It puts a dark cloud over BBC Introducing when they’re playing AI generated music alongside real upcoming musicians. It likes a mockery of the platform for those that have spent years learning to play instruments and creating music looking for a break in the industry.
The BBC are supposed to be impartial. Given that, can they really reject AI music?
And another but…
A bloke from the village I live in, receives a payment every so often for music he composed, played and produced.
He can’t play any musical instruments as most of us would recognise them. His “playing” was on software Instruments.
I often wondered if this was “fair”, but at least he was composing.
AI generated music goes a step further, in that the composition is the result of (I assume) one or more prompts. I don’t like it either, but then many of the 20,000 bands / artists that could make a living from having their music published prior to the advent of streaming, didn’t like the impact streaming had on their ability to make a living.
Nowadays almost anyone can publish music - we need to remember that unless we were one of the 20,000 found by record labels we wouldn’t have been able to publish. Those who are publishing AI generated music are making use of the technology of the day, just as many others did following the advent of streaming.
Yeah, I would say that there’s a difference been composing using software instruments than just running lots of iterations on AI using seed files as a basis.
That didn’t stop Gerry Cinnamon, he just done it himself
It is sad and I think it has more to do about money than music.
I don’t know about the UK but in Canada AI generated content can’t be copyrighted so no royalties to pay out.
I could see in the very near future radio stations and Youtube playing nothing but AI generated music and keep the money that would be paid out.
This on the other hand will save restaurants and other venues that play background music the fee they pay out to BMI and other companies that collect royalties
Hmm the BBC seem to be getting themselves into trouble at the moment, it’s quite possible they may cease to exist if a certain orange one carries the threat made through!
I do think AI has its merits for some people and have used it myself for a vocal addition to one or two of my compositions but not for commercial gain, that’s where I draw the line, to me using it for commercial gain and presenting it in the same area as real artists is wrong, AI should be presented in its own area. AI music is AI music, not directly by an artist therefore should have its own market place and not in competition with real artists.
There have been a few lawsuits against two of the top AI music companies because they have used samples of real artists’s music without permission, this is like a red flag to a bull as far as I’m concerned!
I think it’s a great day when one group of people doesn’t get to control what another group of people has to say or broadcast. As long as it doesn’t run afoul of the FCC rules or other governing body, who cares? Locate the on/off switch or channel selector on your device.
I agree with you although it’s just a bit sad to see a once (largely) respected organisation go to the dogs. Once upon a time BBC radio was one of the places to discover new music with some niche stuff in among all of the popular stuff. I pushed the off button on all of their tv and radio some time ago
Fair enough, it was fairly slim pickings for my musical tastes so I didn’t watch. I’ve cancelled my TV licence since so even if I did hear of something great on there I wouldn’t watch because I want to be squeaky clean when the inspectors come knocking!
Over the years he has introduced me to some great artists such as Seasick Steve and Laura Marling, but I agree it’s not worth the licence fee just for that!
And therein lies the rub. Any person now can have no training in music, never have played an instrument, have a tin ear and no imagination, then type a couple lame, pop culture prompts and tell their computer to make a song that algorithms will push in to the viralsphere (I don’t know if that’s a word but if not I claim authorship). I don’t see that as making music.
People used to say the same about rock n roll! It’s just noise, that’s not music etc
Don’t get me wrong, I’m dead against AI generated music but it’s like age old debate of what is art? And, no, I’m not getting into that, just saying this is just another flavour of that really
Yes, we’ll keep debating this until AI starves and replaces the human artists. In my world view, true art (music) requires individual talent, inspiritation, dedication, hard-earned skill and unique flavor. A box of wires and silicon chips has none of that. AI music generators (as distinguished from people who may use AI as a tool to enhance their own human endeavors) are at best idle copycats, at worst pure thieves.
I decided as a youth that learning to write well was very worthwhile. I conscientiously honed my writing skills over decades, and had a successful career that relied on producing impactful written work for a variety of audiences. Do I think today AI could research and compose a “better” essay on most any topic than could I? Hell yes. In about 12 seconds. Then I guess I can stop writing and spend my time shopping on Amazon. Isn’t that the grand plan?
That’s my
This is where I struggle…
If Bob Dylan had asked chatGPT ‘what rhymes with sky’ when he wrote Blowin’ in the Wind, then I think I’m ok with that.
If he just entered ‘song about life’s big questions’ into Suno. then I’m struggling to get on board.
What if he entered all the lyrics and chord structure and just got help with the melody?
I’m guessing a lot of song writers have been using AI tools for a long time to ‘help’, it’s going to be increasingly hard to resist usiong them to a greater and greater extent. I think there are some parallels to PE drugs in sports - they really work and in some sports everyone knows the top people are using them so the only way to keep up is to do the same.
Exactly. I’ve been noodling on arpeggios and watching Premier League replays, and soon leave to volunteer with my Audubon Society chapter helping lead a school field trip to a local bird preserve. That still leaves me time to rant about the evils of AI and mind-numbing consumerism!
Most artists make art for pleasure, not for a living, so it’s impossible for AI to starve them by making art. (It can starve them by taking away their regular day job though ).
… and other views are equally valid (I refer you back to Mr. Duchamp’s Fountain)
Why on earth should you stop writing, just because a machine is able to write a good essay?
I enjoy your musings. They give me pleasure!
This feels a bit like: It’s ok to ‘cheat’ if the tools you use are not that great… but don’t use effective ones. Bottom line is, if I see/hear something I like, I like it.
Remember how this category started? Richard shared something he thought was cool. When he discovered it was generated with AI, he removed it. I think it’s ok to like something and simultaneously want to change the societal context in which it was created. The pyramids are cool, but believe the slavery that created them was worse than what we’re facing at the moment
There is a strong case to be made to lift the ban on all drugs in sport (and indeed in general).
It would make it far safer for athletes and remove the concept that some people are ‘cheating’.
Professional competitive sport never has been and never will be ‘fair’.
).
