One-Synth-Challenge: General discussion thread

[RichardSemper]

P.P.S. And I would like Richard Semper to explain in more detail the essence of his proposed discussion of AI in the context of OSC. Since, as I understand it, the audio to midi is made without AI, so it looks like this is a separate topic.

Yes it is a separate topic (but very current, with possible implications for OSC). Would be great to have people's thoughts about it.

[ontrackp]

I've had a go with the new AI features in Logic Pro X and AI generated performances -- I.e. original parts "played" by the DAW should be prohibited. This will be almost impossible to monitor so will have to be kind of an honor system, but it will provide an unfair advantage when it comes to playing parts. Also, third party generative AI midi note programs should be prohibitive. I consider playing the parts we write to be part of the OSC experience and would hate to see that be left behind. It would open OSC to people who don't have any skills in composition or arranging.

[ontrackp]

Arpeggiators and other note randomizers like some of the Bitwig efx are ok because the rely on chords that you input, but if the software comes up with chords or melodies for you it should not be permitted.

[IV!]

As for AI mastering tools, I think it's OK, as long as it's free and includes only modules allowed in OSC (compressors, limiters, EQ, etc.).

It's more complicated with AI composers. One of the sharp edges is that we may not find out that this happened unless the participant tells us about it himself. The other is in the degree of influence. It is unlikely that now we can forbid someone to turn to the program for a sequence of chords or a rhythmic pattern when inspiration has left someone. But determining the acceptable line between a chord sequence and a full-fledged track will be very difficult in this case. It seems to me that this will mostly remain on the conscience of each participant.

Now, under the pressure of the rapid development of AI, a mixture of the most contradictory feelings is bubbling up in me! Will (they/it?) replace us, musicians? Is the end of art near? We may get an answer to these questions in the coming years. Probably, during this time, everything will change many times and very much, so the rules in this area may also need to be flexible. Now my spirit of resistance says: give full freedom to use the AI composers and let's see if there is really something special in us, human musicians!

But also, I would like it to be written in the rules that each participant, by analogy with the effects, lists the programs / sites that he used for his track.

P.S. And yes, there is one point that I forgot about. I believe that any AI tools should be free and publicly available. This is one of our basic rules, yes, but there is an unspoken exception to it: DAW FX. Most DAWs are commercial, so the features they provide are also paid and not publicly available. Like most, I'm fine with DAW FX that satisfy the rules about the types of effects. But if in one of the paid DAWs (free ones too? I don't know...) there is an AI composer, then it is also essentially paid and not publicly available.

[] Peter:H []

Now, under the pressure of the rapid development of AI, a mixture of the most contradictory feelings is bubbling up in me! Will (they/it?) replace us, musicians? Is the end of art near? We may get an answer to these questions in the coming years. Probably, during this time, everything will change many times and very much, so the rules in this area may also need to be flexible. Now my spirit of resistance says: give full freedom to use the AI composers and let's see if there is really something special in us, human musicians!

It's important to understand that AIs like ChatGPT are "trained" networks of probabilities. Training means, they learn from *existing* original material. ChatGPT 3 for instance has 157 billion parameters.
But this means it can only reproduce "probabilities" for inszance of sequences of words, more or less fuzzy (temperature parameter), it might not come up with something "new" other than hallucinating ... I mean to say, we as a group of musicians (or society at all?) should start to understand the inner working of these AIs! And we should understand the crazy power privately run companies have - they can decide what content they use for training their AIs and even more disturbing, which content they exclude... like if they train only bach, an AI will be good to mimic bach... With this power they can shape truth, because many people mix up ChatGPT hallucinations with the "truth".
And I'm really pissed, because OpenAI (run by Microsoft) just took source code of Github of FOSS projects without asking ... hopefully we get many unauthorized copies of GPL code ... and people who sue them.
Sorry for the rant, I think the actuall way AI is developed, the way it's perceived, the people who hold the power ... it's dangerous!
Nevertheless I'm not opposed to AI. We all have to understand how it works, what limits it has, to be able to make good decisions. And understanding means using it.

For OSC or music making in generall - I think I will for now go #AIFree

Here's a good video that explains parts of the inner working of GPT

[z.prime]

I have a bit of a differing opinion about AI, I suppose. If I could strike a gavel and say "no AI is allowed to compose your track", I might do that. But what about things like Captain Chords that have some predefined chord patterns? Not necessarily AI, but you're still getting note input from something you didn't come up with yourself. Or free MIDI packs... or heaven forbid, Niko's Midi pack! He gotchu! But I digress... the problem to me isn't whether it should be allowed or not, the problem is how would it ever be enforced? A user just drops in some MIDI or renders the output of a plugin to MIDI, and all evidence is gone - the composition for all intents and purposes is their own now. I'm as afraid as the next person that AI is going to take my job and eliminate true art -- it's happening already, isn't it? Red Lobster! :shakes fist at cloud: But if it's something we could never enforce, then I don't think it's something we should try to disallow.

[silverpants]

I see it a bit like banning people from doing cover versions. Everyone agrees that we want to hear people's original compositions. But it's very difficult to enforce. I could find an obscure but talented classical composer and use the score to construct my songs from. I doubt I'd ever be caught out. So it's on my honour not to.

I don't see this as any different to using an AI. Just don't. It's going to ruin this great thing we have.

[3lu5iv3]

What do u guys think about using ExtraBold synth as the next OSC challenge?

https://nakst.itch.io/extrabold

[FrogsInPants]

Over in the ExtraBold thread...

Has anyone read the rules recently?

<snip>

"Any effect that transforms the sound to make them unrecognizable as being from the synth (Overdrive, heavy distortion, bit crushing, or related). Never go full 11 "

i dont understand how carving out the sound you want with eq / filtering can be considered related to Overdrive, heavy distortion or bit crushing.

I'm bringing this over to the general thread so we don't pollute the ExtraBold thread further with this topic.

Yes, I usually consult the rules when I talk about them. I've always taken "any effect" here to mean, you know, any effect, and the mention of overdrive and the like to be examples of effects that are easily abused in this way. Perhaps I'm misinterpreting the intent. If you think so, that's fine. But I read this as a statement of the guiding principle behind multiple rules about what kinds of effects are allowed.

To my understanding, the rule against chorus, flanging, and the like is because those effects change the sound of the synth too much. The rule against pitching is because it changes the sound of the synth too much. We had a discussion a while back about an all-pass filter plugin which could turn a click into a frequency sweep that made a decent base for a kick drum, and as I recall people were generally agreed that it wasn't permitted because it changed the sound of the synth too much. So it seems to be at least a widely applicable principle behind the rules, if not a general one.

It's also something which is inherently subjective, so it's bound to be somewhat contentious when people inevitably come to disagree about what is "unrecognizable". Evidently we also have some disagreements about whether it's even a generally applicable principle.

And hey, if it's not meant to be one, that's okay. I happen to think it's a great unifying principle that puts the focus on the synth in a good way. But I don't think it's necessary.

With that, I'll let it go. I hope that makes clear where I'm coming from, whether you agree or not.

[Negoba]

Any thoughts on what might be the synths in the coming months?

[Taron]

Hey all, I'm considering going for an OSC with the idea that it could push me to discover Surge better. But it would my first time with OSC. I am also very much into experimental and irregular stuff and don't wanna make an ass of myself. I looked up some submissions and they are pretty nice but much more regular (in terms of sound design and beat) and more techno, trance, etc. I hope it wouldn't be seen as some lame attempt that doesn't fit at all with OSC if I were to do something experimental. I mean, I never know, I can end up with a mellow ambient track as well but I just push myself to try new compositional ideas each time (especially generative, these days). What do you think? Does it sound like I should stay away?

Oh, no, there are plenty of experimental tracks to be found and they can be very welcome. If you love what you're doing, you'll have many of us appreciate it for sure. Just don't think about the rating at the end! The only really great aspect of that part is that we get to listen to all the tracks.

But yeah, be wild!

[IV!]

Any thoughts on what might be the synths in the coming months?

Recently, there have been such proposals:

- Give another month to the great Tyrell N6.

- On the eve of Zebralette 3 (which does not seem very ready for the challenge yet), spend another month with Zebralette, which did not participate in the OSC with the new GUI.

- I also offer an instrument from one of my favorite developers, Krakli: Re-Axt. Yes, this is one of his two tools with 64 bit VST2 & VST3 & AU support. A real old school additive!

- Suddenly it could be Vital, it hasn't been for 4 years.

- Several experimental GitHub synthesizers are being discussed, but there are nuances...

- There was something else, but I forgot.

[Negoba]

Any thoughts on what might be the synths in the coming months?

Recently, there have been such proposals:

- Give another month to the great Tyrell N6.

- On the eve of Zebralette 3 (which does not seem very ready for the challenge yet), spend another month with Zebralette, which did not participate in the OSC with the new GUI.

- I also offer an instrument from one of my favorite developers, Krakli: Re-Axt. Yes, this is one of his two tools with 64 bit VST2 & VST3 & AU support. A real old school additive!

- Suddenly it could be Vital, it hasn't been for 4 years.

- Several experimental GitHub synthesizers are being discussed, but there are nuances...

- There was something else, but I forgot.

I would love a Tyrell round. So many people use Vital on the open months, I don't know if we need a dedicated month. But I'll certainly participate if we do.

I need to check out Krakli.

[Taron]

Since Tyrell isn't out for Apple Silicon, yet, it would be another skipped month for me, unfortunately. I loved Tyrell! Seems like Urs was planning on updating it at some point. ...but not yet. I'd wait, assuming it won't be too long.
Zebralette would be nice. Haven't tried the latest, yet.

[ElVincente]

I think zebralette3 is still very hungry non optimised state at this point, it would be better to wait for next beta.
But it definitely would be great time to make another Odin2 round imho