Music Insiders Call for Warning Labels After AI-Generated Band Gets 1 Million Plays On Spotify 189
Bruce66423 shares a report from The Guardian: They went viral, amassing more than 1m streams on Spotify in a matter of weeks, but it later emerged that hot new band the Velvet Sundown were AI-generated -- right down to their music, promotional images and backstory. The episode has triggered a debate about authenticity, with music industry insiders saying streaming sites should be legally obliged to tag music created by AI-generated acts so consumers can make informed decisions about what they are listening to. [...]
Several figures told the Guardian that the present situation, where streaming sites, including Spotify, are under no legal obligation to identify AI-generated music, left consumers unaware of the origins of the songs they're listening to. Roberto Neri, the chief executive of the Ivors Academy, said: "AI-generated bands like Velvet Sundown that are reaching big audiences without involving human creators raise serious concerns around transparency, authorship and consent." Neri added that if "used ethically," AI has the potential to enhance songwriting, but said at present his organization was concerned with what he called "deeply troubling issues" with the use of AI in music.
Sophie Jones, the chief strategy officer at the music trade body the British Phonographic Industry (BPI), backed calls for clear labelling. "We believe that AI should be used to serve human creativity, not supplant it," said Jones. "That's why we're calling on the UK government to protect copyright and introduce new transparency obligations for AI companies so that music rights can be licensed and enforced, as well as calling for the clear labelling of content solely generated by AI."
Liz Pelly, the author of Mood Machine: The Rise of Spotify and the Costs of the Perfect Playlist, said independent artists could be exploited by people behind AI bands who might create tracks that are trained using their music. She referred to the 2023 case of a song that was uploaded to TikTok, Spotify and YouTube, which used AI-generated vocals claiming to be the Weeknd and Drake. Universal Music Group said the song was "infringing content created with generative AI" and it was removed shortly after it was uploaded.
Aurelien Herault, the chief innovation officer at the music streaming service Deezer, said the company uses detection software that identifies AI-generated tracks and tags them. He said: "For the moment, I think platforms need to be transparent and try to inform users. For a period of time, what I call the "naturalization of AI', we need to inform users when it's used or not." Herault did not rule out removing tagging in future if AI-generated music becomes more popular and musicians begin to use it like an "instrument." At present, Spotify does not label music as AI-generated and has previously been criticized for populating some playlists with music by "ghost artists" -- fake acts that create stock music. Bruce66423 comments: "Artists demand 'a warning' on such material. Why? If it is what the people want..."
Several figures told the Guardian that the present situation, where streaming sites, including Spotify, are under no legal obligation to identify AI-generated music, left consumers unaware of the origins of the songs they're listening to. Roberto Neri, the chief executive of the Ivors Academy, said: "AI-generated bands like Velvet Sundown that are reaching big audiences without involving human creators raise serious concerns around transparency, authorship and consent." Neri added that if "used ethically," AI has the potential to enhance songwriting, but said at present his organization was concerned with what he called "deeply troubling issues" with the use of AI in music.
Sophie Jones, the chief strategy officer at the music trade body the British Phonographic Industry (BPI), backed calls for clear labelling. "We believe that AI should be used to serve human creativity, not supplant it," said Jones. "That's why we're calling on the UK government to protect copyright and introduce new transparency obligations for AI companies so that music rights can be licensed and enforced, as well as calling for the clear labelling of content solely generated by AI."
Liz Pelly, the author of Mood Machine: The Rise of Spotify and the Costs of the Perfect Playlist, said independent artists could be exploited by people behind AI bands who might create tracks that are trained using their music. She referred to the 2023 case of a song that was uploaded to TikTok, Spotify and YouTube, which used AI-generated vocals claiming to be the Weeknd and Drake. Universal Music Group said the song was "infringing content created with generative AI" and it was removed shortly after it was uploaded.
Aurelien Herault, the chief innovation officer at the music streaming service Deezer, said the company uses detection software that identifies AI-generated tracks and tags them. He said: "For the moment, I think platforms need to be transparent and try to inform users. For a period of time, what I call the "naturalization of AI', we need to inform users when it's used or not." Herault did not rule out removing tagging in future if AI-generated music becomes more popular and musicians begin to use it like an "instrument." At present, Spotify does not label music as AI-generated and has previously been criticized for populating some playlists with music by "ghost artists" -- fake acts that create stock music. Bruce66423 comments: "Artists demand 'a warning' on such material. Why? If it is what the people want..."
How it's made (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: How it's made (Score:2)
(shrug) feels like people are missing the point, enraged about the AI origin, and not the fact that it's "fine" compared to the rest of the (human created) slop on the radio.
I don't care in the slightest.
A photograph can more accurately reproduce an image than the most precise painter ever. What did we get since? Picasso, Nieman, and "modern art" that pretends to greatness like the Emperor's New Clothes.
Before the era of recorded music, musicians made a living by live performances and patronage. Now we h
Re: (Score:2)
We get it, you dont like that people have different tastes then you. Especially the kids.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I was prepared to get rickrolled, but no, this site has been losing it.:-)
Re: How it's made (Score:5, Insightful)
500 word blurb without "losing money royalties" (Score:5, Insightful)
It's always interesting how many words and ways someone who makes money selling music can misdirect, appeal to emotion or other ways that they are really losing money and getting less music royalties.
There are millions of places paying for music, stores, restaurants, sporting events, etc. which will have essentially a free way to provide background music.
TV shows, movies, radio commercials, commercials in general will stop licensing well known songs.
Re: (Score:2)
Notice the number of re-masters coming out recently and how songs you play on streaming services from the 80s and 90s from big artists don't sound how you remember them? That's because the artists re-record them due to the copyright coming to an end making minor changes from the original so they can refresh the copyright to that song and continue to make royalties from it.
This is... utterly untrue.
Reperforming the song is not going to change the end date of the copyright of the work by a single day. The copyright term was fixed when it was created (if a corporate work) or when the author dies (typically 70 years from that date) for anything for the last half century or so.
As an example: Bohemian Rhapsody was written by Freddie Mercury who died in 1991. The copyright is going to expire in 2061 and no amount of re-recording will change that.
Re: (Score:3)
There are copyrights on the performance as well as on the work itself. It *will* change the performance copyright, because the only copy made available will be the more recent performance.
Book publishers do the same thing. Yeah, the old edition is out of copyright, but the new one had changes, and you can't find the old one. And the new one is under copyright.
Re: (Score:2)
The idea that they are doing it because their rights are expiring is completely wrong though.
"Recordings prior to 1923 entered the public domain three years from passage, which equated to January 1, 2022 (see note).[4] Recordings from 1923 to 1956 enter the public domain on January 1 the year after they turn 100 years old. For example, a work published on June 1, 1925, enters the public domain on January 1, 2026. Every January 1 following 2022,[5] works enter the public domain, until the final date occurrin
Re: (Score:2)
Each recording has its own copyright. Someday people can use the original freely, but if all fans then want to hear the remake, the label still makes money with the remake.
Re:500 word blurb without "losing money royalties" (Score:5, Informative)
That's because the artists re-record them due to the copyright coming to an end making minor changes from the original so they can refresh the copyright to that song and continue to make royalties from it.
No, the artists rerecord because the label tends to own the master recording copyright which screws the artist out of royalties. By rerecording they can do licensing for films, tv, and commercials that completely bypass the label.
Of course now labels are putting in contractual language to forbid them doing rerecordings.
Re: (Score:2)
AI doesnt have to comply with copyright, i guess the music is free now,
i will reenable my napsterAI
Re: (Score:2)
And AI created music does not get copyright protection
Re: (Score:2)
How many artists from 1925 are doing that? Read the Music Modernization Act of 2018, no modern artist has to worry about their works entering the public domain in their lifetimes.
Re: How it's made (Score:3, Informative)
It matters if the song is stolen and repackaged.
Nearly all music is.
https://www.honest-broker.com/... [honest-broker.com]
https://ipwatchdog.com/2018/03... [ipwatchdog.com]
And there's probably a reason for this:
https://www.psychologytoday.co... [psychologytoday.com]
AI isn't the problem. Copyright laws in the US have gotten incredibly fucked up ever since we ratified the Berne treaty.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Nobody lives or creates in a vacuum.
Artists have well known influences.
We are all "music laundering" wetware.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
It matters if it is misrepresented. People are free to listen to what they want but they should know whether they are getting AI stuff or real stuff, especially considering the "band" in question faked the fact that they were real. That would be considered fraud normally.
Re: (Score:3)
Yeah, I also have to wonder - musical tastes and styles often shift every few years. What's popular right now will probably be dated and unpopular in 2030. Since these sorts of AI "bands" aren't likely to come up with new styles and experiment with new sounds... if they chase all the real musicians out of the business, the people behind the AI will probably find their profits drying up in very short order.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
i am sure we could automate the pipeline to scrape and dump slop.
Re: (Score:2)
Not at all. AI slop is trivial to train on whatever is today's sound. Release an new album, AI will mimic it in under a week. They may be chasing the real innovation, but they do so at a rate that is not significant enough to make it financially unviable. AI will always be "current" in that regard.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It matters if it is misrepresented. People are free to listen to what they want but they should know whether they are getting AI stuff or real stuff, especially considering the "band" in question faked the fact that they were real. That would be considered fraud normally.
Fraud, defines the music industry. Last time music had integrity was when Milli Vanilli was destroyed for doing shit that’s acceptable fraud now.
The fact that AI slop is now directly competing? Go figure. It’s actually a battle between machine and machine anyway. Very few tracks laid down today represent a natural organic sound coming from a human actually singing it. You’re listening to the smooth sounds of Autotune. Who the hell needs singing talent when Autotuned entertainers have
Re: (Score:2)
Last time music had integrity was when Milli Vanilli was destroyed for doing shit that’s acceptable fraud now.
I guarantee there's currently a hot/new rapper that's 100% a yamaha vocaloid who's 'embodied' by some model for videos. Like, I have no doubt about this.
When you currently have actual humans effecting their voices to the point that they sound like vocaloids anyway, because that's the 'hot sound' of the moment, it would make absolutely no sense to not do it. It greatly lowers the cost and simplifies the supply chain to have the same Scandinavian producer who's creating the music, do the vocal performance a
Re: (Score:3)
You're defining music by "singing". That's not the relevant part. No one thinks EDM or something computer generated is fraudulent, and no fraud does not define the music industry, you can see the full disclosure on the back of every album cover. You not liking the sound, or that one album copies another doesn't make something fraud. It becomes fraud when someone claims they are original.
In the music industry that is very much a one way ticket to all your royalties being paid to someone else. Then and now.
Re: (Score:2)
Additionally they very likely can't make copyright claims to it (courts need to define the line of where AI crosses from tool to author, but it seems likely that a lot of this is claiming royalties on stuff that is actually public domain).
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
I'm not sure you can really call it fraud - I'm not sure anyone's being ripped off here. If you like the music and you like looking at the band pictures, then good for you. No money is directly changing hands from listener to artist. You're paying for your spotify subscription whether you listen to anyone or not, or these people or someone else.
If they started selling tour tickets that they obviously couldn't fulfil, that would be fraud. I think the best you can have at the moment is perhaps deception. Ther
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It matters if it is misrepresented. People are free to listen to what they want but they should know whether they are getting AI stuff or real stuff, especially considering the "band" in question faked the fact that they were real. That would be considered fraud normally.
Back in the mid 80's there was a show called "Knight Rider". You may know of it, from the iconic TransAm it used as the hero car. Guessing by the size of your user id, you should know it well.
Anyway, the music. The show didn't have the budget to license contemporary music, but they did have the budget to hire a sound-alike band to mimic the songs and skirt copyright and licensing restrictions (especially overseas restrictions). Sometimes, it was obvious it was a cover band. Other times, you had to listen re
Re: (Score:2)
You misunderstand. No one cares about what people like or don't, the point being made is what you claim you are and what you're not. The band in question claimed they were a real band, they were not. They outright lied about everything to do with their production.
If you want to be an algorithm cranking out EDM then great, more power to you. Just don't pretend you're a human playing an instrument.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm clear about what the complaint is.
My point is that the word choice is bullshit.
If you want real, you go see live and if not unamplified acts, at least those which aren't using so much as an effects pedal. Or, for that matter, the reverb knob on the amp. You're not listening to canned modern music where the "real band" may or may not have skills or talent.
If you're willing to listen to music which was cooked up in a lab, what's the difference between that and listening to fully computer generated music?
Re: (Score:2)
Dunno I rather like bad romance. Outrageously catchy. Ear worms me every time.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Probably should matter to the record company since it lacks copyright and can be copied and shared legally.
Re: How it's made (Score:4, Interesting)
I matters to the labels and the likes of BMI/ASCAP/SESAC if they have no rights to the AI generated music, and therefore no way to make money off of it. Their extortion game ends this way. If AI music has to take over the market long enough for all of them to go out of business, I think society wins as a whole.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Mark parent insightful. And Grandparent. And any reply to this post.
Who do the composers sue? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
the answer is everyone who has money gets sued. Guilt is proportional to wealth.
Re: (Score:3)
It's likely near impossible to sue someone over a riff or chord progression since there's a large library of recorded music and sheet music that likely covers anything our ears and brains would consider "musical" enough to want to listen to more than once. As an example is "Four Chords" from Axis of Awesome: https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
This theme on nothing new in music was played with in a scene from Mr. Holland's Opus: (I'm too lazy to search for a YouTube clip, it's likely out there somewhere if yo
Re: (Score:2)
So when an algorithm copies a rift or cord progression, who does the copyright holder of the original content sue? The streaming service? The creator of the algorithm who was trained on their content?
When a human rips off music, do you sue the guitar maker? The string maker? The recording studio? Let’s not get pointless in focus here. The fucking lawyers are already drooling enough.
IMHO if someone claims ownership rights over anything that creates music then they had better learn to put a fucking leash on it. And when AI is smart enough to create music from nothing, it’ll be smart enough to beat every lawyer anyway.
Where were these people for Autotune? (Score:5, Interesting)
cue an AI generated sound of the world's smallest violin.
- true music is meant to be shared with and taught to others. at least Happy Birthday is free.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
No it's not. Autotune is nothing more than a minor correction. There's still some element of human creativity underneath, even if that creativity is limited to tune and lyrics and not singing ability.
Re: (Score:2)
It can be minor, but it can also take someone singing completely out of tune and turn it into something passable. There was a leaked recording of the original Paris Hilton session some years ago, and she may actually be tone deaf, it's that bad. The released track is pitch perfect and sounds like a professional, if uninspired, singer.
Re: (Score:2)
at least Happy Birthday is free.
It might be free NOW, but it is also dead. I have not heard anyone singing it in years at birthday parties. Fuck Sony, Fuck copyright. Fuck greed. And fuck all of the people who played along.
Re: (Score:2)
And sampling. And electronic drums. And keyboards vs a piano or an entire orchestra for that matter. Technology always threatens someone's gravy train.
I'm sure this is what the labels want... (Score:4, Insightful)
I wonder if a number of the people are mad because they were not the first ones to do this, and someone else beat them to the punch. I wouldn't be surprised if AI is the ultimate thing that large record labels want. No musicians that might not show up, or bring drama, no contracts to sign, unlimited records, feeding back responses to keep tuning albums, etc.
The only thing they don't have are live people for stage acts... but I wouldn't be surprised if holograms or even animatronics would wind up being used for this eventually.
Vote with your wallets, and frequent artists on Bandcamp is what I recommend.
Re: (Score:2)
I wonder if a number of the people are mad because they were not the first ones to do this, and someone else beat them to the punch. I wouldn't be surprised if AI is the ultimate thing that large record labels want. No musicians that might not show up, or bring drama, no contracts to sign, unlimited records, feeding back responses to keep tuning albums, etc.
The only thing they don't have are live people for stage acts... but I wouldn't be surprised if holograms or even animatronics would wind up being used for this eventually.
Even Michael Jackson or Elvis would struggle to fill stadiums with the kind of revenue that is needed to justify “live” digital entertainment. Who the hell is gonna pay hundreds to see a hologram? If tens of thousands of fans are going to overflow venues and get crushed to death for that shit, then we need to raise prices about 900% more for “live” entertainers. Clearly there’s WAY more money to be made off Stupid.
Re: (Score:2)
It's my understanding that hologram rock stars are very popular in Japan, though perhaps that was just a decade ago.
Re:I'm sure this is what the labels want... (Score:4, Interesting)
The company involved (Suno [suno.com]) did quite a bit of work fine-tuning their AI to make sure the output is generally listenable. That's not straightforward, and you're not going to get it just by loading a ton of songs into a random neural network and taking whatever comes out.
Unfortunately, it also means that they are limited to a fairly narrow set of song styles, and if you listen to them they all sound similar. You can massage it to give it some more interest, but there are definitely limitations.
The only thing they don't have are live people for stage acts... but I wouldn't be surprised if holograms or even animatronics would wind up being used for this eventually.
Hatsune Miku [youtube.com]. I don't understand it but people like it.
Song writers too (Score:5, Insightful)
Velvet Sundown is no different than when a studio assembles a group of four boys, pays songwriters, dance choreographers, makeup artists, musicians, etc...
An artist sat down, used AI as an instrument and made music.
Re: (Score:2)
Gorrillaz also comes to mind... We've had fake music and fake bands for decades. Granted, it hurts a lot of musicians (like myself) to know that most of our skills are somewhat devalued now, but putting our head in the sand instead of learning how to make the best of the situation isn't helping. It's like when drum machines, synths or DAWs were invented. People with less (or different) talents are able to make music more easily. That just raises the bar for what's "good" though, there will still be peop
Re: (Score:2)
Gorillaz wasn't really fake though. It was an animated front for an actual human band. The human band even played their live shows. It was pretty inventive, and it certainly gave a lot of work to not only the musicians involved but the many animators, planners, marketers, and others who pulled the whole thing together. It wound up being much more complex than a traditional guitarx2 + bass + drums quartet.
Re: (Score:3)
Dethklok also comes to mind. That's some good metal.
Re: (Score:2)
If an artist uses a song writer, has plastic surgery, uses musical instruments... They should all have to disclose this.
Velvet Sundown is no different than when a studio assembles a group of four boys, pays songwriters, dance choreographers, makeup artists, musicians, etc...
An artist sat down, used AI as an instrument and made music.
I've long stopped considering electronic music to be music because a computer is not an instrument.
The music industry has loved this kind of thing because musical instruments require talent to play, especially to play well which gives the artist a large mesure of power over their own destiny, rights, a voice... things that music execs hate because they can use that to get more of their precious, sweet, sweet profit.
A "DJ" or rapper can be replaced easily as they don't have any actual talent. Doubly so
Re: (Score:2)
That's a weird way to think about things. A computer can definitely be an instrument, but instruments aren't the essence of music anyway.
The essence of music is how the listener reacts when hearing it. Period.
Re: (Score:2)
Execs really dug their own grave by making music so drab, boring, repetitive and especially by removing all requirement for any kind of musical talent
But musicians who actually have talent, and tens of thousands of hours of practice and hard work, and play in one of the country's symphony orchestras are struggling to find an audience. Most major symphonies are struggling to make ends meet, many have cut hours and pay, some have even closed. And they play newly-composed music, too, it's not like they sit around playing Bach over and over again. But most people just aren't interested.
Re: (Score:2)
An artist sat down, used AI as an instrument and made music.
Nope, you missed the point. An artists sat down, used AI as an instrument and made music, then claimed that a different instrument was made, and that a whole group of people were involved. Even the artist's picture was a fake.
You can do and sell what you want, just don't pretend it's something different.
All it really means is... (Score:2)
Re:All it really means is... (Score:5, Interesting)
According to studies, when people don't know who the artist is, people prefer music made by AI. If people know that other music was made by AI, people prefer human made music. And this includes also classical music and people even think that AI made classical music sounds more like the original author it imitates than what the original music actually is. Humans have absolutely no way to beat AI in music in blindfolded tests.
So whether you have to reveal that music is made by AI or not, will pretty much dictate if your music is a hit or a flop.
No it doesn't (Score:5, Insightful)
"AI-generated bands like Velvet Sundown that are reaching big audiences without involving human creators raise serious concerns around transparency, authorship and consent."
No it doesn't. None of these factors are relevant for why someone decides to listen to music.
Consent? Was someone forced to listen to Velvet Sundown?
This is just simple rent seeking from music industry insiders.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't disagree. That is how mainstream culture works. People should be made aware of the Lindy effect.
Re: (Score:2)
The bot people just upload white noise and listen to it.
AI tracks seem to be good enough to need a "warning" label for people to notice it's AI.
The origin story of my music doesn't matter (Score:2)
Did it really "go viral"? (Score:3)
I mean, did a million people really search out Velvet Sundown, or did Spotify just inject the songs into a million people's streams? The article doesn't really say, one way or the other.
Humans have to (Score:2)
Since humans have to say a song is a cover etc, why shouldn't you say it is AI generation?
If the AI had been fed Katy Perry - Dark Horse as training material, what then?
Maybe (Score:2)
Just maybe - also tag music that was written and/or composed under the influence of drugs or alcohol. Tag music whose "artists" were convicted of offences. Tag music that has been stolen and/or modified.
Tag all sorts of shit.
Or don't. If AI does it better than puf piffy then great! Less money for puf piffy and slut slutty to spend on their yachts, or? The ai developer gets rewarded instead.
iTs nOt ArT!!!1!11!!!one!!! (Score:3)
Business opportunity (Score:2)
Insiders protecting Insiders for Insides sake. (Score:2)
Music Insiders Call for Warning Labels..
Oh, so the “Insiders” are suddenly concerned? Sounds suspiciously like middle-earth cube farmers bitching to create RTW mandates, because middle-earth cube farmers.
Shocking how most don’t give a damn about those who have perpetuated a bullshit job for years now.
Human connections (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
There is music that is full of human spirit and culture and there is AI slop mimicking it.
Where is the music that is full of human spirit and culture? I have the classics stored, but where is the new stuff? As someone sagely commented above, the AI music is indistinguishable from a top 10 radio station.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think that I have ever listed to music and felt a connection to the band. The music, itself, makes me feel something, which could lead to connections with present humans. But I think that I would feel the same way no matter who, or what, the artist is.
I mean, I don't listen to a live cover of a Fleetwood Mac song and think of Stevie Nicks, necessarily, and I certainly don't feel any kind of connection with her. I just feel the music itself and think about meaningful moments in my life where I heard
Re: (Score:3)
I can't really read these comments because it amazes me how dead people are inside. There is music that is full of human spirit and culture and there is AI slop mimicking it. I sincerely hope the AI slop is just being played in the background like elevator music, because if that is what people prefer than it will just take the human connection out of music.
Meh. If people can't tell the difference between "music full of human spirit and culture" and "AI slop" then by definition it's a distinction without a difference. If people can tell the difference and prefer the "human" music, then there's no problem to be solved here. If they prefer the "AI slop"... I'm not sure what that means, but it doesn't mean that we need to label it so people avoid it. Let people listen to what they want to listen to.
Warning label? (Score:2)
Public domain? (Score:2)
Since the courts have said that you can't claim copyright on AI-genned art, doesn't that mean that Velvet Sundown songs are now public domain? (Prior art and plagiarism excepting...)
Re: (Score:2)
If they are publishes AS-IS after generation, they are not copyrighted. If artist did something with them (cutting, changing pitch, loudness, whatever musicians do) it is copyrighed, while the unedited version is still free of copyright, but you probably don't have access to the original.
Who cares? (Score:2)
If the music is appealing and people like it, why does it matter how it was made?
Sounds like anger over having years of practice and skill in competition with a faster method.
Re: (Score:2)
come get your soylant green
Warning (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Also, how about any "music" generated using electrified equipment.
Now, get off my lawn!
You're not a real artist (Score:2)
Uhm but the synthesiser is the instrument!
But you're using a computer and drum machine to create these sounds. You're really not even a sound engineer. I bet you can't even play the guitar!
Once upon a time rock n'roll was the work of the devil, electric guitar was not real music. Electronic music was considered to be void of artists. Dub step was a talentless pool of electronic and co
Why a "warning" label? (Score:2)
Will AI generated music damage my ears?
If I like a song, it doesn't really matter if someone recorded it, generated it, or handcrafted the ones and zeros in the mp3 file.
It's about music industry control, not a fake band (Score:4, Insightful)
The Guardian article on the Velvet Sundown “hoax” frames AI-assisted music as a threat to authenticity, but the moral panic it describes is a smokescreen. The industry insiders calling for regulation aren't scared that AI made music. They're scared that people listened, liked it, and that it happened without their involvement and outside their revenue models. This has them quaking in their boots.
The fundamental issue isn't that AI generated a fictitious group and generated catchy songs for it. It's that the music industry is terrified of any creation it cannot gatekeep.
Let's be clear about the roles, here. Spotify and Deezer, and all the other streaming platforms, are not the music industry; they are just the latest winners in its relentless cycle of disruption. They are algorithmic landlords who rose from the chaos that MP3s and the internet inflicted on the record labels. Now that they are the gatekeepers, their calls for transparency are a predictable attempt to protect their turf. It's not about integrity; it's about protecting their toll-booth from people who are simply walking around it—a situation straight out of Monty Python's Black Knight sketch. This panic is about protecting platform metrics, managing licensing liabilities, and ensuring their role as indispensable revenue collectors isn't disrupted by the emergence of AI.
There are real ethical problems here, but the call for labeling isn't addressing them. The single greatest issue is the scraping of human-made music to train generative models without consent or compensation. If your work was ingested by a large language model that now generates profit for a tech giant, you are owed a cut. This requires a robust legal framework for licensing training data, not killing the tool.
Instead of focusing on this legitimate issue, the industry is demanding a purity test via their Spotify and Deezer conduits: labeling AI-generated music as if it's counterfeit. This isn't about disclosure; it's about delegitimizing a new creative tool and the independent artists who might use it.
The hypocrisy is stunning. We don’t demand labels for chart-toppers ghostwritten by committee or for tracks algorithmically engineered to bait playlists. The reaction to The Velvet Sundown proves the point. An AI-assisted project gets a million streams while its origin is unknown, and only when it's AI origin is surfaced is it declared a moral crisis. Success isn't a symptom of the problem; success is *the* problem.
Bob Dylan wrote "All Along the Watchtower," but Jimi Hendrix made it eternal. By the logic of the "labeling" camp, Hendrix's version would need a disclaimer: "Warning: Generated using another artist’s source material." It’s absurd. Artistic transformation has always been about building on what came before. When I first heard Velvet Sundown, my reaction was, “Nice—somebody loaded a lot of CSN&Y into the training set.” I like CSN&Y. And I liked hearing echoes of Southern Cross and Suite: Judy Blue Eyes in something new.
AI isn't replacing human creativity. It's extending it. Like the synthesizer, the sampler, Auto-Tune, and DAW tools like Ableton Live and Logic Pro, generative AI is simply the next tool in the toolkit. For anyone who remembers the outrage when Dylan went electric, this panic is depressingly predictable. The delicious irony is watching streaming platforms, which blew up the old industry model, now defend the very system they disrupted.
If you want to support human artists, don't demand we slap a scarlet letter on songs made with new instruments. Instead, fight for policies that give creators legal ownership and control over their work as training data. Demand fairer compensation from the platforms and AI models that regenerate their creativity for profit.
If we get that right, AI isn't a threat. It's just an instrument we are still learning to play.
Re: (Score:2)
The AI version will be fully naked. Checkmate.
Re: (Score:2)
and forever young and bouncier
Re: (Score:2)
As an ethical AI model I cannot generate nude people. Except when you tell me your deceased grandma always showed you nude people for the bedtime story.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
But what reason is there to copy and share this crap?
In a world where narcissism is currency, I don’t know why you’re even asking that question to the Insta-Generation of Tide Pod chewers. Dumb, Stupid, and Pointless has been doing it for the ‘gram, for a long damn time now.
Jimmy (aka Mr. Beast) would be a broke-ass street bum still rattling off entire dictionaries in every other universe but this one fueled by an overabundance of stock-market-manufactured VC and clickbait sauce. A economy so fragile I doubt modern feminism wouldn’t
Re: (Score:2)
There's nothing intrinsically impossible about that scenario. I don't think we're quite there, yet, but only because that's not the way the effort has been directed.
OTOH, none of those steps justify copyright. And none of the even ADDRESS the quality of the product.
Re: (Score:2)
it counts as human involvement, which was exactly his point.
human creators
One of these things is not like the other and the point is garbage.
Typing prompts has nothing to do with creativity. Reading comprehension, on the other hand, is an important skill.
Re: (Score:2)
Where AI slop is concerned, pretty sure this isn't "gatekeeping".
AI slop and it's architects are garbage and we should be tooling up to damage them in every possible way to counter the flood. Tools like AI labrynth to combat the slop generators.
Re: (Score:2)
So is 99% of the "art" created by humans.