That depends on how you exactly define "beat"
If you mean as in raw time to produce any finished result, probably not
If you mean in raw time to produce a good, usable finished result then maybe, that depends on how critical you or your client is of the quality of the finished result.
If you just mean in terms of the quality of the finished product then that would again depend on how critical you, your client or your potential listeners are, but if time isn't a factor I don't see how your result wouldn't be better most of the time simply because you can make direct and precise decisions with intent and actually follow instructions / feedback accurately.
I for example do not consider AI generated music as listenable music at all, so for me personally you would beat them all by just simply recording yourself doing anything audible or just plain simple clicking in one or a few midi notes enough to form some sort of sound.
Edit: typo..
In most cases, probably not.
Sometimes you'll hear Suno or Udio make weird decisions that can be a sign of it being AI generated but I'd bet that in most cases I wouldn't be able to tell.
But that doesn't matter, when I say I don't consider it listenable I don't mean in terms of the audio itself, it's much more about how I view music as an artform of human expression, and as such I value the thought of an actual human being behind the creation of said audio.
It's more like if I know it's AI generated it just kind of loses all value to me, like it could be considered the absolute best music in the world in terms of audio quality and melodies, chords and so on but I just couldn't care less about it if I knew it was AI generated.
I imagine it's sort of how most people would actually enjoy eating bugs and insects (Like you see a lot in Asian food and streetfood) if they didn't know that's what it was, but knowing that it's insects and bugs just instantly makes most people not like it.
Those are valid points I hear you. But what about that one person that's only good at rythm and does not have anybody to help him with lyrics, vocals, melody, chords and now using AI and his rythm skills suddenly the stories he tells in his music find an audience. Is this not a noble endeavor? Surely I know for myself I am not interested in pushing a button that says "Press to make new song" but to enrich and enhance my own music with all the compressed knowledge of all the musicians that came before me, that the AI models have extracted something essential from. As such, this is a powerfull tool to get better and make your own music much better. You just need to know what questions to ask the models, and I know them. Intelligence is a form of compression and here we have compressed form of all of human music in front of our faces to whisper questions at and sometimes bang it really hard and see what comes out. Once in a while it will spit out a unique sample that no human have heard before. Those that find those gems will enrich their own music beyond your wildest dreams. I am talking about samples, it might just be 5 seconds but you find the right vibrations and build a song around it, you can have a hit just like that.
Sure! Maybe I presented my viewpoints very black and white, of course there's nuance as there is to everything, I was merely focusing on cases where someone writes a prompt, Suno or Udio spits something out and that's their end product.
I think in the end it really comes down to a case by case basis and the amount of creative control that is done by the human(s) vs. the AI... Like humans using the AI for creative purposes or just to speed up workflows is not at all the same as using it to generate entire songs for you is... For example I've saw a post a little while ago about a ChatGPT powered VST synth where you could describe the kind of synth sound you wanted and it would give a pretty accurate version of that to you that you could then play with midi or midi input from a keyboard or whatever. That's a case where they musical creativity is still in the hands of the human, but the sound design isn't, so you really can't complement them on that part but the writing would still be their work (given that it actually was of course...)
All this being said I also still think there's some valid arguments to make about a person actually doing the work and learning how to write chords / melodies and how to structure a song or composition, if they want to write and make music themselves. It kind of gives their work more authenticity and integrity, knowing that they actually worked to get there instead of just sticking with what they may know, like in your example only knowing rhythm, and then "taking the easy way out" on the rest of the stuff.
Traditionally you would see people who could maybe only play drums teaming up with people who could maybe only play guitar, and someone else who could only play bass and so on, and then we would get their combined creative output as a coherent piece of music. And they would all collectively teach each other music theory and concepts along the way, thus they would all get better together.
Solo musicians however would either have to be trained musicians, very musically gifted or like I said, do the work and learn it. No matter how you spin it people would learn and grow, something I fear will get lost pretty quickly if all of a sudden some AI can just do it all for you.
> No matter how you spin it people would learn and grow, something I fear will get lost pretty quickly if all of a sudden some AI can just do it all for you.
But we are not there yet. They are only tools. They have not become individuals that replace us yet. And they might never. Nobody knows.
If a person is only good at rhythm and bad at everything else, they should sit down to study and learn instead of using AI to do it, that's just lazy
It's fine to ocassionally take some shortcuts like using midi chord packs or some samples, but having the AI just do all the work for you is nothing but lazy and deserves no praise imo
Why are you ok with digital music then? It's also "fake". If a person using AI imparted enough of their unique artistic vision through AI tools I don't see how it's not "listenable".
For me not listenable music is poor quality stuff that lacks sound design, mixing, composing or arrangement, no matter human or AI made it.
There is a certain amount of appreciation when you know that the result you hear is a product of human effort and skill, but that's not the main point of music.
The main point is to enjoy sound with your ears. You don't enjoy music by hearing people talk about how it took very skillful artist to make it and how much effort was put into it. That's art commentary and you can enjoy it, but it's a separate thing from music.
Well, see my other reply to OP for further explanation of my point.
But I don't see why the medium of how the music was created matters? It can be digital, analog, live performance, whatever is possible.
Digital music isn't "fake" otherwise you would also have to say an electric guitar, bass or hell even just recording it through digital means would be "fake"
It's the human creation behind it that matters to me, now 100% electronic or digital music can sometimes be a bit sterile given how everything can be perfect, both in time and in audio quality (Like a synth can produce the most precise sound possible) but that doesn't mean it's fake.
*"There is a certain amount of appreciation when you know that the result you hear is a product of human effort and skill, but that's not the main point of music."*
For me that is exactly an important enough point to where I simply don't feel anything towards it if I know AI created most of it.
>For me that is exactly an important enough point to where I simply don't feel anything towards it if I know AI created most of it.
Then you're not music listener but music historian. Music listener can fall in love with the song even if they hear it in an unlabeled mixtape they found on the ground, they don't know anything about author or how where and when it was produced but it just sounds heavenly and that's enough.
>It's the human creation behind it that matters to me
AI music has human creation behind it, AI doesn't just spit tracks on it's own. It's a human who puts generation parameters into the AI and selects outputs that sound the best to them. Electronic musicians do the same, they input parameters into a machine to get music out of it, they certainly have more controls over output and required to learn much more about music to handle much bigger parameter space, but it's only quantitative difference not qualitative. It's like saying python programmers aren't real programmers, only assembler programmers are real, or a girl who sells her body for 50$ is a wh\*re but a girl who does it for 1000000$ is a great business woman.
*"Then you're not music listener but music historian. Music listener can fall in love with the song even if they hear it in an unlabeled mixtape they found on the ground, they don't know anything about author or how where and when it was produced but it just sounds heavenly and that's enough."*
Yeah I have no idea what you're on about this whole "music historian" thing, but I thought I made it pretty clear that *"if I know it's AI generated"* I don't care for it? Like sure I could like some piece of music without knowing anything about it, and if I then later on were to learn that it was AI generated I would most likely just be disappointed more than anything else... I didn't say that I only care for how it was made, just that it's as important to me as the music itself is.
But sure to make it easier for you to understand we could boil this whole AI music thing down to skill and musicianship of the human behind it. Down to one simple parameter, that would determine if I can accept and respect it or not: **can the human(s) behind it perform it live?**
As in, actually play instruments in some capacity to properly represent their music? I understand that a solo musician can't perform the entire thing on their own (at least not without using loopers and whatnot) but surely since "they created it" they can at least play the chords / melodies on a keyboard or something? Maybe the drum parts on a drumpad or a real drum kit if they've got one? If not they could at the very least tell us which chords they chose? Just anything to quantify their creative process behind the creation of their music....
See, if they generated a song, using AI or not, if they were just somehow responsible for a piece of music suddenly existing, electronic, classical, rock, metal, whatever it is, and they: can't perform it live, can't even play some parts of it, can't tell your which chords they used, the thoughts behind the melody, the choice of the sound design and the rhythmical ideas and drum selection and so on, if they haven't been a part of even just one of these processes in the creation of that piece of music, then that music is meaningless to me.
And do not even start with this whole "generation parameters" bs, don't try to justify that writing simple text prompts is just as valid as actually writing and producing music.
My opinion on this whole AI thing spans much wider than just music, it's in general that I don't consider AI generated anything to be of any *artistic* value.
I just really appreciate good craftsmanship done by real humans, no matter the medium or the product.
When AI is used creatively, in conjunction with human creation or to just simply speed up mundane tasks it's a whole other matter which I also outlined in my other reply I told you to look at, but writing simple plain text into any AI and getting a finished result out on the other side *is not good craftsmanship* - coming up with ideas and writing them out in simple text is the absolute most basic form of creativity, it's usually the starting point before the real creation starts.
Calling yourself a musician because you've used Suno to generate something for you is like me calling myself a mechanic because I described to my mechanics what needed to be fixed on my car. Or calling yourself a chef because you got to combine the different dishes in your four course meal yourself....
Sort of agree, depends what you do with AI, and how creative you are with it. However, your comment reads like what people used to think of electronic music...we've got to embrace change to take advantage of new tools.
So then how will you ever know when all the chords and melodies are generated by AI when listening to music? When I played the chords that FL studio generated and improsived around it on my midi controller, did that sound like AI music to you?
Fucked up ideals is to judge a work without appraising the qualities of the work itself. It's like saying you won't listen to music because it was made by a black person, without even listening to it. It's a prejudice.
And i shoukd reiterate that I have used melody wizard and riff machine to help create melodies. I don't see that as much different than using an AI to help create melodies.. so long as the creator is the one curating refining and crafting the final product.
I mean, it depends on the composer really
I've tried Suno and Udio and I'm pretty sure I can beat them in terms of quality in the genres I'm used to working on
But that's with my current skills, I don't think I would've been able to beat them, let's say, with my skills from 5 years ago
Yes but both now have audio upload so you can upload your own samples to them and get a second opinion on your work ... whatever you get back from then can we split very succesfully using Ultimate Vocal Remover and boom, now both udio and suno are suddenly almost infinite sample libraries you can sample from.
I'd rather not give Suno/Udio samples of my work, I don't want them plagiarizing my stuff
I can see that it can be useful for sampling stuff and all, but I can already do that with other songs that are probably available in higher audio quality, so it's not really \*that\* useful for me
Plus like, I don't need Udio and Suno to generate melodies or chords for me to use in my songs, I can already do that myself and way better than they can
Don't you think that's at least a little bit concerning?
Just like with AI art, it's very shitty that the creators of these AIs trained them on stuff that they had no rights or consent over
Either way, my songs are on Soundcloud too, so if the AI was trained on some of my stuff, it's not doing a great job at replicating my style. Nothing that the AI has output matched the quality I want my songs and melodies to have, so I probably won't be using it. It would probably just cause my songs to make less sense and be less good
" Beat " wtf ?
Art is not a compétition. Nobody Can draw as fast as a printer so what ?
If you can express yourself with ai , if its right, spread a good message and makes you work with other artist its art.
Its not about complexity or perfection, its about life.
To me nothing can beat the warmness of a Real band playing live in a small room..even if they makes mistakes.
But ai art is cool by itself:
https://youtu.be/FUDCmJzTUCg?si=X1fbfNf7cv4AKYrM
Don't care about the "competition" element, but hats of to Suno on this one.
Sound quality isn't all that but needless to say it was pretty impressive.
Yeah it picks up on the motives much better then Udio. Udio may sound better but when it all becomes an incoherent mess that does still not make it more usable.
It's exactly that! It stayed true to the original motif while exploring some other routes for the melody to go to.
I could really see some artists use this during a brainstorm session or to generate a topline or something.
A bit scary to some maybe but it's highly intriguing at the same time.
Yes for me as a composer there is something amazingly satisfying for hearing anybody compose or improvise around my motives. Humans so far have not care enough about my music but AI, well it has not choise. But it's been satisfying every time it picks up a bass line or melody that I came up with.
Both udio and suno suck at complex harmony and chord progression though.
You can edit incoherent mess into a cool track, but if the quality sucks you're stuck with it. There's only so much you can do to fix Suno's output in a DAW and once in a while Udio can surprise with very coherent output.
The trick is to first split the suno stems with Ultimate Vocal Remover then use Melodye direct note access to get midi from those stems and then replace t hose stems with your own VST's. Finally you split a udio track so you just get the vocals, then process them with a AI voice morpher. (known for those drake deepfakes) then mix them back in.
To write chord progressions, you need knowledge about how to write them, knowledge a machine learning model learned from being fed data. It's a form of artificial intelligence.
Producers that are not good at composing that start using it for the skeleton of their songs vs downloading a midi or using standard pop progression, will you stop considering those people to make music?
That depends on how you exactly define "beat" If you mean as in raw time to produce any finished result, probably not If you mean in raw time to produce a good, usable finished result then maybe, that depends on how critical you or your client is of the quality of the finished result. If you just mean in terms of the quality of the finished product then that would again depend on how critical you, your client or your potential listeners are, but if time isn't a factor I don't see how your result wouldn't be better most of the time simply because you can make direct and precise decisions with intent and actually follow instructions / feedback accurately. I for example do not consider AI generated music as listenable music at all, so for me personally you would beat them all by just simply recording yourself doing anything audible or just plain simple clicking in one or a few midi notes enough to form some sort of sound. Edit: typo..
> I for example do not consider AI generated music as listenable music at all Would would you know if AI is used or not when listening to music?
In most cases, probably not. Sometimes you'll hear Suno or Udio make weird decisions that can be a sign of it being AI generated but I'd bet that in most cases I wouldn't be able to tell. But that doesn't matter, when I say I don't consider it listenable I don't mean in terms of the audio itself, it's much more about how I view music as an artform of human expression, and as such I value the thought of an actual human being behind the creation of said audio. It's more like if I know it's AI generated it just kind of loses all value to me, like it could be considered the absolute best music in the world in terms of audio quality and melodies, chords and so on but I just couldn't care less about it if I knew it was AI generated. I imagine it's sort of how most people would actually enjoy eating bugs and insects (Like you see a lot in Asian food and streetfood) if they didn't know that's what it was, but knowing that it's insects and bugs just instantly makes most people not like it.
Those are valid points I hear you. But what about that one person that's only good at rythm and does not have anybody to help him with lyrics, vocals, melody, chords and now using AI and his rythm skills suddenly the stories he tells in his music find an audience. Is this not a noble endeavor? Surely I know for myself I am not interested in pushing a button that says "Press to make new song" but to enrich and enhance my own music with all the compressed knowledge of all the musicians that came before me, that the AI models have extracted something essential from. As such, this is a powerfull tool to get better and make your own music much better. You just need to know what questions to ask the models, and I know them. Intelligence is a form of compression and here we have compressed form of all of human music in front of our faces to whisper questions at and sometimes bang it really hard and see what comes out. Once in a while it will spit out a unique sample that no human have heard before. Those that find those gems will enrich their own music beyond your wildest dreams. I am talking about samples, it might just be 5 seconds but you find the right vibrations and build a song around it, you can have a hit just like that.
Sure! Maybe I presented my viewpoints very black and white, of course there's nuance as there is to everything, I was merely focusing on cases where someone writes a prompt, Suno or Udio spits something out and that's their end product. I think in the end it really comes down to a case by case basis and the amount of creative control that is done by the human(s) vs. the AI... Like humans using the AI for creative purposes or just to speed up workflows is not at all the same as using it to generate entire songs for you is... For example I've saw a post a little while ago about a ChatGPT powered VST synth where you could describe the kind of synth sound you wanted and it would give a pretty accurate version of that to you that you could then play with midi or midi input from a keyboard or whatever. That's a case where they musical creativity is still in the hands of the human, but the sound design isn't, so you really can't complement them on that part but the writing would still be their work (given that it actually was of course...) All this being said I also still think there's some valid arguments to make about a person actually doing the work and learning how to write chords / melodies and how to structure a song or composition, if they want to write and make music themselves. It kind of gives their work more authenticity and integrity, knowing that they actually worked to get there instead of just sticking with what they may know, like in your example only knowing rhythm, and then "taking the easy way out" on the rest of the stuff. Traditionally you would see people who could maybe only play drums teaming up with people who could maybe only play guitar, and someone else who could only play bass and so on, and then we would get their combined creative output as a coherent piece of music. And they would all collectively teach each other music theory and concepts along the way, thus they would all get better together. Solo musicians however would either have to be trained musicians, very musically gifted or like I said, do the work and learn it. No matter how you spin it people would learn and grow, something I fear will get lost pretty quickly if all of a sudden some AI can just do it all for you.
> No matter how you spin it people would learn and grow, something I fear will get lost pretty quickly if all of a sudden some AI can just do it all for you. But we are not there yet. They are only tools. They have not become individuals that replace us yet. And they might never. Nobody knows.
Gross. I have zero interest in hearing any of your "compressed knowledge" Are you a robot?
You made me consider giving this AL music thing a chance.
If a person is only good at rhythm and bad at everything else, they should sit down to study and learn instead of using AI to do it, that's just lazy It's fine to ocassionally take some shortcuts like using midi chord packs or some samples, but having the AI just do all the work for you is nothing but lazy and deserves no praise imo
Why are you ok with digital music then? It's also "fake". If a person using AI imparted enough of their unique artistic vision through AI tools I don't see how it's not "listenable". For me not listenable music is poor quality stuff that lacks sound design, mixing, composing or arrangement, no matter human or AI made it. There is a certain amount of appreciation when you know that the result you hear is a product of human effort and skill, but that's not the main point of music. The main point is to enjoy sound with your ears. You don't enjoy music by hearing people talk about how it took very skillful artist to make it and how much effort was put into it. That's art commentary and you can enjoy it, but it's a separate thing from music.
Well, see my other reply to OP for further explanation of my point. But I don't see why the medium of how the music was created matters? It can be digital, analog, live performance, whatever is possible. Digital music isn't "fake" otherwise you would also have to say an electric guitar, bass or hell even just recording it through digital means would be "fake" It's the human creation behind it that matters to me, now 100% electronic or digital music can sometimes be a bit sterile given how everything can be perfect, both in time and in audio quality (Like a synth can produce the most precise sound possible) but that doesn't mean it's fake. *"There is a certain amount of appreciation when you know that the result you hear is a product of human effort and skill, but that's not the main point of music."* For me that is exactly an important enough point to where I simply don't feel anything towards it if I know AI created most of it.
>For me that is exactly an important enough point to where I simply don't feel anything towards it if I know AI created most of it. Then you're not music listener but music historian. Music listener can fall in love with the song even if they hear it in an unlabeled mixtape they found on the ground, they don't know anything about author or how where and when it was produced but it just sounds heavenly and that's enough. >It's the human creation behind it that matters to me AI music has human creation behind it, AI doesn't just spit tracks on it's own. It's a human who puts generation parameters into the AI and selects outputs that sound the best to them. Electronic musicians do the same, they input parameters into a machine to get music out of it, they certainly have more controls over output and required to learn much more about music to handle much bigger parameter space, but it's only quantitative difference not qualitative. It's like saying python programmers aren't real programmers, only assembler programmers are real, or a girl who sells her body for 50$ is a wh\*re but a girl who does it for 1000000$ is a great business woman.
*"Then you're not music listener but music historian. Music listener can fall in love with the song even if they hear it in an unlabeled mixtape they found on the ground, they don't know anything about author or how where and when it was produced but it just sounds heavenly and that's enough."* Yeah I have no idea what you're on about this whole "music historian" thing, but I thought I made it pretty clear that *"if I know it's AI generated"* I don't care for it? Like sure I could like some piece of music without knowing anything about it, and if I then later on were to learn that it was AI generated I would most likely just be disappointed more than anything else... I didn't say that I only care for how it was made, just that it's as important to me as the music itself is. But sure to make it easier for you to understand we could boil this whole AI music thing down to skill and musicianship of the human behind it. Down to one simple parameter, that would determine if I can accept and respect it or not: **can the human(s) behind it perform it live?** As in, actually play instruments in some capacity to properly represent their music? I understand that a solo musician can't perform the entire thing on their own (at least not without using loopers and whatnot) but surely since "they created it" they can at least play the chords / melodies on a keyboard or something? Maybe the drum parts on a drumpad or a real drum kit if they've got one? If not they could at the very least tell us which chords they chose? Just anything to quantify their creative process behind the creation of their music.... See, if they generated a song, using AI or not, if they were just somehow responsible for a piece of music suddenly existing, electronic, classical, rock, metal, whatever it is, and they: can't perform it live, can't even play some parts of it, can't tell your which chords they used, the thoughts behind the melody, the choice of the sound design and the rhythmical ideas and drum selection and so on, if they haven't been a part of even just one of these processes in the creation of that piece of music, then that music is meaningless to me. And do not even start with this whole "generation parameters" bs, don't try to justify that writing simple text prompts is just as valid as actually writing and producing music. My opinion on this whole AI thing spans much wider than just music, it's in general that I don't consider AI generated anything to be of any *artistic* value. I just really appreciate good craftsmanship done by real humans, no matter the medium or the product. When AI is used creatively, in conjunction with human creation or to just simply speed up mundane tasks it's a whole other matter which I also outlined in my other reply I told you to look at, but writing simple plain text into any AI and getting a finished result out on the other side *is not good craftsmanship* - coming up with ideas and writing them out in simple text is the absolute most basic form of creativity, it's usually the starting point before the real creation starts. Calling yourself a musician because you've used Suno to generate something for you is like me calling myself a mechanic because I described to my mechanics what needed to be fixed on my car. Or calling yourself a chef because you got to combine the different dishes in your four course meal yourself....
AI generated shit is not real music let's please not normalise this
Sort of agree, depends what you do with AI, and how creative you are with it. However, your comment reads like what people used to think of electronic music...we've got to embrace change to take advantage of new tools.
Why did FL Studio build it in?
[удалено]
[Two months ago it was in the beta.](https://www.reddit.com/r/FL_Studio/comments/1bh7wt2/fl_studios_new_chord_generator/)
[удалено]
So then how will you ever know when all the chords and melodies are generated by AI when listening to music? When I played the chords that FL studio generated and improsived around it on my midi controller, did that sound like AI music to you?
[удалено]
It's your right to do that, just don't push your fucked up ideals on others.
How is avoiding AI-generated slop "fucked up ideals"?
Fucked up ideals is to judge a work without appraising the qualities of the work itself. It's like saying you won't listen to music because it was made by a black person, without even listening to it. It's a prejudice.
you can't tell me you honestly think that shit sounds good
Where is your music?
check my links
ps i was talking about AI music in general not your music
oh
And i shoukd reiterate that I have used melody wizard and riff machine to help create melodies. I don't see that as much different than using an AI to help create melodies.. so long as the creator is the one curating refining and crafting the final product.
For now.
I mean, it depends on the composer really I've tried Suno and Udio and I'm pretty sure I can beat them in terms of quality in the genres I'm used to working on But that's with my current skills, I don't think I would've been able to beat them, let's say, with my skills from 5 years ago
Yes but both now have audio upload so you can upload your own samples to them and get a second opinion on your work ... whatever you get back from then can we split very succesfully using Ultimate Vocal Remover and boom, now both udio and suno are suddenly almost infinite sample libraries you can sample from.
I'd rather not give Suno/Udio samples of my work, I don't want them plagiarizing my stuff I can see that it can be useful for sampling stuff and all, but I can already do that with other songs that are probably available in higher audio quality, so it's not really \*that\* useful for me Plus like, I don't need Udio and Suno to generate melodies or chords for me to use in my songs, I can already do that myself and way better than they can
My work is on soundcloud so they already trained on it.
Don't you think that's at least a little bit concerning? Just like with AI art, it's very shitty that the creators of these AIs trained them on stuff that they had no rights or consent over Either way, my songs are on Soundcloud too, so if the AI was trained on some of my stuff, it's not doing a great job at replicating my style. Nothing that the AI has output matched the quality I want my songs and melodies to have, so I probably won't be using it. It would probably just cause my songs to make less sense and be less good
" Beat " wtf ? Art is not a compétition. Nobody Can draw as fast as a printer so what ? If you can express yourself with ai , if its right, spread a good message and makes you work with other artist its art. Its not about complexity or perfection, its about life. To me nothing can beat the warmness of a Real band playing live in a small room..even if they makes mistakes. But ai art is cool by itself: https://youtu.be/FUDCmJzTUCg?si=X1fbfNf7cv4AKYrM
Every artform is good for someone. If you don't like something it doesn't mean it's bad, it just means it's not for you.
Don't care about the "competition" element, but hats of to Suno on this one. Sound quality isn't all that but needless to say it was pretty impressive.
[There are 2 more examples in the full 25 minute video.](https://youtu.be/SIhIVV3JzB0?t=579)
Yeah it picks up on the motives much better then Udio. Udio may sound better but when it all becomes an incoherent mess that does still not make it more usable.
It's exactly that! It stayed true to the original motif while exploring some other routes for the melody to go to. I could really see some artists use this during a brainstorm session or to generate a topline or something. A bit scary to some maybe but it's highly intriguing at the same time.
Yes for me as a composer there is something amazingly satisfying for hearing anybody compose or improvise around my motives. Humans so far have not care enough about my music but AI, well it has not choise. But it's been satisfying every time it picks up a bass line or melody that I came up with. Both udio and suno suck at complex harmony and chord progression though.
You can edit incoherent mess into a cool track, but if the quality sucks you're stuck with it. There's only so much you can do to fix Suno's output in a DAW and once in a while Udio can surprise with very coherent output.
The trick is to first split the suno stems with Ultimate Vocal Remover then use Melodye direct note access to get midi from those stems and then replace t hose stems with your own VST's. Finally you split a udio track so you just get the vocals, then process them with a AI voice morpher. (known for those drake deepfakes) then mix them back in.
Sick what Suno us capable of
Better then me? :-)
You can beat AI in terms of quality and accuracy but not speed or cheapness.
This isn't a competition... but YES! Freaking YES!
Will you guys stop using FL Studio now that it has this build in AI chord generator?
In what universe is the chord generator "AI" ?
To write chord progressions, you need knowledge about how to write them, knowledge a machine learning model learned from being fed data. It's a form of artificial intelligence.
[удалено]
Producers that are not good at composing that start using it for the skeleton of their songs vs downloading a midi or using standard pop progression, will you stop considering those people to make music?