AI is RUINING the Metal Scene!
Vložit
- čas přidán 9. 03. 2024
- Is AI Art ruining the metal scene as we know it? Bands like Unleash the Archers have attempted to use AI art in an ethical way but found themselves against a huge backlash from the fans. Other bands like Frostbite Orckings get away with using AI and no one bats an A-eye. What about bands like Deicide and Hour of Penance who don't seem to care about the "ethics" or morality of using AI generation? We address all of these topics concerning AI in the metal landscape this video.
❗❗Get MORE out of your METAL and SUBSCRIBE!
/ @forgemastermetal
🛒Show the world you STAND IN THE FORGE. Check out our exclusive merchandise: forgemaster-apparel.creator-s...
Links
www.crowell.com/en/insights/c...
stablediffusionlitigation.com/
metalinjection.net/news/unlea...
Artists to Support
rateyourmusic.com/list/Potato...
www.kerrang.com/the-15-greate...
elirankantor.com/
www.moonrootart.com/logos
Art Services
all4band.com/death-metal-albu...
metalcover.art/
noobheavy.com/commissioningme...
📅New videos premiere weekly, including tier lists, discography rankings, musician and producer reactions, and more!
At Forgemaster Metal Reviews we bring you the BEST in metal releases from metal album reviews, top lists, and exclusive interviews from some of the best metal talent in the scene. As metal musicians and music producers ourselves - we strive to give a different perspective on the music so you get something a little different from underground metal and beyond. Leave comments, start conversations - we want to hear from YOU! Some other channels we are big fans of include BangerTV, Ruthless Metal, Metal Trenches, The Metal Meltdown, Nik Nocturnal, Thralls of Metal, Quest for Metal, A&P Reacts, and Pair of Jeans Reviews. Be sure to check them out if you want more fantastic metal coverage. Horns up, Forgemates! 🤘
Get MORE out of your METAL with BEHIND THE SCENES
❗❗Follow us on Instagram: / forgemastermetalreviews
❗❗Follow us on Facebook: forgemastermetalreviews
💿Ben's Bandcamp Collection: bandcamp.com/benjaminfortier - Hudba
The music video was cool as hell
It is!
Thanks for addressing this topic, your free form discussion was well delivered. I think one point that's parallel to the discussion is with the media and how they report (any) topic. The media can oversimplify a topic that leaves out valuable/critical detail. This oversight further drives a position that gathers attention.
AI is a tool, how it's used is part of the creative process. There's certainly room in the creative space for a new strategy that opens doors to new artistic avenues. There will always be a place for traditional (non-ai) driven art.
Dire Straits - Money for Nothing was the first music video on MTV Europe, but the American MTV had already existed for 4 years before the song was released. I believe the first music video on the US MTV was "Video Killed the Radio Star".
Thanks!
Dire Straits was the first "computer art" video, the first video was BUGGLES- Video Killed the Radio Star. NERDS!
Very good and objective Video. Thumbs up guys!
Glad you enjoyed it!!
@11:23 I'm also sceptical about Musical Bits' claim that Frostbite Orkings is generated from sets of data that are completely original. My understanding is that in order for these AI to reach the levels of transparency to human output that we want, they need to be trained on data that is not only incredibly huge but also incredibly diverse and varied, even if it is focused in a specific way.
The kind of fidelity that we now expect from these AI models can only come from learning derived from kind of huge and complex data. So how much "original music" is Musical Bits getting these studio musicians to create in order to train the AI? Surely it can only be a drop in the bucket in comparison to the OCEAN of data that is usually used. So just like in the case of the UTA music video, is that originally generated data being hugely supplemented by other data, i.e. unlicensed content?
And that prompts another question: how much "original music" data are those session musicians producing and how much are they getting PAID for it? And what happens later to the music data that they've generated? Is it used in perpetuity by Musical Bits for future and other projects? Is it later sold to be used by other companies for other AI projects? Note that Musical Bits is promising an entire fantasy world of AI generated music. Orkings is just one cast of characters they have proposed.
All AI music is trained on licensed material, companies knew that Labels were going to bankrupt them otherwise.
What you can do at home, for now, is to use AI as a voice changer or TTS.
Yes, it needs a huge set of data, but not all of that is 'artwork'. Some is just used to create the scene, like a person standing in a specific position or how windows look on a building. This could be easily achieved with public domain images. The specific look of things, like creating a scene that looks like it is from HR Giger, requires licensed artwork. If Giger's artwork is included in the training data then parts of it can appear accidentally, which is why it is important to exclude unlicensed artwork.
For me, the problems with A.I. are, 1: Do we want to live in a world where an adult expects credit and praise NOT because they played a great guitar part (or painted a great picture, or whatever), but because they thought to tell an AI to add that part? Because IMO that is like doing a basic jigsaw of an amazing painting and then feeling proud that you ''painted'' that picture. And 2: In just a few short years, what kid is going to bother spending a couple of hours a day struggling to learn an any artistic or musical skill when they've grown up in a world where all new art an music is just something that hundreds of free apps can do better, instantly? A lot of people are comparing this to previous tech revolutions where, yes, some peoples skills were replaced, but other jobs were created. But i think this is different because we are already seeing people go ''meh'' at the most incredible visuals because they just assume that an AI did it, so... so what? I'm already seeing creators in other music genres give up, because what's the point any more? So my issue is not that musicians and artists are loosing work, but that pretty soon all art and music will be completely meaningless to anyone who grows up from this point on. Think about that, can anybody here imagine a world where people of any age are just not interested in, yet alone passionate about music? I don't want to live in that world, but i'm 100% certain that it's already to late.
Yknow sadly I kind of agree. In the age where it’s easier and easier to self produce and bands make less and less money, it’s tough to justify this as a viable career path. Add this issue on top of it, and yeah people are going to cut corners.
This is just the start of it, and if we don’t start talking about it now openly, it will continue down the path of the unregulated shitshow it currently is.
@@forgemastermetal Totally. It's like the perfect storm of everything that's happened to music over the last few decades, and most of that has been down to changing technology in one way or another. I'm part of a loose collective of roughly 80 or 90 amateur electronic musicians and producers, and there's some incredible talent that could easily soundtrack huge Hollywood films, and they can't even be bothered putting their work on Bandcamp for £1. And i completely understand why. The amount of skill, time, and effort that some people pour into each tune, and after a few months they've hardly earned the price of a beer, it's just heart breaking, and not even worth the effort of uploading. The only people that get anywhere is by the shear amount of content they come up with, but many of us are just not prolific. And if it's quantity that's important, then A.I. is gonna win. 😞
@@BaddBadger All media production from this point onward that wasn't created via AI must be proudly promoted as such. 💀 There *will* be an eventual clear separation between the two, as people become more visually adept at discerning AI trash from an oil painting on canvas. Don't despair! And please link me to your work. 🙂
I prefer, for example, oil painted album art via canvas or a digital artist that is involved with a band or that sells their art to bands for their album cover. We live in a digital age now where album art doesn't have the same effect it did when it was trying to grab someone's attention or visually show you what the album sounds like. But for metal, we like the artwork. It's a big deal.
Off topic, WTF is that sound used in the video? Cause I know I've heard it before lol
We absolutely love a good oil painting for album art! Which sound are you referring to??
@@forgemastermetal I figured it out, it was the Windows 95 chime lol
One of the things I find funny about this conversation is that often the same people I see having a reflexive kind of hashtag "AI ART BAD!" response are the same people I'll see defending shoplifting and saying it's not a big deal. One could argue that AI art has the same potential positive implications in that it levels the playing feel economically by removing financial barriers and therefore would help increase diversity of voices in the scene. I don't like theft in ANY form as I think there is always some sort of harm to the little guy, but you can't deny that we also wouldn't have had the explosion of incredible rap music in the 90's without the LA riots providing a bunch of people previously without access the equipment they needed to create that music in the first place. So in short, I think there is plenty of moral discussion to be had here; but the kneejerk anger of a lot of people feels stupid and dismissive imo. AI ain't going away, so we may as well facilitate a good dialogue to make it as ethical as possible.
Yeah I agree. We need to be having this discussions now to figure out what the hell SHOULD be done in the creative space.
As always, killer papa logic.
You raise some really good points. Having some disbility myself i don't think that the fun of creativity should ever be limited to those with certain abilities. But it's not just about rights, wrongs, theft, credit, payment, etc. You know that feeling of ''FFS!'' style amazement when you hear Hate Eternal rip through ''King Of All Kings'' (or whatever the tune is that does it for you). Can you imagine in a year or two when you've heard a million AI death metal tunes, where you know it took someone with zero skill less than 2 minutes to get their AI to do it? The problem isn't about who has the right or skills. It's that it won't be long at all before nobody cares anymore. I don't mean the adults who don't care about music anyway, or the kids that don't care if their favorite pop star is miming (and didn't even sing on their own tune anyway). I mean the people like us who love music, in part at least, because we appreciate the persons skill that went into it. I'm not into sports, so it'd be fine with me if everything from a school soccer match to the world cup was just a coin toss. No match, no practise, no bets, no travelling with your pals to see the match. Just a coin toss. You still get the end result, but quicker and more convieniently. But i'm sure most sports fans would see the problem there. It's not just about the result, it's the process. And that's exactly what AI is going to take over in art and music, and then make the things that i live for completly meaningless. And anyone that says using AI is going to be a skill in itself, just spend some time looking after small children and see how even they can tell you what they want someone // something to do next! If we are going to call that a skill, then Idiocracy will be a factual documentary within one generation.
I'm sure the wagon makers said something similar as the Model-T rolled off the assembly line The fact of the matter is AI is here to stay and should be embraced; it will soon become the norm, and once perfected, will (not if) be more creative than any human artist. Human-created art will become a niche, much like how theatre (lays, musicals, and operas) became such after the advent and normalization of film. Accept and embrace it--it is all but inevitable.
I don't necessarily see the difference between using traditional animation in a very set style (say anime) and this. There's a lot of bands using straight up anime in videos, maybe in the public domain. But anime imitates other anime same difference, so the ideas aren't original.
I find the effort that UTA put in as quite the departure from the typical norm (tasteful at that). But hey, not all the extra coverage is all bad. Maybe more people will listen to UTA. Really nice folks, got to briefly meet them at Progpower 😎
Linkin Park has used AI for a bunch of their latest videos, and I wouldn't be surprised if they also used it to complete the vocals for Chester on previously recorded, unfinished demos.
And then there is Frostbite Orckings, and whatever else Metalverse is releasing with other genres.
As if artsists aren't drawing inspiration and ideas from copyrighted stuff. There is a divide between inspiration and plagiarism. I think UtA's use of AI clearly tackled the plagiarism issue by working with the original artist, and the rest of the AI touches are unlikely to be larger than the general inspiration and pulling in ideas that human artists do. I give UtA an A for effort here and a B+ for ethics. No problem. Bands just posting fully generated images from general LLMs as covers (or worse, music!) deserve all the shit they get.
Yeah I agree with you. Where things got muddy with UTA is the models were used with licensed art AND unlicensed work. Regardless, the bands attitude and approach to it is how we should be using it: as a creative tool where everyone can be compensated.
The only way to sway influence is through purchases. If you don't like it, don't give them money. Bands need ways to cut corners seeing how little most of them make.
This is the best way. Agreed.
After seeing Voivod's usage of it in their recent music video's, I think there is some potential if an artist create's the image, and then ai twist's it into something meticulous.
The art in this case, is intended to be used with the ai.
Yeah this is no different than using a randomized visualizer. I think this is totally fine as it’s trained on a compensated artists body of work who’s acknowledged.
Voivod’s usage of it was the only time that I felt that it was actually worth it. It really fit their strange sonic aesthetic.
If they have all the rights in order then i see no problem ( but that is a huge problem with ai). Its not like metal Videos have ever been the pinnacle of music Videos.
It would be fun to see actual visual artists training their own ais. ...Sounds like a nightmare, we might not be able to evolve art anymore if we have to start creating laws for influence and style.
That would be a really neat way of using AI and LLMs to train a model on your OWN stuff!
It seems to me that traditional music video production is very expensive. While AI videos cost no more than the PC and the Application used to make it. There can't be much contest.
Cost and ease of use is definitely intriguing.
The video is obviously filmed on agreen screen, combined with UE5 3D scenarios and then fed to the AI for the IMG 2 IMG effect.
This is *totally* legit, that's how you use this tool ethically and in a creative way.
People can bitch all they want, their ignorance is not an argument.
Agreed. Like we said in the video, there’s an artist in the loop making decisions and there was clearly creative direction done here.
The only muddied water is Bo’s work was included with other artists, but even then, their approach was sound with how to use the tech.
I am a UtA fan and I thought the video was fine. They credited the artist they were using to make the AI algorithm and I personally didn't see any blow back. They did it right imho, I they shouldn't need to apologize for this. Everything we create is influenced by everything we have experienced, we cannot possibly credit every influence for everything we as a species creates.
I just don’t like ai art it looks terrible to me.
Agree - pay an artist
Within Temptation did the same thing last year.
Weird how no one flipped out haha
Ok, there are a lot of misunderstandings about AI models and generative AI. Let's clarify first what is what:
- LLM - Large Language Models - are focused on text analysis / sentiment analysis / text generation. Think of it as glorified autocomplete feature (it's way more complicated than that, but easiest to understand this way). So - those are ChatGPT, Gemini, Claude (3 etc), LLaMa and all the others. They're used to generate Text (not what was used for videos and images).
- Stable Diffusion / Midjourney / Dall-E and other Generative AI models (text to image, image to image, image to video) - those are deep learning, text-to-image model based on diffusion techniques.
Now - in regards of AI art used in mentioned UTA video. Problem is that Stable Diffusion models (and all others ofcourse) are trained on milions of art works without licence. Once trained, certain "weights" are generated and are used as a base of the model. Then you can use the base model and train on your own art or the art of the artist who can give you licence to do it. This is what ITA did for their video.
ITA used base Stable Diffusion models (I'm guessing Stable Diffusion XL) and then trained it ADDITIONALLY on art of Bo (artist that was making art for them), to make the generated AI art for the videos. Problem is - even if Bo gave them licence to do it, Stable Diffusion model already is trained on millions of art pieces without licence. So no - it's not completely legal or moral. It would have been legal if they built a completely new model from scratch on Bo's art, but they didn't do that, because in order to do that you have to have A LOT of art data, which Bo doesn't have enough to start with, and a lot of resource power to generate a base model (we're talking probably thousands of dollars in Cloud resources), and then get the basic model they could have used to generate those arts. In theory it would work, in practice there's just not enough data.
In general - AI art is here to stay, it will progress faster and even more, to the point you won't be able to distinguish it from real stuff. It already is pretty close if you take a bit of time to refine the prompts, and there are techniques to mask the "weirdness". In few years, it won't be noticeable. It is what it is, we can fight against it, but majority of people will use it for their own projects, it will grow, some people will try to pass it as their own work (a lot of them are already doing it). Future is fucked in regards of art in general, music is next, it's already picking up. People don't like it at the moment, but in 5-10 years it will be impossible to distinguish between the two. I think some regulations are going to be needed in the future to validate what is real and what not, and we're not there yet, because it would be a huge privacy impact on our lives. The most uncertain times are upon us.
When you train a model, as you say, you *add* specific data.
When you use it, you use the specified tags to get that data back in the generated result.
Sure, other's people data is still part of the process, but more for the "understanding" of what goes where, for the coherence of the image, but you won't see Leoanrdo or Picasso style appear at random, you will see the art you used for the extra training.
Let's ay I'm an artist and I know some of my paintings were used to train the base model.
Now, If I want to accuse somebody of stealing my style, I would have to show that there's some similarities.
There aren't, no harm done.
@@ChristianIce I get your points, and I understand where you're coming from, but it's still not exactly how it works. AI models don't know how to draw a skull - until you provide them with images of skull and art to learn from it. It learned how to draw a skull from other peoples art, basically "drawing" over it. Think of it like layering 50 semi-transparent pieces of paper on which 50 skulls are drawn, you put your own paper on top of it and draw along the lines that you see. That's what AI does on an insane scale. For any part of the art it needs to generate. You want Leonardo style, stack 100 Leonardo semi-transparent images on top of each other, and it will learn how to do it. It's copying on micro levels. Ofc it's hard to find the apparent copying, but underlaying technique is exactly that, it copies, learn which keywords / tags are matched to exactly which technique, which line drawn, etc, and then it starts generating and combining from the source. That's why at the beginning AI art sucked, because they didn't have enough data source to build models upon. The more data it was inputed in, the more it looked like what we expect to see.
One thing for sure - it's impossible to find out what was the source of art / data sets used to train, in order to get copyrights. But I'm sure in the future there will be leaks of these data sets and then shit will hit the fan :) Every artist would be then able to sue the companies doing this. There have been already leaks of AI devs in these companies chatting about using specific data sets they created from site like DeviantArt on specific styles, so of course they're stealing work and not giving credits and licensing royalties to artists. That's what sucks.
If you wish to build AI model on your own art from scratch, be my guest, but it's impossible unless you have thousands of art you made, but what is being done atm is not morally right to the people that created the art in the first place.
@@PetarMakesNoise
You are correct, AI learned how to draw a skull from ten thousands skulls coming from everywhere.
I may be one of the artists who drew one of those skulls, but can I claim my skull is really in the video?
My work was used as reference for the anatomy, sure, and nobody asked permission to do that, also sure.
But as long as I don't prompt "Skull in the style of X", my work was really used as a reference only.
So the use you make of the tool really sets the difference between stealing a style or using it as a reference.
Personally, I think that the *intent* matter.
As for the "clean model built legally from scratch", we have those.
Adobe and Disney have enough proprietary material and that's what they used for their models, but now the question is:
Do we want the benefits of AI to be for everybody, and let them use it properly (with the risk they won't, as in any other existing tool) or do we want big corporations to own the technology in a monopoly?
That's the problem with anything Open Source.
It's free for all, it's democratic, it comes with risks of abuse.
I'll take the Open Source any day.
@@ChristianIce you're totally right with all of your points, nothing to add there to counter argue, I agree with all of it.
My main problem is - even with the open source models, none of the data sources are Open Source, only the model that came as an output. It's what sucks. If Open Source models would show the data they were using - referencing / crediting each artist and removing art from the source if artist request it, I would be totally on that. I would provide my own art if it was like that, no problems, for the sake of progressing of humanity, but at the moment none of it is really open source. I (who work as Software Engineer & Architect for more than 15 years) love open source and it's aspects, contribute to it as well, but these models are not really open source in that sense, and I can't stand behind them. Neither the paid corporate ones ofc. Reality sucks, we're never gonna get what I'm asking here probably, only thing we can do is spread awareness and make sure everyone understands what is happening, and hopefully push for some regulations to come in near future if possible.
@@PetarMakesNoise
When you take all the money from someone is stealing.
When you take 1 cent from everybody is taxing. :)
My opinion on this is that when you build a model using the collective knowledge of the planet, that model and its outputs are public domain, they get back to the whole humanity for free.
How do you use such a powerful tool, how much human input, work and creativity goes in the result, how fair is the use you make of it, it's all a case by case scenario.
It was a pleasure talking to you!
Cheerz
Man, it's so crazy how you guys made these elaborate AI versions of yourselves just to make this video.
Yeah we’re super ahead of the curve.
It depends on how you use it, but even if used properly (asking permission and stuff) you’ll get people talking shit.
Even if you don’t use it, like in the Kerry King new cover, people will still say it’s AI
Yeah I thought about that too. Even if we use this big “disclaimer” before every video - doesn’t that still taint things a little bit?
It’s not horribly expensive to hire an artist. Just support an artist.
True, it’s still obviously the right choice to go hire an artist and support them.
However, people shouldn’t complain about copyright if the due diligence has been made, even if it’s still better to get a real artist
The problem is that the moment AI models were trained with anything and everything found on the internet, the ability to produce material that’s considered ethical was gone. If a new model trained EXCLUSIVELY with licensed material was created, then that would be the only way to ensure the use of AI is ethical. Anything made with the current (except Adobe I think) models is tainted.
True, no argument against that. How hard can it be to program it so that it only considers licensed stuff to generate “content”
People need to get real about AI. It isn't going away and like any other disruptive technology, there will be problems. AI has enormous potential for harm and misuse at the same time as having the potential to be enormously beneficial. It will be probably prove to be the most disruptive technology so far in human history, short of a nuclear war.
That said, the best thing artists can do is embrace the technology, do it right and in the process become a utilizer rather than a victim, as UTA has done here.
People who are getting their knickers in a twist about UTA and other bands utilizing AI, need to realize that AI isn't going away. If we indulge in Luddite thinking, it will just make the inevitable problems that much worse.
Agreed, that’s exactly why I wanted to have this discussion. The more attention is brought to it and education on how it should be done, the better.
@@forgemastermetal It is utterly futile to fight a hopeless rearguard action against a disruptive technology. As much as one may detest AI, the only winning strategy is to try to keep pace with it as much as possible.
Just one step closer to Skynet... Seriously though, I think AI is great for people who have zero resources and who are just getting started. The availability of "professional" work that they can use to get themselves noticed or through the door might be just what they need to get noticed. I will never be a fan of anyone who makes AI their entire gimmick cause that's just skipping too many steps. However, everytime I see bands and companies use it who do have resources and connections it really makes me unhappy. For example there are a lot of Game Companies out there (even really big ones) who want to use AI art more in their games to cut time and money and thus removing people's jobs. There are so many talented, struggling artists out there that if we don't support will just stop and never create the next great masterpiece.
Yeah that’s precisely where I have a problem with it. It’s a fantastic tool for reference material creation. But an artist should always be in the loop of the decision and creation process.
AI as it is now is not skynet. It’s more like very advanced autofill
These debates will be fun to listen to for the next hour long look my take on it is this how about we just use AI for what it was meant for to bring down the enslavement and extinction of the human race through our own foolishness and up until then how about we make our own art
Judas Priest released a video for their best song in ages with a bunch of shitty AI art as well.
Wow!! What are your thoughts?
I definitely wasn't angry about the AI video, but as soon as I saw it was AI, I basically immediately disengaged from it.
I've honestly just hit an AI fatigue wall. I'm tired of hearing about it all the time and seeing it everywhere. It's kinda like how ever since Trump was president, you pretty can't go a day without hearing his name at least once. It just gets tiring, hahaha!
AI fatigue is real!
Hour Of Pennence also got a lot of grief from the Death Metal Community too. I mean they also get shit because of their use of backing tracks and symphonics which is kinda not warrented in my opinion. No one gives Fleshgod shit for all the shit they use. I understand In most cases pay a human to make your album art or music videos.. Also didn't Periphery use AI on the Atropos video \
They kinda deserve it. Them saying “AI is happening, get used to it” is massively lazy
So what, if it is on the internet, its free real estate
That's not how that works.
@@forgemastermetalwhy not ?
Copyright laws. Just because something is "on the internet" doesn't mean it's public use.
@@forgemastermetalwhatever, people steal all the time.
Okay. So if everyone else stares at the sun, are you gonna do it too?
AI Will eventually destroy every aspect of life
John Connor over here.
AI visuals are largely a budget consideration for the little guys. AI generated music is just a cynical, unethical, pathetic hack. Also, ive seen a number of "visualiser" vids for metal that no one has mentioned. KING GIZZARD's "Iron Lung" being a prime example. Are these older visualiser vids actually AI? Hmmm... need more input. Also, on a technical note(sorry for all the unintentional puns here), this "freeform" video worked great. If it makes your jobs easier and more productive, maybe consider loosening up a little. Seems to be the theme of this topic after all.
I can appreciate that, but hiring an artist usually isn’t even that expensive compared to recording and producing the record in the first place. The whole package matters, and when you cut corners on the visuals, it cheapens the whole product.
Appreciate the feedback on the Freeform thing. We’ve been doing more of it with the Jari / Wintersun video, bad album art, and ranking videos.
AI generated anything is content, but it’s not art.
I agree
AI is not going anywhere, we have to accept it. Will it ruin some bands? Yes. Those who don't have originality and write the songs by formula - will be replaced, and they deserve it. The best ones will stay. I've been listening to AI hard rock/glam metal lately, and it's neat, especially when guided by human (yes, human is still needed). As for "copyright" talk - everyone is borrowing from everyone, that's how you learn stuff. Most of your "original creations" come from stuff you've seen and hearsed before, unless you're a fckn genius and creatiing a brand new style. So stop complaining, be better than AI, or leave. And I am wrighting this as a forer musician.
No ones complaining. It’s a discussion. Did you even watch the video?
@@forgemastermetal Oh, sorry, didn't mean that. The "complaining" part was addressed not to you, but to those, who, well, complaining about "AI ruining, AI stealing", etc.
Ah, I gotcha bro.
Unleash the Archers is making an album about AI. I don't see anything wrong with it. It fits the vibe and the song is good.
Do you think there's anything unethical about what they did to make that music video??
I think AI is great for a lot of artistic reason. Many people (like myself) lack the ability to put the images and/or imaginations in their head on paper in the artstyle they think about. So having an algorithm that puts keywords and maybe some reference pictures into work is a great deal. Reduces production costs for epic videos... get better album art, whatever you can imagine.
But yes, it is a thin line to walk.
And to some extend, you have this concept already in Pop music for the last 10+ years in the form of autotune. So AI is just one step forward.
Autotune still needs a good singer. Common misconception is it can make any voice great, that’s absolutely not the case.
I kind of agree with you, but with massive caveats. If you want to create in any way then, short of hurting anyone, that's great and should only be encouraged. But if none of us stamp our feet and make a fuss now then what will the landscape look like in a year or two? There are many people who don't care how something is made, they either like it or don't. And i have to acknowledge that this has a kind of weird purity about it. But for those of us that partly love art and music because we admire the skills of another person, then this could be the end of days.
I really hope someone creates an AI that fixes the awful sound production and mixing of most black metal albums.
Unfortunately most mixes are a product of how good it was recorded at the source.
The AI is trained to remove the sound of the record button being clicked at the beginning and end of each song.
Interesting discussion! I feel like using AI for album art is basically cheating. Plus, drawing something whether with a pencil or on a drawing tablet or app can feel more rewarding in the end because it feels like you accomplished something.
I agree! Personally I think we’re seeing something that as fans, we’re investing in these artists / musicians because we believe in them creatively. We aren’t investing in AI.
Lmao
Nice
They can twist it any way they want, there's no such thing as ethical AI art. It's all plagiarised - period.
Interesting take!!
AI is ruining art period. This shit is out of control. Really fcd me up seeing all these recent AI revivals of the late great grunge vocalists, like Staley, Cobain, Cornell, I can't stand that shit. Its impacting everything from visual art, music, literature, you name it.
Yeah it’s also cheapening the art form. Things aren’t individualized or even tied to a person or emotion.
@@forgemastermetal We are reaching the day when AI backstreet boys and justin biebers will sell out stadiums.
Ai art called art is irrelevant and will always be and accepting it as art is killing art
What makes you think so?
Because if hands are not involved is not art@@forgemastermetal
That's a cool way to put it!
As much as people will kick and scream, AI will be a part of everything as we continue into the future. UTA had to trailblaze a new path into the "abyss" of ai generated music videos.
I kind of push back on the whole argument that ai(in the case of this video), was trained was with Bradshaw's material, in which he licenced out(allowed the band/studio to use his material to train the ai specifically for this video), got compensated for and gave approval on the final piece, but it is still unerhical as it supposedly takes influences from all other artists without permission.
Look at it from this perspective..
My friends and i grew up listening to our favourite bands. We decide to start a band. Even though we are creating new music, you can clearly hear who our influences are. You may be able to pick out 5 or so bands that have heavily influenced our style.
Using the same logic people are using to criticize UTA, why arent they calling out every single band out there for "unethically" creating music based on music they heard in the past. Disturbed didnt ask for permission to cover Sound of Silence, and it wasnt even a carbon copy, it was totally rewritten except for the lyics. Paul Simon had no hand in making the cover, and he came out and endorsed the song after the fact.
For this video, they asked Bo for permission, compensated him, and though he physically had no hand in its creation, they still brought him the final piece before release to get his approval.
I know this is long winded, but ill make my point now. Whatever influences the ai took(for this video) that were outside of Bo's models, they were taken from an entire sea of artwork.
In other words, using their logic, bands themselves who use a very small group of influences to generate music would be way more unethical than an AI that generates art by taking very diluted influences from a vast sea of artwork.
UTA has nothing to apologize for. Or should we demand that every band must ask permission from their influences before writing new music? 🤣
I hope my logic makes sense 😂
I think UTA is only apologizing because they don’t want to be falsely villainized when they were trying to do the right thing. They’re also Canadian, so apologies are just what they do. 😂
All art / writing is essentially one big massive circle of influences. The difference is the decisions are made by emotion, thought, an individual. When you remove that out of the loop, you’re losing the personal connection that makes the art unique to a time period or person.
My biggest issue with this is Bo’s art should’ve been the ONLY input used. Otherwise, it’s muddied waters. UTA is aware, and made the right calls.
@@forgemastermetal haha I know, I'm Canadian as well. We apologize so much that they made a law where saying "sorry" cannot be used as an admission of guilt against you in court 🤣
What I meant by they shouldn't need to apologize is that they tried to do their best and only had good intentions. And it is not like they used AI just for the hell of it, the concept of this album itself is based on AI. I guess I'm a bit more open to it than others.
I have no idea how training models work but, serious question, if you give an AI, that has no prior information on art, one style of artwork, and then ask it to create a scene/video in that style, isn't that akin to showing a 3 year old the Mona Lisa and asking the kid to create paintings only in that style? Without seeing other styles of artwork, would it even have the ability to improvise? Again I have no idea how AI works, but as another example, would it be like giving a Spanish speaking AI the entire english dictionary, telling it to write a story, but it has never been trained to know the rules/grammar and punctuation etc. of the English language? This isn't an argument for the band's sake lol I'm actually just curious haha
nobody loves frostbite orckings, the creator paid for a bunch of positive press ads thats about it
True, but I don’t see negative press.
i would argue it's ruined by people who upload videos of themselves talking about this kind of thing being discussed in the video.
You clicked on this video dude. Can’t help you there.
Honestly, using AI just comes off as incredibly lazy to me. I’d rather pay a real artist.
Same here. Our EP we paid one of our good friends to do it. And now that’s a timeless piece I’ll always remember we made together.
Metalheads take themselves sooo seriously. Like, you don't see in any other genre, critics or people making like news reports about topics within the genre. Really cult-like.
This is true, but I still think this is a fairly important discussion to engage in as fans (and creators) of the art form.
I think the difference is that a lot of (maybe most) metal fans are musicians themselves. So a big part of the enjoyment is appreciating and respecting other peoples skills. But by and large pop music fans don't even care if a singer is lip syncing. They're just happy to be in the same stadium as someone they know from TV.
IF musician uses AI for covers, i'll listen to some AI-created metal instead of his.
The good thing is most of the fans hate it
Is streaming ethical? Listeners can listen to music for free, essentially receiving a product without paying for it. Guaranteed most people crying about AI don’t even buy their own music.
If the band releases it and consents to people streaming it, sure.
Your point about people bitching about it is spot on though. 😂
Not everyone has enough money to pay an artist.
This is not a good excuse. There are plenty of affordable options for supporting an artist on the cheap. Many artists have pre-made artwork available for license for people making things on a budget.
But if you are paying more for an artwork than for the process of making the music itself then it's a problem.
And especially for many musicians who loose money in the process of making music Ai is an option to consider.
I can deffenetly understand artists complaining about this but when we look at history we can see that these things happend very often, for example the industrialisation or the invention of photography.
People were loosing their job but overall it had a positive effect.
Every technology we use did cost jobs. Are you ok with that?
Every time we drive in a car we destroy our planet and thererfore the future of humanity, every cheap product we buy involved people beeing not payed what they deserve.
And the internett and especially youtube was not a good invention for theateres.
There are so many things that harm others and yet ai is the one that most people see as problematic.
I haven’t seen the issue of artwork costing more than the production. I’m an audio engineer and know a lot of artists in the field. That’s not really a thing unless you’re literally buying a physical painting that’s massive from an oil painter. Which is totally unnecessary.
My second passage in my Argument gets totally ignored.
And yes for amateures who buy a daw once and then just record a paintings for several singles can cost more. And especially if you are using a free daw.
This so dumb. So much art is Done cooying or rehashing other peoples work. I don’t know how many musicvideos i’ve done based on some reference given to me by the artist.
I am really turning into a boomer When I see two metalenthusiasts talking about ethical artistry. You want etchical artistry. Then don’t consume anything made by a lable. What You are talking about is indirekt cooying while the whole musicindustry is a pyramid scheme to exploit artists as much as the overlords can. And that is of the the direct fruits of artists lable. There has never been etchical artistry there is only poor artists that Do what they want but can’t make a living or industri sockpuppets. That end up having a mental breakdown or succumb to drugabuse.
I think it’s important to talk about it regardless.