Warner Music Group Partners With Suno To Offer AI Likenesses of Its Artists 31
Warner Music Group has reached a licensing deal with Suno that will let users create AI-generated music using the voices and likenesses of artists who opt in. WMG says participating artists will have "full control" over how their likeness and music are used. "These will be new creation experiences from artists who do opt in, which will open up new revenue streams for them and allow you to interact with them in new ways," Suno says, adding that users will be able to "build around" an artist's sounds "and ensure they get compensated." WMG is also dropping its previous lawsuit accusing Suno of scraping copyrighted material.
"Along with the licensing agreement, Suno is planning to use licensed music from WMG to build next-gen music generation models that it claims will surpass its flagship v5 model," adds The Verge. "It will also start requiring users to have a paid account to download songs starting next year, with each tier providing a specific number of downloads each month."
Further reading: First 'AI Music Creator' Signed by Record Label. More Ahead, or Just a Copyright Quandry?
"Along with the licensing agreement, Suno is planning to use licensed music from WMG to build next-gen music generation models that it claims will surpass its flagship v5 model," adds The Verge. "It will also start requiring users to have a paid account to download songs starting next year, with each tier providing a specific number of downloads each month."
Further reading: First 'AI Music Creator' Signed by Record Label. More Ahead, or Just a Copyright Quandry?
Who would dare opt in? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
What shit do you listen to?
I just saw Knower live. I don't see any AI there, just virtuoso artists having fun.
Re: (Score:1)
I like how there are basically three AI hater types, and I got them all.
Number one is you. "Your taste is music sucks".
Then there's the "You don't know what you're talking about. No I will not elaborate".
And the final boss is "These are the arguments against you. All of them are internally incoherent, such as claiming that AI cannot generate art, but AI can also generate art and it steals to do so".
I got all three stereotypes with one post.
Who said that getting two birds with one stone is an example of exce
Re:Who would dare opt in? (Score:4, Insightful)
And basically all artists except a handful of irrelevant hipster ones use AI assist at this point. It removes almost all of the menial parts of work.
you speak with a lot of confidence about something you know nothing about, lol
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Yeah thats not 100% not true. Your confusing things like Ozone mastering and a few things like stem splitting with generative. These aren't generative algorithms, they use machine learning to balance eq and compression. And honestly, it kinda sounds like shit, but its not necessarily detracting from the creativity.
Almost no artists use however generative, partly because generative AI can't generate art so it offers no creative assistance,
Re: (Score:3)
I think the confusion is from the wording, I think by "artist" you mean pop artist. Am I correct in that assumption?
Re: (Score:2)
And then there's that tiny group of religious weirdos standing on the corner screaming that you're going to hell for doing it. Ok boomer.
It's not precisely about going to hell for doing AI, but if your pc is doing the art: arranging, composing, and partly even performing, is it really your art?
Im an amateur singer, and a believer in the same way dawkins is, But ill be damned before letting a llm do my craft , and then call it mine, even for monetization i wouldn't do it. Sure there are uses for IA, but only AS A CONSULTANT, the final performance is all mine.
If i let someone or something do my craft for me, while i take the credit, be it a hu
Who would contest the training data clean room? (Score:2)
Ideas:
1) Create a training data set which excludes all Elvis Presley music and then ask the AI to generate songs in the style of Elvis as proof nothing was taken from Elvis.
2) Use the same data set as #1 but describe the song using a prompt which does not mention Elvis at all yet describes a style similar to his.
Re:Who would dare opt in? (Score:4, Informative)
Very few I suspect. Grimes maybe. A few like that.
Every musician I know, and as someone who paid my way through university as a stage roadie, I know a few who have been reasonably successful, are horrified by this and see Warners deal as utter betrayal. God knows musicians had already gotten fucked by the record companies deals with spotify that effectively diverted independent artists royalties to the big labels (It resulted on lower royalties than before, except for the artists on a few big labels who got higher royalties. Or rather their labels did)
Re: (Score:3)
Who would opt in to this?
Oh there will be plenty. You can imagine a one-hit-wonder type pop-star will jump on this to become the first 'AI artist' and then a bunch of tik-tok artists will jump on that bandwagon as well. Or a 90s pop star trying to get back into the limelight. I could easily see something like the estate of Michael Jackson, Dolores O'Riordan or Amy Winehouse jumping on the bandwagon if it brings in the $$$ - it just depends on who owns their rights in the end. Of course when it gets good enough, you bet that a recor
Re: (Score:2)
There's a pretty awesome young singer/artist I've discovered, Sophie Powers, who just reported that some company had totally stolen her likeness, unique fashion, body, everything and I hope she finds a good lawyer. Some evil company like that doesn't even ask they just steal. There are going to be a lot of little Warners, it's pretty scary. Maybe some licensing organizations could get into it? I know JASRAC but when I googled for its U.S. counterpart it sounds like there are a lot of performing rights and m
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Artists who's albums have writing credits approaching 3 digits.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
2025 is the year. (Score:1)
The year that "art" became devalued to the point where its name is synonymous with any passing fancy or fantasy that pleases you. The squealing of brakes? I'm sure somebody considers that to be art. Similarly, fan-prompted AI-manufactured "music" - in the "style" of someone whose name appears on the list of credits for a "song" - will now be called "art".
For too long now a lot of what passes for an artist's music is in fact the work of a committee. In such a committee, said artist may play a very small part
Re: (Score:3)
It's funny how people pushing this angle aren't hunting bison for blood and collecting plants to make their own paints.
Look Ma it's a dumbfuck! You completely miss the point. Unlike when paint started to be mass produced you still needed skill and creativity to come up with something remotely reasonable. To create music now you don't need skill, you don't need talent, you need to put in the absolute bare minimum. Literally type into Suno "Make me a song about going out for a drive in my car in the style of Bryan Adams" and it'll competely create a song and lyrics from scratch. Shit you can even get AI to make the video too.
Re: (Score:2)
>To create music now you don't need skill, you don't need talent, you need to put in the absolute bare minimum.
It's funny how times change, but views of elderly hipsters don't. This same line gets recycled every time music generation changes.
"They have to put in less effort than in my day. How dare they?"
Notably, it applies to everything, not just music. Industrial automation is another thing where you can hear versions of this line a lot.
Re: (Score:1)
There is a big difference between automating an auxillary but necessary part of what you're doing and automating the entire thing. For example, writing a book on a computer and printing it out as opposed to writing everything by hand with a pen, or with a quill, minor difference. Having the book ghostwritten for you as opposed to writing it yourself, major difference. It should be very obvious how the two are not the same.
Re: (Score:2)
"It's very obvious that this arbitrary line I choose to draw is the objectively correct line".
Re: (Score:2)
So right ... (Score:2)
Algorithms feed algorithms and everyone is dumb (Score:3)
At this point, Spotify essentially is the music market. Nothing else really matters. Thus, almost all commercial music is made to suit the Spotify algorithms, and a shit ton of corruption, especially with listening bots, games the system and fucks over actual musicians. I've played with Suno, and it produces what is clearly AI-style music, absolutely averaged and awful, nothing I'd choose to listen to. It's great for a gag. "Make a country song about two bunnies named Bill and Bob who love to box and dance salsa." Boom! Such a song exists. Everybody has a laugh. But nobody actually listens to that shit after the laugh.
Re: (Score:2)
And therein lies the problem with their business model, at least as far as use by the general public goes. Most people aren't going to earn any money back making AI generated songs. Is it worth subscribing just to make a few silly meme songs every once in awhile? Probably not.
So, we're pretty much stuck with this stuff being used in the same way Coke used AI to make their holiday ad - they could've hired real artists, but they didn't.
The days when you could turn a silly idea into a silly song with a prom
Re:Algorithms feed algorithms and everyone is dumb (Score:4, Insightful)
Oh, a handful of corpo and scammer types (is there a difference?) will make a lot of money pumping out shit. Actual artists will get shut out of the market as they will be unable to compete, not because their music isn't better, but because there will be no money to make and no way to be heard among the AI flood.
Re: (Score:2)
Is there a major act never on Spotify that started after Spotify dominated the market?
ai (Score:2)