Deezer says consumption of AI-generated music on the platform is still very low, between 1-3% of the total streams, and that 85% of these streams are detected as fraudulent and are demonetized.
    • minorkeys@lemmy.worldEnglish
      4 hours

      They’re probably the one doing it. Of course the distribution owners would try and cut out the content makers.

    • Grimy@lemmy.worldEnglish
      4 hours

      Same thing my grand father says about EDM. Personally, if I can tap my feet to it, it’s music. I doubt you would be able to tell the difference in a blind test in any case.

        • Grimy@lemmy.worldEnglish
          2 hours

          I don’t think it belongs on platforms like Deezer but it’s silly to not call it music.You can hate how it’s made but the bar for something to be music isn’t dependant on the fact. Downvote me I guess.

          • Forsho@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
            2 hours

            On the contrary that soulless shit belongs to garbage platforms that is killing the music industry.

            I am not debating with you what music means to me, please understand that MR. DJGPT

          • BigJohnnyHines@lemmy.caEnglish
            2 hours

            If I steal someone else’s song and put my name on it nobody reasonable would say I made it.

            This whole AI-art fucktrain is entirely propped up by people who never made art before suddenly thinking they know something.

            • Not_mikey@lemmy.dbzer0.comEnglish
              41 minutes

              If I steal someone else’s song and put my name on it nobody reasonable would say I made it.

              People were saying the same thing about sampling in hip hop. Yeah if you do a 1 to 1 copy of a song then that’s not making art but if you take elements from a song and rearrange them then that is.

            • Grimy@lemmy.worldEnglish
              2 hours

              My issue is more about not calling it music. Imo, if it’s groovy and my brain enjoys it, it’s music.

              There’s some music I seriously don’t enjoy as well but I still consider it music because someone does.

              That being said, I don’t label AI stuff as “made”. I’m quick with making the distinction when sharing with friends and stuff. I agree with that part. Although it becomes blurry at times. Making something with samples is still making it, what about making it with AI generated samples? I don’t consider it stealing in any case, much too transformative imo.

              I think we should separate the platforms but I’m not sure where certain things should land. It’s all music for me though.

              • techt@lemmy.worldEnglish
                52 minutes

                Thanks for taking the time to explain yourself! I wanted to jump in to potentially clear up a difference of semantics, y’all are just using different interpretations of a phrase and I think it’s worth exploring.

                If I take the person you originally replied to and continue the thought on my own, I think “it shouldn’t be called music” is trying to express that “this content should be fundamentally distinct from music because it displaces artists who, as a group, are finding it increasingly hard to sustain themselves on their art alone”.

                If your relationship with music stops at something to tap your foot to, then you may or may not appreciate the value music has for society in the form of things like expression, protest, criticism, unity, and faith. Every time we listen to a bot-generated song, it takes a listen away from a human artist and pushes us toward a world eventually devoid of those artistic contributions.

                Whether or not it fits into the same musical category as human-generated media isn’t really the point worth talking about (it’s trained on that after all, of course it’s similar!). What we need is a way to keep it from displacing human-generated art, and I don’t think calling it music or not is enough.

  • Jiral@lemmy.orgEnglish
    7 hours

    I personally started to use Qobuz. Their algorithm isn’t great, their target group is more the more distinguished music listener but their library is pretty much as big as any others plus they do have the largest library of hi-res music too and they actually sell also hi-res and CD lossless music if that is of interest to you. Most importantly though, they have a “ban-AI-music” stance on their platform. Soon enough, one will have to rely on platforms like that if one does not want to wade through a sea of AI slop.

    The downside is that Qobuz is a bit more expensive than others (while paying the most to artists however, as far as I know).

  • navigator@piefed.zipEnglish
    7 hours

    And here I am struggling and fighting with my distributor ever time I upload a new instrumental album because they can’t confirm that it’s all original work.

  • BoxOfFeet@lemmy.worldEnglish
    7 hours

    I have no idea what Deezer is, and I’m afraid if I ask, somebody is just going to say “DEEZER NUTS!!!” and I will realize it was a big prank.

    • Jiral@lemmy.orgEnglish
      7 hours

      It is a less shitty alternative to Spotify, while costing less. They are also paying artists considerably more.

      • XLE@piefed.socialEnglish
        5 hours

        The last sentence is a little scary to me, not because it’s a bad thing, but because it’s probably catnip to scammers/AI generators. I hope they can do a good job of detecting it and keeping those scammers at bay, and not paying them for unaware listeners’ mistakes

        • Jiral@lemmy.orgEnglish
          1 hour

          Not necessarily, if they are more hostile towards that kind of “content” than in this case Spotify, it isn’t necessarily more attractive to AI scammers.

        • penguin@lemmy.pixelpassport.studioEnglish
          4 hours

          As far as I have read they do a lot to prevent that. AI “artists” (shartists?) don’t show in the all tab when searching, don’t get added to radio mixes, and dont get any payments from Deezer. Their AI generated tagging seems pretty accurate, I just wish it was exposed in the API so other projects could use it

      • BoxOfFeet@lemmy.worldEnglish
        2 hours

        From the headline? No. But I could have just searched for it, or read the article. But it’s more amusing to make a slightly amusing comment.

  • lasta@piefed.worldEnglish
    9 hours

    From Deezer’s website, the detection system tags songs that are either fully AI generated rather than produced or mastered with the help of AI tools. You can also appeal if you believe your music was falsely flagged.

    I strongly oppose the use of generative AI in art but if it has to be done, it should at least be labeled as AI (ideally by the “creator” themselves).

    I wonder how accurate the AI detection tools are though, considering how common are posts where AI detection tools used in schools falsely flagged student assignments.

    There was a song I quite liked which had several million views on YouTube which I was surprised to see was flagged as AI generated. No one I showed it to it could hear any obvious signs of AI. The main red flags were that the artists released several albums in a short time span and had no online presence on any platform you would expect to see musicians on (Bandcamp, Discogs, etc) besides YouTube and the streaming ones.

    • UnspecificGravity@piefed.socialEnglish
      8 hours

      The main red flags were that the artists released several albums in a short time span and had no online presence on any platform you would expect to see musicians on (Bandcamp, Discogs, etc) besides YouTube and the streaming ones.

      Honestly, those seem like pretty big red flags since that is how actual bands manage to actually get paid.

    • MurrayL@lemmy.worldEnglish
      7 hours

      I strongly oppose the use of generative AI in art but if it has to be done, it should at least be labeled as AI.

      I know I’m mostly preaching to the choir here, but I don’t think there’s any situation in which AI ‘has’ to be used in art.

    • Blaster M@lemmy.worldEnglish
      8 hours

      With good mastering post, you can mostly eliminate the “Suno shimmer”, but other than artists using local models, the big ones (Suno, Udio, et al) have digital fingerprinting in the audio file… which is also part of the reason for the “Suno shimmer” sound.

      Also, Suno is partnered with WMG since November… their model has license.

  • NuXCOM_90Percent@lemmy.zipEnglish
    9 hours

    This (moreso for youtube music, since Deezer seems to not have a lot of East Asian labels signed) is a huge part of why I’ve been building out a selfhosted Navidrome.

    Obviously there is the old school way of getting music. But Bandcamp is WAY more beneficial to the artists and ebay and Half Price Books are also awesome for grabbing music.

    And combine all that with musicbrainz for scrobbling and discoverability of new bands.

  • manxu@piefed.socialEnglish
    7 hours

    Music is a weird art form, because something sounding familiar is very important to our ear. Many people have a really hard time liking music that is too foreign to their taste and end up sticking with only a select few genres.

    Where familiarity is important, AI can deliver easily. I would think as much as we hate the idea, there is a pretty significant market for AI-generated music, specifically because it’s so predictable and follows convention to a tee.

    • gizmonicus@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
      2 hours

      Or someone trying to eek out a living with their music can get paid to do so. There’s no shortage of music to suit people’s tastes, the problem is discovering it because Spotify sucks at recommendations, and actively promotes AI slop to pad their profit margins while stiffing real musicians. So many mixes use AI instead of recommending actual artists specifically so they don’t have to pay royalties.

      There might be a market for talentless trash music generators, but it actively harms real people creating real music with their real talent, and I refuse to participate. Fuck AI music. Just because there’s a market for something, doesn’t automatically mean it’s good, or the right thing to do.

    • NekoKoneko@lemmy.worldEnglish
      6 hours

      There is indeed a market for people who don’t care what is playing or who made it, and just want to hear the same familiar generic chords, rhythms, and vocals of whatever genre(s) they’ve grown up listening to. Not to be too blunt, but some people have no taste, and yes, they can eat slop and not notice the difference. Ok, good for them.

      But those people are throwing fertilizer on AI weeds that will consume all the water and sunlight that nurtures actual music. That is really a problem.

      • KatherinaReichelt@feddit.orgEnglish
        6 hours

        There are also good reasons for people to use AI music. If you just want some music as background in a video you want to post somewhere, that totally is a legal nightmare here where I live. If you’re some small business, that is even more nightmarish. Licensing songs is expensive and hard to do, so just generating some ok tune is the best way forward

        • GreenBeard@lemmy.caEnglish
          4 hours

          I think people should be very careful about how dependent they become on such things, because inevitably if adoption ever does creep up the spike in prices of accessing those models is going to be astronomically more than having some jingle writer slap something together. Right now they’re desperate for adoption but those servers aren’t free to run. If they’re ever going to turn a profit the fees for accessing these tools are going to be orders of magnitude more than any small business owner can afford, and by then, there won’t be any aspiring new artists to take a cash job; they’ll have either starved to death or moved on. You’re basically Wille E. Coyote-ing yourself off an advertising cliff using AI like that, and same for other similar uses.

        • LavaPlanet@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
          4 hours

          Music doesn’t stay under copywrite, forever. You could use anything that’s aged out of copywrite, too. And then you, as a business won’t alienate people who choose not to consume ai for ethical reasons.

        • NekoKoneko@lemmy.worldEnglish
          5 hours

          I hear that, but it really depends on the service and prompt (including services’ internal prompt that is hidden) and result, which are many times black boxes.

          I personally think artists & labels will have a tough time proving infringement for non-infringing outputs based purely on training data. But there’s really no way of being sure that the “generated” and “uncopyrightable” AI track that’s distilled from unlicensed source music is not itself infringing as a pure substantial similarity (or whatever your locality’s infringement legal test is) question.

    • Grimy@lemmy.worldEnglish
      3 hours

      I messed around with udio for a bit. What surprised me most is actually how easy it was to blend stuff together and have it sound fun. It does stuff that isn’t cookie cutter pretty well.

      I think where it’s going to hit hard is in terms of personalisation. It’s nice that I can turn a song with a unique style into essentially a whole album of it. I also had a lot of fun writing my own lyrics. It hits harder when I wrote it and it’s specifically about my experiences, as well as listening to something close to professional quality, but it’s basically only for me.

      It’s like having your own personal band waiting on you.