| ▲ | Gecko4072 2 hours ago |
| Comment on the video page of the song that sparked this: “ No lol. We don’t need more over privileged musicians leading luxurious lives while the rest of us slave away. I’d rather support this if leads to less inequality. No more Rihanna’s and Guy Sebastian etc” |
|
| ▲ | copemaxxxing an hour ago | parent | next [-] |
| 1. Its the people who worship Rihanna and Guy Sebastian is the problem. If you don't like those people, don't need to buy their stuffs. I am a musician but I, never in my life, have any idols whatsoever. I don't buy their stuffs. I create my own. One wonder how can the entertainment industry survives anyway if everyone is like me. But thankfully not everyone is like me, the world goes around. 2. You can support local artist, not the big name ones. 3. You can still create your own music without AI, by you know, picking up musical instruments, paying your local guitar teachers to teach you so he can send his kids to college. To not do so is just laziness. Full. Stop. |
| |
| ▲ | tass an hour ago | parent | next [-] | | I think many people believe their streaming use will only pay artists who they listen to, not realizing the streaming service actually pays artists based upon overall listener numbers (or possibly pre-negotiated amounts). So, in the old days you would "support (a) local artist" by buying their album and now people probably think they are supporting them by listening to them on spotify/whatever but they really are not. Your streaming dollars are almost entirely going to Rihanna and every other big artist even if you don't listen to a single song by them. | | |
| ▲ | inigyou an hour ago | parent [-] | | > many people believe their streaming use will only pay artists who they listen to, not realizing the streaming service actually pays artists based upon overall listener numbers Those are the same thing | | |
| ▲ | ksymph 17 minutes ago | parent | next [-] | | They're similar, but subtly different. Say Bob pays a $5 subscription and listens exclusively to artist Foo, 100 song plays. Alice pays a $5 subscription and listens exclusively to artist Baz, but plays their songs a whopping 300 times. If it was paid out per user, Foo and Baz would both get $5. But paying out based on overall listener numbers, Foo would get $2.50 and Baz would get $7.50. Essentially, it's a zero sum game, and one artist getting a play takes away revenue from every other artist. Even if you exclusively listen to your favorite artists, the vast majority of your subscription money is going towards the top artists. This is why Spotify is always pushing their own playlists, smart shuffle, and encouraging background listening with ambient / sleep playlists and such; the more they can shift listeners toward music they've produced themselves or have special license agreements with, the less they have to pay out to typical (i.e. smaller) artists using their platform. | |
| ▲ | happymellon 14 minutes ago | parent | prev [-] | | No they aren't. I pay $5 and listen exclusively to artist A. 10 other people pay their $5 but listen exclusively to artist B. I would expect the artist cut of artist A to be the $5 (or their cut after Spotify), aka the artist I listen to. However the 10 other platform users have more free time so each listen to twice as much music by artist B. So my 1 hour is dwarfed by their 20 hours, and my artist would only get $2.60 (or their cut after Spotify). Overall listener plays. |
|
| |
| ▲ | bcjdjsndon an hour ago | parent | prev [-] | | > I am a musician but I, never in my life, have any idols whatsoever. Let's hear this music then.... What's the guessing it's not very good. | | |
|
|
| ▲ | glimshe an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| This is actually an insightful comment. People defending strong copyrights think they are protecting the little guy, but in fact they are defending the few winner-takes-all creatives. Banning AI music may only protect the very same people. Perhaps AI music will mostly hurt mass-market, ad-fueled artists while leaving the little guy who toils away in live bar and night club shows untouched. It could paradoxically increase the value of human connection in music consumption. |
| |
| ▲ | dahart 40 minutes ago | parent | next [-] | | > People defending strong copyrights think they are protecting the little guy, but in fact they are defending the few winner-takes-all creatives. Copyrights do both, they protect all creatives, it’s not one or the other. > Banning AI music many only protect the same people How so? AI threatens publishers and copyrights holders the most. Don’t confuse big music with big tech, they’re not the same people. Maybe browse the list of AI lawsuits related to copyrights and note how many publishers there are https://ailawsuittracker.com/copyright/ Breaking the copyright system is very unlikely to leave independent artists unscathed, I believe AI is already doing significant damage to independent artists. Breaking big publishing system won’t help either, given the number of independent artists striving to break out and go big and land a publishing contract. | | |
| ▲ | glimshe 19 minutes ago | parent [-] | | You could be right and my statement is speculative/provocative. But I'm far from sure that AI Music would hurt that many small musicians. Please keep in mind that we've seen this story before... Record albums (CDs, cassettes etc), Electronic music and even MIDI were at one point seen as a threat to small musicians but the market only grew as a result. Is AI a bigger threat to musicians than, let's say, Spotify? That commoditized music to a degree we had never seen before. It would be fair to ask "does the world need ANY music to ever be made again?". To me, the answer is a clear YES, but the amount of music available on Spotify is so mind-boggling (I heard a "1 million new tracks a year" figure somewhere) that it already appears to be impossible for a professional musician to survive. Yet, they do. So there's something off in the assumption that AI will wipe out small musicians. |
| |
| ▲ | tgv 38 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | > It could paradoxically increase the value of human connection in music consumption. My prediction/fear is that it will remove incentives to make music "manually", and thus lead to a decline in all aspects of the music industry, starting at spending, and then continue to teachers to instrument makers to artists. And that will make music a very elitist hobby, and stifle further development. We'll get stuck in LLM variations over All I want for Last Christmas. | |
| ▲ | pwillia7 an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | I'd like to know more | |
| ▲ | rbwkap an hour ago | parent | prev [-] | | Complete bullshit. Any musician can register for copyright payouts and all musicians involved in a production get something. Instead, of course the money should go to Silicon Valley mafiosi and middlemen! | | |
| ▲ | glimshe 35 minutes ago | parent [-] | | Copyright payouts (especially from streaming) are a small fraction, often negligible, of the livelihood of a professional musician. Keep in mind that in a world with free models, anyone could create AI music without silicon valley's involvement. My assumption is that "bad" music would be replaced by AI, while "good" music would not because AI simply wouldn't be able to deliver the goods. Now, if AI could literally replace every musician, that would obviously be bad. But I don't think that banning it would solve the problem. If society as a whole is so against AI music that banning it is politically popular, it's because they don't like AI music to begin with - nothing to fear, then. |
|
|
|
| ▲ | rbwkap an hour ago | parent | prev [-] |
| Yeah, we need Musk and Amodei steal all the output of filthy and lazy people like Rihanna and become trillionaires in the process! Down with musicians! Equality now! Give Jensen Huang a cut also! |
