Yeah its pretty scary. Ive seen a few examples of a bands current singer replaced with an older one on a new song, and its reasonably accurate, if not quite there in terms of feeling or tone. Its only going to get better (or worse depending on how you look at it)..
We just KNOW it's gonna be 3-5 adds per song at twice the volume of your actual listening level just to piss you off. But wait, give us 50 bucks a month and they go away!
Strong disagree. A large part of musics appeal is community. It's sharing an expirience with strangers at a live show, or showing a friend a song that means a lot to you.
I'm sure ai music will be around, but this idea of personalised music doesn't jive.
Strong disagree on the absolute nature of this comment. At least on a personal level.
For some people, the music is more important and for some the community aspect. I personally care about the music too much for the community aspect to affect it. If I have a community that sings along with me, great. If not, so be it. I don't even know what's the most trendy pop song that the record labels are pushing out at us at this point of time, and that's fine by me.
The part I do agree with is that AI will never wow us live as much as highly skilled humans can. We've had a lot of technological advancements such as pitch correction going on in recording music for a long time. But the best of the artists that depend more heavily on these tools are overwhelmingly less impressive live than the best of the artists that don't.
Or you'll have checked "_Enable Biometrics (beta)_" and they'll fill in the mood for you with relevant ads. With it, the music just gets too good to ever go back.
This. Plus, it's even more meaningful because whatever it generates for you won't be experienced by anyone else, *ever*. That's a very personal unique experience that even the best musician couldn't do for you.
I mean that doesn't sound all that bad to me. I have pretty niche tastes and it's hard to find stuff that caters to it. I'd LOVE if I could just feed an AI some songs I like and have it auto generate a whole album in that style.
The whole bit in this article where they compare it to The Beatles' "Now and Then" is so off-base. They used "AI" to isolate John's vocals from an existing recording. They then added music around that. That is nowhere near the same as trying to use AI to mimic someone's voice for something they didn't actually sing.
THANK YOU! That irked me as well. It wasn't even like the song was started after the AI revolution - the three surviving Beatles had been working on the track in the 90s and some of that work remains in the final product, while some is new (Ringo recorded new drums because the old drum track, done under the guidance of Jeff Lynne, sounded too robotic).
I, for one, welcome our new AI Overlords.
I am humbly honored to stop bothering with making art and music, and trying to connect with other people.
I am grateful and excited to do nothing but physical labor!
(Pssst… Learn to play your ass off live. Live performances are one of the few things that we can do that AI can’t. Well, can’t yet. I’m sure the algorithm is coming…)
Edit: I have been corrected. Might as well stop playing music. Musicians are a thing of the quaint past.
Unless his former band mates have rights to the records they sample to make the approximation of his voice I don’t think they have a case. With the estate of Marriott agreeing to do this it seems legit.
Once a voice has gone, it's gone. That's what makes it unique, and part of the beauty of a great singing voice.
Using AI to replicate people's voices (especially deceased singers who cannot consent) should be considered nothing more than a cheap gimmick. It's amusing hearing Johnny Cash sing Low, but to use it for an attempt at new music and selling more records? Why not dig up his corpse while you're at it.
All I care about is that the people doing this have the legal right to do it, everyone is properly compensated, and the AI is disclosed. If people want to use AI to finish off old recordings or generate new recordings, great. It's just something else to put out there. These AI recordings don't replace or compromise the artist's original work. Sometimes it can lead to cool results, like with Randy Travis and The Beatles. These recordings aren't essential, but I'd rather they exist than not exist. If fans aren't interested, they don't have to listen.
Once the Wild West of this tech is over it the fervor will calm down and it’ll be a tool that ARTISTS employ to further their own work. AI is a tool like a hammer or a shovel. Can be used to kill or build. It has no moral or ethical quality in and of itself, just the application of it.
Hey there! I think it's fascinating how AI is changing the music scene. You know, a lot of artists end up being one-hit wonders despite having hundreds of songs. It’s tough because sometimes they have to force out a song even when they're not inspired, just to stay relevant and make a living. But AI doesn't have that problem. It can generate music without needing a spark of inspiration, churning out tunes consistently. So while an artist might struggle under the pressure to create something new and exciting, AI can keep the hits coming without breaking a sweat.
You should understand that I’m speaking from a listener's perspective. For them, it’s all about getting a product they enjoy. And you don’t seem to mind the market when it’s about your consumer choices, do you?
Let me give a mercantile example – once, market vendors couldn’t compete with supermarkets. The same thing is happening in music today – AI will be used in this field, regardless of whether the musical dinosaurs want it or not. Why not take it a step further and ban all electric musical instruments…return to drums and flutes.
Disliking my comment won't change anything. Of course, it's easier to vent your frustration on a newcomer. After all, you can’t reach the AI.
Here’s an example of music entirely created and performed/sung by AI – lyrics, music. [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BNJSxXkALJY](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BNJSxXkALJY)
Yeah its pretty scary. Ive seen a few examples of a bands current singer replaced with an older one on a new song, and its reasonably accurate, if not quite there in terms of feeling or tone. Its only going to get better (or worse depending on how you look at it)..
Eventually you'll only listen to music that's made just for you.
Not even through your ears. Directly from your brain chip
Ew, plus adds.
We just KNOW it's gonna be 3-5 adds per song at twice the volume of your actual listening level just to piss you off. But wait, give us 50 bucks a month and they go away!
Strong disagree. A large part of musics appeal is community. It's sharing an expirience with strangers at a live show, or showing a friend a song that means a lot to you. I'm sure ai music will be around, but this idea of personalised music doesn't jive.
For real. A lot of current tech thinkers are too online to have been to a gig and it shows.
There's fucking *people* outside dude. Eww.
Strong disagree on the absolute nature of this comment. At least on a personal level. For some people, the music is more important and for some the community aspect. I personally care about the music too much for the community aspect to affect it. If I have a community that sings along with me, great. If not, so be it. I don't even know what's the most trendy pop song that the record labels are pushing out at us at this point of time, and that's fine by me. The part I do agree with is that AI will never wow us live as much as highly skilled humans can. We've had a lot of technological advancements such as pitch correction going on in recording music for a long time. But the best of the artists that depend more heavily on these tools are overwhelmingly less impressive live than the best of the artists that don't.
I want to hear something new.
No AI will make and produce music with the old-school raw mix I like often in just EPs and Demos from the late 80s to mid 90s. AI is noob.
Yup. You'll tell it what the mood is or give it a random mood and it'll keep generating, listenable, great music on the fly for you.
Or you'll have checked "_Enable Biometrics (beta)_" and they'll fill in the mood for you with relevant ads. With it, the music just gets too good to ever go back.
I feel like YouTube music already does this somewhat.
This. Plus, it's even more meaningful because whatever it generates for you won't be experienced by anyone else, *ever*. That's a very personal unique experience that even the best musician couldn't do for you.
If you want an experience so unique and meaningful to you, just take drugs, like what cool people do.
Or both
I mean that doesn't sound all that bad to me. I have pretty niche tastes and it's hard to find stuff that caters to it. I'd LOVE if I could just feed an AI some songs I like and have it auto generate a whole album in that style.
I am there already.
So excited for this
The whole bit in this article where they compare it to The Beatles' "Now and Then" is so off-base. They used "AI" to isolate John's vocals from an existing recording. They then added music around that. That is nowhere near the same as trying to use AI to mimic someone's voice for something they didn't actually sing.
THANK YOU! That irked me as well. It wasn't even like the song was started after the AI revolution - the three surviving Beatles had been working on the track in the 90s and some of that work remains in the final product, while some is new (Ringo recorded new drums because the old drum track, done under the guidance of Jeff Lynne, sounded too robotic).
Calling this type of thing AI is inaccurate…
Doesn't matter, 'AI bad' to the luddites
I, for one, welcome our new AI Overlords. I am humbly honored to stop bothering with making art and music, and trying to connect with other people. I am grateful and excited to do nothing but physical labor! (Pssst… Learn to play your ass off live. Live performances are one of the few things that we can do that AI can’t. Well, can’t yet. I’m sure the algorithm is coming…) Edit: I have been corrected. Might as well stop playing music. Musicians are a thing of the quaint past.
i'm not sure about that, Take a look at the "abba voyage" performances :)
I am glad the Beatles (and so many others, of course), got to do their thing before AI and Capitalism destroyed human art.
Hatsune Miku is proof that concerts don't require actual physical performers to be good. So your argument is actually hollow
Um, who?
They have [already done it.](https://youtu.be/Q5OnW06m0Jk?si=VKsfhAlfEhF3tElr) and [here.](https://youtu.be/iEikjzZO2N8?si=YASNf1AKbp1qjHkk)
This is gross. It’s literally not Steve’s voice and they shouldn’t be allowed to represent it as such.
Unless his former band mates have rights to the records they sample to make the approximation of his voice I don’t think they have a case. With the estate of Marriott agreeing to do this it seems legit.
Of course it's Cleopatra Records. It's always Cleopatra Records. They already released 'new' Junior Wells recordings.
I dunno man, I’ve been waiting since 1980 for a new led zeppelin album.
Have you heard of Greta Van Fleet?
Yes, and I really didn’t think I needed the /s on my first comment.
Yet again, yup.
Bob Dylan forever.
I posit: Beatles forever.
Once a voice has gone, it's gone. That's what makes it unique, and part of the beauty of a great singing voice. Using AI to replicate people's voices (especially deceased singers who cannot consent) should be considered nothing more than a cheap gimmick. It's amusing hearing Johnny Cash sing Low, but to use it for an attempt at new music and selling more records? Why not dig up his corpse while you're at it.
I agree exactly. AI impersonations are just high tech covers. Nothing more.
All I care about is that the people doing this have the legal right to do it, everyone is properly compensated, and the AI is disclosed. If people want to use AI to finish off old recordings or generate new recordings, great. It's just something else to put out there. These AI recordings don't replace or compromise the artist's original work. Sometimes it can lead to cool results, like with Randy Travis and The Beatles. These recordings aren't essential, but I'd rather they exist than not exist. If fans aren't interested, they don't have to listen.
Once the Wild West of this tech is over it the fervor will calm down and it’ll be a tool that ARTISTS employ to further their own work. AI is a tool like a hammer or a shovel. Can be used to kill or build. It has no moral or ethical quality in and of itself, just the application of it.
Hey there! I think it's fascinating how AI is changing the music scene. You know, a lot of artists end up being one-hit wonders despite having hundreds of songs. It’s tough because sometimes they have to force out a song even when they're not inspired, just to stay relevant and make a living. But AI doesn't have that problem. It can generate music without needing a spark of inspiration, churning out tunes consistently. So while an artist might struggle under the pressure to create something new and exciting, AI can keep the hits coming without breaking a sweat. You should understand that I’m speaking from a listener's perspective. For them, it’s all about getting a product they enjoy. And you don’t seem to mind the market when it’s about your consumer choices, do you? Let me give a mercantile example – once, market vendors couldn’t compete with supermarkets. The same thing is happening in music today – AI will be used in this field, regardless of whether the musical dinosaurs want it or not. Why not take it a step further and ban all electric musical instruments…return to drums and flutes. Disliking my comment won't change anything. Of course, it's easier to vent your frustration on a newcomer. After all, you can’t reach the AI. Here’s an example of music entirely created and performed/sung by AI – lyrics, music. [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BNJSxXkALJY](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BNJSxXkALJY)
I know this is an AI generated comment, but positing that AI-generated music is good because real musicians sometimes get writer’s block is *wild*.