I Have A Confession To Make

[BONES]

Where you draw the line is NOT arbitrary. Because as soon as the AI ​​takes over your creative work, you enter into a pact with the devil. And this pact costs you EVERYTHING! You are no longer the artist, the AI ​​is. It is no longer your song, but the AI's!

You are clearly absolutely clueless on this subject. Can you, for example, explain how "the AI takes over" anything? The AI is not capable of doing anything other than what you ask/tell it to. Moreover, there is nothing forcing you to take even the tiniest bit of notice of anything it has to say.

The next step is very small. And this step means that you press the AI ​​button and the AI ​​presents you with the entire song: It has then thought up the lyrics, created the composition and already done the whole mix itself. All you have to do is press the button.

I live for that day! All I need are songs to perform, I don't really give a flying f**k where they come from.

You can then say "look, my great song!" But you know yourself:
it was just a push of a button.

And the problem with that is what, exactly? We very regularly perform cover versions of other people's songs and I have an entire side-project devoted to doing the same. How utterly full of yourself would you have to be to think that who wrote the songs you perform is of any consequence whatsoever?

You are not involved in it at all.

Except that the AI can only do what you tell it to do, so you are every bit as involved with the result as if you just did it all yourself.

The listener expects the lyrics to have a special magic, a profound statement or a significant event that the artist has struggled with for days or even weeks.

I've been a "listener" to music for 60-odd years and I can't say I've ever given a flying f**k about the lyrics. The vocals matter, they impart the desired emotion, but the lyrics themselves are of little or not consequence.

AI ​​produces a few sentences at the push of a button. And the listener doesn't know that!

When I'm reading a novel, I don't know how often the author has consulted a thesaurus. So what? Does it affect my appreciation of the story?

"The listener doesn't know that!" - that's true, but YOU know that.

Yes, I do. The thing is, though, that I don't f**king care.

And how are YOU going to look in the mirror in the morning if
YOU know that?

Why would I want to look at myself in a mirror at any time? It's not about me, it's about the music. All I want to do is make good music, if working with AI can facilitate that, I'm all in.

How are YOU going to identify with the song when its statements no longer come from you, but are generated at the push of a button?

Because I'm the guy that gets up on stage and belts it out, how could I not be more into it than anyone else?

The lines sound good, but they're actually dead. The song sounds good, but it's actually
dead, lifeless, meaningless!

How can that be possible when the AIs have been trained on the greatest songwriters of all time, just the same way that any of us have learned how to write?

I think by using AI at a creative point, YOU have devalued all your songs to junk level and into irrelevance. The deal with the devil has destroyed you as an artist.

Given that, I must conclude that you're a clueless f**king idiot if that's truly what you think.

[Largos]

I use A.I. to listen to low effort songs, so I don't have to bother either.

[Jac459]

I use A.I. to listen to low effort songs, so I don't have to bother either.

Is it you or Siri talking ?

[lotus2035]

...the same thing you say can absolutely been said about sampling.
It is a 40+ years old discussion and it has been solved.
Yes - similarly than when you use a guitar - you are relying on the work of other people in order to produce your work. Because of the tools you use, because of the culture you use, because of the reference you use. Is it a philosophical problem ? Nobody cares as long as it makes the song better.

Gorillaz and Daft Punk have sampled stuffs in a way that I would never dare too (or never been confortable with).
Jokes on me. They are the ones in the true.

It all depends on how much you want to challenge yourself according to what your strengths and weaknesses are.
A talented musician might not be taking any musical shortcuts when they sample someone else's musical creation but someone who can't sing or play a chord on a piano or guitar definitely is.
Sampling also bypasses the music production phase. Maybe the talented musician sucks at sound engineering but the guy who can't sing/play a chord is really good at it, in that respect it will be the talented musician who is taking a shortcut.
As long as people are honest about the shortcuts they take I have no problem with it.

As Liam Howlett from The Prodigy said "We're pirates, we steal things and make them our own". I have no idea how good of a musician Liam Howlett is though, he might be terrible. Does it matter to his fans? Of course not, he is good with samples as are Daft Punk. Maybe the guys from Daft Punk are amazing musicians but chose not to fully utilize that talent, maybe they are in it for the money and chose to sample instead to reach that goal faster.
The result is a lot of people might be thinking, "This part is from that other band's song" and not much else while listening to their music. I know I do. It's the price they paid for taking that shortcut and obviously they don't care about that. It depends on what you want out of life.

But people in all walks of life have their own goals and different ways of reaching them. Do what you want.
If I listen to an AI created piece I will mostly be thinking, "This was created by AI" and not much else. It won't ever be as inspiring as an original piece created with hard work by human beings. It just wont. Even a sampled song is higher up on the inspiration scale as the work done by the original artist is inherent in the sample.

Do I think sampling work is as impressive as something created entirely from scratch? No.
Objectively it's not nearly as much work musically and technically but even with sampling there is SOME work, chopping up audio, choosing arrangement and song structure etc. With AI music there'll be no effort at all apart from typing in a few prompts.

Music will now be created by people who are not only tone deaf and talentless but who don't want to challenge themselves in any way, musically or technically, and who just want attention/recognition/money or even worse made by business types who simply see music as another potential source of passive income to add to their portfolio along with their cryptocurrencies.

The world of AI creations will run parallel to the world of people who like to properly challenge themselves just as sampling did for decades, in the end it will be up to the public what they want to support. Having said that I think AI will obviously cause a far bigger upset than sampling ever did.
Fact: Those who use auto correct diminish their capacity to spell correctly. It's true.

[Jac459]

....
....

While I understand your point of view and what you say makes sense. I totally disagree with your conclusion.

Where you see shortcuts, I see accelerators and demultipliers.

If you are naming Liam Howlet, I invite you to look at a video in YouTube showing the making-off of "smack my bitch-up". If you still think that sampling is a shortcut after that, I pay you a beer.
This track is a clear example of something hyper creative, innovative, let's say ground breaking, using new technologies available at this time to make something unheard of.
You ask if Liam Howlet is a musician... To me it is like asking if Federer plays tennis. If a music teacher thinks that Liam isn't a musician, then the teacher is wrong, not Liam.

Daft Punk and Gorillas are more of a mix bag and sometimes they don't "reinvent from the ground" like Liam but more reinterpret and improve...
In both case though, the question of the artistic creation is not in question.

As per AI, you can use it in uncreative way for sure. That's what you describe. But what about for example using it to recreate a "feel of Charleston song in the NYC of 1920s" and then resample, shuffle destroy it to make it something totally new like Mr Scruff for example ?
Would I respect less this artist because he/she used AI instead of sampling ? No, clearly not.

As a conclusion, for sure, you can use AI as a lazy shortcut, many people will do. No need to create this bass, or this battery, let's make the AI do it.
But I know also that real, innovating artists will use it in totally crazy and creative way, to create stuffs that couldn't have been created without it.

[Tiles]

Music will now be created by people who are not only tone deaf and talentless but who don't want to challenge themselves in any way, musically or technically, and who just want attention/recognition/money or even worse made by business types who simply see music as another potential source of passive income to add to their portfolio along with their cryptocurrencies.

Nah. Only people who are interested in music will make music. This was the case before AI, and will also be the case with AI. But unfortunately now you need to be even more talented to stick out of the flood.

[donkey tugger]

Pffft, I thought it was going to be a revelation that he'd started having a dump on the boat.

[harryupbabble]

something like...

"i squatted"
"i pretended to be pregnant"
"i grimaced and grinned"

[enroe]

Pffft, I thought it was going to be a revelation that he'd started having a dump on the boat.

Well, isn't it almost the same?

[vurt]

Where you draw the line is NOT arbitrary. Because as soon as the AI ​​takes over your creative work, you enter into a pact with the devil. And this pact costs you EVERYTHING! You are no longer the artist, the AI ​​is. It is no longer your song, but the AI's!

You are clearly absolutely clueless on this subject. Can you, for example, explain how "the AI takes over" anything? The AI is not capable of doing anything other than what you ask/tell it to. Moreover, there is nothing forcing you to take even the tiniest bit of notice of anything it has to say.

The next step is very small. And this step means that you press the AI ​​button and the AI ​​presents you with the entire song: It has then thought up the lyrics, created the composition and already done the whole mix itself. All you have to do is press the button.

I live for that day! All I need are songs to perform, I don't really give a flying f**k where they come from.

You can then say "look, my great song!" But you know yourself:
it was just a push of a button.

And the problem with that is what, exactly? We very regularly perform cover versions of other people's songs and I have an entire side-project devoted to doing the same. How utterly full of yourself would you have to be to think that who wrote the songs you perform is of any consequence whatsoever?

You are not involved in it at all.

Except that the AI can only do what you tell it to do, so you are every bit as involved with the result as if you just did it all yourself.

The listener expects the lyrics to have a special magic, a profound statement or a significant event that the artist has struggled with for days or even weeks.

I've been a "listener" to music for 60-odd years and I can't say I've ever given a flying f**k about the lyrics. The vocals matter, they impart the desired emotion, but the lyrics themselves are of little or not consequence.

AI ​​produces a few sentences at the push of a button. And the listener doesn't know that!

When I'm reading a novel, I don't know how often the author has consulted a thesaurus. So what? Does it affect my appreciation of the story?

"The listener doesn't know that!" - that's true, but YOU know that.

Yes, I do. The thing is, though, that I don't f**king care.

And how are YOU going to look in the mirror in the morning if
YOU know that?

Why would I want to look at myself in a mirror at any time? It's not about me, it's about the music. All I want to do is make good music, if working with AI can facilitate that, I'm all in.

How are YOU going to identify with the song when its statements no longer come from you, but are generated at the push of a button?

Because I'm the guy that gets up on stage and belts it out, how could I not be more into it than anyone else?

The lines sound good, but they're actually dead. The song sounds good, but it's actually
dead, lifeless, meaningless!

How can that be possible when the AIs have been trained on the greatest songwriters of all time, just the same way that any of us have learned how to write?

I think by using AI at a creative point, YOU have devalued all your songs to junk level and into irrelevance. The deal with the devil has destroyed you as an artist.

Given that, I must conclude that you're a clueless f**king idiot if that's truly what you think.

im kinda with bones on this.
while i personally probably won't use ai, i see no issue with what bones has done here, he's still putting himself in to the tunes in the performances.
not all music is the same, or for the same thing.
the same feelings and emotions, aren't behind it all. bones wants music he can metaphorically beat his chest too, in a live arena, to get punks pogoing essentially.

it's kinda like modern chance music, which was written using eg dice or playing cards, to choose notes. it's a method, if the track is shit at the end, you bin it and start again.

there's more music than anyone can already listen to, just add the ai stuff to the pile you won't get to and move on, it has no effect on you or i.

[jamcat]

An AI named Bernie Taupin writes all of Elton John’s lyrics.

[vurt]

An AI named Bernie Taupin writes all of Elton John’s lyrics.

a few of them were good too.

[BONES]

there's more music than anyone can already listen to, just add the ai stuff to the pile you won't get to and move on, it has no effect on you or i.

The thing with that, though, is that unless someone tells you, you won't know which music has involved AI in it's production and which hasn't, which completely destroys enroe's entire argument. e.g. I wrote all the lyrics for the first song we got going for this album, without any AI assistance. On most of the rest of it, I wrote one or two verses or a chorus, before involving the AI to write some more, but I'll guarantee you that nobody who listens to the album or reads the lyrics in the booklet will know which ones they are.

AI is the perfect example of that old computing adage - "garbage in , garbage out". Everything it does is contingent on you feeding it the right prompts to get what you want from it. It's a real skill, an artform even. Some of the image stuff my bandmate gets from various AI is amazingly good, nothing I could ever hope to achieve to anywhere near the same standard.

[funky lime]

I still hate having to sit down and write lyrics and that's often a big hump for me to get over that can hold up the process for months (literally).

I've been a "listener" to music for 60-odd years and I can't say I've ever given a flying f**k about the lyrics. The vocals matter, they impart the desired emotion, but the lyrics themselves are of little or not consequence.

why were you spending "months (literally)" on something you've already decided is of little or no consequence?

[jamcat]

I don't care about lyrics either.
Unless they're bad.