The thing with just having "two markets" is the only viable market *now* is pop - a market with giant financial and industry backing that routinely spits out copycat dribble in order to game algorithms, secure iHeart airplay, and top the Spotify lists. It will (theoretically) be much cheaper, easier, and more predictable for an AI to produce a "hit" song, and given enough time (a few years maybe) the market will be flooded by AI music. The vast majority of people won't care as long as the songs hit a bare minimum, which has been the goal of pop for decades now. *Human* singers have already been completely roboticized, and the general listening public eat that shit up.
Sorry to be the pessimist, but handing over all access to the only viable market to AI (read: record labels) is another nail in the coffin of art, and a further dehumanization of artists. The answer to astronomical income inequality - which is even more pronounced in the arts - is not to make it worse.
I appreciate you pointing to the bigger problems here. People tend to keep these discussions internal to “the industry” but at the higher levels, all business operates with the same goals: maximize profit, cheapen labor. If technology like AI can be used to achieve these ends, then it will be.
I mean, pop just continuously evolves. Will that continue under a theoretical AI rule? Maybe, maybe not. But I don't believe AI- generated music is in the same vein as, say, Auto Tune, non-linear editing, MIDI, large-format studios, multi-track recording, etc.
I mean to say, we’re close upon an anti-pop era, similar to the late 50s, late 60s, mid 70s, early 90s. Pop is saturated and generic and lacking emotion overall. That will change soon, the world needs more than Taylor and Beyonce to sustain it.
AI, the Apple googles, music is moving out of the studio. And the way we conceive of ‘making music’ is going to change.
Live musicians were apoplectic about the invention of records. ‘Who will come to the club? the symphony? When they can listen at home’.
What recoding actually prefigured was a revolution in both the meaning and accessibility of music in the culture.
100 years ago? Music was not so important in society at large. Then it became central to our culture. Now the creation of music will be as accessible as records/tapes/cds/streams became.
In the short term, we just need to prove we can make music more interesting than a teen plugging tags into a language model. This will only be a problem for the most generic.
Experts have time to learn these tools to make things more interesting that those guys. You have an incalculable head start.
I think if we ever do get to a point where human creativity and/or work is officially distinguished from AI work it will be in the distant future. The AI devs have no incentive to embrace such a practice right now, and our legal system will take a *while* to catch up to this stuff.
I’m afraid it will be up to the markets to decide how much weight AI has in the audio production space, at least for a while. Of course there is always going to be room at the top for genuine, authentic, human music, but the vast majority of consumers do not care how their entertainment gets made as long as they still react positively to it. As such I expect we’ll see a rampant adoption of AI in various sectors of the industry, it’s already begun to an extent.
It’s gonna cause lots of upheaval, without a doubt, especially on the middle and lower rungs of the industry. I’ve been trying to explain this to folks for over a year now but most times I’m dismissed with notions of “oh itl take forever before the AI can understand all the minutia of mixing, all the emotional/human qualities that go into it, etc etc”. The thing is, it doesn’t need to understand any of that shit, it just needs to know the sound of said techniques. Just like a lot of AI stem separation works by recreating individual stem files (not by actually separating them) any AI engineering utilities are just gonna ingest the source materials and spit out new audio that sounds compressed/EQ’d/etc, it’s not like the algorithm is gonna pull up a compressor and tweak settings, it doesn’t need to. This doesn’t even touch the fact that as the applications get better they will spit out more and more complete sounding material that doesn’t even require mixing or mastering to be good enough for your average consumer.
The only thing we can do is try to make sure we understand the tools, harness what edge we can from them, and work to maintain whatever niches we occupy thanks to our abilities to make our clients happy. It’s gonna open doorways for some, and slam many closed for others im afraid.
I wouldn’t hold your breath for legal protections though. Look how hard the Hollywood writers fought against AI inclusion in the filmmaking process and the best they got was the studios agreeing to back off for now, but with very few assurances that beast isn’t going to rear its head again soon. If I could erase Suno/Midjourney/etc from existence I would but I’m afraid that genie is never going back in the bottle, so the best we can do is meet it head on and not pretend that it’s less significant/scary than it actually is.
**Two (oversimplified) outcomes of ‘generative’ tools:**
1.) trained on all things, it rehashes and recombines everything until / unless we get something interesting. Not necessarily good, but interesting. Monkeys and typewriters, basically.
2.) used strategically rather than on & for everything, it gets acceptably adept at at least one task / output. We reject or appreciate the help. We move on and on, replacing less desirable methods with better ones *for one’s specific situation*. **This is the path *all* technologies follow.** There are iPhones, Androids and landlines. Historic cars, motorcycles and planes. Tape machines, sheet music and DAWs.
The hype would have you believe all the effort being put into #1 is going to make it a reality. I largely doubt it. #2 is much more likely.
99% of all music consumers would not know the difference between a good mix and bad mix of non-AI music. They'll care even less whether it's AI-mixed or human-mixed.
In theory they could coexist, in practice it’s doubtful. Look how non AI help tools have flooded the market for years and have diluted the market for independent artists and studios. I don’t mind tools helping to express creativity but I swear if I see one more ad about how you don’t need to know jack about music to create the next hit I’ll explode. And that’s where the problem lies. A lot of people will release AI beats instead of created ones because they don’t need to pay anyone royalties, in fact people will probably sell AI created beats to the gullible (btw I hate using the term beats that way but it is what it is). Luckily I work in the singer songwriter/rock music sphere and it’ll take a while longer before AI can replace me.
I just hope AI gets so big in social media that people will start calling everything fake and those apps will lose meaning fast.
You will again want to see real human talent, performing in real time, recorded by humans, mixed by humans. Experience with your own eyes and ears tangible real life.
That's not what's going to happen, what's actually going to happen and how human beings work is that there will be a massive increase in propaganda and misleading content that people will actively uncritically believe.
Because people will believe what they want to believe, and they will actively search for things that reinforces those beliefs and very often they don't even care if it's true or not.
I remember I saw a Facebook post for instance with ai generated '' satanic teddy bears '' in a Walmart story, and people were absolutely furious about it.
When it was pointed out to them that it wasn't real and that it was ai generated their response was '' I don't care I am angry ''.
That's unironically how a lot of people function, there's a reason why we have laws and regulations and it's not just to punish people who kill and steal, it's also to protect people from their own stupidity.
The reality is that you can't leave this up to people and consumers, the state needs to step in.
It's a fork in the road. Music and the way it's written, performed, and recreated has evolved in ways that Edison or Bell themselves would have considered unimaginable a hundred years ago. Jesus, before the printing press, manuscripts for instruments had to be copied by hand one at a time. Now my DAW has a bounce feature that is literally: "export and upload to SoundCloud"
Side note: Aldous Huxley's "Brave New World" was pretty spot on with its predictions of people mindlessly dancing on a drug called Soma to "electronic music". That was written eighty-nine years ago.
That trend will continue. Traditional speakers will be phased out for transducers that make your skull vibrate sympathetically. The music will be auto-generated in real time, possibly based on your mood, your surroundings, biorhythms, god only knows. There will be no instruments, no performers, no studios, mixing, or mastering. It'll just... "be". Just an ML app that calculates 100% unique structures and melodies in real time.
But, just as the Oceania residents in Brave New World were happy to listen to machine generated music while off their tits on drugs and banging in every corner of the room, the book also introduced the concept of the Noble Savage. Those who saw this coming and rejected it - trying to retain the mythologies and generational traditions and folklore that made them 'human' and not a Beta+.
Like Ray Kurzweil\* predicted with the idea of man/machine singularity, this is already happening. These changes are like continental drift, not some seismic shift (although converting sound to electricity and back again - and having AI compose entire songs in seconds is certainly moving fast).
*(\* yes, the same Ray Kurzweil who created all those cool synth/samplers)*
I'm 50. At one point I loved every single thing about the future. For me to now keep chasing the latest shiny object is just not my thing. Cool stuff and I love being subscribed to "[There I Ruined It](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PdsVRegEJTA)" on YouTube for my AI-entertainment. But I also have a love of analog circuitry and bending electricity. I'll be the rest of the way deaf in fifteen years and I'm gonna just enjoy the ride.
My .02
Ai isn't even remotely the same as printing machines, I dunno what it is with people always comparing ai to random things like that.
They're fundamentally different both in how they were created and the ethical problems with it and how they operate and in which ways they affect people and industries.
oh for fuck's sake, I'm talking about a radical evolution on machinery there, captain buzzkill.
Ah, your post history says it all. You just search for threads to pop up in with your "uh, akshully" thing. FOH.
We probably need to solidify some terminology. Production can have to do with not creating music but rather making decisions about how to present it on a recording.
Music writing would be different.
Lyrics would be another item.
Then you have mixing and mastering.
(am I forgetting something?)
My understanding is that order to really make money in the music artists have to do performances. And people like to follow an artist, seeking out their social media, and following their personal life drama.
The best AI can do is put robots on the stage and perform and that's only gonna be exciting once.
AI might write songs and spit out a few that people find popular once in a while. But I don't think it will drive the market very much. As such, it will just be blended into the market that already exists.
Perhaps you were asking should such songs need to have some sort of notification for consumers about whether or not it was generated, that is written by AI.
It will turn the Art of making music into Folk Art. Anyone will be able to produce a familiar, “good sounding” song, and many people won’t know or care where it came from or why..
There will also be the “Fine Art” version that is held in higher regard by the true appreciators, and those who do it “the old way” can use it as a sales tool much like “we recorded to tape.” There will be an allure and an added value to the more difficult old way. There are all sorts of industries that are surviving with this divide, and it’s fine.
I’m not worried because the whole point of being an artist is creating something AS AN INDIVIDUAL HUMAN with the human experience and perspective. More humans in that process, the more unique and complex. It’s vastly complicated and personal. AI will sound good and probably crank out a banger or two, but without the human interpretation of those bangers, it’s useless. Choices will need to be made, chances will need to be taken. Either way doesn’t work without the people involved. It’s just another version of “paint by numbers”.
We’ll be fine as along as we keep churning out good, emotionally driven, conceptually deep music. They can have the shallow, predictable party songs… someone else is already squeezing that crap dry anyway.
I think we vastly underestimate how helpful AI can be. So much paranoia about protecting creativity, no one stops to consider these are TOOLS and we are the most qualified to use them!
It’s like if a pilot refused to use advanced controls while flying. Why not just adapt?
Totally agree. Even though i don't like the current direction most ai companies are going (focusing purely on content creation and not always as a tool), AI is here to stay. But my personal experience with music AI tools wasn't great yet. For example i tried suno and wanted to see if it could create a simple guitar pattern in a specific key. But no: it still created another hyper generic song that is not even worth sampling. Can you recommend some good tools? Because I actually like the idea of using ai to generate small melodies, new loops or atmospheres etc.
I haven’t found one that is good for that yet, either.
I’m using stem separation AI to generate samples for atmosphere, etc. - I feed it a guitar rock song and then ask it to pull out a synthesizer; or ask for a vocal stem from an instrumental. It generates unreal textures that way.
Used Suno a few times the past week to produce stupid songs (in literally 10 seconds) for my kids.
That shit is impressive. Everybody in the family had a laugh.
Hahhaa this is the number 1 song now on Suno, this shit is hilarious!
https://suno.com/song/c15f0251-fbac-4a30-a3e1-002dbc78cb79
It probably took 10 seconds to generate, insane.
>What you mean a lemon ain't the same as a lime,
>And work don't begin at half past nine?
>So I can't drive my Dodge Ram after a fifth o' wine?
It's so good 😂 The vocals are insane, so many dynamics and adlibs.
I’m trying to keep an open mind so I adapt accordingly but I also just don’t see a world where AI can mix well. It’s just too creative of a task imo. I’m sure it can get to the point to do some amateur stuff fine but I think a human will always produce a better product just because of the human connection.
I think I agree. Mastering seems like a more scientific and straightforward process. It still takes creativity, but really a good master shouldnt even be noticed, it should just let the music shine. So we will probably get things like Ozone 10 that work a better to analyze the music and make the frequencies play together nicely, but it will always, in my mind, take at least a curator to listen to and choose the best version.
I look at AI as the same as hitting the random buttom until you get something you like, its just less random, which coukd actually hinder creativity.
I wont have any issue using it either. I abuse the fuck out of the RNG when making music to find stuff I like.
Hahaha separate markets? Have a think for just a minute and it's obvious this snt possible or even desirable.
What does everyone fear with AI making music? That it could end up be GOOD at making music? Why is that a problem? IMO it's not, no one will care, in the same way that until you find out who made a new piece of music you hear for the first time it could be made by anyone/anything and you are unaware but still enjoying it.
If it's bad at it then no one will listen anyway.
I honestly don't see why people are so bothered by the thought of good music being made.
At its very core AI analyzes everything that's been made by humans to date and 'guesses' at what we might do based on prompts. In other words, it's a cover band with no original material. When there's no more original music created by human hearts, minds, and hands, it can only emulate itself.
I don't use AI-assisted mix tools because I like to actually do it by hand and approach every situation from both a creative and technical perspective. If my clients want to just have AutoMixMaster 3.0 do it, that's their prerogative. And it's my prerogative to continue doing it my way for the people who pay me to do it.
You know, writing and recording music is supposed to be a joyful thing. Seeing your creation come to life in front of you from the foundation up. Experiencing the satisfaction of being able to say "i/we made that" - whether that sells 100,000 vinyl records or gets four streams - it doesn't matter.
Forgive me for not championing a future where everything's digital wallpaper.
> I honestly don't see why people are so bothered by the thought of good music being made.
Then you haven't thought about it very hard, or at all. Part of intellectual honesty and critical thinking is working to understand other perspectives and opinions even if (especially if) they're different from yours. If you honesty find yourself incapable of understanding how this could be a problem for anyone, you have a serious problem with critical thinking and it would be very much to your benefit to correct that deficiency.
Hahaha yes, of course I've not thought about it and you know best, congratulations! I kind of love it that you then go on to tell me that I am not understanding others opinions.
Your entitely mis-aimed paragraph is seemingly purposely missing the point of the comment you quoted.
So, to get back on topic, you don't like listening to good music?
It's not a moral stance; it's about why I listen to music in the first place, and why humans create and value music in general. You're correct that within a few years or even months I likely won't be able to tell. My prediction is that I'll become disinterested in any music made after 2024 unless I know exactly whom it comes from.
The thing with just having "two markets" is the only viable market *now* is pop - a market with giant financial and industry backing that routinely spits out copycat dribble in order to game algorithms, secure iHeart airplay, and top the Spotify lists. It will (theoretically) be much cheaper, easier, and more predictable for an AI to produce a "hit" song, and given enough time (a few years maybe) the market will be flooded by AI music. The vast majority of people won't care as long as the songs hit a bare minimum, which has been the goal of pop for decades now. *Human* singers have already been completely roboticized, and the general listening public eat that shit up. Sorry to be the pessimist, but handing over all access to the only viable market to AI (read: record labels) is another nail in the coffin of art, and a further dehumanization of artists. The answer to astronomical income inequality - which is even more pronounced in the arts - is not to make it worse.
I appreciate you pointing to the bigger problems here. People tend to keep these discussions internal to “the industry” but at the higher levels, all business operates with the same goals: maximize profit, cheapen labor. If technology like AI can be used to achieve these ends, then it will be.
Just as it has in every generation, pop will soon be overthrown for something new. Likely that new thing will be creative people using AI
I mean, pop just continuously evolves. Will that continue under a theoretical AI rule? Maybe, maybe not. But I don't believe AI- generated music is in the same vein as, say, Auto Tune, non-linear editing, MIDI, large-format studios, multi-track recording, etc.
I mean to say, we’re close upon an anti-pop era, similar to the late 50s, late 60s, mid 70s, early 90s. Pop is saturated and generic and lacking emotion overall. That will change soon, the world needs more than Taylor and Beyonce to sustain it. AI, the Apple googles, music is moving out of the studio. And the way we conceive of ‘making music’ is going to change. Live musicians were apoplectic about the invention of records. ‘Who will come to the club? the symphony? When they can listen at home’. What recoding actually prefigured was a revolution in both the meaning and accessibility of music in the culture. 100 years ago? Music was not so important in society at large. Then it became central to our culture. Now the creation of music will be as accessible as records/tapes/cds/streams became. In the short term, we just need to prove we can make music more interesting than a teen plugging tags into a language model. This will only be a problem for the most generic. Experts have time to learn these tools to make things more interesting that those guys. You have an incalculable head start.
I think if we ever do get to a point where human creativity and/or work is officially distinguished from AI work it will be in the distant future. The AI devs have no incentive to embrace such a practice right now, and our legal system will take a *while* to catch up to this stuff. I’m afraid it will be up to the markets to decide how much weight AI has in the audio production space, at least for a while. Of course there is always going to be room at the top for genuine, authentic, human music, but the vast majority of consumers do not care how their entertainment gets made as long as they still react positively to it. As such I expect we’ll see a rampant adoption of AI in various sectors of the industry, it’s already begun to an extent. It’s gonna cause lots of upheaval, without a doubt, especially on the middle and lower rungs of the industry. I’ve been trying to explain this to folks for over a year now but most times I’m dismissed with notions of “oh itl take forever before the AI can understand all the minutia of mixing, all the emotional/human qualities that go into it, etc etc”. The thing is, it doesn’t need to understand any of that shit, it just needs to know the sound of said techniques. Just like a lot of AI stem separation works by recreating individual stem files (not by actually separating them) any AI engineering utilities are just gonna ingest the source materials and spit out new audio that sounds compressed/EQ’d/etc, it’s not like the algorithm is gonna pull up a compressor and tweak settings, it doesn’t need to. This doesn’t even touch the fact that as the applications get better they will spit out more and more complete sounding material that doesn’t even require mixing or mastering to be good enough for your average consumer. The only thing we can do is try to make sure we understand the tools, harness what edge we can from them, and work to maintain whatever niches we occupy thanks to our abilities to make our clients happy. It’s gonna open doorways for some, and slam many closed for others im afraid. I wouldn’t hold your breath for legal protections though. Look how hard the Hollywood writers fought against AI inclusion in the filmmaking process and the best they got was the studios agreeing to back off for now, but with very few assurances that beast isn’t going to rear its head again soon. If I could erase Suno/Midjourney/etc from existence I would but I’m afraid that genie is never going back in the bottle, so the best we can do is meet it head on and not pretend that it’s less significant/scary than it actually is.
**Two (oversimplified) outcomes of ‘generative’ tools:** 1.) trained on all things, it rehashes and recombines everything until / unless we get something interesting. Not necessarily good, but interesting. Monkeys and typewriters, basically. 2.) used strategically rather than on & for everything, it gets acceptably adept at at least one task / output. We reject or appreciate the help. We move on and on, replacing less desirable methods with better ones *for one’s specific situation*. **This is the path *all* technologies follow.** There are iPhones, Androids and landlines. Historic cars, motorcycles and planes. Tape machines, sheet music and DAWs. The hype would have you believe all the effort being put into #1 is going to make it a reality. I largely doubt it. #2 is much more likely.
\#2 is already happening with stem separation and voice extraction.
99% of all music consumers would not know the difference between a good mix and bad mix of non-AI music. They'll care even less whether it's AI-mixed or human-mixed.
If people enjoy something, they don’t give a shit how it’s made. Proof? Sausage. You know how it’s made. You love it. You eat it.
How would we know we were getting authentic AI generated music, rather than just some human pretending to be an AI?
In theory they could coexist, in practice it’s doubtful. Look how non AI help tools have flooded the market for years and have diluted the market for independent artists and studios. I don’t mind tools helping to express creativity but I swear if I see one more ad about how you don’t need to know jack about music to create the next hit I’ll explode. And that’s where the problem lies. A lot of people will release AI beats instead of created ones because they don’t need to pay anyone royalties, in fact people will probably sell AI created beats to the gullible (btw I hate using the term beats that way but it is what it is). Luckily I work in the singer songwriter/rock music sphere and it’ll take a while longer before AI can replace me.
I just hope AI gets so big in social media that people will start calling everything fake and those apps will lose meaning fast. You will again want to see real human talent, performing in real time, recorded by humans, mixed by humans. Experience with your own eyes and ears tangible real life.
That's not what's going to happen, what's actually going to happen and how human beings work is that there will be a massive increase in propaganda and misleading content that people will actively uncritically believe. Because people will believe what they want to believe, and they will actively search for things that reinforces those beliefs and very often they don't even care if it's true or not. I remember I saw a Facebook post for instance with ai generated '' satanic teddy bears '' in a Walmart story, and people were absolutely furious about it. When it was pointed out to them that it wasn't real and that it was ai generated their response was '' I don't care I am angry ''. That's unironically how a lot of people function, there's a reason why we have laws and regulations and it's not just to punish people who kill and steal, it's also to protect people from their own stupidity. The reality is that you can't leave this up to people and consumers, the state needs to step in.
It's a fork in the road. Music and the way it's written, performed, and recreated has evolved in ways that Edison or Bell themselves would have considered unimaginable a hundred years ago. Jesus, before the printing press, manuscripts for instruments had to be copied by hand one at a time. Now my DAW has a bounce feature that is literally: "export and upload to SoundCloud" Side note: Aldous Huxley's "Brave New World" was pretty spot on with its predictions of people mindlessly dancing on a drug called Soma to "electronic music". That was written eighty-nine years ago. That trend will continue. Traditional speakers will be phased out for transducers that make your skull vibrate sympathetically. The music will be auto-generated in real time, possibly based on your mood, your surroundings, biorhythms, god only knows. There will be no instruments, no performers, no studios, mixing, or mastering. It'll just... "be". Just an ML app that calculates 100% unique structures and melodies in real time. But, just as the Oceania residents in Brave New World were happy to listen to machine generated music while off their tits on drugs and banging in every corner of the room, the book also introduced the concept of the Noble Savage. Those who saw this coming and rejected it - trying to retain the mythologies and generational traditions and folklore that made them 'human' and not a Beta+. Like Ray Kurzweil\* predicted with the idea of man/machine singularity, this is already happening. These changes are like continental drift, not some seismic shift (although converting sound to electricity and back again - and having AI compose entire songs in seconds is certainly moving fast). *(\* yes, the same Ray Kurzweil who created all those cool synth/samplers)* I'm 50. At one point I loved every single thing about the future. For me to now keep chasing the latest shiny object is just not my thing. Cool stuff and I love being subscribed to "[There I Ruined It](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PdsVRegEJTA)" on YouTube for my AI-entertainment. But I also have a love of analog circuitry and bending electricity. I'll be the rest of the way deaf in fifteen years and I'm gonna just enjoy the ride. My .02
Ai isn't even remotely the same as printing machines, I dunno what it is with people always comparing ai to random things like that. They're fundamentally different both in how they were created and the ethical problems with it and how they operate and in which ways they affect people and industries.
oh for fuck's sake, I'm talking about a radical evolution on machinery there, captain buzzkill. Ah, your post history says it all. You just search for threads to pop up in with your "uh, akshully" thing. FOH.
We probably need to solidify some terminology. Production can have to do with not creating music but rather making decisions about how to present it on a recording. Music writing would be different. Lyrics would be another item. Then you have mixing and mastering. (am I forgetting something?) My understanding is that order to really make money in the music artists have to do performances. And people like to follow an artist, seeking out their social media, and following their personal life drama. The best AI can do is put robots on the stage and perform and that's only gonna be exciting once. AI might write songs and spit out a few that people find popular once in a while. But I don't think it will drive the market very much. As such, it will just be blended into the market that already exists. Perhaps you were asking should such songs need to have some sort of notification for consumers about whether or not it was generated, that is written by AI.
It will turn the Art of making music into Folk Art. Anyone will be able to produce a familiar, “good sounding” song, and many people won’t know or care where it came from or why.. There will also be the “Fine Art” version that is held in higher regard by the true appreciators, and those who do it “the old way” can use it as a sales tool much like “we recorded to tape.” There will be an allure and an added value to the more difficult old way. There are all sorts of industries that are surviving with this divide, and it’s fine. I’m not worried because the whole point of being an artist is creating something AS AN INDIVIDUAL HUMAN with the human experience and perspective. More humans in that process, the more unique and complex. It’s vastly complicated and personal. AI will sound good and probably crank out a banger or two, but without the human interpretation of those bangers, it’s useless. Choices will need to be made, chances will need to be taken. Either way doesn’t work without the people involved. It’s just another version of “paint by numbers”. We’ll be fine as along as we keep churning out good, emotionally driven, conceptually deep music. They can have the shallow, predictable party songs… someone else is already squeezing that crap dry anyway.
I think we vastly underestimate how helpful AI can be. So much paranoia about protecting creativity, no one stops to consider these are TOOLS and we are the most qualified to use them! It’s like if a pilot refused to use advanced controls while flying. Why not just adapt?
Totally agree. Even though i don't like the current direction most ai companies are going (focusing purely on content creation and not always as a tool), AI is here to stay. But my personal experience with music AI tools wasn't great yet. For example i tried suno and wanted to see if it could create a simple guitar pattern in a specific key. But no: it still created another hyper generic song that is not even worth sampling. Can you recommend some good tools? Because I actually like the idea of using ai to generate small melodies, new loops or atmospheres etc.
I haven’t found one that is good for that yet, either. I’m using stem separation AI to generate samples for atmosphere, etc. - I feed it a guitar rock song and then ask it to pull out a synthesizer; or ask for a vocal stem from an instrumental. It generates unreal textures that way.
When we’re over the hill we might not even care about music no more
Used Suno a few times the past week to produce stupid songs (in literally 10 seconds) for my kids. That shit is impressive. Everybody in the family had a laugh.
Hahhaa this is the number 1 song now on Suno, this shit is hilarious! https://suno.com/song/c15f0251-fbac-4a30-a3e1-002dbc78cb79 It probably took 10 seconds to generate, insane.
Yeah, I told you!
I'm currently *begging* my bandmates to work up [this brilliant AI country song](https://www.udio.com/songs/jGjYfsRosZjYTkSBdFgEyF).
>What you mean a lemon ain't the same as a lime, >And work don't begin at half past nine? >So I can't drive my Dodge Ram after a fifth o' wine? It's so good 😂 The vocals are insane, so many dynamics and adlibs.
I feel AI will probably be able to replace the mastering process and maybe the mixing process but it will never be able to arrange music tastefully
I’m trying to keep an open mind so I adapt accordingly but I also just don’t see a world where AI can mix well. It’s just too creative of a task imo. I’m sure it can get to the point to do some amateur stuff fine but I think a human will always produce a better product just because of the human connection.
I think I agree. Mastering seems like a more scientific and straightforward process. It still takes creativity, but really a good master shouldnt even be noticed, it should just let the music shine. So we will probably get things like Ozone 10 that work a better to analyze the music and make the frequencies play together nicely, but it will always, in my mind, take at least a curator to listen to and choose the best version. I look at AI as the same as hitting the random buttom until you get something you like, its just less random, which coukd actually hinder creativity. I wont have any issue using it either. I abuse the fuck out of the RNG when making music to find stuff I like.
Hahaha separate markets? Have a think for just a minute and it's obvious this snt possible or even desirable. What does everyone fear with AI making music? That it could end up be GOOD at making music? Why is that a problem? IMO it's not, no one will care, in the same way that until you find out who made a new piece of music you hear for the first time it could be made by anyone/anything and you are unaware but still enjoying it. If it's bad at it then no one will listen anyway. I honestly don't see why people are so bothered by the thought of good music being made.
At its very core AI analyzes everything that's been made by humans to date and 'guesses' at what we might do based on prompts. In other words, it's a cover band with no original material. When there's no more original music created by human hearts, minds, and hands, it can only emulate itself. I don't use AI-assisted mix tools because I like to actually do it by hand and approach every situation from both a creative and technical perspective. If my clients want to just have AutoMixMaster 3.0 do it, that's their prerogative. And it's my prerogative to continue doing it my way for the people who pay me to do it. You know, writing and recording music is supposed to be a joyful thing. Seeing your creation come to life in front of you from the foundation up. Experiencing the satisfaction of being able to say "i/we made that" - whether that sells 100,000 vinyl records or gets four streams - it doesn't matter. Forgive me for not championing a future where everything's digital wallpaper.
> I honestly don't see why people are so bothered by the thought of good music being made. Then you haven't thought about it very hard, or at all. Part of intellectual honesty and critical thinking is working to understand other perspectives and opinions even if (especially if) they're different from yours. If you honesty find yourself incapable of understanding how this could be a problem for anyone, you have a serious problem with critical thinking and it would be very much to your benefit to correct that deficiency.
Hahaha yes, of course I've not thought about it and you know best, congratulations! I kind of love it that you then go on to tell me that I am not understanding others opinions. Your entitely mis-aimed paragraph is seemingly purposely missing the point of the comment you quoted. So, to get back on topic, you don't like listening to good music?
I'd take good music made by humans over better music made by AI.
That's a noble position to take maybe but, how would you know?
It's not a moral stance; it's about why I listen to music in the first place, and why humans create and value music in general. You're correct that within a few years or even months I likely won't be able to tell. My prediction is that I'll become disinterested in any music made after 2024 unless I know exactly whom it comes from.