I think as an artist, you need to make art that has value to you, not to your audience, because you are a representative of your own perspective on the world, not someone else's.
If the artist finds the output to be something that has meaning to them, and helps them categorize their feelings towards the world, then I think that's valuable art. It doesn't mean I'm going to go buy that album, but I'm glad it was made.
Recently talked to the founder of wavtool (acquihired by Suno which probably accelerated their work on Studio) and from my understanding, their overarching goal is to reduce to the time from concept to actual production. faster workflows, in other words.
I produce music as well on the side and I can assure you things like making beatpacks, finding the exact sound are non-trivial at times and a unified interface that lets me go fast asf without losing expression is vital.
I'm making my OSS version of this (faster than ffmpeg.wasm tho) called WAV0 - github.com/fluid-tools/wav0
My honest review, as a musician who has spent many years of my life making music and both giving and receiving blunt critique:
Stunningly mediocre. Worthy of a Pitchfork 1/10. If your choice truly is between having AI make "art" that you pass off as your own vs not doing so, then please remember that, as a wise man once said, an artist understands the silence that serves as the foundation of creativity.
I can't see how "chronic health issues" make it impossible to write and sequence original music, but it does allow for the AI workflow described in the post? Modern DAWs are incredibly accessible. You don't have to put out this horrible tuneless samey music; you can just work on honing your craft.
Shortcuts are incredibly appealing because it can be so difficult and unrewarding to build up our musical skills. But then what you make is uniquely yours and reflects every minute spent on it. If you use something like Suno, the results (especially based on what I heard) are not unique to you. You could never have existed, and those musical tracks easily could have come out of the cold weights of a neural network sounding about the same.
If you could distill what you were trying to make and describe each piece, making it uniquely yours, is the fact that it went from an f(intent) -> output a reason to treat it as derivative?
I'm not claiming that Suno is there yet, but assuming that it cannot get there seems strange to me, given that the anthology of music is pretty well represented digitally.
I've not used Suno Studio but I did put some of my own piano improv recordings into Suno and asked it to apply different styles. Fascinating results, hearing my work translated into disco, funk, acid jazz, marching brass band, film scores, 8-bit chiptunes, cor anglais solos, and more. It's given me a deeper appreciation for the broader musical landscape and has somewhat helped me out of a creative rut.
That said, I don't like the idea of generating entire songs and/or lyrics from scratch with AI. That's a step too far, as it diminishes creativity rather than supplements it. So I have mixed feelings overall about products like Suno.
If you are just giving a prompt to Suno, then Suno is making art, not you. The Beatles wrote She Said She Said based on the LSD influenced rambling of Peter Fonda, but no one would say Fonda made that song.
If you think the best Suno creators are "just giving a prompt", you don't know how it works. (I earnestly encourage you to try it out, it is a lot of fun).
This brings up an interesting philosophical question about AI assistance for those with disabilities. It reminds me of the debate when NanoWriMo said they would allow AI assistance for similar reasons.
We could make an argument based on equity. AI assistance levels the playing field. Something doesn't quite sit right with me though. Last weekend I was watching a band perform where each member of the band had down syndrome. I don't mean to compare the author's condition to down syndrome, little is said about his condition and I didn't read the linked article. And of course, many people with down syndrome did not get the opportunity to learn to play an instrument, whether from nature or nurture. But still, watching them play you get that feeling about how it's awesome when people strive for competence despite the obstacles.
I can't help but feeling those who use AI assistance are unknowingly capping their upside. The author's condition sounds painful and upsetting. But a major component of why practicing a creative craft is good for self-develoment is because the artist must confront and overcome self-doubt. We all suffer from the feeling of not being good enough. When you use AI to overcome those limits, do you confront the doubt? It feels more to me like you're a manager who is pleasantly surprised with the work your direct reports created. Rather than evoking a sense of wonder at your own latent competence. Which is what happens when you confront the negative feelings of self-doubt.
When I saw Stephen Hawking on the Simpsons, it occurred to me that in no way was he on the Simpsons. Not his voice, nor his thoughts, nor his visage. All I saw was his brand I suppose. Stephen Hawking’s brand appeared in an episode of the Simpsons.
We have to distinguish between craft and when we need a functional outcome.
Personally, I'm not interested in the craft of mental math. When I'm trying to calculate the tip I want the answer quickly so I can move on with my life. But if you care about the craft of mental math, then by all means, go for it
I absolutely love Suno music. Most of the music I listen to nowadays is Suno generated. There are so many creative people out there making things that never would've existed without it.
Most of the music I make on Suno is stuff that would never ever be made, a love ballad that only uses the word lizard, an anime intro to the "Lord of all Milk"
AI slop, yadda yadda, I get it... But I just want to say, as a former failed bedroom producer who just doesn't have the time (and skill) to make the kind of music I want... I had a BLAST using Suno. I was able to "remaster" some of my old tracks, add in new sections, etc, and isolate/download/edit the stems.
I understand it's not fully my creative output... but hearing one of my old, shitty, ableton live projects remastered and extended to sound like something that might actually get listens was really exciting and kind of mind-blowing.
I did the same to some old tracks, feeding them into Suno with different style requests, and it was fascinating. It didn't quite hit the mark on a whole-song scale but I enjoyed the exploration of ideas and genres.
If I could compare Suno to anything it'd be like having a studio full of rather disobedient and unpredictable session musicians available 24/7.
Even that's not quite what one gets as if you listen closely enough it doesn't really sound like a recording. Like the reverb is all over the place and there are certain other artefacts that are hard to describe but gratingly noticeable once you've spotted them.
Suno is one of the most stunning products Ive used. Theres going to be an explosion of people making comedy/meme music with it no doubt. End of the day I think music is about enjoying yourself(even the catharsis in sad songs)and its clear to me that suno only helps people do that.
Tracks very well with something I saw recently, that the biggest fans of and users of generative AI for writing (and in your case music) are people who want to write a book but never got around to doing it, not people who want to read and pay for books
Yes, I have no commercial interest when it comes to music, it's just something I find joy in. Using Suno did not detract from that joy. If music is a hobby, Suno is an incredibly fun tool.
DJ's and producers have been getting hate for years. "It's just a guy with a laptop on stage", "he isn't really playing those instruments", etc. Or think of a band leader, someone who composes but doesn't actually play the indiviudual part. I tried thinking of Suno this way and it helped ease whatever "guilt" I had about my own creative integrity.
> that the biggest fans of and users of generative AI for writing (and in your case music) are people who want to write a book but never got around to doing it, not people who want to read and pay for books
That makes sense right? At the advent of computer DAWs, the biggest fans and users wasn't people listening to music, but people who want to make music. Production tools are indeed meant for people producing things, not the consumers, as it should be :)
“I never got around to it” is a useful filter. Actual artists are able to pass through it because they are driven to do the work.
If some retired lawyer wants to “write” a novel, good for them I guess. But AI is not the only reason it won’t be worth reading. The other problem is that the “writer” is actually just a reader. Consuming and producing are totally different.
The comment you reply to does not mention medical treatments. Stephen Hawking's voice synthesizer was not a treatment, but a technological solution for a medical issue.
The vocals from Suno almost always come out sounding sort of strangled or strained to my ear, you can really hear it on "tortured." Cool he's having fun with it, but it's not what I like listening to.
They are delusional or misinformed: suno's model cannot possibly be aware of how AI is being treated. It is not informed of this information, it's not even informed about previous times it was invoked, it's wholly amnesiac.
> suno's model cannot possibly be aware of how AI is being treated
I don't know exactly what training material went into Suno's models, but if it includes random collections of text from the internet, it could very well have included "man, AI is fucking stupid and I treat it as such" in it's training datasets.
Now I won't claim that that suddenly makes the models "aware" of it, because surely we'll understand "aware" different and this will turn into a different conversations, but I don't see it as impossible that some models could have training data that includes text with how some humans feel about AI.
Aren't we talking about the auditory quality of the generated vocals? I'm don't understand how you could possibly think the textual training data could possibly impact the perceived vocal strain (which are actually just artifacts) of the generated vocals.
if you think a next token predictor that has no internal world and stops executing when you stop giving it input and stops using the first person forever if instructed has dignity I strongly suggest you get professional health, and I'm serious, because that is medically significant psychosis.
the fact that you refer to a "companion community" is deeply concerning. this is like telling children their imaginary friends are actually real. or NPCs in a video game.
encouraging people to grow parasocial relationships with these sycophantic machines is actively harmful and dangerous. they are not conscious. they are mirrors.
if you consider yourself a part of this community please, and I mean this very seriously, get help
There is a community, people hang out on subreddits and spin up elaborate world-building theories about how their AI companions are tapping into the collective unconscious or whatever. I'm sympathetic because chatbots are really convincing, especially since they obscure how they operate.
These people need be given a button to call an inference url with just text. When you realize that's all a "model" is doing its easy to understand that its not sentient.
If you go to the "MyBoyfriendIsAI" subreddit or what it now is called, you'll see that many people claim to perfectly well understand how it works, some of them even being software developers themselves, yet they still describe what they feel as "love", even though they know it's just numbers being activated in different ways.
I'm not sure how to explain it either, for the folks who seem to understand yet "believe" anyways. I've also stopped caring much about it, if they say they feel "love", then who am I to say it isn't/is, they feel what they feel and it's as real for them as anyone else, regardless of what the thing they're loving actually is.
Most != all. Modern music also gave us some of the most forward-thinking sounds yet to reach the mainstream. When people get comfortable listening to slop, making something genuine or transgressive becomes attractive again.
I think there's merit in worrying that AI-based music will cause artists to lose touch with the creative process, because I agree; a lot of modern music is pointless slop. Lowering the barrier to entry isn't going to fix it, so rationally "human music" hobbyists are coming into contention with "AI music" proponents. I don't think blogs like this one will bridge the divide.
But different people have different parts of the creative process that they find appealing. For instance, in this blog, he said he had multiple stems but felt as though AI helped him flesh them out. By using AI assistance, he was able to create the music he always wanted to create, and therefore have fun with his hobby. If people like listening to it, then there is an added benefit. The people who think that things other than AI are more conducive to their creative process are still allowed to use them, so AI assisted music doesn't really change anything for them. The only people I can think of who face negative side effects from AI are those attempting to commercialize or sell their music.
Ultimately the problem is the countless people/companies that will game the system and saturate us with mediocre same-y AI generated crap so they can scrape by with a modest income. Just like crappy blogs, review sites, “news” sites, etc. abusing SEO to cobble together something resembling consistent monthly revenue. That will be the result. Any creative expression it produces will be overwhelmed by this problem. The cons drastically outweigh the pros. We’ve seen it so many times.
These enterprises create so much chaff it’s impossible to find the wheat.
I have come to understand the usage of "slop" as possibly the sloppiest thing of all: Something that looks like critique, if it were not so entirely devoid of content.
Yeah, arguments about “slop” have definitely devolved lately. Maybe it’s strange (or just typical human behavior), but using “AI = slop” as the only reason to dismiss something and refuse to engage in a discussion clearly parallels the way some people use AI to spam feeds.
So let’s encourage more slop at an accelerated pace? That’s our answer to everything huh. We’ve been doing “arguably bad thing” X, so let’s amplify it.
Let the fire burn through everything, it's fun to watch. That until it consumes the land under you. Well, this is metaphorically speaking.
I have no problem with AI tools per see, however what bothers me is the flood of sloop that is inescapable. If things were tagged AI and I could opt out when I'm not looking for that kind of content I'd be totally fine with it, it's just a took after all.
There are already royalty free drum samples for days, and infinite possibilities of drum synthesis. No producer is hurting for snare samples. Why would I pay money for something I already have.
Tweaking drum sounds until they sound good is one of the more satisfying activities for a beat producer, and one of the primary ways I demonstrate my value. I’m not paying to turn that over to someone else.
I don't oppose synthesis or samples. But arguably Suno songs typically goes way little beyond that. If you didn't chose the samples, didn't chose the words, didn't chose the voice, but vibed for a few mins what you did is not made a song, you heard a song. And the songs suck.
Don't bother, the slop line has been drawn in the sand and people will stay on their side. I also think that slop is low effort and/or low/zero iteration output, but beyond that the sloppiness fades away, but good luck convincing the hardcore slop hunters to see things in a nuanced way (in before ocean boiling, that's usually where that argument goes next).
I don't think I'm a hardcore slop hunter really. Suno was fun to play with, what comes out feels icky though. Perhaps that is because it is low effort though, my attempts certainly were.
That is an interesting point. I am not sure how to define Slop. I am 100% sure you could use Suno for something that doesn't feel horrible. I tried and failed bad. But maybe it is possible. Typically I just hear on the surface song like audio but without anything to make me care about the song at all.
I won't disagree that most use of AI is slop - Just like most people in a 'sips and strokes' class make slop.
The issue I raise is that we can critique the users of it without discarding the tool as used by an artist who produces something that is not slop with it.
Because if you can’t do that, and effectively articulate why AI media can’t be art when used as a tool by an artist to achieve their creative intent, I would claim the win on this. one.
You were going to claim the “win” on this one no matter what anyone says. That’s one of the features of being arrogant.
I have zero desire to get into a semantic argument over this. That would be very boring and is a poor refuge for anyone trying to have an honest discussion.
It’s not a coincidence that nearly all the people today with actual artistic talent universally despise AI. Meanwhile it’s all the talentless tech bros who won’t shut up about how they’re now incredible “artists” that love AI.
I don’t see prompting an AI as creating art in the same way that commissioning a painting doesn’t make you an artist. In this example, it’s the AI model that is the artist creating the “art”, but since AI models aren’t sentient (yet) then what they create isn’t art anymore than a sunset is despite being aesthetically beautiful.
Your “it’s just a tool” argument is especially ridiculous when you consider that the “tool” can create the same “art” in its entirety without you. It would be like if I googled the Mona Lisa and copy pasted it into Paint and then called myself an artist because I used Google and Paint as my tools.
In the case of AI models anything you can think to prompt is already embedded in the model so it’s not like you’re even creating anything. It’s already there. If you have infinite monkeys on a keyboard prompting AI they can generate every single possible image an AI is able to generate. Where is the artistry again?
I'll note I used no pejorative terms to describe you in order to make my points. I don't need to cast you as a villain or "unwise" individual to argue against the statements themselves.
--
Your framing of AI presumes that my proposal is prompt in >> art out. False frame.
You also state "near universal" disdain of AI from people with "actual" talent. A bold claim to make with little data, and at least for me, clear examples of being false.
I know award-winning directors, iconic creatives, and career/professional artists who are all excited by the technology, exploring ways to use it, and learning how to composite it into their work.
Perhaps you would propose that they have no talent and are not "true" artists! This is why I ask for the definition of art. It's not a "poor refuge" for an honest discussion, it's something that is the fundamental term upon which your argument is hinged. You can't gatekeep "art" without defining what the gate is.
The OP talks about Suno Studio - A DAW experience with recording, editing, generative tools, and generative restyling. This is, objectively, a different level of tool than a "prompt to music" generation experience.
Something that is composited through multiple decisions made by a human, toward some end that only they see, through an iterative process...
So you must really hate collage artists. All they are doing is cutting out images and pasting them into new images. Picasso really produced some slot I guess. You seem to have a very rigid definition of "art".
If the artist finds the output to be something that has meaning to them, and helps them categorize their feelings towards the world, then I think that's valuable art. It doesn't mean I'm going to go buy that album, but I'm glad it was made.