SUNO is killer!

[Zeisner]

"Recommend me a plugin that creates chords from a scale"; people writing software to write chord progressions for you.

This is also a good example for how to use a piece of software. You can use chord helpers to simply learn the names of the chords you're playing or to generate the chords for you. The same applies to machine learning - you can use it productively (like NASA) or destructively (like prompt jockeys frying their own brains and reducing the overall complexity of available music by releasing their AI slop).

[BONES]

"Releasing" is a strong word. It implies a marketing plan, promotional activity and all the rest of it. I think "uploading" is more apt terminology for what he's talking about here.

[zerocrossing]

It’s sort of fascinating to me how eager people are to offload what’s probably the most fun thing a human can do outside sex.

If you have no talent you can't develop skill. Without skill, every little step remains a tedious chore. No matter how much effort you put into everything, it will remain amateurish, bad. This results in no sense of achievemen and no fun (Because you never reach that point when you can "just write" or "just play"). So you outsource as much as possible to somebody or something else. Bones' music is a good example for that.

I don't really believe that one is born with some property called "talent." Maybe you have physical properties, like long fingers that facilitate guitar playing, or a large vocal range, but those mean nothing without interest and desire. What sparks interest and desire? I don't know. Life experience. I once saw a physicist talk about how she thought her creativity in science was due to her inability to relate to people socially.

[pdxindy]

If you have no talent you can't develop skill. Without skill, every little step remains a tedious chore. No matter how much effort you put into everything, it will remain amateurish, bad. This results in no sense of achievemen and no fun (Because you never reach that point when you can "just write" or "just play"). So you outsource as much as possible to somebody or something else. Bones' music is a good example for that.

So many times I've had fun, getting together with some friends, a couple guitars, our voices and singing songs. It doesn't require a lot of talent or skill to have fun with friends making music.

[BONES]

Sure, but that's kind of why it's not worth doing, isn't it?

I have to say, though, that I find it interesting that most of you seem to have lots of friends who are into the same music that you are. I've never really had that. I have one friend who is into some of the Punk stuff I like, another mate who'll go and see Gary Numan or New Model Army with me (but only because I turned him onto that stuff when he was a teenager) and a handful of people who'll drag me along to see a well known band from the 1980s but that's about it. The people I usually hang out with - neighbours, work colleagues, old classmates, people I served with, etc. - are not even into remotely similar stuff to me. There's a scene for what we do, much smaller these days than it was, but I don't identify with any of that so I don't really have any friends in the scene. I feel a bit jealous that you can share the music you love with other people, if I'm honest.

[Zeisner]

I don't really believe that one is born with some property called "talent."

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19288254/

It doesn't matter what you believe. Genetic predisposition is a fact. Some people learn certain skills effortlessly (and fast) while others try for decades without making any progress (like Bones).

[Ou_Tis]

I don't really believe that one is born with some property called "talent."

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19288254/

It doesn't matter what you believe. Genetic predisposition is a fact. Some people learn certain skills effortlessly (and fast) while others try for decades without making any progress (like Bones).

That 2009 study is based purely on self-reported talent and aptitude... and is using an outdated methodology that tends to massively over-estimate heritability relative to more rigorous Genome-Wide Association Studies.

[zerocrossing]

I don't really believe that one is born with some property called "talent."

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19288254/

It doesn't matter what you believe. Genetic predisposition is a fact. Some people learn certain skills effortlessly (and fast) while others try for decades without making any progress (like Bones).

I'm calling b.s. on that paper for a few reason. First, "self reporting." Self reporting is a notoriously bad way of collecting data. To do this correctly, you'd need the Dyad Institute to have secret observers, ala Orphan Black. (great show, btw)

Second, twins in the stated 12-24 year time period are most likely the product of artificial insemination, which means parents who want babies a lot, and have means. This also suggests a lot of hands on parenting, so the twins are being raised in similar environments. "The influence of shared environment was small for both aptitude and talent," is way to hand-wavey to me. How do you know, unless the twins are raised in completely different environments?

Also, reality just doesn't suggest this is the case. If musical talent is mostly inherited, why are there so few dynastic musical legacies? Not a single Beatle really has any legacy musicians that came from their loins.

I'm not saying that there are not physical attributes that can make becoming a successful musician easier. Having long fingers, good fine motor control, etc, are going to give you an advantage for playing a lot of instruments, but if you don't really have interest in it, you'll never get good, while someone who gets inspired by a musician will do the work to overcome their short, clumsy fingers. No matter how long I practice, I could never "shred" like the greats, so instead I mixed my interest in technology and songwriting to become something different.

[vurt]

Sure, but that's kind of why it's not worth doing, isn't it?

I have to say, though, that I find it interesting that most of you seem to have lots of friends who are into the same music that you are. I've never really had that. I have one friend who is into some of the Punk stuff I like, another mate who'll go and see Gary Numan or New Model Army with me (but only because I turned him onto that stuff when he was a teenager) and a handful of people who'll drag me along to see a well known band from the 1980s but that's about it. The people I usually hang out with - neighbours, work colleagues, old classmates, people I served with, etc. - are not even into remotely similar stuff to me. There's a scene for what we do, much smaller these days than it was, but I don't identify with any of that so I don't really have any friends in the scene. I feel a bit jealous that you can share the music you love with other people, if I'm honest.

im back in my hometown these days, my friends here are all still deep in the metal scene, very little interest in electronic music at all, let alone experimental modular noodling.

i think this might be the first time ive seen you express genuine, human emotion

[Zeisner]

https://www.researchgate.net/publicatio ... ic_Ability

Not a single Beatle really has any legacy musicians that came from their loins.

Chances would have been higher if the Beatles were female because most genes come from mothers. And then there's the environment too, like the burden of being the offspring of a superstar and being expected to follow your parent's foodsteps. Such a pressure can effectively kill any interest despite lots of talent. Some people don't like to be called a nepobaby either and look for very different fields. But none of that negates talent.

I'm not saying that there are not physical attributes that can make becoming a successful musician easier. Having long fingers, good fine motor control, etc

The structure of the brain is just as physical and influenced by genes. It's weird to claim "Yeah, genes have an influence on body proportions but not on the brain, everyone is born with the exact same brain structures". That's not how it works, humans don't come with the equal brain starter pack uploaded to different fleshsuits to guarantee that everyone has the same chances. Genes are just as unfair as the environment.

but if you don't really have interest in it, you'll never get good

You could be the most talented person on Earth, but if you don't care you will never pursue success in the field you're talented in. Example: If your personality is driven by challenge. In this case, high talent could even have a negative effect. If things are too easy they can be too boring and you move on. But - that does not mean those people can't be skilled. With high talent you learn much faster than other people. I've seen guys learning to play instruments in just two or three months - on a level most people don't reach in ten years after countless hours of practice. No prior training or knowledge. That's talent. None of them ended up in the music industry, they didn't even continued making music as a hobby. Goal reached, done, next thing.

And no, I'm not saying that practice does not mean anything. That's the box those "There is only grind" people like to put me in (As if there can only be black or white). I'm only saying that talent exists too and it's congenital. Some people have high talent, some people have no talent, most are somewhere between those extremes. It's just a measurement for how quickly and effortlessly you learn a skill, from insanely fast to infinite (See amusia).

[Ou_Tis]

https://www.researchgate.net/publicatio ... ic_Ability

That study tested "music ability" exclusively by testing whether subjects could tell which of two pitches was higher or lower, whether two rhythms were the same or different, and whether they could correctly identify which note in two melodies which differed by one note was different. As they describe it in the study:

"To measure pitch discrimination, we presented 27 trials with two successive tones that had a pitch difference of between 1 and 17 Hz; participants had to indicate whether the second tone was higher or lower than the first. For the melody-discrimination test, which consisted of 18 trials, two sequences with four to nine tones each were presented. One of these tones differed in musical pitch (e.g., an A might be replaced by a C#). The participant had to determine which tone in the second sequence differed from the first. For the rhythm test (18 trials), the participant indicated whether two rhythmical sequences, each of which consisted of five to seven brief tones with the same pitch but different time intervals, were the same or different."

Those were the only tests they did.

Titling their paper "No Causal Effect of Music Practice on Music Ability" was extremely ridiculous.

[ghettosynth]

Titling their paper "No Causal Effect of Music Practice on Music Ability" was extremely ridiculous.

This is common. Overstate the results in the title, tone them down a bit in the abstract, get a bit closer to the reality in the "threats to validity." I agree with you, I'm just not surprised when I see this.

[BONES]

I'm not saying that there are not physical attributes that can make becoming a successful musician easier. Having long fingers, good fine motor control, etc, are going to give you an advantage for playing a lot of instruments, but if you don't really have interest in it, you'll never get good, while someone who gets inspired by a musician will do the work to overcome their short, clumsy fingers.

There was a whole thread on this a few years ago, each side was able to provide plenty of credible evidence to support their case. I'm a subscriber to the 10,000 hours thing - anyone can get good at something if they put in the effort. But those with talent will do it more easily and/or to a higher standard than someone without. You see it all the time in top-level sport, there are plenty of competent players but a very few rise to the top tier and they are those who combine their superior natural ability with the same hard work and dedication as the rest of the team.

[ghettosynth]

[BONES]

We've discovered SUNO 4 weeks ago - what an AMAZING!!! tool.

Here's a one time only list of our creations thus far. The numbers should tell you how easy it is to use. I will not flood this topic with any more links - just maybe our results will motivate some to try it out for themselves.

Unfortunately our own music does not cover any other topic - we have no different creations to share but these.

Did you get it to make 5 minutes songs or did you have to do some work to extend the arrangements? The songs are f**king horrible but the production quality is good. I doubt 99.9% of listeners would realise it's AI generated.