-
Hi and welcome to the Studio One User Forum!
Please note that this is an independent, user-driven forum and is not endorsed by, affiliated with, or maintained by PreSonus. Learn more in the Welcome thread!
Delete
- Thread starter Oldmancomebacktrail
- Start date
TimC340
Well-known member
My interest was piqued by Rick Beato's venture into AI which he did for an item on US TV. He used Suno to prompt a song by an artist he called 'Sadie Winters'. The song was generic pop, and was surprisingly ok. A video of the song is here:
This isn't the original TV production.
Rick was quite clear that no copyright could or would apply to the song, and a few YT creators tool the name and voice and did more with it. One particular guy - a not-so-youngster called JBoyWii - took the concept and applied his own (very good) lyrics and song structures to it via Suno and has come up with some extremely passable songs - as I understand it, he essentially created the songs himself, and had Suno turn his sketches into complete arrangements, but he makes no claims to original content other than the lyrics.
It does raise some interesting points: is this where song production is going? We already use various tools (libraries, loops, things like BIAB (which is not AI and predates many of us!) which take some of the arrangement load off, and give us access to musicians and instruments which many of us could never afford IRL - let alone have the talent to organise, present written music for, and then record!
I don't, never have, and never will, earn money from music and so I don't have an iron in this fire. I also have never used Suno or Udio beyond a free 'have a go' online one-off thing - which proved that I don't even have the talent to make a prompt that'll do anything useful! So I can genuinely stand back and observe without prejudice. And I am finding it fascinating, and not a little scary!
This isn't the original TV production.
Rick was quite clear that no copyright could or would apply to the song, and a few YT creators tool the name and voice and did more with it. One particular guy - a not-so-youngster called JBoyWii - took the concept and applied his own (very good) lyrics and song structures to it via Suno and has come up with some extremely passable songs - as I understand it, he essentially created the songs himself, and had Suno turn his sketches into complete arrangements, but he makes no claims to original content other than the lyrics.
It does raise some interesting points: is this where song production is going? We already use various tools (libraries, loops, things like BIAB (which is not AI and predates many of us!) which take some of the arrangement load off, and give us access to musicians and instruments which many of us could never afford IRL - let alone have the talent to organise, present written music for, and then record!
I don't, never have, and never will, earn money from music and so I don't have an iron in this fire. I also have never used Suno or Udio beyond a free 'have a go' online one-off thing - which proved that I don't even have the talent to make a prompt that'll do anything useful! So I can genuinely stand back and observe without prejudice. And I am finding it fascinating, and not a little scary!
Gray Wolf
Active member
I'd go farther and say the 60's and 70's. A lot of great music from that era would sound terrible if it was exposed to modern production techniques like quantizing, beat detective, auto tune, etc. An example of that is War - Sliiping Into Darkness, and some other similar songs like that - George Duke etc, from that era where the slop is the actual groove and funk. You can't get that putting things on a grid, you can only get that feel with live players.
TimC340
Well-known member
What you or I like is kind of irrelevant: it's not for us to gatekeep what people like or should listen to! There's been a whole lot of music over my 70 years that I really can't stand, but I'd never tell people not to listen to it or enjoy it. If it floats their boat, that's fine by me (as long as they do it outside my hearing...). Neither is it particularly relevant whether we think 60s, 70s, 80s or even 1520s music was better-made, more interesting, or had elements which AI 'can't match'. That's also gatekeeping, and I won't play that game.
Not sure what the fuss is, before AI each of us had the same one in a hundred million chance to get where we ideally wanted to go regarding the artistic and commercial success of our musical efforts, now each of us stands a one in a billion chance.
Hopefully, people do this stuff cause they like the challenge of recording, not just to land hits on Korean charts.
Opting for a life in music has never been much of a sensible decision, it's a passion, so if they odds against "making it" have further decreased due to AI, what difference does that really make as we tackle our next projects? Personally, I'm exponentially more concerned about the effects of AI on the rest of life; it'll have a negligible effect on what I do on my own time in my studio.
Hopefully, people do this stuff cause they like the challenge of recording, not just to land hits on Korean charts.
Opting for a life in music has never been much of a sensible decision, it's a passion, so if they odds against "making it" have further decreased due to AI, what difference does that really make as we tackle our next projects? Personally, I'm exponentially more concerned about the effects of AI on the rest of life; it'll have a negligible effect on what I do on my own time in my studio.
Gray Wolf
Active member
@TimC340: I agree. I dislike way more musical genres than I like but I always respect the talent it takes to make 'good music', even though 'good music' is as wildy subjective as "good food". 
My comparison was more about modern production techniques in general and how they might be detrimental to some productions from an earlier time.
Maybe to your point about gatekeeping, some musicians do appear to think they alone are the aribters of all that is or should be viewed as good. But of course, that's not limited to music, it's more a "feature" of human nature and psychology.
My comparison was more about modern production techniques in general and how they might be detrimental to some productions from an earlier time.Maybe to your point about gatekeeping, some musicians do appear to think they alone are the aribters of all that is or should be viewed as good. But of course, that's not limited to music, it's more a "feature" of human nature and psychology.
Craig Anderton
Well-known member
I think listeners are the ultimate arbiters of all that is or should be viewed as good. So far, AI seems to be getting more traction with people who want to play with music than people who want to listen to music (other than background music, which AI dcan do well). That will likely change over time.
I see no reason why musicians can't co-exist with AI. I haven't heard anything AI-generated that I would say is creative. That doesn't mean people wouldn't want to listen to it. But I think there will always be a need for new and never-before-heard sounds and genres, which by definition, AI is so far incapable of creating. So that leaves plenty of creative leeway for musicians who are up to the challenge.
lokeyfly
Well-known member
Good one. Or some other place in time........
HAL: My instructor was Mr. Langley, and he taught me to sing a song. If you'd like to hear it I can sing it for you.
DAW User: Yes, I'd like to hear it, HAL. Sing it for me.
HAL: It's called "Daisy."
HAL: [sings while slowing down] Daisy, Daisy, give me your answer do. I'm half crazy all for the love of you. It won't be a stylish marriage, I can't afford a carriage. But you'll look sweet upon the seat of a bicycle built for two.
DAW User: Not great HAL, but certainly better than the watered down, non-creative dribble you conjure up to sell others on the idea that you actually provide something uhem.... worthwile. Its no wonder you are deemed "artificial". What you provide at lightning speed is not intelligence. Oh no, its more like algorithmic masturbation.
Why, if in fact you could actually offer something other than gum-ball machine creativity, I'd give you some kind of one trick pony hand clap. Only I can't. You see, even a song like Fish Heads (created by humans), where the lyrics are: "Fish heads, fish heads, Roly-poly fish heads
Fish heads, fish heads
Eat them up, yum" , has far greater creativity than your processing might ever reach.
But you'll cater to many with a false pretence. Particularly to those who wouldn't know commitment if they fell over it. But they'll get a taste of satisfaction somehow.
Funny, but I remember a song that went something like .....
" I can't get no, satisfaction."
Only, how would you render, or even identify with that single line?
The DAW user walks away. Uncaring.
[Just funnin' with a thought process, ].
Craig Anderton
Well-known member
Spend some time in the "Made in Studio One" forum. You'll hear all different kinds of music, with no algorithm pushing you in any particular direction. I much prefer listening to the music there than what's on Spotify. There's some really good stuff.
I couldn't resist. Here is Daisy, Daisy reimagined by a 1990's HAL in his Madchester/Indie phase:
Lyrics by me and ChatGPT. Everything else by Suno.
Take note of the comedy artwork, also generated by Suno. I'm astonished at how good AI art can get except when it comes to piano keyboards, fingers and, seemingly, tandems.
And if you are wondering about the "stutter" at the end of the bridge it's where I missed the backspace key so Suno is trying to sing "S=stayed"...
Last edited:
Gray Wolf
Active member
True. Currently, people usually know when something was made by AI, and that alone shapes their opinion, whether they realize it or not. But eventually we’ll reach a point where a song comes on the radio or in a video or is played at a party, and people will enjoy it purely for what it is, without thinking about or caring who or what created it.
The problem for AI-made music today is that it starts with a built-in bias against it. A lot of listeners judge it negatively the moment they hear it’s “AI,” even before they listen. Beyond music, AI in general still carries a negative reputation for some people. No matter the context, certain groups view anything involving AI with skepticism or distrust right from the start.
A revealing experiment would be to anonomously go to a music forum and post a well done song created by AI and take credit for it. Tell people the singer is your neighbor and the bass player is your brother in law and you wrote and recorded and mixed the song together, etc, create a credible back story ... and track the reactions. That's not lying in the conventional sense, it's removing potential bias from an experiment. You'll mostly get people's honest reactions and feedback and if the song is really good I seriously doubt anyone would say it sounds like it was made by AI.
Of course, you should return at some later point and clear the air with the truth of the experiment. And of course, after you come clean some wll predictably claim that they knew it all along.
Good discussion.
Last edited:
TimC340
Well-known member
I seem to remember that Rick Beato quoted some study or other that suggested most streaming consumers actually couldn't tell what was AI and what wasn't (presumably based on stuff created very recently). I don't have that data, but I think we're already very close to it being undetectable from a listener's perspective.
What was just said about the last holdout for real musicians is playing live. I have been getting hired to go play these simple gigs where the people call and say that everyone voted for having a real musician instead of canned. They just want quiet background music. Guitar and vocals.
There will always be a place for real musicians to play music. It’s recording music that in my opinion is now pointless unless you are only doing it because you enjoy the process and it’s a nice hobby.
Don’t post your music to the distribution system they will just use you.
There will always be a place for real musicians to play music. It’s recording music that in my opinion is now pointless unless you are only doing it because you enjoy the process and it’s a nice hobby.
Don’t post your music to the distribution system they will just use you.
Larry Jones
New member
I came to this party a little late, but my comment is "You can't tell AI music from human music until you call to book the "band" for a live show."
Since the days of Napster I've been telling musicians to write the best songs they can, create the best recordings they can, get the best album cover art and liner notes they can acquire, put your record out and then get ready to play 200 nights a year, because (except for Taylor Swift and Bad Bunny), nobody's going to make a living selling records. The upside of this is that no matter how good the fake AI acts are, they won't be able to compete with your live performances for emotional content and that anything-might-happen feeling that comes from real musicians playing real instruments on a real stage right before your eyes.
And let's not talk about holographic "bands." It may be that modern audiences will pay real money to go see that, but I am not convinced.
Jemusic
Active member
This is interesting:
www.production-expert.com
AI Music Won’t Fix The Hardest Part Of Making A Music Career | Production Expert
AI music tools make it easier than ever to create finished-sounding tracks. But making music has never been the hardest part of building a career. Attention, discovery, and longevity are, and AI does nothing to solve those problems.
www.production-expert.com
SwitchBack
Well-known member
More likely Suno will answer: "I can try, but my sponsors will take a share of the royalties. The percentage will depend on your input versus mine. Please read the terms and conditions and agree to proceed."
Last edited:
lokeyfly
Well-known member
Cute. Here's another: I just conjured up.
Will: Mary, I wrote you a song, and with that, will you marry me?
Mary: I'm so touched by your gift, I waited for someday for such a beautiful and meaningful love to come my way. I......, I..... will.... marry you, Will! (the couple embrace with the thought of matrimony).
Mary: How did you come up with this? I didnt even know you played guitar, or could write such meaningful poetry. OMG, my future husband!
Will: Well, I've always spoke the truth to you, Mary. I input the words to this AI music site "Boy loves girl", and I added the word "rose". I thought of that myself.
Mary: You mean.... that was it? AI?
Will: Yes, Mary! I feel like such an artist! And its all for ...... you (Will almost sheds a tear).
Mary: Before this, you ordered us lunch. You put more effort into that than ....... this.
Will: Uhm.. well... yes my dear, but its not the same. I'm..... I'm...... an.... artist, now!
Mary: You're also an @#÷&$< !
Here's your insignificant song back.
(The camera shoots to Will, preparing another AI song to help is life be so much more enriching.
or,
"A helicopter lands on the Pan Am roof
Like a dragonfly on a tomb
And business men in button downs
Press into conference rooms
Battalions of paper minded males
Talking commodities and sales
While at home their paper wives
And paper kids
Paper the walls to keep their gut reactions hid"
This is fun
Regards
"A helicopter lands on the Pan Am roof
Like a dragonfly on a tomb
And business men in button downs
Press into conference rooms
Battalions of paper minded males
Talking commodities and sales
While at home their paper wives
And paper kids
Paper the walls to keep their gut reactions hid"
This is fun
Regards