[HN Gopher] Eleven Music
___________________________________________________________________
Eleven Music
Author : meetpateltech
Score : 145 points
Date : 2025-08-05 15:42 UTC (7 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (elevenlabs.io)
(TXT) w3m dump (elevenlabs.io)
| abdullahkhalids wrote:
| OT: Has anyone tried the opposite - ask AI to listen to music and
| determine the notes or chords being played? Or watch someone
| playing an instrument and give a textual output of what
| notes/chords they are playing.
| thepryz wrote:
| There's a ton. Haven't used any personally. AnthemScore,
| ScoreCloud, Melody Scanner are just a few I found after a quick
| search.
| abdullahkhalids wrote:
| I think these are all using old machine learning techniques
| and not the modern transformer based architectures that
| underlie LLMs. These tools won't be able to match the
| abilities of an expert musician replicating a song by
| listening to a live recording of it. Check this video channel
| where they ask professional drummers to replicate a song
| after only one listen [1].
|
| [1] https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=drummer+repl
| ica...
| magicmicah85 wrote:
| I would love this! There's a song I like by a band that broke
| up in 2013 and I am transcribing it by watching a live
| performance they did and trying my best but realizing I'm
| trying to take a mandolin/guitar and put it to acoustic. Even
| just being able to do a similar rendition would be nice by
| telling the AI "hey, do a twist on this and give me the
| chords/tabs".
| sorrythanks wrote:
| what's the song??
| magicmicah85 wrote:
| It's called Ark in a Flood by Churchill. There's the studio
| recorded version here:
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jhBHxWrXQT8
|
| And then I found this live version here that I'm studying:
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pPQZsp59szo
| neonnoodle wrote:
| No, that would be useful, and as such AI is incapable of doing
| it.
| KerrAvon wrote:
| LLMs can do this well, though, and there are such. They
| weren't calling themselves AI when I last looked a couple of
| years ago, but I'll bet any of them looking for VC money have
| rebranded since.
| nemo1618 wrote:
| I'm very interested in this too. We're beginning to see models
| that can deeply understand a single image, or an audio
| recording of human speech, but I haven't seen any models that
| can deeply understand music. I would love to see an AI system
| that can iteratively explore musical ideas the same way Claude
| Code can iterate on code.
| lioeters wrote:
| Reminds me of an example in a similar direction, where AI was
| used for audio processing to filter out everything except a
| person's voice. If I remember right, it was able to focus on
| different people in a crowded room. It might have been also for
| music, to pick out an instrument and listen to it, filtering
| out the rest of the band.
| ethan_smith wrote:
| There are several tools that do this already - AnthemScore,
| Spleeter, CREPE, and even Google's AudioLM can transcribe music
| to MIDI with varying accuracy depending on instrument
| complexity and audio quality.
| ElectricalTears wrote:
| A while ago (maybe a year) I asked chatgpt to make a guitar tab
| from a song that had no available tabs and it worked
| surprisingly well.
| krat0sprakhar wrote:
| I use https://moises.ai/ multiple times a week for practicing /
| figuring out chords being played. For the notes (say in a
| guitar riff), I dont know if such a thing exists
| abdullahkhalids wrote:
| Being able to isolate instruments, if it works well, is
| already a pretty big achievement.
| TuringNYC wrote:
| I did this for my graduate capstone (https://www.deepjams.com/)
| We extracted chord progressions from existing music you would
| upload and then riffed based on those chords. there are open
| source libraries for this.
| bigfishrunning wrote:
| Having a machine-learning algorithm crank out generic music seems
| like peak dystopia to me
| shadowgovt wrote:
| Is it more or less dystopia than an army of musicians trying to
| eke a living out of creating stuff like this
| (https://www.chosic.com/free-music/presentation/) to go behind
| your company's PowerPoint about how its Q3 woodchip sales
| didn't quite exceed expectations?
|
| Maybe the fundamental issue is that this _shouldn 't_ compete
| with a human picking up a guitar and having fun with it, and
| the only reason it does is because we keep tying questions like
| "survival" to whether someone can make woodchip earnings
| reports less boring to read instead of trying some other way to
| be a community?
| bigfishrunning wrote:
| Why does a powerpoint about woodchip sales need music? Also,
| I don't see how anyone is making a living on the royalty-free
| music you linked, unless there's some business model I'm not
| understanding.
| shadowgovt wrote:
| > Why does a powerpoint about woodchip sales need music?
|
| So the audience doesn't get bored.
| whoamii wrote:
| Wait until someone auto tunes an AI generated song.
| ccozan wrote:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Heroes_(novel) ?
|
| visionary!
| lc9er wrote:
| Just wait until the rush of commenters that insist you're wrong
| about being offended that they want to automate and commodify
| every aspect of your life.
| rpdillon wrote:
| Made this point elsewhere, but the music industry has been on
| a downward slide towards making music as cheaply as possible
| for some time now.
|
| If you look at Taylor Swift's first 12 number one hits, each
| of them was written by a different writer. Compare that to
| bands from 30 years ago, many of whom wrote and recorded all
| the songs themselves.
|
| Labels don't sign rock bands anymore because actually
| recording a rock band well in a studio is 10x the cost of
| just using a sampler and a single artist singing. I know
| folks want to blame AI, but it's really just enabling the
| latest iteration of this trend.
|
| I'm not defending the whole thing. It's a shame, and I love
| going back and listening to my old Rush albums. But AI is not
| the problem here. It's the incentives.
| Q6T46nT668w6i3m wrote:
| Who wrote the last 12 Taylor Swift hits?
| satyrun wrote:
| Machine-learning for audio is just a different form of audio
| synthesis.
|
| That is not the issue. The issue is how incredibly generic
| the music is.
|
| It also doesn't let you combine genres to make really strange
| sounds like audioLM can do.
|
| This is just another Muzak generator like they use to play at
| Dennys. As generic music as possible to the appeal to the
| most average of average listener.
|
| I think you really need to train your own model if you want
| to explore creative sound design or algorithmic composition.
| It just isn't going to be a mass market product worth venture
| capital money.
| thepryz wrote:
| Maybe I'm a Luddite, but this seems like it will just lead to
| music becoming superficial and lacking intentionality, or dare I
| say it, soul.
| crazydoggers wrote:
| I think you just described pop music
| thepryz wrote:
| It's easy and popular to hate on pop music, but even pop
| music has value and requires a certain skill to understand
| what resonates with people.
|
| This is taking a monkeys on a typewriter approach to all
| music. Click a button, see what the monkeys made and then
| click another button to publish to Spotify while you figure
| out a way to either market the music or just game search and
| digital assistants by creating an artist with a similar or
| slightly misspelled name as someone popular. Rinse and
| repeat.
| colechristensen wrote:
| >music becoming superficial and lacking intentionality, or
| dare I say it, soul.
|
| This phrase though could be plunked down at any point in
| the last hundred years and you'd find someone making it.
|
| About autotune or electric guitars or rock or jazz or punk
| or disco or Philp Glass or Stravinsky... one could go on
| for a long time.
| thepryz wrote:
| You'll always have naysayers, but I think there's a
| difference between someone who doesn't understand or
| share the appeal of rock or jazz or an artist like Philip
| Glass where music is made by someone choosing what notes
| to play, what rhythms, what words and the music that
| comes out of a statistical model.
|
| You can't tell me that Philip Glass didn't understand or
| agonize over the music when creating it. The creative
| process is vastly different and that's my point.
|
| Oh course, there will be artists who use AI in new and
| creative ways, someone like Brian Transeau who routinely
| codes tools for creating electronic music. but for most
| artists, I fear it will just lead to mindless button
| clicking and prompt manipulation until it's formulaic
| because the base model is the same. Or it will result in
| fewer people learning instruments or music theory and
| truly experimenting with things that haven't been done
| before.
|
| I see AI as having great potential in both art and
| productivity but maybe it's just that I don't trust
| people to use it responsibly. We're inherently lazy and
| easily distracted by anything that will give us that
| dopamine fix.
| shadowgovt wrote:
| The current solution for creating the kind of music this
| tool can back-fill is to go on a site like "Free music for
| presentations" and click line after line after line after
| line of 10-second samples hoping to find one that "vibes"
| with you.
|
| If anything, this is a lateral move.
| darth_avocado wrote:
| A lot of criticism of AI in music seems to be around the lack
| of originality and it being generic slop. But unfortunately
| that's true for pretty much the entire music industry. Handful
| of people write songs for all the artists, "artists" don't
| create the songs as much as they perform them, most of the
| music isn't created but rather sampled or is "inspired" by
| other music and pretty much most of the artists sound like
| other artists.
|
| Yes there are smaller creators who are trying to make something
| net new, but unfortunately 99.9% of the small artists are also
| derivative and lack originality.
|
| I see AI music as just continuation of the sad state of the
| industry at the moment. Hopefully it accelerates the demise of
| the industry as we know it and restarts the cycle of creation.
| feoren wrote:
| None of that is new, but there were ways for the genuinely
| new, inspired, and genius to actually shine through before.
| It was hard, but possible. Humanity is making decisions that
| make that even harder: AI music, Spotify's revenue model,
| etc. They're all to the benefit of cookie-cutter slop (AI or
| human-made) over creativity.
|
| This wouldn't necessarily be a problem as long as people were
| still free to create on their own. But instead, everyone is
| forced to spend more hours in menial bullshit jobs for less
| and less (relative) pay just to survive. Give everyone enough
| resources to live at least a simple life, and both human
| creativity and AI creativity can blossom at the same time.
| But of course that means fewer yachts and hookers and drugs
| for the billionaires, so it is verboten.
| mixologic wrote:
| Well, so much for culture. Every use case where you can plausibly
| use AI generated music removes one more method that provided an
| avenue to a reasonable career making music.
| static_void wrote:
| But at least there are jobs in tech!
|
| Oh wait.
| pimeys wrote:
| One more avenue of making something creative...
| recursive wrote:
| > Studio-grade
|
| The vocals are definitely not that.
| two-sandwich wrote:
| If you consider that Entertainment gives the viewer what they
| want, and art intends to challenge, none of what's created here
| is "art". It doesn't push boundaries, create new genres, or
| satisfy an uncomfortable curiosity.
|
| The tech here is fantastic. I love that such things are possible
| now and they're an exciting frontier in creation.
|
| It's very dystopian to feel that the robots are making generic
| human-music with indescribably lifeless properties. I'm not an
| artist, so I don't feel personally attacked. Much like image gen,
| this seems to be aimed at replacing the bare-minimum artist
| (visual or auditory) with a "fill in the blanks" entertainment
| piece.
| paxys wrote:
| Tech is tech. What you create with the tech can be art.
| bix6 wrote:
| These feels different than experimenting with a new synth or
| something though. It's just feeding a sentence to the model.
| altruios wrote:
| 'Just' is a loaded word here.
|
| In image gen: comfyUI gives a node-based workflow that
| gives a lot of room for 'creative' control, of mixing, and
| mathematically combining masks, filters, and prompts (and
| starting images / noise {at any node in that process}).
|
| I would expect the same interface for audio to emerge for
| 'power users'.
| kingstnap wrote:
| I draw a very sharp line: curating the outputs and crafting
| the sentence is enough to make it art. If neither of those
| happen, it's just slop.
|
| It's actually a bit like photography. A bunch of randomly
| taken pictures piled together is not art. It needs to be
| done with purpose and refinement.
|
| Basically, in my own opinion, art [?] a function of
| technical difficulty.
|
| Art = Curation, Refinement, and Taste
| fruitworks wrote:
| Curation, refinement and taste is practicially worthless
| on its own. The technical difficulty of art is the
| investment that makes it worth considering.
|
| So if you are right, then art will pretty much be
| worthless in the future. You can just iterate over the
| search space defined by "good taste" and produce an
| infinite amount of good art for no work.
| kingstnap wrote:
| Curation is not worthless. It's the exact opposite, in
| the abundance of stuff, it's extremely valuable.
|
| Search is not free, and it can never be free. What
| happens when search gets easier and easier is that your
| demands for quality and curation will get higher until
| all time saved in search efficiency is spent on search
| breadth.
| blargey wrote:
| Disagree that curation and prompts adds artistry (dense
| intent reflected in the output) to AI generations.
|
| "Curation" in AI can only surface the curator's local
| maxima among a tiny and arbitrary grab-bag of seed
| integers they checked among the space of 2^64 options;
| it's statistically skewed 99% towards the model's whims
| rather than anyone's unique intent or taste.
|
| Prompt crafting is likewise terribly low fidelity since
| it's a constant battle with the model's idiosyncratic
| interpretation of the text, plus arbitrary perturbations
| that aren't actually correlated with the writer's
| supposed intent. And lord spare me the "high quality high
| resolution ultra detailed photorealistic trending on
| artstation" type prompts that amount to a zero-intent
| plea for "more gooder". And when pursuing artistry, using
| artist names / LORAs are a _meta-abandonment_ of personal
| direction, abdicating artistic control and responsibility
| to a model 's idea of another artist's idea of what
| should be done.
|
| Fancier workflows generally only multiply this prompt-
| and-curate process across regions/iterations, so can't
| add much because they're multiplying a tiny fraction by a
| fixed factor.
| kingstnap wrote:
| I agree with you on the idea of prompts and seeds leaving
| much to be desired. So that's why I think more
| sophisticated steering is necessary.
|
| The models' latent space is extremely powerful, but you
| get hamstrung into the text encoders whims when you do
| things through a prompt interface. In particular, you've
| hit exactly an issue I have with current LLMs in general
| in that they are locked into wors and concepts that
| others have defined (labelings of points in the latent
| space).
|
| Wishy washy thinking: I'd be nice if there were some sort
| of Turing complete lambda calculus sort of way to prompt
| these models instead. Where you can define new terms,
| create expressions, and loops and recursion or something.
|
| It would sort of be like how SVGs are "intent complete"
| and undeniably art, but instead of vector graphics, it is
| an SVG like model prompt.
| CamperBob2 wrote:
| "It's just pushing a button on the camera."
| anigbrowl wrote:
| This is a stupid argument, because even with the most
| automatic camera you have to point it at something and
| make a decision about what to frame in. AI music is more
| like buying a bunch of old unlabelled records from a
| bargain bin and then praising yourself whenever one of
| them turns out to be worth listening to.
| CamperBob2 wrote:
| Of course it's a stupid argument, but it's _exactly_ what
| the ancestors of today 's AI naysayers said when
| photography became practical.
|
| Then again, it's possible for an art form to exhaust its
| own possibilities. To the extent that "prompt
| engineering" is sufficient to generate any music or
| artwork we have in mind, that seems like an indication
| that we've reached that point. To the extent that it's
| _not_ sufficient, that seems like an indication that
| there 's still interesting stuff left to do.
|
| Either way, if you are hoping that things will stay the
| same, then I'm afraid that neither art nor technology are
| good career choices.
| kelseyfrog wrote:
| Art is a framing device largely independent of the content.
| It's how we get Fountain[1], Piss Christ[2], Comedian[3],
| Mother![4], 4'33"[5], and Seedbed[6] to name a few among
| countless others. To claim that AI content is incapable of
| being framed as art is nonsense when we have example after
| example of the diversity of what art can be. Let's remember,
| bad art is still art.
|
| 1. Marcel Duchamp. 1917
|
| 2. Andres Serrano. 1987
|
| 3. Maurizio Cattelan. 2019
|
| 4. Darren Aronofsky. 2017
|
| 5. John Cage. 1952
|
| 6. Vito Acconci. 1972
| fruitworks wrote:
| If that was true, then the development of a new urinal
| factory would have the same impact on art as the development
| of a new AI art models.
|
| The framing is dependent on the content
| kelseyfrog wrote:
| Framings require creators; they don't arise spontaneously.
| Someone could turn a urinal factory into art, but art
| doesn't validate itself. Belief alone in artistic
| essentialism doesn't make it so.
| fruitworks wrote:
| That's such a great pile of bullcrap, you could frame it
| and hang it up in a museum!
|
| The point I'm making is that a unique framing only
| results in a single piece of worthwhile conceptual art.
| You can't have an infinite factory of ducamp's fountain.
| What makes the piece worthwhile is that it was an
| original idea.
|
| Conceptual art is different from decorational art in this
| sense. The AI music is a largely a homogenous synthesis
| of existing works. The AI "art" is decorational, not
| conceptual art. You could make an arrangement of AI art
| that is conceptual, but how many arrangements can you
| make that are actually worthwhile conceptually if AI art
| is generally homogenous?
|
| It's like asking how many worthwhile works of conceptual
| art can you produce with a urinal factory that makes
| identical clones of the same urinal? 0 to 1.
|
| And besides, it's not nessisarially true that all
| framings have creators. Nature is an example of a system
| that cultivates and curates a certain type of life
| without any rational process.
| kelseyfrog wrote:
| I don't disagree that being novel has it's place in
| framing art, and I still believe that a Fountain Factory
| could certainly be framed as art.
|
| To your other point, sorry, but artistic/aesthetic
| essentialism hasn't been serious position for at least a
| hundred years.
|
| As long as there is a perceiver, there is a frame.
|
| The idea that nature is intrinsically beautiful _is_ a
| frame. It 's fine to hold that but it shouldn't be
| confused with not having a frame.
| recursive wrote:
| There's a difference between a factory that _is_ art vs a
| factory that _produces_ art.
|
| There's only one factory, and the concept works only
| once.
| kelseyfrog wrote:
| Mass-produced art is still art as long as people frame it
| as such and all indication suggests that they do.
| recursive wrote:
| I have some mass-produced art on my wall. But it's
| definitely not conceptual art, as some ancestor post was
| discussing.
| ronsor wrote:
| The fact that these models have so many people irritated like
| there's sand in their pants is enough proof that they're
| pushing boundaries and making some uncomfortable.
| fruitworks wrote:
| the boundaries of unemployment perhaps
| omnimus wrote:
| boundaries of copyright
| thefaux wrote:
| Yes, because the people pushing the boundaries do not
| understand the value of the thing they are trying to
| commoditize. If they did, they wouldn't be trying to
| commoditize it. There is a pervasive attitude among
| technologists that they can improve things they don't
| understand through technological efficiency. They are wrong
| in this case and getting appropriate pushback.
|
| Personally, music is sacred for me so making money is not a
| part of my process. I am not worried about job loss. But I am
| worried about the cultural malaise that emerges from the
| natural passivity of industrial scale consumerism.
| nonhaver wrote:
| Well put and reflects my thoughts exactly. It's borderline
| concerning there are people who consume this type of media
| by choice and forethought.
| CamperBob2 wrote:
| And they consume it without checking with you first.
| That's got to be the worst part.
| Levitz wrote:
| Not every boundary is worth pushing.
|
| I'm hoping it will eventually become better, or maybe I
| haven't quite seen stuff prompted properly yet, but all I've
| heard coming from an AI feels _aggressively_ mediocre and
| average, not in a "bad" way but in the "optimizing towards
| being palatable to the average person" way. Like the perfect
| McDonalds meal that the algorithm has found out can be 30%
| sawdust and still feel appetizing. I don't want that boundary
| being pushed. I feel we will live in a worse world if we do.
| recursive wrote:
| Besides the point, but I think that's basically what
| happened to Subway.
| sorushn wrote:
| Epstein, the ultimate pusher of boundaries.
| moritzwarhier wrote:
| > Entertainment gives the viewer what they want, and art
| intends to challenge
|
| This is a fruitless and snobby dichotomy that was attempted so
| many times in human history, and it makes no sense.
|
| There will always be art made for success and/or money, but
| drawing a line is futile.
|
| Handel used to be a bit like a pop musician.
|
| And intellectual snobbishness or noble ideas do not make art
| more valuable.
|
| A kid singing Wonderwall can be art, too. As can be a depressed
| person recording experimental field sounds.
|
| Feel free to call art bad, but assuming an obvious and clear
| separation between art and entertainment is the exact opposite
| of the spirit that enables people to make or appreciate art, in
| whatever form, culture or shape.
| viccis wrote:
| >Handel used to be a bit like a pop musician.
|
| Handel was never a "bit like a pop musician." This
| fundamentally misunderstands how music during his time,
| mostly funded and enjoyed under religion and wealthy
| patronage contexts, was listened to. Mostly only the wealthy
| listened to his works, and those elite audiences were prone
| to viciously enforcing stylistic norms. The only real way the
| working class heard his works were in the occasional public
| concert and occasionally in church. At no point in any of
| these settings was there a lack of stylistic gatekeeping or
| snobbery.
|
| I know this kind of nihilistic "everything is good, I guess,
| good doesn't even mean anything" attitude is popular in some
| spaces, but this lack of standards or gatekeeping in favor of
| a tasteless desire for increasing slop production regardless
| of quality is how we got poptimism and the current state of
| music. No longer is there any taste making, just taste
| _production_ via algorithms.
|
| Sometimes we need a bit of snobbery to separate the wheat
| from the chaff, and being a gatekeeping snob against AI music
| is what our current day and age needs more of!
| Krasnol wrote:
| Well, in the end, the only thing this snobbery does is that
| it makes you look/sound old.
|
| Nobody cares. I've heard the same thing when electronic
| music came up. The old ones couldn't stop complaining about
| this "computer music" where nobody does real handwork
| anymore.
|
| I see it as democratisation of art. Everybody can do it now
| and this is a good thing.
|
| Let's face reality. There is no way back. We'll see what
| comes of it. I've seen fascinating videos recently on
| reddit. Things people came up with and would have never
| gotten the budget to be made. It's great.
| sekai wrote:
| > and art intends to challenge, none of what's created here is
| "art". It doesn't push boundaries, create new genres, or
| satisfy an uncomfortable curiosity.
|
| Art is, above all, subjective.
|
| > It's very dystopian to feel that the robots are making
| generic human-music with indescribably lifeless properties.
|
| Painters said the same thing about the camera. Photographers
| said the same thing about Photoshop.
| fruitworks wrote:
| This art is subjectively bad
| blargey wrote:
| Art is communication.
|
| That "generic" and "indescribably lifeless" feeling you get is
| because the only thing communicated by a model-and-prompt
| generation is the model identity and the prompt.
| qgin wrote:
| If your art can be replaced by a model that recycles what's
| already been done, maybe you were just recycling what's already
| been done too.
| anigbrowl wrote:
| How do you expect people to get good when AI is pushing them
| out of the entry-level stages where they were previously able
| to earn a modest living while developing their craft?
|
| > oh now they won't have to do that boring mindless stuff
| like playing cover versions any more
|
| That's how most musicians make their first $, doing covers or
| making something generic enough to be saleable as background
| music
| _DeadFred_ wrote:
| AI eats the seedcorn. Anyone that needs space to grow?
| Crowded out. Entry level incomes, replaced. No more entry,
| sorry.
|
| For all of human civilization the future has been built on
| the backs of those the came before (on the backs of
| giants). But that climb is slowing, maybe halting. Which
| then compounds when the new giants that would have risen up
| don't. AI replaces the messy, slow process of becoming with
| instant regurgitation, replaces those that would have
| grown. The future, built on the backs of giants, stalls
| when those giants never get the chance to rise.
|
| AI is entropy weaponized against every layer of future
| progress. But everyone is too busy salivating at potential
| cost savings to see it.
| CuriouslyC wrote:
| Sorry, but no. I use AI as a writing tool, and its
| understanding prose and storycraft is nowhere near there,
| it's mostly useful for rough drafts and minor rewrites.
| Even in a hypothetical future where it's perfect at prose
| and storycraft, and it just asks you a few questions to
| get at the details of what you want then cranks out a
| technically outstanding novel, it still won't be there.
| People crave novelty, freshness and and a sense of the
| auteur, and AI will ALWAYS be bad at that (until someone
| creates an AI writer that simulates a fictional human
| author with a rich interior life before it starts
| writing, anyhow).
|
| Ultimately we'll reach a technical "peak" in AI writing,
| and humans will still be the ones driving the AI, feeding
| it with the alchemy of their lived experience, directing
| creation at a high level. We'll even purposefully inject
| very minor imperfections into the writing in the name of
| voice, tweaking minor details in the name of personal
| harmony. The author will go from "creator" to "brand."
| orbital-decay wrote:
| Then most music is not art, because I struggle to find non-
| generic music, at least for the genres I like. In 2020s, 4/5
| artists are bent on trying to create a blend of aesthetics of
| the past, instead of even attempting doing something that
| sounds fresh and authentic. And very few of these who do
| succeed. This has been going on for a while.
| hudo wrote:
| AI is great, I can see it benefit so many industries, except
| music. There's something profoundly wrong with AI generated
| music.
| amradio1989 wrote:
| I could be wrong, but I think the use case here is mainly for
| non-artists in domains where the music is not particularly
| important.
|
| For example, a podcaster/youtuber may want a short intro track.
| An entertainer or a marketer may want some generic or silly
| background music.
|
| Does it have a use case for a producer/musician? Maybe. It might
| give them ideas for chord progressions, melodies, etc. But real
| music does that too, and much more effectively.
| weego wrote:
| It definitely has a use case for prototyping sound design,
| which can be either incredibly time consuming or require an
| awful lot of niche expensive gear. Something like playing
| around to get an unusual drone can take a lot of time and
| effort. Being able to 'describe it' and get 80%+ there is a
| huge win.
|
| And if you're focused on chopping up samples and sounds on an
| ableton push or similar this can be a tool of endless
| possibilities.
| bigbuppo wrote:
| Well, they've done it boys, they've made creative fulfillment
| obsolete. They've DISRUPTED the concept of going to big music
| festivals, and small cozy shows. Just plug your ear holes with
| the AI slop bucket's pure beeps and boops and never have to worry
| again about paying artists for music. You can pay a techbro
| instead.
|
| This is like the dotcom era of where every idiotic idea that
| ended with, "but on the internet", would get a pile of cash
| thrown at it. We are officially at the beginning of the end. It's
| only going to get dumber from here.
| shadowgovt wrote:
| There isn't any relationship whatsoever between a concert or
| music festival and this tech. Two entirely different
| experiences.
| everfrustrated wrote:
| Finally non-repeating muzak is here
| RyanOD wrote:
| I'm dreading the day I discover a new "band" I'm totally into
| only to discover it's entirely AI.
| cschmidt wrote:
| I worry how often that is happening already on Spotify.
| shadowgovt wrote:
| Oh boy, do I ever have bad news about how pop music is
| currently created...
| footy wrote:
| this would only be bad news for that commenter if they're
| into pop music
| RyanOD wrote:
| Increasingly I can't get into new music. For a while, I
| couldn't understand why as I've been a rabid musician / music
| lover my entire life. Even music I thought was cool, I
| couldn't really get into. I always preferred the music I grew
| up with.
|
| Eventually, the reason why became obvious. I grew up
| listening to all that music with my closest friends. It's the
| memories I associate with that music that keeps me coming
| back. I moved away 30 years ago and never established
| friendships like that again. New music feels hollow to me
| because I don't have buddies to share it with and build
| associated memories.
| drivers99 wrote:
| At least I still have all my old CDs.
| krat0sprakhar wrote:
| Hope your favorite new band is not "The Velvet Sundown"
| HelloUsername wrote:
| But you were enjoying the experience..
| artninja1988 wrote:
| The context length seems super small. The prompt needs to be
| shorter than 2k characters, which is super limiting. Hope they
| address this soon.
| 65 wrote:
| Yet Another Slop Machine(tm)
| yanis_t wrote:
| Did anyone compared to Suno quality wise? Seems like one benefit
| being the API availability
| wturner wrote:
| Write a song about the billionaire social engineer Peter Thiel
| getting robbed and murdered by a broke minimum wage worker with
| no healthcare.
|
| "That is not allowed by our terms of service"
|
| I think the rebellious nature of art inherently has boundaries
| these people won't cross.
| pr337h4m wrote:
| This could be repurposed for really good stylistic search for
| music (similar to how CLIP powered stylistic search for images on
| same.energy)
| Oceoss wrote:
| I've been waiting for this AI development for a while
|
| It's amazing that the songs sound pretty natural
| jp1016 wrote:
| lot of ai progress today, open ai, claude and now eleven labs
| feoren wrote:
| We imagined a utopian future where robots did our menial work so
| we were free to be creative. Instead we got a dystopian future
| where we do more and more menial work so our robots can poorly
| emulate creativity. It's not too late to turn it around, but that
| requires recognizing the humanity of 99.9% of people, and the
| 0.1% who own everything would rather create their own synthetic
| (subservient) humans than recognize the basic rights of the ones
| that already exist (and can make fun of them on Twitter).
| krapp wrote:
| They said the same thing about automation when the Industrial
| Revolution began a century or so ago. That the common worker
| would be liberated from the drudgery of labor and be free for
| creative and intellectual pursuits. The people who protested
| were ridiculed as Luddites who simply feared technology and
| progress.
|
| Of course, because automation serves the interests of capital
| (being created by, and invested in, by the capitalist class,)
| the end result was just that workers worked more, and more
| often, and got paid less, and the capitalist class captured the
| extra value. The Luddites were right about everything.
|
| I don't know why people expect the automation of intellect and
| creativity to be any different. Working at a keyboard instead
| of on a factory floor doesn't exempt you from the incentives of
| capitalism.
| asukumar wrote:
| Are you suggesting that subsistence farmers were better off
| than workers after the industrial revolution? I find that
| hard to believe.
| krapp wrote:
| In some ways, yes, they were.
|
| Subsistence farmers weren't cramped in filthy disease
| ridden workhouses, getting paid in company scrip, getting
| mangled by machines (OK they were but probably not as
| often) or being locked into burning buildings because
| preventing theft of stock was more important to owners than
| the lives of employees. And subsistence farmers owned what
| they produced and the means by which it was produced,
| whereas industrial workers owned nothing but the pennies in
| their pocket, and likely owed more than that to the
| company.
|
| It took years of often violent protest for workers to
| return to even the basic level of dignity and rights once
| afforded to craftsmen and farmers. Not that the lives of
| subsistence farmers and craftsmen were _good,_ but they
| were _better_ than what the dehumanization of mass
| production and automation created.
|
| But then comparing farmers and workers in this context is a
| bit specious. It would be more fair to compare, say,
| textile workers before the automated loom and textile
| workers after. Obviously the former had it much better off,
| which was precisely the problem automation was intended to
| solve.
| GuinansEyebrows wrote:
| > I don't know why people expect the automation of intellect
| and creativity to be any different. Working at a keyboard
| instead of on a factory floor doesn't exempt you from the
| incentives of capitalism.
|
| people are, unfortunately, and collectively, not ready to
| seriously interrogate the economic or political situations in
| which they find themselves. we will never see the utopian
| promise of automation under capitalism. there will always be
| an underclass to exploit.
| kingstnap wrote:
| It's only from a position of extreme arrogance that you can
| complain that machines have not yet done enough for you.
|
| But it's the fun thing about being humans, I suppose. Our
| insatiable greed means we demand endlessly more.
| anigbrowl wrote:
| This comment doesn't engage with the critique at all, it's
| just reflexive moralization.
| throwaway_32u10 wrote:
| Behold, we are one step closer to a world where "AI will do the
| mundane tasks, and the we all are going to engage in creative
| hobbies such as music creation"... Oh... wait...
| iamsaitam wrote:
| The silver lining to any of these models is that what AI
| generates is total shite.
| throwaway1280 wrote:
| This is an incredible achievement, but as a musician, I wish this
| would go die in a fire.
|
| I'm a bedroom hobby musician with no dreams of ever making it
| big, but even so, I'm looking at the hours I'm spending trying to
| improve my skills and thinking what's the point, really, when I
| could just type in 'heavy metal guitar solo at 160bpm, A minor'
| and get something much much better?
|
| I know there is value in creating art for art's sake. I've always
| been up against a sea of internet musicians, even when I started
| back in 2000. But there's just something about this that's much
| more depressing, when it's not even other people competing with
| me, but a machine which hasn't had to invest years of its life in
| practice to beat me.
| shadowgovt wrote:
| When Harmonix was in the concept phase for Guitar Hero, there
| were two slides in the presentation. The first was the "con"
| slide: novel game style risks not finding a market, technical
| challenges of the new style of gameplay, requiring peripherals
| for a game is a famous pathway to low-volume sales.
|
| The next slide was labeled "pro," and it was just a picture of
| Jimi Hendrix on-stage mid-performance.
|
| I'd submit to you the notion that even if the machine can
| create a billion billion iterations of music, it still _cannot_
| create what _you_ will create, for the _reasons_ you will
| create it, and that 's reason enough to continue. Hendrix
| wasn't just "a guy who played guitar good." And a machine that
| could word-for-word and bar-for-bar synthesize "Foxy Lady"
| wouldn't be Hendrix.
|
| Hendrix, also, can't be you. Nor you him.
| thefaux wrote:
| It is embarrassing how much time I spent playing that dumb
| game instead of actually practicing a more versatile
| instrument.
| rootforce wrote:
| I can't see the future, but I imagine that the human art
| community may actually get more vibrant when divorced from
| being a way to make a living. Perhaps a return to something
| like a patronage system for the exceptional artists.
|
| Open mics, music circles and concerts also remain untouched for
| the moment.
| freedomben wrote:
| As a fellow (hobbyist) musician, I feel you, but after doing a
| lot of introspection I realized that it's the art (and the
| process) that I really like, not (just) the end result (though
| that is of course a rewarding aspect). For example, jamming out
| to a kickin' song is _fun_ , even if I'm just covering
| something. I also realized that my own ability to produce
| things isn't affected by this (as long as you don't want to
| make money on it). As someone who loves to play bass but is
| generally bad at writing bass riffs, I also see some fun
| potential to use AI to get bass tracks that go along with my
| main guitar riffs. I can always throw them out and rewrite from
| scratch later, or just iterate on them to get them where I like
| them. I do think I'll feel a bit lof a loss of "artistic
| purity" with doing something like that, but the more I think
| about it, the biggest reason that might bother me is because
| I'd feel judged by other musicians :-D
| thefaux wrote:
| I would suggest that instead of feeling demoralized by ai that
| you instead ask what can you offer musically that an ai cannot.
| I also would suggest trying to let go of the notion that music
| is primarily about achieving a certain level of technical
| proficiency. There are no limits on your growth musically
| unless you artificially constrain them because you are deluded
| by a technology to believe that you don't already have what you
| need inside of you.
|
| Do you regularly play with other people? That is a good way to
| disabuse yourself of the notion that all that matters is
| technique.
| dillutedfixer wrote:
| Like you, I am just a hobbyist making beats in my room. No
| expectations of ever being a real musician. But when I'm
| jamming and I create a beat and synth line, start adding other
| instruments and really get a song going, there is a feeling
| that I get that an generated song will never ever ever be able
| to recreate for me. It's like a rush, an almost a euphoric
| tingling (and no I'm not on drugs) that happens that almost
| feels like a runners high. No output from a prompt-driven AI
| algorithm would ever do that to me. That's the value I see in
| making art for arts sake, for practicing a craft and for trying
| to just get better at something for the sake of getting better
| at it.
| J_McQuade wrote:
| I am not sure if this will be any help to you at all, but the
| technical skill of music - especially in (from your comment)
| heavy metal - has only ever been a tiny part of it. You
| probably know a guy in a local pub band who can note-for-note
| play every singly thing that Toni Iommi ever recorded, for
| instance.
|
| There are hundreds of bands who play three-chord doom or
| mindless-shredding grind who just learned one thing and do it
| well, and who play to hundreds of people multiple times a week
| (often including me). We go to see these bands not to see what
| they can play, but to see what they are saying with what they
| play.
|
| This is why I feel that I can never describe LLM-generated
| content as 'art'. Art is about the story. People will go and
| see a punk band who only know three chords if they play songs
| about things that resonate with them. Bit of a tangent, but
| this is the same reason that I genuinely believe that if you
| could bio-engineer a steak that tastes exactly like one from a
| well-looked-after cow from a notable breed and a good farm,
| most people would still prefer the cow. The story matters - the
| fact that a person put effort and experience into something
| really is important.
|
| "This solo is sick" is a fun plus-point, but it doesn't matter
| if the song doesn't mean anything to you. If proficiency was
| the only thing that mattered then we'd all be listening to the
| worst kind of prog.
| throwawayoldie wrote:
| I would like to say this categorically now: if you're using AI to
| generate any kind of art, go die in a fire.
| dawnerd wrote:
| It's already bad enough before this came out on the different
| streaming platforms. People are grifting off known musicians
| and labeling them as album artists to get their awful ai songs
| put into mixes.
| throwawayoldie wrote:
| This is a shitty timeline and I would like to transfer to a
| better one. Hey, maybe these AIs can tell me how to do that.
| ebiester wrote:
| Is that LLMs? Generative AI? Anything with machine learning?
| Anything using a public model? Does that include something like
| Baby Audio TAIP? Noise removal software that uses ML?
|
| How about Refik Anadol?
| throwawayoldie wrote:
| Yes.
| asadm wrote:
| Do we yet have a way to "autocomplete" music from existing music?
| or from humming to music (music-to-music?)?
|
| I am less interested in the "one-shot" approach here with text-
| to-prompt. I see seamless transitions but that seems like an
| afterthought.
| fidotron wrote:
| What struck me more than the output is the absolute marketing
| talk of the prompting, so not only is the output kind of creepy
| but in order to get the best results you have to translate your
| intention into the worst corpo-speak imaginable.
| stillpointlab wrote:
| I really hope we move on from these boil-the-ocean models. I want
| something more collaborative and even iterative.
|
| I was having a conversation with a former bandmate. He was
| talking about a bunch of songs he is working on. He can play
| guitar, a bit of bass and can sing. That leaves drums. He wants a
| model where he can upload a demo and it either returns a stem for
| a drum track or just combines his demo with some drums.
|
| Right now these models are more like slot machines than tools. If
| you have the money and the time/patience, perhaps you can do
| something with it. But I am looking forward to when we start
| getting collaborative, interactive and iterative models.
| pacifika wrote:
| I'd recommend GarageBand for this.
| stillpointlab wrote:
| I haven't used the virtual drummer feature of GarageBand
| recently, but my experience with it was pretty disappointing.
| The output sounds very midi or like the most basic loops.
|
| I believe there is massive room for improvement over what is
| currently available.
|
| However, my larger point isn't "I want to do this one
| particular thing" and rather: I wish the music model
| companies would divert some attention away from "prompt a
| complete song in one shot" and towards "provide tools to
| iteratively improve songs in collaboration with a
| musician/producer".
| viccis wrote:
| RIP session musicians if that ever comes to pass, which is one
| of the main ways to make money if you are a good drummer.
| krat0sprakhar wrote:
| Very well said. I'm in the same boat. I'd love AI to write down
| a drum groove or a drum fill based on my guitar riff.
|
| Currently, all these AI tools generate the whole song which I'm
| not at all interested in given songwriting is so much fun
| amohn9 wrote:
| Suno can already do that
| nartho wrote:
| Most VST drum sequencers have pretty powerful groove libraries
| nowadays. It's not a model or anything like that but just mix-
| matching and modifying the patterns some give extremely good
| results
| sys32768 wrote:
| I think AI will spark a revival in "organic" human culture and
| art, with people flocking to see real musicians play real
| instruments, and real artists using real materials.
|
| It will probably also extinguish quite a few mad musicians and
| mediocre artists.
| zubzubi wrote:
| Can it do differently-styled covers of songs or improvisations
| upon melodies like Suno can?
|
| As a musician, that's what I find most compelling about Suno.
| It's become a tool to collaborate with, to help test out musical
| ideas and inspire new creativity. I listen to its output and then
| take the parts I like to weave into my own creations.
|
| The AI music tools that generate whole songs out of prompts are a
| curious gimmick, but are sorely lacking in the above.
| TrackerFF wrote:
| I'm a musician
|
| I haven't used the elevnlabs one, but I've checked out suno and
| udio, and to be honest the tech is amazing. But like with a lot
| of genai images, the current music models have the same smell to
| it.
|
| These models can def be used to crank out commercially sounding
| music, but I have yet to hear any output that sounds fresh and
| exciting. If your goal is to create bro country, these models are
| a god-send.
|
| With that said, I do believe that musicians will start to create
| music with these tools as aid. I've tried to use them for
| generating samples and ideas, and they do work well enough.
| MarcelOlsz wrote:
| >With that said, I do believe that musicians will start to
| create music with these tools as aid.
|
| The more tech advances the cooler it is to bury your head in
| the sand. Studying by paper & candlelight has never been more
| of a flex.
|
| Unless you're talking about EDM people and those adjacent. Not
| that they're not "real musicians" but they're much more about
| tech and gadgets so I can see them using it more.
| TrackerFF wrote:
| I'm a "real" musician, and have done session / studio work,
| as well as made a living by playing live music in my younger
| days, before getting a "real job" in tech.
|
| While there will no doubt be many that feel they're above
| using tools like these, the reality is that if you want to
| make money out of music - you're going to make music for the
| masses.
|
| And if there's one thing these models really excel at, it is
| to make commercial sounding music. Everything sounds nice and
| bland.
| MarcelOlsz wrote:
| Ah yeah, I don't even register the commercial world so
| didn't mention it as it's a given. Doing that type of work
| would suck so bad IMO.
| anigbrowl wrote:
| I'm an electronic musician and AI music is banned on my
| favorite forum. Someone popped up a few months back
| challenging everyone to listen to their AI-generated music
| album and ended up being flamed to a crisp - not because
| people didn't engage with it, but because they did and
| pointed out in detail what was so bad about it.
| TheAceOfHearts wrote:
| Well, here's a few points of comparison:
|
| Suno's version of Mandate of Heaven [0]. This is my baseline, it
| was generated with their v4 model and so far it has remained my
| favorite AI generated song. I regularly listen to this one track
| and it brings me joy. There's many places where I think it could
| be drastically improved, but none of the competitors have managed
| to surpass it nor have they provided tools to improve upon it.
| The pronunciation is a bit bad sometimes and it fails to hold
| notes as long as I wish, but overall it has gotten the closest to
| my vision.
|
| Eleven Music's version of Mandate of Heaven [1]. They don't allow
| free accounts to export or share the full song so you can only
| try a small fragment. It has much crisper instruments and vocals,
| but it has terrible pacing issues and pronunciation. The track is
| 4 minutes long, but the singer is just rushing through the track
| at wildly unexpected speeds. I cannot even play the song after it
| finished generating, so I haven't even been able to listen to the
| whole thing, it just gets stuck when I press play. Maybe some
| kind of release-day bug. The only tool that Eleven Music gives
| you for refining and modifying sections is "Edit Style", which
| feels pretty limiting. But I can't even try it because the track
| won't play.
|
| Producer.ai's version of Mandate of Heaven [2][3]. This one has
| slightly worse instruments than Eleven Music, but the vocals are
| a bit better than Suno v4. It also has severe timing issues. I
| tried asking it to generate the track without a vibe reference
| [2] and also with a vibe reference [3]. Both versions have
| terrible pacing issues; somehow the one with the vibe reference
| is particularly egregious, like it's trying to follow the input
| vibe but getting confused.
|
| It feels like AI song generation is just in a really awkward
| place, where you don't get enough customization capabilities to
| really refine tracks into the perfect direction that you're
| imagining. You can get something sorta generic that sounds
| vaguely reasonable, but once you want to take more control you
| hit a wall.
|
| If one is willing to bite the bullet, there's a paid program for
| generating high quality synthetic voices while maintaining fine-
| grained controls: Synthesizer V Studio 2. But I haven't been able
| to try it out because I'm cheap and there's no Linux support.
|
| The ideal workflow I'm imagining would probably allow me to
| generate a few song variations as a starting point, while
| integrating into a tool like Synthesizer V Studio 2 so I can
| refine and iterate on the details. This makes a lot of sense too,
| because that's basically how we are using AI tools for
| programming: for anything serious you're generating some code and
| iterating on it or making tweaks for your specific program. I
| would like to specify which parts of the track are actually
| important to me, and which ones can be filled with sausage in
| reaction to my changes.
|
| Overall, Eleven Music generates instruments that sounds nice, but
| the singing leaves a lot to be desired (n=1). Eleven Labs is
| doing a ton of great product work so I'm really excited for the
| direction they'll take this once they're able to iterate on it a
| few times. A very strong showing for an initial release.
|
| [0] https://suno.com/s/HfDUqRp0ca2gwwAx
|
| [1] https://elevenlabs.io/music/songs/TGyOFpwJsHdS3MTiHFUP
|
| [2]
| https://www.producer.ai/song/aa1f3cc4-f3e4-40ce-9832-47dc300...
|
| [3]
| https://www.producer.ai/song/3d02dd17-69f1-41ba-a3ea-967902f...
| CuriouslyC wrote:
| Mandate of Heaven does pretty much sound like a mid power metal
| track. The mixing is perfect but the production is "off" which
| is kinda weird, also the vocal delivery is flat and empty which
| is probably the biggest AI tell. The lyrics are cheesy but
| that's power metal for you.
|
| Overall still quite impressive progress, though I'd prefer it
| if AI could remix existing artists songs that I already liked
| instead of being focused on tepid original content.
| tlaverdure wrote:
| I've played guitar for 23 years, and there is something just off-
| putting about most of the music on that page, but particularly
| "Yellow Bus Jam".
|
| The guitar solo sounds very unnatural, especially the phrasing,
| which is totally random. Blues musicians are actually attempting
| to say something through their instrument. This was just a random
| number generated solo played by a 6 finger three handed robot. No
| thanks, lol.
| ilvez wrote:
| Reminds those early youtube days shredding overdub videos..
| These were funny, but the Yellow Bus Jam seems just hollow and
| wrong. Feeling there's something from Steely Dan in that song..
| freetonik wrote:
| Reminded me of Steely Dan as well, but somehow _off_.
| stronglikedan wrote:
| Get used to it, because it's much cheaper than a musician, and
| to the average person "attempting to say something through
| their instrument" and "random number generated solo" are
| largely the same thing.
| kev009 wrote:
| The "Don't Let Me Go" and "Yellow Bus Jam" examples made me
| laugh out loud. This kind of thing would be great for a
| cyberpunk game that dynamically generates a reality, with
| (unintentional?) faux pas and jank.
|
| If you are an artist you could always slice, embellish, or
| otherwise process outputs into something so I guess it's not
| totally silly. But I get at best real estate video vibes, or
| unironic early '90s clip art and Comic Sans vibes and
| presumably some team of expensive marketers worked hard to
| select these examples, which is doubly hilarious.
| tlaverdure wrote:
| I'm not anti-AI, but I strongly believe the human element of
| music can be imitated but not fully replicated. Listening
| back to that song I can hear the attempt to stylistically
| play slightly off-beat to get the feel of a band playing
| without a metronome. The auditory illusion is there, but it
| still sounds off. Playing behind the beat is a feeling; it's
| not a calculation.
|
| As a drummer keeps time, the band reacts by looking at the
| drummer's hands and the sway in their posture. A drummer
| intensifies their playing as they respond to the feeling of
| air being pushed from guitar cabinets. A lead guitarist looks
| back at their friends and smiles when they are about to play
| that sweet lick that the bass player likes to play along
| with.
|
| These are just simple examples that make all the difference
| when you listen back. I also can't imagine paying hundreds of
| dollars to go see an AI "perform" this solo at a concert.
| When I listen to music, I'm remembering the moment, the
| feeling, what the artist was doing to create their art. So
| still... no thanks!
| kev009 wrote:
| Anthony Marinelli (guy behind MJ's Thriller synth jams) and
| Tim Pierce (accomplished session guitarist) riff on this
| https://youtu.be/OzuADujnEhQ?t=1205 recently. This whole
| video is a treat, as are most of Marinelli's.
|
| When I see AI salesmen thinking they can attack into art, I
| think they naively see it as inherently imprecise or
| arbitrary, and they think because their technology has
| these properties it will easily cross over. This is going
| to lead to a lot of faux pas (remember NFTs?); it would be
| prudent to attack problems where some kind of correctness
| can be mechanically judged... OCR and software development
| are reasonable verticals at opposite ends of complexity to
| focus on, and pursue artistic rendition in a more
| experimental way letting artists approach the technology
| and show how it is useful.
| conradfr wrote:
| These things won't replace rock stars, they will (or at
| least want to) replace the vast majority of the industry
| which is tv shows, movies, ads, etc, which the disclaimer
| as the end alludes to.
|
| It's a terrible thing.
| kev009 wrote:
| Once upon a time random corporate videos would have full
| custom orchestral scores
| https://youtu.be/q7hFJZf9fWk?t=162
|
| The thing I notice time and again in all this is they
| want you to believe technology is displacing labor at one
| end but there's usually a lot of retraining
| consumers/society to accept something qualitatively
| different to cover up or re-conceive what was. That's not
| a moral judgement, just an observation. But the end
| result is usually the same, some group of current or
| wannabe oligarchs playing musical chairs at the top
| without regard for the rest of the system.
| GuinansEyebrows wrote:
| > Get used to it, because it's much cheaper than a musician,
| and to the average person "attempting to say something
| through their instrument" and "random number generated solo"
| are largely the same thing.
|
| it's okay to just say you're not that interested in music
| JKCalhoun wrote:
| It's live music for the win then.
| electrondood wrote:
| I had the same sentiment, but also recall what generated human
| hands looked like a year ago vs. now.
|
| The solo was pretty funny though.
| Freedom5093 wrote:
| I thought it was pretty rhythmic
|
| I would've believed he's real, just passionate about music on
| his big yellow bus.
| aatd86 wrote:
| Have you tried suno? How does it compare?
| mrtksn wrote:
| I know right? AI is in the uncanny valley still. But every now
| and then I stumble upon something made with AI.
|
| I have no proof but I'm convinced that the song here is AI
| made: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hL1Fg1QnDig
|
| I liked it but it still feels like AI to me.
| JKCalhoun wrote:
| I think we're just going to have to get used to it. That is,
| just drop worrying too much about whether something is AI and
| just stop at whether you like it or not.
| mrtksn wrote:
| It doesn't work like that, art is a package. At this point
| it's interesting that AI can do these things but the momen
| it wears off it stops being worthwhile. Artist + AI as a
| tool is working fine I believe but stuff produced by people
| who don't have taste shows.
| bjt wrote:
| What did you train the model on? Assuming it was trained on all
| the music online, without permission, it's kinda shitty to take
| all musicians' work like that and use it to make a product to put
| them out of business.
|
| I draw a distinction here from LLMs used for writing code. Plenty
| of people freely put their code on Github or in Stack Overflow
| with the expectation that people could freely copy and use it.
| Relatively little music is shared so permissively.
|
| (And before someone cries "fair use", I'm making an ethical
| argument, not a legal one. A fair use defense can protect you
| from a copyright claim, but it doesn't make it any less shitty to
| take other people's art, blend it all together, and use the
| result to threaten their livelihoods.)
| matthewfcarlson wrote:
| > Created in collaboration with labels, publishers, and
| artists, Eleven Music is cleared for nearly all commercial
| uses, from film and television to podcasts and social media
| videos, and from advertisements to gaming. For more information
| on supported usage across our different plans, head here.
|
| Not sure what that actually means but it suggests they at least
| tried to get their training material legally.
| nonhaver wrote:
| Absolutely horrendous - well and truly. Ignoring the dystopic
| undertones of a product like this - the audio quality is low and
| filled with artifacts and destroyed transients. Voices are
| robotic and generic with basically zero emotion. Lyric generation
| is frankly embarrassing. Everything about this is horrible.
| Additionally the UI broke for me multiple times and I couldn't
| play the track without downloading it.
|
| What is going on at ElevenLabs? Is everything vibe coded now? Is
| there nobody testing these products before pushing them out? This
| is the first time I'd characterize a product from a top AI
| company as complete slop from a conceptual and implementation
| perspective.
|
| I feel like there's some sort of disconnect between the minds of
| tech CEOs and the general population's wants/needs especially in
| regards to creative domains. What kind of human wants this? Is
| there some grudge of tech people who never learned music/art/etc
| so their solution is to optimize it and create models so they can
| feel something?
| neom wrote:
| It's interesting to me people really hate AI gen'd music, some
| people I know literally won't listen to it and just like... get
| kinda angry I even tried to show them what I made (so I stopped
| showing people for now). I have a good memory for sound, but
| whatever neurodiversity I have makes learning instruments (and
| math, and written words, and and) super challenging. I loved
| screwing around remixing stuff in Abelton, but I've not touched
| it since suno. I just looked at my suno library, I've gen'd 1,100
| tracks since March 18th, 2024. The levels of audiophile
| or...musicophile? is pretty wide, but I don't think I'm a total
| n00b and I think some of the stuff I've made is actually pretty
| good, even if I do say so myself (and I'm fine even if I just
| make it for myself to listen to, as that's what I always did
| anyway). :)
| joshwcomeau wrote:
| This stuff is such an abomination. What a terrible thing to
| release into the world.
| gnarlouse wrote:
| Can we get a new quantum leap in model quality to stave off the
| feeling that modern AI stuff is just a sloppy hustle for venture
| capital
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2025-08-05 23:01 UTC)