Some Recent YT Vids on Udio and Suno Text-to-Music AI Generators.

[dubbmann]

Some interesting YT vids on Udio and Suno. One is a detailed side by side comparison of outputs of the two given the same prompt; presenter is a music producer IIRC. Optimistic. The other is by a working library musician. Not optimistic, borderline self-deletionary.

https://youtu.be/wEQ9Vg2YKcU?si=UuHBp8Lgy8iuaPKV

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D5FBP-vv72c

Last one is a detailed examination of Udio's terms of service by a very sharp US attorney. US law specific but this area is so fast-evolving it's nice to get a detailed analysis by someone who knows what she's doing.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gkKdxnoPI58&t=997s

Cheers,

d

[Drew Stephenson]

Interesting stuff.

[BillB]

I just watched the first one, very interesting and scary. Commercial music makers need to pay attention, mass extinction is near. For those of us making music for fun and friends, it doesn’t matter. And live music seems reasonably safe.
I wonder if original artists are going to be able to rise through the mire of generative AI. Only to be ripped off in due course….

[OneWorld]

If I were manufacturer of synths or other hardware, I'd be concerned, I can't see AI Bots buying the latest synth, no need for them

[Drew Stephenson]

If I were manufacturer of synths or other hardware, I'd be concerned, I can't see AI Bots buying the latest synth, no need for them

Interesting angle, but the number of professional musicians buying vs the amateurs must be tiny. So as long as there is still an urge to create from scratch then there will still be a market for the hobbyist.
I reckon.
There may even be a bit more of a push-back to more DAW-less / computer-less creation to further differentiate from the AI stuff.

[Dynamic Mike]

If I were manufacturer of synths or other hardware, I'd be concerned, I can't see AI Bots buying the latest synth, no need for them

Interesting angle, but the number of professional musicians buying vs the amateurs must be tiny. So as long as there is still an urge to create from scratch then there will still be a market for the hobbyist.
I reckon.

That's my thoughts in a nutshell. On this forum I'd guess a fairly high proportion of posters make at least some part of their income from music production or engineering live sounds. For these people I understand why they are concerned, much as drummers were with the advent of the drum machine. The only concern I forsee for manufacturers is the loss of advertising opportunities generated by people wanting to emulate their idols.

But on most instrument forums the posts & queries are from amateur musicians who make their living in other ways. They don't see an instrument as a tool for making money, it's an investment in the pleasure they get from playing at whatever level. The guy who services my boiler has a collection of PRS guitars. These are not toys, they're 'professional' quality instruments. I can't see AI ever coming up with anything that makes me walk past a guitar without wanting to pick it up and play it. I buy gear that is way above my requirements & skill level because I want it, not because I need it.

At one time the point of music was solely about community & communiciation, it couldn't be recorded & it had no market value. It's even possible real musicians will be free to become more creative & eclectic if they don't have to worry about the impact on sales.

Oh by the way, which one's Pink?

[The Red Bladder]

by a very sharp US attorney.

Not my idea of "really sharp" but never mind! Stating the blindingly obvious, yes. That she does.

The problem is that musicians seldom (if ever!) read the T&Cs. There is a large contingent of musicians stupid enough to spend serious money on software that requires them to negotiate a separate unspecified contract if the product of the software is used commercially. And that is for regular software that has been available in one form or another for about 25 years.

That is the same happy band of pilgrims who seriously think that commercial use does not include putting their stuff on YT or social media or giving it away or using it to support some worthy cause - when of course commercial use is any kind of publishing including all those things!

(They also seldom understand copyright laws, but that is a separate can of worms!)

Now along come various billion-dollar AI websites and product launches with some of the most convoluted and dangerous T&Cs you may see anywhere - quite apart from the hidden dangers of third-party damages such as derivatives of existing songs and/or arrangements. Someone somewhere is going to fall down some very deep holes!

Add to all that - my impression of music generating AI is that it still has a very, very long way to go before it is able to generate anything anyone would want to listen to! Fools errand, as they say.

[tea for two]

commercial use is any kind of publishing including all those things!

Would uploading to my google drive fall under this.
I only upload tunes to my google drive, share solely on SoS the google drive link.

[The Red Bladder]

Would uploading to my google drive fall under this.
I only upload tunes to my google drive, share solely on SoS the google drive link.

Very strictly speaking - making any intellectual property (music, images, video, software, designs) available to the general public is publishing and therefore a type of commercial use. The ghastly Magix Music Maker has just such T&Cs, but I doubt they would try to enforce them or litigate against anyone in such a marginal case.

[ken long]

Add to all that - my impression of music generating AI is that it still has a very, very long way to go before it is able to generate anything anyone would want to listen to!

Er... You wrote this the same week BBL Drizzy went viral?