• TalkBass has been independent since 1998. Add your voice.
    Create a free account to reply to discussions, view embedded media, and browse with fewer display ads.
    Join free Log in
    Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.

AI in music

#81
majo57 said:
Two years ago, I had the idea to create pieces based on number sequences, such as pi, the Fibonacci sequence, prime numbers, and so on.

So I created harmonies, rhythms, and melodies based on these numbers. I built the harmony of each series according to the numbers for the choice of intervals and the movement of the fundamentals for pi 3.14116 etc gave me the intervals of the chords c 6 11 for example the same for the fundamentals, I did that for the prime numbers the fibonacci sequence 123581321, the octatonic scale 1/2 tone 1 tone and a sequence on the serial system, I did the same for the melodies, I obviously chose the chords and melodies that I liked while trying to respect the constraints as best as possible, then the rhythm, fibonacci I put it in 13/16 for example, I respected the constraints less on the rhythm and the measures to keep the coherence from my point of view, I used on first number superpositions of sequences with arpeggios, on pi an extremely slow rhythm inspired by Adam neely that I like a lot, on octa 1, a rhythm a little funk Slow at the beginning, which overlaps with increasingly faster cuts, a version that also remained in the final piece, Serial Universe was a slap funk piece.

Once that was done, I found myself with different pieces and at the same time very cyclical, which is normal.


After doing and redoing, I was a little stuck.

I had the opportunity to experiment with a musical AI by Udio and the potential was interesting. It seemed logical to me to use it in the concept of numbers. Since this AI allows you to analyze an excerpt of a piece and suggest variations, I gave it a try. It was quite complex to find the right sources that I liked. In particular, I have never made sung pieces, I was amazed by the suggestions for vocals, brass, and drums for octa2, for example. The problem was that the pieces took a completely different direction; I had to rearrange some to integrate the AI parts. The most altered is Fibonacci compared to the original. It's in two parts instead of the original five. For editing constraints, the pieces had to be less than 10 minutes long. Each piece always retains a part of the original cycle. The least altered is First Number, which just has an extra bridge in the middle.

Serial Universe is the only one without AI and without bass, yet it's my favorite, inspired by Ravel, the one for which I had to take classical arrangement lessons.

Also, using the Spitfire Audio sound, known for its use in film music, gave the whole thing a final touch.

Perhaps too much cello.

Finally, Octa2 is a derivative of a solution for Octa1, from which I kept almost all of the AI's suggestion.

I liked that big band-like sound.

Here are four tracks with the Kensmith HF and one on the fretless with a subsynth.

There you have it, you know everything.

Thanks Google, too long for my english
Click to expand...
Thanks a lot for your explanations. This labo work, like an exploration is inspiring. I'll re-listen all tracks with your details in mind. And you still sound so good on bass !
 
#83
Maybe.
 

Attachments

  • IMG_1967.jpeg
    IMG_1967.jpeg
    252.5 KB · Views: 11
  • Like
Reactions: Polfuste
#84
Funkyswitches said:
I guess I'm just a romantic. Art is a passion, not a revenue stream. I think it's wonderful to make a living as an artist, but to exploit art for profit is an entirely different intention. A proper "music career", along with the matriculated courses and degrees are as well, an industry. And to the scale of a consumer based industry, whole unrealistic. If music is just a revenue stream, and if one structures the life aound making a living from music, they are less of a musican and more of a business- they are subject to the market, and themselves a consumable. Music for profit is about money, not inspiration.

Where does that leave music? Exactly where it is today. It costs much more for a venue to have live music than it does to play the recorded product. Composer or not, if we think discouraging live music is good for the music industry, then we must accept that musicians are becoming obsolete, and composers soon to follow.

How many unreleased compositions does Sony own?
Click to expand...
100% agree that art/music is a passion. I never got into music to make money - it was a happy bonus. It's why I've pursued original music for the entirety of my career thus far, in my own groups and in others. I have a book of almost 50 original tunes going back 25 years and have recorded a bunch of original albums with various groups. I'm sure I've never recouped the expense and time out of making them, but my focus is creating and documenting my/our work first and foremost. I've played and learned from a lot of great people freelance and otherwise in my short career so far. That said, I/we have been lucky to make enough money to make it worth my and my bandmates's time to be out gigging and performing in places where money is exchanged, and where someone's making a profit somewhere along the line in conjunction with our efforts. Plumbers and electricians don't work for free, or for the passion of it - though I think truly enjoying most aspects of any profession/vocation are necessary.

Bottom line: if I'm performing for someone in their place of business, I'm demanding getting paid a fair rate to do it, and I'm registering my compositions and setlists with BMI to get performance royalties on my own tunes. Wanting to get paid fairly when performing isn't exploiting art for profit, especially when it's your own work. There is a difference between fair compensation and exploitation of something for pure profit. I think it's important to note that distinction, because it's usually used as an either/or pick to say 'if you play music for money in any form, you're not doing it for the passion of it.' Wholly false, and with many shades of gray. I've donated my time as a musician many times, or played for tips. It all depends on the circumstances. I'm not donating my time to a hotel or restaurant though, unless there's a good reason. I'm also charging a fair ticket price to cover expenses and my bandmates' time and dedication when we do ticketed concerts we put on ourselves.

I also think it's important to not lean so hard on 'music schools' with courses and degrees as a sole point of blame. I do think they make promises to kids coming through those programs now that will never be kept - and it is nearly impossible to make a living at music the way it used to be, especially as advertised in music schools. But the things that decimated recorded and live performance revenue streams aren't their fault. Those have been well-discussed elsewhere on this thread.

That said, it's an unpopular opinion, but I see purpose-built cover and tribute bands as an example of exploiting music/art for pure profit, off the backs of other peoples' creativity. It's a musical day job. BUT - I don't begrudge people if they want to do it. There are plenty of jobs in the world others want that I don't. It's what makes the world go round.

I haven't made a living performing music now for over a decade. I gig maybe a dozen times a year at most now. But when I do, I make sure I negotiate for the best pay possible, or I stay home. Why? Not so much for me. I have a day gig now in a music-adjacent field that more than pays my bills, and I'm grateful for it. I ask to get paid more than fairly so it keeps the tide high for others, especially for those who still ARE trying to gig for a living.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Funkyswitches
#85
I suppose the irony is, in a world with almost 100% more population than the 1970s, we debate AI in music. With this many people, why is music in decline? Isn't there some kind of scientific ratio of musican to ears; more ears/people, more need/opportunities for music?

.........Nope.

So it must be the people.

After all, they're the ones who listen to music....They're the ones who will listen to AI music. Christ, they've already been dancing alone for 2 decades, might as well get rid of all the human interaction...
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Jeff Scott and jerry
#87
Funkyswitches said:
I suppose the irony is, in a world with almost 100% more population than the 1970s, we debate AI in music. With this many people, why is music in decline? Isn't there some kind of scientific ratio of musican to ears; more ears/people, more need/opportunities for music?

.........Nope.

So it must be the people.

After all, they're the ones who listen to music....They're the ones who will listen to AI music. Christ, they've already been dancing alone for 2 decades, might as well get rid of all the human interaction...
Click to expand...
Simple: by the past the music was one of main distraction out of limited TV programs. As soon as internet has raised vidéo (Social médias kind of) to the top of distraction and with immédiate free access and absolutely no time limit, music can no do anything else than decline.
 
#88
Yeah, it's just a matter of competition. Music has stayed pretty static in terms of entertainment value, while things like televised sports, TV in general, and the Internet, have seen massive development. I remember what football broadcasts were like in the 1970s, compared to today.

Those things were all supported by advertising too. Perhaps the biggest over-arching trend has been the exponential growth of advertising.
 
#89
Polfuste said:
Simple: by the past the music was one of main distraction out of limited TV programs. As soon as internet has raised vidéo (Social médias kind of) to the top of distraction and with immédiate free access and absolutely no time limit, music can no do anything else than decline.
Click to expand...
Music; a distraction? I'm not sure I understand what you mean?

A study of human culture throughout history would help show music is a central part of cultural identity. This is the reason a global music industry is possible in the first place. This decline of "human" music is a consequence of social decline. You are right to identify tv and internet as distractions and i would go futlrther to cite them as "agents" in this decline and the departure from our human cultural identity. Music is a entirely different thing for TV and other such things- it lifts people, it doesn't suppress them or confuse them.

Let's look at brain activity. When watching video, the human brain is subdued; low activity. When playing or listening to music brain activity is stimulated; more activity.

We have replacedcommunity with social media, so its only "natural"(?) as a consequence the many forms of individual and cultural expression are being/ have been replaced with similar inactive and inhuman forms of self indulgent "entertainment".

Lets look at application. In a social context, historically, music was a centerpiece of community, people used to dance (together) and celebrate when live musc was played, or express forms of spiritual communion or rites. The Christian church understood its power as well and music and visual art was used to captivate the masses. Music moves us as deep as our emotions stir.

I would agree, as a result of TV and internet many lack the mental capacity due to the invasive, relentless, ever increasing bombardment of social media over tha past 40 years. But music/art is not part of that in any way, shape, or form, it's just a tool used to captivate.

Television and internet effectivly isolate , divide and stunt our social emotional development. Looking at thebyoth generalizations over the last few decaudes shiws not just the typical generational diivides, but a stead decline in emotional and mental health. This trend became more pronocuned at the beginning of the 2000s.

Socializing is a physical and emotional engagement in a shared space with people and is much more than merely conversation. It's ackward, uncertian, as well and among the most meaningful and crital aspects of the human experience which promote both individual menta health and community strength and resilience.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Polfuste, FRoss6788 and jerry
#90
You're completely right and i didn't use right words: i wanted to say that social media has taken a lot of time that people would have to practice and/or sometimes just listening music with interest and attention. I don't want to minor music role in society.
 
#93
Just been chatting with xAI, the one associated with X Corp. Definitely feels like you're talking to a person. The responses can get overly complex and too much detail, especially if you're discussing science stuff. I uploaded a picture and it described it exactly as a person would. And probably most impressive, it could understand abstract thought and ideas. Incredible to say the least.
 
Last edited:
#95
Swamp_Ronin said:
“Awesome album art?”

Ai “art” is based on theft, unethical scraping, copyright infringement and is often as cheesy as it is horrible. It won’t age well. It blows my mind how thoughtless musicians can be regarding their creative counterparts in the visual arts. All of this technology is about divorcing writers, musicians, and artists from their handiwork and funneling the money to Silicon Valley vampires.

This isn’t an attack on you, but I wish people would wake up a bit about what this stuff means. It’s a huge net bad for the well being of mankind.

There are a lot of things that are “here to stay” that are still wrong.
Click to expand...
Not to mention it causes environmental damage when used.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Swamp_Ronin

Latest posts

Top Bottom
Back