AI band? Dire Portends.

[Saul Goodman]

 

[Dave Scepter]

I have no problem with this if real people are creating the AI music and real people are paying for it.... but most importantly, there's a Twilight Zone marathon on right now that you should be watching instead of posting this crap! 🤣

[Saul Goodman]

3 hours ago, Dave Scepter said:

I have no problem with this if real people are creating the AI music and real people are paying for it.... but most importantly, there's a Twilight Zone marathon on right now that you should be watching instead of posting this crap! 🤣

Well I figured it was short enough for your attention span and the other 8 of you on this forum. 

[LucSulla]

6 hours ago, Dave Scepter said:

I have no problem with this if real people are creating the AI music and real people are paying for it.... but most importantly, there's a Twilight Zone marathon on right now that you should be watching instead of posting this crap! 🤣

The problem is that you can't create music with AI. "Generative AI" is just futuristic name for a machine-learning based probability algorithm that spits known information back out reassembled as something "new." 

Now, if someone wants to make the argument that you can dice pre-existing intellectual property up so fine that the owners of the IP should have no legal claim, that's one thing, but there is nothing new there. Everything you hear literally came from somewhere else. 

Generally, I think AI is going to be a learning curve. As people use it more, I think a lot of them are going to see what its limits are. I'm also in the camp that thinks probability models can only get so good because human language, much less thought, isn't quantifiable, thus making a hard limit on just how good generative AI can get. 

I use it a lot, and it's great for a few things. But if you look at what OpenAi would actually have to charge a month to be profitable, which, even at $200 a month for ChatGPT Pro, isn't enough, I don't think it does enough to really be widely adopted unless it's heavily subsidized. And there is no way I'd shell out $20k for deep research because, in demoing it, I saw numerous things that would have cost me my reputation if not my job if I just threw it in a paper. And I wouldn't pay $200 for what I currently use it for, which does indeed save me a ton of time, but not $2400 a year much. 

However, music is uniquely vulnerable to all of this because most people don't engage with music as a primary form of entertainment. For most people, it's just something pleasant to occupy background space in their day. I think that for most people, most art is only interesting enough for people to enjoy as a primary source of entertainment if part of the experience is seeing another human's creative ability, but music isn't movies or books. Most of the audience doesn't buy music to sit and consume with their full attention. Spotify's data proves that the vast majority of listeners couldn't give less of a damn about how the music on their playlist got made as long as it is pleasant enough. 

This is a great book I just read that I think I will probably start using in my music business course on this topic:

https://www.simonandschuster.com/books/Mood-Machine/Liz-Pelly/9781668083505

Spotify and other streamers' goal is to not pay royalties, and AI may just about get them there, seeing as some of the most popular "artists" on the platform are just work-for-hire musicians hired to shell out generic pablum for playlists already. This will even cut the work-for-hire guys out of the mix. 

I genuinely don't know what the future of music is going to be. There will always be humans making original music out there, but I don't know how you can compete with classic albums where bands had the financing stay in a studio for a year focusing entirely on the final product when you are working two jobs just to be able to afford to play music at all. Sure, there are outliers, but saying everyone is just going to be Fugazi ain't it either. 

Edited July 5, 2025 by LucSulla

[specialk]

^Great post! 👍

[bubs_42]

I’ll follow up on my post in Hamerheads WTB listing. Buy, listen to musicians that make real music and care about their fans. SO much music is being made out there by real people with real mortgages, bills, and family’s that are still grinding away writing music because it’s all they know. They want you to listing, they need you to listen, they want you at the show, they need you at the show to reciprocate or complete the circle. 

F(&& the Machine! Corporate or AI, is’t about the human experience that is what music is. 

[velorush]

Dr. Penrose said it best (and 35 years ago!)

An absolute manifesto on AI and specifically the impracticability of the Strong AI that the current Weak AI is claimed to be.

Existence cannot be reduced to an algorithm, therefore a machine cannot be created to provide correct results in all situations. [/rant]

I need to dust my copy off. It's been a while! 

[Jim85IROC]

I've used some AI tools to help with songwriting.  I came up with my own lyrics (with some help from ChatGPT), and put that into Suno with specific details about how I wanted the chord progression to go.  Ultimately it helped me find the "sound" I wanted and more specifically,  helped me find a pleasing vocal melody, which is something that I'm terrible at.

 

And as a bonus, some of the guitar licks that it came up with were really good.

[Jakeboy]

I just spoke about this exact topic on 101 The Fox  radio station in KC.  It just ain’t real. If we accept generative AI as art, we owe apologies to Milli Vanilli. At least they were actual humans actually singing on the backing tracks. AI music just isn’t real.

[JohnZ]

What if a musician created similar melodies at the same time or later. Would the real musician have to deal with copy rights? Sooner or later I would guess, this will be a market. 

[Jakeboy]

Just as we have recording plugins  that are emulations of classic gear, (compressors, eq,s plate reverb), there are AI plugins in work which will allow my voice on my songs to be replaced by Steven Tyler, Robert Plant, Taylor Swift, or whatever artists agree to licensing their exact vocal likeness. AI is such a problem in art. 

[Disturber]

This is very sad. The saddest part is how? You have to ask yourself -how did this band get some many streams, so many followers, how did they get on all these playlists?

It is hard to cut through the Spotify algorithms. I've been in a small band. Without very good backup (and money) it is almost impossible to make an impact. So, how did this AI-generated music/"band" make such a big impact? How did all these journalists that have been writing about this phenomena got to hear about this music? The answer is there are forces behind this project that are pushing it out. Spotify is 100% in on this. They placed the songs on playlists, they pushed this hard. There is no other explanation. It's a big hoax from their side. This is how Spotify and perhaps the other platforms too want the future to be. So much more revenue for them. And so easy to control. Imagine that the can sell music like this to hotells, stores, restaurants (for mood music), radio stations, commercials etc. They cut out all the creators and middle men. So much money to be made. So easy. 

I know guys who writes (or used to write, I have not met them in years) music for Spotify's playlists. They wrote songs, just like the songs from this AI-band, that were totally anonymus. They had aliases as songwriters and the "artists" that performed the music did not exist. It was all done in a "lab". A music studio in the absolute center of Stockholm where all the love for music was left outside the studio door. These songwriters had agreements with Spotify that the music they produced would get millions of streams. For this they would get a smaller royalty split than normal. Probably no songwriter credits what so ever. But they still made loads of money. Because the songs got all these millons of streams. And they wrote so much fake music. Just to fill the up the most popular Spotify playlists, so that Spotify would have to pay less to real artists and get more money back to their own company from the streams.

Now, this is another level. This cuts out the music producers and writers all together. No musicians and vocalists will be hired either. As they were on the ghost tracks that Spotify used to pump out. So more people with talent are losing their jobs. If it was bad before then this is a new ball game all together. Very sad.

[DarkHammer]

When robots and AI were introduced, the idea was that as AI replaces humans there will be some sort of alternative income for those folks. So far I have not seen this happening, as the producers, engineers and musicians get nothing.

[ZR]

On 7/6/2025 at 3:46 AM, JohnZ said:

What if a musician created similar melodies at the same time or later. Would the real musician have to deal with copy rights? Sooner or later I would guess, this will be a market. 

That's a good point.. can't copyright chord progressions but you can the melody. So I'm sure someone's already using super computer power to come up with multiple permutations of melodies and copyright them in his or her name. Then have AI monitor all streams for similar melodies, at least the ones making money, and then sue the pants off them! 

Uh, I need to go, I uh have a project I'm working on...

Sharon Osbourne would love to corner this copyright market. It reminds me of when the Internet first appeared and people were buying up domain names etc. cheaply just to sell to others later for big bucks.

 

[DarkHammer]

Just wait until AI starts using images/videos and sound of real artists to create new content. They are already working on virtual Kiss concerts.

Imagine when Ozzy is gone AI will be releasing new Sabbath songs and videos! That's endless stream of income for owners of song catalogues. Why do you think there's so much interest in acquiring song rights from aging artists why are about to leave us?

Edited July 7, 2025 by DarkHammer

[LucSulla]

8 hours ago, Disturber said:

I know guys who writes (or used to write, I have not met them in years) music for Spotify's playlists. They wrote songs, just like the songs from this AI-band, that were totally anonymus. They had aliases as songwriters and the "artists" that performed the music did not exist. It was all done in a "lab". A music studio in the absolute center of Stockholm where all the love for music was left outside the studio door. These songwriters had agreements with Spotify that the music they produced would get millions of streams. For this they would get a smaller royalty split than normal. Probably no songwriter credits what so ever. But they still made loads of money. Because the songs got all these millons of streams. And they wrote so much fake music. Just to fill the up the most popular Spotify playlists, so that Spotify would have to pay less to real artists and get more money back to their own company from the streams.

 

"A model in which the imperative is simply to keep listeners around, whether they’re paying attention or not, distorts our very understanding of music’s purpose. This treatment of music as nothing but background sounds—as interchangeable tracks of generic, vibe-tagged playlist fodder—is at the heart of how music has been devalued in the streaming era. It is in the financial interest of streaming services to discourage a critical audio culture among users, to continue eroding connections between artists and listeners, so as to more easily slip discounted stock music through the cracks, improving their profit margins in the process. It’s not hard to imagine a future in which the continued fraying of these connections erodes the role of the artist altogether, laying the groundwork for users to accept music made using generative-AI software.

“I’m sure it’s something that AI could do now, which is kind of scary,” one of the former Spotify playlist editors told me, referring to the potential for AI tools to pump out audio much like the PFC tracks. The PFC partner companies themselves understand this. According to Epidemic Sound’s own public-facing materials, the company already plans to allow its music writers to use AI tools to generate tracks. In its 2023 annual report, Epidemic explained that its ownership of the world’s largest catalogue of “restriction-free” tracks made it “one of the best-positioned” companies to allow creators to harness “AI’s capabilities.” Even as it promoted the role that AI would play in its business, Epidemic emphasized the human nature of its approach. “Our promise to our artists is that technology will never replace them,” read a post on Epidemic’s corporate blog. But the ceaseless churn of quickly generated ghost-artist tracks already seems poised to do just that.

Spotify, for its part, has been open about its willingness to allow AI music on the platform. During a 2023 conference call, Daniel Ek noted that the boom in AI-generated content could be “great culturally” and allow Spotify to “grow engagement and revenue.” That’s an unsurprising position for a company that has long prided itself on its machine-learning systems, which power many of its recommendations, and has framed its product evolution as a story of AI transformation. These automated recommendations are, in part, how Spotify was able to usher in another of its most contentious cost-saving initiatives: Discovery Mode, its payola-like program whereby artists accept a lower royalty rate in exchange for algorithmic promotion. Like the PFC program, tracks enrolled in Discovery Mode are unmarked on Spotify; both schemes allow the service to push discount content to users without their knowledge. Discovery Mode has drawn scrutiny from artists, organizers, and lawmakers, which highlights another reason the company may ultimately prefer the details of its ghost-artist program to remain obscure. After all, protests for higher royalty rates can’t happen if playlists are filled with artists who remain in the shadows."

https://harpers.org/archive/2025/01/the-ghosts-in-the-machine-liz-pelly-spotify-musicians/

Edited July 7, 2025 by LucSulla

[JohnZ]

On the other hand ai will create „perfect“  sounds. This will become the niche for imperfect humans and mistakes will become a pleasure to experience. The worse you sound the more famous you will be.

[Disturber]

16 minutes ago, JohnZ said:

On the other hand ai will create „perfect“  sounds. This will become the niche for imperfect humans and mistakes will become a pleasure to experience. The worse you sound the more famous you will be.

You wish. People are idiots. Period.

[JohnZ]

18 minutes ago, Disturber said:

You wish. People are idiots. Period.

…there is some truth in that.

[Jim85IROC]

7 hours ago, DarkHammer said:

When robots and AI were introduced, the idea was that as AI replaces humans there will be some sort of alternative income for those folks. So far I have not seen this happening, as the producers, engineers and musicians get nothing.

just like when home recording techniques made it possible for anybody with an interface and a DAW to make their own high quality recordings instead of paying for studio time.  It brought the capability to more people.  No doubt many felt it was cheating at the time, now it's universally accepted.  I don't doubt some of these AI tools will follow the same trajectory. 

[Jakeboy]

39 minutes ago, Jim85IROC said:

just like when home recording techniques made it possible for anybody with an interface and a DAW to make their own high quality recordings instead of paying for studio time.  It brought the capability to more people.  No doubt many felt it was cheating at the time, now it's universally accepted.  I don't doubt some of these AI tools will follow the same trajectory. 

But a huge difference exists….at least is was real humans making real music to the beat of their abilities by writing and recording songs they had actually written. AI is none of that. None. At. All.

[Jim85IROC]

7 minutes ago, Jakeboy said:

But a huge difference exists….at least is was real humans making real music to the beat of their abilities by writing and recording songs they had actually written. AI is none of that. None. At. All.

there's always a "but".  Is it cheating if you're using a drum track?  Midi bass with a plugin?  What if you're using the AI to generate those parts but you still lay down your own guitar track?  Or maybe you use the AI to help you find a melody you like, that you use in your own recording?  

 

Your post focused on AI replacing producers, engineers and musicians.  My point is that the home-recording capabilities that we all have already replaced 2/3 of those groups, and when you start using drum tracks and midi bass tracks, you're well on your way to replacing the 3rd.  The new AI tools are just the next evolution in the long history of new tools that make it easier for DIY.  Maybe it crossed a line this time now that you can just ask Suno to "make me a blues song about my girlfriend leaving me" but no matter where you draw the line between the "way it used to be" and the way it is about to be, the line ultimately ends up being drawn at an arbitrary point between the two.

[LucSulla]

26 minutes ago, Jim85IROC said:

there's always a "but".  Is it cheating if you're using a drum track?  Midi bass with a plugin?  What if you're using the AI to generate those parts but you still lay down your own guitar track?  Or maybe you use the AI to help you find a melody you like, that you use in your own recording?  

 

Your post focused on AI replacing producers, engineers and musicians.  My point is that the home-recording capabilities that we all have already replaced 2/3 of those groups, and when you start using drum tracks and midi bass tracks, you're well on your way to replacing the 3rd.  The new AI tools are just the next evolution in the long history of new tools that make it easier for DIY.  Maybe it crossed a line this time now that you can just ask Suno to "make me a blues song about my girlfriend leaving me" but no matter where you draw the line between the "way it used to be" and the way it is about to be, the line ultimately ends up being drawn at an arbitrary point between the two.

I don't think the problem here is music being "less real." I think the problem is that Spotify and other streaming services dominate commercial music and have consumed what were traditionally very different income streams generated from music sales and the public performance of music. By the mid-2010s, aside from just using their leverage for atrocious royalty rates and hiding behind record label malfeasance to deflect from responsibility, they were actively promoting content that they owned on their playlists and have, over time, moved away from an already very problematic world of human playlist curation to algorithmic curation. AI is has presented them with the option of not even paying humans for work-for-hire production, which is going to squeeze even that out. 

One can argue, "Well, there has always been gatekeeping." And true, there has, but every band on MTV or the radio were real artists. If FM radio in the 80s and 90s could have just pressed a button and had automated content that they also knew would generate enough profit to render dealing with royalties, they would have done that in a heartbeat. 

Home recording, in and of itself, has had nothing to do with intellectual property becoming worth fractions of what it was just 20 years ago. If anything, it made it possible for a lot of artists to still produce music at all. The problem is that music is just too easy to get for it to be worth spending much money on for most people. Likewise, for most people, they only enjoy it as something in the background and really don't care who made it. 

It won't kill music, but the patient is already so damn beaten down and weak that it barely exists as it is. And endless touring doesn't make up for what was lost in the shift from purchasing to streaming, plus the constant touring has reduced scarcity. Even huge acts can't play a market every six months and stay profitable. 

And one other huge difference is that even that auto-tuned vocal started life as a new performance. There is NOTHING that comes out of AI that doesn't already exist. Going back to my initial post, we can argue about when you have hacked something up so small and re-combined it with some many other little bits that copyright is no longer enforceable, but there is nothing coming out of an AI that wasn't at one time an extant piece of media that got parted out, turned into a token, mapped for associations, and spit back out the other end as the result of probability modeling. There's more originality in a local band covering "War Pigs" than there is an AI piece of music.

At some point, a human organized noise for the first time into a melody without that ever having existed before. AI can't do that. It can't generate anything from nothing, which is why so many artists across different media are so pissed that their work was used to train these programs without their consent or any compensation. 
 

[tommy p]

[Jakeboy]

“I don't think the problem here is music being "less real." 
 

That is exactly IT. Fucking AI is NOT REAL. If that doesn’t bother you then I don’t know what else to say.  At least synths still needed to be actually played  by actual musicians. AI is simply not  that. It’s fake bulllshit being sold to guileless consumers. 
 

ITS NOT REAL MUSIC. 
 

If AI is ok,why even play guitar? Just have AI play it for you. No need for rhythm comping, timing, or practice. AI can do it all.

Yeah, I have strong feelings on this.