PG Music Home Forums General Discussion Off-Topic Suno AI first experment

“why would someone pay $100 or more for a song, wait a week, and then get the song which may not be exactly what you want, when you can get a free, or low cost AI account for a month, input the prompt info, and have a really good quality song that includes the information you want, and get it in 20 seconds?”

Exactly my point. And if you don’t like what is generated just tweak a few prompts and regenerate in another 20 whole seconds.

How this thread got started.

I left the guitar, piano/keyboard, tube amplifier building, PG Music forum, and most everything else to rebuild a boat I bought.

Shortly before I left, I had acquired some new software to produce vocals. David Cuny was very well-versed in the software, so he helped me get started. Thanks, David!

Around that same time or a little before I found ChatGPT. That was the first AI I had anything directly to do with that I was aware of.

As the boat is more or less finished I now have time to get back to music and this forum. Well, there is the issue of spending more time with my wife before she changes the locks on the front door...lol

One of the first things I wanted to know was what had changed in the last year.

I have never been able to sing very well. That never stopped me but you guys have had to endure my vocals so you no the issue...lol

That is why I started looking for a software solution to produce vocals.

I had never heard the word Suno, had no idea what it was or could do. I logged on to the site, put in a three or four-word prompt and what I considered very plausible music was generated.

At that moment I was not giving any thought to the wider implications of AI-generated music.

I certainly have empathy for those among us who have been negatively affected economically by AI.

On any controversial subject, we tend to discuss all the problems. We rarely have in-depth conversations about possible solutions.

The economic realities of the music business have been seriously problematic all of my lifetime, and I suspect forever.

For me personally, I decided when I was very young to engage in ways to make money that supported my desire to play music and forgo the riggers of trying to make money playing music.

I also had a love for flying airplanes but knew the same general conditions existed for pilots, unstable working conditions. So I never depended on flying to make a living. Same for boating.

Yes, I play music and sometimes spend stupid sums of money doing so. Yes, I have a multi-engine instrument-rated commercial pilot licenses and type ratings that I paid ungodly sums of money to acquire and yes I have a US Coast Guard Masters Ship license. And yes I have occasionally made a few dollars doing all three things.

So, I solved the issue of being a slave and working for peanuts in the music business by working my butt off in my own businesses and at times working for corporate America. I am pushing 80 and I am still working.
That answer may not work for others.

We should discuss how we solve the economic issues caused by AI for people here who are actually being affected on this site. And further how we deal with the emotional issues of having to deal with AI.

Many of us have been around here for years and know each other pretty well. Some of us have sat down and eaten dinner together. We should try to support each other.

Cheers,

Billy

Well said Billy!

I've long had a wee side-dream of being a successful singer-songwriter. "Successful" meaning making a living at it or maybe even making a fortune! But I've never managed to realize more than a few thousand $ a year.

And to be fair, I was never willing to take the big risks, put it all on the line, bet the farm to achieve that success. So I chose another hobby, computer programming and web design, and turned that into a mighty lucrative career that more than pays the bills and also supports my music hobby!

I still sometimes dream of one of my songs getting the attention of someone "big" but I am realizing the chances of that keep getting smaller and smaller. The democratization of music tools with stuff like BIAB, VST3i, DAWs, etc. have meant the competition is more fierce than ever before. And it was already fierce before!

And now that AI has arrived I'm guessing everything is going to change. The big corporations that control the music industry will certainly embrace AI if they can convince their customers to embrace it. I would imagine they are already thinking about how to shed those disruptive musicians and songwriters and replace them with a stable stable of AI writers, singers and musicians!

But will music customers embrace or even accept such a transition? Well they already accepted pre-fab "bands", lip-synced "live" performances, autotuned vox and similar compromises. So, yeah, I'm pretty sure enough people will accept one more step, AI, in this music experience.

I guess there may still be live music opportunities but I could see how they could get downgraded as well. I recall 20 years ago seeing a Beatles cover band that was pretty dang good. During the first 3rd of their act (early Beatles) I started wondering how the 4 musician/actors on stage would be able to replicate the strings of Eleanor Rigby or the sitar, tambura, dilruba and tabla of Within You Without You. Then I noticed the 5th "Beatle" upstage right, almost in the dark, with his synthesizer and playback equipment. I still enjoyed the show.

So maybe, just maybe, the dystopian music future has started? Music and lyrics will be generated by AI and performed "live" on stage by low-paid actors.

And maybe the AI will mean the complete democratization of music creation and production?

Now everyone can create songs that no one will listen to!

Or, as local synth vocal expert dcuny says,

"Now everyone can have AI create songs that no one will listen to!"

Cost savings comes in many forms. This article talks about how Spotify has gamed their music list by directing users content that Spotify owns.

What looked to be over 650 artists turned out to be a single musician. And by having users unknowingly listen to music they owned, Spotify was able to pocket the money that would have gone to some other musician.

Mind you, this was all done without AI. Imagine what can be done with AI. While major artists will continue to be in demand, how will an unknown artist compete when a streaming service actually loses revenue every time a user listens to someone new?

   Now everyone can have AI create songs that no one will listen to!

Fixed that for you.

Thanks David!

“Now everyone can create songs that no one will listen to”

I have to say that this statement might just sum up the creator’s curse. Our egos push us to want others to like our creations. Most of us (myself included) don’t create purely for the sake of creation. We crave validation. We want people to listen to and like what we make.

Maybe AI will make it easier for anyone to create, but the real challenge stays the same: resisting the urge to measure our worth by external validation.

Perhaps the real growth as creators comes when we learn to create for ourselves, whatever tools we choose.

If I had to make up a simplistic and unscientific equation of what Human art (including music) stands for, it would go something like this:
Reflection of "X" (memory, imagination, thought, feeling, concept, etc.) + talent and skill = (Human) Art.
I would also add: randomness intentional, unintentional, or combination of two, but I am hesitant, as all three are closely falling under "imagination".

Joanne,
"Perhaps the real growth as creators"... I am sorry, typing a sentence or two in the search box and pressing enter is not "creating".
Lets be clear for the sake of this argument / discussion. You can't be neutral in judgement (for both sides) by default, as there is an evident conflict of real interest.

“I am sorry, typing a sentence or two in the search box and pressing enter is not "creating". Maybe by your definition. By other’s definition, typing a few chords and pressing generate may not be creating.

Only highlights the ongoing philosophical debate about where the line is drawn. And one that I do not think we are going to solve here. Each to his own.

"Maybe by your definition. By other’s definition, typing a few chords and pressing generate may not be creating."

Of course NOT. Same way as sticking frozen dinner in a microwave doesn't make you a chef.

I think it's clear where the line is drawn. Herb gave an example, performing work for hire for clients:
Without the details supplied by the client, there would be no song. And as work for hire, the client owned the song after it had been created. The inputs and outputs of the process are the same as with AI. But look at the words that Herb used:

• I was, for a period of time, one of the writers
• They would send me jobs for writing a custom song for a client.
• I had a couple of days to write
• I had to write quickly

It's clear that it was Herb that created the song, isn't it?

Even though the client is legally right to say it is "their" song, they aren't legally right to say they "created" it. The creation of the song was done by Herb. As an entity who is able enter into legal contracts, Herb was able to assign away the rights to the song he created to someone else. This is an important point I'll get back to.

AI acts in exactly the same way, in terms of inputs and outputs. The client creates the request as a written prompt, but the request itself is not a song. The prompt the client supplied has to be transformed into a song.

That transformation - the "creation" of the song - is done by AI. Without AI, there would be no song.

The line of song creation is clear - on the side of the line prior to Herb, there client has a request with details, but no song. It's on the other side of the line, where Herb is - that the song is created.

Back to that bit about Herb's ability to sign away the rights to something he created. That's important for a number of reasons.

First, it's legal acknowledgement that the creation of the song was performed by Herb. As the creator, Herb has legal rights to the song, which he allowed to be reassigned by entering into a work for hire contract. If Herb hadn't been created the song, he wouldn't be able to reassign those rights.

But there's another element required for assignment of rights - Herb is a legal entity. If he wasn't, he couldn't reassign rights to the song.

Unlike Herb, AI is not a legal entity that can enter into contracts. As a result, AI can't assign the rights of its creation. That's one of the reasons that using AI in song creation is legally problematic. It's not central to saying who "created" the song, but it is central to saying who can say it's "their" song.

Back to your earlier analogy of AI being akin to using BiaB to create a song. There is a similarity, in that my input into the process is minimal. I enter chords and other information into BiaB, and that input is transformed into audio tracks. The bulk of the work is performed by BiaB.

But unlike using AI, the level of input that that I had over the process is much greater. It's more akin to providing a band with a chord chart. So I can say that I wrote the progression, although people can't legally own a chord progression. If I then supplied the notes, I can say that I wrote the melody, and so on.

An important legal difference between AI and BiaB is that I'm on strong legal ground when I say that I own the backing tracks that BiaB created. That's because the original creators of those tracks are legal entities that assigned their rights over to PG Music, which then assigned them over to me. I may not be the "creator", but I am the legal owner.

The same can't be said for AI, because again, AI is not a legal entity. The source material on which AI was trained was likely not legally transferred to the AI, which is an issue currently in the courts, likely to be resolved through licensing.

And unlike BiaB, it's possible that AI could generate copyright infringing output by cleaving a bit too closely to the source material. In contrast, all the source material in BiaB is safe to use.

As mentioned before, AI isn't a legal entity, so the rights to the final song can't be transferred to the client. Again, this is in contrast with BiaB, where there's a clear legal transfer of ownership. Even if there's no legal claim on the source material, and no legal claim that it's infringing, there is strong legal doubt of ownership.

So even if AI's input into the process was the same as BiaB, there are plenty of legal reasons not to use AI in song generation.

All that aside, I think the line is very clear where the creation of the song happens.

I think David has nailed this pretty solidly with the legal angle. The current batch of online lyrics and music generators have effectively stolen words and music in huge amounts that they can then regurgitate in a "song" that cannot be easily detected as based on unlicensed (stolen) IP. Clearly BIAB and Synth V 1) have NOT stolen their source material and they 2) HAVE licensed it to me to freely use in my own songs. So, from a legal perspective, what I create with BIAB and Synth V are mine while songs created from current AI are NOT mine!

But what this perhaps does not resolve is the ethics of creating songs that are either expressly or implicitly presented as "mine" when, in fact, BIAB and Synth V did the majority of the heavy lifting to turn my rough idea into a commercial quality piece.

But when you start down that rabbit hole you have a myriad of possibilities. Is a drum VSTi valid or should I learn to play drums? Or should I hire a drummer? Are drums with polyester heads OK or should I only use heads made from animal skins? Is it OK to buy animal skin heads online or should I raise my own goats, skin them and make my own heads? And on and on!

One final thought on David's legal argument...once the corporations get a handle on AI they will of course negotiate license terms. Once they do that the exact same (or better) AI tools will exist and now they will be as legal as BIAB and Synth V. But what about the ethics of "creating" legal AI songs vs. BIAB songs?

Excellent conversation BTW!

Just assuming all the legal questions and answers provided by David and others are correct, are they enforceable?

Assuming that AI-generated lyrics can not be copyrighted, how could it be proven in a court of law?

ChatGPT returned this line "KIller at the gate, they're hungry for more" at my request.

I say/swear I wrote that line. Can anyone prove in court that I did not write that line and it was written by an AI?

If there is no way to prove in a court of law that I did not write the lyric and that it was written by an AI then any legal issue relating to lyrics is meaningless. Obviously, if my lyrics said " On a dark desert highway" it would not matter who or how it was written.

Will Sapling and Copyleaks or others stand up in court as it relates to lyrics? I am not talking about copyright infringement issues.

If I get an idea from AI and then rewrite the lyric is it then my original work? How could it not be?

There are millions of musicians who write millions of songs. Who will check to see if they are legal or not as it relates to AI?

For better or worse, there are zillions of people who could give a damn less about questions of ethics. They are quite ready to lie, cheat, and steal for a profit. Therefore we must try to have laws to try to prevent that. The laws have to be enforceable to be of any use.

It is highly illegal to possess and sell Cocaine/stolen guns for example. The fact is, they are for sale on a huge number of street corners, and the laws that are supposed to prevent it can not be enforced basically because it is not economically feasible to do so.

With sound recordings, it should be easy to detect AI generation due to certain artifacts created by AI-generated sound. There is currently a recognizable sound signature in AI-generated recordings.

My guess is that for the most part, very few people will ever be prosecuted for lying about the use of AI.

Part of where I am going with all of this is "Are there other ways to get the results we are looking for other than legal ways"?

It is pretty obvious we can not legislate morality. We have been unable to enforce "our view" of morality by use of force. Traditional religious methods of trying to control morality and in decline.

Somehow we need to come up with a better plan.

About the idea that AI has effectively stolen words and music in huge amounts. Is there any possibility that statement is incorrect? ( I am not saying that statement is incorrect, just asking the question)

If I had spent the last seventy years listening to music and lyrics and used that information to create songs could it be said that I had effectively stolen words and music in huge amounts, small amounts?

Is it permissible to steal words and music in small amounts?

I think most of us would agree that the musicians who created the words and music have a right to own it.

Do they have a right to own the concepts involved and legally prevent AI from using the concepts?

Is Ai picking small parts of songs and sticking them together to produce a new song or has AI figured out the concepts necessary to create a song and is using that or both?

It appears that AI is becoming a big deal in the minds of many of us and causing a considerable amount of fear of loss and gain. Loss of music income for some and gain of music income for others.

I certainly did not anticipate the rabbet hole this thread has gone down...lol

Happy Holiday season to all,

Billy

Well, copyright law is enforceable. But usually it is only enforced in civil court when there is enough money to be made to make it worthwhile. I'd guess AI laws could be similarly enforced if they could be proven to have been broken.

Ah, that is yet to be determined I guess.

Maybe not but maybe so. I can prolly write some code to feed similar ideas into an AI and at some point it may spit out that identical line. If it does then that may be proof that somebody copied somebody!

But a different concern that could be raised (one that I already have with BIAB) is what if the exact same line (or melody riff in BIAB) gets delivered to a dozen or a hundred different people?

I think if you change what the AI gave you in some significant way you'd easily be in the clear.

I guess no one will check anything UNLESS there is big money at stake! Ask Led Zep how much it cost them to have to go back and give co-writing credits to the estates of the artists from whom they stole songs! Me, on the other hand, I could steal those songs all day long and no one would ever care. And the 3 listens I got on Soundcloud were my wife, my mom and my dog anyway (and they'd never rat me out!)

The laws often don't apply to the powerful, as we have seen recently. But that United Healthcare killer? He's going away for a loooong time.

Agreed. Some will be sued in civil court though. And that is still a legal matter. I doubt David was suggesting there will be criminal enforcement of AI usage.

That "better plan" will almost certainly be corporations find a way to license and control AI and we plebes will be charged $14.99/month (or $19.99 if we bundle with the Disney channel!)

An interesting question but it seems kinda clear that if you take IP and then charge others for it, even if you rearranged it, you've prolly broken the law.

It is an excellent conversation!

I hope David and Joanne and others weigh in again.

Careful what you ask for!

The AI "genie" is out of the bottle, and it's not going back. All the legal aspects will be ironed out, likely through some licensing agreement. It's already going that direction.

Unless you're a professional songwriter, those legal issues aren't likely to have any real impact on you.

People are already using AI create stuff, and I'm not telling them not to.

I'm just saying not to take credit for the work that the AI did.

My opinion, which nobody has to agree with:

As a consumer: if a song touches me, I don't care whether it was written by a human,
an AI or an extra-terrestrial hard rock God from Alpha Centauri.
Others may disagree, but I've heard AI-generated songs that were really good.

As a wannabee musician: Like most of you, I have this inner urge to make music to express myself.
To leave that to someone else would take away the very thing that makes me do what I do: creating lyrics, chords and melodies
and solve the puzzle to put it all together until it works or not.
This also includes the ever-present self-doubt:

• Can I even make the song work?
• Is it good?
• Will I ever be able to make a good song again?
• Almost no one ever listens to my music. Do I suck?

As an ethical/philosophical person: I'm fine as long as you don't claim: "I wrote/created this song".
No, you didn't. You told someone else to write it.
If anything, you could call yourself a producer.

As a lawyer (which I am not): If you write software that creates music, that's fine with me as long as all the sources you have used have agreed to be used.
You can't offer a sample player with uncleared samples.

Always learning something from David. I never heard of concatenative synthesis so I looked it up on the internet. Wikipedia described it +++ HERE +++.. You can look at the first reference footnoted in the Wikipedia article to find a really detailed explanation by the researcher that coined the phrase.

Hm, I've not heard that term before, though I correctly surmised the meaning. I was doing some very limited work with the principle back in the 70s and used it fairly extensively through to 2002, when I changed left the company. Ours were phrases, words and phonems ... no shorter, no pitch adjustment.

I have been patiently waiting for an extraterrestrial hard rock God from Alpha Centauri to drop by my house and play some stuff. I can assure you that I will pay attention and try to copy some of His/Her/Its licks. He,her,it will most likely laugh at me in the same way Clarence Gathmouth Brown used to laugh at me when I would sit on the edge of the stage and try to learn his stuff. He used to say come ride with me on the tour bus and perhaps by the time we get from Houston to Austin I can teach you two or three notes lol. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clarence_%22Gatemouth%22_Brown) for all of you who would not know who is.
Perhaps the extraterrestrial hard rock God from Alpha Centauri would give me permission to use his/her/its stuff but permission or not I most likely would use it anyway and suffer the results...lol Who knows how the Alpha Centauri music cops would react...lol

If any of you encounter this rock god please inform her/him/it that they are welcome at my house and that I would also like to go for a ride on the space tour bus, especially if I can drive it for a bit!

This B.D. Thomas person of the above is in my less-than-humble opinion the most avant-garde person on this forum. Highly creative in the outcome of his songs and videos by whatever process he uses. He is technically extremely accurate in his lyrical portrayal of modern-day emotional states experienced by young women in today's culture.

Will anyone listen to music I am a part of creating? Yes, two or three at least. That should be good enough, for me at least.

For me, I have generated only one song with AI. It may be the only one. While it sounded OK it is not something I would enjoy doing other than to experiment.

Not everyone on the planet has the same concept of ownership. Taking things that do not belong to someone is a common idea. Large numbers of us humans steal music, software, and pens from the bank and the office. Crimes and misdemeanors both large and small.

I have wondered with how BIAB-centric the PG Music forum has been in the past, how we would allow any other software process on the site. Or how most of us traditional music creators would permit such modern-day nonsense as AI to arrive here...lol

Alas, sometimes kicking and screaming even the BIAB forum is moving into the future...lol

Cheers from the Bermuda Triangle,

Billy