AI music overtakes real band its modelled on

[Richard R]

This little piece of design fiction might be of interest.

The author's "janky time machine" lands in the future office of a human who, it appears, needs to prove the work he bills for is done by a human.

 

https://www.designfictiondaily.com/p/prove-youre-not-a-robot-and-pay-for

 

 

Edited 2 hours ago by Richard R
Grammar

[asingardenof]

18 hours ago, tegs07 said:

I would like to think people are becoming more aware that these ‘free’ services are anything but free. 

If it's free to use you aren't the customer, etc.

[asingardenof]

2 hours ago, SumOne said:

I could see AI music being good if it gets to be properly intelligent and did the job of good music by making you feel something and then enhances that experience by making it truely personalised. e.g. music to help you relax/sleep that is in-tune with your sleep patterns and heartrate, music that is just right for motivating you at the righ parts of a marathon, music that helps you concentrate on study/work within the timeframes you give it. In some ways, it takes the 'celebrity/pop icon' aspects out of it and just leaves you with the music and emotion it creates which is possibly a good thing?

 

But yeah, current AI music isn't any of that - it is just a middle of the road regurgitation of stuff humans have made. If it doesn't move on from that I'd expect that once it starts heavily referencing AI made music it will just get get increasingly bland. 

 

A quote from Thomas Bangalter from Daft Punk when they split up "As much as I love this character, the last thing I would want to be, in the world we live in, in 2023, is a robot". He went on to completely leave technology out of it and hand-wrote a Ballet score that was only played on traditional instruments. I expect there will be more of this sort of push-back, a young person today might grow up always accepting AI music for their gym workout or background ambient music but I expect (or hope) there will also be more enthusiasm to see humans playing instruments live.

 

This is a very relevant video on this subject: 

 

[prowla]

3 hours ago, BigRedX said:

 

Unfortunately IME Bandcamp is a muso/indie ghetto. Fine if all you want to do is reach other musicians and a few hardcore music fans, but nearly useless for reaching ordinary people. The sort of people you need to reach if you want to really grow your fan base.

I purchased and downloaded Peter Gabriel's "So" from there a couple of weeks ago.

There's also some Bill Nelson there.

[Supernaut]

21 hours ago, SteveXFR said:

https://www.loudersound.com/news/holding-absence-speak-out-ai-bleeding-verse-overtakes-spotify-listeners-2025

 

Rock band, Holding Absence have been overtaken in Spotify charts by an AI band who's music is modelled on theirs. 

This seems like a significant and very sad occurrence. The band works hard writing, recording and promoting their music and then someone uses their hard work to knock out an AI copy that makes more money at little to no cost.

Streaming is a cancer. If you stream music, you're part of the problem. 

[BigRedX]

21 minutes ago, prowla said:

I purchased and downloaded Peter Gabriel's "So" from there a couple of weeks ago.

There's also some Bill Nelson there.

 

Exactly. You're a musician so you bought from Bandcamp. There's loads of well-known and mainstream artists on there. However I can guarantee you that as a proportion of their overall sales, those from Bandcamp are minuscule.

 

My band's music is available there, but we sell more CDs at gigs than we do downloads from Bandcamp. There's a good chance that at the end of this year our income from Spotify will have overtaken that from Bandcamp. 

[BigRedX]

3 minutes ago, Supernaut said:

Streaming is a cancer. If you stream music, you're part of the problem. 

 

So what are you doing to support bands - person whose avatar is an album cover from 1972?

 

I hope you are out at least once a fortnight going to see new bands and buying a T-shirt from their merch table.

Edited 26 minutes ago by BigRedX

[Supernaut]

1 minute ago, BigRedX said:

 

So what are you doing to support bands - person whose avatar is an album cover from 1972?

 

I hope you are out at leat once a fortnight going to see new bands and buying a T-shirt from their merch table.

Touched a nerve have I? I'm a regular gig goer and always attend local unsigned acts. Bare in mind, I will never attend one of your gigs because you're only one gig from superstardom, right? 😁

[BigRedX]

1 minute ago, Supernaut said:

Touched a nerve have I? I'm a regular gig goer and always attend local unsigned acts. Bare in mind, I will never attend one of your gigs because you're only one gig from superstardom, right? 😁

 

No you haven't touched a nerve, it's just that IME most people who claim to boycott streaming also appear to have given up listening to anything made after 1976 and in that respect your avatar wasn't doing you any favours. So it's gratifying to hear that you're out supporting new bands. For me (and my band) streaming is essentially advertising that actually pays us, so I have no problem with it. I know that it pays a pittance, but it does pay and we actually get to see the money from it, unlike releasing records and CD in the 80s and 90s where unless you were massively successful the record company ended up with everything.

 

If you really want to cut out "The Man" from benefiting financially from music we'd probably need to go back to the DIY cassette days of the late 70s and early 80s. On the other hand instead of spending the best part of 6 months duplicating cassettes in real time to reach less than 200 people, I can put up a new song on Spotify and reach that number in less than a single day.