-
I'm sorry but this is just wrong...
New Beatles song created using AI, says Paul McCartney | CBC News
AI has been used to generate John Lennon's voice for a 'final' Beatles tune
-
06-13-2023 06:46 PM
-
What's wrong about it?
There is money to be made.
-
I think repurposing a dead artist’s leavings isn’t the greatest, but it’s always been done, as noted, if there’s a buck to be made.
Also, I think the idea fits with Paul’s personality, which is always to grab onto whatever is current without necessarily thinking about it. Especially since his image became so rooted in being the cute Beatle when John was the artistic, avant-garde Beatle. Paul has fought against this strenuously at least since the mid 90s.
-
It didn't "generate" any vocals from Lennon. They used an old demo and used AI to separate his vocals from (if I remember correctly) the piano and eliminate any buzz.
Honestly, I don't think it's that much different than what an audio engineer is doing while restoring old records at its core (not arguing that they are doing the same thing, and an AI is doing it better). It's a multitude of frequency adjustments, filters, etc.
Does it feel weird? Yeah a bit. Is it wrong? I don't know.
-
AI tends to use the "right" notes.
Originally Posted by ModesSchmodes
-
What do you mean? Originally Posted by emanresu
-
Exactly what I said, it was just a general though about the AI. Originally Posted by ModesSchmodes
The best stuff in arts wold is insanely brilliant - there is no way to tell AI to generate
"something insanely brilliant". Because it is not known why something comes out
as brilliant. Not mathematically defined and never will be.
All it can do is to "make it sound/look like".. not even "feel like" really. Or produce 1000 items
so the person can pick out a few that randomly got good enough. - but thats what humans tend to do already by themselves.
The flood of "right notes" will be huge, I guess. But at this point, it's already that. So it probably doesn't matter too much.
-
But this is not what this is about? Why do you assume that separating a vocal track from a demo has anything to do with pitch correction? There is no "generation" at play in this example. Originally Posted by emanresu
-
What I feel about the Beatle's thing - it's fine that they used the original recording and cleaned it up.
If they did more with that - not cool. Were the back vocals generated by AI using the model of Lennon's voice?
If yes, then yuck. Not cool. Should be illegal.
-
Hold on... the original deep fake, the guy who replaced Paul after his car crash death in 1966, the guy who artificially took the role of Paul's musical intelligence and voice in the Beatles... that guy has used AI dutifully and carefully so as not to deep fake Lennon's voice but to extract Lennon's real recorded voice for a new Beatles tune?
Is this not perfect irony?
-
Yes, Paul uses autotune when he sings live, which as you point out is its own kind of AI. Originally Posted by emanresu
The cash-grabbing is annoying, and not very respectful to Lennon. On the other hand Paul is a super type A guy who never rests. I respect that he wants to keep working, but the quality isn't great imo.
The last thing he did that I quite liked was a 1999 Rockabilly album of mostly covers called Run Devil Run.
-
Indeed. Computerised audio filtering. That is the simple reality. Ignore the hoopla. Originally Posted by ModesSchmodes
Anyone crying over A.I. is a brain-dead media slave. The media IS the message. If your sense of perception is limited, then throw out your radio and teevee and find a hobby. Is the head dead, yet!?
I don't even listen for the weather report anymore. Not since Snowmageddon. (Snowmageddon...???)
Just look out your window and keep your brolly handy in an urn beside your galoshes.
The Beatles always were a mirror for every media fad. The brain-dead project their common denominator onto the "stars" and call it wisdom. Once they burned Beatle records, now it's A.I.
Gives us something to talk/argue about.
Media Ad Nauseum.
The older I get, the further I retreat.
::Last edited by StringNavigator; 06-14-2023 at 02:24 PM.
-
They say A.I is coming for our jobs. Originally Posted by StringNavigator
How much longer I gotta wait for him to get here already?
-
Is this even AI? Spectral extraction software has been around for decades. There was a point in the 90s where audio engineers were overusing No-Noise and CEDAR on reissues, and the results just sounded flat and dead. It's really easy to overdo it.
This like they've just used an advanced computer process to isolate Lennon's voice from piano and tape hiss, which they already did in the 90s with Free As A Bird and Real Love.
I've heard that a better term for artificial intelligence is applied statistics. It's just ways of picking out correlations in a big mass of data.
-
I can’t say that I am very jazzed about 1 new Beatles song. Didn’t that happen years ago with “Free as a Bird?” When the Beatles were running and even with the individual members afterward there were albums that had some threads thrown in them. Obviously can’t expect a full album of songs now. If the whole world starts moving and shaking to this new song I will eat my words. BTW, I thoroughly enjoyed the 4 part Get Back doc.
-
Not sure if it’s been mentioned but AI was used in the Get Back documentary to clean up and enhance the footage.
-
Yeah, according to the Guardian, that's where McCartney got the idea from. Originally Posted by Christian Miller
-
Peter Jackson cannot leave anything alone.
-
No, of course it's not wrong. McCartney's behind it, the fans love it. All they've done is clarify his voice. What's wrong with that?
AI itself, though, is another issue. And it's not going to go away, that's for sure.
-
The big thing right now is the legal dispute about who owns the artist rights for AI generated music. Once this is settled, and the AI thing becomes a bit better, it's only a matter of time until we see a new Beatles album,a new Hendrix album, Joe Pass etc.. Of course it's the pop genre that will be the most profitable.. It's only a matter of time till this becomes commonplace.
-
Yes. Absolutely. And that happened before the vague rules of all kinds of copyright issues hasn't been solved yet. Originally Posted by Alter
-
I think it's 'AI' in the sense that it's now using a neural network to do the extraction. There's an analogous process in my industry - computer graphics. The process we use to generate images is stochastic (semi-random) in nature. Because of this, an image converges to the physically correct result over time, but contains nose. The amount of noise diminishes as the square root of the compute time spent, so we employ 'denoising' techniques to take a noisy image and extract the smooth details. This used to be done algorithmically by, for example, looking at the intensities of neighbouring pixels and using clever weighted averaging schemes. Now we use a neural network trained on real-world data Originally Posted by supersoul
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VBgS5LfJEZk
-
Most of the articles are at least implying that this new track is AI generated. Clickbait, I guess.
I can't find the interview, but Giles Martin used AI spectral extraction when he remixed the Hollywood Bowl album a few years ago. He used it to isolate each instrument into a separate track so he would have more options while mixing. It was originally recorded on a three track tape.
-
They only come for the good jobs. You'll get to keep the ditch digger gig, but you'll lose all the guitar gigs. Originally Posted by DawgBone
-
One nice joke about bad jobs from a comedian was: how teenagers.. or other losers tend to whine constantly about their jobs.
And the explanation was "yes, of course this job sucks! that is why they gave it to YOU!"
Reply With Quote
Jimmy Smith at Newport ('72) Kenny Burrell on guitar
Today, 03:31 PM in The Players