AI Music, simply explained (feat. Grimes and Spotify's CEO)
When should artists get paid in a world with AI music?
The first 100 people to use code CLEOABRAM with the link below will get 60% off of Incogni: incogni.com/cleoabram
Subscribe to support optimistic tech stories on Huge If True: kzhead.info?sub...
Artificial intelligence is changing how music gets made - and how musicians get paid. AI is letting people clone artists’ voices, create completely new songs as fake collaborations, generate lyrics in seconds, even produce full tracks just by typing in a few words. It’s all causing some to say AI will be “the death of music.”
Technology causes turning points in history. And I think we’re in one right now for music. The stakes are high: If we get this wrong, we could jeopardize how human musicians make money and art. But if we get it right, we have an opportunity to leap ahead in how we as humans get to express ourselves.
To really understand what’s happening with AI music, you need to understand how the music industry ALREADY works - and how it could be changing. In this video, I took a deep dive into that topic with the help of two people right in the thick of it: The artist Grimes and CEO of Spotify Daniel Ek.
Chapters:
00:00 What is happening with AI in music?
02:05 Why would we want AI music?
04:03 How are musicians using AI?
06:17 When should musicians get paid?
07:15 What is copying versus inspiration?
08:26 How does copyright work in music?
10:06 Should artists get paid for AI training on their music?
11:55 What happens when AI generates its own songs?
12:54 How could AI music be "huge if true"?
You can find me on TikTok here for short, fun tech explainers: / cleoabram
You can find me on Instagram here for more personal stories: / cleoabram
You can find me on Twitter here for thoughts, threads and curated news: / cleoabram
Bio:
Cleo Abram is an Emmy-nominated independent video journalist. On her show, Huge If True, Cleo explores complex technology topics with rigor and optimism, helping her audience understand the world around them and see positive futures they can help build. Before going independent, Cleo was a video producer for Vox. She wrote and directed the Coding and Diamonds episodes of Vox’s Netflix show, Explained. She produced videos for Vox’s popular KZhead channel, was the host and senior producer of Vox’s first ever daily show, Answered, and was co-host and producer of Vox’s KZhead Originals show, Glad You Asked.
Additional reading and watching:
Elf Tech, by Grimes: elf.tech/connect
Who Sampled, my favorite site to see sampled tracks: www.whosampled.com
Frank singing Lil jon: • Video
Johnny Cash Barbie: • Johnny Cash - Barbie G...
Linkin Park Pokemon: • If LINKIN PARK made th...
An A.I. Hit of Fake ‘Drake’ and ‘The Weeknd’ Rattles the Music World, New York Times: www.nytimes.com/2023/04/19/ar...
The Music Industry Has an AI Problem, Washington Post: www.washingtonpost.com/busine...
Spotify will not ban AI-made music, BBC: www.bbc.com/news/technology-6...
Grimes Launches AI Software That Allows Anyone To Insert Her Voice Into Music, Hypebeast: hypebeast.com/2023/5/grimes-a...
Vox: www.vox.com/authors/cleo-abram
IMDb: www.imdb.com/name/nm10108242/
Gear I use:
Camera: Sony A7SIII
Lens: Sony 16-35 mm F2.8 GM and 35mm prime
Audio: Sennheiser SK AVX
I used music from Lickd for this video:
Get Unholy (Instrumental) by Sam Smith, Kim Petras and over 1M + mainstream tracks here go.lickd.co/Music
License ID: 81a29AAvBJO
Get Don't Start Now by Dua Lipa and over 1M + mainstream tracks here go.lickd.co/Music
License ID: 2ZnbrkkMnz1
Get Paradise by Coldplay and over 1M + mainstream tracks here go.lickd.co/Music
License ID: nYJ7D662Gqk
I also used music from Tom Fox and Musicbed!
Follow along for more episodes of Huge If True: kzhead.info?sub...
Special thanks to Daniel Ek and Grimes for their thoughts on this conversation!
Thank you also to Angela Long for inspiring some of the graphics in this episode, based on a talk I did on this topic recently!
-
Welcome to the joke down low:
How do you fix a broken tuba?
With a tuba glue…
Use the word “tuba” in a comment to tell me you’re a real one who read to the end… :)
Cleo went all out with this video. Great job not letting the embarrassment get in the way 😊
bahahahah thank you
@@CleoAbram Well done, Cleo!
@@CleoAbram this will not help music artists, AI will destroy their career. Imagine tomorrow someone does deep fake of you, and hence nobody watches your videos? Just asking?
🙏
@@kapilsaneIt's just way too early to judge at this point. Cinema did not kill the theater, TV did not kill the radio, video did not kill the cinema, the car did not replace the bicycle, but it did the horse. I'm cautiously optimistic about AI as a helpful tool, not a step towards self-destruction.
The biggest problem I see with AI in any creative space is not that it can make things, but the amount of that thing it can create, an AI can create thousands of songs in the time it takes a human to write and record one and out-compete humans just through sheer volume, burying human work under piles of AI stuff and making it undiscoverable, even things like tags etc that might be used to highlight human-made work only work as long as those uploading AI-produced work are being honest. With how easily recorded works can be produced by AI now, we might see a return to how musicians got their fame and money before recording was widely available, performance, before AI comes for that too.
I see this as similar to how photography (and now digital photo editing) replaced painting. You can take hundreds or thousands of photos in the same amount of time that it takes to paint a picture, but that hasn't stopped people from painting. It has made "making a picture" more accessible, but painting is still valued and modern paintings are still considered valuable.
we'll find a way to separate them, if we even want to.
@@FunkyJeff22 we wont want to. I can definitely see a future where nothing in entertainment is human, but it’s impossible to tell, so as long as people can get their dopamine from it, they will not care. It will cost almost nothing to make, and generate equal income. AI will not stop at being a “tool”. There is great financial incentive to have it replace everything that it possibly can. And the majority of people will simply ignore the uncertainty because it will be uncomfortable to admit it. Do you relate to music? Or the artist behind it? I think it’s usually the latter. Embrace the future now, prepare to relate to unthinking, unfeeling machines.
If anything it may be the loss of control from music labels, and individual artists from around the world will instantly be able to create and publish captivating work without the high cost of a recording studio. I think it will get many more people to take that idea they have and turn it into an actual creative work, reducing the gap,
Yep, we're already seeing the internet get flooded by AI right now and even if alot of it isn't great it still drowns out any up and coming creators who want to get into an industry.
I’m a musician, and I definitely do fear this topic. AI can be an incredible tool for filling in the gaps in like mixing and mastering (like LANDR), but what makes a musician is not only creativity but skill as well. Dedicating hours to training ur body to play an instrument, sing, learn your DAW, learning composition, etc. are all part of the journey of being a musician. I already kind of have this stance with sampling. I hear some amazing and creative uses of samples (I use them myself, as does practically everyone), but the average “beat maker” truly feels like a talentless hack. I’ve watched ppl just put a beautiful sounding loop in with some basic 808 pattern and call themselves talented with no understanding of why that sample sounds good to begin with. Letting AI make lyrics, make ur melodies, etc., it all just seems like a mask for ppl with no skill or dedication to pretend to be skilled. Ik I m probably sound elitist or gatekeeping but it’s just my perspective given my experience.
What I find interesting is where do you draw the line between something that requires skill and something that doesn't? Using AI tools will definitely require some level of skill and there are bound to be those who are better at using AI productively. The main difference in my opinion is that even the "worst" product of an AI tool will be much better than whatever you could generate in the same amount of time using your first mixing software or what have you. So the scary/unknown bit, and this was mentioned in the video, is what if someone uses the quantity over quality approach facilitated by AI tools to "brute force" creativity, sweeping away higher level human work in a tidal wave of crap. Similar fears were raised about remix culture and tools but I think at this point it's been proven that's it's own skilled art form so my gut instinct is AI will go the same way but time will tell.
@@fireant202 This becomes yet another area where humans are no longer pushing their physical limits, because they can achieve the same final product by learning how to use some software. It's a skill, sure, but not a physical one. Plus, it eliminates the ability for musicians to specialize - instead of some people being (primarily) composers, some being skilled at a particular instrument, etc., and thus there being a diversity of work opportunities, now everyone is primarily a software operator because the AI mostly eliminates the need for those specialized skills. We'll either end up with far fewer people doing music, or the same number of people producing a much larger quantity of formulaic garbage.
I think it’s a matter of humans getting so good at using AI but no one knows how to practice the actual craft of any kind anymore 😢.
As a mastering engineer I have no sympathy lol
@@fireant202 "using AI requires skills" while saying it also makes the art/music/etc. more accessible is just not it...
Happy New Year Cleo. Your content is awesome - keep it going 👏👏👏👏
What’s more profitable? Paying artists royalties? Or having an AI generate millions of new songs for your platform that you own? Suddenly you’re paying royalties to yourself, Spotify!
the most profitable is just to have the music generate on the fly on your own computer without anyone else involved Why do people expect these music providers to be a party that will profit from this? They will simply not have music to sell anymore. Ciri, give me a trance song, with lyrics about cars, something like "I hate you now" ... ok ... save that one for later. For artists, it is the personal relationship that will be key to having a vibrant channel. And live performances, because people still want somewhere to go to. The only thing it ultimately means is that artists need to provide a better service for less money as the service, namely singing ... which is something you can people do in your local church choir ... is just worth less. Now get the shocking realization that things are getting values less, meaning cheaper.
@@robbietorkelsonn8509 What you are describing is the death of the soul of society. If we as a society value human talent less than soulless grind from a machine, we have started into a death spiral. Some may say we did that already, with "hit factory" pop. But at least that music is until now been created by people.
yea
@@christopherbedford9897 That's not how it works. Do you think like that about your clothes? Electronics? Posters?
@@theoutlet9300 Clothes, electronics, and posters aren't all about the creativity and talent of their creators. Sure, there's some of that - a little - but music is 100% about the passion the artist puts in. Without that it's muzak. Elevator music. On-hold music. Bleurgh.
I find it curious that you are using the CEO of spotify to talk about compensating artists properly with Ai stuff, when spotify themselves is one of the worst offenders for compensating artists in general.
It's because labels control Spotify. They are the ones profiting the most out of streaming
Ai is a huge threat to the record companies. GOOD! They constantly abuse artists and determine what consumers listen to and what we don't. There are amazing artists out there who never get a break. Hopefully, Ai will be an avenue for those literally "unsung" heroes making music in their bedroom or their garage waiting for their moment in the spotlight.
elephant in the room 😂
Tbh as much as spotify pay peanut, they are the largest streaming service. That experience is valuable especially as a journalist. The problem isn't the amount of pay here, thats for another day, its who to pay to.
This entire channel exists in the way it does specifically to attract and platform people like the CEO of Spotify and grimes, and to SILENCE and drown out the voices of the average artist/worker.
Interesting how artists were called overdramatic for reacting to the AI apocalypse but when it's affecting other fields of art suddenly everyone takes it seriously. Just find that interesting
It's because those super talented artists don't have the name recognition or proximity to the average consumer the way music does. Their work features prominently on products like games, movies, promotional marketing art and graphic design, etc. The public is generally not aware of the uses or distinctions at all compared to what they know about music.
@@TavishVTthey, along with everyone else, have been claiming the death of culture for as long as we have recorded history.
yea, my thoughts exactly. unfortunately, there is nothing we can do, ai will take over and it will be too late when the general public realizes the harm it will cause.
@@onose10000 Example of horseshoe theory: *Delusional artist:* AI is coming, and there's nothing we can do! It will take all artists' jobs and we will be homeless! *Delusional techbro:* AI is coming, and there's nothing they can do! It will take all artists' jobs and they will be homeless!
I think musicians are also overdramatic, except for voice cloning which is massively bad for a myriad reasons.
All previously invented technologies have been tools for artists to use. AI is the first tool to be able to replace the artist themself.
exactly
yes and no. The same could be said for one hour photo labs, video stores, etc. New tech allows for humans to do new things in new ways.
This is the most underrated comment!
Yeah, I don’t really get the upside to this. If the AI is putting together lyrics, rhythms, and harmonies for you, then the music’s no longer human expression at all. Is that “unlocking your creativity”? Or is that a toddler being able to outshine a virtuoso by mashing buttons on an AI music app?? I’ve spent 15 years turning my creativity into technical skill in recording and producing music. And the #1 thing I learned is that my creativity needed to be refined, not just my technical skill.
The only thing ai art is replacing is drawing/painting it self. Not art. Its not enough to just render reality on the paper. You need to be able to convey feelings or stories with it. The people who are good at that are not threathened by ai. Technology has always reduced the workforce needed to produce art. Now it has just reduced the work force to 1-2 people.
Props to the editor of the episode. It's absolutely beautiful, such a good composition.
Maybe the editor was a robot.
@@HellOnWheel it was definitely NOT a robot ;)
Thanks
@@LogenKershaw sorry, no offense meant. You really did do an amazing job on this video.
Thought the same thing as I was watching this!
Pretty sure everyone agrees composers/songwriters/artists/producers do NOT get fairly compensated. Yeah, not even Prince, Michael Jackson or Taylor Swift (to give three well know examples of record label disputes). So what makes us think that if we throw a very complex and non human variable to this equation, all of the sudden all these humans will be paid fairly? Not gonna happen.
You raised a good point
Only two out of those three people you mentioned can be considered true artists
agree, and we all know who they are ;)@@MarcoCholo-iz9js
I would say all three of those people have been more than fairly compensated. Maybe other, less deserving people made more money, but they made plenty. Taylor Swift is literally a billionaire.
she is now after she "broke up" with the industry and basically formed her own army. @@thegreatandterrible4508
I love how you ask the right questions. Great journalism!!
Having a discussion about the artists getting paid, featuring the CEO of Spotify, but not talking about how much artists are actually getting paid for their work is wild.
Or not getting paid by Spotify
Yeah, it's a shame that she didn't mention that each artist gets like 0.000008 pennies per-play for their songs with our current streaming platform (including spotify). You could even say that this minuscule amount of money is actually a way more appropriate payment for AI music because it requires so much less effort.
@@vice.nor.virtue yeah they REALLY deserve more pay being the foundation of the content that's the very foundation of the platform after all...
Valid criticism
He probably wouldn't have done the interview if he knew he'd get questioned on that.
Spotify's endgame would be to have a recommendation type algo feed the AI and serve you music, and cut the artists out of the picture. For the human expression part they would hire some actors or use generative AI for videos - all payrolled by Spotify, and all rights belonging to them. Great video!
What makes art amazing to me is the amount of time it takes an artist to perfect a skill, the human error, the whole process. It looses value if something generates perfection every time in my opinion. Being human is fun and full of mistakes and lack of perfect.. AI for creativity is a buzzkill for those who have trained for years just so people who haven’t trained a skill can seem just as competent in that area.
couldn't agree more!!
exactly!!
I disagree to a point. You don't need hundreds of Beethovens to maintain the music industry. Historically only a musical genius could compose music. Now the bar has been lowered even more.
100% agree. You shouldn't be able to cheat your way into a skill that others have worked years for. It will completely undermine artists in every sector, and industries take advantage of them enough as it is.
Agreed. The part where she explains the gap between creativity and technical skill (as a visual artist/designer) really irks me personally. That technical skill is hours, days, and years of time someone practiced something for a specific result, errors and all. That's what in my opinion is great about a work of art. I can appreciate a cool piece of AI art, but it means nothing to me. That technical skill gap can be seen as a "gap" to those with out them, but why shouldn't it?
What an incredible video! You had my attention all the way through, and answered nearly every question I’ve had for the last 28 years about the music business industry and it’s legal complications.
Absolutely love the content! Thanks for your hard work Cleo!
This is why I LOVE (Not like, LOVE) this CHANNEL! You always make the most interesting video and go out and beyond with it! I always love to play your video while I'm eating, or coding just to hear your voice and your materials. Your use of shorts are also better than any other creators!
I found your report to be very inspiring. The cuts were clean, and the changes in the background music kept my attention. I liked the way you weaved in the affiliate link and the request to subscribe at the end. I also loved how you introduced the hook for "watch more". Your subscriber count is a testament to your efforts. I am interested in learning more about your process, as my focus is now on my channel services both offline and online. I really appreciated the way you organized the description, even down to Tuba. At first, I thought you were only promoting one affiliate link, but upon reading further, I saw that you had separated them. You put the primary link at the top, and the others were listed below. If I incorporate the things I'm learning from you, do I have to pay you royalties?
Was this comment written by AI?
I wrote the following text and then used Grammarly to correct any errors. However, Grammarly is not always perfect, so I usually do one final edit before posting. On my @GetAIKeys page, I share insights about AI systems and services for working professionals and business owners. That was after Grammarly and this was my original. These are my own thoughts, and then I ran it through Grammarly to avoid some mistakes. Grammarly is not perfect. I often do one final edit prior to posting. On @GetAIKeys, I provide insights into AI systems and services for working professionals and business owners. Thank for asking. @@MojoSogo
I saw your first video when you had 50 followers. It's crazy how fast you progressed over a few months. Congrats, well deserved! 🥳
I just find your channel, your edits are absolutely amazing and your topics omg science bonanza. Please share some tips
I'm interested in your creativity - technical skills point. Mostly in the past it has been the constraints that have ignited the creativity. If AI removes constraints, do we lose some creativity? There will always be some constraints but I think this is an interesting topic on its own, not just in the music realm.
Can we just takeba minute to appreciate how great the editing and production for this video is? Fantastic job!
May as well, won't be able to appreciate it when it's AI
@@endah08 why not? i don't get that..there is not one AI, there are so many! why can't we appreciate one AI for its work? just like we appreciate google over bing or yahoo for example
We still appreciate when a new ches engine comes along and destroys us all in new and exciting ways. Doesn't stop us having human-only tournaments though
Thank A.I
Especially that montage at 13:00
This was so well done, covering the many facets of this issue that will only get thornier as we progress.
Awesome content thank you so much for giving good info on something this complicated
This is so well done, the news outlets should get your permission and show this on Tv. I've tried to explain this situation to people and now I will just show them this video.
Sweet video! The effort you put into your editing process does not go unnoticed or unappreciated. Thanks for the engaging and informative content 🙌🏻
This is such an introspective video. I cant believe Ive been missing out in this gem of a channel for so long…
Hi Cleo: awesome, fantastic, excellent, moving, awfully entertaining. Thank you, and please keep doing what you do.
wow... never heard of you before but this video was excellent! You are easy on the eyes, your energy is contagious, and you have a nice singing voice as well!! On top of all of that your video production and editing is top notch, and the graphical animations were awesome. Very impressive work!
You’ve handled an extremely touchy subject with more than the appropriate amount of delicacy and sensitivity. Amazing job as always Cleo.
Excellent video and so much effort put into it. New sub!
Great video Cleo! You are so inspiring even if I am not that interested in music! Thanks for making these video ☺
That animation showing how an AI generator could come up with a million tracks and then plot a path to ‘success’ was chilling. The amount of dreck that’s going to be produced is going to be mindblowing.
Have you ever heard of Sturgeon's Law?
I guess anything can be chilling if you're absolutely incapable of thinking for yourself.
The whole point is that it won't be dreck. It'll be good enough that, if you're not told it's an AI, you wouldn't even know.
@@KBRoller :: Yes, lots of "music" could be made even of some quality. Music means different things to people. Some like artful, some like "showmusic", some like thoughtful lyrics. Music as something YOU make yourself together with other people, a social activity, will live on, but maybe some of the big "show"music events will become "drug-events", sorry, my prejudice.
@@donaldaxel I don't quite understand how you get from point A to point B. Artful, show music, thoughtful lyrics... all those things are possible with AI. So I'm not sure why you think that implies "drug-events", as you call it. If a piece of music has all the same properties as music created by a human, why would you consider it inferior to the human-made identical versions?
I've worked in various creative, copyright-aware fields since the early 80s. Depending on my age, I might have different opinions about this, but as of now, I view it as another tool and, potentially a collaborator in the future. Think back to the classical scribes -- how would they view a word processor or text generator? A tool to relieve their calligraphic burden or as a usurper taking their creative and financial raison d'art from them? Humans are adaptable. Change is rarely undone and reset, we just change ourselves...or our children and grandchildren do. Music, writing, art, language, technology...it's really all part of the same conveyor of building on what came before to leave our legacy lest we stagnate into robotic mediocrity.
I absolutely hear your point on this. The tools we have built for ourselves to create art have gotten unfathomably good in the progress of human history, but the deal here is that AI can replace the artist themselves. Visual art and music shouldn't be given the same amount of praise just because someone has the ability to put together a few good keywords.
@@vice.nor.virtue That's the trick, isn't it? If it was AI-Beethoven who composed the 9th Symphony, would the music be any less great? Which is more valuable, the created work or the human ego? At the end of the day, that's the philosophical/moral/ethical question -- with us as hardly unbiased analysts. Look back to the early 19th century manual loom weavers with the introduction of powered looms to see how well humans often come out in this equation. Now, because of that Industrial Revolution, and in spite of the OG Luddites trying to thwart it, we can send spaceships to the dark climes of space (jury's still out on the good/bad of that). We've also displaced and exploited a whole lot of people along the way and even before. It's never for the establishment to judge the worth of change (the establishment rarely "gets it") but rather for the generation(s) that follow to pass judgment...and then make their own mistakes.
Your videos has such good animations that makes understanding complex things (mostly words) super easy.
Masterful. Thank you Cleo from Madrid, Spain
The quality of this episode was off the charts. Well done to all involved. 👏 Also: tuba.
AI will be the death of talentless fame. People will still want to see a great vocalist or a great band.
That was an interesting discussion. Loved it. Great job and thanks :D
6:45 The box grid was such a great way to explain these concepts and rules in the industry!! An amazingly written and edited and crafted video!! Also, tuba ;)
I don't like ads being added to videos but I really appreciate Cleo's choice of advertisers. The products are actually really good. Thanks for not selling garbage.
Another great episode! I love this series. Since this is the first episode that is kind of in my vein as a composer and music producer, let me make a point about "the gap". For non musicians, it can be easy to think that technology / knowledge of music theory is a hurdle that one needs to overcome to create. But in fact, it is what enables a musician to create in the first place. I believe that it is necessary to have some kind of process, a workflow, that inspires more ideas by providing tools to expand on previous ideas. Let me give an example: I don't think that anyone has ever composed something entirely in their head, be it a symphony or a hip hop beat, and then tried to execute it as close to their imagination as possible. Rather, I think that you start with a very loose idea of a vibe, a feeling, maybe a melody, and then iterate and iterate and iterate - using the tools (!) that you have. And those tools provide more inspiration. Those tools can be counterpoint harmony, or FL studio, or both. You cant create something big out of nothing. You need an initial spark, yes, but after that the tools are the necessary fuel to keep the creative process going. My point is that we should not promote AI tools for music with the argument that it will be so much easier for everyone to create beautiful music. It won't be, because the gatekeepers are still the same. It's never been easier to create music *right now*, but still, some groups are underrepresented. Not because of the lack of technology, but ..... mostly because of platform capitalism...? Idk *The future of AI* is time and time again presented as a solution to a deeper problem that we actually know how to solve *right now*. But it's easier to imagine a better future with AI than to point out the deeper problems in the now that it attempts to solve.
This is what I was hoping somebody would point out. Really well explained.
@@TheDramaNotes Thank you, happy to hear that! :)
Cleo, always liked your work and enthusiasm to put new content in most interesting way possible. Great 👍🏼 work .
I really appreciate your reporting. This was the first KZhead I have watched, for usually I just watch you instatock. ❤
Somewhere I read something like "People working for minimum wage while machines make poetry and art is not the future I imagined." I would like to feel different about it, but I deeply worry that the enthusiastic exitement around AI is naiv or even worse harmful. Enabling people to realize whats in their head sounds like a huge selling point. But AI does not create any knowledge, but dependence. Someone who does not have the abilities to write a song will still not be able to write a song but be dependent on AI tools to create something. Education and training are the tools which really enable and make people independent to express their own unique creativity. The struggle to make an idea into something others can enjoy is part of the creative process, because it forces you to think differently, to find solutions. Each work of art is the result of the whole unique human experience of the artist, a series of thousands of individual experiences and creative choices. Generating AI skips all of that. AI may create you a song, but not the song, YOU would have created. And thats a huge difference. And for the copyright part: the human inspiration and the AI "inspiration" is not the same. If you paint something in the style of van Gogh the outcome will still be highly influenced by your personal experience of the art. Maybe you will focus more on the paintstrokes, or the colours, or the light. Maybe you connect van Gogh to a certain emotion or memory. In the end you will make a lot of individual creative decisions which will lead to your own unique work of art. AI does not does not have any that. The worst outcome could be that in the future the creative monopol may lie in the hands of AI coorporations. In the capitalist world we live the human factor is the worst for business. Artists can have a creative crisis, may get sick, may sometimes be not easy to deal with. Now there is a solution which steadily creates vast amounts of output without any of these problems and of course this has the potential to push aside human creators on the long term. And creators may become dependent on their tools to realize their artistic ideas. There of course will still be musicians, artists, writers who will be stars and create unique masterpieces, but for vast majority of small, independent and unique thinking artists this will make a situation much harder, which is already much less than favourable.
Incredibly well put!
This is so spot on. That is exactly the issue I have with AI as a tool. People seem to completely disregard this idea. As well as the fact that ultimately it will only be used as a way of making money in a capitalist world. The actual representation of the human elements of creativity will be lost.
So very true!!!!
Twitter Reddit all removing free APIs, data really is the new oil in AI. Text or Sound. The formulaic approach into music is already in place. Producers optimise the hooky 10s for reels so they create awareness. Atleast in Bollywood. Even if it’s an art without human emotions drilled in, do people care? we see art or listen to music and do we love it for the artists struggle or what they invoke in us using our memories? If the brain can’t tell it’s AI, it sure will create popular songs. Even moving ones. And let’s be honest AI art work will be indistinguishable by 24. I think there’s tremendous value the royalty programmes will create is there’s an overseeing app like Spotify taking care of reach. How do you sue a kid who create a banger using your sound? And now it’s used in reels where it can’t detect?
This is mind blowing! Thank you for this show!!
Thanks a lot for this video, that’s not easy to explain in simple words this huge complex topic! Cleo, ur awesome! 🤩
I think subtracting the skill it takes to make art dilutes it. The process of making art, the suffering and effort behind it, the journey to get there, adds so much to the final outcome. If any dingus can make beautiful music or jaw dropping images, then they cease to be special.
Bro is defintely not listening music for the music.
So, do you mostly consume stone carvings performed by hitting them with a different rock? We've been making art easier for literally the entirety of human history.
You're going to sit there with a straight face and tell me that someone who prompts a novel into existence deserves the same respect as Stephen King or Ernest Hemingway? Yes i guess technically typing on a computer is easier than writing with a quill pen by candlelight or carving text into stone, but the process of telling stories is as difficult as it's always been. I get that there are degrees of evolution in the process of creating art. Photography was great for people who couldn't paint worth a lick. But it still requires a technical understanding of lighting and composition and posing and psychology to interact with your subject. Even if you're doing a lot of compositing in Photoshop, it still requires you to craft something and blend and mask it to sell it. where is the line drawn? Are we really going to praise someone who does nothing more than prompt mid-journey to give him "dope Caravaggio vibes." @@thegreatandterrible4508
I love Cleo's optimistic view of things that have great potential to be horribly catastrophic, LOL.
@@theo49476 Well said. AI will indeed be the end of us, and will inherit the Earth, so optimism about it is pretty absurd
@@theo49476she’s definitely clearing highlighting the potential issues. But after acknowledging all sides in a balanced way, it’s to to us whether we take the optimistic or pessimistic perspective. That’s different from being so optimistic that you’re blind to any possible problems.
Overly optimistic to the point of providing a sugar coated cursory view of the subject. Another way of saying that this channel lacks any shred of journalistic credibility.
Cleo, you did an amazing job breaking down and explaining a complex industry. You are an inspirational educator. Thanks for the insight.
Super insightful episode! Thank you for making this. I think of when live DJing was seen as controversial because no one really knew if the performer made the music on the spot or prerecorded it. Just as we’ve come to appreciate the difference in that example and created system to authenticate it, we’ll do the same for AI Music. Let’s set our minds free and bridge the gap! I’m a terrible singer with no technical composition skill but I always hum tunes I’ve never heard before - maybe I’ll release a hit song soon 😂
As a musician this is a race to the bottom in terms of the skill and dedication necessary to make music and that is depressing
As a consumer there will be a wider variety and more offerings to listen to and it makes me excited.
@@cconnors You can’t separate the art from the skill taken to create it. That’s part of its inherent value. That’s why guitar hero’s exist, that’s why singers like Aretha Franklin and Adele are so venerated that’s why the songwriting of Lennon and McCartney is so valuable. To fully appreciate the full value of music it needs to be seen as the product of the genius that created it. Aside from anything else, as a consumer, if I were you I’d be more worried by the fact that most of this AI produced music is so god awfully dreadful. Music has never been worth less, the money musicians make from streaming platforms is virtually nonexistent (literally). Maybe she should have asked the Spotify guy about that. This AI stuff is potentially the final nail in the coffin. As a consumer worried about choice you’re missing the big point here. Do you think musicians will work for free? All you’ll end up with is derivative music artificially generated based on all the music that has happened before because that’s how it works. Nothing new and certainly no personalities who have honed their skills to such a high level as to produce the best music out there. If that’s the future you want as a consumer you’re welcome to it mate.
@@FunkyMonk6Nope, there will be only 2 types of musicians, one will be the real geniuses who are just so good you can never compare them to any ai and the Ai one, nothing between... Those between will die out because they have no chance to compete. It's that easy of a problem. Modern music is trash to begin with. And let's not talk about derivatives... Most music are derivatives of something.. just turn on the radio and you will hear the copy paste all over it,there is just that much of a variation when you create music, even in today's top 100 most of them are derivatives of something... There is a reason why artists go in court against each other, and it's a comedy all the time. And no, you don't need real music data for an ai... You can just give it basic music knowledge, and it will create random music for you, so there is no need for real music to make one, that will just accelerate the inevitable, and that is... Ai is here, and will stay, so anyone who can't adapt will just die, like any other industry out there that was replaced with technology.
@@UmbraWeissAI is merely an obstacle that will make the real artists even stronger. Because a lot will give up, but those who don't will courageously push their talent farther than ever before and create pieces of art that AI can't even begin to compete with. I agree with you on that.
Very well done. I am a producer and have incorporated A.I. into various processes in my studio. Having said that, relying on it from start to finish is still synthetic, emotionless, hard to 'feel' anything from it there's no soul to it. Using the various tools as just that is both a time saver and a new toy with endless experimenting and wonderment with cool unique results.
the irony is when artists use lots of autotune, but then complain that AI will make their job obsolete. Because they themselves are using tools to sound more robotic/less natural. Or maybe I'm just part of the older generation now 🙂
😂
I think this won't be true for long, especially if someone puts a lot of effort and knowledge into using the technology well
genuinely curious but what do you use AI for when it comes to your music making process? if you know your way around a DAW, your work flow should be easy enough to lay down a bunch of 4-8 bar melodies w/ drum patterns programmed. i feel like i'm already endlessly experimenting with my own music making process, that having AI to generate drum patterns or melodies feels pointless.
@@BusquedaBlues It's more the post/fx like the AI isolation tools, voice changers, mix/mastering, etc. I also find it kinda funny that a lot of software claims to be/use AI but it doesn't.. I have messed Aiva/Ecrette and a few others for actual drum patterns or riffs or just for the midi to strip from it and it still leaves a lot to be desired. Only thing that ever passed a listening test to the point where I almost can't tell it's AI was soft meditation simple 2-3 layer chord progressions on a few pad sounds. Anything with multi-instrument storytelling, drums, drops, builders, bridges, quality progressions it's a fat NO.
Loved the content and the production work.
Can we take a second to appreciate how great the graphics in these videos are? They aid in our understand of complex topics and I had to remind myself that I'm watching an independent KZhead channel!
Your bit about "the gap" resonates with me so much, and I've been saying as much about creative AI tools since they became a thing. I have just so many creative ideas stuck in my head but don't have the technical skill to make them real. Creativity should not be limited just to those who have spent years practicing their craft; it should be for everyone. We're entering an era where you no longer have to have expertise to be good at things, and I find that genuinely exciting. With music in particular though I feel like the level of intentionality needed in any tool would be much higher. It can't just be a text prompt like the image generators because you really can't encode a song as an English description of that song. Like, imagine having to describe a song you know and then ask a producer that's never heard of that song to recreate it. The odds of it sounding right would be zero. Words are simply not a good medium to express the intentionality of any sort of song with all its nuances and micro-decisions in each second of it. I would love to see some tool that takes a song idea I have in my head and turns it into a wav file with as little friction as possible, but I want it to be _my_ song, not just _a_ song. Honestly I can't think of any UI short of a brain computer interface that would do that super well. I could maybe work with a good img2img equivalent where I could feed in a garbage sounding draft of a sound file and it just makes the mixing good and polishes things up for me. Maybe it could give advice on how to make it sound better.
"Creativity should not be limited just to those who have spent years practicing their craft; it should be for everyone." I couldn't disagree more with this. Having a machine do the work for you not only makes the work not yours, but it makes it worse. Making art isn't a two step process of "having an idea" and then "idea is completed". It's a long and complex process of micro-decisions that will change the artwork as you work on it and necessarily injects the artist's personality into it. Having a machine do it for you removes that soul from the piece. I know what I'm talking about, because I'm endlessly frustrated about my inability to learn how to draw; but I'm also a writer who hates actually putting words in the page; however, I wouldn't ever have a machine write for me, because I know that would suck the soul out of my work. Learning the skills is tough and not for everyone, but just having ideas doesn't make you an artist. Just like not everyone can be an Olympic athelete, not everyone can be an artist, and that's ok.
I feel like the skills are part of the artistic expression as well. The amount of effort you put into learning the skills gives you experience and deep understanding of the subject, it’s not always about the end result for the artists, only for the industry.This sound like the death of expertise, and I find it very odd to compare AI tools with a computer replacing analog instruments, since the Ai’s are replacing the complex tools and oriented to suit the unskilled end-user, it’s looking like the one button to do it all.This will eventually create a tier of fast-food music.
Whenever people say AI is the "death of ", be it art or music or expertise, it makes me wonder. Why do artists make art? If they do it because they enjoy it and/or want to communicate their ideas, then no amount of AI content will stop them from doing it. If they're only or mainly doing it for money, then... well, personally, I think "the only reason I learned this is for cash flow" is a sign of apathy that isn't worth protecting. Someone else making art doesn't stop you from making art. Likewise, if that someone else is an AI, it still doesn't stop you from making art.
I don’t view it as a simple “money” vs “pure expression” dichotomy, the two things are very intertwined. And I’d like to invite you to ask “why not“ instead of “ why make art?” some things in life aren’t pragmatic at all, and the arrangement of making money while expressing one self has worked well for some so far, maybe it won’t anymore. Maybe expertise is only gatekeeping thousands of creative people, and it’s ok to lose some of the old ways to new aways of doing it? I don’t have the answer. But I do worry that this arrangement may not work well for me anymore and I’m barely 30.
@@carlosdanielcosta2987 Money and art are currently intertwined, but my argument is that they *shouldn't* be. The only reason they are is because, in our current capitalist society, if you can't sell what you make or do to someone who wants it, you are literally left to starve and die. That, to me, is a form of slavery that humanity needs to get rid of. Obviously, the idea that humans will grow up enough to stop enslaving each other just because it's the right thing to do is naive. But my hope is that, as AI is able to do more and more jobs, it will be a catalyst for our growth as a species, and we'll be forced to treat each other better and stop requiring everything to be commoditized just to survive. It's either that... or we destroy each other and ourselves and blame it on the AI. One of the two will happen, because AI progress is a genie that can't be put back in the bottle. I only hope humans, overall, are mature enough not to make ourselves extinct over our own ignorance and greed.
The amount of effort you put in into learning something does not and has never mattered. Timmy takes 3 years to learn how to read, Cathy is a genius and does it in an hour. Does that mean that Timmy's reading skills are more more valuable? No. Now, an AI goes through thousands of songs an hour, analyses them, finds the patterns and then lets others use it for their own benefit, which would have taken a human decades. If a talented person with something to say but without the technical skill you may have uses AI tools to allow them to make a song that makes humans feel something while you can't match his end result with your "experience and deep understanding of the subject," maybe you should get over yourself, use the tools and try saying something in your new AI-assisted song that makes humans feel something. With your experience and deep understanding, it should come out better than something made by an unskilled person, right? And if it doesn't, maybe you weren't as good as you thought or just had nothing to say. The end result is all that matters. In the case of music, the song either makes humans feel something or it doesn't. AI is ultimately logical, it's trained on data. It can mimic emotion, it doesn't feel it. You will always need human creativity for that. For context, every cent I've ever made in my life came from some kind of writing. When the huge ChatGPT panic happened, I wasn't worried, and I'm still not worried. The only writers who were justified in getting worried were the ones who wrote whatever they were writing in a machine-like way with no creativity. People like me, on the other hand, started getting asked to take articles generated by ChatGPT and "humanize" them by rewriting them in a more creative, less machine-like way, that still got all the necessary information across. In the end, the only people who should be afraid of fast-food quality music/writing/etc. that's generated by AI are the ones whose music/writing/etc. is no better than fast-food quality. The true artists, the people who have something to say and can make humans feel, should be happy. The more fast-food there is in their industry the more impressive they are compared to the majority of the shit that's being put out there. A Michellin chef doesn't worry about how many McDonald's and Burger Kings there are in the same neighborhood.
@@splitmid3697 I mean... while I agree with a lot of what you've said, I do fundamentally disagree on some specifics. Firstly, when you say the AI can't ever feel emotions, I do have to point you to the P-Zombie problem. Basically, you don't know if anyone else but you actually feels any emotions; you have to infer that just because people "act like" they have a similar emotional experience to yourself. In the same way, if an AI behaves as though it has emotions, you really can't determine whether it does or does not "actually" have emotions. Emotions are just specific patterns of neural activity in our brains, and AIs also have patterns of neural activity in their networks; if that activity leads to it behaving the same was humans do when we feel emotions, you can't really say it's "not actually feeling emotions", otherwise that implies no one feels emotions, either, except yourself. Secondly, you seem to be judging all possible future AIs on the performance of current AI models. That's fallacious: AI progress has accelerated, and continues to do so, since 2018, and newer models coming out once a year (or even more frequently) perform better and better. The fact that ChatGPT currently doesn't sound quite human is in no way an indicator that AIs can't ever -- or even won't soon -- sound human. (There's also, by the way, the consideration that ChatGPT has a layer of RLHF training on top of its base training. That extra fine-tuning adjusts not only its content, but the way it sounds, too. Papers that tested GPT-4 before the RLHF tuning have shown much more "human" sounding responses from it than we get with ChatGPT.)
I like the video, and I also enjoyed noticing that you’ve got yourself some rhythm with the music. You go girl! I will be subscribing to your channel now. 👍🏾👏🏾👋🏾💐 Phelix
This was awesome! Cool that you could get my friend Grimes on your channel Cleo!
to be totally honest the last people I want to hear from when it comes to this are both the Spotify CEO and Grimes. There is no way that guy isn't going to use AI to make more money for himself without giving the artists their fair share (as he has been doing for years). Plus, when it comes to Grimes, someone so technology obsessed who only sees the benefits but isn't interested in considering what it'll do to artists who aren't mega rich, I'm just not interested to hear what her enlightened take is.
You express gratitude for us watching as if we’re doing you a favor. We’re watching because your videos are astounding, well made, tear jerking, and interesting. No favours being done by your audience to you!
This channel deserves a lot more views and subscribers 👏🏻 bravo!
Great video! As someone who creates, performs, and geeks out about music, I have so many thoughts on this topic... and they basically boil down to: I don't think AI will ultimately change much when it comes to artistic integrity, and I also don't think it will change much in the way of compensation for MOST artists. If you're recording with MIDI samples, is that really your sound? If you use software to master your track, is that really your sound? Hell, if you use an effects pedal in your signal chain, is that really your sound? When we get too hung up on who "owns" a sound, I think we miss the point and lose sight of whatever the artist is trying to express. AI might turbo charge this a bit, but it's not really a new issue. Artists are going to find ways to use AI to more accurately convey their art, and people who just want to try to be famous are probably going to abuse AI so they can churn out their tripe at a more rapid pace. As far as getting paid, 99% of the people out there making music are barely getting paid as-is. If you find yourself in the right place at the right time and your music gets popular enough to get fed into a training algorithm... I mean... you're already doing a lot better than most of us. I'm not saying this makes it alright, but it's a problem that seems like it'll mostly impact the 1%.
Something that I've had discussion with people I know who went to art school: human artists definitely do learn from other artists. Traditional painting students go to museums and galleries with canvas and easel to copy well known woks. Some of this is to teach them to observe these paintings to work out the techniques the original artists used (brush strokes, color choices, layout, subject matter, etc), but it was/is also a way to help the student familiarize themself with what worked. This was especially useful before the ability to mass produce images in color, but even now, there's a world of difference between seeing a poster of the Mona Lisa and see it in person. Arguably, AIs analyzing a large corpus of work to "understand" a particular artistic field may not be any different from sending a human to conservatory or art school for 5 years to learn the techniques and theories of their field. Not arguable is the fact that all creators first start by copying. You copy your teacher when you start learning an instrument. (Was married to a music teacher. Know this from direct experience.) You copy existing works in graphic arts, if only as little as samples in the text books. The difference with an AI doing the same thing is that 1) we don't understand how the AI does it, and 2) we're scared of machines. Unarguably, we don't understand how artists create new work. They can describe what happens, but that's usually not a recipe for someone else, especially someone who isn't already making that kind of art, to do themselves and also create a piece of art.
Kudos. Couldn't agree more.
AI doesn't create, it recreates. Unlike humans, it doesn't stand on its own when it comes to creating, doing anything or combining different types of creativity and understanding into one single project while with people it's quite the opposite. When AI understands data and tries to recreate it, it depends on other existing data to create something different while people don't need to. They can just imagine that thing in a different way and after toying around with different possibilities end up with something different.
@@Ash-gk8jp This is a definitional problem. Imagine an AI with sentience. Does it create? Are the macaques which took those selfies creative? What about elephants that paint? Maybe current AIs can't create, because they aren't advanced enough yet. Odds are, they might be someday. They're already passing the Turing Test. Time and definitions. I agree with Cleo and the scientists ant artist who are saying that we need to take a pause and get some legal and ethical groundwork in place.
Awesome Motion Graphics, video editor/animator done a fantastic job. I really want to replicate some of the animations myself to train my After Effects skills. tuba
This is one of the best videos i've seen in quite a while! Plus, amazing vocals!
That last line gave me sent a wave of inspiration through me. Amazing work on this video
Loving the trend of longer Huge If True episodes. ❤🤠
Nice video.
Really impressive and nuanced dive into the issues. None of us knows what the legal answer will be, but appreciate the great explanation of where we sit today.
Cleo - love the positivity of your videos. That is purely why I watch them. A quick question - do you use AI to produce personalised videos? As in, perhaps the example of avicii and say linkin park are specific to me because you have data upon me that makes your video personalised (I loved both)! So perhaps someone else is seeing another two different bands as an example? I don’t know what this is called, but it’s kind of like personalise marketing which helps to make the viewer feels the video is personalised!? Is there such a thing - perhaps a video on this would explore the topic. I am wondering if AI is being used or if it’s algorithm with data vendors enabling the personalisation! I hope this makes sense. Does anyone else experience this with videos (perhaps Netflix and also Spotify atm)? A video on this would be awesome
Cleo, it's amazing to see how far you've come, now interviewing people like the CEO of Spotify and Grimes. Keep going!
No one has done more to destroy music than Spotify and Ek.
My Spotify library enabled me to discover highly diverse and at times obscure music
@@PublixCarrotCake Sure...it's made it easier for you, but artists get paid almost nothing for your privilege to do that.
Ah yes, for sure, 100% they're being screwed and having to rely much more on other revenue streams if they're "lucky"enough to have that available
I'm sure Kaaza and Shazam would have done wonders for the industry instead
This is all amazing and Cleo did an amazing job…but the fist song got me!😂
I really enjoyed this video! As a musician, artist and composer/producer, I think and worry a lot about these things as they evolve. But I trust we will find some kind of solution for this issue in the future.
I don't think AI will beat an authentic composer. From what I've seen in these AI music generators, I don't feel any feeling in the songs. It seems like something is missing. For now I will continue making my regional songs, something I have done since I was a child
I don’t think it’s that bad. Once they find a way to work out the financial compensation, it will actually be beneficial. I mean, who wouldn’t want to get paid from a computer using your voice to make a song.
Agree.. I mean it always been like that, just like painter > photography, Traditional art > digital art
When money starts to become irrelevant during AI (as AI claims authority to allocate all forms of needs) "copyleft" will be the only thing that'll matter to artists not getting paid.
Disagree completely. If I was an artist I would definitely mind. It's not just about the money. It's a threat to art and individual ownership over the art you create with your own body and mind.
@@quantumwitcher9376 In opposition to that you could say that it is not you who is creating that piece of art. They're simply using your tool you have crafted (your unique voice).
@@novamoin246but if it was published by a different person then people would know it’s not them which then takes away their “star power”
Alot of whats being said about AI today was said about cameras back when they first started being made. Art survived cameras, it'll survive AI.
thank you ..thank you Cleo for the nice contents you provide
Honestly, this should be VERY simple. Did the AI company PAY the artists to use the music that they were trained on? If so, then they're good. If not, then EVERYTHING that AI generates is "copied from" rather than inspired from. The data that AIs want to train from has value, and they cannot simply strip that value away because it's convenient for them (read "free"). It's completely analogous to how all training has ever been through history - if you wanted to learn to be a blacksmith, you paid for that knowledge by working as an apprentice. If you want to learn to be a doctor, you pay for the necessary schooling. It's really NOT that complicated a subject, in my mind.
So you are saying that every producer of music (Ai or not) should pay for the records they listen? Like if you are drake you need to pay for every music you ear because you are somewhat learning, taking inspiration from that
@@emersonjoaquim5000AI isn’t a person. People are allowed to hear and be inspired by music because thats part of being human. AI does not deserve the same luxuries. It doesn’t deserve rights. It doesnt deserve to be equated to human artistry. Do not respect the machine. Use it if you must, but dont be concerned about whether or not it’s being treated fairly. It doesnt care, so why should you?
No, Computers are not humans and vice-versa. AI cannot exist without data to train on, and the developers of the AI should pay a fair value for that data. Data has value. Usually a lot. Look at how much money the self-driving AI companies are spending to get driving data. It's millions upon millions. Music and Art AI should be paying for data as well, not stealing it.
Music will never die, people will use A.I to enrich it further.
Hey Cleo!! I just wanted to stop by and let you know you are amazing and that you should start doing more in depth documentaries...if you already are doing it then don't mind me. Bless
Okay, Cleo. This one I looooooooooved!!!! :P xoxo Do more like this. It's investigative in a positive way. Kudos! Muah!!
This is a joke … it’s like saying pollution is good cause people can wear scuba gear all the time.
As a classically trained musician, Jazz drummer, and recording engineer turned DJ, I can honestly say you missed the mark with this video. @CleoAbram I’m a huge* fan of your work 😉 and a lover of new technologies! However, this “laptop producer” world we live in today only has shorten our attention span for music. People, already, don’t connect with music the same way we did before, when the barrier of entrée to be an artist required more skill. To @telleryn point the sheer volume of synthetic music that already has taken countless jobs from studio musicians, and performing musicians, ie: artists perform with a laptop vs a band, is staggering and frankly unbearable for working musicians trying to make a living. When you add AI to a creative space and an industry that’s already edging out the “little man”, it just exacerbates the already existing problems. Musicians/instrumentalist hardly ever get paid from royalties. There is an incredibly huge amount of musicians/instrumentalist behind each record that gets produce and they get a onetime fee for their work. In my opinion those folks are the real victims of AI, not the song’s interpreter. They should have been included in this video. Just my thoughts. Btw I just noticed my own digitization from the first sentence in this comment. Just out here trying to survive 😅.
It is elitist to want the barrier for entry to be higher. Record labels are a far bigger problem with music than AI. AI democratizes music, record labels try to own the artist. The labels earn far more money when an artist is dead than alive, which means a big conflict of interest.
@@the11382 I'm not sure it is elitist to say people who put time and effort into developing a skill are trying to hold onto the idea that there is value in that hard work. Anyone is welcome in the music world if they work at the skills required (yes, I know luck, looks, and other things too often also wind up playing a role, but nonetheless the development of a skill and love of craft matter). Record labels are a bigger problem than AI now. But who's going to wind up controlling the AI that takes more work away from artists? Bet it'll be the labels, just like it's the labels owning a percentage of Spotify too, and thus squeezing the artists from both sides.
Amazing and thought provoking video, thanks Cleo!
Very insightful information about AI I didn't know was possible. Thank you, Cleo.
‘’Lowering the amount of technical skill needed to express your creativity” - this line. This is what AI is for.
This is the worse part of AI. Putting forth the effort to learn the technical skill is what makes art impressive. The idea that you are so passionate about something that you invest years and years to master it... IS art. Simply writing "make me a song in this style about blah blah blah" and then an AI takes that and spits out some nonsense (which it can only do by "learning" from real artist who DID put in the effort), is NOT real art or creativity.
That’s exactly all the worst parts of AI. 😂 all the lazy bums who need things given to them are the only people who enjoy that. Want to shoot film? Load your camera And go out to shoot and learn to develop and scan. Not typing in keyeords into a screen like a loser
Yeah no… that’s just larping as an artist. It’s embarrassing and pathetic. Most generative AI is theft of intellectual property.
The age of the "Musical Super Star" may be coming to an end. I hope so. Make music with your friends, and support local artists.
great work Cleo! Videos are awesome
Amazing work as always!
One of your best! -- Love, Dad
Are you married?
So Grimes just appeared to promote her new tool and nothing else. Nice.
Great video. It's all about compensating artists appropriately. If that can be done, the music industry will be just fine. The problem is that tech has a dirty habit of outpacing policy and copyright law. So... we'll see how it goes.
great summary of past present and future of copyright, creativity etc. Thanks
We should ask AI how to fairly compensate creators😎
Or like... How to write the show :D
Don't forget the struggle of Artists in General against AI.
Wow watching this videos are pure pleasure ❤ there's lot of work into this 👏
I feel like having a fully AI artist would be a whole separate job (maybe paying the ones behind the AI, or having a new version of royalty-free music, or having this music personal for only you and your friends/family)
Thank you for coming forward with a positive opinion on AI. Though I’d like to see what emerging independent artists would have to say about it. Both guests were interesting + capitalistic in nature: -Grimes will be preoccupied with reinventing the game and profiting off it, and honestly good for her she’s clearly ahead of her time. -Then there’s Ek who’s but a businessman. His tech company does not come from music, the motivation to welcome a new market into Spotify is a transactional endeavor. To me, like you seemed to say, AI is accessibility into broader tools. How could these tools then shape a completely different thing?