341–350 of 751 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
Can artists compete with algorithms that push AI slop because it costs less to license?
Funny to see this right now. Spotify's promotion of AI music bothered me so much that it has actually pushed me to Bandcamp and the practice of buying music again. It's really fun to build a collection knowing you're supporting the artists, download FLAC files, organize your little "collection" page ... Feels like a renaissance in my relationship with music, the most fun I've had since what.cd. Anyway, love this stan…
I've been reading about Spotify pushing generated music but haven't seen that myself so I'm interested to know in what context it happens. Is it certain music styles? Spotify's own playlists? That smart shuffle feature? I listen mostly in the old school way, full albums of my favourite artists, so I suppose it would be quite unexpected to stumble into AI music this way.
Autopilot in, autopilot out.
But still fuck this AI slop.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Same for me! Switched to Bandcamp + Navidrome and have decided that one of my goals for the year is to find at least 2 albums per month I want to buy. I will shamelessly promote the bandcampsync [1] CLI tool for automating downloads of your bandcamp library and bandcamp-sync-flask [2] wrapper that I built so I could invoke it from the web on my phone after I buy an album. [1] https://github.com/meeb/bandcampsync [2]…
What's the navidrome pitch?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I'm a musician, but am also pretty amused by this anti ai wave. Let me guess: you're an amateur musician. Not that there's anything wrong with that, but it makes it much easier to be amused about this topic. > There was recently a post referencing aphex twin and old school idm and electronic music stuff and i can't help bein reminded how every new tech kit got always demonized until some group of artists came along…
He's talking about the demonization of synthesizers, sampling, and digital audio workstations when each were respectively released.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
if no one wants the slop, then its not competition. the problem is that people do actually want the slop and artists are mad about it.
Many people don't care because it sounds like music. It sounds like music, because it was generated by a model that was trained on actual music. It is music that has been chewed up and regurgitated. It provides no benefit to the actual artists whose music fed that model.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
if no one wants the slop, then its not competition. the problem is that people do actually want the slop and artists are mad about it.
I have not met a single person offline who wants more AI music
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Wasn't it Picasso that said "good artist borrow, great artists steal?" I've never heard an artist confident in their own ability complain about this because they're not threatened by other competent human artists knocking them off never mind an AI that's even worse at it. AI not going to out-compete anyone on volume by flooding the marketplace because switching costs are effectively zero. Clever artists can probably…
> then out-compete them on volume by flooding the marketplace
Case in point, the other day I made a comment on reddit. I spent about 10 minutes writing it. I used proper grammar, bullet points, clean formatting, and em dashes, as I've been doing for many years.
I immediately got downvoted and sent multiple PMs about "not posting AI slop".
I didn't use AI at all to write that comment. It just looked like AI because it was well formed and researched. So am I supposed to add errors just to make it look "human"? But also, how do I even prove I wrote it without AI?
I'm not entirely sure how to solve this problem.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> And you create music without ever having heard music before? Or are you also extracting other artist’s work and using it as inspiration for what you do? For me, one key difference is that I can cite my stylistic influences and things I tried, while (to my knowledge) commercial musical generation models specifically avoid doing that, and most don't provide chord/lead sheets either -- I would find it genuinely sad to…
> I would find it genuinely sad to talk to a musician about their arrangement/composition choices, only to find they couldn't So much of music composition is what "feels right" and is instinctual. Artists aren't consciously aware of probably most of their influences. They can cite some of the most obvious ones, but the creative process is melding a thousand different vibes and sounds and sequences you've heard before…
Thus already doing much better than the average Suno producer
E: More seriously, this strikes me as a motte-and-bailey where "Artists cannot list every single influence they have or provide an explicit motivation for every single creative choice" is treated the same as "artists cannot list influences or justify creative choices at all"
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I believe if you go down the rabbit hole of "mood playlists" and spotify created playlists, then you'll get a lot of tracks that they don't need to pay royalties for and that could probably include AI generated music. If you are explictitly looking for music by specific artists, then you get their music obviously.
> then you'll get a lot of tracks that they don't need to pay royalties for I love this conspiracy theory. Which track doesn't Spotify pay royalties for? Considering that it licenses 100% of its music from external distributors.
There are a billion ways you could cash in on this. A dead easy one is "music written for hire by a company you own".
Even if Spotify is not doing the slightest thing like this, suggesting that they might is not a conspiracy theory. Quit trying to tar every proposed view of the world you disagree with with that label. You're just making it easier for the actual grand conspiracy theorists.