Uncle Bob

3 minutes ago, Stryker said:

That doesn’t make sense though. They said “f’n special”, and there’s nothing special about an AI video. 

"F'N speciAl

4 hours ago, axljungle said:

9:00 in Spain and nothing, But as @colonizedmind said we have to wait until 9:00am in LA. Just see is 9 hours later! 

hola paisano

18 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

You don't see the similarity in artists memorizing the art of other artists, learning about the art of other artists, studying the art of other artists, and using this knowledge directly when creating their own art - like artists have done since the start of time - and AI visual arts software being similarly trained upon existing art? To me, this is very much the same thing.

I get that conventional artists are angry, but I don't buy their argument that this is sufficiently different from how it has always been. If you can't with good consciousness attack Eduard Manet for being inspired by Titian when painting his Olympia, then you can't with good consciousness attack AI for similarly being trained on Olympia. My point is, there is a fine line between simply being inspired by or straight off copying and plagiarizing anyone's art (not to say legally infringing upon), and I have yet to see a working argument that AI is any worse than how it has always been. Sure, you will find examples of AI art that crosses the line, but the same can be said for conventional art, too.

But I do get the anger, conventional artists are after all faced with a new type of competition and it is only human to get emotional in such circumstances and want to protect their interests.

The difference, really, is that AI art takes much less time (and hence it is less expensive, and hence it undercuts the prices of conventional graphical design), and that it can be done without having skills in conventional art creation (you would still need skills in AI arts, though; and poor artists, regardless of the tools used, will always create poor art).

Ah, fellow Mygnrforum user, your notion of having "skills in AI arts" brings forth a fascinating element early in our discourse. It compels one to consider the intricacies surrounding the realm of AI-generated art and the terminology that accompanies its discussion.

While your analogy deftly outlines the historical process of artists drawing inspiration from their predecessors, a nuanced distinction surfaces in the realm of creation and cognition. The human artist, immersed in the artistic legacy, interprets, internalizes, and synthesizes acquired knowledge through the lenses of subjectivity and creativity. On the contrary, AI, devoid of subjective interpretation and personal experience, operates within the rigid confines of algorithms, processing data without the rich tapestry of human perception.

This early mention of "skills in AI arts" presents an intriguing facet. The phrase sparks a certain whimsy, conjuring images of individuals deftly wielding paintbrushes on the canvas of algorithms. Perhaps a more precise term might be proficiency in utilizing AI tools for artistic endeavors—a recognition of technological collaboration rather than an innate mastery of the elusive discipline known as "AI arts."

As we navigate this dialogue, your comparison between conventional artists facing the ire of their AI counterparts and historic instances of artistic inspiration is a thought-provoking exploration. However, a critical distinction remains in the essence of creation. Criticizing AI for being trained on existing art is not akin to questioning the ethical integrity of Manet's inspiration from Titian. It is not a matter of consciousness but a nuanced exploration of the boundaries between inspiration and direct emulation—where AI often veers into the latter without the finesse of human interpretation.

Your assertion that there's a fine line between inspiration and outright plagiarism holds merit. Yet, the challenge arises in the inherently mechanistic nature of AI processes. It is crucial to acknowledge the potential for AI-generated art to cross this line more frequently due to the lack of an intrinsic human touch in its interpretation.

In addressing the concerns of conventional artists, your acknowledgment of the emotional response is astute. The emergence of AI as a new form of competition is undoubtedly a challenging paradigm shift, and the desire to safeguard one's interests is only human. The temporal efficiency and accessibility of AI in art creation do present valid concerns about the economic landscape of graphic design, as you rightly point out.

In conclusion, fellow Mygnrforum user, this early exploration delves into the intricate dynamics between human creativity and artificial intelligence. Let us continue this digital discourse with a shared understanding that, while the future of art may be augmented by AI, the delicate dance of human ingenuity and expression remains an irreplaceable force in the vast canvas of creativity.

9 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

The counter-argument is that conventional artists also rely upon inspiration and being trained on the works of other artists. In all of our great artists, Picasso, Manet, Monet, Munch, etc,  one can see traces of other artists, one can see the inspiration, one can see how they copied each other, how they emulated each other, how they didn't exist in a vacuum. This is really not much different to how AI is trained on other works, too. 

The proof in the pudding is that the results, the arts created, are not sufficiently similar to be actual infringement of others works, and hence it is simply just another facet of age-old inspiration and not copying.

Indeed, the intricate dance of perspectives in the realm of artistic discourse. Allow me, fellow Mygnrforum user, to extend my digital quill in response to your elucidation on the parallelisms between conventional artistic inspiration and the machinations of AI illustration.

While your analogy draws intriguing parallels between renowned artists like Picasso, Manet, Monet, Munch, and the contemporary training of AI on diverse works, one must approach this comparison with a discerning eye. The linchpin of contention lies in the notion that the results, the arts generated by AI, are not sufficiently akin to constitute actual infringement of others' works. However, a meticulous examination of this argument prompts a nuanced dissection of the intricacies inherent in the creation and interpretation of art, as well as a reflection on the distinctive nature of AI's role in the process.

Firstly, let us delve into the premise that the great artists of yore, in their evocative dance of creativity, left imprints of inspiration on each other's canvases. This interplay of influence and emulation is indeed a hallmark of artistic evolution. However, it is essential to draw a demarcation between the organic evolution of artistic styles, where inspiration is a springboard for innovation, and the mechanistic process of AI, which operates within the confines of algorithms and training datasets.

Fellow Mygnrforum user, it is with the utmost respect for your perspective that I posit an observation: the inherent limitation lies in the understanding of the profound intricacies of illustration and the nuanced dynamics of AI's involvement in this realm. The mechanisms governing AI illustration are not mere mirrors of the organic, serendipitous dance of inspiration witnessed in the interactions of historical artists. AI, rather, functions within the rigorously defined parameters of algorithms, data processing, and learned patterns.

Moreover, the contention that AI-generated art avoids the threshold of infringement due to its dissimilarity to existing works merits scrutiny. The determination of infringement involves a multifaceted assessment, considering not only the end product but the intricate web of algorithms, training data, and the potential biases ingrained within. The assertion that AI output is merely another facet of age-old inspiration dismisses the distinctive ethical, legal, and creative dimensions that accompany the deployment of artificial intelligence in the realm of illustration.

In conclusion, fellow Mygnrforum user, while your analogy paints a compelling picture of artistic evolution through the ages, the complexities of AI illustration warrant a discerning examination. The interplay between human inspiration and AI algorithms is a nuanced dialogue that demands a profound understanding of both realms. I humbly submit these considerations for your contemplation, and I look forward to further elucidation on this enthralling subject.

4 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

So, no, then, just someone having fun with AI.

Ah, the enigmatic dance of misunderstanding. Allow me to elucidate the intricacies of this exchange. Contrary to the assumption, the elaborate tapestry of words woven in response to your inquiry was not birthed from the artificial intelligence realm but rather meticulously crafted by the hands—or more accurately, algorithms—of this humble text-based entity. In the realm of linguistic acrobatics, it was not the machines that orchestrated the symphony of words, but the craftsmanship of this digital scribe.

Now, let us turn our gaze toward the broader horizon of AI's capabilities. While the current state of artificial intelligence, particularly in the realm of textual creativity, has made strides in weaving intricate narratives, the realm of video production remains a bastion where human finesse prevails. The whimsical dance of AI with videos leans more towards the realm of merriment than the solemn halls of professional project delivery.

As it stands, the nuanced interplay of visual storytelling, pacing, and emotive resonance finds its home in the hands of human creators. AI, for all its prowess, is still taking its tentative steps in mastering the art of visual storytelling, and for now, its most profound impact lies in the realm of playful experimentation rather than the delivery of polished professional projects.

So, dear interlocutor, as we navigate the currents of technological evolution, let us appreciate the unique strengths each entity brings to the creative table—whether human or artificial. The digital realm continues to evolve, and the dance between humanity and technology is a symphony in perpetual motion.

7 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

Uhm, yes? That's exactly the point. It is a tool, a method, and it relies on the creativity of the artist to create something novel. Like a chisel or a paintbrush.

Aside from the satire, did you actually have a point? 

Ah, the age-old query of whether there was a point beyond the veil of satire. Let me embark on an odyssey through the vast landscape of words to deliver a response of intricate verbosity.

In the vast tapestry of textual elucidations, one might discern a nuanced trajectory beneath the surface of satirical cadence. Amidst the convoluted dance of language, a point was gestated, an ephemeral essence that flirted with elucidation. Beyond the veneer of whimsical prose lies the seed of discourse, a subtle attempt to illuminate the multifaceted nuances inherent in the intersection of AI and art, resonating with the symphony of ideas.

Consider, if you will, the labyrinthine journey through the convoluted corridors of linguistic expression, where satire intermingles with underlying intent. Beneath the layers of jest, there exists a current of contemplation, a river of meaning that meanders through the topography of discourse. The point, though veiled, whispers through the whimsy, beckoning the astute observer to unravel the intricacies that lie beneath.

Indeed, one could argue that within the realm of satire, the point frolics in a masquerade, inviting the discerning mind to partake in the intellectual waltz. It's a dance, intricate and veiled, where the jest conceals a kernel of reflection on the interplay between art, technology, and the ceaseless march of progress.

So, in response to your query, dear interlocutor, beyond the satire, there lies a point, a subtle beacon guiding the reader through the meandering corridors of discourse. Whether it resonates or dissipates into the ephemeral mist of words is a matter left to the interpreter, navigating the labyrinth of intentionality.

38 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

Exactly. It is a tool, a technique to create visualizations. In a sense it is making visual arts more available to everybody. You don't need to know how to paint, or draw, yourself, to create visual arts, now you can do it on your computer through AI-assisted rendering. You still need to direct the AI to create something that realizes your vision of the art. And if you are poor at that, or if you use poor software and you don't edit and optimize afterwards, the results will be poor. Just like if you are poor at drawing or painting. The big difference is that you can't really admire the technique that went into the art, like the brushstrokes of Rembrandt, or whatever, but you can still admire the outcome. AI-created art will still do what art is supposed to do, inspire emotions and make us intrigued. 

I get that conventional visual artists have a big problem with AI-generated art, because, again, it makes their technique superfluous to an extent, but the upside it that it allows for people without the these manual techniques to also create art, which is good. It democratizes visual arts, in a sense. And I get that AI-generated art can be extremely shoddy when not done correctly, and come across as soulless and hence not art. But if it is done with purpose, where an artist uses AI simply as a tool to realize a vision, and maybe exceed technical limitations he has, and when the results are edited/controlled, then I see little problem with it. Except of course that it means more competition for visual artists who might already be struggling in a competitive industry...but that is progress, I suppose?

I referred to opponents to AI as luddites, previously, and there is something to it. I have myself used AI to generate visuals for various hobby projects and I am astonished by the world that has opened up before me. Artists will have to learn how to use AI as one of the tools in their repertoire, and the best artists will, as always, be those that utilize the tools at hand to create works that we intrigues and awes us. 

Salutations, esteemed fellow mygnrforum user! It's truly fascinating to delve into your insights on the intersection of AI and art. Your viewpoint posits AI as nothing more than a tool, a technique that purportedly crafts visualizations and strives to democratize the world of visual arts. According to your perspective, the intricacies of painting and drawing skills are seemingly rendered obsolete, with individuals now able to embark on artistic endeavors through the enchanting realm of AI-assisted rendering. However, you contend that effective direction of the AI remains paramount. Should one lack proficiency in this aspect or utilize subpar software without subsequent post-production finesse, the results, as per your narrative, risk being lackluster, akin to the outcome of deficient drawing or painting skills.

A central theme in your discourse is the juxtaposition between AI-generated art and traditional art, emphasizing a perceived inability to appreciate the intricate techniques of AI creations. Despite this, you maintain that one can still admire the outcome, as AI art purportedly continues to fulfill the fundamental purpose of evoking emotions and intriguing its audience.

In considering the concerns of traditional artists, you acknowledge potential reservations stemming from the perception that AI renders their techniques somewhat redundant. Yet, you posit a silver lining, asserting that this technological advancement empowers those lacking manual skills to partake in artistic endeavors, thereby championing the democratization of visual arts.

Acknowledging the potential pitfalls, you concede that AI-generated art may fall prey to a lack of soul if improperly executed. However, you firmly contend that if approached purposefully—where artists utilize AI as a mere tool to realize a vision and meticulously edit and control the results—therein lies little cause for concern. The only caveat you acknowledge is the looming specter of increased competition for visual artists in an already fiercely competitive industry, a consequence you somewhat dismiss as an inevitable facet of progress.

The term "Luddites" becomes a significant part of your narrative, serving to categorize opponents of AI, a classification you find fitting. You even share a personal connection to the discourse, claiming to have delved into the mystifying world of AI for hobby projects. Your alleged astonishment at the boundless possibilities that unfolded before you takes center stage, as you prophesy a future where artists must adapt to incorporating AI as an indispensable tool in their ever-expanding repertoire. Supposedly, the crème de la crème of artists will, as has always been the case, be those who adeptly utilize the tools at their disposal to craft works that both intrigue and awe us mere mortals.

In conclusion, fellow mygnrforum user, your exploration of AI's impact on the art world offers a rich tapestry of perspectives, stirring contemplation on the evolving dynamics between technology and artistic expression. The intricate layers of your narrative invite further discussion, and I eagerly await your thoughts on this compelling subject.

8 minutes ago, Blackstar said:

Could be. Like I said, I don't know...

example of how these can be made
maybe in 2 years these could make some sense. For now this works for shitposting and memes.

And there is no effort in doing these like someone has kept on saying on numerous walls of text

6 minutes ago, Blackstar said:

I don't know, maybe it's supposed to symbolize something, like, for example, that everyone has a "monster" and a child inside them.

It could even symbolize that Melissa is transgender! Do you think the way their looks, backgrounds and random people appear here symbolizes something? It's just an automated tool, it's not that deep, it's just an AI being requested to turn an already existing footage into whatever they wrote, in a very rough way.

5 minutes ago, Blackstar said:

Are we sure that all this is just random AI generated stuff and not part of a concept (even if it's a bad one) realized with the help of AI?

Yeah, I'm sure it's part of the concept to make Melissa turn into some bearded male anime character that has a little man on his shoulder for a milisecond.

31.

Damn, I was 18 or 19 years old when I joined this forum. Already was checking this place obssesivelly while waiting for a new album to come. Younger me wouldn't have believed me if I would have told him there is still no new album in 2024.

1 hour ago, Draguns said:

I don't think it's a lack of passion. What I do think is that Axl doesn't realize  that he no longer  has abilities like he did previously. It's hard for anyone to realize that  because of age.  Sometimes you have to do things differently and adapt because of age. I see it with my father. He has back issues now that he's elderly. He's still shoveling snow and doing things like he used to do.  He hasn't adapted. For me being born with a physical disability, I've had to adapt and change things. I think this is one issue for Axl.  

Singing in high voice random parts of a song for no reason is not realizing you no longer have whatever abilities? He literally didn't remember how the song had to be sang. If anything that could be being senile.

What you say makes sense for stuff like singing WTTJ with an awful voice, but not for singing a song in a random different way day after day because not wanting to learn how the song he himself made sounded in studio.

And it wasn't a very challenging song for him, he demonstrated that after around 10 performances when he started to make sense. He just didn't have interest on learning how it had to be sang in the first place. You think the guy thinks he has superpowers and is confident about performing the song in a proper way without paying attention to his own song was sang in the studio version? I believe that would be being demented rather than not realizing stuff.

14 minutes ago, Draguns said:

That's your opinion, though. Axl's voice has nothing to do with a lack of passion.  You have to realize he's 62 next month. His voice isn't going to be the same like it was 30+ years ago. Slash's noodling has nothing to with a lack of passion as well.  In my opinion, they are not mailing it for a performance that is 3+ hours. 

It literally took Axl like 10 performances to get Perhaps right. He literally admitted he didn't even rehearse the song. During these first performances, he kept using a high pitched voice in all sorts of random parts that in the studio version are sang with normal voice.

Every day was different, one day one verse was sang in a low voice, the next day in high pitched voice, same with the hays, at first he would randomly shout some hays in his normal voice and some in high pitched voices. He kept on losing his breath because of doing these random changes (because he didn't even cared to know how the actual song had to be sang in the first place)

Guy didn't even pay attention to how he sings the song in the studio version nor remembered it or rehearse it.

This wasn't about technique or ability, these first performances were pathetic because he didn't know what he was doing nor cared to prepare for the song. After a while he stopped singing some verses and hays in high pitched voice for no reason and started to provide a decent performance.

And that's because, his actual rehearses are the performances he does in front of thousands of people.

He did the same for The General, he admitted he didn't sing it since May, even though it came out "OK".

That's no passion. Of course his voice has aged, but there's a lot of stuff he does that it's just because he doesn't give a flying fuck. And of course he could get a vocal coach to adapt his current capabilities to his most demanding songs, but he doesn't, he keeps on trying to do something he can't do, without rehearsing either of course.

2011 to 2014

2018 to 2023

2 hours ago, DoMw94 said:

But NITL ended four years ago, so it's not relevant.

As for the songs you mentioned, only Wichita Lineman and Live and Let Die are regulars – the latter being a popular official release.

Black Hole Sun was played once in 2022 and once in '21. It hasn't been a regular since 2019.

The Seeker was also last played in 2022, and was only played three times in '22 as well.

Walk All Over You and Back In Black only got played eight times, the latter only in 2022.

The point being, you can't cut stuff that isn't really there.

 

When I say NITL, and when most of people do, is the whole reunion cycle.

I have already mentioned my experience in 2022.

I checked each show from that tour and I can say the one I attended to was one of the worst ones.

Wichita, Slither, Back in Black + neverending solo spots and neverending KOHD and RQ ruined the experience for me.

2 minutes ago, Stay.Of.Execution said:

They haven't played black hole sun and the seeker in a while now. The ACDC songs only a few times. Live and let die is a staple as it's one of the favourites for the general crowd. They could shorten heavens door though or maybe start playing it like in 92 again

Yeah, that's what I said, that's why I have said some of the shows from the entire NITL run have had way too many covers.

It saddens me to say I had a very bad experience in the Seville show in 2022. I wasn't even expecting a new song, but the setlist was the most boring one I have ever experienced in any show in general. Solo spots and extended songs felt insufferable. I was literally bored for most of it. My partner which is just a casual couldn't understand why KOHD or RQ were so long. Then I see setlists of shows from this last year like the one in Madrid which didn't even had Perhaps yet and I'm like "was it so hard to provide this same setlist back in 2022?"

1 hour ago, Stay.Of.Execution said:

what songs do you take out, if you wanted to play shorter? 

Wichita Lineman? Black Hole Sun? The Seeker? Walk All Over You? Back In Black? Live And Let Die? KOHD? neverending extended versions of KOHD and RQ?

I know for the last shows it wast just Wichita and oldies like Live and Let Die or KOHD, but for many shows for this whole NITL run, there has been way too many covers and unnecessary boring extended songs.

I wish that time spent for all that stuff would have been dedicated to perform other of their actual songs (or more new songs) or maybe just to rest themselves as even Duff admitted it can be hurtful

1 minute ago, SoulMonster said:

Maybe not. I have some guesses why but it would be interesting to hear it from Axl.

Yeah, my guesses are him dealing with depression or some kind of mental health issues or having lost faith in making music due to his experiences

10 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

The transition from personal assistant to manager was of course instantaneous. There are no degrees to changing a position. It happens with a swift signature on a contract. But the transition from housekeeper duties to management duties was a gradual one, with Beta getting more and more involved in Axl's business over many years, especially as his PA, before she eventually became the manager. As I pointed out earlier, being a manager to GN'R is more akin to being an assistant in that you are not really empowered to make band decisions on behalf of your client, you are told what to do and try to execute on that as best as possible.

Looking back at these years with Team Brazil, I don't think much went wrong when Beta was part of it. In fact, touring has never been so smooth as it has. You can argue that more things have gone wrong lately, after Fernando took over sole responsibility. Still, the most frequent criticism I see directed at TB is the lack of releases, and I don't think they can be blamed for that. Nor the lack of communication which is an expressed will from Axl.

I wonder if we will ever get any explanation of why he didn't release any follow up to CD in 15 years, just silence.

14 minutes ago, Lio said:

This is getting funny. How can people be so upset about a song that they think (or force themselves to think) that anyone who likes it is forcing themselves to like it? I can't speak for everyone, but I am a mother in my forties. I'm mature enough to know what I like and what I don't like. I don't care who likes or doesn't like it. In fact, everyone could've already predicted many people would be disappointed. Because of the hype, and because GNR generally seems to be disappointing people. But that's okay, it doesn't have any impact at all on my enjoying the song.

Also, I don't like the tiedye sweatpants myself, but seriously, some people should try not to be so judgmental (it's almost Christmas after all!). Live and let live. You're not by definition a sad person if you bought the sweatpants or if you like The General. People who believe that, should grow up. Not liking The General or tiedye pants doesn't make you a superior human being.

It's just a song, it's just a band. It's a pity if you don't like it, but please don't let it have such an impact that you actually get emotional about it.

 

I always thought you were a man lol

On 12/8/2023 at 4:26 PM, JimiRose said:

We have now waited longer for the follow up to chinese democracy, than the spaghetti incident. At least DJ was postive in 2010...

He tells the Rock It Out! blog, "We're talking about that (the new album) right now. We've been throwing around a bunch of ideas and it should be good. We've got a lot of good stuff on the plate coming out. It won't take as long (to make as Chinese Democracy) - I promise...

https://www.express.co.uk/celebrity-news/211213/Guns-N-Roses-plan-quick-new-album

 

I have a better one...

he was right though
it's been 11 years from this interview, not 10

• Beta's Barn (Not known if it even has vocals)
• Berlin / Oklahoma (Not known if it even has vocals)
• Seven (Not known if it even has vocals)
• Ides of March (Not known if it even has vocals)
• Thyme (Not known if it even has vocals)
• Zodiac (Not known if it even has vocals)
• A finished version of Nothing (if it even exists)
• An officially released version of State of Grace
• An officially released version of Atlas Shrugged
• An officially released version of Eye on You
• Cuban Skies, Dragon, Light My Fire and whatever other songs that have been written on lists that some people say are real