If AI replaces musicians, does the entire plugin industry die with them?

[ghettosynth]

I ask again does anyone have any suno tracks they can share where the sound quality is good?

Do you really want us to point out the Music Cafe tracks where the sound quality is bad?

[BONES]

False. If a company's product has directly(*) generated a derived work without permission, and made that available to someone who puts that derived work online, the company is legal responsible for redistributing a derived work. Its irrelevant to that whether someone else redistributes it further. End of story.

Maybe if the AI company was deriving income from it but if they aren't making money it's going to be a hard case to prove, even if they know which company it was. We haven't paid a penny to use any AI, ever. But, as I pointed out, it's moot anyway because AI doesn't use samples.

It's still respectful to abide by those terms.

Which, as I pointed out, do not even mention AI, so there is nothing to abide by. More importantly, Bandcamp doesn't own any of the music, it's not up to them to make those kinds of decisions for artists. We don't care if our music gets used to train AI. In fact, we're in favour of it. The better it knows our music, the more useful it becomes to us and, in broader terms, the more diverse it's training is, the more useful it becomes to everyone and what better place to expose it to a whole range of less mainstream music than Bandcamp?

Fair, my indignation got set to runaway mode. It happens. However, The remainder of my point is solid, moreover, it is still a choice that is fueled by a need to remain independent, hence, uncommitted. The need for flexibility is at the opposite end of the need for stability. The employer maintains their stance by need, as you described, the employee can find value in that, but they still are taking on the risks of the choices.

Oh yeah, the first Hollywood writer's strike completely destroyed my bandmate's career. The two big budget features he'd been slated to work on after Superman were cancelled and most of his contacts left the industry. He's struggled for work ever since. It's a bit of a gamble but, like the music industry, people don't get into it for job security.

Yes, play a real song / mix next to an ai song and it is obvious how bad they sound.

Nobody cares, mate. They all listen to mp3s on earbuds. The audiophile market isn't relevant.

Here's an example of a human mix (my song "Hemsworth")
https://soundcloud.com/hipster-bales/hemsworth
Here's an example of an AI slop mix
https://music.youtube.com/watch?v=omy0Q ... QJk9nUhyfH

And I can tell your which piece I'd rather listen to. Your song is at least as generic as the AI song without any of that song's emotional impact. And I don't hear anything in the way that song is presented that would make me not want to listen to it. The production sounds absolutely fine to me. What you choose to see as "slop" could just as easily be decisions made by a producer to give it a gritty sound to match the mood of the piece. Overall, it works way better than your piece does, even though it's in a genre and of a style that I have no particular interest in.

[Hipster Bales]

ok dude.

[Hipster Bales]

Your song is at least as generic as the AI song without any of that song's emotional impact.

Right, because a kid writing a song after something as personal as his hometown has no emotional impact while a robot trained on an algorithm does? Get over it and accept that some people actually like writing from the heart rather than using AI tools to do it for them.

Nobody cares, mate. They all listen to mp3s on earbuds. The audiophile market isn't relevant.

Actually the average listener cares a lot, in fact they're all growing tired of AI every second of the day.

What you choose to see as "slop" could just as easily be decisions made by a producer to give it a gritty sound to match the mood of the piece.

Not when it's coming from a bunch of supercomputers in a datacentre. Some of us actually work hard to where we are today, by not trying to appeal to absolutely everybody.

And I don't hear anything in the way that song is presented that would make me not want to listen to it. The production sounds absolutely fine to me.

Probably because you're too busy trying to get a rise out of people who disagree with you instead of critically listening to the AI mixes.

We don't care if our music gets used to train AI. In fact, we're in favour of it.

You mean YOU'RE in favour of it. I'm definitely not in favour of having my music getting trained illegally and without my permission by say, Suno or Udio.

OK this argument is making me hungry, let me get something real quick

Grilled-Chicken-Burgers_thumb-1.webp

[Grizzellda]

Yeah, so "the million monkey theory" has been mentioned.

Does it help to explain KVR???

[Grizzellda]

Nobody cares, mate. They all listen to mp3s on earbuds. The audiophile market isn't relevant.

Right, prolly very accurate view. Still though, at least 44.1kz at 24 bitz, for Grizzellda!!!

[whyterabbyt]

False. If a company's product has directly(*) generated a derived work without permission, and made that available to someone who puts that derived work online, the company is legal responsible for redistributing a derived work. Its irrelevant to that whether someone else redistributes it further. End of story.

Maybe if the AI company was deriving income from it but if they aren't making money it's going to be a hard case to prove, even if they know which company it was.

'Making money' has zero impact on copyright law.

But if someone wants to argue that someone else 'making money' is the threshold by which people decide to sue for copyright breach, then its worth nothing that those AI companies have probably got way more money to sue for than any joe schmoe who used their product.

[TechHaus]

Here you go, if you want to check the ai datasets for your own content:

https://www.theatlantic.com/category/ai-watchdog/

[BONES]

Right, because a kid writing a song after something as personal as his hometown has no emotional impact

You didn't write about anything, it's just a piece of music, not even an actual song. There are no lyrics, no way of having the faintest idea what inspired it or what it should inspire in the listener. From the title, I'd assumed it was inspired by a man-crush on the actor who plays Thor.

while a robot trained on an algorithm does?

Yes, it f**king does. It makes a connection with the listener because it has trained on other music that does the same thing, so when it is directed by a human to reproduce that, it knows precisely how to go about it. It's no different to anyone who sets out to write a hit song, who panders to an audience rather than creates art.

All the research tells us that, it tells us that if people don't know something was created by AI, they can't tell. That is the simple fact of the matter and there is no getting around it. You can kid yourself all you like that it's otherwise but that's not the reality of the situation.

Get over it and accept that some people actually like writing from the heart

Clearly you're not one of them, you don't bother writing anything. The voice is by far the most powerful tool we have for expressing emotion in music. If you have something to express, something to say, then the audience needs to see your lips moving and hear you say the words. Without that, your music has no real ability to express more than the vaguest feelings. The emotion in the AI song all comes from the vocal performance. That's the thing people connect to and AI has been nailing that for several years now.

You're also forgetting that I've likely written more songs in the old fashioned way than you ever will. I've been there, done that, and there's nothing special about any of it. To paraphrase Dick Jones in Robocop, good music is where you find it. The process is irrelevant, only the result matters and the reality is that we've been able to write the best material of our "careers" using AI and in the next 6-8 weeks that will be put to the test when the album is released. If you're right, it will sink without a trace but I'm confident it will be our most successful release ever. If we can't get the album and a single to no. 1 on the DAC with what we've made, I will be very disappointed.

Actually the average listener cares a lot, in fact they're all growing tired of AI every second of the day.

Evidence? If they don't even know they are listening to AI, how can they be getting sick of it?

Not when it's coming from a bunch of supercomputers in a datacentre.

OK, so when it comes from your shitty little laptop, it's pristine but when it comes from a supercomputer, it's not? Can you explain how that works?

Some of us actually work hard to where we are today, by not trying to appeal to absolutely everybody.

Really? Because that piece of music is, to me, the very definition of generic. It sounds like it's designed to offend no-on, to slip seamlessly in one ear and out the other.

Probably because you're too busy trying to get a rise out of people who disagree with you instead of critically listening to the AI mixes.

I'm not trying to get a rise out of anybody, I'm just trying to get you morons to pull your heads out of your arses and see reality. I don't like to listen to other people's music critically, I try to enjoy it for what it is. Unless there is something glaringly wrong with a it, I'll take it as it comes, and there is nothing glaringly wrong with the AI song you linked to.

You mean YOU'RE in favour of it.

No, I mean my bandmate and I are in favour of it. I am definitely not in favour of It using your music to train on. The last thing it needs is more generic, happy-clappy slop.

[BONES]

'Making money' has zero impact on copyright law.

Well it does because it determines whether or not a case is worth pursuing. If getting their lawyers to draft a letter of demand is going to cost more than they are likely to get from you for the breach, they aren't going to bother and this kind of infringement is a civil, not a criminal matter so that's what counts. Nobody gets arrested for using a copyrighted sample.

But if someone wants to argue that someone else 'making money' is the threshold by which people decide to sue for copyright breach, then its worth nothing that those AI companies have probably got way more money to sue for than any joe schmoe who used their product.

It's not about how much money they've got, it's about how much money they made from the infringement.

As usual, though, you're just arguing for the sake of being a dick because I'm sure you know as well as I do that AIs don't work like that.