Should I buy a DAW or use AI to make my music?

[seismic1]

Entire playlists on well-known streaming platforms, with differing track titles, and made by different artists. There's one catch. All of the tracks are identical. Were they AI-generated? It is suspected that they were, in an effort to cut royalty payments to legit artists.

The Schumacher family are currently having issues with an "AI-generated" interview doing the rounds in Germany.

Substitute the word "artificial" with "fake" to get a better idea of where this may be going.

I find the current trend of normalising the use of the word "artificial" within different contexts quite concerning.

[BONES]

What I don't understand, is why everyone is calling it A.I. , clever algorithms and massive datasets don't equal intelligence. It's hype.

Exactly! They are just tools, like any other. You can work it out pretty quickly if you try Bing's AI because it's no better at finding information for you than the non-AI search, it just presents it in a different way. It's really nothing more than mimicry, like a parrot sprouting language that it has absolutely no understanding of.

Now I got that off my chest, I can understand why a lot of musicians hate the idea of this, in the same way the graphic designers hate graphic AI. They've spent so much time perfecting skills, then something comes along and could be doing them out of work.

Are you kidding me? I can only be any kind of artis because of technology. I can't draw to save my life, nor can I play any instrument well enough to consider myself competent. It's only because of computers that I can earn a living as a graphic artist or make music. So it would be pretty hypocritical of me to draw an artificial line in the sand and say "no more".

I love the AI tools we have in Photoshop and After Effects. Far from taking my job away, they make my life so much easier and allow me to do much better work in the time I get to finish a job. Similarly, my bandmate and I are having a great time using AI in our music. I played him a song I'd been working on the other night - his music, with lyrics written by Chat GPT (I only had to change one word) and vocals generated by another AI, which I taught to sound like me. We were both laughing our arses off at how amazingly well it works. At first I was only using AI to give me ideas but it has quickly proven to be capable of doing a lot more.

All the imagery in our next album cover will be AI generated and it will be the best album cover we've ever done. Just as with work, AI allows us to get things done more efficiently and to a higher standard. It also sparks our creativity in new and different ways. You'd have to be a fully paid-up, card carrying Luddite not to embrace AI for everything it has to offer.

[Jac459]

What I don't understand, is why everyone is calling it A.I. , clever algorithms and massive datasets don't equal intelligence. It's hype. There's no dystopian nightmare coming, unless of course those with the power decide to use these emergent techniques for anything. Make no mistake though, for intelligence, you'd have to have mapped and understood the brain, and you know what they say.. if the brain was so simple we could understand it, we'd be so simple we couldn't. So, in my mind ! we're nowhere near replicating intelligence. It just looks intelligent because it can do things previously unseen or heard. We can't even get a grip on what consciousness is, let alone have it replicated into "intelligence".

Now I got that off my chest, I can understand why a lot of musicians hate the idea of this, in the same way the graphic designers hate graphic AI. They've spent so much time perfecting skills, then something comes along and could be doing them out of work. Worse still, there's accusations of artists work being used to train these datasets. It's a legal and complex minefield. To me, music is any kind of series of sounds that the listener enjoys. If the new tools create that, then what does it matter? Will they put musicians out of business? Potentially, in the same way media would use a generated graphic rather than pay an artist. Will that stop people making it, I don't think it will. It'll just exist alongside existing methods.

I like the idea of these tools being used not so much to generate tracks, but as tools to help the composition. I haven't got the time to learn all the technical complexities , I have to split time between an unrelated range of interests and research, so I need all the help I can get, and I'm not getting any younger, so remembering it all is the other part.

Good thread..

A.I. is not a hype term but a technical one used in software engineering since many many decades.

A program is considered AI if its algorithm is "learned" through a dataset.

In normal computer science, human writes the algorithm and the computer creates the data (for example a reverb plugin takes an initial sound and process it in a defined way, handcrafted by a programer, to generate the output).

In AI, the program "learn" based on very large datasets and build its algorithms this way. For example you give him a very large number of pictures of white male of different ages and you tell it the age of these people. Then you give him a picture without telling the age and it should be able to predict ii in a not so bad manner.

The scary part in AI is basically based on the fact that we don't control it. It is not us creating the algorithm. So we are able to create programs that we don't fully understand. That's all. Nothing particularly fancy. The example I gave you with the pictures is one I did in my engineering class 25 years ago. So nothing new.
It is not hype... Just facts. We think it is scary not because of the hype. But because it is factually something very powerful that we don't control fully (or sometimes at all).

[Michael L]

I can only be any kind of artis because of technology. I can't draw to save my life, nor can I play any instrument well enough to consider myself competent. It's only because of computers that I can earn a living as a graphic artist or make music.

A great example of how AI fits your use case.
I do think AI will help similar people.
But your use is not generalisable.
I find the tech unsatisfying,
(algos too black-box)
and "boring."

[BONES]

You mean you don't have the language, or maybe the patience/desire, to get what you want out of it? It's as easy as programming a synth and every bit as satisfying as turning on an arpeggiator. Getting what you want from Ai is a skill, just like any other. It takes patience and practise and, like any useful tool, it helps us to realise our goals.

You can't expect electronics to stop advancing, just because you start to become uncomfortable with it. This journey started with analogue synths, then progressed to digital synths and samplers and from there to computers. At first, computers had fairly basic sequencers, then they got support for audio, then virtual effects and instruments. Simple sequencers have turned into full-blown DAWs, with capabilities no-one would have dreamed of 20 years ago. AI is just the next step in that evolution, the latest upgrade to what we can do.

[Michael L]

You mean you don't have the language, or maybe the patience/desire, to get what you want out of it? It's as easy as programming a synth and every bit as satisfying as turning on an arpeggiator. Getting what you want from Ai is a skill, just like any other.

No, that is not what I meant at all.
I don't find "getting what I want from AI" to be a satisfying process.
Dif'rent strokes

[BONES]

Who gives a flying f**k about the process? All I care about are the results. The "process" is just a pile of irrelevant garbage that stands between me and the next finished song. My ideal "process" would be one that is completely non-existent. Maybe one where I could simply think "new song" and it would magically appear, fully formed and ready to be played on stage.

[Michael L]

Who gives a flying f**k about the process? My ideal "process" would be one...where I could simply think "new song" and it would magically appear, fully formed and ready to be played on stage.

Obviously you give a major flying f**k about your process.
You even have magical fantasies about your process!
What does your onstage hologram look like?
What about your Flying F**k Dancers?

[BONES]

You find working with AI "unsatisfying", I find every little part of the production process equally unsatisfying. It is the embodiment of suffering for my art as far as I'm concerned. AI speeds the process along and is, therefore, more desirable than the alternatives.

[Michael L]

I find every little part of the production process...the embodiment of suffering

GRRRRRRR, indeed!

[bookofthoth]

A.I. is not a hype term but a technical one used in software engineering since many many decades.

A program is considered AI if its algorithm is "learned" through a dataset.

In normal computer science, human writes the algorithm and the computer creates the data (for example a reverb plugin takes an initial sound and process it in a defined way, handcrafted by a programer, to generate the output).

In AI, the program "learn" based on very large datasets and build its algorithms this way. For example you give him a very large number of pictures of white male of different ages and you tell it the age of these people. Then you give him a picture without telling the age and it should be able to predict ii in a not so bad manner.

The scary part in AI is basically based on the fact that we don't control it. It is not us creating the algorithm. So we are able to create programs that we don't fully understand. That's all. Nothing particularly fancy. The example I gave you with the pictures is one I did in my engineering class 25 years ago. So nothing new.
It is not hype... Just facts. We think it is scary not because of the hype. But because it is factually something very powerful that we don't control fully (or sometimes at all).

It's hype, because the term refers to processing that requires human like intelligence. These advanced chess playing systems for example could appear intelligent, but they're not mimicking the way human intelligence works. It may have been adopted as a technical term, but it doesn't alter the fact that these processes don't "learn" they store results with varying levels of positive results. Human learning is totally different. Every time there's a technological breakthrough, it's always labelled as somehow "human". It's not, machines and software aren't sentient, but the massive hype around AI these days, you'd be forgiven for thinking so. It's in the language and in metaphor. It's technological anthropomorphism.

Not being able to control fully is a failure of programming, and as for software that we don't understand, well that may be the case, but it doesn't mean it isn't understandable. I've no idea how a lot of things work, but I know it's all within parameters set by people.

https://theconversation.com/ais-current ... des-120514

[dotmick]

Who gives a flying f**k about the process? All I care about are the results. The "process" is just a pile of irrelevant garbage that stands between me and the next finished song. My ideal "process" would be one that is completely non-existent. Maybe one where I could simply think "new song" and it would magically appear, fully formed and ready to be played on stage.

Some people do care about the process more than the result, and it's fine as well.

Now regarding AI, @Jac459 is right in the first part of their explanation. I would even go further by stating that AI is more human that we think it is.

[bookofthoth]

Exactly! They are just tools, like any other. You can work it out pretty quickly if you try Bing's AI because it's no better at finding information for you than the non-AI search, it just presents it in a different way. It's really nothing more than mimicry, like a parrot sprouting language that it has absolutely no understanding of.

Good analogy, I like it.

Now I got that off my chest, I can understand why a lot of musicians hate the idea of this, in the same way the graphic designers hate graphic AI. They've spent so much time perfecting skills, then something comes along and could be doing them out of work.

Are you kidding me? I can only be any kind of artis because of technology. I can't draw to save my life, nor can I play any instrument well enough to consider myself competent. It's only because of computers that I can earn a living as a graphic artist or make music. So it would be pretty hypocritical of me to draw an artificial line in the sand and say "no more".

Agreed, it would, and not suggesting any lines in sand. Just that it will affect jobs, unless of course the artists and musicians in question, use it themselves. Price of progress?

I love the AI tools we have in Photoshop and After Effects. Far from taking my job away, they make my life so much easier and allow me to do much better work in the time I get to finish a job.

I agree, but you got to admit, if a media company pays a graphic artist a wage, then finds out it just has to type something to get a result they can use, they won't be interested in keeping the graphic artist. Obviously, some will, it's not a doom and gloom scenario, but I can see jobs being taken.


[quote[Similarly, my bandmate and I are having a great time using AI in our music. I played him a song I'd been working on the other night - his music, with lyrics written by Chat GPT (I only had to change one word) and vocals generated by another AI, which I taught to sound like me. We were both laughing our arses off at how amazingly well it works. At first I was only using AI to give me ideas but it has quickly proven to be capable of doing a lot more.[/quote]

Sounds interesting ! I'm for experimenting with it as well, I have problems with mixing. I saw something the other day that analyses and reports back with suggestions to improve the mix, that would be useful to me. Vocal AI ? What are you using for that?

[quote[All the imagery in our next album cover will be AI generated and it will be the best album cover we've ever done. Just as with work, AI allows us to get things done more efficiently and to a higher standard. It also sparks our creativity in new and different ways. You'd have to be a fully paid-up, card carrying Luddite not to embrace AI for everything it has to offer.
[/quote]

Agreed, I just wish all the media hype around it would die down. The results can be amazing, but the way it's saturated the news, drives me insane.

[Jac459]

It's hype, because the term refers to processing that requires human like intelligence. These advanced chess playing systems for example could appear intelligent, but they're not mimicking the way human intelligence works. It may have been adopted as a technical term, but it doesn't alter the fact that these processes don't "learn" they store results with varying levels of positive results. Human learning is totally different. Every time there's a technological breakthrough, it's always labelled as somehow "human". It's not, machines and software aren't sentient, but the massive hype around AI these days, you'd be forgiven for thinking so. It's in the language and in metaphor. It's technological anthropomorphism.

Not being able to control fully is a failure of programming, and as for software that we don't understand, well that may be the case, but it doesn't mean it isn't understandable. I've no idea how a lot of things work, but I know it's all within parameters set by people.

https://theconversation.com/ais-current ... des-120514

Well AI is a 60+ years old term and no, it doesn't refere to human intelligence. Must be a very very old hype...

There are many discipline in AI and one is mimicking neural network like some vsts mimics VA... It is close to human brain in the way it works. Far because the human brain is immensely more complex.

Then when you say there is a breakthrough it is labelled as human, I don't see what you mean.
What is a fact is that AI is crazily more efficient at replacing many human jobs than other technologies.

I can give you a finance (which is my domain) related example. Blockchain is considered a new technology, was never labelled as human even if impacting a lot finance. Never put directly human jobs in danger.
ML, NLP are AI related technologies, are not really labelled as human except by some stupid f**k, but are destroying human jobs in a daily basis and at an accelerated pace.

"Not being able to control fully is a failure of programming" ==> No it is not. I guess you are not a developer. And by the way, it is the concept of AI itself. In term of learning in AI you have supervised and unsupervised learning. Unsupervised means what it means... you don't control it at all.

[BONES]

Some people do care about the process more than the result, and it's fine as well.

Fine to you, maybe, but stupid and pointless to me.

Now regarding AI, @Jac459 is right in the first part of their explanation. I would even go further by stating that AI is more human that we think it is.

Then I must assume you are more easily fooled than I.

I agree, but you got to admit, if a media company pays a graphic artist a wage, then finds out it just has to type something to get a result they can use, they won't be interested in keeping the graphic artist.

Your understanding of human nature is quite limited, it seems. If they can't boss the AI around, can't be the pedantic little pricks they like to be, it will suck the fun out of their lives. Trust me, they'll always want to have minions to lord it over.

Vocal AI ? What are you using for that?

Eleven Labs. We've got a subscription but there is a free tier.