AI disqualifies anyone as a musician! It's like playback.

[TheMaestro]

Requiring the critics background actually introduces more bias, tempting the creator to dismiss the feedback or to take it as the ultimate gospel.

I didn't say a critic's background was necessary. I'm saying that it would be good, on a music forum, to be able to hear the music of a person who is commenting, criticizing, whatever…another person's work. If you're a total muppet that can't string two notes together, the receiver of criticism may say, "maybe that's not really for me." If you're the best musician in the world, then the person may say, "this is valuable information and I can use it to improve." Obviously this never going to be completely objective, as there's a reciprocal value judgement taking place here, but it's better than, "that's not good" from someone anonymous. That kind of thing is just lazy. Maybe I'm expecting to much because it's a music forum, but…

Anyway, it's usually the person with a reasonable degree of talent that will give more than a off-hand dismissal, they either won't say anything or give some useful advice or critique.

"I didn't say a critic's background was necessary."
Uh, yes you did. And you did it again.
And I don't have to detail anything. I called it stale, in a debate about AI music.
You can detail all you want to make a point of why it's not stale, and I don't need to have heard your music to assess that.

[TheMaestro]

Exactly, eassae makes a good point on the feedback part.

I recently gave some feedback on a track that I can clearly tell is AI-generated, but I didn't say "it's dogshit just cause it's AI", I gave proper feedback.

Here's the thread I'm talking about: viewtopic.php?p=9273106#p9273106

But proper feedback from you is meaningless based on the music you present yourself.
Get it now?

[Hipster Bales]

Exactly, eassae makes a good point on the feedback part.

I recently gave some feedback on a track that I can clearly tell is AI-generated, but I didn't say "it's dogshit just cause it's AI", I gave proper feedback.

Here's the thread I'm talking about: viewtopic.php?p=9273106#p9273106

But proper feedback from you is meaningless based on the music you present yourself.
Get it now?

And how is it meaningless? Just cause I make music that you don't exactly enjoy or care about doesn't mean I can't give technical feedback or mixing tips. Remember that everyone has different tastes, don't call their feedback meaningless because it doesn't add up to yours.

Also, ad hominem isn't exactly clever, it just makes you look like a tosser and a clown, and it doesn't add anything meaningful to the table.

[eassae]

"I didn't say a critic's background was necessary."
Uh, yes you did. And you did it again.

Is english not your first language?

[eassae]

--- hit wrong button, sorry.

[Zeisner]

So, you want a trumpet track for your song. You organise for someone to come in and add the track. They turn up with Suno and a laptop. How do you feel?

"get the f**k out of my house with your shit"

No I'm kidding, I'd politely ask them to leave.

Why? Are you a trumpet player? And not only that, but one of the best trumpet players out there? If not, then how can you judge? That's the whole point of what TheMaestro wrote about.

Let me add another analogy. Imagine you break your leg because you fell from your bike. The ambulance carries you to the next hospital. The doctor looks at you and decides to have your healthy arm amputated while ignoring your broken leg. You complain to the doctor and he just replies with "Are you a doctor?" and continues preparing for the amputation.

[Hipster Bales]

So, you want a trumpet track for your song. You organise for someone to come in and add the track. They turn up with Suno and a laptop. How do you feel?

"get the f**k out of my house with your shit"

No I'm kidding, I'd politely ask them to leave.

Why? Are you a trumpet player? And not only that, but one of the best trumpet players out there? If not, then how can you judge? That's the whole point of what TheMaestro wrote about.

Let me add another analogy. Imagine you break your leg because you fell from your bike. The ambulance carries you to the next hospital. The doctor looks at you and decides to have your healthy arm amputated while ignoring your broken leg. You complain to the doctor and he just replies with "Are you a doctor?" and continues preparing for the amputation.

OK I can't argue with that. I forgot to mention I'd hire a session musician.

[Zeisner]

OK I can't argue with that.

Technically you could. If you decide that that's the reason why you're in this forum...

I forgot to mention I'd hire a session musician.

I would do the same. Because (and here it goes back to the actual topic) generative AI sucks horribly. It's much worse than any form of playback (Sampling!). But for multiples of the cost of a professional session player and sample library combined. You can render with generative AI until the death of our sun, you won't get anything out of it that sounds real.

[guitarzan]

Haven’t checked up on it lately… apparently Google’s Producer AI is now called Google Flow. Still sounds fairly realistic to me:

https://www.flowmusic.app/song/081c2f3e ... 959c02007c

[VOODOO U]

Because (and here it goes back to the actual topic) generative AI sucks horribly.

So do generative human organisms (which would explain why generative A.I. "sucks" if that's what you accept).
Just ask any former A&R rep that worked for a label stupid enough to accept unsolicited material and they'll tell you the countless hours they spent listening to thousands of submissions to hopefully get *ONE* f**king jackpot. And by jackpot I mean only three songs tops (if that).

But for multiples of the cost of a professional session player and sample library combined.

Am I understanding this correctly? You're saying the monthly cost for using generative A.I. costs more than the cost of a sample library *and* hiring a *professional* session player? What "professional" session players have you hired? In my experience they cost more than buying a new Cessna.

You can render with generative AI until the death of our sun, you won't get anything out of it that sounds real.

That's a flat out inexperienced lie. I know what you're attempting to say, what you mean to say is the characteristic of an A.I. generated song is easily identifiable but so what. When you hear a Rolling Stones song, it's easily identifiable. When you hear an Enya song, it's easily identifiable. When you hear Mariah Carey sing, it's easily identifiable. Now what? They're not "real" because they can be identified?

[Hipster Bales]

That's a flat out inexperienced lie. I know what you're attempting to say, what you mean to say is the characteristic of an A.I. generated song is easily identifiable but so what. When you hear a Rolling Stones song, it's easily identifiable. When you hear an Enya song, it's easily identifiable. When you hear Mariah Carey sing, it's easily identifiable. Now what? They're not "real" because they can be identified?

You are comparing completely different concepts.
The Rolling Stones, Mariah Carey and Enya are easily identifiable because of their voice or instrumentation, and that's what you want to be known for.

Generative AI on the other hand, is easily identifiable because of how bad and obviously terrible the mixes are while trying to spit out a song, which is something you do NOT want to be proud of.

[VOODOO U]

Generative AI on the other hand, is easily identifiable because of how bad and obviously terrible the mixes are

A.I. is bad and has "obvious" terrible mixes? Nothing more than your opinion. Regardless, at least A.I. has that going for it versus your songs which lack any identity. Listening to your songs I can't tell the difference between them and six trillion other songs that over saturate department stores in malls. Does that mean your music is bad? No. Is it good? Not in my opinion (and who cares what I think so long as you're content with your output).
You are set intent on hating A.I. so no matter what it outputs it's "terrible" and whatever else you want to throw at it.
Do I like everything A.I. outputs? No. But it has given some quite shockingly good results. Much better than anything uploaded here in the music cafe (with the occasional song here and there).

[Hipster Bales]

1. I'm still developing my sound as an artist, I only have like 5 tracks out right now.
2. I'm not talking about whether I like it or not, I'm talking about what I heard in most AI music.

[VOODOO U]

2. I'm not talking about whether I like it or not, I'm talking about what I heard in most AI music.

Christ will you cut the bullshit? You stated A.I. Is "bad" and has "terrible mixes". Are you telling me you like songs that are "bad" and have "terrible mixes"?
You don't like A.I. good for you have a nice day.

[Hipster Bales]

2. I'm not talking about whether I like it or not, I'm talking about what I heard in most AI music.

Are you telling me you like songs that are "bad" and have "terrible mixes"?

No, I've just trained my ears enough to notice them, I was talking strictly about the mixes, not the composition or anything like that.