A Mark In Time
Mark Knopfler Discussion => Mark Knopfler Discussion Forum => Topic started by: Rolo on July 22, 2025, 12:20:55 AM
-
HAHAHA.
Pure SH*T
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1vgv6g5eOJ0
-
Would perfectly well fit on Down The Road Whatever.
LE
-
So the vocal sounds "off", but the music track isn't actually that bad. Doesn't really sound like DS or MK solo though, sounds more like Steely Dan or similar late 70s US band.
-
For me the voice sounds pretty close to nowadays MK, the music not much, that guitars sounds doesn't sound anything like MK Nor DS, and the music neither.
-
HAHAHA.
Pure SH*T
Indeed, the guitar sounds like someone farting through a kazoo… :think
-
None of this is good news for musicians. Even though it sounds off at the moment, it is bad for the environment to create and is inching its way to replacing human creativity. So I wouldn't click on the link and encourage these people.
-
Would perfectly well fit on Down The Road Whatever.
LE
Candidate of album best song LOL
-
None of this is good news for musicians. Even though it sounds off at the moment, it is bad for the environment to create and is inching its way to replacing human creativity. So I wouldn't click on the link and encourage these people.
I think that are AI Music tools that can make a decent job IF the music is poor enough.
What I mean is that many of nowadays (current generation?) popular music have no complexity at all. And above that, all emotions are deeply fake because the discover of 'the formula'.
When I say popular music I mean every regional style of popular music.
Using my example, I played in a few brazilian popular-style bands. Not big deal, near city concerts, TV shows, travel and very small touring. The music had good arrangements and everytime that a new song came in for rehearsal, we tried an approach that could make us, musicians, happy. In result of that, we could see if the arrangements would work during the concert and the audience reception and etc...
Almost every song had a riff, great groove, bridges, solos... And it was applied to all bands.
Short story (because I talk too much), Some of my friends tells that, sometimes, they are the only players in the studio for recording. The song was done by computer using "the formula"
We all enjoy to do pre-production using Toontrack, Native Instruments, IK, Fruity Loops with decent results for pre-production.
Problem is that, nowadays, the audience could barely distinct (or doesn't care) wich is AI or human.
I went to Rock In Rio Lisbon last year and there was a young singer that did a whole concert alone on stage with 4 dancers. 100% playback with sampled-plugin-made music. And the audience was screaming.
We can discuss it the whole day. It wont change anything because people are too much ansiety to deal with it (or anything)
I ALWAYS say: "The statistic ruined the entertainment"
-
The best way to encourage real music is to ignore the fake stuff.
It's a laugh to post links to it, but at the end of the day it gives the worst development in music oxygen and exposure.
-
The best way to encourage real music is to ignore the fake stuff.
It's a laugh to post links to it, but at the end of the day it gives the worst development in music oxygen and exposure.
:thumbsup
-
The best way to encourage real music is to ignore the fake stuff.
It's a laugh to post links to it, but at the end of the day it gives the worst development in music oxygen and exposure.
AI is only a tool.
The important thing is how government will legislate on their use.
AI is part of the present and future.
-
Are we still talking about it?
Please mods, close this thread!
;D ;D ;D ;D
-
AI is only a tool.
Currently being used to replace real creative people. If you want that, fine, go ahead and promote it, if you don't pease don't encourage it's promoters by spreading their product and chattering about it.
-
AI is only a tool.
Currently being used to replace real creative people. If you want that, fine, go ahead and promote it, if you don't pease don't encourage it's promoters by spreading their product and chattering about it.
Do you really think that you can counter use of AI that way ?
Creative people themselve are already using AI.
Lots of jobs, creative or not, will be taken over by use of AI.
IMHO the debate about AI has to be spoken out loud.
-
There's no way to put the genie back in the bottle. The damage is already done, and it will only get worse.
-
There's no way to put the genie back in the bottle. The damage is already done, and it will only get worse.
I think the same.
-
There's no way to put the genie back in the bottle. The damage is already done, and it will only get worse.
Hi there. Why not Hunter 3.0? :wave ;D
Welcome back.
LE
-
There's no way to put the genie back in the bottle. The damage is already done, and it will only get worse.
Hi there. Why not Hunter 3.0? :wave ;D
Welcome back.
LE
;D
I actually asked the mods to delete my account, but they refused. ;D
-
There's no way to put the genie back in the bottle. The damage is already done, and it will only get worse.
Totally agree. Unfortunately it will come down to simple bottom line economics....
-
There's no way to put the genie back in the bottle. The damage is already done, and it will only get worse.
Hi there. Why not Hunter 3.0? :wave ;D
Welcome back.
LE
;D
I actually asked the mods to delete my account, but they refused. ;D
I know that feeling. Bunch of dictators.. :lol ;D ;D
LE
-
This paints the moderators in much too good a light, implying that we have some sense of morality or give much thought to these things.
The reality is that we are all busy, but ultimately lazy people with busy lives and I suspect that in both these cases it was just never got round to :)
-
This paints the moderators in much too good a light, implying that we have some sense of morality or give much thought to these things.
The reality is that we are all busy, but ultimately lazy people with busy lives and I suspect that in both these cases it was just never got round to :)
LOL
-
Obviously I never said I was 100% against AI, for example in the health care sector.
This IS after all a forum that celebrates creativity, one of the great songwriters our time, one of the greatest musicians the UK has produced.
Tech billionaires are looking to replace creative visionaries with AI, because it doesn't cost them anything, it has no mind of it's own to criticise them (Money For Nothing) and it's going to make them trillionaires instead of just billionaires.
I was just suggesting a forum of members who presumably value people like Mark Knopfler not casually laugh off the first attempts to replace Knopfler and the Knopfler's of the future.
-
Apart from the horrendous guitar parts it’s better than 95% of what’s produced by today’s music industry. I’m not saying it’s great but yeah…
-
AI is only a tool.
Currently being used to replace real creative people. If you want that, fine, go ahead and promote it, if you don't pease don't encourage it's promoters by spreading their product and chattering about it.
Do you really think that you can counter use of AI that way ?
Creative people themselve are already using AI.
Lots of jobs, creative or not, will be taken over by use of AI.
IMHO the debate about AI has to be spoken out loud.
True thing. It’s impossible to hold it back. As long as what’s created with the use of AI is identified as such I have no problem with that.
-
Obviously I never said I was 100% against AI, for example in the health care sector.
This IS after all a forum that celebrates creativity, one of the great songwriters our time, one of the greatest musicians the UK has produced.
Tech billionaires are looking to replace creative visionaries with AI, because it doesn't cost them anything, it has no mind of it's own to criticise them (Money For Nothing) and it's going to make them trillionaires instead of just billionaires.
I was just suggesting a forum of members who presumably value people like Mark Knopfler not casually laugh off the first attempts to replace Knopfler and the Knopfler's of the future.
Good point but I think creative minds that get replaced with IA will create their own business and use IA themselves. It’s like the doping scandal in Tour de France, everyone was on it.
-
No, the correct analogy in this case is the Tour de France looking to replacing riders with robots on bikes.
I'm surprised so many are excusing this. Tech people are looking to develop and perfect song creation, in this case in the style of MarkKnopfler, to replace future Mark Knopflers to save money, and a whole bunch of die hard Mark Knopfler fans are ok with it?
-
I disagree. NO to artificial intelligence in music!
-
No, the correct analogy in this case is the Tour de France looking to replacing riders with robots on bikes.
I'm surprised so many are excusing this. Tech people are looking to develop and perfect song creation, in this case in the style of MarkKnopfler, to replace future Mark Knopflers to save money, and a whole bunch of die hard Mark Knopfler fans are ok with it?
Kind of Frankenstein myth ?
But AI to do its job need to have a preexisting Mark Knopfler, AI can not create Mark Knopfler - well at current time.
The immediate danger with AI is that it will be able to replace session musician. It won't put everybody out their job but a lot of people will lose theirs.
-
But AI to do its job need to have a preexisting Mark Knopfler, AI can not create Mark Knopfler - well at current time.
Sadly you are wrong. Spotify is already using 100% AI created music to populate its most popular playlists. This is the end game of streaming. To replace human created music because it's too expensive. The next 'Mark Knopfler' won't ever be heard, because he'll be replaced on streaming by hours of AI created music.
-
No, the correct analogy in this case is the Tour de France looking to replacing riders with robots on bikes.
I'm surprised so many are excusing this. Tech people are looking to develop and perfect song creation, in this case in the style of MarkKnopfler, to replace future Mark Knopflers to save money, and a whole bunch of die hard Mark Knopfler fans are ok with it?
That’s because I think humans will always create better songs.
-
But AI to do its job need to have a preexisting Mark Knopfler, AI can not create Mark Knopfler - well at current time.
Sadly you are wrong. Spotify is already using 100% AI created music to populate its most popular playlists. This is the end game of streaming. To replace human created music because it's too expensive. The next 'Mark Knopfler' won't ever be heard, because he'll be replaced on streaming by hours of AI created music.
Being quite honest, today’s music is garbage, hip hop and rap dominate the charts, people in general are too lazy to appreciate music that makes them think too much or even think at all, it’s already a huge mess. As long as there’s live music real musicians will always be safe though. In my opinion, at least at this point, electronic music, DJs, raves and so on are much more damaging than AI.
-
But AI to do its job need to have a preexisting Mark Knopfler, AI can not create Mark Knopfler - well at current time.
Sadly you are wrong. Spotify is already using 100% AI created music to populate its most popular playlists. This is the end game of streaming. To replace human created music because it's too expensive. The next 'Mark Knopfler' won't ever be heard, because he'll be replaced on streaming by hours of AI created music.
Correct
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2025/jul/14/an-ai-generated-band-got-1m-plays-on-spotify-now-music-insiders-say-listeners-should-be-warned
-
AI music will never be an option for me because there is no heart and soul.
-
AI music will never be an option for me because there is no heart and soul.
That's a great sentiment, but very very soon you won't be able to tell the difference between the two unless told....
-
As long as there’s live music real musicians will always be safe though. In my opinion, at least at this point, electronic music, DJs, raves and so on are much more damaging than AI.
Man, sorry but you need to wake up.
How does any artist play live without exposure from online? Whether it's Youtube, streaming services. If you can't get noticed because the scene is swamped by AI music, you'll never attract anyone to your gigs.
Also, how do you pay your band, pay for transport, hotels, road crew etc?
You don't wake up one day and decide to gig. You need to put a band together, rehearse. It all costs money, and recorded music was one important way to raise cash to pay for the sustainability of your career.
You think today's music is all about rap and DJ's, but that's because all you are offered by technology is that kind of music. Proving that the kind of music you value is already being hidden from you.
-
I am no AI expert so please correct me if I'm wrong, but from what I learned then no, you can not create MK music without having a MK first. Bots use already excicting material and use probability to create something "new". That is why you now have huge "data training centers", for bots to "learn" from. That is why Meta now use all our information, private and open, they need material for the bots to "learn" from. If a bot train on 100 sources and 98 of them use the word "year" after the words "happy new", then the bots will use that answer too. This is one of the reasons that I find "but AI is so creative" a poor argument. AI will make things more similar, not more diverse.
I wrote text for a webshop and lost my job to AI. Cheaper for the company, and of course sooo creative. Experience with the products they are selling and personal advice not needed..
I just read that the brand Guess now has used a completly made up person in a commercial. It doesn't matter how beautiful and thin you are; AI does it better.
Tell me one da*n good thing about AI, except making the rich even more rich? :disbelief
-
Tell me one da*n good thing about AI, except making the rich even more rich? :disbelief
The people here criticizing AI are the 21st century equivalent of those in the 20th century who preferred to ride horses instead of cars, using candles instead of electricity, wood and fire instead of stoves, etc.
Not knowing "one good thing" about AI is just dangerous. AI is used every single day for diagnosing cancers, tumors and other diseases. It's used in environmental catastrophe prediction and emergency relief, it is used in agriculture by detecting weeds and spraying precision herbicide, it is used in fraud detection in banking and all sorts of cybersecurity measures. I could go on with more examples afor hours, but I guess it's easier and cool to say it's just a tool make the rich even richer
When it comes to arts it gets more complex, yes, but at the end of the day there will always be real-life musicians and you will always have the freedom to choose to listen to them or some AI generated stuff. The same way you can also tell your doctor to not use AI in your exams, as it makes the rich even richer. Up to you.
-
Tell me one da*n good thing about AI, except making the rich even more rich? :disbelief
The people here criticizing AI are the 21st century equivalent of those in the 20th century who preferred to ride horses instead of cars, using candles instead of electricity, wood and fire instead of stoves, etc.
Not knowing "one good thing" about AI is just dangerous. AI is used every single day for diagnosing cancers, tumors and other diseases. It's used in environmental catastrophe prediction and emergency relief, it is used in agriculture by detecting weeds and spraying precision herbicide, it is used in fraud detection in banking and all sorts of cybersecurity measures. I could go on with more examples afor hours, but I guess it's easier and cool to say it's just a tool make the rich even richer
When it comes to arts it gets more complex, yes, but at the end of the day there will always be real-life musicians and you will always have the freedom to choose to listen to them or some AI generated stuff. The same way you can also tell your doctor to not use AI in your exams, as it makes the rich even richer. Up to you.
Exactly, it’s inevitable, you either adapt or not. It’s like Dylan going electric or no line judges in tennis. We may discuss if it’s good or bad, right or wrong, but it’s happening either way. As a guitarist I still prefer my amps and pedals but when you see Dan Huff using plugins and recording direct it makes you scratch your head and think.
-
You got me rmarques, I just love the stone age so much that I want to go back! :smack You know very well what I meant, but chose to quarrel.
Btw, you are welcome to reply again after being unemployed for 11 month because nobody needs you and no company is willing to teach you anything (you're supposed to know everything form day 1). I will probably need to start from scratch, with new school, new loan and even then, no promises of a job.
-
SORRY - LONG TEXT ALERT
As a person who worked for years generating data to AI models, I will try to write few words about it.
Every AI need to be fed with data.
Almost every concept of AI exists since the 70's. However, the computational power was far from the minimum requirements and a effective neural-network predictive model started to be really funtional at late 90's / early 2000's.
Music (and arts in general) always had been on the debate when the subject is AI because of the multiple "unpredicted" behavioring (aka human factor).
What happens is that, Music have an importart role into the Generative AI because the machine can learn in every little detail based on this "unpredicted" behavior and apply (escalate) it to other areas such as medicine, text generation in the style of someone, or who knows, discover who is playing in a ramdom song and check if the credits are corrected. (connex rights)
Now let's play a game.
Lets use our beloved MK as an example.
Every MK song is categorized by many things, per example:
- General aspect of the lyrycs
- Storytelling
- Background (bibliographical)
- Song similarity (comparison)
- Harmony
- "Plagiarism" or Influences (other artists similar songs)
- Voice tone
- Number of words (small words, dialects, big words, slangs...)
- Vocal performance nuance (volume, space, tone, screams...)
- Guitar tone (phrasing, music theory, style, performance, nuance...)
- Groove
- Band members
Every item have a new tree of nodes. Every item is repeated by each band member. Every guitar tone\lick\phrase is compared with similar existing nodes... and so forth.
And each item changed based on wich MK era we are selecting.
We can use(prompt) only the MK from the first 2 DS albums per example.
Let's do an exercise and imagine how we can do a AI version of Eagles's Hotel California sung by Dire Straits in 1979.
If we could back in time and be with the band, as a musical director, on a studio, to work that song. What we gonna do?
Remember that we can travel in time knowing everything until 2025.
Very basic mental exercise:
- We know the groove
- We know the guitar tone
- We know how the lyrycs should work
Now try to categorize every aspect of wich are the DS songs that influenced the singing, licks, grooves... and put it into organized data (would be a LOT of data) and then know how to "talk" with the machine and refine it (More data). You could deliver a relative decent job.
You need data and how to deal with data to have descent AI results if you wanna do complex experiments. And that is the word. Experiment.
AI is a tool and people are discovering the limits of it.
Of course Chris comments are valid and absolutely necessary on how the consuming world runs. However AI unlocks another side of creativity (for good or for worse) that will be possible for everyone.
Classical Music was over because the composers tryed almost everything in terms of harmony and beauty that time. After that came Stravinsky, Messian, Mingus and modern harmony concepts.
It happened with Bepop, Jazz, Rock, Classical...
Speaking about guitar, who would imagine, 20 years ago, a guitar player like Tosin Abasi? Style, Phrasing, Tone, Technology, Concept...
A person who goes for a Jim Campilongo or a Nels Cline concert wants a real experience.
I believe that, in some years, we will live a balance about it.
Until then, many things could appear and the real artist always will find a way to emerge and be noted.
-
You got me rmarques, I just love the stone age so much that I want to go back! :smack You know very well what I meant, but chose to quarrel.
Btw, you are welcome to reply again after being unemployed for 11 month because nobody needs you and no company is willing to teach you anything (you're supposed to know everything form day 1). I will probably need to start from scratch, with new school, new loan and even then, no promises of a job.
I didn't choose to quarrel, I just wanted to show that demonizing AI and reducing it to something that "makes the rich get richer", whatever the hell that even means, is nonsensical.
I'm sorry you lost your job but I leave you with a MK quote to lift up your spirits:
"If you can turn negative energy into positive, turn a dire straits situation, excuse the term, into one that is positive, you're not going to go under, you're creating. Like someone who could write a book in prison. The songs are linked in that sense. It wasn't conscious, but I see the Sultans, Les Bouys, the roller skate girl, and Romeo all change disadvantage into advantage. Rather than leave it thay make something with it. I'm not advocating adverse circumstanses, but if they come you have to create from it."
-
But AI to do its job need to have a preexisting Mark Knopfler, AI can not create Mark Knopfler - well at current time.
Sadly you are wrong. Spotify is already using 100% AI created music to populate its most popular playlists. This is the end game of streaming. To replace human created music because it's too expensive. The next 'Mark Knopfler' won't ever be heard, because he'll be replaced on streaming by hours of AI created music.
No, all these AI streams are just vomiting what they did previously ingratiate. AI does not create, it is only replicating.
Spotify is doing dirty business but people want always to discover new music and without human creating, AI created music will dry fast doing music for elevator.
-
I'm having fun with this, sharing it with you, it's at least an exercise of imagination. 😄
https://youtu.be/FLdb3K6Bmoc?si=ioCCwnuewPfrT7EL (https://youtu.be/FLdb3K6Bmoc?si=ioCCwnuewPfrT7EL)
-
When it comes to arts it gets more complex, yes, but at the end of the day there will always be real-life musicians and you will always have the freedom to choose to listen to them or some AI generated stuff.
Err, none of it is being marked 'AI'. So no, you have no idea what you are listening to.
My point here is that the music scene as a whole supports human artists, if you take away one important income stream then it is much harder for artists to survive. Again, I find it astonishing being labelled a luddite for supporting real musicians on a forum dedicated to Dire Straits and Mark Knopfler. The tech industry controls online. Online is where people now discover music. The tech industry is actively replacing human made music with AI generated music (behind your backs) because it means they never have to pay for the right to use the music - making them more money.
-
Exactly, it’s inevitable, you either adapt or not. It’s like Dylan going electric or no line judges in tennis. We may discuss if it’s good or bad, right or wrong, but it’s happening either way. As a guitarist I still prefer my amps and pedals but when you see Dan Huff using plugins and recording direct it makes you scratch your head and think.
Millions of jobs in all aspects of society are going to go. Get back to me when most of the people you know are unemployed and struggling financially.
-
I am no AI expert so please correct me if I'm wrong, but from what I learned then no, you can not create MK music without having a MK first.
They have 100 years of popular music to train AI on. They don't need any new song writers. They have hours and hours of Mark Knopfler material to train AI to replicate MK. My point about Mark is not specifically about Mark. It was metaphor. When 'Sultans Of Swing' was released was a complete outlier - in a music scene dominated by Disco and Punk. It's correct, AI can't invent innovative songs or new genres. And that's the exact problem. If AI dominates in music commerce (streaming, Youtube etc), no innovative artist will ever reach an audience big enough to play more than a couple of shows, before they run out of money and give up.
-
Really sorry about your job Elin. Won't make your situation any better but I'm sure it has already happened to lots of people and will continue to happen more in the future.
On the guitar point raised by Eddie Fox, I've gone fully ampless and couldn't be happier. So much easier not having to lug amps and with IEM's I have a much better idea of sound balance. Does it sound "worse"? Maybe. Does ANYONE listening care? Nope.
-
In my 40 years of experience, musicians have always been enthusiastic about technology and new equipment.
my point is more about thematic fans and less about us musicians. Fans on forums consistently complain about the quality of modern music - for example the Spotify Top 40.
That's because outliers are difficult to deal with. People like Mark Knopfler are difficult to control. They release music that scares the executives, they don't want their music used to advertise cr@p. AI is 100% controllable.
Tech wants to replace human made music with AI music.
If music commerce is closed off to humans, then it is very difficult to make a record, start a band, or play some shows.
People who think artists will always play live are incredibly naive. Where is the next generation going to get the funding to play live - keep a band together, rehearse, travel, pay their day to day bills etc.
-
Exactly, it’s inevitable, you either adapt or not. It’s like Dylan going electric or no line judges in tennis. We may discuss if it’s good or bad, right or wrong, but it’s happening either way. As a guitarist I still prefer my amps and pedals but when you see Dan Huff using plugins and recording direct it makes you scratch your head and think.
Millions of jobs in all aspects of society are going to go. Get back to me when most of the people you know are unemployed and struggling financially.
I prefer to get back to you right now and tell you you're just spitting more doomsday rubbish.
Yes, millions of jobs are going to go and millions of other new jobs will come, as it has been for thousands of years with technological progress. As with other species, humans can cry and moan or they can adapt to the changing of the times and find ways to be valuable.
-
I prefer to get back to you right now and tell you you're just spitting more doomsday rubbish.
Yes, millions of jobs are going to go and millions of other new jobs will come, as it has been for thousands of years with technological progress.
1) You can't adapt to being fully replaced can you.
2) I'm just forwarding what leading economists say about AI and robotics. They say millions of jobs are going to become obsolete and there is no plan to support those millions of unemployed people. The goal is to cut costs using technology, so you aren't cutting any costs if you find new jobs for the unemployed. you are just shifting those employment costs to another employer - which ain't going to happen.
'Humans won't be needed for most things':
https://www.cnbc.com/2025/03/26/bill-gates-on-ai-humans-wont-be-needed-for-most-things.html
-
Exactly, it’s inevitable, you either adapt or not.
It's funny. You aren't willing to adapt to DS tribute bands, but are defending AI in the creative arts.
-
I prefer to get back to you right now and tell you you're just spitting more doomsday rubbish.
Yes, millions of jobs are going to go and millions of other new jobs will come, as it has been for thousands of years with technological progress.
1) You can't adapt to being fully replaced can you.
2) I'm just forwarding what leading economists say about AI and robotics. They say millions of jobs are going to become obsolete and there is no plan to support those millions of unemployed people. The goal is to cut costs using technology, so you aren't cutting any costs if you find new jobs for the unemployed. you are just shifting those employment costs to another employer - which ain't going to happen.
'Humans won't be needed for most things':
https://www.cnbc.com/2025/03/26/bill-gates-on-ai-humans-wont-be-needed-for-most-things.html
No, you are just forwarding what the leading economists that think like you say. The economists that don't think like you understand that new jobs will replace ones that became obsolete (data scientists, AI engineers, etc...)
And honestly, a Bill Gates quote? :smack
That man could fill an entire book with his ridiculous predictions
-
People like Mark Knopfler are difficult to control. They release music that scares the executives, they don't want their music used to advertise cr@p.
And yet, Walk of Life is currently being used on British Gas adverts, ha!
-
OK :smack
If you google the subject there are thousands of reports from all kinds of think tanks, universities, economists etc all agreeing:
https://www.nexford.edu/insights/how-will-ai-affect-jobs
Sorry, but if you don't mind I'll respect a widely held EXPERT opinion over some guy on a Mark Knopfler forum.
But Ok, if I indulge the idea that people replaced by AI will find other jobs, what valuable job do you expert a great songwriter to do after they are replaced by AI. Waiter, vegetable picker, hospital orderly?
-
People like Mark Knopfler are difficult to control. They release music that scares the executives, they don't want their music used to advertise cr@p.
And yet, Walk of Life is currently being used on British Gas adverts, ha!
I know. You'll see I was talking in general terms about not being able to control great artists, especially when they are younger, at the height of their careers. Many times 'legacy' artists at the end of their careers have given in to business interests.
-
People like Mark Knopfler are difficult to control. They release music that scares the executives, they don't want their music used to advertise cr@p. AI is 100% controllable.
How can you say something like that? Mark's music has been used for advertising for 40 years, and is still used nowadays in ads in the UK (at least).
-
OK :smack
If you google the subject there are thousands of reports from all kinds of think tanks, universities, economists etc all agreeing:
https://www.nexford.edu/insights/how-will-ai-affect-jobs
Sorry, but if you don't mind I'll respect a widely held EXPERT opinion over some guy on a Mark Knopfler forum.
But Ok, if I indulge the idea that people replaced by AI will find other jobs, what valuable job do you expert a great songwriter to do after they are replaced by AI. Waiter, vegetable picker, hospital orderly?
No, they are not all agreeing, obviously. You are just reading the reports that come to the conclusion you want.
If you read the literature review of the OECD, they even quote the ILO, which is not an organisation suspect of thretening labor rights and stability, where they conclude that there will likely be a net-zero effect on job loss. Read it: https://www.oecd.org/content/dam/oecd/en/publications/reports/2021/01/the-impact-of-artificial-intelligence-on-the-labour-market_a4b9cac2/7c895724-en.pdf
As with other past situations on this forum, talking to you is like talking to a brick wall. But in this topic you clearly have no expertise (no reasonably knowledgeable person in Economics would ever care what Bill Gates says in 2025, or send some article from a random online university in New York no one's ever heard of), so I just stop replying now.
-
People like Mark Knopfler are difficult to control. They release music that scares the executives, they don't want their music used to advertise cr@p.
And yet, Walk of Life is currently being used on British Gas adverts, ha!
I know. You'll see I was talking in general terms about not being able to control great artists, especially when they are younger, at the height of their careers. Many times 'legacy' artists at the end of their careers have given in to business interests.
Yeah I know, I was just having fun. And I have no problem with it. MK or any of these guys should absolutely take the money and run.
-
Regarding culture, there would be always people interested in real music, real books, real movies etc, AI would be a tool, more useful in some works like medicine, investigation etc, probably it would replace many mechanical or administrative works, but many others would survive.
It's been the same since industrial development, many works disappear and are substituted, people reinvent themselves.
A drummer always would have work as there would be always people who would want a real drummer. People thinking in substitute a real drummer for AI, won't hire a drummer anyway. There would be less work? Yes, but there would be work if you are good enough to be called from those who still want the real thing.
And despite AI develop, a real creative genius would be always better than AI, and there would be always someone who would appreciate that.
-
I'm having fun with this, sharing it with you, it's at least an exercise of imagination. 😄
https://youtu.be/FLdb3K6Bmoc?si=ioCCwnuewPfrT7EL (https://youtu.be/FLdb3K6Bmoc?si=ioCCwnuewPfrT7EL)
I listenend to it entirely. :(
It's a shame that all chords progressions have been changed.
it would have been a better idea to keep them like originals and change only orchestrations/arrangements
-
No, they are not all agreeing, obviously. You are just reading the reports that come to the conclusion you want.
No I just googled 'AI impact on job's with no agenda of my own. Multiple results could have come back stating 'experts say AI will have little impact on employment' but that didn't happen.
-
A drummer always would have work as there would be always people who would want a real drummer.
Firstly, we're not taking about industrial development, we are talking about art and creativity. Most artists (in all forms) struggle to survive until their art is discovered, appreciated and commercialised. If you vastly limit the commercialisation then most artists will stop creating because they can't feed themselves or pay rent etc. None of that is 'good'.
Secondly I am talking here from experience...
Yes, in the 80's when realistic sounding drum machines came along, the work available for drummers dropped off dramatically.
In the 2000's after software drummer tools came along, studio work for real drummers practically stopped. So we all switched to live work.
That's gonna impact your life and health. Travelling 11months of the year, living out of a suitcase, eating bad food etc. To keep costs down, most musicians now live and sleep on busses.
If real musicians are replaced by AI on all of the streaming platforms, how are these fake bands going to tour. There is no artist, there is no lead singer. They are a low cost product, so they don't need to play live today their bills.
This is a warning to music fans. If you want to see great music played by great musicians you need to financially support it.
-
And of course the natural consequence of what Chris said is that the live music that does survive becomes ever more expensive for audiences....
-
No, the correct analogy in this case is the Tour de France looking to replacing riders with robots on bikes.
I'm surprised so many are excusing this. Tech people are looking to develop and perfect song creation, in this case in the style of MarkKnopfler, to replace future Mark Knopflers to save money, and a whole bunch of die hard Mark Knopfler fans are ok with it?
Well Chris, as a Mark Knopfler and Dire Straits fan for 37 years, I am light years away from being ok with it. It reminds me of what Jan Hammer said about his Miami Vice soundtrack : not his exact words, but he said he played every part, even when repetitive, as it sounded so much better for him. In the same fashion, there IMHO will never be any soul, meaning or real intention in Ai generated songs.
-
The cost of concert tickets is outrageous IMO.
-
The cost of concert tickets is outrageous IMO.
I guess it depends who you are seeing. Fortunately for me most of the artists I want to see aren't hyped up and therefore prices are reasonable. Next up Lyle Lovett (and band!), £58, not bad.
By the way, I skimmed the 60s Brothers in Arms and it's, er, excellent/scary depending on your point of view! I think I might prefer the version of One World to the original...
-
And of course the natural consequence of what Chris said is that the live music that does survive becomes ever more expensive for audiences....
Only big big names playing stadiums. I attended many great artists concerts by less than 60 euros.
But when you want to attend an ACDC, Oasis, Guns and roses and the likes, 100 is the cheapest price if you're lucky.
-
And of course the natural consequence of what Chris said is that the live music that does survive becomes ever more expensive for audiences....
Only big big names playing stadiums. I attended many great artists concerts by less than 60 euros.
But when you want to attend an ACDC, Oasis, Guns and roses and the likes, 100 is the cheapest price if you're lucky.
Seems like it's not really sustainable for these "big" acts either when they are milking it so much. A lot of hype and FOMO for Oasis but I've seen reports of empty seats for the other two who have both toured a LOT in recent years.
-
By the way, I skimmed the 60s Brothers in Arms and it's, er, excellent/scary depending on your point of view! I think I might prefer the version of One World to the original...
I don't hear a cover or a "version" of the song here. It's a completely different song with other chords progression. The only same thing are the lyrics
I can see the interest in covering a song with different arrangements (instruments, tempo, even rhythm signature, etc...), but if you change all the music by another music, I don't get the point :think
-
By the way, I skimmed the 60s Brothers in Arms and it's, er, excellent/scary depending on your point of view! I think I might prefer the version of One World to the original...
I don't hear a cover or a "version" of the song here. It's a completely different song with other chords progression. The only same thing are the lyrics
I can see the interest in covering a song with different arrangements (instruments, tempo, even rhythm signature, etc...), but if you change all the music by another music, I don't get the point :think
Man's Too Strong is pretty close. You can make the argument that they need to change chords etc here and there to make it fit in with trends of the time.
-
When it comes to arts it gets more complex, yes, but at the end of the day there will always be real-life musicians and you will always have the freedom to choose to listen to them or some AI generated stuff.
Err, none of it is being marked 'AI'. So no, you have no idea what you are listening to.
My point here is that the music scene as a whole supports human artists, if you take away one important income stream then it is much harder for artists to survive. Again, I find it astonishing being labelled a luddite for supporting real musicians on a forum dedicated to Dire Straits and Mark Knopfler. The tech industry controls online. Online is where people now discover music. The tech industry is actively replacing human made music with AI generated music (behind your backs) because it means they never have to pay for the right to use the music - making them more money.
I agree with you 100%, mate. My point is it’s inevitable, there’s no stopping it. Today I listened to Sinatra singing a Greenday song through AI and I liked it more than the original… this is good use imho. But yeah, it’s a very complex topic, especially when you have no saying on it like myself or pretty much all of us here.
-
Glenn Campbell actually singing Good Riddance by Green Day is very good.
-
By the way, I skimmed the 60s Brothers in Arms and it's, er, excellent/scary depending on your point of view! I think I might prefer the version of One World to the original...
I don't hear a cover or a "version" of the song here. It's a completely different song with other chords progression. The only same thing are the lyrics
I can see the interest in covering a song with different arrangements (instruments, tempo, even rhythm signature, etc...), but if you change all the music by another music, I don't get the point :think
Man's Too Strong is pretty close. You can make the argument that they need to change chords etc here and there to make it fit in with trends of the time.
imho, I think that you can fit with trends of the time just with orchestrations, instruments, etc... no needs to change the chords progression
we all know plenty covers of songs that have been changed only by sounds/ arangements and keeping the original harmony
I think that it's the challenge : making a song sounding like from another era, just by playing it differently, but not by changing its chords structure
here I just hear same lyrics on differents musics
-
By the way, I skimmed the 60s Brothers in Arms and it's, er, excellent/scary depending on your point of view! I think I might prefer the version of One World to the original...
I don't hear a cover or a "version" of the song here. It's a completely different song with other chords progression. The only same thing are the lyrics
I can see the interest in covering a song with different arrangements (instruments, tempo, even rhythm signature, etc...), but if you change all the music by another music, I don't get the point :think
Man's Too Strong is pretty close. You can make the argument that they need to change chords etc here and there to make it fit in with trends of the time.
imho, I think that you can fit with trends of the time just with orchestrations, instruments, etc... no needs to change the chords progression
we all know plenty covers of songs that have been changed only by sounds/ arangements and keeping the original harmony
I think that it's the challenge : making a song sounding like from another era, just by playing it differently, but not by changing its chords structure
here I just hear same lyrics on differents musics
My perception of this is different. For me, in the case of the link I posted, the AI is basically emulating something that didn't happen, of course. But it's as if it's simulating a parallel reality, a reality where Dire Straits had emerged in the mid-to-late 1950s and recorded their fifth album, "BIA," sometime in the 1960s (the Cold War was in full swing, as was Vitnam...). So, it's much more an exercise in imagination toward the direction of a "parallel universe," than merely an attempt at a cover or a version. That's why the AI sounds this way here, trying to fit the album's sound into another time in the past. Anyway... the purpose is a joke, within this context, I like it, I think it's cool and curious, it stirs my imagination.
-
I agree with you 100%, mate. My point is it’s inevitable, there’s no stopping it.
Nothing in life is 'inevitable'.
We are learning over time how factory farming is damaging to the environment and to our health. So farmer's markets and organics have emerged.
In Italy and France (just for example), they have retained the buy locally grown, eat meals cooked from scratch lifestyle and their citizens live many years longer than the British and Americans.
So my point is, don't ignore the threat to the arts of AI. If you value human creativity, don't just roll over and accept what you are given by the tech industry. Support human made art and don't publicise the AI version, even if it's just to laugh at it.
I don't use streaming at all and I almost always buy my music from the artist themselves, contributing to their financial survival.If you are passive, you lose what you cherish.
-
Of course many things in life are inevitable, death being one of them. Having said that, real music was doomed before AI. Check the link below, that’s probably the most popular ‘artist’ in Brazil at the moment.
https://youtu.be/yx_yQuQjOIo?si=W2riYP1Wn6fH3v00
-
Of course many things in life are inevitable, death being one of them. Having said that, real music was doomed before AI. Check the link below, that’s probably the most popular ‘artist’ in Brazil at the moment.
https://youtu.be/yx_yQuQjOIo?si=W2riYP1Wn6fH3v00
Come on, Eddie.
I am sorry, but don't be naive.
Brazilian Funk and Sertanejo are money laundering mainly from huge pecuarists (aka Agro) and organized crime.
Did you ever knew how much countryside cities pays for a Sertanejo concert?
Those artists are "popular" because money and exposition. People eat shit because it is trend.
-
Having said that, real music was doomed before AI.
So negative.
Real music is still around, in quite plentiful supply actually.
We're talking about tech training AI to replace real artists. Which is happening, but far from complete at this time.
-
Of course many things in life are inevitable, death being one of them. Having said that, real music was doomed before AI. Check the link below, that’s probably the most popular ‘artist’ in Brazil at the moment.
https://youtu.be/yx_yQuQjOIo?si=W2riYP1Wn6fH3v00
Come on, Eddie.
I am sorry, but don't be naive.
Brazilian Funk and Sertanejo are money laundering mainly from huge pecuarists (aka Agro) and organized crime.
Did you ever knew how much countryside cities pays for a Sertanejo concert?
Those artists are "popular" because money and exposition. People eat shit because it is trend.
That was a funny one… most Brazilians like shitty music because we have one of the very worst educational systems in the world. Ignorant people consume shallow music, period. Do I like sertanejo? Hell I do not, but at least those songs are recorded and played live by professional musicians. Can’t say the same about rap and hip hop. Now saying the ‘agro’ (those evil capitalists 🤡) uses sertanejo artists for money laundering is a very naive statement. Is it the same in the US with country music? That’s simply the local culture, either you like it or not. Now are Rio and São Paulo rap scenes linked to drug trafficking? Most likely, but sadly people truly like it. I just hope you’re not implying that the agro and drug cartels are the same, that would be extremely disturbing.
-
Of course many things in life are inevitable, death being one of them. Having said that, real music was doomed before AI. Check the link below, that’s probably the most popular ‘artist’ in Brazil at the moment.
https://youtu.be/yx_yQuQjOIo?si=W2riYP1Wn6fH3v00
Come on, Eddie.
I am sorry, but don't be naive.
Brazilian Funk and Sertanejo are money laundering mainly from huge pecuarists (aka Agro) and organized crime.
Did you ever knew how much countryside cities pays for a Sertanejo concert?
Those artists are "popular" because money and exposition. People eat shit because it is trend.
That was a funny one… most Brazilians like shitty music because we have one of the very worst educational systems in the world. Ignorant people consume shallow music, period. Do I like sertanejo? Hell I do not, but at least those songs are recorded and played live by professional musicians. Can’t say the same about rap and hip hop. Now saying the ‘agro’ (those evil capitalists 🤡) uses sertanejo artists for money laundering is a very naive statement. Is it the same in the US with country music? That’s simply the local culture, either you like it or not. Now are Rio and São Paulo rap scenes linked to drug trafficking? Most likely, but sadly people truly like it. I just hope you’re not implying that the agro and drug cartels are the same, that would be extremely disturbing.
Dear Eddie,
Brazilian funk is, as you well know, a product of ghetto culture. It's not shit culture, it's culture whether you like it or not. It is, in part, a reflection of people's lives. Some of this culture is maximized for shock value. And this "despicable" effect you feel is part of the product itself. The fact that it's not recorded by real musicians doesn't change the final product at all. If that were the case, electronic music would just be a scam.
The so-called quality education you speak of, in the format you imagine, wouldn't affect the culture and its subcultures in any way. And don't tell me that things were better during the military era, or our conversation will end here.
Sertaneja music (mainstream) is indeed money laundering. If several small towns with barely any tax revenue can afford to pay $200,000 for a concert in a public square, don't tell me that's not money laundering.
Similarly, MC shows that cost thousands of Brazilian Reais, where there's clearly no return from the client, are very common, and everyone fulfills their "role."
Not to mention the artists "sponsored" by evangelical churches.
More simply, people are exposed to the products of this money laundering (which must be extremely high) and consume it all.
If you don't like it, do as Chris recommends. Don't spread the word.
There are people who don't understand what Brazil is like and advocate an impossible radicalization without any basis.
Even if there were the "application of this quality education" you speak of, what you attacked would never die. Not even if it were shot.
Just don't consume it and enjoy good music.
-
Of course many things in life are inevitable, death being one of them. Having said that, real music was doomed before AI. Check the link below, that’s probably the most popular ‘artist’ in Brazil at the moment.
https://youtu.be/yx_yQuQjOIo?si=W2riYP1Wn6fH3v00
Come on, Eddie.
I am sorry, but don't be naive.
Brazilian Funk and Sertanejo are money laundering mainly from huge pecuarists (aka Agro) and organized crime.
Did you ever knew how much countryside cities pays for a Sertanejo concert?
Those artists are "popular" because money and exposition. People eat shit because it is trend.
That was a funny one… most Brazilians like shitty music because we have one of the very worst educational systems in the world. Ignorant people consume shallow music, period. Do I like sertanejo? Hell I do not, but at least those songs are recorded and played live by professional musicians. Can’t say the same about rap and hip hop. Now saying the ‘agro’ (those evil capitalists 🤡) uses sertanejo artists for money laundering is a very naive statement. Is it the same in the US with country music? That’s simply the local culture, either you like it or not. Now are Rio and São Paulo rap scenes linked to drug trafficking? Most likely, but sadly people truly like it. I just hope you’re not implying that the agro and drug cartels are the same, that would be extremely disturbing.
Dear Eddie,
Brazilian funk is, as you well know, a product of ghetto culture. It's not shit culture, it's culture whether you like it or not. It is, in part, a reflection of people's lives. Some of this culture is maximized for shock value. And this "despicable" effect you feel is part of the product itself. The fact that it's not recorded by real musicians doesn't change the final product at all. If that were the case, electronic music would just be a scam.
The so-called quality education you speak of, in the format you imagine, wouldn't affect the culture and its subcultures in any way. And don't tell me that things were better during the military era, or our conversation will end here.
Sertaneja music (mainstream) is indeed money laundering. If several small towns with barely any tax revenue can afford to pay $200,000 for a concert in a public square, don't tell me that's not money laundering.
Similarly, MC shows that cost thousands of Brazilian Reais, where there's clearly no return from the client, are very common, and everyone fulfills their "role."
Not to mention the artists "sponsored" by evangelical churches.
More simply, people are exposed to the products of this money laundering (which must be extremely high) and consume it all.
If you don't like it, do as Chris recommends. Don't spread the word.
There are people who don't understand what Brazil is like and advocate an impossible radicalization without any basis.
Even if there were the "application of this quality education" you speak of, what you attacked would never die. Not even if it were shot.
Just don't consume it and enjoy good music.
Jesus Christ… ok, mate. We better move on.
-
I agree with you 100%, mate. My point is it’s inevitable, there’s no stopping it.
Nothing in life is 'inevitable'.
We are learning over time how factory farming is damaging to the environment and to our health. So farmer's markets and organics have emerged.
In Italy and France (just for example), they have retained the buy locally grown, eat meals cooked from scratch lifestyle and their citizens live many years longer than the British and Americans.
So my point is, don't ignore the threat to the arts of AI. If you value human creativity, don't just roll over and accept what you are given by the tech industry. Support human made art and don't publicise the AI version, even if it's just to laugh at it.
I don't use streaming at all and I almost always buy my music from the artist themselves, contributing to their financial survival.If you are passive, you lose what you cherish.
Ok, long post, I’m sorry.
I think some people are lumping all creatives in together. To generalise, in the creative industries you have two kinds, creatives who are paid to “supply” something or a service, and then you have the creatives that create a one off, totally unique piece or body of work, usually also the one’s hiring or paying the suppliers. Imagine creating something of your own that is totally unique, possibly spending years on it and then having AI use it or copy it “closely”, and you have no financial gain from it.
These things are supposedly being discussed by governments (UK) and particularly groups that represent artists and creatives with regard to how laws can be agreed on how creators can be protected in future. It’s not like everybody in the industry is just saying “AI is inevitable” and just rolling over. They know it is inevitable but are trying to plan ahead. People are looking into how to protect artists with regard to licensing and copyright. Past works and future. It’s complicated because there are so many unknowns to plan for and so many moving parts.
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/creative-and-ai-sectors-kick-off-next-steps-in-finding-solutions-to-ai-and-copyright
UK Music
https://www.ukmusic.org/news/what-will-the-governments-proposed-changes-to-the-rules-on-copyright-and-artificial-intelligence-mean-for-the-uk-music-industry/
So, with this in mind, does Mark get a royalty from that AI interpretation of BIA? To think George Harrison was taken through the courts for My Sweet Lord, I’m sure it would be easy to argue the case that the AI 1960’s BIA album owes credit to Mark and/or the publisher. “Someone” must be making some money from it, whether it’s Youtube or the uploader, as Macca has also mentioned in an interview. If it was a band of real people that produced that instead of AI, surely the band would have to pay publishing to Mark for use of the songs. Does he get a cut of the Youtube monetisation? The idea that a few chords are different wouldn’t hold up in a legal situation, I’m sure. Hence people are franticly working on the laws and protection now. It’s not just an “inevitability”. It’s making sure AI has laws in place to give artists a way to push back at least, even if it may be a David and Goliath scenario. I wish people wouldn’t give up so easily. Whether AI will become overwhelmingly huge or not, it’s also about whether the real artist can have at least some protection, from those companies that run the AI essentially.
In short, for me it’s whether Mark should be getting royalties for that AI cover of BIA (in theory). Not whether it is any “good” or not. And to give some idea of perspective, as successful as Mark is, he would probably be the little guy in a few years time compared to the tech companies.
-
Good post.
Although many of the famous artists pushing back against AI are not asking for a royalty. They are already extremely wealthy. They are motivated by protecting younger up and coming artists. The threat here is the overwhelming of human creativity by AI because tech doesn't want to pay people.
The threat isn't Mark missing out on a few thousand pounds in royalties. Famous and wealthy artists are asking that their work not be used to train AI WITHOUT their expressed permission. With the implication that they would probably not give permission.
-
In my admittedly limited experience of uploading stuff to youtube, their software is VERY good at picking up even the slightest bit of copyrighted material.
I once made an unlisted video of me playing Country Roads on an acoustic guitar to show my bandmates the chords we would be using and youtube recognised the track and copyrighted it!
It also recognised MK at Boothbay when I used part of the bootleg for a video I uploaded, even though that's never been released...
-
Tech companies largely play fast and loose with copyright. It's how Youtube and Spotify got their start.
The traditional media companies eventually got tough with Youtube and yes, they've developed software tools to identify copyright infringement.
This is really about governments worldwide being asked to waive copyright so AI can be trained. All governments, especially China, the UK and USA, want to be global leaders in AI technology, so they have ignored the pleas of the creative community and passed legislation to allow tech companies to use anything they want to that has been published.
-
In my admittedly limited experience of uploading stuff to youtube, their software is VERY good at picking up even the slightest bit of copyrighted material.
I once made an unlisted video of me playing Country Roads on an acoustic guitar to show my bandmates the chords we would be using and youtube recognised the track and copyrighted it!
It also recognised MK at Boothbay when I used part of the bootleg for a video I uploaded, even though that's never been released...
yes same for me when I uplaod stuff fom jams I played on, or covers with my bands
the funny thing is that YT associates it often with specific live versions, from a specific date (bootleg)
-
Good post.
Although many of the famous artists pushing back against AI are not asking for a royalty. They are already extremely wealthy. They are motivated by protecting younger up and coming artists. The threat here is the overwhelming of human creativity by AI because tech doesn't want to pay people.
The threat isn't Mark missing out on a few thousand pounds in royalties. Famous and wealthy artists are asking that their work not be used to train AI WITHOUT their expressed permission. With the implication that they would probably not give permission.
Sorry Chris, I was a bit vague there. To question the royalties was almost a rhetorical question, just to highlight how unprotected things could be without updated copyright laws. Copyright should obviously apply to rich or poor. If they can afford the legal bills of course, which is why I also alluded to even Mark possibly being the little guy compared to the tech companies in future. I wasn’t trying to suggest that Mark or Paul needed the royalties. I raised the royalties question to simply highlight who actually owned the copyright or intellectual property, or if there was an infringement. If it is Mark’s intellectual property then consequently he should be part of any financial gains. The royalties are a consequence of having laws and copyright that has been fought for and put in place by people over the years. Without the right new laws in place to protect creators from AI there would be no royalties or payback, and also therefore possibly no recognition of ownership of intellectual property, or infringement either. So the royalties and copyright are linked in that way, and an indication that the work belongs to someone, at least in my mind.
I get that you are talking about how AI is taking all our data without real consent. I’m not sure that could ever be stopped to some extent now, is it not too late already to “ask” the tech companies to stop? I’m thinking what can be done in real world terms to protect artists downstream. If not copyright and law, what else? The government and tech companies may have some people that are maybe not even not the kind of people that really appreciate art in a way, or understand the creative process like some creators may. Some of them may not even mind the idea of living in a world without many (new) creators. Surely you have to work on the laws, not the feelings of some ministers. They may also just be focused on the net worth of the UK creative sector in reality.
As these different artists and creators are trying to argue their case to the UK government for protection for creators, I think it's worth remembering that the government is presumably wanting to use AI services from these tech companies for all sorts of things, healthcare, defence, agriculture, crime etc. And so if we imagine a negotiating table, where does the artist sit in terms of priorities when negotiating laws and deals with these tech companies that the government want all this other stuff from? Hopefully the government ministers clearly treat the creative sector separately from any new deals they are foreseeing in other sectors in an unbiased way. I worry that it could be easy for the ministers to be blinded or swayed by this idea that AI is going to help solve a lot of their problems in other sectors, and so they inadvertently throw the creative industry under the bus, whilst failing to picture a future with possibly not many real creators.
-
In my admittedly limited experience of uploading stuff to youtube, their software is VERY good at picking up even the slightest bit of copyrighted material.
I once made an unlisted video of me playing Country Roads on an acoustic guitar to show my bandmates the chords we would be using and youtube recognised the track and copyrighted it!
It also recognised MK at Boothbay when I used part of the bootleg for a video I uploaded, even though that's never been released...
Interesting. But are we too rely on the Youtube or Spotify (tech companies) AI algorithm to determine what is a “cover”, what is a new song, what infringes on other people copyright or intellectual work in future? Maybe that is the way it’s going. Maybe AI decides that as well. Seems to have potential to be a bit biased to me though. Judge, jury, and executioner?
-
::)
-
In my admittedly limited experience of uploading stuff to youtube, their software is VERY good at picking up even the slightest bit of copyrighted material.
I once made an unlisted video of me playing Country Roads on an acoustic guitar to show my bandmates the chords we would be using and youtube recognised the track and copyrighted it!
It also recognised MK at Boothbay when I used part of the bootleg for a video I uploaded, even though that's never been released...
Interesting. But are we too rely on the Youtube or Spotify (tech companies) AI algorithm to determine what is a “cover”, what is a new song, what infringes on other people copyright or intellectual work in future? Maybe that is the way it’s going. Maybe AI decides that as well. Seems to have potential to be a bit biased to me though. Judge, jury, and executioner?
Could well be. Just checked the last video I uploaded and it "recognised" another local band playing Ghost Riders in the Sky as supposedly being a bootleg of The Highwaymen from 1990 and also recognised the melody of us doing Have You Ever Seen The Rain by CCR.
My originals appeared to have escaped scrutiny though. :) I wonder if it would flag Brothers in Arms as Bird of Paradise :hmm ;)
-
As well pointed before, inspired by and new ‘version’ are two completely different things. I don’t think artists can do much about people using AI to ‘recreate’ their songs other than collecting copyrights. As for the ‘inspired by’ stuff I’m sure they can work something out with the authorities the only problem being anyone can use AI to create a DS like song without mentioning it’s inspired by DS.
At the end of the day AI is as new as it gets to us, normal people. It’ll take a while to be reasonably understood, accepted and accessible to society as a whole. In the meantime many people will benefit a lot from the lack of regulations but at some point it’ll be done. I just hope we find a good balance because AI can be a very good thing when properly used.
-
"I just hope we find a good balance because AI can be a very good thing when properly used"
And this is the quintessence of the whole topic.
(But I don't want AI in music)
-
(But I don't want AI in music)
It has its uses in music. They used it to great effect on The Beatles remasters.
-
(But I don't want AI in music)
It has its uses in music. They used it to great effect on The Beatles remasters.
and it helped to separate John's voice from room and piano for the song "now and then"
-
(But I don't want AI in music)
It has its uses in music. They used it to great effect on The Beatles remasters.
and it helped to separate John's voice from room and piano for the song "now and then"
And to do the atmos mix of "where do you think you are going" from the MFN compilation.
-
I know, I know. But without AI, it wouldn't be possible? Did AI help with the first Money For Nothing compilation?
-
I know, I know. But without AI, it wouldn't be possible? Did AI help with the first Money For Nothing compilation?
First compilation wasn't Atmos.
Compare Lennon's vocal on Now and Then with Free as a Bird from 30 years ago, night and day (it's rumoured that they are re-releasing FAAB with AI enhanced vocals).
The Beatles stereo remixes wouldn't be possible without AI.
-
This is a big task to politics and people to say what is acceptable and what is not.
-
(But I don't want AI in music)
It has its uses in music. They used it to great effect on The Beatles remasters.
and it helped to separate John's voice from room and piano for the song "now and then"
And to do the atmos mix of "where do you think you are going" from the MFN compilation.
Could you explain a little more about what the AI did in "Where do you think you are going" from the MFN compilation? That part slipped my mind.
Thanks!
-
I know, I know. But without AI, it wouldn't be possible? Did AI help with the first Money For Nothing compilation?
First compilation wasn't Atmos.
Compare Lennon's vocal on Now and Then with Free as a Bird from 30 years ago, night and day (it's rumoured that they are re-releasing FAAB with AI enhanced vocals).
The Beatles stereo remixes wouldn't be possible without AI.
I don't want to be ignorant and I'm not sure I understand correctly. Can Atmos exist without Al.?
-
It's never all bad is it?
AI has incredible medical capabilities for example.
However, millions of jibs WILL be replaced by AI. Huge data centres that consume gallons of water and megawatts of electricity are being builtallover the UK. And tech companies are training AI using human created music to REPLACE human created music.
So the goal here is not to trash AI, the goal is to steer governments to protect jobs and the arts, while encouraging science to use AI for the good humanity. Not to make a tiny handful of tech barons even more crazily wealthy.
I made my point at the beginning of this topic to say we shouldn't be reposting AI created music, even to laugh at it. It is the future, only if we stand by and let it happen.
-
I agree with Chris. We shouldn't give publicity to AI created music.
We are fans of music, REAL music.
-
I agree with Chris. We shouldn't give publicity to AI created music.
We are fans of music, REAL music.
Exactly!
-
Totally agree, WE are fans of REAL music. Made by people with heart and soul. And that's what is all about.
Even if one day they will call us dinosaurs. ;D
-
Totally agree, WE are fans of REAL music. Made by people with heart and soul. And that's what is all about.
Even if one day they will call us dinosaurs. ;D
:) :thumbsup
-
Totally agree, WE are fans of REAL music. Made by people with heart and soul. And that's what is all about.
Even if one day they will call us dinosaurs. ;D
I agree!
-
Fashion is cyclical. Hopefully humans making music will become commercially successful again. In any case, humans will always play music and write songs, it's just getting harder to be heard, to be found.