@paulhiggins5165 You’re completely spot on with all of this, especially your final point! Very wise words!

Thanks for your thoughtful comment and insight, I absolutely get where you are coming from. However, as a creative myself, I have zero perception or concern about AI being a threat to my love of creating music. Artists strive to create, and nothing can take that away from them. I knew from a very young age that I was a musician, it is part of my psyche and soul. Technology can't take that away from me in any way. So, in my opinion, if artists feel that their morale or creativity is devalued, perhaps this is more of a statement about their own self-esteem? We should ask ourselves why do we create? How does AI take that passion away from us? AI image tools create amazing, creative and beautiful images... but that does nothing to devalue human creation. I think the same applies to music. This might be a great topic for another video... thanks for the dialogue!

@@YoPaulieMusic people who make music have always been special and admired. I do think it is similar to sports that way. Would most people play sports if they were no good at it? They are admired for their skill, strength, speed, etc., and I think it is understandable that being replaced by a robot, especially if it does it better, is a loss for people who got some self esteem and notariety from doing it. local gods and all that. I think how a lot of people used to have organs or pianos in their homes. Not so much any more. Of course, something new may come out of it; some other way to be special.

@@YoPaulieMusic Well put. I see these tools as not totally taken over industry, but rather allowing everyone's imagination to come alive in new ways. I for one have no musical ability, but always loved to write lyrics for fun. Now, i get to hear my words come to life. There is room for everyone in whatever means they have for creation.

@@YoPaulieMusic sorry but i find it very shallow and self centered to think that just because you are unaffected in motivation because of ai, that it doesn't matter that millions of other people are effected by it. To say that its just a statement of their own self esteem is to blame them for the whole thing as apposed to looking at what made them lose esteem. Also in terms of industry, a lot of ceos do not understand the technology enough to know its limitations in design thinking and have overestimated its capabilities to the extant that they are laying off thousands upon thousands of artists and with the intent of replacing them with ai. Little do they know, ai isn't capable of doing many elements of design thinking. If you are curious to learn more about that, i recommend watching feng zhu's video on what ai cannot do. But the point is, this technology, despite its limitations, despite the unethical nature of its databases which also break our country's copyright laws like mad (also look into all of the lawsuits that are going on with all of the ai companies), is having real world consequences on a whole lot of people's livelihood, and that's real. Its not just a matter of self esteem either. Its not a matter of motivation to create. Though that is not to diminish the folk like art students in college who have been learning the craft for the last 7 years to try to break into the industry knowing that they will be needing to draw like 8 hours a day 7 days a week to get the skill level necessary to by entry level competitive, now looking at the industries fall apart in large part due to ai technologies and non artists not understanding art pipelines well enough to know things are not going to work out good if you try to automate everything creative to feed "the machine" in the best factory like way to line their pockets with the most money and least employees possible.

I run an AI record label. I have 3 albums distributed. We gonna be fine.

Would love to hear more about this. How are you using AI? I assume you are using it to create basic music elements and then adding some real players or your own stuff over the top to make it a new work that you own the masters of?

I LOVE this. and don't worry, the tools will get better. We are already seeing editing advancements with the latest release of Udio. Pretty soon we will be able to define musical sections cleanly (verse, chorus, etc.) and move them around. Then we will eventually be able to generate individual instrument stems (bass, drums, guitar, vocals) for editing. Maybe soon AI will be able to generate the MIDI output so we can user it in our DAW to change instruments and edit as much as we like. It's just a matter of time, we are only a couple of short years into this whole thing. Keep on writing your songs and using these tools to give life to your creative desires!

This is how I use it as well. 99% of anything I make is satirical or comical, but how I've always chosen to express myself is through making others laugh. I've always been a pretty good writer, but never was able to tune my instrumental skills to a point that they provided a self-expression for me. Suno gave me a way to use my writing skills to express my humor through structured lyrics, and put them into fun songs I can share with the people I care about. The end result instead has been to find a mob of artists and musicians raging at the existence of what I create, to the point I've come to fully resent art and music itself. They succeeded in killing my hobby, as well as any love I had for music and the arts. I don't really enjoy making songs anymore or even listening to anything created by real people. All I hear is a bunch of entitled brats sniffing their own farts while tinkering with instruments.

@@YoPaulieMusic Definitely looking forward to Udio improving. I've got one song I made, a super catchy 80s pop song, perfect except the A I pronounces the phrase "I'm just looking in" as I'm just worskin in". I made it shortly before the inpainting arrived. The phrase is actually in the chorus, so Udio repeated it 4 more times. I did try the inpainting tool, and it worked for the first instance, but after that the line would be replaced by gibberish or repeating a different line. I may have to try editing it some other way.

Absolutely. Smart writers are using AI tools to improve their workflow and output. Same for graphic artists. And it will be the same for musicians.

Hey mate, just wanted to ask. Will an AI generated song input person ever appear live on stage????.....

To some extent this is actually happening as some people are avoiding human partners and are connecting with ai simulations instead. Interpreters are also starting to loose work.

@@charlespalding yea a miming dance act is pretty lame in my opinion. Not sure what you are saying with this comment.

@@Real_Wilkinson wel we already have animated hologram live acts so yea why not. I dont think how ever that live music will be under threat If anything it will go up in value as there will be a saturation of automated generation.

@@akawave Is this the start of The Matrix I wonder.

Most people don't do that, that is what he was saying. There are no 800K new complete tracks on Suno every day, just clips.

Agree completely. There should be no soundalikes

Well said!

How is AI training on copyrighted data without consent any different than humans doing the same thing?

@@YoPaulieMusic humans get struck with copyright claims and sued if they produce anything "sound-alike" and didn't clear rights with the copyright owner. Imo those AI models should be treated like sampling: you transform anything you've taken from someone else, you still owe them. And there's the problem, those AI models don't disclose what was taken from where. Also, forget "fair use", it's clearly a business for profit.

@@fftunes Respectfully disagree. You are correct about "soundalikes" but there are specific requirements to meet that criteria. A copy is illegal, that has never been questioned. However, all music is influenced by everything that preceded it. AI generating new music based on an existing catalog is no different than humans doing the same thing. We don't pay royalties or licensing fees every time we play a 12-bar blues in G. We don't pay anyone if we rap over a beat, etc. You only get in trouble if you imitate something like for like, as in quoting a melody or lyrics.

@@YoPaulieMusic but we pay if we use a sample, and i'll keep saying udio and suno AI is essentially just sampling without honoring the sources. Simple as that.

​@@fftunes I get where you are coming from, but that's not how AI music rendering works. It's not going and looking at a single song based on your prompt and then replicating it. AI gets trained by ingesting thousands of songs that are tagged with keywords by human beings. Lots of different examples are used, a human "curates" the data set so that there is a broad representation of whatver style/genre they are training at that moment. AI just categorizes wave forms based on the human-provided meta data descriptors. A sample is a literal copy of a song or isntrument.

That is unfortunate... you should never hate music or those that create it. Music is a gift, something that should bring people joy. How skilled you are has nothing to do with it... I don't understand how new technology makes people want to stop creating. Suno is letting you express yourself, and like you, many others are enjoying musicn in a meaningful way for the first time. But this shouldn't devalue other music creaters, whether they do it by ear or based on years of training. Frankly, I think most of the people complaing about this being a threat to their "livelihood" aren't actually depending writing music for their livelihood in the first place.

@@YoPaulieMusic to me, these tools should be considered instruments. The truth is that music is structured, the human mind is structured, and the one thing machines understand is a consistent structure and pattern. Every sound ever produced is just a vibration of air at a certain pattern and frequency. AI learns these patterns, and even if it's a massive conglomeration of sounds that mix together for it to generate, no artist owns the specific frequency of a single note that makes up the soup of what it makes. The argument I keep hearing from these "artists" is that one can't make anything with AI because it's a soup of "stolen" content, but it drives me crazy how dumb that argument is. It's like saying that because someone once played a G-chord on their guitar, another person playing that G-chord on a different guitar in a similar way immediately invalidates it as a legitimately produced sound. You have a great video by the way, and I hope a lot of people hear your arguments and internalize them. The larger situation as a whole has just really soured me on music in general, when so many of those who make it want to gatekeep it from those who have found a new interest in learning more about it and creating it with tools they never dreamed they'd have available. It's almost hypocritical that they use soullessness as their argument against AI, when their fear of it isn't a threat to their own creativity but the cold financial side of selling it. A creator who expresses through creation will create regardless of what others do or make.

Creatives are often very cynical, we can be our own worst enemies. Many are perfectionists, which can sometimes be debilatating. Of course quality matters, but the level depends on the use case. Working on a project to feature an artist and shop that project? Perfection is a must. On the other side of the coin, if you are generating happy clappy ukelele instrumentals or tension drones or basic trap beats, there is no need to obsess over the creative details. Most music is placed way under dialog. You should certianly still do your best, but recognize that there is a point of diminishing returns, and the music supervisor is not going to care if you chose the 1/4 note auto panning option for your arpeggiator, or the 1/2 note option. ;)

Interesting point. I guess whether or not these tools help people be creative depends on their level of musical proficiency? AI tools can generate beats, chord progressions and instrument combinations that someone might not have thought of before.. therefore inspiring that person to go in a new direction with their creativity. This is similar to when a musician hears an innovative musician or singer... pick a genre. Steve Vai was influenced by Eddie Van Halen, who was influenced by Hendrix, etc. Anything that sounds "new" or "different" can be a source of inspiration, in my opinion. Pushing a button to generate a complete song with vocals, instruments, etc is not actual musical creativity. But we could get into semantics and talk about whether or not layering a bunch of preexisting samples constitutes musical creativity, or is it just arranging? Do DAWs help non-creative people create? Is that a bad thing? AI tools can help people create.

We have plenty of humans generating musical crap already. Maybe the more crap that is generated, the better our own good music will sound to others?

Not shure about if it violates copyright on base how copyright laws are a written currently.

I think he is saying it legalises theft , or legalises plagiarism I mean :)

@@Ray-gd6mj can't "legalize" what is not forbidden. I think there is simply no legislation about that scenario and phenomenon. 🤷🏻‍♂️ Might be that there better should be. But it isn't

Plagiarism isn't part of this, unless someone is intentionally prompting these tools to create a sound-alike But in that case, is AI plagiarising, or is the person prompting the one trying to plagiarise? I say it's the latter. AI tools are generating new music based on pre-existing works, after analyzing potentially millions of examples of music. It's like pulling lottery numbers, it's purely random as to what comes out, although the output is forced into a large number of specific parameters so that it makes sense. Sounding "like" a song or genre is not a copyright infringement or plagiarism. But, sounding like a specific artist is certainly an issue. As to ownership... do we as humans pay royalties or compensate the artists that influenced our own playing? If you dig John Mayer and he influences how you play the guitar, do you pay him for that? Are you stealing his music by emulating it? Well, Mayer was influenced by Stevie Ray Vaughan... did Mayer pay SRV? Did SRV pay Hendirx? Did Hendrix pay Muddy Waters? Did Waters pay Robert Johnson? Of course not. We learn from a long history... and while it is not a human experience, AI tools learn from that same history.

@@YoPaulieMusic that is a whole lot of bullshit justification based on your own opinions for things that have objective legalities. Yes according to the courts, ai generated material is breaking the copyright law of the material used in its database. No it doesn't matter that it looked at tens of thousands of things, it broke the copyright for literally all of them. No the fact that it doesn't resemble any of them exactly does not justify breaking their copyright. Its not influence. Its not inspiration. The technology is only able to create content as good as the material used in its database and that material was obtained without consent or compensation. The ai company broke the law by not obtaining consent and compensation and the users of these programs do not own any copyright to the material generated as is without enough editing using their own hand. If a user tries to sell material that is ai generated, than they are breaking fair use law because the material is legally considered a derivative of the material in the database. A derivative can only be legally sold with explicit permission from the original content owner. This is why this whole situation is fraught with legal and moral issues. Sounding like any one artists is not illegal. Using a database that has that person's work in it to generate new work (a derivative) to sell, is illegal. It won't become ethical and entirely legal until the databases being used for the material have been obtained with consent and compensation. Otherwise yeah, you're plagiarizing weather you think of it that way or not or if you disagree or not.

The old saying if you cant beat them join them is relevant with A. I. If you are creative and don't need A. I then fine but if you like using technology then go for it.

@@maccagrabme look, I'm all for creative uses of A.I., but I don't understand what wasn't clear about my statement: it's like Uber, Spotify, Ifood, etc... it's not gonna be free for ever, and prices will skyrocket as soon as it become an integral part of the industry. The useless A.I. will be accessible and the ones that make useful stuff will be "Premium" or something. Besides, completely ignoring the glaring problem that people will lose their jobs, and that's not true just for music, is also a very dumb position. "Oh, I'm not personally threatened by A.I., so it's ok." Opinions don't have to be based on what you think is best for yourself only. There has to be a discussion about what what it even means to WORK now.

@@fernandogajo8800 Yes sorry my reply wasnt directly aimed at you, I cant post comments without replying to an existing one due to the awful YT censors. Dont disagree with your points.

@@maccagrabme oh... that weird. In any case, I hope I didn't sound too confrontational. Despite confrontation being somewhat necessary part of any debate, I'm more than happy to have someone engage with the debate rather than be ignored, so thanks for replying to my post.

Curious... do you make your living creating music? I don't think people that make their living (as in full income, not part time work) are going to lose their jobs. Musicians that do gigs occasionally are not going to lose their jobs. Music teachers are not going to lose their jobs due to AI. The only people threatened at the moment by AI are those that generate a substantial amount of music for television, film, radio, video games, etc. I think some of those people *might* lose work, but I think most will leverage the business relationship that they have to remain gainfully employed, and I think lots of those people will eventually adopt AI tech to help their work flow. People that create low quantities of music for tv, etc. may be out of work, but only for the tiny amount of money that they make due to their low musical output. So, are they really losing work?

Don't record companies already do that, and have't they been doing that for decades? They control what gets released in most cases, rare is the self-produced star discovered.

@@YoPaulieMusic Yes, but usually it is a person like Max Martin or Travis Barker who still has to know how to produce something. With AI, they will be needed even less.

I think if the AI-generated content helps you generate new ideas, it can help you be more creative. It's like hearing a new recording, or seeing a new painting... something that makes you take a new turn in your work, or a different direction. One of those "I never thought about that..." scenarios.

you say that but commissions by and large in the 100-200 dollar range for things like d&d fell off the face of the planet. large corporations are laying off literally thousands of employees in the games, animation, and films industry because their non artist bosses think that they can actually just automate everything with ai. They don't understand the technology's limitations or the actual utility and purpose of having human artists on projects meant for entertainment and meaning. There's been a lot of real world effects that effect a whole lot of real people. It's not that somebody is stopping us from picking up a paint brush or instrument. Also the technology itself is based off of breaking copyright law in masse through data laundering and people have been profiteering off of specific individual's work being fed into ai to create work to compete in their market. It's literally illegal.

I appreciate your stance. Help me understand who is losing work right now? Who's musicianship is being made irrelevent? Performing musicians have nothing to worry about when it come to AI music generating tools. People will always want to see live music. AI is not going to replace the amazing wealth of talent anyone can experience walking down Broadway St. on a Friday night. Ai will not replace live bands. Those that write music for tv/film have far more to worry about. The folks out there doing it for fun for some pocket money are going to lose out, unless their stuff is solid and they have strong relationships with music libraries and/or music supervisors. There will be a culling of the herd in the tv/film composer commumnity. However, we have the choice to learn about the tools and use them to become more productive and to remain relevant; or we can quit, complain and whine. As far as giving credit... I don't think you understand how AI models are trained. AI doesnt go out and copy a Chris Stapleton hit on request of a prompter... AI is trained on datasets that include thousands (millions?) of music tracks. Keywords are assigned by human beings to help AI learn. When you ask for a Chris Stapleton country song, AI replaces the artist name with descriptive words that fit his catalog. That automatically removes him from the equation because the instructions are now more broad (country, male vocalist, Nashville, guitar, etc.). So, given that AI trains on such a large catalog, tell me specifically how you think AI tools are supposed to "credit" specific artists?

UBI is a failed concept that has hardly if ever worked, in if so, only in small homogenous populations. History and math show this to be true. Technological advances often make waves and cause disruption, and we adapt. This is just another example of that.

It's replies like this that make the world such a better place. Thanks for offering substance, perspective, and rational thought. Your contribution is greatly appreciated.

But aren't we already there? 120,000 new tracks per day getting uploaded to streaming services PRIOR to Suno and Udio entering the mix. Getting discovered today as a musician is more about your image, backstory or pure luck that it ever was before. AI will not help this get any better, but I consider the market already saturated today as the quality of music continues to decline. All we can do as aspiring artists is to WORK the old fashioned way, work on your networking, generate a following, play live gigs to establish a following, rinse and repeat.

@@YoPaulieMusic so in other words, hide your head in the sand, "keep scrolling" and do nothing about the fact we are being robbed? no wonder the world is what it is...

I disagree... these tools can help people create. They can generate sample lyrics, sample musical ideas, chord progressions, etc. all that can be used as inspiration for human composers. No one is getting replaced, unless they choose to sit back and let themselves get replaced. Use this tech as a tool, don't be a victim of it.