# Aiva - Artificial Intelligence Composition: beta starting today



## Darius (Jan 14, 2019)

The good people at Aiva are launching their AI composing tool in beta release, where custom music will be made from beginning to end with no human intervention.

Select persons (ie; composers, academics, and from industry) will have access to the service for now. If you're such an individual and would like to contribute or explore AI in music, suggest you try for the beta! I understand there will be wider rollouts in the near future if you don't make the beta.

I'm proud to have been working with them over the past month to bring their offline virtual instrument rendering and automatic mixing up to good working order.

The AI's are coming - join them


----------



## Mr. Ha (Jan 14, 2019)

I gotta say, as a human who composes music, this doesn't sound good...


----------



## blougui (Jan 14, 2019)

Wow.
Are we really there ?


----------



## Darius (Jan 14, 2019)

Mr. Ha said:


> I gotta say, as a human who composes music, this doesn't sound good...


It might be worth talking to your doctor about becoming a robot.



blougui said:


> Wow.
> Are we really there ?


In a sense, yes. The more nuanced answer is nearly.


----------



## jbuhler (Jan 14, 2019)

I guess the one good thing about this is the pricing is high enough that (1) they don't seem to be in the business of collecting data to harvest and sell and (2) it's unlikely their primary aim is for their users to do the work of refining the AI. Still, the business plan seems to be about using your music for their system to generate additional content and then sell/license it back to you. As I read it, the legal framework they have adopted is that whatever kinds of inputs you have given the program, they own the music created by the technology, and you are restricted from using that unless you have the right license. I wonder what other rights they have reserved.


----------



## Darius (Jan 14, 2019)

jbuhler said:


> I guess the one good thing about this is the pricing is high enough that (1) they don't seem to be in the business of collecting data to harvest and sell and (2) it's unlikely their primary aim is for their users to do the work of refining the AI. Still, the business plan seems to be about using your music for their system to generate additional content and then sell/license it back to you. As I read it, the legal framework they have adopted is that whatever kinds of inputs you have given the program, they own the music created by the technology, and you are restricted from using that unless you have the right license. I wonder what other rights they have reserved.


Seems like a fair assessment. Although, it's an interesting topic of licensing vis-a-vis _creating_ or _adding to_ content. The AI is able to take your MIDI files and use it to generate similar or tangential compositions, rather than making modifications yours. Admittedly the terminology is a blurry line (c'est la vie?).

Could it be analogous to you or I using another piece of music as inspiration and expecting licensing protection?
If so, should there be different rules for an AI and the person/company who made it?
If not, would music generated from a 'random' inspiration qualify for protection as it infringes on no-one?


----------



## jbuhler (Jan 14, 2019)

Darius said:


> Seems like a fair assessment. Although, it's an interesting topic of licensing vis-a-vis _creating_ or _adding to_ content. The AI is able to take your MIDI files and use it to generate similar or tangential compositions, rather than making modifications yours. Admittedly the terminology is a blurry line (c'est la vie?).
> 
> Could it be analogous to you or I using another piece of music as inspiration and expecting licensing protection?
> If so, should there be different rules for an AI and the person/company who made it?
> If not, would music generated from a 'random' inspiration qualify for protection as it infringes on no-one?


Well, the algorithm, the thing making the composition, at this point is not a legal entity. The corporation that owns the rights to the IP of the algorithm is. So the analogy to one of us ghosting compositional labor or being an assistant is not at all exact. With the algorithm, the labor that is being compensated is the labor for the algorithm and the infrastructure supporting it, not the labor of composition. So, yes, lines are blurry, very blurry.


----------



## averystemmler (Jan 14, 2019)

Darius said:


> Seems like a fair assessment. Although, it's an interesting topic of licensing vis-a-vis _creating_ or _adding to_ content. The AI is able to take your MIDI files and use it to generate similar or tangential compositions, rather than making modifications yours. Admittedly the terminology is a blurry line (c'est la vie?).
> 
> Could it be analogous to you or I using another piece of music as inspiration and expecting licensing protection?
> If so, should there be different rules for an AI and the person/company who made it?
> If not, would music generated from a 'random' inspiration qualify for protection as it infringes on no-one?



I guess we'd better get to work on some AI Intellectual Property attorneys next. 

Or would that be Artificial Intellectual Property?


----------



## Paul Grymaud (Jan 14, 2019)

Future is near ! I see the whole VI control community dancing on a hit artificially generated by AIVA program. I'm definitely IN (fifth row, the third from left, it's me). I signed up for the beta version and would really like to be involved in this project ! And, when I die, I'll bequeath my brain to them.

Seriously, I've heard the examples on Youtube. Sounds artificially great !


----------



## YaniDee (Jan 14, 2019)

The scary part, is that the majority of current 16 year olds see nothing wrong with the complete replacement of all human intelligence and creativity by machines.The only people who will be proud of their achievements will be the coders, before they're replaced as well.
But pull the plug, and we're all f*cked.
Build machines to do what we can't, but leave creativity alone!


----------



## Daniel (Jan 14, 2019)

I think this method just make an acceleration and assistance for music production. Some car now can auto parking, or airplanes with autopilot. In medical just like modern laser surgery, in accountancy just input a journal and it will give you a full finance report. Everyone now can sing with Melodyne with DNA,.. no worries of AIVA,. The world changes but still need a human to do that all.


----------



## whiskers (Jan 14, 2019)

intriguing. Will be interesting to see where this goes.



pack it up, boys; time to go home.

Reading the comments is fascinating. I wonder how many would change had it not been mentioned this track was made by an AI.


----------



## Bill the Lesser (Jan 14, 2019)

whiskers said:


> intriguing. Will be interesting to see where this goes.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



What on earth did that AI listen to when it was growing up? I have no clue.


----------



## jbuhler (Jan 14, 2019)

whiskers said:


> Reading the comments is fascinating. I wonder how many would change had it not been mentioned this track was made by an AI.


I think it would be an interesting exercise if someone created an Aivabot and programmed it to engage in forum chit chat and occasionally post its music like a regular member. See whether it could pass the test. Maybe it's already happening.


----------



## whiskers (Jan 14, 2019)

jbuhler said:


> I think it would be an interesting exercise if someone created an Aivabot and programmed it to engage in forum chit chat and occasionally post its music like a regular member. See whether it could pass the test. Maybe it's already happening.


Whiskers build 2.3.1


----------



## YaniDee (Jan 14, 2019)

I'm sure if someone posted this saying "hi I'm just starting out as a composer, and would like some feedback" the responses would generally be kind and welcoming. The music is not the issue really, it's the end result: automated creativity that replaces humans for cost cutting measures. When I think of the time, money and effort we've all spent on our craft and passion, the idea of an app doing a passable job of it, is quite discomforting..


----------



## jbuhler (Jan 14, 2019)

YaniDee said:


> I'm sure if someone posted this saying "hi I'm just starting out as a composer, and would like some feedback" the responses would generally be kind and welcoming. The music is not the issue really, it's the end result: automated creativity that replaces humans for cost cutting measures. When I think of the time, money and effort we've all spent on our craft and passion, the idea of an app doing a passable job of it, is quite discomforting..


Most certainly discomforting. And it makes me think a lot about what it is that music is. What is it that we are hearing when we listen to that piece by Aiva? How, if at all, would that change if we thought we were listening to a piece by a human being? 

Then too if Aiva has to spit out 10 pieces to have one selected by a human as passable, what does that say. Now, what if it is 100 pieces, or a thousand, or ten thousand, etc. At what point does Aiva pass over to the state of an infinite number of monkeys typing at a keyboard... And at what point does the labor of sifting through innumerable bad variants to find the one good one become the actual work of music making—that is, discovery—in this brave new musical world?


----------



## Dex (Jan 14, 2019)

Automatic mixing? I’m glad someone is working on that and that they’re apparently getting close to something that works.


----------



## Rey (Jan 14, 2019)

still new to this, is Aiva a software plugin or is it a cloud service that requires internet?


----------



## gregh (Jan 14, 2019)

set Aiva to pump out a zillion pieces, when a non-Aiva piece gains commercial success do similarity search on Aiva database, claim prior copyright, avoid court, settle for an undisclosed fee


----------



## PerryD (Jan 14, 2019)

I envision a boutique market in the near future for * Fully Organic Scores * A novelty for a premium aural experience.


----------



## jbuhler (Jan 14, 2019)

PerryD said:


> I envision a boutique market in the near future for * Fully Organic Scores * A novelty for a premium aural experience.


Back to recording horns: No electricity was used in the making of this recording.


----------



## gregh (Jan 14, 2019)

jbuhler said:


> Back to recording horns: No electricity was used in the making of this recording.


----------



## Land of Missing Parts (Jan 14, 2019)

whiskers said:


> intriguing. Will be interesting to see where this goes.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Oh cool, this is a good first pass. The director has some notes for Aiva--can you conform to the new cut, line up the timpani with the drone sunrise shot, and producers were thinking to make it more "Egyptian". They want the harp to sound more "minor chord".


----------



## Rey (Jan 14, 2019)

how is aiva compares to orb composer?


----------



## dflood (Jan 14, 2019)

Polkasound said:


> Listen carefully to AIVA's composition. I'm pretty sure it's ripping off ENIAC.


Good AI composers borrow, great AI composers steal.


----------



## averystemmler (Jan 15, 2019)

Land of Missing Parts said:


> Oh cool, this is a good first pass. The director has some notes for Aiva--can you conform to the new cut, line up the timpani with the drone sunrise shot, and producers were thinking to make it more "Egyptian". They want the harp to sound more "minor chord".



"This cue sounds too much like discovery. Can you make it sound more like foreshadowing?"

"Character A really changed Character B's career forever. We need you to represent that in the music."

When AI can handle matters of abstract storytelling, I think society has bigger changes coming, outside of music.


----------



## KallumS (Jan 15, 2019)

How does this compare to Hexachords Orb Composer, which also touts itself as an AI compositional tool?

I actually quite like the idea of AI as an *assistant*. I've seen how Algonaut's Atlas can blast away writer's block with the click of a button. Powerful stuff.


----------



## gregh (Jan 15, 2019)

AI - the brain is just like a computer - lol


----------



## MartinH. (Jan 15, 2019)

whiskers said:


> pack it up, boys; time to go home.



Well, it's better than what I can compose :(. Would certainly feel weird if I was persuing this as more than just a hobby.


----------



## averystemmler (Jan 15, 2019)

gregh said:


> AI - the brain is just like a computer - lol




You mean your computer doesn't wriggle?


----------



## scottbuckley (Jan 15, 2019)

Land of Missing Parts said:


> Oh cool, this is a good first pass. The director has some notes for Aiva--can you conform to the new cut, line up the timpani with the drone sunrise shot, and producers were thinking to make it more "Egyptian". They want the harp to sound more "minor chord".



Uh... Bleep bloop? :D


----------



## MartinH. (Jan 15, 2019)

Do you think once millions of jobs in the transportation industry are lost to self-driving cars and loading/unloading-robots, there will be new political parties campaigning on the promise to outlaw employing AI for jobs that a human could do? A pro-human-workers-party? 

Have any of you seriously considered to switch profession to being a programmer if the machines ever take your job? *insert Southpark reference here*

I think I probably have a good decade or two left before they're coming for my job as a freelance artist, but is it smart to try and make the transition at the last possible moment? Probably not...


----------



## ScoreFace (Jan 15, 2019)

The piece sounds nice indeed, but my first thought was if this kind of AI could possible compose in an even more innovative way than a human being that is bound to his own musical roots? It could maybe try out some crazy things with a mouseclick and helping us composers find some new fresh ideas, who knows?

Maybe it could become a kind of experimenting machine for us composers - does someone know how this works?


----------



## Batrawi (Jan 15, 2019)

ScoreFace said:


> does someone know how this works?



Like this


----------



## ScoreFace (Jan 15, 2019)

Batrawi said:


> Like this



:D :D :D


----------



## PerryD (Jan 15, 2019)

Hmmm...IBM vs chess master. AIVA vs John Williams, scoring a one minute film.


----------



## Darius (Jan 15, 2019)

Rey said:


> still new to this, is Aiva a software plugin or is it a cloud service that requires internet?


It's a cloud service - all the processing is done on Aiva's servers. You can expect a ~2 minute piece of music to be generated and rendered in around 5-10 seconds (I'm sure that's liable to change depending on the server load and internal processes).



PerryD said:


> I envision a boutique market in the near future for * Fully Organic Scores * A novelty for a premium aural experience.


I'm sure I read somewhere that it raises your anti-oxidants and reduces the appearance of aging!



MartinH. said:


> A pro-human-workers-party?


This already happened; they were called Luddites. It may happen again!


----------



## Symfoniq (Jan 15, 2019)

MartinH. said:


> Well, it's better than what I can compose :(. Would certainly feel weird if I was persuing this as more than just a hobby.



Then you simply need to study more scores. Because that's what these AIs are doing. AIs are pattern recognition machines. They're being fed large amounts of information about existing music, and "learning" the patterns. There is no real creativity here, just regurgitation of patterns that a sufficiently large data set would indicate are acceptable or pleasing.


----------



## jbuhler (Jan 15, 2019)

Symfoniq said:


> Then you simply need to study more scores. Because that's what these AIs are doing. AIs are pattern recognition machines. They're being fed large amounts of information about existing music, and "learning" the patterns. There is no real creativity here, just regurgitation of patterns that a sufficiently large data set would indicate are acceptable or pleasing.


What is "real" creativity in this sense? Pattern matching + random variation + culling mechanism for deciding what works and what doesn't. And how do we imagine "real" creativity differs? There is perhaps an intention that separates creativity from regurgitation from an indefinitely large data set but how do we define that intention in a rigorous way?


----------



## Tim_Wells (Jan 15, 2019)

This is disconcerting to say the least. 

But time and tide wait for no man. It's probably best to either embrace it, or focus on an expertise/niche that will not be impacted by it. For now, what AI can do as well or better than a human is limited.


----------



## Darius (Jan 15, 2019)

Symfoniq said:


> ... and "learning" the patterns


It might be more precise to say "learning _about_ patterns". There are AI models that have been around for a few years that are designed to generate distributions (patterns) that are not seen in the training dataset. Generative Adversarial Networks (GANs) are very popular, powerful, but are fiendishly difficult to train, for instance.


----------



## ScoreFace (Jan 15, 2019)

So can I imagine this a little bit like "Band in a Box", just much more advanced and for orchestral JW-style instead jazz and pop styles?


----------



## Batrawi (Jan 15, 2019)

TBH I was a bit worried when I first saw this, but I do strongly believe that Art is all about how you can express your emotions that no matter how we try to put in fixed words (such as sorrow, fear, joy etc...) would still be experimented differently and uniquely by each individual- hence interpreted and produced in a unique way belonging to each artist. This could be a useful tool, based on A"Intelligence" but not consciousness. Thankfully, human audience (receptors of our music) interpret & taste our art the same way as we do produce it - based on their own conciousness and emotions to a great degree. This is a complexity that goes beyond the capability of any AI I believe. Humans with artistic sense(that don't need to be artists themselves) will always be able to differentiate an original "Monalisa" and prefer it over a printed one.


----------



## Darius (Jan 15, 2019)

ScoreFace said:


> So can I imagine this a little bit like "Band in a Box", just much more advanced and for orchestral JW-style instead jazz and pop styles?


I'm not familiar with Band in a Box (although, I just watched a quick video).
From the looks of things, they're quite different animals. Aiva is capable of composing music in a variety of (mostly orchestral) styles with near infinite permutations of melody and progression, rather than being a list of _mix'n'match_ presets.



Batrawi said:


> TBH I was a bit worried when I first saw this, but I do strongly believe that Art is all about how you can express your emotions that no matter how we try to put in fixed words (such as sorrow, fear, joy etc...) would still be experimented differently and uniquely by each individual- hence interpreted and produced in a unique way belonging to each artist. This could be a useful tool, based on A"Intelligence" but not consciousness. Thankfully, human audience (receptors of our music) interpret & taste our art the same way as we do produce it - based on their own conciousness and emotions to a great degree. This is a complexity that goes beyond the capability of any AI I believe. Humans with artistic sense(that don't need to be artists themselves) will always be able to differentiate an original "Monalisa" and prefer it over a printed one.


I think you'd enjoy playing a game I played recently; The Talos Principle.

Actually, I'd suggest The Talos Principle to anyone in this thread pondering AI vs Human matters, and enjoys doing it alongside Portal-esque puzzles.


----------



## ScoreFace (Jan 15, 2019)

Darius said:


> I'm not familiar with Band in a Box (although, I just watched a quick video).
> From the looks of things, they're quite different animals. Aiva is capable of composing music in a variety of (mostly orchestral) styles with near infinite permutations of melody and progression, rather than being a list of _mix'n'match_ presets.



I know Band-in-the-box from my past, when I was a musician. I practized playing solos and used it as play-along-machine: just type in a chord progression, choose a style and it creates a nice comping to improvise to. And if you wanted, you could let the machine play a jazz solo in an artist style like George Benson: it played a jazz solo then in the masters style. Altogether, one listened to a very rubbish and midi sounding jazz track, reminding of a certain style - of course, it sounded horrible, but what the product did, reminds me of what you are doing.

So maybe there are some distant roots to your composition robot in the past - or maybe not and I got it wrong


----------



## PeterN (Jan 15, 2019)

Mr. Ha said:


> I gotta say, as a human who composes music, this doesn't sound good...



It will not take long for AI programmers to beat the four chord epic guys. We are there within a year maybe. A robot will throw hz out like a wet towel. After two years the AI is making horizontal development. To get to JW level, maybe three to four years from now.

”Written by a human” will maybe be something to add. But then we also get where anything you write will be suspected as done by AI. You make a masterpiece and critic say it was done by AI.
*
In conclusion. We need to publish our masterpieces within next three years, otherwise you will be suspected as having used AI. *

Time to work harder.


----------



## jneebz (Jan 15, 2019)

Darius said:


> The good people at Aiva


"Let AIVA do her magic." LOL.


----------



## ScoreFace (Jan 15, 2019)

PeterN said:


> It will not take long for AI programmers to beat the four chord epic guys. We are there within a year maybe. A robot will throw hz out like a wet towel. After two years the AI is making horizontal development. To get to JW level, maybe three to four years from now.
> 
> ”Written by a human” will maybe be something to add. But then we also get where anything you write will be suspected as done by AI. You make a masterpiece and critic say it was done by AI.
> *
> ...



Maybe this overload of mainstream music will sometime cause a wish for more innovative and fresh sounding music instead of overused Hollywood styles?


----------



## AlexanderSchiborr (Jan 15, 2019)

I have listened to a couple of orchestral versions what that AI created and while I think it is mediocre stuff on the one side I am impressed still that that pogram whatever wrote that and actually I think the quality of the compositions are for most time on par with a lot of music out there done even by some working composers.


----------



## Reid Rosefelt (Jan 15, 2019)

I only watched this one video, so I don't know what kind of orchestrator AIVA is, but this sure shows a lot of the human hand. 

"And I imported the MIDI into Sibelius... and I cleaned it up a bit just for the sake of this presentation. At this point you can do whatever you deem necessary. If you want to make adjustments to the orchestration, the production, etc, it really becomes up to you. ... I'm doing a bit of arranging... I'm doing some notational things just for my own sanity...


----------



## kevthurman (Jan 15, 2019)

Musically, it's effective, but not very interesting. In its current state, I see this being used as a tool to generate ideas which then must be developed and shaped by a person. AIs in every field are really good at doing one thing exceptionally well, whether that's designing a specific small component to a machine, or writing music, but human oversight is needed to take those components and combine them properly to achieve an overall goal. This may change as they become more advanced.


----------



## kevthurman (Jan 15, 2019)

This will likely completely replace most trailer and generic "epic orchestral" music fairly quickly though.


----------



## jbuhler (Jan 15, 2019)

TigerTheFrog said:


> I only watched this one video, so I don't know what kind of orchestrator AIVA is, but this sure shows a lot of the human hand.
> 
> "And I imported the MIDI into Sibelius... and I cleaned it up a bit just for the sake of this presentation. At this point you can do whatever you deem necessary. If you want to make adjustments to the orchestration, the production, etc, it really becomes up to you. ... I'm doing a bit of arranging... I'm doing some notational things just for my own sanity...


Weird what is generated through the AI and what still requires human labor in that video. A lot of the most mechanical tasks—copying music, re-entering notes, etc.—are being done manually but a lot of the editorial work required to make it sound like passable music as well. Basically, in this scenario the human is serving as the assistant to the AI (and saving the AI's ass!). What a world we are building!


----------



## kevthurman (Jan 15, 2019)

jbuhler said:


> Weird what is generated through the AI and what still requires human labor in that video. A lot of the most mechanical tasks—copying music, re-entering notes, etc.—are being done manually but a lot of the editorial work required to make it sound like passable music as well. Basically, in this scenario the human is serving as the assistant to the AI (and saving the AI's ass!). What a world we are building!


It's more practical at this point to think of AI as tools rather than people. We are far form an all-encompassing AI that can handle a bunch of complex individual tasks and then combine those tasks to achieve a goal. This AI generates MIDI data from other music, and does so in a way that is musically "passable" to serve as a palette of colors for a composer or orchestrator to use as they will.


----------



## Vin (Jan 15, 2019)

AlexanderSchiborr said:


> I have listened to a couple of orchestral versions what that AI created and while I think it is mediocre stuff on the one side I am impressed still that that pogram whatever wrote that and actually I think the quality of the compositions are for most time on par with a lot of music out there done even by some working composers.



It will only get better, don't worry. This is just the beginning...and it is unsettling. It doesn't matter if it's going to be better - it will be cheaper and that's all it matters. Ironically, it will probably erase those sites such as Audiojungle first, which are largely responsible for 'race to the bottom', since amateur filmmakers and people who don't need top-end music for their projects will have access to unlimited versions of likely even cheaper music.

Here's an interesting website: https://willrobotstakemyjob.com/

It predicts 2% chance for AI to replace the composers, however, I wouldn't be so sure about that percentage.


----------



## kevthurman (Jan 15, 2019)

Vin said:


> It will only get better, don't worry. This is just the beginning...and it is unsettling. It doesn't matter if it's going to be better - it will be cheaper and that's all it matters. Ironically, it will probably erase those sites such as Audiojungle first, which are largely responsible for 'race to the bottom', since amateur filmmakers and people who don't need top-end music for their projects will have access to unlimited versions of likely even cheaper music.
> 
> Here's an interesting website: https://willrobotstakemyjob.com/
> 
> It predicts 2% chance for AI to replace the composers, however, I wouldn't be so sure about that percentage.


It will get better, but understand that this thing just listens to a song and spits out midi that sounds stylistically like it. It hardly "composes" yet, and you can still hear the original in the music if you knew it before hand.


----------



## PeterN (Jan 15, 2019)

Its the year 2025. Extreme battle between human composers against the Deep Blue Composer. Its the year 2026. John Williams matches all his wit and skill against Deep Blue. JW burned out from exhaustion, buried in the hail, poisoned in the bushes an' blown out on the trail, hunted like a crocodile, ravaged in the corn, alas, its futile, Deep Blue blows a hollow horn.


----------



## jbuhler (Jan 15, 2019)

kevthurman said:


> It's more practical at this point to think of AI as tools rather than people. We are far form an all-encompassing AI that can handle a bunch of complex individual tasks and then combine those tasks to achieve a goal. This AI generates MIDI data from other music, and does so in a way that is musically "passable" to serve as a palette of colors for a composer or orchestrator to use as they will.


Given the amount of editing required, does it actually speed time to finished piece? Is it relieving composers/orchestrators of drudge work? From the video, I don't see that it does. I mean, it's a fascinating technology to be sure, and it may or may not get better in ways that matter. 

The better analogy might be to composing/arranging with a phrase library. The algorithm spits out a set of precomposed bits—a kind of highly personalized phrase library—that you can arrange/incorporate as you will within the limitations of the licensing.


----------



## gregh (Jan 15, 2019)

It's the IKEA of music - the AI stuff will be good, but it won't be great, it won't be surprising. AI will also be good at generating material for further improvement by a person, as others have said, but I do that with software already as do many many others.


----------



## kevthurman (Jan 15, 2019)

jbuhler said:


> Given the amount of editing required, does it actually speed time to finished piece? Is it relieving composers/orchestrators of drudge work? From the video, I don't see that it does. I mean, it's a fascinating technology to be sure, and it may or may not get better in ways that matter.
> 
> The better analogy might be to composing/arranging with a phrase library. The algorithm spits out a set of precomposed bits—a kind of highly personalized phrase library—that you can arrange/incorporate as you will within the limitations of the licensing.


I think it could serve as inspiration. If someone's on a quick deadline, they can have this thing spit out music which they can arrange. From my understanding, it happens pretty much instantly once you tell it what to do. I can't see myself using it much, but it could serve well for people writing for libraries or trailers.


----------



## Sopranos (Jan 15, 2019)

Is it released yet? I entered my email for Beta and haven't received anything. 

Anyone actually try it yet?


----------



## Consona (Jan 15, 2019)

kevthurman said:


> This will likely completely replace most trailer and generic "epic orchestral" music fairly quickly though.


Yea, something like that. Need a modern hybrid action track? Upload whatever numbers of those into the AI's database, hit compose, edit midi if needed, done, no need for composing anything.

But there's no way this replaces an 8 minutes Goldsmith/Horner/Williams-level action cue. Now, due to things like this, the difference between golden era composing and modern trendy stuff starts to emerge. Until software like this composes The Asteroid Field, Battle in the Mutara Nebula or Escape From Torture, it's all okay. Honestly, forget 8 minutes, show me how this program handles making even like 20 seconds of music like that.

The thing is, the market demands quite exactly the stuff this product is good at emulating. Whether that's a problem or not is up to anyone to decide. I don't care that much since I don't find that kind of music interesting and I don't listen to it. And I don't compose it, so...

Anyway, you can't stop the progress, I'm interested in this, what it can achieve, etc. Maybe in a few years it will compose a great Williams piece, what do I know?.. Music is about patterns and that's also a thing computers are good at. But I can't imagine what kind of quirkiness you'd have to put into the program to enable it compose like a great human composer.
But maybe you could let it generate a lot of melodies based on some sample pool of the best ones and then mine those variations that end up being fantastic, or something like that...


----------



## NoamL (Jan 15, 2019)

I signed up just cuz I'm interested. I don't feel threatened by it at all. There's plenty of crap royalty free music so if creators want to undercut composers the options are already there. I don't see AIVA breaking out of the "10 royalty free tracks per day" composer barrel anytime soon. It will be hard times for the people who make their living from AudioJungle but not the rest of us, I figure. As for replacing trailer and production music (because of its supposed lack of creative & complex structure), that's laughable, y'all are incorrect, this thing is nowhere close to doing that.


----------



## Wolf68 (Jan 15, 2019)

It sounds indeed not bad...but also not good. But - that's the _current state_ of AI. When somewhen in the future these programs get more complex, we probably have to recon with artificial personalities that have very good skills....and might be even composing skills & Talent. who knows...


----------



## NoamL (Jan 15, 2019)

Here's a controversy-starter - I reckon mixers will be replaced by AI long before composers. There are already lots of "assisting tools" in mixing. Ozone can remaster your music (carrying out several complicated tasks at once) based on just being told the target genre of the music. FabFilter Q3 alerts you when two tracks have powerful signals in the same frequency range. Newfangled EQivocate can do dynamic EQ-matching, not only applying an EQ curve based on matching a sidechain signal, but also changing that curve as both the program information and sidechained audio play out. Any plugin with a dynamically changing function based on program information, like Vocal Rider, is already in effect a "mixing AI."

None of these tools replace having a REALLY good mixing/mastering engineer look at your music, but they are respectively FAR more advanced in the field of frequency/dynamic manipulation than AIVA is for _notes_. All AIVA seems to be - from the outside anyway - is one more "Bach engine" that ingests a bunch of known-to-be-good MIDI notes and regurgitates a sort of micro-medley of patterns.


----------



## bosone (Jan 15, 2019)

Symfoniq said:


> There is no real creativity here, just regurgitation of patterns that a sufficiently large data set would indicate are acceptable or pleasing.



well, that's what is actually "commercial" music - the music that you listen everywhere and everyday on commercials, spots, standard youtube videos, vlogs, etc... even on TV shows and series...


----------



## Land of Missing Parts (Jan 16, 2019)

bosone said:


> well, that's what is actually "commercial" music


Even if it's needle-drop, a real-life person still needs to decide what goes where, what it's signaling to the audience, how to situate it in the picture, how to tweak when necessary. Post production involves departments communicating and coordinating with notes. How well does Aiva take notes?


----------



## Sopranos (Jan 16, 2019)

Is it released yet? I entered my email for Beta and haven't received anything. 

Anyone actually try it yet?


----------



## averystemmler (Jan 16, 2019)

Land of Missing Parts said:


> Even if it's needle-drop, a real-life person still needs to decide what goes where, what it's signaling to the audience, how to situate it in the picture, how to tweak when necessary. Post production involves departments communicating and coordinating with notes. How well does Aiva take notes?



Hell, I think I'm more interested in an AI note taker now. If it can figure out what the hell the director means by "the trumpets are too loud" in an all string cue, it'll be worth its server's weight in gold.


----------



## Floris (Jan 16, 2019)

I see a lot of worry in this thread. Remember when sample libraries grew and people were afraid it might turn all session musicians homeless. It didn't.

Sample libraries are just tools assisting composers and will likely never fully replace humans. Real instrument always have a edge for just being human: nothing is more realistic than reality and then there's also the very important element of craft: a good violinist will be able to convey emotion in a line like only a skilled human player can. Someone smashing on their keyboard wiggling the mod-wheel might come close but can only approach it.
Same thing goes for this, an AI may make decent compositions, but a human can have a whole different level of creativity - especially when it comes to scoring it takes craft and taste to know what's a suitable piece of music for that time and scenario where something generated to fit a generic theme might work, but will just not cut it to be unique.

I'm pretty interested in trying this out myself. The compositions posted were pretty surprising & I feel like it can be a fun tool for inspiration, just messing around or trying something new.


----------



## Sopranos (Jan 16, 2019)

Haha is the damn thing out for beta yet? Anyone actually try it? Where do I get me hands on it?


----------



## Saxer (Jan 16, 2019)

There are some big bummers mankind had to deal with:
- The earth isn't in the middle of the solar system
- The solar system isn't in the middle of the universe
- The earth is extremely small
- We are a kind of animal that survived the evolution
- Our conscious mind is slower than our decisions
- Our memory is very subjective

Next step: We are only mediocrely intelligent

AI is learning software. Now it's a kid with basic beginners skills. But it will grow. We will have to get used to.


----------



## dpasdernick (Jan 16, 2019)

And just when I was getting good...


----------



## VinRice (Jan 16, 2019)

It will undoubtedly replace the mountains of generic mediocre royalty-free nonsense used by 'content creators' but for TV, Film and top-tier Game? I think not. The actual music in those scenarios is only the final result of much longer, very human and collaborative process. If an AI could accurately model _that_ particular roller coaster of joy and frustration then it's all over for the human race anyway. I think we are very much at the gee-wiz shiny toy stage of AI's development.

What I _would_ like to see as is an AI tool that understands the process of an assistant - stick a II-V-I modulation in there before the last 8 bars - change everything to Hungarian Minor without screwing up the melody - write the score markings so it actually sounds like the mock-up that the client approved - go score me a baggie - that sort of thing.


----------



## kevthurman (Jan 16, 2019)

Can AIVA give oscar speeches yet? No!


----------



## dohm (Jan 16, 2019)

Has there been any comment on how Aiva plans to protect against users uploading copyrighted music as reference? AI/ML algorithms like deep neural networks are deterministic (i.e., given the same input parameters, training data, etc) it will generate the same results. If I take a song owned by AC/DC and input into a specified algorithm to generate something new, the output is still owned by AC/DC. It would be no different than just putting the song through a filter. In fact, you can model a neural network as a highly dimensional non-linear filter. So, if someone put my music into Aiva and generated a hit song, I would likely be in the right to sue them.

As an aside, in my day gig, I am founder of a tech company that uses real-time AI/ML to automate sensor processing tasks (video, RF, etc.). Typically, these are tasks no human wants to do, or has the time to do. Legally, I cannot take video owned by someone else, and create training/validation data for commercial gain, without the owner of said videos approval (and likely required payment). I can only use "publicly" available data for free without permission. 

What prevents a user of Aiva from uploading a reference track owned by someone else?

Legal questions aside, the use of AI/ML for creating music and art end-to-end is a cool demo of the tech, but hard to see how it is will have a net positive impact on our lives and civilizations. I think humans (even coders) get a large part of their satisfaction from creating. Of course, I cannot imagine paying anything to go see my favorite robot artists perform at Red Rocks. People will always enjoy playing music, even if AI takes away the composing side.


----------



## averystemmler (Jan 16, 2019)

dohm said:


> Has there been any comment on how Aiva plans to protect against users uploading copyrighted music as reference? AI/ML algorithms like deep neural networks are deterministic (i.e., given the same input parameters, training data, etc) it will generate the same results. If I take a song owned by AC/DC and input into a specified algorithm to generate something new, the output is still owned by AC/DC. It would be no different than just putting the song through a filter. In fact, you can model a neural network as a highly dimensional non-linear filter. So, if someone put my music into Aiva and generated a hit song, I would likely be in the right to sue them.
> 
> As an aside, in my day gig, I am founder of a tech company that uses real-time AI/ML to automate sensor processing tasks (video, RF, etc.). Typically, these are tasks no human wants to do, or has the time to do. Legally, I cannot take video owned by someone else, and create training/validation data for commercial gain, without the owner of said videos approval (and likely required payment). I can only use "publicly" available data for free without permission.
> 
> ...



I think these legal/philosophical questions are fascinating.

If a machine is fed music from 1000 artists, and uses that input with a simple instruction ("make it sound happy") to generate a new piece of music that is by a musicologist's evaluation "original", who owns the output? I assume it would be the owner of the machine? Or would it be the person who issues the "make it sound happy" command and presses play?

In a reductive way, that's what you're doing when you hire a composer - the difference being the composer is a human who can legally own things.

Maybe we should start thinking about AI rights before it's too late.


----------



## Saxer (Jan 16, 2019)

dohm said:


> Of course, I cannot imagine paying anything to go see my favorite robot artists perform at Red Rocks. People will always enjoy playing music, even if AI takes away the composing side.


People also enjoy composing music... even though kills of the masters out there are out of reach.


----------



## Saxer (Jan 16, 2019)

I think the results of 1000 artists fed into the machine will generate nothing really new, just a mixture of older existing stuff.
It would be interesting to let the machine generate additive random output and let real people send back feedback about their emotion. That way there's a chance to discover new ways of emotional impact. A new art form might be the musical emotion trainer for AI programs.


----------



## cola2410 (Jan 16, 2019)

averystemmler said:


> I think these legal/philosophical questions are fascinating.
> 
> If a machine is fed music from 1000 artists, and uses that input with a simple instruction ("make it sound happy") to generate a new piece of music that is by a musicologist's evaluation "original", who owns the output? I assume it would be the owner of the machine? Or would it be the person who issues the "make it sound happy" command and presses play?
> 
> ...



Ironically this is what we humans call our IP rights ) We are fed with music from far less than 1000 artists, try to mimic them first then fail to create anything really original and end up with themes similar to Williams/Horner/Newman/Hermann/Elfman/Zimmer/Desplat/Mancini/etc works and still think it's our own music. What a shame...


----------



## dohm (Jan 16, 2019)

The term AI creates the confusion. It makes the general public think that the computer has some awareness and can innovate non-deterministically like a human. True AI is not what these applications are using. The algorithms being used are more properly defined as machine learning (ML). In that sense, the Aiva algorithm is not actually "creating" in the sense that a human creates. It is creating derivatives of other works using a highly non-linear optimization technique. Now, one might argue that the human mind is also just optimizing using some non-linear technique. The difference is that we do not know where human creativity ultimately comes from. We do know where the output of an ML algorithm comes from (even if we do not know, for example, exactly how a deep neural network gives preference to certain parameters that enable it to approximate a highly multi-dimensional nonlinear function). If we give the same input (and noise) to the ML algorithm (with the same parameters) we get the same result. Of course, the developer can put in some randomness by adding instabilities or noise elements, but this is still just parameters that can be understood. Humans obviously do something very different. I conclude that if you use data owned by someone else to train, then you pay them.


----------



## jbuhler (Jan 16, 2019)

dohm said:


> Humans obviously do something very different.


It's not clear to me that this is in fact the case. You can assert that humans do something very different, but as you say we do not understand it. For that matter, you acknowledge that we do not understand what happens in a deep neural network. I'm not positing any sort of identity here. I'm just saying you haven't showed a significant difference between a neural network seeded with some measure of indeterminacy and human creativity. Indeed, they resemble each other at a rather basic level in both being rather opaque to understanding.


----------



## averystemmler (Jan 16, 2019)

dohm said:


> The term AI creates the confusion. It makes the general public think that the computer has some awareness and can innovate non-deterministically like a human. True AI is not what these applications are using. The algorithms being used are more properly defined as machine learning (ML). In that sense, the Aiva algorithm is not actually "creating" in the sense that a human creates. It is creating derivatives of other works using a highly non-linear optimization technique. Now, one might argue that the human mind is also just optimizing using some non-linear technique. The difference is that we do not know where human creativity ultimately comes from. We do know where the output of an ML algorithm comes from (even if we do not know, for example, exactly how a deep neural network gives preference to certain parameters that enable it to approximate a highly multi-dimensional nonlinear function). If we give the same input (and noise) to the ML algorithm (with the same parameters) we get the same result. Of course, the developer can put in some randomness by adding instabilities or noise elements, but this is still just parameters that can be understood. Humans obviously do something very different. I conclude that if you use data owned by someone else to train, then you pay them.



I'll wager you've spent more time than I thinking about this, so you're probably right in your logic. But, that still doesn't quite answer the question of who owns the output of a system that learns from multiple inputs, is influenced by randomness, and generates something you might consider original if you didn't know it's origin.


----------



## dohm (Jan 16, 2019)

averystemmler said:


> But, that still doesn't quite answer the question of who owns the output of a system that learns from multiple inputs, is influenced by randomness, and generates something you might consider original if you didn't know it's origin.



Yes, I agree with you ...and I cannot claim to know the answer to this. It is a very interesting topic area and I definitely do not claim to have the answers. It is also a hard topic to objectively discuss since I'm biased by my opinions and passion around music and composing. I like robots...just not when they create music  Ha ha! 

To jbuhler's comment, one major difference between humans and a current AI/ML is that a human learns much faster and requires little, or sometimes no training examples in order to correctly categorize....or express creativity. I think it is valid to say that even in the deep learning research communities it is a widely held "opinion" that the human mind is doing something different. But, I am open to any new ideas that suggest otherwise. Thanks for the well written comment.


----------



## constaneum (Jan 16, 2019)

so we gonna say bye bye music composers when A.I gonna overrule us ? Jobless composers coming soon....


----------



## dohm (Jan 16, 2019)

constaneum said:


> so we gonna say bye bye music composers when A.I gonna overrule us ? Jobless composers coming soon....



I don't think so. It will become good at emulation, and might take some work where only that is required. But, the real magic will come from the real soft tissue composers


----------



## Soundhound (Jan 16, 2019)

But then again, Aiva won't drink the last beer out of the fridge or take off with your girlfriend. Pros and cons.



dohm said:


> I don't think so. It will become good at emulation, and might take some work where only that is required. But, the real magic will come from the real soft tissue composers


----------



## cola2410 (Jan 16, 2019)

dohm said:


> We do know where the output of an ML algorithm comes from (even if we do not know, for example, exactly how a deep neural network gives preference to certain parameters that enable it to approximate a highly multi-dimensional nonlinear function). If we give the same input (and noise) to the ML algorithm (with the same parameters) we get the same result. Of course, the developer can put in some randomness by adding instabilities or noise elements, but this is still just parameters that can be understood. Humans obviously do something very different. I conclude that if you use data owned by someone else to train, then you pay them.


As one of these people heavily involved in AI developments I would say you are wrong here. No, we would not get the same result from the same network (not the ML algorithm) if we introduce even a slight distortion to the input channels. The point is people do not want ML algorithms to behave in non-deterministic way and actually they build the neural algorithms themselves. And why? That's simply because we need definitive answers from them and if you follow the theme over the net most of the widely known AI applications are built around image and speech recognition. We don't want them to say - Cat? Could be.. but maybe not. Instead, companies spend billions on building face, speech and figure recogntion systems to be 100% sure the person they are looking at is a good one and a potential target for their marketing campaigns. 
But if you tell the empty neural network the chess rules and force to play another winning chess program now assisting and suggessting the right moves for the audience while people are watching human championship, then after very little time it will develop itself and become a world champion that doesn't even able to speak. 
Quotes: "AlphaZero is a generic reinforcement learning algorithm – originally devised for the game of go – that achieved superior results within a few hours, searching a thousand times fewer positions, given no domain knowledge except the rules. DeepMind's Demis Hassabis, a chess player himself, called AlphaZero's play style "alien": It sometimes wins by offering counterintuitive sacrifices, like offering up a queen and bishop to exploit a positional advantage. "It's like chess from another dimension."

I would say the more important and potentially having much more impact AI applications are in other areas - creating non-existing-yet metamaterials, finding cancer and alzheimer cures, even deriving stable political and PR models for some world states (!). And this is where people don't want AI to be deterministic because nobody knows what the result will be.


----------



## cola2410 (Jan 16, 2019)

jbuhler said:


> It's not clear to me that this is in fact the case. You can assert that humans do something very different, but as you say we do not understand it. For that matter, you acknowledge that we do not understand what happens in a deep neural network. I'm not positing any sort of identity here. I'm just saying you haven't showed a significant difference between a neural network seeded with some measure of indeterminacy and human creativity. Indeed, they resemble each other at a rather basic level in both being rather opaque to understanding


That's basically true. In fact, first experiments with now-common image recognition were using pure math algorithms and they proved to be efficient to some extent but requiring a lot of power. IBM started experimenting with modeling neuron-synapse structures long time ago and they quickly found that even small structures with different neuron types solved simple recognition problems faster and sometimes even more accurately. In 2009 they have built world-first full cat neocortex neural model using Blue Gene supercomputer and then it's all started.


----------



## dohm (Jan 16, 2019)

cola2410 said:


> As one of these people heavily involved in AI developments I would say you are wrong here. No, we would not get the same result from the same network (not the ML algorithm) if we introduce even a slight distortion to the input channels.
> 
> I would say the more important and potentially having much more impact AI applications are in other areas - creating non-existing-yet metamaterials, finding cancer and alzheimer cures, even deriving stable political and PR models for some world states (!). And this is where people don't want AI to be deterministic because nobody knows what the result will be.



You state that "if we introduce even a slight distortion..." we would not get the same result. Of course not. That does not mean I am wrong about a deep neural network being deterministic. You have changed a parameter (e.g. the input). I was trying to be obvious about my comments being targeted at supervised learning. But, I appreciate you bringing up reinforcement learning (RL), which in many ways is a different type/category of ML, and not as widely used in real applications, primarily because you cannot always endure the learning time or damage done for example, while a car learns to drive while crashing over and over again until it gets it right. I highly doubt that Aiva using RL, but could be wrong. More likely using sequence models with supervised training. I will have to study more about it, so do not want to overstep with assumptions. Also, modeling a neuron-synapse structure is a long way from understanding the brain. For example, building a model that can do one-shot learning and then accurately recognize an object it has never seen in many different environments and contexts still falls into the research bucket. A child has no problem with this. 

Agree that there are more important uses like the ones you state. I appreciate the discussion.


----------



## Rey (Jan 16, 2019)

Sopranos said:


> Is it released yet? I entered my email for Beta and haven't received anything.
> 
> Anyone actually try it yet?



it will be in beta soon. you willget to try it out.launch is early 2019


----------



## cola2410 (Jan 16, 2019)

dohm said:


> Also, modeling a neuron-synapse structure is a long way from understanding the brain. For example, building a model that can do one-shot learning and then accurately recognize an object it has never seen in many different environments and contexts still falls into the research bucket. A child has no problem with this.



Well, this is where it gets more interesting. Actually nobody expects from a perfectly modeled human brain to behave like a finite-state machine or being "understood" how it works because it would never be the one and this is when proud-by-themselves humans may say - hey I told you, they will never be us! A toddler is perfectly capable of classification of objects without any supervision and the same is absolutely true for, say, "young" neural model. But a toddler would not name a cat "cat" without someone naming it and possibly telling the basic features of it (especially the ones potentially dangerous). We have five very slow channels (senses) for data and the environment is stastistically unique for every moment because in our 4-dimension world time has no rewinding capability, all channels are extremely noisy and unpredictable in the beginning. It would require lots of try-and-error cycles to understand how dangerous or friendly the object is and it literally took us very long time, a hundred thousand years, to get here without any supervision. So all data we receive is different in every moment of time - environment, parents, culture, politics, etc. Nevertheless, the more repetitions we do in both supervised and curiosity/non-supervised modes, the more "aged" the model is and eventually it becomes resistant to external distortion and predictable in terms of further growth. In AI world some "aged" models become so resistant to changing the direction of "thinking" that it requires erasing several layers of neurons to force it go back to the previous flexible state.

But it's not the problem - the real problem is they may be better than us and by saying better I mean compared to what we do as humans because they may come to the state when they will be capable of doing something we can't even afford or imagine. I would strongly recommend watching Transcendence movie, just skip all these romantic moments )
One of the very respected scientists once said that our time will be over when machines will indistinguishably mimic our human behavior just to make us comfortable but having their real behavior parallel or hidden. The funny thing is humans don't even expect machines to look like humans and we are already talking to Amazon and Google bots at home. Do we really need people around us - time will tell. But this will be the moment when they start silently substituting us.

Gents, we live in very interesting times.


----------



## Soundhound (Jan 16, 2019)

Fascinating stuff, fellas! 

I'd also just say that things never progress the way we think they will. We expect A, we get B. When A finally comes along, it's something completely different, might as well be C. 

As the saying goes (an Aaron Sorkin character I think it was?) "I was told there would be jetpacks. I want my jetpack!"


----------



## gregh (Jan 16, 2019)

Look forward to seeing what it can do.


----------



## bosone (Jan 16, 2019)

that's really interesting.
I'm just thinking about a feedback between the AI learning algorithm and human brain scans and behavior.
it is just a matter of time (or maybe it is already possible) to be able to "read" the human brain patterns and response associated to joy, happiness, fear, romance, etc.
so you can in principle link music to a brain response of a human being (possible thousands of persons). 
since music has a very definite mathematical structure, an AI can "learn" how to relate a musical patter to a human emotion read directly from the brain. and from this, "create" music for a particular purpose.


----------



## gregh (Jan 16, 2019)

bosone said:


> that's really interesting.
> I'm just thinking about a feedback between the AI learning algorithm and human brain scans and behavior.
> it is just a matter of time (or maybe it is already possible) to be able to "read" the human brain patterns and response associated to joy, happiness, fear, romance, etc.
> so you can in principle link music to a brain response of a human being (possible thousands of persons).
> since music has a very definite mathematical structure, an AI can "learn" how to relate a musical patter to a human emotion read directly from the brain. and from this, "create" music for a particular purpose.



emotions are ok to extract already- I did a piece a few years back with people from ELISION using that sort of info based on EEG I recorded of them listening to pieces of music (didn't get performed, they lost funding and moved to the UK in the middle of all this - and I got depressed because a bunch of projects fell over for reasons outside my control).
But if training an AI on musical patterns and the emotions they elicit there are easier ways - just get people to say what emotion is being elicited - Pandora and people like that would have stacks of that sort of information.


----------



## cola2410 (Jan 17, 2019)

For those who are still interested:
https://thenextweb.com/insider/2018...uld-help-scientists-understand-consciousness/


----------



## gregh (Jan 17, 2019)

cola2410 said:


> For those who are still interested:
> https://thenextweb.com/insider/2018...uld-help-scientists-understand-consciousness/



the important bit is "What matters is what the rosehip cell does. Unfortunately, the scientists aren’t sure. " and the "could" in the story title ie the whole thing is just a fancy of the author with a few vaguely linked "facts" tossed in to provide a bit of click bait


----------



## cola2410 (Jan 17, 2019)

gregh said:


> the important bit is "What matters is what the rosehip cell does. Unfortunately, the scientists aren’t sure. " and the "could" in the story title ie the whole thing is just a fancy of the author with a few vaguely linked "facts" tossed in to provide a bit of click bait


That's right but in AI world it's not that important and the rosehip cell will be modelled like other neuron types and put on top of the basic structures to see what happens next. 

Again, for those interested, try this just for fun and see how very few neurons represented by math functions recognize different images
https://playground.tensorflow.org/


----------



## Rey (Jan 19, 2019)

can AIVA do edm?


----------



## Nico (Jan 20, 2019)

I am just scared we will all be extremely bored in the future.

What will be the point of learning & trying to do anything, when you know a machine can do it quicker and better?


----------



## gregh (Jan 20, 2019)

Nico said:


> I am just scared we will all be extremely bored in the future.
> 
> What will be the point of learning & trying to do anything, when you know a machine can do it quicker and better?


my car goes faster than anyone can run


----------



## mikeh-375 (Jan 20, 2019)

Nico said:


> I am just scared we will all be extremely bored in the future.
> 
> What will be the point of learning & trying to do anything, when you know a machine can do it quicker and better?



Because as Greg intimates above, it is for you, from you and for your own benefit and growth - fuck the machines.


----------



## Saxer (Jan 20, 2019)

Nico said:


> What will be the point of learning & trying to do anything, when you know a machine can do it quicker and better?


What would be the point if other humans do it quicker and better?


----------



## Enesco (Mar 1, 2019)

Rey said:


> how is aiva compares to orb composer?


Right now it's a totally different product.


----------



## vgamer1982 (Mar 1, 2019)

The funniest thing here is that unless I'm misunderstanding something, it's fed with music from other sources and spits out a new piece - didn't they do a Star Wars demo?

They say human "intervention" but the starting ingredients, listening to some demos a while back, was clearly existing pieces, so there's no human intervention when you hit go....but there's huge human intervention at the outset, and I'm frankly suspicious that the orchestration is being helped somewhat in the demos.

But no matter....the moment this is used to create something that's clearly heavily inspired by another piece - because that's what it will be used for because that's what people will want from it ("this meets that") - that entity will sue, and in discovery will subpoena the "ingredients" put in to make the piece as well as depose the individuals involved.

And at that point it will become the easiest copyright case to win in history, because you fulfill instantly the intent part, proof that the original work had been heard, proof that it is derivative, and they're quite literally toast at that point. Unless it's only fed with public domain sources, they will be sued by the first person who spots a similarity and because they apparently retain ownership of the music, they'll be liable. Instantly.

Also doesn't this violate most virtual instrument licenses, which rarely license it to a computer and only to a person?


----------



## Sopranos (Mar 1, 2019)

When is it out?


----------



## vgamer1982 (Mar 1, 2019)

It's really seems like a lawsuit waiting to happen in so very, very many ways.


----------



## pinki (Mar 2, 2019)

Interesting stuff.
I am surprised though that nobody has mentioned that this is nothing new. It has been part of academia since the 70's. It's just got the 'AI' tag nowadays.

Curtis Roads is the man to read on this. I cannot recommend this book enough.. because it completely debunks (in passing, it's not the focus of the book) the whole "robots are taking our jobs (in creativity) nonsense.

http://global.oup.com/us/companion.websites/9780195373240/


----------



## tim727 (Mar 2, 2019)

Honestly, I really hope that they fail miserably. It's bad enough that people can't sit down for a meal without putting their damn phones on the table. Stay the hell away from the arts for the love of god.


----------



## Rey (Apr 9, 2019)

hey I heard over at facebook that beta public release is few days away


----------



## Holden Sandman (Apr 17, 2019)

Rey said:


> hey I heard over at facebook that beta public release is few days away



I've been in the closed beta for quite a while, it's developing into a really interesting tool.


----------



## neblix (Apr 17, 2019)

For the lot of you shouting against the "replacement" of creative human art, consider you have already egregiously took part in this if you have used sample libraries in your productions.

If you have found the need to record live sessions despite the advances of realism and expression in sample libraries, there is proof enough that middle-high tiers of successful automation still have not eradicated the desire for higher creative work to be done.

I feel like it really should be acknowledged that a vast swath of composing work is creating very rudimentary derivations of reference tracks that clients ask for. It seems a bit dishonest to imply that every score a professional composer writes is an unique artistic opus, and it's rare I meet a composer who hasn't had to do a lot of boring/tedious gigs to get by.

The reality is a lot of the work in the industry is mundane. It seems further dishonest then to imply that an AI can't do this job or that it's suddenly an issue that it can "derive" from existing work, considering there is an entire sub-industry of commercial music (called "sound-alikes") literally focusing on getting away with copying as much as possible from reference music.

This is the same way we don't feel the need to record a string family if it suffices to play some block chords in a Kontakt string patch. It's a mundane part and we won't really get anything out of spending the money.

We'll record the strings when it's important to get the expression right. The same goes for composing. It won't go away, it's just going to raise the floor line between what's considered valuable work and what's something mundane and functional enough that it can be produced cheaply through the use of computers.


----------



## KarlHeinz (Apr 18, 2019)

Beta is kind of up, I only have to wait 22 days for my version (or I must invite three friends on social media......I think this shows a lot about it.....), as I am 1200 or so in the list, it seems the interest (from whoever) is big (or it is a good marketing gag).


----------



## KallumS (Apr 18, 2019)

Position 12940 in the queue but can jump to the front if I invite 3 friends  

So because of high demand we are put in a queue. But if we add 3 people to the queue, we get to skip the queue?


----------



## Holden Sandman (Apr 18, 2019)

KarlHeinz said:


> Beta is kind of up, I only have to wait 22 days for my version (or I must invite three friends on social media......I think this shows a lot about it.....), as I am 1200 or so in the list, it seems the interest (from whoever) is big (or it is a good marketing gag).



The closed beta has been up for quite some time now. Early beta users needed to be onboarded which is time consuming for the team at AIVA.

I believe there are more people being brought into the beta at the moment, it's worth the wait.

Since I joined in the beta there have been several improvements, new musical presets and new functionality however some of the functionality is still being built to scale with a large number of users.

Most of the demos of AIVA on Youtube were done in a contained environment, things are different when you need to scale the service to thousands of users. Features such as Upload an Influence or Search for an Influence are not ready yet.

The current presets are for Modern Cinematic, 20th Century Cinematic, Tango, Sea Shanties and Chinese Music. Rock/Pop as a preset is expected later this month.

Right now there is a working Piano Roll, the ability to export compositions to Audio (only 192kbps mp3 for now), orchestrated midi or piano reduction midi.

I don't see AIVA replacing professional composers in a hurry but it is a very useful tool for generating musical ideas that can be built into amazing compositions.


----------



## jaketanner (Apr 18, 2019)

Nico said:


> I am just scared we will all be extremely bored in the future.
> 
> What will be the point of learning & trying to do anything, when you know a machine can do it quicker and better?



Quicker, perhaps...better is questionable.


----------



## jaketanner (Apr 18, 2019)

You can NOT program human emotion into a machine. Our minds are far more complex and advanced than any computer, and given that emotions and feelings are often tied to our experiences, how can a machine have experienced love? it can be programmed to simulate love, sure, but no way, no how will this ever replace a human...at least not a competent one. Why would any of us support this technology anyway? The only fear I see, is that whoever would use such a service is looking for a cheap alternative. I can however see corporate videos, porn, and infomercials using this technology...but no way will a decent director with any integrity, even think about it. My 2 cents, like it or not, this is my stand.


----------



## jaketanner (Apr 18, 2019)

Holden Sandman said:


> I don't see AIVA replacing professional composers in a hurry but it is a very useful tool for generating musical ideas that can be built into amazing compositions.



that's like cheating no? Getting a computer to give you inspiration?...sounds like if this is what you need, then you should not be composing. Music is a form of communication, it's own language...it is life, and experiences, not 1s and 0s. And before you say that computers speak their own language...it's still needs to be input by a human. In the end, it's all a simulation, nothing that AI spits out musically will ever come from a place of emotion, passion, love or experience.


----------



## JEPA (Apr 18, 2019)

sorry for the fans of Aiva, but what i have heard is total sterile, with no taste and in some way with no musicality sense. I have worked with fractal algorithms and cellular automata and so on. These are only structures that follow rules, you have to input values. The end result depends on the structures in forehand (algorithms) and the input values. The Aiva videos i saw doesn't have a feeling, a human being can turn the composition in unexpected ways from sadness to happy, from slow mystery to fast action and having in consideration cultural aspects, genres, styles and instrumentation (classical, folk, electro, traditional ethnical, middle ages, renassaince, romantic, rock-pop elements, ritual).

Very sterile, cold and out of human feeling. In my past i put the algorithms at the service of the compositions generating musters or motives to work with and transform but not to compose a whole piece without human intervention, a robot or computer doesn't communicate with the external world, just works with input data. I don't think Aiva could score a Film succesfully... just saying


----------



## jaketanner (Apr 18, 2019)

JEPA said:


> sorry for the fans of Aiva, but what i have heard is total sterile, with no taste and in some way with no musicality sense. I have worked with fractal algorithms and cellular automata and so on. These are only structures that follow rules, you have to input values. The end result depends on the structures in forehand (algorithms) and the input values. The Aiva videos i saw doesn't have a feeling, a human being can turn the composition in unexpected ways from sadness to happy, from slow mystery to fast action and having in consideration cultural aspects, genres, styles and instrumentation (classical, folk, electro, traditional ethnical, middle ages, renassaince, romantic, rock-pop elements, ritual).
> 
> Very sterile, cold and out of human feeling. In my past i put the algorithms at the service of the compositions generating musters or motives to work with and transform but not to compose a whole piece without human intervention, a robot or computer doesn't communicate with the external world, just works with input data. I don't think Aiva could score a Film succesfully... just saying



Agree 100%


----------



## Holden Sandman (Apr 18, 2019)

jaketanner said:


> that's like cheating no? Getting a computer to give you inspiration?...sounds like if this is what you need, then you should not be composing.



I don't consider it cheating. I draw inspiration from as many places and things as possible. Every additional source of inspiration is useful.

Successful musicians since the dawn of music have drawn inspiration from those who have come before them. Inspiration can be drawn from natural sounds, mechanical sounds, past music, poetry, visual art.... there is no end to the number of places you can draw inspiration.



JEPA said:


> sorry for the fans of Aiva, but what i have heard is total sterile, with no taste and in some way with no musicality sense.



I could say that about a number of human composers as well. As with all art, it's in the eyes or ears of the beholder.



> I don't think Aiva could score a Film successfully... just saying



AIVA is still in beta. However Amper Music is now being used by professional composers to score all kinds of productions. You would be amazed at who is using it on what productions.


----------



## jaketanner (Apr 18, 2019)

Holden Sandman said:


> AIVA is still in beta. However Amper Music is now being used by professional composers to score all kinds of productions. You would be amazed at who is using it on what productions.



This is like Autotune for singers who can't sing...so composers who can't compose, use this. No self respecting composer would ever resort to AI assistance. Composing is an art AND a talent...AI is neither.


----------



## JEPA (Apr 18, 2019)

jaketanner said:


> This is like Autotune for singers who can't sing...so composers who can't compose, use this. No self respecting composer would ever resort to AI assistance. Composing is an art AND a talent...AI is neither.



I love computers, algorithms and technology, but to score a film or to compose a piece you MUST have read a poem, a book, literature, have seen some other master pieces in the filmography (films), should have seen blockbusters, TV, should have had interacted (talk, interchange of ideas, political views) with intellectual people, philosophers, mathematicians, scientists (my father is a scientist), and ARTISTS to grow your own language. (edit: should have danced, should have make trips to other lands, etc. should have lived)

An algortithm doesn't interact with the external world... It can be used as AID like I've said in the previous post to generate ideas. You would have to adjust, correct, change things. I doubt strongly that Aiva could score a whole film successfully without the intellectual knowhow, knowledge and spontaneous human feeling of the eye and individual memories of each composer...


----------



## jaketanner (Apr 18, 2019)

JEPA said:


> I love computers, algorithms and technology, but to score a film or to compose a piece you MUST have read a poem, a book, literature, have seen some other master pieces in the filmography (films), should have seen blockbusters, TV, should have had interacted (talk, interchange of ideas, political views) with intellectual people, philosophers, mathematicians, scientists (my father is a scientist), and ARTISTS to grow your own language. (edit: should have danced, should have make trips to other lands, etc. should have lived)
> 
> An algortithm doesn't interact with the external world... It can be used as AID like I've said in the previous post to generate ideas. You would have to adjust, correct, change things. I doubt strongly that Aiva could score a whole film successfully without the intellectual knowhow, knowledge and spontaneous human feeling of the eye and individual memories of each composer...



Agreed...AI is fine for the corporate video here and there or consider it "stock" music..even though stock music was made by a real person...it's still somewhat generic. Music is a living, breathing language...AI is not.


----------



## JEPA (Apr 18, 2019)

Holden Sandman said:


> You would be amazed at who is using it on what productions.


name some please! ...


----------



## germancomponist (Apr 18, 2019)

JEPA said:


> Very sterile, cold and out of human feeling.



Like our system nowadays is .... :-(


----------



## cola2410 (Apr 18, 2019)

KarlHeinz said:


> Beta is kind of up, I only have to wait 22 days for my version (or I must invite three friends on social media......I think this shows a lot about it.....), as I am 1200 or so in the list, it seems the interest (from whoever) is big (or it is a good marketing gag).



This number (a big one) is a kind of indication that Aiva is an AI engine using human inputs to make it better and the developers may already have some tool to feed the inputs into Aiva without human interaction. As everyone may probably know the use of Captcha in browsers and picking road signs, buses, bridges, etc actually helps Google-invented AI algorithms to become better in self-driven cars. Aiva developers use the same tactic - use humans' experience and inputs FOR FREE to make AI behave like a human and later CHARGE humans for it.
It's not an algorithm and it's still a baby now but this baby learns and learns fast, thanks to us.

For some who joined recently there is a lot in the thread already about that, thanks to all contributors.


----------



## KarlHeinz (Apr 18, 2019)

> It's not an algorithm and it's still a baby now but this baby learns and learns fast, thanks to us.



That sounds frightening.......


----------



## JEPA (Apr 18, 2019)

cola2410 said:


> It's not an algorithm and it's still a baby now but this baby learns and learns fast, thanks to us.


everything digital in the box is an algorithm... something with rules


----------



## jneebz (Apr 18, 2019)

OK feel a little less threatened by AI after hearing this...yikes: https://www.ampermusic.com/music/


----------



## rudi (Apr 18, 2019)

The phonograph will replace human musicians...
Radio will put musicians out of a job...
Films / TV will put musicians out of a job...
Synths will put musicians out of a job...
Sequencers will put musicians out of a job...
Drums machines will put musicians (and yes, drummers count as musicians) out of a job...
CDs will put musicians out of a job...
Sampling will put musicians out of a job...
Music libraries will put musicians out of a job...
The internet will put musicians out of a job...
AI will put musicians out of a job...

Do you see a bit of a pattern here?
Part of it is true of course, but part of it is a facet of changing technologies and demands.
Not many of us are still blacksmiths, or match makers (as in making matches!!!), or weavers, or... things change and new opportunities arise...

I remember an article in a UK computing magazine hailing the "end of programming"... it was a piece of software called "The Last One". It didn't... and it wasn't.


----------



## cola2410 (Apr 18, 2019)

JEPA said:


> everything digital in the box is an algorithm... something with rules


No it is not, I'm working for an AI company and you are fundamentally wrong here probably because you are extrapolating your previous experiences with algorithms.


----------



## unclecheeks (Apr 18, 2019)

jaketanner said:


> that's like cheating no? Getting a computer to give you inspiration?...sounds like if this is what you need, then you should not be composing.



That's a pretty harsh statement.... I'm curious how far you think this applies. Have you ever used any percussion loop libraries or MIDI performances in your work, that you yourself did not compose note by note? How about hybrid pulsing arps and such? Or played with some cool, complex patch that then inspired you to write something around it? Do you consider that cheating?

I'm of the mindset that not everyone excels at everything and if they can harness technology to fill in the gaps and create something beautiful and memorable, then I really don't see a problem with that. For example, I'm good at many things but writing melodies is where I often struggle. So I've built a system with some custom and off-the-shelf tools for helping me with this if I hit a wall.

Having said that (and I haven't really looked into this Aiva thing), I do agree that an AI solution which aims to completely remove the human from the creative process is not something that I would be interested in.


----------



## Leon Portelance (Apr 18, 2019)

It didn’t work for me. The pieces I generated were terrible.


----------



## jaketanner (Apr 18, 2019)

unclecheeks said:


> That's a pretty harsh statement.... I'm curious how far you think this applies. Have you ever used any percussion loop libraries or MIDI performances in your work, that you yourself did not compose note by note? How about hybrid pulsing arps and such? Or played with some cool, complex patch that then inspired you to write something around it? Do you consider that cheating?
> 
> I'm of the mindset that not everyone excels at everything and if they can harness technology to fill in the gaps and create something beautiful and memorable, then I really don't see a problem with that. For example, I'm good at many things but writing melodies is where I often struggle. So I've built a system with some custom and off-the-shelf tools for helping me with this if I hit a wall.
> 
> Having said that (and I haven't really looked into this Aiva thing), I do agree that an AI solution which aims to completely remove the human from the creative process is not something that I would be interested in.



I get your points...and yes I've used loops in the past, but only percussion or drum based...nothing like pre-fabed MIDI unless it was a drag and drop drum loop or something, and also, there are very little original chord patterns if even, so it's not really cheating...but you are talking about specific elements...nothing AI about that. From what I understand this whole thing to be, is that the AI spits out a composition for you. Using a loop is non melodic..I mean rappers do it, that's fine, it's part of the genre though, and if they lift a famous loop, they either pay royalties or give credit...but that's a whole different thing..LOL

Yes I've used pulses and arps too...very recently in fact, But I have the freedom to create the ARP how I hear it, but the way in which it's used and played is still by my hand. I am inspired by the "sound and rhythm", to create something...I am still physically playing in the parts, chord changes and deciding how long to hold it or not, and also altering the sound with filters or the built-in ADSR of the library. I'd hardly call this AI...sequencers (LFOs) have been around since the dawn of synthesizers.

I do not consider writing around a patch cheating, but if you are using the AI software to give you a melody that you are taking credit for....that might be questionable, since you are not the one who came up with it, if that makes sense. 

This actually bring up an old software (not sure if still in production), called "Band-in-a-box". You input chords, and it gives you a whole arrangement to write a song to...OR you can tell it a style, and it will create one for you. I have considered this solely for the purpose of writing a song, NOT the melody or lyrics....and this was for a singer who couldn't really play an instrument. There are also softwares that will even help you write a novel or lyrics...is this cheating? Not sure...I mean if you take credit for writing something that an AI/computer software gave you, then yes...that's dishonest. Using software to generate some synonyms is acceptable.

But the point of this whole thing, for me, is that like you mentioned...no way AI will take over an actual thinking, feeling composer. I see the Aiva thing as you do.


----------



## Sarah De Carlo (Apr 18, 2019)

I think that basically, it's the concept of thinking that artificial intelligence can do the job for you that is wrong. Not to mention the fact that the market requires that you are also a decent producer, given that most of the music is produced in the studio, with a computer (but surely for the nostalgic of the live production this is also poop).
But, hey ... at the end of the day, what matters is selling your music and making it appreciated by those who buy it and draw inspiration for their productions. If in general the style of music production you do not like, it is useless to blame those who have adapted and have done a job.
I am one of AIVA's first beta testers and I was able to communicate almost daily with those who are working on it, and I must say that the commitment they are putting into listening to requests and suggestions is truly remarkable.

Will I use AIVA in the future? I don't know, probably and only for inspiration.
It can be a great help for those who produce a lot and have many short-term deadlines.

I think AIVA can do the job for me? NO, ABSOLUTELY NOT. A
IVA can be an aid to inspiration, it can give you a base from which to start, I have never programmed pieces already 'done and finished' using AIVA platform, either because, as far as the current presets are concerned, it is a quite aseptic orchestral composition, and also because psychologically and for personal taste, I need to put my hands on what I compose / produce.

This is an example of production starting from an 'idea' given by AIVA: there were no percussions, the use of the Theremin (thanks Soundiron!) was absolutely not contemplated since it does not even exist as a tool in the presets ... ditto for all the effects and the synthesized background sounds (phobos - spitfire).
What did AIVA do for this piece? Little or nothing ... has given an input for what concerns progression and main melody (which I have modified and recreated anyway). This, I think, is the right approach to using this 'tool' ... because this is: a tool, not someone/something that will take your place if you are a composer/producer.
If instead you are only a producer and you have never written music, and this instrument will allow you to produce basic orchestrations, it does not matter ... as far as I'm concerned, I repeat, it's the customer who decides, so hats off if you can work in this way, I certainly won't decide whether you are better or worse than me.


----------



## vgamer1982 (Apr 29, 2019)

It's still bizarre. The "search influence" feature is going to make someone wealthy...but not in the way they think, I suspect, and that person will probably end up owning the company...because that's surely the stuff of legal nightmares and a lawsuit waiting to happen. If you listen to the clearly John Williams style piece they advertised it with, let's say Lucasfilm/Disney decided to sue based on similarity...

It wouldn't even go to court for the simple reason that in discovery, they'd subpoena the data inputted into that feature...and boom. It was literally generated with those notes from the influence as part of the feature. That's an open and shut copyright infringement case right there. There's an interesting test case perhaps but if Pharrell and co can get hit for something that "sounds a bit like"....actually using the notes of the piece as a generative function, no matter what you do to them, is infringing copyright, plain and simple. So it's really just a case of who first uses in the making of something significant using something non-public domain, which most film music would be, and I can imagine a bunch of people pointing that feature at film scores since that's what they actually did with it to market it. I bet the agreement with Aiva that you sign (or agree to) says you indemnify them against any copyright claims....

Could be wrong and who knows, but it does seem to be a legal minefield.


----------



## Oliver (May 8, 2019)

i tried it out yesterday.
and its absolutely terrible!!!!


----------



## KarlHeinz (May 8, 2019)

Before being able to try this out I never know that the most important musicstyle I will ever need is shanty.....

And terrible is a nice word for what has been produced as shanty.

I am glad I cant judge the chinese track cause I have no knowledge how that should sound. But still curious how the "pop" would sound if its available someday. At least more fun that sitting in front of the TV watching soaps...


----------



## Darius (May 15, 2019)

Just to interject on this healthy debate;-

Aiva have today launched Pop and Rock (knock yourself out, @KarlHeinz!), better orchestration methods, new instruments & samples, and a revamped sample engine (by yours truly).

More coming very soon...


----------



## KarlHeinz (May 15, 2019)

Hi Darius, I was happy to read:


> Aiva have today launched Pop and Rock


BUT: only for payed plans, NOT for the free plan, even in this beta stadium. I had a discussion already yesterday in the online chat if they try kidding me but no answer on this apart from "I can try ALL the other styles (did I mention one before, sorry, for me its still ). And if I want to try out something honest in this direction I go with Orb Composer, o.k., you have to press more then one button but....


----------



## vgamer1982 (May 15, 2019)

Still would like to know where they stand on copyright infringement. This clearly infringes Lucas'/Williams copyrights. No way can you simply input someone else's work into an algorithm, spit out new content based on it and not claim that you infringed, and given how bad the other stuff sounds, it's notable that there's a huge amount of human influence on all the interesting stuff supposedly "AI-written", to the point that I personally think it's misleading to call it AI composition. It's really AI-assisted at best.


----------



## vgamer1982 (May 15, 2019)

If Pharrell and co. got nailed for simply sounding too "very like" Marvin Gaye - which is kind of what it boiled down to....I don't see how they could win a lawsuit for anything anybody makes where the recipe for making the AI output which is then re-arranged and made into something actually musical involves the actual notes of a piece of music like Across The Stars...surely that just gets subpoena'd in discovery and then it's goodbye AI composition. Something somewhere said it was trained purely on public domain material but the above recording clearly shows that is untrue, and it appears you can point the interface to non-public domain content as part of the "influences"...I dunno.

I think it's legally on shaky ground and I bet it becomes a test case for when somebody uses an AIVA piece for something with enough financial incentive for someone to sue.


----------



## Erick - BVA (May 15, 2019)

vgamer1982 said:


> Still would like to know where they stand on copyright infringement. This clearly infringes Lucas'/Williams copyrights. No way can you simply input someone else's work into an algorithm, spit out new content based on it and not claim that you infringed, and given how bad the other stuff sounds, it's notable that there's a huge amount of human influence on all the interesting stuff supposedly "AI-written", to the point that I personally think it's misleading to call it AI composition. It's really AI-assisted at best.



I think it would be interesting to use your own compositions as the inputted influences.


----------



## ridgero (May 15, 2019)

Rey is here


----------



## vgamer1982 (May 15, 2019)

I mean AI, great, but can we please first put it good use helping humanity? I'd like AI to help with traffic patterns so I sit in traffic less. I wasn't aware of composing being a horrific job that needed taking out of human hands.


----------



## Darius (May 15, 2019)

vgamer1982 said:


> No way can you simply input someone else's work into an algorithm, spit out new content based on it and not claim that you infringed



I think much of this thread's discussion is that this is exactly what humans do;- just [some] humans do it much better [for now ]! I believe it's a blunt argument to say that humans get their creative ideas from a devine, original source. We stand on the shoulders of giants; so does AI.
It's increasingly hard to say if something infringes on something else in a crowded creative space; and in America, at least, amount of infringement seems directly proportional to the amount of money that can be made!


----------



## cola2410 (May 15, 2019)

Darius said:


> I think much of this thread's discussion is that this is exactly what humans do;- just [some] humans do it much better [for now ]! I believe it's a blunt argument to say that humans get their creative ideas from a devine, original source. We stand on the shoulders of giants; so does AI.
> It's increasingly hard to say if something infringes on something else in a crowded creative space; and in America, at least, amount of infringement seems directly proportional to the amount of money that can be made!



Just going back to my old post here:
"Ironically this is what we humans call our IP rights ) We are fed with music from far less than 1000 artists, try to mimic them first then fail to create anything really original and end up with themes similar to Williams/Horner/Newman/Hermann/Elfman/Zimmer/Desplat/Mancini/etc works and still think it's our own music. What a shame..."

Really )


----------



## vgamer1982 (May 15, 2019)

Darius said:


> It's increasingly hard to say if something infringes on something else in a crowded creative space



No, in this case it's incredibly easy. If an Aiva users use the actual notes of the piece like say the Williams piece clearly used above, the composition itself, and insert it into the algorithm, all someone has to do is subpoena that in discovery in the lawsuit. And they will. And then they win. Period.

Because usually in a copyright case you have to show that the person had the ability to hear the piece in question, and in some places, show they had the intent to copy it. Hence why studios first question when a copyright infringement issue comes up is "was it the temp track?". Because they know that if it was, the case is weakened for them colossally....


----------



## vgamer1982 (May 15, 2019)

And the difference is mutation...yes, we work with ideas that came from the past, but they are basically irrevocably mutated by our imperfections...which sometimes become the most interesting thing. The intent however, commercially, with a piece like the Williams thing above is literally to generate a new work based off the old. It is part of the algorithm.

That is so clearly infringing as to be absurd. And it will be a case of deep pockets...first person who is ripped off by it for something sizable will sue. And they'll win. I'd bet at that point composer contracts will actually state they don't want algorithmic composition used in any way for risk of liability.


----------



## vgamer1982 (May 15, 2019)

Also most composer contracts explicitly state that you hold them harmless and not liable for copyright infringement. By literally inserting another piece of copyrighted music into an algorithm, generating something from it and giving it to a client you are breaking a very basic clause in most contracts to write music....so unless AIVA literally only can be influenced by the public domain - which it can't be because how could that produce music that's up to date even for the 1960's let alone now - then it's impossible to use in a commercial setting, unless there's some legal trickery used.


----------



## barteredbride (May 15, 2019)

Here´s my take on this subject.

In my view the legal stuff will only be a problem in the beginning.

Once AI gets more advanced it'll just go off on it's own and do it from start to finish.

The first AI painting that recently sold for £0.5million, checked and checked through it's database of paintings until it was sure it had created a painting that was different enough to be called ´original´. It wasn´t a copy of anything.

Ai WILL eventually create a piece of music or art that will be considered a masterpiece. On par with the greats. When this will happen, I don´t know.

Will this stop ME making music? No. At *this* present time I know I will never create a masterpiece to match the great (human) composers. But this doesn´t stop me creating music and enjoying it. 

Nobody can say how AI will affect jobs in the future and when.

*But I know this...*I will never use AI to create my piece of music, not because I don´t think the technology is super cool and amazing, but I wouldn´t because, well...where´s the fun in that???


----------



## vgamer1982 (May 15, 2019)

barteredbride said:


> The first AI painting that recently sold for £0.5million, checked and checked through it's database of paintings until it was sure it had created a painting that was different enough to be called ´original´. It wasn´t a copy of anything.



Not quite - they knew the 15,000 odd paintings they put in as the source. It was programmed to create novelty - it was programmed to create something different, to deviate from the source material, ie so it wouldn't just mash up various randomly chosen pictures into one. 

The second AI painting is probably worth 10 cents. It's a bit like the Banksy that shredded itself, which is now worth even more. The value came wholly from the context. 

And every piece of art, pretty much without exception, that is considered great has something else - it's rarely just purely an image or a sound, but it has a point, it was conceived with some sort of emotional connection. The idea that machines will get there any time soon is just pure fantasy/sci-fi stuff. Won't occur for a long time, if ever.

But anyhow, the legal stuff for music WILL be an issue, because you just know someone is going to sue and that point, nobody will want you to touch that tech in a work for hire scenario....


----------



## barteredbride (May 15, 2019)

vgamer1982 said:


> And every piece of art, pretty much without exception, that is considered great has something else - it's rarely just purely an image or a sound, but it has a point, it was conceived with some sort of emotional connection. The idea that machines will get there any time soon is just pure fantasy/sci-fi stuff. Won't occur for a long time, if ever.



I agree with your point about great pieces of art having ´something else´, but in the end this can be programmed as part of the algorithm too.


----------



## vgamer1982 (May 15, 2019)

I don't know that an algorithm will ever grieve over the loss of their son, like this piece was written for....



Or respond emotionally to the massacre at Baba Yar like Shostakovich 13....

or hit the glories of Pictures at an Exhibition....

Not in our lifetimes, anyhow, and if such things can be made from an algorithm their implications will be vastly greater than music, which will be a trivial issue....


----------



## YaniDee (May 15, 2019)

vgamer1982 said:


> I mean AI, great, but can we please first put it good use helping humanity?


Once all the AI and machines are in place, the billionaires can zap us all from space, and have the planet all to themselves! Why would they need 7+ billion whiny people around?


----------



## Erick - BVA (May 15, 2019)

vgamer1982 said:


> I don't know that an algorithm will ever grieve over the loss of their son, like this piece was written for....
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I was actually thinking about this in a similar way recently. If we ever get to a point where AI is doing everything, even creative works (with no human interaction) then we are lost. 
When would we ever say "hey, I'm going to write a song for my wife...I better go consult the AI machine" 
There is humanity in the process of creation itself. 
If we ever avoid that process in its entirety (where AI performs all aspects of the creative process), then it would be a symptom that we are lost as a people, with no soul or purpose.


----------



## YaniDee (May 15, 2019)

Sibelius19 said:


> There is humanity in the process of creation itself.
> If we ever avoid that process in its entirety (where AI performs all aspects of the creative process), then it would be a symptom that we are lost as a people, with no soul or purpose


Well said, and it really makes you wonder why we are rushing in to this..
As a cost cutting measure? It seems a high price to pay...


----------



## chocobitz825 (May 15, 2019)

I think this entire argument of infringement is so firmly based in human and creative ego that it’s laughable. If you have clients who come to you looking for your unique style, then this entire conversation is valid. Let’s be real though, much of the industry is a client handing you another piece of already established successful work, and saying “give us something like this, but don’t get us sued for infringement”.

We’ll already treading that line and what people are saying is, “it’s fine when humans do it because we assume there’s some natural creative process that differentiates is from the algorithm”. However to obtain those results clients want, we’re copying tone, parts of melody, intervals and progressions and trying to spit out something similar but different. We’re not much better than the machine. For now humans do it better than a machine, but to get usable results from tech like this, human touch is still the ultimate factor to smooth it out into a cohesive piece of work.


----------



## cola2410 (May 16, 2019)

Sibelius19 said:


> I was actually thinking about this in a similar way recently. If we ever get to a point where AI is doing everything, even creative works (with no human interaction) then we are lost.
> When would we ever say "hey, I'm going to write a song for my wife...I better go consult the AI machine"
> There is humanity in the process of creation itself.
> If we ever avoid that process in its entirety (where AI performs all aspects of the creative process), then it would be a symptom that we are lost as a people, with no soul or purpose.



That's a very thoughtful observation actually. I highly recommend Her by Spike Jonze with Joaquin Phoenix where the ending says it all - a machine will eventually leave a human for another machine because we won't be interesting for them after some time. Their arts will be unlike ours so we can relax but won't feel superior to them anymore. Different race, different life, different planet (?).

During one of our regular bar gatherings we have discussed the problem of mimicking human behavior by an AI application (going back to Her). The issue of a human requiring another human to interact with is a simple task for an AI app that could be sold in billions. The other side is pretty scary although - if a machine mimicks human behavior to the state when a human can not distinguish it anymore than we may probably speak about "non/un-humans" appearing all over the place and substituting us not only in jobs but in human relations as well. Imagine a race with a capability to be not only human but something else as well.


----------



## chocobitz825 (May 16, 2019)

cola2410 said:


> That's a very thoughtful observation actually. I highly recommend Her by Spike Jonze with Joaquin Phoenix where the ending says it all - a machine will eventually leave a human for another machine because we won't be interesting for them after some time. Their arts will be unlike ours so we can relax but won't feel superior to them anymore. Different race, different life, different planet (?).
> 
> During one of our regular bar gatherings we have discussed the problem of mimicking human behavior by an AI application (going back to Her). The issue of a human requiring another human to interact with is a simple task for an AI app that could be sold in billions. The other side is pretty scary although - if a machine mimicks human behavior to the state when a human can not distinguish it anymore than we may probably speak about "non/un-humans" appearing all over the place and substituting us not only in jobs but in human relations as well. Imagine a race with a capability to be not only human but something else as well.



I suppose whether this is to happen or not, my observation with people's fear around AI is that it will somehow be better at being human than us. Not in that its perfect, but rather that it will be as flawed, shallow, and indifferent to other life as we already are. Its lack of emotion is why AI will never be like us. Maybe one day it will have it down, but I suspect if it can handle emotional, it will lose its sense of logic. I don't know if AI need be the sign of the end of times for people.


----------



## Raphioli (May 16, 2019)

chocobitz825 said:


> Maybe one day it will have it down, but I suspect if it can handle emotional, it will lose its sense of logic.



If AI gains emotions, we'll probably have other things to worry about.


----------



## chocobitz825 (May 16, 2019)

Raphioli said:


> If AI gains emotions, we'll probably have other things to worry about.



*gasp* their naked six packs!


----------



## Desire Inspires (May 16, 2019)

I think this could be cool. I am going to give it a try and see what benefits may come. Hopefully it will help me to cut down on the time it takes to get new ideas in a digital format.


----------



## chocobitz825 (May 16, 2019)

Desire Inspires said:


> I think this could be cool. I am going to give it a try and see what benefits may come. Hopefully it will help me to cut down on the time it takes to get new ideas in a digital format.



don't get your expectations up too high just yet. its got a way to go


----------



## Desire Inspires (May 16, 2019)

chocobitz825 said:


> don't get your expectations up too high just yet. its got a way to go



Oh of course. 

The thing about technology is that a great deal of it is terrible. We must remember that technology doesn’t create itself; it is created by people. So if people make bad technology, it will be deemed useless and get scrapped.

I am not worried about AI taking over music composing. I would be more worried about that technology being used for other nefarious things such as manipulating financial markets or starting wars.

But even then, people will always find a way to handle the situation. I don’t think we will encounter some post-apocalyptic scenario. People watch too many movies and think the world will be similar. I think AI will probably make the world more dull if anything else.


----------



## bosone (May 16, 2019)

just tried some preset and make some track. nice but honestly far from being "human"... in any case AIVA would be just perfect for making stock music or background track to be used in youtube videos or simple presentations.

but, if this is just the beginning, can we imagine how AIVA or related software will be in 10 years?


----------



## averystemmler (May 16, 2019)

chocobitz825 said:


> I think this entire argument of infringement is so firmly based in human and creative ego that it’s laughable. If you have clients who come to you looking for your unique style, then this entire conversation is valid. Let’s be real though, much of the industry is a client handing you another piece of already established successful work, and saying “give us something like this, but don’t get us sued for infringement”.
> 
> We’ll already treading that line and what people are saying is, “it’s fine when humans do it because we assume there’s some natural creative process that differentiates is from the algorithm”. However to obtain those results clients want, we’re copying tone, parts of melody, intervals and progressions and trying to spit out something similar but different. We’re not much better than the machine. For now humans do it better than a machine, but to get usable results from tech like this, human touch is still the ultimate factor to smooth it out into a cohesive piece of work.



It's a tough subject to put into words, but I think the legal danger comes not because the machine"s creative process is different, but because the machine's creative process is understood. You can look at the machine, see the copyrighted input, and see the process by which it became an infringing output. The machine can't claim that it was expressing its mother's journey from the old country and had no knowledge of the plaintiff's work.

I'm not sure what happens if you put multiple works from different artists into the meat grinder. Machine creativity is a strange subject. I wonder if there's a precedent in another field.


----------



## Jean John (Jul 2, 2019)

Hello. My name is Jean John and I am a New York based classical and jazz composer. I signed up for this forum solely because I have been in shock ever since I received an email from AIVA and was vigorously searching through internet to find if this very very serious matter is being discussed anywhere. Luckily I found you guys.

To say that I am personally terrified is an understatement. I have contacted many composing groups already and warned them to not share any information until many more regulations are being presented. Music is human and should stay human. Please do not share any information about your creative process with AIVA, believe me, you worked too hard to get where you are, sharing your creative process for artificial intelligence purposes is like shooting yourself not in the foot, but in your heart. This is the email I got:

_I am ***** from AIVA, AI composition assistant. I recently came across your profile and was wondering how you come up with new ideas when creating music.

I am asking this because we are a team of composers and engineers that created AIVA, and we are currently looking for people to try AIVA for free and give us feedback to make it a useful creative assistant for composers like you. (etc.)_


----------



## Jdiggity1 (Jul 2, 2019)

Jean John said:


> To say that I am personally terrified is an understatement. I have contacted many composing groups already and warned them to not share any information until many more regulations are being presented. Music is human and should stay human. Please do not share any information about your creative process with AIVA, believe me, you worked too hard to get where you are, sharing your creative process for artificial intelligence purposes is like shooting yourself not in the foot, but in your heart.



If you watch the way Brad uses AIVA in this video: 
you see that he's using it as a tool to aid his composing process, in the same way that hundreds of professional composers have been using loop packs and construction kits for many years.
AIVA generated several musical ideas for him to work with, but ultimately it was Brad's musicality that pieced them together, making note changes and orchestration decisions along the way.
In practical terms, taking issue with AIVA is also taking issue with loops and construction kits.


----------



## Leon Portelance (Jul 2, 2019)

Jean John said:


> Hello. My name is Jean John and I am a New York based classical and jazz composer. I signed up for this forum solely because I have been in shock ever since I received an email from AIVA and was vigorously searching through internet to find if this very very serious matter is being discussed anywhere. Luckily I found you guys.
> 
> To say that I am personally terrified is an understatement. I have contacted many composing groups already and warned them to not share any information until many more regulations are being presented. Music is human and should stay human. Please do not share any information about your creative process with AIVA, believe me, you worked too hard to get where you are, sharing your creative process for artificial intelligence purposes is like shooting yourself not in the foot, but in your heart. This is the email I got:
> 
> ...



No worries, everything I have heard composed by AI is garbage.


----------



## Heinigoldstein (Jul 2, 2019)

Will it bring input to a composer ? If you're in a rush, maybe, if it somewhen gets beyond the crap in this video. Sorry if this sounds too harsh, but it makes me angry listening to this.....music ?

To me the huge danger is, that it will lead to the point, where the stock music market will be even more flooded with trillions of ugly, tastless and boring tracks. And since it can be produced that fast and cheap, people, companies and who ever needs music will pay less and less for real music. But artists need to be paid too. But in the end, you won't stop this kind of AI I'm afraid. And actually yes, it started with loops and construction kits already. It's more collaging than composing very often. But I'm old fashioned,


----------



## VinRice (Jul 2, 2019)

Ach. The fear on display in this thread is really quite depressing. It's a tool, and not a very good one at the moment. Like all tools it is dependent on the user. If it makes it easier and quicker to make crap music, so what? That means it also makes it easier and quicker to make good music. In any profession workflows, tools, markets, expectations, fashions change all the time and its part of the job to keep up. If you can't do that, never mind AI, you're fucked anyway.


----------



## pinki (Jul 2, 2019)

"Home taping is killing music"
*C·30 C·60 C·90 Go!*


----------



## MartinH. (Jul 2, 2019)

Let me quote Siraj Raval:



> AI is going to eat every single industry, and change what it means to be human. It's all happening very very fast, either you understand it, or you don't. Which side do you want to be on? Same!



I have a little over 30 years till retirement. I estimate in 10 to 20 years we might see the first creative jobs get into serious trouble, maybe sooner maybe later, no one knows for sure. I started looking into deep learning and I want to have the skills to be able to find new employment in that field of work, if/when my current skillset is no longer in demand.

If I was 20 to 30 years older, I wouldn't care so much, but I'm afraid I might live long enough to see a time where many others will _wish _they had cared sooner.

I hope I'm wrong about this!


----------



## Heinigoldstein (Jul 2, 2019)

VinRice said:


> Ach. The fear on display in this thread is really quite depressing. It's a tool, and not a very good one at the moment. Like all tools it is dependent on the user. If it makes it easier and quicker to make crap music, so what? That means it also makes it easier and quicker to make good music. In any profession workflows, tools, markets, expectations, fashions change all the time and its part of the job to keep up. If you can't do that, never mind AI, you're fucked anyway.


Well, you're a robot anyway


----------



## VinRice (Jul 2, 2019)

Heinigoldstein said:


> Well, you're a robot anyway



Bleep...


----------



## David Cuny (Jul 2, 2019)

averystemmler said:


> You can look at the machine, see the copyrighted input, and see the process by which it became an infringing output.


The assumption here is that it becomes "infringing output" by virtue of using copyrighted input. Not all elements of the input are under copyright, and elements can be reassembled in ways that the output isn't recognizable.

Also, the process may be understood, but the actual details may be so complex that it's not possible to easily trace the mechanism by which the final output is assembled.

if I were a professional composer, what I would find more worrisome is the ability to apply pattern matching to existing works. This lets publishers to more easily discover "infringing" works, much like tech companies weaponized their patent portfolios. This is already happening to some degree on YouTube.

Imagine a world where you had to "prove" your composition was original enough to receive copyright by submitting it to publisher's databases. If your work were found infringing, you've be required to assign a proportional amount of your rights (and profits) to the copyright holder.

That seems to be the general direction we're heading in.


----------



## MartinH. (Jul 2, 2019)

David Cuny said:


> Imagine a world where you had to "prove" your composition was original enough to receive copyright by submitting it to publisher's databases. If your work were found infringing, you've be required to assign a proportional amount of your rights (and profits) to the copyright holder.
> 
> That seems to be the general direction we're heading in.



I'd love to have a thing that let's me conveniently check what I might be unintentionally infringing on and protect me from potential future lawsuits if it doesn't cost too much. The alternative is a pure gamble and never being sure you're not gonna get sued because you happened to find the same melody as someone else.


----------



## David Cuny (Jul 2, 2019)

MartinH. said:


> I'd love to have a thing that let's me conveniently check what I might be unintentionally infringing on and protect me from potential future lawsuits if it doesn't cost too much.


There's no guarantee against lawsuits, because there's no minimum number of notes, and copyrighted elements of a musical composition can include melody, chord progression, rhythm, and lyrics. Even a chord progression can be copyrighted, assuming it were "creative" enough.

So if a publisher has enough material, _everything_ new is infringing.

The tech companies eventually built large portfolios of basic patents that created a sort of mutually assured destruction standoff against patent battles.

Similarly, a searchable database of public domain songs might be useful to protect against lawsuits where a trivial part of a composition was claimed to be infringing.

Just some more (dystopian) thinking.


----------



## charlieclouser (Jul 2, 2019)

Back in 1984-85, a college classmate of mine was a computer scientist and musician, and we were both in NYC for the summer. He was working for Laurie Spiegel at the time, and was writing a simple program that would compose music algorithmically as part of his dissertation. We had the dystopian idea to get his program running on the college's mainframe, churning out every possible combination of notes and chords, and uploading them constantly to the copyright office (although no such capability existed back then).

Then, once our body of copyrighted works reached critical mass, we would establish "The Ministry of Music" and claim ownership of every possible combination of rhythm, melody, and harmony, requiring the entire human race to pay us for the rights to engage in any musical activity.

Sounds like that might be about to come true....


----------



## lp59burst (Jul 2, 2019)

I think it's much more likely the we'll slowly, over time, become so accustomed to AI music that we will start to prefer it to human created music.

Call it the "_boiling the frog_" hypothosis of musical evolution (or _devolution_ - you pick the noun)...

It will start slowly with catchy "_can't get it out of your head_" jingles in commercials, on websites, and in video games; places where you're not focused on the music but it's there subliminally chipping away... then, gradually, in bits-and-pieces, being transitioned into more mainstream entertainment vehicles like radio, TV, movies, Indie venues like Youtube, Twitch, etc... then before you know it you'll be humming an AI song all day long that you can't get out of your head... or, then again, maybe not...


----------



## chocobitz825 (Jul 2, 2019)

Ugh these conversations about AI are so boring. Music has been shitty, uninspired and full of basic plagiarism long before AI came along. People need to stop acting like humanity is some well of creative perfection. Out of all the music in the world only some of it is truly great. The rest is people trying to copy that greatness, or purposefully being shitty in opposition to greatness.

As a performer and songwriter, I know AI will be coming for my job. Tough shit. Every industry faces this and the smart people learn to adjust.


----------



## Markus Kohlprath (Jul 2, 2019)

Jean John said:


> Hello. My name is Jean John and I am a New York based classical and jazz composer. I signed up for this forum solely because I have been in shock ever since I received an email from AIVA and was vigorously searching through internet to find if this very very serious matter is being discussed anywhere. Luckily I found you guys.
> 
> To say that I am personally terrified is an understatement. I have contacted many composing groups already and warned them to not share any information until many more regulations are being presented. Music is human and should stay human. Please do not share any information about your creative process with AIVA, believe me, you worked too hard to get where you are, sharing your creative process for artificial intelligence purposes is like shooting yourself not in the foot, but in your heart. This is the email I got:
> 
> ...


To me this is a bit like: “please tell us about your relationship with your girl friend. We are about to create a puppy that can take the place as a life partner for other people. We want to know as much as possible about relationships to make the experience for our customers as pleasing and useful as possible.” For those that are happy with puppies maybe interesting. Will it be the end of sex life and relationships as we know it? I doubt it. Real people will stay far more interesting for most of us. No matter how smart and superhuman our puppies will be. And so is music as a language from humans to humans for me.


----------



## Mike Fox (Jul 2, 2019)

charlieclouser said:


> Back in 1984-85, a college classmate of mine was a computer scientist and musician, and we were both in NYC for the summer. He was working for Laurie Spiegel at the time, and was writing a simple program that would compose music algorithmically as part of his dissertation. We had the dystopian idea to get his program running on the college's mainframe, churning out every possible combination of notes and chords, and uploading them constantly to the copyright office (although no such capability existed back then).
> 
> Then, once our body of copyrighted works reached critical mass, we would establish "The Ministry of Music" and claim ownership of every possible combination of rhythm, melody, and harmony, requiring the entire human race to pay us for the rights to engage in any musical activity.
> 
> Sounds like that might be about to come true....


Sounds like a horror movie!


----------



## barteredbride (Jul 2, 2019)

I think I would much prefer the robots to just come and violently destroy and wipe out the human race, than to be harmless and come and do all the like, cool stuff.


----------



## chocobitz825 (Jul 2, 2019)

Markus Kohlprath said:


> To me this is a bit like: “please tell us about your relationship with your girl friend. We are about to create a puppy that can take the place as a life partner for other people. We want to know as much as possible about relationships to make the experience for our customers as pleasing and useful as possible.” For those that are happy with puppies maybe interesting. Will it be the end of sex life and relationships as we know it? I doubt it. Real people will stay far more interesting for most of us. No matter how smart and superhuman our puppies will be. And so is music as a language from humans to humans for me.


 Japan’s kind of doing that though...lol


----------



## InLight-Tone (Jul 2, 2019)

These tools will never be more than an assistant to the process of composing, like Rapid Composer, to automate some of the grunt work, like show me the 24 ways to modulate to X key. I have explored algorithmic tools for a while and the results almost always suck. I'd be better off working out the note sequences myself. Especially in the case of melody, these tools sound completely INHUMAN...

After watching some of the videos this is really a testimony to Brad as a HUMAN for taking a VERY rough idea, like a bad improvisation, and polishing it into marketable music, (except for the mixing mastering in many cases).


----------



## averystemmler (Jul 2, 2019)

David Cuny said:


> The assumption here is that it becomes "infringing output" by virtue of using copyrighted input. Not all elements of the input are under copyright, and elements can be reassembled in ways that the output isn't recognizable.



While you're right, and I expect there'll be many outputs that won't resemble anything in particular, we were discussing a scenario in which there'd already been an accusation of infringement. It wouldn't be so much by "virtue of using the copyrighted input" - because you can certainly study copyrighted material without infringing on it - but rather a case in which the AI had already misused the copyrighted input.

To expound: I hear AI-composed music that sounds suspiciously similar to my latest hit - maybe it's the melody, the "feel", etc. I sue. The AI's input is examined, and my music was a source. That sounds more difficult to defend than a human composer in a similar situation.

Of course I'm sure it gets muddied when there are multiple sources, or when the AI starts to become what a jury could call creative. Who knows where that line is. I'm really curious how/if we (and the law) will adapt to AI ingenuity. It sounds like Star Trek, but maybe we'll see it in our lifetimes.


----------



## Markus Kohlprath (Jul 2, 2019)

barteredbride said:


> I think I would much prefer the robots to just come and violently destroy and wipe out the human race, than to be harmless and come and do all the like, cool stuff.


Most of the other species on the planet would prefer that too I suppose.


----------



## gyprock (Jul 3, 2019)

Markus Kohlprath said:


> To me this is a bit like: “please tell us about your relationship with your girl friend. We are about to create a puppy that can take the place as a life partner for other people. We want to know as much as possible about relationships to make the experience for our customers as pleasing and useful as possible.” For those that are happy with puppies maybe interesting. Will it be the end of sex life and relationships as we know it? I doubt it. Real people will stay far more interesting for most of us. No matter how smart and superhuman our puppies will be. And so is music as a language from humans to humans for me.


If they modelled the puppy on a particular girlfriend I had in the past, the result would be a fire breathing cross between a wolf, Tasmanian devil and a velociraptor.


----------



## colony nofi (Jul 3, 2019)

oh wow oh wow. This is quite the topic. Ripe for quite strong opinions - showing that amongst us pro/semi-pro/hobbiest composers there is a vast amount of ground between our views. I'm hoping it doesn't descend into a dichotomy... the grey is far more interesting and potentially important. 

Rather than going too deep into things all in one go... just a few little observations. I might get round to writing more later.

Regarding the copyright. There is no doubt. The piece linked a few pages back is infringing copyright according to the legal frameworks in Australia. I might even send this link to a musicologist in the UK to get his opinion as well from the UK / EU standpoint. Just because I'm interested.
*EDIT: Of course it isn't. I stupidly was comparing that AIVA piece to an earlier version of the same AIVA piece - not Willaims Rey. Label your files folks. Let my embarrassment be a lesson to you! 
*
I'm indeed interested enough to send it to a bunch of solicitors to see if any would like to create a test case. Why? Because the legal framework around these things is important. If the company wants to survive, they need to bend to the will of the law. And the law needs to look at what it thinks is important for society / composers / tech companies etc. I'm not sure the law (at least here) has had a chance to look at something like this.
Its somewhat difficult for the company given that although they operate (and are legally setup) in a particular jurisdiction, their product is available for folk to use all around the world. And different regions have very different legal frameworks around this stuff. Even on the fair use of the material that the AI is being trained on.

One could potentially lobby for a legislative framework which assigns composers a right to have their output NOT used to train an AI. Or the opposite could occur. This is not as far fetched as it sounds. There are all sorts of legal opinions / research going on around data usage / massed data usage (second derivative use / big data plays) which people far more intelligent than me are working on right now. There's whole new social sciences being created here in australia (the 3Ai institute at ANU comes to mind as does some very interesting projects from the law dept at Syd Uni) and projects looking at framing data usage and societies attitudes toward it. This may seem a long way from what is happening here, but this software is using data to train the AI. Society is now just starting to come to grips with what data use really means. And legal frameworks are being considered. This is going to have massive, long reaching effects on shaping society. There are huge players involved. Big tech co's are lobbying hard to enable an "anything goes" type situation. Other folk are rebutting that actively. 

We will see how this plays out in many of our lifetimes. Some will undoubtably become clearer even in the next 2 or 3 years. GDPR in EU is just a start. Govt regulation is being heavily debated in almost all western regions. Conferences are being held all around the world around AI use, data use etc. Its not all fait accompli. Even if there are many who don't care - who just want to see what happens, there are others who are deeply concerned for what these tech changes mean for society as a whole. There will be the inevitable political differences between the right and the left on this in terms of regulation, but we've already seen both sides coalesce around some of the issues (and essentially place themselves against the position of anarchists and libertarians and the like.)

Edit : One final little thought. The cat is out the bag in regards to AI being useful for many many projects that we might not even have dreamed about 10 or 20 years ago. However, it is far from settled how we (society / law / governments / communities) will interact with it. How much we will allow. Where lines will be drawn. And this is very much happening in our neighbourhoods right now. Get involved if you want. Just look up things like the ODI, or the Open Data Conference, or Data Rights, or ...


----------



## Mike Fox (Jul 3, 2019)

barteredbride said:


> I think I would much prefer the robots to just come and violently destroy and wipe out the human race, than to be harmless and come and do all the like, cool stuff.


Mother nature might do that before the robots do.


----------



## Holden Sandman (Jul 4, 2019)

colony nofi said:


> Regarding the copyright. There is no doubt. The piece linked a few pages back is infringing copyright according to the legal frameworks in Australia. I might even send this link to a musicologist in the UK to get his opinion as well from the UK / EU standpoint. Just because I'm interested.



Great post, but which piece are you referring to?


----------



## Uncle Peter (Jul 4, 2019)

YaniDee said:


> When I think of the time, money and effort we've all spent on our craft and passion, the idea of an app doing a passable job of it, is quite discomforting..


Most 'composers' don't actually put in nearly enough effort! One benefit of AI is that it will raise the bar and should encourage more complex or innovative composition from the humans.


----------



## Tanuj Tiku (Jul 4, 2019)

I saw one video from Aiva and it does not feel like a very innovative or creative tool in terms of the music. There is probably complex technology working behind the scenes to generate that but the results are not great. And most importantly, it pushes no boundaries.

It seems to me that it has to be commercially driven to satisfy a mass market appeal - an OK sounding, very obvious choice of melodies and arrangement. In it's current form, it is more tedious to work with for musicians who know what they are doing. Hardly anything innovative in terms of the music.

It is faster and better to just put down your own ideas. So, perhaps a 10 second McDonalds advert with lots of voice over may be satisfied by some options from this software, it doesn't seem to do much on a more advanced level.

I am very sure that in the future, such software will absolutely be used by in-house music departments to quickly take care of hundreds of small adverts, YouTube videos and marketing. In fact, I think some are already using it. Good for them. For 30 EUR per month, they can own the copyright forever too 

This is going to save them a lot of money for sure and that is probably the primary reason it is being built. At least, this software.

Good composers can come up with extremely fast solutions and options on the spot. In fact, media composers who interact with directors and producers routinely have to do this on a daily basis!


----------



## colony nofi (Jul 4, 2019)

Holden Sandman said:


> Great post, but which piece are you referring to?


Aiva - Artificial Intelligence Composition: beta starting today


----------



## colony nofi (Jul 4, 2019)

Oh - and even though it might seem its so far off from what we composers are usually thinking about, it seems like legal minds I've spoken to are VERY interested in what it means to have your music used to train an AI.
Public performance is a very defined thing. Different countries have different legal frameworks around this.
But whether or not it is ok to use the output of spotify / a CD recording etc to train an AI is something that is interesting to these folk. And has ramifications for all sorts of uses of machine learning + AI in the future (and not just music AI).

I'm looking forward to hearing about where some of these conversations head. I'm lucky enough to know a few people who are involved with interrogating these kinds of ideas - and at the very least it will make for some interesting conversations - and who knows where else it may lead.


----------



## NYC Composer (Jul 5, 2019)

Screw AIVA. I’d rather quit than have my robot overlord write the music that I then edit.


----------



## chocobitz825 (Jul 5, 2019)

NYC Composer said:


> Screw AIVA. I’d rather quit than have my robot overlord write the music that I then edit.



there is no scenario where we win. For as long as music is a business, automation will win. Honestly anyone using VIs has no place to even talk about how bad it is for computers to take the work of people. Learn to work with the tech, or be replaced by it.


----------



## NYC Composer (Jul 5, 2019)

It can replace me. I’m 65, eminently replaceable. I could give a crap.

As to VI’s, sequencers, etc etc, I totally agree. Tech allowed me to profit and people lost work. They already came for me in other ways, but all I’m saying is I have no desire to “learn to work with (that) tech.” Not appealing to me. I’ll drive Uber til self driving cars replace IT, become a barista before kiosks replace THEM. Are there no workhouses?


----------



## chocobitz825 (Jul 5, 2019)

NYC Composer said:


> It can replace me. I’m 65, eminently replaceable. I could give a crap.
> 
> As to VI’s, sequencers, etc etc, I totally agree. Tech allowed me to profit and people lost work. They already came for me in other ways, but all I’m saying is I have no desire to “learn to work with (that) tech.” Not appealing to me. I’ll drive Uber til self driving cars replace IT, become a barista before kiosks replace THEM. Are there no workhouses?



Thats fine. I suppose the problem is for everyone else left in the industry. We can all be against the change, but if we intend to stay in the industry we have to adjust...or get out of it completely once we're obsolete. If i had to deal with AI becoming the norm, I'd rather be a part of helping it to grow in ways that make the experience better, rather than just trust it to people who only came into AI for the money.


----------



## gyprock (Jul 5, 2019)

At least Monsanto, now owned by Bayer, haven’t yet invested in music AI and it’s intellectual property . If they did, every piece of music to be written henceforth will be owned by them. If you are caught whistling any melody whatsoever in your backyard, you will be violating their property rights and you will go straight to jail.


----------



## MartinH. (Jul 5, 2019)

colony nofi said:


> I'm looking forward to hearing about where some of these conversations head. I'm lucky enough to know a few people who are involved with interrogating these kinds of ideas - and at the very least it will make for some interesting conversations - and who knows where else it may lead.


Thanks, keep us posted!



colony nofi said:


> Public performance is a very defined thing. Different countries have different legal frameworks around this.
> But whether or not it is ok to use the output of spotify / a CD recording etc to train an AI is something that is interesting to these folk. And has ramifications for all sorts of uses of machine learning + AI in the future (and not just music AI).


I once read _"There is no 'AI', only someone else's Data"_


----------



## NYC Composer (Jul 5, 2019)

Hey, is Aiva gender-fluid?


----------



## mikeh-375 (Jul 5, 2019)

chocobitz825 said:


> there is no scenario where we win. For as long as music is a business, automation will win. Honestly anyone using VIs has no place to even talk about how bad it is for computers to take the work of people. Learn to work with the tech, or be replaced by it.


Brutal, but true. I will always write music only _I_ hear and that will be with my own angst, strife, passion and wits, but I am old school. It's a brave new world, where everyone's a composer, or are they?


----------



## Holden Sandman (Jul 5, 2019)

colony nofi said:


> Aiva - Artificial Intelligence Composition: beta starting today



There are two areas of law that may apply. One being Copyright Act 1968 the other being Competition and Consumer Act 2010.

The application of musical influence vis-à-vis the copying of portions or samples was tested in the Federal Court of Australia. It has already been established in law that influence is not the same as copying. Men at Work lost in the case Larrikin Music Publishing Pty Ltd v EMI Songs Australia Pty Limited because the work, "Down Under" contained a copy (regardless of the instrument played or method of production) that was discernible to be infringing upon "Kookaburra Sits on the Old Gum Tree"

However this case was not a case where influence affected the outcome, it was copying a previous musical work and reproducing it in a new one where copyright protection still applied.

Providing a data set of influences to a deep learning algorithm that produces novel and original output would not meet the bar set in Larrikin Music Publishing Pty Ltd v EMI Songs Australia Pty Limited because an influence is not able to be copyrighted. You need a 'work' not an 'idea' copied to prove copyright infringement.

In the case of Consumer Law, unless you are representing that the work is original when it is not, or unless you represent that there are no royalties payable because they are, then this aspect of Australian law would also not affect the use of deep learning to create a novel composition.

The Men at Work case was decided based upon, in part, where a substantial portion of a work was appropriated. Kookaburra is 4 bars, Men at Work used 2 bars, it was substantial. It was also discernible to a non trained listener to be a copy of Kookaburra.

The work in the example provided by AIVA does not meet that threshold.



colony nofi said:


> I'm looking forward to hearing about where some of these conversations head. I'm lucky enough to know a few people who are involved with interrogating these kinds of ideas - and at the very least it will make for some interesting conversations - and who knows where else it may lead.



I am a 50% partner in an Australian business which deals with licensing, royalties and publishing. We have very good arts media lawyers. Although many things about deep learning and deep learning output may not have been tested at law yet, the factor of novelty is weighty when it comes to copyright law in publishing. It is not sufficient to show that "this song reminds me of" to prove copyright infringement.


----------



## gyprock (Jul 5, 2019)

Holden Sandman said:


> There are two areas of law that may apply. One being Copyright Act 1968 the other being Competition and Consumer Act 2010.
> 
> The application of musical influence vis-à-vis the copying of portions or samples was tested in the Federal Court of Australia. It has already been established in law that influence is not the same as copying. Men at Work lost in the case Larrikin Music Publishing Pty Ltd v EMI Songs Australia Pty Limited because the work, "Down Under" contained a copy (regardless of the instrument played or method of production) that was discernible to be infringing upon "Kookaburra Sits on the Old Gum Tree"
> 
> ...



Growing up in Australia I remember listening to radio broadcasts in infants school of “Kookaburra Sits on the Old Gum Tree".

All school kids used to sing along and the melody and lyrics were as common as apple pie or vegemite sandwiches. It was the musical equivalent of using the term “escalator”, originally a trademark but now in common usage.

Men at Work quoted this melody most probably as a result of a nostalgic memory. As a musician I saw it’s use nothing more than a quote similar to how a jazz musician would quote during an improvised solo.

I think you could have quoted from any Australian nursery rhyme and the song and it’s intent would not have been diminished. 

Unfortunately, when you ask a non musical jury whether something is similar or not, they will naturally say that it is similar. If the jury were made up of a broad range of musicians from academics through to practitioners, the result would have been different.

Personally I think the outcome was deplorable and shame on Larrikin for pursuing it.


----------



## Holden Sandman (Jul 5, 2019)

gyprock said:


> Unfortunately, when you ask a non musical jury whether something is similar or not, they will naturally say that it is similar. If the jury were made up of a broad range of musicians from academics through to practitioners, the result would have been different.
> 
> Personally I think the outcome was deplorable and shame on Larrikin for pursuing it.



I agree it was a fairly egregious use of the law to extract a monetary outcome from Men at Work, however the issues you describe of a trained vs untrained listener were tested in the appeal and the court found that copyright infringement occurred in any case.

It wasn't the Australian music industry's best day, however the case has set precedent and also clarified the difference between influence and copying which is probably very applicable to the discussion of the use of AIVA. 

AIVA produces novel, unique output. It might remind you of things but it's compositions don't meet the bar for infringement, not in Australia at least.


----------



## gyprock (Jul 5, 2019)

Holden Sandman said:


> I agree it was a fairly egregious use of the law to extract a monetary outcome from Men at Work, however the issues you describe of a trained vs untrained listener were tested in the appeal and the court found that copyright infringement occurred in any case.
> 
> It wasn't the Australian music industry's best day, however the case has set precedent and also clarified the difference between influence and copying which is probably very applicable to the discussion of the use of AIVA.
> 
> AIVA produces novel, unique output. It might remind you of things but it's compositions don't meet the bar for infringement, not in Australia at least.


Out of curiosity, if Charlie Parker was alive today (and Australian) and quoted 2 bars of a copyrighted melody during a 64 bar solo on a standard, do you think the same judgement would be reached?


----------



## Holden Sandman (Jul 5, 2019)

gyprock said:


> Out of curiosity, if Charlie Parker was alive today (and Australian) and quoted 2 bars of a copyrighted melody during a 64 bar solo on a standard, do you think the same judgement would be reached?



No, because the infringement needs to meet the bar of being substantial. There's some good blog articles written about the time of the judgement by the Federal Court, they're worth a read to understand how "substantial" was defined in the case.


----------



## MartinH. (Jul 6, 2019)




----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Jul 6, 2019)

NYC Composer said:


> Screw AIVA. I’d rather quit than have my robot overlord write the music that I then edit.



Tech bros with no soul. Totally offensive.

What kind of garbage person even thinks this up.


----------



## Holden Sandman (Jul 6, 2019)

Nick Batzdorf said:


> Tech bros with no soul. Totally offensive.
> 
> What kind of garbage person even thinks this up.



Someone once said something similar about Robert Moog.

The advent of commercially available synthesisers led to all sorts of similar reactions.

I really find it strange that on a "virtual instrument" forum people are so against the application of deep learning in music. It's exciting to witness the dawn of the most innovative music technology since the synthesiser.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Jul 6, 2019)

Holden Sandman said:


> Someone once said something similar about Robert Moog.
> 
> The advent of commercially available synthesisers led to all sorts of similar reactions.



Bad analogy!



> I really find it strange that on a "virtual instrument" forum people are so against the application of deep learning in music. It's exciting to witness the dawn of the most innovative music technology since the synthesiser.



This is to innovation what the atom bomb is to the hammer and chisel.

Eliminating human beings from the soul of humanity is anything but music technology.


----------



## Desire Inspires (Jul 6, 2019)

Nick Batzdorf said:


> Bad analogy!
> 
> This is to innovation what the atom bomb is to the hammer and chisel.
> 
> Eliminating human beings from the soul of humanity is anything but music technology.



Why do human beings have to be eliminated? Technology is here to serve humanity, not replace it. Only morons want to replace people with technology.

Humans are smarter than AI because they understand what intellect is and know how to apply it. So humans need to use AI to do menial grunt work like creating metadata. 

Humans can do all of the stuff that humans like. AI can be used to do all of the stuff that people do not want to do.


----------



## MartinH. (Jul 6, 2019)

Desire Inspires said:


> Humans are smarter than AI because they understand what intellect is and know how to apply it. So humans need to use AI to do menial grunt work like creating metadata.


If you read "thinking, fast and slow" by Daniel Kahneman, you too can learn in how many ways these statements are incorrect.


----------



## AllanH (Jul 6, 2019)

I think it's easy to dismiss the deep learning algorithms, but they are frighteningly good, especially with deep networks. As long as there is some "order to the madness", modern ML algorithms will find and make sense of it. I submit that most music follow some sort of abstract set of rules, and as such that can be found and duplicated. Whether the music it produces is interesting and/or good, is a different issue, but that same argument can be had with different human composers/songwriters.


----------



## Holden Sandman (Jul 6, 2019)

Nick Batzdorf said:


> Bad analogy!



I respect your opinion however I think that you're wrong. It's the perfect analogy.



Nick Batzdorf said:


> This is to innovation what the atom bomb is to the hammer and chisel.
> 
> Eliminating human beings from the soul of humanity is anything but music technology.



Humans are not eliminated with the use of Aiva as a tool, in fact the human element is more important than ever, to express the work that Aiva can help you compose.

It's interesting hearing all of the different opinions on this emerging technology, some people are horrified, some people are embracing it eagerly, opinions are wide ranging.

Deep learning is here, there are many examples of deep learning being used in music, one of the most high profile was Taryn Southern's album "I AM AI" which might not be to everyone's taste but provides a glimpse of the future which excites me.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Jul 6, 2019)

Holden Sandman said:


> I respect your opinion however I think that you're wrong. It's the perfect analogy.



Bob Moog invented a new instrument. This is being sold as a thing that writes the music for your productions so you don't have to pay royalties; you can use preset algorithms to create your own cliché shite music! Yay!

I see just a slight difference between the two.

And the fact that people react negatively to something else is irrelevant. Some people hated The Rite of Spring at first, some people got mad at Dylan when he used electric instruments instead of acoustic ones only... nothing to do with whether a tool that writes music for you is perverse.


----------



## chocobitz825 (Jul 6, 2019)

Nick Batzdorf said:


> Bob Moog invented a new instrument. This is being sold as a thing that writes the music for your productions so you don't have to pay royalties; you can use preset algorithms to create your own cliché shite music! Yay!
> 
> I see just a slight difference between the two.
> 
> And the fact that people react negatively to something else is irrelevant. Some people hated The Rite of Spring at first, some people got mad at Dylan when he used electric instruments instead of acoustic ones only... nothing to do with whether a tool that writes music for you is perverse.



the relevancy is in the fear of technology and the lack of respect for new technology. People outside of the realm of synth technology thought it was noise at first, and had no musical relevancy until it became the norm and people's skills became appreciated for it. Just look at sound design in pop music today. Its a skill, and many stuck in tradition think that its not. Its actually ironic since we seem to praise sound design in trailer music and film, but not in pop. 

Using a computer to simulate acoustic instruments was also the same case. People think its cheap, or cutting corners, or cutting humans out of something necessary for music. It's human ego that believes humans are necessary for artistic expression, and we're finding algorithms that may someday prove we're not needed. The reason we're not needed is because AI learns to do what we do with music. It learns from us, how to do what we do, but quicker and with better accuracy...we learn from other sources, we take those influences and mix them and turn them into something new. As AI learns what melody and harmony do to represent emotion, it will be able to do what we do. Still, even if it gets to that point, it doesnt mean we need to lie down and die. We can find ways to turn AI into a tool to help us push the boundaries even further. For the time being, AI still isn't creating absolutely new things. We have to keep feeding it things from our experience and knowledge. That may not always be the case, but it is for now, and thats where we can have fun seeing what our computer assistants are capable of with our guidance. 

Me, I'm all for it. Imagining something new is far greater than hearing a bunch of stuck up people talking about how beethoven was the best there ever was and will be....of course I acknowledge the greatness. I respect it and cherish it...but I refuse to accept that we'll never be better than something so far in our past.


----------



## Holden Sandman (Jul 6, 2019)

Nick Batzdorf said:


> Bob Moog invented a new instrument. This is being sold as a thing that writes the music for your productions so you don't have to pay royalties; you can use preset algorithms to create your own cliché shite music! Yay!
> 
> I see just a slight difference between the two.
> 
> And the fact that people react negatively to something else is irrelevant. Some people hated The Rite of Spring at first, some people got mad at Dylan when he used electric instruments instead of acoustic ones only... nothing to do with whether a tool that writes music for you is perverse.



If it's "shite" and "perverse" then it's not going to affect purists is it?

Just like being able to score orchestrations on a computer, have a virtual instrument play for a section because one hasn't mastered that particular instrument or sequence MIDI to a set of synthesizers or draw notes because one can re-arrange them and make them more musical. The purists will sit there with their paper scores and pianos, avoiding all use of technological tools that help them be more creative.

I am embracing the new tools. That's my choice. It's also a perfectly acceptable choice to dismiss it as "shite" or "perverse".


----------



## NYC Composer (Jul 6, 2019)

MartinH. said:


> If you read "thinking, fast and slow" by Daniel Kahneman, you too can learn in how many ways these statements are incorrect.


I read Michael Lewis’s “The Undoing Project” about Kahneman and Tversky. Fascinating stuff.


----------



## NYC Composer (Jul 6, 2019)

Holden Sandman said:


> If it's "shite" and "perverse" then it's not going to affect purists is it?
> 
> Just like being able to score orchestrations on a computer, have a virtual instrument play for a section because one hasn't mastered that particular instrument or sequence MIDI to a set of synthesizers or draw notes because one can re-arrange them and make them more musical. The purists will sit there with their paper scores and pianos, avoiding all use of technological tools that help them be more creative.
> 
> I am embracing the new tools. That's my choice. It's also a perfectly acceptable choice to dismiss it as "shite" or "perverse".


You’re a modern guy. That’s not necessarily a compliment, but it’s not necessarily a criticism. It just draws a line between you and I.

Do you embrace every part of modernity? Better ways to kill, a lessening of human empathy as the world grows more tribal? The widening of the income gap? Hysterical social media leading to the celebration of self and personal bubbles, hate groups?

Or...do you look at some pieces of modernity and think “hmmm. This might not be good, though it’s clearly the Next Big Thing”?

Though I’m semi-retired now (I write music practically every day anyway) I’ve been a professional musician since 1973, living on income produced only by playing, performing, writing, arranging, singing and recording music. Is that your only career as well, or do you have other options?


----------



## chocobitz825 (Jul 6, 2019)

NYC Composer said:


> You’re a modern guy. That’s not necessarily a compliment, but it’s not necessarily a criticism. It just draws a line between you and I.
> 
> Do you embrace every part of modernity? Better ways to kill, a lessening of human empathy as the world grows more tribal? The widening of the income gap? Hysterical social media leading to the celebration of self and personal bubbles, hate groups?



Though not directed at me, I think I want to call into question the comparison.

Better modern ways to kill compared to atomic bombs? Chemical warfare? No matter which way mankind has chosen to kill, it's always awful. The technology is the method, and we decide how far it goes, and we've done TERRIBLE things in the past with stones, arrows, bombs, and drones. Some of the biggest massacres are still far far far in the past before modern warfare.

Less empathy compared to the days of segregation and slavery? We call them hate groups today, but in the past, they were just everyday people expressing their hate as the norm of the day. They weren't even considered wrong for expressing their hate. Just because people have new ways to express their hatred and vanity now doesn't mean its something new to this generation. 

It's easy to say technology amplifies an appalling condition in people, but really those conditions have not changed, and we just have the tech to see them all now. We're burdened with the weight of billions of people in the world right in front of our eyes and its already overwhelming to us. Tech is just another way of coping. It won't fix anything or break anything. It is what we do with it.

Music will be no different. With new tech, some of us will make much better music, and some of us will make much worse music. Some people will consume 100% synthetic products, and some will demand authentic products made by people. If we try, we'll find out place in the mess.


----------



## NYC Composer (Jul 6, 2019)

Less empathy than in recent times.

It’s easy to say that social media amplifies things because it does, clearly, convincingly, appallingly. It also aggregates hateful people who would never have found each other and allows them to gather their shared bigotry, disinformation, confused and violent ideologies and ignorance and form into action-oriented units. 

Then there’s the easily done group shaming and bullying.

Of course, none of this has to do with music technology. It’s just me off on a polemical rant on the InterWeb!

You embrace the new musical robot overlords. That’s fine, embrace, embrace. We have differing opinions. Makes the world go round, but you’re not right-nor am I. It’s subjective.


----------



## Soundhound (Jul 6, 2019)

On balance I think we would be way better off if the internet had never been invented. But it was. You can't stop technological progress, but you can sure as hell stop progress.


----------



## MartinH. (Jul 7, 2019)

NYC Composer said:


> I read Michael Lewis’s “The Undoing Project” about Kahneman and Tversky. Fascinating stuff.


Never heard of that one, but sounds interesting. I'll check it out, thanks for the recommendation!




Soundhound said:


> On balance I think we would be way better off if the internet had never been invented. But it was. You can't stop technological progress, but you can sure as hell stop progress.


Impossible to quantify, but I don't think I'd go that far. I think there's a lot of good the internet has achieved, and much of the issues we're experiencing could have also been mitigated if advertisements were not used to monetize everything online, and if cameras were not easily accessible and affordable to everyone. You can still convey lots of knowledge with text only, but you'd have a hard time creating something like facebook or instagram without the "faces".


----------



## Holden Sandman (Jul 7, 2019)

NYC Composer said:


> I’ve been a professional musician since 1973, living on income produced only by playing, performing, writing, arranging, singing and recording music. Is that your only career as well, or do you have other options?



I'm in my early fifties, been a professional (composing and in bands) since my late teens and make my living from music.


----------



## colony nofi (Jul 7, 2019)

Holden Sandman said:


> In the case of Consumer Law, unless you are representing that the work is original when it is not, or unless you represent that there are no royalties payable because they are, then this aspect of Australian law would also not affect the use of deep learning to create a novel composition.
> 
> The Men at Work case was decided based upon, in part, where a substantial portion of a work was appropriated. Kookaburra is 4 bars, Men at Work used 2 bars, it was substantial. It was also discernible to a non trained listener to be a copy of Kookaburra.
> 
> The work in the example provided by AIVA does not meet that threshold.



Let this be my Mea Culpa. I stuffed up and have edited my earlier post to that effect! Of course, it doesn't infringe. I stupidly had a file labeled wrong and was comparing the Aiva piece to (drum roll) another version of the Aiva piece I had been sent a little while ago. 
People - LABEL things properly. (Or don't use copy/paste when changing file names!)

Anyway - nice to see these discussions continuing...


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Jul 7, 2019)

chocobitz825 said:


> the relevancy is in the fear of technology and the lack of respect for new technology.



SUVs are big. That elephant is big. Therefore that elephant is an SUV.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Jul 7, 2019)

Holden Sandman said:


> If it's "shite" and "perverse" then it's not going to affect purists is it?



Great argument! You managed to combine several logical fallacies in one insult.


----------



## chocobitz825 (Jul 7, 2019)

Nick Batzdorf said:


> SUVs are big. That elephant is big. Therefore that elephant is an SUV.



Aah, I see what you’re doing. Oddly, in your analogy, if we were to just consider their mass, if you got hit by either the impact would probably feel the similar. So you might consider them quite the same there.

Anyways, it’s fine. None of us will ever agree on anything here completely. Some people will fear this tech. some people will dislike it. Some won’t care. It’s fine. My main point is that no matter how you feel about it, it’s inevitable. If technology continues to progress, AI is part of it. So rather than debate how it makes us feel, I’d rather we determine how we intend to work with/around this inevitable technology.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Jul 7, 2019)

chocobitz825 said:


> it’s inevitable



No more so than milking machines will inevitably replace sex with humans.

Art history, obviously including music history, is human history - an expression of the times. Even the most commercial crap is intended to communicate something. This bypasses what music is all about.



chocobitz825 said:


> Oddly, in your analogy



The analogy is about faulty logic, not mass.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Jul 7, 2019)

Music is a highly evolved artform that has been passed on for dozens of generations. It's the soul of humanity.


----------



## chocobitz825 (Jul 7, 2019)

Nick Batzdorf said:


> Music is a highly evolved artform that has been passed on for dozens of generations. It's the soul of humanity.



Well someone has been selling out the soul of humanity for about a century now for massive profits...I think this is the peak of arrogance in the music community, that we feel it is so pure and essential to the human experience. It wasn't always this big a thing for everyone, and we fool ourselves when we act as it means to humanity what it means to us as people in the art/business of music. 

All art is being influenced by tech and AI. Most people don't care because if they're not passionate about it, they're just casual consumers of the product of art. doesn't matter how evolved or how long these things are passed down through the generations. The average consumer doesn't care. Your mum's favorite recipe is now in a box in the freezer section. Clothing made by hand to express culture and history is now easy to make with a machine. The stories written down by hand to be cherished for generations are now CG filled movies from Disney. Most people really don't know, and don't think its that bad.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Jul 7, 2019)

chocobitz825 said:


> I think this is the peak of arrogance in the music community



See, I believe it's *not recognizing that* that's the peak of arrogance.

Anticipating your response, I have absolutely nothing against commercial music - on the contrary, I like being as filthy a slut as possible.


----------



## NYC Composer (Jul 7, 2019)

I’ve always enjoyed being a music prostitute. I just liked it better when I was a higher priced hooker.


----------



## purple (Jul 7, 2019)

*It's coming, you can't stop it, and it will be better than all of us at its job. You'd better figure out how to use it to your advantage or be left behind.*

This is pretty much a theme in any industry nowadays. Automation and AI _will_ replace _most_ jobs we know today. How we choose to work around or with this increasing automation will lead either to Star Trek or to Mad Max. Take your pick. 

You can choose to ignore it, believing that robots simply can't do what you can, until they do. And then you're out of a job because the robot is cheaper and faster and easier to work with. You can also choose to work with the tech. Become a pioneer in its use, just like Hans Zimmer did with sampling in film music.


----------



## NYC Composer (Jul 8, 2019)

purple said:


> You can choose to ignore it, believing that robots simply can't do what you can, until they do. And then you're out of a job because the robot is cheaper and faster and easier to work with.



Putting on my songwriter/singer/producer hat for a moment, how's AIVA coming along with the Dylan-esque lyrics, a charismatic and cool presence, a voice that cuts through the herd? How's AIVA doing with trashing hotel rooms, swilling Jack Daniels, writing hip hop lyrics about hard times and street life? Will AIVA be strumming an acoustic guitar and making guys 'n girls swoon with its sensitivity?

Switching to my scoring hat, how about actual film spotting? Will AIVA be watching film, discerning the right mood? Will AIVA be subtle or will it go Mickey Mouse? Will it go Scandi or thematic when analyzing the emotional content of the film...do you think AIVA will be having heart to hearts with directors over too many cognacs at the Viper Room, discussing the heartbreaks and vicissitudes of life? Will AIVA care? Will directors?

Will AIVA be speaking directly to the musicians on the scoring stage (assuming there are any left?) Will it be exhorting them towards higher highs, lower lows? Will it conduct and inspire?

I really should decaffeinate.


----------



## purple (Jul 8, 2019)

NYC Composer said:


> Putting on my songwriter/singer/producer hat for a moment, how's AIVA coming along with the Dylan-esque lyrics, a charismatic and cool presence, a voice that cuts through the herd? How's AIVA doing with trashing hotel rooms, swilling Jack Daniels, writing hip hop lyrics about hard times and street life? Will AIVA be strumming an acoustic guitar and making guys 'n girls swoon with its sensitivity?
> 
> Switching to my scoring hat, how about actual film spotting? Will AIVA be watching film, discerning the right mood? Will AIVA be subtle or will it go Mickey Mouse? Will it go Scandi or thematic when analyzing the emotional content of the film...do you think AIVA will be having heart to hearts with directors over too many cognacs at the Viper Room, discussing the heartbreaks and vicissitudes of life? Will AIVA care? Will directors?
> 
> ...


I didn't mean specifically AIVA. We don't still use punch cards in our laptops. But the tech will get there. _Objects in the mirror are closer than they appear. _There's nothing magical about biological brains that cannot be outsourced to a collection of highly specialized learning machines.


----------



## chocobitz825 (Jul 8, 2019)

purple said:


> I didn't mean specifically AIVA. We don't still use punch cards in our laptops. But the tech will get there. _Objects in the mirror are closer than they appear. _There's nothing magical about biological brains that cannot be outsourced to a collection of highly specialized learning machines.



I’ve heard of many projects beyond the scope of aiva that are generating 100% new voices, and faces. Other deep learning algorithms that are learning what certain musical patterns imply to listeners. Already younger audiences have grown used to music produced by computers in ways that are too perfect for humans. Auto-tune, quantized tracks etc. it’s those little things that change the industry as generation by generation hire accustomed to the change. People look at aiva in beta and laugh, but they don’t even realize how many huge companies like adobe are getting in the game with more money and more progress.


----------



## Vik (Jul 8, 2019)

Sorry if this has been written earlier - the thread is long already – but I fail to understand why a composer would join a beta test team for a product which in many ways will influence the future towards using compositions used by machines instead of compositions created bu humans.


----------



## Holden Sandman (Jul 8, 2019)

Personalised music experiences for your personality and mood that can only be scaled by AI.

In just a few short years deep learning music has become sophisticated, delightful and surprising. Aiva is leading the pack in bringing that to composers and consumers.

In the future, imagine having your own personal sound track tailored to your mood, your current activity, your bio feedback, all provided to you from an app with super high quality audio streamed to your other devices.

Hate to break to to purist composers but your music you worked hard to compose, perform, record, master and mix is being streamed from Spotify to an Alexa Dot or similar device. If it isn't then you're missing a huge part of the emerging market.

Take that a step further, an app predicts your mood, your biological state, the time, whether you are running, walking, going to sleep. It provides sensory geographical, biological, time, habitual and mood based data to a deep learning or AI system which then immediately provides you a stream of music that matches your preferred genres (many of which probably don't exist yet) that continually evolves during listening based on other data including biological data from your smart watch.

It's an exciting time for music and those artists who explore these emerging technologies will have input into the evolution, have the chance to create audiences on platforms far different from an aggregating music streaming service and also have the ability to participate in the future of musical expression itself.

Every person with access to a smart watch, smartphone, smart speaker or smart tv will have access to unique, personalised experiences that they can either passively enjoy or actively direct. This is exciting stuff, it's become a passion of mine as a musician and visual artist.

It horrifies some people, I get that. The idea of everyone with commonplace technology having their own personal music experiences, their own music, uniquely theirs is impossible to scale with the model of composer, compose music, release and hope someone listens. The iPod put 1000 songs in your pocket, in the future everyone will have their own personal composer in their pocket. The world is changing and it's fantastic.


----------



## chocobitz825 (Jul 8, 2019)

Vik said:


> Sorry if this has been written earlier - the thread is long already – but I fail to understand why a composer would join a beta test team for a product which in many ways will influence the future towards using compositions used by machines instead of compositions created bu humans.



Because if you're part of the beta, you might be able to make sure it is designed with composers in mind. Made for them, rather than to purely replace them. You can help influence the design so that it maintains the core things you find important in music. Without the input and concerns of professionals, and enthusiasts, it will be made 100% with the consideration of profit in mind (not speaking to AIVA in particular but other similar AI projects.)


----------



## Vik (Jul 8, 2019)

chocobitz825 said:


> You can help influence the design so that it maintains the core things you find important in music. Without the input and concerns of professionals, and enthusiasts, it will be made 100% with the consideration of profit in mind


And with composers joining in with free consulting, it will both become a better product and more profitable - which again will contribute to increased use of AI-based compositions in the future. 

And I'm not a 'purist' composer. I don't mind using toys and tools in the process of music making which challenges my habits, speeds up the process or offer tools which will make composition on a computers as intuitive and flexible as sitting with a piano and try out several different voicing or chords just by lifting my finger and pressing down another key than I just did. Dorico, Sibelius, Logic.... they all have a lot of potential to improve here, and the kind of progress I'm talking about is hardly happening at all. 

The words play (as un playing an instrument) and play (as in having fun with toys or "engage in activity for enjoyment and recreation rather than a serious or practical purpose") are the same, and IMO the DAWs and notation apps should focus more on that. After all - a lot of the music which is being made today sounds A LOT not only like other music that is being created today, but also like RAP, hiphop and EDM music made a years ago. And the same goes for the classical process; many composers try to imitate the great old masters, while others try hard to sound 'contemporary'.

The thing which interests me with the most with music and composition/songwriting as 'the human touch'. If I, in 10 years from now, will realise that I can push a button n my phone and have a real time Bach like composition being generated with samples or synthesis/modeling and sound very much like the real thing, I'd still rather hear a good piece written by a human. And play by a human. The fact that every example I've herd of AI generated compositions sound very artificial only means that there's still a food market for human composers, and still long before the AI compositions will be so good that they will start to replace composers for film/TV/game music etc. That makes me happy, and I'm not going to contribute to change that situation. And if a composer/song writer struggles with coming up with something good, and additionally won't spend time on learning more about music, or playing, or improvising/song writing etc... so be it. Then maybe he/she should keep trying, or do something else. But a solution where composers help machines to replace themselves isn't something I want to be a part of.


----------



## chocobitz825 (Jul 8, 2019)

Vik said:


> And with composers joining in with free consulting, it will both become a better product and more profitable - which again will contribute to increased use of AI-based compositions in the future.
> 
> And I'm not a 'purist' composer. I don't mind using toys and tools in the process of music making which challenges my habits, speeds up the process or offer tools which will make composition on a computers as intuitive and flexible as sitting with a piano and try out several different voicing or chords just by lifting my finger and pressing down another key than I just did. Dorico, Sibelius, Logic.... they all have a lot of potential to improve here, and the kind of progress I'm talking about is hardly happening at all.
> 
> ...




Fair enough...but I think people approach these things ignoring one major part. As we age, we become less relevant to the market, as do our tastes. What we make with AI today will likely reach its bigger potential as we’re all being aged out of the market by a new generation of young consumers and creators who have far different tastes than us. Of course, we who were raised on the human touch prefer it in the same way some might prefer vinyl to digital. What we know we tend to prefer. I have 3 kids and they are being raised in an age where the digital touch is standard. When they become teenagers and young adults, that will be the sound they know and will likely prefer and consider the best. How I feel about music at that time, the market will not care. My time will have passed and I’ll have to be either accepting of my inevitable irrelevancy, or bitter and unsatisfied with where things are going. We can let this tech progress with input from mostly EDM and trap producers guiding the way, or we can pass on the knowledge of our generation and ensure that our experience is not forgotten when the winds change.


----------



## Holden Sandman (Jul 8, 2019)

Vik said:


> Sorry if this has been written earlier - the thread is long already – but I fail to understand why a composer would join a beta test team for a product which in many ways will influence the future towards using compositions used by machines instead of compositions created bu humans.



To be a part of it, to help shape it, to be honest to exploit it. I've always been experimental, so this stuff excites me.



NYC Composer said:


> Putting on my songwriter/singer/producer hat for a moment, how's AIVA coming along with the Dylan-esque lyrics, a charismatic and cool presence, a voice that cuts through the herd? How's AIVA doing with trashing hotel rooms, swilling Jack Daniels, writing hip hop lyrics about hard times and street life? Will AIVA be strumming an acoustic guitar and making guys 'n girls swoon with its sensitivity?



I don't see the advent of deep learning replacing a dark smoky room, small crowd, drinks at the bar, and the performance of music composed and performed by humans. In fact each Friday and Saturday night for the next three weeks I am doing just that with my band. Small bars and pubs, 100 to 500 people, live, raw, fun. There's a solid little market in vinyl also, we sell vinyl at our gigs, it always sells out.

Just because there's something new doesn't mean everything else is suddenly rendered to nothingness. However the artists making traction, be in in a packed bar of 200 people or an arena, are the ones who can hook into the transactional nature of attention. When I was a teenager we had TV and our weekly music program, we had live bands and gigs, the local record shop, local music acts that became national and sometimes global music acts in a relatively confined record label system.

Now attention has fragmented, we have Netflix, Spotify, Facebook, Twitter and so forth. We have democratised platforms like YouTube and SoundCloud. Attention is a commodity, you may not like it but it is, the artists captivating large audiences are the ones who tap into that commodity.

Some artists are here for five minutes, some are here for five decades or more. In each and every case, the artists who have tapped into the commodity of attention succeed. To keep doing that inevitably you need to explore and experiment with the new, the scary, the different, the future.

Aiva won't stop me doing gigs with my band in bars in Melbourne or elsewhere. We will sell our vinyl while it sells. We will keep doing the stuff we started doing in 1982. Despite all that I'll also be reaching out for new experiences, new ways of working, new explorations of technology just as I did when I worked two jobs to buy a Pro One.


----------



## gyprock (Jul 8, 2019)

It’s interesting that with all the tools available including AI no one is producing “better” than the classical masters who only had a quill and pot of ink. Likewise there are no bands that match the Beatles even though infinite track mixing software is available to all.

Also the grounding of an entire fleet of airliners would not have been necessary if pilots could just do the job they were trained for rather than handing over the task to an inferior AI flight system.

The potential of AI is fantastic but it needs to be used as an assistant rather than the master.


----------



## Vik (Jul 8, 2019)

This thread is maybe mainly populated by members on this forum which are interested in AI composing or beta testing AI composing software, and I'm certainly not going to jump into some fight with any of that – whatever floats your/their boat.

"As we age, we become less relevant to the market, as do our tastes."
That depends on which market you're talking about. If you're 70 and want to make EDM music and don't like EDM music, of course you are less relevant - and may also have other issues.  With all due respect, I struggle to see how that sentence I just quoted is relevant to the topic of helping a company making their AI composing software better.

"What we know we tend to prefer."

Something more must be wrong with me, then - I've always wanted to explore new music, new people, new food and so on; stuff I don't know. One of the first really interesting books I read was actually called 'Freedom from the known'. 

"I have 3 kids and they are being raised in an age where the digital touch is standard. When they become teenagers and young adults, that will be the sound they know and will likely prefer and consider the best."

There's probably more that's wrong with me - generalisations don't just work for me. I grew up listening to something else than what was mainstream when I was a teenager, and so does my teenager son.

If the future generations prefer AI based music – and also prefer to buy a music making app which composes for them rather than actually playing or making music or rather than using an app they can use for making their own music, then that's their loss.

"We can let this tech progress with input from mostly EDM and trap producers guiding the way, or we can pass on the knowledge of our generation and ensure that our experience is not forgotten when the winds change."

All this is already happening, in parallel with each other and with other elements. I'm quite convinced that in some decades the music many young people listen to today will sound as silly to future generations as we and our kids thing that a lot of the music from a few decades ago was strange/comical/unintentionally funny. They will wonder if we all were insane since so many popular songs for so long time used that massively exaggerated auto-tune effect, and ask their grandparents "did you really think that was cool back then?". I truly don't care about others' taste or about 'the market', or whether someone considers me or you or 20 year olds that agree with me or you as irrelevant or un-interesting. My interest in music has nothing to do with sales numbers, market, trends... it's about something else than, or even _opposite_ of all that.



Darius said:


> The AI's are coming - join them


No way. Humans are gradually becoming un-necessary in many areas of life, and robots are taking over. I don't want to help humans becoming superfluous and ignored in important areas like, art, music, passion, love... you know - what matters in life. Let the robots pay our bills for us and help us with directions on our phones - technology can of course be useful – but please, let humans do the really important and interesting/enjoyable stuff.


----------



## chocobitz825 (Jul 8, 2019)

Vik said:


> No way. Humans are gradually becoming un-necessary in many areas of life, and robots are taking over. I don't want to help humans becoming superfluous and ignored in important areas like, art, music, passion, love... you know - what matters in life. Let the robots pay our bills for us and help us with directions on our phones - technology can of course be useful – but please, let humans do the really important and interesting/enjoyable stuff.



But what if thats exactly what it allows us to do? What if it frees us from the soul crushing tedious jobs, and instead allows for a new system that encourages people to study, explore, experiment and create? 

Quality is subjective but how many more active creators do we have in the world now? If you have a smart phone you can make a film, make music, make art, study any of the topics in the world that inspire you. What if we just didn’t need to slave away at the boring things in life that often block people from their goals? Let the machines do the hard labor, and let the machines make the thoughtless mainstream mess. Real people can focus on whatever inspires them and create for an audience made accessible to them by technology. It’s idealistic of course, and capitalism may inspire more vanity and shallow forms of expression, i get that risk. I’m optimistic though. I’ve heard so many incredible indies artists these past few years, that blow away anything in mainstream pop. They have no more than a few thousand listens on Spotify, but their music is classic, even if they’re not famous. An algorithm introduced these rare artists to me on a platform that lets them gather more fans around the world than they could ever hope to land in their small town life. 

These EZ do tools in various forms of art made art accessible to people who other wise would have had very small chance of getting into the door. Art is no longer for the elite. I cant even count how many YouTube documentaries are far better done and are more thought provoking than big studio projects. A lot of the world’s recent creators are also creators by necessity. With prospects shrinking in the job market, they brand themselves, start a business, and use their art to try and make a living. 

Who knows? It could go either way, but every time some kid picks up a smartphone and a music app, I see it is a potential spark for something great.


----------



## Vik (Jul 8, 2019)

chocobitz825 said:


> But what if thats exactly what it allows us to do? What if it frees us from the soul crushing tedious jobs, and instead allows for a new system that encourages people to study, explore, experiment and create?


It's great that new technology allows more people to create music, art, documentaries etc. What I'm talking about is a different topic; a situation where someone generates products where computers start composing, writing stories and so on. Humans have feelings, we sense things, we can be inspired - and we're therefore capable of creating something from a different perspective than computer software has when it composes or writes a short story. If symphonies and rock songs should be written by computers. they'll be different than they are when being written by humans.


----------



## Holden Sandman (Jul 8, 2019)

Vik said:


> If symphonies and rock songs should be written by computers. they'll be different than they are when being written by humans.



How will you tell the difference?


----------



## purple (Jul 8, 2019)

Vik said:


> It's great that new technology allows more people to create music, art, documentaries etc. What I'm talking about is a different topic; a situation where someone generates products where computers start composing, writing stories and so on. Humans have feelings, we sense things, we can be inspired - and we're therefore capable of creating something from a different perspective than computer software has when it composes or writes a short story. If symphonies and rock songs should be written by computers. they'll be different than they are when being written by humans.


Who's to say artificial intelligence cannot become advanced enough to feel as well?


----------



## purple (Jul 8, 2019)

Vik said:


> Sorry if this has been written earlier - the thread is long already – but I fail to understand why a composer would join a beta test team for a product which in many ways will influence the future towards using compositions used by machines instead of compositions created bu humans.


Because I'd rather be at the cutting edge of the industry than yelling at the young whippersnappers down the street


----------



## NYC Composer (Jul 8, 2019)

I want to start a band called "The Old Whippersnappers".


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Jul 8, 2019)

purple said:


> This is pretty much a theme in any industry nowadays. Automation and AI _will_ replace _most_ jobs we know today.



50% is the highest guess I've read - and I did a lot of research into this a couple of years ago for a story I was working on. So that should mean half of us can sit back and have an easy life while the robots do all the work, right? There's no danger of ten people owning all the robots while the rest of us starve.



In any case, even if it were 99%, that doesn't mean you can replace expressing the human soul with a piece of crap software program.



purple said:


> There's nothing magical about biological brains that cannot be outsourced to a collection of highly specialized learning machines.



See, to me that's the most bizarre idea imaginable - and I know you're not the only one who actually believes that!

Imagine an animal other than a human that understands what a machine is. Can you imagine it thinking that?

Of course not! Every animal understands that our bodies and minds aren't separate things!


----------



## purple (Jul 8, 2019)

Nick Batzdorf said:


> In any case, even if it were 99%, that doesn't mean you can replace expressing the human soul with a piece of crap software program.



Maybe you can't replace the actual feeling, but can anybody but the creator tell the difference? Would anybody other than the creator care? Even if others did, would directors and producers care? They already don't!


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Jul 8, 2019)

By the way, my story was called The Robot Evasion - because it's just that, an evasion of the real problems we're facing today.

Listen, you people who are justifying this disgusting excuse for a program are working way too hard.

Using algorithms to come up with interesting lines is one thing; using algorithms to generate crap music is offensive.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Jul 8, 2019)

purple said:


> Maybe you can't replace the actual feeling, but can anybody but the creator tell the difference? Would anybody other than the creator care? Even if others did, would directors and producers care? They already don't!



Yes, everyone including the creator can sense the difference.

You may have noticed that narrowcasting (i.e. streaming, as opposed to broadcasting) is here and we're in the golden age of television. I'm not naive enough to believe that shite TV is going away, but only shite directors and producers don't care about quality.

That aside... we'll all be dead and gone in a few decades. May as well satisfy ourselves while we're here.

By the way, fuck that program.


----------



## Tacet (Jul 8, 2019)

I can't wait for the first all-AI bands to hit stadiums and theaters.

The skynettes
The rap-licants
Andy Roid and Max Headroom

Something to look forward to.


----------



## NYC Composer (Jul 8, 2019)

Tacet said:


> I can't wait for the first all-AI bands to hit stadiums and theaters.
> 
> The skynettes
> The rap-licants
> ...


Do Androids Dream of electronic A.I. Music?


----------



## chocobitz825 (Jul 8, 2019)

I would love to get a poll of how many people, mainly professionals actually spend their time doing original work. How many commercial jobs actually let you just go at it with no reference and no "please give us a song that sounds like this person's song"? I still see AI taking that work. The jobs that require mimicking something else. 

Will AI someday create new unique masterpieces with no references and just its knowledge of theory and what programmers have told it about human emotion? Maybe...but if it does, it's not like it's taken someone's real job. Its creations will still have to pass the test of consumption. Even if it makes great music, people will always have preferences. 

Maybe I'm wildly optimistic about tech, and way too pessimistic about humans. Still, in my experience as a professional, I often find people making uninspired redundant crap on the commercial level. The best music I hear these days is still the stuff by people who don't care if it sells, and who just want to make what's in their hearts. For them, AI can't replace them any more than a pop powerhouse like Ed Sheeran or Taylor Swift could. 

Be unique, and you shouldn't have to worry about this on a creative level. As professionals pushing out regurgitated crap for audiences who don't care about quality, or for companies who selected their musical requests based on marketing data? Yeah, we *might* lose that job...


----------



## Tacet (Jul 8, 2019)

NYC Composer said:


> Do Androids Dream of electronic A.I. Music?


Of course!
And when future film composers knock it out of the park with their A.I. generated cues, they'll get this from the director.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Jul 8, 2019)

chocobitz825 said:


> How many commercial jobs actually let you just go at it with no reference and no "please give us a song that sounds like this person's song"? I still see AI taking that work. The jobs that require mimicking something else.



Ah, but good musicians write *good* soundalikes.

The obvious example is John Williams out-Wagnering Wagner (and others).

No I won't post it  but even I've written at least one blatantly paraphrased cue that I like better than the original!


----------



## purple (Jul 8, 2019)

In its current form, it's shaping up to be a useful tool in the next few years for people with large (commercial, mostly) work volumes or library composers. Eventually, the features and interface might make it possible for directors and marketing people to get hands-on with it, at least those that are somewhat music-savvy. I would not be surprised if the vast majority of commercial, trailer, and library music is 90% A.I. composed within a decade. No, they won't be hiring AIVA for star wars episode 16 most likely, but just as samples made it cheaper for low budget films to afford a good score, AI composition will make it even more so, probably at the expense of some jobs. I'd rather adapt to use the tech as a tool and maybe eventually an assistant than try to explain to a director why the b-flat I wrote in measure 4 has more soul in it than the one the robot wrote.

I mean, imagine churning out a career's worth of library music in a year or less. Even if only a few of those tracks are successful, that's enough to justify using the software. For simple, upbeat background music or generic epic action tracks...I have no doubt this will be a viable option. Those who adopt and take advantage of this stuff earlier will reap more benefits.


----------



## chocobitz825 (Jul 8, 2019)

Nick Batzdorf said:


> Ah, but good musicians write *good* soundalikes.
> 
> The obvious example is John Williams out-Wagnering Wagner (and others).
> 
> No I won't post it  but even I've written at least one blatantly paraphrased cue that I like better than the original!



That’s fine, but that assessment is subjective and still sidesteps the fact that writing a “soundalike” is not the peak of originality or artistic expression. It’s something AI would eventually be able to do as well, and people might end up feeling the way you do...that the soundalike is better than the original. our ability to copy and expand on previously established work is absolutely something AI can and will do. So again, I think completely original works based solely on the desire to express one’s emotions are a place where humans can take be replaced. I don’t know if that’ll pay the bills, but at least humans will be doing true art rather than the business of art.


----------



## colony nofi (Jul 8, 2019)

There's something to be said for stopping and trying to understand each others points of view, rather than simply giving our own, hoping that will change someones mind.
I personally feel this strongly in a conversation such as this, where there is tonnes of misinformation, where understanding of the underlying tech is generally thin, where conceptual ideas over artform and purpose are being trivialized, minimized, misunderstood (perhaps rightly?!)

This topic is like the tip of the iceberg of what might be facing society in the next 20 years. Its interesting that it occurs in an area many thought would come much later (creativity!) 
Now, substitute the word creativity for work - and conversations change a lot. It just so happens that a lot of folk here WORK in the world of creativity. (What that even means from a philosophical point of view fills books. What that means for markets, power, subjugation, future work, well being, and ultimately humanity in general will need to be grappled with. But should the conversations change a lot? Especially in an age when "work" is so highly prized yet not necessarily understood.

One thought bubble I'd like to throw out.

Why do we see anything as inevitable? Is it acceptance of market forces? Is it fear? There's arguments to be made that technology advances are not unable (deliberate double negative) to be better thought about and administered (regulated) by custodians. New thought frameworks and therefore societal attitudes happen over time all the time. Technology is moving quickly, and perhaps quicker than we see frameworks / societal attitudes move in general. But there are tonnes of people who are not throwing their arms in the air saying "it is what it is" or "what can I possibly do" and actively engaging with ML, AI, Big data (all so related) and looking at how we as citizens can shape it rather than it being prescribed "because its technology and we can't control it"

Companies will not LIKE it when it interferes with their golden egg. But humans and citizens and govts understand the need for humans to play a role in their world that makes for effective communities - works for making humanity as a whole better. Some companies will work with these ideas and others will not. Humanity is more important than business. More important than data. Human connection. 

(Insert your own paragraph on power here - especially in regards to government and mega business / monopolies. Or I'll dig out some books...)

So what?

Good question. I have my own personal feelings on where things will head / what it means, but right now I'm a little more interested in hearing as many points of view as possible. I'm well aware that I'm only here for a short part of where these things will eventually lead humanity. I'm not sure I can grasp all that, but hope for my daughter to be able to participate in shaping it for the good of the world, whatever that means.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Jul 8, 2019)

chocobitz825 said:


> That’s fine, but that assessment is subjective and still sidesteps the fact that writing a “soundalike” is not the peak of originality or artistic expression. It’s something AI would eventually be able to do as well, and people might end up feeling the way you do...that the soundalike is better than the original. our ability to copy and expand on previously established work is absolutely something AI can and will do. So again, I think completely original works based solely on the desire to express one’s emotions are a place where humans can take be replaced. I don’t know if that’ll pay the bills, but at least humans will be doing true art rather than the business of art.



I disagree with pretty much everything there, but other than that I agree. 

And no, I'm not sidestepping anything. AI sucks whale dingus.

(EDIT: I should say it sucks whale dingus when it's being abused. There are certainly good uses for it!)


----------



## colony nofi (Jul 8, 2019)

So here's a thing I briefly touched on a few pages back - but worth perhaps expressing a bit stronger.

Now I'm using info for Australia here, but I'm sure due to relationships thru other FTA's etc, there's something similar in other countries / regions. 
Australian law gives copyright owners (be it the copyright in sound recordings or in the music composition) *exclusive rights* regarding the use of their music.

A business needs to obtain permission from copyright holders of BOTH the recordings and the work in order to use them for *any purpose.
*
(emphasis mine)

Training an AI is a purpose. It is a business activity which has (likely) NOT been granted a license for this use. Feels like an interesting rabbit hole to go down to me...

Sure - we may let this happen thru publishing agreements and the like (how many of us have publishing agreements with wording that essentially lets our publishers negotiate these kinds of things without our knowledge / our consultation) but I'm pretty sure these negotiations haven't happened yet. Given these same publishing houses are trying to own the publishing rights to music generated by AI (I know at least three big ones that are right now) - yet they are meant to be looking after the interests of the composers who write for them as well... I'll just leave this one here hey? 

Also - lets actually talk about the use of our compositions for other businesses gains.


----------



## chocobitz825 (Jul 8, 2019)

colony nofi said:


> Why do we see anything as inevitable? Is it acceptance of market forces? Is it fear? There's arguments to be made that technology advances are not unable (deliberate double negative) to be better thought about and administered (regulated) by custodians. New thought frameworks and therefore societal attitudes happen over time all the time. Technology is moving quickly, and perhaps quicker than we see frameworks / societal attitudes move in general. But there are tonnes of people who are not throwing their arms in the air saying "it is what it is" or "what can I possibly do" and actively engaging with ML, AI, Big data (all so related) and looking at how we as citizens can shape it rather than it being prescribed "because its technology and we can't control it"



I dont mean to imply that inevitable means that we have no impact, say, or influence. I just mean that when a technology comes in that stands to improve quality of life or drive a new financial incentive, society gradually tends to move toward it until future generations accept it as just the norm. There are few cases of society regressing from one superior technology to an inferior one. If anything most times the replacement comes in the form of something different of equal or greater value. 

AI isn’t just about music. As its spread out throughout society for a number of incredibly useful purposes, it will eventually find its place in music as well. What if, for example, the portable device you had could determine your mood and a musical AI could create the soundtrack to your life. Every day, a new musical composition for you and you alone. A musical snapshot that instantly would spark memories of moments in your life. People wouldn’t just engage music on the consumer level, they would feel it on a purely emotional level. This isn’t a job that exists, so no one loses from this application. Will some major big money players try and us AI to outsource the creative work we do? probably, and some big companies will likely abuse AI forcing reforms and limitations on its use. As has been presented here, the legal guidelines dont even fully exist to determine how far AI will go. 

Still for the lifetime of most of us, there is potential for AI to help us speed through boring tasks. Maybe its creating melodic phrases, or maybe its just interpreting the piece you’ve written and applied real-time performance, or even suggested new alternatives to work you create. Maybe AI notates your midi written songs accurately, and automates various processes leading up to live performances and recording. There are so many places where we can step in and help make AI work for us, rather than against us.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Jul 8, 2019)

chocobitz825 said:


> AI notates your midi written songs accurately



That's been working pretty well for a good 30 years. You still have to clean it up a little, but every sequencer can put dots on a stave and get close to the rhythms.

I'm not sure whether that qualifies as AI, but it's quite different from writing the music for you.


----------



## chocobitz825 (Jul 8, 2019)

Nick Batzdorf said:


> That's been working pretty well for a good 30 years. You still have to clean it up a little, but every sequencer can put dots on a stave and get close to the rhythms.
> 
> I'm not sure whether that qualifies as AI, but it's quite different from writing the music for you.



Writing music for you is one application, that might lead to more practical and unique applications. Instant rearrangements for different ensemble sizes. Maybe automated arrangement ideas around a motif and chord structure you’ve set. (Orb composer does that to a degree). Maybe some software will analyze your work and tell you if it’s too similar to already established works. Maybe it takes a body of your own work and analyzes your writing style so it can auto generate quick cues that you can fine tune. There’s many ways it will likely play out because many people have skin in the game. More reason to be involved in the development so it does the things you want it to do. If you don’t want AIVA just writing random crap for you, then how about participating and letting them know the things you would want an AI assistant to do within your workflow that is valuable to you, but doesn’t overstep the boundaries.


----------



## Holden Sandman (Jul 8, 2019)

colony nofi said:


> So here's a thing I briefly touched on a few pages back - but worth perhaps expressing a bit stronger.
> 
> Now I'm using info for Australia here, but I'm sure due to relationships thru other FTA's etc, there's something similar in other countries / regions.
> Australian law gives copyright owners (be it the copyright in sound recordings or in the music composition) *exclusive rights* regarding the use of their music.
> ...



As I understand it Aiva was trained on the work of composers long since dead and produced long before the concept of copyright existed, therefore if you take the original work of Bach, Mozart and so on then copyright does not apply on the underlying musical work and therefore there is nobody to make a rights claim.

In his TED talk, Pierre Barreau says that Aiva was trained on over 30,000 scores of history's greatest composers. Providing copyright has expired and these scores are in the public domain then that's the final chapter and verse of the copyright issue.


----------



## colony nofi (Jul 9, 2019)

Holden Sandman said:


> As I understand it Aiva was trained on the work of composers long since dead and produced long before the concept of copyright existed, therefore if you take the original work of Bach, Mozart and so on then copyright does not apply on the underlying musical work and therefore there is nobody to make a rights claim.
> 
> In his TED talk, Pierre Barreau says that Aiva was trained on over 30,000 scores of history's greatest composers. Providing copyright has expired and these scores are in the public domain then that's the final chapter and verse of the copyright issue.



Unfortunately they're not just focused on scores/works that are in the public domain. The earlier piece highlighted used Williams to train the AI... and in usage they allow anyone to upload a midi file. (Perhaps that is putting the responsibility onto the user - but that's not cut and dry either). If they were purely doing pieces inspired by out of copyright music - sure. I get your point. 

I also have looked at 3 other such engines in the works (two not public as far as I know) and in one case they're not training it from MIDI but from audio files - of common works... which for me throws up red flags. Even if this is just internal research, it still seems to be breaking copyright law to me.

There's also copyright in whoever made the midi that they've used...if they indeed have had permission to make the midi in the first place. (in the US at least, midi has at times been classified as a digital recording for the purposes of the court.) Now of course if the original piece is in the public domain, great! But I don't think these companies are going to be satisfied with that.


----------



## MartinH. (Jul 9, 2019)

chocobitz825 said:


> What if, for example, the portable device you had could determine your mood and a musical AI could create the soundtrack to your life. Every day, a new musical composition for you and you alone. A musical snapshot that instantly would spark memories of moments in your life. People wouldn’t just engage music on the consumer level, they would feel it on a purely emotional level.


That would probably be used to drive purchasing behaviour by more targeted "pulling on emotional strings", when people are at certain stores or looking at certain websites.



chocobitz825 said:


> If you don’t want AIVA just writing random crap for you, then how about participating and letting them know the things you would want an AI assistant to do within your workflow that is valuable to you, but doesn’t overstep the boundaries.


I've heard compelling arguments that all the hightech workflows drive the old-school analog guys out of the creative roles in big productions and that is detrimental to the bottom line quality of the product. The argument was made for 3D graphics tools that were introduced in the last 2 decades (zBrush etc.), but in the context of discussing deep learning AI as tools for artists.


----------



## Holden Sandman (Jul 9, 2019)

colony nofi said:


> Unfortunately they're not just focused on scores/works that are in the public domain. The earlier piece highlighted used Williams to train the AI... and in usage they allow anyone to upload a midi file. (Perhaps that is putting the responsibility onto the user - but that's not cut and dry either). If they were purely doing pieces inspired by out of copyright music - sure. I get your point.



Uploading an influence is different from training.

Uploading an influence just asks the already trained AI model to be biased toward the influence uploaded, influence (at least in Australia) is not able to be copyrighted, there's already legal precedent.

It's the input training data that is important here, if that's public domain then the copyright question is closed.


----------



## chocobitz825 (Jul 9, 2019)

MartinH. said:


> That would probably be used to drive purchasing behaviour by more targeted "pulling on emotional strings", when people are at certain stores or looking at certain websites.
> 
> 
> I've heard compelling arguments that all the hightech workflows drive the old-school analog guys out of the creative roles in big productions and that is detrimental to the bottom line quality of the product. The argument was made for 3D graphics tools that were introduced in the last 2 decades (zBrush etc.), but in the context of discussing deep learning AI as tools for artists.



I'm curious to know what it is about "high tech" that makes it so prone to claims of diminished quality? where is that cut off in the history of tech? To classic musicians and composers that had to suffer through the invention of radio and the record player, was the quality of that tech superior to going out and seeing a real ensemble play live? Did music become better or worse with the application of EQ and compression? Did Pro Tools kill music? 

It's a bit hyperbolic, but every generation seems to fight change, and the next generation defends it until their norm becomes outdated, so I'm trying to understand when music officially was killed by technology. It's a very old regurgitated line. What academic standard sets the quality of music? While we sit here condemning the concept of AI music, we might find that in another 50 or so years, academia might be studying it in depth and teaching about how new complex musical concepts were born from it. Wouldn't be the first time.


----------



## MartinH. (Jul 9, 2019)

chocobitz825 said:


> I'm curious to know what it is about "high tech" that makes it so prone to claims of diminished quality?



Check out this video:


And go to this video, but scroll way down in the comments till you see one by "Carlos Huante" and read that entire comment thread. It's quite long but imho well worth it:


You don't really need to watch the second video to understand what they're talking about, though it's interesting to see some hands on examples of what current tech can already do.




chocobitz825 said:


> It's a bit hyperbolic, but every generation seems to fight change, and the next generation defends it until their norm becomes outdated, so I'm trying to understand when music officially was killed by technology. It's a very old regurgitated line. What academic standard sets the quality of music? While we sit here condemning the concept of AI music, we might find that in another 50 or so years, academia might be studying it in depth and teaching about how new complex musical concepts were born from it. Wouldn't be the first time.



Imho it's a little more nuanced than "*** was killed in 19** by ***".


I'm not gonna put much energy into fighting the change, because it's pointless for me. I wouldn't even make a dent. I'll try and adapt, and already have downloaded an example implementation of pix2pix and made some experiments training it on image data most relevant to my own field of work. When I have time to get back to it again, I'll start experiments on modifying it and trying out different approaches, trying other models, getting better understanding of the potential and limitations of the current tech. But if I find something cool/useful, I'll just keep it for myself. I refuse to rush this inevitable change along, because I still think it's gonna have devastating consequences for all creative industries that can't even remotely be foreseen.
I perfectly understand and share the fascination for the implementation side of it, and I hope to have an in-demand programming skillset when/if my old job gets pushed out of the market by AI, but I can't bring myself to have much optimism for the situation at large. Basically hoping for the best, but bracing for the worst...


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Jul 9, 2019)

chocobitz825 said:


> I'm curious to know what it is about "high tech" that makes it so prone to claims of diminished quality? where is that cut off in the history of tech?



Is anyone arguing that?

Remember, pretty much every tool in human history can be used and abused.


----------



## chocobitz825 (Jul 9, 2019)

MartinH. said:


> Check out this video:
> 
> 
> And go to this video, but scroll way down in the comments till you see one by "Carlos Huante" and read that entire comment thread. It's quite long but imho well worth it:
> ...




Completely fair, and I agree to Mike Verta’s point that tech gives choice but that does not equate to skill. I suppose I do challenge the standards of skill. It’s a problem I have with academia and art and relates to the comments from Carlos.

It’s potentially sinister because it gives the same abilities to people with less skill than the old guard. Others in the comments say it’s “art WORK” and talk about how they worked to get their skills and people with lesser skills using new tech can take the work from more experienced people. This perspective never considers how hard and/or impossible it was for people to even get those skills before now. Whether people were locked out for prejudicial justifications, or whether it be financial or just the fact that the things they wanted to do were not widely accepted as art at the time. I agree with the comment that says this turns art into a democracy. Which goes back to my point about the subjective nature of “quality”. People say the quality has gone done, but if the consumers continue to sway toward the “lesser” product what does it really say about the market and the things people value? This is why I keep saying we’re arrogant to think people love music as much as we do. They don’t. Their buying habits show it. 

It’s a broad topic but I want to stick with AI. It might give people with no formal music education or experience the ability to make music..and some fear it might give them the ability to make masterpieces...and I still say, “so what?”. Why are we so threatened by more people enjoying music? If we can defend it as an emotional and human experience, then why are we criticizing people for having a human experience and feeling emotions just the because the source was influenced by a machine? On a
Professional level, yes it sucks to lose work, but again that’s why it’s important for musicians to influence how AI can become a better tool, rather than just a replacement. 

I don’t expect to change anyone’s minds here but I don’t see a reason to slow the progress of AI to protect the egos of analog/old school musicians. It’s a free market. If the market doesn’t value your skills, and goes for a cheaper alternative it shows you exactly what your skills and your sense of quality actually means to the market. Alternatively, if the point is about the purity of art being tainted, AI can not stop people from doing art. It would have literally no impact on people doing whatever art they choose. These argument always seem to end in the fear that people will lose the attention, respect or money for what they do, but we then mask the conversation in claims about purity of art, quality and tradition.

Anyways I appreciate the various perspectives and conversation. The curiosity People have on the topic is refreshing and some of the points against are interesting as well. When our robot overlords take over, I hope they’ll be gentle lol.


----------



## chocobitz825 (Jul 9, 2019)

Nick Batzdorf said:


> Is anyone arguing that?
> 
> Remember, pretty much every tool in human history can be used and abused.



“I've heard compelling arguments that all the hightech workflows drive the old-school analog guys out of the creative roles in big productions and that is detrimental to the bottom line quality of the product. “

I was responding to this ^


----------



## gyprock (Jul 9, 2019)

I see the continual rise of technology essentially averaging out the skill base. The untrained now have the tools to create something reasonable whereas the professionals are having their secrets revealed. This duality creates more competition for the professionals but also more work opportunities for the untrained. It just depends what side of the fence you are on.

Creative output from the untrained has also increased the diversity of what is considered acceptable or cool by the general public e.g. if a 4 bar loop behind a toothpaste commercial does the job, you don't need the skill level of John Williams to write a score for that commercial. Likewise, if it is acceptable to take a snap from your mobile phone and use if for a client's business card, you don't need a trained graphic designer and professional offset printer.

Where the skillset of the future (and today) lies is not in the tools but in the contacts and distribution channels. If you can quickly get your creative output into the hands of an audience, this is far more valuable from a financial career perspective than being able to write like Beethoven or John Williams in your bedroom.

We now live in a world where electricians get plenty of work but electrical engineers are out of work or where you have to pay a plumber a $90 call out fee just to come and look at your problem before any work even starts.

I saw an example where a legal (law) AI system solved a problem in 5 mins that took 4 paralegals 4 hours. The AI system also provided a fully documented solution with nearly every possible counter argument whereas the paralegals only provided one solution. So rather than go to university for 5 years to study law, save the money, buy the AI system and hire it out to a purchased database of paralegal contacts.

Or perhaps by a Komplete Kontrol M32 with Komplete 12 (all for less than $1,000) and then start building your database of TV commercial directors and producers. You will only need one finger to create output with the former but you will need 10 fingers to get on a computer keyboard to find the latter.


----------



## colony nofi (Jul 9, 2019)

Holden Sandman said:


> Uploading an influence is different from training.
> 
> Uploading an influence just asks the already trained AI model to be biased toward the influence uploaded, influence (at least in Australia) is not able to be copyrighted, there's already legal precedent.
> 
> It's the input training data that is important here, if that's public domain then the copyright question is closed.


Yes - I get your point. But its the *USE* of the work in a business context which is unclear. Just saying its an influence isn't a problem. However, uploading a version of a song - be it in midi form or as a wav file, and using it inside another piece of software - as a part of a business process, is potentially a problem. A little esoteric, but still important.

(And we could also talk LOADS more about influence in different territories outside of australia - or as in the case of the USA, the ability for production ideas/techniques/general "sound" to be tested in court and found to be in breach (although I've not kept up with the case I'm thinking about and I know it went to appeal...)


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Jul 11, 2019)

Remember Glassholes?

These would have been ass. Not hiney, buttocks, bum, arse - full-on ass:

https://www.macrumors.com/2019/07/11/apple-ar-glasses-reportedly-terminated-digitimes/


----------



## Desire Inspires (Jul 11, 2019)

gyprock said:


> I see the continual rise of technology essentially averaging out the skill base. The untrained now have the tools to create something reasonable whereas the professionals are having their secrets revealed. This duality creates more competition for the professionals but also more work opportunities for the untrained. It just depends what side of the fence you are on.
> 
> Creative output from the untrained has also increased the diversity of what is considered acceptable or cool by the general public e.g. if a 4 bar loop behind a toothpaste commercial does the job, you don't need the skill level of John Williams to write a score for that commercial. Likewise, if it is acceptable to take a snap from your mobile phone and use if for a client's business card, you don't need a trained graphic designer and professional offset printer.
> 
> ...




I’m unskilled so I use all the tools I can to compensate for that. It’s faster and easier to use tech than it is to learn how to do things the older way.


----------



## Mike Fox (Jul 11, 2019)

Desire Inspires said:


> I’m unskilled so I use all the tools I can to compensate for that. It’s faster and easier to use tech than it is to learn how to do things the older way.


What's interesting is that there are people who don't have the skills in the traditional sense, but they are incredibly efficient with the technology, which in turn becomes a skill in of itself. I seem to notice this more amongst younger people, probably because they grew being surrounded by ever-changing technology. That's just where they feel comfortable, so they hone their skills in that direction.


----------



## chocobitz825 (Jul 11, 2019)

Nick Batzdorf said:


> Remember Glassholes?
> 
> These would have been ass. Not hiney, buttocks, bum, arse - full-on ass:
> 
> https://www.macrumors.com/2019/07/11/apple-ar-glasses-reportedly-terminated-digitimes/




Currently
It’s just too hard to do well. Likely it needs next gen tech to work in a way that keep them small, portable and fast. I never got into glass, and I’m not crazy about the idea of AR glasses, but something will eventually take place of smart phones, and likely some combination of wearables will be the new norm. 

So yeah, probably would have been ass...but that ass is gonna come some day from one of the big companies.


----------



## MartinH. (Jul 11, 2019)

chocobitz825 said:


> but something will eventually take place of smart phones, and likely some combination of wearables will be the new norm.


Why? Until we're at brain-implant levels of technology I don't see anything being more practical and ergonomic than a roughly phone sized device that fits into a pocket.


----------



## chocobitz825 (Jul 11, 2019)

MartinH. said:


> Why? Until we're at brain-implant levels of technology I don't see anything being more practical and ergonomic than a roughly phone sized device that fits into a pocket.



My guess is the need for change will spark the change from smartphone. Maybe it will start with foldable tablet/smartphones when that gets ironed out. Already the smartphone market has hit a wall. You can add a new camera, and improve some of the internals, but overall not too much innovation is left in the current form. That stagnation leads to lowered sales and profit which means companies will keep trying to find the next big thing to hook people and their money.

We might not lose the form factor, but if they smooth it all out, maybe in the future the core of the processing won't be done on the "smartphone", but rather it would just be an ultra-thin glass display that syncs with another device that shoots data to your smartphone, watch and ar glasses, or whatever. Either way, I don't think companies will be satisfied with sticking to the smartphone after its decade long run is already showing signs of slowing down.


----------



## MartinH. (Jul 11, 2019)

chocobitz825 said:


> My guess is the need for change will spark the change from smartphone. Maybe it will start with foldable tablet/smartphones when that gets ironed out. Already the smartphone market has hit a wall. You can add a new camera, and improve some of the internals, but overall not too much innovation is left in the current form. That stagnation leads to lowered sales and profit which means companies will keep trying to find the next big thing to hook people and their money.
> 
> We might not lose the form factor, but if they smooth it all out, maybe in the future the core of the processing won't be done on the "smartphone", but rather it would just be an ultra-thin glass display that syncs with another device that shoots data to your smartphone, watch and ar glasses, or whatever. Either way, I don't think companies will be satisfied with sticking to the smartphone after its decade long run is already showing signs of slowing down.



You're not thinking like a cyberpunk-dystopia-worthy megacorp yet. In the future, they won't _need_ innovation. Something like the iPhone, will just be a subscription which includes the hardware. You'll pay 1000$+ per year to "have an iPhone", and the tech will continue to get meaningless incremental improvements and minor optical design changes. And if you lose your phone or break it, you'll pay an additional fee to get a replacement. And barely anyone locked into their ecosystem will break out of it, even if the alternatives are way cheaper and less orwellian.


----------



## chocobitz825 (Jul 11, 2019)

MartinH. said:


> You're not thinking like a cyberpunk-dystopia-worthy megacorp yet. In the future, they won't _need_ innovation. Something like the iPhone, will just be a subscription which includes the hardware. You'll pay 1000$+ per year to "have an iPhone", and the tech will continue to get meaningless incremental improvements and minor optical design changes. And if you lose your phone or break it, you'll pay an additional fee to get a replacement. And barely anyone locked into their ecosystem will break out of it, even if the alternatives are way cheaper and less orwellian.



i cant wait! lol


----------



## Digivolt (Jul 11, 2019)

MartinH. said:


> Why? Until we're at brain-implant levels of technology I don't see anything being more practical and ergonomic than a roughly phone sized device that fits into a pocket.



Smart glasses will be the next thing, after that comes neural interfacing with our minds, then after that comes the shedding of our physical form to ascend and live inside a glorified database 

AI is coming and is the future, we can either accept and work with it, or get left behind as it takes over regardless of how we feel about it.

One thing I will say however is I don't think it will ever replace humans when it comes to art, because AI cannot replicate the imperfections and subtle nuances in art which make perfection, it's why so many software emulations of hardware fail to truly replicate because the code cannot account for the random imperfections, there is no way to emulate true random, not at the moment anyway maybe with quantum technology it may be possible at some point


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Jul 11, 2019)

Mike Fox said:


> What's interesting is that there are people who don't have the skills in the traditional sense, but they are incredibly efficient with the technology, which in turn becomes a skill in of itself. I seem to notice this more amongst younger people, probably because they grew being surrounded by ever-changing technology. That's just where they feel comfortable, so they hone their skills in that direction.



No doubt, but it takes a whole lot more work to become a great musician, and it's exponentially more difficult and rare if you don't grow up playing an instrument.

I love technology for what it is, but to me there's no comparison between the two (which is why I'm glad I went to Berklee just before the digital revolution got going - I was able to pick up the toys later).

Now, someone will probably point to an exception to what I'm saying, but that will only prove the rule.


----------



## chocobitz825 (Jul 11, 2019)

Nick Batzdorf said:


> No doubt, but it takes a whole lot more work to become a great musician, and it's exponentially more difficult and rare if you don't grow up playing an instrument.
> 
> I love technology for what it is, but to me there's no comparison between the two (which is why I'm glad I went to Berklee just before the digital revolution got going - I was able to pick up the toys later).
> 
> Now, someone will probably point to an exception to what I'm saying, but that will only prove the rule.



If I could make one loosely related observation about this AI/Tech assisted digital generation that I found interesting....the current self proclaimed “producers”, DJs and beatmakers may have a very basic knowledge of musical theory and instrumentation, but it is interesting to see how many of them have very in depth, self-taught no less, understanding of frequency. They spend more time visualizing and arranging with an open virtual landscape, trying to match and manage frequencies in a way that is quite impressive. They may not think in “pitch” and complex harmony, but their sound design senses are worth some praise.


----------



## Mike Fox (Jul 11, 2019)

Nick Batzdorf said:


> No doubt, but it takes a whole lot more work to become a great musician, and it's exponentially more difficult and rare if you don't grow up playing an instrument.
> 
> I love technology for what it is, but to me there's no comparison between the two (which is why I'm glad I went to Berklee just before the digital revolution got going - I was able to pick up the toys later).
> 
> Now, someone will probably point to an exception to what I'm saying, but that will only prove the rule.


Being a great musician can mean a lot of things, and while formal training has it's place, a lot of people just don't need it to be great composers/musicians (while others greatly benefit from it, including myself!). Some people are just born with gifts, and think in abstract ways that formal methods of learning usually don't offer.

That's not a knock against formal education, because I'm willing to bet that most people would greatly benefit from being able to attend Berklee. 

I'll also add that what might be hard for one individual, may come quite easily for the next. Kurt Cobain and Paul McCartney pushed out masterpieces like it was nothing, yet most people who have all the formal education in the world can't come close to what they did.

It works both ways in the grand scheme of things, yet I completely understand that musicians like Kurt and Paul are the exception to the rule.

I think it's the people who are conventionally trained, as well as gurus in tech who are really going to bring some amazing results to the table. Mitis, for example has done some amazing things. I'm sure his music would not be nearly as good as if it wasn't for the fact that he's a classically trained pianist, or if he didn't have the tech thing down.


----------



## Mike Fox (Jul 11, 2019)

chocobitz825 said:


> If I could make one loosely related observation about this AI/Tech assisted digital generation that I found interesting....the current self proclaimed “producers”, DJs and beatmakers may have a very basic knowledge of musical theory and instrumentation, but it is interesting to see how many of them have very in depth, self-taught no less, understanding of frequency. They spend more time visualizing and arranging with an open virtual landscape, trying to match and manage frequencies in a way that is quite impressive. They may not think in “pitch” and complex harmony, but their sound design senses are worth some praise.


This is exactly what I'm talking about. These kinds of musicians think in ways that are much different than what they teach you in school. It's like a computer hacker vs someone who just graduated with a Masters in IT. Completely different wavelengths of thinking.


----------



## NYC Composer (Jul 11, 2019)

I got to go with Mike Fox here.

I rented a room for a few years in a studio complex and became pals with some of the pop and hip hop producers in other rooms. Their instrument is ProTools, and they are amazingly good with it. A few guys in particular were really good instinctual musicians and writers who used the technology (samples, editing, Autotune, effects, various softsynths etc) along with rudimentary keyboard (and sometimes guitar skills) to come up with pretty damn good pop productions very quickly. Also, I have old ears but these guys were seriously better mixers than I am.

OT-In the long run, one company there did buy a CRAPLOAD of legal software, but in general I was pretty disheartened by the joyful thievery.


----------



## Mike Fox (Jul 12, 2019)

When technology BECOMES the instrument.


----------



## LamaRose (Jul 12, 2019)

MartinH. said:


> Check out this video:




Mike always has good insights... second-guessing and excessive options can destroy the genius of spontaneity. Also, raising the bar of ignorance!


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Jul 12, 2019)

Mike Fox said:


> Being a great musician can mean a lot of things, and while formal training has it's place, a lot of people just don't need it to be great composers/musicians



Sure, I agree, but what I said has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not you have formal training. What I'm saying is that it's much harder to become a great musician than it is to be good at using technology (with the exception of engineering, especially mixing and mastering; some of those people are awe-inspiring).

Obviously I'm not sneezing at anyone's hard-earned skills, and even more obviously we all have different talents, strengths, and weaknesses!


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Jul 12, 2019)

chocobitz825 said:


> They may not think in “pitch” and complex harmony, but their sound design senses are worth some praise.



Again, yes. I'm just saying that not all skills weigh the same.

Also, someone mentioned Paul McCartney. Well, how many Paul McCartneys are there?! Never mind that the Beatles spent years in Germany playing 23 hours a today - he's as good a songwriter and performer as ever lived!

Edit: it was Mike Fox. Another thing: nothing wrong with Cobain, but... well, first of all, who knows whether he or McCartney pushed out music like it was nothing; I suspect it's a lot harder than it seems. But... we all have our taste, but I'd find it hard to place him anywhere near the same level as McCartney (or Lenon, or the Beatles).


----------



## Mike Fox (Jul 12, 2019)

Nick Batzdorf said:


> Sure, I agree, but what I said has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not you have formal training. What I'm saying is that it's much harder to become a great musician than it is to be good at using technology (with the exception of engineering, especially mixing and mastering; some of those people are awe-inspiring).
> 
> Obviously I'm not sneezing at anyone's hard-earned skills, and even more obviously we all have different talents, strengths, and weaknesses!


Well, you first need to define what being a "great musician" even means. I personally think this is a rabbit hole, and can be very subjective. For example, you have a hard time placing Cobain anywhere near McCartney, but there's a significant amount of people in the world who would strongly disagree with you. So who gets to decide what it means to be a great musician?

I'm also not sure if i totally agree that it's more difficult to become a great musician than it is to become great at using modern technology. That seems like somewhat of a blanket statement, but I feel like it's a grey area. Some people i know who are great musicians struggle with the technology side of things. Like you said, we all have different strengths, talents, etc. I just think it can go in either direction.

Regarding formal education, i thought you were trying to make the case that it's harder to become a "great musician" through that route than any other channel. Perhaps i read into it wrong?


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Jul 12, 2019)

Mike Fox said:


> Perhaps i read into it wrong?



Music is harder than using tools. That's all there is to read into what I'm saying!


----------



## Mike Fox (Jul 12, 2019)

Nick Batzdorf said:


> Again, yes. I'm just saying that not all skills weigh the same.
> 
> Also, someone mentioned Paul McCartney. Well, how many Paul McCartneys are there?! Never mind that the Beatles spent years in Germany playing 23 hours a today - he's as good a songwriter and performer as ever lived!
> 
> Edit: it was Mike Fox. Another thing: nothing wrong with Cobain, but... well, first of all, who knows whether he or McCartney pushed out music like it was nothing; I suspect it's a lot harder than it seems. But... we all have our taste, but I'd find it hard to place him anywhere near the same level as McCartney (or Lenon, or the Beatles).


That's why i said that they're the exception to the rule. 

Given the amount of hit songs that the Beatles were pumping out in such a short amount of time, it's not hard to assume that it they were naturals at it.


----------



## Mike Fox (Jul 12, 2019)

Nick Batzdorf said:


> Music is harder than using tools. That's all there is to read into what I'm saying!


Yeah, there's serious grey area here.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Jul 12, 2019)

Mike Fox said:


> Given the amount of hit songs that the Beatles were pumping out in such a short amount of time, it's not hard to assume that it they were naturals at it



Right, and your innate talent only takes you so far. Again, the Beatles played all day long seven days a week in Germany. It doesn't happen automatically!



Mike Fox said:


> Yeah, there's serious grey area here.



Sure, and as I said, that grey area proves the rule.

Look, what I'm saying is bleedin' obvious no matter how hard you huff and puff and blow it down. Not all skills are equally difficult to master. 'Nuff said.


----------



## Mike Fox (Jul 12, 2019)

Nick Batzdorf said:


> Right, and your innate talent only takes you so far. Again, the Beatles played all day long seven days a week in Germany. It doesn't happen automatically!



I couldn't agree more.



Nick Batzdorf said:


> Sure, and as I said, that grey area proves the rule.



As long as you acknowledge that there IS a grey area...


----------



## chocobitz825 (Jul 12, 2019)

Nick Batzdorf said:


> Right, and your innate talent only takes you so far. Again, the Beatles played all day long seven days a week in Germany. It doesn't happen automatically!
> 
> 
> 
> ...




lol seems like we might be a bit off topic, and this is too grey to make any sense now because a good musician is not necessarily a great songwriter..and a great songwriter is not always a great arranger, or engineer. Thats why we have an ecosystem of musical jobs that masters of their craft fill. Technology is filling in those gaps now so that the musician with poor mixing skills now has AI based automated mixing tools, and folks with good mixing skills but poor musical skills can push out a basic song. Perhaps its the times and our growing need to be the "master of many skills". AI will not make great musicians. I think we can all agree on that. As for what level of quality music it will make, or what kind of product it will make...time will tell.


----------



## colony nofi (Jul 14, 2019)

Nick Batzdorf said:


> Sure, I agree, but what I said has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not you have formal training. What I'm saying is that it's much harder to become a great musician than it is to be good at using technology (with the exception of engineering, especially mixing and mastering; some of those people are awe-inspiring).
> 
> Obviously I'm not sneezing at anyone's hard-earned skills, and even more obviously we all have different talents, strengths, and weaknesses!



I'd like to think about that some more.
I don't find statements like this useful at all. Its a generalization, and doesn't cover enough ground to be meaningful from my perspective.

Much harder to become a great musician.
I'm trying to figure out what that means.
What is a great musician? Is it one that touches the most people? Well, pop music shows that it ISN'T the creme of the crop that get the biggest audience. But does that mean that the pop singer isn't great in their own way? Semantics perhaps, but important semantics. Its divisive talk which doesn't move thoughts and ideas along.

How about Aboriginal Australians - with zero formal training, yet training that is a constant part of their culture. A music culture that has completely carried their history for 10's of thousands of years. That's pretty damn incredible really. And the music can touch me as a white anglo in emotional ways in the same way the Rite of Spring does. Perhaps some of this could be considered some sort of folk music tradition. Though thats perhaps a pretty lazy reading / frame.... 

But it does bring me to folk music. Can folk music not be great music? How is that harder than many of the folk working with technology? The guys working on immersive audio at Barco. Damn they work on much harder things than I do... and what amazing stories they've been able to help bring to life through their audio technology.

A different side of the coin. I went and sat in on some recitals at the local conservatorium of music the other day. Oh man there was some absolutely incredible music coming from these guys. It took me back to my formal training days... they can play the pants off me. Completely. These guys are the wood-shedders. The practice every waking moment folk. They're not great musicians. Not yet at least. So they are in the camp of it being - er - hard. But isn't that the same for a software architect. Mate of mine was is a very well respected software architect. He's been at it 25+ years since uni. And he's only just thinking he's getting to grips with what he's meant to do / what he needs to do. How is that not as hard as a muso who spends 5+ years at uni then another 25 figuring out their voice? Or honing their songwriting / composing / arranging chops? So - he might have been considered "good" at using technology a way back, but his true understanding of it... the deeper meaning / use - that same deeper knowledge / feel / soul for music - that comes with wisdom. Age. Experience. From making tonnes of mistakes. From learning about your own limitations. From time. 

Yet this is just one way of looking at it right? There's holes all over that argument. But that's kind of my point. Its not simple.

What is a great musician? What is it to be someone who is great with technology? What about that rare breed who cross between the two. (I feel like they really are in a position to do some incredible things in the future.)

Maybe I've got the wrong end of the stick.


----------



## Mike Fox (Jul 15, 2019)

colony nofi said:


> I'd like to think about that some more.
> I don't find statements like this useful at all. Its a generalization, and doesn't cover enough ground to be meaningful from my perspective.
> 
> Much harder to become a great musician.
> ...


This was basically my argument as well, and I proposed the same question. What does it mean to be a great musician? It's such a rabbit hole, and there's just no definitive answer. In a way, saying that it's harder to be a great musician than it is to be good at technology is an apples vs oranges type of argument. I'm just not even sure how one can demonstrate it to the point that it becomes fact.

Is it harder to become a great musician than become great at technology? The only fair answer I can come up with is that it depends. Context is king.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Jul 15, 2019)

Mike Fox said:


> What does it mean to be a great musician? It's such a rabbit hole, and there's just no definitive answer.



It means you make great music.

There's no hard line between a great musician and a not-great one, and greatness is subjective. That doesn't mean there's no such thing as a great musician.


----------



## NYC Composer (Jul 15, 2019)

:::living proof:::


----------



## chocobitz825 (Jul 15, 2019)

Nick Batzdorf said:


> It means you make great music.
> 
> There's no hard line between a great musician and a not-great one, and greatness is subjective. That doesn't mean there's no such thing as a great musician.



so a person who makes great music with no knowledge of music theory or ability to read sheet music can still be a great musician yeah?...how about someone who cant play any instruments but is really good at midi programming? How about someone who makes really great music with a lot of easy play tools like instachord? 

What I would really like to see is what arrangements could be done by "great musicians" with a track provided by AIVA. Could they make it even more than AIVA initially presents? just as a challenge.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Jul 15, 2019)

chocobitz825 said:


> so a person who makes great music with no knowledge of music theory or ability to read sheet music can still be a great musician yeah?



I don't understand why this argument is getting convoluted with the one about education, which frankly I don't find scintillating.



> ...how about someone who cant play any instruments but is really good at midi programming?



Only if he or she knows what a Picardy third is and isn't afraid to use one. 



> How about someone who makes really great music with a lot of easy play tools like instachord?



Now that depends. Was he was circumcised by an Othodox rabbi at a bris?


----------



## chocobitz825 (Jul 15, 2019)

Nick Batzdorf said:


> I don't understand why this argument is getting convoluted with the one about education, which frankly I don't find scintillating.



I think only because some of us are trying to understand the standard for the arguments presented here that great musicians make great music, or that its harder to be a great musician than be great at technology. Personally I would a say a great musician is a great performer of music. A great composer/songwriter would be slightly different in my mind. Still trying to keep this on track, AIVA is a tool, and a great musician/songwriter/composer would have the potential to make great music with it because they have the skills to do so. I dont think there’s a shortcut (yet) for that necessity.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Jul 15, 2019)

I think it would be hard to become a great musician without having played an instrument, but there are certainly lots of great composers who aren't great players. Of course they're great musicians.

A tool that writes music for you, bypassing the human soul, has nothing to do with that.


----------



## chocobitz825 (Jul 15, 2019)

douggibson said:


> I am not in any way a lawyer (but I like to pretend I am one on music forums).
> 
> Perhaps someone can clarify for me the distinctions regarding the word "copyright" vs. license as applied by their business model. (I don't mean in the way like a few pages earlier where it's clearly a rip off of John Williams)
> 
> ...



it seems very uncertain and they haven't officially implemented the midi import feature if I recall, maybe because of the potentially legal risks.


----------



## chocobitz825 (Jul 16, 2019)

lol in a funny turn of events, I stumbled onto an anime streaming on netflix here called Carole & Tuesday, set on a futuristic Mars. Two Young girls aim to be music stars in a world where 90% of music is made by AI, and the assumed "warmth" that can only be achieved by Humans is said to be easily reproduced by AI using a "heart warming parameter". I had to laugh as it brought me back to this conversation.


----------



## Holden Sandman (Dec 2, 2019)

Aiva has developed quite a bit since this thread started.

New presets (styles of music)


Modern Cinematic
20th Century Cinematic
Sea Shanties
Jazz
Fantasy
Pop
Rock
Chinese
Tango
Electronic (coming soon)
Lots of different ensembles depending upon style, ranging from Piano to Epic Orchestra, Solo Strings to Lounge Jazz Band.

This month users are expecting the upload an influence feature to become available.

Aiva is a very interesting tool and it's getting better every week.


----------



## NYC Composer (Dec 2, 2019)

I’ve always aspired to becoming a barista.


----------



## chocobitz825 (Dec 2, 2019)

NYC Composer said:


> I’ve always aspired to becoming a barista.



I have a machine that can do that too. No job is safe


----------



## NYC Composer (Dec 3, 2019)

Gigolo is another possibility.


----------



## chocobitz825 (Dec 3, 2019)

NYC Composer said:


> Gigolo is another possibility.



AI has that covered too lol


----------



## MartinH. (Dec 3, 2019)

Universal basic income is inevitable because it will be infeasible to structure a society around the concept of "human labour" at some point in the next couple of decades. That seems to be the consensus among the programmers that I've talked with. Some even left the field of AI research entirely, for ethical concerns.


----------



## Tim_Wells (Dec 3, 2019)

MartinH. said:


> Universal basic income is inevitable because it will be infeasible to structure a society around the concept of "human labour" at some point in the next couple of decades. That seems to be the consensus among the programmers that I've talked with. Some even left the field of AI research entirely, for ethical concerns.


I respect your opinion. And certainly there are people much smarter than I who agree with you.

But I personally believe that new types of jobs will fill the void taken by AI. This has always been the case with technological advancement in the past and I feel confident it will be the case again. The key is to be willing to change your approach as the technology changes.


----------



## Erick - BVA (Dec 3, 2019)

MartinH. said:


> Universal basic income is inevitable because it will be infeasible to structure a society around the concept of "human labour" at some point in the next couple of decades. That seems to be the consensus among the programmers that I've talked with. Some even left the field of AI research entirely, for ethical concerns.


I think it will take a long time, but I agree with you. Fortunately (hopefully?) it will likely be a slow burn (of losing human centered jobs) and the adjustments can be made gradually. But I think we do need to consider the impact that technology has on our economic ecosystem.
In some ways, the collective "conscious" of a society cannot be controlled, so these changes are likely inevitable. The desire for increased efficiency and ease will always win out. I think all we can do is try to adapt the best we can. I think maybe a basic income is one possible way to help adapt. But then I wonder, if that happens, wouldn't it be like everyone is at zero if everyone was given the same basic income? Maybe it would be simpler if certain things were just made free. Then you wouldn't have to deal with the money aspect as well.
Then the question becomes, what has value? 
This is a difficult topic to be honest... but I think perhaps not one for this particular thread haha


----------



## NYC Composer (Dec 3, 2019)

chocobitz825 said:


> AI has that covered too lol


AIVA will never have my personal charm. Never.


----------



## jonathanparham (Dec 3, 2019)

In the late 80s, I remember an electric jazz bass player complaining about his gig being replaced by a keyboard player's left-hand bass notes.

There's been multi-tracking, then midi, hardware sequencers, DAWs, samples. . . I responded on Youtube to some of this but I agree that it's not ready for prime time, but it's coming. I can see some producer with a bunch of rooms with this software on multiple stations.


----------



## purple (Dec 3, 2019)

Tim_Wells said:


> I respect your opinion. And certainly there are people much smarter than I who agree with you.
> 
> But I personally believe that new types of jobs will fill the void taken by AI. This has always been the case with technological advancement in the past and I feel confident it will be the case again. The key is to be willing to change your approach as the technology changes.


But will there be enough new jobs? Will those jobs be in the communities affected most by automation? Will those jobs be suitable for the people put out of work?

Will the millions of truck drivers, truck stop workers, and millions of people living in small highway towns that rely on those truck drivers for their local economy just move to silicon valley and become software engineers? This is not a distant reality, there are already self driving trucks on the road. For now they still have a driver inside making sure everything works, but as soon as they are confident they can run without a driver it will become the standard faster than you can say "unemployment"

What about millions of retail workers?
Millions of telemarketers?
Delivery workers?

Ironically, it is the traditionally "white collar" jobs that will go first. Accountants, HR, customer service, analysts, even some salespeople will see significant downsizing in their field as AI makes their jobs more efficient. Mechanics, electricians, plumbers, and other trades are a bit too mechanically complex at the moment for robots to handle not to mention the complicated problem solving needed.


----------



## Tim_Wells (Dec 3, 2019)

purple said:


> But will there be enough new jobs? Will those jobs be in the communities affected most by automation? Will those jobs be suitable for the people put out of work?
> 
> Will the millions of truck drivers, truck stop workers, and millions of people living in small highway towns that rely on those truck drivers for their local economy just move to silicon valley and become software engineers? This is not a distant reality, there are already self driving trucks on the road. For now they still have a driver inside making sure everything works, but as soon as they are confident they can run without a driver it will become the standard faster than you can say "unemployment"
> 
> ...



I agree with much of what you're saying. The jobs will change and a lot of people will not be prepared. I still say there will be plenty of jobs, if you have the proper skill set. So what we have is skills and training problem and not a "jobs" problem.

It's no different than what's been happening for the last 40 years. Some believed that they should be able to walk out with their high-school diploma and get a great job at a factory and have comfortable middle class life. But that has obviously changed. 

Since I'm a retired CPA, I'll speak to the Accountant example you sighted. Any high level Accountant is constantly making difficult judgement calls about a myriad of complex issues (both tangible and intangible). Despite what people think about accounting, there is often no one right answer to a problem. We are a century or more away from any machine being able to replace a smart, experienced Accountant. Maybe a bookkeeper who does the exact same thing all the time. But those are becoming less common anyway.

Now AI will be able to help a CPA with the complex decision making. That will be a great boon to productivity.

But I get your very good point about the disruption that AI will play in industries and communities. It will be devastating to some. I just think people need to start getting prepared.... rather than trying to "bring back the coal mining jobs".


----------



## river angler (Aug 3, 2020)

I just watched this...



I know! this was back in 2018!

Since then we've had the likes of Discovery Channel threatening to replace all their music content with AI generated music and I'm sure there are many other production companies wondering how far away the technology is to read movie or TV drama visual frame data as a guide to what it composes!

Well, certainly I think all library and video game composers out their must be beginning to twitch as these sectors will be the first to be hit considering their more generic easily copyable styles.

I think the days are numbered for a lot of bespoke music composers too as AI gets ever more sophisticated.

WHY IS MAN SO OBSESSED WITH ROBOTISIZING EVERYTHING ??? !!!

The obvious answer is: that old devil- MONEY.

In a few decades time I vouch the only humanly generated music we hear will come from musicians playing real instruments live on stage and even a fair chunk of what those musicians perform will have been AI composed!

What a depressing thought.


----------



## purple (Aug 3, 2020)

river angler said:


> I just watched this...
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Only in an economic system where people are pitted against robots as tools to be used by the rich is the thought of having to work less a bad thing.


----------



## chocobitz825 (Aug 3, 2020)

river angler said:


> I just watched this...
> 
> 
> 
> ...



A recent tv shoe imagined a future where most music was created by AI, and the composers of the best AIs got the work and accolades. Perhaps that is the future we will see. sure AI can make music, but it will have to make certain kinds of music for different situations and there will still be competition. Perhaps we need knowledge of music and AI.


----------



## river angler (Aug 3, 2020)

chocobitz825 said:


> ...the composers of the best AIs got the work and accolades..


Isn't that a contradiction??... I don't understand what you're saying here? if the music is AI generated where's the roll of a human composer?


----------



## cola2410 (Aug 3, 2020)

I have a bit different view on that. Listening to this guy and praising the tool we actually embarrass ourselves. I mean our musical language these days is plain, lazy, predictive, and stupid sometimes. Categorization turns us into robots and I do believe that "the right vibe" is one of these words protecting our advantages as humans. The most memorable impressions I've got from the music in videos or movies were those contradicting or twisting the visuals. And I hate people trying to convince us that it's better be exposed to simple given pleasures. The soundtrack of my life - fgs, what's all this crap about?


----------



## river angler (Aug 3, 2020)

Actually the most upsetting thing about AI generated music is that it is diluting music composition itself into generic mush and ultimately sanitising what we are forced to listen to while watching a film, a commercial, a TV drama, or any other video content... It's a is similar trait to how pop music has diminished in quality over the decades. A far greater percentage of popular music from the 50's up until the mid 90's featured real melody and decent turn of phrase, often carrying heartfelt content or intelligent social comment if only because the music was actually played/recorded by humans. As the digital recording technology grew and has become cheaper to acquire and software VI's become ever more automated, nowadays that sophistication is all but gone leaving a far greater percentage of so called "pop" music as regurgitated money spinning trash.


----------



## chocobitz825 (Aug 3, 2020)

river angler said:


> Isn't that a contradiction??... I don't understand what you're saying here? if the music is AI generated where's the roll of a human composer?



the difference is the AI. It’s not like it’s one AI to rule them all. different people and companies can make different kinds of AIs of varying focus, quality and cost to the client.

we become composers of music AI. Training our own AI to learn the best ways to complete a certain task and obtain a certain quality and consistency. A composers AI may be taught a broad range of styles of music and composition but then taught to focus on the particular qualities of that composers own music so it can replicate, improve and mass produce music from that composer’s style.
At least that’s how the show somewhat imagined it.


----------



## river angler (Aug 3, 2020)

cola2410 said:


> I have a bit different view on that. Listening to this guy and praising the tool we actually embarrass ourselves. I mean our musical language these days is plain, lazy, predictive, and stupid sometimes. Categorization turns us into robots and I do believe that "the right vibe" is one of these words protecting our advantages as humans. The most memorable impressions I've got from the music in videos or movies were those contradicting or twisting the visuals. And I hate people trying to convince us that it's better be exposed to simple given pleasures. The soundtrack of my life - fgs, what's all this crap about?


Absolutely! 
Library music is the halfway house to this sanitisation. It's well known and complained about how library music is fast diminishing visual content: AI generated music is the ultimate library music generator!


----------



## river angler (Aug 3, 2020)

chocobitz825 said:


> the difference is the AI. It’s not like it’s one AI to rule them all. different people and companies can make different kinds of AIs of varying focus, quality and cost to the client.
> 
> we become composers of music AI. Training our own AI to learn the best ways to complete a certain task and obtain a certain quality and consistency. A composers AI may be taught a broad range of styles of music and composition but then taught to focus on the particular qualities of that composers own music so it can replicate, improve and mass produce music from that composer’s style.
> At least that’s how the show somewhat imagined it.


Forgive me! but what are you saying here????... AI is computer generated composition. Period. There is no human interaction: a computer algorithm generates the music composition!


----------



## river angler (Aug 3, 2020)

chocobitz825 said:


> we become composers of music AI. Training our own AI to learn the best ways to complete a certain task and obtain a certain quality and consistency. A composers AI may be taught a broad range of styles of music and composition but then taught to focus on the particular qualities of that composers own music so it can replicate, improve and mass produce music from that composer’s style.
> At least that’s how the show somewhat imagined it.


This is not a composers job!!!! thats what a director and editor does all be it with the help of a musical ear of some sorts! The point is the actual roll of a COMPOSER as a composer will cease to exist.


----------



## chocobitz825 (Aug 3, 2020)

river angler said:


> Forgive me! but what are you saying here????... AI is computer generated composition. Period. There is no human interaction: a computer algorithm generates the music composition!



AI cannot create from nothing. Any untrained AI told to make music with no reference makes random noises It has to be trained in Music. How it is trained varies, but for the time being AI absolutely involves human interaction. It’s a long process still of making AI musical right now and no two AIs will make the same music. The quality of their music will depend on how they’re trained. Humans can turn AI into a new business if the AI is considered an automated assistant for a certain task. Faster than a human, but constantly maintained by a human to maintain quality and competitiveness.

i think the problem people have with AI is they imagine this maste-of-all self sustaining AI that needs nothing more than someone to maintain its server room. We’re a long way from that.


----------



## river angler (Aug 3, 2020)

chocobitz825 said:


> AI cannot create from nothing. Any untrained AI told to make music with no reference makes random noises It has to be trained in Music. How it is trained varies, but for the time being AI absolutely involves human interaction. It’s a long process still of making AI musical right now and no two AIs will make the same music. The quality of their music will depend on how they’re trained. Humans can turn AI into a new business if the AI is considered an automated assistant for a certain task. Faster than a human, but constantly maintained by a human to maintain quality and competitiveness.
> 
> i think the problem people have with AI is they imagine this maste-of-all self sustaining AI that needs nothing more than someone to maintain its server room. We’re a long way from that.


So what you are suggesting is that the composers roll should now be to feed AI with more and more compositional data for it to generate music from yes?... So composers become "composer data content writers" for these AI machines?.... Give me a break! the day someone asks me to feed a computer algorithm to compose music for a client i should be composing for directly myself will be the day I leave the music industry for good.


----------



## chocobitz825 (Aug 3, 2020)

river angler said:


> So what are suggesting is that the composers roll should now be to feed AI with more and more compositional data for it to feed off yes?... So composers become "composer data content writers" for these AI machines?



I’m if you’re focus is to keep working in music, and help influence creativity and direction then yes. Because perhaps your AI is based heavily on not only the classic works, but also on your own compositions and musical choices.

this only really matters to the career of music. For the hobbyist and true artists, nothing changes. People keep creating music if they love it. The business of music will change, whether we like it or not. Either a bunch of mindless drone composers go out to make generic music for cheap, or an AI does it. That problem that AI is meant to solve is already here. AI takes the tasks humans aren’t needed for. It can take the task of making generic music from humans. If we want to imagine beyond that, we change our individual focus to making AI our musical assistants to make new forms of creative art. It all depends on us and how we build the AI.


----------



## purple (Aug 3, 2020)

chocobitz825 said:


> AI cannot create from nothing. Any untrained AI told to make music with no reference makes random noises It has to be trained in Music. How it is trained varies...


That's how human composers work too...


----------



## river angler (Aug 3, 2020)

chocobitz825 said:


> I’m if you’re focus is to keep working in music, and help influence creativity and direction then yes. Because perhaps your AI is based heavily on not only the classic works, but also on your own compositions and musical choices.
> 
> this only really matters to the career of music. For the hobbyist and true artists, nothing changes.



Are you suggesting that pro composers like Enio Morricone (RIP), Bernard Herman (RIP), John Williams, Mike Post, Danny Elfman, Beethoven (RIP), Mahler (RIP), Vaughan Williams (RIP) (I could go on!) are not "true artists"? !!


----------



## chocobitz825 (Aug 3, 2020)

river angler said:


> Are you suggesting that pro composers like Enio Morricone (RIP), Bernard Herman (RIP), John Williams, Mike Post, Danny Elfman, Beethoven (RIP), Mahler (RIP), Vaughan Williams (RIP) (I could go on!) are not "true artists"? !!



im suggesting it’s a fine line. What is the motivation of your art? At the level of the composers you’ve listed, when they are so famous that they are paid for their vision, and can tell a team to fuck off if they’re not allowed to create what they want, they get to be career artists.

most of us aren’t them though. Most of us are fulfilling orders for art, and we’re patting ourselves on the back for that and acting like we created it without any instructions and guideline on what to create. The truly brilliant creators with fame as their weapon will continue to create unfiltered art and make money because if you can’t get their sound, the project suffers. AI won’t stop that. It only kills the opportunity for those whom only have the weapon of consistency and mediocrity.


----------



## river angler (Aug 3, 2020)

chocobitz825 said:


> I’m if you’re focus is to keep working in music, and help influence creativity and direction then yes. Because perhaps your AI is based heavily on not only the classic works, but also on your own compositions and musical choices.
> 
> The business of music will change, whether we like it or not. Either a bunch of mindless drone composers go out to make generic music for cheap, or an AI does it. That problem that AI is meant to solve is already here. AI takes the tasks humans aren’t needed for. It can take the task of making generic music from humans. If we want to imagine beyond that, we change our individual focus to making AI our musical assistants to make new forms of creative art. It all depends on us and how we build the AI.


I concur that generic music will be replaced eventually by AI. I'm not bothered about generic music as I am a bespoke composer... I say I'm not bothered about it but I wish there was a lot less of it about as it belittles the importance of music as a creative art form.

As far as AI becoming a tool for generating new creative ideas we are already seeing that taking place in a lot of the VI's advertised and talked about on this very website! The "randomiser" is a feature fast becoming the norm for example in a lot of Sample Logics libraries.


----------



## chocobitz825 (Aug 3, 2020)

river angler said:


> I concur that generic music will be replaced eventually by AI. I'm not bothered about generic music as I am a bespoke composer... I say I'm not bothered about it but I wish there was a lot less of it about as it belittles the importance of music as a creative art form.
> 
> As far as AI becoming a tool for generating new creative ideas we are already seeing that taking place in a lot of the VI's advertised and talked about on this very website! The "randomiser" is a feature fast becoming the norm for example in a lot of Sample Logics libraries.



and that’s all it is. A tool. AI can just as easily help creative minds achieve their goal as it can steal the work of less creative minds. I think we’d be better off learning to make it our tool.

regarding AIVA, it’s been an interesting process. It has grown significantly over a years time. It’s not making masterpieces, but it is getting closer to making palatable music. At some point soon it could make royalty free background music, but it won’t score a film or make a hit pop song. It might create a composition that has a really good melodic idea that a good composer would take and use in their own new composition.

that’s where we’re at right now. No need to fear yet.


----------



## river angler (Aug 3, 2020)

chocobitz825 said:


> im suggesting it’s a fine line. What is the motivation of your art? At the level of the composers you’ve listed, when they are so famous that they are paid for their vision, and can tell a team to fuck off if they’re not allowed to create what they want, they get to be career artists.
> 
> most of us aren’t them though. Most of us are fulfilling orders for art, and we’re patting ourselves on the back for that and acting like we created it without any instructions and guideline on what to create. The truly brilliant creators with fame as their weapon will continue to create unfiltered art and make money because if you can’t get their sound, the project suffers. AI won’t stop that. It only kills the opportunity for those whom only have the weapon of consistency and mediocrity.


Well as much as I'd like to believe this will be the outcome I think the bespoke composers with their own unique sound will slide down the ladder to AI eventually if not completely... hell! it only takes a computer nerd to analyse that composers composition in notational form and sonics to feed that into the AI too!


----------



## chocobitz825 (Aug 3, 2020)

river angler said:


> Well as much as I'd like to believe this will be the outcome I think the bespoke composers with their own unique sound will slide down the ladder to AI eventually if not completely... hell! it only takes a computer nerd to analyse that composers composition in notational form and sonics to feed that into the AI too!



you would really need to see how much work it has been to just get AIVA to be musical. Its not at all a simple task, and even if the best composers decided to go the way of AI, their hardwork and creative ideas will be the difference between a generic AI and an AI that can make masterpieces.


----------



## river angler (Aug 3, 2020)

chocobitz825 said:


> you would really need to see how much work it has been to just get AIVA to be musical. Its not at all a simple task, and even if the best composers decided to go the way of AI, their hardwork and creative ideas will be the difference between a generic AI and an AI that can make masterpieces.


But that's the very point ! ! ! Why the f*** are we encouraging a computer to generate masterpieces when countless composers over the centuries have shown that humans are more than capable of creating them themselves!!!!


----------



## bill5 (Aug 3, 2020)

Mr. Ha said:


> I gotta say, as a human who composes music, this doesn't sound good...


Not sure why you added the smiley face. I was looking for a nauseated face. Sorry, but the very nature of such a thing disgusts and repulses me.


----------



## bill5 (Aug 3, 2020)

river angler said:


> But that's very point ! ! ! Why the f*** are we encouraging a computer to generate masterpieces when countless composers over the centuries have shown that humans are more than capable of creating them themselves!!!!


So we don't have to do anything that requires thought or creativity, like creating music. Frees up more time for eating bons-bons and watching youtube.


----------



## river angler (Aug 3, 2020)

The guy talking in the AIVA video I posted says he is a composer! How contradictory/ironic is that!


----------



## river angler (Aug 3, 2020)

bill5 said:


> So we don't have to do anything that requires thought or creativity, like creating music. Frees up more time for eating bons-bons and watching youtube.


Dry! Ha ha! ...by and by here in the UK the supermarket chain ALDI sell a wonderful blackcurrant and liquorice sweet!


----------



## chocobitz825 (Aug 3, 2020)

river angler said:


> But that's the very point ! ! ! Why the f*** are we encouraging a computer to generate masterpieces when countless composers over the centuries have shown that humans are more than capable of creating them themselves!!!!



countless composers can keep doing it their way. I can't guarantee they'll get acknowledged for it. The nature of the music market is just that way now. High consumption rates with very little longevity. Composers can keep being creative and do whatever they want. The career of music is the only thing changing here.


----------



## river angler (Aug 3, 2020)

chocobitz825 said:


> countless composers can keep doing it their way. I can't guarantee they'll get acknowledged for it. The nature of the music market is just that way now. High consumption rates with very little longevity. Composers can keep being creative and do whatever they want. The career of music is the only thing changing here.


Well that "only thing" is a lot of composers livelihoods here!.. and I must say I did find your statement suggesting hobbyists being the only true artists a little offensive. Just because an artistic person chooses to make a living from his art does not mean he is not a true artist at heart. Furthermore I could quote you many other lesser known composers and indeed ones you will never have heard of that create astonishingly inspiring music and are professional musicians at the same time.


----------



## chocobitz825 (Aug 3, 2020)

river angler said:


> Well that "only thing" is a lot of composers livelihoods here!.. and I must say I did find your statement suggesting hobbyists being the only true artists a little offensive. Just because an artistic person chooses to make a living from his art does not mean he is not a true artist at heart. Furthermore I could quote you many other lesser known composers and indeed ones you will never have heard of that create astonishingly inspiring music and are professional musicians at the same time.



I'm sorry if that was misinterpreted as saying that career composers are not artists at heart. As I tried to clarify, true art does not need recognition or financial gain. It's made to express your true heart and vision. If you're in the career of creating low budget music that's meant to sound like John Williams just enough to not get sued for plagiarism, you're not expressing your artist's heart, you're fulfilling an order for art.

I hope AI liberates more artists to do exactly what they want to do and no longer be bothered with the pressures of redundant farm music. They could use their AI to fulfill the slop, and then spend their free time creating to their hearts content for their own satisfaction.


----------



## river angler (Aug 3, 2020)

chocobitz825 said:


> I'm sorry if that was misinterpreted as saying that career composers are not artists at heart. As I tried to clarify, true art does not need recognition or financial gain. It's made to express your true heart and vision. If you're in the career of creating low budget music that's meant to sound like John Williams just enough to not get sued for plagiarism, you're not expressing your artist's heart, you're fulfilling an order for art.


Agree with this wholeheartedly!


chocobitz825 said:


> I hope AI liberates more artists to do exactly what they want to do and no longer be bothered with the pressures of redundant farm music. They could use their AI to fulfill the slop, and then spend their free time creating to their hearts content for their own satisfaction.


I hope AI remains only as a generic music compositional tool which will actually underline the importance of hiring real composers for unique bespoke composed music to picture.
As I have said before, I urge all potentially great composers not to loose sight of their inherent individual style through overuse of any digital tools we all now have access to.


----------



## NYC Composer (Aug 3, 2020)

“Don’t worry...be happy.”

B. McFerrin.


----------



## chocobitz825 (Aug 3, 2020)

NYC Composer said:


> “Don’t worry...be happy.”
> 
> B. McFerrin.


indeed! do what makes you happy!


AI will figure out the rest..


----------



## jaketanner (Aug 3, 2020)

I truly hate this idea and should have been blocked long ago. Sure we use AI for just about everything, but what’s next? AI will be the next Rembrandt or Monet too? When does it end? Nothing will ever replace a humans feelings and emotions.


----------



## robcs (Aug 3, 2020)

Many years ago, at the start of the AI revolution, I studied a subject called computational linguistics. AI, it was assumed, would allow us to create software that would replace human translators. You’d be able to teach a computer all the rules of language and it would be able to understand anything that was given to it in any language.

then we scaled back the ambition to creating AI tools that would assist translators by doing the basics, while requiring a human to capture the nuances of language - rhetoric, metaphor, etc.

what we ended up with, 30 years later, is Google Translate. Just saying...

don’t get me wrong, I like Aiva, and I’ve played around with it a lot. But it’s basically Google translate for music. Sometimes you get something usable out of it, but a lot of the time it’s pretty awful. And it ALWAYS requires human intervention to create real music with its output - the Aiva team are relatively open about that, and have done many demo videos where they show the process they go through themselves.

so what does that mean for music?

maybe one day we’ll have an AI composer’s assistant that suggests chord progressions or orchestral voicings. It may even take a melody and apply rules to suggest variations. But it’s going to need a human in the driving seat and applying actual art and soul for a long time to come.


----------



## chocobitz825 (Aug 3, 2020)

robcs said:


> Many years ago, at the start of the AI revolution, I studied a subject called computational linguistics. AI, it was assumed, would allow us to create software that would replace human translators. You’d be able to teach a computer all the rules of language and it would be able to understand anything that was given to it in any language.
> 
> then we scaled back the ambition to creating AI tools that would assist translators by doing the basics, while requiring a human to capture the nuances of language - rhetoric, metaphor, etc.
> 
> ...



100% this.


----------



## Dex (Aug 4, 2020)

There are several approaches to AI composition these days. Have you all seen this one?









Jukebox


We’re introducing Jukebox, a neural net that generates music, including rudimentary singing, as raw audio in a variety of genres and artist styles. We’re releasing the model weights and code, along with a tool to explore the generated samples.




openai.com


----------



## Ruffian Price (Aug 4, 2020)

robcs said:


> But it’s going to need a human in the driving seat


See, what matters to me is that the human in the driving seat is not going to be me, but the producer.


----------



## Al Maurice (Aug 4, 2020)

The 64 million dollar question has to be: "do these generated synthetic compositions pass the Turing test?" In other words can you tell the difference between one composed by a human and one generated with AI. If the answer is yes then no need to concern yourself yet.


----------



## bill5 (Aug 4, 2020)

jaketanner said:


> I truly hate this idea and should have been blocked long ago. Sure we use AI for just about everything, but what’s next? AI will be the next Rembrandt or Monet too? When does it end? Nothing will ever replace a humans feelings and emotions.


Nothing SHOULD, I think you mean. I think musically it will; it's just a question of time. Hopefully I'm long gone by then!





robcs said:


> maybe one day we’ll have an AI composer’s assistant that suggests chord progressions or orchestral voicings. It may even take a melody and apply rules to suggest variations.


We already have stuff like that. In fact we even have people "creating" music by just tossing in some chord names and voila, instant song (Band in a Box anyone?) that they tell themselves they wrote even though BIAB did about 95% of it. 



> But it’s going to need a human in the driving seat and applying actual art and soul for a long time to come.


 One can only hope!


----------



## jaketanner (Aug 4, 2020)

bill5 said:


> Nothing SHOULD


no I mean will...no way no how will machines EVER replace a human emotion and 100% certain it won't be in my lifetime or my kids.


----------



## bill5 (Aug 4, 2020)

Maybe we're using the word "replace" differently. If you mean no AI will ever have human emotions, of course. If you mean it will never displace humans/human emotions in music, i.e. gain popularity and music created by human begins declines proportionately with it, I think you're dreaming. I would not at all be surprised to some day see it become the norm and music created by people a niche thing at most. But hopefully you're right, it won't be in our lifetime and then some.


----------



## wxyz (Aug 4, 2020)

MARIO KLINGEMANN | Onkaos


Appropriate Response. A reflection on meaning by the AI-art pioneer, Mario Klingemann




onkaos.com


----------



## jaketanner (Aug 4, 2020)

JEPA said:


> I doubt strongly that Aiva could score a whole film successfully without the intellectual knowhow, knowledge and spontaneous human feeling of the eye and individual memories of each composer...


And even if it does score the film, it got the "know-how" from an algorithm somewhere. So what composer and musical genius is going to program this thing to take over an actual human composer? Then what happens where there are changes and the director needs to communicate what he/she wants changed? What terminology are they going to use to get this thing to respond like a human? Very doubtful this will be used for movies...make background music for corporate.


----------



## jaketanner (Aug 4, 2020)

bill5 said:


> Maybe we're using the word "replace" differently. If you mean no AI will ever have human emotions, of course. If you mean it will never displace humans/human emotions in music, i.e. gain popularity and music created by human begins declines proportionately with it, I think you're dreaming. I would not at all be surprised to some day see it become the norm and music created by people a niche thing at most. But hopefully you're right, it won't be in our lifetime and then some.


And what self respecting composer in their right mind would even dream up of such a thing? It's ridiculous...this is not an industry that is in dire need for machined takeover. You can't put life where there is none to begin with. But time will tell.


----------



## chocobitz825 (Aug 4, 2020)

jaketanner said:


> And what self respecting composer in their right mind would even dream up of such a thing? It's ridiculous...this is not an industry that is in dire need for machined takeover. You can't put life where there is none to begin with. But time will tell.




the bigger question is...who cares?

This is a non-issue if one believes that AI can't do what a human can do. One would only be truly offended or threatened by it if they actually believe that just maybe AI could do what a human does to a degree satisfactory to future clients. Honestly, I work in entertainment as well, and I know AI will take many aspects of my job if capitalism is the guiding force. Why? because AI doesn't talk back, doesn't get sick, doesn't have off-hours, and doesn't have objections to the requests from clients and listeners.

pure artists will never want to use Ai. especially the filmmakers who believe art needs soul. As for Disney though? the next blockbuster film? just slap on some music that sounds like the music from the last hit film. That's what they're practically asking for now anyways.

who cares? AI won't stop me from making music, and if AI works well, I might even use it to speed up my process for the less artsy boring stuff that needs doing. If AI can help me spend less time on the mundane BS, I'll take all that extra time and finally put my all into my true vision without AI.


----------



## jaketanner (Aug 4, 2020)

chocobitz825 said:


> This is a non-issue if one believes that AI can't do what a human can do


its not what I believe though, it's what the clients will believe...But if the work is big enough and like you mentioned, from true artists, then there is no need to worry. Maybe they can use the AI for temp tracking...LOL


----------



## purple (Aug 5, 2020)

Which is it folks, will AI take all our jobs because it's better than us and cheap or will AI kill music by turning it all dull and emotionless because it's not better than us?


----------



## Al Maurice (Aug 5, 2020)

Ever since humanity learnt how to the use the Human voice as an instrument, we've yearned to express our emotions and feelings. It wasn't look after we looked for an accompaniment, so along came technology to help us too. 

At one time we recorded our sounds using waxen discs, then along came magnetic tape, CDs and eventually downloads and streaming, which once again we embraced. At some point we kind of got bored with trailing cables and recording gadgets, so someone invented sequencers and samplers. Yet we still create and performe music with classical analogue instruments.

Then someone thought -- let's take snippets of existing music and create other music: today Hip Hop is a multi-billion dollar industry. Not long after came the rise of bedroom producers and EDM.

So AI -- it's the new dawn -- just another way to assemble music from other music. Will it make a major difference, or just become another tool in our palette much like the DAW or notation software is today?


----------



## purple (Aug 5, 2020)

Al Maurice said:


> Then someone thought -- let's take snippets of existing music and create other music: today Hip Hop is a multi-billion dollar industry.


You mean like this?


----------



## Flexi83 (Aug 5, 2020)

Nobody needs AI for the own musical creativity or the own musical voice, this is grotesk. We do not talk here about a technical AI support...we talk about the foundation for musicians.
The question is do you want to listen to AI music or old school music done by composers. Looks like a more philosophical question. For the industry, where only money counts, I guess they dont care.

AI should may help as a tool to speed up the workflow with things nobody wants to do, like drawing endless midi cc curves to let a composition sound real (StaffPad) or in the mixing process (Izotope Mastering Suite). These tasks are time consuming and should be improved. 

But I could never acknowledge a musical piece or better, musical Leitmotiv which was done by AI.
AI is about finding patterns which work musically. No big deal, only hard to program.

If you are not a successful composer in TV/games/film/documentry become a tool developer and program AI. If your not skilled in music theory rely on AI. If your lazy to grow musically yourself...rely on AI. If you do not have own ideas...rely on AI....you know what......just paste things together and let AI do the rest and call yourself whatever you like...


----------



## synthesizerwriter (Aug 5, 2020)

gregh said:


> set Aiva to pump out a zillion pieces, when a non-Aiva piece gains commercial success do similarity search on Aiva database, claim prior copyright, avoid court, settle for an undisclosed fee


There have been several projects/experiments designed to generate all possible melodies within specific constraints. Riehl and Rubin is one that got publicity recently - they 'published' the 68.7 billion results to a hard drive as a way to try to get something that might be covered by copyright... There's some basic analysis of this here: 

https://teleread.org/2020/02/28/aut...bably-wont-solve-music-plagiarism-litigation/ 

The 'access' aspect is interesting - to claim copyright, it seems that you need to establish that the infringer had access to your prior music, and how could they have been expected to do this in their lifetime if you have a large number of generated pieces?


----------



## synthesizerwriter (Aug 5, 2020)

YaniDee said:


> Build machines to do what we can't, but leave creativity alone!


The problem is that history shows that we are incapable of limiting the scope of the machines/systems/ideas that we 'create'. So 'creativity' is just another property that we are about to lose control of...


----------



## chocobitz825 (Aug 5, 2020)

Flexi83 said:


> Nobody needs AI for the own musical creativity or the own musical voice, this is grotesk. We do not talk here about a technical AI support...we talk about the foundation for musicians.
> The question is do you want to listen to AI music or old school music done by composers. Looks like a more philosophical question. For the industry, where only money counts, I guess they dont care.



that is the whole point. Most people don’t care. They don’t care if the music was done by a real orchestra or a virtual instrument. They don’t care if it was done by a pro or an amateur. They only care if it resonates with them. 

Only our side of this equation cares about the rest. The theory, and the history and the purity of it all.

Again, AI is a non-issue. If you’re an artist is has nothing to do with you because it’s only gonna take the work you had no interest in doing.


----------



## bill5 (Aug 5, 2020)

jaketanner said:


> And what self respecting composer in their right mind would even dream up of such a thing?


None, of course.



> It's ridiculous...this is not an industry that is in dire need for machined takeover.


Since when does need have anything to do with it? And yes, you're right, it's ridiculous. In fact, it's beyond ridiculous, it's scary. The stuff of dystopian sci fi that people used to go "a fun fable, but hardly realistic." IMO it's getting more realistic by the day. And again, no one would be happier than me to be proven wrong.


----------



## bill5 (Aug 5, 2020)

purple said:


> Which is it folks, will AI take all our jobs because it's better than us and cheap or will AI kill music by turning it all dull and emotionless because it's not better than us?


"Yes" (more or less).


----------



## bill5 (Aug 5, 2020)

Al Maurice said:


> let's take snippets of existing music and create other music: today Hip Hop is a multi-billion dollar industry. Not long after came the rise of bedroom producers and EDM.
> 
> So AI -- it's the new dawn -- just another way to assemble music from other music. Will it make a major difference, or just become another tool in our palette much like the DAW or notation software is today?


Your honor, Exhibit A.



chocobitz825 said:


> that is the whole point. Most people don’t care.


Exhibit B.



Flexi83 said:


> If your not skilled in music theory rely on AI. If your lazy to grow musically yourself...rely on AI. If you do not have own ideas...rely on AI....you know what......just paste things together and let AI do the rest and call yourself whatever you like...


Exhibit C!

PS to be clear I am not criticizing your posts. On the contrary, I think they support what I'm saying. Granted I'm a cynical cuss but I think reasonably so.


----------



## AndyP (Aug 5, 2020)

I have not yet understood how far I can influence such an AI, so that the result is something that somehow comes close to my idea. 

If I don't have an idea and want to be inspired, is an AI the right tool?
I generate an AI track until something comes out that I like, that is not making music for me anymore.


----------



## starise (Aug 5, 2020)

I once knew a man who worked on environmental control machines. When he would get a complaint about a customer's house he would say, " It feels ok in my house". He didn't really care about people. It was clear in his responses to other's problems.

As a person who does not depend on music for my income it would be easy to become complacent about what others see as a potential dilemma. I say potential because I don't personally think the fallout will warrant the effort given to this discussion. Will things change? Yes. To what extent? Not as much as you think it will and probably much less. While I understand and can empathize with the concern from some I don't think it's warranted entirely.

There's a saying I sometimes hear when people are leaving a job or layed off. " I was looking for a job before I came here." I think it's this kind of adaptive mentality that can help people to stay in it for the long haul or adapt to something else. People are out of work in good situations. People have work in bad situations. Is this really about music and how it is made or livelihoods? I feel a sense of unease, maybe self imposed about AI in music. Don't forget the most complex computer ever made is between your ears. No one can duplicate it. Since when has a copy of anything been better than the original? AI simply ties to determine and construct outcomes. It will always be a facsimile. Only in sci fi movies do we see AI gaining an upper hand over those who made it.

The argument can be made that others will think AI music is "good enough" to replace man made music. What is "good enough" and what is man made? These are sliding rules all depending on a an individual's view of a standard.

80's pop music was all mostly midi driving hardware synths as a backdrop. Were albums sold? Yes. Is this a valid comparison? Maybe. Someone still had to program the midi, set up the synths collaborate with the musicians, make the recordings. Humans were never out of the process. 80's music left a bad taste in many people's mouths mine included. To many it wasn't really music in the truest sense...more like the beginning of loops and arpeggios. What kind of music is probably the most played music on radio in the US aside from classical music? Is it 80's music? No. It's more often classic rock. Why? Because classic rock was played by real musicians not sequencers. I think you'll find that those who like 80's pop mostly like it for nostalgia sake and not for music content. Is it safe to say we gladly exited that musical era? I think so. Why? I remember radio music changing coming from the late 70's into the early 80's. I didn't know what a sequencer was then. I only knew somehow it had lost the vibe.

How does any of this compare to AI? I will always see AI as assisted intelligence. I think people will come to see it the same way you might look at a fresh baked pie made from fresh genuine ingredients or one made on an assembly line with robotic assistance and ingredient substitutes. It will be a passing thing if that, just like 80's pop. There will be a clear delineation between the good stuff made by the good composers and the bad stuff made by machines. Value will be placed on music made with direct humans involved in composition. Look at movies made entirely using CGI. Yep some of them did ok, but who wants to see that all the time? Not me.


----------



## purple (Aug 5, 2020)

starise said:


> There's a saying I sometimes hear when people are leaving a job or layed off. " I was looking for a job before I came here." I think it's this kind of adaptive mentality that can help people to stay in it for the long haul or adapt to something else. People are out of work in good situations. People have work in bad situations. Is this really about music and how it is made or livelihoods? I feel a sense of unease, maybe self imposed about AI in music. Don't forget the most complex computer ever made is between your ears. No one can duplicate it. Since when has a copy of anything been better than the original? AI simply ties to determine and construct outcomes. It will always be a facsimile. Only in sci fi movies do we see AI gaining an upper hand over those who made it.



AI currently is not meant to replace or replicate the brain. It's essentially a highly specialized tool that can learn to do one thing really really well. Every application it is being developed for is quickly becoming easier and easier for those AI tools as the developers iron out bugs and train the algorithms. 

It's arrogant to think any creative endeavors are safe from it, or at least the "industry" or people making a career out of them are. There will probably still be human "trend-setters" for a while, but 95% of media composition will be dominated by AI as directors want something cheap, consistent, and that willdo whatever they want. 

I can imagine a very likely scenario in which a tool like AIVA is simply another piece of software people in media have along photoshop or premiere or whatever. I can absolutely tell you that if I were directing something, and needed music quickly and cheaply that is still somewhat "bespoke", I wouldn't see any other easy way to do it once those tools are available. Obviously if you're at the top level or you're doing something very specific, you'll still need a human, but do I really need a bespoke composer for my prime time cooking show when I can generate a whole inoffensive score that doesn't violate any copyrights in an evening? Nature shows? Youtube channels that use a lot of library music? Podcasts?


----------



## starise (Aug 5, 2020)

Of course you are projecting an outcome into the future the same as I am only our conclusions are different.

I like the idea of using the program as a tool. I would personally never use it as a total solution as you suggest. Others may well do this and get payed for it. If time frames and demands were such that I couldn't make music in the usual way I would simply find something else to do. IOW it's below my standards as a musician.

I would never let a computer make compositions I put my name on. If music comes down to a fast food process I'm not about to be involved in it. Creativity doesn't happen with computers. The human brain creates, computers don't. I might be the worst composer in the world but at least they were my compositions.

I am hearing "fast","get it done" and "get by". These words are not in my vocabulary as a composer. Understandably these are concerns for anyone with a deadline. This is why I don't have this as my main income. I empathize with anyone caught between a rock and a hard place. Everyone needs to make their own choices.

Projections into the future are just that, projections, hunches, guesses etc. I don't think good people doing good work will be as challenged personally.


----------



## Dex (Aug 5, 2020)

AndyP said:


> I have not yet understood how far I can influence such an AI, so that the result is something that somehow comes close to my idea.
> 
> If I don't have an idea and want to be inspired, is an AI the right tool?
> I generate an AI track until something comes out that I like, that is not making music for me anymore.


Some AIs are meant to be interactive down to the note level. Look up deepbach, for example.

Other AIs, like Aiva, are meant to do a lot more broad strokes, and be usable by people without much or any musical knowledge.

They're all just tools ultimately meant to be used by humans who want to create something.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Aug 5, 2020)

chocobitz825 said:


> Most people don’t care. They don’t care if the music was done by a real orchestra or a virtual instrument. They don’t care if it was done by a pro or an amateur. They only care if it resonates with them.



Yah. I despise everything about this, and if it does resonate then people are missing a soul.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Aug 5, 2020)

You know, all the ridiculous justifications for this among musicians are starting to piss me off.

"It's meant to augment, not replace."

"Most music is shite anyway."

"Listeners don't care."

All of that can go screw itself!

This is sex with a vacuum cleaner instead of a partner you care about. I hate it.


----------



## ryans (Aug 5, 2020)

Really interesting debate.. 

I'm probably alone here.. but I find the prospect of music (or any art) created by an alternate, non-human intelligence fascinating. 

In its current form obviously AIVA doesn't fit this category...


----------



## purple (Aug 5, 2020)

starise said:


> Of course you are projecting an outcome into the future the same as I am only our conclusions are different.
> 
> I like the idea of using the program as a tool. I would personally never use it as a total solution as you suggest. Others may well do this and get payed for it. If time frames and demands were such that I couldn't make music in the usual way I would simply find something else to do. IOW it's below my standards as a musician.
> 
> ...


You're assuming this will be a tool for composers, while I think its current trajectory is as a tool for producers and directors who don't want to pay a composer.


----------



## chocobitz825 (Aug 5, 2020)

purple said:


> You're assuming this will be a tool for composers, while I think its current trajectory is as a tool for producers and directors who don't want to pay a composer.



i think both are possible. People keep acting like there will be one AI for everything. As stated by others it will be an automation tool used by both sides.

as for those who are offended and brought to rage by the idea of AI replacing the purity of art...it’d be a compelling argument if it weren’t so unoriginal.

were the Beatles brilliant or noise? Depends on the generation. For as much as we celebrate their creativity now as brilliance, to the previous generation they were the dumbing down of classic art. Every generation and genre since has rinsed and repeated these claims. Synths aren’t music, it’s noise. Virtual instruments can never make convincing heart moving music. Yada yada yada.

Our feelings about this topic are irrelevant because change is coming whether we like it or not. Embrace it or defy it, it doesn’t matter, it’s gonna happen. No matter what you think, a new generation will celebrate its innovation and try to defend it from the next trend dumbing it down.

p.s. quantizing is blasphemy


----------



## chocobitz825 (Aug 6, 2020)

Nick Batzdorf said:


> Yah. I despise everything about this, and if it does resonate then people are missing a soul.



ok but if you asked someone in the late 90s if virtual instruments could ever be a replacement for human performances, the answer would have been absolutely not. Fast forward and we’re here debating which sample libraries sound most realistic and convincing. Time after time defending the soul of our compositions despite them not being performed by real players. The entire premise of this forum is blasphemy by this anti-technology rhetoric.

sure we all recognize there is something different about real human performances and sampled ones, yet here we are trying to solve the equation to close the gap because our needs have changed and for many sampled instruments are their way to express their vision.

Is AI a step too far? Like virtual instruments, I think it depends on how it’s used and how it’s received. If the average person is brought to tears by a VI performance is the composition lesser just because it’s sampled? If someone used AI to enhance their composition, a composition that still stems from a human idea, or emotion or scene that they want to convey, is the composition invalidated because of the tools used?

We make music to express ourselves and/or to reach others. For those goals, I say you’re free to use or not use whatever tools you want. If the end result is the expression of the idea you intended, it all counts to me.


----------



## mikeh-375 (Aug 6, 2020)

Schoenerg once said that there is plenty left to be said in C major. He mght be proved wrong sometime soon.


----------



## Flexi83 (Aug 6, 2020)

chocobitz825 said:


> We make music to express ourselves and/or to reach others. For those goals, I say you’re free to use or not use whatever tools you want. If the end result is the expression of the idea you intended, it all counts to me.



You said it: " We make music to express ourselves " ... - what has that to do when AI creates this for you? For me as consumer it counts if I listen to a piece that you created or your AI robot assistant. You connect your personal feelings with others and they resonate.

Its like talking with a robot about emotional stuff. Can you do it...yes ...how do you feel with it?...other question.


----------



## chocobitz825 (Aug 6, 2020)

Flexi83 said:


> You said it: " We make music to express ourselves " ... - what has that to do when AI creates this for you? For me as consumer it counts if I listen to a piece that you created or your AI robot assistant. You connect your personal feelings with others and they resonate.




It matters for the aspiring filmmaker who is getting their start on youtube and wants to craft the background music that fits their vision. but they don't have the skills to make it themselves, or budget to pay someone for that, and using royalty-free music doesn't really give them the feeling of an individual piece of work.

It matters for the person who has a melody in their head but doesn't have the resources to craft instrumentation for their song.


You could always say "well just go learn and do it yourself!" but let's be real. It is expensive, and time-consuming, in an age of increased need to do more by yourself, with less budget and fewer returns. Depending on where you come from, good music education is hard to get. A simple AI that helps make instrumentation for you on your smartphone might cost far less. It might also set some of these aspiring young dreamers on the path to studying deeper.

How many of us have really tried to understand the inner workings of instruments we dont actually play but use as virtual instruments? Technology doesn't kill curiosity in everyone. Especially if we encourage tech to be educational by nature.

Maybe if some of the purists put down their pitchforks, they could be involved in the development so that the AI works for musicians, and not just for people trying to replace musicians. Maybe we could develop AI's that really help educate users and helps them skill up to the point where they need the AI less, but it's still there as a nice assistant when you need it.

Maybe the AI is just set to bring up and optimize your templates and speed through the boring non-writing related tasks. Maybe the AI checks for copyright infringement, or sometimes just give a suggestion that maybe you might want to try a different melody or harmony because the one you have now is way too close to something you did years back.

The possibilities for what AI becomes depends on the motives of those who create it, and whether you participate or not, it will be made. Better we have the AI we want than the one that our clients want to replace us.



Flexi83 said:


> Its like talking with a robot about emotional stuff. Can you do it...yes ...how do you feel with it?...other question.



funny thing since japan is having positive results with nursing homes that use robot pets to help elderly not feel lonely. They've also had positive results with disabled people who can't leave their home, but use robots to virtually be on-site at a job. Sometimes, the tech really works.


----------



## starise (Aug 6, 2020)

Great ideas. If my wife passes away I'll just get a robotic wife. My pets too. Who need humans for anything? We stink. I'm sure plenty will get on board with these ideas. We can all work to produce things that might replace us. Forget training others into professions. We can simply make robots to do all of that.
I tried the software. It isn't terrible. It isn't great. Nowhere near the level to make it important enough to even consider it a threat to creativity. 
If producers want to devalue art they might as well join Spotify and YouTube in helping to devalue all music entirely. This is the trajectory. So be it. 
How many of you do what you do because you like it? No need for an autopilot here. If they flood the market with this stuff it's only going to further contrast against the better stuff.


----------



## chocobitz825 (Aug 6, 2020)

starise said:


> Great ideas. If my wife passes away I'll just get a robotic wife. My pets too. Who need humans for anything? We stink. I'm sure plenty will get on board with these ideas. We can all work to produce things that might replace us. Forget training others into professions. We can simply make robots to do all of that.
> I tried the software. It isn't terrible. It isn't great. Nowhere near the level to make it important enough to even consider it a threat to creativity.
> If producers want to devalue art they might as well join Spotify and YouTube in helping to devalue all music entirely. This is the trajectory. So be it.
> How many of you do what you do because you like it? No need for an autopilot here. If they flood the market with this stuff it's only going to further contrast against the better stuff.


I can’t agree with the narrow minded perspective. There are people who have conditions that make human interaction extremely difficult, who can benefit from human-like AI and robots to train them in human interaction. This is actually something that had helped my child who is on the spectrum. Humans overwhelm him. But he has grown overtime by learning expressions and common phrases from carefully crafted softwares and at teaching expression at a comfortable pace.

if your argument is that it’s a waste to replace humans with robots in the workforce, my perspective is, we should let robots handle what they can and invest in training those laid off people on skills that provide them better opportunities and satisfaction. If a robot can do the job it’s because we’re making people work like robots in these unnecessary positions.

also your mention of Spotify and YouTube are odd sense streaming media has liberated countless artists from the need of slave contracts with labels and agents. Also plenty of brilliant creators have taken to YouTube to spread knowledge and great art....

so i mean...keep your tin hats and candies since technology is so scary, but a tool in the right hands can do great things. Maybe some of you are just too afraid of the tools.


----------



## starise (Aug 6, 2020)

This isn't about agreeing or disagreeing it's about opinions. Having an alternate view is not narrow minded. That is simply your way of attempting to validate yourself. 

Robots used in factories are much much different than robots used as replacements for creativity with emphasis on creativity.You are intelligent enough to know that and must have realized how shallow that comment was.

You apparently haven't made or attempted to make any money on either Spotify or YouTube. Please investigate your claims before you make them. Thanks.

Why not be totally transparent here and objective about it? I'm not against tech, I have multiple DAWs and sample libraries, heck I've even played with Scaler and similar programs. Don't attempt to paint me(us) into a corner here. It simply won't work. Generalizations are just that generalizations.

Some of us don't have any obligation to be thrilled about this. We all know what we like and what we don't like. We all have our own opinions. I do compose though and don't fancy any "help" in that process. No harm done. I'm not a dinosaur, you aren't cutting edge and this is software not a baby. End of story


----------



## chocobitz825 (Aug 6, 2020)

starise said:


> This isn't about agreeing or disagreeing it's about opinions. Having an alternate view is not narrow minded. That is simply your way of attempting to validate yourself.
> 
> Robots used in factories are much much different than robots used as replacements for creativity with emphasis on creativity.You are intelligent enough to know that and must have realized how shallow that comment was.
> 
> You apparently haven't made or attempted to make any money on either Spotify or YouTube. Please investigate your claims before you make them. Thanks.



perhaps we would benefit from clarifying if monetary gain was the point. My point was that some people are out their expressing their art and educating others about music, damn if it makes money or not. Pick your side. Are you an artist for the sake of your art, or are you dealing art for the sake of your pocketbook? Guaranteed if financial security via art is your goal, you’ve been flexible on the purity of art quite a few times.

I don’t at all expect you to be thrilled about AI. If you’re not interested, fine. Just don’t go around acting like it’s the end of artistry, as if your DAW and sample libraries weren’t considered the same about two decades ago. Go talk to a purist who still thinks tape is the only way recording should be done.

The blindspot for people is that they don’t realize when their comfort for the things they know become a blockade against the progress of another generations new technology.

by all means, continue composing, and never touch AI. More power to you...but somewhere out there is a purist who thinks you’re a fraud for not composing strictly by piano and handwritten score. DAWs are for people too lazy to notate by hand right?


----------



## starise (Aug 6, 2020)

There's a HUGE difference here between sample libraries and software that composes by looking at other compositional examples and "deciding". Why are you combining the two? No direct comparisons can be made.

One is direct control. The other relies on prior algorithms to decide with little to no input from the user.

I agree all tech was probably frowned on by someone one at some time...once again a broad generalization not worth pursuit.

These "purists" you talk about, yeah they are probably out there. I think it's a less specific answer. There are those who embrace it, those who reluctantly accept it and those who want nothing to do with it.

Recently I was made aware of someone who uses linux because he is concerned that Win 10 is spying on him. There is usually some truth to every conspiracy theory and he has a bit of a point even though his view would seem extreme.Those people are definitely out there although not in large numbers.

The comparison you are attempting to make isn't valid if it goes like this-

*Anyone who doesn't accept AI compositional software is an old behind the times curmudgeon. In so many words simply ignorant, unwilling to embrace anything new*

You attempt to give historical support for this by showing that sample libraries and other forms of tech were once frowned upon. This is invalid because the comparisons are not similar. AI is a new kind of tool that tries to do some of the thinking for us. Sample libraries and synthesizers do not. You still tell them what to do on a very basic level.

Comparisons are hard to come by, especially historical ones since computers haven't always had this capability. Any comparison should be done against creative material. Who does that? Humans. You can't use something like the auto pilot in a jet as an example because it isn't creative. It's merely doing something to fly the plane. You can't use sample libraries, even those with round robins because you still tell it what to do and when to do it.

I'll let YouTube an Spotify go for now. If you consider success being buried under 2000 pages of data where no one can find you and making no money a boost to musicians I beg to differ.Yes "some" musicians have gained exposure.Many of them because they had a corporate boost of some kind.


----------



## chocobitz825 (Aug 6, 2020)

starise said:


> There's a HUGE difference here between sample libraries and software that composes by looking at other compositional examples and "deciding". Why are you combining the two? No direct comparisons can be made.
> 
> One is direct control. The other relies on prior algorithms to decide with little to no input from the user.
> 
> ...



this speaks to the issue with blanket definition of AI in music. AIVA is the type that makes a full composition with little input from the user. It’s why it’s yet to be very useful yet. That’s not the only example of music AI though. I honestly feel this is the key flaw to AIVA. It’s too complicated and non-specific for non-musical users, and too automated and limited for songwriters.

Other AI that pull loops together to make royalty free music are useful for non-musical types.

AI for composers is possible, and could be applied to automating a number of processes musicians could appreciate. My overall point is that this AI in AIVA is not the definition of music AI, or it’s applications for music.

and as for the comparison to sample libraries the point is the purity argument. That something human is missing. Your samples are not your hands making the sound. You’re limited to the performances captured and lately automated instruments and loop based libraries are increasing in number to cover the performances that can’t be traditionally done without cutting corners and taking away some do the composers freedom. Hell I think this forum spends months drooling over spitfire and orchestral tools libraries based on loops and arpeggiators, which are automated ideas and sounds not created by the composer.

im sure we won’t agree on this, and I’ll admit my bias. If we’re talking about the purity of art, art does not need suceess nor validation. Far too often Round this forum people shit on something because it’s “killing art”, while they complain about how hard it is to get money or recognition for their art without pandering to an audience.

AI is absolutely designed to help those focused on business, and if we try, it could be educational for those who want to learn more. True art will never be threatened by AI because they’re not at all related.


----------



## starise (Aug 6, 2020)

chocobitz825 said:


> this speaks to the issue with blanket definition of AI in music. AIVA is the type that makes a full composition with little input from the user. It’s why it’s yet to be very useful yet. That’s not the only example of music AI though. I honestly feel this is the key flaw to AIVA. It’s too complicated and non-specific for non-musical users, and too automated and limited for songwriters.
> 
> Other AI that pull loops together to make royalty free music are useful for non-musical types.
> 
> ...



I definitely think this is the way things are headed more and more in the future concerning your comments on sample libraries. Sort of a hybrid kind of thing where you take an automated recipe and drop into a composition. The ideas behind it are adding more realistic articulations to the instruments as real musicians would play it. Lately in sampled group settings some variables are changed in order to more closely resemble a real group of musicians. This is still the choice of the composer though as to the context he or she wants to use it in. It could be argued that this is AI. Is it artificial? Yes. Is it intelligent? In what context? Creative intelligence, no. Mocked up programmed intelligent responses, yes.
It's begins to split hairs over what intelligent is concerning computers. Intelligence makes choices based on input. The choices might not necessarily be predetermined. True AI allows the computer to make the choices aping the way humans do it IMHO. No human input after programming, autonomous decision making takes the immediate decisions out of the composer's hands. At that point we might as well enjoy a Mai ti by the pool while the computer sweats it out in the studio. Not the way I would prefer to work.


----------



## Troels Folmann (Aug 6, 2020)




----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Aug 6, 2020)

chocobitz825 said:


> Is AI a step too far? Like virtual instruments, I think it depends on how it’s used and how it’s received.



A rocket trip to another planet and back too far. 

I wish the music industry were still firing on all cylinders, i.e. that the studios were still thriving, but at least VIs are playing a human being's music.


----------



## purple (Aug 6, 2020)

I think some of you guys are too optimistic about humans having some magic to their music that can't be replicated by AI.


----------



## Christoph18 (Aug 6, 2020)

purple said:


> I think some of you guys are too optimistic about humans having some magic to their music that can't be replicated by AI.


I agree. It's just a matter of time till AI will be as creative and intelligent as a human. I think AI won't replace live musicians, though. People always want concerts to be played by real people. But for me as a composer - I'm just happy with my decision to study engineering instead of music. But who knows, even that isn't replaceable.


----------



## Peter Williams (Aug 6, 2020)

Troels Folmann said:


>



I do believe that your darker, cynical forecast may indeed come to pass, and that AI will best succeed on a human level as a synthesis with organic development, creating a smarter and more logical human being in time. My hope for a near future for music is that AI will cause a reactionary movement in which composers will stop churning out so much formulaic music. They will instead pursue more thought provoking and interesting art that celebrates the individual spirit.


----------



## Geoff Moore (Aug 6, 2020)

(AI Generated Frank Sinatra)








OpenAI Jukebox begins creating new Elvis and Sinatra songs, with lyrics


"It's Christmas time, and you know what that means," sings Sinatra, "Ohh, it's hot tub time!" A neural net has begun composing entire songs modeled on the prior works of artists in a wide range of genres, including lyrics and vocal performances.




newatlas.com


----------



## Kent (Aug 6, 2020)

starise said:


> What kind of music is probably the most played music on radio in the US aside from classical music? Is it 80's music? No. It's more often classic rock. Why? Because classic rock was played by real musicians not sequencers. I think you'll find that those who like 80's pop mostly like it for nostalgia sake and not for music content. Is it safe to say we gladly exited that musical era? I think so. Why? I remember radio music changing coming from the late 70's into the early 80's. I didn't know what a sequencer was then. I only knew somehow it had lost the vibe.



Or, perhaps, it has more to do with the demographics of the average person who still listens to terrestrial radio?


----------



## purple (Aug 6, 2020)

kmaster said:


> Or, perhaps, it has more to do with the demographics of the average person who still listens to terrestrial radio?


Yep. You'd be hard pressed to find a lot of young people who listen to classic rock _or_ the radio in general.


----------



## purple (Aug 6, 2020)

Christoph18 said:


> I agree. It's just a matter of time till AI will be as creative and intelligent as a human. I think AI won't replace live musicians, though. People always want concerts to be played by real people. But for me as a composer - I'm just happy with my decision to study engineering instead of music. But who knows, even that isn't replaceable.


I think there will human artists still for a while... pushing boundaries and doing things that require higher levels of planning and thinking. But 90% of music supervisors and so on aren't looking to push the boundaries. If they can download a program for $50, $1000, or even $10000, and feed it a bunch of soundtracks they want to recreate cheaply and legally they will absolutely do this. Similar AIs are being used for rendering CGI too I saw somewhere. "true" artists will still be around, but "professional" artists involved in multimedia industries are not going to last for the most part. Library composers are going to the the first to go, then maybe lots of game composers, then probably reality TV and nature show composers, then film and drama TV, and so on.


----------



## chocobitz825 (Aug 6, 2020)

Troels Folmann said:


>




i love everything about this. I repeat my earlier point. What kind of AI we get depends on who makes it and why. So someone like you, and all of the other concerned composers need to be a part of the development, not just wait and see. We could have something beautiful that help us as intelligent assistive technology...or a movie studio could put all their money into a technology that terms out mediocre bgm at minimal cost. It’s up to us to make sure even AI protects the values of music.


----------



## chocobitz825 (Aug 6, 2020)

Christoph18 said:


> I agree. It's just a matter of time till AI will be as creative and intelligent as a human. I think AI won't replace live musicians, though. People always want concerts to be played by real people.



This entirely depends on the trends and how people are raised. Much like how kids today are used to 3D animation as their norm, kids in the future can be raised in AI/holographic musical performances as their norm.

it’s a funny similar case though. CGI was another medium that would never replicated human emotions, people said. Yet here we are and Pixar has made decades worth of proof otherwise.

There are fine lines and whatever is made from computer technology is not a full replacement for human media and art, but it can exist on its own as a different and relevant alternative. It’s an exciting time.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Aug 6, 2020)

purple said:


> I think some of you guys are too optimistic about humans having some magic to their music that can't be replicated by AI.



I think some of you guys are too optimistic about humans having some magic when they have sex that can't be replicated by a robot. 

The genitalia feel the same, so what's the difference?


----------



## KarlHeinz (Aug 6, 2020)

Without comment:









KVR Forum: Unison MIDI Wizard? - Hosts & Applications (Sequencers, DAWs, Audio Editors, etc.) Forum


KVR Audio Forum - Unison MIDI Wizard? - Hosts & Applications (Sequencers, DAWs, Audio Editors, etc.) Forum




www.kvraudio.com





If its not a big fake they sold this out in a few days, 2500 copies, and, fake or not, they really CLOSED the sale. Around 400 bucks a piece, and there are so much better apps out there for a fraction of the money.

But yes, thats it, invest some money for a whooosh wizard and get your next million dollar hits or whatever in a minute (sorry, this IS a comment I am afraid....)

As a (bad - in all case of knowledge -) hobby musician I am not affected in case of paying my bills so more open and interested in this kind of stuff to just help me realize the ideas I have in my head.

But I can follow all the concerns. On the other hand: what has been the first piano compared to tribal drums, vocals and some bone flutes ? Wasnt that "AI" at that time ?


----------



## chocobitz825 (Aug 6, 2020)

KarlHeinz said:


> Without comment:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



to be clear though, $400 dollars included a slew of educational movies and other packaged material from Unison apparently. It was not the actual value of the software, but it might have been the pricepoint they made to try and make up for the development of suck a simplistic and crude application of "intelligence." For the hip hop production scene, I'm sure that's as much as some non-musical producers need to make music. 

I would hope the end game in all this is that music production becomes easier for composers and hobbyists. I hope good sounding instruments and production are easier to access, cheaper, and more intuitive for hobbyists and pros so that there is no gateway keeping you from expressing your ideas.


----------



## Kent (Aug 6, 2020)

George Jetson’s job was (will be?) “full time”: two hours a week, occasionally pushing a button.
The problem is not AI (robots, etc) putting people out of jobs. It’s the lack of a solid plan for a post-work economy. Whether that’s a solid UBI or a Star Trek-style abolition of currency altogether, this is where the disconnect lies. All of human history has been about finding more efficient means of existence; what do we (governments and corporations, mainly) do now at the end-game?

(By the way, George “was born” in 2022...)


----------



## Christoph18 (Aug 6, 2020)

chocobitz825 said:


> This entirely depends on the trends and how people are raised. Much like how kids today are used to 3D animation as their norm, kids in the future can be raised in AI/holographic musical performances as their norm.
> 
> it’s a funny similar case though. CGI was another medium that would never replicated human emotions, people said. Yet here we are and Pixar has made decades worth of proof otherwise.
> 
> There are fine lines and whatever is made from computer technology is not a full replacement for human media and art, but it can exist on its own as a different and relevant alternative. It’s an exciting time.


I have never though about it this way. The Pixar analogy is great and you're probably right. I guess in the future people won't see music as a craft or as a field of skill.


----------



## chocobitz825 (Aug 6, 2020)

Christoph18 said:


> I have never though about it this way. The Pixar analogy is great and you're probably right. I guess in the future people won't see music as a craft or as a field of skill.



I think people won't see music as an inaccessible craft. Its a mixed bag but when you consider how much people indulge in artistic concepts now it's incredible. How many people are now thinking about filters, and color balance and lighting because they want the perfect Instagram photo? How many people have got deep into video editing for the sake of their youtube channels? the results aren't perfect, but we have more creative people in the world than at any other time in history, I'm sure. I have found loads of compelling short movies on youtube that rival studio documentaries. We may not always like the art people are making, but its incredible how much art people are making because its accessible now.


----------



## Christoph18 (Aug 6, 2020)

chocobitz825 said:


> I think people won't see music as an inaccessible craft. Its a mixed bag but when you consider how much people indulge in artistic concepts now it's incredible. How many people are now thinking about filters, and color balance and lighting because they want the perfect Instagram photo? How many people have got deep into video editing for the sake of their youtube channels? the results aren't perfect, but we have more creative people in the world than at any other time in history, I'm sure. I have found loads of compelling short movies on youtube that rival studio documentaries. We may not always like the art people are making, but its incredible how much art people are making because its accessible now.


I think all of what you said is true. But the things you listed don't use super intelligent AI. Super intelligent AI is the kind of thing that can make an enjoyable movie without any real direct human influence. For the next few years I think the different arts will benefit from its ease of accessibility like you described. But later, I think, the work of AI will drastically overshadow the work of the human artist and people will lose motivation to create.


----------



## chocobitz825 (Aug 6, 2020)

Christoph18 said:


> I think all of what you said is true. But the things you listed don't use super intelligent AI. Super intelligent AI is the kind of thing that can make an enjoyable movie without any real direct human influence. For the next few years I think the different arts will benefit from its ease of accessibility like you described. But later, I think, the work of AI will drastically overshadow the work of the human artist and people will lose motivation to create.



I sometimes wonder what will happen when AI reaches that point, and I don't see a point where people stop consuming art. Much like automation of food prep hasn't stopped people from cooking, yet. Though I wonder if the composition and consumption methods for art will change. I imagine that at some point popular music could be a thing of the past, and each person has their own AI that manages their homes and various daily processes, including creating music and visual media for them. Imagine a personalized soundtrack for your own life that changes with your mood and the things you're doing or changed by physiological responses. Science fiction/fantasy perhaps, but an interesting and somewhat beautiful possibility for how people might consume music one day. No more pop hits. Sure its not music you create, but its music created by your experience, for your experience. That seems kinda cool.


----------



## starise (Aug 6, 2020)

kmaster said:


> Or, perhaps, it has more to do with the demographics of the average person who still listens to terrestrial radio?


 I believe many more people listen to terrestrial radio than one might think. It's still in every car. I have no less than two Google Homes and 4 Alexas at my house which I have made "smart". I can stream music any time I want to either at home or in my car. Paid Pandora channel. Most of my music is on a streaming format. I still often find myself tuning into the radio although I listen mainly to voice shows. I have terrestrial radios at home and one portable at work. Battery powered. Try streaming when the power in your house goes out  Not really a huge fan of classic rock but I know others who have it on all the time.


purple said:


> You're assuming this will be a tool for composers, while I think its current trajectory is as a tool for producers and directors who don't want to pay a composer.



How many here are composers? Putting it here is either an experiment to determine how composers would respond or there are intentions for composers.

If this is true, then one day Spitfire will market paks to AI software owners. No need to consult real composers. AI will be the new DAW. The only issue is now they are dependent on only those sales. No one else is in the biz will be making music. Distribution would likely look more like this- 
Sample libraries>AI software>Producer/director. Eventually the libraries business will be absorbed by the AI corporations. AI will monopolize that segment of the business. Eventually directors will become dependent on them because they put everyone else out of business. Now these companies can raise their prices...see where this is going? They are essentially screwing themselves which they deserve BTW.

If they pay a composer to operate the software it will be peanuts because composers are now reduced to unskilled button pushers.Any old monkey will do. It this really what everyone wants?


----------



## purple (Aug 6, 2020)

Nick Batzdorf said:


> I think some of you guys are too optimistic about humans having some magic when they have sex that can't be replicated by a robot.
> 
> The genitalia feel the same, so what's the difference?


That's a way more complicated topic for a much further future technology. But I don't think someone watching a cooking show on TV at 4 on a Wednesday is going to notice or care that the music in the show is written by an algorithm.


----------



## Lionel Schmitt (Aug 6, 2020)

what does a composing-AI have to do with "Sample Talk"?


----------



## purple (Aug 6, 2020)

kmaster said:


> George Jetson’s job was (will be?) “full time”: two hours a week, occasionally pushing a button.
> The problem is not AI (robots, etc) putting people out of jobs. It’s the lack of a solid plan for a post-work economy. Whether that’s a solid UBI or a Star Trek-style abolition of currency altogether, this is where the disconnect lies. All of human history has been about finding more efficient means of existence; what do we (governments and corporations, mainly) do now at the end-game?
> 
> (By the way, George “was born” in 2022...)


I said something like this earlier in this thread, but I'll repeat: The idea of having less work to be done is only horrible in a system where everyone needs to work full time to eat and where technological advances put people out of work. Advances in technology should be a boon for workers, because it _should_ mean their shifts get shorter and their wages get higher. Instead it means their wages get smaller and their competition gets worse.


----------



## chocobitz825 (Aug 6, 2020)

starise said:


> If they pay a composer to operate the software it will be peanuts because composers are now reduced to unskilled button pushers.Any old monkey will do. It this really what everyone wants?



I imagine this is how the coal industry and the auto industry went out...


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Aug 6, 2020)

purple said:


> That's a way more complicated topic for a much further future technology. But I don't think someone watching a cooking show on TV at 4 on a Wednesday is going to notice or care that the music in the show is written by an algorithm.



They also wouldn't notice if a pit bull bit them in the balls.

And... ?


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Aug 6, 2020)

purple said:


> I said something like this earlier in this thread, but I'll repeat: The idea of having less work to be done is only horrible in a system where everyone needs to work full time to eat and where technological advances put people out of work. Advances in technology should be a boon for workers, because it _should_ mean their shifts get shorter and their wages get higher. Instead it means their wages get smaller and their competition gets worse.



I agree with that totally, in fact all the robot apocalypse stories are both false and a distraction from the real problem of unsustainable inequality.

But it's a separate discussion from work. This is about art being replaced by an asshole machine.


----------



## Troels Folmann (Aug 7, 2020)

*SOUND*P*AI*NT 💩


----------



## José Herring (Aug 8, 2020)

Every demo I've heard is boring and unmusical as f*&k. If we can't do better than that then we really can't be calling ourselves musicians.


----------



## Heinigoldstein (Aug 8, 2020)

The point is, what kind of significance does music have . If it‚s just a kind of backround for you, with no artistically intentions, I‘m afraid, AI is the future. It will become better and better and since it will be cheap, companies, TV-stations and a lot more will use it. No matter if itˋs good or bad. And in the moment it still is pretty bad IMHO. 
But since the library market is pretty down, economically it doesn‘t make a big difference for the majority of musicians anyhow.

If you consider music as art, like I do, AI is not relevant at all. It‘s never art, if it‘s not created by a human being. A Monet-styl painting might be sold at Wallmart, but never in an art gallery and nobody will pay millions for a sculpture modeled by a machine......well, at least I hope so, but you never know with the art market. But that‘s another topic


----------



## cola2410 (Aug 8, 2020)

Actually I know a thing or two about AI progresses in some industries but actually we have some advantages in our imperfections. We create music for humans to listen to, that's a big thing in itself. Simply speaking we can't really tolerate 200bpm and above stuff because our input channels are very slow but for a machine 10k bpm might not be enough. AI is definitely able to outperform us and basically no one questions the statement these days. But essentially it doesn't make any sense for us because we are social creatures by nature and we desperately need to communicate with similar species. I"m suspicious about "being musical" definitions because art is a human term and we can only guess what this means for machines if their abilities outgrow ours. And then the next question will be - are we just the biologically self-sustained old-generation neural machines too? The game will be over when AI starts mimicking humans being non-human, the moment when we'll become slaves without realizing it and still listening to the music we love, looking at the paintings we like, tasting the food we adore.


----------



## chocobitz825 (Aug 8, 2020)

cola2410 said:


> Actually I know a thing or two about AI progresses in some industries but actually we have some advantages in our imperfections. We create music for humans to listen to, that's a big thing in itself. Simply speaking we can't really tolerate 200bpm and above stuff because our input channels are very slow but for a machine 10k bpm might not be enough. AI is definitely able to outperform us and basically no one questions the statement these days. But essentially it doesn't make any sense for us because we are social creatures by nature and we desperately need to communicate with similar species. I"m suspicious about "being musical" definitions because art is a human term and we can only guess what this means for machines if their abilities outgrow ours. And then the next question will be - are we just the biologically self-sustained old-generation neural machines too? The game will be over when AI starts mimicking humans being non-human, the moment when we'll become slaves without realizing it and still listening to the music we love, looking at the paintings we like, tasting the food we adore.



I always question the narrative that the end game for AI is the slavery of humankind....there's a big assumption that in the process of becoming more human, AI would naturally subject other life to the horrible things humankind has done to life on the planet. At best, maybe AI will even be better at being human than us. practicality with none of the cruelty.

Regarding our art AI conundrum. An AI made to make art is fulfilling a task. Its whole reason for being is to make what it's been told to make. It uses the set parameters for the task, uses its current knowledge and common influences to put together something that hopefully fulfills the needs of the task. So, it does what a lot of composers do right now when they're fulfilling orders to recreate something similar to past compositions from other composers, rather than simply making art from their souls. It's no wonder that AI could theoretically handle that task at the very least. Art fulfillment is a robotic task at its core. How much it resonates with others is subjective, and just because a human makes it doesn't mean its always good.

The only time we'll really see true art from an AI is when an AI with no set objective, decides to create something out of its own will and sense of expression. That...I actually really want to see.

PS, just wanted to show a really cool application of ANN used to upscale old film from the early 1900s to 60fps.


----------



## Akarin (Aug 9, 2020)

Here's my take (as someone who runs an AI research lab and teaches stuff like deep learning): AI will reach the level of human media composers very soon. By this, I mean the level of current media composers. The problem is not if AI can do it or if composers aren't bringing value over a machine but it is more a question of what people want. By people, I mean our customers: directors, producers, and so on.

How many times were you asked to go as close to a temp score without infringing on copyright? AI is already much better (and faster!) than humans.

It is only when we are asked to do something completely different and new that we still have an edge as humans. But as you very well know, this is not the majority of the demands that we get.


----------



## NYC Composer (Aug 9, 2020)

Hey, does Aiva...

1. Sing? Can it do various voices and emotions, if so? Can it cry and sob and moan vocally, convincingly?
2. Play blues slide guitar? 
3. Have a sense of humor and the ability to impart this in music?
4. If Aiva spits out ten pieces and the director says “ I want it to sound more, I dunno, like, orange?” will Aiva be able to go there?
5. If a director’s having a bad day, hows Aiva with sympathetic listening about, say, relationship problems? 
6. Does Aiva conduct, get the best out of symphonic musicians in an inspirational sense? If so, can it tell which of 20 string players is out of tune?
7. Does it write moving lyrics?

I could go on.....


----------



## chocobitz825 (Aug 9, 2020)

NYC Composer said:


> Hey, does Aiva...
> 
> 1. Sing? Can it do various voices and emotions, if so? Can it cry and sob and moan vocally, convincingly?
> 2. Play blues slide guitar?
> ...



1. AIVA cant but Splash Pro is dabbling in that.
2. I don't think it has slide guitar yet, but they'll likely add that down the line.
3. I don't know if you could call it a sense of humor, but some of its compositions are laughable.  seriously though, if there is a concept in music theory that can tell a person how to convey comedic feelings and elements, an AI can learn the same.
4. I think AIVA would struggle like any composer to figure out what more "orange" means, and would just keep pushing out stuff until something clicks....like a real composer would.
5. I suppose AIVA would save the director time fussing around with a composer so they could use that time to go see a therapist instead.
6. I don't think every composer has this skill set anyway. Its easy enough to get a composition from AIVA and then hire a team for recording.
7. Subjective, but there are AIs that write, and sometimes its actually deep. For a funny one though InspiroBotinspirobot.me actually sometimes pushes out something deep.

please, do go on 





(inspirobot)


----------



## NYC Composer (Aug 9, 2020)

3. I can’t wait to see AIVA’s first stand-up act. Now THAT I would pay to see


----------



## chocobitz825 (Aug 9, 2020)

NYC Composer said:


> 3. I can’t wait to see AIVA’s first stand-up act. Now THAT I would pay to see



We'll get there sooner or later 



https://twitter.com/HEADLINERTRON


----------



## Flexi83 (Aug 9, 2020)

chocobitz825 said:


> i love everything about this. I repeat my earlier point. What kind of AI we get depends on who makes it and why. So someone like you, and all of the other concerned composers need to be a part of the development, not just wait and see. We could have something beautiful that help us as intelligent assistive technology...or a movie studio could put all their money into a technology that terms out mediocre bgm at minimal cost. It’s up to us to make sure even AI protects the values of music.


Be part of the development? How ? Troels is musician and a skilled engineer. Of course he is positive about this because he is a toolmaker who benefits from the development. For me its quite unknown how disruptive AI can be.


----------



## Flexi83 (Aug 9, 2020)

If I look at china I can see what kind of system technology with all the face recognition and penality point eco sytem brings. The only ones who profit the most from this are the ones that owning the algorithms. I do not see myself being part of something if i were a born chinese...just some unlucky guy....


----------

