I'm back. Original song "Story of an Englishman"
Comments
-
I have no idea what it means for them in the biz. I used to spend hundreds of dollars getting viable demos of my songs from them. That's over, and I'm way ahead of them and their ways of doing things. These Suno covers are spot on my originals, only the productions and performances are stellar... And that's something I couldn't get from those Nashville guys.
And the argument that the suno covers have no soul, is debunked by the soul of the writer and his intent. And no one can tell me that the guitar work on these covers is "soulless".
0 -
I agree about the soul of the writer, but if you pay attention, the singer doesn’t have much feeling. Of course, you won’t be paying attention to the singer all the time haha, but it sounds good anyway.
0 -
I'm going to have to disagree on the guitars, they still sound synthy to me.
0 -
Once I saw a graph of a singers voice, I think Steve Perry of Journey, it wasn't perfect, it was in and out of tune very slighly. Then they made it perfect with a computer and you could hear his soul was gone! Music is fundamental vibrations and humans naturally create imperfect vibrations that puts in the soul. AI makes it perfect and takes the soul out. At least that's a theory. Like I said, in the future that probably will change.
0 -
it means some writers will pay a penny for AI songs
And artists will continue paying session players and recording studios
Nashville. LA , New York any major music hub is not going out of business , cuz of the novelty of AI
What if that happened no humans only Ai songs ? it be a loss of billions of dollars
Thats never going to happen
0 -
The history of recorded music is not very long, a little more than 100 years old. No one knows what the future will hold but I will say this: The popular music of the 60s, 70s and 80s will never be equaled for what it was. The creativity and the wonderful, feel-good sounds, is something that may never happen again in history. They didn't have internet, iphones or AI back then but they knew feeling, just like the Romans 2000 years ago knew beauty. Maybe new artists and/or AI can create feelings that far surpass anything known before. That would be great!
0 -
Recording studios are not going out of business . There was probably 100 songs recorded just today in Nashville
Its April and they're busy
0 -
Nashville busy? No doubt. But there’s a difference between 'busy' and 'making history.' The Romans were busy too, but they didn't have to compete with an algorithm that can rhyme 'whiskey' with 'frisky' in 0.2 seconds. I’ll take one Steve Perry vocal crack over 100 'perfect' recordings any day.
0 -
Nashville will not touch AI. Major studios will not touch AI generated music. Suno and Udio are still getting sued over their using song not in open domain for their training data. AI generated music will never replace Humans, at least not in our lifetime. Digitized music has been around for decades. I get this is a new toy for you. Using the romans is a bad analogy as their empire fell, so if your comparing the roman empire with the AI "empire", the logic dictates it will fall also :)
0 -
That’s what they said about electric guitars at the Grand Ole Opry in the 40s—now you can’t find a porch in Tennessee without a pedalboard. Have you heard the radio lately? I'm pretty sure a computer wrote the last ten songs about trucks and dirt roads. It didn't even need a brain for those. If a robot writes a song about its dog leaving and its hard drive crashing, is it still Country? Asking for a friend.
0 -
Using AI in production is different that AI producing music, you're conflating two separate ontological categories:
0 -
Ontological? Easy there, Professor. You’re missing the forest for the trees. It doesn't matter if the AI is the hammer or the carpenter—if the house it builds has no soul, nobody’s moving in. Whether it’s 'producing' or 'assisting,' it’s still replacing the human instinct that made those 70s records great. You can’t categorize your way out of a boring song.
0 -
That's not a true statement. AI is being by major artist to demo ideas. Timbaland has been open about his using AI in his work. Ai is also being used in DAWS to expedite production, in both of those cases AI is "assisting" the artist. Please read up on it before commenting.
0 -
I’ve 'read up' on it—I just didn't like the ending of the book.
You’re citing Timbaland like he’s the Pope of the DAW. Look, the man’s a legend, but if he needs a computer to 'demo an idea,' maybe the idea wasn't strong enough to stand up on its own. In my day, 'demoing an idea' involved a cassette deck and a soul, not a prompt and a 'Calculate' button.
And 'expediting production'? That’s just corporate-speak for 'I’m in a hurry to get to the bank.' You don’t 'expedite' a heartbreak, and you don’t 'assist' a gut feeling. You’re talking about efficiency; I’m talking about art.
You can split hairs over 'categories' all day, but at the end of the night, nobody goes home humming an 'expedited workflow.' They go home humming the melody that some poor kid spent ten hours crying over in a basement. So keep your 'assisting' algorithms, Socrates. I’ll stay over here in the category of 'Things that actually have a pulse.
0 -
There is so much nonsense in that statement it would take me weeks to break that down to point out the flaws in your logic.
You're telling me this song - cry me a river https://youtu.be/DksSPZTZES0?si=GiUNhmjxVjVIXBpN - has no soul. This was done in a DAW on a computer.
What Timbaland, does is stem out the tracks in Suno, then loads them into a DAW, to create the final track. funny you dissin a guy who's a hit writer, of course he uses a computer,
You evidently never heard of EDM, which is produced solely on computers and have been for decades.
Deadmou5 started on a computer back in the day, he made 8-bit soundtracks for games
Avicii. Daft Punk. Calvin Harris, David Guetta all produce music on computers, the only difference between them and you, is they sell stadiums.
You obviously have no business sense either. any tool that maximizes your production, to cut down time so you can get your music out to the audience more efficiently, then yes, it means more money. It's a business to MAKE MONEY. It's no different in my consulting business. If I have a client that needs a program in an hour and flat rates it, and AI can help expedite that, do think I'm going not use AI? if the project is for $1,000 and I can do it for $250 using AI, then that's $750 profit. Time is money. That means the client is happy and the client pays me money and gives me more work.
You're telling me this song, Titanium, which David Guetta created on a computer then loads onto his deck and plays that and other tracks in stadiums of 10,000+ for over 30 years, has no pulse - https://youtu.be/KxnpFKZowcs?si=2IJZhcF2IKFO4HEm
And thank you for calling me, Socrates, that's one of the highest honors you can give somebody.
0 -
That was the point of comment , Session players hate AI , along with recording studios . Just like you would having a robot steal your job and anybody else on forums . All Ai songs are still stolen material, just because somebody came up with the word cover .
Yes the Roman Empire fell and the 1960ties weren't that great
0 -
A robot did steal my job. I'm a computer programmer by trade.
0 -
Whatever , thats how pro studio session players feel , stolen jobs
And pro publishers do not take AI songs , Why ? loss of human jobs . So anybody using AI will not sell a song
the AI songs that went viral , were phony views by Spotify , Per Rick Beato . The were not human songs , they were AI songs using fake pics made by AI. People want to get paid for their jobs . Firemen , Insurance brokers ect ect . For some reason the fairy dust of AI has everyone in a frenzy
0 -
I'm not really sure how AI songs are going to effect recording studio and costs
I think producer costs could be diminished if the song uses AI production Ideas
Session players cost would not change . It also depends on what kind of quality of studio is used like say County Q studio in Nashville , thats used to record major stars . Union charges would stay the same , off union charges I'm not sure .
I know one thing, the dream they sell will not change in every music hub on earth
As long as song writers exists they will dream on making it big time
0 -
I appreciate the transparency, but you just proved my point. You’re comparing a software delivery to a soul delivery.
When a client pays you $1,000 for a program, they don't care if you wrote it, an AI wrote it, or a thousand monkeys on keyboards wrote it—they just want the 'Submit' button to work. It’s a utility. If you can automate it and pocket $750, that’s great business.
But music isn't a utility. Nobody ever sat in their car and cried because a 'program' was delivered on time and under budget.
By treating a song like a 'flat-rate project,' you’re effectively saying the music itself is just a byproduct of the transaction. You're 'expediting' the very thing that makes art valuable: the struggle. You can use AI to build the house, but you can't use it to make it a home. You’re over there counting your $750 in 'saved time,' while the rest of us are spending that time actually living the experiences that make a song worth hearing in the first place. You’ve optimized the 'business,' Socrates, but you’ve evacuated the 'art.'
0 -
Haha. this has to be the funniest response. 😂 What's even more comical is you think somewhere in that is a point..,
Sure robbie, and good luck with your artistic pulse 😂😂🤣🤣
0 -
You obviously do not know the real business of song writers
Pro publishers do not take AI songs . The only way is record it using live players and send to a pro publishers . if you can not sing young , your also out of luck , you'll need a 25 year old singer . Your best bet is a Guitar vocal at $450.00 cost
Now you can try to sell to legimate publishers
Nashville hates AI songs , for good reason
your kinda living in a fantasy world . Go to a studio and cut the song , the reality of it will solve the fantasy
you do that and you will be in the real business world of song writers
and get used to rejection of the 15% ones they will take for consideration . you will lose 85% of the time
Thats the reality of the real music world
Two reasons why guitar vocals work
- cost to you
- producers like adding their own touch and not your ideas
0 -
rob doesn't care about the real business, you know, the part where you agree to produce music in exchange for money and royalties. then they take the track and produced it in whatever format in exchange for money. Also, the artist then either performs it live in exchange for money, or in the case of a DJ, loads it onto his deck and performs live in exchange for money. So, when you think about it, when broken down the process is a series of transactions, so you could argue that music is a byproduct of transactions. and the real pulse is in hopes that some poor soul sitting in their car that just got dumped hears your computer produced track, relates to it, buys the song and the series of process starts all over again,
The only reason why the records labels are not taking AI produced music, is not because it lacks a pulse, it's due to corrupt training data. Had Suno and the others not used copywritten data and solely used public domain music, then you know their greedy hands would be all over it. I know Sony reached a deal with Udio and Warner bro. reached a deal with Suno to be monetized, but still not sure how that's going happen as there is no way to tell now which is which. and It's not probable that they just scrapped the data they have and start over.
0 -
He's pulse will rise in a recording studio and a producer wanting you to produce something they can use
Its not easy , pushing a button is real easy
0 -
It’s funny how the argument shifted from 'AI has soul' to 'AI makes money,' and now finally to 'AI is easier than a studio.'
@ElvisNash, you’re actually making my point for me. Nashville—and every legitimate publisher—rejects AI precisely because it lacks the human fingerprint that makes a song a copyrightable, valuable asset. They want the 'guitar vocal' because they want the raw, human DNA of a song, not a mathematical average of a database.
@bhengen, you’re right about one thing: I don’t care about the 'business' of generating $750 margins on prompt-engineered background noise. If I wanted to maximize efficiency at the expense of quality, I’d go into data entry. I’m a songwriter. I’ll keep my 'pulse' and my human struggle; you can keep your 'Submit' button. One of us is making a memory; the other is just making a file.
0 -
Right, so after spending that time in the studio, the record labels don't care about preserving the pulse or art. You're only useful to them if you can make them money, that's it. You now have 10 - 30 seconds to get their attention, if not, they move on.
0 -
of course its only business , The variables are so numerous I'm not going begin on them . I've heard so many good good good songs . You will never hear
0 -
Actually, I think what really bring money to artists are shows and merchandise. I don’t think you actually need to record in a studio. I think most artists start by performing in small places, then move on to bigger ones and eventually get signed. Recording in a studio doesn’t make someone famous or make money.
0 -
All pros record in studios . but you are right the money is in touring and merch . Only hard touring will ( Maybe ) make you famous . Well unless they're 18 and could record on home studios , they grew up on the digital age . Depends on budgets
0 -
Not necessarily. My friends punk band got signed to a label before playing in large venues.
I had another friend in high school that was massively talented. his band played local parties. his brother setup a recording studio in their garage and created demo tapes. which he sent around to all of the radio stations. Eventually came across an LA Dj. who mainly was into the punk scene Rodney on the Roq. Rodney passed the demo on to CBS, who signed them who gave them an advance to buy better recording and musical equipment.
how do you think music gets recorded if not in a studio? If you have some speakers, a laptop with a DAW in your bedroom, that's considered a studio, by today's standards. Recording in a studio will only make you money or famous if you get picked up but you will still make money by signing a contract., which was my point.
0
Howdy, Stranger!