25 years ago i began telling musicians if they wanted to "make it" in music, they'd have to give away the music. because if they didn't, bootleggers would, and the bootleggers would earn the loyalty of the listeners. bootleggers though couldn't hope to make a copy of the live experience, so musicians would rely on their live shows for their recompense - including any merchandise or special edition releases only available at the shows.

Again, a sober view on the matter ❤

What will be hilarious is when the AI starts kicking out the same tune to two or three different people who claim it is their creation hahaha, then watch the fur fly.

Your repeating Rick's "don't care" is on the button!

My 50 cents, diving further into devaluing music, if 120,000 tracks (I wonder what type?) are uploaded per day, doesn't having an AI generator creating an infinite amount of music just devalue it further? If something is easy to generate or find, we tend to value it less as humans. For most ppl it'll be just something to put on in the background. It's already hard to find new good music. It'll probably be even harder w AI. I absolutely think AI is something to worry about.

After listening to the new breakout AI hit "I glued my balls to my butthole again", I knew the careers of musicians were over (after I finally stopped laughing). "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on glue!"

Have you heard of RipX DAW? It lets you get stems and MIDI from AI music.

the thing is, none of this ‘ai’, is actually ai… like its just takes from existing things. and more than just someone being inspired, it doesn’t have the ability to make anything on its own.

*Suno ai* : “I will dominate this music sp…” *Udio* : “Am I, a joke to you?” _Today_ *ElevenLabs* : “Turing Completed” *Udio & Suno* :😳🤯

Guys like the one in the video are deeply excited about this because they can now skip steps to make their music enjoyable...Reality is this recent A.i. breakthrough was trained on original music without the creators consent and thats the problem

“Songs come from creation itself… songs come from the earth. We are merely vessels through which it can flow and come forth and give joy and give culture, and show us traditions” (Whirling Cloud Woman from the Ute peoples). No one cares where music comes from? Would be genuinely fun to debate, but your claim is so ridiculous on its face that you even debunk it in your own title.

There's so much denial in many composers and producers right now. One the first places in the stage of grief, in denial, is denying it's good. It's all crap. Sounds like shit. etc etc. It's shocking to me how in denial some people can be that they can say that with a straight face, because either they're in extreme delusional or they're intentionally not exposing themselves to it, focus only on bad generations, and/or lie to themselves and pretend it's less impressive because it's a silly meme song or pretend that it's more like listening to a construction kit where it's not very impressive because a construction kit is a one trick pony whereas AI is literally creating this shit from white noise because it was trained in all the conceptual patterns in music. I've also heard people act like the entire music industry is like the fine art world. where practical and production music doesn't exist and there's extremely meaningful artistic music by the best of the best. It's like, it doesn't even need to be any better than it is already to destroy/replace most of the music industry! And of course it will get even better! When you see them get to the anger stage they've got past some of this denial, because you only get angry about the training material when you see it's good enough to be a threat. They didn't give two shits about the training data when it wasn't a threat, they didn't even care about it when the image artists were getting very angry with Image AI's the past couple of years. They didn't care that Open AI's "Jukebox" came out in 2020 and clearly used copyrighted training data , because ithe quality clearly wasn't a threat and it was so hard to generate music with it and took so long. They evidently only care about the output quality, which is why they don't REALLY care about the use of copyrighted training data. They don't understand this either and it works against their own legal case. Since they only care about the output , but think they are about the training, they'll show example where it's clearly simulated some famous singers voice. Infringement! they scream. Well this isn't infringement everywhere in the world, but aside from that, all they're doing is setting up the premise that the AI companies just need to make sure the OUTPUT doesn't do this and changes it enough to not infringe copyright or voice. This is very different to what they want, which is the legal PREMISE that ALL music generated by a model that uses uncleared copyrighted music to be illegal copyright infringement. Where it doesn't matter how good it is, and doesn't matter how close or far away it is from infringing copyright by any traditional metric. They also think the courts might save them with these lawsuits, when the Image AI lawsuits have already shown that they're screwed. Companies like Universal Music will screw them, and betray them, the same way way Getty Images and Shutterstock did. They IMMEDIATLY made their own Ai models before the case was resolved! They didn't want a third party doing this,, they were perfectly find doing it to their own content creators! Adobe literally called what they paid to creators in their stock library to have their word trained without their consent a "bonus". If OpenAi or Midjourney paid these artists even a $1000 each is this enough to cover their entire industry being replaced? Of course not! None of them, noone, would volunteer their art to be trained in the AI unless they were being paid huge amounts. They're not paying them anything! The best you could get is to make these companies provide a royalty if someone uses their name in their generation. Has anyone even suggested this? I bet they haven't. because this doesn't help anyone that isn't a big name, and for most stock art they don't know any of their names. So it would only help big names, which no one wants to suggest because they're still under the illusion that the law could stop it entirely. Even if they could get the law to give them what they want, which it won't (OpenAI is hardly going to throw away all their models neither is all the other LLM's) Open Source makes all of the legal cases irrelevant. Perhaps this is one of the reasons Facebook is making all their AI Open Source is because they don't want the law to stop them from doing anything. If it's Open Source there's zero chance they can be forced to nerf any of it in the future. "Well it's all Open Source, the model has already been trained and it's out there" If they can get to acceptance they might be able to use the law to get something that IS doable, If they can get to acceptance, they can realise that the companies suing these AI companies are either already betraying them or already have. These companies aren't trying to get the same legal outcome as what these artists want! These companies like Getty, Adobe and Shuttershock get to present themselves as the "ethical AI" and the good guys, when if they were the only ones with these models they'd be the bad guys!