4 ms·

I'm not going to comment on the technical side of things, which is way beyond my technical comprehensions skills, and I'm sure it required a considerable amount

I'm not going to comment on the technical side of things, which is way beyond my technical comprehensions skills, and I'm sure it required a considerable amount of brain, time and energy to reach similar results. But music production and distribution is (actually, was) my home turf, so here's my two cents on the topic: I've already heard music qualitatively on par with the tracks available on your demo page. I've heard it way more than I truly wanted or felt it was necessary, at least once a day while tracking on pro tools hundreds of albums you've never ever heard of, in studios in France and LA, for years. It was made with people with the best intentions, coming from all sorts of walks of life, and yet it was obvious from the first note they played that they were condemned to the oblivion, their music destined to be basically never heard by anyone. And this has been done every day, multiple times a day, in every studio around the world, since the '60s. 20% of Spotify music has never been played once. IIRC less than 40% has been played more than once. There's a genuinely humbling scene in the 2002 documentary "Scratch" where DJ Shadow, a world-renowed DJ and producer, wades trough stacks of EPs out of a record store in NY that have never, ever been played once[1], which perfectly captures how little of the musical output being recorded we actually get to listen to. Making music is very easy. Making music people want to listen to is hard, mind-bogglingly so. For every whitebread pop track you've heard on the radio, there's thousands of other similar tracks that have been discarded by an A&R, a radio DJ, some label, or simply by the audience. I'm saying this with no ill feelings towards you or your work, but I can't concieve even the flimsiest of reasons why anyone would ever listen to (or license/sync/track/ ) any of those generated songs once the novelty of "music made by the AI" is gone. [1]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1gpKYnRdf0A&t=6s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1gpKYnRdf0A&t=6s

jastanton 2y ago
> I can't concieve even the flimsiest of reasons why anyone would ever listen to (or license/sync/track/ ) any of those generated songs once the novelty of "music made by the AI" is gone. Easy: Independent/single-dev operations needing some quick background music for a project (game, whatever)
- gazebo64 2y ago
  This is already easily solved by using royalty-free music or by licensing pre-made music from numerous publicly available sound libraries online -- with the added benefit of supporting actual musicians instead of plagiarist tech middlemen.
  - bambinella 2y ago
    I think you got this wrong. Usually you use one electronic musician to create all the background music (or license pre-existing popular music), and with music AI you make that musician more productive. It is not like non-musicians will even be able to select the bad from the good of the AI output. It takes a trained ear to build functional AI music as well. Nobody will hire live studio musicians or a symphony orchestra to create background music. Way too expensive.
    - gazebo64 2y ago
      What exactly am I getting wrong? You insisting that nobody hires studio musicians or orchestras, and claiming that "usually you hire one electronic musician" are both demonstrably false opinions that have almost no relation to my point that background music is obtainable through on-demand licensed libraries.
- drusepth 2y ago
  Also: People (especially kids, students, etc) who want to make music but don't have the technical expertise to (yet?). Obviously these tools don't do everything necessary to make great music, but the barrier of entry to making music is being lowered, and the quality floor is being raised -- and that'll result in a lot more would-be "musicians"[0] creating music that wouldn't otherwise exist[1]. [0] I leave the argument of whether these generative musicians count as "real" musicians to the Scotsmen in the audience. [1] Bonus question: does art still hold value if no one sees it?
  - zaptrem 2y ago
    The creator sees/hears it! (and if they don't it really shouldn't have been generated lol, waste of compute)
lc9er 2y ago
> I'm saying this with no ill feelings towards you or your work. I can. It’s predatory behavior, performed by people looking to steal and cash in on something they have neither the skill, understanding, or love to make on their own.
999900000999 2y ago
I have mixed feelings on AI music. When i make music, it's relaxing, it's fun, maybe 3 or 4 people listen to it. Then it kinda just sits on Soundcloud. One of my partners did enjoy my music though... AI music for the sake of just having it in the background removes that human element. It's just more stuff. To be fair, like you said, making generic music isn't anything new. But everything is turning into this. Games are using AI generated music which isn't , by definition, able to try anything new, AI art which is just reguritated by other artists. The enshitification of Spotify is here. Why pay artist 100$ for 500k plays when you can just push AI music and pay 1$ for every 500k plays. As is music( really any entertainment) is a horrible way to make money. So I guess I'll just keep working on my beats, with Maschine( the only software that keeps me on Windows!), and sharing them with a few people every now and then.
thesparks 2y ago
The benefit of AI generated music is that you can make it for yourself. The goal shouldn't be to get other people to listen to it. It's very personal and that should be the end goal.
- jamager 2y ago
  The benefit of real human-made music is that you can make it for yourself. The goal shouldn't be to get other people to listen to it. It's very personal and that should be the end goal.
- easyThrowaway 2y ago
  Is it very personal if it was generated from a third party? Making music and, more importantly, playing it is an incredibly personal, physical experience. Especially if you're doing it for yourself rather than being a gun-for-hire session musician. Getting it from a service like this is the equivalent of buying an already assembled lego kit. Putting aside ethical concerns (we're talking about the music industry after all, there were none even before AI arrived) is there a viable business in it?
quantumspandex 2y ago
Can humans generate a song based on custom lyrics and style in a matter of minutes?
- naltroc 2y ago
  Whose Line Is It Anyway? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XwIsvKpEgOA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XwIsvKpEgOA
richrichardsson 2y ago
> Making music is very easy. Making music people want to listen to is hard, mind-bogglingly so. Agreed, although making music is "easy" once you've put in the hours to learn how to make music, and getting to somewhat professional standards requires a lot of time investment. This reduces that to zero. The point where it becomes a "problem" is the people abusing it to pump out hundreds (or dare I say thousands) of bullshit filler "music" to get some stream income at the expense of people who have put in the effort.
- easyThrowaway 2y ago
  Technical skill has very, very little to do with the emotional impact of music. One of the most famous mantras in punk music was "this is a chord, this is another, now make a band"[1]. "Imagine" by John Lennon is a song written using the simplest scale and chord progressions, using a very low 4/4 tempo. The hard part is not knowing the biggest amount of chords, it's knowing what not to use to carry your emotions. Also, the "time investment" is the music. Once the final waveform hits the tape/DAW/recorder it's not art anymore, it's publishing. And for most artists "learn to make music" is usually the fun part. Complicated and frustrating sometimes, but rewarding. For a lot of them, the "now play it in front of other people" part is the truly annoying one, frightening in some occasions. [1]https://austinkleon.com/2019/01/13/this-is-a-chord-this-is-another/ https://austinkleon.com/2019/01/13/this-is-a-chord-this-is-a...

jastanton 2y ago

> I can't concieve even the flimsiest of reasons why anyone would ever listen to (or license/sync/track/ ) any of those generated songs once the novelty of "music made by the AI" is gone. Easy: Independent/single-dev operations needing some quick background music for a project (game, whatever)

gazebo64 2y ago
This is already easily solved by using royalty-free music or by licensing pre-made music from numerous publicly available sound libraries online -- with the added benefit of supporting actual musicians instead of plagiarist tech middlemen.
- bambinella 2y ago
  I think you got this wrong. Usually you use one electronic musician to create all the background music (or license pre-existing popular music), and with music AI you make that musician more productive. It is not like non-musicians will even be able to select the bad from the good of the AI output. It takes a trained ear to build functional AI music as well. Nobody will hire live studio musicians or a symphony orchestra to create background music. Way too expensive.
  - gazebo64 2y ago
    What exactly am I getting wrong? You insisting that nobody hires studio musicians or orchestras, and claiming that "usually you hire one electronic musician" are both demonstrably false opinions that have almost no relation to my point that background music is obtainable through on-demand licensed libraries.
drusepth 2y ago
Also: People (especially kids, students, etc) who want to make music but don't have the technical expertise to (yet?). Obviously these tools don't do everything necessary to make great music, but the barrier of entry to making music is being lowered, and the quality floor is being raised -- and that'll result in a lot more would-be "musicians"[0] creating music that wouldn't otherwise exist[1]. [0] I leave the argument of whether these generative musicians count as "real" musicians to the Scotsmen in the audience. [1] Bonus question: does art still hold value if no one sees it?
- zaptrem 2y ago
  The creator sees/hears it! (and if they don't it really shouldn't have been generated lol, waste of compute)

lc9er 2y ago

> I'm saying this with no ill feelings towards you or your work. I can. It’s predatory behavior, performed by people looking to steal and cash in on something they have neither the skill, understanding, or love to make on their own.

999900000999 2y ago

I have mixed feelings on AI music. When i make music, it's relaxing, it's fun, maybe 3 or 4 people listen to it. Then it kinda just sits on Soundcloud. One of my partners did enjoy my music though... AI music for the sake of just having it in the background removes that human element. It's just more stuff. To be fair, like you said, making generic music isn't anything new. But everything is turning into this. Games are using AI generated music which isn't , by definition, able to try anything new, AI art which is just reguritated by other artists. The enshitification of Spotify is here. Why pay artist 100$ for 500k plays when you can just push AI music and pay 1$ for every 500k plays. As is music( really any entertainment) is a horrible way to make money. So I guess I'll just keep working on my beats, with Maschine( the only software that keeps me on Windows!), and sharing them with a few people every now and then.

thesparks 2y ago

The benefit of AI generated music is that you can make it for yourself. The goal shouldn't be to get other people to listen to it. It's very personal and that should be the end goal.

jamager 2y ago
The benefit of real human-made music is that you can make it for yourself. The goal shouldn't be to get other people to listen to it. It's very personal and that should be the end goal.
easyThrowaway 2y ago
Is it very personal if it was generated from a third party? Making music and, more importantly, playing it is an incredibly personal, physical experience. Especially if you're doing it for yourself rather than being a gun-for-hire session musician. Getting it from a service like this is the equivalent of buying an already assembled lego kit. Putting aside ethical concerns (we're talking about the music industry after all, there were none even before AI arrived) is there a viable business in it?

quantumspandex 2y ago

Can humans generate a song based on custom lyrics and style in a matter of minutes?

naltroc 2y ago
Whose Line Is It Anyway? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XwIsvKpEgOA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XwIsvKpEgOA

richrichardsson 2y ago

> Making music is very easy. Making music people want to listen to is hard, mind-bogglingly so. Agreed, although making music is "easy" once you've put in the hours to learn how to make music, and getting to somewhat professional standards requires a lot of time investment. This reduces that to zero. The point where it becomes a "problem" is the people abusing it to pump out hundreds (or dare I say thousands) of bullshit filler "music" to get some stream income at the expense of people who have put in the effort.

easyThrowaway 2y ago
Technical skill has very, very little to do with the emotional impact of music. One of the most famous mantras in punk music was "this is a chord, this is another, now make a band"[1]. "Imagine" by John Lennon is a song written using the simplest scale and chord progressions, using a very low 4/4 tempo. The hard part is not knowing the biggest amount of chords, it's knowing what not to use to carry your emotions. Also, the "time investment" is the music. Once the final waveform hits the tape/DAW/recorder it's not art anymore, it's publishing. And for most artists "learn to make music" is usually the fun part. Complicated and frustrating sometimes, but rewarding. For a lot of them, the "now play it in front of other people" part is the truly annoying one, frightening in some occasions. [1]https://austinkleon.com/2019/01/13/this-is-a-chord-this-is-another/ https://austinkleon.com/2019/01/13/this-is-a-chord-this-is-a...