I don’t even have the energy to answer any of this.

I was the first to mention suno in this forum showing a creative use in creating music.

I made replay because there was no easy solution to convert ai voices locally.

we curated weights.gg because there are models all over the internet that needed a organized home.

just a sharing and creating tools

 

In the comment you were responding to I said 'feel free' to clarify your intentions regarding Replay. Suddenly you don't have the energy to do so! A non-answer is frequently an answer in and of itself. By the way, did you catch the headlines today about The New York Times suing Open AI, Microsoft, and ChatGPT for copyright infringement? They're claiming damages in the billions of dollars. Funny, this is exactly what I mentioned in a comment here a few days ago about waiting till the lawsuits start to fly. The issue in their lawsuit is the usage of Times intellectual property for the training of AI models. Sounds almost a bit similar to how Replay works, you think? I'm thinking maybe I'll send some screen clippings of Replay over to some friends at RIAA and get their read on it. Maybe that'll assist you in coming up with an answer or two.
Happy New Year!

 

This is the type of thing you say when you have no standing in the complaint you wish to make. The only interest you have in the matter is a personal interest to troll and play keyboard commando. You'd ignore it too.

 

Clone, I've seen you arguing against the rights of artists/performers throughout this thread. I expect (and you deliver) nothing different now. Troll? I've made numerous lengthy comments on this thread full of facts, information, personal experience and opinion. One of those was even prescient enough to discuss lawsuits over this issue a day or two prior to a major one being filed (https://www.cnbc.com/2023/12/27/new...maker-openai-over-copyright-infringement.html). Sorry pal, that's not the work of a "troll". Funny that I don't see you attacking someone who just a few comments here earlier thought it appropriate to state, "Fuck Copyright" as an entire comment. That sounds a lot closer to trolling than anything you've heard from me, yet you leave that untouched.

You don't know me, and when you say I have 'no standing' it seems clear you haven't read my comments either. I've been a performer since the ripe old age of 10, and have spent my entire life working in the arts. Apparently, unlike many lurking on this thread, the rights and value of performers and artists means everything to me. On this thread I've confronted a remarkable level of arrogance that seems to believe that a new technology is so important that it should be allowed to wipe away those rights and attempt to make them meaningless. That's what I'm arguing about here, that and nothing else. Any criticism by you to the contrary is just nonsense. You want to keep attacking, have fun. I asked @curtified a question, I still haven't gotten an answer, and I think I know why.

By the way, if you think the RIAA will appreciate someone promoting their website and app with the names, likenesses, photos, and AI emulated sound of artists its the work of RIAA to protect and represent, then its likely you who has no standing, and very minimal knowledge of the recording industry.

good luck to you @clone, and happy new year!

 

that's bs. i am ambivalent about AI because I am not using it for music. I think people like you who worry about it are far too late.
I know you would like to turn this guy's thread into "look at me, i'm a sag member" or whatever else. And there are many people who call themselves professional musicians, and some can play and some can't. The only way to judge that is to hear something from the player, and of course we haven't. At least, AI will be a great excuse for those who can't play anything people are willing to pay to hear. Keep banging out those jingles.

My comment was dead on the money. Look at all those wasted irate keystrokes from a username which has participated in 2 threads since being created. Friends at RIAA, that's a good one.

 

Last edited: Dec 27, 2023

The truth is that this debate, beyond what each person thinks, seems super interesting and very, very complex to me. Just yesterday, I was discussing this with a friend on the metro. He was telling me about a program where you "sang badly," and it took a "coherence" from what you had sung to create a melody with "coherence." So I said, wait, what is a coherent melody? That doesn't exist. In fact, many hits have been characterized by breaking structures. I've also debated this with a friend who knows a lot about harmony, discussing functional harmony, modal harmony, etc. He's an expert in that, and according to him, AI doesn't have the ability to know what is "good" because it's subjective.

So I took my guitar and showed my friend what I would possibly do with an unfinished melody idea and how I would finish it. The results would be different since I can alter the perception of how it will "sound." It doesn't have to sound "coherent" to sound good. Have you ever listened to a song and suddenly thought, "What did they do there? It's great!" Well, what they usually do is break with logic or tradition.

On the other hand, it's logical to be suspicious when someone comes here to present a product just because it's good and wants to help. It's valid because it has probably happened to us before. But what wouldn't be fair is to judge and say, "Hey, you're here to make money." That should be in your head as a doubt, and you should think, "Is this person here to help or to do business?" I use voice cloning and even AI like ChatGPT for specific things, not for it to do everything for me. I think it's great as a tool, but as a replacement for a profession, it's negative.

But the reality, as I talked about yesterday with my friend, is that it's inevitable. For example, he works in customer service and told me that in a few years, they'll use AI to attend to customers, and he'll be out of a job. When I said it would be bad, he said, "No, it's not. I'll find something else to do. That's the future." He took it too optimistically. Every person is a world and has different perspectives. For example, in terms of health, I think AI could be a great complement to medicine. It could help many people, find cures we don't have today, detect diseases before they develop, etc. And note, without the need to replace healthcare professionals.

Going back to AI in music, there are mainly two perspectives here. The musician who has spent time playing and feeling the music, who has felt the music when composing, knows what I'm talking about. It feels extraordinary; you're in another galaxy, and you share that with others. Those who don't play an instrument or haven't composed a song on their own can't understand it. I'm not saying this offensively; it's a reality. You have to feel it to understand it. Do you know what it's like to lock yourself up for four days making music, immersed in it? It's seriously something crazy. I invite those aspiring musicians to try it and understand.

Okay, but now comes the consumer's part, as has been said. The consumer doesn't care where the music comes from; they care if they like it or not. But beware; some consumers have a good taste, and you can't reach their soul with artificial music. You'll need more than that. But it's also true that music has become, how to say it, more "rough," less creative. Many songs are copy and paste; I don't know. But well, the point of all this is that no one here will get a truth, and even if you ask AI about this, it will tell you that it represents and includes ethical values that are still under debate worldwide.

 

lol, Jingles???? Any other narratives you care to invent today? There's a lot more session work for singers than just jingles. I have done some and they can be quite lucrative, but there's a lot more work for singers than just that. Too late?? I get that the AI fans want to say 'game over', but better (and wiser) to revisit that conclusion in a few years. There will be strikes, lawsuits, and governmental intervention that in reality will determine what kind of brakes will be applied to the technology. The only reason SAG was mentioned was the relevance of the issues they were striking over to the issues being discussed in this thread. Specifically, the use of AI and how artists will be compensated for the use of AI in productions related to the arts. I'm laughing that you think being a SAG member is of such importance that someone would be saying, 'look at me'. There are 160,000 of us, many of whom struggle to get by. It ain't that special, but it was relevant to the discussion. Further, the issues in the NY Times lawsuit are also fundamentally similar despite being outside of the arts-related field.

Any other attacks @clone? Keep 'em coming. I'll always respond with facts rather than attacks. By the way, you actually think people at RIAA don't have friends?

 

Last edited: Dec 27, 2023

The unfortunate evolution of the voice cloning technology is already used by criminal actors, using it to deep fake in social media in fraudulent ads, convincing the users that some famous person is recommending a product to cure illnesses etc.
We are debating here about how the music industry will be harmed and the real danger is much worse.

Btw, AI can create quantity but quality needs human's authenticity, thoughts, feelings, expressions behind the scene.
You can already mock orchestral music with (close to) realistically sounding virtual instruments, however noone will watch a concert without real musicians (except in Japan).

 

I’m enjoying peaceful time off with my family, preferring not to engage with numerous false accusations about me, especially since they lack truth.

In my work with Rubin/Replay, we’re committed to establishing new creative standards in the music industry, similar to Respeecher’s pioneering collaboration with Star Wars and James Earl Jones in AI and film. This is akin to the transformative period in AI and music we’re experiencing, reminiscent of the Napster era, which calls for collaborative solutions from proactive, positive creators.

As for your friend at the RIAA, I would be keen to discuss and find creative solutions around standards in this field, something we’ve been actively working on at Rubin/Replay.

Regarding Replay, it functions similarly to a sampler. You can load RVC models, blend them, and convert one sound into another. It’s like criticizing Native Instruments for creating Kontakt because it was used to sample James Brown. This misses the tool’s versatility for numerous other purposes. Ultimately, how technology is used depends on the individual user. IE split an atom power millions split an atom kill millions…

Having been involved with a sister site to a grey market software source for nearly a decade, I've consistently found AS and AZ to be valuable hubs for discovering new and underground tools and information in the music and tech space. Over my time here, I've noticed that the negativity on AS, particularly towards me, often mirrors others' inner hurt, anger, and fear. This is understandable in a community struggling to make a living through music, where like-minded individuals may inadvertently create an echo chamber for such emotions.

Despite any criticism, I hope my roles in Replay, Rubin, Flosstradamus, Suno, and other projects are viewed as positive contributions to tech and music. However, given the current climate, I am stepping away from AS. For any issues related to Replay, please contact us on our Discord channel.

Discord link here: http://tryreplay.io

 

Last edited: Dec 27, 2023

Wait a moment,"does that mean that anyone who disagrees with you or your program, or the way they perceive AI, is filled with internal pain, anger, and fear? So, does this imply that those who support your program and view of AI are people who embrace change and have no internal fears? It's quite amusing on your part, and it even sounds somewhat arrogant. In this context, you're mistaken; we can all have different points of view. In fact, I have friends who are not involved in music, and yet they have a different perspective on AI and even voice cloning. So what? Does that mean they're also filled with pain and hatred? Okay, I'll share your page with them so they can direct their ire towards you xD. And on top of that, you add this: "This is understandable in a community that struggles to make a living through music." Seriously, it sounds very arrogant on your part, like saying, "I am right, and anyone who disagrees with me is full of hate and resentment. LOL.

 

Well, well, well.... isn't this funny!

For those who don't want to read through a lengthy thread, allow me to recap a bit. This began with a pretty simple inquiry of @curtified about his intentions for the Replay software. I saw that @curtified kept talking about giving Replay to the community for "free", and I questioned whether or not he was really using the community as beta testers for software he'd eventually like to bring to market. I asked him to clarify whether or not that was or wasn't his purpose. He's made a few comments in response, but NEVER answered the question, and still doesn't answer it now. Instead he just beats around the bush. His lack of being forthcoming tells me I likely nailed it.

Let's touch on what @curtified has said..

"committed to establishing new creative standards in the music industry" -- yeah, sure... New standards like not having to pay artists for the use of their intellectual property! A quick look at Replay shows the software liberally uses the names, likenesses, photos, and sounds of big name recording artists to help promote the software. The problem is, curtified does so without any permissions. For those of you who are aspiring musicians, ask yourselves how that would sit with you if at some point in your careers you get somewhere and someone does that with your work, your image, your property? Will that be okay, or will you want to be paid? P.S. You should probably retire whatever lawyer wrote that nonsense for you.. a Judge would be laughing his head off in Court if you came in with some transparent dance about 'establishing new creative standards'.

"Accusations" -- curtified was asked to clarify his intentions. In other words, he was asked a question. What accusations were made? None, though it seems some accusations are certainly due now! Following the billion dollar NY Times lawsuit filed today against AI developers, and curtified's knowledge that he's doing the same sort of thing that the NY Times is suing over, he plays victim and now wants to quickly scoot off in a cowardly manner, while complaining about "negativity". What a freaking joke!

"James Earl Jones" - You must be kidding dude! James Earl Jones is paid very, very well for the use of his work and his property! He made a zillion dollar deal for the use of his voice and likeness through AI. Who has @curtified paid? NOBODY. He feels AI is so great, wonderful, and important he's entitled to use the work for FREE. This is the problem I have with this. As a lifelong artist in the music industry, I WANT TO BE PAID FOR MY WORK. And if you're reading this, I WANT YOU TO BE PAID FOR YOUR WORK AS WELL.

"Creative solutions around standards in this field" -- For @curtified the only thing creative going on here is how can he promote his software without paying artists who are supposed to be paid! Somehow @curtified, who seems to be a reasonably bright fellow, confuses creativity with theft. He further claims this is something he's "actively working on at Rubin/Replay". Here's an idea for you @curtified... try working on it with the right's holders instead. If you did it that way, it would be far better than playing victimhood and then running off like some smartass little coward.

"It’s like criticizing Native Instruments for creating Kontakt because it was used to sample James Brown." -- Honestly, I couldn't stop laughing. For those who aren't aware, anytime James Brown is sampled, permission is obtained from his estate and royalties for use are paid. If that doesn't happen, the user winds up getting sued. This is why AI is going to hurt artists; because people like @curtified want to use the work without paying the artist. PERIOD! Spotify wants your work for pennies, these AI guys want to take it a step further and just once and for all have the use of your hard work for nothing!

"RIAA" -- I mentioned earlier bringing these issues to some friends at RIAA, an entity which, among other things, protects the rights of recording artists. @clone basically dared me to do so by effectively calling me a liar. Fine! Consider it done. End of Story. Artists must be paid for their work. You want to use their work and skip over the part about getting paid, you'll have a problem.

 

Last edited: Dec 28, 2023

I'm sorry about this, I enjoyed reading you, it's interesting for me to follow the progress of AI in real time. I hope you change your mind, I remind you that for the pedantic and negative people in the forum, there is the "ignore" function (and in this thread I have already used it)

 

With the advent of AI we're seeing the simulation of and replacement of human beings and that will be/is already being exploited in order to maximise profit any which way. It's a real threat to the music industry but I don't believe it's a threat to creativity, it's probably going to help. Which side of the fence you sit depends on your situation, professionals will be extremely worried and sensitive to the use of AI commercially whereas hobbyests (of which I am now one) will be happy to use it. Ultimately people won't care or know if something was created by a human or AI so the landscape is going to change whether we like it or not. We're probably going to hear phrases like 'Oh, it was created by a person, it's so good I would never have guessed a real person could have created that.' Dissenting voices will rage against the machine but they will gradually fade away and decades from now the idea that we shouldn't use AI for art will seem pretty ridiculous.

 

If that is artificial intelligence doing the singing as well as the lyrics in the video you posted first (below as a reminder), then that's quite surprising. I am not for A.I. as a rule of thumb, but if that is a computer doing the singing, that's quite unexpected.

The positive said, the issue I see which is normal without seeing a person live, is that the average user will not know who is real and who is fake. Do not kid yourself. It does not matter what you tell it to do, if you are not singing it, then it is definitely not you, it is the computer. At best you can possibly claim some part of composition rights, but it is as close to being a real musician as a fish is likely to climb a tree if there are zero human parts. I have a mix of both admiration and almost disgust.

 

Last edited: Dec 28, 2023

Something I hadn't considered is how autotune perfection is discouraging new artistes, AI is just going to make this worse.

 

Finally the most important thing wouldn't be the talent, just your capacity to generate atention and engagement, the orks are gonna sing as angels soon.

And you can create a band with all the dead people, resurrecting his voices and instruments, as the new frankenstein AI generated content, but who cares if it sounds good.

The matter here is not that, the debate is about @curtified sharing here this AI tools, (promoting too, and beta testing too) but who cares if it works ,right? (irony ON)

 

Last edited: Dec 28, 2023

They should invent an Autotune device to be installed inside the mouth, a sort of dental implant that modifies the voice at the source. Tuning problem solved for everyone

 

All the reason. They should also invent a Auto-Fingers so that you don't have to spend months or years learning to play an instrument; it's very unfair. And also an auto-brain so that you don't have to learn notes, chords, and all those silly things – better let auto-brain do it for me.

 

I´m actually sad for this situation. To actually understand the technology, you should see and try it and evaluate it. The part of the open source is that anyone can see it develop. Much better than MS, Apple, Google, Weibo..
I probably get shitstorm for rights, but I´m more interested in training own models, and these tools could be helpful for persons with disability or coming disability.

 

I do not understand, why the autotune perfection would be discouraging new artistes?
This video guy (pretend not to) understand, it doesn't matter whether the girl actually could sing or not, But the video(song) is done! And the video is the target! Not the label "I AM THE ARTIST". Who cares about your ambitions? Can she repeat it (yes, she can!) Done, Next!
On the contrary, it(=AI) will encourage new artists (You don't have to be a lifelong learner, but you can actually create compelling videos (ART), even if you can't sing!) Every girl sitting on her bed could do it! Bravo!

 

Last edited: Dec 28, 2023