AI GNR Songs

[fantomas]

10 minutes ago, Rovim said:

but I think we should do our best to protect the artists and their work 

And that is a great point. How can we do that? Especially with artists who are dead and have estates that cash in on their legacy. Say a big name band is under contract for 5 albums, but only turns over 3 albums. Will the label produce two more under the bands name using AI tech with existing master recordings? It's a lot easier to train AI with vocals on a standalone track. We know the industry doesn't protect artists anyway.  We need checks and balances in place soon. But I think it's already too late for that.

[Rovim]

10 minutes ago, fantomas said:

And that is a great point. How can we do that? Especially with artists who are dead and have estates that cash in on their legacy. Say a big name band is under contract for 5 albums, but only turns over 3 albums. Will the label produce two more under the bands name using AI tech with existing master recordings? It's a lot easier to train AI with vocals on a standalone track. We know the industry doesn't protect artists anyway.  We need checks and balances in place soon. But I think it's already too late for that.

it's also easier, cheaper, and faster to eventually only use music which is created by an AI program at least for some products. I think some of these questions are interesting, I don't really know, I think that yes, passing laws and ways to protect the process of creating art, maybe redefining it in the process, etc is not going to be easy. Maybe some things are impossible, like you're suggesting, but it's still too early to answer most of the big questions regarding what ai means to art and music currently and what is the best way to move forward with it.

I don't think it's the end of real music, but maybe the definition will change, maybe even the process as well. 

Edited June 13, 2023 by Rovim

[fantomas]

14 minutes ago, Rovim said:

it's also easier, cheaper, and faster to eventually only use music which is created by an AI program at least for some products. I think some of these questions are interesting, I don't really know, I think that yes, passing laws and ways to protect the process of creating art, maybe redefining it in the process, etc is not going to be easy. Maybe some things are impossible, like you're suggesting, but it's still too early to answer most of the big questions regarding what ai means to art and music currently and what is the best way to move forward with it.

I don't think it's the end of real music, but maybe the definition will change, maybe even the process as well. 

Library of Congress is already putting rules into place for what can and cannot be copyrighted. So there is at least some movement there. The big issue is there are simply too many variables right now, and I worry that by the time we've figured them out, the ability to protect anything will be gone. Again, thanks for the civil discussion on this! Appreciate it.

[SoulMonster]

1 hour ago, fantomas said:

But I think it changes everything we think and feel about music. How it resonates with us on a personal level. Can we have the same attachment to an AI Axl as we do to the real thing? I don't have the answers, but I find the whole subject fascinating. My biggest concern is the applications outside of music and the potential for destructive abuse. I'm not talking Skynet, I'm taking terrorists or threats to national or global security. I think the music element of voice replication is just the tip of the iceberg.  As I've said, this is a really cool discussion.

AI is already being used in numerous applications, for good use. When I was studying, back in the late 90s, we had these distributed software thingies that would use free CPU to try to solve complex problems, like searching for extraterrestrial signals or solve protein folding. Now AI (in the shape of AlphaFold) can predict protein structure from primary sequence easily. What a revolutionary progress! And this is just one example out of thousands of contemporary uses. AI isn't the future - it is now. 

[DeNfr]

54 minutes ago, fantomas said:

There is a difference between augmentation and creation. Using AI to supplement existing art is different than allowing it to create it from scratch. When you can skip the human middleman, you have tech creating tech and by it's very definition it is soulless. 

I disagree as far as talent not being a gift or skills. You can learn the fundamentals, but if you don't have the natural eye for scale, depth, perspective or the ear for pitch, tune or tone. you won't fully hone your craft.  Not everyone can act, or write or produce music. That's just how it is. We will always need entertainers. But if everyone can create, where is the need for us to gather in communities to celebrate it? It would remove uniqueness and the social need for art and talents that brings us together.

As far as needing talent to create AI art, I'm guessing you haven't used Midjourney yet? If you can string five words together it will create your vision. It's lazy. And in an era where we suffer from massive plagiarism, this will make things even worse. 

you assume or proclaim a lot of things without backing that's the problem with your demonstration.

sorry but "that's just how it is" is not a valid argument, never was, never will.

 

 

[fantomas]

2 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

AI is already being used in numerous applications, for good use. When I was studying, back in the late 90s, we had these distributed software thingies that would use free CPU to try to solve complex problems, like searching for extraterrestrial signals or solve protein folding. Now AI (in the shape of AlphaFold) can predict protein structure from primary sequence easily. What a revolutionary progress! And this is just one example out of thousands of contemporary uses. AI isn't the future - it is now. 

Exactly. I don't think it is a blanket discussion covered under one umbrella. AI really hasn't been the future for a while, it's now just reaching a more commercial market and inevitably that is where the cracks always start to form. That's when the hands who have no rights to touch it start to getting involved. When it starts to move away from science and towards commercial applications.

[SoulMonster]

Again, I don't see a problem with AI music. People will want the human component so its applicability will be for stuff like muzak. Kids want to idolize the people behind, kids want to see real musicians on stage. 

But here's the kicker: Even if I am wrong and AI music completely outcompetes human musicians, that just means music has become better, and we all benefit (except musicians at the time who will need to find themselves a different job because they have been made redundant by technology - like so many other orifessuons). That's progress, I suppose. 

Edited June 13, 2023 by SoulMonster

[fantomas]

1 minute ago, DeNfr said:

you assume or proclaim a lot of things without backing that's the problem with your demonstration.

sorry but "that's just how it is" is not a valid argument, never was, never will.

 

 

That is just how it is. Not every skill is learnable or teachable. Not everyone is wired the same, or built the same. It's why child prodigy musicians are so rare.  There are some people who are naturally talented. If these skills could all be learned, we wouldn't have standout performers in all types of art. You're saying the only thing preventing people from having the same artistic talents is desire to practice. 

[fantomas]

7 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

Again, I don't see a problem with AI music. People will want the human component so its applicability will be for stuff like muzak. Kids want to idolize the people behind, kids want to see real musicians on stage. 

But here's the kicker: Even if I am wrong and AI music completely outcompetes human musicians, that just means music has become better, and we all benefit (except musicians at the time who will need to find themselves a different job because they have been made redundant by technology - like so many other orifessuons). That's progress, I suppose. 

Say we do go all in on AI, what happens to the live experience? Sure, we have tools that enhance vocals, like the voice box Slash uses for example. But if an AI application entirely replaces the vocals, is there a need for the vocalist? Can the vocalist give a passionate performance if they aren't singing? I think if we as people are prepared to give up the human element, it speaks a lot to how society sees the arts, and that is the end product we care about and not the heart, soul, pain, love, energy and experiences that go into creating it. Can a computer really explain heartbreak, or anger, or love on a level where humans can relate? If we can relate to a computer, what does this say about us?

I hope you understand these are more general questions and not necessarily aimed directly at you, mate. I think this is a great discussion.

[DeNfr]

21 minutes ago, fantomas said:

That is just how it is. Not every skill is learnable or teachable. Not everyone is wired the same, or built the same. It's why child prodigy musicians are so rare.  There are some people who are naturally talented. If these skills could all be learned, we wouldn't have standout performers in all types of art. You're saying the only thing preventing people from having the same artistic talents is desire to practice. 

 

yes and I stand by that. there is no "god" or whatever who gives you "special abilities", except physical ones who can gives you certain advantage, for example strong vocal cords, but you don't need them to become Bob Dylan, so that's irrelevant. 

[fantomas]

1 hour ago, DeNfr said:

 

yes and I stand by that. there is no "god" or whatever who gives you "special abilities", except physical ones who can gives you certain advantage, for example strong vocal cords, but you don't need them to become Bob Dylan, so that's irrelevant. 

At no point did I ever say god or any other religious entity had anything to do with it.  With how complex the brain works, some people are wired differently. That's genetic, not religious. Explain this link, a five year old piano prodigy playing Carnegie Hall.  This isn't practice. Most five years can't even tie their shoes. Child piano prodigy plays Carnegie Hall - YouTube

[SoulMonster]

8 hours ago, fantomas said:

Say we do go all in on AI, what happens to the live experience? Sure, we have tools that enhance vocals, like the voice box Slash uses for example. But if an AI application entirely replaces the vocals, is there a need for the vocalist? Can the vocalist give a passionate performance if they aren't singing? I think if we as people are prepared to give up the human element, it speaks a lot to how society sees the arts, and that is the end product we care about and not the heart, soul, pain, love, energy and experiences that go into creating it. Can a computer really explain heartbreak, or anger, or love on a level where humans can relate? If we can relate to a computer, what does this say about us?

I hope you understand these are more general questions and not necessarily aimed directly at you, mate. I think this is a great discussion.

And what you mention here is why I am not worried about AI music: It simply cannot replace real music because it lacks the human component. AI music, without humans, would never induce the same kind of fandom as proper bands do, AI music would never be as exciting live as proper bands are, etc etc. Basically, AI music would only thrive in niches where the human component isn't part of the experience, like elevator music and mall music, basically background music that is not meant to engage to the same extent with the listeners. 

And as I stated before, let's say I am wrong, would that really be a problem? No.

[wendirosez]

I know it mentions GnR in the title but it is of the same topic so..i know Paul McCartney is supposed to be all for this... 

 The 'last' Beatles song ever is coming... 

https://www.theguardian.com/music/2023/jun/13/ai-used-to-create-new-and-final-beatles-song-says-paul-mccartney

 

A new and final Beatles recording using artificial intelligence will be released later this year, Sir Paul McCartney has announced.

The musician said he had used new technology to “extricate” John Lennon’s voice from an old demo and complete a decades-old song.

“We just finished it up and it’ll be released this year,” he told the Radio 4 Today programme on Tuesday.

Though McCartney did not name the song, it is likely to be a 1978 Lennon composition called Now and Then. 

 

 

[DeNfr]

17 hours ago, fantomas said:

At no point did I ever say god or any other religious entity had anything to do with it.  With how complex the brain works, some people are wired differently. That's genetic, not religious. Explain this link, a five year old piano prodigy playing Carnegie Hall.  This isn't practice. Most five years can't even tie their shoes. Child piano prodigy plays Carnegie Hall - YouTube

 

God or Nature or anything you want, it's the same.

the irony in your example is it demonstrate kinda the opposite of what you want to prove. 

a child that age, playing like that, it shows an intensive practice of the instrument. we're talking hours per day here.
there's no miracles. it takes around 10.000 hours of practice to become an expert at something.

and at that age, you learn very quick and well, it helps a lot to achieve this kind of skills without even reach the 10.000 hours.

the only difference is the heart you put in it, the dedication. that's why Slash is Slash, because he's always around with a guitar to play 
since he's got one.

there's no "gene of talent". 
 

[DeNfr]

4 hours ago, wendirosez said:

I know it mentions GnR in the title but it is of the same topic so..i know Paul McCartney is supposed to be all for this... 

 The 'last' Beatles song ever is coming... 

https://www.theguardian.com/music/2023/jun/13/ai-used-to-create-new-and-final-beatles-song-says-paul-mccartney

 

A new and final Beatles recording using artificial intelligence will be released later this year, Sir Paul McCartney has announced.

The musician said he had used new technology to “extricate” John Lennon’s voice from an old demo and complete a decades-old song.

“We just finished it up and it’ll be released this year,” he told the Radio 4 Today programme on Tuesday.

Though McCartney did not name the song, it is likely to be a 1978 Lennon composition called Now and Then. 

 

 

 

oh great news, another cool use of AI, I thought it will never see the light of day.
here is the demo they probably work with.
 

 

 

 

[Rovim]

11 minutes ago, DeNfr said:

 

God or Nature or anything you want, it's the same.

the irony in your example is it demonstrate kinda the opposite of what you want to prove. 

a child that age, playing like that, it shows an intensive practice of the instrument. we're talking hours per day here.
there's no miracles. it takes around 10.000 hours of practice to become an expert at something.

and at that age, you learn very quick and well, it helps a lot to achieve this kind of skills without even reach the 10.000 hours.

the only difference is the heart you put in it, the dedication. that's why Slash is Slash, because he's always around with a guitar to play 
since he's got one.

there's no "gene of talent". 
 

sounds like you believe talent isn't real either but it is, and it's not that it's one gene of talent, but talent is genetic like many other human qualities.

if you think Slash is Slash thanks to only the time he put in when it comes to playing the guitar, you are mistaken.

you must have talent as a musician if you want to express emotion and the levels of talent vary. You need the talent and the skill. Skill alone won't take you far if you want to be a good artist/musician. 

[DeNfr]

4 minutes ago, Rovim said:

sounds like you believe talent isn't real either but it is, and it's not that it's one gene of talent, but talent is genetic like many other human qualities.

if you think Slash is Slash thanks to only the time he put in when it comes to playing the guitar, you are mistaken.

you must have talent as a musician if you want to express emotion and the levels of talent vary. You need the talent and the skill. Skill alone won't take you far if you want to be a good artist/musician. 

ok, prove me that with facts and science now

[Rovim]

6 minutes ago, DeNfr said:

ok, prove me that with facts and science now

no, cause I'm lazy and you're free to believe that Mozart was just a fast learner as a kid. Use google or maybe someone else can prove to you with facts and science that talent is real and not everybody is equally talented or can just be great at anything as long as they put in their 10,000. What are we left with if not genetics. First you need to have the right qualities to have the potential to be brilliant at something like Slash is at playing guitar.

[DeNfr]

3 minutes ago, Rovim said:

no, cause I'm lazy and you're free to believe that Mozart was just a fast learner as a kid. Use google or maybe someone else can prove to you with facts and science that talent is real and not everybody is equally talented or can just be great at anything as long as they put in their 10,000. What are we left with if not genetics. First you need to have the right qualities to have the potential to be brilliant at something like Slash is at playing guitar.

no, that's because you can't.
thanks for your participation anyway.

[SoulMonster]

13 hours ago, DeNfr said:

ok, prove me that with facts and science now

Just pick up any textbook on genetics and how genes affect our bodies.

[DeNfr]

5 hours ago, SoulMonster said:

Just pick up any textbook on genetics and how genes affect our bodies.

 

I have, and well, I have a scoop for you : talent isn't located in any of your muscles, organs, or genes

[SoulMonster]

31 minutes ago, DeNfr said:

I have, and well, I have a scoop for you : talent isn't located in any of your muscles, organs, or genes

Genes define the potential of your muscles and organs which again is another word for talent. Take running as an example, someone with a "talent" for long-distance running would often have specific gene combinations that result in a muscle fibers suitable for this purpose: Genes and Elite Marathon Running Performance: A Systematic Review - PMC (nih.gov). The same can be said about many other of our physical characteristics, like singing, analytical thinking or swimming, all of which have a large genetic component.

[DeNfr]

On 6/13/2023 at 10:57 PM, DeNfr said:

 

yes and I stand by that. there is no "god" or whatever who gives you "special abilities", except physical ones who can gives you certain advantage, for example strong vocal cords, but you don't need them to become Bob Dylan, so that's irrelevant. 

yeah and that's what I said here, remember?  

 

when you're quoting yourself you know it's time to quit a conversation. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

[SoulMonster]

24 minutes ago, DeNfr said:

yeah and that's what I said here, remember?  

No, I don't remember because I wasn't really part of this discussion when you posted that. I came (back) in when I read you demand that @Rovimshould prove that talent is genetic with "facts and science". That is what I responded to.

Looking back, this discussion started with a child piano prodigy and your argument was that these skills were due to extensive practising, while others claimed there was also a genetic component, an inherent talent that the child was born with which gave him/her a predisposition to become really good at piano playing. The genetic basis for being good at music is not as well-studied as, say, long-distance running, but there is still sufficient data to confirm that we are born with different potentials for becoming good at music: Practice does not make perfect: no causal effect of music practice on music ability - PubMed (nih.gov) Genome-wide linkage scan for loci of musical aptitude in Finnish families: evidence for a major locus at 4q22 - PMC (nih.gov)

So going back to Slash: his excellence is likely not just a result of practising hard but having the right genes, too. I don't personally like anecdotal evidence, but I can't help myself from arguing that I am also evidence of this connection because despite me having practised and practised and practised to the level where I should be a ginger Jimi Hendrix by now, I am still pretty shit on the guitar, indicating that I was born with an unfortunate combination of genes in that regard.