Welcome to the Just Plain Folks forums! You are currently viewing our forums as a Guest which gives you limited access to most of our discussions and to other features.
By joining our free community you will have access to post and respond to topics, communicate privately with our users (PM), respond to polls, upload content, and access many other features. Registration is fast, simple, and absolutely free; so please join our community today!
Spotify ? well yeah they're thieves . Well I'm sure it will be a big battle on going , Really no concern of mine . I already mentioned Nashville publishers won't take AI songs , lawsuits and stolen material . But that's my world anymore either. I'm sure they'll all make the lawyers rich is my guess. I'm not in Nashville ,New York or L.A . Zero connections with the( REAL ) music world . I do my own thing , sell cds . I could careless about their world .
Sorry Brian, we’ll just have to characterize our opinions as unchangeable. I can’t wrap my head around using samples without the artist’s permission. If someone wants to use the actual voice of Barbra Streisand in their production, without Streisand’s permission that’s fine with udio, but not with me. I’m thinking this technology is all part of the “creating an equal playing field” mass mentality. Also, a shortcut for aspiring artists and composers that want to skip the learning process. No need to practice, study, or understand the elements of music, composing & songwriting any longer, it’s all there for you with just the touch of a computer key. As far as composing/ songwriting, I’m sure all you’ll get out of udio is a watered-down version of pre-existing works – nothing original. Like mixing all the colors together and ending up with mud. If udio wants to be legit, let them make their own samples and grooves. Though I reckon udio is relying on AI to create their program anyway. So Brian, I don’t think we’ll find any common ground here. Not that we have to.
Best, John
Last edited by John Lawrence Schick; 07/07/2401:17 PM.
"Being sued is not a verdict. If they win and shut down A.I. from learning because it infringes, the lawyers will start suing every artist who ever listened to any artists who came before them." Brian
Not even close to the same thing Brian.
John
It is EXACTLY the same thing. Creators listen to, view, interact with and experiment with what came before. A.I. is doing the same. If a human listens to Pink Floyd and makes his best version of a new Pink Floyd style song, as long as he doesn't steal melody or lyrics, he is free to use their catalog as his inspiration. A.I. is doing the same. If it was "stealing" it would obviously be infringement. We are already protected. You seem to want a world that would set a precedent that if you want to write songs, you better not learn to do so by listening to other works. I think that would entirely end art. All Art is derivative. ALL OF IT with the sole exception of randomization. Ironically, A.I. is as close to random as possible while still having merit. These random settings are easy for it because it can operate at beyond human efficiency as it throws the paint on the canvas. By inputting essentially all known music into it, it steals less than any human every would simply due to it's enormous cache of data. What it doesn't have is inspiration or motivation to create art. That is why it still requires humans to make it work. It is simply like having a fork lift to lift a giant weight instead of your back. The human avoids the heavy lifting, but still must supply the reason to lift, and what to do with it once you lift.
An exception would be if you told it to ONLY consider 1 piece of work alone and to replicate with infinite minor adjustments. It could do that, but all those results would be obvious infringement. Once you add a divergent work (let alone billions of them) it no longer can infringe on a single work. At most you could say it is mimicking what a general human who makes music might do. But the funny thing is, it is still prompted by, and then curated solely by humans on both ends of creation. If you, the human, FORCE it to infringe, you could do that, but as the "owner" of that work, you would be guilty of infringement, not the software, anymore than if you used a DAW to record a version of someone else's song.
If we are both around one all this washes out, I look forward to seeing who is right. The lawsuits are 100% a corporate cash grab. You and I nor any artist not directly connected to the litigants will never sniff a penny of any settlement. (And there WILL be a settlement, this is all posturing). All it will do is cost users more money (the little guys and gals) and that money will ONLY go the same rich and powerful people.
Brian Austin Whitney Founder Just Plain Folks jpfolkspro@gmail.com Skype: Brian Austin Whitney Facebook: www.facebook.com/justplainfolks
"Don't sit around and wait for success to come to you... it doesn't know the way." -Brian Austin Whitney
"It's easier to be the bigger man when you actually are..." -Brian Austin Whitney
"Sometimes all you have to do to inspire humans to greatness is to give them a reason and opportunity to do something great." -Brian Austin Whitney
Sorry Brian, we’ll just have to characterize our opinions as unchangeable. I can’t wrap my head around using samples without the artist’s permission. If someone wants to use the actual voice of Barbra Streisand in their production, without Streisand’s permission that’s fine with udio, but not with me. I’m thinking this technology is all part of the “creating an equal playing field” mass mentality. Also, a shortcut for aspiring artists and composers that want to skip the learning process. No need to practice, study, or understand the elements of music, composing & songwriting any longer, it’s all there for you with just the touch of a computer key. As far as composing/ songwriting, I’m sure all you’ll get out of udio is a watered-down version of pre-existing works – nothing original. Like mixing all the colors together and ending up with mud. If udio wants to be legit, let them make their own samples and grooves. Though I reckon udio is relying on AI to create their program anyway. So Brian, I don’t think we’ll find any common ground here. Not that we have to.
Best, John
ZERO samples are involved John. Synths are a short cut for people who do not want to learn every orchestral instrument. Samplers (not those that play snippets of recordings, but those that play samples of INSTRUMENTS) are used even when live players with world class talent are involved! Everything about recording is enhanced artificially! Recording itself could be said to have allowed people to play music when no one is playing music at all! It is REplaying music. Every aspect of modern music making is using advanced technology that cut out a lot of hard work by humans who had to get those results without those tools. Electronics itself are a cheat. It is ALL the same thing. The only difference is that you want to draw a red line at exactly the amount of technology you want to consider valid and claim anyone who chooses to go forward is in the wrong. That is such a hypocritical viewpoint. You may only use acoustic pianos, but advanced technology went into building modern pianos as well. If Paul McCartney uses an advanced tool to make music, is he invalid? He used cutting edge tech his whole career. He also had an expensive world class team around him yet he is still considered authentic. Without that tech like multitrack recording, he would have lways had to play it all live. But tech allowed him to make more music much more easily. This is the same.
Brian Austin Whitney Founder Just Plain Folks jpfolkspro@gmail.com Skype: Brian Austin Whitney Facebook: www.facebook.com/justplainfolks
"Don't sit around and wait for success to come to you... it doesn't know the way." -Brian Austin Whitney
"It's easier to be the bigger man when you actually are..." -Brian Austin Whitney
"Sometimes all you have to do to inspire humans to greatness is to give them a reason and opportunity to do something great." -Brian Austin Whitney
Brian, can you defend udio on its own merits without the irrelevant comparison of past music technology? All past music technology still required a person to compose the music, unlike udio. Udio doesn’t even require any knowledge of music. Anyone can go on udio and become an instant composer.
My take on udio is it creates music for anyone while downloading internet copyrighted SAMPLES into its application. That’s why udio is facing lawsuits. Here’s from the Recording Industry Association of America: “Unlicensed services like Suno and Udio that claim it’s ‘fair’ to copy an artist’s life’s work and exploit it for their own profit without consent or pay set back the promise of genuinely innovative AI for us all,” Recording Industry Association of America chair and CEO Mitch Glazier said in a press release.
As far as your reference to possible copyright infringement for being influenced by other artists and songwriters. As long as one doesn’t copy another’s work and call it his own, there’s no problem. In fact, listening to the great writers of the past and present is a great learning tool. Building on this knowledge is what advances music. Otherwise, we never would have gotten past Gregorian chants.
Brian, can you defend udio on its own merits without the irrelevant comparison of past music technology? All past music technology still required a person to compose the music, unlike udio. Udio doesn’t even require any knowledge of music. Anyone can go on udio and become an instant composer.
My take on udio is it creates music for anyone while downloading internet copyrighted SAMPLES into its application. That’s why udio is facing lawsuits. Here’s from the Recording Industry Association of America: “Unlicensed services like Suno and Udio that claim it’s ‘fair’ to copy an artist’s life’s work and exploit it for their own profit without consent or pay set back the promise of genuinely innovative AI for us all,” Recording Industry Association of America chair and CEO Mitch Glazier said in a press release.
As far as your reference to possible copyright infringement for being influenced by other artists and songwriters. As long as one doesn’t copy another’s work and call it his own, there’s no problem. In fact, listening to the great writers of the past and present is a great learning tool. Building on this knowledge is what advances music. Otherwise, we never would have gotten past Gregorian chants.
John
But if anybody is an instant composer, does that make them equal to great composers?
I think what it does is pry open the entry level door.
It means that composers have to up their game to again take back their status.
I disagree about previous tech. You didn't need to know much music with band in a box, just type in a chord.
So type in a b c, and you have a track.
Ez piano is a cut and paste technology. Yeah you need to know what chord your playing to match the rest of your mess .
But its also capable of composing you a piece of music without any of your help.
Dont need to know anything about drums to get a beat going.
I agree it's a step above that, but the better songwriters and musicians will stand out
A drum track isn't a song Fde. And punching in a couple chords to a drum track isn't either. But udio creates entire songs while stealing others' work.
John
Last edited by John Lawrence Schick; 07/08/2408:49 AM.
A drum track isn't a song Fde. And punching in a couple chords to a drum track isn't either. But udio creates entire songs while stealing others' work.
John
Yeah but how do you think drummers feel about that? "Wtf am I playing drums if any idiot can create them".same thing, minimizing the drummers value, and minimizing the composers value.
Youre seeing it as somebody who just got affected ,
but tech has been doing this to musically creative people for years.
But if you're good, which you are, you should be fine
A drum machine can never replace a good drummer. I've worked with a great drummer in my playing years. And a drum machine is just a joke next to him.
John
But udio didnt replace a good composer.
But things have advanced alot since drum machines, i mean this is amazing...yet drummers are still around, but I agree something about a real drummer thats special. But you dont need to know anything about drums today to have quality, amazing sounding drums in your composition. That was really the point. Drummers took it on the chin, but pressed on.
In the end, the lawsuits, IMO, have nothing to do with protecting artists..it’s going to be about how RIAA can use AI to create new music without having to pay artists any money. Present copyright laws may not cover what Udio etal are doing... because RIAA is going to be diving into the AI pool...they already have their toes in the water and they want clarity. I would think their main focus will be to get Udio to reveal how they train AI and what, in fact, is a dataset. I would suggest the people who have created the UDIO music are extremely knowledgeable in music because, what they are creating, IMO, is highly sophisticated. Those downloading that music (the consumer) don’t need to know much about music and that will probably be reflected in their final product. Those who have a good understanding of music and song creation will, as is always the case, rise to the top. The money being invested in AI, today, is huge...and as a former investment banker, that tells me AI is here to stay, it’s going to be massive and the only question is who will own AI.
Here is a video by The Knickerbockers from 1965...I heard it the day it came out in 1965 and immediately thought..it’s the Beatles new hit song...wrong...in fact their manager, wanting to take advantage of the British invasion, thought they should sound like the Beatles...they probably learned a number of the Beatles’ songs to get a feel for the sound and then did their own song without copying any Beatles song per se...did the violate copyright law by using Beatles songs to create their own Beatles sounding song? That’s is what UDIO is doing today (it is the band members learning all the parts to create NEW MUSIC) and that’s what the courts will decide. I’m not sure UDIO has done anything legally wrong.. Morally...probably they’re scum but in the end, the consumer on the street will decide as they have done forever...they don’t care how the song got to their phone/computer/radio...how does it sound is their only concern. Do you think anybody cares that robots made their cars...but they’re OK with the price tag which would be thousands more if made by humans....other than the workers in the auto industry, did anybody care? I kinda think the public doesn’t care one bit about AI in the music industry either...it’s called “mass indifference”
Creators of music have a responsibility to their craft. When they have finished using all the notes and words, they must pass them down to the next generation with a simple request. “Use these to create new music.”...Steven McDonald
I am a songwriter going back to the 1970’s, played bass back in the 60’s and ‘70’s and have written a couple of hundred songs...I’ve recorded about 50 songs just in the last 15 years with one other musician/engineer...been fortunate enough to have 3 of the songs make it to the airwaves. Not a big success but enough to keep me going...my buddy, who lived 40 miles away moved to Palm Springs...I checked out local studios within a 50 mile range and found no fit for my needs and twice as expensive....at age 77 it’s one of the few things keeping me going...so here’s my dilemma...I create the lyric, the chord structure, the melody etc before I go into the studio...all I really need are the musicians and before that was Cakewalk/Sonar/Korg Keyboard/VST....with the right prompts I can create my new songs and do them many times faster with AI and at almost no cost to me. Is it wrong for me to think that way? I still pitch my songs and am waiting to hear back on one for an album and I will continue to do that...without AI, I think it’s over for me....
Last edited by VNORTH2; 07/08/2411:05 AM.
Creators of music have a responsibility to their craft. When they have finished using all the notes and words, they must pass them down to the next generation with a simple request. “Use these to create new music.”...Steven McDonald
Brian, can you defend udio on its own merits without the irrelevant comparison of past music technology? All past music technology still required a person to compose the music, unlike udio. Udio doesn’t even require any knowledge of music. Anyone can go on udio and become an instant composer.
My take on udio is it creates music for anyone while downloading internet copyrighted SAMPLES into its application. That’s why udio is facing lawsuits. Here’s from the Recording Industry Association of America: “Unlicensed services like Suno and Udio that claim it’s ‘fair’ to copy an artist’s life’s work and exploit it for their own profit without consent or pay set back the promise of genuinely innovative AI for us all,” Recording Industry Association of America chair and CEO Mitch Glazier said in a press release.
As far as your reference to possible copyright infringement for being influenced by other artists and songwriters. As long as one doesn’t copy another’s work and call it his own, there’s no problem. In fact, listening to the great writers of the past and present is a great learning tool. Building on this knowledge is what advances music. Otherwise, we never would have gotten past Gregorian chants.
John
It is funny you quoted the exact person who proves all my points. The RIAA is the reason we have horrible royalty rates and no voice in political negotiations. They falsely claim to represent ALL OF US when they only account for low single digit amounts of recorded music. Yet they have lied to politicians and corporations saying (at the time I publicly confronted them) 88% of all recording artists. At the time I counted every single artist they actually represented and it was around 250. JPF at the time had 89k artists meaning they did not even represent .0025% of artists at the is just out of our group plus there's. In truth we were way less than 1% ourselves.
At that time it meant they weren't even 1/250th of 1%. Yet they got 100% of the negotiating power. What did they do? They sold us all out. Their corporate benefactors got backdoor money for their signed artists and partial ownership of streamers and the 99.99%+ of the rest of us got screwed. So their lawsuit is yet another money grab and will end with a settlement putting money in THEIR pockets but none of the 99.99%. And the AI will continue right along.
Soon enough many of these artists will sell rights to actually copy just their sound for folks to make songs that sound like them. It is all coming. The same thing will happen when rights holders for famous actors sell permission to make new movies using deceased actors. Music is already breaking ground with Kiss who sold everything to an AI company to keep making new Kiss content forever.
AI will not be stopped. Lawsuits are just money grabs for the far more intrusive use that WILL infringe, but these lawsuits Will make it all legal to steal from the 99.99% with all the money going to the Elites only.
You and I will likely be gone before it reaches that level, but if you have 25 years left in you, you can look back on this discussion and decide who had it right.
Brian Austin Whitney Founder Just Plain Folks jpfolkspro@gmail.com Skype: Brian Austin Whitney Facebook: www.facebook.com/justplainfolks
"Don't sit around and wait for success to come to you... it doesn't know the way." -Brian Austin Whitney
"It's easier to be the bigger man when you actually are..." -Brian Austin Whitney
"Sometimes all you have to do to inspire humans to greatness is to give them a reason and opportunity to do something great." -Brian Austin Whitney
A drum track isn't a song Fde. And punching in a couple chords to a drum track isn't either. But udio creates entire songs while stealing others' work.
John
What are they "stealing?" Music theory isn't stealing. Assessing styles and formats and choosing favorites isn't stealing. Learning how reverb, delay, compression, mix levels, panning etc. works and coming up with new versions and mixes is not cheating. Music theory is a universal language. Learning about settings on widely available recording gear is not cheating.
These are NOT samples of any particular artist. And every artist has learned in part from every artist before them. Music is always derivative of what came before.
Can udios lowest common denominator just squirter out random music? Sure. Randomly hitting keys on a keyboard can do the same thing. But neither is very compelling. And in Udios case it still needs instructions. Not just from the person using it, but the thousands of programmers who built and maintain UDIO. It is human created and human maintained. All sorts of plug-ins will similarly make music with minimal human input. None of it is very good. Smart creative people CAN make it sound good. The same as anyone can hit piano notes and make pleasant tone, but it takes more to make a quality song. Humans are required at every stage.
Brian Austin Whitney Founder Just Plain Folks jpfolkspro@gmail.com Skype: Brian Austin Whitney Facebook: www.facebook.com/justplainfolks
"Don't sit around and wait for success to come to you... it doesn't know the way." -Brian Austin Whitney
"It's easier to be the bigger man when you actually are..." -Brian Austin Whitney
"Sometimes all you have to do to inspire humans to greatness is to give them a reason and opportunity to do something great." -Brian Austin Whitney
A drum machine can never replace a good drummer. I've worked with a great drummer in my playing years. And a drum machine is just a joke next to him.
John
World class drummers regularly have their parts change and replaced with samples in the studio. It happens all the time. They also have notes shifted around and edited. That is the reality of modern music production.
Brian Austin Whitney Founder Just Plain Folks jpfolkspro@gmail.com Skype: Brian Austin Whitney Facebook: www.facebook.com/justplainfolks
"Don't sit around and wait for success to come to you... it doesn't know the way." -Brian Austin Whitney
"It's easier to be the bigger man when you actually are..." -Brian Austin Whitney
"Sometimes all you have to do to inspire humans to greatness is to give them a reason and opportunity to do something great." -Brian Austin Whitney
In the end, the lawsuits, IMO, have nothing to do with protecting artists..it’s going to be about how RIAA can use AI to create new music without having to pay artists any money. Present copyright laws may not cover what Udio etal are doing... because RIAA is going to be diving into the AI pool...they already have their toes in the water and they want clarity. I would think their main focus will be to get Udio to reveal how they train AI and what, in fact, is a dataset. I would suggest the people who have created the UDIO music are extremely knowledgeable in music because, what they are creating, IMO, is highly sophisticated. Those downloading that music (the consumer) don’t need to know much about music and that will probably be reflected in their final product. Those who have a good understanding of music and song creation will, as is always the case, rise to the top. The money being invested in AI, today, is huge...and as a former investment banker, that tells me AI is here to stay, it’s going to be massive and the only question is who will own AI.
Here is a video by The Knickerbockers from 1965...I heard it the day it came out in 1965 and immediately thought..it’s the Beatles new hit song...wrong...in fact their manager, wanting to take advantage of the British invasion, thought they should sound like the Beatles...they probably learned a number of the Beatles’ songs to get a feel for the sound and then did their own song without copying any Beatles song per se...did the violate copyright law by using Beatles songs to create their own Beatles sounding song? That’s is what UDIO is doing today (it is the band members learning all the parts to create NEW MUSIC) and that’s what the courts will decide. I’m not sure UDIO has done anything legally wrong.. Morally...probably they’re scum but in the end, the consumer on the street will decide as they have done forever...they don’t care how the song got to their phone/computer/radio...how does it sound is their only concern. Do you think anybody cares that robots made their cars...but they’re OK with the price tag which would be thousands more if made by humans....other than the workers in the auto industry, did anybody care? I kinda think the public doesn’t care one bit about AI in the music industry either...it’s called “mass indifference”
You are 100% correct. In the end, the same elites will own it and humans will be eliminated from music productions outside of elites under contract. So a couple hundred humans plus big corporations (who the RIAA represent) will lock down a system where they get all the money coming and going like it was a corporate birthright.
Brian Austin Whitney Founder Just Plain Folks jpfolkspro@gmail.com Skype: Brian Austin Whitney Facebook: www.facebook.com/justplainfolks
"Don't sit around and wait for success to come to you... it doesn't know the way." -Brian Austin Whitney
"It's easier to be the bigger man when you actually are..." -Brian Austin Whitney
"Sometimes all you have to do to inspire humans to greatness is to give them a reason and opportunity to do something great." -Brian Austin Whitney
I am a songwriter going back to the 1970’s, played bass back in the 60’s and ‘70’s and have written a couple of hundred songs...I’ve recorded about 50 songs just in the last 15 years with one other musician/engineer...been fortunate enough to have 3 of the songs make it to the airwaves. Not a big success but enough to keep me going...my buddy, who lived 40 miles away moved to Palm Springs...I checked out local studios within a 50 mile range and found no fit for my needs and twice as expensive....at age 77 it’s one of the few things keeping me going...so here’s my dilemma...I create the lyric, the chord structure, the melody etc before I go into the studio...all I really need are the musicians and before that was Cakewalk/Sonar/Korg Keyboard/VST....with the right prompts I can create my new songs and do them many times faster with AI and at almost no cost to me. Is it wrong for me to think that way? I still pitch my songs and am waiting to hear back on one for an album and I will continue to do that...without AI, I think it’s over for me....
100%!
Last edited by Brian Austin Whitney; 07/09/2404:09 AM.
Brian Austin Whitney Founder Just Plain Folks jpfolkspro@gmail.com Skype: Brian Austin Whitney Facebook: www.facebook.com/justplainfolks
"Don't sit around and wait for success to come to you... it doesn't know the way." -Brian Austin Whitney
"It's easier to be the bigger man when you actually are..." -Brian Austin Whitney
"Sometimes all you have to do to inspire humans to greatness is to give them a reason and opportunity to do something great." -Brian Austin Whitney
Brian, can you defend udio on its own merits without the irrelevant comparison of past music technology? All past music technology still required a person to compose the music, unlike udio. Udio doesn’t even require any knowledge of music. Anyone can go on udio and become an instant composer.
My take on udio is it creates music for anyone while downloading internet copyrighted SAMPLES into its application. That’s why udio is facing lawsuits. Here’s from the Recording Industry Association of America: “Unlicensed services like Suno and Udio that claim it’s ‘fair’ to copy an artist’s life’s work and exploit it for their own profit without consent or pay set back the promise of genuinely innovative AI for us all,” Recording Industry Association of America chair and CEO Mitch Glazier said in a press release.
As far as your reference to possible copyright infringement for being influenced by other artists and songwriters. As long as one doesn’t copy another’s work and call it his own, there’s no problem. In fact, listening to the great writers of the past and present is a great learning tool. Building on this knowledge is what advances music. Otherwise, we never would have gotten past Gregorian chants.
John
It is funny you quoted the exact person who proves all my points. The RIAA is the reason we have horrible royalty rates and no voice in political negotiations. They falsely claim to represent ALL OF US when they only account for low single digit amounts of recorded music. Yet they have lied to politicians and corporations saying (at the time I publicly confronted them) 88% of all recording artists. At the time I counted every single artist they actually represented and it was around 250. JPF at the time had 89k artists meaning they did not even represent .0025% of artists at the is just out of our group plus there's. In truth we were way less than 1% ourselves.
At that time it meant they weren't even 1/250th of 1%. Yet they got 100% of the negotiating power. What did they do? They sold us all out. Their corporate benefactors got backdoor money for their signed artists and partial ownership of streamers and the 99.99%+ of the rest of us got screwed. So their lawsuit is yet another money grab and will end with a settlement putting money in THEIR pockets but none of the 99.99%. And the AI will continue right along.
Soon enough many of these artists will sell rights to actually copy just their sound for folks to make songs that sound like them. It is all coming. The same thing will happen when rights holders for famous actors sell permission to make new movies using deceased actors. Music is already breaking ground with Kiss who sold everything to an AI company to keep making new Kiss content forever.
AI will not be stopped. Lawsuits are just money grabs for the far more intrusive use that WILL infringe, but these lawsuits Will make it all legal to steal from the 99.99% with all the money going to the Elites only.
You and I will likely be gone before it reaches that level, but if you have 25 years left in you, you can look back on this discussion and decide who had it right.
In 25 years I'll be 100 Brian. I saw on the news a couple days ago, that man has a 1 in 10,000 chance of reaching the age of 95. I do agree, AI isn't going to be stopped. At least not by us mere mortals. If I'm alive in 25 years, I'll still be composing at the piano with pen and manuscript. That's wishful thinking.
John
Last edited by John Lawrence Schick; 07/09/2405:57 AM.
Someone gets to live past 100, it might as well be you. I would be thrilled to make it to 75. Right now 73 is my goal. 13 years would be lucky, but here is hoping!
Brian Austin Whitney Founder Just Plain Folks jpfolkspro@gmail.com Skype: Brian Austin Whitney Facebook: www.facebook.com/justplainfolks
"Don't sit around and wait for success to come to you... it doesn't know the way." -Brian Austin Whitney
"It's easier to be the bigger man when you actually are..." -Brian Austin Whitney
"Sometimes all you have to do to inspire humans to greatness is to give them a reason and opportunity to do something great." -Brian Austin Whitney
Someone gets to live past 100, it might as well be you. I would be thrilled to make it to 75. Right now 73 is my goal. 13 years would be lucky, but here is hoping!
Yes, I remember when I was a teenager. I said I'd be happy if I live to my sixties. Trust me, we'll never be satisfied. No matter what the age. We'll always want more time. But I do hope you make it well past 73. And your health issues don't keep you from enjoying life. "Live Long and Prosper" - Spock Best, John
Last edited by John Lawrence Schick; 07/10/2404:44 PM.
No they can't , Yes they write parts then have robots do parts in Nashville , They don't know what they want , Make up your mind. It's all DNA , eat McDonalds drink beer , live to your 90 , Eat Kale go jogging fall over dead at 45. My new neighbor is 70 like me . He buys cigs for his dad on Indian Reservations for his dad once a month , he's in his 90ties his mom is also in her 90ties . It's all DNA and luck.
I forsee 4 more years with Trump and porn stars, Not that I have anything against porn stars.
Now that's funny...
Creators of music have a responsibility to their craft. When they have finished using all the notes and words, they must pass them down to the next generation with a simple request. “Use these to create new music.”...Steven McDonald
Brian, can you defend udio on its own merits without the irrelevant comparison of past music technology? All past music technology still required a person to compose the music, unlike udio. Udio doesn’t even require any knowledge of music. Anyone can go on udio and become an instant composer.
My take on udio is it creates music for anyone while downloading internet copyrighted SAMPLES into its application. That’s why udio is facing lawsuits. Here’s from the Recording Industry Association of America: “Unlicensed services like Suno and Udio that claim it’s ‘fair’ to copy an artist’s life’s work and exploit it for their own profit without consent or pay set back the promise of genuinely innovative AI for us all,” Recording Industry Association of America chair and CEO Mitch Glazier said in a press release.
As far as your reference to possible copyright infringement for being influenced by other artists and songwriters. As long as one doesn’t copy another’s work and call it his own, there’s no problem. In fact, listening to the great writers of the past and present is a great learning tool. Building on this knowledge is what advances music. Otherwise, we never would have gotten past Gregorian chants.
John
You just made my points John. Udio is NOT copying anything. It is NOT a sampler. I is creating new soundwaves using formats and soundwaves common to many styles of music, just as any human would do using any previous tools. Udio on its own merits is making original new music from what it's software has observed from other music from millions, billions of songs. It leanrs much like a human, chord progressions, music keys, guitar production, vocal nuances, etc. It then uses soundwaves to produce new material, using random generators, based on whatever prompts you give it. If you do not give ENOUGH prompts, it once again RANDOMLY adds in more common prompts and makes a new work. And another, ands another etc. It is a random music machine using rules of music making.
Brian Austin Whitney Founder Just Plain Folks jpfolkspro@gmail.com Skype: Brian Austin Whitney Facebook: www.facebook.com/justplainfolks
"Don't sit around and wait for success to come to you... it doesn't know the way." -Brian Austin Whitney
"It's easier to be the bigger man when you actually are..." -Brian Austin Whitney
"Sometimes all you have to do to inspire humans to greatness is to give them a reason and opportunity to do something great." -Brian Austin Whitney
I forsee 4 more years with Trump and porn stars, Not that I have anything against porn stars. Yeah man keep supporting NRA and assaults rifles that shot you. I guess I'll see he's picture in my Veterans hospital . Were big on that. I tell ya , He looks better then me at 78. The sign reads entering : no guns allowed , Ironic actually .
What does this have to do with A.I.? Politics is allowed on one post. Go there to rant. I will be moving these pointless comments there.
Brian Austin Whitney Founder Just Plain Folks jpfolkspro@gmail.com Skype: Brian Austin Whitney Facebook: www.facebook.com/justplainfolks
"Don't sit around and wait for success to come to you... it doesn't know the way." -Brian Austin Whitney
"It's easier to be the bigger man when you actually are..." -Brian Austin Whitney
"Sometimes all you have to do to inspire humans to greatness is to give them a reason and opportunity to do something great." -Brian Austin Whitney
Brian, can you defend udio on its own merits without the irrelevant comparison of past music technology? All past music technology still required a person to compose the music, unlike udio. Udio doesn’t even require any knowledge of music. Anyone can go on udio and become an instant composer.
My take on udio is it creates music for anyone while downloading internet copyrighted SAMPLES into its application. That’s why udio is facing lawsuits. Here’s from the Recording Industry Association of America: “Unlicensed services like Suno and Udio that claim it’s ‘fair’ to copy an artist’s life’s work and exploit it for their own profit without consent or pay set back the promise of genuinely innovative AI for us all,” Recording Industry Association of America chair and CEO Mitch Glazier said in a press release.
As far as your reference to possible copyright infringement for being influenced by other artists and songwriters. As long as one doesn’t copy another’s work and call it his own, there’s no problem. In fact, listening to the great writers of the past and present is a great learning tool. Building on this knowledge is what advances music. Otherwise, we never would have gotten past Gregorian chants.
John
You just made my points John. Udio is NOT copying anything. It is NOT a sampler. I is creating new soundwaves using formats and soundwaves common to many styles of music, just as any human would do using any previous tools. Udio on its own merits is making original new music from what it's software has observed from other music from millions, billions of songs. It leanrs much like a human, chord progressions, music keys, guitar production, vocal nuances, etc. It then uses soundwaves to produce new material, using random generators, based on whatever prompts you give it. If you do not give ENOUGH prompts, it once again RANDOMLY adds in more common prompts and makes a new work. And another, ands another etc. It is a random music machine using rules of music making.
Hey Brian, you already replied to this post earlier. With a similar reply - ha, ha. Or maybe I'm losing it? I just added "25 years I'll be 100 Brian. I saw on the news a couple days ago, that man has a 1 in 10,000 chance of reaching the age of 95. I do agree, AI isn't going to be stopped. At least not by us mere mortals. If I'm alive in 25 years, I'll still be composing at the piano with pen and manuscript. That's wishful thinking"
John smile
Last edited by John Lawrence Schick; 07/22/2404:39 PM.
you bet , stick with age , thats relevant to Robots, The first thing a old person does is mention how old he is for some reason. Back on TOPIC , i see no problems with AI , I see a big problem with Sony , collecting that $$$$$$$$$$. that battle of the cash cows. The shinning of Capitalism in broke down strip malls
Well, I'm in good company being against AI tech: "More than 200 music artists including stars like Nicki Minaj, Katy Perry, Billie Eilish, Stevie Wonder, J Balvin and Jon Bon Jovi have signed an open letter warning against the “predatory use of AI” in the music industry".
I'll make sure to worry about rich stars being on Social Security . Sony problems are on top of my list. Walking around in their mansions . I better make better music , AI is kicking my ass. That God Damn maid is late again. I told that butler to polish my Shelby twice , hard to find good help. problems problems , it never ends .Man I called the wrong number , that's not my drug dealer. That's my $6000.00 a hour therapist.
I'll make sure to worry about rich stars being on Social Security . Sony problems are on top of my list. Walking around in their mansions . I better make better music , AI is kicking my ass. That God Damn maid is late again. I told that butler to polish my Shelby twice , hard to find good help.
Yes, that seems to be the norm, bashing the rich & successful. So, it's okay to steal from successful people?
Correct , Trump does have good lines of BS , Not sure about her . Yeah AI is a tool , cut it with session players sing it , twist it tad different then robots. Your talking about stars and AI stealing their voices , I get it . John Legend didn't just wake up on monday and write all of me , he studied music , artists , styles all that jazz. AI is a tool to do that .Being a prodigy helps , the rest of us have to work for 50 years to get it . The DNA tube , The strand of genius and what person will it land in? Ahh a kid out of West Philly , born in poverty.. but will rise out of his circumstances.
We would like to keep the membership in Just Plain Folks FREE! Your donation helps support the many programs we offer including Road Trips and the Music Awards.
