Not Free, and judging from the other opinion it just generates presets with random values.

If you people actually knew what you can do with Synplant, you would purchase it without hesitation. The number of secret features this synth has is not even covered to 10% in this video. Quick tip: there is a randomization feature built in that allows you to regenerate similar samples you input, but not as you might expect through the Genopatch, but on the main interface. There are some hidden features that no KZfaqr has discovered yet. I am creating an unlimited amount of Nintendo/Mario/Gameboy type sounds with this thing in literal seconds, while you are thinking about purchasing it. Forget the Genopatch. The main interface is where the magic happens.

Gave you a like because I had the same ideas, it gave me about 1 hour of trying stuff but wasn't a fan and want the original synthplant back

2:31 god bless you friend

of course it costs money when i find it :)

To all of you saying "$100!!!", it WAS free.

my mom hates this

Thanks for your excellent video. I'm glad to learn about MicroMusic. But I don't see where it's free. It costs $100.00

Well, Synplant is running by only a french guy who developed all that crazy beast by himself.

- i need to stop getting distracted. The song producer life resumed in a single sentence kzfaq.info/get/bejne/rJuEi82omLjPgmw.htmlsi=pOGAT89C3wfAa8GY 4:14m

Honestly I don't see the problem with this? Why the fuck would you be mad about a sound that has been breathed out a specific way? It still takes skill to make it sound nice in a song even with all the AI.

Anyone has a different link for the software? Its no more free ;/

Thank you for sharing this great perspective mate. Subbed you, keep making videos like these.

1:46 bro this ai cant remake a litteral saw wave with some filter envelope synplant is totally better

ITS NOT FREE! :(

Interesting, but 100 bucks are not what I'd call free 😢 Nice review though 👍

👍🏻👌🏻

NOT FREE

I think the sound generation side isn't as great at some sample-based stuff.

Haha! Sounds awesome! Is that a model that comes free or is sold?

not free anymore…

Cool video 👊🏾

"surely there's not farts on splice" *immediately plays pristine fart with reverb

Ahhaahahh 😂😂😂🔥

I love synplant 2. I would never want it to actually recreate a sample perfectly, I use it to make new sounds. There are loads of ways I try to break it so it's algorithms come up with crazy sounds.

Tbf it inspired some beats

it's very interesting to see people's varied reactions to its limited capabilities/accuracy-IMO there's way more potential when it produces something unexpected, rather than faithfully recreating something 100%-at that point just use a sampler 😂 same thing with generative AI nowadays-when it's accurate it's mindblowing… but boring. give me more Will Smith eating spaghetti because that's genuinely interesting!

End of the day.. if it sounds exactly like the original vocal then it should be illegal. Same way as a piano or guitar riff that sounds similar to other songs. The vocal is an instrument in my opinion and should be treated the same. This solves any issues.

i thought you were going to show off a huge process chain on the master, was relieved when you only had one plugin. less is more on the master channel 100%. when I load up my old projects I wish I knew this back then instead of a huge nest sucking the life out of the mix and scratching my head wondering why

yeah a year off, maybe 2. indistinguishable.. yeh bro thats a good idea having a sort of system where you can trace the lineage of the DNA of the tracks. unofficial remixes. maybe weather the og artist is in agreement or repudiates the mix (in the event they do) lol, shrug and setting up a sort of percentages system could be. solid also. as you say its doing nothing the way it is.

fart pjano 💀

so how about using the original already, how can the law prove you use ai or not at this rate ?

The problem is largely that copyright is a load of outdated bs..

All this video makes me realise is james hype is a complete clown

I guess singers best learn a few instruments. Diversify your services you offer. Until AI hogs them all up.

But before AI you could still pay a replay company to resing the part. For recording samples you can play the resing company to recreate the section of the song. AI makes the resing part more affordable so this could be really bad for replay companies.

I don't see an issue. I think this is just a symptom of major labels just wanting to have an oligopoly on the music industry.

Guy has no clue how royalties work. YES he can use the vocal without permission, BUT he will still owe Jodeci all the $$$ because they own the Mechanical royalty and the publishing rights ! If you get AI to resynthesise a Michael Jackson vocal for 'Thriller', you can release it without permission, it will be classed as a cover, but you will have to pay Michael Jacksons publishing royalties (probably 95%) of all the money from the track to the company that owns his publishing rights. There's 2 royalties in a song: 1. Mechanical 2. Publishing Mechanicals are to do with the exact recording in its initial state owned usually by a record label. (This is where you get the term 'masters', labels always own an artists Mechanicals, artists rarely ever get control of there mechanical royalties 'masters'. Publishing is the essence of the song, so to mimic it, re-record it, AI-resynthesize it, you can avoid the mechanicals issue, but you still owe a publishing royalty to the owner of the publishing. If you launch music that infringes a publishing royalty, you can also be taken to court in the US, where you will pay all your own legal fees and if found guilty will then also pay the fine, and the person accusing you, there legal fees also. Basically if you re-synthesised a Beyoncé song, with her vocal, released it, and she took you to court for infringement of her song, you will get financially destroyed. Even if your not guilty, just the court case alone, will terminate your finances. Robin Thicke and Pharrell Williams were sued by Marvin Gaye’s family in 2013 for copyright infringement of Gaye’s 1977 hit song “Got to Give It Up” in their 2013 hit song “Blurred Lines”123. In 2015, the Gaye family won the case and a nearly $5 million judgment was entered against Thicke and Williams in favor of Gaye’s family1. The lawsuit claimed that Thicke pilfered two of Gaye’s songs for his own work.

I know this much: KZfaq will copyright claim MIDI versions of copyrighted songs such as "Funky Town".... the equipment I use is premium synths from Yamaha and Roland... and when I play Funky Town using them they sound very good, even better in their own right, than the original song. But KZfaq recognizes this and send a full copyright claim to my performance which is technically a cover but sounds so good that it triggers a full copyright. Other MIDI songs I've worked on don't sound as good as the original and get the traditioned "shared copyright." So I don't see this being a problem with KZfaq because it's really good and detecting stuff like that.

he's just a lazy fuck, he's admitting to be a lazy creative person and i don't think he's even realizing it and isn't obvious to everyone that it is possible to do it that way? but it's just lame great video gecha

This makes me happy I was raised by a man. I can play and write music.

Who cares?? This kinda thing has been going on for decades. Taping records, taping the radio, sampling, burning cd's....... One day people are going to realise music cannot be owned, its in the air. It took scumbags to ruin everything by bringing money into it and destroying everything. LET PEOPLE BE CREATIVE BY ANY MEANS!!!!

Back in the 80s: omfg MIDI is going to replace live performance the music industry is over folks. That’s what this all feels like. AI won’t be that big a deal like people are saying.

Something I never see mentioned in these discussions is that the AI "cover" can't be generated without the input of the original acapella. There is no legal precedence set, but this feels a bit more reliant on the source material and therefore almost somewhere in between a cover and a sample.

ai can be a valid tool but its genuinely depressing how as it gets stronger people find ways like this (or derivative ai music generation trained on stolen material) to abuse it and cheat other artists. great video mate

Big problems are coming? LOL have you not been listening to the radio the last 15 years? It's all shit, remakes and covers of 80's and 90's stuff(Original artists still get a cut of covers) which is why you need to apply for a License. Even using certain samples from Splice, you can apply for the License within Splice to use it commercially. Also if you use sites like Udio, you own everything you make, it changes nothing within the Copywrite laws

There a two copyrights in music, one on the recording and one on the composition itself. For a cover, you still need clearance to use the composition (lyrics) even if it's a different vocalist or AI.

Fart. 'it - hasn't really got the right pitch' 😂

You aren't wrong and a great solution you've come up with. I can see copyright laws being changed and adapted to the changes in the industry.

How about producers create new content using Ai that does not rip off other artists? Just a thought.