The Music Industry isn't ready for the AI Revolution

The full article is here: www.musicbusinessworldwide.com/the-music-industry-isnt-ready-for-the-ai-revolution/

For example: Who owns the copyright from AI-made music? Is it…

• The creator(s) of the AI?
• The trainer(s) of the AI’s neural network?
• The owner(s) of the platform/company behind the AI?
• The AI itself?
• The user “producer/artists/musical fan, etc…” using the AI to help create/finish an original song or translate a story or emotion into a song?
• The millions of fractional owners of copyright the AI initially trained its neural network on?
• The public domain whereby you and anyone else would have a non-exclusive license to exploit it?

Variables that may change your answer/opinion on the above may include: What has a given AI’s neural network been trained on or informed by? Is it:

• Music within the public domain?
• The artist(s)/producer(s) solely owned catalog?
• Text, pop culture and other public domain data/assets?

 

The AI can't own copyright unless it's shown to be sentient. To file for such requires being recognized as a citizen if a given country, legal i.d and so on.

 

Meh. Good luck to them on their mission for global domination in the sphere of music rights companies.

Personally I'm going to continue to make my music the human way and I will only be supporting (aka buying their music) musicians making their own music. I don't give a turd if I'm the last/only one doing it.

 

Introducing SYNTH AI – Animated Intelligence: A modern fusion of cinematic synthesis.

 

Last edited: Dec 5, 2022

no, but the company which created it can. it's what's going on with Dall-E and other A.I stuff.
Not to mention that we're being sold A LOT of B.S because usually, in the field of A.I generated images for now, there's "Digital Artists" who generate a picture, apply something else with another software, rework the picture and in the end it's far from the result these companies claim they can do. Big bucks and fundraising are what's hiding behind all this for now, more than significant results.

About music, a lot of the youngest don't realize this, but in the beginning of techno and electronic music, "purists" (myself included, tbh, but it was more because I was an immature idiot than a purist ) didn't consider it as music, but more "noise" - and sometimes for a good reason too.

A.I with music can be compared to working with sample-packs, when the melodies, the rhythm, etc.. are already written, there's not much value you can add to that artistically speaking.
But the same way one can study a style and make covers "in the style of" ( some musicians on youtube are really good at it ) there's no reason why a well-trained A.I couldn't do the same, or even better since it doesn't experience that physicality and / or Time.

See what can happen with bots and Text these days, it's really mind-blowing, and sometimes really creepy.

I'm pretty sure we'll see some mind blowing stuff coming in the next decade that will radically change the Creatives Industries.
inspiration, or creativity, on the other hand, might be more difficult to match with - if not with the Human mind, at least with the human taste ( I still want to believe inspiration remains a Human specificity that can't be coded ).

 

All the AI needs is the 4 chords. Artificial, yes. Intelligence, not so much.

4 Chords | Music Videos | The Axis Of Awesome

The live version is funnier too!

 

I'm all for AI helping us create easier. The current AI music climate is more of a cyborg scenario. We are able to just get an idea down if we might not know the complex chord progressions, tuning vocals, compression, mastering, mixing, or even hit writer's block. We are collaborating with the advanced automation technology provides.

Why spend a lot of time getting your kick to fit in the mix the right way when ai can get you there 90% faster and you can stay in the flow state of creating?

As for it creating an entire song for humans to resonate with. A day will come. I can't say when or how far out that will be. Just like any technological advancements, it takes technology to deeply understand the nuances of what makes something "good". For AI to understand the sampler tone, synth, distortion, compression, swing, drums etc. There are many layers to understanding in music. I would argue it's harder to do with music than the WYSIWYG nature of a 2d image

 

That being said Ive been using these for a while.

https://soundful.com/

https://www.aiva.ai/

What other sources for AI music creation do you have?

 

This is also a good read:

https://techcrunch.com/2022/10/07/ai-music-generator-dance-diffusion/

 

I'm all for audio programs suggesting settings for EQ, comp, reverb, etc.
But when it comes to the process of music creation:
A. I still have ideas of my own and don't need a box of chips from China to write my music for me.
B. I would lose the soul of my music if I were to allow an algorithm to take over.
My music is defined by my personal quirks and lunacies (too many to mention).
C. Mathematical formulas have no soul (yet).
Perhaps music creation styles could be "captured" like Tonex or Kemper sometime in the future.
Computers are already smarter than humans.
But that's a given considering technical advances VS human devolution/stupidisation. Look at politics, for example
I'm 66 and hope to live long enough to see where this rabbit hole goes

 

AI tools are already used since a while by the biggest names, labels and studios, but they are just what their title says, tools.

Even in the (unrealistic) situation where an AI actually composed an original hit 100%, orchestrations included, why would a producer or a label tells you where the music comes from?

Nobody would be able to prove, with an absolute certainty, that it's the AI proggie(s) and not the artist / producer(s) who have composed the hit... So, why not? In the name of what would you forbid that sort of things / experimentations?

What is interesting, is the science behind what ignorants like me call "AI". I think the research in this domain have really interesting perspectives.

But I also think that it's a BIG error (from the "communicants" people, and even from the scientific community itself) to have talked about "intelligence". There's NO intelligence in Deep Learning, that's only tools that scientists want to render more autonomous, more discerning, more useful and assisting.

The question is: to what point would you like to be "assisted"? What automated tool would you like to trust to make "life or death" decisions? Political, legislative, jurisdictional, defensive, spatial, military decisions? The debate is endless.

 

Last edited: Dec 5, 2022

AI is already here and I’m here for it. Anything that helps me be more efficient while I focus on creating high quality output is more than welcome. AI is just another set of tools. Learn them, use them, create. That is it. The tools don’t make the man, but sure as hell make the job easier and gives me more free time.

My .02 in your local currency, for what it’s worth.

 

Musicians themselves weren't ready for the Internet. They'd let techies corral them into platforms and protocols that benefit the techies and render musicians vassals to them.

 

One day AI won't be ready for the human revolution.

Bot 1: "Humans are revolting!"

Bot 2: "What else is new?"

Both laugh and speed off on their Tesla wheels.

 

I'm all for AI tools suggesting chord progressions and melodies.
But when it comes to the process of mixing and mastering:
A. I still have ideas of my own and don't need a box of chips from China to mix/master my (and others) music for me.
B. I would lose the soul of my mixes/masterings if I were to allow an algorithm to take over.
C. Mathematical formulas have no soul/balls (yet).

 

AI isn't going to revolutionise anything until quantum computers become a standard in your bedroom studio. And even then it's doubtful.

Music comes from the soul and until a computer develops a soul, it'll never come close to what a (talented) human can produce. Of course, if we're talking about sample-dragging Neanderthals who call themselves producers because they've watched Youtube and owned a laptop for a week, perhaps. But compared to a someone who has developed their skills over years...Hell, even Alexa can't get anything right most of the time and Siri is so annoyingly bad I have to switch her off.

And don't get me started on all this AI mixing and mastering. There's a reason those who care about what they produce hand it to professionals rather than an AI.

 

I could see AI reaching a point where it can create good music way before anyone expects it, because the whole deal with AI is its supposed to reach a point where it revolutionizes its own coding power and then develops exponentially, I just hope humanity can handle so many jobs being rendered obsolete overnight

 

There are already many songwriters that use AI for lyrics as for starting point. I was actually amazed that some of them publicly stated this.

 

The famous Dall-E is a slap in the face for most people (like myself) who thought we were still far for those artistic uses.
Now, with music we're not there yet. But closer than we thought.

What I really wonder myself is: as a listener, would I want songs that can be done with Dall-E versatility and quality with images?
Imagine this with the genre you like the most:
- Make a song in the style of Nirvana and add a fast-and-furious guitar solo like Steve Vai.

I'd be instantly sold.

 

All I care about are results. If I hear something I like I don't care if it was made by a person, AI, acoustic instruments, samples or a broken washing machine. And vice versa.