Sold my Soul to the Devil

[richiebee]

I fed Suno one of my songs the other day. I'll leave aside the loss of rights to my own song. That's a different topic.

I asked it to do some covers for me, and what it came back with shocked me. People say it has no soul, just banal mediocrity. What it did to my cover though was absolutely brought it to life. It kept things like the notes of the guitar solo in tact, but made it sound like it was actually played by a guitarist who was having a good time. It tastefully altered some of my chord voicings in a way that I might expect from an orchestrator with a much better understanding of theory, and a command of the task than myself and gave it a great overhaul. The audio quality left a lot to be desired, but ultimately, it gave me a whole bunch of ideas to use to improve the arrangement of my song for a re-production.

I don't see any point in getting it to write a song for me - I have the radio if I want to listen to someone elses song, but for brainstorming my arrangement, it did a great job.

 

[David Cuny]

What it did to my cover though was absolutely brought it to life. It kept things like the notes of the guitar solo intact, but made it sound like it was actually played by a guitarist who was having a good time.

Yeah, it really shows the potential for what neural networks can do for virtual instruments.

It's a shame Suno got there by treating music on the internet as free training data.

 

[Nekujak]

I have a young friend who's a filmmaker (commercials, corporate videos, short form videos). Since I did a lot of video work once upon a time, he and I often discuss film, cinematography, video production, etc.

The other day we were talking about lyric videos, and afterwards, he sent me a lyric video he recently made for a singer-songwriter friend. The video was beautiful, but the music and the singer's voice (female) was absolutely stunning.

I played it for my wife, who's a professional singer, and we were both impressed by the singer's voice and how well-produced and polished the track sounds. My wife even said, "She must've spent a lot of money on that production."

You know where this is headed...

About a week later, I saw my friend and mentioned how impressed we were with the video, and that we were blown away by the music. He looked down and sheepishly muttered, "That's not her voice or music, it's AI." It turns out she's not a singer - she's not even a musician. She's a schoolteacher. She wrote the song - chords, lyrics, and melody - and fed it to Suno.

It was a bit of a gut-punch on couple of levels. I didn't like that my wife and I were led to believe this was a real human performance. I know my friend wasn't deliberately trying to fool us - he was simply sharing a video he made, and didn't mention the music because it's not his area of interest. It made me realize we're probably already inundated with AI-generated music in our daily lives more than we're aware of.

But what I really didn't like, is that my wife and I were so impressed by the track. It just made me think, "Why bother?". Why bother learning to use a DAW? Why bother carefully crafting an instrumental arrangement? Why bother struggling to record a decent-sounding vocal? Why bother spending the time and effort to record and mix a track?

It's one thing to type a prompt and have AI spit out a dozen songs for you. There's clearly no musical creativity involved.

But it's a slightly different matter when you actually put in the work to write a song, and then hand over the production tasks to AI. As much as I despise generative AI, this scenario is now starting to sound a little less slimey to me.

You could argue I'm taking work away from musicians, producers, and engineers. But am I really? If the alternative is me producing the track in my DAW, that's also technically taking work away from musicians, producers, and engineers. The net result is exactly the same. The only real difference is I'm either just the songwriter, or I'm the songwriter, performer, and producer.

And yes, you could split hairs and say that by using AI to produce the track, I'm robbing sample library and plugin developers of revenue. But again, am I really? I spent many, many years and thousands of dollars buying sample libraries and plugins. They already got my money, and I already have all the production tools I'm ever going to need - I rarely spend any money on gear anymore. So again, same net result.

And you could argue that AI is robbing artists of revenue by training on their music without permission. Well, that was definitely true at one time, but as of last fall, Suno is now owned by Warner and only trains on the Warner catalog. And the same is true with Udio and UMG. So again, same net result. In fact, by using my DAW, I'm technically denying money to Warner and/or UMG artists who could potentially earn something when their music is used in a generated track.

My brain hurts thinking about all this. But it is causing me to re-evaluate my stance on AI's role in the music production continuum.

 

[richiebee]

It's a shame Suno got there by treating music on the internet as free training data.

Fair point if they did indeed steal people's music. That is if they used illegal methods like evading a subscription (whether literal or by bypassing ads that pay revenue for music licensing) to a music streaming service. I assume this is the case since the whole industry is up in arms and no one seems to defend Suno in this regard, not even themselves. But if they did pay for a subscription, or used music that was already "free" to listen to, then they just did what you or I could do to analyse people's songs. They just did it much quicker.

 

[David Cuny]

My brain hurts thinking about all this. But it is causing me to re-evaluate my stance on AI's role in the music production continuum.

I'm not interested in generating music with Suno. But using it to create vocals and transform instrumentals is really tempting.

When I put together Down That Long Road, I used SynthV for the vocals.

But it would have made a lot more sense to use Suno for the final vocals. It would have been a voice better suited for the genre, as well as being more expressive and realistic.

The main issue was that I didn't have a subscription to Suno because of issues I've already alluded to, although licensing agreement with Warner/UMG addresses that to some degree.

I'm also not thrilled that since it's not trained on isolated instruments, extracting vocals and instruments requires stem splitting and all the inherent issues with that.

But even limiting myself to that, I'm still constantly reminded that Suno's primary function is to generate music for me. There's an option where I can give it samples of my voice, so it can create a voice model so I don't have to sing. And there's a function to upload music I've created, so Suno can automatically generate music, so I don't have to write music, either.

So I'm still very conflicted about this.

 

[David Cuny]

Fair point if they did indeed steal people's music. That is if they used illegal methods like evading a subscription (whether literal or by bypassing ads that pay revenue for music licensing) to a music streaming service.

They simply treated any music they could access as fair game for use as training data.

But if they did pay for a subscription, or used music that was already "free" to listen to, then they just did what you or I could do to analyse people's songs. They just did it much quicker.

That's a false analogy. As Adam Neeley noted, it's like saying that a submarine is just like a person because they both swim underwater.

The music wasn't posted "free" for corporations to use as training data. It was posted so that people could listen to it. Corporations took advantage of the lag between law and technology.

This "they're learning like people" is a lie promoted by AI companies trying to claim that laws intended to regulate the behavior of individuals should apply to what companies are doing on an industrial scale.

AI doesn't hear like humans, or remember like humans; it doesn't learn like humans or even create like humans.

There is no human who can analyze millions of audio files, remember them all, and then create songs that mimic the instruments and voices in those files by writing zeros and ones to binary files.

 

[Mike Greene]

But it's a slightly different matter when you actually put in the work to write a song, and then hand over the production tasks to AI. As much as I despise generative AI, this scenario is now starting to sound a little less slimey to me.

You could argue I'm taking work away from musicians, producers, and engineers. But am I really? If the alternative is me producing the track in my DAW, that's also technically taking work away from musicians, producers, and engineers. The net result is exactly the same. The only real difference is I'm either just the songwriter, or I'm the songwriter, performer, and producer.

That's pretty much how I feel about it. Ever since my first drum machine, I joined the dark side.

And yes, you could split hairs and say that by using AI to produce the track, I'm robbing sample library and plugin developers of revenue.

It's not your job to make me rich.

My feeling is that Suno or SynthV or Realitone are all make tools for similar jobs, but from different angles, so I think it's kinda nice how each person can have their own preference. If we're the "get our hands dirty" type, then sample libraries it is, but if someone isn't very technical, I can't begrudge them a great tool for hearing their songs how they've always wanted to hear them. Me, I wouldn't get much satisfaction from that, but everyone has their own sense of what they'd feel proud of.

My brain hurts thinking about all this.

Mine, too. I'm way less at peace with all this than my preceding paragraphs might imply.

 

[Cyberic]

Suno doesn’t appear to be owned by Warners.

Quote from online: After Warner initially sued Suno for copyright infringement, the two companies reached a settlement and forged an official collaborative partnership. Through this agreement, Suno can use the voices and likenesses of Warner artists who choose to opt in. As part of the same deal, Suno actually acquired the live music platform Songkick from Warner.

 

[creativeforge]

It's one thing to type a prompt and have AI spit out a dozen songs for you. There's clearly no musical creativity involved.

But it's a slightly different matter when you actually put in the work to write a song, and then hand over the production tasks to AI. As much as I despise generative AI, this scenario is now starting to sound a little less slimey to me.

As a hobbyist with tons of recording ideas sitting on tapes, floppies (synth sequencers) and storage drives, I could never afford hiring someone to bring the final touch/polish to many (most) of these. But after your story, I'm now intrigued what could happen if I fed some of these into a Suno-like AI program...

A question: and if the result was to turn awesome and I can release it, would it remove me from any freedom to sell my music and - the key - from collecting mechanical rights for it (I'm only dreaming outloud)? I especially think of synthy fake-orchestral stuff I did on a Roland D50 almost 40 years ago.

Generating music from scratch from a non-sentient AI? Nope. But polishing an existing genuine creation? That is where I have interest and curiosity.

 

[richiebee]

As a hobbyist with tons of recording ideas sitting on tapes, floppies (synth sequencers) and storage drives, I could never afford hiring someone to bring the final touch/polish to many (most) of these. But after your story, I'm now intrigued what could happen if I fed some of these into a Suno-like AI program...

A question: and if the result was to turn awesome and I can release it, would it remove me from any freedom to sell my music and - the key - from collecting mechanical rights for it (I'm only dreaming outloud)? I especially think of synthy fake-orchestral stuff I did on a Roland D50 almost 40 years ago.

Generating music from scratch from a non-sentient AI? Nope. But polishing an existing genuine creation? That is where I have interest and curiosity.

I believe with Suno, you have to have one of their paid accounts to be able to monetize one of their downloads.

But to play them at their own game, if you get them to do arrangements, take parts of different ones and make a cover of your own song using your own VST's or real instruments, do they have any claim? I'll read the terms of use... https://suno.com/terms

I'm also not thrilled that since it's not trained on isolated instruments, extracting vocals and instruments requires stem splitting and all the inherent issues with that.

If you were interested in paying a subscription, you can get something called Studio, that seems a bit like ACE studio. You can hum parts and add them using specific instruments, you can keep tracks separate. I haven't tried it, but a YouTuber showing this, is how I ended up at SUNO anyway.

 

[BDT]

I'm not interested in generating music with Suno. But using it to create vocals and transform instrumentals is really tempting.

That's exactly how I use Suno and a local installation of ACE-Step 1.5 XL.

This song has demo vocals created with Synthesizer V and sent to Suno, along with detailed instructions on what to keep, what to discard, and what to change.
It also includes an arpeggioed guitar track created with BIAB, where I wanted to soften the sharp attacks a bit without losing any of its liveliness.
Of course, both tracks required a LOT of trial and error and dozens of lines of prompt before the AIs did what I wanted, and not the other way around.

I'm quite happy with the result.
Is it still my song?
Of course, both in terms of copyright and mechanical license:

• lyrics are mine
• melodies are mine
• 17 (of 19) tracks are non-AI
• mix is done by me
• master is done by me

The only downside to my hybrid approach is that, depending on which AI service you ask, my songs are classified as 100% human-created or 100% AI-generated or everything in between.

 

[Nekujak]

A question: and if the result was to turn awesome and I can release it, would it remove me from any freedom to sell my music and - the key - from collecting mechanical rights for it (I'm only dreaming outloud)? I especially think of synthy fake-orchestral stuff I did on a Roland D50 almost 40 years ago.

I'm not a lawyer, but if you're the original writer and AI is just creating an arrangement for you, I would think you would own the rights, and therefore could sell the music. I view it as very similar to writing a song and then using EZdrummer to play the drums, EZkeys for the keyboard part, and EZbass to play the bass.

But I suppose the ultimate answer will be found in Suno's EULA, which I'm unfamiliar with.

 

[Nekujak]

Suno doesn’t appear to be owned by Warners.

Quote from online: After Warner initially sued Suno for copyright infringement, the two companies reached a settlement and forged an official collaborative partnership. Through this agreement, Suno can use the voices and likenesses of Warner artists who choose to opt in. As part of the same deal, Suno actually acquired the live music platform Songkick from Warner.

Thanks for the clarification. Immediately after the settlement, the initial buzz was that Warner now owned Suno, but obviously, it's more nuanced than that.

 

[Nekujak]

It's not your job to make me rich.

I can't even make myself rich! Clearly, making people rich is a job I'm not very good at

My feeling is that Suno or SynthV or Realitone are all make tools for similar jobs, but from different angles, so I think it's kinda nice how each person can have their own preference. If we're the "get our hands dirty" type, then sample libraries it is, but if someone isn't very technical, I can't begrudge them a great tool for hearing their songs how they've always wanted to hear them. Me, I wouldn't get much satisfaction from that, but everyone has their own sense of what they'd feel proud of.

Agreed. It's similar to folks who construct music with loops. For some it brings tremendous satisfaction, while others find it boring and unsatisfying.

It really only becomes problematic when all these varied music-creation approaches converge on the commercial music space. When artists who are trying to earn money with music that's meticulously crafted by hand, must compete with music created through various "shortcut" methods, it creates an imbalance that's unfair to actual hard-working songwriters and composers.

But I guess it's the same old story throughout history whenever new technology and innovation enter the picture.

 

[Louie]

It really only becomes problematic when all these varied music-creation approaches converge on the commercial music space. When artists who are trying to earn money with music that's meticulously crafted by hand, must compete with music created through various "shortcut" methods, it creates an imbalance that's unfair to actual hard-working songwriters and composers.

I understand that there would be a more competition, but with the trained ears, musical knowledge, more refined taste, professional mixing setup, and established connections/relationships, a commercial composer(s) would still have the edge over a non-musician SUNO user no? (referring to situations where said composer(s) would be legally allowed to add SUNO to their studio tools).

 

[Nekujak]

I understand that there would be a more competition, but with the trained ears, musical knowledge, more refined taste, professional mixing setup, and established connections/relationships, a commercial composer(s) would still have the edge over a non-musician SUNO user no? (referring to situations where said composer(s) would be legally allowed to add SUNO to their studio tools).

Yes, hopefully you're right But in the last 6 months, I've seen several postings on VI-C where a composer lost out on a gig because the client decided to make their own AI music.

Most clients are not musicians and don't have a musically discerning ear, so it's very conceivable they'd be perfectly happy with AI-generated music - especially if it costs less than paying a composer.

Sad but true

 

[Louie]

Most clients are not musicians and don't have a musically discerning ear, so it's very conceivable they'd be perfectly happy with AI-generated music - especially if it costs less than paying a composer.

I take your word for it and sorry to hear that.

My super wild ass guess was that it was more a situation where the clients started demanding faster turnaround times from their composers(s) due to AI entering the space, and the composers simply falling in line by doing whatever it takes to keep their clients happy including using SUNO (or whatever) in order to keep up the pace . The logic being that a composer using SUNO would mostly be better at curating and picking out commercially suitable SUNO generations that would fit the clients needs much better than the layman off the street.

It comes as a bit of a surprise that some of these clients are actually generating the music themselves. They must be really cheap.

 

[David Cuny]

My super wild ass guess was that it was more a situation where the clients started demanding faster turnaround times from their composers(s) due to AI entering the space, and the composers simply falling in line by doing whatever it takes to keep their clients happy including using SUNO (or whatever) in order to keep up the pace.

My SWAG is that using AI gives people a feeling of ownership and control over the final product. Imagine the AI generates a cue based on given parameters the client wants, quickly iterates through changes, and presents something that feels complete and polished.

It's not that difficult to imagine a client so pleased with the final result that they would be wondering why there would be a need to do anthing further.

It's akin to how a songwriter might feel after telling SUNO to generate a song, listening to the result, and then wondering what's the point in competing against this?

 

[Louie]

My SWAG is that using AI gives people a feeling of ownership and control over the final product. Imagine the AI generates a cue based on given parameters the client wants, quickly iterates through changes, and presents something that feels complete and polished.

It's not that difficult to imagine a client so pleased with the final result that they would be wondering why there would be a need to do anthing further.

It's akin to how a songwriter might feel after telling SUNO to generate a song, listening to the result, and then wondering what's the point in competing against this?

Yeah I can see that. Incidentally, this stuff is creeping into more mundane areas in life as well.

Somehow the topic of AI came up in conversation when I was getting a haircut. The lady cutting my hair said that a couple of her clients are now feeding their image to an AI app to give them a virtual haircut/styling. They then take that image to the haircut place and show it to the stylist when she asks, “how to you want your haircut today” (true story)? The same stylist’s husband remodels kitchen's and bathrooms. She was saying more clients are now coming to him with an AI generated CAD model of what they want their kitchen to look like, feeling proud of themselves for their “design”. The problem is, he has to figure out a way to diplomatically inform them how certain features of their AI design won’t work in reality, and it isn’t easy to do because they become attached to it, and have a sort of “the machine said so, so it must right” kind of attitude.

 

[Nekujak]

I take your word for it and sorry to hear that.

I spent half the morning trying to find just one of the posts, but the VI-C search engine is not very effective, and even using Google didn't help. However, I did find a reddit thread about this very topic:

Anyone else seeing clients switch to AI music for commercials?

My super wild ass guess was that it was more a situation where the clients started demanding faster turnaround times from their composers(s) due to AI entering the space, and the composers simply falling in line by doing whatever it takes to keep their clients happy including using SUNO (or whatever) in order to keep up the pace . The logic being that a composer using SUNO would mostly be better at curating and picking out commercially suitable SUNO generations that would fit the clients needs much better than the layman off the street.

Speaking for myself only, the part that's most time-consuming is not the actual composing - I can fairly quickly come up with a musical idea, chord progression, thematic lines, and overall flow, and sketch it out on piano. The overwhelming majority of time is spent on orchestrating, finding sounds, fussing with sample libraries, and getting a good mix.

So in that regard, what's discussed earlier in this thread - writing the music and having AI produce it - is where the time savings can really happen. The composer's contribution ensures the core musical idea satisfies the client's requirements, and guides the AI in creating an arrangement and production that's appropriate. This is a much more efficient way of working with AI, since you're not dependent on AI to create the core musical idea, which can require a lot of trial and error.

As a composer, I would find this to be a very liberating and creatively satisfying way to work. And in fact, this is how many professional composers actually do work - they sketch musical ideas and have their assistants and an arranger work out the details, and an engineer to record and mix the piece.

It would make me so very happy to not deal with all the headaches of working with sample libraries and mixing. I just want to make music - I never wanted to be an engineer.