An AI music tracker

funky

funky

(OMF)
Joined
Apr 30, 2004
Messages
103,941
Thought it would be good to keep an eye on this, seeing as though OCC has no intention of banning AI music from the charts. I thought that was the ruling but the issue with previously banned tracks was about AI being used to represent other artists. Completely made up shite is apparently totally allowed.

Currently #1 on iTunes is an 'artist' called IngaRose, who apparently defends itself as 'a songwriter who uses AI to create the music'. OK then.

This is on the back of a recent slew of releases by Eddie Dalton, who has had multiple tracks in the download charts, including a #1.

Both artists have reached 1m+ on Spotify.

A passing fad or the start of a new normal?
 
I mean I think it’s going to become a “normal” thing since you can pretty much create a full album with little effort.
 
IMG_1776.gif
 
What does it mean for future generations I wonder. I mean I find it all really fucking weird and I hate what it means for artists. Will the generation that are currently kids and haven't discovered music yet really give a shit? Will they bother with streaming platforms and established artists if they can just ask AI to create hours of music for them of their preferred style? Would they care to even know the difference, let alone understand it?

I'm sure the very powerful music industry will find a way to adapt, but the horror scenario of them doing what they did with the digital revolution - if you can't beat em, join em. They could just abandon singers and musicians altogether and create a bunch of powerful labels chucking out thousands of AI songs by the second.

Dance music in particular will be difficult to track even in the near future. It's still quite easy to spot AI voices. I'm not sure I would be able to spot if a house banger was made by a human producer or a piece of software.
 
Not to be old man screaming at clouds but I think future generations won’t care that much. Record sales are in the dirt at this point unless you are a huge artist like Taylor that can flog 85 versions of the same thing.

Attentions spans are at the point where 2 minutes is considered a long song. Everything is made to hit the TikTok algorithm. They want sped up versions that sound like chipmunks.

I think in the old days, we would play an album over and over and really dive in to what it was about. I don’t think that is the case with 99% of the 18-34 demographic that is highly sought after. I mean the new BTS album has a lot of suspect AI writing involved and the kids just shrug about it.
 
GNL said:
Once again, Britney really was a trailblazer in this regard.
Click to expand...
I mean that’s a damn good point actually. They literally created an entire album and campaign around her when she had little to no input vocally but it is still deemed as ok.
 
This is why something as peculiar as Angine De Poitrine is landing with such unexpected force. No-one had to pause over it and go "is this AI?" because an AI couldn't do it and wouldn't even be able to try. We'll see people being drawn to things that are reassuringly human. But we'll also see a whole raft of people using AI to do the writing but then tweaking and performing the results as normal and no-one will notice (and therefore, care). In fact, I would put money that we've already had this happen.
 
Haha I've heard of the Eddie Dalton AI guy, and how that Another Day Old got to #1 on iTunes :D That Suno site is/was fun, but a lot of the AI created songs posted on YouTube just sound off (then again highly autotuned voices from the late 2010s onwards does too).

I preferred doing custom AI song covers but for fun/out of curiosity, not for a profit in any way.
Not AI songs labelled as new Enya songs getting thousands of views on YouTube. :rolleyes:
There might be some AI songs here and there, but I don't think it's going to completely take over actual music.
:enya:
 
I suspect it'll be genre-driven.

The dance industry won't give a fook. Outside of a very small handful of "superstar DJ's", dance has been led by anonymous or pseudonomised acts. Most listeners don't know who the artists are; they won't investigate or care whether the creators are human or not. AI will rampage.

The "real music" brigade meanwhile won't have any tolerance for such SHIT, and AI will only get away with it if it goes undiscovered.
 
And High Empress Ava Max will lead the AI SLOP FLOP movement.
 
The only part it all falls apart currently is people’s massive desire to see artists live and with decent staging. Without that I think artists would be truly fucked coz as stated above I don’t think younger generations care about what’s pumped into their ears.

Can AI get around that? Will people pay to watch an ABBA Voyage style gig of a one album AI artist?
 
PercyPig said:
The only part it all falls apart currently is people’s massive desire to see artists live and with decent staging. Without that I think artists would be truly fucked coz as stated above I don’t think younger generations care about what’s pumped into their ears.

Can AI get around that? Will people pay to watch an ABBA Voyage style gig of a one album AI artist?
Click to expand...
It's different types on engagement tho'. Gig tickets are now so expensive that a pause for thought is inevitable. The answer would depend on the framing. Would Gorillaz sell tickets if it was literally just a projection rather than Damon Albarn and chums onstage. The Abba Voyage thing will prove very specific, I expect. There's not many shows that I can imagine working as well or having a similar level of success.
 
An AI generated remix of a song by Stick Figure from 2019 has exploded on Tik Tok. It's #1 on iTunes but Spotify doesn't have it.

The original is a white reggae song, and the remix is barrell-scrapingly awful.

What a fucking mess.
 
100% AI stuff is a bit low effort I think, but I do like using it the creative toolbox, so to speak. I quite enjoy making bullshit radio adverts with Elevenlabs voice changer - so that's written stuff, performed, but with an AI layer over the top. Sometimes I might create an AI sound bed as well, but equally I might just write and produce that myself. But it IS fun, nonsense, but fun. A chart full of 100% AI songs seems equally low effort, but I can imagine that people are using it quietly in the studio to help with writing, transitions, production - even if they say they are not.
 
ExcitableWoof said:
A chart full of 100% AI songs seems equally low effort, but I can imagine that people are using it quietly in the studio to help with writing, transitions, production - even if they say they are not.
Click to expand...

There is this risk that once the streaming platforms and chart companies clamp down, people just stay quiet about it. We only know of the cases where the "creator" has openly admitted to using AI.
 
It needs to be that the risk of getting found out when trying to hide it will be detrimental to your career. That seems to be working for now. Most adults are openly concerned and distrusting of AI. The next generation born into it probably won’t give a shit.
 
Through A.I. I've created an old school reggae song called 'Drippy Drippy Boy', a trance version of Neville Chamberlain's declaration of war against Germany and a surprisingly funky track called 'Older Than My Mama's Records'.

They're all tits out bangers.
 
Last edited:
Agneeta said:
Through A.I. I've created an old school reggae school called 'Drippy Drippy Boy', a trance version of Neville Chamberlain's declaration of war against Germany and a surprisingly funky track called 'Older Than My Mama's Records'.

They're all tits out bangers.
Click to expand...
Oh - yeah I did a sort of Italian Disco song in AI called Naughty Naughty Hitler which calls him out for being a fascist but in a funky way - all sadness can be funky now.
 
funky said:
It needs to be that the risk of getting found out when trying to hide it will be detrimental to your career. That seems to be working for now. Most adults are openly concerned and distrusting of AI. The next generation born into it probably won’t give a shit.
Click to expand...
Lest we forget that the Musicians Union passed a vote to BAN Synthesizers back in 1982 but it failed, essentially, because it was already too late and bedded in as a *thing* - I suspect we are at that point now - it's already too late. But more to the point - synthesizers are objectively great and make amazing music - and lets face it recent music has been basically going down a rabbit hole - so maybe AI music will take us somewhere else new and interesting? Certainly I refuse to believe it's *all bad* and I will stand by this just until our new robot overlords vaporize me.
 
I’ve no issue with AI used for fun and creativity etc. I just think there needs to be lines drawn where people know what they’re getting. It’s the deception that’s key here.

Synthesizers (and indeed drum machines) are an interesting parallel, although they did usher in new genres of music rather than replace existing ones. Other genres like Rock and Soul mostly rejected it, although those that did like the hair metal rockers of the 80s made lots of money but lost all kudos with the genre they were a part of. But at least they played live versions of their synthetic songs and could sing etc. and were actual people. AI goes way further than bleepy noises. There isn’t a genre it doesn’t replicate - and that’s all it’s really doing at the moment; replicating.
 
I think there's plenty of potential benefit and welfare that AI could generate, but when the associated costs are so outrageous a wise government would think a million times before institutionalizing it.
 
I actually started replying to this last night before the other post.

I can tell you know that producers everywhere are using AI in their workflow. I've seen it with my own eyes.

There is deffos an argument that we've been here before. The synthesiser analogy is a good one. Graphic Designers declared the craft dead at the advent of DTP tools. Photography was considered art's mortal enemy; painters were convinced that no one would ever pick up a brush again.

I am also fully outraged by the moral argument that AI is trained on other people's creative output, making tech bros and investors richer while the original artists get nothing. But I do think that will be challenged and corrected in time.

Ignoring that, I don't see the harm in using AI in the creative workflow. I edit and write for a magazine. I use AI to do things to help me. I don't use it to produce content. It helps me do certain tasks 10x quicker. I think being staunchly anti AI is like saying we should ban Google and go back to the Encyclopedia Britannica or banning spellchecks because they put proofreaders out of work.

I actually wrote an article earlier on something about this, it was more geared to the creative/brand industry but surveys have already started showing that people are rejecting 100% AI output. Humans like messyness, its subconscious but we don't want synthetic perfection. I think its daft to believe that all music output is going to be replaced by AI generated content because we as beings don't want that regardless of what CEOs might say or wish. It's an argument thats been played out for centuries and yet people still pay money for art created by hands with paint.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)
Back
Top Bottom