JPF Home Page Forums Lyric and MP3 Feedback A.I. Assisted Music Forum Shame, Shame, Shame

I've got a question for Brian and the rest of you guys here. This section is for AI songs, right? Well, the new V4.5 version of Suno now allows you to upload up to 8 minute songs. Yeah! Finally!! I did that with a song I wrote together with Carroll Kiphen and recorded myself. After the upload in Suno I requested a remix of my song with a female vocalist and layered harmonies. I also asked for a more pop-like sound. I'm posting here my original recording and the remix with the question: is this an AI song? I wrote the music. Carroll wrote the words. Suno used my melodies, even my piano in some sections. In the future, should I post songs like this in the AI section or the MP3 section?

Original recording: https://soundclick.com/share.cfm?id=13503740

Suno remix: https://soundclick.com/share.cfm?id=14640228

All the best - Robert

It doesn't matter the site is dead. You could post this in the cooking section and it would be the same.

Barring the important like from Guy...

It's not worth anybody's time to post here.

IMO...it is now an AI song.
Your and Carroll's lyrics, but all the sound that I am hearing is AI produced, with your prompts.
Correct me if that is wrong.

Thanks for posting.
The morph from your recording to AI is informative and fascinating to listen to.

And, It's a pretty song.

Marty

Dom

The site is clearly quiet and tranquil.
I don't see that as a bad thing.
There are upwards to 4k "guests."
I'm getting no comments, but my view counts are going up steadily.

If the site stays tranquil and song focused, hopefully more people will post and interact.

Not true the melody is his too. What it is is a professional demo. Melodies,, riffs , lyrics all belong to the writer.

I would say it's no longer Ai generated, no more than using ez piano, or a pro demo service

Could say it's ai produced.

Comes down to how you define ai generated

Do you mean did ai write it, or did ai produce it

The melody is his.
I didnt listen closely to compare, but I'll accept that as true.

Even so, all of the actual sounds that Rob posted are generated by artificial means and would not exist in this lovely musical form, if he did not have access to AI.

So, IMO, categorically, it's an AI song.

Using a drum machine is artificial means, using garage band or acid loops or ezpiano or a click track is all artificial means.

That said, we don't have enough members who actually do music, so it's not a deal breaker where it goes.

The site is dead, might as well go back to politics, at least the site gets more hits

Many song oriented people have left because of the acrimony on display here.
They may or may not come back if the site remains tranquil, cordial and friendly...but I see that as the only chance the site has to survive as a songwriting site.

Let's give Rob his thread back.

The people who claim to have left cause of acrimony, are lurking here. Just as you suddenly decided to post when you saw Rob post.

Guy, he clicks like, only for people he likes. He posts a song, runs away and waits for somebody say it's good. Never comments, that's against policy, not enforced.

i can name twenty people who are lurking.

They don't participate cause the site is dead.

That is the biggest lie ever... acrimony.

There is nothing to be had here that's why they stay away.

My songs get three and four times the amount of views. In listens.

That tells me people are listening more than once

Only barometer I can use. Cause it's all dishonesty in the threads

I think Fdem nailed it. If you hire musicians to do your recording it’s still your song … your chord progression, your melodies, words, etc. Isn’t it? I agree that it may not be your production/recording unless you have an agreement. I used to invite vocalists to my studio to sing for me. Often, they sang the song differently than I did. Does that make it their song? So far, I thought … no. My original was a piano only recording. My AI musicians played additional instruments. Just because they are not humans, now this is an AI song? Where do you draw the line?

Really...?

Am I the only one who can hear the difference in sound quality between these two... ahem'... "productions"?

And it's the new norm anyway. Even if you did everything yourself, there would be no way to prove that you write your melody and lyrics anyway. Not unless it was dated before pre AI.

Bottom line? It's not going to matter who wrote what, who recorded what, except maybe who is singing.

I feel fortunate I can sing my stuff.

But at end of day, the only thing that matters is if somebody likes your music, no matter how it's done.

The new reality,

It's comes down to point of view.

To my POV, songs must sound good or sound compelling and/or attractive in some way. They are songs because they are musical sounds, first. Otherwise they would be poems or writings under some category.

If I, Marty, write and record a song as a GV and then take it to a studio and supplement it with all live musicians...it is very arguable...unless, I wrote their parts and handed them the note sheets, that the ultimate song was a co-write.

I banged out some chords, did a vocal and they made the music happen in a take or two. I may have written the basic chord structure, but they wrote the music.
Without written agreements denying any copyrights to what they played, they very arguably were co-writers. e.g. John S mentioned getting agreements signed by all of his FIVER hires.

As a real good session drummer in a studio, once said to me, "the guy with the checkbook trumps the guy with the talent, here."

In the case of your song, someone who never heard SHAME and listened to this recording for the first time, would only be hearing AI manufactured music and vocals.
IMO and POV, this very lovely recording (sound) only exists because AI is available and made it happen.
IMO and POV, this is an AI "song."

Marty

It's still new only going to get better.

Authenticity is something that's hard to get whether you record your own tracks or use Ai

I enjoy the stuff I've done with ai, but there is something missing.

Music always needed a unique pov, a unique kind...

i also think it's easy to tell difference here, because we know people are using it and we're expecting it, and posting in ai forums.

If I hear your song with girls singing first thing I'll think I's your a trans...I mean your using AI.

The goal is always to be able to have your own style. It's the goal when playing guitar...millions play guitar... Why should anyone listen to you? Cause your phrasing and approach is yours.

It's gonna be hard now when anybody gets a good melody...and production by default.

What makes you unique is key

And..if a demo service recorded it, it only exists because of the studio? No the song exists regardless how it's recorded


Your still wrong about that.

A song is a song whether it's recorded or not.

By your logic, the songs wouldn't exist if there was no forum to post it. It doesn't appear to exist if there's no forum to post it.

But your listening to it

All songs by your definition woundnt exist

I'm not saying that.

By my reasoning, I am certain that...that AI VERSION of SHAME would not be in existence, if AI technology did not exist to enable its' existence.
The human recorded version would exist, but that is all. Rob would have written and recorded it and it would be his song, but the AI VERSION which is a much different sound recording would never have come to pass.

Ok Marty. I follow what you’re saying. So according to you, I can let Suno generate a song (lyrics and music) for me. I could then download the stems of that AI song and record each of the instruments myself and sing the song myself. It would be a cover version of the original AI song. My recording would not sound like AI because I recorded it and used real or sampled instruments. In that case, would the song be an AI song, or not? Someone who never heard the original AI song and listened to my recording for the first time would only be hearing my music and vocals.

Of course the ai version of shame wouldn't exist if ai didn't exist. But a demo service version would, or somebody here might record it.

If the lyric and melody is his, it doesn't matter how it's done, except if it sounds real enough.

So people pay money for demo services send songs that don't exist?

Rob,
As context for these types of questions, I posted a video over in GENERAL done by a young woman who claims to be an atty and is clearly very bright.
She has videos that review the SUNO terms that we must agree to, in order to use their services.

Per my understanding,
If you pay the monthly fee, then you retain all the copyrights to whatever you generate on their site, BUT...they are granted rights to use the songs you create in order to derive monetary benefit in whatever manner they choose, AND they owe you nothing of the proceeds derived.

It does not say why but, my guess...
The songs ("sound recordings" versions) produced with their technology only exist because they provide their technology to us.

My attitude about that...?
Their technology does a job better than I ever imagined would be possible, of getting the genre and mood of what I want my lyrics to convey.
I had a person who owns another site, and has been a real music business player for years, appear so impressed by one of my AI vocals, that they asked me if that was me singing. I basically responded that I wished it was.

Without SUNO AI technology, I would have no other means available to me to achieve that.
Being fully aware of that, I regard their requirements as very fair, considering the benefit to me for only $10 a month.
I am now a demo factory, because of SUNO.

Additionally, the probability that my songs ever make money worth arguing about is about the same as a meteor hitting my house. So, its a rhetorical concern anyways.

Marty

But your pivoting to copyright. That wasn't the point. This is about songs existing before ai, not who owns what.

For purposes here we could steal any song and let ai cover it, and never be sued.

Dom,

I dont want to start an argument with you.
But you arent grasping and following the points that I am making.

It appears that Rob is.

Post what you want, but in all honesty, I can't really make sense of your points, as written.

Maybe it's me.

He said I hit it on the head. Stop deferring to other people.

I don't see it as arguing, it's better than politics.

Rob did say that. I may not agree.

Let's try this...

If I write the chords and lyrics to a song, and then record it as a G/V... I might send it to the copyright office and pay a fee to have it registered in the LIbrary Of Congress.

I will register it as a "sound recording."

On their website, I will be ask if it is the derivative work of any antecedent works, or if there are any other contributing authors.
I have to declare.

If at a later time, I take the same "sound recording" and upload to SUNO in order to create a new derivative work, then that introduces the possibility that this new recording created under the terms that I agreed to in order to use SUNO technology...is a separate legal entity (version) ("sound recording") than the one that I originally registered. Even though, the lyrics and chord changes remain the same.

Per my understanding, which is vague...
By using SUNO to create the new sound of my "sound recording" under the terms of their requirements that I agreed to...I have essentially created a different song...that never would have existed, had SUNO and their technology never existed.

QUESTION for you and Rob,
If someone Rob was acquainted with called Rob and said..."I know someone who knows someone who can get SHAME in for consideration on Miley Cyrus' next album."

Which of the two versions posted would you put forward to the Cyrus team?

(Rhetorical question)

If the song was selected for the album, they would inevitably make you sign documentation that you owned the full rights to the song?

At that point the song would be in the big leagues with big league lawyers, AND the piracy suits in play.

How would you answer the question?

Valiant argument but flawed...

Putting the original g/v through sunos cover version feature, is not derivative...as lyric and melody are the only parts of a song that can be copyrighted.

Dom,
The legal system is flawed.

The original G/V is registered as a sound recording at the LOC.
I am not a lawyer but your assertion that "as lyric and melody are the only parts of a song that can be copyrighted"...is not true.
And if there is any truth to it, it's arguable, given a circumstance.

I believe with reasonable certainty, that when you upload to SUNO's machine, per SUNO's terms, something new has been created and ownership clouds up.

To get in a round-and-round about this is pointless. I am beyond the depths of any true first hand knowledge of the laws.

Back to the earthbound point...I consider SHAME to posted where it should be.

Y'all have a nice Saturday.

Something new yes, something copyrightable...no

All a bad performer can do to try to protect their work is submit a rough recording. If it's record qualify still the only bit copyrightable is melody and lyrics.

The copyright your speaking of is the recording itself, the vocals, the drums whole nine yards.

But right now ai only restriction is that a human is involved. This example they are.

So melody lyrics belongs to them, rest belongs to public domain I suppose

Marty, I like the idea you mentioned here. Of course, I would send the Suno version to the Cyrus team. And if they would select the song, I’m 100% certain they would rerecord it and make it sound even more like Miley. So, they would create another cover version. So, who wrote the song? Me, Suno or Miley’s team. I'm confused.
I pay Suno 10$ a month, so it's like paying musicians to record my song. I think ... but I have no idea. Hopefully a few more people can share their thoughts here with us.

Re recording it yourself eliminates any ties to suno at all. It's yours.

I suspect people will be doing that just that as nobody wants to release somebody else's voice.

Good point. It is my uncertain opinion that if Miley ultimately recorded SHAME in a manner that had no resemblance to the SUNO recording, then SUNO would have no claim whatsoever. But the law is messy and if Miley's league of players got involved...and if SUNO could prove "access" to their recording, in the lineage that led to Miley's final version.......I don't know what might happen. I still don't get the Stairway-Taurus outcome.



It's confusing.
In my view, clearly you would have written the song, but if the song made it big...would people be coming at you making claims that they had some ownership also?
Unknowable without a specific context.

The young woman in the following video claims to be an atty and appears to be intelligent and know stuff, but still expresses some uncertainty.

It's simple really. Rob posted his original recording, he owns the melody and lyric.

it doesn't matter how many cover versions exist, you write the lyric and melody.

It gets hairier if your letting suno write melody or lyric, they may have some way of tracing that...unlikely but maybe.

But a song is lyric and melody, everything else is enhancement and interpretation

If anyone were ever to get into a legal fight over the ownership of their hit song involving AI output, what you have written is not something that I would advise them to rely on. Watch the video.

You could argue honestly, that this song is two completely different songs...

Listen closely though, the melody belongs to Bruce as does the lyrics.

Mannfredd man took this song to another universe modern day suno. But who gets the copyright..

Bruce




htt

Sorry Bruce version

Dom

Read the following carefully and then watch the young attys video,

If you were able to;

Write an original lyric and melody.
Write the sheet music for all of the accompanying parts
Sing and play all of the accompanying instruments yourself
make a recording
Send all of the above to the library of congress and register it in your name.

That would be be a reasonably air-tight claim to ownership.
If you heard someone playing it without your consent, you could tell them to stop with the law on your side.

BUT THEN-----------------

If you uploaded it to SUNO, it would become "input" per their terms of service.
Once it becomes "input," they can use it however they like and owe you nothing. They can even make derivative works from it.

So, If someone wrote some lyrics and chords and uploaded to SUNO,
and then sent the "Output" to an artist who got the tune on the radio, (or something recognizably close)
SUNO could tell the world that they were the MUSIC in the song and promote it via their oiwn distribution means without owing you anything.

I suspect that is why publishers consider AI radioactive at this time.
(that and pressure from the big labels)

But the key is in the IF. You can't copyright a drum brat, or a bass line. If the bass line is melodic might have something.

Read this closely, the only copyright protection in that scenario you wrote above is for the main melody and the lyric.

Otherwise, like a chord progression would never be allowed to be used again.

So yiu can't... Do your scenario

Dom,

Believe what you will. So will I.