Apple Music to Label AI-Generated Songs

[turbineseaplane]

I'm having trouble getting away from an obvious AI user fever dream of "making music that's just like Taylor Swift (or insert any major artist)" and trying to monetize it on a service.

I think that's a portion of this that many just don't want to admit.
That would also explain why someone wouldn't want AI music being labeled as such.

 

[bread6000]

Name a few vinyls that you know of that actively uses AI in the songs or uses some sort of AI. NOT searched up on the web, only straight from memory.

Name a few vinyls that you know of that actively uses AI in the songs or uses some sort of AI. NOT searched up on the web, only straight from memory.

You are not going to find it because those are major artists that Apple will give a pass I bet, but look up who use AI technology and you will see some names like The Beatles (Paul and Ringo).

 

[bread6000]

I'm having trouble getting away from an obvious AI user fever dream of "making music that's just like Taylor Swift (or insert any major artist)" and trying to monetize it on a service.

I think that's a portion of this that many just don't want to admit.
That would also explain why someone wouldn't want AI music being labeled as such.

You see, that is something different. I don't like that ether, because that can come off as copyright infringement.

You think that if a person upload their own works into AI technology or just use it as a tool, the song is going to come out sounding like it was written by Taylor Swift or sound close to a Beyonce track.

No, the only way that happens if you text in that you want in the AI app to make a song similar to those artists.

I am not defending those type of people, I'm only defending people who uses AI technology to make their own works sound better.

 

[OldNewMBP]

You see, that is something different. I don't like that ether, because that can come off as copyright infringement.

Again, incorrect. Would you want to know if something made by a popular artist is made by AI or not?

 

[Knowimagination]

I am not defending those type of people, I'm only defending people who uses AI technology to make their own works sound better.

But what does this mean?

 

[bread6000]

Again, incorrect. Would you want to know if something made by a popular artist is made by AI or not?

I have no problem with the "Made With AI" label, I have a problem with how it will be used.

If a person uses AI technology to make their own works better, at least it should be labeled "AI Assisted", because let's be real here, if you see a song labeled "Al Generated" or "Made With AI" with no explanation of how AI technology was used, you are going to think that the person behind it put no effort into creating the song and just text in a prompt.

That is all I am trying to say but the push back I am seeing is "just don't use AI" all because they don't like AI technology. Those people I can't take seriously.

 

[OldNewMBP]

I have not problem with the "Made With AI" label, I have a problem with how it's will be used.

If a person uses AI technology to make their own works better, at least it should be label "AI Assisted", because let's be real here, if you see a label "Al Generated" or "Made With AI" with no explanation of how AI technology was used, you are going to think that the person behind put no effort into creating the song and just text in a prompt.

That is all I am trying to say but the push back I am seeing is "just don't use AI" all because they don't like AI technology. Those people I can't take seriously.

And then we have people that IMITATE popular artists with AI. What do you think of that?

 

[bread6000]

And then we have people that IMITATE popular artists with AI. What do you think of that?

Yeah I don't like that, which is why I keep bringing up and defending only people who uses AI technology as a tool for their own works.

People who uses AI to imitate other artists or mass produced songs using AI by texting in a prompt that is horrible.

It seems like some people did not understand what I was saying. All they see is AI technology and loses it.

 

[eifelbube]

If the AI was prompted by a human, then what?

At what point does chicken and egg become one and the same?

At what what point does the distinction between A and B become irrelevant?

A prompt is an order to AI to pick and throw together music it was trained on but did not create. It can only synthesize what already exists, it can’t create from scratch. Beethoven did not order the 9th, he conceived it. He composed an original rather than blending compositions by others. The problem is that AI has the computational power to draw on existing work from a vast body of sources and give the impression that the resulting mix is an original piece.

Art is intent, thought, emotion, skill, and effort. These “traits” combine for art to be valued as a human accomplishment. AI fakes them to the extent that products indeed are perceived as art. Not being able to tell anymore if my perception is shaped with the help of deception, diminishes my appreciation. I don’t want to be subjected to canned, mass-produced art. As a paid subscriber, I expect labelling at the least.

The only art in AI is before ificial.

 

[ChromeAce]

AI created music is not software assisted music creation

That’s exactly what it is. Humans created the AI. Humans authored the prompt to create the music. Humans should listen to it on its own merits.

 

[ChromeAce]

Software assisted music creation is with a computer and a music program, not a computer and a chatbot.

To quote an earlier version of you in 1980:

“Computer synthesizers aren’t real instruments.”

 

[ChromeAce]

AI-generated writing*, not software-assisted.

AI is software.

 

[eifelbube]

AI music is coming whether musicians care or not. soon you won’t be able to tell the difference.

A) Could be true for streaming, and that is why it needs to be labelled. It pretends to be created by humans, so there is an element of fake and deception

B) For concerts, I would be able to tell the difference. But this dynamic mode of presentation allowing simultaneously for a communal listening experience and for live interaction among artists as well as between artists and audience is lost by AI generated music.

Obviously,

 

[FeliApple]

AI is software.

Auto-correct is massively different.

Tired of seeing posts written by AI. Can’t you write? Pathetic. I dismiss them immediately.

Some people have even told me “I use AI to prevent mistakes”. Give me the mistakes! I don’t care. I won’t judge you. But if I’m having a conversation with you, I want your words, not AI’s pathetic garbage.

 

[Mainyehc]

There's a little more it it than that.

An AI can generate/replicate music because it has been trained on the output of musicians. AIs do not receive royalties for their music. This means it becomes less an less financially viable for a human to be a professional musician. SDO less human-generated music.

In other words, there will be less and less new human-generated music to train the AIs with.

There needs to be funnelling of a percentage of the revenue generated by AI music to fund the continued development of human-generated music.

This goes for all of the arts. Otherwise there will simply be recombinations of the same, and nothing new.

Oh god, I really hope the continuous, self-reinforcing loop of Gen-AI trash feeding more Gen-AI trash turns the output into something so egregiously unusable and unlistenable that people just stop subscribing to these services. Maybe then recording and streaming execs will learn their lesson and get their act together.

 

[Sosab123]

I don't make music, but I know a couple producers/beat makers, and they all tell me it's basically the same argument people had about synthesizers back in the day. There was a lot of concern that synthesizers would make things too easy, replace musicians, or somehow make the resulting music less legitimate because a machine was doing something that traditionally required a person to play.

But that's what technology does. It takes things that used to require more time, specialized knowledge, or physical skill and makes them more accessible. That doesn't mean the creativity disappears. It means the tools change.

The most interesting things ive heard goes along the lines of

"Why spend x amount of time trying to match a sound someone wants manually when AI can achieve the same result with the push of a button? A human has to do all the button pushing and listening. Its not like me and the artist are just creating something, not listening and sending it out, I know I dont and i hope no one else is."
...
"It's like choosing to walk somewhere simply because walking came first, when we now have bikes, cars, and skateboards. The existence of something being done faster doesn't invalidate the old one. It just gives you another way to get where you're going."
..
"I probably save 2 or 3 hours a day now cause of how fast I can respond with an effect for a particular sound a client wants."

And I think that's ultimately what's happening with AI generated music. Whether people like it or not, it's becoming another tool in the creative toolbox. Once enough people realize they can use it to get a result they couldn't otherwise achieve, or simply get there faster, it's very difficult to convince them to stop using it just because the older method required more work.

Personally, I just like music. I have my real artist, but when it comes to the A.I stuff, If I need a vibe going for 2 or 3 hours of consistent sounding music, i'd rather just use A.I gen stuff because of how consistent it sounds from track to track. Its good with keeping the atmosphere going, but, the stuff that comes from my favorite bands, like Kool and the Gang, and Earth, Wind & Fire, they still have a special place in my listening.

 

[turbineseaplane]

I don't make music, but I know a couple producers/beat makers, and they all tell me it's basically the same argument people had about synthesizers back in the day. There was a lot of concern that synthesizers would make things too easy, replace musicians, or somehow make the resulting music less legitimate because a machine was doing something that traditionally required a person to play.

But that's what technology does. It takes things that used to require more time, specialized knowledge, or physical skill and makes them more accessible. That doesn't mean the creativity disappears. It means the tools change.

The most interesting things ive heard goes along the lines of

"Why spend x amount of time trying to match a sound someone wants manually when AI can achieve the same result with the push of a button? A human has to do all the button pushing and listening. Its not like me and the artist are just creating something, not listening and sending it out, I know I dont and i hope no one else is."
...
"It's like choosing to walk somewhere simply because walking came first, when we now have bikes, cars, and skateboards. The existence of something being done faster doesn't invalidate the old one. It just gives you another way to get where you're going."
..
"I probably save 2 or 3 hours a day now cause of how fast I can respond with an effect for a particular sound a client wants."

And I think that's ultimately what's happening with AI generated music. Whether people like it or not, it's becoming another tool in the creative toolbox. Once enough people realize they can use it to get a result they couldn't otherwise achieve, or simply get there faster, it's very difficult to convince them to stop using it just because the older method required more work.

Personally, I just like music. I have my real artist, but when it comes to the A.I stuff, If I need a vibe going for 2 or 3 hours of consistent sounding music, i'd rather just use A.I gen stuff because of how consistent it sounds from track to track. Its good with keeping the atmosphere going, but, the stuff that comes from my favorite bands, like Kool and the Gang, and Earth, Wind & Fire, they still have a special place in my listening.

Humanity would be so much better off, long term, when we finally realize that just doing things "faster" is not an actual destination of desire.

This thinking is mostly a product of our societal models of the very recent eras.

"We have intelligence, but not wisdom"

 

[Sosab123]

Humanity will be so much better when we finally realize that just doing things "faster" is not an actual destination of desire.

I agree with you, but, majority rules. There will always be 2 camps, one who says yes, and one who says no, we have always gone with the more who says either.

 

[FeliApple]

I don't make music, but I know a couple producers/beat makers, and they all tell me it's basically the same argument people had about synthesizers back in the day. There was a lot of concern that synthesizers would make things too easy, replace musicians, or somehow make the resulting music less legitimate because a machine was doing something that traditionally required a person to play.

But that's what technology does. It takes things that used to require more time, specialized knowledge, or physical skill and makes them more accessible. That doesn't mean the creativity disappears. It means the tools change.

The most interesting things ive heard goes along the lines of

"Why spend x amount of time trying to match a sound someone wants manually when AI can achieve the same result with the push of a button? A human has to do all the button pushing and listening. Its not like me and the artist are just creating something, not listening and sending it out, I know I dont and i hope no one else is."
...
"It's like choosing to walk somewhere simply because walking came first, when we now have bikes, cars, and skateboards. The existence of something being done faster doesn't invalidate the old one. It just gives you another way to get where you're going."
..
"I probably save 2 or 3 hours a day now cause of how fast I can respond with an effect for a particular sound a client wants."

And I think that's ultimately what's happening with AI generated music. Whether people like it or not, it's becoming another tool in the creative toolbox. Once enough people realize they can use it to get a result they couldn't otherwise achieve, or simply get there faster, it's very difficult to convince them to stop using it just because the older method required more work.

Personally, I just like music. I have my real artist, but when it comes to the A.I stuff, If I need a vibe going for 2 or 3 hours of consistent sounding music, i'd rather just use A.I gen stuff because of how consistent it sounds from track to track. Its good with keeping the atmosphere going, but, the stuff that comes from my favorite bands, like Kool and the Gang, and Earth, Wind & Fire, they still have a special place in my listening.

If I need a 3-hour vibe I select it myself from the music I like, or worst-case scenario, pick an Apple Music-curated playlist that selects real artists.

On time-saving, @turbineseaplane ‘s words are perfect.

 

[Happy_John]

I don't make music, but I know a couple producers/beat makers, and they all tell me it's basically the same argument people had about synthesizers back in the day. There was a lot of concern that synthesizers would make things too easy, replace musicians, or somehow make the resulting music less legitimate because a machine was doing something that traditionally required a person to play.

But that's what technology does. It takes things that used to require more time, specialized knowledge, or physical skill and makes them more accessible. That doesn't mean the creativity disappears. It means the tools change.

The most interesting things ive heard goes along the lines of

"Why spend x amount of time trying to match a sound someone wants manually when AI can achieve the same result with the push of a button? A human has to do all the button pushing and listening. Its not like me and the artist are just creating something, not listening and sending it out, I know I dont and i hope no one else is."
...
"It's like choosing to walk somewhere simply because walking came first, when we now have bikes, cars, and skateboards. The existence of something being done faster doesn't invalidate the old one. It just gives you another way to get where you're going."
..
"I probably save 2 or 3 hours a day now cause of how fast I can respond with an effect for a particular sound a client wants."

And I think that's ultimately what's happening with AI generated music. Whether people like it or not, it's becoming another tool in the creative toolbox. Once enough people realize they can use it to get a result they couldn't otherwise achieve, or simply get there faster, it's very difficult to convince them to stop using it just because the older method required more work.

Personally, I just like music. I have my real artist, but when it comes to the A.I stuff, If I need a vibe going for 2 or 3 hours of consistent sounding music, i'd rather just use A.I gen stuff because of how consistent it sounds from track to track. Its good with keeping the atmosphere going, but, the stuff that comes from my favorite bands, like Kool and the Gang, and Earth, Wind & Fire, they still have a special place in my listening.

There's difference between AI generating a sound, and AI-generated music.

Writing a prompt "Generate a sad song about my dead cat in the style of Rick Rubin era Johnny Cash" is NOT the same as using AI to generate a sound instead of sampling a sound or generating that sound with a synth.

The fundamental problem is that, as generating AI "music"via prompts does not require the permission and payment of a human musician / composer, AI generated music will become more and more prevalent, and it will be less and less financially viable to make a living as a musician.

And without human musicians, what will AI be trained on?

It;'s similar to the content piracy argument. People love the idea of "something for nothing", and they feel justified in parlay because "evil corporations", but, at the end of the day, if no-one is paying for the content ( music, film, etc) to be created, there won't be anyone too make new content, because it's not financially viable to make good content for free.

AI does have value as a tool to save time/labour - just as a washing machine reduces the amount of time and labour needed to wash clothes. What it does not die (and this is the techbro insanity) is replace the human component.

Calculators are useful in schools, but only after basic math and arithmetic has been understood from first principles. You need to know exactly what the tool is doing before assigning tasks to the tool, otherwise it's just "magic".

AI doesn't create. It can replicate and reformulate, but it won't generate anything "new". And, at every stage, the input and output needs to be made and checked by a human. Otherwise what you end up with is slop.

 

[turbineseaplane]

I'm in a small town this weekend, staying in an above garage apartment outfitted with a brilliant array of older technology. There is a 1990's Bose setup that still works wonderfully.

Last night I had the windows open and cool mountain air was coming in. The lights were low and I fired up the Bose and turned on FM radio, which had the regional public radio Jazz station already selected.

It was a truly soul soothing evening of classical jazz delivered in a classical way.
My heart was warmed and it just felt "right".

Amazingly, I feel so much of our tech direction in the last 15-ish years has gone so far away from helping me get the feeling I had last night.

It's like we're now optimizing for goals that simply aren't human.

 

[FeliApple]

I agree with you, but, majority rules. There will always be 2 camps, one who says yes, and one who says no, we have always gone with the more who says either.

Would you really listen to a playlist of AI-nonsense rather than make a playlist yourself with what you like?

I’m sure you like enough music to make a playlist you personally like that’s far longer than three hours.

 

[turbineseaplane]

Let's be honest .. powerful entrenched players (like an Apple) would love AI music to take over.

There is this dystopian dream, across sectors, of having "product" to charge people for with as few (or zero) costs as possible.

Apple Music, fully powered by Siri*

*no humans needing to be paid

 

[FeliApple]

I'm in a small town this weekend, staying in an above garage apartment outfitted with a brilliant array of older technology. There is a 1990's Bose setup that still works wonderfully.

Last night I had the windows open and cool mountain air was coming in. The lights were low and I fired up the Bose and turned on FM radio, which had the regional public radio Jazz station already selected.

It was a truly soul soothing evening of classical jazz delivered in a classical way.
My heart was warmed and it just felt "right".

Amazingly, I feel so much of our tech direction in the last 15-ish years has gone so far away from helping me get the feeling I had last night.

It's like we're now optimizing for goals that simply aren't human.

There’s such a massive, unprecedented, impossible-to-narrow disconnect between the current tech psychopaths and regular people that I have never seen before that is so utterly repulsive that it’s incomprehensible to me.

I hope that we can keep finding these little things that feel right in the heart, even if the answer is to go back to what existed before these psychopaths and against the current of the youngest of generations (those who are small children today).

 

[turbineseaplane]

There’s such a massive, unprecedented, impossible-to-narrow disconnect between the current tech psychopaths and regular people that I have never seen before that is so utterly repulsive that it’s incomprehensible to me.

I hope that we can keep finding these little things that feel right in the heart, even if the answer is to go back to what existed before these psychopaths and against the current of the youngest of generations (those who are small children today).

Agreed!
I thinks it's part of what is drawing younger folks to technologies that predate them.

There is a "something" that we lost along the way and I sort of envy them enjoying the process of the discovery.