JPF Home Page Forums General Messages General Message Forum Interesting experience with A.I.

You know I actually spent 5 minutes on Suno, wrote a lyric, tricked the machine into following a strict format that produced the song I had in my head almost exactly. I can't post it as it is too similar to a song I actually plan to use for a project, but I am impressed. I am holding out for a version that allows more direct control of melody, (it is close to what I wanted, but without as much nuance as I plan to actually use). Had I thought it would produce a usable result, I would have used a lyric I didn't have plans for.

But wow, even the second of two versions had merit, though it sounded different than I wanted, it had some interesting approaches. I might have to play with it some more.

I have signed up for UDIO as well. I am going to make some videos about A.I. and music and thought I needed to actually play around with it to have a first hand perspective of where it is now. I have played with some stuff not yet on the market that is farther along, but the free public stuff that is out is pretty powerful already and exceeded my expectations. Just wait another year and what is coming will make pro-quality releases available to everyone, if they can work out all the legal issues. My fear is that the same old powers that already own and control the market will keep the good stuff underground for themselves. I think that would be the worst outcome of all, even worse than banning it. Rich and powerful people already have access to technology that will just make them richer and more powerful and if we aren't careful, we won't even get their table scraps.

It's alot of fun, and as a species, we've never seen this before. My guess is in time it will become like MTV is today. Will just be so tired and we'll be in search of something new and different again.

I think live music will make a comeback, I've said that many times. There will still be a market for real people playing real music

Guitar players won't go down easy.

I personally feel it doesn't matter what modality one uses. If all songs were equally good or bad, then yes music would be doomed.

But there's still that intangible... Why is this song good...it's a mystery sometimes

One thing I fear and it probably already exists, that the bigs are going to have access to the better mousetraps.

Where the masses have udio and suno, the "pros" will have AI that kicks it's ass, and something the average joe wouldn't be able to use, or need pros to help them

Right now it's so easy to use, and for entertainment purposes it's huge.

I'm not sure how many Rock stars udio or suno will create.

I too wait for more control, using my own voice and my own musical ideas.

Using ai as a band and/or producer, engineer.

Freeing up the artist to do what they do...create music

Here’s another interesting article on AI for musicians. “Why Musicians Should Embrace AI.” Washington Post today.

Yes, it won't replace artistry. It's all based on the past.

I think it will create a demand for more original music

Everything you've ever heard is based on other music, so there's that. And we've gotten away with it so seamlessly, that suddenly we see Ai as stealing.

Ed Sheeran .......

From what I've seen so far, the lyrics ai generates are weak. Disconnected, just random musings. I guess cause lyrics are a human language

Not awful but not really good. Kinda just there.

The music tends to be way ahead of it.

I know for a fact, first hand, that the rich and powerful have MUCH stronger tools they already use. I have been shown a LOT of stuff. I do a lot of consulting (which is why I am not here as much) but I also have to sign NDAs. But I can tell anyone that far more mind blowing stuff already exists. I got to see full 1080p HD in action... in 1986!!!! It looked like magic. I literally was still using a black and white TV! It took decades for that tech to come to the masses and I just got my first full 1080p TV! Now they have 8K TVs and much better than that.

Within 20 years, all entertainment will be created by consumers. Sure, there will be "offerings" from the smartest creators like there always have been, but when you are ready to consume entertainment, you will simply tell your device what you want to see... ANYTHING... involving ANYONE... doing ANYTHING you request, or simply following whatever prompts you care to give it. "I want to see a Space Opera starring John Wayne, Elvis, the cast of Gilligans Island and my entire family as random characters that show up during the movie. I want it to last 98 minutes, with an original soundtrack in the style of John Williams, but with songs sang by Aerosmith, Nirvana and Queen. You can go ON AND ON like that, and once you have run out of requests or guidelines, you will sit back and the film, completely original to only you, will start. Then you can save it, share it, edit it in any way you want and then do it again and again.

Music will be any mashup you want. It can base it on music you created but making all new stuff in your style and voice if you want. It will only be limited by YOUR imagination. And if you have no ideas, no problem, you can subscribe to anyone else and see whst they have come up with. It will all be free. Commerce will be separated from art entirely, But everyone will be a competent artist! Even better, if you WANT to do everything the old fashioned way using any type of approach or tools, that will also be possible. Creative people WILL make money by making content offered to those who want a better experience just like today. Anyone can make music, just not as well as others. This future will be the same. BUT.. the parasitic corporations will have less control of the content and though the use of tech will always have a "cost" your relationship will cut out the middle people.

This story details how the guy teamed up in 2018 with an AI music company executive to generate millions. 2018? Must’ve been in very early development.

More detail here in this USA Today article:

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2024/09/05/michael-smith-ai-music-arrested/75086815007/

AI at its finest...big E for effort...keeping track of everything would drive me insane...lolol

Steve

So I just signed up for a paid SUNO and UDIO account so I could learn more about this stuff. I uploaded MY MUSIC, actually, some junk tracks I did nearly 40 years ago and just had a verse, chorus, with a hook line. I just fleshed it out lyrically, really as an experiment, and put it in the right format. There were a few hick ups but lots of interesting stuff. Then it started to actually use my stuff within the production and next thing I know it actually sounded like the 6 minute jam my friend and I had done 40 years ago. It took refining by me and I could only upload 60 second (I used 37 seconds eventually) which got the verse and chorus parts included plus a couple little guitar vamps by my friend. 8 generations later and it captured what I was going for all those years ago. I sent them super low fidelity old cassette practice tapes and it returned a nearly finished song. I say nearly as there are still a couple things I don't like, but had I played it with a band, they likely would have done things I didn't love as well. Better, they offer the stems so I can put in in my DAW and edit out the stuff I don't like and finesse it to what I want. I might even hire a human producer to get it the rest of the way there with live players. And this was a literal throwaway snippet of an old practice tape from the late 80s! Imagine if I had uploaded a high quality clip from my DAW?

It isn't perfect on melody (yet) but it is likely a few months away from being exactly what you want. It also does not allow me to pick specific sounds or instruments I want, but I have finessed vocal parts to do call and response and echos and stutters already and I just started experimenting. Best of all, it is $10 a month! I already got $100 of fun, in two hours out of it!

if your going to use AI for everything , You might as well throw your guitar in the ocean ...and get new hobby . by the look of this site deader than the (Moon) , It looks like everyone faded off to the sunset .

I think Brian uses AI as an assist for his own created works. I signed up for SUNO a couple of months ago and can’t figure it out, so hat’s off to those non- Luddites.

Jesus is not dead, very much alive as we will soon find out.

I don't believe in fairy tales in lifes reality , its a good angle for music , since most people believe in fairy tales , and nothing to do with AI and site. the AI has taken over boards . everyone would rather push a half penny button , than to actually get tracks done and sing it .

Ben,
It is what it is and it is not what it is not...but whatever it is will not be denied.

I think that there will be winners and losers. There are arguments all over song sites with the deniers seemingly in the majority.

I know WAPO and such are celebrating AI and telling us to embrace it, but for many that may be akin to Jewish people in Polish villages during the 1930s being told to embrace the Nazi tanks appearing on the horizon.

In my uneducated view of the game, which is from the rear of the parking lot, way beyond the left field bleachers...for now, the music business is buttz in seats, ball caps and tee shirts. I think that someone who can perform music will still have monetary worth, but the swelling deluge of songs is going to make songs too numerous to listen to, and too common place (and homogenized) to be interesting.

But the fact is...I don't know sh*t. All I have is an unteathered hunch.

My goal...Have as much fun with it as possible and see where it goes.

That or something similar looks right to me.

Who knows , I agree to many songs now, Now add 4 billion more pushing a button . Tuff to make a buck at it anyway , they want music for free . Ahh well .Right were going on radio with our songs and Trees fly .

Peace man

sorry Everett I didn't mean to offend you , I got a problem with a planet 90 billion years old and creation .
My buddy is Jewish , why don't you covert ? were are own God , Well I could try that for 60 days .

Hookers in India since 12 years old living in garbage dumps , So I got a problem with the man in the sky

So I have been uploading my actual music, lyrics and melody, and only using A.I. to do the vocals and it is really making life much easier. I would certainly hire real singers to sing on a final recording, but damn, these are sounding great as I develop, rewrite, rearrange and edit songs. I could never afford to do pay for the 49 revisions I did on a song I wrote for my wife today. I started with a music track I wrote 30 years ago but lyrics I wrote today and rewrote throughout the process. I still need a few more tweaks, but I like the vocal exchange, and that is one major downfall of A.I. sites right now, you won't ever get those same 2 voices again once you lock a version down. But I totally have enough to take to real singers for a finished version. Since I can't pay session singers to work on 49 recordings, which could never be done in a week, I did it all in one long all nighter.

Brian

AI or session players , it really doesn't matter , it's the end product results .Anything new is brought with fear , we get used to it, like everything invented . I think it's funny , we're going to have chips installed to handle credit cards keys , whatever , and people react its the 666 guy . 3 people can't get along in a room , but 9.8 billion are going think he's the cats meow .

You need to know that anything produced by AI cannot be protected by copyright. What AI does is high quality mediocrity. What AI cannot do is high quality genius, or genius at any quality, because genius at any quality, is beyond the reach of AI. The reason that is true because only inspiration, which is divine inspiration, can produce genius. AI is a machine and machines do not have a soul. Soul is a real thing. I know some are not religious (I'm not a Christian) but soul is real. If you've ever had an out-of-body experience, you'll know it. Anyway, What this means is that AI is bad news for mediocrity, but, in point of fact, damn good news for genius. Genius will become even more rare, and more valuable. What do I mean by Genius?

It's like porn, I can't define it, but I know it when I see (hear) it. Hey Jude is genius. In My Life is genius. Blowin' in the Wind is genius. Judy Blue Eyes is genius. Both Sides Now is genius. Bohemian Rhapsody is genius. If (by bread) is genius. Rhapsody in Blue is genius. Kashmir is Genius. Don't Go Changin' is genius. Over The Rainbow is genius, and there are many more. I think what in song, all genius has in common is an incredibly strong melody and lyrics

So, congratulations AI, if you've done anything, you have made mediocrity less valuable, and those who made a living from it, their lives more difficult. Personally, I'm against anything that makes the lives of composers, songwriters, lyricists, authors, more difficult, at any level. It's hard enough to make a living in the arts with AI breathing down our necks.

Genius will always be just fine. I'm against AI because AI has no soul, it's a machine, a dead thing, and it can only produce what it hears, so it's copyright infringement on a massive scale. Udio and Suno are being sued by the big three for this very reason, and, though I've never sided with the big three, I think they exploit talent, but I hope they crush them, and crush them utterly.

Did you know that some people can tell AI from other songs? Some people have that ability. I know one thing I can tell, there are a growing number of youtube videos with AI narration, and I can tell them from live voices, instantly, because they are reading from a printed page, and little things give them away, especially they mispronounce coined words often. Another example, where it was obvious the printed page wrote 'no.4 and they were supposed to say 'number 4, the Ai narrator said "NO 4", see? AI is stupid. It's just a machine. I get AI robocalls all the time, and my first questio to it is always 'are you a robot', at which point they hang up, always hang up when you ask it that question.

And don't be fooled by AI robots (Ameca, Sophia, etc) and AI chatbots that are lifelike. It's still not so much Artificial intelligence, it's actually 'simulated intelligence'. Simulated. It's become very clever, of course. Technology is doing some amazing things, but if the day comes when robots take all of our jobs, then whoever is profiting from this technology will have to support us. Because without 'us', there will be no rich people.

There are no laws yet preventing anyone from copyrighting a song done by Ai, on top of that, nobody will know if you used AI or not. Especially if using only bits of it to your advantage

Yeah, I can tell difference between ai and not, it's obvious here, but there are subtitles in timing and in pronunciation.

Ai also tends to go off on tangents that humans woundnt do. But organic music for now is still better and safe

Some people are legitimately concerned about AI not just music but all walks of life.

If ai saves money and is better, it's going to happen.

Perhaps the one thing us humans have to do is prevent AI from being able to function without us.

Programmers could maybe save the day.

But I think for several hundred years AI will not take over. Thousand years very possible

Interesting AI conversation beween two people.

Maria Karam has a doctorate in human computer interface engineering and invented a way for music vibrations to be heard by the deaf. A musician I know fed his music through his own body and thought it was cool.
She also uses it at the Redwood Theatre here in Toronto which has become an interesting cultural hub and which she owns. She has a history of accomplishements.

She is being interviewed by Bill King who has a distinguished history in music having worked with Janis Joplin, Linda Rondstadt and others back then and has been involved with music since

It is a year old, so lots of AI history, but good points being made.

https://ca.billboard.com/fyi/should-we-fear-ai%C2%A0-conversation-dr-maria-karam

You are incorrect in your first statement. Anything you create with Suno you own, outright. The A.I. itself (nor the company that created it) cannot create a copyright for those, nor claim infringement. Of course precedence will have to wait for one multi billion dollar corporation to sue another, since few, if any, regular people could ever afford to fight such a case, but if you are the one supplying directions (which will be viewed as an "arrangement," lyrics, melody or any combination of the three, YOU will own the copyright and have legal protection, just as you do with any other original creative participation you have in a song's creation. The only unresolved legal question is can anyone ELSE claim ownership. Since these companies state legally they have NO CLAIM on the resulting work, then you tell me who YOU think can claim ownership? A perfect comparison is when a certain instrument with a signature sound is used to make a recording, the creators of that "tool" can't claim ownership of the sound it produces. Neither can an A.I. company. If somehow the courts decide human participation in the creation of an artistic work no longer deserves copyright protection, then we in fact no longer have a "copyright" at all. Remember, the original creation is simply your property. It is when someone makes a recording, takes a photo or somehow reproduces it (even by broadcasting it) that is when your "right" over any "copy" is applicable. So if it is on YouTube, Spotify, local TV, Radio, or in a club, the rights are protected. Who else do you think has a claim on it? If the answer is no one else, then what are you afraid of? If you added a syllable, a note, a word, or arrangement instructions, you are in and no one else can claim it. There is 1 issue however. If you are infringing on another recording, then you have to prove in court that you own it. It doesn't matter if you have registered it or not. That does NOT grant you ownership. Only a court verdict does. I can send "Let It Be" into the copyright office and get a registration. But I have to defend my status in court regardless. A registration, which can still be created even after the fact, gives you the right to seek more damages, but has no other implication on copyright ownership outside of being a single piece of evidence as part of the entire picture of any given case. Your right is established the moment you fix your creation to a tangible medium. (write it down, type it up, record a version, videotape it etc.) The right you do NOT have, is to infringe on a prior work. That is always about who has the best legal help to win a case and the most convincing documentation of your claim of ownership. This is why you should always try to play the song live, or have someone else do it, or get live airplay etc. with proof of who is in the room, audience etc. to help establish the date of your ownership claim. I you have a video of you playing the song live in 1985, that will overcome any later claim that can't also go back that far. Also consider that two works can be identical and neither infringes. That is if the first creator never made it available to be heard by the creator of the second. Example, if I could 1005 convince a jury that I could not have heard (within "reason" which is the legal precedence) a particular Beatles song, then I create a similar melody, I could not be guilty of infringement, nor could they. But since the Beatles are in the public sphere, unless you grew up on another planet, you are not going to be able to "prove" within reason, that you could not have heard it. A more common example is if I write a song I never play out for anyone, I can't claim someone else heard it and stole it. If I sent a copy (with PROOF) to a label who later releases an infringing version, then I can win. Proof might be acceptance of a certified package with the demo in it, which is why no one ever accepts such a thing at those companies.

As for "genius" that is entirely an opinion, not a provable fact, nor does anything have to reach such a "standard" (even though that is NOT a standard as it is not measurable) your choice to make hat claim is not relevant. I may think X is genius, you may think Y is genius, but neither of us can force the other to agree. I have heard some really interesting results that match the best of other things I have heard, and many things I haven't heard, but genius is simply too subjective. Have I heard emotional results? Absolutely. I have made quite a few people cry over songs produced with A.I. I have made people laugh with songs created by A.I. I have made people angry. (because the subject was intended to produce anger over an injustice). Those are powerful emotions that art can bring on, which many would call "genius" on merit. But it is all just an opinion. And opinions are like a-ss-hole-s right?

A.I. is just as human created as the sound of a Stradivarius violin. Humans produced those sound emitting devices and someone then used each human creation to make another human creation. Does a synthesizer have a soul? Does a drum have a soul? All are used by "geniuses" to make noises which many later consider to be genius creations. A.I. is a tool, like any instrument, or any DAW or microphone or gizmo that emits a sound after receiving human instruction by way of performance (which is action). Many geniuses will make genius music using any given set of tools. A.I. is simply another tool.

In my case, I leave no doubt, even from doubters such as yourself. I upload my work (melody, plus lyric, plus pre recorded material) as the starting point. Then I use the tool to enhance it further. It is like a reverb or a synth patch or a legal sample. All are are used to produce music and have been for a long time. Many have opined the genius of the results using those tools. Dark Side Of The Moon uses a LOAD of gear, samples, effects and technology, to produce a work of "genius" as opinions often agree. But others say "it's rubbish" and neither side can PROVE the other wrong. If I play you a song, especially in the coming years, you will NOT be able to recognize if it is A.I. or not A.I.. So does that ean that genius simply ceases to exist?

If you can't tell the difference, then what will you do? Will you simply say NOTHING is genius, or will you admit that if a results sounds like genius to you, it is, no matter how it came to be? Only you can answer that, but no matter your answer, it is 1 opinion worth no more than another empirically. And that is a human argument we always have and we choose to side with whoever we want. Within a year, no one will know if something NEW was made with or without A.I. Just as you already can't be sure if a photo of a human is a real person or A.I. created. People used to think photos captured people's souls because the technology reproduced something that could make a love one feel emotional connection. Music does that too when we hear a recording. When you can't tell the difference, then it will speak to you, or it won't. If I use A.I. today to make a NEW photo of my late mother that was never taken of her, it will evoke human emotion in me. The same as if it did the same thing with my Granddaughter who I see pictures of all the time. Either it makes you FEEL something or it doesn't. But that is in the eye and ear of the beholder only, just like it always has been with art.

I guarantee that there are A.I. results which you would be unable to determine between that result and a studio result. If we lined up 5 A.I. results and 5 studio made results of the same song you had never heard, there is nearly a zero chance (above literal random guessing) that you would correctly pick the 5 real from the 5 A.I. And A.I. is still in baby step territory. Sure, I can tell among work I am familiar with easily, but once it is a new result matched by new studio results, it is already VERY difficult to tell. I would love to do such a test among the naysayers to see if they could tell the difference. I recently played a version of an old song that I wrote with a wah wah guitar part that my friend thought was himself. He literally did not realize it was his own playing. And frankly it was a good result, but obvious to me, but of course I made it. If I was hearing a bunch of old recordings I had not heard in 30 years I doubt I would have known what was me playing keys and not me. It just did a "cover" version of ME playing a piano solo which I knew wasn't me, but which sounded just like me, outside of a variation it did on the actual performance simply staying in key, but putting notes in a different order within a passage. It was jaw dropping to me because there is no way in a blind test 30 years apart, I would have known which was mine and which was A.I. The rest of the song, sure, but not that specific passage.

One day soon, the A.I. will make as many random mistakes as humans (by design) and then unless you were involved in the creation, you won't be able to tell the difference. Then the result will have to be judged on merit. These same arguments were made by the same people, but on the other side, who first embraced synthesizers and samplers. Now you can hear classical music recorded with expert musicians which as impossible to decide which is live piano and which is a sampled piano and only the highest level trained ears can tell if a human interpreted the sheet music or a computer. A.I. is just another such tool. Frankly no one cares if a piano sound is a real mic'd piano or a sampled piano. Soon, no one will care if A.I. was used either. Kids already do not care.

Remember when milli vanilli got blacklisted for lyo syncing.

The guy ended up killing himself from the backlash of it. He wasn't the only one to do that, and now today it's laughable.

The one way it still matters if a human wrote the song is if the artist builds his audience on the premise of, this is me talking to you, you relate, and you make me a star.

But if it's known upfront that it's ai, the listener makes choice to listen, not etc.

There will be many who will reject it if they know about it.

For other people that don't really get involved, they listen for recreation, they will not care

The consumption of art is to entertain the listener. It really doesn't matter how much or how little was done to create it if, in the end, the listener/consumer of the content likes it. My granddaughter can do just about anything and I like it, but if it were someone else's granddaughter, maybe I wouldn't. So beauty is still in the eye of the beholder and one opinion is as valid as another. Some films I love, some I do not. Another person may have the opposite opinion. If "critics" say one is better than the other, many will jump on that bandwagon for no other reason. They are swayed by other people and do not trust their own opinion enough to refute "experts." I can hear 100 reason's why something is crap but if I like it, it doesn't bother me. I might check something out hat has a lot of buzz from people I have learned often share my views, but I have no problem disagreeing. But many people are afraid to buck the system or speak their mind, even over something as unimportant as a movie. So forever, there will be haters of thing X no matter how unjustified, and there will be lovers no matter how undeserved. That is the fun of "art" because there is simply no true, correct answer.

In years past I likely would have been against A.I. I expected to hate it. But in general, I dislike technology that gets between me and my vision. I don't find A.I. is doing that. I just did 84 versions of a song and did not get a single result I was happy with. I did another and on the 2nd try got something I love. Same technology. The tech doesn't matter, the RESULT matters. If I hear a film score that makes a film more exciting or scary, I do not care how it was made. It did it's job. If a song entertains someone, or better, moves someone to tears, what difference does it make how it came to be. To date, A.I. makes it easier to make terrible songs and really good songs. The difference is the human guiding it.

“What's so great about discovery? It's a violent penetrative act that scars what it explores. What you call discovery; I call the rape of the natural world” – Malcolm (Jurassic Park).

“What you guys call a great discovery; I call the rape of the musical world” - John Schick (JPF).

John

A soulless machine that makes guitars hang on wall's
A down-size tool to pocket dead presidents

Elvis Nash

Good one John! Have you refused to buy music using technology? Do you send files digitally or post things to the internet? Many decried digital (and still do) as on such evil as you describe. I Think since most regular people use fairly low level technology to listen to music, it takes a lot of money to buy gear hi tech (or preserved old tech that still works) to listen to analog and be able to tell the difference. Listen to an mp3 of a digital or analog recording would be quite hard to tell which was which. Plus most music has been digitized over and over, upconverted, downconverted, processed, effects added and subtracted etc. so little of what anyone has heard in 30 years hasn't been affected. But many will swear that digital is horrible. And for them, they are correct. Do you use analog pianos, analog tape to record, no processing of any kind (including EQ) and demand playback on all analog? Of course not. Maybe NONE of that. So you are simply drawing a red line on tech YOU choose to use. People before YOUR tech choices have made this same argument that you have already crossed the line too far. They were wrong. Now, your PREFERENCE is 100% valid. I frankly would not spend money on an A.I. assisted album, but then there are few pieces of music creation I would buy in any format today. Nothing on the radio is without TONS of processing. Not even recordings of symphonies are analog. They are all digitally processed enhanced and filter in a myriad of ways using high tech gear. A.I. uses the same tech that is inside those EQs, Reverbs, Compressors etc. in it's programming to mke those same sounds. Now, it isn't AS powerful, those old school recordings are still much higher tech than consumer level A.I. Mixing boards alone, I am talking those mutli million dollar British monstrosities Neve etc... are WAY higher end tech than A.I. But A.I. is a consumer level version of those (as close as they will allow little people to get to the powerful) but kids listening couldn't tell you the source nor do they care. And that is today. In 10 years, studios will be like covered wagons, or like ADAT or 8 Track Tapes. They will be old tech used by rich people for nostalgia, or as a purity test to let you know they are still elite, and you are not. Nearly all the rest of music will be newer music by most of your favorite artists (minus whoever holds out, which is usually just a money grab in the first place) who have licensed their stuff to be part of music on demand (for a %) devices everyone will use. Older tech will become more and more scarce, though never extinct (nor should it be) it won't be available to the rank and file. For the cost of the service, you will have unlimited new music made by your favorites, including mashups and covers and collabs etc. in combinations that will be awesome to most and derided by old times until we are all gone. Films will be the same. But, new stuff, new ideas, even newer technology and much much cheaper and more powerful creation tools will ALSO be available so that anyone, at any level, can have the joy of making music. Train experts will ALWAYS have a huge advantage and will always be in demand. People always seek out the MOST fun, the BEST music etc. and the future will be the same. If you want to cut down a hand grown tree and craft your instrument, learn it, play it, share it, people will be there for it. But hopefully, EVERYONE will be allowed to take their shot at creation for an audience of 1 or of millions. No one will stop you from playing piano, composing however you desirem and sharing it with whoever. It is ALL good for EVERYONE.

Losers? Middle people. People in the way between creators and people to share it with. People who have been dishonest brokers and have abused creators since the dawn of sheet music will have less power. (Though, make no mistake, they will try everything to get their blood). The machine will eventually make everything you can dream up. Humans make the machine. Never forget A.I. is 100% created by human innovation. Human music theory. Human music technique. Human approaches. We do not get upset when a reverb is easy to use. We do not get upset when you can have orchestra sounds coming our of your synthesizer versus having to hire an actual symphony. Instead of being "session" players, those folks can put their own music out in their own names. In the old system, there was no room for that. Artificial scarcity created by power brokers and corporations controlled playlists, radio broadcasts, radio receiver technology, shelf scarcity in record stores, on and on. Those are the people who will lose power. Great bands could still form (and do) they just use new tools. New tools have made construction such that single families can have homes. New music tools will make it such that anyone who wants one, can make a professional sounding album. They it just matters how good the song they create with the same tools as others have, turns out.

They already LIE TO THE FACES of people who buy tickets to see people sing live. Taylor does it. She does not say "please enjoy my recording as I dance to it" each show. That cat is WAY out of the bag. I assure you that if she had to disclose the tech used for each song (auto tune, A.I. processing, A.I. digital effects and EQ, sampled instruments, 10 million dollar mixing boards etc. etc.) not as many people would take out loans to buy tickets to the worship fest. But the REAL machine, the corporations and elite owner class, is not disclosing ANY of it. Guess what? They also are not SUING the guy exposing them because he has truth on his side. The irony is that A.I. enhanced software is catching the fakers! There is stuff much more powerful than Melodyne that they know they can't fake out. Even these fake photos have tells that A.I. has been finding. It will always be a race to catch the cheaters with the same tech they use to cheat. For me, what Taylor is doing is WAY more offensive than you making songs with A.I. But these anti A.I. people are often praising her shortcuts. But no shortcuts for little people!

Number one job Taylor has is to entertain her fans which she must do night after night and her routines are complex.

That she uses backing tracks only means she is the latest is a long line.

Be a purist if you will....but it is reality. So is the huge success of the Era's Tour that had huge local economic impacts due to her millions of fans

.

I'm not using AI for anything more than to see what it can do as you stated you did in the op.

I'm not charging anyone, I'm not marketing myself as the artist of the music played.

Franky I don't need it, what it did was allow me to bring songs I was never going to do anything with anyway to life.

I don't think it's better than what I do myself, but it's quicker and easier. And a good reference. And better arrangements than what I could do all alone

Why are you guys worrying about Taylor for ? promote your own music without AI , its not rocket science.

I am not really understanding your response, as I was essentially agreeing with your point but your reply is written as if I didn't. i have 2300+ songs with no professional recordings. A.I. in my case (like yours it sounds) is allowing me to take the recordings I have (which are often just piano/vocal or maybe a few instruments and a drum machine) and upgrade them sonically to sound like pro demos. That is exactly what I need. I also genre switch and gender switch because a lot of the songs I wrote for our female singer to sing but her and my guitarist got divorced so w didn't get any of them recorded with her beyond practice tapes. So this lets me hear it with female vocals to see if it works. I can also go in, rewrite, adjust the arrangement and then have it produce dozens (or hundreds in one case) of examples to see if it catches the vibe I want. But in the end, I will take the songs that fit together best an us these demos to show the producer and vocalists what I am looking for. I am working on an album using a lot of our JPF Award winners over the 23 years we did the awards to put together my album. I can no longer play or sing live, so this is my only option. I have gotten all enthusiastic yes's so far from every artist I have asked). I won't even start on the final project until next summer when JPF turns 40. I figured that would be a great way to celebrate 40 years. I need to act because ALL of us are getting older. I think one key singer may have aged out sadly, so I don't want to lose any others. We had a 14 year old award winner I want to record with (she has been a Hollywood actress the past 25 years) but even she is turning 40 next year. No more time to waste.

A.I. has been the PERFECT tool for demos. I had no budget to pay for thousands of takes for a full band across many genres. Several of the key artists tour with major acts so their studio time will be quite limited and all my ducks have to be lined up for easy shooting. I also have a major producer who may be heading the project so his time can't be wasted. These are all great folks who have volunteered to help, but I have to respect their time and keep things straight forward. We are hoping to have a big concert to debut 10-12 of the songs next summer/fall. We also have a JPF Hall Of Fame ceremony planned. A.I. is an extension of my DAW and plug-ins which I am also using to sketch exactly what I want with each track. A.I. is good for demos, but there are a lot of details that must be worked out for each song. I also need to leave room for the instrumentalists to have room to add their magic to the mix.

Tech advances often leave people behind. It happens with every generation. It isn't an age thing, as I know guys in their 70s embracing the new tech, but people fear what they don't know or understand. There is no more or less "soul" in this than when any Synth or Sampler is used, or digital piano or fancy reverb etc. It is all artificial sound manipulation. There is zero difference between the tech naysayers use and this. Unless you are playing and singing acoustic only with no effects or EQ, you really have no legit argument that holds up against A.I. beyond you don't want to use it "because--reasons."

Why would anyone bother doing that? It is working for them, why not everyone else? And in a way, it IS rocket science, and their tech is always superior to what regular people can afford. In the end, listeners will like what they like if you are going for "commerce." Commerce has always been a lie for 99% of people out there. There is no room for more than a handful of major artists at any one time. Using A.I. to make demos is different in what way than songwriter X paying Nashville session players to make them? Humans are involved in both. Technology is involved in both. Help from people outside of the creator happens in both. Few Nashville writers have ever played on a released track. Most of the bands don't play their own tracks a lot of the time. Session players play in the studio, then they learn how to play what the session guys did for the tour. Exceptions? Sometimes, but the norm is working with session people. Farming out work, is farming out work. And for those who are snobs about it, I will listen closely when I hear them having more success than the rest of us. The label artists I know are using A.I. tech in the studio when they record. They don't call it that, but it is exactly the same thing. Input a signal, manipulate it a million ways, output something VERY different than what you put in. John is the only poster here who has valid opinions because he is the only one commercially viable here. But I know a lot of other folks who are also quite viable and they use advanced tech of all different types. I know a very high profile copyist in Hollywood who does scores for major composers and has run their entire union. She uses Finale which is highly advanced tech which is the standard. No one is hand writing this stuff out. She told me that the advanced tech has allowed her to become a composer, arranger, producer and everything else she desires because software handles all the heavy lifting she used to have to do. A.I. is a marketing term for... SOFTWARE. There is no such thing as Artificial Intelligence. It is simply a buzzword. It is nothing more than advanced, man made software, like everyone else is using to type on this board.

Why would I bother doing that without AI ? I'm a singer-songwriter . I'm not concerned on being signed at this point in my life. Promotion is a bit rocket -science . But cutting 2 tracks a month in a studio is childs play . Why would I have a robot do it ? silly , Well its a pointless argument. I'll leave it as AI is a useful tool as melodyne . fix a note or 2 that might need fixing after an emotional take in a studio. Robots sound soulless . Atomos mix takes hours and your telling me a 5 second robot song is radio radio ? Thats silly Brian.

I'm not impressed with women who sing in there underwear like porn stars anyway. Just have sex on stage and get it over with.

https://suno.com/song/25fb9ce0-ebef-420b-b76f-4748141d8880






Robots and real players. $900.00 real players . AI a half a cent . Time spent on real players , let's give it 2 weeks with turnarounds . AI 5 seconds .Dopamine levels 90% saturation real players. AI 2%. The robot is not having a baby in Jan to pay for.


Next song

Nicky V
Producer, Session Musician
Owner at nashvilletracking.com
Nicky V Music, LLC

No I understood it all, was just clarifying that using the term " AI people," being ok with lip syncing is a jab at people using AI

nott all AI users are AI people, lol . There's gonna be great artists using AI in the future, It's GOING to happen.

And by that I mean, it will be known and upfront, but I believe as long as there are electric guitars that won't kill generic players, not for a long tune anyway

If course the folks with the money will always have the advantage

I'm just seeing what it can do, I'm not really sure where I stand on it. Been mulling it's pros and cons

What matters is if the music is great. ,not good but great, good dominates right now

Remains to be seen if great will come back

Ben, you've stated what you do a thousand times.

We get it. If only you could get paid for talking about yourself .......lollllllllll

But you also have wishy washed about ai so many times it's hard to know what you really think, if you even know what you think

It's a tool , I've said that many times . I really could care less who uses strictly AI , I just showed comparisons on AI and live tracks . First hand knowledge , Not Taylor Swift and her billions.

that's right F.. I share what I know and 12-years worth of work. The train could stop pretty soon at 71.

Call it the 9% of life left parody. people die about 80 years old

https://www.youtube.com/@ElvisNash/videos

The interesting thing is your video. It is using the video equivalent of A.I. Those clip sites that sell generic vid clips over and over allow you to cheap out from hiring a film crew, director, actors, pay residuals, on and on. You just kept all those people from buying baby formula and diapers too by not paying someone to shoot an actual video for your song. Hypocrisy is hypocrisy. You either didn't want to, or couldn't, spend the money to hire humans to put together a video for your song. So you went to a site that sells and resells the same clips for reuse at a super cheap price, thus starving out all the people you would have to hire to make a real video. Using A.I. rather than paying session players, engineers, gear companies, producers, a studio for time etc. because you wouldn't have the money to hire them in the first place, is exactly the same thing as paying some company who bought clips for cheap to reuse over and over. It brought the cost down, so you used it. If you have hired a film crew, a writer and director, then paid pros to process and construct/edit the video, your dopamine levels would have been pumped up just as much compared to that video. You made, then refuted your own point.

I don't blame you for not spending 10K to make a real video. But you feel the need to demean and insult people doing exactly the same thing with music demos. As tech improves, costs come down. That is always going to cost manual laborers. Automated processing in music (reverbs for example) mean a crew isn't going into a cave or a hall to get the right echos and ambience. That replaced those jobs. You don't lament it. It goes on and on. The instruments you play were made using automated steps that ALSO replaced human labor. Everything in your existence is positively affected to make life easier due to improved technology that replaced manual labor. Music is NOT a special case or exception just because you SAY it is.

Bingo, even video is AI, he's not in our computer hes somewhere else

AI visuals put people out of work in vids , it's the new toy. I don't think Nashville is worried to much on AI robots replacing session players , But they have an eye on the capabilities and will adjust . God damn robots are better singers then me lol

71x100/80= 88.75%

71x100/80= 88.75% . I like your math better , But still I won't be the richest person in the cemetery

Live long enough to spend everything you earn

Thats the plan. I will will you my stream money. My wife won't mind she hates my music, Well she don't bother me much on it as long as I support Asia lol. Which reminds me I need to do a will next week , heart surgery coming up like Arnold Schwarzenegger and Rick Beato

Holy Crap! O_o

I'm going to assume it's something minor since you're still working...
But still, kinda' scary.

Thoracic Aortic Aneurysm: it breaks... you're dead in a hour . they fix them at 5.2 centimeters


No it not minor , it been watch a wait for 2 years Ct scan every 6 months , one yesterday wait for results
I have to work , you can't live on SS , Your out 1 month after surgery , Why I do music , ya never know . Famous people have died from them... Lucille Ball, Jack Ritter , George C Scott , list goes on and on. Arnold Schwarzenegger and Rick Beato I think were valve replacements , Same thing heart surgery. Cleveland Clinic , Mine will be the Army surgeons , that's real assuring lol.
Einstein had one and let himself die , cuz he didn't want surgery , So he wasn't that smart .

Bottom line I record everything live , I might steal a melody from AI , No big deal .Saves me the time beating on this guitar for 3 chords and the truth . it's a handy tool on production ideas for session players to (Kinda ) follow . A $1500.00 song is no match for a AI 2 second song that you can't promote as an artist .
$1500.00 that aint nothing , them majors are spending big bucks


Live like your dying... and we all are .

I've been dodging "near miss" episodes most of my life. We will all have at least one that we don't get out of, but until then, you gotta just run with what you have. I have been told I am going to, or I nearly, or I likely will die over 20 times already. I was once given 48 hours max, and my wife sat in the hospital room waiting for the moment. Once the hours passed, they told me to go home as I must have "unique physiology" that allowed me to survive something listed online as 100% fatal. They did have a host of doctors and surgeons follow up with me to see if it was a misdiagnosis, but it wasn't. I asked them if they were going to change the 100% fatal diagnosis posted everywhere by pretty much everyone online who weighs in and they said that was up to me. No thanks. I have stressed enough over it already.

The list is so long, I can't even remember it all without spending a lot of time going back and still I miss half of them. I keep thinking I should write an article about it but that might be pushing my ridiculously fortunate luck. Either someone really wants me alive and keeps succeeding, or someone really wants me dead and keeps failing. That could be me, or it could be an external force we do not understand (God is too simplistic, because if he wanted me, he'd take me and if he didn't, why would he keep me going right?). My willpower perhaps? Or is it a lack of willpower that keeps me having near misses. If it is random luck, I am definitely unbelievably lucky. So thank you to whoever controls that dice roll.

I wish you best of luck. I am not a big fan of doctors even though 2 heoric ones have clearly saved my life, the rest, meh. The first hero did what 7 other doctors would not even attempt. In fact they left me literally for dead since without the surgery, I wouldn't be here. But the most over the top cocky doctor I have ever encountered saved my life. This guy would likely rub most people the wrong way, but would you rather have a guy who is too cocky to fail, or a nice guy who nicely let's you die?

The other doctor really is a throwback to the era when doctors actually saw you as a human and cared whether you lived or died. I used to have many doctors like him, but they are now few and far between. My advice to ANY who might see this, if you do not like what your doctor is doing, or if they won't listen to you, or show little concern of your complaint or plight, FIRE THEM, and get one who WILL help you. YOU are the sole boss of them, never forget it, or it WILL cost you your life one day. Nice people often finish last when dealing with the medical system. They count on it.

Test is over , no change in size of Thoracic Aortic Aneurysm , So I'm good for 6 months. I better stop giving God a bad time lol.

That shite is always on your mind , but you got keep going with music, life, and wife's.

Watch Mary on net flix , get confused on religion again. But Anthony Hopkins makes a good Evil king Herrod