[HN Gopher] Show HN: Sonauto API - Generative music for developers
___________________________________________________________________
Show HN: Sonauto API - Generative music for developers
Hello again HN, Since our launch ten months ago, my cofounder and
I have continued to improve our music model significantly. You can
listen to some cool Staff Picks songs from the latest version here
https://sonauto.ai/ , listen to an acapella song I made for my
housemate here
https://sonauto.ai/song/8a20210c-563e-491b-bb11-f8c6db92ee9b , or
try the free and unlimited generations yourself. However, given
there are only two of us right now competing in the "best model and
average user UI" race we haven't had the time to build some of the
really neat ideas our users and pro musicians have been dreaming up
(e..g, DAW plugins, live performance transition generators, etc).
The hacker musician community has a rich history of taking new tech
and doing really cool and unexpected stuff with it, too. As such,
we're opening up an API that gives full access to the features of
our underlying diffusion model (e.g., generation, inpainting,
extensions, transition generation, inverse sampling). Here are some
things our early test users are already doing with it: - A cool
singing-to-video model by our friends at Lemon Slice:
https://x.com/LemonSliceAI/status/1894084856889430147 (try it
yourself here https://lemonslice.com/studio) - Open source wrapper
written by one of our musician users:
https://github.com/OlaFosheimGrostad/networkmusic - You can also
play with all the API features via our consumer UI here:
https://sonauto.ai/create We also have some examples written in
Python here: https://github.com/Sonauto/sonauto-api-examples -
Generate a rock song: https://github.com/Sonauto/sonauto-api-
examples/blob/main/ro... - Download two songs from YouTube (e.g.,
Smash Mouth to Rick Astley) and generate a transition between them:
https://github.com/Sonauto/sonauto-api-examples/blob/main/tr... -
Generate a singing telegram video (powered by ours and also Lemon
Slice's API): https://github.com/Sonauto/sonauto-api-
examples/blob/main/si... You can check out the full docs/get your
key here: https://sonauto.ai/developers We'd love to hear what you
think, and are open to answering any tech questions about our model
too! It's still a latent diffusion model, but much larger and with
a much better GAN decoder.
Author : zaptrem
Score : 110 points
Date : 2025-03-03 17:17 UTC (1 days ago)
(HTM) web link (sonauto.ai)
(TXT) w3m dump (sonauto.ai)
| zaptrem wrote:
| One thing I've been thinking about is how to do a better hobbyist
| plan system. It would be cool to do a flat rate unlimited plan,
| but we wouldn't want that to then be abused by larger
| customers/companies. Are there existing API providers you think
| solve this particularly well?
| mvdtnz wrote:
| Why would a hobbyist need an unlimited plan?
| zaptrem wrote:
| E.g., in the case of a future "LibreMusic" open source UI or
| an integration into their DAW they work with on the weekends.
| I'd get pretty annoyed if I had to keep putting a coin in the
| machine to adjust Logic Pro effects.
| zoogeny wrote:
| I don't think it meets your ask of "solve this particularly
| well" but the unlimited plans in video that I am familiar with
| have a fast/slow queue system. This effectively limits the
| plan. It seems, as well, that these kind of queue systems are
| tiered. So you can have N number of fast queued items, X number
| of tier one slow queue, Y number of tier two slow queue, etc.
| On the backend this is probably just some kind of weighted
| priority queue where the number of requests in some time
| duration determines some weight scaling factor.
| zaptrem wrote:
| I think this is a good start, X high speed queries per hour
| then unlimited low-priority ones after. Do you know of any
| specific companies that do this we could take a look at?
| zoogeny wrote:
| runway.ai (video gen) is what I was thinking when I
| suggested this.
| throwup238 wrote:
| Remember that you've also got a nice natural limitation
| here: if it's a hobbyist and not a (commercial) API
| consumer, there's only so fast they can listen to the
| output. Even if they're rapidly tweaking nobs in a DAW, you
| can use the play/pause signal to help prioritize the queue,
| depending on how expensive it is to serialize the GPU state
| and rehydrate it again. You also might not need to complete
| generation until the user reaches the play point so you can
| shuffle around the queue a lot. For example if the user
| skips after ten seconds you might not need to generate the
| rest until they try to play that track again, and when they
| do you usually have enough time before they reach the
| previous stopping point to generate some more sections.
|
| It might also be helpful to come up with some ways to
| segregate customers so that "prosumer" users get faster
| "cold starts" (so that they can iterate faster) at the
| expense of sometimes having to wait for generation to start
| back up again.
| naltroc wrote:
| how did you create this without committing grand theft musica
| zaptrem wrote:
| In my opinion training on all music is no more theft than
| Taylor Swift listening to the radio growing up (as long as we
| don't regurgitate existing songs which would be bad and useless
| anyway). I think an alternative legal interpretation where all
| of humanity's musical knowledge and history are controlled by
| three megacorporations (UMG/Sony/Warner) would be kinda
| depressing. If the above is true we might as well shutdown
| OpenAI and delete all LLM weights while we're at it, losing
| massive value to humanity.
| wryoak wrote:
| I'm skeptical about how much value AI art is going to really
| contribute to humanity but as a lifelong opponent of
| copyright I have to roll my eyes when I see people arguing
| against it on behalf of _real artists_ , all of whom are
| thieves in the best case and imitators in the worst.
| bongodongobob wrote:
| Yeah every musician has a story of writing a new song,
| bringing it to the band, and they say "oh, this sounds just
| like [song]." It's almost impossible to make something
| truly novel.
| dleeftink wrote:
| > almost impossible to make something truly novel
|
| But beyond the originality !== novelty discussion, I'm
| not sure how we've come to equate 'creativity' (and the
| rights to retaining it) to a sort of fingerprint encoding
| one's work. As if a band, artist or creator should stick
| to a certain brand once invented, and we can sufficiently
| capture that brand in dense legalese or increasingly,
| stylistic prompts.
|
| How many of today's artists just 'riffing' off existing
| motifs will remain, if the end result of their creative
| endeavours will be absorbed into generative tools in some
| manner? What's the incentive for indies to distribute
| digitally, beyond the guarantee their works will provide
| the (auditory) fingerprints for the next content
| generation system?
| naltroc wrote:
| I have written and performed many songs over many bands.
| At no point did anybody compare my work to any other
| artist's work, because it is genuinely unique.
| slater- wrote:
| Citation needed. Where can I hear some of your work?
| bongodongobob wrote:
| Let's hear it.
| otabdeveloper4 wrote:
| The problem is that techbro corporates trying to make
| megabucks of profit off of using other people's art.
|
| Intellectual property laws for thee but not for me, I
| guess.
| Xelynega wrote:
| Megacorporations owning copyrights to the majority of
| IPs(music, games, etc.) is a capitalism/monopoly problem. How
| does getting rid of copyright and allowing your company to
| profit off other peoples work in any way solve that issue?
| gazebo64 wrote:
| The difference being that a musician being influenced by
| other musicians still has to work to develop the skills
| necessary to distill those influences into a final product,
| and colors that output with their own subjective experiences
| and taste. This feels like a conveniently naive
| interpretation to justify stealing artists' work and using it
| to create derivative generative slop. The final line in your
| comment is pretty telling of how seriously you take this
| issue (which is near-universally decried by artists) -- some
| other massive company is doing a bad thing, so why shouldn't
| I?
|
| edit: I have to add how disingenuous I find calling out
| corporations owning "all of humanity's musical knowledge and
| history" as if generative AI music trained on unlicensed work
| from artists is somehow a moral good. At least the contracts
| artists make with these corporations are consensual and have
| the potential to yield the artist some benefit which is more
| than you can say for these gen-AI music apps.
| zaptrem wrote:
| I don't see how the amount of work that went into it
| changes the core fact that all art is influenced by that
| which came before, and we don't call that stealing (unless
| you truly believe that "all art is theft").
|
| My point re: LLMs wasn't meant to exclusively be a "they're
| doing it" one, the hope was to give an example of something
| many people would agree is super useful and valuable (I
| work much faster and learned so much more in college thanks
| to LLMs) that would be impossible in the proposed strict
| interpretation of copyright.
|
| edit responding to your edit:
|
| Re: moral good: I think that bringing the sum of human
| musical knowledge to anybody who cares to try for free is a
| moral good. Music production software costs >$200 and
| studios cost thousands and majoring in music costs hundreds
| of thousands, but we can make getting started so much
| easier.
|
| Is it really consent for those artists signing to labels
| when only three companies have total control of all music
| consumption and production for the mass market? To be
| clear, artists absolutely have a right to benefit from
| reproduction of their recordings. I just don't think anyone
| should have rights to the knowledge built into those
| creations since in most cases it wasn't theirs to begin
| with (if their right to this knowledge were affirmed, every
| new song someone creates could hypothetically have a konga
| line of lawyer teams clamoring for "their cut" of that
| chord progression/instrument sample/effect/lyrical
| theme/style).
| gazebo64 wrote:
| I think we intuitively allow for artists to derive and
| interpolate from their influences because of a baseline
| understanding that A) it is impossible to create art
| without influence and B) that there is an inherent value
| in a human creating art and expressing themselves. How
| that relates to someone using unlicensed music from
| actual humans to train an AI model in order to profit off
| of the collective work of thousands of actual human
| artists, I have no idea.
|
| edit:
|
| > I think that bringing the sum of human musical
| knowledge to anybody who cares to try for free is a moral
| good
|
| Generative AI music isn't in any way accomplishing this
| goal. A free Spotify account with ads accomplishes this
| goal -- being able to generate a passable tune using a
| mish-mash of existing human works isn't bringing musical
| knowledge to the masses, it's just enabling end users to
| entertain themselves and you to profit from that.
|
| > Is it really consent for those artists signing to
| labels
|
| Yes? Ignoring the fact that there are independent labels
| outside the ownership of the Big Three you mention,
| artists enter into contracts with labels consensually
| because of the benefits the label can offer them. You
| train your model on these artists' output without their
| consent, credit or notification, profit off of it and
| offer nothing in return to the artists.
| zaptrem wrote:
| A) Agreed! B) So I guess the argument here is that this
| doesn't apply to AI music. I think that if someone really
| pours their soul into the lyrics of a song and
| regenerates/experiments with prompts until it's just
| right, and maybe even contributes a melody or starting
| point that's still a human creating art and expressing
| themselves. It's definitely not as difficult as creating
| a song from scratch, but I've been told similar arguments
| were made regarding whether photography was art when that
| became a thing.
|
| btw, if the user of the AI doesn't do any of the above
| then I think the US copyright office says it can't be
| copyrighted in the first place (so no profiting for them
| anyway).
| gazebo64 wrote:
| > if the user of the AI doesn't do any of the above then
| I think the US copyright office says it can't be
| copyrighted in the first place (so no profiting for them
| anyway).
|
| Am I understanding right that the point here is that
| while you are able to get away with using copyrighted
| material to turn a profit, your end users cannot, so no
| worries?
| haswell wrote:
| I think there are a few fallacies at play here:
|
| 1. Anthropomorphizing the kind of "influence" and
| "learning" these tools are doing, which is quite
| unrelated to the human process
|
| 2. Underrepresenting the massive differences in scale
| when comparing the human process of learning vs. the
| massive data centers training the AI models
|
| 3. Ignoring that this isn't just about influence, it's
| about the fact that the models would not exist at all, if
| not for the work of the artists it was trained on
| naltroc wrote:
| > Is it really consent for those artists signing to
| labels when only three companies have total control of
| all music consumption and production for the mass market?
|
| This premise is false. I have made plenty of money
| busking on the street, for example. Or selling audio
| recordings at shows.
|
| > {o be clear, artists absolutely have a right to benefit
| from reproduction of their recordings.
|
| This is correct. Artists benefit when you pay them for
| the right to reproduce. When you don't (like what you are
| doing), you get sued. Here's a YouTube video covering 9
| examples:
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IIVSt8Y1zeQ
|
| > I just don't think anyone should have rights to the
| knowledge built into those creations since in most cases
| it wasn't theirs to begin with
|
| What?
| zaptrem wrote:
| > I have made plenty of money busking on the street
|
| That's why I specified mass market. However, given a
| choice between literally being on the street and working
| with a record label I'd probably choose the label, though
| I don't know about others.
|
| > pay them for the right to reproduce
|
| My point is learning patterns/styles does not equate to
| reproducing their recordings. If someone wants to listen
| to "Hey Jude" they cannot do so with our model, they must
| go to Spotify. There are cases where models from our
| competitors were trained for too long on too small a
| dataset and were able to recite songs, but that's a bug
| they admit is wrong and are fighting against, not a
| feature.
|
| > in most cases it wasn't theirs to begin with
|
| In most cases they did not invent the chord progression
| they're using or instruments they're playing or style
| they're using or even the lyrical themes they're singing.
| All are based on what came before and the musicians that
| come after them are able to use any new knowledge they
| contribute freely. It's all a fork of a fork of a fork of
| a fork, and if everyone along the line decided they were
| entitled to a cut we'd have disaster.
| quantumspandex wrote:
| Law should be considered to be artificial rules optimized
| for the collective good of society.
|
| What's the worst that can happen if we allow unregulated AI
| training on existing music? Musician as a job won't exist
| anymore lest for the greatest artists. But it makes
| creating music much more accessible to billions of people.
| Are they good music? Let the market decide. And people
| still make music because the creative process is enjoyable.
|
| The animus towards AI generated music deeply stems from job
| security. I work in software and I see it is more likely
| that AI can be eventually able to replace software devs. I
| may lose my job if that happens. But I don't care. Find
| another career. Humanity needs to progress instead of
| stagnating for the sake of a few interest groups.
| gazebo64 wrote:
| I don't work as a musician so it's nothing to do with job
| security -- I think that using artists' output without
| their consent in order to train a soulless AI model for
| some tech middleman to profit from is repugnant, and the
| cheap rhetoric about democratizing music and "bringing
| music to the masses!" adds insult to injury. I can
| guarantee if OP's intellectual property was violated in
| this project, like somebody ripping off their model or
| trademark, they'd be suing, but they conveniently
| handwave away mass scale IP theft when it comes to
| musicians.
| braebo wrote:
| It's intellectual property laundering. A company selling a
| button that launders the blood sweat and tears of generations
| of artists is not the same as a person being inspired and
| dedicating themselves to mastery.
|
| Humans create value. AI consumes and commoditizes that value,
| stealing it from the people and selling it back to their
| customers.
|
| It's unethical and will be detrimental in the long run. All
| profit should be distributed to all artists in the training
| set.
| unraveller wrote:
| It won't be detriment to consumers who ultimately decide
| the value. If I could AI gen a better tasting cocacola for
| cheaper that would be beneficial to consumers and coke
| wouldn't deserve a cut. Get gud, as they say.
| code_for_monkey wrote:
| no one can actually explain the value OpenAI adds to
| humanity. What massive loss? What have we gained from this
| entity other than another billionaire riding a hype cycle?
| relaxing wrote:
| > In my opinion training on all music is no more theft than
| Taylor Swift listening to the radio growing up (as long as we
| don't regurgitate existing songs which would be bad and
| useless anyway).
|
| I beg of you, speak to some real life musicians. A human
| composing or improvising is not choosing notes based on a set
| of probabilities derived from all the music they've heard in
| their life.
|
| > I think an alternative legal interpretation where all of
| humanity's musical knowledge and history are controlled by
| three megacorporations (UMG/Sony/Warner) would be kinda
| depressing.
|
| Your impoverished worldview of music as an artistic endeavor
| is depressing. Humanity's musical knowledge extends far
| beyond the big 3.
|
| > If the above is true we might as well shutdown OpenAI and
| delete all LLM weights while we're at it
|
| Now we're talking.
|
| > losing massive value to humanity.
|
| Nothing of value would be lost. In fact it would refund
| massive value to humanity that was stolen by generative AI.
| JTyQZSnP3cQGa8B wrote:
| The first 80s song I heard was a literal copy of Phil Collins.
| But there are no emotions attached to it (for me), and the
| lyrics are random. It's more like supermarket background music
| IMHO, not something I would pay for, especially when we have
| centuries of music to discover already, why make fake stuff
| like that?
|
| Edit: I have just heard the funniest most ridiculous metal song
| ever without a touch of metal inside. Breathe of Death, it's
| like a bad joke.
|
| If thats the future of anything, I'm going back to plain C
| (code) when I retire and I'll never approach the internet ever
| again.
| lexandstuff wrote:
| These high-quality music models require pirating many, many
| terabytes of music. Torrents are the main way to do it, but
| they likely scraped sites like Bandcamp, Soundcloud and
| YouTube.
|
| AI music is a weird business model. They hope that there's
| enough money peddling music slop after paying off the labels
| (and maybe eventually the independent music platforms) whose
| music you stole. Meanwhile, not even Spotify can figure out how
| to be reliably profitable, serving music people want to hear.
| toisanji wrote:
| how is this better or different from suno besides api? I'm
| assuming since you are smaller the quality is not as good and the
| depth not as wide.
| zaptrem wrote:
| Suno's RVQ-token-based language model is tuned give you an
| acceptable song that most of their userbase would prefer every
| single time, but isn't very diverse. Our diffusion model is
| much more diverse and has higher vocal audio quality, but the
| results aren't always consistent (just like Flux et al).
| However, since we have unlimited generations this can be worked
| around. We're also never going to preference tune our model
| because I think the stuff that is lost in that process is
| valuable.
| lcolucci wrote:
| I use both. Sonauto sounds more "real" and varied than what I
| can get with suno
| tombot wrote:
| What is the point of generating this low quality AI slop music,
| what real use case do you have in mind?
| JTyQZSnP3cQGa8B wrote:
| Some kind of Dadaist movement I guess. Listen to Breathe of
| Death, it's hilarious and then you cry.
| zaptrem wrote:
| For the consumer stuff: It's fun, and IMO that's enough. Not
| every song has to be peak artistic quality pushing the world
| forward, sometimes it's enough to bring a smile to a friend's
| face by making a song about them. If you think their art is
| slop you shouldn't have to listen to it (IMO Spotify et al
| should have an optional "no AI music" filter for now).
|
| For the API: I think this could be integrated into artists
| workflows in lots of ways we can't even imagine right now as it
| gets better. One example I gave above was generating
| transitions between songs.
| code_for_monkey wrote:
| the reason a song from a friend makes you happy is directly
| related to the effort behind it, this is totally meaningless.
| zaptrem wrote:
| The reason anything makes anyone happy is completely
| subjective, as evidenced by the many people who have told
| us our app made them and/or their friends and family happy.
| quantumspandex wrote:
| that's just your opinion.
| unraveller wrote:
| You know that post card they sent you is not actually a
| photoshop-free picture taken by them. They just addressed
| it to, you should totally dump them from your life.
| code_for_monkey wrote:
| obtaining, addressing, and writing a message in a post
| card is the effort, not the picture.
| patcon wrote:
| I made little gift songs for friends for awhile. It was nice
| and fun. Making a roadtrip theme song for friends on a vacation
| is way fun, and kinda locks in the moment
|
| I also used it when I was living in New Orleans to help a
| friend come up with a riff for a live set he had, which had
| some unusual constraints (only had a singer, drummer and
| trombone, but no others, in an echoey space). He used the
| generated song hook as inspiration for that nights' arrangement
|
| There's lots of stuff, and song of it supports artists who have
| tight timelines and want creative support
| dingnuts wrote:
| There's so much real independent music out there that
| actually has meaning. I hope you didn't tell your friend you
| wrote the song, because if someone tricked me into listening
| to generated not-art and I found out afterwards, I would
| consider them a liar.
|
| What your friend did, using generation for inspiration for
| real music he creates is fine. But if someone gifted me an AI
| generated song I would ask why they didn't pay a few dollars
| -- honestly not much more -- to a real artist to do the same.
|
| Ten years ago a friend of mine did that, hired a real person,
| and it cost less than $20 to write a ditty. That's comparable
| to the cost in tokens for an AI except you could support a
| real human artist instead of megalomaniac Yarvinists Sam
| Altman and friends.
|
| And the song would have real meaning. You gave your friend a
| non-gift. The Let Me Google That For You of gifts. Honestly
| if one of my friends did that I'd wonder if they even like
| me.
| code_for_monkey wrote:
| The problem with AI music, and in fact AI in general, is
| that weve spent the last few decades aggressively attacking
| the idea that art should get paid for at all and yet people
| still do it, because they love it. So musicians work for
| pennies, and yet people still need to replace them with a
| machine.
|
| So even if you just pay someone else to make you a song,
| its not really any more expensive than this. Same with
| painting. What does this AI bring to the table, at all? It
| grosses me out.
|
| People on this site should go pick up a guitar and write a
| 3 chord song about someone, itll take you a day if that.
| Its not hard! Its fun!
| emporas wrote:
| The problem with real music, is that it requires a hefty
| amount of musicians to establish a genre. This amount
| could be somewhere in the range of 100 to 1000 musicians.
|
| When this critical number is not amassed then the genre
| effectively dies.
|
| With A.I. we can resurrect dead genres, but not only
| that, we can combine genres together, popular genres with
| one another, also popular and unpopular genres or popular
| and dead genres.
|
| Using A.I. for music is easier and much faster than
| traditional means, and this could greatly reduce the
| critical mass of musicians to support a genre. It could
| be reduced as much as 10 times, or 100 times, like one
| person creating 10000 songs or something similar.
|
| By trying to compare A.I. music to traditional music, you
| are comparing 10 songs a real band makes, with 10000
| songs an A.I. (human) musician makes. It's apples and
| oranges comparison.
|
| I don't see why human music cannot be a genre, the best
| of all genres but just one, and an innumerable amount of
| A.I. genres which may not be so good, but they are
| infinite.
|
| The real human music genre might be the best forever or
| just for the next 3 years, but so what? Let there be more
| genres some good some bad. No one is gonna listen to a
| cheap copy of an already existing song of an already
| existing genre, but songs already in existence should be
| used to train A.I. weights.
|
| Regarding A.I. weights, smaller models forget much of the
| information they are trained on, and they are cheaper,
| faster and easier to be fine-tuned, also probably easier
| to apply RL reasoning on. In that way, A.I. musicians (or
| real musicians) could run the model in their computers
| and use it as an instrument instead of relying in
| companies with big models, slow and expensive.
|
| And some times big and inefficient models copy
| text/code/music verbatim from the training data. But this
| is a bug, when small models become competitive enough,
| most people are gonna use those. They might even carry
| them around, like a personal band always ready to make
| melodies for them.
| relaxing wrote:
| I'm a pretty big music fan and I have no idea what you're
| on about. Where did you get this theory?
|
| > The problem with real music, is that it requires a
| hefty amount of musicians to establish a genre.
|
| Why is establishing genre a goal in the first place?
|
| > This amount could be somewhere in the range of 100 to
| 1000 musicians.
|
| This is demonstrably false. Genre is defined by critical
| consensus, and it can arise around one or a handful of
| bands.
|
| > With A.I. we can resurrect dead genres
|
| What dead genre are you after? I'd imagine there are folk
| styles that haven't been kept alive, but I question
| whether AI recreations would satisfy anyone. I'd rather
| listen to authentic recordings instead. And if the genre
| doesn't have a significant recorded catalog, you can't
| train a generative AI to produce it anyway.
| emporas wrote:
| >Why is establishing genre a goal in the first place?
|
| What is culture, if not a common agreement on what is
| beautiful and ugly? Establishing a genre in music is not
| a goal, but we see it happen over and over again. It is
| how humans operate since forever, we mimic one another in
| fashion, in music and many other things.
|
| > Genre is defined by critical consensus, and it can
| arise around one or a handful of bands.
|
| It arises around a handful of bands, but if it doesn't
| grow past 5 bands let's say, we are talking about 50
| songs in total every year. Who listens nowadays to only
| 50 songs per year?
|
| > And if the genre doesn't have a significant recorded
| catalog, you can't train a generative AI to produce it
| anyway.
|
| Yes you can. Synthetic data generation is a big thing
| already and tens of millions of dollars are poured into
| it every year.
| bambinella wrote:
| What is slop music?
|
| What makes these tracks "slop"?
|
| https://sonauto.ai/song/942c0122-9358-4805-96c4-eb0537d97ca2
|
| https://sonauto.ai/song/ba87e490-19f0-47c5-acb0-83a3b57a90e9
|
| https://sonauto.ai/song/2b217436-0876-49bc-8a9c-d5807e626962
| zoogeny wrote:
| Not related to this post, but I was wondering about AI music
| generators and I don't have experience with their capabilities.
| The ones I know seem catered to making entire songs.
|
| I was having a discussion with a friend who writes a lot of
| guitar music but can also play bass and sing. However, getting
| good drums is a problem. What he'd like is a service to upload
| his songs in some form (just guitar, or a mixed version with bass
| and vocals) and get an output that layers a drum track without
| altering the input. Ideally with appropriate fills, etc. I mean,
| just getting an in-time drum stem would probably be even better.
|
| Is there any GenAI service to do this kind of incremental
| additive drums?
| vunderba wrote:
| Not sure about GenAI, but Logic Pro has the ability to add a
| Session Drummer which can be set to track a given bass stem and
| produce passable drums for a song.
| potatoman22 wrote:
| There's work in that area, it's sometimes called "accompaniment
| generation."
|
| https://arxiv.org/abs/2301.12662
|
| https://fastsag.github.io/
| echelon wrote:
| I'm familiar with video and image diffusion model architectures,
| but know almost nothing about music models.
|
| Are there any good papers or writeups on them?
|
| Are there any open source implementations to play with?
| zaptrem wrote:
| There are!
|
| Audio models are actually quite similar to image models, but
| there are a few key differences. First, is the autoencoder
| needs to be designed much more carefully as human hearing is
| insanely good and music requires orders of magnitude more
| spatial compression (image AEs do 8X8 downsampling, audio AEs
| need to do thousands of times downsampling). Second the model
| itself needs to be _really_ good at placing lyrics /beats
| (similar to placing text in image diffusion): a sixth finger in
| an image model is fine, but a missed beat can ruin a song.
| That's why language model approaches (which have a stronger
| sequential inductive bias than diffusion models which is good
| for rhythm and lyric placement) have been really popular in
| audio.
|
| If you're interested in papers (IMO not good for new people as
| they make everything seem more complicated than it is):
|
| Stable Audio (similar to our architecture):
| https://arxiv.org/abs/2402.04825 (code:
| https://github.com/Stability-AI/stable-audio-tools)
|
| MusicGen (Suno-style architecture):
| https://arxiv.org/abs/2306.05284 (code:
| https://github.com/facebookresearch/audiocraft/tree/main)
| weberer wrote:
| So if I make a song using this API, who owns the copyright? Is it
| me or Sonauto?
| magicmicah85 wrote:
| From their terms (https://sonauto.ai/tos):
|
| 8. OUTPUT As between You and the Services, and to the extent
| permitted by applicable law, You own any right, title, or
| interest that may exist in the musical and/or audio content
| that You generate using the Services ("Outputs"). We hereby
| assign to You all our right, title, and interest, if any, in
| and to Your Outputs. This assignment does not extend to other
| users' Outputs, regardless of similarity between Your Outputs
| and their Outputs. You grant to us an unrestricted, unlimited,
| irrevocable, perpetual, non-exclusive, transferable, royalty-
| free, fully-paid, worldwide license to use Your Output to
| provide, maintain, develop, and improve the Services, to comply
| with applicable law, and/or to enforce our terms and policies.
| You are solely responsible for Outputs and Your use of Outputs,
| including ensuring that Outputs and Your use thereof do not
| violate any applicable law or these terms of service. We make
| no warranties or representations regarding the Outputs,
| including as to their copyrightability or legality. By using
| the Services, You warrant that You will use Outputs only for
| legal purposes.
|
| You own the rights, but Sonauto is granted the rights to use it
| as well.
| fuhsnn wrote:
| >You own any right, title, or interest that may exist
|
| >We hereby assign to You all our right, title, and interest,
| if any
|
| >You are solely responsible for Outputs and Your use of
| Outputs
|
| I love how it clearly laid out the scenario that the right
| don't exist, yet you are responsible.
| zaptrem wrote:
| I'm not sure to what extent AI music is copyrightable (I think
| it depends on a case-by-case amount of human influence) but our
| TOS assigns any rights we may have to the user.
| sid-the-kid wrote:
| Okay. I know these guys IRL. BUT, I genuinely think they have the
| best music model out there. Hands down. The songs are just more
| unique, and have a wider range of musical variation. With
| Suno/Udio, the songs just sounds the same after a while (just
| with different lyrics).
|
| That could just be me though. I am curious what users of
| Udio/Suno think?
| jacobsimon wrote:
| Quality has improved so much too, I tried it a few months ago
| at Demo Day and I'm blown away by how good it is now.
| lcolucci wrote:
| The transition btw two songs demo is super cool! I often need to
| do this when editing videos but used to have no way to do it.
|
| Not to mention that now you can have playlists that transition
| seamlessly btw two songs. Low-cost party DJ?
| jdee wrote:
| Signed up with gmail, and get 'Generation Failed' with every
| attempt. Please dont email me or add me to your marketing list.
| zaptrem wrote:
| There was a single unhealthy worker that didn't get caught, we
| just killed it.
| covi wrote:
| Congrats on the API launch (from SkyPilot)!
| zaptrem wrote:
| Thanks! We used SkyPilot (an open source cloud GPU worker
| management tool) to help out with both our small (single node)
| and large (many node) training runs.
| easyThrowaway wrote:
| I'm not going to comment on the technical side of things, which
| is way beyond my technical comprehensions skills, and I'm sure it
| required a considerable amount of brain, time and energy to reach
| similar results.
|
| But music production and distribution is (actually, _was_ ) my
| home turf, so here's my two cents on the topic:
|
| I've already heard music qualitatively on par with the tracks
| available on your demo page. I've heard it way more than I truly
| wanted or felt it was necessary, at least once a day while
| tracking on pro tools hundreds of albums you've never ever heard
| of, in studios in France and LA, for years.
|
| It was made with people with the best intentions, coming from all
| sorts of walks of life, and yet it was obvious from the first
| note they played that they were condemned to the oblivion, their
| music destined to be basically never heard by anyone.
|
| And this has been done every day, multiple times a day, in every
| studio around the world, since the '60s.
|
| 20% of Spotify music has never been played once. IIRC less than
| 40% has been played more than once.
|
| There's a genuinely humbling scene in the 2002 documentary
| "Scratch" where DJ Shadow, a world-renowed DJ and producer, wades
| trough stacks of EPs out of a record store in NY that have never,
| ever been played once[1], which perfectly captures how little of
| the musical output being recorded we actually get to listen to.
|
| Making music is very easy. Making music people want to listen to
| is hard, mind-bogglingly so. For every whitebread pop track
| you've heard on the radio, there's thousands of other similar
| tracks that have been discarded by an A&R, a radio DJ, some
| label, or simply by the audience.
|
| I'm saying this with no ill feelings towards you or your work,
| but I can't concieve even the flimsiest of reasons why anyone
| would ever listen to (or license/sync/track/ ) any of those
| generated songs once the novelty of "music made by the AI" is
| gone.
|
| [1]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1gpKYnRdf0A&t=6s
| jastanton wrote:
| > I can't concieve even the flimsiest of reasons why anyone
| would ever listen to (or license/sync/track/ ) any of those
| generated songs once the novelty of "music made by the AI" is
| gone.
|
| Easy: Independent/single-dev operations needing some quick
| background music for a project (game, whatever)
| gazebo64 wrote:
| This is already easily solved by using royalty-free music or
| by licensing pre-made music from numerous publicly available
| sound libraries online -- with the added benefit of
| supporting actual musicians instead of plagiarist tech
| middlemen.
| bambinella wrote:
| I think you got this wrong. Usually you use one electronic
| musician to create all the background music (or license
| pre-existing popular music), and with music AI you make
| that musician more productive. It is not like non-musicians
| will even be able to select the bad from the good of the AI
| output. It takes a trained ear to build functional AI music
| as well.
|
| Nobody will hire live studio musicians or a symphony
| orchestra to create background music. Way too expensive.
| drusepth wrote:
| Also: People (especially kids, students, etc) who want to
| make music but don't have the technical expertise to (yet?).
|
| Obviously these tools don't do everything necessary to make
| great music, but the barrier of entry to making music is
| being lowered, and the quality floor is being raised -- and
| that'll result in a lot more would-be "musicians"[0] creating
| music that wouldn't otherwise exist[1].
|
| [0] I leave the argument of whether these generative
| musicians count as "real" musicians to the Scotsmen in the
| audience.
|
| [1] Bonus question: does art still hold value if no one sees
| it?
| zaptrem wrote:
| The creator sees/hears it! (and if they don't it really
| shouldn't have been generated lol, waste of compute)
| vunderba wrote:
| This comes up quite a lot - lowering the barrier to entry
| for creating a bunch of media that wouldn't otherwise
| exist.
|
| Eh I don't think the world is exactly clamoring for even
| more music.
|
| I can't speak for everyone's process, but if you don't know
| how to make music, I'm not convinced that this allows you
| to do so because the medium of input (aka writing text) is
| far too divergent from the resultant melodic output to
| allow for any kind of meaningful individuality.
| duped wrote:
| > Also: People (especially kids, students, etc) who want to
| make music but don't have the technical expertise to
| (yet?).
|
| But fuck all the people who have a career teaching them
| those skills as a part of a thousands-year long artistic
| tradition whose value isn't solely defined by the exchange
| of currency for lessons, but in that it subsidizes those
| artists' work which goes unpaid and furthers human
| experience.
|
| It's wonderful techies with a surface level knowledge of
| the arts are cannibalizing the entire supply chain and
| marketplace so they can make a buck off the AI craze.
|
| The barrier to entry is already zero. AI lowers the
| ceiling, not the floor.
| lc9er wrote:
| > I'm saying this with no ill feelings towards you or your
| work.
|
| I can. It's predatory behavior, performed by people looking to
| steal and cash in on something they have neither the skill,
| understanding, or love to make on their own.
| 999900000999 wrote:
| I have mixed feelings on AI music. When i make music, it's
| relaxing, it's fun, maybe 3 or 4 people listen to it. Then it
| kinda just sits on Soundcloud. One of my partners did enjoy my
| music though...
|
| AI music for the sake of just having it in the background
| removes that human element. It's just more stuff. To be fair,
| like you said, making generic music isn't anything new. But
| everything is turning into this. Games are using AI generated
| music which isn't , by definition, able to try anything new, AI
| art which is just reguritated by other artists.
|
| The enshitification of Spotify is here. Why pay artist 100$ for
| 500k plays when you can just push AI music and pay 1$ for every
| 500k plays. As is music( really any entertainment) is a
| horrible way to make money.
|
| So I guess I'll just keep working on my beats, with Maschine(
| the only software that keeps me on Windows!), and sharing them
| with a few people every now and then.
| thesparks wrote:
| The benefit of AI generated music is that you can make it for
| yourself. The goal shouldn't be to get other people to listen
| to it. It's very personal and that should be the end goal.
| easyThrowaway wrote:
| Is it very personal if it was generated from a third party?
| Making music and, more importantly, playing it is an
| incredibly personal, physical experience. _Especially_ if you
| 're doing it for yourself rather than being a gun-for-hire
| session musician.
|
| Getting it from a service like this is the equivalent of
| buying an already assembled lego kit. Putting aside ethical
| concerns (we're talking about the music industry after all,
| there were none even before AI arrived) is there a viable
| business in it?
| jamager wrote:
| The benefit of real human-made music is that you can make it
| for yourself. The goal shouldn't be to get other people to
| listen to it. It's very personal and that should be the end
| goal.
| quantumspandex wrote:
| Can humans generate a song based on custom lyrics and style in
| a matter of minutes?
| naltroc wrote:
| Whose Line Is It Anyway?
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XwIsvKpEgOA
| richrichardsson wrote:
| > Making music is very easy. Making music people want to listen
| to is hard, mind-bogglingly so.
|
| Agreed, although making music is "easy" once you've put in the
| hours to learn how to make music, and getting to somewhat
| professional standards requires a _lot_ of time investment.
|
| This reduces that to zero.
|
| The point where it becomes a "problem" is the people abusing it
| to pump out hundreds (or dare I say thousands) of bullshit
| filler "music" to get some stream income at the expense of
| people who _have_ put in the effort.
| easyThrowaway wrote:
| Technical skill has very, very little to do with the
| emotional impact of music.
|
| One of the most famous mantras in punk music was "this is a
| chord, this is another, now make a band"[1]. "Imagine" by
| John Lennon is a song written using the simplest scale and
| chord progressions, using a very low 4/4 tempo.
|
| The hard part is not knowing the biggest amount of chords,
| it's knowing what _not_ to use to carry your emotions.
|
| Also, the "time investment" is _the_ music. Once the final
| waveform hits the tape /DAW/recorder it's not art anymore,
| it's publishing.
|
| And for most artists "learn to make music" is usually the fun
| part. Complicated and frustrating sometimes, but rewarding.
| For a lot of them, the "now play it in front of other people"
| part is the truly annoying one, frightening in some
| occasions.
|
| [1]https://austinkleon.com/2019/01/13/this-is-a-chord-this-
| is-a...
| mco wrote:
| On one hand this is impressive, and I've been wondering when
| something like this would appear. On the other hand, I am -- like
| others here have expressed -- saddened by the impact this has on
| real musicians. Music is human, music theory is deeply
| mathematical and fascinating -- "solving" it with a big hammer
| like generative AI is rather unsatisfying.
|
| The other very real aspect here is "training data" has to come
| from somewhere, and the copyright implications of this are beyond
| solved.
|
| In the past I worked on real algorithmic music composition:
| algorithmic sequencer, paired with hardware- or soft-
| synthesizers. I could give it feedback and it'd evolve the
| composition, all without training data. It was computationally
| cheap, didn't infringe anyone's copyright, and a human still had
| very real creative influence (which instruments, scale, tempo,
| etc.). Message me if anyone's still interested in "dumb" AI like
| that. :-)
|
| Computer-assisted music is nothing new, but taking away the
| creativity completely is turning music into noise -- noise that
| sounds like music.
| unraveller wrote:
| Anyone with ears can find music satisfying. You don't need an
| artist's backstory or blessing for that. By all means use slow
| AI to get the same point fast AI can get to, but don't ask me
| to value it differently.
| tbossanova wrote:
| I have many times watched guitar players at their work, and
| gone home to try and do the same thing. I definitely value
| that differently.
| 6stringmerc wrote:
| And AI doesn't make satisfying music. Music is partially
| derivative in the human sector, but only derivative in AI.
| That's why it sounds like shit to reasonable ears.
|
| It's less than worthless.
| karpierz wrote:
| > Message me if anyone's still interested in "dumb" AI like
| that. :-)
|
| Not sure how to reach out, but I'm definitely interested in
| reading about procedural methods in music synthesis. Any links
| describing your approach?
| mco wrote:
| Added a link in my profile that leads to a brief demo and
| description. Not posting here as it'd crumble under too much
| load. :-/
| tgv wrote:
| > "solving" it with a big hammer like generative AI is rather
| unsatisfying.
|
| The reason is greed. They jump on the bandwagon to get rich,
| not to bring art. They don't care about long term effects on
| creativity. If it means that it kills motivation to create new
| music, or even learn how to play an instrument, that's fine by
| these people. As long as they get their money.
| zaptrem wrote:
| If our sole goal was to get rich we would have pivoted to
| some b2bsaas thing as many suggested to us. What we've
| actually seen is so much new creativity from people who
| otherwise would never have made music.
| 0xEF wrote:
| > Message me
|
| I don't see any contact info in your profile, but I have an
| email in mine. I am interested in hearing more about your
| process and if you have music for sale anywhere, I like to
| support electronic artists doing interesting stuff.
| dudefeliciano wrote:
| same here
| mco wrote:
| I added a link in my profile if you're curious.
| bambinella wrote:
| You mean like how real pianists suffered when the automated
| piano came, or how live music died when the record player came?
|
| Actually, noise that sounds like music is some of the best
| music there is: electroacoustic music.
|
| A lot better than most music on the radio. ;-)
| JoeDaDude wrote:
| Why is it "music for developers"? I was expecting one of those
| Lofi music videos designed to enhance concentration or similar.
| These are typically instrumentals, ostensibly because they are
| less distracting, something like this:
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M5QY2_8704o
| zaptrem wrote:
| it's because the thing we're launching today is an API for
| developers to use. If you want instrumental type stuff you
| should check out my bossa nova channel:
| https://sonauto.ai/radio
| amarant wrote:
| This is pretty cool! It's noticeably better than any of the other
| similar music generation tools I've tried, kudos!
| webprofusion wrote:
| Interesting that Suno et al miss out on the obvious problem that
| actual musicians need extra musicians for their own projects.
|
| For instance a guitarist will have a track they wish they had
| vocals for(and lyrics) for and if they could pay for that they
| would.
|
| Literally if you could highlight a tune section in your DAW,
| prompt it, and vocals + lyrics were generated, possibly different
| version or harmonies for existing parts etc. Musicians already
| pay for plugins but the singing ones are awful to use so far.
| zaptrem wrote:
| We're super interested in working on this (and melody
| conditioning) and even have some of the code written to
| generate the training data, but we want our base model to get a
| bit better before this becomes our main focus. Check back in a
| few months!
| SnowingXIV wrote:
| Honestly, this is a good use case and I think I still am not a
| fan. It's an extra step-away from a drum machine so maybe I can
| stomach it eventually but as a guitarist I love writing riffs
| and songs but just don't have the time and patience to put
| together decent sounding drum tracks against it.
| Garageband/Logic and others have added an AI drummer but still
| doesn't feel great.
|
| I probably would be happy paying a service I could drop a riff
| into and get decent drum track that goes with it. Even more
| would be while recording or playing it modifies and adapts, it
| can be recorded and clipped. Something that fits a clean
| workflow. If anyone makes this please don't make it such a pain
| as most VSTs and plugin systems where there are like 4
| different installers and licensing software layers.
| nlh wrote:
| This is super cool! Thanks for the hard work you've clearly put
| into this.
|
| My dream product in this space (...that I didn't know existed
| until I discovered your site about 10 minutes ago LOL):
|
| I listen to music when I work/code, and I used to loooooove
| Spotify Playlist Radio (a feature the reason for which they
| killed I will never understand) because it helped me discover new
| music in the style of music I already enjoyed working to. Liked a
| song? Add it to the seed list and click play to fine-tune the
| radio station.
|
| So what I really want is just a fine-tuneable infinite stream of
| novel music to work to. And by fine-tuneable, I mean I'd love to
| be able to nudge the generation (Pandora style) with thumbs ups /
| thumbs downs, or other more specific guidance/feedback (more
| bass, faster tempo, etc.) until I have this perfectly crafted,
| customized-for-me stream of music.
|
| I'd probably listen to it all day and happily pay $$ for this.
|
| Is this a pipe dream?
| sid-the-kid wrote:
| I am with you. I want this too. Maybe somebody can make it wit
| their API?
| modeless wrote:
| By far the best use case here is generating "Weird Al" style
| parody covers of pop songs by just changing the lyrics. Songs
| that everyone knows but with custom lyrics are way more
| interesting than songs nobody has heard before generated at
| random.
| r618 wrote:
| i've been occasionally trying to get some usable ambience tracks
| from these various models, but none of them seem to be able to
| produce looping tracks
|
| based on results so far it also looks like more flexible approach
| to ai generation would be to generate set of stems/samples based
| on user description and let them to actually compose instead of
| producing complete audio (maybe this is already happening
| somewhere)
|
| - in either case, properly looped tracks will be most likely
| necessary to be produced by these models at some point
| zaptrem wrote:
| You can create a looped track by combining the song generation
| and transition generation examples from our API example repo!
| bambinella wrote:
| Creating looping sections with Sunauto is generally not very
| difficult as the model is overly consistent when extending, so
| all you have to do is extend without changing the prompt and
| you should get a loop point.
|
| If you have lyrics in your conditioning then you usually can
| use a [Chorus] section as your loop point as most music AI
| models render chorus section in away that affords crossfades.
| THAT ASSUMES that you keep the chorus sections with a gap less
| than about 60 seconds with 30 seconds exention as it can only
| see 90 seconds of the music track (or something in that range)
| akrymski wrote:
| I really wish this trend of prompting gen AI models with text
| would stop. It's really meaningless. Musicians need gen AI they
| can prompt with a melody on their keyboard. Or a bit of whistling
| into the microphone. Or a beat they can tap on the table. That is
| what allows humans to unleash their creativity. Not AI generating
| random bits that fit a distribution of training data. English
| language is not the right input for anything except for
| information retrieval tasks.
| vasco wrote:
| > Not AI generating random bits that fit a distribution of
| training data
|
| How is that specific to text prompting? If you tap your fingers
| to a model and it generates a song from your tapping, it's
| still just fitting the training data as you say.
| zaptrem wrote:
| Agreed! Those will be much more fun and we plan to support
| that. However, right now we're focused on making the base model
| slightly better, then we can easily add all of those controls
| (a-la ControlNets with Stable Diffusion).
| iamsaitam wrote:
| Without disclosing your training data, this should be considered
| piracy and removed from HN.
| Tepix wrote:
| What rule is there against discussing piracy on HN?
| 6stringmerc wrote:
| This is promotion of piracy and trying to get the community
| to engage and validate it - if you can't see the line then
| maybe take the time to learn that it exists and how to
| recognize it.
| bambinella wrote:
| What piracy?
|
| Copyright does not cover ideas, generic patterns, timbres
| etc.
|
| If you know music history then will know that classical
| composers borrowed heavily. Without it, we would still be
| at the stone age level.
| column wrote:
| This looks pretty cool to integrate in hobby projects, however
| after creating an account via Google, clicking "Payment portal"
| shows this error :
|
| Error creating billing portal Failed to create billing portal
| session: No configuration provided and your live mode default
| configuration has not been created. Provide a configuration or
| create your default by saving your customer portal settings in
| live mode at
| https://dashboard.stripe.com/settings/billing/portal.
|
| Also when trying to update my profile picture :
|
| Failed to update image! column users.current_period_end does not
| exist
| aczerepinski wrote:
| Creating music is the most rewarding thing I've found in life,
| and I can't wrap my head around why anyone would want to automate
| that away.
|
| Less of this, more robots they do my dishes please.
| zaptrem wrote:
| We aren't trying to force musicians to stop doing what they
| love, we're trying to give everyone else a taste of the fun of
| making music.
| 8474_s wrote:
| The current AI music apps have a certain chunking problem: they
| force extending the song with segments that may or may not fit,
| which users likely choose as "good enough" and get Frankenstein
| mash-up songs that have no coherent "flow" or "progression" as
| its actually chunks of "similar sounding songs" not a coherent
| "full song generation" by AI but editing result of multiple
| chunks merged into something.
| bambinella wrote:
| I don't think that is the problem for Sonauto V2, on the
| contrary it is more a challenge that the model is too
| consistent with preceding content.
|
| Here are a few of my songs, I think they are fairly consistent?
|
| https://sonauto.ai/song/e2e3d210-69b4-4ad7-96d1-fb5744d0c648
|
| https://sonauto.ai/song/a94e04a9-7b74-4b87-b5ed-ca3e8d2798d0
|
| https://sonauto.ai/song/55a36595-c60a-4346-81d8-6f03ebe690ff
| duped wrote:
| I would encourage everyone who thinks "I want to apply AI to
| music" to look at the existing problems that creators have, talk
| to them, and work to bring new products to market instead of
| things that devalue their work.
|
| "Generate a rock song" is not a problem that working musicians
| have. "Take this riff I recorded with whatever guitar I have in
| the studio and show me what it sounds like as a Les Paul through
| a 5150 or Strat through a AC30" _is_ , though.
| bambinella wrote:
| Well, I create and know a fair bit about the history of music
| technology. Self playing pianos, for instance, allowed
| composers to write pieces with new complexities that would be
| physically impossible to play. Drum machines opened up for new
| types of music in the 1980s that would have been very unnatural
| for a physical drummer. In general, innovations in music come
| as consequences of technological advances and you cannot
| predict in advance how composers/musicians utilize these tools.
| The same is true for folk and classical music. The tempered
| scale, piano, various types of viola-like folk instruments etc
| etc. AI-generators is just a new tool.
|
| I have used Music AI for what you describe, by uploading a
| track I have made myself and use diffusion on it with various
| genres, although I don't think that is the most interesting use
| case for Music AI.
|
| Fusion is the most interesting use case IMHO.
| cowboylowrez wrote:
| I think many folks making the "music technology" argument
| tend to blur things so that human composition is reduced to
| "just another dial, just another new tech aid for music",
| "get off my lawn" etc. But its interesting to note that
| generative AI is unique in that it needs massive amounts of
| music that has already been produced to train on. Its a very
| unique development with some interesting questions once you
| sharpen the picture a bit.
| bambinella wrote:
| Let's not forget that extraordinary musical talent tends to
| be the result of MASSIVE exposure to music as a toddler. It
| isn't entirely a question of DNA or effort. They start by
| emulating what they hear, over time they might evolve their
| own style, or they may not. In other words, you are less
| likely to become an extraordinary musical talent if you
| weren't saturated with music before you started going to
| school. Nobody finds it problematic when a musical star is
| performing way beyond their age, even though he/she
| essentially is engaging in deliberate mimicry to a much
| larger extent than an AI usually would be.
|
| Are you saying that it is wrong for a machine to learn?
| Even if it was, it is the massive amount it is based on
| that makes it less problematic, as that makes room for
| building abstracted knowledge.
| cowboylowrez wrote:
| I like to think of mozart and the amount of music he
| listened to and was influenced by and compare it to what
| (I imagine) is used by these machines. Heck, you don't
| even instruct the machines on scales, rhythms or other
| sorts of fundamental musical aspects, you just tell the
| machines to make noise that sounds like what they've
| hoovered up. I'm still convinced that AI music proponents
| want to blur and obscure the differences between human
| composers and machine "composers" but I personally think
| the differences are pretty interesting and worthy of
| consideration.
| bambinella wrote:
| My best tracks are extended in 10-20 second sections. And
| I carefully choose the prompt and what to keep and where
| to continue (crop), sometimes just a few seconds. So you
| can compose with these models, basically, you have to if
| you want to get something that isn't bland.
|
| So overall, yes, anyone can, with some luck create a
| "radio friendly" track with music AI, but not everyone
| can create good art with it. You still need to understand
| music, and the more you know about genres and composers
| and how they fit together the more power you have to
| create musically interesting patterns.
|
| Keep in mind that Sunauto has 3400 generic tags + an
| undisclosed amount of artist names. You need to
| understand what makes it possible to combine different
| Artists/Musicians and what could lead to something
| interesting.
|
| So musical knowledge is still needed.
| cowboylowrez wrote:
| I am certain that AI music can produce something, but
| that training data needs to be figured out.
| zaptrem wrote:
| Cointerintuitively we need to build the base model before we
| can do the advanced production stuff that's most useful to
| existing pro musicians.
| duped wrote:
| I don't believe that, but go and prove it.
| zaptrem wrote:
| I feel like I've proven I know what I'm talking about at
| least from an ML perspective given we trained the model on
| the website. It's not strictly required, but I know you'll
| get much higher quality more powerful tools much more
| easily by building on top of a solid music foundation model
| than training a bunch of one-off specialized tools.
| skeptrune wrote:
| Honestly pretty cool. I'm curious how easy it will be for
| different video platforms and editors to work it in as a feature
| or maybe plugin
| unraveller wrote:
| The movie Electric Dreams is now the most prescient '80s movie
| about gen AI so far; An architect builds an approximation engine
| on his home PC which then ingests the whole internet/TV and
| learns to compose music for the cute girl next door who plays the
| cello. Song mis-attribution is the central theme. The hit song
| from the movie Together In Electric Dreams is actually from the
| perspective of the gen AI choosing to self-destruct as a final
| show of his love. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kDV-_q-iaK8
|
| I bring it up only to provide a bit of balance to the soulless
| slop debate, proving creators can have diverging opinions on what
| is good in music creation and life--they don't all feel
| threatened by poor substitutes no one can possibly enjoy.
| jtreminio wrote:
| You need an OpenApi spec!
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2025-03-04 23:02 UTC)