I Have A Confession To Make

[lotus2035]

...

Sampling almost by definition is a shortcut, that's the whole point, you 'sample' so that you don't need to create it yourself.
Using a sample of a professionally recorded piece of music means your output benefits from all the work put into that piece from the musicians and the engineers involved. Why would you sample it otherwise?
If someone like Howlett wanted to achieve a similar result in one of his tracks without sampling he would have to spend years learning all the required instruments, perform it himself and then spend years learning how to mix records to a high standard and give each recording a unique flavor soundwise. The other option is he hire some musicians and engineers to play/mix it for him, who themselves would have spent years learning their craft.
So on a scale of one to ten what's easier? Spending years mastering two disciplines? Or spending minutes recording a clip of someone else's music then a few more minutes rearranging it in your own track?
I'm not knocking it as I said before, just being honest about the amount of work involved, but people have a tendency to exaggerate the amount of skill behind sampling like it's this mysterious dark art and it's usually coupled with a weird reverence similar to people who worship DJs.
Like this dude in the comments of the vid you linked to:

For me Liam (Howlett) is up there with any of the greatest composers of all time past and present.

Okay bro calm down f*ckin' hell, a couple of his later albums weren't so well received.

[jamcat]

Liam Gallagher?
I always found Oasis to be rather derivative.

But at least he copied some of the greatest composers of all time past and present.

[lotus2035]

Liam Howlett from The Prodigy. Post amended.

[lotus2035]

See this thing about stem separation and other methods to separate instruments from a mix, if someone releases a great song with a guitar solo etc, what's to stop some asshat just lifting it and putting it in their own song? Nothing I guess. How gutted would the original artist be? It's not quite the same as sampling, there's something far more insidiously invasive about it in my opinion. Like the original artist is stripped bare. People won't give a toss, they will just do what they like as always until nothing is left. Fun times ahead.

[jamcat]

Liam Howlett from The Prodigy. Post amended.

I would have never guessed that's who was being talking about in that context.

[enroe]

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

Bernie Taupin worked with Elton John for a long time. They
wrote many songs together. It is often the case that the composer
is not also the one who performs.

But that has nothing to do with the topic here "I confess to having
used an AI". This is "off topic"!

[enroe]

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.

Haja, vurt: Well told!

But I believe it's the other way around: With AI, the genie has
now been let out of the bottle. And no one can put that genie
back.

That may not matter much to many people in the artistic field of
music, because a lot of music is produced in a factory-like
manner, like on an assembly line. And this music is "soulless",
"interchangeable" and without "originality" anyway. You can
listen to it - you can dance to it - and that's the whole point.

And the AI ​​just makes this pile of music, which actually has no
relevance, even bigger.

According to your argument, the devaluation of music to the
point of insignificance simply happened much earlier. And the
AI ​​just puts its hat on it, but doesn't really change anything:
the pile of irrelevant shit just gets a little bigger.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I have a different opinion.

There are many good musicians who have something to say,
who come up with a really well thought-out text. And who translate
this into a piece of music with a lot of emotion - with a lot of work,
sweat and feeling. And who create something unique: a work of
art that is unique, that they personally created - with their own
work, sweat and feeling. They recorded or edited every single
note, they made thousands of decisions so that this song finally
sounds the way it does. They pondered it, spent nights thinking
about harmonies, riffs, notes ...

If you go to the "Cafe" here, you will even find some of these
rare pearls, these very personal and very unique works.

For me, hearing a song like this is a peak of personal expression,
the culmination of art, yes, that is actually what "being human"
means.

On the other hand, anyone who uses AI as a creative tool is
completely removing themselves from this process - and is simply
adding a WAV file to the pile of shit that already exists. Bones
has now opted for the latter - and that is his right.

[Jac459]

...

Sampling almost by definition is a shortcut, that's the whole point, you 'sample' so that you don't need to create it yourself.
Using a sample of a professionally recorded piece of music means your output benefits from all the work put into that piece from the musicians and the engineers involved. Why would you sample it otherwise?
If someone like Howlett wanted to achieve a similar result in one of his tracks without sampling he would have to spend years learning all the required instruments, perform it himself and then spend years learning how to mix records to a high standard and give each recording a unique flavor soundwise. The other option is he hire some musicians and engineers to play/mix it for him, who themselves would have spent years learning their craft.
So on a scale of one to ten what's easier? Spending years mastering two disciplines? Or spending minutes recording a clip of someone else's music then a few more minutes rearranging it in your own track?
I'm not knocking it as I said before, just being honest about the amount of work involved, but people have a tendency to exaggerate the amount of skill behind sampling like it's this mysterious dark art and it's usually coupled with a weird reverence similar to people who worship DJs.
Like this dude in the comments of the vid you linked to:

For me Liam (Howlett) is up there with any of the greatest composers of all time past and present.

Okay bro calm down f*ckin' hell, a couple of his later albums weren't so well received.

I am sorry to say that your reasoning is very wrong.
Not because of the logic behind it but because the axiom you are taking as base of the reasoning (my empirical experience shows that most of wrong reasoning are in fact due to bad consideration of axioms).

So again, back on your axiom: "I am using sampling as a way to not have to learn an instrument".

It is very very wrong. You can sample anything. From musical stuffs to field recording. It has nothing to do about being able to play an instrument or not.

Correct sampling isn't a shortcut but a way to increase the panel of possibilities.

I can imagine that the first time, cro-magnon invented a tambour, somebody told him "it is a shortcut because you don't clap strong enough in your hand". But it wasn't about clapping stronger, it was about being able to do something different.
Or when the first flute was created somebody said "you don't sing nice enough you need to do melody with this". Again, it was nothing about the voice but creating different textures.
It is endless.
With sampling you can achieve texture or sound that is impossible to do with regular synthesis or instruments. It is a whole new range of possibilities.
I am guitarist myself and would not hesitate to sample myself in order to play with the sample after (reverse some part, destroy it).

Again, look at "smack my bitch up" making off. The area in which you are reasoning is too small.

[Jac459]

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.

Haja, vurt: Well told!

But I believe it's the other way around: With AI, the genie has
now been let out of the bottle. And no one can put that genie
back.

That may not matter much to many people in the artistic field of
music, because a lot of music is produced in a factory-like
manner, like on an assembly line. And this music is "soulless",
"interchangeable" and without "originality" anyway. You can
listen to it - you can dance to it - and that's the whole point.

And the AI ​​just makes this pile of music, which actually has no
relevance, even bigger.

According to your argument, the devaluation of music to the
point of insignificance simply happened much earlier. And the
AI ​​just puts its hat on it, but doesn't really change anything:
the pile of irrelevant shit just gets a little bigger.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I have a different opinion.

There are many good musicians who have something to say,
who come up with a really well thought-out text. And who translate
this into a piece of music with a lot of emotion - with a lot of work,
sweat and feeling. And who create something unique: a work of
art that is unique, that they personally created - with their own
work, sweat and feeling. They recorded or edited every single
note, they made thousands of decisions so that this song finally
sounds the way it does. They pondered it, spent nights thinking
about harmonies, riffs, notes ...

If you go to the "Cafe" here, you will even find some of these
rare pearls, these very personal and very unique works.

For me, hearing a song like this is a peak of personal expression,
the culmination of art, yes, that is actually what "being human"
means.

On the other hand, anyone who uses AI as a creative tool is
completely removing themselves from this process - and is simply
adding a WAV file to the pile of shit that already exists. Bones
has now opted for the latter - and that is his right.

The way you are putting art in small boxes is a bit scary to be honest...

AI is a new tool. If you use it as a tool of expression and creativity people will love it.
If you use it as a tool of shortcut and avoiding creation people will hate it.

[jamcat]

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

Bernie Taupin worked with Elton John for a long time. They
wrote many songs together. It is often the case that the composer
is not also the one who performs.

But that has nothing to do with the topic here "I confess to having
used an AI". This is "off topic"!

Au contraire, it is very much on topic.
The point is, what's the difference if you use AI or have a librettist? Either way, you didn't write the lyrics. Is Elton John any less of a musician because he worked with Bernie Taupin? Is Mozart any less of a composer because he worked with Emanuel Schikaneder? Then why would BONES be less of one if he worked with ChatGPT?

I would also note that BONES talked about using AI discussions to spark new ideas that he wouldn't have come up with by himself, not necessarily outsourcing the lyrics to AI wholesale. Ironically, he said working with AI made the process "more organic." How is this any different than bouncing ideas off of a writing partner, or a friend? Have you ever considered that maybe BONES doesn't have any friends to talk to?

[BONES]

It all depends on how much you want to challenge yourself according to what your strengths and weaknesses are

"Me, me, me". Why is it always about you (not you specifically, but you in the broader sense) and not about the music?

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.

Again, why does any of that even matter? You either like their music or you don't, surely? How they go about it should be completely irrelevant, shouldn't it?

"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.

I think they likely saw that as a way to get more people more excited about their music.

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.

That brings up an interesting point. How often do you hear of an artist's best song being one that came together with little or no effort? The more hard work something requires is often a reflection of the fact that it's not all that good. I don't think hard work makes good music, I think good ideas make good music.

Music will now be created by people who are not only tone deaf and talentless

Sure but it won't be good music, just like 90% of the krap people churn out today.

The world of AI creations will run parallel to the world of people who like to properly challenge themselves

So people who want to make the best music they can and sad wankers with something to prove.

in the end it will be up to the public what they want to support.

The public won't know and don't care. Seriously, 99.9% of people who listen to music are clueless when it comes to how it's made ad have no interest in learning.

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.

Really? To me it just sounds quite derivative of stuff that had been going on for years. Like bad, unfunny PWEI or something. Nothing new or innovative at all.

[Jac459]

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.

Really? To me it just sounds quite derivative of stuff that had been going on for years. Like bad, unfunny PWEI or something. Nothing new or innovative at all.

Well I am French. That means that I have been genetically engineered for centuries to criticise UK people.
Yet in my mind, there is no doubt that Prodigy and Chemical Brothers have revolutionised electronic music (and music in general).
The song you are saying is not very new, by the way, is from mid-90s.... Have you realised that ?
Find me one equivalent example in this era. Maybe you can name Front242 from Belgium but they are far from this level of quality.
The mix of rock and electronic, today ubiquitous, was at this time unheard of and defined modern music.

[Tiles]

On the other hand, anyone who uses AI as a creative tool is
completely removing themselves from this process - and is simply
adding a WAV file to the pile of shit that already exists. Bones
has now opted for the latter - and that is his right.

You can't remove the human factor from the chain. AI doesn't have ideas. AI follows a predetermined idea. The one at the prompt and with the ideas is the one who controls it. With fine control down to the individual pixel if necessary. And you still need the traditional methods and knowledge. Even with AI there is the problem of "crap in, crap out". It's not either AI or the traditional methods, it's an and.

AI is a new tool that opens up so many new possibilities that weren't possible before AI. It multiplies creativity. It allows you to play around with many ideas at once and then choose the best one within a reasonable amount of time. It allows not so skilled musicians to express themselves in a much better way. I'm still considering having Ace Studio or SynthesizerV sing for me. And the current video AI models allow me to create videos that just weren't possible before at all.

It's all about how you use it.

[enroe]

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

Bernie Taupin worked with Elton John for a long time. They
wrote many songs together. It is often the case that the composer
is not also the one who performs.

But that has nothing to do with the topic here "I confess to having
used an AI". This is "off topic"!

Au contraire, it is very much on topic.
The point is, what's the difference if you use AI or have a librettist? Either way, you didn't write the lyrics. Is Elton John any less of a musician because he worked with Bernie Taupin? Is Mozart any less of a composer because he worked with Emanuel Schikaneder? Then why would BONES be less of one if he worked with ChatGPT?

I would also note that BONES talked about using AI discussions to spark new ideas that he wouldn't have come up with by himself, not necessarily outsourcing the lyrics to AI wholesale. Ironically, he said working with AI made the process "more organic." How is this any different than bouncing ideas off of a writing partner, or a friend? Have you ever considered that maybe BONES doesn't have any friends to talk to?

No, no - you misunderstand.

This is not about copyright, about whether YOU are the composer
or the poet.

The question here is whether a human being writes a text with all
of his or her experiences, pain, wishes and desires. Or whether a
machine puts it together completely mechanically from bits and
pieces on the internet.

In the first case, it is something living that has a connection to other
people, a communication from person to person.

In the second case, it is something mechanical, something dead,
that has cobbled something together from the wasteland of bits and
bytes - according to stereotypically learned rules.

[enroe]

On the other hand, anyone who uses AI as a creative tool is
completely removing themselves from this process - and is simply
adding a WAV file to the pile of shit that already exists. Bones
has now opted for the latter - and that is his right.

You can't remove the human factor from the chain.

Mmmh ... no.

It's not about "the human factor" at all. That would be too cheap
and too small.

AI doesn't have ideas. AI follows a predetermined idea. The one at the prompt and with the ideas is the one who controls it. With fine control down to the individual pixel if necessary. And you still need the traditional methods and knowledge. Even with AI there is the problem of "crap in, crap out". It's not either AI or the traditional methods, it's an and.

No, no!

What happened here was that Bones used the AI ​​for "ideas"
- specifically for lyrics.

It really is about whether a human being - with all of his
experiences, pain, desires and emotions - created a song and
lyrics, or whether the song or lyrics are the result of a simple
prompt.

Of course, you can use AI as a tool. This works in image editing
for individual tasks such as isolation, contrast or gamma
optimization, etc. And it also works in music for EQ patterns or
loudness adjustments. Using samples is also actually still using
them as a "tool".

But here a completely different dimension is opened up: It is
about an AI "creating" almost all of the creative content on a
prompt. That is something completely different - the genie is
out of the bottle!

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

If the essence of a work of art was created by AI, then we have
crossed the Rubicon. Then it is not a thinking and feeling human
who has created a work, but a mechanistic AI who has cobbled
something together through the skillful application of its (neural)
rules.

The essence of a song is the song itself (melody, rhythm - all of
that together) and its lyrics. For many listeners, such a song has
meaning because it creates a connection to their life. It is about
human experiences, reflections, pain and love, basically
everything that guides us as humans and is important to us.

But an AI has nothing to do with that. An AI is a collection of dead
wasteland that has simply collected parts of songs and lyrics -
parts that it knows often appear together on the Internet.

Therefore, the involvement of AI in creative work completely and
irreversibly devalues ​​a song! Such a song then inevitably joins
the "pile of shit" as user "vurt" so eloquently puts it above.