make their cover art, why can't other bands? If we're talking third world, just look at Indonesia's brutal death scene, where every single album cover is immaculately created by local artists for competitive western prices. They play BRUTAL DEATH, people say you only play it if you love it for a reason -- because there's no money to be made there
And as the video creator said too, collaging public domain images is also always an option
Interesting video... And, I'd be happy if this sort of technology would bring the corporate music industry on its knees.
Ozzy's reaction, haha
I agree with you 100% that AI is anti-human, but I've had a hard time seeing how we ever could have avoided it as an inherently inventive and progressive species. Even if at some point we could have been content with our progression, like the prisoner's dilemna we would have begrudgingly kept inventing not because it would actually have made our lives better, but just to keep ahead of the "other."
Yeah, progress marches on. It's not even that I don't see the potential positives of this tech - It's just obvious that we don't have the collective wisdom to handle it at this point. Very much like an atom bomb for culture.
We have not invented it, we have wandered into a digital chasm and found an alien species there. AI is no human, it is an alien we are actively inviting into our biological, analogue world. It will be the thing that will finally make us one, because to make all human agree on something you need an external threat. Just look at some politicians, as soon as things go wrong domestically they look for an external threat and conflict to unite everyone at home against the threat, imagined one or not ...
Ai disrupting every human created art is despicable af
Thanks, very Informative
When you call drum machines, synth strings, and pitch correction anti-human call us back.
Look up Howard Jones, as just one example. And that was a long time ago.
Throw out all your recorded music, cd strangers, iPhones, & record players.
You are ok with using an phone instead of a real photographer I notice.
Listen to hansons’ mmmbop reversed. Clearly dolly parton ai. ALOT of female country music had been dolly parton ai, most likely even dolly parton herselves
Evolve or Dissolve.. The only people I hear upset about the evolution of music industry is those that haven't untied their ego from their work. Your ego gets in the way because you want recognition and that ego stroke of people and fans saying I love you, your awesome, your music is the best etc... Just do the job, put in your creative efforts, finish the tune and move on to the next one. Don't attach yourself so closely to the work that your emotionally affected by the results of it. Just do the work and move on! If your using AI in the creative process, good for you! There was once a time milkmen and ice delivery drivers were on the chopping block too.. Evolve or Dissolve
No, there is no uniqueness in digital. it is a branch that leads to a single point and as it does it becomes more and more fragile. It rides towards the edge of chaos.. To survive you need to detach from it ... or you will go down with it. There is no future for humans in digitally optimized world because it is not our world.
Completely unrelated to the video topic, but how would you compare post rock and prog? Pardon the ignorance, but I literally know next to nothing about the prog genre, but all of the music you played in the video gave me VERY big post rock vibes so I kinda figured they were related.
Also, crazy to see you're from Canton lol, since If These Trees Could Talk is based out of (Akron iirc?) and I'm from Salem. Apparently there's something in the water in NE Ohio that makes people want to do super technical, atmospheric soundscapes.
Cool to see someone else from Ohio! "If These Tree Could Talk" is an awesome band.
I'd say that there is some crossover with Prog and Post Rock, but they're a bit different in ethos. Prog is an older genre and focuses more on things like experimenting with time signatures and having complex song structures then post rock tends to. Where post rock will often have a "minimalistic" feel with drones and focus on building harmonies on top of that, Prog rock has a "Maximalist" ethic that tends towards having instrumentally dense sections that frequently change key and rhythm. Prog rock often is more vocal-forward, while many (but not all) post bands have little to no vocals.
Some bands in the prog genre were among the first to experiment with "post rock" sounds, though. One of the notable ones to me is Robert Fripp and Brian Eno's collaboration "No Pussyfooting", which is a solid precursor to post rock. Fripp was from the band King Crimson, which is a classic progressive rock group from the 60s. Other early "post" sounds can be heard in "space rock" bands like Tangerine Dream, who were also very progressive. You could potentially label some of The Moody Blues early work as sounding like "Post Rock" all the way back in the 60s, but I don't think the term would have been around and there are definitely some differences.
Post rock started in earnest in the 90s with bands like Bark Psychosis, Disco Inferno, and Stereolab. It continued with bands like Slint and Godspeed You! Black Emperor, who are both very experimental and "progressive" in their own way.
As time went on, there have been bands that have made more of a crossover like Mogwai or Swans on the post side, and prog bands like The Ocean doing split EPs with post bands like Mono.
It'd probably be a cool video topic, thanks for that!
@@progrock Okay, awesome! That really opened my eyes to a lot of the nitty gritty technical details of the two genres and that was certainly more than I was expecting lol. I think you've definitely pointed towards some new listening material.
Very well put 👏
ffs... I found this video after investigating because I heard a couple of suspiciously garbagey sounding spotify songs pushed into my recommended. It's even worse than I thought.
I started getting them submitted to my playlists 4ish months ago, and the number of them now has exploded, even since uploading this video. - I have a feeling it's going to get a lot worse before (if) it gets better.
I fucking missed you so much
Really good video. Thanks for the upload.
they said the same shit about cgi and digital art...
That AI song about technology sounds like Neil Innes. It's not very proggy frankly.
I don't think the programmers really had progressive rock in mind when they trained those AI modules.
Wonder what would happen if you tried to generate some 20 minutes epic suite...
whenever I come across ai audio clips(I refuse to call it music) I feel robbed,the time I spent on that clip I could have been listening to another real human being who put their soul in their work,as Ai work flood the market I see the internet becoming more walled as I would pay serious money to not have to guess the media I am listening,watching etc is machine generated,which sucks as it cuts down the free internet ethos that allows indie artists and amateurs to thrive.I also refuse to listen to any music with ai images(not art) it just puts a bad taste in my mouth
Great video. The lyrics in AI music are so hilariously bad.
THE BEEPS AND BOOPS
Basically: what are you complaining about--- loss of livelihood or non musicians making music?
I'm "complaining'" about the wound to the human spirit that is the devaluing of one of its greatest treasures (music). The degrading incentive structure for progressing the field of music is, I believe, culture-deranging. What is one of the peaks of human connectivity and creativity is being subverted by meaningless shadows of itself, using tactics that mislead unwitting listeners and the platforms that have captured the music industry because few people would purposefully listen to these "songs".
As a lofi artist, I fear my genre will be the first domino to fall. All we can do is hope Spotify bans AI music before us small artists are decimated! Cheers everyone
I dont make music for Spotify, but I do have all of 2 monthly listeners. And if my listener account counts then 1 of them is me😅
Spotify is a scam in itself: punishing real artists who accidentally got on a bot playlist and reporting such playlists does nothing. On top of that your distributor fines artist for being flagged by Spotify
Until you said “wasting advertisers’ money” I was totally in agreement. Afterward too, but that just seemed like a small upside to a generally bad situation.
I get ya, I'm not a fan of advertisers either! I more meant that it's something that will get the attention of platforms when it effects their bottom line. 13% of Spotifys income comes from advertisers, rather than premium accounts.
"listener limit is good thing" What? no it isnt. the best would be if the income from each listeners went ONLY to the songs listened to by that listener. (and a share to spotify for hosting the music)
if I only listened to songs a and b ALL my paid/ad money should go to these two songs. (and a percentage to spotify)
I only meant "good" in the sense that it could potentially help buffer out some amount of scam content. I like the sort of model that you laid out as an alternative, more of a "peer to peer" sort of thing that might be tokenized. Thanks for the thoughtful comment!
listener limit means, the platform gets some content for free. Advertisers still pay and the creator gets nothing. RUclips does it to people too. They earn you starve ... Sounds like a good solution for those who have never achieved the limit but their vids have been hanging around for 10 or so years and while played preceded with and ad ? Nah!
💙💛thank you!💛💙
I understand your point but, economic incentives is what make the world go round, generative AI is the lightbulb in times of candles, there's no way that this genie is going back to the bottle, in the long run every single traditional industry will be killed but in aggregate we'll be better off as we are today with light bulbs than we we were when the only options for illumination involved fire.
AI Music is not yet able to create original works, all it does is recreate, generate yesterday's music
I agree that economic incentives are what will be the deciding factor for this sort of thing. But I truly think that as it is, this endless wave of generative AI noise will impact the music industry negativity financially, so it either dissolves or deals with it. There are a lot of people heavily invested in it who will try to keep it working. They might fail, but it comes at the cost of entirely deranging culture, which I don't believe leaves us in a better place personally.
Things like commercial music (in advertising, etc.) will not be viable careers because of this, because of the economic incentives to cut out the musician. That's a shame for those people, but I understand it in plain economic terms - there will be no demand for that job.
I do have a philosophical disagreement about the nature of the technology, though. I don't think it's categorically like improvements to previous technology (such as your illumination example) It is a simulacrum of something that it cannot replace by its very nature. It's a "lightbulb" that doesn't light up, you can just put it in a socket to fill the same space.
Meanwhile, in the real world. people will be putting on this AI music you hate as background music to do their chores, etc by. There will always be traditional music and musicians. But people are going to have more choice in what they listen to. And that is a good thing.
lol in the real world why you in the matrix
I don't think you can take down your music. Or least I've not managed to. I've stopped making music as it's now impossible to get heard without having to listen to a load of crap to get a repost. There's gotta be another way
Isn`t the real issue in this video not AUI making music, but AI listening to music ?
That`s something different..
I am blocking all the AI “artists” I see on Spotify. They recently started to show up often in recommendations.
I will not knowingly support Ai music or movies, I refuse
to be honest, generic rock band sound is like AI music, that's why I normally tune out pretty quick
A Swedish composer named Johan Röhr created over 650 fake artists on Spotify, whose music was played 15 billion times. These artists were pseudonyms with no real online presence other than their Spotify accounts.. Even if this guy's music was not on Spotify , you know damn well your not getting these kind of numbers .. face it , if the music sucked why would he be getting this much play ???
That's fine, that kind of thing happens and is not necessarily a scam. However, botted plays are a serious issue with the platform and you can easily find some of these songs if you look around. The one song that I used as an example in this video has hundreds of thousands of plays on Spotify, but next to none on other platforms. This is not indicative of a "good song" that real people are listening to.
@@progrock yeah we agree with this .. we watched the full video , we just thought you were complain that these AI bands were taking views away from real like bands , so we are sorry for our comment , and we are man enough to say sorry . Keep rocking dude !!!
@@progrock lol oh by the way I'm a bass player, may not know how to play guitar , I've tried just can't get my big ass fingers to do right , but yeah we're human and the band is real. . ( this was not said in anger or sarcasm) .
The botnet scams are not really AI. Scammers use it on AI or artisanal music, and it has been going for a long time before AI entered the scene.
you make it sound so easy - have you tried popularizing a crappy track on Spotify? it's incredibly hard to pull a trick like that - to make a bad AI track popular, you'd have to put so much effort into it, it's not even worth it. except for using bots - which has been punisheable forever, that's why spotify doesn't see any issues with it. if it's a good AI track - whatever, let the owner of it make the money. AI raises the bar for musicians, and it's good.
btw, to make the use of bots meaningful for a user, they'd have to breakeven - which they won't. if it was the case, people selling those bots would just use it themselves, non-stop, getting infinitely rich of the streaming services. the truth is they won't get paid, no matter how big the number of streams is.
I definitely agree, it takes a lot of effort, luck, or being directly connected to a bot farm for it to be profitable. But it's a fact that people are doing it anyway, and being convinced through these RUclips tutorials that it's a "get rich quick" scheme. That's part of why it's so corrosive to the platform.
The ones that are most "successful" on the platform, and have tricked the algorithm into recommending them aren't the best sounding - they're actually brutally horrible, and I know no one is willingly listening to them because you can find the same tracks on other platforms with zero plays. I have a list of these, so I know that there are a good amount of these that have gotten successful, I don't think it'd be all that hard for someone with the resources (getting the resources would be prohibitive for some average person trying to run this in the same way)
There's part of me that also agrees with your idea that it "raises the bar" for musicians, because it adds competition into the market, but at the same time the bar that it's raising is mostly in marketing music. I've seen so many great bands not be able to get a foothold because they've put everything into becoming good musicians, and don't have a clue about how to get it in front of people. For the ai people, all of the "burden" of musicianship is taken away (I believe the ultimately meaningful part) and the marketing and "business" aspects are really all there is left.
@@progrock I get your point. It's good to have a discussion with someone who actually goes through the same struggles. On the last point, the musicianship - I think it's been like that for a while already, unfortunately. Seen too many talents playing on the street, and remember someone saying that if Mozart would be born in this century, his compositions would drown unnoticed in the ocean of crap people upload