Feeling conflicted - Eddie Dalton
Discussion
A bit of a song by Eddie Dalton kept cropping up on social media that I enjoyed, so I sought out the whole thing to listen to, and really liked it!
All good so far until... I discovered that Eddie Dalton doesn't exist, and the song is AI generated!
It is, therefore, just more hateful AI slop. So I should hate it, but I do still rather like it...
Thoughts?
All good so far until... I discovered that Eddie Dalton doesn't exist, and the song is AI generated!
It is, therefore, just more hateful AI slop. So I should hate it, but I do still rather like it...
Thoughts?
I'm still trying to work out my personal principals when it comes to AI music. As they stand at the moment I refuse to listen to music that hasn't been created by humans. For me, music is something that someone has created with a set of emotions and is trying to convey those emotions through their art. I feel uneasy about being emotionally manipulated by a computer. I feel the same way about visual art too.
It's a fascinating subject though and I'd be really interested to hear others' take on it.
It's a fascinating subject though and I'd be really interested to hear others' take on it.
gazza285 said:
It is another tool to generate corporate revenue without having to pay an actual artist.
But would it be ok for a songwriter to use AI to write a song purely from scratch and then use real musicians to record it and play it live? That's the bit where I struggle. I think I'd still feel uneasy about it.I find AI-generated music acceptable but utterly unmemorable, to be fair much like most modern 'chart' music. AI will only ever copy whats in existence, but equally, that seems to be what producers do anyway, and with endless post-recording correction and manipulation.
Would AI ever spontaneously innovate and produce something wildly different which hits you right between the eyes, like Angine de Poitrine for example? Or decide to play something like Hendrix's extraordinary 1969 Star Spangled banner? Or be able to leave you open-mouthed watching the talent of a player like Matteo Mancuso?
Would AI ever spontaneously innovate and produce something wildly different which hits you right between the eyes, like Angine de Poitrine for example? Or decide to play something like Hendrix's extraordinary 1969 Star Spangled banner? Or be able to leave you open-mouthed watching the talent of a player like Matteo Mancuso?
Robertb said:
I find AI-generated music acceptable but utterly unmemorable, to be fair much like most modern 'chart' music. AI will only ever copy whats in existence, but equally, that seems to be what producers do anyway, and with endless post-recording correction and manipulation.
Would AI ever spontaneously innovate and produce something wildly different which hits you right between the eyes, like Angine de Poitrine for example? Or decide to play something like Hendrix's extraordinary 1969 Star Spangled banner? Or be able to leave you open-mouthed watching the talent of a player like Matteo Mancuso?
Is that really much different than, say, Status Quo, where most of the songs are really not that different from each other? Do you only listen to music that is wildly different and hits you right between the eyes? Seems to me that you're vastly limiting yourself if that's what you demand from every song you ever hear... Would AI ever spontaneously innovate and produce something wildly different which hits you right between the eyes, like Angine de Poitrine for example? Or decide to play something like Hendrix's extraordinary 1969 Star Spangled banner? Or be able to leave you open-mouthed watching the talent of a player like Matteo Mancuso?
I'm no Quo fan, and while I recognise them fairly instantly, and many songs are variations on a theme, just like every band, but to say most Quo songs are the same shows your lack of ability to hear nuance.
Perhaps would like to post two Quo songs that sound the same to prove your point?
Perhaps would like to post two Quo songs that sound the same to prove your point?
As a teenager I was a huge Quo fan. They were one of the greatest live bands this country has ever produced. It always amuses me when I hear someone saying all their songs sound the same. It’s like saying that all blues songs sound the same, purely because so many blues tunes are based on a I IV V chord structure (Quo were very much blues based).
There’s a world of difference between albums such as Dog of Two Head and On the Level, or Hello and If You Can’t Stand the Heat. You should give them a try. You might like them!
Yes, I’m sure AI could produce something that sounds a bit like them, but I’m sure AI could produce something that sounds like BB King’s songs or John Lee Hooker. As it could with music by Beyoncé or Take That.
There’s a world of difference between albums such as Dog of Two Head and On the Level, or Hello and If You Can’t Stand the Heat. You should give them a try. You might like them!
Yes, I’m sure AI could produce something that sounds a bit like them, but I’m sure AI could produce something that sounds like BB King’s songs or John Lee Hooker. As it could with music by Beyoncé or Take That.
gazza285 said:
I'm no Quo fan, and while I recognise them fairly instantly, and many songs are variations on a theme, just like every band, but to say most Quo songs are the same shows your lack of ability to hear nuance.
Perhaps would like to post two Quo songs that sound the same to prove your point?
You're missing the point I'm afraid. Perhaps would like to post two Quo songs that sound the same to prove your point?
The complaint about AI music above (to which I was responding) was Would AI ever spontaneously innovate and produce something wildly different which hits you right between the eyes
Are you suggesting that every new Status Quo track was 'wildly different' and 'hit you right between the eyes'? If so, how were you able to recognise them fairly instantly?
I'm not defending AI music, just making the point that, in reality, we don't expect every new song from every band to innovate and produce something wildly different which hits you right between the eyes, and it's a bit of a nonsense to suggest that we do.
And indeed, beyond that, I never thought that AI would create what it is creating now, so who's to say what it will do in the future?
There are numerous arguments against AI. Some only apply to the way it's currently being used, some to AI regardless of use-case:-
1) The environmental one - the water and electricity demands, and they're only going upwards. And then there's the issue of future water shortages in areas where data centres are established.
2) The incremental cost - to make something AI generated e.g. 10% better needs a lot more than 10% more AI time or underlying capability.
3) The plagiarism one - EVERYTHING AI can do now is because the creators stole (deliberate and correct word) a s
t-load of existing art (all formats) to teach it. They even used pirate sites to feed the damn things, and are NOW trying to use IP laws to close down the leak of the source code of one of them. Hypocritical sociopathic corporate bds.
4) The moral one - this will be a massive nail in the coffin of MOST creative types - musicians, artists, photographers, graphic designers, writers - ANYONE who's ever sold their creative output to a company for the company to use will be out of a job once AI gets established.
5) ...the entertainment one - because of item #4. Many of the creatives that YOU enjoy - musicians, writers, artists - do or did the corporate thing while they were trying to set themselves up. So the supply of new bands, new writers, new artists will start to dry up. Which will only create space in the market for more AI slop.
6) The 'where does it end' argument - the OP is a case in point - here's a fake musician/singer that's been stealth marketed without it being clearly disclosed they're AI. There was an AI woman last year who was circulated around A&R guys I seem to recall too in a similar way.
7) The "AI was supposed to remove drudgery to ENABLE human creativity, not the other way around" argument. Capitalism 101 - keep your workforce dependent upon the system you've created.
8) The long-term employment skills one. In 10-20 years, where will your middle-management come from if you've offshored all the entry-level technical roles to AI?
There are probably more I've missed, but in case you were still searching for a reason to look at that and viscerally hate it (or at least what and who it represents) - pick any or all of the above.
1) The environmental one - the water and electricity demands, and they're only going upwards. And then there's the issue of future water shortages in areas where data centres are established.
2) The incremental cost - to make something AI generated e.g. 10% better needs a lot more than 10% more AI time or underlying capability.
3) The plagiarism one - EVERYTHING AI can do now is because the creators stole (deliberate and correct word) a s
t-load of existing art (all formats) to teach it. They even used pirate sites to feed the damn things, and are NOW trying to use IP laws to close down the leak of the source code of one of them. Hypocritical sociopathic corporate bds.4) The moral one - this will be a massive nail in the coffin of MOST creative types - musicians, artists, photographers, graphic designers, writers - ANYONE who's ever sold their creative output to a company for the company to use will be out of a job once AI gets established.
5) ...the entertainment one - because of item #4. Many of the creatives that YOU enjoy - musicians, writers, artists - do or did the corporate thing while they were trying to set themselves up. So the supply of new bands, new writers, new artists will start to dry up. Which will only create space in the market for more AI slop.
6) The 'where does it end' argument - the OP is a case in point - here's a fake musician/singer that's been stealth marketed without it being clearly disclosed they're AI. There was an AI woman last year who was circulated around A&R guys I seem to recall too in a similar way.
7) The "AI was supposed to remove drudgery to ENABLE human creativity, not the other way around" argument. Capitalism 101 - keep your workforce dependent upon the system you've created.
8) The long-term employment skills one. In 10-20 years, where will your middle-management come from if you've offshored all the entry-level technical roles to AI?
There are probably more I've missed, but in case you were still searching for a reason to look at that and viscerally hate it (or at least what and who it represents) - pick any or all of the above.
Gassing Station | Music | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff