Actually, That AI Drake and The Weeknd Song Is Not Eligible for a Grammy
gizmodo.com
Actually, That AI Drake and The Weeknd Song Is Not Eligible for a Grammy::The song "Heart on My Sleeve" was pulled from streaming services after it was revealed to have been created with artificial intelligence.
They are way more afraid of the fact that this is non-copyrightable than anything else. I mean, the junk music the companies distribute will soon get adequate competition by AI generated junk music of comparable low quality. What will they be able to sell then?
I went and looked it up because I had to hear what an AI-made song nominated for a Grammy sounds like... really? This is award-worthy music? No part of this song sounds any different than the million other songs out there already in this genre.
Actually, now that I say that, I'm not surprised it's AI generated, considering how unoriginal it is
Gotta agree. It very much sounded like the filler song you'd skip on an album as it's mediocre.
I've never had any respect for the grammy's. I recognize the artist's efforts, but their music has always been "eh" at best.
Well, that's what most awards are. How good of a friend the nominee is with the people casting the votes/assigning the prizes. There's zero transparency among most popularity awards. The art died decades ago. It's all about celebrity culture and that record label money. There's some extraordinary music around being produced, but it's not winning any Grammys.
His other song with Travis Scott is better, but I believe it's more the production of it rather than the impact. It's just a very well done song from a technical standpoint. However tonally it's pretty mediocre.
Reactionary nonsense. May as well disqualify anyone using anything other woodwinds and stringed instruments.
Sorry, humans still set the rules for competitions and we are allowed to set arbitrary lines to keep the competitions fair and relevant. That's why we allow shoes but not bikes when people run the marathon.
We don't even allow all shoe types in marathons. Certain Nike shoes are considered "too good".
Cycling is an entirely different sport than running. Your comparison is faulty.
This is like telling engineers they can't use calculators to complete their task.
Cycling is a different sport than running because we banned bikes in one of them. Both sports have lists of things you are and are not allowed to do in order to maintain the spirit of the sport. As shoes become more advanced hundreds of jurys look at the new shoes and decide if they are allowed or not. Most shoes pass but some are banned.
In the engineering example they are allowed to use calculators in their job but they are not allowed to use them in math competitions that don't allow them.
Grammy is a competition and not part of their real job. If you don't want to participate you don't need to.
What? This is their real, day-to-day job. This isn't a competition, in the sense which you describe.
Their managers submit their works (read: the stuff they made at their day to day job) from the calendar year, which are reviewed in private by the judges.
If the goal was 'you have X time to make Y song within these parameters', you'd have a direct comparison but it is not, and you do not.
If they make an AI song they are allowed to sell it and people are allowed to listen to it but, that particular song just isn't eligible for the competition that is The Grammy.
When artist make music they WANT to win a Grammy but it is not a REQUIRED part of business model. Most music produced in the world do not win Grammies and still able to make money.
Yes, but we aren't talking about songs which are not entered in the Grammys.
We are talking about the Grammys laying down shortsighted rules to protect their image, not to progress the medium in any meaningful way.
That is a different set of arguments than the ones you started with.
This is more about wether it's good or not for music to ban AI from the Grammies.
I think it's good. I don't think AI is art and I think it's theft. The only reason AI music is able to exist is because it is stealing other people's hard work.
Artists work their entire life to develop unique sounds that are influenced by their personal experiences and tastes.
Then a AI techbro (but more likely a multi billion dollar corporation) steals it without the artists permission and without compensation.
The goal of AI enthusiasts is to break down artists rights fast enough so that proper regulation don't have time to set in. Because people like you despise art and artist. Every time I get involved in these discussion you can feel the pure contempt and the ones that can't keep the mask on properly gloat at the brazen theft they are doing.
In order for AI to be good for art it needs to be regulated and since it is not regulated organizations like the Grammies need to step in and protect the artists they have represented for decades.
But feel free to cry and piss about how unfair it is to have rules for things.
I didn't say enything about unfair, nor did i cry or piss.
All I've said about AI is that they are simply banning what they don't understand. All generative processes rely on the influence and templates created by those who came before them.
Everyone is having very emotional and visceral reactions to AI tools, meanwhile these tools are not even remotely close to mimicking or surpassing human performance.
This is another repeat of what happened 40 years ago when electronica and synths made their way into mainstream music.
You say that you are not but I can see both the tears and piss in your 20 different comments across several different people. I even think there is some shit in there. You know AI is different from electronica, I know it's different. Why should I pretend that it isn't for the sake of your pissy little tantrum?
Huh? I'm commenting on a variety of topics as I am bored and laying in bed.
You're a pretty sad little dude if you think calm and logical responses are a tantrum. Stay pressed.
We can all tell how calm and logical you. We know because you said that you are.
Competitions are still subjective.
Also the competitions is “in the current year (as defined by the contest rules) create a song that is better than your competitors”
Just because it’s their day to day job doesn’t mean it isn’t a competition.
Than, by your logic, the highest charting song per genre out of the ones submitted would be the only ones which are awarded. This is demonstrably not the case with such awards programs.
Except that’s not the arbitrary criteria set by the competition, which is the whole point of this discussion. Any competition can set an arbitrary set of rules. The Grammys are a completion, and as such can set any arbitrary rules they would like.
You are fixated on the arbitrary nature of the rulesetting process as if that justifies a nonsensical rule.
Which brings us full circle to the original point: you may as well ban anyone using any software at all to produce music. A flat ban on AI models is premature and will age like milk.
I’m of the opinion AI should be banned from all form of competition and anything that AI generates is not art. Art fundamentally requires human experiences. AI does not have that, and therefore can never produce anything more than a soulless, lifeless, worthless replica of what math thinks could be art.
Okay well that is entirely an opinion, so good for you?
Yours is the same reaction people had to midi board and electric drum timers. Time will tell who was correct.
Neither of those (try to) create anything. They are only tools. AI is not a tool. It’s a game of numbers where if you try enough times you might find the right combination of things that work to make something semi-reasonable. There is no human creating anything with it.
Yeah, right, it's like all those people forbidding doping and other forms of cheating in sports competitions. Why should you actually need to be good at something to participate in a competition right? /s
The AI in that song is just used as a tool to emulate the sound of drake's voice. The rest is standard artist composition.
While I don't particularly care for the song, comparing it to doping is not reasonable.
Same with all AI art tools. Actual artists can make reasonable use of these tools to more efficiently convey what they had wanted to convey.
This is just like when cameras were invented. Or people started using digital mediums. Or when people started making 3D art.
Even simple prompt only stuff like midjourney is improving to allow artists more control over the image they are trying to create.
If we end up with a holo-deck style experience where artists can craft entire worlds and details through gesture and dictation as a form of expression, is that still not art?
That's one type of art, just not grammy-sanctioned art.
Ideas are a dime a dozen. That a tool can bring it to life without much effort doesn't make it an amazing work of craft. Having said that, there could be a category in which made up ideas are the center. Like books and short stories.
I can think of a mouse with the head of David Hasselhoff giving a thumbs up while riding a dinasour-shaped rocket next to a black hole. Where's my art award?!!!!
Yes there are different types of art. Yes some are impressive for technical skill in a specific medium. Traditional Hyper-Realism or corporate artists are good examples. Sandcastle art is cool too.
I don't think these things will lose their unique value, but they are similarly not arguments against photography, film,digital art, etc for the things that give them their unique value. I think that also applies to AI mediums.
Nuance in everything.