Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

AI generated music barred from Bandcamp

old.reddit.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

731–740 of 751 posts

Re: AI generated music barred from Bandcamp

#731

Post by munificent »

ajam1507 wrote: post #709
munificent wrote: post #697

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A given technology may benefit some while harming others. And it may have harms and benefits that operate on different time scales. The invention of the shipping container put nearly every stevedore out of a job. But it made it radically cheaper to ship things and that improved the quality of life of nearly everyone on Earth. I suspect that for most stevedores, it was a job where the wages provided dignity and meanin…

You say that as if creative jobs haven't been obsoleted by technology in the past. How many sign painters or weavers do you see around today? In fact, the theoretical turn in 20th century art was due in part to the invention of the camera. What's the point in continuing down the path of representational art if the camera can recreate a scene with infinitely more realism than the best painter? Many of the same critici…

> You say that as if creative jobs haven't been obsoleted by technology in the past.

You say that as if it's a given that that's a good thing.

> Many of the same criticisms that people have of photography as art are being used against AI today, like that it's too easy, that it's soulless, or that the machine is the real artist.

I made none of those criticisms.

Re: AI generated music barred from Bandcamp

#732

Post by julianh95 »

Kye wrote: post #654
julianh95 wrote: post #493

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you might be confusing Izotope the company with the band named Izotope.

I don't see any confusion. Ozone is a mixing and mastering tool with buttons to find the best settings using ML, from the company Izotope. People who use it use something that the company calls AI. Where does the band come in to this?

I believe their comment was edited after mine to include “Ozone” after Izotope.

I commented because there is an artist on bandcamp with the name Izotope which I assumed was why they mentioned Izotope in the first place.

Re: AI generated music barred from Bandcamp

#733

Post by jamesrcole »

emptyfile wrote: post #659
jamesrcole wrote: post #617

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We're in the very early stages of AI generated art. What will it be like in 10 years time? 20? 50? You might think it won't get much better. I think that's unlikely.

Art without human intent behind it, is simply not art.

And if there are aliens? I'm being serious. Why does it have to be human intent?

And I think it is entirely feasible that at some point -- how far away, I don't know -- AI becomes superior to us in its appreciation of life and living.

Re: AI generated music barred from Bandcamp

#734

Post by leptons »

gambiting wrote: post #606
leptons wrote: post #439

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The sterility of AI generated music will lead to a sterility in creativity of humans if "AI" generated music ever becomes dominant. The world is messy, and human music reflects that. But good for you if your life is so uncomplicated that human-created music seems offensive to you, I guess?

Well let me ask you this - if you want to listen to sounds of the rain in a forest or waves crashing on the beach as you fall asleep(as many people do), do you care if someone actually sat on a beach with a microphone for 4 hours straight, or is it ok if what is effectively white noise is computer generated? It's the same with background music when I work. But like as a specific example, that's a specific track I qui…

>sounds of the rain in a forest

Not music.

>waves crashing on the beach

Also not music.

>It's the same with background music when I work.

You do you. I like good music when I work, not "background music". The better the music, the more fun it is to work. YMMV.

>But like as a specific example, that's a specific track I quite listening to, and it's 100% AI generated. Can you really say it doesn't have any character?

Maybe it's not only the AI-generated music that is lacking in character.

>Are you familiar with the term "elevator music"? It doesn't need to be messy or have any character to it - it just has to cover the noises of the elevator moving up and down its shaft.

And if it's pretty bad music, then it makes me anticipate getting out of the elevator even more, but most likely I'll be listening to music that I like in my earbuds while I'm in the elevator. And I've been in some fancy elevators with actually nice non-AI generated music.

>>>without anyone trying to impart anything on them.

>> that human-created music seems offensive to you,

>I literally never said that, please stop implying so.

Okay, maybe I read more into it than you were expressing, but it seems like having a human put effort into relating an experience is just too distracting for some people, or something... I took it as "offensive" because you seem to just want a machine to sanitize what someone else wrote and regurgitate it out in a non-distracting way. If that's what you want, nobody here is stopping you from having it, but we can form opinions based on what you write about yourself. You are free to do the same, and yes, I'm sure I can be seen as kind of an asshole sometimes. Maybe I should write a song about it, I'd call it "Ballad of an Internet Asshole", and I'm sure a lot of people would relate to it.

Re: AI generated music barred from Bandcamp

#735

Post by CapsAdmin »

JohnFen wrote: post #669
Zababa wrote: post #636

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think appreciating art separated from the author is solipsistic, in fact I'd argue the opposite. Needing a human presence to engage with art is very human-centric. Or maybe that's due to your definition of art? I can be stunned by how beautiful a sunset is, the same way that I am by a painting, even if no human had a hand in that sunset. I can appreciate the cleverness of a gull stealing some bread from a duc…

> I can be stunned by how beautiful a sunset is, the same way that I am by a painting, even if no human had a hand in that sunset. As can I, but a gorgeous sunset is not art. It's beauty.

If the definition of art is that a human must be involved, then fine. AI generated music is not art. But it is everything art is minus the human component? ie, it can be beautiful, ugly, etc, just like how a sunset can be beautiful and a rotting corpse can be ugly.

Re: AI generated music barred from Bandcamp

#736

Post by mapontosevenths »

troupo wrote: post #721
mapontosevenths wrote: post #711

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My first instincts offhand were: * N-gram analysis of lyrics. Even good LLM's still exhibit some weird pattern's when analyzed at the n-gram level. * Entropy - Something like KL divergence maybe? There are a lot of ways to calculate entropy that can be informative. I would expect human music to display higher entropy. * Plain old FFT. I suspect you'll find weird statistical anomalies. * Fancy waveform analysis tricks…

Thank you! This will likely have a lot of false positives on a lot of genres. E.g. I suspect genres like synthpop and trance (and a lot of other electronic music) will likely hit a lot of those points with regards to music and sampling. Lyrics are also not a given (when they are likely curated by humans). E.g. compare the song I referenced ( https://dumpstergrooves.bandcamp.com/track/he-talked-a-big-g... ) to, say, T…

> I wonder if a combination of all of those may work for a subset of songs, but I don't think you can do it with any confidence :(

Thats a solid point. Pretty much all of my ideas are probabilistic. I suspect you're right and it will have to work a bit like spam detection, where each "fail" for a test is seen as one indicator that adds to a score. Then above a threshold score it's flagged for further review and sent to a "spam" folder where a human can judge.

Re: AI generated music barred from Bandcamp

#737

Post by peab »

kazinator wrote: post #213
peab wrote: post #180

Earlier quoted context omitted.

as a musician, the internet has made it that there already is a shit ton of competition. AI will make it worse sure, but it was already a 'problem' and never going to be solved. The thing is, you aren't entitled to distribution. Most musicians who make it these days work really hard at doing live shows, or growing a following on tiktok. once they have an audience - who cares about competition?

I feel that human artists as a class are more entitled to distribution than generated slop. And decisions like Bandcamp's above reflects essentially the same view.

Why? Are human made tools more entitled to distribution than machine made tools?

Re: AI generated music barred from Bandcamp

#738

Post by [deleted] »

blue_pants wrote: post #660
summermusic wrote: post #545

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> one of my goals for the year is to find at least 2 albums per month I want to buy. Rate Your Music (RYM) has been invaluable for me in discovering loads of music, I'd highly recommend it

Please, share your method. I looked up an artist there (Dio), and then an album (Holy diver). Neither page helped me find "similar" music

[deleted]

Re: AI generated music barred from Bandcamp

#739

Post by newman8r »

WD-42 wrote: post #670
newman8r wrote: post #530

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Disagree. Producing electronic music with a DAW still takes considerable skill. I've used all of those and open source alternatives as well.

I don’t understand. Is the argument that you shouldn’t need skill?

Yeah that's my opinion on the matter. Lots of unskilled people have creative thoughts right this moment, and want a way to express them, and share them - they just lack the skills to do so, and aren't able to dedicate the time to become a skilled musician.

Re: AI generated music barred from Bandcamp

#740

Post by kraquepype »

anthonypasq wrote: post #345
kraquepype wrote: post #175

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

should artists pay royalties in perpetuity to their teachers and musical inspirations?

No - human learning is still something special in this world.

It is a gift of time and effort, from both the student and teacher. The ability to be inspired by other works and draw from them, not merely imitate them.

You can ask any human musician to make music that is either inspired or outright copied from another artist. They have a moral compass to do so in a way that is not infringing on the works of others.

A music AI model will ingest what is thrown at it, and generate whatever you ask of it. It is a tool, and if it is ingesting human works to be formed into something else, proper attributions and royalties to the sources need to be made.

Post reply on HN