Thread 127396255

If AI music is "stealing", "untalented" and "unoriginal"; then so is sampling.

>>127396255 (OP)
AI music isn't music, it's data processing

>>127396255 (OP)
I agree. AI slop and sampling should both go.

>>127396255 (OP)
shhhh
don't break the illusion.
They "made" that song.

AI generation is way lazier than sampling

"A hamburger tastes better if you raise and butcher the cow yourself."
That's just absurd.

>>127396663
It will never "generate" what you want. As of now, it's just as big of a PITA

>>127396717
clankers suck at music

>>127396717
I think people are already working on AI DAWs, which will probably generate midis that you can edit, instead of just a crappy audio you can't alter in any way. I'm still not really on board with using AI for creative fields, unless it's for making innovative stuff that would be impossible to do otherwise. Or memes.

if you're making money off music and you've sampled or interpolated something, you're 100% paying royalties to the original artist.
if suno and udio start paying royalties based on sampling weight, it would be very good.
but that's not happening unfortunately.

>>127396255 (OP)
>AI music is LITERALLY STEALING
One of those Twitter/Tumblr slogans that sounds good but is very hard to coherently defend
>AI music is UNTALENTED and UNORIGINAL
Right now, yes. But that's because nobody's figured out how to use it in a new, interesting, exciting way. Someone will soon.

>>127396255 (OP)
AI could never make graduation faggot

...yeah

>>127397217
>AI could never make graduation faggot

>>127396255 (OP)
ok

>>127396255 (OP)
Which one piece ending song is the best? Why do the guitars sound like that?

That is true. Part of why the ai argument was so frustrating to argue about in the past is that there are legitimate political economic concerns around ai there are also artistic political economies to be concerned with as well. I think a lot of time just a vague aesthetic preference or opinion is just being called for the important thing is that preference is true in or for that moment. Those are ephemeral opinions though the actual political economic of ai carries on. also though within individual artistic choice about the function of ai. The artist in the case is almost asked to take a stand on the whole entire instrumentality of ai in that case though if the question is what an ai can do in the context of organizing a piece of art or in constituting the instrumentalities or categories for a piece of art.

You don't need a conditional for that, sampling is always stealing anyway.

>>127397217
yes it can since graduation already exists

>>127396255 (OP)
Yes.

>>127397049
>One of those Twitter/Tumblr slogans that sounds good but is very hard to coherently defend
Pretty funny to see a zoomer who was probably 2 during tumblr’s golden years talk shit about it. Was a place where anyone could upload loads of porn/music/art/whatever. Where it could be linked easily and pages loaded instantly with no ads or pop up logins. Thank goodness it was taken away!

AI takes music that has been made, repackages it without making any reference at all to whence it came, releases under a fictitious alias and then the Jews behind the curtain get to reap the moolah. Can see why you’d love it.

>>127396274
So music doesn't exist: brains just process data too.
>>127396326
At least AI music can be original.
>>127396663
Why?
>>127396694
Were you trying to argue that music without samples had the same quality of music with samples?
>>127396933
>if you're making money off music and you've sampled or interpolated something, you're 100% paying royalties to the original artist
In every case?
>if suno and udio start paying royalties based on sampling weight, it would be very good
Are you saying Suno and Udio necessarily use samples?

>>127398142
>Were you trying to argue that music without samples had the same quality of music with samples?
I think
>That's just absurd
was sarcasm, meaning that meat does taste better when you do it all yourself, meaning that music does sound better when you do it all yourself

>>127398138
>Sampling takes music that has been made, repackages it without making any reference at all to whence it came, releases under a fictitious alias, and then DA JOOOS JOOS JOOOS DA JOOOS IT DA JOOS DA JOOOS IT DA JOOS JOOS JOOS
I don't think you've thought at all about this

>>127396255 (OP)
>If AI music is "stealing", "untalented" and "unoriginal"; then so is sampling.
All music is composed by God. We are all sampling God.

>>127396255 (OP)
AI music is just sample based music with even less talent

I wouldn't call it stealing. Every starting artist starts out copying stuff they want to play. Genres just exist because band Y wanted to sound like band X.
Ai is just copying stuff too.

>>127396255 (OP)
agree