I just released an album created by a.i

It took me two days to generate/create/curate this a.i. album (next to a lifetime of acquiring this specific taste). I can imagine many of you love to sample old records. My original motivation to create this was to explore the ways I could create interesting music to sample. Have a listen if you’re interested and let me know what your thoughts are on the subject and this project.

P.S. I created a new pseudonym for this kind of stuff

6 Likes


Thank you Mr Andersom.

11 Likes

Well, you asked.

I personally hate this concept of a project. I think its, at best, not worth exploring; and, at worst is spitting in the face of what art means

40 Likes

Had you not said this was done using A.I I doubt anyone would have guessed it, which is somewhat problematic to me, in the sense that even though I don’t particularly like the music or this style of music, it is going to be even more difficult for people to get their music heard, once purely A.I generated music becomes more commonplace.

On a personal level it doesn’t bother me, but on a cultural level it does, if that makes sense.

15 Likes

If using the word ‘create’ makes sense in this context seems debatable :wink:

23 Likes

Typing words into a text box is hardly exploring, and definitely not creating. Those two words are misused in this context. In fact, I’d say this is worse than bringing a Big Mac to a cooking class and claiming you used McDonald’s “as a tool”. Let me spell it out bit by bit:

  1. The end result isn’t attributable to the “types questions guy” at the text box. It’s not your work anymore. In the US, the Congressional Research Service summarized the state of the art in September 2023. According to that document, purely generated content cannot be copyrighted at all, and even content with “sufficiently creative human arrangements or modifications” can be challenged. They say “Given the lack of judicial or Copyright Office decisions recognizing copyright in AI-created works to date, however, no clear rule has emerged identifying who the author of these works could be.”
  2. But what if it’s harmful? Oh, in this case, it needs to be attributable to somebody. And it might be you after all! Getty Images sued Stable Diffusion since it produces images sometimes even with the watermark. And if Mick Jagger can prove Suno had access to the Rolling Stones records, and the result of your prompt sounds like “Sympathy for the Devil”, you the “AI user” can be sued for copyright infringement. The summary document I linked to above says just that.
  3. The “types questions guy” is essentially googling for desirable output. You’re a DJ at best in this scenario. This robs you from agency. That’s qualitatively different from: a) consciously building a modular synthesizer; b) consciously creating a generative patch; c) tweaking that patch live while recording it; and d) finally mixing and mastering to share the end result with the world.
  4. Producing a large machine-learning model required throwing tons and tons of content at it. That’s content often misappropriated from artists, without recourse. I wouldn’t be surprised if SoundCloud (where a lot of our project artifacts are hosted) were one of the scraped sources by Suno. They declined to share where they got their training data from. To add insult to injury, the resulting content generator is devaluing the actual artist’s output, making it harder for them to support themselves financially. This makes using those systems unethical. This problem is even mentioned in the CRS report I linked above!

Every single reason above is by itself enough for me to disqualify the use of prompt-based generative tools in my creative work. But with the sum of all four points, it’s just out of the question.

64 Likes

I ran out of likes to give, but I love your response and I need you to know that

6 Likes

You PUBLISHED an album that the AI released. :stuck_out_tongue:

Which also means that you now work for the AI.

18 Likes

Another thing, charging money for an AI creation seems like poor form and im consciously making an effort not to judge you for it

5 Likes

AI is here.

I can still hear me saying “a DJ is not a musician” a few decades ago.
I’ve heard that electronic musicians didn’t really play instruments.
Such affirmations sound so stupid nowadays. Go tell Mix Master Mike he’s stealing/not an artist/whatever you’d throw to an AI user…

I totally understand the different statements above though. For sleeping with an AI expert, I also am horrified at the energy spent to somehow steal (as in using but not retributing) others’ work…
But it’s the kind of thing I would think DJs were doing a few decades ago.

I think it’s good and necessary to state if a creation was made with AI.
Now the result should be judged as new music imo, independently of the way it’s been created.
For the creator that expose their work and shouldn’t be refrained to use the AI tag. And for the listener that should know.

That’s my approach for now.

14 Likes

Please remember it’s chu without the T.

@chu as opposed to @Tchu. :rofl:

20 Likes

Lol

1 Like

AI will sew you if you’ll make any money out of this.

New thing isn’t like old thing. Sometimes history repeats, sometimes it does something different.

I think its a massive mistake to passively let this door open because you feel you were wrong in the past about old thing

13 Likes

the second track is the kind of ambient thing that I could have done with the OT, so as a texture it’s perhaps a path to explore, as a source, as inspiration etc. for the rest it’s a huge debate that has already started with pictorial art, I think that there will be merit for the one who knows how to handle these tools well, a profession, a name, but as it stands it is rather soulless music that results from it (if what’s more, she learns with the actuel shits) if there is no human involvement in the creative process (and this is valid with or without AI…), or a story to tell this will always be very limited, but that’s already what is in music today. ex Music or product Demo? or ultimately both at the same time are inevitable? Hendrix selling his VoxWah pedal during the jam break would therefore be the norm, and therefore using AI should be too ;). However, this can only encourage musicians to move towards territories untouchable by AI (for the moment…) instruments and their practices. :wink: whether he is traditional or not, a seasoned Osmose player will always be better live than a mpe AI :wink: (well I hope)… another example I moved on to real painting after the advent of AI (so recently), ultimately these changes in usage even have a good aspect, that of pushing us even further away from this approach! :wink: For the rest I listened, it is indeed intriguing and always a good line of thought!

1 Like

I remember when the Musicians Union wanted to get drum machines banned, but this and your DJ analogy are fundamentally different to A.I generated music, in that programming a drum machine well, or being a good DJ takes human skill and artistry.

Already in recent years the value in music is being eroded, I don’t see A.I generated music doing anything to improve that.

15 Likes

100%

It’s not about me.

I still have friends that think DJs or electronic musicians are not artists.

What about Actress? He’s using an AI as well.
What if the seeds are your own work?

I do believe you certainly don’t have all the cards to emit a definitive judgement.
You can of course.
But then you must accept that you might be considered a bit old ^^

1 Like

i’d recommend watching this video and ask yourself if you’re actually bringing something new onto the table or just republishing someone elses work.

for the record, i do think you can be creative while sampling AI, just like you can while sampling from any other source and twisting the samples beyond recognition. doesn’t sound like you’ve done that here though.
i just feel bad for the musicians who have dedicated their life to their art, and this megacorp just slurps up their intellectual property and now anyone can just use it however they want and claim it as their own. but whatever… this discussion has been done to death and i’m just rambling.

2 Likes

That would certainly be ripe for a good debate…that is, IF the OP did that.

But my point is, even when doing that, the intention and precision and care of the finished work isn’t yours but the computer- even if the work was more ethical than just letting AI go wild.

If only I didn’t have the burdens of my principles and convictions then maybe the young kids won’t think I’m lame while a major portion of the human experience is perverted

2 Likes