The World's First AI "First Dance" Song

[OneWorld]

There's usually a fist fight at a wedding isn't there? Can't they AI that in somewhere - drones perhaps?

And it's not unusual for that fight to be between the bride and groom

[amanise]

There's usually a fist fight at a wedding isn't there? Can't they AI that in somewhere - drones perhaps?

And it's not unusual for that fight to be between the bride and groom

Not at my last wedding! I'd have got my head kicked in!

[OneWorld]

There's usually a fist fight at a wedding isn't there? Can't they AI that in somewhere - drones perhaps?

And it's not unusual for that fight to be between the bride and groom

Not at my last wedding! I'd have got my head kicked in!

Who did you marry, Olga from the Volga?

[amanise]

There's usually a fist fight at a wedding isn't there? Can't they AI that in somewhere - drones perhaps?

And it's not unusual for that fight to be between the bride and groom

Not at my last wedding! I'd have got my head kicked in!

Who did you marry, Olga from the Volga?

She's a gentle soul - but keeps a baseball bat in her wardrobe. To my knowledge, she never played baseball...

[OneWorld]

There's usually a fist fight at a wedding isn't there? Can't they AI that in somewhere - drones perhaps?

And it's not unusual for that fight to be between the bride and groom

Not at my last wedding! I'd have got my head kicked in!

Who did you marry, Olga from the Volga?

She's a gentle soul - but keeps a baseball bat in her wardrobe. To my knowledge, she never played baseball...

Oh, Nora Batty then, a fine gal I'm sure

[tea for two]

The top 10 first dance songs and artists:

At Last – Etta James
Can't Help Falling in Love - Elvis Presley
Baby I'm Yours – Arctic Monkeys
Let's Stay Together – Al Green
Just You And I – Tom Walker
Stand By Me – Ben E King
A Thousand Years – Christina Perri
Your Song – Elton John
All Of Me – John Legend
Better Half Of Me – Tom Walker

Enigma first album, Moby Play album, Junkie XL A little less conversation : they put beats instrumentation to already existing vocals.
So it's not necessary to have any song as a reference for lyrics vocals. Just using royalty free vocals from Splice, Vokaal et al bunging a beat some basic instrumentation.

[Tomás Mulcahy]

That's not how it works.

How AI works or how copyright works?

[Drew Stephenson]

That's not how it works.

How AI works or how copyright works?

How copyright works. Reading and analysing something, combining it with other things, then creating something new doesn't infringe copyright.
There's no suggestion that the developers used an illegally gained copy of the listed songs, and it's not illegal to train AI on copyrighted content.
So there's nothing to sue over.

In the meantime though: https://www.smbc-comics.com/comic/arts-2

[BigRedX]

How copyright works. Reading and analysing something, combining it with other things, then creating something new doesn't infringe copyright.

Surely that's how we all learn to create whether it be music or something else. We start by copying what we like and eventually if we are any good at it we develop our own style that while showing influences isn't a blatant rip-off.

It remains to be seen if the current iterations of "AI" are cable of moving beyond the phase where the source material is still extremely obvious.

[Arpangel]

Just been sent a press release about this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=49mZC1tTfsQ

Yes, it's cringeworthy but think beyond that... once Spotify et al get heavily into this AI lark [they already are, allegedly] there will be Playlists suggested to us daily that are entirely AI-created machinations like this.

Sad or Progress?

Let's discuss.

That actually made me cry, it’s beautiful.
It’s not the song itself, but the implications surrounding it, how it’s been done, and where we are now as human beings.
It’s a very, very powerful statement, I wish I’d have thought about it in a different context, but then it wouldn’t have been so powerful.

[OneWorld]

I still don't understand what the big deal is. I remember when computers first appeared in general use and there were predictions of this and that, but all that happened was displacement - yes at one time there used to companies with a 'typing pool' with women, and it generally was women, clacking away on typewriters all day long, now we don't they tap away using word processors instead.

Same with music, at one time a music hobbyist would at best be able to record on a fidelity reel to reel, then a cassette recorder, and some even saved up and spent a day in a recording studio.......now free software does the job. And it's the same with AI, it won't wipe out communities of this and that, it will merely displace them, an alternative not a replacement. That's the same old story, the human race adapts to ever changing circumstances, but essentially we do the same things we've always done - love/hate, create/destroy, plant & grow/slash & burn, protect/squander, kill/procreate, prosper/impoverish - we just do them with greater or less intensity. Same song, different singer.

[Drew Stephenson]

Surely that's how we all learn to create whether it be music or something else. We start by copying what we like and eventually if we are any good at it we develop our own style that while showing influences isn't a blatant rip-off.

Exactly so. Some of the folks and groups bringing anti-AI lawsuits need to be very careful of exactly what they're trying to criminalise and what the knock-on effects might be.

It remains to be seen if the current iterations of "AI" are cable of moving beyond the phase where the source material is still extremely obvious.

I think they'll get there pretty rapidly, but I need to have a bit more of a play with some of the newer stuff as I've not dug into it for a while.

[Tomás Mulcahy]

How copyright works. Reading and analysing something, combining it with other things, then creating something new doesn't infringe copyright.

Getty images, and a whole host of other content owners, would strongly disagree with you
https://www.theverge.com/2023/2/6/23587 ... -diffusion

Basically, the AI models have harvested creative work (by web scraping) to create derivative works. It is exploiting creative labourers (i.e. us).

The term "AI" is either misunderstood or misused. To put it bluntly, it's a fancy database with a look up table where you get to type in plain English what you want. The model has categorised into the table thousands of features of commercial images or songs, and tries to combine them to give you what you want.

There is about to be a tool for graphic artists where they can poision their images so when it gets scraped by AI the results are useless:
https://www.cnbc.com/2023/10/27/new-too ... anies.html

So yes, it is most definitely an infringement of copyright.

[SafeandSound Mastering]

I did wonder for a little while if AI music might be demotivating for people making music. I have concluded it is not, thus far. For a few reasons, music as a group experience, is for that very experience of communing and being together and jamming or playing songs you have written as a group or band.

So this is a human social event.

What about on your own in a room with a DAW making music ? This can be self indulged, I thought a bit about ego and liking your music to be appreciated etc. if it becomes indistinguishable from human music I wonder if it would demotivate still.

I play a little guitar from time to time, some times I get more into it in periods so understand the playing experience. Very different to the DAW MIDI programming/playing keyboard experience. You could think "computer musicians" might be a greater risk of being demotivated.

However, I think the creative process itself is very important, some finish tracks and some not but they enjoy that time anyway, some may be dissapointed about not finishing things. (that is just effort, no getting away from that, and can be a system actually, as I found myself.) If something is repetitive it should be easy for AI right ?

Not so, refinement of some genres, technically and sonically is so detailed AI is FAR from being close. We could argue the more futuristic/repetitive etc. the more time spent on immense sonic refinements (at least for some genres). 64kbps swirly artifactsville does not cut it ! There is a very long way to go. Even 4/4 dance music grove is very, very carefully engineered. The feel and groove of drums, even quantized drums is still affected by the relative volumes of the drums, dynamic interactions etc.

I touched on this recently writing about perfection, what that is, what it can be and how this may be an ally to human music in the near future. Assuming it does not cause creative paralysis.

If you enjoy the process itself and the accomplishment then very little changes. I think people who can perform are quite safe in their work, other than the usual perils.

AI music can just be something that exists that you can take or leave. ( I suppose we can say the same of human music.) The problem with it is what is its meaning ? Even if we do not like a track or genre much we can appreciate it qualities, the skill, the time taken etc.

A lot of music becomes connected with experiences, human experiences. We could ask if it even needs a meaning.

It can exist without meaning but what of its depth ? If something lacks depth (which can be in the eyes/ears of the beholder) we often look down on it, feling it lacks sophistication.

I often thought that older/retro/vintage/classics of genres of music is so loaded with sentiment that we have ourselves projected onto it through experience an memory that new music has to compete with cutting through that huge emotional attachment. Maybe this is why my own spare time music is going backwards in some way (escape is also maybe related?). Or that and my ear is enjoying a less modern sound in the style I make personally.

If you have something inside you, an idea, a concept, a need to play an instrument, getting out is enjoyable challenging and enriching.

I think AI music may have limited ability to be an enriching experience for humans. We tend to want to be enriched and progress, not diluted and regressed.

Just a few musings that have run through my mind in this rather odd AI hyped year.

I am sure robots will enjoy it one day. Or maybe they will be so intelligent they will prefer human music ? There's a good thought to end with.

Actually a penultimate thought, I just thought that it won't be playing a sitar recital any time soon.. so searched that in YT.. uploaded 7 hours ago :

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JToJftJTuKQ

As the guy says at the end.. "I am fascinated by this, but not mesmerized like a real player" which echoed the oddly robotic feel I sensed. It is like playing a recording I guess. And no I cannot speak the language.

Things are happening fast. The problem is meaning and depth IMO.

I think it might have been hyped, just a little bit beyond where it is.

[Drew Stephenson]

How copyright works. Reading and analysing something, combining it with other things, then creating something new doesn't infringe copyright.

Getty images, and a whole host of other content owners, would strongly disagree with you
https://www.theverge.com/2023/2/6/23587 ... -diffusion

Filing a lawsuit doesn't mean having a compelling legal argument.

Basically, the AI models have harvested creative work (by web scraping) to create derivative works. It is exploiting creative labourers (i.e. us).

The term "AI" is either misunderstood or misused. To put it bluntly, it's a fancy database with a look up table where you get to type in plain English what you want. The model has categorised into the table thousands of features of commercial images or songs, and tries to combine them to give you what you want.

Much like our own brains. You can't delve into that database and find the originally scanned image or song. Copyright protects artistic expression, not data or pattern recognition.

So yes, it is most definitely an infringement of copyright.

Sorry Tomás but there's nothing definite about it. Probably the key on-point case is the Supreme Court Baker vs Selden. The outcome of which is that "Copyright infringement requires not just copying of a work’s material form but also the unauthorized use of the work for its expressive purpose. Merely technical or non-communicative uses are not uses of a work for its expressive purpose and therefore are not copyright infringement."
See also the Google books cases.
This is a good thing otherwise every time we practiced an instrument by playing a cover, or quoted a movie or a set of song lyrics, we'd be committing infringement.

It seems to me that if people want to stop this stuff happening then copyright is the wrong law to use. The purpose of copyright is to promote progress in science and the useful arts - trying to use it to limit progress is probably not going to work well. At least not in the short term.

[Tomás Mulcahy]

The “own brain” example is a straw man. Try instead: sampling. Because that’s what the AI model does, and adds a nice database and a simple UI to save you doing any composing mixing or arranging. As usual big tech does not care at all about the purpose of copyright, they act first then wait to get sued. You’ll see graphic designers are among the first to take cases because their livelihood is directly affected. Also try reading the article about Getty, rather than making an assumption from the headline… Google books is a straw man as well. It was an alleged violation of a small aspect of copyright law. It was not creating works using other works. That’s a much bigger deal because it could eliminate the need for creative labour. That’s why the actors and writers went on strike! So maybe a strike is the answer to your conundrum about what law to use?

[Drew Stephenson]

I don't think sampling is a good parallel at all. That's direct use of a piece of protected work. A direct copy, if only a small slice of it. That's not what's happening here.
What aspect of copyright do you think is actually being broken here? Because I can't see one.

[Edit: I've read the Getty article before, it was referenced in a previous thread. And Google books is still a valid reference because it reinforces the point that taking and storing acopy of an entire work isn't automatically infringement.]

[Tomás Mulcahy]

I’m not sure you’re fully aware of how the AI works. It’s not valid because the AI not only stores a copy, it categorises the component parts and then uses them to make derivative works- I’ve used that term several times now, deliberately, because it’s in copyright law. There is no intelligence involved in the model itself. Instead it harvests the output of human intelligence. That’s why sampling is a better example. It’s probably more cut and dried for images than it is for music. But seeing as Marvin Gaye’s estate successfully sued Robin Thick for the style and feel, music creators can be equally successful with AI.

Regardless of the machinations of copyright law, the AI models are mining human creative labour without compensating the creators. Human IP is the source of all AI output. Going by copyright law it’s not a derivative because it is created mechanically so it is a collective work of the type that is not copyright able, so the AI or its developers have no rights over the output since it is create from IP they don’t own.

[Arpangel]

Can AI improvise? if so I’m quite looking forward to it, I’m a "free-improviser" and finding people to play with if you’re in the sticks is very difficult, almost impossible.
It could be very interesting indeed if an AI device could improvise with me, and respond too.
I’m wondering if there could be presets, with different instruments, and different arrangements, just like how you’d create say, an EDM track, you could do the same for improv, and of course, it would have to have a randomise function, so you’d never know what’s coming next.
I’m sure this all goes against the grain and the spirit of free-improv, but it would be fun to try.

[BWC]

...it categorises the component parts and then uses them to make derivative works...

Define "component parts". You can't copyright the word "rain", or the color "blue", for example. If the algorithm concludes that a particular list of words should be included in a "first dance" song, because they often have been, and then uses those words in its lyrical output, I don't see any copyright violation in that. If it reuses a complete (and unique) expression in its output, that might be different.

[SafeandSound Mastering]

I just wanted to update my thoughts on the 'Robositar'.. it is not like a recording quite.. it sounds quantized and quantization on a stringed instrument that we have heard played by humans since we were born, even subconciously just sounds odd. There is no feel or intent, as I mentioned depth, good electronic music still has feel, even if it is swing, groove and the emotional content of the chords and melody etc.

It sounded like an aimless stream of notes, where an actual sitar and tabla recital brings you to the moment and you follow it intently with a focus that is transcendental. None of that with AI.

Problem with AI music will be the fundamental lack of depth of meaning.

A recording can of course have depth, feel, emotions all of the above so I thought I would clarify it.

[Drew Stephenson]

I’m not sure you’re fully aware of how the AI works. It’s not valid because the AI not only stores a copy, it categorises the component parts and then uses them to make derivative works- I’ve used that term several times now, deliberately, because it’s in copyright law.

I'm not sure that's correct (in all cases) about storing a copy. But I don't think it's actually relevant so we'll park that.

There is no intelligence involved in the model itself. Instead it harvests the output of human intelligence. That’s why sampling is a better example. It’s probably more cut and dried for images than it is for music. But seeing as Marvin Gaye’s estate successfully sued Robin Thick for the style and feel, music creators can be equally successful with AI.

OK, firstly I still think your sampling example is flawed because sampling is copying a direct expression on an idea. What you're talking about with your 'database of component parts' (and I'm not sure that's completely accurate either) is the ideas, not the expressions of the ideas. Not copyrightable elements.
Secondly, the Blurred Lines case is an interesting outlier because nothing in that case makes sense with the law as written. Style and feel are not copyrightable elements, if they were then everyone writing in a genre would be immediately liable for infringement. The Led Zepplin, Katy Perry and Ed Sheeran cases have all since pushed back on that exception. But we'll come back to it.

Regardless of the machinations of copyright law, the AI models are mining human creative labour without compensating the creators. Human IP is the source of all AI output.

Not an infringement of copyright law in either the UK or the US (based on cases so far).
So if there is no infringement in the initial copying of the work, then the infringement must happen at the creation of the derivative work yes?
But in that situation it's be judged on a case by case basis using the similarity vs access basis. Now in our starting case, access is cut-and-dried because they've stated which tracks they analysed. So then we're onto the similarity side of the test, and it's similarity of copyrightable elements - basically melody and lyrics - and I'm not hearing anything there to trouble the lawyers.
But I'm no musicologist.

Going by copyright law it’s not a derivative because it is created mechanically so it is a collective work of the type that is not copyright able, so the AI or its developers have no rights over the output since it is create from IP they don’t own.

I'm not quite sure what you're arguing here? In the US only a natural person can have copyright. Something generated entirely by AI can't have copyright (unlike the UK).The line around how much human input it takes to make something a co-creation rather than an AI creation isn't yet clear (it looks like it's going to be more than putting prompts into an AI engine based on what's coming out so far) but it's also not clear whether the whole co-created work would be protected or just the elements with human authorship.
Which does lead to another interesting legal conundrum. Technically you need to bring your direct copyright infringement case against the creator of the infringing work. But if there's no creator then there's no-one to sue. You'd have to bring a third party contributory infringement case but that's much harder to prove (and again, the UK doesn't have that).

But circling back to Blurred Lines, copyright protection should be narrowly tailored, otherwise it becomes a huge deterrent to producing new work (which is the opposite of its purpose). If more cases like this stand, and then cases are brought that say listening to and building on the works of others is infringement, even if you are not copying a copyrightable element, then where does that leave us as composers and song-writers?

[BigRedX]

When it come to technology a lot of people listen with their eyes rather than their ears.

This was brought home to me quite spectacularly about 20 years ago. The band I was in at the time as well as having the traditional vocals, guitar and bass guitar line up also used a lot of technology to supply the keyboards/synths and drums. The drums were a mixture of sampled loops, "drum machine" programming and a human drummer mostly playing triggered samples and synthesised percussion sounds along with acoustic hi-hats and cymbals. Over the life of the band we had three different drummers as well as two spells without a drummer, where all the drums and percussion were played by the sequencer. Interestingly the drummer who got the most compliments on his sound and playing was the one whose kit looked like a standard drum kit, but was heavily damped and was fitted with bugs triggering exactly the same samples and playing the same parts as his predecessors. He was also (on basis of the MIDI files I recorded) the most "metronomic" of the three. Our live shows had attracted the interest of an upcoming producer who was starting make a name for himself and wanted to work with us. When I sent him the Logic sessions for our recordings, he was also most surprised to discover that all the drum parts except for the hi-hats were MIDI or sampled loops...

[Drew Stephenson]

Problem with AI music will be the fundamental lack of depth of meaning.

I'd agree with that (for now) based on the stuff I've heard to date. It will get better in time.
In the short term I don't think it's any threat to people who are creating 'art' (for lack of a better term). Where I think it will start to bite quickly, and as Tomás points out it's already happening in areas like graphic design, is where people are creating 'product'. Some library music and background muzak for example. No-one is really listening to it closely, it's there to provide pace and ambience, not to stand as a work on its own.

If we lived in more enlightened times I don't think this would be a problem at all, but governments around the world are sticking their heads in the sand about the long term impacts of increased automation (whether AI-based or not) and really aren't thinking about a strategy for a post-work world. So instead we will inevitably have to go through a very painful readjustment as all these 'knowledge worker' jobs that we've transitioned to in the last 50 years start to disappear.
I reckon.

When it come to technology a lot of people listen with their eyes rather than their ears.

Very much so. Not just in the live world. It's something I try to fight when I'm mixing but I'm guilty as heck.

[tea for two]

I listened to some of my Electronic tunes they sound as if done by AI

When AI can do this mix of Flamenco Guitar, Jazz Piano, Sitar, Tabla, not forgetting the ever important Triangle, then fo sho shall be time to hang up my hat
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=PB-u4hCFhPs