Yup. It's sampling and drum tracks on steroids.
I'll do my own stealing, thank you. Don't need machines to do it for me.
Is it ok to pass off AI as your own work?
- Thread starter azureglo
- Start date
This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links like Ebay, Amazon, and others.
I'll do my own stealing, thank you. Don't need machines to do it for me.
And in songwriting and music-making, it's uncreative. Which is far worse.
Anyone in it for the money can go ahead. But it's nothing I'd spend my time or money to hear.
That's for sure! That and click tracks.
It ruined rock. Pop is doing just fine.
At whether musicians created it. Google your favorite artists at Monterey Int'l Pop Festival ('67), Woodstock ('69) Harlem Cultural Festival ('69), Isle of Wight Festival ('70), Newport Jazz Festival (any year), or Newport Folk Festival (any year).
Every musician sang and played without a net. Laura Nyro. Jimi Hendrix. Nina Simone. Alvin Lee. Joan Baez. The Band. Richie Havens. Mungo Santamaria. The music was live because the musicians were alive.
Some (I can't bring myself to say most*) folks don't mind mingling music and robotics. My unhumble opinion: If you need a machine to tell you the tempo, you're not in the music. You're tumbling down the Wonderland hole.
Of course. A person isn't making the music. An engineer did.
As you can tell, I like music that's hands-on (or, with a Theramin, hands near).
Sure. Just don't say it's you when someone else is playing it!
Real __________________________________ Fake
'Zackly! As Curtis Mayfield so aptly and ably put it,** "There's room for all among his loving host."
--------------
* Though that's my suspicion.
** And without a click track, drum track, synth, autotune, quantizing, or AI.
monkeybanana
Friend of Leo's
Is using it as a sample okay? Like if I rap over it?
rdjones
Tele-Afflicted
No, it's plagerism.
teletail
Poster Extraordinaire
The fact that this is even a question shows us how far down the sewer we’ve been flushed.
NTC
Friend of Leo's
- Joined
- Mar 17, 2003
- Posts
- 2,399
No
Agree 100%
Give credit where credit is due.
There is no substitute for being able to play your original songs "live." Even if you are using laptops to perform everything.
If AI generated music is your thing, go for it.
I'll keep singing and playing my live instruments ( guitars, mandolin, pedal steel etc) as long as there is a demand.
memorex
Poster Extraordinaire
Like they say, "Cop didn't see it, it didn't happen." It's like when you're speeding but you don't get nabbed.
With regard to music, there's only 12 notes in the Western scale, so repitition is bound to happen. And although there's close to a half million words in Webster's Dictionary, most people only use maybe a couple thousand in daily conversation, so again, repitition is bound to happen.
If you copy a recognizable melody or lyric, you'll likely get caught. If it sounds relatively fresh, nobody's going to know if you or a computer wrote it, so it's only something you should worry about if you're trying to sell it and make money. And even then, I wouldn't worry about it, unless it gets popular enough to warrant attention.
Someday, the AI robots will get a degree in law and start going after people that steal their material. Then, I would worry.
With regard to music, there's only 12 notes in the Western scale, so repitition is bound to happen. And although there's close to a half million words in Webster's Dictionary, most people only use maybe a couple thousand in daily conversation, so again, repitition is bound to happen.
If you copy a recognizable melody or lyric, you'll likely get caught. If it sounds relatively fresh, nobody's going to know if you or a computer wrote it, so it's only something you should worry about if you're trying to sell it and make money. And even then, I wouldn't worry about it, unless it gets popular enough to warrant attention.
Someday, the AI robots will get a degree in law and start going after people that steal their material. Then, I would worry.
mixmkr 2024
Tele-Afflicted
I have a childhood buddy that is doing very well with his AI creations. He is a lifelong, talented musician and now in his retirement, has just recently started creating Youtube videos that have an AI "band on a stage" and he green screens himself as the lead singer. Suffice to say it is an all girl band, with minimal clothing, but very obviously fake...like the cartoon quality that is more "realistic". The music is obviously AI generated too, however he sings lead vocals on top of it. Oddly his channel does extremely well or just barely anything...(like 200k views or just 300 views). I can vouch to say an established Youtube channel can easily make $5-10/1000 views, so do the math and you're starting to make some serious money if you're getting millions of views. He has a "band name" that is "....." and the virtual reality band. At this point I am not going to reveal the person, but I was shocked to see how much his channel had grown in the short year he has been doing Youtubes.
sadfield
Tele-Afflicted
Is it though? I don't think AI takes anybodies work and passes it if as it's own. What it does is analyse music for common themes, motifs and sound, and creates something new. As we all do by listening to music, playing other people's music, then creating our own interpretation.
It isn't, it's artistic influence on steroids. Except it focuses it's influences in a narrow, deeper and logical way. As in, if you ask it to create a country song, it'll listen more country than most country fans, and create a song. A human will have a shallower, but wider spread of influences, that go far beyond country, or even music. Including emotions, mood, memories, experiences, etc. That's why AI returns boring, predictable, yet stylistically accurate music.
No, but only if the session musician is hired to played because Johnny Nicehair really can't play guitar and the record company or Johnny are trying to hide it. IMO, that would then become a deliberate deception to the fans and consumer and failure to disclose the use of AI is the same thing to me.
I really don't like The Beatles "Now and Then"...but I do like that the use of AI wasn't a secret.
Last edited:
Lou Tencodpees
Poster Extraordinaire
Technology has gone from a game of inches to feet to miles to light years. There is nothing in the current scenario to equate to Luddites and their fear of technology. I think with all technology there is the element of "just because we can doesn't mean we must".
But we will, so lets see how it all goes. I can't help but feel an air of contempt in the whole thing, not unlike the anti-art movement that'll produce endless cans of Manzoni's Merda d'artista. It may take a few generations, but I find it hard not to predict we'll eventually witness more technology than artistry and art as we know it will be redefined.
But we will, so lets see how it all goes. I can't help but feel an air of contempt in the whole thing, not unlike the anti-art movement that'll produce endless cans of Manzoni's Merda d'artista. It may take a few generations, but I find it hard not to predict we'll eventually witness more technology than artistry and art as we know it will be redefined.
They're waging all those copyright battles exactly because it does take other people's work without permission.
It's just like the sampling wars of yore.
Machines don't create. They do what they're built to do, just like a lawnmower.
Yup. We're all magpies. But we're creative magpies.
If you listen to the AI "disco" track on post 7, I think you'll agree that it sounds nothing like disco. It sounds like techno-pop.
In a year or two, I'm sure it'll do a more credible job. That I still won't want to listen to.
LocoTex
Friend of Leo's
Absolutely not......never.
How about this scenario?
Completely on its own...an AI program composes, records and releases a song without prompting, it did it on its own. It's on YT, Tic-Toc, Spotify...and it gets played. Not a hit...but enough to start generating income that no human asked for.
Can the material copyrighted, after all it's generated income. If so to who? The composer, in this case a non-human? It's an entity, like a corporation that hold copyrights and trademarks.
The 'composer' and whoever owned or wrote the code? After all a single human's initial interaction with the AI could be the reason it has any musical ability at all. But the same could be said for The Beatles parents, should they be credited?
There is no answer to my questions because they're mostly stupid...but not quite dumb enough not have a slim possibility of happening.
It's currently a no win situation and it's not going to be solved anytime soon. Right now there really is no way to solve the existing issues w/ music, etc. and the real problems, long term problems have yet to be discovered. Like during the 90s with the rapid spread of the internet, some things done to control problems worked...other made it worse. Some things done helped advance the internet, some things accidentally slowed it down.
In the meantime, if you use it...admit it.
Completely on its own...an AI program composes, records and releases a song without prompting, it did it on its own. It's on YT, Tic-Toc, Spotify...and it gets played. Not a hit...but enough to start generating income that no human asked for.
Can the material copyrighted, after all it's generated income. If so to who? The composer, in this case a non-human? It's an entity, like a corporation that hold copyrights and trademarks.
The 'composer' and whoever owned or wrote the code? After all a single human's initial interaction with the AI could be the reason it has any musical ability at all. But the same could be said for The Beatles parents, should they be credited?
There is no answer to my questions because they're mostly stupid...but not quite dumb enough not have a slim possibility of happening.
It's currently a no win situation and it's not going to be solved anytime soon. Right now there really is no way to solve the existing issues w/ music, etc. and the real problems, long term problems have yet to be discovered. Like during the 90s with the rapid spread of the internet, some things done to control problems worked...other made it worse. Some things done helped advance the internet, some things accidentally slowed it down.
In the meantime, if you use it...admit it.
Last edited:
Skyhook
Friend of Leo's
Going wildly off topic here, but I wouldn't consider the replicants to be AI.
Sure, they're genetically modified in many ways and have trouble with
some philosophical concepts but they're still not machines.
The Terminator is a highly sophisticated, AI controlled robot, but a robot nonetheless.
Even if it's dressed up as an Austrian body builder for Halloween.
Ljislink24
Tele-Holic
I thought the thread title was a joke ? Click bait ? How can anyone even ask such a silly question. I did an AI song to see what the "buzz" was & it sounded good & had decent lyrics, I was actually in shock a song like that could be made in under 2 minutes with only a 5-8 word prompt. AI & song writing should even be used in the sentence. There's song writers & there's computers that manufacture music, there's no in between if you use AI have fun but don't fool yourself that your creating something.
