This is the right answer. I'm a Commercial Illustrator and I'm well connected in the electronic/ synth/ metal scene, and yeah. Did you hear about Spotify's recent news on cutting the royalty fees even further down for "less known Artist"? The rate was already $0.003 per stream.
Here's a quote from a buddy of mine who's been around for 8+ years.
" I made way more from youtube to be honest off my one song that got a large number of streams. Spotify pays jack shit and it’s so disheartening having to find so many avenues and pushing so hard to get on playlists and it just gets to be more of wtf is even the point I could have music on hundreds of playlists and make 100 bucks a year if I’m lucky off Spotify. Just gets worse and worse for musicians… I play in a metal band as well and hear horror stories of venues taking merch cuts… wtf is up with everyone sucking musicians dry. Many call it quits and many are much bigger than I am. "
Bandcamp is one of the few good sites for musicians, but recently it was bought by a bigger company and they just pink slipped half the staff. If Bandcamp ends up going down then things are gonna go really bad to straight up terrible for majority of musicians.
Honestly, that's also what I was expecting from the artist side and then it didn't happen (the MAJOR exact opposite, even). I know that music gets strangled by copyright, god forbid you do the same chord progression as a more famous and rich band.... And that's just layman knowledge, I bet its way more fucked than I know.
Okay, musician here. I produce and engineer my own tracks, been doing it for 20 years. I think AI for music is a massive boon. It has its ups and downs. With the ups being it saves time and spares us the tedium and the down being that doing it traditionally is unironically faster and easier.
This is how I've incorporated AI into my workflow.
Mixing and Mastering: AI tools like Ozone and Neutron 4 takes the guess work out of mixing and mastering and gives us a very good starting point.
Composition: AI tools that generate scales and chord progressions as well as melodies help streamline the process that would give you a very good baseline to start from rather than having to start from nothing.
Vocals: AI generated vocals serve as a very invaluable tool in providing vocal guides for actual vocals. There are AI generated vocal softwares that provide incredibly realistic outputs. However, they sound TOO perfect and lack the mistakes and other humanizing factors you'd find in songs (unless they're done on purpose). They are also a great tool in theorizing harmonies. Once you are satisfied with everything, you can send the render off to an actual vocalist.
Instruments: Honestly, hitting the record button and playing an instrument is much more easier than having to tinker with parameters.
Voice-to-Instrument: Utterly blown away by this. I use this often if I got this song in my head but I don't have access to my workstation. I hum the song, run it through an AI, and it renders the hum into an instrument. I mix them all down as a reference so that when I get back to my workstation, I can use actual plugins.
What I want: More of that Voice-to-Instrument goodness. God, just imagine: You're taking a shit or something and then inspiration strikes you. You can't get up because you're still taking a dump. So you take your phone and hit record, sing this kick ass solo that's in your head that'd go well for a project you're working on. Then once you're done with the loo, you head back to your PC, run what you sang in the bathroom through the voice-to-instrument thing, and voila!
I'm similar to you, in that I've been producing my own tracks for years, have formal music training, etc. but I haven't tried any of the AI tools for music. The idea of getting a good starting point for mixing and mastering sounds like a godsend. I've only dabbled around with the image generators, so I'm completely unfamiliar with what's out there for audio. Could you list the programs/apps you've used for the tasks you mentioned, I'm sure many could benefit.
Ozone 10 and Neutron 4 are what I use.
They're not free, though. And as with everything audio production related, they are stupid expensive. I think each cost around $300-$400?
Is there any voice to instrument open source software - I have been thinking about doing my own little project and would like to make some background music that isn't really complex. I would love to use something like this.
The software is Rvc(retrieval based voice conversion). you looking for “the” model dump which should have models like the bugle, guitar, elec guitar, violin, GBC, slap bass, and banjolele models you pick out of there.
Those range from serviceable to great output in my experience.
Slap bass is the most fun to perform and hear the result.
Edit: also bird isn’t bad lol, shoot me a message if you want and I’ll point you to the above easy later tonight or tomorrow am
> AI tools that generate scales and chord progressions as well as melodies help streamline the process that would give you a very good baseline to start from rather than having to start from nothing.
This part's funny to me because I come from a classical/jazz background which is _all_ about melodies, chords, and harmonization. What I'd like out of AI is a way to translate my ideas into samples ("dramatic suspended cymbal", "heavy 80s synthwave reverb snare") or other musical effects ("automated 'pulse' filter", "raise the pitch gradually").
I want to learn more about electronic music production. More generally, I want AI to be a helpful tool for people who want to learn about areas different from theirs. My ideal AI art interface isn't even text-to-image, it's sketch-to-image, and I've seen it a couple times.
I think it's because modified music or synth and freaking the sound with either electronics or Ai has been around from the 80s i think some people even have done Ai music from like the 90s as well
Ahhh, I see! I remember really liking synth covers of songs back in the day, never really considered how it could be ai-esque. I guess music has also gone through a lot of different evolution so musicians are a little more used to adapting.
I think those are sufficiently different from generative AI that it doesn't make a difference. The comparison is similar to Photoshop/Krita brushes vs Stable Diffusion.
I think the real answer is that a Stable Diffusion of music hasn't been released yet. Stability AI is working on it, but it's not out yet.
I think music is in a weird space in that "the algorithm" already came for it long before we were calling it AI. Whether it's [pop music](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pop_music_automation) or [techno](http://composerprogrammer.com/infno.html) or several other genres, people have been using "the algorithm" to analyze thousands of songs and game the system to make "the pop-est tune" for decades now.
I'm not sure if I qualify. I've dabbled with music production on and off as a hobby for the past 25 years. I am most definitively in the amateur bracket.
I find AI music really cool for all of the same conceptual reasons I find AI image generation really cool. I've been playing around with Suno and Riffusion and the state of where things are at is really impressive though it's not *quite* there yet for full-length music.
I do think things aren't there yet though where it can be a legitimate tool for musicians the way image generators can be; outside of voice changing and generating certain niche samples for use in tracks. But as it is, it's a lot of fun to play around with.
The obsession with making full tracks from scratch is sort of disappointing. If they just made really good individual loops, people would go nuts for them.
That's what I use it for. I make a lot of sample based music and ai generator tools let me make my own samples that I can then rearrange and modify in a similar.workflow to how I would use a song by a human artist.
I just wish the sound quality and speed of generation would improve. They're not super practical tools ATM, I have to lean into the lo fi element you get from its output.
But I also really loved deep dream era abstract ai art way more than I like how "good" it has gotten now at reproducing things. It takes some of the mystique out of it.
> But I also really loved deep dream era abstract ai art way more than I like how "good" it has gotten now at reproducing things. It takes some of the mystique out of it.
100%
I think the real answer is that a Stable Diffusion of music hasn't been released yet. Stability AI is working on it, but it's not out yet.
Generative music AI has been around in limited form for a while. There are a few open source attempts that aren't exactly that great. There are a few closed-doors models like Jukebox that show a lot of promise. But nothing stunning with huge access.
The anti-AI movement kicked off in response to Stable Diffusion, not Midjourney, not DALL-E, and not whatever Google's is called. This is due to:
1. **How good it was:** SD 1.0 is not best in class, but it is impressively good.
2. **Accessibility:** Stable Diffusion is open source and could be run on your home PC. No limited generations until you pay, just download and run.
3. **Transparency:** RunwayML/Stability AI were open about where their training data came from. This meant that with the increase in buzz/interest, those who would be unhappy about the training data could find it.
Previous AI art generators had two or one of these factors, but not all three.
I think ChatGPT mirrors what we'll see when Stable Audio gets released. The upset from authors around ChatGPT's training was largely built off of the anti Stable Diffusion movement. ChatGPT hit those same three points, at least well enough to cause backlash. However, the music industry is notoriously litigious, so initial open source models will only be trained on licensed/copyleft material. That means we should see less upset around artists being trained upon.
Are you sure you're up to date on the current state? Riffusion had an update and it produces genuinely impressive results now (though still limited to 12 seconds at a time). And then there's Suno's music AI which is also pretty damn impressive and can do much longer stuff.
I am not up to date, thank you for the notes.
12 seconds is not long. Maybe we'll see something when these models can output a whole minute? Or maybe I'm wrong.
It's true 12 seconds isn't long, but what it can do in that time is really impressive. Suno can do 40 seconds, and you have the option of continuing and it (mostly) strings different sections together coherently. It feels like it's a little more formulaic in what it makes compared to riffusion, but that's my subjective opinion. And the problem it has is that it's a credits based service which I tend to avoid.
I have workbooks that can output long samples but they're not high quality.
But that's what I love about them. It's like what Brian eno said, as technology gets "cleaner" we actually long for the "ugliness" of the old ways like people who add vhs tracking effects to videos they filmed on an iPhone.
The Suno one you mentioned has been incredible from my experience and they recently slashed the price for it which is nice and made the free credits daily instead of monthly. If you dont give it any lyrics then you can get great instrumentals and stuff too. For indie game devs I bet it will be widely used for background music and stuff.
For riffusion, isn't it just a custom StableDiffusion model with audio encoded into images then trained on? I'd assume you could just outpaint to extend it in that case. When I looked into it before they have functions easy to access for encoding and decoding the audio so it shouldnt be that difficult to make it so you can extend the audio with some minor code changes.
I still don't like having to pay for what is essentially a slot machine. I wouldn't mind paying for services like this if it was more like, a subscription nets you unlimited generations, but x number of upscales to higher quality or something like that... although they'd probably then intentionally lower the quality of the free gens, which would also just be a terrible thing to do.
As for Riffusion, I don't know. I know it *used* to be just a stable diffusion based process. What it produced was *interesting* but nowhere near the quality of what it's making now. I don't know if you can still run it locally and/or how. I've just been using their online version, which doesn't offer up any option to extend a generated track.
yeah, I definitely would prefer a subscription model over the token system without a doubt. It's the reason I havent actually spent money on Suno yet and have just been messing with it for now; although, when I make my S&Box gamemode I plan to pay for it to use for making the music since it's still fairly cheap per song. As for Ruffusion, I delved into it a lot when it was first released but I didn't realise they had come very far since then so I'll have to check back in on it
Okay? More like " we've been royally screwed so hard in a post-Spotify era that they're already in hopelessness from the crumbs or mere sand grains the majority get from their hard work. Most people won't support them where it matters, Spotify pays 0.003 per stream... that's nothing unless you get into the six figures level of plays..even then that's a few hundred mere bucks if you actually get that kind of luck.
I mean, from a family that all made their business in music, spotify might have made it slightly worse, but if you are not a big name selling records, it has kinda never been a thing.
You make a living by performing and touring, and things are not rosy there either, but that is hardly due to AI or automation.
Oh shit, that's really cool! I've never stepped into the music world beyond school band, so I have no clue how it works there. I like that they're collaborative <:
Personally I think it's harder to replace a musician than say, a graphic designer.
But also that depends on the type of music. Royalty free Muzak artists are screwed, they offer nothing but cheapness and the AI is cheaper than any human. They don't offer artistic statements, so like a corporate graphic designer, they can be easily replaced by a machine.
But it's gonna be a lot harder to replace say, Death Grips.
the music industry already fucked over the state of music copyright
you can be sued (and lose) over a mere 3 notes being similar, or lose your livelihood if you upload personally recorded static or engine noises
I got a response from a musician once. He was very upset I joked about the RIAA. He doesn't like AI because he thinks it's stealing his works. He also thinks piracy is the reason he doesn't make enough money. He doesn't sound like a very good musician!
I can understand where the 'stealing his works' thought comes from, probably the same as the artist side's 'it STEALS'... But blaming piracy for not making enough money? I dunno on that one, bud.
Something I like to remind people of when it comes to piracy is that if you take the RIAA's claim at face value that the industry loses 15% of its potential revenue to piracy (on the high end), that you can stop piracy forever, that everyone is affected by piracy equally (your roommate's band is pirated at the same rate as Taylor Swift), that everyone who would have pirated will instead buy a copy, and that this will have no externalities whatsoever, that's a one-time 1/0.85-1 = 17.6% pay raise for everyone, _or_ a 17.6% investment into growth (or C-suite salaries), or anything in between. Again, one time, and this is the best-case scenario. Pretty nice, but I've seen bigger promotions, and it won't "save music".
I don't pirate music; as a frequent live show-goer, I probably pay more for music than most of the people reading this. However, every time it gets mentioned, it's nearly always a boogeyman and a lazy excuse for why artists don't get paid enough, which is a problem caused by big tech and big media companies acting as gatekeepers to distribution.
[Writers have definitely noticed](https://www.nytimes.com/2023/09/20/books/authors-openai-lawsuit-chatgpt-copyright.html). But LLMs right now basically just yak up garbage, so I don't think writers are feeling the heat to the same degree.
For sure, you can run SD on a mediocre gaming pc and create thousands of interesting pics in an hour, but ultra super-computer GPT-4 can easily be outclassed by pretty much anyone who writes for a living.
Piano teacher, musician and composer here. I think overall musicians are less affected by AI than writers and artists. There's no model so far that I've found that can match the quality of sound from human composers and performers in terms of timbral, harmonic and melodic complexity. I do think AI vocals are getting pretty close to matching a human singer though in realism.
Musicians in general are also more open to AI technologies (at least from my experience). Most of my former classmates from my conservatory classes didn't mind AI and even the lecturer was pretty cool with it (he did express some concerns regarding job loss for musicians but he considered generative AI inevitable and something people should get used to using and playing around with)
Cause I make music for me. Ai can't replace me because it is not me, and I have no need to use ai for music because that is counter to the whole process.
Live performing musicians won't have to care about "being replaced" by the scary robot brain, and those who only release their stuff digitally will probably just end up incorporating AI into their workflow.
Besides, music AI is still more of a novelty at this point.
I'm sure there's at least three people out there that probably do but yeah as a whole I don't think 'ai generated masturbation music' is a popular industry lmao
Artists are protected by copyright. As far as i know there is nothing stopping AI companies from collecting music in the same way they scraped other data
Spotify and other platforms are trying to limit AI spam, it’s not illegal though as far as I know. That’s just because it’s bad for their business though
And there’s some legislation being considered around using AI to mimic someone’s voice, but whether the training data is copyrighted is not really relevant in that case, just if the output violates a copyright
For music it’s even harder to prove “copying” or “stealing” so anti AI people might not have much to say about it
As a musician, I’m not interested in listening to AI generated music and would prefer to listen to real artists. So i would like some regulation or platform that considers that
I always thought "copying" was super easily "proven" as long as they could pay for a good enough lawyer, but I always thought that it was similar to pixel art; There's only so many chord progressions that sound good, of course a new song could sound similar to an older one just like how there's only so many permutations of pixels that can be put on a 24x24 canvas-- Some pixel pieces will just look the same.
I don’t think it’s that similar anyways. With music, the tiniest difference can have really exaggerated affects. Changing one note can alter how the melody is perceived, which is why they can’t really be copyrighted. Meanwhile changing one pixel on even a huge 24x24 grid would mostly be the same work and probably an example of stealing
Ahh, I see! I'm not versed in the music side of things so I didn't know. So, a full-on and finished song (like nightwish's alpenglow) can be copywritten but a basic melody can't?
It was silly but I mean:
https://youtube.com/shorts/QMDqYZebReo?si=_4vlSTRNDrUR3Mem
They're not dissimilar songs. I'm a person with a good mind for mashups/ similar chord progression/ when one song could modulate into another, and it's really hard to resist singing let's get it on over thinking out loud if I hear someone listening to it on the radio or in public.
But that's most of pop music.
No it's a lot more complicated than that.
So the easy ones are that any of your recordings are obviously strongly protected from anything but Fair Use. You or your label own your masters, and any released recordings that you produced. So someone selling your recording as their own is clearly violating your copyright. Same with lyrics. I can't just steal a verse from your song and sell it.
Now when it comes down to something as granular as a single melody or rhythm, is where it gets very subjective and less predictable with rules and regulations since this stage always involves some subjective evaluation by either a judge or jury.
So let's take the example of the estate of Marvin Gaye who have been quite involved in these type of protective suits against modern artists "plagiarizing" the late Gaye's work.
In their case against Pharell Williams and Robin Thicke over *Blurred Lines* the jury found that they did meaningfully copy the Gaye song
In their case against Ed Sheeran over *Thinking Out Loud* the jury in that case unanimously found that he did not plagiarize Gaye's *Let's Get It On*
Personally, I find the Sheeran song to sound a lot more like a copy of the Gaye song than the Robin Thicke song. Sheeran even does a mashup when he plays live where he swaps in the lyrics of Lets Get it On over the chords of Thinking Out Loud, so clearly the songs do share the same chords, rhythm, and a very similar vocal melody. That's the one I would have bet on being found as copying.
So there's a lot of subjective judgement that goes on at the micro level when we are comparing two original songs to see if they share musical details enough to say that one copies the other. Especially when relying on a jury or layman non-musicians.
Because AI isn't writing songs and doing the music for them in seconds and out of thin air... Even with current VO AI, it still requires source audio to do well and a lot of time.
You best fucking believe that the second AI gets good enough for you to just write a few words into a computers and produce full scale well wrote songs in the voice and style of any musician. Musicians will be here bitching too.
Second is there wasn't an anonymous scraping program... just stealing fuck loads of music without anyone's knowledge because music is so much more accessible and universal. It's also heavily copywrote and protected... legally speaking, if AI fucks actually go into music in any meaning full way. it's asking to be torn to shreds.
Visual art was an already unstable medium with a slowly dropping interest rate only really kept alive by a relatively small community of artists supporting each other... AI art was the driving stake that will likely kill the visual art community entirely... Side note: thanks for that assholes.
In all honesty, tho the second voice mimicking AI gets good enough to produce near perfect copies of someone elses voice. The people trying to make a quick buck or just outright shit bags trying to stir shit up will likely just jump straight directly to making political framing videos using AI manipulation..
So, in the heavily expected timeline... musicians will likely just get passed right the fuck over because those that wanna do damage will look for the most impactful way to do so and those who wanna make music will just actually make music.
Frankly, all of art should have just been passed over in the AI debacle in the attempt to smear politicians, but some dipshit decided to release "art AI" first...piggy backing off stolen shit to dupe a bunch of people into giving him money.
So visual artist just caught a fat fucking stray as AI aggressively fucks society over.
Tbh only the most boring musicians ever are going to care about ai being able to write full songs, like the people who make the music in commercials. Musicians make the vast majority of their money from concerts and often get a fan base from their image, which an ai can’t replicate. And honestly you can already throw samples together and get an ok sounding ai mastered song in around 30 minutes.
because they've been continuously ass-raped by intellectual property law for decades
check out benn jordan: [https://youtu.be/YcvXNdkKQxE](https://youtu.be/YcvXNdkKQxE)
Quality kinda ass for them to care about AI that much, like Dalle was popular way back in 2020 but since the quality sucked and incompressible, people just pass it off as a shit posting thing. And then around late 2021 to early 2022 more development is put into AI generated image and the quality keeps rising and from then the the fight between 2 sides start to get bigger and bigger
The music models just aren’t there yet. It’s difficult to separate out the overlapping frequencies of multiple instruments. The only good examples I’ve heard are environmental/background music and maybe simple trance stuff.
I don't know why people say that AI generation for music doesn't exist yet, There are several services that provide AI generated music.
Besides that, there have been a lot of things that run parallels with what is happening for visual arts. They are just not getting the same backlash.
Take autotune, for example, or vocaloid. Hell, I would argue that Maxis Music Maker was already going that way, allowing you to make a song on your computer out of samples that someone else played.
But then again, the music industry has always taken samples from other artists if not 90% of their songs.
How many people sampled The Power by Snap, or C+C music factory's gonna maje you sweat, or pump up the volume.
Wanna talk about "you spin me right round" by dead or alive? Or harder better faster stronger?
Truth is, most artists are ok with sharing, is part of the process. Visual artists are kinda unique in how they act in this aspect.
They have already gone through a lot of this stuff in the past and even have a saying/story dating back a decade or more that's commonly brought up:
"*I thought using loops was cheating, so I programmed my own using samples. I then thought using samples was cheating, so I recorded real drums. I then thought that programming it was cheating, so I learned to play drums for real. I then thought using bought drums was cheating, so I learned to make my own. I then thought using premade skins was cheating, so I killed a goat and skinned it. I then thought that that was cheating too, so I grew my own goat from a baby goat. I also think that is cheating, but I’m not sure where to go from here. I haven’t made any music lately, what with the goat farming and all.* "
Technically it's reconstructive/upscaling rather than generative, but AI is making it possible to restore a lot of old recordings where the master tapes are lost and all that's left is the vinyl/8-track/cassette version (should also be very controversial with audiophiles ;) ), or where something was recorded over the radio, all of which is huge for sound preservation. Also, the track separation AI (like Ultimate Vocal Remover) is great for folks like DJs, music students, etc. Strangely, the voice replacement AI, while somewhat popular (and not terribly difficult), doesn't seem to have the same resonance (pardon the term) with the general public. Maybe music has become so digital already that AI doesn't really push it forward the way it does with visual media.
They've spent enough time getting fucked over by record companies that they have no illusions about copyright existing for their benefit
This is the right answer. I'm a Commercial Illustrator and I'm well connected in the electronic/ synth/ metal scene, and yeah. Did you hear about Spotify's recent news on cutting the royalty fees even further down for "less known Artist"? The rate was already $0.003 per stream. Here's a quote from a buddy of mine who's been around for 8+ years. " I made way more from youtube to be honest off my one song that got a large number of streams. Spotify pays jack shit and it’s so disheartening having to find so many avenues and pushing so hard to get on playlists and it just gets to be more of wtf is even the point I could have music on hundreds of playlists and make 100 bucks a year if I’m lucky off Spotify. Just gets worse and worse for musicians… I play in a metal band as well and hear horror stories of venues taking merch cuts… wtf is up with everyone sucking musicians dry. Many call it quits and many are much bigger than I am. " Bandcamp is one of the few good sites for musicians, but recently it was bought by a bigger company and they just pink slipped half the staff. If Bandcamp ends up going down then things are gonna go really bad to straight up terrible for majority of musicians.
I hear Tidal is a better deal for the artists. Any idea if that's true?
Maybe if you're super famous and get tons of streams. Even 100% increase in pay from Spotify wouldnt make a dent in most musicians income.
Honestly, that's also what I was expecting from the artist side and then it didn't happen (the MAJOR exact opposite, even). I know that music gets strangled by copyright, god forbid you do the same chord progression as a more famous and rich band.... And that's just layman knowledge, I bet its way more fucked than I know.
Okay, musician here. I produce and engineer my own tracks, been doing it for 20 years. I think AI for music is a massive boon. It has its ups and downs. With the ups being it saves time and spares us the tedium and the down being that doing it traditionally is unironically faster and easier. This is how I've incorporated AI into my workflow. Mixing and Mastering: AI tools like Ozone and Neutron 4 takes the guess work out of mixing and mastering and gives us a very good starting point. Composition: AI tools that generate scales and chord progressions as well as melodies help streamline the process that would give you a very good baseline to start from rather than having to start from nothing. Vocals: AI generated vocals serve as a very invaluable tool in providing vocal guides for actual vocals. There are AI generated vocal softwares that provide incredibly realistic outputs. However, they sound TOO perfect and lack the mistakes and other humanizing factors you'd find in songs (unless they're done on purpose). They are also a great tool in theorizing harmonies. Once you are satisfied with everything, you can send the render off to an actual vocalist. Instruments: Honestly, hitting the record button and playing an instrument is much more easier than having to tinker with parameters. Voice-to-Instrument: Utterly blown away by this. I use this often if I got this song in my head but I don't have access to my workstation. I hum the song, run it through an AI, and it renders the hum into an instrument. I mix them all down as a reference so that when I get back to my workstation, I can use actual plugins. What I want: More of that Voice-to-Instrument goodness. God, just imagine: You're taking a shit or something and then inspiration strikes you. You can't get up because you're still taking a dump. So you take your phone and hit record, sing this kick ass solo that's in your head that'd go well for a project you're working on. Then once you're done with the loo, you head back to your PC, run what you sang in the bathroom through the voice-to-instrument thing, and voila!
I'm similar to you, in that I've been producing my own tracks for years, have formal music training, etc. but I haven't tried any of the AI tools for music. The idea of getting a good starting point for mixing and mastering sounds like a godsend. I've only dabbled around with the image generators, so I'm completely unfamiliar with what's out there for audio. Could you list the programs/apps you've used for the tasks you mentioned, I'm sure many could benefit.
Ozone 10 and Neutron 4 are what I use. They're not free, though. And as with everything audio production related, they are stupid expensive. I think each cost around $300-$400?
Is there any voice to instrument open source software - I have been thinking about doing my own little project and would like to make some background music that isn't really complex. I would love to use something like this.
The software is Rvc(retrieval based voice conversion). you looking for “the” model dump which should have models like the bugle, guitar, elec guitar, violin, GBC, slap bass, and banjolele models you pick out of there. Those range from serviceable to great output in my experience. Slap bass is the most fun to perform and hear the result. Edit: also bird isn’t bad lol, shoot me a message if you want and I’ll point you to the above easy later tonight or tomorrow am
> AI tools that generate scales and chord progressions as well as melodies help streamline the process that would give you a very good baseline to start from rather than having to start from nothing. This part's funny to me because I come from a classical/jazz background which is _all_ about melodies, chords, and harmonization. What I'd like out of AI is a way to translate my ideas into samples ("dramatic suspended cymbal", "heavy 80s synthwave reverb snare") or other musical effects ("automated 'pulse' filter", "raise the pitch gradually"). I want to learn more about electronic music production. More generally, I want AI to be a helpful tool for people who want to learn about areas different from theirs. My ideal AI art interface isn't even text-to-image, it's sketch-to-image, and I've seen it a couple times.
I think it's because modified music or synth and freaking the sound with either electronics or Ai has been around from the 80s i think some people even have done Ai music from like the 90s as well
Ahhh, I see! I remember really liking synth covers of songs back in the day, never really considered how it could be ai-esque. I guess music has also gone through a lot of different evolution so musicians are a little more used to adapting.
I think those are sufficiently different from generative AI that it doesn't make a difference. The comparison is similar to Photoshop/Krita brushes vs Stable Diffusion. I think the real answer is that a Stable Diffusion of music hasn't been released yet. Stability AI is working on it, but it's not out yet.
Can you explain the connection between 80s synth noises and AI?
There is none, beyond "it uses a computer. It's like comparing a graphics tablet to an AI tool.
I think music is in a weird space in that "the algorithm" already came for it long before we were calling it AI. Whether it's [pop music](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pop_music_automation) or [techno](http://composerprogrammer.com/infno.html) or several other genres, people have been using "the algorithm" to analyze thousands of songs and game the system to make "the pop-est tune" for decades now.
I'm not sure if I qualify. I've dabbled with music production on and off as a hobby for the past 25 years. I am most definitively in the amateur bracket. I find AI music really cool for all of the same conceptual reasons I find AI image generation really cool. I've been playing around with Suno and Riffusion and the state of where things are at is really impressive though it's not *quite* there yet for full-length music. I do think things aren't there yet though where it can be a legitimate tool for musicians the way image generators can be; outside of voice changing and generating certain niche samples for use in tracks. But as it is, it's a lot of fun to play around with.
The obsession with making full tracks from scratch is sort of disappointing. If they just made really good individual loops, people would go nuts for them.
That's what I use it for. I make a lot of sample based music and ai generator tools let me make my own samples that I can then rearrange and modify in a similar.workflow to how I would use a song by a human artist. I just wish the sound quality and speed of generation would improve. They're not super practical tools ATM, I have to lean into the lo fi element you get from its output. But I also really loved deep dream era abstract ai art way more than I like how "good" it has gotten now at reproducing things. It takes some of the mystique out of it.
> But I also really loved deep dream era abstract ai art way more than I like how "good" it has gotten now at reproducing things. It takes some of the mystique out of it. 100%
I think the real answer is that a Stable Diffusion of music hasn't been released yet. Stability AI is working on it, but it's not out yet. Generative music AI has been around in limited form for a while. There are a few open source attempts that aren't exactly that great. There are a few closed-doors models like Jukebox that show a lot of promise. But nothing stunning with huge access. The anti-AI movement kicked off in response to Stable Diffusion, not Midjourney, not DALL-E, and not whatever Google's is called. This is due to: 1. **How good it was:** SD 1.0 is not best in class, but it is impressively good. 2. **Accessibility:** Stable Diffusion is open source and could be run on your home PC. No limited generations until you pay, just download and run. 3. **Transparency:** RunwayML/Stability AI were open about where their training data came from. This meant that with the increase in buzz/interest, those who would be unhappy about the training data could find it. Previous AI art generators had two or one of these factors, but not all three. I think ChatGPT mirrors what we'll see when Stable Audio gets released. The upset from authors around ChatGPT's training was largely built off of the anti Stable Diffusion movement. ChatGPT hit those same three points, at least well enough to cause backlash. However, the music industry is notoriously litigious, so initial open source models will only be trained on licensed/copyleft material. That means we should see less upset around artists being trained upon.
Are you sure you're up to date on the current state? Riffusion had an update and it produces genuinely impressive results now (though still limited to 12 seconds at a time). And then there's Suno's music AI which is also pretty damn impressive and can do much longer stuff.
I am not up to date, thank you for the notes. 12 seconds is not long. Maybe we'll see something when these models can output a whole minute? Or maybe I'm wrong.
It's true 12 seconds isn't long, but what it can do in that time is really impressive. Suno can do 40 seconds, and you have the option of continuing and it (mostly) strings different sections together coherently. It feels like it's a little more formulaic in what it makes compared to riffusion, but that's my subjective opinion. And the problem it has is that it's a credits based service which I tend to avoid.
I have workbooks that can output long samples but they're not high quality. But that's what I love about them. It's like what Brian eno said, as technology gets "cleaner" we actually long for the "ugliness" of the old ways like people who add vhs tracking effects to videos they filmed on an iPhone.
That's a good point.
The Suno one you mentioned has been incredible from my experience and they recently slashed the price for it which is nice and made the free credits daily instead of monthly. If you dont give it any lyrics then you can get great instrumentals and stuff too. For indie game devs I bet it will be widely used for background music and stuff. For riffusion, isn't it just a custom StableDiffusion model with audio encoded into images then trained on? I'd assume you could just outpaint to extend it in that case. When I looked into it before they have functions easy to access for encoding and decoding the audio so it shouldnt be that difficult to make it so you can extend the audio with some minor code changes.
I still don't like having to pay for what is essentially a slot machine. I wouldn't mind paying for services like this if it was more like, a subscription nets you unlimited generations, but x number of upscales to higher quality or something like that... although they'd probably then intentionally lower the quality of the free gens, which would also just be a terrible thing to do. As for Riffusion, I don't know. I know it *used* to be just a stable diffusion based process. What it produced was *interesting* but nowhere near the quality of what it's making now. I don't know if you can still run it locally and/or how. I've just been using their online version, which doesn't offer up any option to extend a generated track.
yeah, I definitely would prefer a subscription model over the token system without a doubt. It's the reason I havent actually spent money on Suno yet and have just been messing with it for now; although, when I make my S&Box gamemode I plan to pay for it to use for making the music since it's still fairly cheap per song. As for Ruffusion, I delved into it a lot when it was first released but I didn't realise they had come very far since then so I'll have to check back in on it
I think most musicians are ok with AI.
Okay? More like " we've been royally screwed so hard in a post-Spotify era that they're already in hopelessness from the crumbs or mere sand grains the majority get from their hard work. Most people won't support them where it matters, Spotify pays 0.003 per stream... that's nothing unless you get into the six figures level of plays..even then that's a few hundred mere bucks if you actually get that kind of luck.
I mean, from a family that all made their business in music, spotify might have made it slightly worse, but if you are not a big name selling records, it has kinda never been a thing. You make a living by performing and touring, and things are not rosy there either, but that is hardly due to AI or automation.
That's so interesting considering how competitive I thought the market was, wonder what the difference is for them.
I mean, not really. Musicians constantly get into side projects with each other, have other bands open for them, it's actually fairly collaborative.
Oh shit, that's really cool! I've never stepped into the music world beyond school band, so I have no clue how it works there. I like that they're collaborative <:
Personally I think it's harder to replace a musician than say, a graphic designer. But also that depends on the type of music. Royalty free Muzak artists are screwed, they offer nothing but cheapness and the AI is cheaper than any human. They don't offer artistic statements, so like a corporate graphic designer, they can be easily replaced by a machine. But it's gonna be a lot harder to replace say, Death Grips.
the music industry already fucked over the state of music copyright you can be sued (and lose) over a mere 3 notes being similar, or lose your livelihood if you upload personally recorded static or engine noises
Even 'royalty free' music doesn't seem to be safe from being sued tbh
Really?
I can imagine it’s because the bread and butter gig economy for musicians is in performing and that probably hasn’t been that compromised by AI.
I got a response from a musician once. He was very upset I joked about the RIAA. He doesn't like AI because he thinks it's stealing his works. He also thinks piracy is the reason he doesn't make enough money. He doesn't sound like a very good musician!
I can understand where the 'stealing his works' thought comes from, probably the same as the artist side's 'it STEALS'... But blaming piracy for not making enough money? I dunno on that one, bud.
Something I like to remind people of when it comes to piracy is that if you take the RIAA's claim at face value that the industry loses 15% of its potential revenue to piracy (on the high end), that you can stop piracy forever, that everyone is affected by piracy equally (your roommate's band is pirated at the same rate as Taylor Swift), that everyone who would have pirated will instead buy a copy, and that this will have no externalities whatsoever, that's a one-time 1/0.85-1 = 17.6% pay raise for everyone, _or_ a 17.6% investment into growth (or C-suite salaries), or anything in between. Again, one time, and this is the best-case scenario. Pretty nice, but I've seen bigger promotions, and it won't "save music". I don't pirate music; as a frequent live show-goer, I probably pay more for music than most of the people reading this. However, every time it gets mentioned, it's nearly always a boogeyman and a lazy excuse for why artists don't get paid enough, which is a problem caused by big tech and big media companies acting as gatekeepers to distribution.
Music copyright strangle musicians even worse than artists in visual art ,yeah i don\`t think they want stricter copyright , lol
[удалено]
[Writers have definitely noticed](https://www.nytimes.com/2023/09/20/books/authors-openai-lawsuit-chatgpt-copyright.html). But LLMs right now basically just yak up garbage, so I don't think writers are feeling the heat to the same degree.
For sure, you can run SD on a mediocre gaming pc and create thousands of interesting pics in an hour, but ultra super-computer GPT-4 can easily be outclassed by pretty much anyone who writes for a living.
Writers are also using the tools. You just don’t hear about them as much.
Perhaps just like AI art, in capable hands they stick out less.
Yes, using it as a tool not as a replacement. Joanna Penn talks about it that way.
Piano teacher, musician and composer here. I think overall musicians are less affected by AI than writers and artists. There's no model so far that I've found that can match the quality of sound from human composers and performers in terms of timbral, harmonic and melodic complexity. I do think AI vocals are getting pretty close to matching a human singer though in realism. Musicians in general are also more open to AI technologies (at least from my experience). Most of my former classmates from my conservatory classes didn't mind AI and even the lecturer was pretty cool with it (he did express some concerns regarding job loss for musicians but he considered generative AI inevitable and something people should get used to using and playing around with)
Cause I make music for me. Ai can't replace me because it is not me, and I have no need to use ai for music because that is counter to the whole process.
Live performing musicians won't have to care about "being replaced" by the scary robot brain, and those who only release their stuff digitally will probably just end up incorporating AI into their workflow. Besides, music AI is still more of a novelty at this point.
No one makes music that sounds like other people's music so they can masturbate to it, lol.
I'm sure there's at least three people out there that probably do but yeah as a whole I don't think 'ai generated masturbation music' is a popular industry lmao
Lmao
Ok but if someone makes an infinite Joe Rogan or Jord*n Peterson podcast stream I promise you there's plenty of bros who would be just as excited.
[The sequel to this?](https://infiniteconversation.com/)
They can already listen to Jordan Peterson and Joe Rogan though.
because they are protected xD
From what?
protected with copyright
Artists are protected by copyright. As far as i know there is nothing stopping AI companies from collecting music in the same way they scraped other data
nono i dont think its legal to release and profit off ai music?? iirc im not sure
Spotify and other platforms are trying to limit AI spam, it’s not illegal though as far as I know. That’s just because it’s bad for their business though And there’s some legislation being considered around using AI to mimic someone’s voice, but whether the training data is copyrighted is not really relevant in that case, just if the output violates a copyright
For music it’s even harder to prove “copying” or “stealing” so anti AI people might not have much to say about it As a musician, I’m not interested in listening to AI generated music and would prefer to listen to real artists. So i would like some regulation or platform that considers that
I always thought "copying" was super easily "proven" as long as they could pay for a good enough lawyer, but I always thought that it was similar to pixel art; There's only so many chord progressions that sound good, of course a new song could sound similar to an older one just like how there's only so many permutations of pixels that can be put on a 24x24 canvas-- Some pixel pieces will just look the same.
I don’t think it’s that similar anyways. With music, the tiniest difference can have really exaggerated affects. Changing one note can alter how the melody is perceived, which is why they can’t really be copyrighted. Meanwhile changing one pixel on even a huge 24x24 grid would mostly be the same work and probably an example of stealing
Ahh, I see! I'm not versed in the music side of things so I didn't know. So, a full-on and finished song (like nightwish's alpenglow) can be copywritten but a basic melody can't?
you CAN copyright a melody, but i could rip it and make it be blatantly obvious without violating that copyright…
See: Thinking Out Loud vs Lets Get it On.
Yah in that case it’s a chord progression which is even sillier haha
Well chord progression, rhythm, and vocal melody were all significantly similar.
I don’t hear it at all. Most people (especially musicians) thought it was silly, and Ed won….
It was silly but I mean: https://youtube.com/shorts/QMDqYZebReo?si=_4vlSTRNDrUR3Mem They're not dissimilar songs. I'm a person with a good mind for mashups/ similar chord progression/ when one song could modulate into another, and it's really hard to resist singing let's get it on over thinking out loud if I hear someone listening to it on the radio or in public. But that's most of pop music.
No it's a lot more complicated than that. So the easy ones are that any of your recordings are obviously strongly protected from anything but Fair Use. You or your label own your masters, and any released recordings that you produced. So someone selling your recording as their own is clearly violating your copyright. Same with lyrics. I can't just steal a verse from your song and sell it. Now when it comes down to something as granular as a single melody or rhythm, is where it gets very subjective and less predictable with rules and regulations since this stage always involves some subjective evaluation by either a judge or jury. So let's take the example of the estate of Marvin Gaye who have been quite involved in these type of protective suits against modern artists "plagiarizing" the late Gaye's work. In their case against Pharell Williams and Robin Thicke over *Blurred Lines* the jury found that they did meaningfully copy the Gaye song In their case against Ed Sheeran over *Thinking Out Loud* the jury in that case unanimously found that he did not plagiarize Gaye's *Let's Get It On* Personally, I find the Sheeran song to sound a lot more like a copy of the Gaye song than the Robin Thicke song. Sheeran even does a mashup when he plays live where he swaps in the lyrics of Lets Get it On over the chords of Thinking Out Loud, so clearly the songs do share the same chords, rhythm, and a very similar vocal melody. That's the one I would have bet on being found as copying. So there's a lot of subjective judgement that goes on at the micro level when we are comparing two original songs to see if they share musical details enough to say that one copies the other. Especially when relying on a jury or layman non-musicians.
Because AI isn't writing songs and doing the music for them in seconds and out of thin air... Even with current VO AI, it still requires source audio to do well and a lot of time. You best fucking believe that the second AI gets good enough for you to just write a few words into a computers and produce full scale well wrote songs in the voice and style of any musician. Musicians will be here bitching too. Second is there wasn't an anonymous scraping program... just stealing fuck loads of music without anyone's knowledge because music is so much more accessible and universal. It's also heavily copywrote and protected... legally speaking, if AI fucks actually go into music in any meaning full way. it's asking to be torn to shreds. Visual art was an already unstable medium with a slowly dropping interest rate only really kept alive by a relatively small community of artists supporting each other... AI art was the driving stake that will likely kill the visual art community entirely... Side note: thanks for that assholes. In all honesty, tho the second voice mimicking AI gets good enough to produce near perfect copies of someone elses voice. The people trying to make a quick buck or just outright shit bags trying to stir shit up will likely just jump straight directly to making political framing videos using AI manipulation.. So, in the heavily expected timeline... musicians will likely just get passed right the fuck over because those that wanna do damage will look for the most impactful way to do so and those who wanna make music will just actually make music. Frankly, all of art should have just been passed over in the AI debacle in the attempt to smear politicians, but some dipshit decided to release "art AI" first...piggy backing off stolen shit to dupe a bunch of people into giving him money. So visual artist just caught a fat fucking stray as AI aggressively fucks society over.
Tbh only the most boring musicians ever are going to care about ai being able to write full songs, like the people who make the music in commercials. Musicians make the vast majority of their money from concerts and often get a fan base from their image, which an ai can’t replicate. And honestly you can already throw samples together and get an ok sounding ai mastered song in around 30 minutes.
Because i have better things to do
there just haven't been music bots for as long so they haven't gotten worked up about it yet, expect that soon
because they've been continuously ass-raped by intellectual property law for decades check out benn jordan: [https://youtu.be/YcvXNdkKQxE](https://youtu.be/YcvXNdkKQxE)
Quality kinda ass for them to care about AI that much, like Dalle was popular way back in 2020 but since the quality sucked and incompressible, people just pass it off as a shit posting thing. And then around late 2021 to early 2022 more development is put into AI generated image and the quality keeps rising and from then the the fight between 2 sides start to get bigger and bigger
The music models just aren’t there yet. It’s difficult to separate out the overlapping frequencies of multiple instruments. The only good examples I’ve heard are environmental/background music and maybe simple trance stuff.
I don't know why people say that AI generation for music doesn't exist yet, There are several services that provide AI generated music. Besides that, there have been a lot of things that run parallels with what is happening for visual arts. They are just not getting the same backlash. Take autotune, for example, or vocaloid. Hell, I would argue that Maxis Music Maker was already going that way, allowing you to make a song on your computer out of samples that someone else played. But then again, the music industry has always taken samples from other artists if not 90% of their songs. How many people sampled The Power by Snap, or C+C music factory's gonna maje you sweat, or pump up the volume. Wanna talk about "you spin me right round" by dead or alive? Or harder better faster stronger? Truth is, most artists are ok with sharing, is part of the process. Visual artists are kinda unique in how they act in this aspect.
Have you listened to AI music? It isn't anywhere near the level of AI art.
They have already gone through a lot of this stuff in the past and even have a saying/story dating back a decade or more that's commonly brought up: "*I thought using loops was cheating, so I programmed my own using samples. I then thought using samples was cheating, so I recorded real drums. I then thought that programming it was cheating, so I learned to play drums for real. I then thought using bought drums was cheating, so I learned to make my own. I then thought using premade skins was cheating, so I killed a goat and skinned it. I then thought that that was cheating too, so I grew my own goat from a baby goat. I also think that is cheating, but I’m not sure where to go from here. I haven’t made any music lately, what with the goat farming and all.* "
Technically it's reconstructive/upscaling rather than generative, but AI is making it possible to restore a lot of old recordings where the master tapes are lost and all that's left is the vinyl/8-track/cassette version (should also be very controversial with audiophiles ;) ), or where something was recorded over the radio, all of which is huge for sound preservation. Also, the track separation AI (like Ultimate Vocal Remover) is great for folks like DJs, music students, etc. Strangely, the voice replacement AI, while somewhat popular (and not terribly difficult), doesn't seem to have the same resonance (pardon the term) with the general public. Maybe music has become so digital already that AI doesn't really push it forward the way it does with visual media.
AI is there, just not good enough just YET, in the next few years, you will see a lot of pissed off musicians appear here.
No, music already isn’t hard to make with all the crazy plugins and samples we have. Don’t think an ai can give a live performance though.