Record labels panic as A.I. generated song becomes ‘hit single’

https://darkfutura.substack.com/p/record-labels-panic-as-ai-generated

by Syonyk • 3 years ago

120 181 3 years ago

darkfutura.substack.com

Syonyk6• 3 years ago

The capability of "Deep fakes" or "AI generated actors" or whatever you want to call it continues at a rapid pace.

How long before we get back to some modern version of "key signing parties," in which you check how many layers of "Humans you reasonably trust to verify that other people are humans" are between you and some chunk of content?

drewcoo2• 3 years ago

How long before we get back to some modern version of "key signing parties," in which you check how many layers of "Humans you reasonably trust to verify that other people are humans" are between you and some chunk of content?

And crypto finds a real-world application!

flangola7• 3 years ago

Regular crypto(graphy) though, not cryptocurrency

0_____0• 3 years ago

One can imagine key signing parties falling out of favor once AGI become clever enough to recruit meatspace humans to do their precise bidding.

(I didn't make this up, Gibson did with Neuromancer in the 80s)

brucethemoose22• 3 years ago

Out of nowhere, random teenagers with computers generating anything they want from whoever they want, with perfect quality? And thats just the beginning?

Yeah, if you are a record company, this must feel like the Rapture.

ChatGTP8• 3 years ago

Or if you’re a musician who has a career?

Imo we’re fucking up pretty hard, it’s interesting technology but I don’t think people realise that we’re all going to be “the record labels” soon.

Imo it’s worse that most of the good works generated are based off peoples hard work. People used to complain when China would steal IP from the USA and sell it at a discounted price…this is going to make that look like a joke haha every single person on this forum will be effected too, don’t think you won’t be.

Just because we can do things doesn’t necessarily mean we should keep doing them, using massive datasets that people innocently uploaded to the internet then reproduce works that will make them poorer is kind of, shit ?

dralley• 3 years ago

I really don't want to contemplate the implications for crime or politics when we cannot trust even the most convincing evidence of wrongdoing. Innocent people can be smeared, guilty people can plausibly claim it was faked, and the inevitable result will be a world where truth is so obscured that people just believe whatever aligns with their preconceived notions. Which happens already, but it will get much worse.

And in the meantime, a generation of people who didn't grow up in that world will fall victim to forgeries of a quality they cannot conceive of.

beachy2• 3 years ago

Or if you’re a musician who has a career?

If you are a genuine new talent, the next Hendrix, then you'll have unique content to offer, and maybe things will be even brighter for you sa you stand out above a soup of algorthmic sameness.

But if you're a cookie cutter muso who mainly derives from other people's stuff then yeah, might be time to find a new gig (to make money at anyway).

humanizersequel• 3 years ago

Most professional musicians make a living doing live shows, which this doesn't really infringe on.

MagicMoonlight3• 3 years ago

People will always pay for live performances.

userbinator2• 3 years ago

Endless cheap entertainment for the masses is IMHO one of the best outcomes of AI; it's a field where minor mistakes are tolerable (or even add to the entertainment value), as opposed to using AI for the more critical decisions of society. On the other hand, it may also make real human interaction far more valuable.

cageface2• 3 years ago

In a world where you have all the musical masterpieces of history available to you with one tap why would you waste time listening to algorithmically generated mediocrity?

imgabe• 3 years ago

Sometimes you just want infinitely variable background noise while you're focusing on something else.

valine2• 3 years ago

Your favorite song loses its ability to trigger your dopamine when you listen to it 100 times in a row. Being able to generate unlimited music in the style of your favorite song sounds amazing.

Wowfunhappy• 3 years ago

In theory, I could imagine an AI which learns the exact type of music you like and generates songs precisely tuned for your brain.

If the result is too same-y and you get bored of it, no problem, just hit the big red button. The AI also knows how to make a new song which is just different enough to excite you again, but still familiar enough to grab you in all the right ways.

welshwelsh• 3 years ago

Why do you assume the content will be mediocre?

What if AI consumes the masterpieces of history, and then generates something even better, like how chess AI surpassed human chess masters?

pjc502• 3 years ago

In a world where you can have algorithmically generated personally targeted stuff fed to you, why would you bother with the past? Why not instead live in an eternal ephemeral present?

(same idea as https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35632879 )

Infinitesimus• 3 years ago

Ha, there is no music that eveyrone agrees is a masterpiece already. People will what their ears like regardless of someone's opinion of the "quality".

AI increasing the music in the world and lowering the bar to creation will mean it can both generate music specific to a few people's tastes and guaranteed top 100 hits in some regions. Much like many human artists can do today.

nextworddev2• 3 years ago

Not sure if it's a good thing in the sense that it will lead us straight into the Matrix and trap us in it

crabkin4• 3 years ago

we've been in the matrix since at least the time of the ancient Egyptians/Mesopotamia

beachy2• 3 years ago

Agreed, AI will indeed shine in situations where mistakes are tolerable and entertainment is a huge area like this.

For example, currently playing a golf simulator is a little like the movie 28 days later. The simulation is amazing, but the vibe is an empty barren world. AI could generate crowd chatter and interaction, just as if one was playing in front of a real crowd of opiniated, semi-informed and possible semi-drunk patrons.

fijiaarone4• 3 years ago

Happy Gilmore AI?

p1necone• 3 years ago

One think I'd love to be able to do is revive dead MMOs locally. Imagine running a server for Ultima Online or Everquest or something locally, and having a bunch of AI players that act like humans, can group up for group content, make their own guilds etc.

You can rope friends in too, but it would be amazing to only need a couple of friends to play with but still feel like the whole world was populated.

edrxty• 3 years ago

I really miss the golden age of MMOs, this would be truly amazing.

What would be used as the training set though? All that player input is long gone.

astrange4• 3 years ago

What happens if you power the NPCs with Bing Sydney and it gives them all depression?

thewizardofaus• 3 years ago

This concept does already exist to a certain degree. Single Player Project (SPP) for World of Warcraft is one example.

m4632• 3 years ago

Endless cheap entertainment for the masses

I wonder if article titles will never again be factual or even correlate with the article text

InCityDreams• 3 years ago

On the other hand, it may also make real human interaction far more valuable.

Not at Ticketmaster prices.

Gigachad2• 3 years ago

Imagine playing the Skyrim equivalent in 10 years and the tavern music guy makes up a new song on the spot based on your gameplay or interactions.

Future if entertainment is going to be wild.

em-bee2• 3 years ago

related, i am looking forward to improvements in procedurally generated worlds

52-6F-622• 3 years ago

“Endless cheap entertainment”…

How depressing that’s sounds. Kind of like cheap cattle feed or something.

Are you only here to be entertained?

I’d like to contribute that music is not just entertainment. One of the best, and accessible, books on the subject was recently The Philosophy of Modern Song by Bob Dylan.

What ever happened to automating the boring things? Instead we’re hearing thousands of software developers celebrating what they perceive as the end of art (it’s not, sorry, just mass noise being injected into human communication). If only it was done with a little more discourse and less blind superiority then we might have something to talk about. This is the saddest trend in some time.

Let’s go back to automating our taxes. Leave playing and writing music for all the time we create for ourselves instead.

That was once the promise.

HDThoreaun2• 3 years ago

Are you only here to be entertained?

Personally, yes. I'm counting down the days until we have the movie from Infinite Jest.

somedude895• 3 years ago

How depressing that’s sounds. Kind of like cheap cattle feed or something. Are you only here to be entertained?

GP said "for the masses."

Popular media is just that: Cattle feed. It doesn't really matter if the next Marvel movie or the next Drake song is AI generated as long as it has its intended effect.

harshreality3• 3 years ago

How is the song a violation of copyright?

Someone's vocal characteristics are not meaningfully creative; it's the intellectual content of a work and specific instance of a performance of an artist's skill in singing or writing or drawing or fabricating that content, that makes the result copyrightable. Therefore, it seems like it's a stretch to think voice-mimicking AI works might be copyrightable by the mimicked artists.

You can't sue someone for mimicking someone else's voice well enough to be confused for the mimicked creator's voice. Some people can do some voices quite well. AI can just do it better, faster.

I hope the courts put a swift end to this, but maybe they'll try to uphold the status quo—entertainment megacorps get what they want—and only reverse course after a few years when it becomes clear that everyone's mimicking everyone else's voices and pictures for fun and profit and any attempt to maintain copyright or any other IP protection on such mimicry is absurd.

RyanShook• 3 years ago

The core issue is the content these models get trained on. If you train your model on copyrighted work are you guilty of copyright infringement when the output is used commercially? We are going to see a lot of these cases over the next few years.

alecfreudenberg• 3 years ago

does Bill Hader spending countless hours watching celebrity scenes to work on his impressions count as training on copyrighted material

interestica• 3 years ago

Musicians train on copyrighted content and then play music that is similar to that originating content. ...And that's what a musical genre is.

astrange4• 3 years ago

"Using" copyrighted material is not a copyright violation, "copying" it is. So the question is if "training" is copying, but it doesn't really seem like it is.

asdfman1234• 3 years ago

We’d better go after all the people who read a lot of Vonnegut or listened to a lot of The Beatles and tried to imitate them too, then.

grumbel2• 3 years ago

I think that depends on intend. If you train the model specifically to clone an artists artstyle or characters, maybe even use their name for marketing (in the style of <famous artist>), than that might be a copyright violation and/or trademark violation.

On the other side if you just dump tons of artist into a model to teach it how to draw, it'll be a much harder argument to make when the result doesn't really look like any artist in particular.

However a big problem with current models is that their vocabulary is still quite limited, so the only way to get some interesting art style with just a text prompt is to have a "by <artist name>" in the prompt. That's rather fishy. Meanwhile if you custom train a model, the amount of images you put into it will be drastically lower and more focused than what went into into initial training, so that's a bit fishy too.

Long term I expect art models to filter trademark terms and just get better language understanding or other means of input (e.g. sketches in ControlNet), so that the model ends up being unable to reproduce something close to an existing work out of the box. It wouldn't stop the user from using that model to perform some copyright violation, but it would require intend and effort on the users part.

bjt2n3904• 3 years ago

How is the song a violation of copyright?

Few people are arguing this is an issue of copyright infringement. It's a very weak argument.

You can't sue someone for mimicking someone else's voice well enough

This isn't "mimicking". You can sue someone for impersonating you, especially if money is involved.

bdowling4• 3 years ago

It might not violate copyright, but it may violate a "right of publicity" for imitating the voice of someone else. See e.g., Midler v. Ford Motor Co., 849 F.2d 460 (9th Cir. 1988), in which Bette Midler sued Ford Motor Company for commercials in which Ford used a sound-alike singer to copy Midler's voice.

harshreality3• 3 years ago

If that's what they're going for, it might have helped if they'd consulted more competent lawyers and issued a more accurate statement, rather than saying that the AI song represents "a violation of copyright law" (image-quoted in the article).

Taking a brief look at that case, the way AI is being used is distinguished from that case in an important respect. Hedwig, a backup singer for Midler, mimicked a specific song that Midler had made, after Ford couldn't get Midler to perform it for their ad. It seems reasonable that doing that, for profit and for broadcast, would violate Midler's right of publicity, and maybe even the performance copyright on the existing song.

toddmorey2• 3 years ago

Ok maybe it’s not a violation of copyright by current standards, but should laws be reconsidered?

What if I use AI to make and sell web dev educational content using the voice & likeness of Evan You, for example? Where are the lines?

Isn’t this in some way bootleg merchandise? As identity becomes radically easier to duplicate, should laws adapt? While impressive & novel, I think AI mimicry is its least useful (and likely most dangerous) feature.

astrange4• 3 years ago

That's not a copyright issue, but it may be a publicity rights issue.

MagicMoonlight3• 3 years ago

That’s more like a trademark issue. If you call it taylor swift when it isn’t taylor swift then that’s fraud. If it sounds like taylor swift but you don’t brand it as taylor swift then it’s not really anything.

m4632• 3 years ago

There's always the precedent that AI generated work is cannot be copyrighted.

userbinator2• 3 years ago

Parody is also explicitly allowed as fair use, and mimicking is very much part of that.

ShadowBanThis014• 3 years ago

That's a specific use. Not all mimicking is parody.

ShadowBanThis014• 3 years ago

"You can't sue someone for mimicking someone else's voice well enough to be confused for the mimicked creator's voice."

Absolutely not true. It's called "appropriation of likeness." If the representation is reasonably likely to be confused with or linked to the famous person, that person can sue.

One case I found funny was that of a porta-potty company called Here's Johnny. Johnny Carson successful sued them: https://www.lexisnexis.com/community/casebrief/p/casebrief-c...

harshreality3• 3 years ago

That's for [commercial] use of a specific slogan related to his name. Even without using a name, mimicking short phrases like, "Let's get ready to rumble!" or Bruce Buffer's "It's Time!" can run into intellectual property problems. But those are specific, highly-recognizable catch phrases, not similar to the issue with this AI-generated song.

Someone else in this thread tried to provide a case on point, but it doesn't seem to be, either.

Has anyone been successfully sued for mimicking someone else's voice and singing an original song?

Has anyone been successfully sued for mimicking someone else's appearance, and parading around and taking advantage of that likeness, without falsely claiming (in seriousness) to be the mimicked person (which might be fraud or something)?

theGnuMe• 3 years ago

So what about all these Beatles tribute bands man ...

barrysteve• 3 years ago

You can sue someone for using their likeness without permission.

I'm not legally qualified to speak on the topic.

Conceptually someone's unequivocal identifier is part of their likeness. Maybe Drake's vocal cords and characteristics unequivocally and measurably differ from everyone else's.

I wouldn't want to live some where my face, name, image and (maybe?) my trained voice can be ripped off 24/7 by a typist with AI generative tools, even if the result was economic benefit to me.

If I can use Tom Hanks' voice for the cost of a ChatGPT prompt, in my next powerpoint presentation about the dangers of AI... why wouldn't I?

prepend7• 3 years ago

I think that it’s knee jerk for now but the mistake is that there was confusion and promotion that Drake and Weeknd provided vocals.

But I expect we’ll see some new law, or lots of “Drake-style vocals” in song labels.

Cover bands exist and can even sing new songs while sounding like the original. So Journey hiring someone who sounds exactly like Steve Perry seems perfectly legal. So Journal training an AI on Steve Perry and having a robot sing exactly like him seems find as long as there’s no presentation as if it is Steve Perry singing or endorsing or using his celebrity likeness.

lancesells• 3 years ago

I think there's a very big difference here in that you're equating a person singing like Steve Perry (one in millions) and a machine singing like Steve Perry (electricity required).

These are very different things.

winternett2• 3 years ago

You can't sue someone for mimicking someone else's voice well enough to be confused for the mimicked creator's voice.

You can sue someone for Financial/ID theft and impersonation though. Many shady artists were (and still are) using celebrity names in their track titles to get attention for their music releases prior to this. The problem is services like Spotify and YouTube (content search) primarily working based on keywords, and also in those same types of music services only being geared towards major industry artists rather than giving everyone an even playing field to have their music heard... It encourages scam and spam environments, as well as impersonation by artists accounts for the tiny profit they pay.

By posting music with the "emulated" voice in it (which is actually tiny samples of the artist's actual voice), the Ai tools allow and encourage people to create songs and title them as if they were made by the actual artist. In the emulator, they list the authentic artist's name as an option, which technically highlights that they are complicit in facilitating production of music that impersonates the named artist.

Imagine if you're an emerging artist and beginning to gain traction in your career, then all of a sudden, because of an Ai web site, hundreds of people start flooding streaming services with low quality, parody, and even good music using your name, while also collecting royalties off of it... That can ruin a musician's brand and cause damage to the artist's reputation that they can't recover from. There are legal protections against that, even without copyrights, but it can often involve a lengthy court battle.

I'm a musician myself, I am not a lawyer, I do my best to stay out of court.

It's better for everyone if everyone simply puts out their own original music, or properly credited samples and/or remixes with artist consent and permission.

soulofmischief2• 3 years ago

This wasn't illegal already if you were a good impersonator provided you're not making money from someone's image and likeness. There's no difference here. I'm not saying there won't be lawsuits but they'll be in bad faith.

tediousdemise• 3 years ago

I wonder if indicating likeness would be legally safe, i.e., “Song name - Artist [Drake-like/Drake-style]”

352086542• 3 years ago

You can't sue someone for mimicking someone else's voice well enough to be confused for the mimicked creator's voice. Some people can do some voices quite well.

Oh you most certainly can. In fact, you can sue someone for sounding too much like himself. Just ask John Fogerty.

nostrademons2• 3 years ago

You can sue anyone for anything, you just can't necessarily win. The court found in favor of Fogerty.

sprkwd• 3 years ago

You can't sue someone for mimicking someone else's voice well enough to be confused for the mimicked creator's voice.

Tom Waits might disagree: https://www.campaignlive.co.uk/article/singer-tom-waits-sues...

ajb• 3 years ago

"Someone's vocal characteristics are not meaningfully creative"

This is absolutely not true. You might think when you hear someone singing that it's just their natural voice, but in fact they have trained their voice over years or decades to produce that particular sound.

The human vocal system is extremely more flexible than people think. Most people produce a particular sound out of pure habit and imagine that they can't produce any other. The most identifiable singers have invented a new sound (and then immediately get a bunch of copycats who don't do it as well)

musicale• 3 years ago

The most identifiable singers have invented a new sound (and then immediately get a bunch of copycats who don't do it as well)

The Weeknd does a pretty credible Michael Jackson-style vocal, and has noted that Jackson's Off the Wall was the album that inspired him to start singing.

Bruno Mars is famous for doing impressions of other singers as well as songs in various musical styles.

(He even had a singalong (sting-along?) with the actual Sting at the 2013 Grammy awards.)

numair• 3 years ago

It’s important to remember that the music business is one of the first places where corporations used technology to replace human workers.

Back in my day (not really) you could get a job as a live musician, performing at restaurants, cafes, and and lots of other places. Then, suddenly, people started to install record machines and buy music from record companies! So, you know, AI-generated music is just a progression of a centuries-old trend.

Quite ironically, this might be the disaster that causes the labels to license their libraries on more flexible terms to a larger variety of players, thus liberating the world from the current streaming service oligopoly.

terribleperson• 3 years ago

Don't forget the funny brief transitional stage where a musician or band would play for multiple recording devices multiple times to create consumable masters with very limited lifetimes.

amatecha• 3 years ago

Not exactly related to the content of the article, but rather the technology that displays it to me: the year is 2023, and the font face "popped in" a full second after the unstyled text was showing. If you can't use a custom font on your web page in an elegant, high-quality way, just use default system fonts.

toddmorey2• 3 years ago

But it’s actually not a great song.

It IS very impressive for the technical accomplishment of just how much it sounds like Drake & The Weekend.

I think 15 million people have listened to it for that reason—to marvel at the likeness of artists they know like a digital audio wax museum.

I think it will be important for artists to be able to copyright their appearance & sound; their visual & auditory identities.

JumpCrisscross2• 3 years ago

it’s actually not a great song

It is now. That the labels reacted like so. They’ve shown it’s great, or the king has no clothes.

asdfman1234• 3 years ago

It still doesn’t make it a great song. It’s plinky and repetitive.

The technology is extraordinary, and there’s the possibility that it keeps going well past human ability.

And the hype is there.

But that doesn’t make it a good song by human musician standards.

HDThoreaun2• 3 years ago

Most drake songs are repetitive and largely average. He's definitely got some with standout production, but don't kid yourself that he's some artistic virtuoso. The song became popular because it actually is a reasonably good imitation of early era Drake.

1attice5• 3 years ago

Right ok so now we come to the crux of it.

With song copyright, for example, the gold standard has been 'is the melody the same'.

How do you define a voice specifically enough to copyright?

What if some dude just happens to sound like Drake, because he won the punnet square of larynxes? Is his work now a copyright violation?

What if he sounds like Drake when he puts on the Drake filter? Did the Drake filter violate copyright? Does his voice violate copyright only when filtered?

The people deciding these questions are not philosophers of sound. They're lawyers and industry hacks. It's going to get messy.

fijiaarone4• 3 years ago

Have you heard any hit single in the last 20+ years? AI couldn’t possibly come up with anything worse that every single one of them.

bottom999mottob• 3 years ago

Well back in my day prog rock and and jazz were all we had! My god, kids should be listening to fugues played on organs and Gregorian chants... Kids these days just don't know music gosh darnit

anonzzzies• 3 years ago

Won’t everyone at home in a few years not have this capability? Train on my fav music and make more. Doesn’t seem preventable anymore longer term.

MagicMoonlight3• 3 years ago

That’s why they’re trying so hard to limit access. If you can run the model yourself, you can do anything.

baerrie4• 3 years ago

Copyright shouldn’t exist by the simple fact that no creative work is made in a vacuum. Every song is derivative of its influences and only the big companies have the ability to enforce copyright, making it more of a tool of wealth consolidation rather than justice.

gumballindie7• 3 years ago

If we lose our jobs to ai built by large entities using our content for free that’s going to solve wealth consolidation issues how? By making sure we are all equally poor?

baerrie4• 3 years ago

There will always be an aspect of our culture ai cannot take away, that we are human. The invention of the radio spelled doom for the local musician but here we are a century later with live music still happening. The fact that musicians and record companies are such big business to me has done more damage to music than ai ever will

hammyhavoc3• 3 years ago

No, it isn't. If you genuinely believe this then you live under a rock and are unaware of microtonality, creating your own scales et al.

Most existing music is 4/4 too for starters because it is club-oriented, tons of other underexplored time signatures. If what you said was true then scores for picture and games wouldn't be so innovative.

I had a few late friends who pioneered never-before-seen technologies, for which the tools created whole new genres.

People said the same shit decades ago. Smacks of naivety.

baerrie4• 3 years ago

Im not saying new stuff can’t happen, it’s just that the new stuff has been built on the shoulders of giants and to then take sole ownership and right to that new stuff just because you have the resources to defend your claim is tyrannical.

tailspin2019• 3 years ago

I’ve just been searching for info on how much of this song is actually “AI generated”. The initial news reports I read described only “AI generated vocals” (ie. effectively musical TTS with accurate AI modelled voices).

But the phrase “AI generated song” implies more than just the voices.

Anyone have a non-clickbait source which provides more details?

BossingAround• 3 years ago

If you're curious, I believe this is the song: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tNExdztAtWU

ProllyInfamous3• 3 years ago

[heroes in the comments]

edit: wow, if your link (i.e. the song) was AI-derived (and thus not-copyrightable) then I am gd speechless. Smooth background, great vocals — lyrics too, of course — but wowsers, my tenant was just realizing that "the AI shit you been talking non-stop about is actually real: DRAKE is upset, shit is crazy!"

So, that and this and these are interesting datapoints upon insanity.timeline.

em-bee2• 3 years ago

aren't there already completely fictional pop-stars whose songs make a profit. (in japan i believe)

using AI to generate such hits is only the next step. cheap to produce and the rest is marketing

JenrHywy• 3 years ago

I'm feeling quite ambivalent about where AI art is going. This passage from 1984 always stuck with me:

“The tune had been haunting London for weeks past. It was one of countless similar songs published for the benefit of the proles by a sub-section of the Music Department. The words of these songs were composed without any human intervention whatever on an instrument known as a versificator. But the woman sang so tunefully as to turn the dreadful rubbish into an almost pleasant sound.”

On the other hand, people like Rob Sheridan are doing amazing things with AI art, and I've played with and enjoyed it myself as just another creative tool.

I suppose it depends what you think music, or art is general, is for.

solarmist• 3 years ago

It can be more than one thing.

I appreciate pop music and more artistic things.

nazka• 3 years ago

If you had an AI generated Netflix let’s say after 5 years of this you will start to see how it is dull and you will see the boundaries of it. Kind of like how Metflix sounds Netflix or TEDx sounds TEDx.

Then I guess handmade or half handmade will be back in trend. The problem is after all this time AI was trending it was eating up talents and industries and after that a massive part of artists will be gone and the (human) industry shrunk. No more huge human made artistic ecosystem… Less worldwide talents. Less high quality and innovative ideas.

abraxas• 3 years ago

It says more about popular music than it does about AI that it's so easily replicated by a computer program.

ProllyInfamous3• 3 years ago

...easy there, cowboy.

If you replace "Popular Music" with "Anything Else" (e.g. software engineering, standardized examination) you might see the silliness of your statement.

13years• 3 years ago

UMG actions will likely result in exactly the opposite effect of their intention.

Everyone is tired of the gated walls of the music industry and this will only result in a rally behind AI even if AI itself becomes problematic in the end.

"Where is the value in AI creativity? Does it actually create anything? What can be said of artistic works in which the creation was essentially a series of playing at the lottery of the machine until something fantastic emerges? Spinning the wheel of chance and instead of red, black or some number, it is a series of lexical phrases with which we hope to catch the spinning ball on the Roulette and award us a work of art." - https://dakara.substack.com/p/ai-and-the-end-to-all-things

pvaldes• 3 years ago

To be honest, the bar to became a hit was very low. The same cowbell pattern with minor changes appears in most hits since a decade.

The last videos of Alison Goldfrapp using AI are interesting at least, putting strange textures where they aren't expected.

Record labels panic as A.I. generated song becomes ‘hit single’

Related Stories