5 ms·

>IMO, the real tragedy here is ... that some dude who wrote an original song had to pretend it was written by AI to get it heard. Genuinely curious to hear why

>IMO, the real tragedy here is ... that some dude who wrote an original song had to pretend it was written by AI to get it heard. Genuinely curious to hear why this is a tragedy. Does everyone who puts out anything original deserve to have it heard by a wider audience? Edit: Asking as someone who has always been heavily involved in various aspects of music and has watched a massive increase in the volume of music being put out now that it's significantly easier to produce on your own. This is a very complicated topic.

waboremo 4y ago
To me it's pretty easy to grasp that it's disappointing the artist had to mask as two of the most successful artists of all time to get heard, while also understanding that it's the easier route to do that. It's easier to be a ghost writer than it is to push your own brand, that sort of situation.
- darkerside 4y ago
  "Had to" seems the wrong phrase. First world problem if I ever heard one.
  - waboremo 4y ago
    I don't believe there's any point in debating semantics or dismissing the topic of discussion based on it being a "first world problem".
    - MichaelZuo 4y ago
      I think it's a fair point to raise, 'had to' implies some form of compulsion or fixed process or unmovable obstacle in any context I've heard of.
  - afavour 4y ago
    I don't really understand the objection here. Must we couch everything with "of course in the grand scheme of the world and poverty and famine it isn't a big deal, but..."
    - bheadmaster 4y ago
      Be grateful - at least you weren't born in an AI-controlled human farm created to inflict as much suffering onto humans as possible. Poverty and famine are only a reflection of your privilege as a free human.
    - darkerside 4y ago
      That was a distracting side comment on my part. My real objection is that it's silly to characterize the artist as a victim. They had the opportunity to leverage other people's work, both technical and musical, to get eyeballs they likely never would have otherwise gotten. To me, saying it's "disappointing that they had to" feels wrong almost to the point of being offensive.
- highfrequency 4y ago
  Well...of course? If I pretend my blog post is written by Bill Gates, more people will read it. This is basic human nature. We can try to prevent plagiarism and improve our detection of it, but there's nothing wrong or disappointing with the fact that people prefer to listen to Bill Gates than a random blogger.
  - tivert 4y ago
    > Well...of course? If I pretend my blog post is written by Bill Gates, more people will read it. This is basic human nature. I think the tragedy is that the attention doesn't follow quality or value, it follows fame and gimmicks. In your example, Bill Gates's stupidest brain farts will get 1000x more positive attention that an objectively-better tour-de-force that almost anyone else posts.
    - testmasterflex 4y ago
      That’s the unfairness about power laws and the reason why YC wants to hear if you have any unfair advantage in your application.
    - JCharante 4y ago
      Should reputation not matter? A lot of people would read something published by the NYT but not Buzzfeed
    - JohnFen 4y ago
      > I think the tragedy is that the attention doesn't follow quality or value, it follows fame and gimmicks. It is, but also... welcome to life. This is how it works. What determines success is very often more about things other than the quality of the product. For evidence, just look at the most popular products at the store. Very rarely are they at the top of the quality scale.
      - tivert 4y ago
        >> I think the tragedy is that the attention doesn't follow quality or value, it follows fame and gimmicks. > It is, but also... welcome to life. This is how it works. So what? That it works that way doesn't make it any less of a tragedy* or any more fair. * The word chosen by someone else upthread.
- cortesoft 4y ago
  Isn't it more like, a mediocre artist who normally wouldn't have any audience found an interesting artistic choice that generated interest? AI and art is a hot topic at the moment, and this artist found a way to capitalize on the zeitgeist.
  - forrestbrazeal 4y ago
    The "interesting artistic choice" was to lead people to believe that a song he wrote and recorded himself was generated by a computer.
    - cortesoft 4y ago
      So a social commentary on AI in our culture?
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
- Kiro 4y ago
  You presume he did this for other reasons than simply having fun with AI filters?
cptcobalt 4y ago
> Does everyone who puts out anything original deserve to have it heard by a wider audience? Yes! This is a failure of capitalism coalescing and centralizing under fewer and fewer big profit centers. There are many, many creators putting out work as good (if not better) that deserve discovery. (NB: not everything is worthy of "discovery", like some early experimental learning work, but there's definitely undiscovered well-polished work out there.) Culture can be made by the masses, not by the few, but profit sharks don't let that happen.
- jjulius 4y ago
  Just to clarify, I agree with the general sentiment of your comment. My concern, or confusion, or lack of understanding, or ignorance, or whatever you wanna call it, is less about the mechanisms of capitalism controlling distribution and moreso the sheer volume of music available. I posit that there is more well-polished music being released on a daily basis than people are capable of listening to, or that we even mathematically have the available time, as a whole, to fit into our lives. Even if we shifted the controls of distribution and such, there seems to be far more content than there are ears to hear the content, and I just don't get how we can ever expect everything worth it's weight in notes to be heard. I understand the desire, as an artist myself, to be heard, but I also know that I'm one of millions of other people feeling the same way. If everyone's creating (and there are definitely far more creators than ever before), who's listening? Am I crazy? Am I missing something?
  - bjt2n3904 4y ago
    No, you're not. You're dealing with principles of communism here. They're inherently nonsensical. Note the standard of justice being used. It's not, "impersonating someone to use them as a stepping stone is wrong, no matter who does it, or who is the victim". The standard is, the rich and powerful don't "deserve" equal protection from the law, the real victim is the artist who isn't being recognized because the industry isn't playing "fair". So it's ok if the underdog breaks the law, because the world is stacked against him. Yeah, and basket ball isn't fair because I'm fat and uncoordinated, and math isn't fair because I'm stupid and don't want to study. Ironically, these were the same people that said, "Nobody deserves a platform to spread the 'wrong' ideas." when it came to censorship on Twitter, and had the gall to call it "accountability" when people were banned for wrong think about vaccines. If you're scratching your head and saying, "Wait, what am I missing? That makes no sense! Ten seconds ago it was the rich and powerful censoring the poor underdog, and that was bad. But now big pharma backed censorship is a good thing?" -- it's because you're the sane and logical person, and they're the ones without a consistent worldview.
winternett 4y ago
I'm someone that regularly releases original music and the small following that AI have genuinely likes the music, but it's an increasing hurdle to get new people just to listen, even when it's free, because of the absolute flood of phony music online. I don't resort to spending a lot of money on promo (which is the normally competitive move) because there is no guarantee that that money won't simply disappear without results, because these days platforms scam musicians as much as record labels do. Not much online is more perilous and rife with scams than trying to make a name for yourself in the music industry. I think people should be given multiple opportunities to be heard by platforms, but now platforms don't do it unless artists pay them to be heard because of the shear volume of fraud accounts uploading fake and low effort music to streaming services. TikTok shows everything from videos of people cooking eggs to people trimming cow hoofs.. Despite the company being built around music, very little choice is offered in terms of browsing music, and the platform regularly punishes unknown musicians by limiting their views and by imposing complex copyright control on original music to prevent it from being discovered. The majority of the music streamed on the platform funnels royalties for most of the videos on the platforms to already wealthy individuals, scammers, and to companies associated with music streaming. I think that Independent musicians and labels are putting out music better than major industry now in most cases, yet because of that competition, major label and industry forces work to suppress indie music through lobbying platforms and government for control, and they also throw money around to make competition against them extra hard for musicians that aren't profitable. Tons of independent musicians are operating at a financial loss, and simply having a chance to be heard would make it worthwhile. So yes, I think that everyone authentic should get as many chances to be heard, because it's an honor for platforms to get new authentic indie music from people that could upload it elsewhere instead, and platforms should be ritually meticulous in promoting all of the authentic independent artists on these platforms in support of music growth, because that's a far better prospect for long term success than just lining pockets of ancient and withering music label executives.
- marstall 4y ago
  Did autocorrect change "I have ..." to "AI have ..."? if so - ironic! (AIronic?)

waboremo 4y ago

To me it's pretty easy to grasp that it's disappointing the artist had to mask as two of the most successful artists of all time to get heard, while also understanding that it's the easier route to do that. It's easier to be a ghost writer than it is to push your own brand, that sort of situation.

darkerside 4y ago
"Had to" seems the wrong phrase. First world problem if I ever heard one.
- waboremo 4y ago
  I don't believe there's any point in debating semantics or dismissing the topic of discussion based on it being a "first world problem".
  - MichaelZuo 4y ago
    I think it's a fair point to raise, 'had to' implies some form of compulsion or fixed process or unmovable obstacle in any context I've heard of.
- afavour 4y ago
  I don't really understand the objection here. Must we couch everything with "of course in the grand scheme of the world and poverty and famine it isn't a big deal, but..."
  - bheadmaster 4y ago
    Be grateful - at least you weren't born in an AI-controlled human farm created to inflict as much suffering onto humans as possible. Poverty and famine are only a reflection of your privilege as a free human.
  - darkerside 4y ago
    That was a distracting side comment on my part. My real objection is that it's silly to characterize the artist as a victim. They had the opportunity to leverage other people's work, both technical and musical, to get eyeballs they likely never would have otherwise gotten. To me, saying it's "disappointing that they had to" feels wrong almost to the point of being offensive.
highfrequency 4y ago
Well...of course? If I pretend my blog post is written by Bill Gates, more people will read it. This is basic human nature. We can try to prevent plagiarism and improve our detection of it, but there's nothing wrong or disappointing with the fact that people prefer to listen to Bill Gates than a random blogger.
- tivert 4y ago
  > Well...of course? If I pretend my blog post is written by Bill Gates, more people will read it. This is basic human nature. I think the tragedy is that the attention doesn't follow quality or value, it follows fame and gimmicks. In your example, Bill Gates's stupidest brain farts will get 1000x more positive attention that an objectively-better tour-de-force that almost anyone else posts.
  - testmasterflex 4y ago
    That’s the unfairness about power laws and the reason why YC wants to hear if you have any unfair advantage in your application.
  - JCharante 4y ago
    Should reputation not matter? A lot of people would read something published by the NYT but not Buzzfeed
  - JohnFen 4y ago
    > I think the tragedy is that the attention doesn't follow quality or value, it follows fame and gimmicks. It is, but also... welcome to life. This is how it works. What determines success is very often more about things other than the quality of the product. For evidence, just look at the most popular products at the store. Very rarely are they at the top of the quality scale.
    - tivert 4y ago
      >> I think the tragedy is that the attention doesn't follow quality or value, it follows fame and gimmicks. > It is, but also... welcome to life. This is how it works. So what? That it works that way doesn't make it any less of a tragedy* or any more fair. * The word chosen by someone else upthread.
cortesoft 4y ago
Isn't it more like, a mediocre artist who normally wouldn't have any audience found an interesting artistic choice that generated interest? AI and art is a hot topic at the moment, and this artist found a way to capitalize on the zeitgeist.
- forrestbrazeal 4y ago
  The "interesting artistic choice" was to lead people to believe that a song he wrote and recorded himself was generated by a computer.
  - cortesoft 4y ago
    So a social commentary on AI in our culture?
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
Kiro 4y ago
You presume he did this for other reasons than simply having fun with AI filters?

cptcobalt 4y ago

> Does everyone who puts out anything original deserve to have it heard by a wider audience? Yes! This is a failure of capitalism coalescing and centralizing under fewer and fewer big profit centers. There are many, many creators putting out work as good (if not better) that deserve discovery. (NB: not everything is worthy of "discovery", like some early experimental learning work, but there's definitely undiscovered well-polished work out there.) Culture can be made by the masses, not by the few, but profit sharks don't let that happen.

jjulius 4y ago
Just to clarify, I agree with the general sentiment of your comment. My concern, or confusion, or lack of understanding, or ignorance, or whatever you wanna call it, is less about the mechanisms of capitalism controlling distribution and moreso the sheer volume of music available. I posit that there is more well-polished music being released on a daily basis than people are capable of listening to, or that we even mathematically have the available time, as a whole, to fit into our lives. Even if we shifted the controls of distribution and such, there seems to be far more content than there are ears to hear the content, and I just don't get how we can ever expect everything worth it's weight in notes to be heard. I understand the desire, as an artist myself, to be heard, but I also know that I'm one of millions of other people feeling the same way. If everyone's creating (and there are definitely far more creators than ever before), who's listening? Am I crazy? Am I missing something?
- bjt2n3904 4y ago
  No, you're not. You're dealing with principles of communism here. They're inherently nonsensical. Note the standard of justice being used. It's not, "impersonating someone to use them as a stepping stone is wrong, no matter who does it, or who is the victim". The standard is, the rich and powerful don't "deserve" equal protection from the law, the real victim is the artist who isn't being recognized because the industry isn't playing "fair". So it's ok if the underdog breaks the law, because the world is stacked against him. Yeah, and basket ball isn't fair because I'm fat and uncoordinated, and math isn't fair because I'm stupid and don't want to study. Ironically, these were the same people that said, "Nobody deserves a platform to spread the 'wrong' ideas." when it came to censorship on Twitter, and had the gall to call it "accountability" when people were banned for wrong think about vaccines. If you're scratching your head and saying, "Wait, what am I missing? That makes no sense! Ten seconds ago it was the rich and powerful censoring the poor underdog, and that was bad. But now big pharma backed censorship is a good thing?" -- it's because you're the sane and logical person, and they're the ones without a consistent worldview.

winternett 4y ago

I'm someone that regularly releases original music and the small following that AI have genuinely likes the music, but it's an increasing hurdle to get new people just to listen, even when it's free, because of the absolute flood of phony music online. I don't resort to spending a lot of money on promo (which is the normally competitive move) because there is no guarantee that that money won't simply disappear without results, because these days platforms scam musicians as much as record labels do. Not much online is more perilous and rife with scams than trying to make a name for yourself in the music industry. I think people should be given multiple opportunities to be heard by platforms, but now platforms don't do it unless artists pay them to be heard because of the shear volume of fraud accounts uploading fake and low effort music to streaming services. TikTok shows everything from videos of people cooking eggs to people trimming cow hoofs.. Despite the company being built around music, very little choice is offered in terms of browsing music, and the platform regularly punishes unknown musicians by limiting their views and by imposing complex copyright control on original music to prevent it from being discovered. The majority of the music streamed on the platform funnels royalties for most of the videos on the platforms to already wealthy individuals, scammers, and to companies associated with music streaming. I think that Independent musicians and labels are putting out music better than major industry now in most cases, yet because of that competition, major label and industry forces work to suppress indie music through lobbying platforms and government for control, and they also throw money around to make competition against them extra hard for musicians that aren't profitable. Tons of independent musicians are operating at a financial loss, and simply having a chance to be heard would make it worthwhile. So yes, I think that everyone authentic should get as many chances to be heard, because it's an honor for platforms to get new authentic indie music from people that could upload it elsewhere instead, and platforms should be ritually meticulous in promoting all of the authentic independent artists on these platforms in support of music growth, because that's a far better prospect for long term success than just lining pockets of ancient and withering music label executives.

marstall 4y ago
Did autocorrect change "I have ..." to "AI have ..."? if so - ironic! (AIronic?)