Has anyone on this forum used chatgpt to help them write lyrics? Does this method work very well?
Music is an expression that is a universal language, Never criticize anybody to harshly. They need time to grow but when they do, they do. Always be kind in what you say and do because the man upstairs is watching.
It's my understanding that the U.S. copyright office has ruled that lyrics generated by AI are not eligible for copyright.
There are a number of committees currently looking at AI as it pertains to intellectual property (I'm on one of them) and at this point it's a moving target. I suspect that some sort of compromise will be reached but personally I'd be cautious about using it at this point in time if you're planning on using your works commercially.
Has anyone on this forum used chatgpt to help them write lyrics? Does this method work very well?
It can help, but it tends (IMHO) to be a bit 'clunky' and generally needs work.
In addition to Roger's comments, as AI has been trained on a great deal of data from many sources, some of which, some are already suggesting has already infringed copyrights, there might also be a risk of being accused of plagiarism by using AI lyrics.
Caveat emptor.
Joanne Cooper who is on these fora has produced an App, "LyricLab" which has had a number of positive responses.
I've done the tiniest bit of exploring with AI lyrics. The English lyrics were better than I'd expected, though still pretty trite. My attempts at Proto-Indo-European lyrics appear to yield a quite high percentage "it's making this up" output. Perhaps that was inevitable
Jazz relative beginner, starting at a much older age than was helpful. AVL:MXE Linux; Windows 11 BIAB2024 Audiophile, a bunch of other software. Kawai MP6, Ui24R, Focusrite Saffire Pro40 and Scarletts .
It's my understanding that the U.S. copyright office has ruled that lyrics generated by AI are not eligible for copyright.
It was upheld in the District Court last August and SCOTUS ruled Dec. 20. 2023 that AI cannot hold a patent.
Without that ruling, the WGO (writers') strike probably would still be ongoing. Producers cannot raise money on works that they can't own.
Quote
There are a number of committees currently looking at AI as it pertains to intellectual property (I'm on one of them) and at this point it's a moving target. I suspect that some sort of compromise will be reached but personally I'd be cautious about using it at this point in time if you're planning on using your works commercially.
Don't hold your breath. Congress is trying to figure out how to regulate AI without running afoul of the "major questions doctrine". We're going to hear a lot about that when the decision in the Chevron case comes down which should be very soon.
In any case, AI generated lyrics cannot rise above mediocrity since it "averages" everything. Mediocre would be a vast improvement over the longwinded AI generated blather that everyone is posting online.
There is good news, however. You can use AI to generate song and story ideas and it's great for that—get pointed in directions that you would never consider otherwise. I've used it to shorten the research time on three projects that I've been putting off for decades (fact checking still must be done since AI doesn't know what it gets wrong). Since one has never been able to copyright an idea, this is not only ok but encouraged. I took a great course on this recently and learned quite a lot.
The actual copyrightable Work Product requires that an Author roll up his/her sleeves and get busy.
As mentioned by Gordon (thanks) I have a ai app that will assist with generating lyrics and chords using a few prompts or even a picture. It also integrates with Band-in-a-box. You can also use a free version. Check it out here www.lyriclab.net
Edited to add: I really cannot see how ai assisted songs cannot be copyrighted. Even if you try, you cannot get the ai engine to generate the same song twice. How would the lawyers know what was generated and what was not? What happens if you change one or two words? What if you just use it for inspiration? Personally, I think people who worry about copyright on ai assisted lyrics have not tried it for themselves.
I don't think there is a problem with using AI to generate ideas, which I think is all anyone is really talking about, because I can't think of a single soul who would use any of the AI lyrics that I've seen generated without altering them significantly before trying to use them in any song.
You would just have to be really lame to use AI lyrics as they are.
But as an idea generator it's great.
I once spent a wonderful day with a Nashville Hall of famer and he talked about his songwriting process. He said that every Saturday him and his buddy would go to the record store and just spend the entire day flipping through records and looking at the titles of songs to get ideas that they would jot down in a notebook, and then they would take them back home and get drunk and piece together songs from the various ideas that they had written down from looking at the backs of albums.
It seems to me that using an AI generator tool is the same sort of thing.
You just come up with a bunch of stuff and then you get drunk and see what you can do with it.
🙂
I'm joking about the getting drunk part but you know what I mean.
Another thing is this: I've always noticed that the best song ideas that I've ever had are the ones that just pop into my head when I'm driving down the road and come out of nowhere, and I better have my phone available so I can turn on the tape recorder app and capture it or else those lyrics and the tune as well are gone forever.
I've never had AI do that for me so I'm not worried about AI.
David Snyder Songwriter/Renaissance Man Studio + Fingers
There are a number of points the judge did not choose to explore.
It might help to consider what copyright is. It creates a time-limited "right" to control who can create a copy of something. After some time, the copyright expires and the work falls into the public domain.
That copyright exists for the same reason that patents do - to encourage people to create works by allowing them a time-limited monopoly on that work.
Obviously, copyright or lack of copyright doesn't matter to an AI.
But let's take this a step further, and imagine that the court did rule that the AI had authored an original work. Since the copyright would belong to the creator of the work, what then?
The AI has no other legal rights, and can't enter into legal contracts. That rules out this being a "work for hire".
This means that the AI cannot transfer the copyright.
So if an AI work could be copyrighted, the work would remain uncopyable until it fell into the public domain.
I really cannot see how ai assisted songs cannot be copyrighted. .
No one has said that. The Librarian of Congress has ruled that AI generated songs cannot and the courts have backed her up. David's explanation is pretty good.
I don't think there is a problem with using AI to generate ideas, which I think is all anyone is really talking about, because I can't think of a single soul who would use any of the AI lyrics that I've seen generated without altering them significantly before trying to use them in any song.
You would just have to be really lame to use AI lyrics as they are.
Wow, you are an optimist.
I get dragged to open mics now and then. People are singing that crap.
“The judge in the case ruled that copyright has never been granted to work that was “absent any guiding human hand,” and that “human authorship is a bedrock requirement of copyright.”
David, the work being referred to in this article is a picture. I can understand how a picture (or a song generated with ai singers using ai generated lyrics) could be more difficult to copyright (I would contest that there was still some human guiding hand in the prompt used to generate the work?)
Ai generated lyrics are just text in a notepad and can easily be slightly modified or completely rewritten before being turned into a song. The human hand is certainly involved in the creation of the melody.
I would wonder why anybody would try to copyright ai generated lyrics.
David, the work being referred to in this article is a picture. I can understand how a picture (or a song generated with ai singers using ai generated lyrics) could be more difficult to copyright (I would contest that there was still some human guiding hand in the prompt used to generate the work?)
That's a question that wasn't addressed, as the scope of the ruling was limited to a finding of law whether or not an AI could hold a copyright.
You're suggesting that the inputs to an AI by a human give the human some ownership of the copyright of the output. But even if a prompt is hyper-specific, I can think of two impediments.
First, the idea expressed in the prompt is unlikely to express an "original" idea. For example, A happy couple walking through a rose garden on a sunny day is enough to generate an image or song, but the idea expressed in the prompt is unlikely to be an expression that's original enough to be considered copyrightable.
Second, the AI can churn out dozens of songs with this prompt, each one different. That would show that although the work was guided by a specific prompt, the part that makes the work "original" comes from the AI, not the human. And the court has ruled that an AI can't be assigned a copyright.
But questions along these lines will no doubt be litigated in the future.
Originally Posted by JoanneCooper
Ai generated lyrics are just text in a notepad and can easily be slightly modified or completely rewritten before being turned into a song. The human hand is certainly involved in the creation of the melody.
I suspect the question turns on how transformative the human's input was.
Originally Posted by JoanneCooper
I would wonder why anybody would try to copyright ai generated lyrics.
I can only think of two motivations:
To monetize the lyric; and
To prevent other people from using the lyric
Last edited by dcuny; 01/26/2410:13 AM. Reason: Fixed typo in closing list tag.
Originally Posted by JoanneCooper “I really cannot see how ai assisted songs cannot be copyrighted” Mike Halloran “No one has said that. The Librarian of Congress has ruled that AI generated songs cannot and the courts have backed her up. David's explanation is pretty good.”
Yes but the OP asked if anybody had tried ChatGPT to generate lyrics and was immediately shut down by the copyright police. The OP wasn't discussing ai generated songs but rather ai generated lyrics. Ai is just a tool. Same as BIAB is a tool. Use it, don’t use it but don’t shoot down those who do.
I find it a bit odd that people who use machines to assist with the generation of music are so against using machines to help generate lyrics.
....................... I find it a bit odd that people who use machines to assist with the generation of music are so against using machines to help generate lyrics.
This is a very good point. I can have BiaB completely generate a song, chords and leads, and I can copyright it as my work, right? But if I have a synth voice sing lyrics completely generated by AI added to the BiaB generated song I can't? If these are true it is quite the paradox.
{edit} Also we must understand that each country has their own copyright laws and they may or may not be identical.
Last edited by MarioD; 01/25/2406:10 AM.
Have you ever noticed there are no lines to a bathroom at a water park?
64 bit Win 10 Pro, the latest BiaB/RB, Roland Octa-Capture audio interface, a ton of software/hardware
Yes but the OP asked if anybody had tried ChatGPT to generate lyrics and was immediately shut down by the copyright police. The OP wasn't discussing ai generated songs but rather ai generated lyrics. Ai is just a tool. Same as BIAB is a tool. Use it, don’t use it but don’t shoot down those who do.
I find it a bit odd that people who use machines to assist with the generation of music are so against using machines to help generate lyrics.
First of all, thanks for making a free version of your lyrics program.
I spent some time playing around with it. The results were technically impressive. But I found that it wasn't really helpful for me to spark ideas. YMMV.
As for BiaB vs. AI, the issue is the ethics of how the source material was obtained.
All the material used in creating BiaB materials was done with full consent of the people who supplied the music, who knew what it was going to be used for, and they were compensated for it.
That's not the case with programs like ChatGPT, where the AI was trained on material that in many cases was used not only without consent, but was used obtained illegally and without license. As a result, people are suing for illegally using their works.
My favorite BiaB forum thread ever. Really appreciate the many well-formed points of view and the time it takes to post them. Important topic for sure...
DC Ron BiaB Audiophile Presonus Studio One StudioCat DAW dual screen Presonus Faderport 16 Too many guitars (is that a thing?)
Originally Posted by JoanneCooper “I really cannot see how ai assisted songs cannot be copyrighted” Mike Halloran “No one has said that. The Librarian of Congress has ruled that AI generated songs cannot and the courts have backed her up. David's explanation is pretty good.”
Yes but the OP asked if anybody had tried ChatGPT to generate lyrics and was immediately shut down by the copyright police. The OP wasn't discussing ai generated songs but rather ai generated lyrics. Ai is just a tool. Same as BIAB is a tool. Use it, don’t use it but don’t shoot down those who do.
I find it a bit odd that people who use machines to assist with the generation of music are so against using machines to help generate lyrics.
Notwithstanding the strawman about some fictitious "copyright police," how would such non-existent copyright police "shut down" somebody over something that's not copyrightable in the first place?
Another thing you and others are missing is that no one is complaining about people using "machines" to assist in composing music or lyrics. That's another strawman argument. The problem many have is with people using AI tools to do the work for them.
You know as well as anyone else here that using something like BIAB to help you compose a song and getting some AI tool to do it for you are not even close to being the same thing. You know as well as anyone else here that in order to get anything good out of BIAB it takes a lot of work and that the more work you put into it the better the finished product is going to be.
You also seem to have glossed over the whole thrust of this thread which is gone on off on two different forks: one of which is that AI generated work is not copyrightable, and that's pretty much sent in stone at this point. The other is that AI generated content tends to be lackluster at best and that it's real value is as an idea generator but in order to get anything of quality, and actual person has to take that output and shape it into something by the touch of a human hand.
Byron Dickens
BIAB. CbB. Mixbus 32C 8 HP Envy. Intel core i7. 16GB RAM W10. Focusrite Scarlett 18i 20. Various instruments played with varying degrees of proficiency.
@David. Thanks for giving it a try. I do realise it is not for everyone (just as Band-in-box is not for everyone).
@Bryron. Have you tried the tool yet? You may find something useful there. (Or not, and that’s okay).
Almost everyone I know struggles with different aspects of making music. Some struggle with singing, some struggle with playing an instrument, some struggle with theory, some battle with performing live. Some people will give up, others will persevere and others will use tools at their disposal to get through it.
I do not battle with band- in-a-box as I use it in a very simple way. I do struggle with writing good lyrics as well as getting ideas. So, when chat gpt came out I was all over it like a rash.
It is a tool. No more no less. Why do fellow musicians continue to judge people who use different tools (or use them in a different way) or produce different types of music to what we like?
AI is here and here to stay whether we choose to adopt it or not.
Like Joanne, I am all over this because I am primarily a musician as in playing an instrument and writing the musical parts. Lyrics are something where extra assistance is welcomed. Same with SynthV because I am not a naturally good singer. Using these tools together gets me to a stage where I can develop a song further.
The SongBrain app that I wrote enables me to do this and it isn't just a case of me being lazy, there's a couple of thousand lines of code in there!
Commercially successful (as in making loads of money) songs have nothing to do with the song usually. It's about the amount of promotion budget, image of the artist etc. and of course, we are in it for the art not to make money (sure).
The litigious arguments are moot in some way because AI is not going away and it has caught a large established industry off guard. Things will sort themselves eventually (after a lot of money has been spent).
Sharp businesses will find a country where AI output can be copyrighted and base their services there perhaps. After all, how much of the world's shipping carry a "flag of covenience" usually Liberia or somewhere.
This is a great thread and an imortant one and opens up may questions about where assistance begins and ends.
Hopefully, the alphabet is out of copyright now or I'm in bother.
My comment was simply that the legal/liability ramifications of AI generated intellectual property are being scrutinized and it MAY become something actionable. If it were me, I wouldn't use it for commercially released music until it all plays out. Who knows what will happen, they may force AI programs to put a digital watermark on AI generated content. I can absolutely see the PROs (BMI, ASCAP, etc.) adding something the song registration process where you have to disclose if you used AI in the creation of the song (the do this very thing currently for songs using song samples).
Point being, the technology was released before the legality of it was determined. That's enough for me, as a creator, to take a more cautious approach to using it.
I think where clear cut understandings of AI e.g., chatgpt, Bard etc are defined, that's one thing but where is that unclear line between algorithmic generation and AI? Many apps / vsts claim to be AI when in fact they are clever algorithms. The term AI is quite nebulous but I think most us would agree that machine learning and neural networks are broadly defined as AI. Therefore when asked to declare whether AI had been used the chances of being overdeclared and underclared are pretty equal I'd say. I think the onus would be for whatever assistive technology is there e.g., BIAB, RapidComposer etc etc has to clearly state whether it is AI or not.
What a minefield!
Supposing one wrote the whole piece by hand and then used one "AI" plugin in the final mastering chain. A nightmare awaits.
Supposing one wrote the whole piece by hand and then used one "AI" plugin in the final mastering chain. A nightmare awaits.
You obviously haven't been paying attention and haven't got the slightest understanding about what the courts have ruled.
Last edited by Byron Dickens; 01/26/2401:23 PM.
Byron Dickens
BIAB. CbB. Mixbus 32C 8 HP Envy. Intel core i7. 16GB RAM W10. Focusrite Scarlett 18i 20. Various instruments played with varying degrees of proficiency.
Supposing one wrote the whole piece by hand and then used one "AI" plugin in the final mastering chain. A nightmare awaits.
You obviously haven't been paying attention and haven't got the slightest understanding about what the courts have ruled.
I did however pay attention to the title of this thread which was: "has anyone on this forum used chatgpt to help them write lyrics" as opposed to sub discussions as to what may or may not have already been decided by courts.
I am speaking in general terms and speculating how this may go in the future if the whole world goes super twitchy about AI, is it ok to do that in your thread?
Supposing one wrote the whole piece by hand and then used one "AI" plugin in the final mastering chain. A nightmare awaits.
I think you're mixing apples and oranges.
The question that was before the court was whether an "original work" created a non-human process could be given a copyright. Whether or not the underlying algorithm was AI didn't have any part of the legal question.
The court made a ruling strictly on a matter of law - copyright is only conferred to works created by a human.
The question that you're raising is whether the use of an AI plugin confers any rights to to the manufacturer. The answer still has nothing to do with whether the plugin is AI or not - it's got to do with the product license.
For example, I could create a plugin that boosts the volume of audio by 100%, and the license would demand that using that plugin obliges the end user to share 50% of the net profits of any audio run through the plugin.
And... it would be perfectly legal. That's why it's a good thing to read the EULA.
After following this thread here is my take. Putting aside the copyright side of things.
(1) I use chatgpt or something similar to create lyrics from a prompt.
(2) I write lyrics myself with whatever comes to mind without chatgpt.
In either case how would anyone know which was which. Chatgpt would probably give me something slightly better as I am rubbish at lyrics. Will they use AI to analyse the output, would AI be correct in working out which was which?
^^^ my point exactly 3. I use chat gpt to generate some lyrics and change them a bit (or a lot) How would they know the difference? It is just text in a notepad. It is not a picture.
Supposing one wrote the whole piece by hand and then used one "AI" plugin in the final mastering chain. A nightmare awaits.
I think you're mixing apples and oranges.
The question that was before the court was whether an "original work" created a non-human process could be given a copyright. Whether or not the underlying algorithm was AI didn't have any part of the legal question.
The court made a ruling strictly on a matter of law - copyright is only conferred to works created by a human.
I was meaning more along the lines of a previous statement which said that PROs may insist on knowing if AI was used in any part of the song. "Created" is also nebulous unless it means in entirety, in which case, that's another can of worms.
Does the fact that a human "created" the prompt, count? Or, are we saying that the "machine" decides one day to write a song unsolicited and send it to me?
I was meaning more along the lines of a previous statement which said that PROs may insist on knowing if AI was used in any part of the song.
Ah, thanks for the clarification.
Rodger Brown's comment was speculation.
From a legal point of view, songs created by AI can't be copyrighted. That puts them in the public domain, free to use.
However, only the lyrics of the song would be public domain. So if you wrote a song using those lyrics, all the other elements of the song would not be in the public domain.
For example, look and songs that Janice and Bud release. Even though the lyrics are in the public domain, they've created versions that are often made unique by re-working the lyrics, arrangement, and harmonies. So they own that particular version of the song, including the mechanical and sync rights.
Plus, any changes to public domain lyrics are copyright the person who made the changes.
So even if someone knows that the lyrics were generated by AI, unless they know for sure that all the lyrics were the product of AI, using the lyrics would be a risky proposition. More on that later...
Originally Posted by Mike. R.
"Created" is also nebulous unless it means in entirety, in which case, that's another can of worms.
Does the fact that a human "created" the prompt, count? Or, are we saying that the "machine" decides one day to write a song unsolicited and send it to me?
IANAL, but I suggest that even though a human created the prompt, the courts are likely to find that the AI would have created the lyrics. That's because:
1. The ideas at the prompt aren't likely to be original; and even if they were, 2. The AI can generate hundreds of different songs from the prompt, demonstrating what makes each song original is the work by the AI, not the prompt.
In any event, it would be safest to treat AI lyrics the same as public domain lyrics.
Originally Posted by JoanneCooper
3. I use chat gpt to generate some lyrics and change them a bit (or a lot) How would they know the difference? It is just text in a notepad. It is not a picture
However, OpenAI, the company that owns ChatGPT, keep a log of your conversation history, including "your email address, device, IP address and location, as well as any public or private information you use in your ChatGPT prompts."
So if there were a lawsuit claiming that song lyrics that an author claimed to own the copyright to were actually public domain, they could be compelled to produce the AI lyrics - even if they lyrics were generate via a third party tool such as your own.
Again, IANAL, but if you wanted to use AI lyrics for inspiration, but wanted to hold the final copyright, it would make sense to keep the original version of the AI lyrics, and make sure the final version was sufficiently different.
Lennon, while critical of Harrison, was well aware of how easy it was to accidentally mimic another song: “In the early years, I’d often carry around someone else’s song in my head, and only when I’d put it down on tape — because I can’t write music — would I consciously change it to my own melody because I knew that otherwise somebody would sue me,” John said in 1980. “George could have changed a few bars in that song and nobody could have ever touched him, but he just let it go and paid the price. Maybe he thought God would just sort of let him off.”
Interesting thread. I've no opinion on the legality of ChatGPT or other ai. So, I have no comment on that aspect but regarding the thread question, here's my comment.
I wanted to see how ChatPGT compared to a fairly complex song lyric of an existing song and I queried ChatPGT to write lyrics for a song that I described the story from an original tune.
I decided to request lyrics from ChatGPT to the story in a song by singer/songwriter Guthrie Thomas of an original song of his titled, "Melissa" and compare the quality of lyrics between the two. Here are the results: My lyric request to ChatGPT: User: write song lyrics about a waitress named Melissa that travels by her older, worn out car planning to visit family for Christmas. The weather is icy and with snow fall. There's a bad auto accident on Melissa's trip home with an 18 wheeler driven by a drunk driver and Melissa is killed. There are thousands of people mourning Melissa at her funeral.
It came up with accurate lyrics but nothing as picturesque and with imagery to equal the original. I've attached lyrics from both sources of Guthrie Thomas's song, "Melissa" and ChatPGT's lyrical composition of the same story.
Nice one Charlie. You got a decent response and it may also depend on the song or how much you feed the prompt. I tried something similar (for academic purposes) by asking for some lyrics about a lady who's sure ... etc and put the entire 1st verse in and asked for the result to be influenced by LZ.
What I got back was very close to the lyrics to STH.
Very interesting, and, this copyright thing is very complex. From what I can see as a "man in the street, who obviously doesn't understand these things", is that the AI generated lyrics can't be copyrighted but an original song can be even if it includes the AI lyrics. So what's the problem if someone else wants to use the same lyrics in a different song? You still get the rights to your own song so who cares?
This is just an intermediate issue anyway because, it will only be a matter of time before anyone with no musical skill whatsoever can say something like "Give me a new Stones Album ca 1973" and get a perfect 12 track album of new songs exactly like that. Sure they can't sell it but who'd buy it anyway when they can fire off the same prompts themselves and enjoy "New" material?
Music will be produced and consumed in an entirely new way and imagine being able to bring old musicians "back to life" and enjoy even more from them than their original catalogue.
These are just my views of course, but just because we feel there is a moral sense not to do it, you can bet if there's money to be made or saved then someone will
re: this statement - "That puts them in the public domain, free to use."
I don't believe that to be the case necessarily, because if the lyrics in question were in any way derivative, there possibly could be a claim against it. Again, all of this is speculation at this point, but if (for example) you said "I want something similar to 'Help Me Make It Through The Night'", there's an argument to be made that Kristofferson's song was the "source material".
It's going to be interesting to see how it all plays out.
Also, and someone correct me on this if I'm wrong, I believe when you copyright a song that includes lyrics, there isn't a distinction between the words and music unless you file copyrights on both. In other words, if the music infringes on another work, the entire song (including lyrics) is liable.
In other words, if the music infringes on another work, the entire song (including lyrics) is liable.
Well, people who sue for infringement will claim they then own some share in the infringing song's profits. What part of the song is infringing won't matter, so it could be lyrics, melody, a bassline... whatever.
How much of the profits they feel they are due depends on different factors, but I supect it's more a function of "how much to we think we can get" rather than some actual calculation.
From what I can see as a "man in the street, who obviously doesn't understand these things", is that the AI generated lyrics can't be copyrighted but an original song can be even if it includes the AI lyrics. So what's the problem if someone else wants to use the same lyrics in a different song? You still get the rights to your own song so who cares?
The AI lyrics I’ve read would fit nicely in the Victorian era given the extraordinarily high usage of forced rhymes.
Bud
You could be onto something there Bud.
"Oh dear Queen Victoria, ruler of the throne, In this missive to you, my wit is finely honed. A jest or two, I bring forth with glee, For laughter, my dear, is the best courtesy.
And as for Prince Albert, your steadfast mate, I hear he fancies a waltz, both early and late. With a twirl and a dip, they dance with grace, A royal ballroom, a most amusing space."
By William Gladstone apparently, from the time when he fancied himself as a songwriter, but he gave up and became Prime Minister instead.
Last edited by Mike. R.; 02/01/2407:03 AM. Reason: Forgot to say, I got ChatGPT to write that.
The AI lyrics I’ve read would fit nicely in the Victorian era given the extraordinarily high usage of forced rhymes.
Bud
You could be onto something there Bud.
"Oh dear Queen Victoria, ruler of the throne, In this missive to you, my wit is finely honed. A jest or two, I bring forth with glee, For laughter, my dear, is the best courtesy.
And as for Prince Albert, your steadfast mate, I hear he fancies a waltz, both early and late. With a twirl and a dip, they dance with grace, A royal ballroom, a most amusing space."
By William Gladstone apparently, from the time when he fancied himself as a songwriter, but he gave up and became Prime Minister instead.
Originally Posted by JoanneCooper The OP wasn't discussing ai generated songs but rather ai generated lyrics. Ai is just a tool. Same as BIAB is a tool. Use it, don’t use it but don’t shoot down those who do.
I find it a bit odd that people who use machines to assist with the generation of music are so against using machines to help generate lyrics.
Actually, the Librarian of Congress ruled exactly that, an appeals court upheld it and SCOTUS has declined to take up the case. In the US, that ruling has the effect of law.
As I have posted earlier, withhout that ruling, the WGA writers's strike would not have settled. Scripts, like lyrics, are words. Congress has many bills trying to codify this ruling but there's nothing in any of these bills invalidating the concept.
In the meantime, the WGA settlement has put forward a framework on how to apply these ideas into rules that both producers and writers can use going forward. I will recommend that you read that and do some research instead of twisting what others post into things they never meant.
The only person who has suggested not using AI in the creative process is you. There's no copyright police here except in your imagination. Please stop.
There are a number of committees currently looking at AI as it pertains to intellectual property (I'm on one of them) and at this point it's a moving target.
Yes its just tools to create ,the end product is the goal , however you get there. I kinda doubt unless your in the majors, congress and copywrites are not going to flag 40 trillion songs done by AI. .
They really have enough to do, without getting anything done , Lets not crowd their plate
I agree with AI in lyric writing. I use it, and it’s been a helpful tool in that regard. Grammarly and Jasper are two AI tools that I frequently use when working on songwriting. They help me polish my lyrics, catch grammatical errors, and suggest new ideas when I’m stuck. Their price is listed here .
There are several different definitions of AI going on here, creating vs. editing.
I own a lifetime license that I got super cheap 4 years ago or something called ProWriting Aid that I for spell checks and grammar stuff and style. I simply could not live without it. (I write professionally.)
I also got a ridiculously cheap lifetime license about a year ago for something called Designrr, and it absolutely blows my mind. For the rest of my life I have audio transcription, a writing aid that is also capable of formatting a book with a TOC, a research assistant, audio books, ebooks, an inhouse designer, and on and on.
I use Joanne Cooper's LyricLab sometimes to help me format my finished lyrics so I can pull them into band in a box easily. I could do it myself in wordpad but it's just a lot faster if I use LyricLab
However outside of that I have found that it's absolutely impossible for me to write usable lyrics of any sort using any type of AI.
The only thing that works for my songs, and this might be different for other people, is one of four techniques, sometimes several at the same time.
1. I have a guitar at my lap or I'm sitting at the piano staring off blindly into space just tinkering around and all of a sudden lyrics start spilling out and I have to find a piece of paper immediately to write them down or turn on the microphone and record myself babbling.
2. I am listening to a band in a box backing track that I have created and I'm staring off into space incoherently babbling and all of sudden something comes into my head and I have to use the same technique as in number one.
3. I'm staring down at a notepad or piece of paper with a pen in my hand trying to craft an idea that I can hear with words in my head but it's kind of foggy. After I write it down 30 or 40 times and keep scratching stuff out it finally comes into shape.
4. I'm driving along in the car and all of a sudden a complete song with music and lyrics comes into my head and I have to immediately grab my phone and sing it, words and Melody at the same time, at which point I can't wait to get back home and get in front of band in a box and start putting that chord progression together.
These are the only techniques that ever worked for me where lyrics are concerned.
David Snyder Songwriter/Renaissance Man Studio + Fingers
Generate Lyrics for your Band-in-a-Box songs with LyricLab!
Need some lyrics to complete your Band-in-a-Box song? LyricLab is here to help!
LyricLab (by Joanne Cooper) is an AI-powered tool designed to quickly create lyrics and chords to fit your music. Just enter a rough idea of your lyrics, and let the AI bring them to life. Once you're happy with the results, simply import the LyricLab file into Band-in-a-Box® 2024 or newer. From there, you can pick your style and generate melodies to match your song’s chords!
Ci siamo dati da fare e abbiamo aggiunto oltre 50 nuove funzionalità e una straordinaria raccolta di nuovi contenuti, tra cui 222 RealTracks, nuovi RealStyles, MIDI SuperTracks, Instrumental Studies, "Songs with Vocals" Artist Performance Sets, Playable RealTracks Set 3, Playable RealDrums Set 2, due nuovi set di "RealDrums Stems", XPro Styles PAK 6, Xtra Styles PAK 17 e altro ancora!
Wir waren fleißig und haben über 50 neue Funktionen und eine erstaunliche Sammlung neuer Inhalte hinzugefügt, darunter 222 RealTracks, neue RealStyles, MIDI SuperTracks, Instrumental Studies, "Songs with Vocals" Artist Performance Sets, abspielbare RealTracks Set 3, abspielbare RealDrums Set 2, zwei neue Sets von "RealDrums Stems", XPro Styles PAK & 7, Xtra Styles PAK 17 & 18, und mehr!
Band-in-a-Box® 2024 apporte plus de 50 fonctions nouvelles ainsi qu'une importante de contenus nouveaux à savoir : 222 RealTracks, des RealStyles nouveaux, des SuperTracks MIDI, des Etudes d'Instruments, des Prestations d'Artistes, des "Morceaux avec Choeurs", un Set 3 de Tracks Jouables, un Set 2 de RealDrums Jouables, deux nouveaux Sets de "RealDrums Stems", des Styles XPro PAK 6 & 7, des Xtra Styles PAK 17 & 18, et bien plus encore!
New! XPro Styles PAK 7 for Band-in-a-Box 2024 for Mac!
We've just released XPro Styles PAK 7 with 100 brand new RealStyles, plus 50 RealTracks and RealDrums that are sure to delight!
With XPro Styles PAK 7 you can expect 25 rock & pop, 25 jazz, and 25 country styles, as well as 25 of this year's wildcard genre: Celtic!
Here's a small sampling of what XPro Styles PAK 7 has to offer: energetic rock jigs, New Orleans funk, lilting jazz waltzes, fast Celtic punk, uptempo train beats, gritty grunge, intense jazz rock, groovy EDM, soulful R&B, soft singer-songwriter pop, country blues rock, and many more!
Special Pricing! Until September 30, 2024, all the XPro Styles PAKs 1 - 7 are on sale for only $29 ea (Reg. $49 ea)! Supercharge your Band-in-a-Box 2024® with XPro Styles PAK 7! Order now!
XPro Styles PAKs require Band-in-a-Box® 2024 or higher and are compatible with ANY package, including the Pro, MegaPAK, UltraPAK, UltraPAK+, and Audiophile Edition.
New! Xtra Styles PAK 18 for Band-in-a-Box 2024 for Mac!
Xtra Styles PAK 18 for Band-in-a-Box version 2024 is here with 200 brand new styles to take for a spin!
Along with 50 new styles each for the rock & pop, jazz, and country genres, we’ve put together a collection of styles using sounds from the SynthMaster plugin!
In this PAK you'll find: dubby reggae grooves, rootsy Americana, LA jazz pop, driving pop rock, mellow electronica, modern jazz fusion, spacey country ballads, Motown shuffles, energetic EDM, and plenty of synth heavy grooves! Xtra Style PAK 18 features these styles and many, many more!
Special Pricing! Until September 30, 2024, all the Xtra Styles PAKs 1 - 18 are on sale for only $29 ea (Reg. $49 ea)! Expand your Band-in-a-Box 2024® library with Xtra Styles PAK 18! Order now!
Learn more and listen to demos of the Xtra Styles PAK 18 here.
Note: The Xtra Styles require the UltraPAK, UltraPAK+, or Audiophile Edition of Band-in-a-Box®. (Xtra Styles PAK 18 requires the 2024 UltraPAK/UltraPAK+/Audiophile Edition. They will not work with the Pro or MegaPAK version because they need the RealTracks from the UltraPAK, UltraPAK+, or Audiophile Edition.
New! Xtra Styles PAK 18 for Band-in-a-Box 2024 for Windows!
Xtra Styles PAK 18 for Band-in-a-Box version 2024 is here with 200 brand new styles to take for a spin!
Along with 50 new styles each for the rock & pop, jazz, and country genres, we’ve put together a collection of styles using sounds from the SynthMaster plugin!
In this PAK you'll find: dubby reggae grooves, rootsy Americana, LA jazz pop, driving pop rock, mellow electronica, modern jazz fusion, spacey country ballads, Motown shuffles, energetic EDM, and plenty of synth heavy grooves! Xtra Style PAK 18 features these styles and many, many more!
Special Pricing! Until September 30, 2024, all the Xtra Styles PAKs 1 - 18 are on sale for only $29 ea (Reg. $49 ea)! Expand your Band-in-a-Box 2024® library with Xtra Styles PAK 18! Order now!
Learn more and listen to demos of the Xtra Styles PAK 18 here.
Note: The Xtra Styles require the UltraPAK, UltraPAK+, or Audiophile Edition of Band-in-a-Box®. (Xtra Styles PAK 18 requires the 2024 UltraPAK/UltraPAK+/Audiophile Edition. They will not work with the Pro or MegaPAK version because they need the RealTracks from the UltraPAK, UltraPAK+, or Audiophile Edition.
One of our representatives will be happy to help you over the phone. Our hours of operation are from
6:00AM to 6:00PM PST (GMT -8) Monday thru Friday, and 8:00AM to 4:00PM PST Saturday. We are closed Sunday. You can also send us your questions via email.
One of our representatives will be happy to help you on our Live Chat or by email. Our hours of operation are from
6:00AM to 6:00PM PST (GMT -8) Monday thru Friday; 8:00AM to 4:00PM PST (GMT -8) Saturday; Closed Sunday.
Dansk
Deutsch - Windows
Español
Français - Windows
Italiano - Windows
Nederlands
Polski
Português
Svenskt
русский
Japanese
Simplified Chinese
Traditional Chinese
Korean